The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05(J) - Resolution Accepting Feasibility Report and Schedule Public Hearing – Martindale-Henning-Hickory Reclamation Project (CP 2025-03) Report Feasibility Report Martindale Henning Hickory Street Reclamation City of Prior Lake BMI Project No. 0T1.132948 June 2024 Submitted by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 12224 Nicollet Avenue Burnsville, MN 55337 P: 952-890-0509 F: 952-890-8065 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Certification Page Martindale Hickory Henning Street Reclamation ǀ 0T1.132948 Certification Feasibility Report For Martindale Street, Hickory Lane, and Henning Circle Street Reclamation City of Prior Lake Prior Lake, Minnesota BMI Project No. 0T1.132948 June 11, 2024 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. By: Ryan Peterson, P.E. License No. 42844 Date: June 11, 2024 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Table of Contents Martindale Hickory Henning Street Reclamation ǀ 0T1.132948 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 2 Streets ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Sanitary Sewer .............................................................................................................................. 2 Watermain .................................................................................................................................... 2 Drainage ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Street Lighting ............................................................................................................................... 3 Waterbodies and Wetlands .......................................................................................................... 3 III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 4 Streets ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Sanitary Sewer and watermain ..................................................................................................... 4 Drainage ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Stormwater Management ............................................................................................................ 5 Street Lighting ............................................................................................................................... 5 IV. STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION ............................................................................................................ 6 Private Utilities ............................................................................................................................. 6 Public Involvement ....................................................................................................................... 6 V. RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS ......................................................................................................... 7 VI. ESTIMATED COSTS ................................................................................................................................ 8 VII. ASSESSMENTS AND FUNDING .............................................................................................................. 9 VIII. PROJECT SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................................ 10 IX. CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................... 11 Tables Table 1 – Existing Streets .............................................................................................................................. 2 Table 2A – Estimate Project Costs with Curb and Gutter ............................................................................. 8 Table 2B – Estimated Project Costs without Curb and Gutter ...................................................................... 8 Table 3 – Financing Summary .................................................................................................................... 11 Appendix Appendix A: Figures Appendix B: Preliminary Cost Estimates Appendix C: Preliminary Assessment Roll Appendix D: Open House Feedback Appendix E: Geotechnical Evaluation Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. INTRODUCTION Martindale Hickory Henning Street Reclamation ǀ 0T1.132948 Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION The Prior Lake City Council adopted Resolution 23-147 on December 4, 2023 which ordered the preparation of a Feasibility Report for the Martindale Street, Hickory Lane, and Henning Circle Street Reclamation Project. This report will examine the reclamation of the streets in the area with the addition of concrete curb and gutter. The following streets are proposed for improvements: • Martindale Street NE from Pike Lake Road NE to Fox Run Trail (located at the city boundary with the City of Shakopee) • Hickory Lane from Martindale Street NE to south cul-de-sac • Henning Circle NE from Martindale Street NE to north cul-de-sac See Figure 1 below for the proposed project location map. The City of Prior Lake’s 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies funding for this project in the Streets: Transportation section for the year 2025. Completion of this report is necessary to prepare for the improvements and for the utilization of special assessments as a portion of the project funding package. This report also reviews the existing conditions in the project area and discusses, in detail, the proposed improvements. The proposed improvements will consist of street reclamation, including storm drainage improvements. The report details adding concrete curb and gutter to the roadway sections. The report also provides preliminary cost estimates for the proposed improvements with financing for the project coming from a combination of special assessments, the City’s general tax levy, and the City’s storm water utility fund. One open house was held prior to this report being finalized providing property owners and the general public an opportunity to provide their feedback on the proposed project improvements. Information was provided via a mailing to all adjacent property owners and a project website. A summary of the public feedback from the open house meetings is included in Appendix D. More outreach opportunities will be provided as project development continues and construction commences. If the City decides to proceed with the proposed street reclamation improvements described in this report, it is anticipated construction would begin in 2025 as shown in the detailed project schedule found on page 10 of this report. Figure 1 – Project Location Map Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. EXISTING CONDITIONS Martindale Hickory Henning Street Reclamation ǀ 0T1.132948 Page 2 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS Streets Martindale Street NE, Hickory Lane, and Henning Circle NE are all local roads within the City of Prior Lake’s transportation network. It is important to note that Martindale Street NE provides the only access to Fox Run Trail, which is under the jurisdiction of the City of Shakopee. The project streets all have bituminous surfacing with a small bituminous curb at the roadway edges and have a mix of rural characteristics and storm sewer drainage characteristics associated with urban roadways. The neighborhood serves rural residential properties that must be 2.5 acres or larger to be considered buildable. There are no pedestrian transportation facilities (sidewalks, trails, etc.) in the neighborhood. Based on conversations with city public works staff, the project streets were originally constructed many decades ago and have received routine maintenance throughout the years. The roads are generally in poor condition, with potholes, some alligator cracking, stripping, and drainage failures. The roads are in especially poor condition where substandard roadway drainage is most problematic typically at intersections and low points in the roadways. Table 1 below shows the approximate existing street widths from face of curb to face of curb, approximate right-of-way widths, and the Overall Condition Index (OCI) of the pavements from a 2024 City inspection. Table 1 – Existing Streets Street Name Street Width ROW Width OCI Rating Martindale Street NE 28’ 60’ 9-36 Hickory Lane NE 28’ 60’ 8 Henning Circle NE 28’ 60’ 0 The City of Prior Lake’s Pavement Management Policies and Procedures identifies the following maintenance activities with their corresponding OCI ranges: • Reconstruction or Reclamation – OCI 0 to 56 • Mill & Overlay – OCI 50 to 65 • Maintenance Resurfacing – OCI 50 to 65 • Sealcoat – OCI 60 to 65 The average OCI of the streets’ pavements in the project area are below 40 with the majority with ratings of unpatched areas below 10. There was some patching that occurred in 2019 that is not representative of the actual conditions of the roadways and will likely start to fail soon. Soil borings and a geotechnical evaluation were completed in the project area by WSB and the report is included in Appendix E. The report indicates an existing bituminous pavement thickness of approximately 8-inches with an aggregate base thickness ranging from 2 to 8- inches. Existing subgrade soils found beneath the aggregate base are predominantly clayey sand soils. Sanitary Sewer Public municipal sanitary sewer collection does not exist in the project area. All properties are presumed to have private septic systems to handle wastewater discharges from homes located in the area. Watermain Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. EXISTING CONDITIONS Martindale Hickory Henning Street Reclamation ǀ 0T1.132948 Page 3 Public municipal potable water distribution does not exist in the project area. All properties are presumed to have private groundwater wells to provide drinking water to properties located in the area. Drainage There are localized storm sewer systems at intersection