B-1. Review Long-Term Tennis Court Maintenance PlanAdministration
Phone: 952.227.1100 BACKGROUND
Fax: 952.227.1110
Tennis is a popular sport that experienced tremendous growth in the 1970's and early
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180 1980's. Participation numbers dropped after these peak decades, but a renewed
Fax: 952.227.1190 growth curve has been experienced thanks to the efforts of the United States Tennis
Association and their marketing campaigns. At the local level, tennis is appealing to
Engineering community members as an inexpensive form of recreation that can be played for free
Phone: 952.227.1160 at public parks. People do not have to register to participate and the sport is enjoyed
Fax: 952.227.1170 by all ages.
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
The City of Chanhassen currently offers 28 public courts owned and operated by four
a -1
separate public agencies: Independent School Districts 276 and 112 and the Cities of
MEMORANDUM
Shorewood and Chanhassen. Of these 28 courts, the City of Chanhassen owns 13 and
CITY OF
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Phone: 952.227.1120
within the city are constructed of asphalt and a color- coated surface material. Asphalt
Fax: 952.227.1110
cracks appear in tennis courts due to uneven expansion and settling of soils and
CHANHASSFN
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director
Al
7700 Market Boulevard
DATE: October 10, 2011
PO Box 147
Fax: 952.227.1404
Chanhassen, MN 55317
SUBJ: Discuss Long -Term Tennis Court Maintenance Plan
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100 BACKGROUND
Fax: 952.227.1110
Tennis is a popular sport that experienced tremendous growth in the 1970's and early
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180 1980's. Participation numbers dropped after these peak decades, but a renewed
Fax: 952.227.1190 growth curve has been experienced thanks to the efforts of the United States Tennis
Association and their marketing campaigns. At the local level, tennis is appealing to
Engineering community members as an inexpensive form of recreation that can be played for free
Phone: 952.227.1160 at public parks. People do not have to register to participate and the sport is enjoyed
Fax: 952.227.1170 by all ages.
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
The City of Chanhassen currently offers 28 public courts owned and operated by four
Fax: 952.227.1110
separate public agencies: Independent School Districts 276 and 112 and the Cities of
Shorewood and Chanhassen. Of these 28 courts, the City of Chanhassen owns 13 and
Park & Recreation
operates 17 (the 4 courts at City Center Park are on ISD 112 property). All the courts
Phone: 952.227.1120
within the city are constructed of asphalt and a color- coated surface material. Asphalt
Fax: 952.227.1110
cracks appear in tennis courts due to uneven expansion and settling of soils and
granular base materials caused by the freezing and thawing seasons that we
Recreation Center
experience in Minnesota.
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
An asphalt crack that appears at the surface can extend downward to a depth of
1 -2 feet or more. Crack sealing and re- surfacing a tennis court is a temporary
Planning &
solution. Tennis court cracks can be repaired by reconstructing a court to correct
atural Resources
Phone: l Res rce
existing sub - surface deficiencies. The city's tennis courts were built between 1972
Fax: 952.227.1110
and 1995. To date, these courts have been patched, crack sealed and re- surfaced, but
no courts have been reconstructed.
Public Works
7901 Park Place DISCUSSION
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310 The tennis courts currently in place across the community represent a significant
Senior Center
investment in public infrastructure and are amenities that need to be maintained in
Phone: 952.227.1125 order to provide value. Future tennis court maintenance is planned in 2012 and 2014,
Fax: 952.227.1110 but the level of work currently programmed is not sufficient to meet current and
future needs. Two of the courts at the Chanhassen Recreation Center have
Web Site experienced significant sub -base settlement. One of the courts is currently
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us unplayable. Vertical displacement cracks and large upheaval cracks are present on
nearly all the courts and depressions or "birdbaths" exist as well.
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Todd Gerhardt
Long -Term Tennis Court Maintenance Plan
October 10, 2011
Page 2
To prepare for the tennis court maintenance operations scheduled for 2012, we retained Kimley-
Horn and Associates to investigate tennis court deficiencies at the five locations scheduled for
work: Chanhassen Recreation Center, Lake Susan Park, Meadow Green Park, North Lotus Lake
Park and South Lotus Lake Park. Upon completion of field inspections and soil boring
(Chanhassen Recreation Center), Kimley -Horn and Associates prepared the attached scoping
study identifying recommended tennis court improvements and associated costs at these
locations.
The total estimated construction cost to fully reconstruct two courts at the Chanhassen
Recreation Center, including subgrade correction; to fully reconstruct two courts at North Lotus
Lake Park; and to rehabilitate six courts located at Meadow Green Park, Lake Susan Park and
South Lotus Lake Park is $277,320. At present $125,000 in tennis court improvements are
included in the 2012 capital improvement program.
RECOMMENDATION
To bring this project within budget while still providing an acceptable level of access to public
outdoor tennis courts, the following actions are recommended.
• Abandonment of tennis courts #1 and #2 at the Chanhassen Recreation Center/Bluff
Creek Elementary School to avoid an estimated full reconstruction cost of $129,100.
• Two tennis courts at North Lotus Lake Park are rehabilitated at an estimated cost of
$35,000 in lieu of full reconstruction estimated to cost $80,300.
• Two tennis courts at Meadow Green Park are rehabilitated at an estimated cost of
$25,000.
• Two tennis courts at Lake Susan Park are rehabilitated at an estimated cost of $21,600.
• Two tennis courts at South Lotus Lake Park are rehabilitated at an estimated cost of
$21,200.
These recommended tennis court maintenance improvements are estimated to cost $102,800, or
$22,200 under budget.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2012 Tennis Court Improvements Scoping Study dated August, 2011.
2. Chanhassen Tennis Court Maintenance History.
3. Chanhassen Tennis Court Future Maintenance Schedule.
4. Tennis Court CIP Description.
5. Park and Trail Projects by Funding Source.
6. Park Fund Revenue /Expenditure Spreadsheet 2011 -2016.
gApark \th \tennis courts \cc worksession report.doc
■
2012 Tennis Court
Improvements
Scoping Study
Prepared for:
City of Chanhassen
August 2011
Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc.
SCOPING STUDY
FOR
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
2012 TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENTS
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
2550 University Avenue West
Suite 238N
St. Paul, MN 55114
(651) 645 -4197
I hereby certify that this plan, specification
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am duly
Licensed Professional Engineer er the
laws of the Stateinnes
Signature:
Eric FoOno. P.E.
Date:
Lic. No. 48761
File: 1 60511027.3
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
2012 TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENTS
SCOPING STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. SITE AND GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 1 -2
3. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
4. ESTIMATED COSTS
2 -4
El
5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5
APPENDIX A — EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Location Map
Exhibit 2: Proposed Improvements
APPENDIX B — SITE PHOTOS
APPENDIX C — DETAILED COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX D — GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Chanhassen owns and maintains 17 tennis courts throughout the City that
range in age from 16 to 39 years old. Standard maintenance of the courts includes
rehabilitation (crack sealing and resurfacing) every 6 to 9 years. The City completed the
last round of rehabilitation in 2006 and 2007. The past winter's severe freeze /thaw
cycles have resulted in an acceleration of the expansion of the existing pavement cracks
on the City courts. The City of Chanhassen authorized Kimley -Horn and Associates to
prepare a scoping study to determine the recommended scope of work and associated
estimated costs for the rehabilitation and/or replacement of five tennis courts in 2012.
The locations of the courts are as follows:
a. Chanhassen Recreation Center (south courts)
b. North Lotus Lake Park
c. Meadow Green Park
d. Lake Susan Park
e. South Lotus Lake Park
Refer to Exhibit 1 in Appendix A for a map showing the tennis court locations.
2. SITE AND GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
A. Chanhassen Recreation Center
The Chanhassen Recreation Center site includes four tennis courts built in 1995.
The two northernmost courts were recently rehabilitated in 2007, are in fair
condition and are not scheduled for rehabilitation in 2012. The southernmost
courts have not been rehabilitated since their construction and show extensive
pavement failures and significant settlement. Settlement of the southeastern court
has led to ponding of water after rain events and forced the City to install a yard
drain near center court. The settlement has also caused several large, full depth
pavement cracks that span the full length and width of the court.
Soil borings were taken near the center of each of the south courts to analyze the
existing subgrade conditions. The soil borings show a consistent existing
pavement thickness of 4.5 to 4.75 inches of bituminous over an inconsistent depth
of aggregate base and sand sub -base layers. The aggregate base layer varies from
4 to 11 inches and the sand sub -base varies from 12 to 16 inches. The underlying
soils are classified as sandy, lean clays, which is common in the City of
Chanhassen. The soil borings also showed groundwater within the existing base
materials, as close as 1.5 feet below the surface. The report further detailing the
geotechnical exploration and analysis is in included as Appendix D.
