Loading...
7.1. SR 02-04-2013 Elk REQUEST FOR ACTION River TO ITEM NUMBER Mayor and City Council 7.1 AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY Public Hearings February 4, 2013 Justin Femrite, City Engineer ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By Resolution Ordering the Improvement and Preparation of Plans Suzanne Fischer, Community Operations & and Specifications in the Matter of the 2013 Street Improvement Development Director Project REVIEWED BY Cal Portner, City Administrator ACTION REQUESTED 1. Mayor Dietz to open and close public hearing. 2. Adopt by motion resolution ordering the improvement and preparation of plans and specifications for the 2013 Street Improvement project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION This item is scheduled for a public hearing. WSB &Associates will present the proposed improvements. They will provide an overview the project, similar to the presentation from January 7, 2013, feasibility report. An open house was held for all residents along the project on December 13, 2012. At the open house, staff was available to answer questions related to the proposed improvements. Upon conclusion of the presentation,the Mayor should open the public hearing to take comment on the improvements. Upon considering the comments received at the hearing, staff will ask the City Council to adopt the attached resolution that orders the improvement and authorizes the preparation of plans and specifications. FINANCIAL IMPACT The estimated project costs have been detailed in the attached feasibility report. No expenditures above previously approved engineering fees are required with the adoption of the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS ■ 2013 Street Improvement Feasibility Report ■ Resolution Ordering the Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications Action Motion by Second by Vote Follow Up paw IeEa 0 NATUREI City of E lk -� River City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway • Elk River,Minnesota 55330 W FEASI BI LIT ) Report January 7,2013 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River Sherburne County, Minnesota WSB Project No. 1992-01 - 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 WSB Minneapolis,MN 55416 Tel:(763)541-4800 • Fax:(763)541-1700 wsbeng.com FEASIBILITY REPORT 2013 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA January 7, 2013 Prepared By: WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 763-541-4800 763-541-1700 (Fax) Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 ■ WS p Associales,Inc. engineering-planning-environmental-construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis,MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 January 7, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway NW Elk River, MN 55330 Re: Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN W SB Project No. 1992-01 Honorable Mayor and City Council: Transmitted herewith for your review is a feasibility report which addresses improvements associated with the 2013 Street Improvement Project. This feasibility report describes the necessary improvements and associated costs for this street improvement project. I am available at your convenience to discuss this report. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 763-287-8520 if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, TAssociates,Inc. . Wedel, PE Project Manager Enclosure St.Cloud• Minneapolis•St.Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com 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. ason C. Wedel, PE Date: January 7 /13 Lic. No. 26768 Prepared By: Katie A. Kasper, EI Date: January 7, 2013 Quality Control Review Completed By: Y ngq Date: January 7, 2013 City Quality Control Re iew Completed B Justin Fem*1 PE Date: January 7, 2013 Lic. No. 44658 Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE SHEET LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL CERTIFICATION SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................1 2. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT..........................................................3 2.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................3 2.1.1 Authorization.........................................................................................................3 2.1.2 Scope......................................................................................................................3 2.1.3 Data Available.......................................................................................................3 2.2 General Background...........................................................................................................3 2.2.1 Project Location.....................................................................................................3 2.3 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................4 2.3.1 Surface...................................................................................................................4 2.3.2 Storm Sewer...........................................................................................................8 2.3.3 Water Main............................................................................................................8 2.3.4 Sanitary Sewer.......................................................................................................8 2.4 Proposed Improvements .....................................................................................................9 2.4.1 Surface...................................................................................................................9 2.4.2 Storm Sewer......................................................................................................... 11 2.4.3 Water Main Improvements.................................................................................. 11 2.4.4 Sanitary Sewer Improvements............................................................................. 12 2.4.5 Mailbox Replacement.......................................................................................... 12 2.5 Permits/Approvals............................................................................................................ 12 2.6 Construction Traffic.......................................................................................................... 12 2.7 Public Involvement........................................................................................................... 13 3. FINANCING................................................................................................................................14 3.1 Opinion of Cost................................................................................................................. 14 3.2 Funding............................................................................................................................. 14 4. PROJECT SCHEDULE..............................................................................................................16 5. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION...........................................................................17 Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Appendix A Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Typical Section—Eagle Marsh,Hillside Estates,K&L Addition, and The Woods at Hillside 4"'Addition Figure 3: Typical Section—202nd Avenue NW Figure 4: Typical Section—Country Side Acres and Avon Acres Figure 5: Typical Section—Deerfield 4b Addition and Meadowvale Heights Figure 6: Typical Section—Royal Oaks Ridge and Irving Avenue NW Figure 7: Typical Section—Evans Avenue NW and 4"'Street Figure 8: Typical Section—4"'Street Figure 9: Typical Section— 185tb Avenue NW Figure 10: Typical Section—Business Center Drive and Gary Street Figure 11: Typical Section—Railroad Drive Figure 12: Typical Section—Residential: 3rd Street NW Figure 13: Typical Section—Commercial: 3rd Street NW Appendix B Figure L Irving Avenue/3rd Street/Railroad Drive Proposed Improvements Appendix C 2013 Street Improvement Project Opinion of Probable Cost Appendix D Assessment Map ID — Eagle Marsh Assessment Map ID — Hillside Estates Assessment Map ID — K&L Addition Assessment Map ID — The Woods at Hillside 4cn Addition Assessment Map ID — 202nd Avenue NW Assessment Map ID — Country Side Acres Assessment Map ID — Avon Acres Assessment Map ID — Deerfield e Addition Assessment Map ID — Meadowvale Heights Assessment Map ID — Royal Oaks Ridge Assessment Map ID — 185b Avenue NW Assessment Map ID — Business Center Drive and Gary Street Assessment Map ID — 4"'Street,Railroad Drive, 3rd Street,Irving Avenue,Holt Avenue,Evans Avenue Appendix E Pavement Coring and Boring Forensics Report 2012 Geotechnical Report—Log of Test Borings Appendix F Public Comments Summary 185th Avenue Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Exhibit 185th Avenue Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Estimate Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2013 Street Improvement Project includes surface and utility improvements to the roadways listed below totaling approximately 40,149 feet(7.60 miles). Improvements include bituminous wear course paving for streets not completed during their original construction, edge mill and bituminous overlay, full depth reclamation, and full street and utility reconstruction. Bituminous Wear Course Paving Bituminous wear course improvements proposed for construction in 2013 consists of spot curb repair where needed and 11/2 inches of new bituminous placed on top of the existing bituminous base course. Bituminous wear course improvements are proposed along approximately 4,340 feet(0.82 miles) of variable width urban roadway sections and include the following roadways: • Lincoln Street NW located within the Eagle Marsh neighborhood • Carson Street NW/Dodge Street NW located within the Hillside Estates 10th Addition • Vance Street NW located within the K& L Addition • Local streets within The Woods at Hillside 4th Addition Edge Mill and Bituminous Overlay Edge mill and bituminous overlay improvements proposed for construction in 2013 include spot curb repair where needed, edge milling along the existing curb line and full width 11/2-inch bituminous overlay to increase the cross slope and promote positive drainage within the roadways. Edge mill and bituminous overlay improvements are proposed along approximately 8,255 feet (1.56 miles) of various 24-foot-wide rural streets and approximately 8,609 feet(1.63 miles) of 35-foot-wide to 40-foot-wide urban streets and include the following roadways: • Local streets within the Country Side Acres neighborhood • Highway 10 Frontage Road located within the Avon Acres 4th Addition • Carson Street NW located within the Deerfield 4th Addition • Local streets within the Meadowvale Heights neighborhood • Holt Avenue NW located between 4th Street NW and 3rd Street NW 202nd Avenue NW located between Zebulon Street NW and Meadowvale Road, approximately 3,400 feet (0.64 miles) of a 24-foot-wide rural roadway section, is also proposed for 11/2-inch bituminous overlay. However, since 202nd Avenue has a rural street section and only 2 inches of existing bituminous pavement,no edge milling will be included. Full Depth Reclamation Bituminous pavement reclamation improvements proposed for construction in 2013 include spot curb repair where needed, reuse of the existing aggregate roadway base and reconstructing the roadway to accommodate a section of 12 inches of approved subgrade, 6 inches of re-used aggregate base, and 31/2 inches of bituminous pavement. Bituminous pavement reclamation improvements are proposed along approximately 7,240 (1.37 miles) of various 35-foot-wide to 40-foot-wide urban streets and include the following roadways: • Local streets within the Royal Oaks Ridge neighborhood • Evans Avenue NW located between Main Street NW and the north terminus Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page I • 4th Street NW located between Jackson Street NW and Gates Avenue NW • Irving Avenue NW located between 4th Street NW and 3rd Street NW Full Street and Utility Reconstruction Full street and utility reconstruction improvements proposed for construction in 2013 include curb and bituminous pavement removal and subgrade corrections to accommodate a roadway section of approved subgrade, 8 inches of aggregate base, and 31/2 inches of bituminous pavement. Full street reconstruction improvements are proposed along approximately 8,305 (1.57 miles) of various 22-foot-wide (edge of bituminous to edge of bituminous) to 40-foot-wide (edge of bituminous to edge of bituminous)rural streets and include the following roadways: • 185th Avenue NW located between Troy Street NW and Naples Street NW • Business Center Drive located between Joplin Street NW and Gary Street • Gary Street located between Business Center Drive and State Highway 10 • Lowell Avenue NW located between Railroad Drive and King Avenue • 4th Street NW located between King Avenue and Jackson Avenue NW • Railroad Drive located between Jackson Street NW and Main Street NW • 3rd Street NW located between Railroad Drive and Evans Avenue NW Additionally, water main improvements have been identified along 185th Avenue NW, 3rd Street NW, and 4t Street NW between King Avenue and Jackson Street NW. Water main improvements include installing new water main along 185th Avenue and replacing existing undersized water main along the remaining roadways identified above. Replacing portions of the City's utility infrastructure in conjunction with the proposed street improvements provides an opportunity to minimize the replacement costs and traffic disruptions associated with the work. The proposed utility improvements also include the installation of additional storm sewer facilities and the repair of structurally deficient sewer and manholes. The total estimated project cost for the 2013 Street Improvement Project is $3,685,805.20. The proposed estimated cost is summarized as follows: Surface Improvements $ 2,988,638.40 Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 63,250.00 Water Main Improvements $ 539,307.45 Storm Sewer Improvements $ 94,609.35 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 3,685,805.20 Proposed funding for the project is summarized as follows: City Capital Improvement Funds $ 1,868,680.00 Elk River Municipal Utility Funds $ 539,307.45 Special Assessments $ 1,277,819.75 Total Project Funding $ 3,685,805.20 It is proposed that construction begin in June 2013 and be completed, including all restoration items, by the end of September 2013. This project is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint, and should be constructed as proposed herein. Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 2 2. STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 Authorization On October 15, 2012, the Elk River City Council authorized the preparation of an engineering feasibility report for the 2013 Street Improvement Project. 2.1.2 Scope The 2013 Street Improvement Project includes bituminous wear course improvements to past incomplete roadway projects, edge mill and full width overlay improvements, full depth reclamation improvements, and full street reconstruction improvements. Utility infrastructure repairs and replacements are also proposed to be completed in conjunction with the various surface improvements. 