locations throughout the area, but there is no contiguous storm drainage management through the area. Most of the areas drain to the road without ditches or concrete curb and gutter, so storm water runoff travels along the edge of the road against an asphalt curb that has been placed where the edge of the road meets the turf area adjacent to the road. Onsite observations during a rain event indicated that there are roadway areas that do not have a sufficient crown and stormwater runoff was sheet draining down the middle of the road which significantly reduces the useful life of the pavement surface. There are localized storm sewer systems located at the west end of Martindale Street where it intersects with Pike Lake Trail NE, at the Martindale Street and Hickory Lane intersection, and at the east end of Martindale Street. It appears that the inlets have been placed as strategically as possible in the existing low areas of those locations. These systems drain to adjacent low-lying areas at each intersection and follows the drainage patterns ultimately to private property to manage the stormwater in the low points of the roadways. These systems could be improved, especially if concrete curb and gutter is added. There are at least two drainage structures that collect very little runoff as they aren’t in a low spot or a drainage path. Street Lighting There is no public street lighting system in the neighborhood. There is overhead power with power poles located along the streets and at intersections. Waterbodies and Wetlands There are several low areas in the vicinity of the project, but after a review of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database and because the project limits are expected to remain close to the roadway limits, no known wetlands are located in an area that is anticipated to be disturbed by the project. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Martindale Hickory Henning Street Reclamation ǀ 0T1.132948 Page 4 III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Streets Based on the roadway pavement age, surface deterioration, OCI rating, existing pavement section, and review of the geotechnical exploration, a street reclamation is proposed and recommended for each of the roadways. It is also recommended that the City rebuild these streets with City standard B618 concrete curb and gutter throughout the entire improvement area for a standard street width of 28-ft. Driveway entrances are proposed to receive concrete aprons and Martindale Street roadway connections on both ends are proposed to receive valley gutters for drainage and for providing a solid structure to repave the roadway segments. The advantages of placing concrete curb and gutter are: • More effective management of stormwater runoff - Concrete curb and gutter is better suited for handling water flow and drainage intake structures are more effective when they are constructed within concrete curb and gutter. This provides for effective drainage and ease of long-term maintenance. • Protection and support for pavement edges - Generally, the weakest spot of asphalt pavements are the edges. When they are protected by abutting against concrete curb and gutter they generally last longer without significant deterioration. • Improved pavement compaction and pavement life - When there is a confined edge to pave against, which a concrete curb and gutter provides, the contractor is able to achieve a higher level of compaction/density during construction. Pavements installed with a higher density will last longer than those with a lower density. Constructing the roadways without concrete curb and gutter was also evaluated and improvements costs were estimated but is not recommended as the level of investment with the rest of the project warrants installation of the concrete curb and gutter for a superior product that will reduce long-term maintenance needs. The roadways will be rehabilitated to a 9-ton design load standard. Based on geotechnical engineering recommendations the proposed road section will include: 4” Bituminous Wearing Course 8+” Aggregate Base (reclaimed existing pavement and gravel) The existing east end of Martindale Street and cul-de-sac at the south end of Hickory Lane do not meet current city standards. However, lack of sufficient right-of-way and topographic challenges impede making significant improvements at the end of these roadways. Further investigation will be conducted during final design to provide the best turnaround for vehicles utilizing private driveways while understanding the site limitations. All disturbed driveway areas will be replaced with like materials (gravel with gravel, asphalt pavement with asphalt pavement, etc.). It is proposed to install concrete aprons at driveway connections with the driveways being patched back against the aprons. All disturbed boulevard areas will be restored with 5-inches of topsoil, seed, and erosion prevention blanket. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain City staff indicated there is a potential for future introduction of municipal sewer and watermain facilities to the project area, but it is not programmed with this project and not Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Martindale Hickory Henning Street Reclamation ǀ 0T1.132948 Page 5 anticipated within the next couple of decades. If this assumption were to change, the report recommendations would change to correspond with these additions. Drainage The existing stormwater collection and runoff routing systems are amongst the most lacking street elements in the project area. With the recommended installation of concrete curb and gutter, it will facilitate a significant improvement to the storm sewer system as roadway drain elements are most effectively implemented in concrete curb and gutter. No significant changes are recommended to be made to the overall drainage patterns, but storm sewer extensions, replacements, and intake structure improvements, are proposed to further utilize the advantages of the new curb and gutter. Stormwater Management The project is anticipated to have less than 1 acre of disturbance impacts (exclusive of reclamation areas which do not disturb underlying soils). Therefore, a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Construction Stormwater Permit is not anticipated to be required for this project. This project is in the Prior Lake Spring Lake Watershed District (PLSLWD) and is outside their High Value Resource Area (HVRA). For disturbances in the PLSLWD and outside their HVRA, stormwater management rules are triggered when there’s 1 acre or more of new or reconstructed impervious surface. Street reclamation is not considered reconstruction. This project is disturbing less than 1 acre of underlying soils, so installation of permanent stormwater management practices will not be required. Street Lighting Street lighting could likely be added to the existing power poles in coordination with the utility owner if the City and property owners desire to have street lighting added along the roadway and/or at intersections. It is also common to have street lighting at intersections, which is likely feasible as power poles are located at the two internal intersections and also the intersection of Martindale Road and Pike Lane Trail NE. These lights could be installed and operated under a contract with the utility provider. If desired, it is recommended that the City request a proposal of street lighting on all poles or poles located at intersections for City consideration. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION Martindale Hickory Henning Street Reclamation ǀ 0T1.132948 Page 6 IV. STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION Private Utilities Private Utility coordination is considerably less for this project than for those that are in more urbanized areas with significant underground utility work. A Gopher State One Call process was completed to request private utility information for inclusion on preliminary figures and to help understand if there are anticipated conflicts. An early review of the facilities shows overhead power lines and buried gas and communications lines that generally should not interfere with the street reclamation project. More outreach and coordination with these private utility owners will be completed as the project develops. Public Involvement This project includes a significant public engagement process to ensure that residents are well aware of the proposed project, project options, and cost sharing policies. The City has provided a project website, conducted a project open house on Thursday, May 16, 2024, and provided contacts for residents to provide comments and discuss concerns prior to the completion of the report. The project communication plan identifies two more open houses prior to construction starting, and more correspondence and opportunities to provide project input. Appendix D provides a detailed summary of public input responses that have been communicated to the project team to date. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS Martindale Hickory Henning Street Reclamation ǀ 0T1.132948 Page 7 V. RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS The entire roadway system is encompassed in a 60’ right-of-way which is expected to be adequate Right-of-way to complete the work without the need for the City to obtain any permanent or temporary easements. The storm sewer systems generally outlet to private property, and they exist legally by prescriptive rights. The City may need to obtain right of entry or temporary easement documents if improvements to these outlet locations are identified during the final design process. Also, as noted above in this report, additional permanent right-of-way may be required if more significant improvements were desired for the cul-de-sac at the end of Hickory Lane and/or the east end of Martindale Street, which will be evaluated further during final design. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. ESTIMATED COSTS Martindale Hickory Henning Street Reclamation ǀ 0T1.132948 Page 8 VI. ESTIMATED COSTS Detailed estimates of probable construction costs have been prepared for the improvements described in this Report and are included in Appendix B. All costs are based on anticipated unit prices for the 2025 construction season. All estimated costs also include a 10% contingency and a cost for engineering consulting fees. Table 2A and 2B are a summary of the estimated project costs for the recommended proposed project improvements which includes the addition of concrete curb and gutter. We also provided a cost estimate for pavement improvements without concrete curb and gutter which is not recommended. The improvements provided by the curb and gutter is likely to provide cost benefit value when considering lifetime pavement and drainage performance. Table 2A – Estimated Project Costs – Includes Addition of Concrete Curb and Gutter Proposed Improvements Estimated Cost Street Improvements $880,000 Drainage Improvements $150,000 Total Project $1,030,000 Table 2B – Estimated Project Costs – Excludes Concrete Curb and Gutter Proposed Improvements Estimated Costs Street Improvements $720,000 Drainage Improvements $80,000 Total Project $800,000 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. ASSESSMENTS AND FUNDING Martindale Hickory Henning Street Reclamation ǀ 0T1.132948 Page 9 VII. ASSESSMENTS AND FUNDING A preliminary assessment roll was compiled for all adjacent benefitting properties per the City’s Assessment Policy for Public and Development-Initiated Improvements. All identified properties are proposed to be assessed at a calculated assessment rate of 40% of the street improvement costs, including the addition of new curb and gutter. The City’s assessment policy allows for assessing 100% of new roadway elements (such as adding new concrete curb and gutter), but City staff feels that this element will benefit the City as well as the adjacent property owners and felt that the 60/40 cost share described in the policy was appropriate for this situation. Storm sewer costs are proposed to be fully funded by the City via its stormwater utility fund. Based upon the assumptions described above, all parcels that have any adjacent frontage to a road being improved, including the flag lots that gain access to these roads, are proposed to be assessed at an estimate assessment rate of $9,500 per parcel. The general ad valorem property tax levy will be used to finance the remaining street improvement costs and the City’s stormwater utility fund will be used to fund project storm sewer improvements. Note that there are six un-assessable lots and one unbuildable lot (it is a community lot that has a pond over most of it) that are considered when determining the number of lots to spread the entire assessment amount over. This serves to reduce the assessment rate to each lot, but they are not shown for levying of an assessment. Please view the detailed assessment roll and map in Appendix C for calculations on how the un-assessable and unbuildable lots were considered and accounted for. The proposed project assessments and funding summary are based on preliminary estimated project costs for the recommended improvements. These costs may be revised at the time of the final assessment hearing depending on final design of the project, potential property acquisition, soil conditions, bids received, and actual work performed. The assessments are proposed to be assessed over a 10-year period at a rate equal to 2.0% higher than the most recent sale of City bonds. The financing summary for the estimated project costs are presented in Table 3 below, which includes costs for the addition of concrete curb and gutter along the project streets. Table 3 – Estimated Funding Breakdown Option 1 (Replacement of Asphalt Curb) Funding Source Project Total Cost Ad Valorem Tax $538,000 Assessments $285,000 SMSC Cost Sharing $57,000 Utility Fund – Storm Water $150,000 Total $1,030,000 The preliminary Assessment Roll with calculated assessments for each parcel is included in Appendix C. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. PROJECT SCHEDULE Martindale Hickory Henning Street Reclamation ǀ 0T1.132948 Page 10 VIII. PROJECT SCHEDULE The proposed project schedule is shown below: Contract Authorization* December 4, 2023 Feasibility Study January – May 2024 Public Open House 1 May 16, 2024 Assessment Review Committee Meeting* June 2024 Accept Feasibility Report & Call for Public Improvement Hearing* June 2024 Public Improvement Hearing, & Authorize Final Design* July 2024 Final Design July - December 2024 Private Utility Coordination Meeting October 2024 Public Open House 2 October 2024 Approve Plans/Specifications & Authorize Bidding* December, 2024 Bid Opening January 2025 Call for Assessment Hearing* February 2025 Accept Bids, Assessment Hearing, Adopt Assessment Roll, & Award Contract* March, 2025 Public Open House 3 Spring 2025 Construction May – October 2025 * City Council Meeting Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. CONCLUSION Martindale Hickory Henning Street Reclamation ǀ 0T1.132948 Page 11 IX. CONCLUSION This report has been prepared to investigate the potential for completing street reclamation of Martindale Street NE, Henning Circle NE, and Hickory Lane NE. This report identified the recommended infrastructure improvements including the addition of new concrete curb and gutter throughout the project, provided recommended improvement estimated costs, and identified applicable funding needs and sources to finance the improvements. From an engineering standpoint, this project, as proposed, is feasible, cost effective, and necessary and it can best be accomplished by letting competitive bids for the work. The City and the persons assessed determine the economic feasibility of the proposed improvements. Appendix A: Figures CBRC /1 Rings @ 0.2 thick ,Cond:Good R=874.71 I=NE (12 IN CMP) SW (12 IN HDPE)871.61 871.56 I=I=I=I=I= CBCC /1 Rings @ 0.2 thick ,Cond:Good R=873.91 I=NW (18 IN CMP) SW (12 IN CMP)871.17 871.11 I=I=I=I=I= CBCC /1 Rings @ 0.2 thick ,Cond:Good R=873.91 I=NE (12 IN CMP) SW (12 IN CMP)871.31 871.25 I=I=I=I=I= C CBRC /1 Rings @ 0.2 thick ,Cond:Good R=874.61 I=NE (12 IN HDPE)871.66I=I=I=I=I= CBCC /1 Rings @ 0.2 thick ,Cond:Good R=873.99 I=NW (21 IN CMP) SW (15 IN CMP) SE (18 IN CMP) 870.93 870.87 I= I=870.94I=I=I=CBCC /1 Rings @ 0.2 thick ,Cond:Good R=874.02 I=NE (15 IN CMP)871.27I=I=I=I=I= CLV T / S E 2 1 C M P ELE V = 8 6 9 . 1 6 CC C CC G G G G G G G G G O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E OE OE OE OE C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE >> >> > > >> >> G-D G- D G- D G - D G - D G-D G-D G-D G-D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D C-D C - D C - D C- D C- D C-D C-D C- D C- D C- D C - D C - D C- D C-D C-D C-D C-D 3 5 + 0 0 3 6 + 0 0 36+12.72 EP: 36 + 1 2 . 7 2 9+00 10+0 0 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+ 0 0 15+ 0 0 16+ 0 0 17+ 0 0 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > > 13 2 8 9 H I C K O R Y A V E N E 47 6 4 M A R T I N D A L E S T N E 48 6 6 M A R T I N D A L E S T N E 48 8 0 M A R T I N D A L E S T N E 48 8 3 M A R T I N D A L E S T N E P CBRC /0.1 FT WATER SITTING ON BOTTOM ,5 Rings @ 1 thick ,Cond:Good R=832.31 I=NW (15 IN CMP)828.46I=I=I=I=I= CBRC /5 Rings @ 1 thick ,Cond:Fair R=832.39 I=SW (21 IN CMP) SE (15 IN CMP)828.35 828.29 I=I=I=I=I= C CLVT 827.18 C EC C OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE G G G GGGGGGGGGG G G G G G G G G G G G G C C C EEEEE OE OE OE G C C C C C C C C C C C CCCCCCC CCCCCCCCC CC C CCCCCCCCCC C CCCC C C C C C C C C C C C C C G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G GOE O E OE O E OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE >> >> G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G - D G- D G- D G-D G-D G - D G - D G - D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G - D G - D G-D G- D G-D G-D G - D G - D C - D C - D C - D C - D C - D C - D C - D C - D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C- D C- D C - D C - D C - D C - D C - D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C- D C- D 4 0 + 0 0 4 1 + 0 0 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+ 0 0 BP: 40+00.00 > > >> >> >> >> 1 3 2 8 9 H E N N I N G C I R N E 4671 MAR T I N D A L E S T N E 4723 MAR T I N D A L E S T N E H: \ P L A K \ 0 T 1 1 3 2 9 4 8 \ C A D \ C 3 D \ F I G R - 1 3 2 9 4 8 - C U R B . d w g 5/ 3 / 2 0 2 4 3 : 2 9 : 4 0 P M R 2025 Martindale/Henning/Hickory Reclamation- Concrete Curb Option City of Prior Lake FIGURE 1: MARTINDALE STREET APRIL 2024 FEETSCALE 0 25 50 HORZ. R LEGEND FULL DEPTH RECLAIM IN PLACE INCLUDING EX. BITUMINOUS CURBING B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER APPROXIMATE ROW PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER >> >> 2 8 ' F - F R2 9 . 3 3 ' R29 . 3 3 ' 28 ' F- F R REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE AND PIPE PLACE NEW CATCH BASIN IN CURB LINE 28 ' F- F R24.33' R2 4 . 