B. North Lotus Lake Park
North Lotus Lake Park consists of two tennis courts which were built in 1987 and
last rehabilitated in 2007. The two courts exhibit extensive pavement cracking
which would require bituminous pavement patching on over 25% of the playing
surface. Settlement of the existing subgrade is not a major issue at North Lotus
Lake Park.
C. Meadow Green Park
Meadow Green Park consists of two tennis courts which were built in 1987 and
last rehabilitated in 2006. The two courts exhibit extensive pavement cracking
with a total length of 950 feet of cracks. The majority of these are minor surface
cracks while the remainder can be categorized as full depth which exhibit
separation of the existing pavement. Similar to North Lotus Lake Park, settlement
of the existing subgrade is not a major issue at Meadow Green Park. It appears
that runoff ponds on the north side of the courts where the existing grades outside
of the court restrict runoff from leaving the courts.
D. Lake Susan Park
Lake Susan Park consists of two tennis courts which were built in 1990 and last
rehabilitated in 2006. The two courts exhibit approximately 600 feet of cracking
and an additional 240 square foot area where the playing surface has begun to
flake due to small areas of standing water. The majority of the pavement cracking
is severe and exposes the aggregate base underneath. Settlement of the existing
subgrade is an issue at Lake Susan Park and has caused shifts in the surface of the
tennis courts.
E. South Lotus Lake Park
South Lotus Lake Park consists of two tennis courts which were built in 1992 and
last rehabilitated in 2006. The two courts exhibit approximately 560 feet of
cracking. A minimal amount of these cracks are only surface based and the
majority are full depth and extend the entire court length and width. Settlement of
the existing subgrade is a major issue at South Lotus Lake Park.
Photographs showing examples of the existing pavement conditions can be found
in Appendix B for all five court locations.
3. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Reconstruction
Full reconstruction is proposed for the courts that have extensive pavement
failures and where rehabilitation is not a cost - effective solution. Reconstruction
of the existing courts will consist of removing the bituminous playing surface,
concrete footings and base material. Existing structures such as fences and net
2
posts will be salvaged for reinstallation. Existing light poles will be protected
during the reconstruction process. Based on the existing condition of the
aggregate base and subgrade, the proposed improvements may include subgrade
correction and placement of additional aggregate base. The reconstructed courts
will then be paved and a new color coat system applied to complete the playing
surface. Turf establishment and erosion control of disturbed areas will be
necessary at the courts that are reconstructed. Details of the proposed typical
court reconstruction are included as Exhibit 2 in Appendix A.
i. Chanhassen Recreation Center
Full reconstruction, including subgrade correction, of the southern courts is
proposed to correct the existing subgrade failures. The existing yard drain and
drainage pipe in the southeastern court should be removed during the
reconstruction. Consistent with the geotechnical report, the proposed
pavement section for the new courts will consist of 24- inches of select
granular borrow, 6- inches of Class 5 aggregate base, and 3- inches of
bituminous pavement. Drain tile will also be installed at the bottom of the 24-
inch sub -base layer to collect moisture that collects within the pavement
section. Water collected by drain tile will outlet along the east fill slope of the
courts, consistent with the existing yard drain outlet location.
ii. North Lotus Lake Park
Due to the extensive amount of pavement cracking, full reconstruction of the
existing courts is proposed. Reconstruction will include replacement of the
existing pavement and aggregate base. Since settlement does not appear to be
an issue, subgrade correction should not be needed for the reconstruction of
the existing courts. The proposed pavement section for the new courts will
consist of 6- inches of Class 5 aggregate base and 3- inches of bituminous
pavement.
B. Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is proposed for the courts that have surface and full depth cracks
that can be repaired at a reasonable cost when compared to the cost of
reconstruction. Minor pavement cracks which do not exhibit full separation of the
bituminous pavement will be crack sealed. Full depth patching is proposed where
existing pavement cracks exhibit separation of the existing pavement section.
Patching will consist of full depth saw cuts parallel to the pavement crack. Saw
cuts should be made at one foot offsets for a total patch width of approximately
two feet. Saw cuts should be positioned in a logical and efficient manner to
reduce the number of overall patches. After the bituminous material is removed
the base should be inspected and, if necessary, compacted or supplemented by
additional material. New bituminous pavement will then be placed and
compacted level with the existing surface. After patching is complete, a new
color coat system will be applied to the playing surface. Existing structures such
as fences, lights and net posts should be protected or dismantled for re- installation
during the rehabilitation process. Details of the proposed typical court
rehabilitation are included as Exhibit 2 in Appendix A.
i. Meadow Green Park
Meadow Green Park courts have the highest amount of cracking out of all five
locations; however, the majority of the cracks are shallow in depth and can be
cracked sealed. The remaining pavement cracks which penetrate the full
depth of existing bituminous material should be saw cut and patched. Drain
tile or a surface drain should be considered on the north side of the courts to
improve drainage. Any drainage features would need to be connected to the
existing storm sewer system along the adjacent Pontiac Lane.
ii. Lake Susan Park
The majority of the rehabilitation improvements at the Lake Susan Park courts
will consist of saw cuts along the existing cracks and full depth pavement
patching. In addition, the west court has an area that ponds water due to
settlement of the sub -base. This area, located on the northwest corner of the
court, should be saw cut and patched in one section and graded so water
drains away from the playing surface.
iii. South Lotus Lake Park
The majority of the rehabilitation improvements at the South Lotus Lake Park
courts will consist of saw cuts along the existing cracks and full depth
pavement patching. Areas of crack sealing will be necessary where existing
cracks do not exhibit separation of the existing pavement. The courts at South
Lotus Lake Park have extensive vegetation on the existing fences. Care
should be taken to remove as few of the fence panels as possible to provide
access to the courts while minimizing impacts to the existing vegetation.
4. ESTIMATED COSTS
The following is a summary of estimated construction costs for the project. These costs
include a 10 percent construction contingency and a 30 percent allowance for indirect
costs such as engineering, administrative, and legal items.
Chanhassen Recreation Center
$
129,100
North Lotus Lake Park
$
80,300
Meadow Green Park
$
25,000
Lake Susan Park
$
21,600
South Lotus Lake Park
$
21,200
Total Estimated Construction Costs $ 277,200
An itemized summary of the cost estimates can be found in Appendix C.
4
5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the analysis completed as a part of this scoping study, we recommend the
following improvements as part of the City's 2012 Tennis Court Improvements.
Location
Improvement Type
Est. Project Cost
Chanhassen Rec. Center
Reconstruction w/ Sand
$129,100
North Lotus Lake Park
Reconstruction
$80,300
Meadow Green Park
Rehabilitation
$25,000
Lake Susan Park
Rehabilitation
$21,600
South Lotus Lake Park
Rehabilitation
$21,200
APPENDIX A
EXHIBITS
CRESTVIEW DR. O( 1Nil FE DOVE "l $ O'" $THA nvn CT c w^ g -
M1? 9 0 O l e sE PH G �� �SI HqM
� CIR. O r ° `� VINEL AND�CT. .o1( y t� FOX H
CREGSRVIEW'h-F, LUCY RD. u=i m ° z \' \\ - �C ¢ IJ�� Q O OR. ti ,
1 �I�CC Q �'
RD. �+ p D O P' 4Z FOXTAIL OW o oBROgDM 99
{� p yON W o�� a z �. ORE DR. 98.
?I m �EV1P O S y G tti 4/ � A KE LUCY RD. • O � DR \ NORTH LOTUS
o v m O in \ �J
HIGH GATE S7t. LP LP. a J7, z
CIR APR 5 SHENEN DOAH WESTERN o LAKE PARK `� FOX HARROGATE � � OG GpZ j A Cr. W O (
G . <<fR W b2 Y O?• d� N HIAWATHA DR, a' C o h .
9 J CT O CIR. ,SANT CIR.
ER
�G2 S LAKE o. a � P 'Cl' G S. O CARVER BEACH RD. �4p o y� _ S� dL.UE RIBBON CT. z pF LA. j C �j
0 y ¢ Y PI- y / 56. HUNTERS CT. ti Mf 1� o < j
C
T116N R23W = v v g i CREE DR. MERR y0R `C -
R 4 3 J ¢ Q �� -x^11 cai a WJ 9 i m 3 DR. GP' i
HI` ` Q F d F d ? A FN z ch,` III II\ /'/OCTAW 7 tR' VI w
9 10 ? o Q � ON
R TR. m = LP• 6 ^, Z Cp T ¢ \_ \ \l CI R.