2.1.3 Data Available Information and materials used in the preparation of this report include the following: • City of Elk River Record Plans • City of Elk River Topography Maps • City of Elk River Pavement Management Program • Discussions with City Staff • Field Observations of the Area • Bituminous Coring Logs and Pavement Core Report,WSB & Associates, Inc., dated December 4, 2012 • Geotechnical Evaluation Report, American Engineering Testing, dated December, 2012 2.2 General Background 2.2.1 Project Location The streets and neighborhoods proposed for improvements include: Bituminous Wear Course Paving • Eagle Marsh • Hillside Estates • K& L Addition • The Woods at Hillside Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 3 Edge Mill and Bituminous Overlay • 202"d Avenue NW • Avon Acres • Country Side Acres • Deerfield 4th Addition • Holt Avenue NW • Meadowvale Heights Full Depth Reclamation • 4th Street NW • Evans Avenue NW • Irving Avenue NW • Royal Oaks Ridge Full Street and Utility Reconstruction • 185th Avenue NW • 3rd Street NW • 4th Street • Business Center Drive • Gary Street • Railroad Drive Specific street information within the proposed improvement areas can be found in Table 1 of this report. Project areas are shown in Figure 1 of Appendix A of this report. 2.3 Existing Conditions 2.3.1 Surface Streets within the proposed improvement areas are aging and experiencing differing severities of alligator cracking, edge cracking, longitudinal cracking, and transverse cracking. The curb and gutter is in fair condition; however, some cracking and settlements have resulted in isolated drainage issues and additional pavement distress. The table on the following page provides a summary of existing street conditions within the 2013 Street Improvement Project: Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 4 Table 1—2013 Street Improvement Project Summary of Existing Street Conditions Width Street Name Length (feet) From To Sub-grade/ Avg.Bit. Year (feet) — Depth Section Constructed* Eagle Marsh(Wear Course) 770 feet south of No Boring 2"—Non- Lincoln Street 180th south 1065 32-70 180 Avenue Information Wear 2006 NW NW terminus Available Course Hillside Estates(Wear Course) Dodge Street th 1200 feet No Boring 2"—Non- NW 1200 30 196 Lane NW southwest Information Wear 2006 Available Course Dodge Street No Boring 2"—Non- Dodge Street 2006 cul-de-sac 350 30 NW east terminus Information Wear NW Available Course K&L Addition(Wear Course) Vance Street north No Boring 2"—Non- NW 715 28 173 rd Avenue terminus Information Wear 2004 Available Course The Woods at Hillside(Wear Course) 1941h Court Xavier Street No Boring NW 390 30 NW west terminus Information 3.5" 2005 Available h No Boring 2"—Non- 194 Circle Xavier Street NW 315 30 NW east terminus Information Wear 2005 Available Course Xavier Street th 193rd Avenue No Boring 2"—Non- NW 115 30 194 Circle NW NW Information Wear 2005 Available Course 202nd Avenue (Overlay) 202nd Avenue Zebulon Street Meadowvale No Boring NW 3400 24 NW Road Information 2" 1986 Available Country Side Acres(Overlay) Ironton Street Meadowvale 1981h Avenue No Boring NW 2450 26 Road NW Information 5.5" 1988 Available Gary Street 2001h Avenue 198th Avenue No Boring NW 2100 25 NW NW Information 3.75" 1988 Available 2001h Avenue Ironton Street Gary Street No Boring NW 600 25 NW NW Information 4" 1988 Available Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 5 Table 1—2013 Street Improvement Project Summary of Existing Street Conditions Width Street Name Length (feet) From To Sub-grade/ Avg.Bit. Year (feet) (feet) Depth Section Constructed* 199th Avenue Ironton Street No Boring NW 1030 24 NW CR 1 Information 3.75' 1988 Available 198th Avenue Ironton Avenue Gary Street No Boring NW 580 24 NW NW Information 4.75' 1988 Available 198-1/2 Circle Ironton Street No Boring No Coring NW 290 24 NW east terminus Information Information 1988 Available Available Avon Acres(Overlay) Highway 10 No Boring No Coring Edison Street northwest Frontage 1170 24 Information Information N/A Road NW terminus Information Available Deerfield 41h Addition(Overlay) Carson Street 192nd Avenue Baldwin No Boring NW 2080 30 NW Street NW Information 3" 1989 Available Meadowvale Heights(Overlay) h to No Boring No Coring Elgin Street 196 Avenue 195 Avenue NW 900 30 NW NW Information Information 1993 Available Available n No Boring No Coring Elgin Court 195 Avenue south NW 270 30 NW terminus Information Information 1993 Available Available n No Boring No Coring 195 Court 185 30 Elgin Street NW west terminus Information Information 1993 NW Available Available h 195 Avenue Denver Street No Boring No Coring NW 330 30 Elgin Street NW NW Information Information 1993 Available Available Denver 195th No Boring NW 1170 1170 30 NW 193rd Avenue Information 3.5" 1993 Available Denver Court 193rd Avenue southwest No Boring No Coring NW 417 30 NW terminus Information Information 1993 Available Available h No Boring No Coring 194 Avenue Denver Street NW 185 30 NW CR 44 Information Information 1993 Available Available 193rd Avenue Denver Street No Boring No Coring NW 170 30 NW CR 44 Information Information 1993 Available Available Elgin Drive Denver Street 192-1/2 Lane No Boring No Coring NW 1790 30 NW NW Information Information 1993 Available Available Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 6 Table 1—2013 Street Improvement Project Summary of Existing Street Conditions Width Street Name Length (feet) From To Sub-grade/ Avg.Bit. Year (feet) Depth Section Constructed* 192-1/2 Court southeast No Boring No Coring NW 342 30 Elgin Drive NW terminus Information Information 1993 Available Available 192-1/2 Lane Meadowvale No Boring NW 1090 30 Elgin Drive NW Road Information 3.5" 1993 Available Royal Oaks Ridge(Reclaim) 190-1/2 Baldwin Street Xavier Street 6"base/clay to 7" Avenue NW 1170 30 NW NW base/clay 5" 1988 h 6"base/sandy No Coring 190 Avenue Baldwin Street northeast NW 1900 30 NW terminus material with Information 1988 clay Available Zane Street 715 30 190-1/2 Avenue 190th Avenue 6"base/sandy 5" 1988 NW NW NW clay Xavier Street 425 30 190-1/2 Avenue 1901h Avenue 5"base/sandy 5" 1988 NW NW NW clay h No Boring No Coring Yale Circle 190 Avenue north NW 300 30 NW terminus Information Information 1988 Available Available Miscellaneous Roadways 185th Avenue Naples Street 8"concrete NW 2550 22-25 Troy Street NW NW rubble/silty sand 6" N,'A (Reconstruct) Business 6"concrete Center Drive 1475 26-74 Joplin Street NW Gary Street rubble/silty sand 2.5" N/A (Reconstruct) Gary Street Business Center State 2.5"-4" (Reconstruct) 1070 44-50 Drive Highway 10 aggregate/silty 2.5"-4" N/A sand 4th Street 5"aggregate/silty 350 24 Railroad Drive King Avenue 3.5" N/A (Reconstruct) sand 4th Street NW 370 28-30 King Avenue Jackson Street 7"base/sand with 3.75"to 6" N/A (Reclaim) NW mixed gravel west of Irving: sand w/silt Railroad east of Irving:6" Jackson Street Main Street Drive 1100 25-58 NW NW aggregate/3" 4.5" N/A (Reconstruct) bituminous pavement/silty sand Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 7 Table 1—2013 Street Improvement Project Summary of Existing Street Conditions Length Width Sub-grade/ Avg.Bit. Year Street Name (feet) (feet) From To Depth Section Constructed* east of Gates:3"- 4"aggregate/silty sand 3rd Street NW 1600 30-39 Irving Avenue Evan Avenue Vest of Gates:7" 3" N/A (Reconstruct) NW aggregate/sand west of Holt: silty sand(no aggregate) Irving Avenue NW 360 36 4th Street NW 3rd Street NW 3"base/sand 3" N/A (Reclaim) Holt Avenue No Boring No Coring (Overlay) 360 29 4 h Street NW 3 rd Street NW Information Information N/A Available Available Evans Avenue north 6"base/sand to NW 1320 33 Main Street NW terminus 8"base/sand 3"to 3.5" N/A (Reclaim) * Estimated date of base course pavement ** Edge of bituminous pavement to edge of bituminous pavement 2.3.2 Storm Sewer City record drawing information indicates that storm sewer facilities already exist within many of the 2013 Street Improvement Project areas. Historically, the existing storm sewer facilities throughout the majority of the 2013 Street Improvement Project area have proven adequate for drainage. No storm sewer currently exists along the following roadways: 202nd Avenue NW, 185th Avenue NW, Business Center Drive, Gary Street, 4th Street, Railroad Drive, and 3rd Street NW. Roadways utilize existing ditch systems to convey storm water. Water ponding issues have not been identified by the City. 2.3.3 Water Main The majority of the existing water main located within the 2013 Street Improvement Project area is in good condition and functions adequately with no water main breaks or freeze-ups identified by Elk River Municipal Utilities. 2.3.4 Sanitary Sewer The majority of the existing sanitary sewer located within the project area is in good conditions and does not warrant replacement. Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 8 In the winter of 2012/2013, the City's Sewer Department will televise the sanitary sewer pipe located within the down town area and inspect the sanitary sewer manholes to determine if replacement or repairs are necessary. 2.4 Proposed Improvements 2.4.1 Surface The proposed surface improvements included with the 2013 Street Improvement Project include bituminous wear course paving, edge mill and bituminous overlay improvements, full depth pavement reclamation, and full depth roadway and utility reconstruction. Streets within the Eagle Marsh, Hillside Estates,K& L Addition, and The Woods at Hillside 4th Addition are proposed to receive 11/2 inches of bituminous wear course. Streets within these neighborhoods did not receive the final wear course paving by their respective developers and will be paved with this project. All costs for these improvements will be assessed to the undeveloped lots in each development. Streets within the Country Side Acres, Avon Acres, Deerfield 4th Addition, Meadowvale Heights, Holt Avenue, and 202nd Avenue NW neighborhoods are proposed to receive an 8-foot-wide edge mill and 11/2-inch bituminous overlay to increase the pavement thickness and improve the cross slope of the existing roadway, further promoting drainage within the roadways. Structurally deficient concrete curb and gutter will also be replaced with the 2013 Street Improvement Project. Spot repair and replacement of broken and settled curb will be completed based on a field review of the site. Full depth roadway reclamation, in which the existing deteriorating roadway surface is reused as aggregate roadway base, is proposed due to the level of distress the bituminous pavement is experiencing in the proposed roadwayh reclamation areas. Streets within the Royal Oaks neighborhood, Evans Avenue NW, 4t Street NW between Jackson Street NW and Gates Avenue NW, and Irving Avenue NW are proposed to be reclaimed and reconstructed to the following section: 11/2 inches of bituminous wearing course, 2 inches of bituminous base course, and 6 inches of reclaimed aggregate base over an acceptable, compacted subgrade. All reclaimed streets will be constructed to a 2-percent cross-slope, further promoting drainage within the roadways. In addition, drain tile will be included as needed at low points to improve subgrade stability and deter premature deterioration of pavements similar to what has been experienced in parts of Royal Oaks Ridge. Roadways identified for full depth reclamation will be reconstructed to match existing street widths to reduce impacts to residential properties and salvage the existing concrete curb and gutter. Full street and utility reconstruction is proposed along 185th Avenue NW, Business Center Drive, Gary Street, 4th Street, 4th Street NW between King Avenue and Jackson Avenue NW, Railroad Drive, and 3rd Street NW. This work includes the removal of the existing bituminous roadway section and subgrade excavation to remove any unsuitable materials. The streets will be reconstructed to the City's urban 10-ton design standard, and are proposed to consist of the following section: 11/z inches of bituminous wearing Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 9 course, 2 inches of bituminous base course, and 8 inches of Class 5 aggregate base over an acceptable, compacted subgrade. 3rd Street will be similar; however, it will have 6 inches of Class 5 aggregate rather than the 8 inches proposed on the other streets due to it being a 7-ton design. All reconstructed streets will be re-established to include a 2- percent cross-slope, further promoting drainage within the roadways. Figure 2 through Figure 13 of Appendix A illustrates the proposed roadway sections. Included with the reconstruction is a proposed redesign of the intersection of Irving Avenue/3rd Street/Railroad Drive. These streets are not perpendicular to one another and therefore they intersect at angles that create driver confusion and impaired visibility. To address these concerns we are proposing a roundabout at this intersection. Figure 1 of Appendix B provides an exhibit of the proposed improvements. The proposed improvements also include providing angled parking along both sides of Railroad Drive between Jackson Street and Irving Avenue. The current mail drop off is proposed to be eliminated. Roadways identified for full street and utility reconstruction are proposed to be reconstructed to match existing street widths to reduce impacts to properties where feasible as a part of this project. 185th Avenue NW will be reconstructed to include new concrete curb and gutter along the north side of the roadway. Omitting curb along the south side of the roadway will allow storm water to sheet drain across the entire width of the roadway and maintain the existing ditch drainage system along the south side of the roadway. Additionally, the 10-foot-wide trail along the north side of the roadway is proposed to be extended from its current terminus to Waco Street. Along Business Center Drive and Gary Street, realignment of the roadway is proposed to eliminate the 90-degree elbow where the two roadways intersect. Business Center Drive and Gary Street will be reconstructed to a 40-foot (back-to-back)width with on street parking along both side of the roadway. The realignment of the roadway will be completed within the City owned property; therefore, easements will not be required in order to realign the road. Pedestrian improvements along Business Center Drive and Gary Street include extending the existing concrete walk along the north side of Business Center Drive from Joplin Street to Gary Street. The walk will further extend along the west side of Gary Street from Business Center Drive to State Highway 10. The proposed pedestrian improvements along Business Center Drive and Gary Street include the construction of traffic calming nodes (curb bump outs) at the intersections where concrete walk currently exists. The nodes would be constructed to narrow the roadway openings and shorten the crosswalk distance for pedestrians at these locations. Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 10 2.4.2 Storm Sewer Reconstruction of the streets also provides a timely opportunity to improve drainage within the project areas with the installation of additional storm sewer facilities. Potential drainage improvements to be evaluated with final design of the project include: • Installing concrete curb and utter and storm sewer improvements along Business Center Drive, Gary Street, 3r Street NW, Railroad Drive, and 4th Street. • Installing concrete curb and gutter and supplementing existing storm sewer facilities with the installation of additional catch basins along 185th Avenue NW. The location of the storm sewer improvements, as well as the water quality improvements such as rain gardens or infiltration swales, will be further evaluated during the final design phase of this project. Manholes, manhole castings and catch basin castings are also proposed to be repaired/replaced to meet current City storm sewer standards as a part of the 2013 Street Improvement Project. 