3 3 ' CONCRETE ENTRANCE PAVEMENT AND VALLEY GUTTER P I K E L A K E T R A I L N E MARTINDALE STREET H E N N I N G C I R C L E H I C K O R Y L N REMOVE EXISTING CATCH BASINS AND STORM SEWER PIPE PLACE NEW CATCH BASINS IN CURB LINE REMOVE CONCRETE AND CASTING PLACE NEW CASTING IN VALLEY GUTTER FEETSCALE 0 25 50 HORZ. C CC C CC C C P D MHST /4 Rings @ 1.2 thick ,Cond:Good R=933.19 I=SE (18 IN CMP) NW (18 IN CMP) NE (12 IN CMP) 925.31 925.31 I= I=928.79I=I=I= CBCC /NO RINGS ,Cond:Good R=932.00 I=SW (12 IN CMP) SE (12 IN CMP)929.30 929.25 I=I=I=I=I= CBCC R=931.97 I=NW (12 IN CMP)929.55I=I=I=I=I= C C C L V T 925.14 P CC P CL V T 924.89 OE O E OE O E C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C OE OE OE OE G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G OE X X X X X X X X OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE > > >> >> > > > > > > G - D G - D G- D G- D G- D G - D G - D G - D G - D G - D G - D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G - D G- D G- D G-D G-D G-D G-D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G - D G - D G - D G - D G - D G - D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G- D G-D C - D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C- D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C- D C - D C - D C - D 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 >> >> 4880 MARTINDALE ST NE 4920 MARTINDALE ST NE 4883 MARTINDALE ST NE 4909 MARTINDALE ST NE 4945 MARTINDALE ST NE 4977 MARTINDALE ST NE 4970 MARTINDALE ST NE H: \ P L A K \ 0 T 1 1 3 2 9 4 8 \ C A D \ C 3 D \ F I G R - 1 3 2 9 4 8 - C U R B . d w g 5/ 3 / 2 0 2 4 3 : 3 0 : 2 6 P M R 2025 Martindale/Henning/Hickory Reclamation- Concrete Curb Option City of Prior Lake FIGURE 2: MARTINDALE STREET APRIL 2024 FEETSCALE 0 25 50 HORZ. R LEGEND FULL DEPTH RECLAIM IN PLACE INCLUDING EX. BITUMINOUS CURBING B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER APPROXIMATE ROW PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER >> >> 2 8 ' F - F REMOVE CASTING AND PLACE NEW CASTING IN CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER REMOVE CASTING PLACE NEW CASTING IN CURB LINE MARTINDALE STREET INSTALL 20 CY RIPRAP AT EXISTING STORM OUTLET REPLACE MANHOLE LID WITH "STORM SEWER" LID INSTALL CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER C C C C WS C C CC B C P C EEEEEEE E E EEE E OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE O E O E O E O E O E G G G G G G G G G C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G OE OE O E O E OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE G - D G - D G - D G- D G- D G- D G - D G - D G - D G - D G - D G - D G - D G-D G-D G-D G-D G-D C- D C- D C- D C- D C- D C-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-D C - D C - D C - D C-D C-D C-D C-DC-D C- D C - D C - D C- D C-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-DC-D C-D C-D C- D C- D C- D C- D C- D 40+00 41+00 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00 46+00 47+00 48+00 3+ 0 0 4+ 0 0 5+ 0 0 BP : 4 0 + 0 0 . 0 0 13207 HEN N I N G C I R N E 13231 HENNING CIR NE 13261 HENNING CIR NE 1328 9 H E N N I N G C I R N E 13171 PIKE LAKE TRL NE 46 7 1 M A R T I N D A L E S T N E CBRC /1 Rings @ 0.2 thick ,Cond:Good R=874.71 I=NE (12 IN CMP) SW (12 IN HDPE)871.61 871.56 I=I=I=I=I= CBCC /1 Rings @ 0.2 thick ,Cond:Good R=873.91 I=NW (18 IN CMP) SW (12 IN CMP)871.17 871.11 I=I=I=I=I= CBCC /1 Rings @ 0.2 thick ,Cond:Good R=873.91 I=NE (12 IN CMP) SW (12 IN CMP)871.31 871.25 I=I=I=I=I= C CBRC /1 Rings @ 0.2 thick ,Cond:Good R=874.61 I=NE (12 IN HDPE)871.66I=I=I=I=I= CBCC /1 Rings @ 0.2 thick ,Cond:Good R=873.99 I=NW (21 IN CMP) SW (15 IN CMP) SE (18 IN CMP) 870.93 870.87 I= I=870.94I=I=I=CBCC /1 Rings @ 0.2 thick ,Cond:Good R=874.02 I=NE (15 IN CMP)871.27I=I=I=I=I= CL V T / S E 2 1 C M P EL E V = 8 6 9 . 1 6 CC P CC C H CC G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE O E OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E O E > > >> >> >>>> G-D G-D G-D G-D G-D G - D G- D G- D G- D G- D G-D G-D G-D G-D G-D G-D G-D G-D C- D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C- D C- D C- D C - D C-D C-D C-D C- D C- D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D C-D 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+ 0 0 36+ 0 0 36+12.72 BP : 3 0 + 0 0 . 0 0 E P : 3 6 + 1 2 . 7 2 9 + 0 0 1 0 + 0 0 1 1 + 0 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> 13324 HIC K O R Y A V E N E 13360 H I C K O R Y A V E N E 13365 HI C K O R Y A V E N E 13329 HICK O R Y A V E N E 13289 HIC K O R Y A V E N E H: \ P L A K \ 0 T 1 1 3 2 9 4 8 \ C A D \ C 3 D \ F I G R - 1 3 2 9 4 8 - C U R B . d w g 5/ 3 / 2 0 2 4 3 : 3 1 : 0 2 P M R 2025 Martindale/Henning/Hickory Reclamation- Concrete Curb Option City of Prior Lake FIGURE 3: HENNING CIRCLE & HICKORY LANE APRIL 2024 FEETSCALE 0 25 50 HORZ. R MA R T I N D A L E S T HENNING CIRCLE 28 ' F- F R4 5 ' LEGEND FULL DEPTH RECLAIM IN PLACE INCLUDING EX. BITUMINOUS CURBING B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER APPROXIMATE ROW PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER >> >> R HICKORY LANE M A R T I N D A L E S T FEETSCALE 0 25 50 HORZ. 28 ' F- F R24.33' R 2 4 . 3 3 ' Appendix B: Preliminary Cost Estimates PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 2025 MARTINDALE-HICKORY-HENNING RECLAMATION CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA BMI PROJECT NO. 0T1.132948 Improvements Including Concrete Curb and Gutter Date: 5/29/2024 1 MOBILIZATION 1 LUMP SUM $36,000.00 $36,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LUMP SUM $14,000.00 $14,000.00 3 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION 15 EACH $300.00 $4,500.00 4 REMOVE CASTING 5 EACH $250.00 $1,250.00 5 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE & CASTING 6 EACH $1,000.00 $6,000.00 6 REMOVE STORM SEWER PIPE 150 LF $25.00 $3,750.00 7 REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT 165 SF $5.00 $825.00 8 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 250 SY $15.00 $3,750.00 9 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 275 SY $10.00 $2,750.00 10 RECLAIM BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IN PLACE AND CURB GRAVEL) 10700 SY $7.00 $74,900.00 11 COMMON EXCAVATION (FOR CURB)250 CY $50.00 $12,500.00 12 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE (SPWEA340C) 2330 TON $100.00 $233,000.00 13 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT 1000 GAL $5.00 $5,000.00 14 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER- DESIGN B618 6460 LF $27.50 $177,650.00 15 3" BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 275 SY $50.00 $13,750.00 16 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 250 SY $90.00 $22,500.00 17 7" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER 125 SY $150.00 $18,750.00 18 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER PIPE 4 EACH $1,500.00 $6,000.00 19 15" RCP PIPE SEWER CL III DES 3006 545 LF $80.00 $43,600.00 20 CONSTRUCT STORM MH 2'X3'6 EACH $2,500.00 $15,000.00 21 CASTING (NEENAH R-3067V)12 EACH $1,200.00 $14,400.00 22 CASTING (NEENAH R-3067C)3 EACH $1,200.00 $3,600.00 23 CASTING (NEENAH R-1733)1 EACH $1,200.00 $1,200.00 24 CLASS III RIPRAP WITH FABRIC 20 CY $150.00 $3,000.00 25 ROLLED EROSION PREVENTION & SEED MIX 25-151 3400 SY $4.00 $13,600.00 26 COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW 380 CY $40.00 $15,200.00 SUBTOTAL $746,475.00 CONTINGENCY (10%) $74,647.50 NOTES:ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION COST $821,122.50 (P) INDICATES PLANNED QUANTITY ENGINEERING CONSULTANT COSTS $208,000.00 (CV)INDICATES COMPACTED VOLUME TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $1,029,122.50 UnitItem No.MnDOT Spec No.Item Notes Estimated Quantity Unit Price Total Amount 5/29/2024, 3:07 PM Engineer's Estimate CURB Bolton & Menk, Inc.Page 1 of 1 Appendix C: Preliminary Assessment Roll Total Estimated Storm Sewer Improvements (Non-Assessable)- $150,000 Total Estimated Street Improvements (Assessable) - $880,000 Un-assessable and Unbuildable Lots $67,000 Total Estimated Assessment Amount $285,000 Total Estimated City Ad Valorem Tax Obligation $595,000 30 7 Total Units for Assessment Calculation 37 Parcel ID PID TaxPayerName TaxpayerAddress Comments Assessable Units Preliminary Assessment Costs 1 250720010 KOLBEN JENNIFE' S & ROTH JEFFREY M 13208 HENNING CIR NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 2 250720020 CAMPAGNOLI JEROLD A 13200 HENNING CIR NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 3 250720030 JEPSON NANCY M 13207 HENNING CIR NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 4 250720040 JEPSON NANCY M 13207 HENNING CIR NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 5 250720050 BUSCH KENNETH F 13231 HENNING CIR NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 6 250720060 CARR MICHAEL 13261 HENNING CIR NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 7 250720070 SHEPILOV VLADIMIR 17740 PANAMA AVE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 8 250720080 SCHUGG CHRISTOPHER 4764 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 9 250720090 BIELKE FAMILY TRUST 4866 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 10 250720100 BIELKE FAMILY TRUST 4866 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 11 250720110 EZAKI BENJAMIN ARATA III 4870 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 12 250720120 MILLER JEROME A 15563 CALMUT AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 13 250720130 SCHILLER SHEILA R OVERSON 4880 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 14 250720140 LINDHOLM SCOTT R & KARLA M 4920 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 15 250720150 SKOGLUND JOHN 4970 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 16 250720160 DRENTLAW CYRIL L & SHARLEE R 4994 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 17 250720170 CARON TROY V 4998 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 18 250720180 KANE MATTHEW D 13365 HICKORY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 19 250720190 STOODLEY JESSICA 13329 HICKORY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 20 250720200 HUSER WILLIAM E & ROBYN L 13289 HICKORY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 22 250720220 BURFEIND ERIC 4883 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 23 250720230 WILSON KRISTINE LYNDON 4909 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 24 250720240 HANSEN THEODORE R & JANE F 4945 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 25 250720250 TYSYACHUK TIMOTHY 116 OAK ST N CHASKA, MN 55318 1 $9,500 26 250720260 EASTMAN NOAH HUNTER 4993 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 27 250720270 MAU JOHN H & SHIRLEY M 4997 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 28 250720280 SAVAGEAU DALE D & CINDY L 4671 