Z / Harrison , LONE EACLE DR. y V, P.IPLE Lq•
f M•c'EH LA. KER BER By DR. JQ 65. ���`j > x �. w Y St
O Lake U J e� o � F Dx \Lotu cT. 3 e =° E �N
'P o° DR RD Q S J 6 6. UN WDOD HILL S., DR. HILL ' Lak % S9 �OY OK '�S z N o UO U Gy. SP
h' Lake Lu P' ` 76. HO LOTU VEW OR. o O� ! TL
1 . 48. CASCADE CIR.
w z y o[ 77. `
49. SHASTA CIR. W. < 75 24
50. SHAST CIR. E.
HARRISON v �' o p LP• 74. 0 0 J 'u
HILL
51. OLYMPIC A . j w a ONTI AC J e m R O T H ; e.�
CIR. �+ POt1t1AC OW GREE DR. s
// q - O ) w s w J
251 52. CASTLE RIDGE CT. UTICA Lq, Gt. PA N ;�
INT �" OW FOX 53. CASTLE RIDGE J Gt. 0\ FRONTIER ` OW NEW rt O LE Y cZ a _Q' V
64. NAVAJO DR. ' AG 9 ) ✓ 1� ` RD " LPG 62. N EW F a .o
DR O �U Q CIR. 65. BROKEN ARROW DR. RV77E CT 71. CONES�,B �. Q p v P RtRI DGE CIR. RD, w
66. RED WING CT. Op FRR
ER
/i aEBR(�j `�9 a E.RR CT O �\ qQ <e LA !R STE ' GN 4`` G'QO 0 � \
G,yT d\ 67. CHAPARRAL CL P 00
68. NEZ PIERCE CT. S� 'F G S Un ` y ac \ BAS W D
t CIR, o P P`
DR. 69. PIMA BAY Lake Ann J 71. SADDLEBROOK PASS
y of °\ CIR. PHEAS O OJ�i` •E
1R. ° 72. CHIPPEWA TR. a c3 w HI CHLAND DR. DEE RFI ELO P< UV 2 G7-
F MAJESTIC WAY V Z C
HILL 01 D ELMONT LA. OCK p
ERBY 75. CANTERBURY CIR. SADO`!`0 ARV F gMARRON \ \ OF ep� t , KR ISTE L, P � P ��,SE a e+y G�WAY�
CT V 1 (+
Z v u Z CHIPPEWA CIR.
g 76. PREAKNESS LA. o ;t O' o DR.
`\ Rl NKER ST. ° I 77. PIMLICO LA. Q 2 p CT. u'
\ P ,LNUT CURVE z � 78. LAREDO LA. m CP �1�" O F` n SARP C ' `� ��' P� •�' 4\' G
v C H A N H A S S E N 79. IROQUOIS ST. CuR DEL $ SOUTH LO TWIU G HA OR.
TUS a m
A GLOVER C 80. SANTA FE CIR.
1990 POP. 11 ,732 109. SPOONBILL CIR'. 121. kRP OI L W 76th o ST. SANTA FE .. LAKE PARK 3 ¢O x KILMI
11 BANFBERRY�� CHICKORY WAY \� 112. NICHOLAS WAY a° 122' W, VI AGE RD� 77th ST
y.I z0 'g,
y CT 1yy W. 77th ST, CAT �. 51. MALLARD CT.
WAY \ 9. N POPPY DR. 121. KIMBERLY LA. SANTA , a < W W. .
BLUE S /
13 = a AGE LA. Clt o a L 62. LOOKOUT CT
122. KELLY CT. Y CHAN VI F- x CHAN 10 63. ULLMANN CIF
\ - WATER LEAF PL. T. G ST.
20 r ARBORETUM W. �r �- Hall v EW ST CONE FL O
to CEN ER DR. 3 o w W 78th �T. °-° LA. WARE
o o W. 78th 6: 1 . / LA CFR 5
143. McGLYNN PARK Q Y
w
PICHA DR. Q RS! a
CHANHASSE�J DR. CT• m m PAULEY DR. N SS• p4KF DR. SE tT F �l
RECREM \ Z t
CEI�TE BLVD. - 1. 79 Q a cPSCADF DR. ASCO
gNDREW o• °• W 1A�� a ° CHE YFlNR 309 o DAKOTA CT.
Cr bd w ° 2 LO ,ti CRO{7�1001 CIR - f U
"lV NF1F' Kl n
P GO" PF gK / DR._ a m G BO Fh ! r LA.
Q �. 7}• Lh,.. , , ° U c Q d C'AA G "CLEAR SPRING LA. '9Cy
PP OR• x 4, A'T GEO PC,
U S w NG
m LUKE OqK Cr FK,' O l �1 LAKE SUSAN Y LPKE o JYN 'M R„- J� SP RU Oh wo
1y, ROERS
`OD DR. R! WOOD Z d K ,'� PARK s z A'Fy ys+ CZ O fl , PRM RD.
:REF Oo ODF I g J OR' W. 82nd ST. Q a a
T z '� O z S n _¢ v 14 P 3
V A �et E CT. _ ° z DAK V PT gGENTA 0 M °D
LAK ,� v U Oj =
w CREEK IEW e Q y ti _ a OTA _V G F <7y s � O Q P 6M 2 �.cS IX.
R y FR
TR. B!R i£ CRFEK RENAIS cNGE CT. 01. a 0 O. OR z g ,
•E (>,�• o SPIN �y° I ERIN B G R.
a 133. 134' SJ t <4S o ? 1 ice \\ a Y 'j r W;.
o Loke Sus In / I Marsh \ w a
J C N G DD
Lak 1 W T.
S PO•. \es O m U h� HER� OR. 1GC
N
LAKE m � 5 Q R� DOVE CT. ,_ � ,MISSIONJILLS
Kimley -Horn cu QF D DDD 2DDD 2012 TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENTS
and Associates Inc. LOCATION MAP
38
2550 UNIVERSITY AVE WEST, SUITE 2N TEL NO. (651) 645 -4197 SCALE IN FEET
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114 FAX. NO. (551) 645-5116 I EXHIBIT 1
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL
FENCING
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL NEW COLOR
NET AND NET POSTS 1.5" BITUMINOUS COAT SYSTEM
PROTECT EXISTING
LIGHT POLE
WEAR COURSE
1.5" BITUMINOUS
BASE COURSE
6" CLASS V
AGGREGATE BASE
24" SAND
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
UNDISTURBED 4" DRAIN
SUBGRADE TILE
CHANHASSEN RECREATION CENTER
PAVEMENT SECTION
NEW COLOR
COAT SYSTEM
1.5" BITUMINOUS
WEAR COURSE
1.5" BITUMINOUS
BASE COURSE
6" CLASS V -1 I I- III - III -
AGGREGATE BASE III - III -III_
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE- III -III — I
TYPICAL COURT RECONSTRUCTION
PROTECT EXISTING NET PROTECT EXISTING FENCE
AND NET POSTS
VOUS PATCH
I EXISTING DEPTH)
N COLOR
4T SYSTEM
ULL DEPTH SAW CUT
RECOMPACTED
AGGREGATE BASE
(DISTURBED SUBGRADE
SAW CUT PAVEMENT SECTION
ALONG EXISTING PAVEMENT CRACK
f � PROTECT EXISTING
LIGHT POLE
SEAL EXISTING SURFACE CRACKS
SAW CUT AND PATCH FULL DEPTH CRACKS
TYPICAL COURT REHABILITATION
=n an A , Inc. ]'' OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
IM. SM 2M ��, ; ,4-„�
IN EXHIBIT 2
sr. MAI. ESOiA 0011{ F NM X61 Ms ,.
NORTH LOTUS LAKE PARK
PAVEMENT SECTION
APPROX. 2'
APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTOS
Chanhassen Recreation Center — South Courts (1)
Chanhassen Recreation Center — South Courts (2)
North Lotus Lake Park (1)
F k
North Lotus Lake Park (2)
1
7
/ j
Py9 ,
Meadow Green Park (2)
3
Meadow Green Park (1)
4
Lake Susan Park (1)
Lake Susan Park (2)
South Lotus Lake Park (1)
5
South Lotus Lake Park (2)
APPENDIX C
DETAILED COST ESTIMATES
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Contract
Item No.
Owner:
City of Chanhassen
Item Description
Unit
Quantity
Unit Price
MOBILIZATION
Project:
2012 Tennis Court Improvements
MOBILIZATION
LUMP SUM
1
$
rMn
3,000.00
2
REMOVE BITUMINOUS TENNIS COURT PAVEMENT
SQ YD
1600
$
IG " -Hom
KHA Job No:
160511027
3
COMMON EXCAVATION (P)
CU YD
300
and Associates, Inc.