2.4.3 Water Main Improvements Existing 4-inch Cast Iron Pipe (CIP) along 4th Street NW from Jackson Road NW to Gates Avenue NW and along 3rd Street NW is proposed to be replaced with 8-inch Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP). Existing copper services along 3rd Street NW will be removed and replaced to the right-of-way whereas services along 4th Street NW will remain in place and reconnected to the new 8-inch main. These improvements will provide benefits to the water system in the area by increasing the flow capacity and eliminating the old cast iron pipe. A new 8-inch connection loop is also proposed to be installed along 185th Avenue NW between Queens Way NW and Waco Street NW and between approximately 300 feet east of Pascal Avenue NW and Naples Street NW. The new connection loop will help to improve fire flow and water quality issues associated with dead end water main lines as they currently exist. At the neighborhood open house that was held on December 13, 2012, a property owner raised the question as to whether or not individual water services would be provided to the properties that front on 185th Avenue. Individual water services were not included as part of this feasibility study due to the lack of readily available sanitary sewer. It is anticipated that water services would be provided at the same time sanitary sewer is constructed in this area. Appendix F includes an exhibit and cost estimate to add water services to this project. Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 11 2.4.4 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Additional analysis will be completed during final design to identify sanitary sewer rehabilitation necessary along existing trunk sanitary sewer facilities to extend the life of the existing facilities until such time as they can be replaced with future road reconstruction projects. The City will be televising sanitary sewer within the proposed project areas during the winter of 2012/2013. As was described above with the proposed Water Main Improvements, sanitary sewer services were discussed at the neighborhood meeting on December 13, 2012, for the properties that have frontage on 185th Avenue. Sanitary sewer is not immediately available for this area and therefore they were not included as part of this feasibility study. Appendix F includes an exhibit and cost estimate to add sanitary services to this project. 2.4.5 Mailbox Replacement Where existing curb and gutter replacement and new curb and gutter is proposed, it is the City's intent to salvage and reinstall the existing mailboxes and mailbox supports that may be impacted with construction 2.5 Permits/Approvals An NPDES permit for construction activity will be required since more than one (1) acre will be disturbed by construction activities with the project. A permit from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)will also be required for the installation and replacement of water main facilities along 1851'Avenue NW, 4a' Street NW, and 3rd Street NW. A permit from MnDOT for drainage changes and potentially traffic control related to the Gary Street. 2.6 Construction Traffic The contractor will be responsible for providing access to all properties throughout the project. Adequately signed detours will be identified to direct traffic around the construction zones and notify users of the increased truck and construction activity. Construction will be phased so as to reconstruct the streets located at the center of the project first, such that construction truck traffic will not need to access newly reconstructed streets to complete the project. Detailed construction phasing plans will be developed with final design of the project. Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 12 2.7 Public Involvement A public informational meeting for the proposed improvements was conducted for the project. The Neighborhood Open House was conducted on December 13, 2012, for properties impacted by the proposed improvements. Preliminary information was presented to approximately 22 attendees at the meeting regarding the proposed improvements, costs, funding, schedule, and impacts associated with the project. Comment cards were made available to attendees at the meeting. Summaries of the correspondence received and questions and answers provided at the informational meeting are included in Appendix F. Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 13 3. FINANCING 3.1 Opinion of Cost Detailed opinions of cost for the various project areas can be found in Appendix C of this report. The opinions of cost incorporate estimated 2013 construction costs and include a 10% contingency factor. Indirect costs are projected at 15% of the construction cost and include engineering, legal, financing, and administrative costs. Table 2 below provides a summary of the opinions of probable cost for the 2013 Street Improvement Project. Table 2—2013 Street Improvement Project Summary of Cost Total Schedule A—Surface Improvements $2,988,638.40 Schedule B—Sanitary Sewer Improvements $63,250.00 Schedule C—Water Main Improvements $539,307.45 Schedule D—Storm Sewer Improvements $94,609.35 TOTAL $3,685,805.20 3.2 Funding Financing for the 2013 Street Improvement Project will come from City Funds, Elk River Municipal Utility Funds and Special Assessments to benefitting properties. The water main repairs are proposed to be financed by the Elk River Municipal Utility Funds. The sanitary sewer repairs are proposed to be financed by the City's Sanitary Sewer Operating Fund. Special Assessments to benefitting properties are proposed to fund 100% of the bituminous wear course and edge mill and overlay improvements identified for the project. Special assessments to benefitting properties are proposed to fund 33% of full depth reclamation and reconstruction improvements identified for the project, with the remaining 67% funded using City funds. Assessments for this project were calculated on a per parcel (unit) and/or front foot basis. The funding level anticipated through the levy of Special Assessments to benefitting property owners for street improvements is $1,868,680 with the following proposed assessments: • Eagle Marsh Unit Assessment Rate.............................................$4,048.79 per unit • Hillside Estates Unit Assessment Rate........................................$4,976.63 per unit • K& L Addition Unit Assessment Rate........................................$4,788.03 per unit • The Woods at Hillside Unit Assessment Rate.............................$2,159.59 per unit • 202nd Avenue NW Unit Assessment Rate ................................... $6,600.00 per unit • Country Side Acres Unit Assessment Rate..................................$4,300.00 per unit • Avon Acres Front Foot Assessment Rate (50% Cost).............$18.46 per front foot • Avon Acres Unit Assessment Rate (50% Cost)...........................$4,249.14 per unit Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 14 • Deerfield 4th Addition Unit Assessment Rate.............................. $2,400.00 per unit • Meadowvale Heights Unit Assessment Rate...............................$2,400.00 per unit • Royal Oaks Ridge Unit Assessment Rate....................................$4,000.00 per unit • 4th Street/Irving Avenue Unit Assessment Rate .......................... $4,000.00 per unit • Evans Avenue Front Foot Assessment Rate............................ $42.56 per front foot • 185th Avenue Unit Assessment Rate...........................................$7,000.00 per unit • Business Center Drive/Gary Street Unit Assessment Rate........$33,103.79 per unit • 4th Street Front Foot Assessment Rate....................................$26.58 per front foot • 3rd Street/Railroad Drive Unit Assessment Rate.......................... $7,000.00 per unit An Assessment Map ID highlighting the benefitting properties and the assessment calculations for benefitting property owners are included in Appendix D. Table 3—2013 Street Improvement Project Funding Summary Funding Source Amount IL Street and Storm Sewer Assessments $1,277,817.75 Elk River Municipal Utility Funds $539,307.45 City CIP Funds $1,868,680.00 TOTAL $3,685,805.20 Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 15 4. PROJECT SCHEDULE The proposed project schedule for the 2013 Street Improvement Project is as follows: Order Feasibility Report ............................................................................October 15, 2012 Neighborhood Open House....................................................................December 13, 2012 Accept Feasibility Report/Set Public Hearing.............................................January 7, 2013 Public Hearing/Order Project.....................................................................February 4, 2013 Approve Plans and Specifications/Authorize Ad for Bids ............................March 4, 2013 OpenBids.........................................................................................................April 2, 2013 Order Assessment Hearing ............................................................................April 15, 2013 Hold Assessment Hearing/Award Contract....................................................May 20, 2013 Begin Construction .........................................................................................June 10, 2013 Substantial Completion......................................................................... September 30, 2013 Certify Assessments to County..............................................................November 15, 2013 Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 16 5. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMlVIENDATION The following improvements are recommended to be constructed as part of the 2013 Street Improvement Project: ➢ A 11/2-inch wear course paving along the following streets: • Lincoln Street NW located within the Eagle Marsh neighborhood • Dodge Street NW located within the Hillside Estates 10th Addition • Vance Street NW located within the K& L Addition • Local streets within The Woods at Hillside 4th Addition ➢ An edge mill and bituminous overlay with spot curb and gutter replacement along the following streets: • Local streets within the Country Side Acres neighborhood • Highway 10 Frontage Road located within the Avon Acres 4th Addition • Carson Street NW located within the Deerfield 4th Addition • Local streets within the Meadowvale Heights neighborhood • Holt Avenue NW located between 41h Street NW and 3rd Street NW ➢ Bituminous pavement reclamation with spot curb and gutter replacement along the following streets: • Local streets within the Royal Oaks Ridge neighborhood • Evans Avenue NW located between Main Street NW and the north terminus • 4th Street NW located between Jackson Street NW and Gates Avenue NW • Irving Avenue NW located between 4th Street NW and 3rd Street NW ➢ Full street and utility reconstruction along the following streets: • 185th Avenue NW located between Troy Street NW and Naples Street NW • Business Center Drive located between Joplin Street NW and Gary Street • Gary Street located between Business Center Drive and State Highway 10 • Lowell Avenue NW located between Railroad Drive and King Avenue • 4th Street NW located between King Avenue and Jackson Avenue NW • Railroad Drive located between Jackson Street NW and Main Street NW • 3rd Street NW located between Railroad Drive and Evans Avenue NW ➢ Replacement and repair of structurally deficient sewer and manholes as identified by the City's Public Works Department The total estimated cost for the 2013 Street Improvement Project including roadway, sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer improvements is $3,685,805.20. Proposed funding for the project is provided through a combination of Special Assessments, City funds, and Elk River Municipal Utility funds. Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 17 This project is feasible,necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint. The project feasibility is subject to financial review by the City. Based on the information contained in this report, it is recommended to proceed with the improvements as outlined in this report. Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Page 18 APPENDIX A Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Typical Section—Eagle Marsh,Hillside Estates, K& L Addition, and The Woods at Hillside 4th Addition Figure 3: Typical Section—202nd Avenue NW Figure 4: Typical Section—Country Side Acres and Avon Acres Figure 5: Typical Section—Deerfield 4th Addition and Meadovale Heights Figure 6: Typical Section—Royal Oaks Ridge and Irving Avenue NW Figure 7: Typical Section—Evans Avenue NW and 4th Street Figure 8: Typical Section—4th Street Figure 9: Typical Section—185th Avenue NW Figure 10: Typical Section—Business Center Drive and Gary Street Figure 11: Typical Section—Railroad Drive Figure 12: Typical Section—Residential: Yd Street NW Figure 13: Typical Section—Commercial: Yd Street NW Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 ° o. --_—_—_—_—_—_— Face Lake ---------------------------------------------------------------------------J---- - I lud Tibbits Brook ake 3. lo I 79 I — I I � I 32 w 121 33 169 a I ° I I N I Eagle Lake I l t 77 I � I I I N I I I Country Side Acres I I Hillside Estates 10th Twirl 72 Lakq I The Woods at Hillside I I I Meadowvale Heights j 35 I , Deerfield 4th Royal Oaks Ridge I I I I I 44 4th St 185th Ave 11EVII 1 D Holt Ave 40 I j J Lake Orono I I Orono Rd/Gary St Evans Ave I I I 30 4th St Irving Ave �,\ ---- ---- — --- 3rd St Railroad Dr 1 Mississippi River A ---- - - --' Kliever Marsh Eagle Marsh � I \` I 1 I � I 1 K&LAddition I I I I I Trott13rook �\ 10 Otsey'o reek. � I I Avon Acres 2013 Street Improvements I Reconstruction Overlay with Edge Mill 1 Full Depth Reclaim with Curb Patching Wear Course Paving on Unfinished Development Streets Project Location " E� 2013 Street Reconstruction Project A WSB River Figure 1 City of Elk River MN 1 inch = 5,500 feet rr R R/W 30' 30' 33' — 35' B—B EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER TO REMAIN �— 2.0% 2.0% INSET A 1.5" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT EXISTING STREET SECTION INSET A 2013 STREET El 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55416 TYPICAL SECTION www.wsbeng.com FIGURE Eagle Marsh, Hillside Estates, C'�'o`K&L Addition, The Woods at Hillside , ., 2 GINEERING rPLAN INGBIICONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA El�ivef K:\01992-010\Cad\Exhibits\FIG 02.dwg,SECTION rr R R/W 30' 30' 5' 24' 5' PROPOSED EXISTING MqX 4. �— 2.0� 1'•4 0� 2.0� MP —� 1•.4 MAX _ _ — - - - - - - 1:4 MAX INSET A 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SEED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BEHIND CURB NOTE: EXISTING ROAD CROSS SECTION HAS LESS THAN 2% CROSS SLOPE. FULL WIDTH OVERLAY THICKNESS VARIES TO RE—ESTABLISH 2% CROSS—SLOPE. 1.5"-3.0" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT EXISTING STREET SECTION INSET A 2013 STREET El 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55416 TYPICAL SECTION www.wsbeng.com FIGURE C'.'o` 202nd Avenue NW "�- 3 GINEERING II PLANNING BIICONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA El l�ivef K:\01992-010\Cad\Exhibits\FIG 03 REV.dvag,SECTION rr R R/W 30' 30' 24' PROPOSED 8 EXISTING TAPERED EDGE MILL �— 2. 0 2.0% INSET A 1 -1/2" MILL BELOW Z6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SEED ON ALL EDGE OF EXISTING TURF DISTURBED AREAS BEYOND STREET NOTE: EXISTING ROAD CROSS SECTION HAS LESS THAN 2% CROSS SLOPE. FULL WIDTH OVERLAY THICKNESS VARIES TO RE—ESTABLISH 2% CROSS—SLOPE. 