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 29 250720290 ARENSON CAROL S 4723 MARTINDALE ST NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 30 250720300 TRUMBULL JUSTIN 13324 HICKORY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 31 250720310 CZECH STEVEN A & DIANE J 13360 HICKORY AVE NE PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 1 $9,500 Total Assessable Lots 30 $285,000.00 Preliminary Estimated Special Assessments - Concrete Curb and Gutter - Street Improvement Project Costs Assessed at 60/40 $9,500.00 60% of Total Estimated Street Improvements - Funded By City 40% of Total Estimated Street Improvements - Funded By Special Assessments Total Assessable Units Assessment Cost per Unit Total Estimated Project Costs - $1,030,000 $528,000 $352,000 Non-Assessable Equivalences Appendix D: Open House Feedback 2025 Street Reclamation Project MAY 2024 OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY 952-392-9631clients.bolton-menk.com/priorlake2025 priorlake2025@bolton-menk.com Concerns about assessment costs An open house was held on May 16 that introduced the project and shared and collected feedback on the proposed improvements. Informational materials and feedback opportunities were also available on the project website following the meeting, WHAT’S NEXT? The project team will consider the feedback received and finalize the feasibility report with a recommended design. The feasibility report will be brought to the City Council and a public improvement hearing will be held to consider approving the project for final design. Another neighborhood meeting will be held in fall 2024 to share the final design and draft plans for feedback. WHAT WE HEARD JAN - MAY 2024 MAY 2024 FALL 2024 SPRING 2025 JUN - DEC 2024 EARLY SPRING 2025 JAN - APR 2025SUMMER 2024 MAY - OCT 2025 Draft roadway design options Neighborhood meeting Neighborhood meeting Neighborhood meeting Finalize roadway design Assessment Hearing Select a contractorImprovement Hearing Construction Mixed responses about addition of curb and gutter Requests to pave all of Pike Lake Rd. Concerns about parking and access during construction Requests to improve Martindale St. and Hickory Ln. cul-de-sacs Questions about adding public sewer and water lines Request for “no outlet” sign for Hickory Ln. Request for curbs that are easy to drive over Request for street name clarification and signage STREET ~25 ATTENDEES Appendix E: Geotechnical Evaluation GEOTECHNICAL REPORT MARTINDALE RECLAMATION PROJECT PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA May 7, 2024 Prepared for: City of Prior Lake 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 WSB PROJECT NO. 024583-000 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Geotechnical Report Martindale Reclamation Project Prior Lake, Minnesota WSB Project No. 024583-000 MARTINDALE RECLAMATION PROJECT FOR CITY OF PRIOR LAKE May 7, 2024 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Geotechnical Report Martindale Reclamation Project Prior Lake, Minnesota WSB Project No. 024583-000 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Mark W. Osborn, PE Date: May 7, 2024 Lic. No. 41362 5 4 0 G A T E W A Y B L V D | B U R N S V I L L E , M N | 55 3 3 7 | 9 5 2 . 7 3 7 . 4 6 6 0 | W S B E N G . C O M May 7, 2024 Mr. Nick Monserud Assistant City Engineer City of Prior Lake 4646 Dakota St SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Re: Geotechnical Report Martindale Reclamation Project WSB Project No.: 024583-000 We have conducted a geotechnical subsurface exploration program for the above referenced project. This report contains our soil boring logs, an evaluation of the conditions encountered in the borings and our recommendations for subgrade improvements, underground utilities, estimated R-value, pavement design, and other geotechnical related design and construction considerations. If you have questions concerning this report or our recommendations, or for construction material testing for this project, please call us at 952.737.4660. Sincerely, WSB Mark Osborn, PE Alex Wacek, EIT Senior Geotechnical Engineer Graduate Geotechnical Engineer Attachment: Geotechnical Report MWO/tw TABLE OF CONTENTS Geotechnical Report Martindale Reclamation Project Prior Lake, Minnesota WSB Project No. 024583-000 TITLE SHEET CERTIFICATION SHEET LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Location ......................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Project Scope of Services .................................................................................... 1 2. PROCEDURES ..................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Boring Layout and Soil Sampling Procedures ........................................................................... 2 2.2 Groundwater Measurements and Borehole Abandonment ....................................................... 2 2.3 Boring Log Procedures and Qualifications ................................................................................ 2 3. EXPLORATION RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 3 3.1 Site and Geology ....................................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Conditions .......................................................................... 3 3.3 Strength Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 3 3.4 Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................................................ 4 4. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 5 4.1 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 5 4.2 Backfill and Fill Selection and Compaction ............................................................................... 5 4.3 Pavement Subgrade Preparation and Stability ......................................................................... 6 4.4 Pavement Full Depth Reclamation ............................................................................................ 6 4.5 Pavement Reconstruction ......................................................................................................... 7 4.6 Utilities ....................................................................................................................................... 8 4.7 Dewatering................................................................................................................................. 8 4.8 Construction Considerations ..................................................................................................... 8 4.9 Construction Safety ................................................................................................................... 8 4.10 Plan Review and Remarks ........................................................................................................ 8 5. STANDARD OF CARE ....................................................................................................................... 10 Appendix A Soil Boring Exhibit Logs of Test Borings Symbols and Terminology on Test Boring Log Notice to Report Users Boring Log Information Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Geotechnical Report Martindale Reclamation Project Prior Lake, Minnesota WSB Project No. 024583-000 Page 1 1. INTRODUCTION Project Location The site is located along Martindale Street Northeast, Henning Circle Northeast and Hickory Lane Northeast in Prior Lake, Minnesota. The site lies east of Pike Lake Trail Northeast and west of Fox Run Trail. The approximate soil boring locations can be found on the Soil Boring Exhibit in Appendix A. Project Description It is proposed to reconstruct Martindale Street Northeast, Henning Circle Northeast and Hickory Lane Northeast with limited storm sewer improvements. We understand that the vertical and horizontal alignment of the roadway will remain similar to existing conditions. WSB has developed recommendations for this project in consideration of the proposed layout and configurations as understood at this time. When the designer develops additional information about final design or other significant factors, the recommendations presented herein may no longer apply. WSB should be made aware of the revised or additional information in order to evaluate the recommendations for continued applicability. Purpose and Project Scope of Services The City of Prior Lake authorized this scope of service. In order to assist the design team in preparing plans and specifications, we have developed recommendations for underground utilities and pavement design. As such, we have completed a subsurface exploration program and prepared a geotechnical report for the referenced site. This stated purpose was a significant factor in determining the scope and level of service provided. Should the purpose of the report change the report immediately ceases to be valid and use of it without WSB’s prior review and written authorization should be at the user’s sole risk. Our authorized scope of work has been limited to: 1. Clearing underground utilities utilizing Gopher State One Call. 2. Mobilization / demobilization of a truck mounted drill rig. 3. Drilling 5 standard penetration borings to 11-foot depths. 4. Sealing the borings per Minnesota Department of Health procedures. 5. Perform soil classification and analysis. 