Schedule:
A
2,400.00
4
AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5
TON
500
$
Description:
CHANHASSEN REC CENTER
5.000.00
5
TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,B)
TON
290
$
70.00
$
20,300.00
Contract
EROSION CONTROURESTORATION
LUMP SUM
1
$
Item No.
Item Description
Unit
Quantity
Unit Price
LIN FT
Amount
1
MOBILIZATION
LUMP SUM
1
$
4,500.00
$
4,500.00
2
REMOVE BITUMINOUS TENNIS COURT PAVEMENT
SQ YD
1600
$
1.50
$
2,400.00
3
COMMON EXCAVATION (P)
CU YD
1400
$
8.00
$
11,200.00
4
SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV)
CU YD
1100
$
12.00
$
13,200.00
5
AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5
TON
500
$
10.00
$
5,000.00
6
TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,B)
TON
270
$
70.00
$
18,900.00
7
EROSION CONTROURESTORATION
LUMP SUM
1
$
2,000.00
$
2,000.00
8
DRAIN TILE
LIN FT
600
$
5.00
$
3,000.00
9
NEW 10' CHAIN LINK FENCE
LIN FT
360
$
45.00
$
16,200.00
10
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL FENCE
LIN FT
120
$
20.00
$
2,400.00
11
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL NETS
EA
2
$
1,750.00
$
3,500.00
12
COLOR COAT SYSTEM
LUMP SUM
1
$
8,000.00
$
8,000.00
Subtotal:
$
90,300.00
Contigency (10
%):
$
9,000.00
Indirects (30 %):
$
29,800.00
Schedule A Project
Cost:
$
129,100.00
Schedule: B
Description: NORTH LOTUS LAKE PARK
Schedule: C
Description: MEADOW GREEN PARK
Contract
Item No.
Item Description
Item No.
Item Description
Unit
Quantity
Unit Price
MOBILIZATION
Amount
1
MOBILIZATION
LUMP SUM
1
$
3,000.00
$
3,000.00
2
REMOVE BITUMINOUS TENNIS COURT PAVEMENT
SQ YD
1600
$
1.50
$
2,400.00
3
COMMON EXCAVATION (P)
CU YD
300
$
8.00
$
2,400.00
4
AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5
TON
500
$
10.00
$
5.000.00
5
TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,B)
TON
290
$
70.00
$
20,300.00
6
EROSION CONTROURESTORATION
LUMP SUM
1
$
2,000.00
$
2,000.00
7
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL FENCE
LIN FT
480
$
20.00
$
9,600.00
8
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL NETS
EA
2
$
1,750.00
$
3,500.00
9
COLOR COAT SYSTEM
LUMP SUM
1
$
8,000.00
$
8,000.00
Subtotal:
$
56,200.00
Contigency (10
%):
$
5,600.00
Indirects (30 %):
$
18,500.00
Schedule B Project Cost:
$
80,300.00
Schedule: C
Description: MEADOW GREEN PARK
Contract
Item No.
Item Description
Unit
Quantity Unit Price
Amount
1
MOBILIZATION
LUMP SUM
1 $ 1,000.00
$
1,000.00
2
FULL DEPTH BITUMINOUS PATCHING
SQ FT
850 $ 3.00
$
2,550.00
3
FULL DEPTH BITUMINOUS SAW CUT
LIN FT
800 $ 2.00
$
1,600.00
4
DRAIN TILE
LIN FT
300 $ 10.00
$
3,000.00
5
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL FENCE
LIN FT
50 $ 15.00
$
750.00
6
CRACK SEAL
LIN FT
600 $ 1.00
$
600.00
7
COLOR COAT SYSTEM
LUMP SUM
1 $ 8,000.00
$
8,000.00
Subtotal:
$
17,500.00
Contigency(10 %):
$
1,700.00
Indirects (30 0 /6):
$
5,800.00
Schedule C Project Cost:
$
25,000.00
Schedule:
D
Description:
LAKE SUSAN PARK
Contract
Item No.
Item Description
Unit
Quantity Unit
Price
Amount
1
MOBILIZATION
LUMP SUM
1 $
1,000.00
$
1,000.00
2
FULL DEPTH BITUMINOUS PATCHING
SQ FT
1050 $
3.00
$
3,150.00
3
FULL DEPTH BITUMINOUS SAW CUT
LIN FT
1000 $
2.00
$
2,000.00
4
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL FENCE
LIN FT
50 $
15.00
$
750.00
5
CRACK SEAL
LIN FT
200 $
1.00
$
200.00
6
COLOR COAT SYSTEM
LUMP SUM
1 $
8,000.00
$
8,000.00
Subtotal:
$
15,100.00
Contigency(10 %):
$
1,500.00
Indirects (30 %):
$
5,000.00
Schedule D Project Cost:
$
21,600.00
Schedule:
E
Description:
SOUTH LOTUS LAKE PARK
Contract
Item No.
Item Description
Unit
Quantity Unit Price
Amount
1
MOBILIZATION
LUMP SUM
1 $
1,000.00
$
1,000.00
2
FULL DEPTH BITUMINOUS PATCHING
SQ FT
1000 $
3.00
$
3,000.00
3
FULL DEPTH BITUMINOUS SAW CUT
LIN FT
950 $
2.00
$
1,900.00
4
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL FENCE
LIN FT
50 $
15.00
$
750.00
5
CRACK SEAL
LIN FT
150 $
1.00
$
150.00
6
COLOR COAT SYSTEM
LUMP SUM
1 $
8,000.00
$
8,000.00
Subtotal:
$
14,800.00
Contigency (10 0 /6):
$
1,500.00
Indirects (30 0 /6):
$
4,900.00
Schedule E Project Cost:
$
21,200.00
COST SUMMARY
Owner:
City of Chanhassen
Project:
Tennis Courts
Description
Amount
CHANHASSEN REC CENTER
$
129,100.00
NORTH LOTUS LAKE PARK
$
80,300.00
MEADOW GREEN PARK
$
25,000.00
LAKE SUSAN PARK
$
21,600.00
SOUTH LOTUS LAKE PARK
$
21,200.00
Total Project Cost $ 277,200.00
APPENDIX D
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Geotechnical Evaluation Report
Tennis Court Improvements
Chanhassen Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Prepared for
Kimley -Horn and Associates
Professional 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,
PR - C:;�,.u;NAL
Matthew P. Ru le , PE ENGINEER
Principal Engineer s�A' 40935 • �
August 1 2011
License N : 40935 MINN,��o�``
rn
Project BL -11 -03187
Braun Intertec Corporation
BRAUN
INTE:RTEC
August 11, 2011
Mr. Eric Fosmo, PE
Kimley -Horn and Associates
2550 University Ave. W., Suite 238N
St. Paul, MN 55114
Re: Geotechnical Evaluation
Tennis Court Improvements
Chanhassen Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Fosmo:
Braun Intertec Corporation 1i
Project BL -11 -03187
We are pleased to present this Geotechnical Evaluation Report for the tennis court improvements at the
Chanhassen Recreation Center. A brief summary of our results and recommendations is presented
below. More detailed information and recommendations follow within the report. The report should be
read in its entirety.
Summary of Results
Two hand auger borings were performed through cores taken within the two southern tennis courts at
the recreation center. Below a pavement section, the hand augers found 1 to 11/2 feet of poorly graded
sand with silt (sand subbase) overlying sandy lean clay soils. The sand and aggregate base were
waterbearing below the pavement at the southeast boring location.
Summary of Recommendations
The underlying sandy lean clay soils are moderately to highly frost susceptible. The borings also indicate
the sand subbase underlying the tennis court pavement section is retaining water. The trapped or
retained water is likely significantly increasing the magnitude of the frost heave amounts across the
tennis courts.
To reduce frost heave, we recommend increasing the depth of the sand subbase and more importantly,
installing a significant draintile system in the bottom of the sand subbase to remove water. The greater
the thickness of sand subbase, the greater the long -term performance of the tennis court/pavement
section, assuming the sand is properly drained. We recommend a minimum of two feet of sand subbase
and preferably up to four feet of sand material,
Pr,nuling engineering and rntvrrmmentaI soITiIoms uncc IQ
Kimley -Horn and Associates
Project BL -11 -03187
August 11, 20111
Page 2
Remarks
Thank you for making Braun Intertec your geotechnical consultant for this project. If you have questions
about this report, or if there are other services that we can provide in support of our work to date, please
call Matt Ruble at 952.995.2224 or Josh Van Abel at 952.995.2310.
Sincerely,
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
Matthew P. Ruble, PE
Principal Engineer
Joshua J. Van Abel, PE 0
Associate — Senior Engineer
GeoRpt- Tennis Court Improvements
BRAUN
I NTE RTEC
Table of Contents
Description
Page
A .