8' EDGE MILL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AND FULL WIDTH OVERLAY 1.5"-3.0" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT EXISTING STREET SECTION INSET A 2013 STREET El 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55416 TYPICAL SECTION www.wsbeng.com FIGURE C'.'o` Country Side Acres,Avon Acres "�- 4 GINEERING rPLAN INGBIICONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA El l�ivef K:\01992-010\Cad\Exhibits\FIG 04 REV.dvag,SECTION rr R R/W 30' 30' 35' B—B PROPOSED 8 EXISTING TAPERED EDGE MILL �— 2. o 2.0% z. INSET A —1 -1/2" MILL BELOW EXISTING CONCRETE CURB EDGE OF CURB AND GUTTER TO REMAIN 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SEED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BEHIND CURB NOTE: EXISTING ROAD CROSS SECTION HAS LESS THAN 2% CROSS SLOPE. FULL WIDTH OVERLAY THICKNESS VARIES TO RE—ESTABLISH 2% CROSS—SLOPE. 8' EDGE MILL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AND FULL WIDTH OVERLAY 1.5"-3.0" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT EXISTING STREET SECTION INSET A 2013 STREET El 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55416 TYPICAL SECTION www.wsbeng.com FIGURE C'.'o` Deerfield 4th Addition,Meadowvale Heights "� 5 GINEERING rPLAN INGBIICONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA El l�ivef K:\01992-010\Cad\Exhibits\FIG 05 REV.dvag,SECTION rr R R/W 30' 30' 35' — 40' B—B EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER TO REMAIN �— 2.0% 2.0% INSET A 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SOD ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BEHIND CURB 1.5" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB230C) 6" RECLAIMED AGGREGATE BASE APPROVED SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 2013 STREET El 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55416 TYPICAL SECTION www.wsbeng.com FIGURE C'.'o` Royal Oaks Ridge, Irving Avenue NW "�- 6 GINEERING rPLAN INGBIICONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA El�ivef K:\01992-010\Cad\Exhibits\FIG 06 REV.dvag,SECTION rr R R/W 30' 30' 40' B—B EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER TO REMAIN �— 2.0% 2.0% INSET A 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SOD ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BEHIND CURB 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB230C) 6" RECLAIMED AGGREGATE BASE APPROVED SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 2013 STREET El 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55416 TYPICAL SECTION www.wsbeng.com FIGURE C'.'o` Evans Avenue NW,4th Street "�- 7 GINEERING rPLAN INGBIICONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA El l�iyef K:\01992-010\Cad\Exhibits\FIG 07 REV.dvag,SECTION rr R R/W 30' 30' 5' 35' B—B 5' NEW CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 1.4 MAX 4'�� �— 2.0% 2.0% 4. 1.4 MPX 1:4 MAX 1:4 MAX INSET A 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SOD ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BEHIND CURB 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2.5" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB230C) 8" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE APPROVED SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 2013 STREET El 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55416 TYPICAL SECTION www.wsbeng.com FIGURE 4th Street ° t8 763-541-4600-Faz 763-541-1700 �Mveft:: C7 GINEERING r PLANNING IICONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA K:\01992-010\Cad\Exhibits\FIG 08 REV.dvag,SECTION rr R R/W 30' 30' 5' 24' EDGE — FACE 5' 10' NEW CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 2.0% 4 MPX �— 2,0% 4.�% �— 1 4.0% 1:4 MAX 1 4 INSET A INSET B 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SEED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS 1.5" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB230C) 6" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE APPROVED SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 2" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX 4" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE (INCIDENTAL) SCARIFY AND RECOMPACT CUBGRADE (INCIDENTAL) INSET B 2013 STREET A 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55416 TYPICAL SECTION www.wsbeng.com FIGURE kk 185th Avenue NW o & Associates, Inc. 763-541-4800-Faz 763-541-1700 9 ��� ��r INFRASTRUCTURE II ENGINEERING r PLANNING IICONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA TUVer K:\01992-010\Cad\Exhibits\FIG 09 REV.dvag,SECTION rr R R/W 30' 30' CONCRETE 5' 5' 40' F—F 5' SIDEWALK NEW CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 7'4 Mqk 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% •4 MPX •4 MAX .: 7:4 MAX INSET B INSET A 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SEED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS 1.5" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB230C) 6" RECLAIMED AGGREGATE BASE APPROVED SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 6" CONCRETE WALK 4" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE (INCIDENTAL) SCARIFY AND RECOMPACT SUBGRADE (INCIDENTAL) INSET B 2013 STREET F-I B 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55416 TYPICAL SECTION www.wsbeng.com FIGURE Business Center Drive, Gary Street r''o' Inc. �- O E II ENGINEERING rPLAN INGBIICONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA EliVii.�� K:\01992-010\Cad\Exhibits\FIG 10 REV.dwg,SECTION rr R R/W 33' 33' CONCRETE 5 30' — 52' F—F 5' SIDEWALK NEW CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 4 Mqx 2.0% �— 2.0% 2.0% 4�% 1•4 MPX �:4 1-.4 MAX ,: MAX INSET A INSET B 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SEED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS 1.5" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB230C) 8" RECLAIMED AGGREGATE BASE APPROVED SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 6" CONCRETE WALK 4" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE (INCIDENTAL) SCARIFY AND RECOMPACT SUBGRADE (INCIDENTAL) INSET B 2013 STREET El 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55416 TYPICAL SECTION kk www.wsbeng.com FIGURE Railroad Drive r 'o' _763-541-4800-Fax 763-541-1700 �Mveft:: GINEERING r PLANNING IICONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA K:\01992-010\Cad\Exhibits\FIG 11.dwg,SECTION rr R R/W 25' 25' 5' 33' — 35' B—B 5' 5' CONCRETE CURB EXISTING GUTTER (B618) CONCRETE WALK 4 MqX 4.0� •�% 2_0% —� �— 2.0� 2.0� —� 4 JA INSET A INSET B 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SOD ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BEHIND CURB 1.5" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB240C) 6.0" RECLAIMED AGGREGATE BASE ACCEPTABLE SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 6" CONCRETE WALK 4" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE (INCIDENTAL) SCARIFY AND RECOMPACT SUBGRADE (INCIDENTAL) INSET B 2013 STREET A 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55416 TYPICAL SECTION www.wsbeng.com FIGURE Residential:3rd Street NW r `° & ASS°°°res, Inc. From Holt Avenue to Evans Avenue Q -�-- 2 INFRASTRUCTURE II ENGINEERING II PLANNING BIICONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA IUVer K:\01992-010\Cad\Exhibits\FIG 12.dwg,SECTION rr R R/W 33' 33' 5' 5' 53' B—B 5' 5' EXISTING EXISTING CONCRETE CONCRETE CURB CONCRETE WALK 2.0% GUTTER (8618) WALK 4.0% 4'�� 2.0� �— 2.0% 2.0� INSET B INSET A INSET B 6" MIN. TOPSOIL AND SOD ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS BEHIND CURB 1.5" TYPE SP 12.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPWEB240C) 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 NONWEAR COURSE MIX (2,C) (SPNWB240C) 6.0" RECLAIMED AGGREGATE BASE ACCEPTABLE SUBGRADE (12" DEPTH) INSET A 6" CONCRETE WALK 4" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE (INCIDENTAL) 12" APPROVED SUBGRADE (INCIDENTAL) INSET B 2013 STREET F-I 701 Xenia Avenue South,Suite 300 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WSB NO.1992-01 Minneapolis,MN 55416 TYPICAL SECTION www.wsbeng.com FIGURE C,.,o` Inc. Commerci al:3rd Street NW From Railroad Drive to Holt Avenue El .f- 3 E II ENGINEERING II PLANNING BIICONSTRUCTION ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA1Vii.�� K:\01992-010\Cad\Exhibits\FIG 13.dwg,SECTION APPENDIX B Figure l: Irving Avenue/3'd Street/Railroad Drive Intersection Exhibit Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 w� z � m CO LL i Q 10 10 Q 32 Q� On a. 2 L MN 3nN3AV ONIA& r U) !� 44 i at z Uw 0 o o a U) a w ® z z_ I w U w Y cr > cr w 0 a > a a cr z Y — Z J H Q w LU W Z 0 LL cr 0 0 r c4 U H c� C U / o cr N LU X44/ z Q Q �T - 2. / 2 a 4 / , Y X ' M MN 3nN3AV NOSNOv _ ���V APPENDIX C 2013 Street Improvement Project Opinion of Probable Cost Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 Opinion of Probable Cost WSB Project: 2013 Street Reconstruction Project Design By: KAK Project Location: City of Elk River Checked By: City Project No.: WSB Project No: 1992-01 Date: 1/7/2013 Item MN/DOT Estimated Estimated Estimated Total Description Unit Total No. Specification No. Unit Price Cost Quantity A. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $40,350.00 $40,350.00 2 2101.501 CLEARING TREE 10 $350.00 $3,500.00 3 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE 10 $350.00 $3,500.00 4 2101.511 CLEARING AND GRUBBING(SHRUB) EACH 5 $75.00 $375.00 5 2104.501 REMOVE&REPLACE CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER LIN FT 4360 $18.00 $78,480.00 6 2104.501 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 2350 $3.00 $7,050.00 7 2104.503 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 7100 $1.50 $10,650.00 8 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD. 2350 $4.50 $10,575.00 9 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 11200 $2.00 $22,400.00 10 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD 650 $5.00 $3,250.00 11 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT(P) SQ YD 8000 $5.00 $40,000.00 12 2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER SQ YD. 105 $20.00 $2,100.00 13 2104.509 REMOVE CASTING EACH 19 $100.00 $1,900.00 14 2104.509 REMOVE PERMANENT BARRICADE EACH 3 $25.00 $75.00 15 2104.511 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT(FULL DEPTH) LIN FT 140 $5.00 $700.00 16 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT(FULL DEPTH) LIN FT 3660 $2.50 $9,150.00 17 2104.601 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES LUMP SUM 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 18 2104.602 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX EACH 18 $100.00 $1,800.00 19 2104.603 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL FENCE LIN FT 400 $18.00 $7,200.00 20 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD 1400 $10.00 $14,000.00 21 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION(P) CU YD 1500 $10.00 $15,000.00 22 2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CU YD 100 $13.00 $1,300.00 23 2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW(CV) CU YD 100 $13.00 $1,300.00 24 2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW CU YD 1450 $20.00 $29,000.00 25 2112.501 SUBGRADE PREPARATION ROAD STA 155 $150.00 $23,250.00 26 2118.604 AGGREGATE SURFACING,CLASS 5(3.0"THICK) SQ YD. 290 $5.00 $1,450.00 27 2130.501 WATER MGAL 260 $35.00 $9,100.00 28 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 TON 3390 $12.00 $40,680.00 29 2221.501 AGGREGATE SHOULDERING CLASS 5 TON 100 $12.00 $1,200.00 30 2232.501 EDGE MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE 8'WIDE(0.0"TO 1.5") SQ YD 29300 $1.50 $43,950.00 31 2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS STEP JOINT LIN FT 900 $12.00 $10,800.00 32 2331.604 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT RECLAMATION SQ YD 46600 $2.00 $93,200.00 33 2350.501 BITUMINOUS PATCH MATERIAL TON 585 $75.00 $43,875.00 34 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GALLON 10070 $3.00 $30,210.00 35 2360.501 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX(2,C) TON 14027 $60.00 $841,620.00 36 2360.502 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEARING COURSE MIX(2,C) TON 7130 $60.00 $427,800.00 37 2360.503 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX(2,B)3.0"THICK SQ YD 1860 $35.00 $65,100.00 38 2504.602 IRRIGATION SYSTEM REPAIR EACH 4 $450.00 $1,800.00 39 2504.602 RECONSTRUCT VALVE BOX EACH 49 $500.00 $24,500.00 40 2506.516 ADJUST GATE VALVE EACH 6 $200.00 $1,200.00 41 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING EACH 95 $100.00 $9,500.00 42 2506.602 CASTING ASSEMBLY(SANITARY) EACH 18 $750.00 $13,500.00 43 2521.501 6"CONCRETE WALK SQ FT 15840 $3.00 $47,520.00 44 2521.511 2"BITUMINOUS WALK SQ YD. 1300 $2.00 $2,600.00 Opinion of Probable Cost WSB Project: 2013 Street Reconstruction Project Design By: KAK Project Location: City of Elk River Checked By: City Project No.: WSB Project No: 1992-01 Date: 1/7/2013 Item MN/DOT Estimated Estimated Estimated Total Description Unit Total No. Specification No. Unit Price Cost Quantity 45 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB&GUTTER DESIGN B618 LIN FT 13550 $12.00 $162,600.00 46 2531.507 6"CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD 780 $45.00 $35,100.00 47 2531.603 7"CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER SQ YD. 105 $65.00 $6,825.00 48 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES SQ TF 348 $35.00 $12,180.00 49 2540.602 MAILBOX SUPPORT EACH 18 $100.00 $1,800.00 50 2540.602 TEMPORARY MAILBOXES EACH 18 $25.00 $450.00 51 2540.618 BIRCK PAVERS SQ FT 1800 $10.00 $18,000.00 52 2557.602 REPAIR DOG FENCE EACH 4 $250.00 $1,000.00 53 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 54 2564.531 SIGN PANELS TYPE C SQ FT 120 $65.00 $7,800.00 55 2573.502 SILT FENCE,TYPE MACHINE SLICED LIN FT 2800 $2.50 $7,000.00 56 2573.602 TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EACH 13 $650.00 $8,450.00 57 2573.603 BIOROLL LIN FT 1400 $3.00 $4,200.00 58 2575.501 SEEDING(INCLTOPSOIL&FERT) ACRE 6 $1,000.00 $6,000.00 59 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 240 POUND 420 $3.00 $1,260.00 60 2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWN(INCL TOPSOIL&FERT) SQ YD 6330 $3.50 $22,155.00 61 2582.502 12'SOLID LINE WHITE-EPDXY LIN FT 260 $15.00 $3,900.00 62 2582.503 CROSSWALK MARKING-EPDXY SQ FT 1680 $6.00 $10,080.00 63 2582-502 4"DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY LIN FT 3000 $1.50 $4,500.00 64 2582-502 4"DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-PAINT LIN FT 3000 $1.00 $3,000.00 65 2582-502 4"SOLID LINE WHITE-EPDXY LIN FT 1 600 1 $0.75 1 $450.00 66 2582-502 4"SOLID LINE WHITE-PAINT LIN FT 1 600 1 $0.50 1 $300.00 Subtotal Schedule A-Surface Improvements $2,362,560.00 +10%Contingencies $236,256.00 Subtotal $2,598,816.00 + 15%Indirect Cost $389,822.40 Schedule A Total-Surface Improvements $2,988,638.40 B. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 67 ISANITARY SEWER REPAIRS LUMP SUM 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.0 Subtotal Schedule B-Sanitary Sewer Improvements $50,000.00 +10%Contingencies $5,000.00 Subtotal $55,000.00 +15%Indirect Cost $8,250.00 Schedule B Total-Sanitary Sewer Improvements $63,250.00 Opinion of Probable Cost WSB Project: 2013 Street Reconstruction Project Design By: KAK Project Location: City of Elk River Checked By: City Project No.: WSB Project No: 1992-01 Date: 1/7/2013 Item MN/DOT Estimated Estimated Estimated Total Description Unit Total No. Specification No. Unit Price Cost Quantity C. WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS 68 2104.509 REMOVE GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 6 $115.00 $690.00 69 2104.509 REMOVE WATER MAIN LIN FT 2680 $2.00 $5,360.00 70 2104.601 SALVAGE HYDRANT EACH 6 $300.00 $1,800.00 71 2503.62 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS POUND 5960 $3.50 $20,860.00 72 2504.601 TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE LUMP SUM 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 73 2504.602 1"CORPORATION STOP EACH 25 $150.00 $3,750.00 74 2504.602 1"CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 12 $250.00 $3,000.00 75 2504.602 2"CORPORATION STOP EACH 4 $500.00 $2,000.00 76 2504.602 2"CURB STOP AND BOX EACH 4 $600.00 $2,400.00 77 2504.602 6"GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 17 $1,750.00 $29,750.00 78 2504.602 8"GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 8 $2,000.00 $16,000.00 79 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH 11 $1,000.00 $11,000.00 80 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER SERVICE EACH 28 $250.00 $7,000.00 81 2504.602 HYDRANT EACH 19 $3,200.00 $60,800.00 82 2504.602 CURB BOX REPAIR EACH 2 $250.00 $500.00 83 2504.603 1"TYPE K COPPER PIPE LIN FT 480 $20.00 $9,600.00 84 2504.603 2"TYPE K COPPER PIPE LIN FT 270 $35.00 $9,450.00 85 2504.603 6"WATER MAIN-DUCT-IRON CL 52 LIN FT 560 $35.00 $19,600.00 86 1 2504.603 8"WATER MAIN-DUCT-IRON CL 52 LIN FT 5210 $37.00 $192,770.00 Subtotal Schedule C-Water Main Improvements $426,330.00 + 10%Contingencies $42,633.00 Subtotal $468,963.00 + 15%Indirect Cost $70,344.45 Schedule C Total-Water Main Improvements S539,307.45 D. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 87 2104.509 REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EACH 0 $500.00 $0.00 88 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE(STORM) LIN FT 70 $20.00 $1,400.00 89 2104.509 REMOVE PIPE APRON EACH 0 $100.00 $0.00 90 2501.515 15'RC PIPE APRON EACH 2 $650.00 $1,300.00 91 2502.541 4"PERF PVC PIPE DRAIN LIN FT 300 $15.00 $4,500.00 92 2503.541 15'RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V LIN FT 1380 $27.00 $37,260.00 93 2503.541 18"RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CL V LIN FT 20 $29.00 $580.00 94 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 0 $1,000.00 $0.00 95 2506.601 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48-4020 LIN FT 50 $350.00 $17,500.00 96 2506.602 CASTING ASSEMBLY (CATCH BASIN) EACH 8 $750.00 $6,000.00 97 2506.602 CASTING ASSEMBLY(STORM) EACH 3 $750.00 $2,250.00 98 2506.601 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 1 EACH 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 99 2511.502 RANDOM RIPRAP CL IV CU YD 25 $100.00 $2,500.00 Subtotal Schedule D-Sanitary Sewer Improvements $74,790.00 +10%Contingencies $7,479.00 Subtotal $82,269.00 + 15%Indirect Cost $12,340.35 Schedule D Total-Sanitary Sewer Improvements $94,609.35 Total 2013 Street Reconstruction Project $3,685,805.20 APPENDIX D Assessment Map ID — Eagle Marsh Assessment Map ID — Hillside Estates Assessment Map ID — K& L Addition Assessment Map ID — The Woods at Hillside 4th Addition Assessment Map ID — 202nd Avenue NW Assessment Map ID — Country Side Acres Assessment Map ID — Avon Acres Assessment Map ID — Deerfield 4th Addition Assessment Map ID — Meadowvale Heights Assessment Map ID — Royal Oaks Ridge Assessment Map ID — 185th Avenue NW Assessment Map ID — Business Center Drive and Gary Street Assessment Map ID — 4th Street,Railroad Drive,3rd Street,Irving Avenue,Holt Avenue,Evans Avenue Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 •ti O 3 i 0 � z 2 �v I� d O V I.1 Legend z 2013 Street Improvements o Proposed Parcels to be Assessed Assessment Map N Eagle Marsh W$B El 2013 Street Improvement Project 1 inch = 200 feet River City of Elk River MN O l'I y N / � Z 2 � I� 196TH LiN P r� 3 0 s U L1 �9S 5� � I z Legend 2013 Street Improvements C/aRSON CIR Proposed Parcels to be Assessed F Assessment Map N Hillside Estates 10th Addition A WSB F1k 2013 Street Reconstruction Project 1 inch - 200 feet River City of Elk River MN r m j 1,#10 t s tigI r. . do �kF e � 173RD AVE Legend 2013 Street Improvements ; 4k* _ , Proposed Parcels to be Assessed " Assessment Map N K & L Addition A WSB b'k 2013 Street Reconstruction Project 1 inch - 200 feet River City of Elk River MN O vJ _ J� Qm s _D 2 3 O �9 SI' C\R 1. D C9:RJ 1 1 G\R G� r�9 1 N L� 192ND CIR Legend 192ND LN w 2013 Street Improvements W J Q Proposed Parcels to be Assessed r a - ' Assessment Map Iv The Woods at Hillside 4th Addition A w$B b'k 2013 Street Reconstruction Project 1 inch - 200 feet River City of Elk River MN O VICTORIA DR ° 205TH AVE � w � 5 tiiFgoo�, �P Vq s D 3 O IR:J D F Z O J N 202N��•4VE 201 ST AVE Legend 2013 Street Improvements Proposed Parcels to be Assessed Assessment Map N 202nd Ave A W$B 2013 Street Improvement Project 1 inch - 400 feet River City of Elk River MN O N s MEQDQW�VALE RD � � z 200TH AVE � h!#�'.*�i• o p ® ern 1 � 199TH AVE w. xr a 199TH CIR 198 1/2 CIR y 198TH AVE w 0 z J l Legend m 2013 Street Improvements b 2 Proposed Parcels to be Assessed z Assessment Map N Country Side Acres WS F1k 2013 Street Reconstruction Project 1 inch - 400 feet River City of Elk River MN O N s D D O sy�cti D 10 F� 0 Legend O 2013 Street Improvements w °r Proposed Parcels to be Assessed Assessment Map N Avon Acres 4th A WSB F1k 2013 Street Reconstruction Project 1 inch - 200 feet River City of Elk River MN O Z J � m 192ND AVE ® o s F W o z M f� 1911ST AVE r �9 n VQ 790 N N W ® W 190TH LN Q Legend 190TH AVE 2013 Street Improvements Proposed Parcels to be Assessed Assessment Map N Deerfield 4th Addition A WSB F1k 2013 Street Reconstruction Project 1 inch - 250 feet River City of Elk River MN 196TH pVE � <� W 5T 19 �, r 195TH AVE 194TH LN M-) � O a mm ,HIM a � ® N 0P v w o p ® D W��v � 193RD AVE ® w Q U 792 1%2 LN =` 192ND AVE Legend ® ° 2013 Street Improvements Proposed Parcels to be Assessed V�E`N oR �SLAN� Assessment Map N ��� Meadowvale Heights A w$B Elk 2013 Street Reconstruction Project 1 inch - 400 feet �,,s��B River City of Elk River MN J _ --t S x , . , 261 270 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 _r , _,._ __ __.-._- _: --- 271 _• 251 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 +I 252 283 294� 298 272. 253 293f•. 284 295 299 27c3 254 292 .•' 285 296 300 255. 286 291 - 274 •• 297 256 287 290 ` 257 288 289 310, 309 260 259 308 258 311 ` 301 303 304 .305 306 0 307 302 - • - • Street • • Proposed Parcels to be Assessed t Ns189THrAVE s -■ D IIII, O �w■111■ �� �MS186TiHILN� 186 ►AV',E111 186TH.AVE� Z �U) a 185TH AVE US HIGHWAY 10 0 BUSINESS CENTER DR w - �U) Re 5� 3' T. 18AV•,E -� LU Legend 2013 Street Improvements Proposed Parcels to be Assessed 182NDTW Assessment Map N 185th Ave A WSB b'k 2013 Street Reconstruction Project 1 inch - 600 feet � ro River City of Elk River MN O N s US HIGHWAY 10 0 A N 185TH LN Q � C7 z �G N a S vO +0 2 6vs�N�s � 183RD AVE ORONO PKWY ■ ®®■■■ K��� ,� SG 183RD AVE N ■to Legend i o < Z 2013 Street Improvements ,® y�� ■ r Proposed Parcels to be Assessed D LN Ell Assessment Map N Business Center Drive � w$B F1k 2013 Street Reconstruction Project 1 inch - 400 feet River City of Elk River MN 0 _�a �� �11• ® 8TH ST d HIS, 7TH s,T �11■illlll��e—� � _ � � s p W it®IIIIIII■ ��y Y_®•_ 6TH ST � ��,•®®�����'S��A� o •S��mill ®� ■ oN®W��a S =1® 5THM c7 -mom ® ' UJ _ a Z 3RD ST 3RD ST- Mq►NS,T J ���0 i � - � t7I 1�Y Q � � MAIN ST r:�r�i1� � 1.■ �I� . ■ �11� Q ��'� � ■11 ®111111111 � 2ND ST ■■��III��� y� Wl11 ® a Sy�G qyo ®. ■Illlillle� �� .IIIIIIII�t 9� ,PLF ti Legend 2013 Street Improvements Proposed Parcels to be Assessed I Assessment Map N 4th St/Railroad Dr/3rd St/Irving Ave/Holt Ave/Evans Ave A w$B F1k 2013 Street Reconstruction Project 1 inch - 500 feet River City of Elk River MN APPENDIX E Pavement Coring and Borings Forensic Report 2012 Geotechnical Report—Log of Test Borings Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 ff��,A WSB Associates, Engineering ■ Planning ■ Environmental ■ Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis,MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Technical Memorandum To: Mr. Justin Femrite City Engineer City of Elk River From: Andrea Azary, EIT, Pavement/Materials Specialist Date: December 4, 2012 Re: Pavement Coring and Borings Forensic Report Introduction WSB &Associates is pleased to submit this pavement forensics report detailing the results of the pavement coring and soil borings which were obtained on November 9, 2012 on pavement within the City of Elk River. The various characteristics of the pavement cores were analyzed in order to assist in determining the appropriate pavement rehabilitation method for each roadway segment. A total of 23 pavement cores were taken within the roadway segments with a few soil borings taken to determine the classification of the underlying layers. The locations of the pavement cores are summarized in Figure 1 below and a summary of the pavement depths, conditions and underlying soil classifications are show on Table 1 below. Pictures of the pavement cores and roadway surface are shown in Appendix A of this report. Minneapolis■St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Justin Femrite December 4, 2012 • a r . .2_co" S i �A 3- ,1bo y + A 5kft. - i 7 1- _- '� RECONSTRUCTION 7 OVERLAY MTH EDGE MLL - = FULL DEPTH RECLAIM WITH CURB PATCHING - WEAR COURSE PAVING ON UNRNISHED DEVELOPMENT STREETS I 7 #tea Jc•r+c�^E' Gora S � i la E►� _ j '+ 4- 2013 8'2r2012 d oFa��. I STREET NPROVEMENTS CML SC- NOT 70 SCALE Figure l: Pavement Core Locations Minneapolis■St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer tin c U f6 U O C C0 C = o f6 U N N Q 00 0 N 30 N N v CA 41 W O x o - > u u E s E tw " > N N z -0 L a c O a� > O N -O c6 -� C: O _ ° - -0 _ O _ �n LO M 0 Ln - L N U LfI v O N > +� (6 O 0 C: O a� o O s + E p c V -0 o o 0- U E 0 W co to ■ -E o 0 Q o m � 4� +' - - - - - - - - - - - Ln Ln Ln - - - (Do F l0 M M LfI LfI LfI LfI fV LfI LfI r,i It Lr; I� N N N �_ (6 M M LfI M M M M M M W L L L L L L L 0.0 N h.0 N 0.0 00 00 00 L L L L L 00 00 -a V V V V V V V V U V V V a..1 V � 4 V � S 4 U S � S � 4 S O N N L O N L L L N N L L L L O O O N O O N O O O O O O O O w O O O O � a� 3 3 c 3 c c 3 c 3 c c c c } 0 ° 0 ° 0 0 o ° 0 o 0 O o `o 0 0 o 0 0 0 +� +� +� o a O N " O .� l0 O O O N V) p ON O C O N O O O O O DO DO to to CC O c-I c-I c-I O Ol c-I l0 00 c-I r14 00 To l0 l0 00 l0 L: O N 00 N M N O M O r r- O O � O i6 M O� c-I � c-I ) M N Z O 0) lip -a CF) a c-I LfI c-I y O l0 LfI M to N O ci c I Ol p 4, 4- c-I rn +, M c-I 3 O N c I y cr)O f6 f6 M M L r-I m M 00 4, N M a'.1 c I f6 S c Rt I Q S■ (� 4J 4 1 O W W 4- 4, �, LU ( 4, 4 a'.1 E a'.1 to a'.1 r > 4- �-+ N > ; N f6 N C: f6 -a f6 V O + +L• C 3 Q Q Q C U U 4, Q Q c s > ° -a c -a _ +J +� C N C N N > +� N N s L) N O Q-r o N X FN rl O N O LL 6 N o o CF) U 0) CF) N0 CF) 4.)CF)l O w >LU CA CJ O --I N M Ln l0 I, 00 m O c-I N M ^ ° --I N M Ln l0 I, 00 m c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I c-I -i N N N N U Mr. Justin Femrite December 4, 2012 Summary of Findings Several factors are considered when determining the number of pavement coresto be taken, including the pavement condition or visible distresses present on the pavement and the variability of the pavement depth asthe cores are being completed. Pavement coring identifies what exists under the visible layer oft he pavement and can give awealth of information including depths of the pavement layers, signs of bonding or unbonding and distresses that might not be visible from the road surface. In general the core samples taken had bituminous depths ranging in depth from 2 inchesto 6 inches. It was also found that the majority of the underlying material from the core samples taken was sand. Core 2 was in an area of deteriorated bituminous which was seen by visual inspection oft he surface and validated when the core broke up in the hole. There was some deterioration at the bottom of Core 5. Core 6, 7,8,9 and 10 had some underlying material that was either sandy clay or day. Cores 1 - 10 were taken on roads where full depth redamation with curb patching has been proposed. As was previously mentioned,the bituminous depths in these pavement cores ranged from 3 inchesto 6 inches, noting also a thinner base on Irving and 4t"Elreet. After reviewing the pavement cores,we support the recommendation of full depth reclamation with curb patching pointing out the fact that the existing base thicknesses highlighted along Irving and 4t"Elreet may lead to thinner bases in those areas pending on the pavement design. Cores 12 and 13 showed pavement still in sound condition. These roadsare being recommended to have a wear course placed on the unfinished development streets. We support this recommendation. Core 11 and Cores 14-20 were taken on roads where an overlay with an edge mill was proposed. Due to the sound quality of the cores along these roads,we support the recommendation for an edge mill and overlay along these roads. Cores 21 -23 were taken on roads where an overlay was proposed. The existing pavement along 202nd Greet is showing no serious signs of distress. Due to the thin bituminous depth along this street,we support the recommendation to do an overlay on this road. Minneapolis■St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer Appendix A Elk River Pavement Coring Pictures •'� � y i ti ' i co Rf- ' r $'? a� lam„#. >s•� .." d� r a��,�,.�� `��'p(d + y'' �q�.f `'� � ��- sup R���+• �6, a;. Te f i w> C � RE 01-N CD RE 1'E�b CORE '1.6 CC)RE IL77 CORE 1$ coE z9 CORE 2© jar, CC7 RE 23 CC7 R E —2 CU R B �� h MI RkAX 1 N C. Iii 6011 MN CON�� NTS� L ENA4 MEN GEO LAICAL I:ZEp �AT iFCHHHCAL oR7 (Dy CTF,(GU 'OR EXPLORATRON AND REVHEW 2013 Street and Ufflity Improvements Elk River, Minnesota AE-T Project No. 1-6-00538 Date: December 21,2012 yy Prepared for. City of Elk River C/O WSB &Associates,Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South H Suite 300 Minneapolis,Minnesota, 55416 I ie AMERICAN CONSULTANTS ENGINEERING ° ENVIRONMENTAL -GEOTECHNICAL INC.TESTING, I ,MATERIALS FORENSICS December 21, 2012 City of Elk River C/O WSB&Associates,Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55416 Attn: Mr. Jason Wedel,PE RE: Geotechnical Exploration and Review 2013 Street and Utility Improvements Elk River,Minnesota AET Project No. 26-00538 Dear Mr. Wedel: American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) is pleased to present the results of our subsurface exploration program and geotechnical engineering review for your 2013 Street and Utility Improvements project in Elk River, Minnesota. These services were performed according to our proposal to you dated November 16, 2012 We are submitting two copies of the report to you and one copy to the City of Elk River. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the report. I can also be contacted for arranging construction observation and testing services during the earthwork phase. Sincerely, American Engineering Testing, Inc. Brian F. Arman Geologist/Branch Office Supervisor Phone: (763) 428-5573 Cell: - (612) 685-6571 barmangamen est.com cc: City of Elk River—Justin Femrite, PE, City Engineer This document shall not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval of American Engineering Testing,Inc. 5548 Barthel Industrial Drive, Suite 500-Albertville, MN 55301 Phone 763-428-5573 a Toll Free 800-972-6364 a Fax 763-428-5575-www.amengtest.com Offices throughout Florida,Minnesota,South Dakota&Wisconsin AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review 2013 Street and Utility Improvements Elk River, MN AET Project No. 26-00538 December 21, 2012 Prepared for: Prepared by: City of Elk River American Engineering Testing,Inc. 5548E hel Industrial Drive C/O WSB &Associates,Inc. Suite 500 701 Xenia Avenue South Albertville,MN 55301 Suite 300 (763)428-5573/www.atnengtest.com Minneapolis,MN 55416 Attn: Jason Wedel,PE Report Authored By: Peer Review Co ducted By: Brian F.Arman Benjamin M.Hoefei,PE Geologist/Branch Office Supervisor Project Engineer I hereby certify that this plan,specification,or report Wi— – epor s Vrevaried supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota Date: December 21,2012 License M 47156 Copyright 2012 American Engineering Testing,Inc. All Rights Reserved Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited by anyone other than the client for the specific project. CONTENTS AET Project No. 26-0035{l/) INTRODUCTION---....