6. Review of available project information and geologic data. 7. Providing this geotechnical report containing: a. Summary of our findings. b. Discussion of subsurface soil and groundwater conditions and how they may affect the proposed utilities and pavements. c. Estimated R-value of the soils. d. Recommended pavement section. e. A discussion of soils for use as structural fill and site fill. Geotechnical Report Martindale Reclamation Project Prior Lake, Minnesota WSB Project No. 024583-000 Page 2 2. PROCEDURES 2.1 Boring Layout and Soil Sampling Procedures WSB completed 5 standard penetration soil borings at the project site. WSB recommended the boring depths and selected the desired locations. Our field crew staked the borings using the supplied site plan. The approximate boring locations are shown on the Soil Boring Exhibit in Appendix A which is an aerial photo. We completed the borings on February 6, 2024, with a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig operated by a two- person crew. The drill crew advanced the borings using continuous hollow stem augers. The drilling information is provided on the boring logs. Generally, the drill crew sampled the soil in advance of the auger tip at two and one-half (2 ½) foot intervals to a depth of 11 feet. The soil samples were obtained using a split-barrel sampler which was driven into the ground during standard penetration tests in accordance with ASTM D 1586, Standard Method of Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils. The materials encountered were described on field logs and representative samples were containerized and transported to our laboratory for further observation and testing. The samples were visually observed to estimate the distribution of grain sizes, plasticity, consistency, moisture condition, color, presence of lenses and seams, and apparent geologic origin. We classified the soils according to type using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A chart describing the USCS is included in Appendix A. 2.2 Groundwater Measurements and Borehole Abandonment The drill crew observed the borings for free groundwater while drilling and after completion of the borings. These observations and measurements are noted on the boring logs. The crew then backfilled the borings to comply with Minnesota Department of Health regulations. 2.3 Boring Log Procedures and Qualifications The subsurface conditions encountered by the borings are illustrated on the Logs of Test Borings in Appendix A. Similar soils were grouped into the strata shown on the boring logs, and the appropriate estimated USCS classification symbols were also added. The depths and thickness of the subsurface strata indicated on the boring logs were estimated from the drill ing results. The transition between materials (horizontal and vertical) is approximate and is usually far more gradual than shown. Information on actual subsurface conditions exists only at the specific locations indicated and is relevant only to the time exploration was performed. Subsurface conditions and groundwater levels at other locations may differ from conditions found at the indicated locations. The nature and extent of these conditions would not become evident until exposed by construction excavation. These stratification lines were used for our analytical purposes and due to the aforementioned limitations, should not be used as a basis of design or construction cost estimates. Geotechnical Report Martindale Reclamation Project Prior Lake, Minnesota WSB Project No. 024583-000 Page 3 3. EXPLORATION RESULTS 3.1 Site and Geology The borings were taken directly on the existing roadways. The Scott County Geologic Atlas indicates the surficial geology of the area is mostly glacial till consisting of unsorted clays, silts, and sands with cobbles and boulders. 3.2 Subsurface Soil and Groundwater Conditions The boring profile generally consisted of the pavement section overlying fills and native soils. Pavement Section The borings encountered approximately 8 inches of bituminous overlying 2 to 8 inches of aggregate base material. In Borings B-2 through B-5, the aggregate base material appears to be crushed limestone while at Boring B-1 we encountered sands with gravel as the base material. Fills The fills encountered in the Boring B-5 consisted of wet, brown to dark brown clayey sands and were approximately 4 feet in thickness where encountered. Glacial Till The glacial till material encountered sands, clayey sands, clays, and silts. These soils were various shades of brown and were moist to wet. Boring Profiles Table 1 below presents the existing roadway pavement section and subgrade profiles. Table 1: Existing Profiles Boring No. Bituminous Thickness (inches) Aggregate Base Thickness (inches) Subgrade Soils (Upper 4 feet) B-1 8 2 Clayey Sand B-2 8 8 (Crushed limestone) Clayey Sand B-3 8 4 (Crushed limestone) Clayey Sand B-4 8 5 (Crushed limestone) Clayey Sand B-5 8 8 (Crushed limestone) Clayey Sand (fill) 3.3 Strength Characteristics The penetration resistance N-values of the materials encountered were recorded during drilling and are indicated as blows per foot (BPF). Those values provide an indication of soil strength characteristics and are located on the boring log sheets. Also, visual-manual classification techniques and apparent moisture contents were also utilized to make an engineering judgment of the consistency of the materials. Table 2 presents a summary of the penetration resistances (N-value which are indicated by Blows Per Foot BPF) in the soils for the borings completed and remarks regarding the material strengths of the soils. Geotechnical Report Martindale Reclamation Project Prior Lake, Minnesota WSB Project No. 024583-000 Page 4 Table 2: Penetration Resistances Soil Type Classification Penetration Resistances Remarks Fill SC 9 BPF Loose Glacial Till (cohesionless) SP, SP-SC, SC, ML 3 to 24 Very loose to medium dense Glacial Till (cohesive) CL 7 Soft The preceding is a generalized description of soil conditions at this site. Variations from the generalized profile exist and should be assessed from the boring logs, the normal geologic character of the deposits, and the soils uncovered during site excavation. 3.4 Groundwater Conditions WSB took groundwater level readings in the exploratory borings, reviewed the data obtained, and discussed its interpretation of the data in the text of the report. Note that groundwater levels may fluctuate due to seasonal variations (e.g., precipitation, snowmelt, and rainfall) and/or other factors not evident at the time of measurement. Groundwater was encountered only during the drilling of Boring B-1. Gray colored soils were encountered in Boring B-2. Gray colored soils can be an indication of long-term saturation conditions and could show potential groundwater elevations. The shallow groundwater could present an issue for excavations and utility installation. It is our opinion that wet soils, waterbearing sand lenses, and perched groundwater could be encountered at this site and could affect construction of utilities and subgrade preparations. The bore holes were only left open a short period of time, and groundwater levels may not have stabilized. It should be noted that groundwater readings are difficult to obtain in cohesive soils such as the lean clays indicated in the boring logs. These soils have a low permeability and take a long period of time to obtain groundwater readings in. If more accurate subsurface water levels are needed, we recommend piezometers be installed to determine the groundwater level over several months. Monitoring of the groundwater table elevation could occur up to the time of construction. This work was outside our sco pe of services. Geotechnical Report Martindale Reclamation Project Prior Lake, Minnesota WSB Project No. 024583-000 Page 5 4. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Discussion Many of the soils encountered were wet. Wet soils encountered in our borings will likely be wet when excavated and require significant drying prior to reuse as structural backfill and fill. Drying of wet clayey soils is generally accomplished via discing and drying which requires time and an area to place and spread the wet soils. Considering utility trenches need to be backfilled shortly after placing the utilities, time is a factor and many project sites do not plan an area for drying or have the room to spread the soils. In addition, construction during wet and cooler times of the year will inhibit the effectiveness of this method. In such conditions chemical stabilization/drying such as the use of lime may be considered. We suggest the contractors bidding on the work have a soil moisture conditioning plan to allow for reuse of as much onsite soils as possible and to reduce import of sand. A cost for removal and replacement of wet clays should also be provided. Existing fills encountered below the pavements were likely placed during initial roadway construction. While existing fills have increased risks of unknown conditions, our borings did not encounter any deleterious materials. Therefore, it is commonly recommended to observe the existing fills at the time of planned excavations and perform partial corrections for any wet conditions encountered. Organic soils and vegetated root zones are not suitable for structural support and should be removed from the construction areas where encountered. Based on the results of our borings, the glacially deposited soils generally appear capable of supporting the roadway. General Generally, the soils in the upper 4 feet of the subgrade influence pavement performance the most. The soils within the pavement subgrade consisted of clayey sands, which are frost susceptible soils. Consideration should be given to partially subcutting these soils and replacing with a non -frost susceptible granular fill to reduce the potential frost heave below the pavement section. Silt soils are not recommended for direct support of pavements for the aforementioned frost reasons but also because they are sensitive to moisture changes, easily disturbed by construction traffic, and difficult to compact. Where silt soils are present at the top of grading grade we recommend a partial subcut and replacement with an engineered fill. The soils encountered would generally be considered corrosive to metal conduits. 