Introduction ........................................................................................................ ..............................1
A .1.
Project Description ................................................................................ ..............................1
A .2.
Purpose .................................................................................................. ..............................1
A .3.
Scope of Services ................................................................................... ..............................1
B .
Results
................................................................................................................ ..............................2
B.1.
Boring Locations .................................................................................... ..............................2
B.2.
Boring Logs ............................................................................................ ..............................2
B.3.
Geologic Profile ..................................................................................... ..............................2
B.3.a. Geologic Materials ................................................................... ..............................2
B.3.b. Groundwater ............................................................................ ..............................3
B.4.
Laboratory Test Results ......................................................................... ..............................3
C.
Basis for
Recommendations ............................................................................... ..............................3
C.1.
Design Details ........................................................................................ ..............................3
C.1.a. Proposed Renovations ............................................................. ..............................3
C.1.b. Anticipated Grade Changes ...................................................... ..............................3
C.2.
Design Considerations ........................................................................... ..............................3
C.3.
Construction Considerations ................................................................. ..............................4
D .
Recommendations ............................................................................................. ..............................5
D.1.
Building and Pavement Subgrade Preparation ..................................... ..............................5
D.1.a. Excavations ............................................................................... ..............................5
D.1.b. Excavation Dewatering ............................................................. ..............................6
D.1.c. Selecting Excavation Backfill and Additional Required Fill ....... ..............................6
D.1.d. Placement and Compaction of Backfill and Fill ........................ ..............................6
D.1.e. Drainage Control ...................................................................... ..............................6
D.1.f. Subgrade Proof -Roll ................................................................. ..............................7
D.2.
Construction Quality Control ................................................................ ..............................7
D.2.a. Excavation Observations .......................................................... ..............................7
D.2.b. Materials Testing ...................................................................... ..............................7
D.2.c. Pavement Subgrade Proof -Roll ................................................ ..............................7
D.2.d. Cold Weather Precautions ....................................................... ..............................7
E .
Procedures .......................................................................................................... ..............................8
E.1.
Hand Auger Borings ............................................................................... ..............................8
E.2.
Material Classification and Testing ....................................................... ..............................8
E.3.
Groundwater Measurements ................................................................ ..............................8
F .
Qualifications ...................................................................................................... ..............................8
F.1.
Variations in Subsurface Conditions ...................................................... ..............................8
F.1.a. Material Strata ......................................................................... ..............................8
F.1.b. Groundwater Levels ................................................................. ..............................9
Table of Contents (continued)
Description
Page
F.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility .............................................. ..............................9
F.2.a. Plan Review .............................................................................. ..............................9
F.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing ................................... ..............................9
F.3. Use of Report ......................................................................................... ..............................9
F.4. Standard of Care .................................................................................... ..............................9
Appendix
Soil Boring Location Sketch
Log of Hand Auger Boring Sheets (HAB -1 and HAB -2)
Descriptive Terminology
BRAUN
I NTE RTEC
A. Introduction
A.1. Project Description
This Geotechnical Evaluation Report addresses proposed improvements to the southern two tennis
courts at the Chanhassen Recreation Center, located at 2310 Coulter Boulevard in Chanhassen,
Minnesota. We understand the existing southern courts have undergone apparent frost heave to the
extent that they are no longer playable.
To aid in evaluation and reconstruction of the tennis courts, we have been contracted by the City of
Chanhassen's design consultant, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley- Horn), to perform field
exploration services and perform this geotechnical evaluation.
A.2. Purpose
The purpose of the geotechnical evaluation was to extend hand auger borings below the poorly
performing courts to evaluate the soil and groundwater conditions and provide recommendations for
tennis court reconstruction to reduce frost heave.
A.3. Scope of Services
Our scope of services for this project was originally submitted as a Proposal to Mr. Eric Fosmo of Kimley -
Horn. We received authorization to proceed from Kimley -Horn on July 25, 2011 in Project Order Number
One to our Master Service Agreement with Kimley -Horn. Tasks performed in accordance with our
authorized scope of services included:
■ Staking and clearing exploration locations of underground utilities.
■ Performing coring of the bituminous pavement at two locations within the southern tennis
courts at the recreation center and performing hand auger borings to a nominal depth of
5 feet below grade at the coring locations.
■ Performing laboratory sieve analysis tests on selected test samples.
■ Preparing this report containing a boring location sketch, boring exploration logs, a summary
of the geologic materials encountered, results of laboratory tests, and recommendations for
structure subgrade preparation and the reconstruction of the tennis courts.
BRAUN
INTERTEC
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project BL -11 -03187
August 9, 2011
Page 2
B. Results
B.I. Boring Locations
We performed two hand auger borings through the southern tennis courts, denoted as HAB -1 and
HAB -2. The hand auger borings were performed at the approximate locations shown on the Soil Boring
Location Sketch included in the Appendix.
The hand auger locations were selected in the field by Braun Intertec personnel. Hand auger locations
and surface elevations at the exploration locations were recorded using GPS (Global Positioning System)
technology that utilizes the Minnesota Department of Transportation's permanent GPS Virtual Reference
Network (VRN).
B.2. Boring Logs
Log of Hand Auger Boring sheets for our hand auger borings are included in the Appendix. The logs
identify and describe the geologic materials that were penetrated, laboratory tests performed on
samples retrieved from them.
Strata boundaries were inferred from changes in the boring auger cuttings. The boundary depths likely
vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries themselves may also occur as gradual rather
than abrupt transitions.
B.3. Geologic Profile
B.3.a. Geologic Materials
The hand augers (and coring) found approximately 41/2 to 4 3/4 inches of bituminous pavement over
4 to 13 inches of aggregate base. Below the pavement section, the borings encountered approximately
1 to 11/2 feet of poorly graded sand with silt. Sandy lean clay was encountered below the poorly graded
sand with silt to the 5 -foot termination depths at both borings.
Please note, a differentiation between fill and native soils was not made on the Log of Hand Auger Sheets
or within this report, as the borings were not performed to depths necessary to determine geologic
origins of the material encountered.
BRAUN
INTERTEC
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project BL -11 -03187
August 9, 2011
Page 3
6.3.1b. Groundwater
The aggregate base and the poorly graded sand with silt encountered in the southeasterly boring (HAB -2)
were waterbearing at the time of drilling. The sand in the northwesterly boring (HAB -1) appeared moist,
but was not waterbearing at the time of drilling. The underlying clay was wet at both locations.
13.4. Laboratory Test Results
We performed moisture content and percent passing the number 200 sieve tests on samples of the sand
recovered from both boring locations in accordance with ASTIVI procedures. The moisture content
results ranged from approximately 6 to 11 percent and the sieve analysis results ranged from
approximately 7 to 9 percent passing the number 200 sieve. The sieve analyses indicate the soils consist
of poorly graded sand with silt. The moisture content result from the sand within the southeasterly
boring is anticipated to be below the in -situ moisture content, as it is difficult to accurately sample
waterbearing sands and a significant amount of water likely escaped during sampling.
C. Basis for Recommendations
C.1. Design Details
C.1.a. Proposed Renovations
It is our understanding the pavement sections of the tennis courts will be reconstructed, including
reconstruction of the pavement section and improvements to the subgrade. Improvements beyond the
reconstruction of the tennis courts are not anticipated.
C.1.b. Anticipated Grade Changes
It is our presumption the future tennis court grades will remain the same. If the grades are proposed to
be changed by more than one foot, we should be consulted to review our recommendations to
determine if they need to be modified.
C.2. Design Considerations
It is our professional opinion the deterioration of the pavement section is a result of excessive frost
heave related to a combination of inadequate drainage of the tennis court subgrade and limited
thickness of the non -frost susceptible sand subbase. The underlying sandy lean clays below the sand
BRAUN
INTERTEC
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project BL -11 -03187
August 9, 2011
Page 4
subbase are frost susceptible and will normally undergo heave related to freeze /thaw cycles, however,
the apparent lack of subgrade drainage and saturation of these soils has likely increased the magnitude
of this frost heave. Also, the trapped water within the subbase and aggregate base may be forming ice
lenses or simply exceeding the void capacity within these soils during freezing, further increasing the
overall magnitude of the heave related movement affecting the pavement.
For frost protection of pavements intolerant of surface movement and cracking, such as tennis courts,
the greater the thickness of sand typically the better for performance of the pavement section and there
is fewer settlement cracks and unlevel areas. We recommend a minimum of two feet of sand subbase
and ideally four or five feet of sand should be used. There will likely be some frost heaving of the
pavement section even with four or five feet of sand, however the amount of heaving is typically less and
is less noticeable than if a two foot section is used.