---...--.^--~.—_~.--...—.—^.~.,. } 2.0 SCOPE(]F SERVICES............................................................................................................ l 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION.._._,____,_',,,___.._,,_._______,_,__,__,_.....__ / 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING................................................................ 2 4'1 Field Exploration Program----~'~''—'^—~'^'^^'^'--'''`--'~'—^''--^'''-^`—'—'^^^'^^-2 � 4�� —,.-.-...---.~..._--_.....---.—~-.—.-----..~,..-....._—. � 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS................................................................................................................. � 5.1 Surface .._'_._._...._.___,.._.,_.,~^_.__......___,,_._,,,_...,___,,. 5.2 Subsurface '..,,__.,_.._..~,,.,_,______^.,_.._.,._.,_~._._.__.__,_._,, 3 � 5.3 {�rnoozd��ater_-..,..—'—^~~-~—^—~''—'--'''^---'—~-^-'''''--^^''^'^--'-`^~^^''''''' 5/4 Review ofSoil Properties—.~---..--^._'.-''---.-'''--''--^'---^—~—'~—'—'~—'—'^'4 6,0 RECOMMENDATIONS—'-^'''--''~'----^-''~^'~--'-'~--^''^~--~'`-^-'~^^'~'^^'—'''4 4 6'lT�e�oi�Uos...-----.--.-.`...--.~,,'...__,~^,..—._,,,,_—,,.._.~,._`,^_._.__,^' 6.2 Subgrade Preparation-.-----...^.—..--'.~..—..--.....-----,--..—.—...,^,.~~—.-..~* 6.3 Estimated R-Value................................................................................................................. 6 6/4 Pavement Design.-..-..--.--..--~^--.....—.—.....~.^.._.--.^.''^-,-'^----'—'— / 6.5 Utility Support, Bedding and Backfilling................................. ............................................ M � 7.0 (����/S1LJE1�Ail(�Y�S.--.,.—.---..—...---,.—..—.-.—^,^^~,—..'~-^ 7'l Potential Difficulties.............................................................................................................. 8 7.2 Excavation Backsloping.—.-_^.'...---_.~.-_-.,^.^..—_—^,---.'^.--....~..'—'^.---.. 9 7.3 Observation and Testing..--..—...-.—.—.—.-.--,-.......--._—_-.^.--....-..,....-..-_. 9 @jl LIMITATIONS.--~^'^---''~—'~~''^~----'^~^'''--^'--'—~''^``-~~^''—'^`--^—^—'-- y STANDARD DATA SHEETS Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction Bituminous Pavemen1Suburade Preparation and Design Bedding/Foundation Support ofBuried Pipe Standard Recommendations for Utility Trench Backfilling APPENDIX A—[ e0technioul Field Exploration and Testing Boring T.0g Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure l - Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs APPENDIX B— GeOtechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use � GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW FOR 2013 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA AET PROJECT NO. 26-00538 1.0 INTRODUCTION We understand you are proposing to reconstruct portions of 3rd Street NW, Railroad Drive, Lowell Avenue, 4th Street NW, Orono Road, Gary Street, and 185th Avenue NW in Elk River Minnesota. To assist in planning and design, you have authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) to conduct a subsurface exploration program at the site, conduct soil laboratory testing, and perform a geotechnical engineering review for the project. This report presents the results of the above services, and provides our engineering recommendations based on this data. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES AET's services were performed according to our proposal to you authorized and dated November 19, 2012. The authorized scope consists of the following: • Fourteen(14) standard penetration test borings,to a terminal depth of 11 feet. • Soil laboratory testing consisting of sieve analysis tests and water content tests. • Geotechnical engineering analysis based on the gained data and preparation of this report. These services are intended for geotechnical purposes. The scope is not intended to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION The portions of the previously listed streets planned for reconstruction are detailed on Figures 1, 2, and 3 in I Appendix A. These roadways will remain as residential streets, approximately 26 feet wide with concrete curb/gutter along the both sides, with the exception of 185'h Avenue NW. 185'h Avenue NW will have curb and gutter along the north side of the roadway and a rural section on the south side of the roadway. We understand final street grades will be within 2 feet AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 26-00538 of the existing street grades. Underground utilities (watermain) will be replaced as part of this construction on 3 d Street NW. New watermain will be a part of this project at 185 1h Avenue NW. The information stated above represents our understanding of the proposed construction. This information is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important that you contact us if there are changes from that described so that we can evaluate whether modifications to our recommendations are appropriate. 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING 4.1 Field Exploration Program The subsurface exploration program conducted for the project consisted of fourteen(14) standard penetration test borings. The logs of the borings and details of the methods used appear in Appendix A. The logs contain information concerning soil layering, soil classification, geologic description, and moisture condition. Relative density or consistency is also noted for the natural soils, which is based on the standard penetration resistance (N-value). The boring locations are shown on Figures 1, 2, and 3 in Appendix A. The borings were located in the field by personnel from AET. Surface elevations at the boring locations were measured in the field by AET personnel using multiple benchmarks provided by the City of Elk River. 4.2 Laboratory Testing The laboratory test program included six (6) sieve analysis tests and four (4) water content tests. The test results appear in Appendix A on the individual boring logs adjacent to the samples upon which they were performed. Page 2 of 9 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 26-00538 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 5.1 Surface Observations The roads proposed for reconstruction extend through commercial areas with the exceptions of 3`d Street NW east of the intersection of Gates Avenue NW and 185", Avenue NW. 3`d Street NW east of Gates Avenue NW is a residential area with homes and multi-family housing on both sides of each street. The portion of 185h Avenue NW to be reconstructed is a frontage road to US Highway 10 and provides access to commercial properties and residential subdivisions. The new roadways will follow the same alignment as the existing roadways. 5.2 Subsurface Soils/Geology Below the bituminous pavement the site geology consists of existing fill soils overlying naturally deposited course alluvial sand, sand with silt sand with gravel and gravelly sand. Thickness of the bituminous pavement ranged from 2-inches to 7 inches thick. The existing fill depth ranged from 4 feet to 8 feet below grade. Subsurface soils which differed from the typical profile were encountered in a portion of the borings. Boring#8 encountered buried topsoil from a depth of 2 feet to 4 feet below the existing grade while Boring #5 encountered a buried layer of bituminous pavement. Borings #11, #12, and#14 encountered concrete rubble below the existing bituminous pavement. 5.3 Ground Water Ground water was encountered during drilling operations in Borings #7 and#8 at depths of 9 feet 7 feet below grade, respectively. Ground water was not encountered in the remaining borings at the time of boring completion. The water levels were encountered in relatively fast draining sands; therefore, it is our judgment that the measured water levels in these two borings could be the indication of a perched water table in that area. Ground water levels fluctuate due to varying seasonal and annual rainfall and snow melt amounts, as well as other factors. Page 3 of 9 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 26-00538 5.4 Review of Soil Properties Generally, the soils in the upper profile of the existing roadway are fill soils consisting of sands, sands with silt, and silty sands, These soils range from moderately fast to moderately slow draining and have a low to moderate susceptibility to frost heaving during freezing temperatures. However, the silty sand soils can hold water or impede infiltration of water, and can then trap water in the aggregate base and/or upper zone of the subgrade. When these soils are wet and subjected to vehicle traffic, subgrade instability, softening, weakening, and differential frost heaving can result. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Definitions Italicized words used in this section have a specific definition or a Mn/DOT reference. The definitions are presented on the attached standard sheet entitled "Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction"or are defined in an ASTM standard or a N1n/D0T specification. 6.2 Subgrade Preparation 6.2.1 Subgrade Preparation As described above, all borings encountered layers of uncontrolled fill below to roadway. Ultimately, our recominendation is to remove any uncontrolled fill in an effort to reduce the likelihood of differential settlements of the pavements. However, based on the past performance of the in-place material and because complete correction of the uncontrolled fill may be deemed non-cost effective. We are presenting a more cost effective option for the City in the recommendations below, however with this option there is some risk of long term differential settlement due to the presence of uncontrolled fill below the bituminous roadways. We understand that currently there is no plant to-incorporate the use of a sand subbase. However, in order to promote material uniformity provide consistent drainage below the pavements and aggregate base layer, we recommend that a 12-inch thick sand subbase layer consisting of Select Granular Borrow be placed as the upper zone of the subgrade. Page 4 of 9 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 26-00538 The free draining subbase layer assists in reducing periods of saturation, and greatly reduces the detrimental effects of frost heaving and subsequent thawing. Some of the onsite fill soils encountered in our borings, may meet the MnDOT Specification for Select Granular Borrow (NInDOT 3149.2E2) based on the sieve analysis performed on materials collected in our borings. The results of these sieve analysis tests are shown on the respective boring logs in Appendix A. Please note these test results should not be relied upon for bidding purpose and that contractors are encouraged to perform their own testing to determine quantities of materials for reuse. Placement of the 12-inch thick sand subbase layer will require excavation of the existing subgrade throughout the project. Before placement of new fill,the existing subgrade soils should be scarified and recompacted to the levels recommended later in this report. New fill should be like materials and consist of sands (SP), sands with silts (SP-S ) or silty sands (SM). Clays and silts should not be used as fill. The recommended 12-inch thick sand subbase should be provided with a means of subsurface drainage to prevent buildup of water within the sand. This can be accomplished by placing short segments of properly engineered drainage lines which are connected to the catch basins in low elevation areas (referred to as "finger drains"), or to other gravity outfall areas. Where the street is relatively level, and if finger drains are not frequent, you should consider placing a longer parallel drainage line through the level area to better remove infiltrating water. Where the thickness of the sand subbase varies longitudinally, we recommend a 20:1 (H:V) taper to minimize differential frost heaving. Where organic soils are found to be present, we recommend removing these soils where present within or below the critical subgrade zone. Where buried rubble or pavements are exposed in excavations, we recommend removing these soils where present within the critical subgrade zone. Page 5 of 9 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 26-00538 For more information about subgrade preparation and design, please read the standard sheet entitled"Bituminous Roadway Subgrade Preparation and Design" at the end of this report. 6. 2.2 Fill Placement and Compaction All fill should be placed and compacted per the requirements of M-n/DOT Specification 21053F I (Specified Density Method). This specification requires soils placed within the critical subgrade zone be compacted to a minimum of 100% of the standard maximum dry unit weight defined in ASTM: D698 (Standard Proctor test), at a water content 65% to 102% of the standard optimum water content A reduced minimum compaction level of 9510 of the standard maximum dry unite weight can be used below the critical subgrade zone. The sand subbase layer can be considered part of a composite subgrade; and the top of the subbase can be figured as the top of the 3 foot subgrade zone needing the 100% compaction level. Compaction of the fill should be performed with equipment that will provide the recommended compaction levels through the entire lift. 6.2.3 Subgrade Stability and Test Roll Subgrade stability within the critical subgrade zone is important for pavement support, construction and performance. With the 12-inch sand subbase layer comprising the upper foot of the critical subgrade zone, the existing soil portion (or new fill, if needed) will then comprise the lower 2-feet of the critical subgrade zone for the existing embankments. Stability of these existing subgrade soils should be evaluated, preferably using the test roll procedure, before placement of the sand subbase layer. 6.3 Estimated R-Value The limiting soils within the critical subgrade zone are the silty sands. These soils have an estimated R-value 'of 20. This estimate'is based on Table 5-13(a) within the 200 Mn/DOT Pavement Manual and our experience. Page 6 of 9 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 26-00538 6® Pavement Design Based on the traffic counts provided to us by the City and the estimated growth rates which have been provided by MnDOT, we are anticipating two separate load levels for streets throughout the project. 3rd Street NW has an anticipated load level of 1450 Anrlual Average Daily Traffic (A T)9 all other streets evaluated by AET for this project have an anticipated load level of 2350 AADT. We have assumed a growth rate of 3% based on MnDOT projections for Sherburne County. Based on anticipated loads we have calculated that 3rd Street NW will require a minimum total gravel equivalency (GE) of 18.11-inches (within 0.5-inches). The remaining streets evaluated by AET for this project will require a minimum total GE of 21.09-inches (within 0.5-inches) based on the anticipated loads. In addition to exceeding the minimum GE, we recommend the bituminous thickness be a minimum 3.5 inches and the total section be a minimum of 12.5 inches. Table A, below, shows two options for recommended pavement designs based on the two anticipated load scenarios throughout the project. Pavement Design: Table A Location 3r Street NW Railroad Ave, and others Section Option Option-I Option-2 Option-] Option-2 Wear Course 2-inches 1.5-inches 2-inches 1.5-inches Non-wear Course 2.5-inches 2-inches 2.5-inches 2-inches Aggregate base 8-inches 6-inches 10-inches 8-inches Select Granular N/A 12-inches N/A 12-inches Total GE 18.13 19.88 20.25 21.88 Page 7 of 9 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 26-00538 6.5 Utility Support, Bedding and Backfilling We judge the existing soils below the current subgrade to be suitable for utility foundation support. If clayey or silty soils are present at the trench bottom, a 4-inch thick Granular bedding (MnIDOT Specification 3149.F) layer should be placed beneath pipes to improve support uniformity. Differing bedding thicknesses and/or material types may be needed if unstable soils or if water is present in the trench bottom. Additional details regarding utility bedding and utility backfilling can be found on the attached standard sheets entitled "Bedding/Foundation Support of Buried Pipe" and"Standard Recommendations for Utility Trench Backfilling". 