4.2 Backfill and Fill Selection and Compaction The on-site non-organic soils may be reused as backfill and fill provided they are moisture conditioned and can be compacted to their specified densities. Wet soils that are excavated would need to be dried before reused as an engineered fill. We recommend use of a minimum of 2 feet of clean coarse sand with less than 50 percent passing the #40 sieve and less than 5 percent passing the #200 sieve when backfilling the bottom of a wet excavation. Gravel or cobbles larger than 2 inches in diameter should not be placed within 2 feet of grading grade or utilities. We recommend that clayey soils be moisture conditioned to within +/-2 percent of the optimum moisture content as determined from their standard Proctor tests (ASTM D-698). Granular fills should be moisture conditioned to between -4% and +2% of the optimum moisture content. Fill should be spread in lifts of 6 inches, depending on the size and type of compaction equipment used. Geotechnical Report Martindale Reclamation Project Prior Lake, Minnesota WSB Project No. 024583-000 Page 6 Table 3 provides the recommended compaction levels. Table 3: Recommended Level of Compaction for Backfill and Fill Area Percent of Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density Pavement: Within 3 feet of bottom of aggregate base 100 Pavement: Greater than 3 feet below aggregate base 95 Utility Trench and Utility Structure Backfill 100 Landscaping (non-structural) 90 4.3 Pavement Subgrade Preparation and Stability We recommend excavation of organics below the pavement areas. The soils at the bottom of the excavation should be prepared in accordance with MnDOT Specification 2112, Subgrade Preparation. Before placement of the sand subbase, the final subgrade should have proper stability within three vertical feet of grading grade (grade which contacts the bottom of the aggregate base). This will generally be achieved in fill areas with proper compaction of embankment materials and in cut areas through proper subgrade preparation. The stability of the pavement subgrade should be evaluated prior to placement of the sand subbase using the test roll procedure (MnDOT 2111), except a fully loaded tandem axle dump truck or a full water truck should be utilized for the test roll. If unstable soils are found under the test roll, these soils should be improved by means of scarification, moisture conditioning, and re-compaction, or by subcutting and replacement. 4.4 Pavement Full Depth Reclamation We understand the preferred option for the city is Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) of the pavements and construction of a new overlay. The FDR process consists of pulverizing, and blending the full bituminous pavement section and a portion of the underlying aggregate base and/or subbase to produce a new homogeneous base course that will provide support for new bituminous pavements. WSB reviewed the data obtained and feels FDR may be a feasible rehabilitation technique. In locations where there’s a crushed aggregate base (as shown in borings 2-4) additional rock would not be anticipated to be needed. Additional rock, such as a crushed granite (FA-3 MnDOT 3217), may be considered in areas with a sandy base (as shown in boring B-1) in order to improve the strength of the aggregate base. A primary benefit of FDR construction is that it removes any risk of reflective or memory cracking associated with the existing deteriorated bituminous pavement. It's our understanding that the existing grade is to be maintained. There are three (3) strategies to maintain grade for an FDR project. 1. Mill a pre-determined portion of the bituminous pavement, then FDR the remaining bituminous pavement with the underlying base, followed by a bituminous overlay. 2. FDR the in-place bituminous pavement and haul off any excess reclaimed material prior to placing a bituminous overlay. 3. Use a stabilizing additive (bituminous or cement) with the FDR process to strengthen the base and reduce the required thickness of the bituminous overlay. WSB recommends option 2 because increasing the proportion of crushed bituminous in the base will result in an overall increase in base strength. We recommend reclaiming through the bituminous layer and at least one (1) inch into the underlying base for a total reclaim depth of nine (9) inches. Stabilized FDR (SFDR) isn’t as economical for lower volume projects, so it is not recommended at this time, but could be explored further upon request. Geotechnical Report Martindale Reclamation Project Prior Lake, Minnesota WSB Project No. 024583-000 Page 7 Based on the MnDOT Flexible Pavement Guide from 2020, the R-values of the subgrade soils would be 70 for sands and 20 for clayey sands. We estimated Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL’s) for roadway design to be approximately 71,000. Our design is based on a standard twenty (20) year design life of the urban pavement section and a 10-ton road design. We recommend the new bituminous pavement consist of a MnDOT 2360 SPWEA340C, placed in two (2), 2-inch lifts. Within several years after initial paving, some thermal shrinkage cracks will develop. We recommend routine maintenance be performed to improve pavement performance and increase pavement life. Pavement should be sealed with a liquid bitumen sealer to ret ard water intrusion into the base course and subgrade. Localized patch failures may also develop where trucks or buses turn on the pavement. When these occur, they should be cut out and patch repaired. 4.5 Pavement Reconstruction An alternate option would be full reconstruction of the pavement section. W e anticipate the prepared subgrade soils will consist mostly of clayey sands. Based on the MnDOT Flexible Pavement Guide from 2020, the R-values of the subgrade soils would range between 20 and 70. We used a design R-value of 20 for the roadway. No historical traffic data was available for the roads on this project. A nearby street (Pike Lake Trail Northeast) was reviewed for informational purposes with an estimated Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL’s) of approximately 71,000 for a collector type road. For these residential roadways we estimated the ESAL’s to be under 25,000. Our design is based on a standard twenty (20) year design life of the urban pavement section and a 10-ton road design. Based on MnDOT’s FlexPave excel design utilizing granular equivalent charts, we recommend the pavement section indicated below in Table 4 which follows standard City of Prior Lake street design. Table 4: Recommended Flexible Pavement Section Section Thickness (inches) Granular Equivalent Bituminous Course, MnDOT 2360 SPWEA340C 2 4.5 Bituminous Course, MnDOT 2360 SPWEA340C 2 4.5 Aggregate Base, MnDOT 3138 (Class 5) 6 6 Select Granular, MnDOT 3149.2.B.2 24 12 Geotextile Fabric, MnDOT 3733.1, Type 9 Yes - Subgrade Preparation, MnDOT 2112 Yes - TOTAL - 27 Aggregate base placement for pavement support should meet the gradation and quality requirements for Class 5 per MnDOT specification 3138. Aggregate base material should be compacted to 100 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density. Within several years after initial paving, some thermal shrinkage cracks will develop. We recommend routine maintenance be performed to improve pavement performance and increase pavement life. Pavement should be sealed with a liquid bitumen sealer to retard water intrusion into the base course and subgrade. Localized patch failures may also develop where trucks or buses turn on the pavement. When these occur, they should be cut out and patch repaired. Geotechnical Report Martindale Reclamation Project Prior Lake, Minnesota WSB Project No. 024583-000 Page 8 The pavement sections above provide options to meet the ESAL requirements. Other pavement design options would be acceptable as well as long as they meet the minimum requirements for bituminous thickness, aggregate base thickness, and can meet the ESAL requirements. 4.6 Utilities Invert elevations utilities for the storm sewers anticipated to be within 4 to 8 feet below grade. Based on the borings, the subgrade soils for the utilities will consist chiefly of clayey sands. Underground utilities are expected to be installed by backhoes completing the excavations and placing fills. Soil compactors should be used to compact the fill in even lifts to the specified densities. Clayey soils are considered somewhat corrosive to metallic pipes. Where such soils exist along the alignment, we recommend mitigation measures to help reduce corrosion potential. A common option would be to utilize a granular bedding around the pipe. Another option would be for polyethylene encasement for the metal pipes. Trench backfill above this point may consist of the non-organic excavated soils once moisture conditioned as recommended. 4.7 Dewatering Wet and saturated soils were encountered in the borings at shallow excavations. Groundwater could enter the excavations. Dewatering can likely be accomplished with sumps and pumps placed at low points in the utility trenches. 4.8 Construction Considerations Good surface drainage should be maintained throughout the work so that the site is not vulnerable to ponding during or after a rainfall. If water enters the excavations, it should be promptly removed prior to further construction activities. Under no circumstances should fill or concrete be placed into standing water. Soil corrections at this site for pavement subgrades may not be continuous. We recommend tapering the fills back to native soils at a ten to one (10H:1V) slope. It is important to review the fill limits and total depth of fill when placing structures upon compacted materials and when filling the excavation. The location of the structure should allow for at least a one to one (1:1) slope from the bottom of the structure to the outside limits of the engineered fill. It is important to check this at the time of construction that during filling, unsuitable soils do not encroach within the one to one (1:1) slope limits. 