Regardless of what section of sand is used, it is critical that more draintile is used and there is better
grading of the surface of the clay subgrade then the current section. There is around two feet of sand in
the current section, but there is not enough drain tile and the water is not running off of the surface of
the clay away from the courts.
It is also important to grade the areas around the tennis courts to direct water away from the courts in all
directions and for the perimeter of the courts and landscaping around the courts to be capped with
enough clayey soil or pavement to limit water infiltration into the sand subbase.
C.3. Construction Considerations
From a construction perspective, the project team and contractor should also be aware that:
■ Dewatering will likely be needed to remove water from the excavations. There exists the
possibility that waterbearing sand lenses exist in the underlying clays and are bringing water
into the sand subbase.
■ The onsite clays will need to be dried to facilitate compaction and are very moisture sensitive
and can easily be disturbed by construction traffic. Some subcutting of the clays (beyond the
sand subbase depth) may be required to provide a stable subgrade for fill support.
BRAUN
INTERTEC
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project BL -11 -03187
August 9, 2011
Page 5
■ The existing sand subbase could be reused for the new sand subbase, assuming it is not
contaminated with the underlying clays. However, we recommend a contingency be
provided in the budget in case the existing subbase is contaminated with the underlying clays
and cannot be salvaged. Additional sand subbase material would likely have to be imported
as needed.
■ From a geotechnical standpoint, the existing pavement section materials could be reclaimed
or milled for reuse, if acceptable to the owner and designer.
D. Recommendations
In accordance with our findings and discussions with Kimley -Horn, below are our recommendations for
reconstruction of the tennis courts.
D.1. Building and Pavement subgrade Preparation
D.1.a. Excavations
We recommend extending the sand subbase as far below the pavement section (bituminous and
aggregate base) as feasible. Ideally four feet and even five feet of sand base would be used below the
pavement section. We recommend against of using less than two feet of sand subbase. A geotechnical
engineer should observe all exposed subgrades below the tennis courts.
The clays in the bottom of excavation are anticipated to be wet and may be retaining water on top of
them, and will be very susceptible to construction traffic. Care should be taken to avoid disturbing the
onsite clayey soils.
Prior to placement of the sand subbase, the clays should be scarified and dried out enough such that
they can be proofrolled and do not exhibit signs of excessive rutting and deflection. Improving subgrade
compaction, sealing of the exposed surface of the clays and minimizing voids in the clays will help in
limiting water infiltration and subgrade drainage.
We recommend the surface of the clay subgrade be graded to provide drainage towards the perimeter of
the tennis courts and the draintile.
BRAUN
INTERTEC
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project BL -11 -03187
August 9, 2011
Page 6
D.1.b. Excavation Dewatering
We recommend removing water from the excavations prior to fill placement or subgrade compaction
and allowing the clays to dry as much as possible before driving construction traffic over them.
Waterbearing sand lenses were not observed in the clays within the borings, however, there is the
possibility sand seams are present and bringing water into the subbase, potentially resulting in additional
effort to remove groundwater.
D.1.c. Selecting Excavation Backfill and Additional Required Fill
We recommend fill and backfill placed within 4 feet of the pavement section subgrade consist of soils
with less than 50 percent of the particles by weight passing a number 40 sieve and less than 5 percent of
the particles passing a number 200 sieve. The exception would be the onsite sands from the existing
sand subbase, which we recommend can be reused if they contain less than 10 percent by weight passing
the number 200 sieve.
To limit the effects of frost heave around the court perimeters, we further recommend extending the
non -frost susceptible soils at least 2 feet horizontally beyond the court boundaries. All adjacent or
surrounding subgrades should be capped by impervious surfaces or a minimum of 1 foot of clayey topsoil
to limit water infiltration into the subgrade.
D.1.d. Placement and Compaction of Backfill and Fill
We recommend spreading backfill and fill in loose lifts of approximately 6 to 12 inches depending on the
size and type of compactor used. We recommend compacting backfill and fill in accordance with the
criteria presented below in Table 1.
Table 1. Compaction Recommendations Summary
D.1.e. Drainage Control
We recommend installing draintile at the base of the sand subbase, directly above the clay subgrade.
Perforated pipes encased in a filter "sock" should be used. At a minimum, we recommend the draintile
system include draintile around the perimeter of the courts and multiple lines running across the courts.
BRAUN
INTERTEC
Relative Compaction, percent
Reference
(ASTM D 698 — standard Proctor)
Below pavements (courts), within 3 feet of bottom of
98
aggregate base
Below pavements, more than 3 feet below bottom of
95
aggregate base
Below landscaped surfaces
90
D.1.e. Drainage Control
We recommend installing draintile at the base of the sand subbase, directly above the clay subgrade.
Perforated pipes encased in a filter "sock" should be used. At a minimum, we recommend the draintile
system include draintile around the perimeter of the courts and multiple lines running across the courts.
BRAUN
INTERTEC
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project BL -11 -03187
August 9, 2011
Page 7
Draintile is critical in improving subgrade performance and the more draintile below the courts the
better.
As previously mentioned, the top of the clay should be graded to promote drainage towards the
perimeter of the courts and the draintile, and to prevent trapping water within the clay subgrade.
We recommend grading exterior surfaces around the tennis courts away from the tennis courts. The
exterior surfaces should be capped with pavement or a minimum of one foot of clay soil.
D.1.f. Subgrade Proof -Roll
Prior to placing the sand subbase material, we recommend proof - rolling pavement subgrades to
determine if the subgrade materials are loose, soft or weak, and in need of further stabilization,
compaction or subexcavation and recompaction or replacement. A second proof -roll should be
performed after the aggregate base material is in place, and prior to placing bituminous.
D.2. Construction Quality Control
D.2.a. Excavation Observations
We recommend having a geotechnical engineer observe all excavations related to subgrade preparation
and tennis court construction. The purpose of the observations is to evaluate the competence of the
geologic materials exposed in the excavations, and the adequacy of required excavation oversizing and to
verify that waterbearing sand seams are not present in the clays and require further attention.
D.2.b. Materials Testing
We recommend density tests betaken in any additional required fill. MnDOT dynamic cone
penetrometer tests should be used for the aggregate base in addition to a proof -roll.
D.2.c. Pavement Subgrade Proof -Roll
We recommend that proof - rolling of the pavement subgrades be observed by a geotechnical engineer to
determine if the results of the procedure meet project specifications, or delineate the extent of
additional pavement subgrade preparation work.
D.2.d. Cold Weather Precautions
If site grading and construction is anticipated during cold weather, all snow and ice should be removed
from cut and fill areas prior to additional grading. No fill should be placed on frozen subgrades. No frozen
soils should be used as fill.
BRAUN
INTERTEC
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project BL -11 -03187
August 9, 2011
Page 8
E. Procedures
E.I. Hand Auger Borings
The hand auger borings were performed on July 28, 2011. The borings were performed using 11/2 -inch
diameter hand augers. Samples of each soil strata were taken and sealed in a glass jar. Representative
samples will remain in our Minneapolis office for a period of 60 days to be available for your
examination.
E.2. Material Classification and Testing
The geologic materials encountered were visually and manually classified in accordance with ASTM Test
Method D 2488. A chart explaining the classification system is attached. Samples were sealed in jars or
bags and returned to our facility for review and storage.
E.3. Groundwater Measurements
The field crews checked for groundwater as the borings were advanced. The boreholes were then
backfilled.
F. Qualifications
F.I. Variations in Subsurface Conditions
F.1.a. Material Strata
Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations were developed from a limited amount of site and
subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from
exploration locations continuously with depth, and therefore strata boundaries and thicknesses must be
inferred to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and can be expected to vary
in depth, elevation and thickness away from the exploration locations.
Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until
additional exploration work is completed, or construction commences. If any such variations are
BRAUN
INTERTEC
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project BL -11 -03187
August 9, 2011
Page 9
revealed, our recommendations should be re- evaluated. Such variations could increase construction
costs, and a contingency should be provided to accommodate them.
F.1.b. Groundwater Levels
Groundwater measurements were made under the conditions reported herein and shown on the
exploration logs, and interpreted in the text of this report. It should be noted that the observation
periods were relatively short, and groundwater can be expected to fluctuate in response to rainfall,
flooding, irrigation, seasonal freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications and other seasonal
and annual factors.
F.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility
F.2.a. Plan Review
This report is based on a limited amount of information, and a number of assumptions were necessary to
help us develop our recommendations. It is recommended that our firm review the geotechnical aspects
of the designs and specifications, and evaluate whether the design is as expected, if any design changes
have affected the validity of our recommendations, and if our recommendations have been correctly
interpreted and implemented in the designs and specifications.