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Potential Difficulties 71.1 Runoff Water in Excavation Water can be expected to collect in the excavation bottom during times of inclement weather or snow melt. To allow observation of the excavation bottom, to reduce the potential for soil disturbance, and to facilitate filling operations, we recommend water be removed from within the excavation during construction. Based on the soils encountered, we anticipate the ground water can be handled with well points 7.1.2 Disturbance of Soils The on-site soils can become disturbed under construction traffic, especially if the soils are wet. If soils become disturbed, they should be subcut to the underlying undisturbed soils. The subeut soils can then be dried and recompacted back into place, or they should be removed and replaced with drier imported fill. Page 8 of 9 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. AET Project No. 26-00538 71.3 Cobbles and Boulders The soils at this site can include cobbles and boulders. This may make excavating procedures somewhat more difficult than normal if they are encountered. 7.2 Excavation Backsloping If excavation faces are not retained, the excavations should maintain maximum allowable slopes in accordance with OSHA Regulations (Standards 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, AExcavations@ (can be found on www.osha.gov). Even with the required OSHA sloping, water seepage or surface runoff can potentially induce sideslope erosion or running which could require slope maintenance. 7.3 Observation and Testing The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at our test boring locations. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring locations, we recommend on-site observation by a geotechnical engineer/technician during construction to evaluate these potential changes. Soil density testing should also be performed on new fill placed in order to document that project specifications for compaction have been satisfied. 8.0 LIMITATIONS Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, our services have been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this,now anty, either expressed or implied, is intended. Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in Appendix B entitled "Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use". Page 9 of 9 DEFINITIONS RELATING TO PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION TOP OF SUBGRADE Grade which contacts the bottom of the aggregate base layer. SAND SUBBASE Uniform thickness sand layer placed as the top of subgrade which is intended to improve the frost and drainage characteristics of the pavement system by better draining excess water in the base/subbase, by reducing and "bridging"frost heaving and by reducing spring thaw weakening effects. CRITICAL SUBGRADE ZONE The subgrade portion beneath and within three vertical feet of the top of subgrade. A sand subbase, if placed, would be considered the upper portion of the critical subgrade zone. -GRANULAR BORROW Soils meeting Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2131. This refers to granular soils which, of the portion passing the I" sieve,contain less than 20%by weight passing the#200 sieve. SELECT_GRANULAR BORROW Soils meeting Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2132. This refers to granular soils which, of the portion passing the 1" sieve, contain less than 12%by weight passing the#200 sieve. MODIFIED SELECT GRANULAR BORROW Clean, medium grained sands which, of the portion passing the I" sieve, contain less than 5% by weight passing the#200 sieve and less than 40%by weight passing the#40 sieve. GEOTEXTILE STABILIZATION FABRIC Geotextile meeting Type V requirements defined in Mn/DOT Specification 3733. When using fabric, installation should also meet the requirements outlined in Mn/DOT Specification 3733. COMPACTION SUBCUT Construction of a uniform thickness subcut below a designated grade to provide uniformity and compaction within the subcut zone. Replacement fill can be the materials subcut, although the reused soils should be blended to a uniform soil condition and recompacted per the Specified Density Method (Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3171). TEST ROLL A means of evaluating the near-surface stability of subgrade soils (usually non-granular). Suitability is determined by the depth of rutting or deflection caused by passage of heavy rubber-tired construction equipment, such as a loaded dump truck, over the test area. Yielding of less than I" is normally considered acceptable, although engineering judgment may be applied depending on equipment used, soil conditions present,and/or pavement performance expectations. UNSTABLE SOILS Subgrade soils which do not pass a test roll. Unstable soils typically have water content exceeding the "standard optimum water content"defined in ASTM:D698 (Standard Proctor test). ORGANIC SOILS Soils which have sufficient organic content such that engineering properties/stability are affected. These soils are usually black to dark brown in color. 0 1 REPO 19(08/07) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SUBGRADE PREPARATION AND DESIGN GENERAL Bituminous pavem mts are considered layered"flexible" systems. Dynamic wheel loads transmit high local stresses throuah the bituminous/base onto the subgrade. Because of this, the upper portion of the subgrade requires high strength/stability to reduce deflection and fatigue of the bituminous/base system.The wheel load intensity dissipates throughthe subgrade such thatthe high level of soil stability is usually not needed below about Tto 4'(depending on the anticipated traffic and underlying soil conditions).This is the primary reason for specifying a higher level of compaction within the upper subgrade zone versus the lower portion.Moderate compaction is usually desired below the upper critical zone,primarily to avoid settlements/sags of the roadway.However,if the soils present below the upper 3'subgrade zone are unstable, attempts to properly compact the upper 3' zone to the 100% level may be difficult or not possible. Therefore, control of moisture just below the 3' level may be needed to provide a non-yielding base upon which to compact the upper oubgradosoils. Long-term pavement performance is dependent on the soil subgrade drainage and frost characteristics.Poor to moderate draining soils tend to be susceptible to frost heave and subsequent weakening upon thaw.This condition can result in irregular frost movernents and"popouts,"as well as an accelerated softening of the subgrade.Frost problems become more pronounced when the subgrade is layered with soils of varying permeability.In this situation,the free-draining soils provide a pathway and reservoir for water infiltration which exaggerates the movements.The placement of a well drained sand subbase layer as the top of subgrade can minimize trapped water,smooth frost movements and significantly reduce oob~rudcaofteoiu .ln wet,layered and/or poor drainage situations,�olong-term pedonnuoce8uin should 6euiAoi§cor�. � If sand subbase"is placed, we recommend it be o "Select Granular Bonn*` which meets Mn/DOT Spccicu1ion 2i402B2. PREPARATION Subgrade preparation should include stripping surficial vegetation and organic soils.Where the exposed soils are within the upper"critical"subgrade zone(generally 2 '/;z' deep for"auto only"areas and Tdeep for"heavy duty"areas),they should be evaluated for stability. Excavation equipment may make such areas obvious due to deflection and rutting patterns.Final evaluation of soils within the critical subgrade zone should be done by test rollingwith heavy rubber-tired construction equipment,such as a loaded dump truck.Soils which rut or deflect I"or more under the test roll should be corrected by either subcutting and replacement;or by scarification,drying,and recompaction.Reworked soils and new fill should be compacted per the"Specified Density Method"outlined in Mn/DOT Specification 2105.317 1 (a minimum of 100%of Standard Proctor density in the upper 3'subgrade zone,and a minimum of 95%below this). SuhArude preparation ochedulio8 can be an important consideration.Fall and Spring seasons usually have unfavorable weather for soil dryin'g.Stabilizing non-sand subgrades during these seasons may be difficult,and attempts often result in onmppominiugtbepuvemnot quality.Where construction scheduling requires subgrade preparation during these times,the use ofa sand subbase becomes even more 6eoefioiulfor oon*ruotubddyreasons. SUBGRADE DRAINAGE If � layer used, it should be provided with a means of subsurface drainage to prevent water build-up. This can be in the form ufdruind\u lines which dispose into storm sewer systems,oruudcm into ditches. Where sand subbase layers include sufficient sloping, and water can migrate to lower m `drui dle \incuouuh* bmitedtofiu8er drains at the catch basins. Even if a sand layer is not placed, strategically placed draintile lines can aid in improving pavement performance. This would be most important in meoa where adjacent non-paved areas slope towards the pavement. Perimeter edge drains can aid in intercepting water which may infiltrate below the pavernent. OIREP016(02/01) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. BEDDING/FOUNDATION SUPPORT OF BURIEDP E GENERAL This page addresses soil bedding and foundation support of rigid pipe, such as reinforced concrete, and flexible pipe, such as steel and plastic. This does not address selection of pipe based on loads and allowable deflections, but rather addresses the geotechnical/soil aspects of uniform pipe support. Bedding/foundation support needs relate to local conditions directly beneath and to the sides of the pipe zone, which may be influenced by soft in- situ ground conditions or by soil disturbance due to soil sensitivity or ground water. Bedding relates to granular materials placed directly beneath the bottom of the pipe (usually 4" to 6" thick), which is intended to provide increased support uniformity. We refer to foundation soils as thicker layers of sands and/or gravels (beneath the bedding zone) intended to provide increased foundation strength support, usually needed due to soft, unstable and/or waterbearing conditions. GRANULAR BEDDING With circular pipes, high local loads (approaching point loads) develop if pipes are placed on hard surfaces. Load distribution is improved by placing granular bedding materials beneath the pipe, which are either shaped to match the pipe bottom or are placed without compaction to allow "settling in," The bedding should be placed in such a manner that the pipe will be at the proper elevation and slope when the pipe is laid on the bedding. Common bedding material is defined in Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2F, Granular Bedding. Published documents recommend rigid pipes having a diameter of 12" to 54" be placed on a bedding thickness of 4", which increases to 6" of bedding for pipe diameters ranging from 54" to 72". Beyond a 72" diameter, the bedding thickness can be equal to the pipe outside diameter divided by 12. Typically, the need for bedding under small diameter pipes (less than 12") depends on the pipe designer's specific needs, although in obvious point loads situations (bedrock, cobbles, significant coarse gravel content), bedding is recommended. Note that bedding should also account for larger diameter bells at joints. FOUNDATION FILL Positive uniform strength is usually compromised in soft or unstable trench bottom conditions. In this case, deeper subcuts and foundation fill placement is needed beneath the pipe. In moderate instability conditions, improvement can likely be accomplished with a thicker bedding layer. However, in more significant instability situations, particularly where ground water is present, coarser materials may be needed to provide a stronger foundation. Thicker gravel layers can also be a favorable media from which to dewater. The following materials would be appropriate for stability improvement, with the coarser materials being appropriate for higher instability/ground water cases. • Fine Filter Aggregate— Mn/DOT Specification 3149.27 • Coarse Filter Aggregate—Mn/DOT Specification 3149.211 When using a coarser material which includes significant void space, we highly recommend enveloping the entire gravel layer within a geotextile fabric. The gravel material includes open void space, and the fabric acts as a separator which minimizes the intrusion of fines into the open void space. If an additional granular bedding sand is used above foundation gravel, the fabric would also prevent downward infiltration of bedding sand into the rock void space. Although it is preferred to not highly compact thin granular bedding zones directly beneath the pipe center, it is desirable to compact the foundation materials to prevent more significant pipe settlement. We recommend foundation fill be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the Standard Proctor density (ASTM:D698). It is not possible to test coarse rock fill, although this material should still be well compacted/ tamped. Often, pipes entering structures such as catch basins, lift stations, etc., enter the structure at a higher elevation than the structure bottom, and are therefore placed on the structure backfill. Fill beneath these pipes should be considered foundation fill. Depending on the flexibility of the connection design, it may be necessary to increase the minimum compaction level to reduce differential settlements,-particularly with thicker fills. S FILL SUPPORT If the pipe designer requires support from the side fill, granular bedding should also be placed along the sides of the pipe. In poor soil conditions, the sand fill may need to be placed laterally up to two pipe diameters on both sides of the pipe. With rigid pipe, compacted sand placement up to the spring line (within the haunch area) is usually sufficient. With flexible pipe, side fill should be placed and compacted at least to the top of the pipe. For positive support, it is very important to properly compact the sands within the haunch area. OiREP017(03/04) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. STANDARD RE COMMENDATIONS FOR UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILLING Clayey and silty soi Is are often difficu It to corn pact,as they may be naturally wet or may become wet due to ground water or surface/rainwaterdurino construction.So i Is wi I I need to be placed within a certain range of water(inoistur0content to attain desired compaction levels. Moisture conditioning to with in th is range can be time consuming,labor intensive, and requires favorable weather. The de�rmeofoompuokm and the soil type used for houkfiU°vhhio open cut uui|�y�onchcsdepends uo�e function u[ the overlying land Surface. Details are uu follows: ROADWAYS Where trenches are located below roadways.we recornmend using inorganic fill and compacting these soils per Mn/DOT Specification 2105.317 1 (Specified Density Method).This specification requires 100%of the Standard Proctor density in the upper one meter SUbgrade zone, and 95% below this.Note that this specification includes moisture content range requirements which are important for proper subgrade stability. Where available soi Is are wet or of poor quality,it may be possible to use the"Quality Compaction Method"(Mn/D0T Specification 2185,3172) for soils below the upper one meter nuhgrude zone if YOU can tolerate some yuhnNcnoo. However,a high level of stability is still important within the upper subgrade zone and recommend that the"Specified Density Method" be used in this upper subgrade area. We caution that if backfill soils in the lower trench area are significantly uuomh|e it may be difficult or even impossible to property compact soils within the upper one meter mubsraduzone.