4.9 Construction Safety All excavations should comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P “Excavations and Trenches”. This document states that excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. Reference to this OSHA requirement should be included in the job specifica tions. The responsibility to provide safe working conditions on this site, for earthwork, building construction, or any associated operations is solely that of the contractor. This responsibility is not borne in any manner by WSB. 4.10 Plan Review and Remarks The observations, recommendations and conclusions described in this report are based primarily on information provided to WSB, obtained from our subsurface exploration, our experience, several assumptions, and the scopes of service developed for this project and are for the sole use of our client. We recommend that WSB be retained to perform a review of final design drawing and specifications to evaluate that the geotechnical engineering report has not been misinterpreted. Should there be changes in the design or location of the structures related to this project or if there are uncertainties in the report Geotechnical Report Martindale Reclamation Project Prior Lake, Minnesota WSB Project No. 024583-000 Page 9 we should be notified. We would be pleased to review project changes and modify the recommendations in this report or provide clarification in writing. The entire report should be kept together; for example, boring logs should not be removed and placed in the specifications separately. The boring logs and related information included in this report are indicators of the subsurface conditions only at the specific locations indicated on the Soil Boring Exhibit and times noted on the Logs of Test Boring sheets in Appendix A. The subsurface conditions, including groundwater levels, at other locations on the site may differ significantly from conditions that existed at the time of sampling and at the boring locations. The test borings were completed by WSB solely to obtain indications of subsurface conditions as part of a geotechnical exploration program. No services were performed to evaluate subsurface environmental conditions. WSB has not performed observations, investigations, explorations, studies or testing that are not specifically listed in the scope of service. WSB should not be liable for failing to discover any condition whose discovery required the performance of services not authorized by the Agreement . Geotechnical Report Martindale Reclamation Project Prior Lake, Minnesota WSB Project No. 024583-000 Page 10 5. STANDARD OF CARE The recommendations and opinions contained in this report are based on our professional judgment. The soil testing and geotechnical engineering services performed for this project have been performed with the level of skill and diligence ordinarily exercised by reputable members of the same profession under similar circumstances, at the same time and in the same or a similar locale. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. Geotechnical Report Appendix A Martindale Reclamation Project Prior Lake, Minnesota WSB Project No. 024583-000 APPENDIX A Soil Borings Exhibit Logs of Test Borings Symbols and Terminology on Test Boring Log Notice to Report Users Boring Log Information Unified Soil Classification Sheet (USCS) N: \ P r o p o s a l s \ P r i o r L a k e \ 2 0 2 5 M a r t i n d a l e _ H e n n i n g _ H i c k o r y R e c l a m a t i o n \ G r a p h i c s \ F I G R - # # # # # # - P R O J E C T A R E A M A P . d w g 10 / 2 / 2 0 2 3 5 : 1 1 : 2 8 P M R 2025 Martindale/Henning/Hickory Reclamation City of Prior Lake Project Area Map October 2023 FEETSCALE 0 100 200 HORZ. R PI K E L A K E T R A I L N E MARTINDAL E S T R E E T N E H E N N I N G C I R C L E N E H I C K O R Y L A N E N E B-4 B-1 B-5 B-2 B-3 3.25" HSA 0' - 9.5' 1 2 3 4 5 AUG SB HSA SB HSA SB HSA HSA Pavement Section Glacial Till 8 7 22 16 SC SC SP 10 8 22 8" BITUMINOUS 2" SAND WITH GRAVEL, brown, moist CLAYEY SAND, fine to medium grained, brown, wet, loose CLAYEY SAND, fine to medium grained, brown, moist, medium dense SAND, fine to coarse grained, brown, waterbearing, medium dense End of Boring 11.0 ft. N-Value Plot 130 26 TIME CASING DEPTH CAVE-IN DEPTH WATER DEPTH WATER ELEVATION WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS SAMPLED DEPTHDATE 9.5 9119:00 am2/06/2024 START: 2/06/2024 END: 2/06/2024 Logged By: A. WacekJ. SharpMETHOD Notes: Crew Chief: 10.5 PROJECT NAME: Martindale Reclamation Project LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT LOCATION: Prior Lake, Minnesota BORING NUMBER B-1 PAGE 1 OF 1CLIENT/WSB #: 024583-000 No.TYPE GEOLOGIC ORIGIN WL N Dr i l l i n g Op e r a t i o n USCSDEPTH (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE MC % %F i n e s GE O T E C H N I C A L N - P L O T - W S B . G D T - 2 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 5 : 4 3 - M : \ 0 2 4 5 8 3 - 0 0 0 \ G E O T E C H - C M T \ G E O T E C H \ M A R T I N D A L E - B O R I N G L O G . G P J DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 8 7 22 16 3.25" HSA 0' - 9.5' 1 2 3 4* 5 AUG SB HSA SB HSA SB HSA HSA Glacial Till 7 10 24 13 SC SC SC 14 16 13 8" BITUMINOUS 8" CRUSHED LIMESTONE CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, grayish brown, wet, loose CLAYEY SAND, slightly organic, fine to coarse grained, dark brown, wet, loose [Organic Content = 4%] CLAYEY SAND, fine to coarse grained, brown, wet, medium dense - [Cobbles at 7 feet] End of Boring 11.0 ft. N-Value Plot 140 28 TIME CASING DEPTH CAVE-IN DEPTH WATER DEPTH WATER ELEVATION WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS SAMPLED DEPTHDATE 9.5 61110:00 am2/06/2024 * Pushed rock START: 2/06/2024 END: 2/06/2024 Logged By: A. WacekJ. SharpMETHOD Notes: Crew Chief: None PROJECT NAME: Martindale Reclamation Project LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT LOCATION: Prior Lake, Minnesota BORING NUMBER B-2 PAGE 1 OF 1CLIENT/WSB #: 024583-000 No.TYPE GEOLOGIC ORIGIN WL N Dr i l l i n g Op e r a t i o n USCSDEPTH (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE MC % %F i n e s GE O T E C H N I C A L N - P L O T - W S B . G D T - 2 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 5 : 4 3 - M : \ 0 2 4 5 8 3 - 0 0 0 \ G E O T E C H - C M T \ G E O T E C H \ M A R T I N D A L E - B O R I N G L O G . G P J DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 7 10 24 13 3.25" HSA 0' - 9.5' 1 2 3 4 5 AUG SB HSA SB HSA SB HSA HSA Glacial Till 4 9 17 13 SC SC 12 17 8" BITUMINOUS 4" CRUSHED LIMESTONE CLAYEY SAND, fine to coarse grained, brown, wet, very loose to loose CLAYEY SAND, fine to coarse grained, brown, wet, medium dense End of Boring 11.0 ft. N-Value Plot 10.50 21 TIME CASING DEPTH CAVE-IN DEPTH WATER DEPTH WATER ELEVATION WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS SAMPLED DEPTHDATE 9.5 91111:00 am2/06/2024 START: 2/06/2024 END: 2/06/2024 Logged By: A. WacekJ. SharpMETHOD Notes: Crew Chief: None PROJECT NAME: Martindale Reclamation Project LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT LOCATION: Prior Lake, Minnesota BORING NUMBER B-3 PAGE 1 OF 1CLIENT/WSB #: 024583-000 No.TYPE GEOLOGIC ORIGIN WL N Dr i l l i n g Op e r a t i o n USCSDEPTH (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE MC % %F i n e s GE O T E C H N I C A L N - P L O T - W S B . G D T - 2 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 5 : 4 3 - M : \ 0 2 4 5 8 3 - 0 0 0 \ G E O T E C H - C M T \ G E O T E C H \ M A R T I N D A L E - B O R I N G L O G . G P J DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 4 9 17 13 3.25" HSA 0' - 9.5' 1 2 3 4 5 AUG SB HSA SB HSA SB HSA HSA Glacial Till 10 7 4 3 SC CL SC SP 16 18 68 8" BITUMINOUS 5" CRUSHED LIMESTONE CLAYEY SAND, fine to coarse grained, brown, wet, loose SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown, wet, soft [Dry Density = 107 pcf] CLAYEY SAND, fine to medium grained, brown, wet, very loose - [Lens of Silt at 10 feet] SAND, fine to medium grained, light brown, moist, very loose End of Boring 11.0 ft. N-Value Plot 70 14 TIME CASING DEPTH CAVE-IN DEPTH WATER DEPTH WATER ELEVATION WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS SAMPLED DEPTHDATE 9.5 9.51112:00 pm2/06/2024 START: 2/06/2024 END: 2/06/2024 Logged By: A. WacekJ. SharpMETHOD Notes: Crew Chief: None PROJECT NAME: Martindale Reclamation Project LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT LOCATION: Prior Lake, Minnesota BORING NUMBER B-4 PAGE 1 OF 1CLIENT/WSB #: 024583-000 No.TYPE GEOLOGIC ORIGIN WL N Dr i l l i n g Op e r a t i o n USCSDEPTH (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE MC % %F i n e s GE O T E C H N I C A L N - P L O T - W S B . G D T - 2 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 5 : 4 3 - M : \ 0 2 4 5 8 3 - 0 0 0 \ G E O T E C H - C M T \ G E O T E C H \ M A R T I N D A L E - B O R I N G L O G . G P J DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 10 7 4 3 3.25" HSA 0' - 9.5' 1 2 3 4 5 AUG SB HSA SB HSA SB HSA HSA Pavement Section Fill Glacial Till 9 7 4 11 SC SP ML 14 15 40 80 8" BITUMINOUS 8" CRUSHED LIMESTONE CLAYEY SAND, brown and dark brown, wet CLAYEY SAND, fine to coarse grained, brown, wet, loose SAND, fine to medium grained, light brown, moist, very loose SILT WITH SAND, brown, moist, medium dense [Dry Density = 109 pcf] End of Boring 11.0 ft. N-Value Plot 7.50 15 TIME CASING DEPTH CAVE-IN DEPTH WATER DEPTH WATER ELEVATION WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS SAMPLED DEPTHDATE 9.5 9111:00 pm2/06/2024 START: 2/06/2024 END: 2/06/2024 Logged By: A. WacekJ. SharpMETHOD Notes: Crew Chief: None PROJECT NAME: Martindale Reclamation Project LOG OF TEST BORING PROJECT LOCATION: Prior Lake, Minnesota BORING NUMBER B-5 PAGE 1 OF 1CLIENT/WSB #: 024583-000 No.TYPE GEOLOGIC ORIGIN WL N Dr i l l i n g Op e r a t i o n USCSDEPTH (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLE MC % %F i n e s GE O T E C H N I C A L N - P L O T - W S B . G D T - 2 / 1 3 / 2 4 1 5 : 4 3 - M : \ 0 2 4 5 8 3 - 0 0 0 \ G E O T E C H - C M T \ G E O T E C H \ M A R T I N D A L E - B O R I N G L O G . G P J DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 9 7 4 11 0.002mm 0.002mm