F.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing
It is recommended that we be retained to perform observations and tests during construction. This will
allow correlation of the subsurface conditions encountered during construction with those encountered
by the borings, and provide continuity of professional responsibility.
F.3. Use of Report
This report is for the exclusive use of the parties to which it has been addressed. Without written
approval, we assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses
and recommendations may not be appropriate for other parties or projects.
F.4. Standard of Care
In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under
similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality. No
warranty, express or implied, is made.
BRAUN
I NTE RTEC
Appendix
BRAIN
INTERTEC
F 181.1201 1 1611 1 0 31 8 7 dwg.Geotecn 8 +8n011 10 3206 AM
ITO
. :;&k A
Nip
F0
IEL -1 0 1-
°..:.
IL
N
DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
HAND AUGER BORING
75' 0 150'
SCALE 1 "= 150'
Protect No BRAUN
o 81.1103187
DravnngNo SOIL BORING LOCATION SKETCH
BL1103187 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION I NTE RTEC
Scale 1 "= 150 CHANHASSEN REC CENTER TENNIS COURTS
rii Drawn By JAG 2310 COULTER BOULEVARD 11001 Hampshire Avenue So.
Date Drawn 8/8N1 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Minneapolis,
nH. (952)9 N 554 8
Checked By MPR
Last Modified. 818711
FAX (952) 995 -2020
BRAUN'"
I NTE RTEC
HAND AUGER BORING
Braun Project BL -11 -03187
HAND AUGER: HAB -1
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
Tennis Court Improvements
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
DRILLER: J. Miller
METHOD: Hand Auger
DATE: 7/28/11
SCALE: V = 4'
Elev.
Depth
feet
feet
ASTM
Description of Materials
BPF
WL
MC
P200
Tests or Notes
948.3
0.0
Symbol
(ASTM D2488 or D2487)
%
%
947.6
0.7
PAV
4 1/2 inches of bituminous over 4 inches of aggregate
Benchmark:
—
SP-
base.
Elevations were
946.3
2.0
SM
6
9
obtained using
GPS and the State
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
coarse - grained, with Gravel, brown, moist.
CL
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, brown, wet.
of Minnesota's
_
base
station network.
943.3
5.0
END OF BORING.
I
Boring immediately backfilled.
i
i
i
i
i —
i
i —
i
i
i -
BL -11 -03187 Braun Intertec Corporation HAB-1 page 1 of 1
BRAUN`
I NTE RTEC
HAND AUGER BORING
Braun Project BL -11 -03187
HAND AUGER: HAB -2
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
LOCATION: See attached sketch.
Tennis Court Improvements
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota
DRILLER: J. Miller
METHOD: Hand Auger
DATE: 7/28/11
SCALE: 1" = 4'
Elev.
Depth
feet
feet
ASTM
Description of Materials
BPF
WL
MC
P200
Tests or Notes
947.4
0.0
Symbol
(ASTM D2488 or D2487)
%
%
PAV
4 3/4 inches of bituminous over 13 inches of aggregate
Q
_
base.
An open triangle in
945.9
1.5
the water level
_
SP-
.`
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
(WL) column
944.5
2.9
SM
coarse - grained, with Gravel, brown, waterbearing.
11
7
indicates the depth
at which
_
CL
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with Gravel, grayish brown, wet.
groundwater was
—
N
observed while
942.4
5.0
drilling.
Groundwater
END OF BORING.
_
levels fluctuate.
Water observed at bottom of bituminous pavement
—
while drilling.
—
i
i—
I
i
I
Boring immediately backfilled.
nL 11-U3125/ Braun Intertec Corporation HA6-2 page 1 of 1
BRAUN
I NTE RTEC
Descriptive Terminology of Soil
Standard D 2487 - 00
Classification of Solis for Engineering Purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System)
Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and
Soils Classification
Group
Cobbles ...............................
Group Names Using Laboratory Tests a
Laboratory Tests
Symbol
Group Name b
o
Gravels
Clean Gravels
C S 4 and 15. C, < 3 c
GW
Well-graded gravel°
-o
° c
More than 50% of
coarse fraction
5% or less fines a
C ° <4 and /or 1 > C� >3 c
GP
Poorlygradedgravel d
U) ._ y
v
retained on
Gravels with Fines
Fines classify as ML or MH
GM
Silty gravel 119
Fines classify as CL or CH
GC
Clayey gravel d f9
c '. o
No. 4 sieve
More than 12% fines e
W $ N
Sands
Clean Sands
C ° .a 6 and 1 : C : 3 c
SW
Well- graded sand "
L r 6
50% or more of
5% or less fines'
C ° < 6 and /or 1 > C 3 c
SP
Poorly graded sand ^
m .
coarse fraction
Sands with Fines
Fines classify as ML or MH
SM
Silty sand f 9 h
0 o
passes
Fines classify as CL or CH
SC
Clayey sand f9 h
E
No. 4 sieve
More than 12 %
t
!� -
Silts and Clays
y
Inor 9
Inorganic
PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" line I
CL
Lean clay I m
PI < 4 or plots below "A" liner
ML
Silt k I m
o of
Liquid limit
Organic
Liquid limit - oven dried < 0 75
OL
Organic clay k ' m "
CO W L
less than 50
C m o
Liquid limit - not dried
OL
Organic silt
A `o C)
a) E m
Slits and clays
Inorganic
PI plots on or above "A" line
CH
Fat clay m
"A"
`o z
Liquid limit
PI lots below line
p
MH
Elastic silt k I m
Or Organic
g
Liquid limit -oven dried
< 0.75
OH
Organic clay k I m p
LL o
50 or more
°n
Li uid limit - not dried
OH
Organic silt k I m q
Highly Organic Soils
Primarily organic matter, dark in color and organic odor
PT
Peat
a. Based on the material passing the Sin (75mm) sieve.
b. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders or both" to group name.
c. Cu = D./ D to C o = (
D x D.
d. If soil contains>15% sand, add `With sand" to group name.
e. Gravels with 5 t 12% fines require dual symbols:
GW -GM well - graded gravel with silt
GW -GC well- graded gravel with clay
GP -GM poorly graded gravel with silt
GP -GC poorly graded gravel with clay
f. If fines classify as CL -ML, use dual symbol GC -GM or SC -SM.
g. If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name.
h. If soil contains ',?: 15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name.
i. Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:
SW -SM well- graded sand with silt
SW -SC well - graded sand with clay
SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt
SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay
j. IfAtterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL -ML, silty clay.
k Ifsoil contains 10to29% plus No. 200, add" withsand" or'ith gravel "whicheverispredominant.
I. If soil containQ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name.
m Ifsoil contains> 30% plus No.200 predominantly gravel, add"gravelly' to group name.
n. PI 2 4 and plots on or above "A" line.
o. PI <4 or plots below "A" line.
p. PI plots on or above "A" line.
q. PI plots below "A" line.
60
50
a 40
N
V
30
W 20
R
IL
10
7
4
0'
0
10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 110
Particle Size Identification
Boulders ...............................
Liquid Limit (LL)
Cobbles ...............................
3" to 12"
Laboratory Tests
DD
Dry density, pcf
OC Organic content, %
WD
Wet density, pcf
S Percent of saturation, %
MC
Natural moisture content, %
SG Specific gravity
LL
Liqiuid limit, %
C Cohesion, psf
PL
Plastic limit, %
0 Angle of internal friction
PI
Plasticity index, %
qu Unconfined compressive strength, psf
P200
% passing 200 sieve
qp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf
Particle Size Identification
Boulders ...............................
over 12"
Cobbles ...............................
3" to 12"
RMENJ
Medium ..... ...............................
Coarse ............................
3/4" to 3"
Fine .. ...............................
No. 4 to 314"
Sand
Very stiff .... ...............................
Coarse ............................
No. 4 to No. 10
Medium ...........................
No. 10 to No. 40
Fine .. ...............................
No. 40 to No. 200
Silt .......................................
<No. 200, PI <4 or
below "A" line
Clay .....................................
<No. 200, PI Z 4 and
on or above "A" line
Particle Size Identification
Boulders ...............................
over 12"
Cobbles ...............................
3" to 12"
Gravel
Medium ..... ...............................
Coarse ............................
3/4" to 3"
Fine .. ...............................
No. 4 to 314"
Sand
Very stiff .... ...............................
Coarse ............................
No. 4 to No. 10
Medium ...........................
No. 10 to No. 40
Fine .. ...............................
No. 40 to No. 200
Silt .......................................
<No. 200, PI <4 or
below "A" line
Clay .....................................
<No. 200, PI Z 4 and
on or above "A" line
Relative Density of
Cohesionless Soils
Very loose . ............................... 0 to 4 BPF
Loose ........ ............................... 5 to 10 BPF
Medium dense ......................... 11 to 30 BPF
Dense ....... ............................... 31 to 50 BPF
Very dense ............................... over 50 BPF
Consistency of Cohesive Soils
Very soft .... ...............................
0 to 1 BPF
Soft ........ ...............................
2 to 3 BPF
Rather soft ...............................
4 to 5 BPF
Medium ..... ...............................
6 to 8 BPF
Rather stiff ...............................
9 to 12 BPF
Stiff ........ ...............................
13 to 16 BPF
Very stiff .... ...............................
17 to 30 BPF
Hard ........ ...............................
over 30 BPF
Drilling Notes
Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 3 1/4" or 6 1/4"
ID hollow -stem augers unless noted otherwise, Jetting water was used
to clean out auger prior to sampling only where indicated on logs.
Standard penetration test borings are designated by the prefix "ST"
(Split Tube). All samples were taken with the standard 2" OD split -tube
sampler, except where noted.
Power auger borings were advanced by 4" or 6" diameter continuous -
flight, solid -stem augers. Soil classifications and strata depths were in-
ferred from disturbed samples augered to the surface and are, therefore,
somewhat approximate. Power auger borings are designated by the
prefix "B."
Hand auger borings were advanced manually with a 1 1/2" or 3 1/4"
diameter auger and were limited to the depth from which the auger could
be manually withdrawn. Hand auger borings are indicated by the prefix
"H."
BPF: Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard penetration
test, also known as "N" value. The sampler was set 6" into undisturbed
soil below the hollow -stem auger. Driving resistances were then counted
for second and third 6" increments and added to get BPF. Where they
differed significantly, they are reported in the following form: 2/12 forthe
second and third 6" increments, respectively.
WH: WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer
and rods alone; driving not required.
WR: WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rods
alone; hammer weight and driving not required.
TIN indicates thin - walled (undisturbed) tube sample.
Note: All tests were run in general accordance with applicable ASTM
standards.
Rev. 7/07
Tennis Courts
Maintenance History
1989
�®
-
1990
-
Year Built
-
1991
-
X
1992
m
Year Built
1993
-
1994
1995
Year Built
V
1996
1997
1999
X
X
X
X
2000
X
_.
X
2001
2002
2003
200
2005
a°°
-
2007
X*
X
X
X
2008
2009
2010
2011
Current Age
16 years
3 3 years
$:9 years
1 21 years
24 y
_ 24 y ears
19 years
X =
Resurface /Crack Seal
X* + North Courts Only
Tennis Courts
Future Maintenance
Chan Rec Ctr
City Center
Lake Ann
Lake Susan
Meadow Green
N. Lotus Lake
S. Lotus Lake
2012
XX (2 courts)
X
X
X
X
2013
2014
X
X
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
X
X
X
X
X
2020
2021
X
X
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
XX (2 courts)
XX
XX
XX
X
2027
2028
X
X
2029
- -
2030
2031
2032
2033
X
X
X
X
2034
2035
XX
XX
XX
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
X
X
X
X
2041
2042
X
X
X
X= Resurface /crack seal
XX= Reconstruct
Capital Improvement Program 2012 thru 2016 Department Park & Trail Improvements
City of Chanhassen, NM Contact Todd Hoffman
Project # PK &T -072 Type Improvement
Useful Life 25 years
Project Name Tennis Courts Category Park
Account #1 400 - 0000 -4706 Account #3 Priority n/a
Account #2 Account #4
Descripti Total Project Cost: $200,000
Re -build two courts at the Chanhassen Recreation Center, patch and resurface remainder of courts.
Justification
We have deliberately limited the number of courts constructed within our system to lower overall maintenance costs associated with tennis courts.
The courts we do offer are kept in playable condition through patching and resurfacing on a six to ten year cycle.
B udget hnpact/Other
daintenance and operations costs.
Expenditures
2012 2013
2014 2015
2016 Total
Maintenance
125,000
75,000
200,000
Total
Funding Sources
125,000
2012 2013
75,000
2014 2015
200,000
2016 Total
Capital Replacement Fund
125,000
75,000
200,000
Total
125,000
75,000
200,000
B udget hnpact/Other
daintenance and operations costs.
City of Chanhassen, MN
Capital Improvement Program
2012 thru 2016
PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE
Source
Project# Priority 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
Capital Replacement Fund
Tennis Courts PK &T -072
Recreation Center Fitness Equipment PK &T -079
Skate Park Ramp Replacement & Asphalt Resurfacing PK &T -093
Capital Replacement Fund Total
Park Dedication Fund
200,000
Picnic Tables/Park Benches
PK &T -042
Trees
PK &T -043
Hwy 41 Pedestrian Underpass/Trail Grant Match
PK &T -069
Bluff Creek Drive Gap Trail
PK &T -083
Disc Golf Course Construction
PK &T -085
Pedestrian Trail to Arboretum
PK &T -098
Chanhassen Native Preserve Trail, Final Phase
PK &T -099
Pioneer Pass Neighborhood Park Development -Phase 1
PK &T -109
Hwy 41 Trail Extension /Stairway
PK &T -110
Herman Field Park Half Court Basketball
PK &T -113
Bandimere Community Park Expansion
PK &T -114
Riley Ridge Neighborhood Park Development -Phase 1
PK &T -115
Rice Marsh Lake Trail Loop Planning
PK &T -116
TH5 Improvements - TH41 to Downtown Victoria
ST -025
TH 101 /Pleasant View Rd Intersection & Trail Imp
ST -027
Park Dedication Fund Total
n/a 125,000 75,000
200,000
n/a 10,000
10,000
n/a 110,000
110,000
245,000 75,000
320,000
n/a
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
50,000
n/a
15,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
115,000
n/a
633,000
633,000
n/a
75,000
75,000
n/a
10,000
10,000
n/a
275,000
275,000
n/a
90,000
90,000
n/a
350,000
350,000
n/a
205,000
205,000
n/a
10,000
10,000
n/a
500,000
500,000
n/a
200,000
200,000
n/a
10,000
10,000
n/a
80,000
80,000
n/a
95,000
95,000
1,568,000
385,000
235,000
385,000
125,000
2,698,000
GRAND TOTAL 1,813,000 385,000 310,000 385,000 125,000 3,018,000
Park Ded Fund Projection
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Beginning Fund Balance
2,088,246
2,443,214
998,607
696,607
541,607
233,607
Revenue
Dedication Fees
30,000
75,000
75,000
75,000
75,000
75,000
Memorial Bench
1,000
-
-
-
-
-
Transfer In
647,000
-
-_
-
-
-
Interest
25,000
15,000
8,000
5,000
2,000
-
Total Revenue
703,000
90,000
83,000
80,000
77,000
75,000
Expense
Memorial Bench
872
-
-
-
-
_
Picnic Tables /Park Benches (PK &T -042)
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Trees (PK &T -043
25,000
15,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
Hwy 41 Pedestr Underpass /Trail Grant Match (PK &T -069)
301
633,000
-
-
-
-
Bluff Creek Drive Gap Trail (PK &T -083)
12,825
-
-
-
75,000
-
Disc Golf Course C onstruction (PK &T -085)
-
10,000
-
-
-
-
_ _
_ T rail to Arboretum (PK &T -098)
12,825
_
-
-
-
275,000
-
Ch Nat Preserve Trail, Final Phase (PK &T -099)
-
-
!
-
-
-
90,000
Pioneer Pass Neighborhood Park Development (PK &T -109)
419
-
350,000
_
-
-
-
Hwy 41 Trail Extension /Stairway (PK &T -110)
12,993
192,007
-
-
-
-
Herman Field Park Half Court Basketball (PK &T -113)
-
10,000
-
-
-
-
Bandimere Community Park Expansion (PK &T -114)
-
500,000
-
Riley Ridge Neighborhood Park Acquisition
202,396
-
-
-
-
-
Riley Ridge Neighb orhood Park Dvlpmnt -Phase 1 (PK &T -115)
50,000
-
200,000
-
-
Rice Marsh Lake Trail Loop Planning (PK &T -116)
-
10,000
-
-
-
-
TH5 Improvement - TH41 to Downtown Victoria (ST -025)
20,399
_
59,601
_
TH /P leasant View Rd Intersection & Trail Imp (ST -027)
95,000
Total Expense
-
348,032
_
1,534,607
385,000
235,000
385,000
1 125,000
--
Ending Fund Balance
2,443,214
998,607
1 696,607
541,607
233,607
183,607