{n\hiy`cuxc,p|o^iugugaoiuxtUefabricdirect|yovortheunstab|exoi|acanuidinoffseoingthoinxmbiU1y. if fill is placed beneath or within the significant zone of influence of a structure(typically a 1:1 lateral oversize zone),the soil type and minimurn cornpaction level will need to be evaluated on an individual basis. Because trenches result in variable fill depths overa short lateral distance,higherthan normal cornpaction levels and/or more favorable(sandy)soil fill types may be needed. If this situation exists.it is it-nportantthat special geotechnical engineering review be perfonned. NON-STRUCTURAL AREAS In grass/ditch areas,backfill soils should be placed in reasonable lift thicknesses and compacted to a ininimuni of 90%of the Standard Proctor density(ASTM:D698)and/or perthe Mn/DOT"Quality Compaction Method."If lower cornpaction levels are attained, more noticeable subsidence at the surface can occur. Stcep or high slopes require special consideration. 0 1 REPO 18(02/0 1) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Ap dix A AET Project No. 26-00538 Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 —Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing AFT Project No. 26-00538 A.1 FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling and sampling fourteen (14) standard penetration test borings. The locations of the borings appear on Figure 1,preceding the Subsurface Boring Logs in this appendix. A.2 SAMPLING METHODS A.2.1 Split-Spoon Samples(SS)-Calibrated to N60 Values Standard penetration (split-spoon) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM01586 with one primary modification. The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler into the in-situ soil with a 140-pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches.The sampler is driven a total of 18 inches into the soil. After an initial set of 6 inches, the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the standard penetration resistance or N-value. Our method uses a modified hammer weight, which is determined by measuring the system energy using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA)and an instrumented rod. In the past, standard penetration N-value tests were performed using a rope and cathead for the lift and drop system. The energy transferred to the split-spoon sampler was typically limited to about 60%of it=s potential energy due to the friction inherent in this system.This converted energy then provides what is known as an N60 blow count. Most newer drill rigs incorporate an automatic hammer lift and drop system,which has higher energy efficiency and subsequently results in lower N-values than the traditional N60 values. By using the PDA energy measurement equipment, we are able to determine actual energy generated by the drop hammer. With the various hammer systems available, we have found highly variable energies ranging from 55% to over 100%. Therefore, the intent of AET=s hammer calibrations is to vary the hammer weight such that hammer energies lie within about 60%to 65%of the theoretical energy of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The current ASTM procedure acknowledges the wide variation in N-values, stating that N-values of 100% or more have been observed. Although we have not yet determined the statistical measurement uncertainty of our calibrated method to date, we can state that the accuracy deviation of the N-values using this method is significantly better than the standard ASTM Method. A.2.2 Disturbed Samples(DS)/Spin-up Samples(SU) Sample types described as"DS" or"SU" on the boring logs are disturbed samples, which are taken from the flights of the auger. Because the auger disturbs the samples,possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate. A.2.3 Sampling Limitations Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Cobbles,boulders,and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings, and they may be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs. Determining the thickness of"topsoil" layers is usually limited, due to variations in topsoil definition, sample recovery, and other factors. Visual-manual description often relies on color for determination, and transitioning changes can account for significant variation in thickness judgment. Accordingly, the topsoil thickness presented on the logs should not be the sole basis for calculating topsoil stripping depths and volumes. If more accurate information is needed relating to thickness and topsoil quality definition,alternate methods of sample retrieval and testing should be employed. A.3 CLASSIFICATION METHODS Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. The USC system is described in ASTM:D2487 and 132488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been performed, accurate classifications per ASTM:D2487 are possible. Otherwise, soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are visual-manual judgments. Charts are attached which provide information on the USC system,the descriptive terminology,and the symbols used on the boring logs. Visual-manual judgment of the AASHTO Soil Group is also noted as a part of the soil description.A chart presenting details of the AASHTO Soil Classification System is also attached. Appendix A-Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing AET Project No. 26-00538 The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted z� primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and development can sometimes aid this judgment. AA WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS The ground water level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under AWater Level Measurements@ on the logs: • Date and Time of measurement • Sampled Depth: lowest depth of soil sampling at the time of measurement • Casing Depth:depth to bottom of casing or hollow-stem auger at time of measurement • Cave-in Depth: depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole • Water Level:depth in the borehole where free water is encountered • Drilling Fluid Level: same as Water Level,except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes.This is possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors include: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings, presence of drilling fluid,weather conditions,and use of borehole casing. A.5 LABORATORY TEST METHODS A.5.1 Water Content Tests Conducted per AET Procedure 0I-LAB-010,which is performed in general accordance with ASTM:D2216 and AASHTO:T265. A.5.2 Sieve Analysis of Soils(thru#200 Sieve) Conducted per AET Procedure 01-LAB-040,which is performed in general conformance with ASTM:D6913,Method A. A.6 TEST STANDARD LIMITATIONS Field and laboratory testing is done in general conformance with the described procedures. Compliance with any other standards referenced within the specified standard is neither inferred nor implied. A.7 SAMPLE STORAGE Unless notified to do otherwise, we routinely retain representative samples of the soils recovered from the borings; for a period of 30 days. Appendix A-Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. BORING LOG NOTES D LING TEST SYMBOLS R��AND SAMPLING SYMEROLS Symbol Derwition Symbol Derhiltion B,H,N: Size of flush joint casing CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test CA: Crew Assistant(initials) DEN: Dry density, pcf CAS: Pipe casing, number indicates nominal diameter in DST: Direct shear test inches E: Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf CC: Crew Chief(initials) HYD: Hydrometer analysis COT: Clean-out tube LL: -Liquid Limit, % DC: Drive casing; number indicates diameter in inches LP: Pressuremeter Limit Pressure,tsf DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry OC: Organic Content, % DR: Driller(initials) PERM: Coefficient of permeability (K)test; F-Field; DS: Disturbed sample from auger flights L-Laboratory FA: Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in PL: Plastic Limit, % inches qP: Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf(a T2roximate) HA: Hand auger; number indicates outside diameter 1: Static cone bearing pressure, tsf HSA: Hollow stem auger;number indicates inside diameter q,: Unconfined compressive strength, psf in inches R: Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cms LG: Field logger (initials) RQD: Rock Quality Designator in percent(aggregate length MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of of core pieces 4" or more in length as a percent of samples and for the ground water level symbols total core run) N(BPF)- Standard penetration resistance (N-value) in SA: Sieve analysis blows per foot(see notes) TRX; Triaxial compression test NQ: NQ wkreline core barrel VSR: Vane shear strength, remoulded(field), psf PQ: PQ wireline core barrel VSU: Vane shear strength, undisturbed(field), psf RD: Rotary drilling with fluid and roller or drag bit WC: Water content, as percent of dry weight REC: In split-spoon (see notes) and thin-walled tube %-200: Percent of material finer than#200 sieve sampling,the recovered length(in inches)of sample. In rock coring, the length of core recovered STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES (expressed as percent of the total core run). Zero indicates n o s ample recovered. The standard penetration test consists of driving the sampler with REV: Revert drilling fluid a 140-pound hammer and counting the number of blows applied SS: Standard split-spoon sampler (steel; 13/8" is inside in each of three 6" increments of penetration. If the sampler is diameter; 2" outside diameter); unless indicated driven less than 18" (usually in highly resistant material), otherwise permitted in ASTM:D1586, the blows for each complete 6" SU Spin-up sample from hollow stem auger increment and for each partial increment is on the boring log. TW: Thin-walled tube; number indicates inside diameter For partial increments, the number of blows is shown to the in inches nearest 0.V below the slash. WASH: Sample of material obtained by screening returning rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside The length of sample recovered, as shown on the "REC" the borehole after "falling" through drilling fluid column, may be greater than the distance indicated in the N WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and column.The disparity is because the N-value is recorded below 140-pound hammer the initial 6" set (unless partial penetration defined in WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod ASTM-D1586 is encountered) whereas the length of sample 94mm: 94 millimeter wireline core barrel recovered is for the entire sampler drive (which may even V Water level directly measured in boring extend more than 18"). V Estimated water level based solely on sample appearance 01FLD012(05/02) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AMERICAN ASTM Designations: D 2487,D2488 ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. 139MM Soil Classification Notes Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Group Group Name" A Based on the material passing the 3-in Symbol �75-nuo) sieve. Coarse-Grained Gravels More Clean Gravels Cu>4 and I<Cc<3 GW Well graded gravel If field sample contained cobbles or Soils More than 50%coarse Less than 5% boulders,or both, add"with cobbles or than 50% fraction retained f,,,,c CU<4 and/or I>Cc>3L GP Poorly graded gravel' boulders,or both"to group name. retained on on No.4 sieve cGravels with 5 to 12%fines require dual No.200 sieve Gravels with Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel" symbols: Fines more GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt than 12%fines C Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt Sands 50%or Clean Sands Cu>6 and I<Cc<3 E SW Well-graded sand' GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay more of coarse Less than 5% DSands with 5 to 12%fines require dual fraction passes fineSD Cu<6 and I>Cc>3' SP Poorly-graded sand l symbols: No.4 sieve SW-SM well-graded sand with silt Sands with Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand"-"' SW-SC well-graded sand with clay Fines more SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt than 12%fines D Fines classify as CL or CH SIC Clayey sand ' SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay Fine-Grained Silts and Clays inorganic PI>7 and plots on or above CL Lean cl Soils 50%or Liquid limit less "A"line' more passes than 50 PI<4 or plots below ML ECU=D(,,,/Dii), Cc the No.200 "A"line' D It)x D6() sieve organic Liquid limit-oven dried 10.75 OL organic clay .L-11-1 Fff soil contains>15%sand,add"with (see Plasticity Liquid limit-not dried Organic SiltK.L.M.0 sand"to group name. Chart below) GIf Fines classifv as CL-ML,use dual Silts and Clays inorganic P1 plots on or above"A"line CH Fat c*K:U.." urnbol GC-GM,or SC-SM. Liquid limit 50 If fines are organic,add"with organic or more PI plots below"A"line MH Elastic silt K,L_X1 fines"to group name. 'if soil contains>1 5%gravel,add"with OH organic clay'.L-11.1 pravel"to group name. organic Liquid limit-oven dried 10.75 If Atterberg limits plot is hatched area, Liquid limit-not dried Organic SiltK,L,II,Q soils is a CL-ML silty clay. Highly organic Primarily organic matter, dark PT Peat" rIf soil contains 15 to 29%plus No.200 add"with sand"or "with gravel", soil in color,and organic in odor whichever is predorninant. Llf sod contains>30%plus No.200, SIEVE ANALYSIS 60 predominantly sand,add "sandy"to For d—ifi-son d MtW.­dd1a and group name. 1 N 100 MI 1.3 21% 4 0 M W 77 1Q2 a 50- f soil contains>30%plus No.200, -255 predominantly gravel,add "gravelly" Honzontal at PI=4 to LL '1Z 40 then PI=0.73 LL-20) nx\ to group name, 20 k- NpI z Equation ol'U41ne >4 and plots on or above"A"line. Vertical at LL=16 to P1=7. 101, -—nee than PI O.9 ILL-B) OPI<4 or plots be[o%v"A"line. - F- 30 IM plots on or above"A"line. LL-LA QPI plots below"A"line. 20 R Fiber Content description shown below. - 01- —0,075— 10 1 0 - _7 7 0 [00 w 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS LIQUID LIMIT ILL) GB Dn a 15 .5's ao 667-5 D­M 0,075.15 Plasticity Chan ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY NOTES USED BY AET FOR SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION Grain Size Gravel Percentages Consistency of Plastic-Soils Relative Density of Non,-Plastic Soils Term Particle Size Term Percent Tenn N-Value,BPF Teri n N-Value,BPF Boulders Over 12" A Little Gravel 3%-14% Very Soft Im than 2 Very Loose 0-4 Cobbles 3"to 12" With Gravel 15%-29% Soft 2-4 Loose 5-10 Gravel 44 sieve to 3" Gravelly 30%-50% Firm 5-8 Medium Dense 11-30 Sand #200 to#4 sieve Stiff 9-15 Dense 31-50 Fines(silt&clay) Pass#200 sieve Very Stiff 16-30 Very Dense Greater than 50 Hard Greater than 30 Moisture/Frost Condition Lavering Notes Fiber Content of Peat Organic/Roots Description(if no lab tests) (MC Column) Laminations: Layers less than Fiber Content Soils are described as orizureic,if soil is not peat D(Dry): Absense Of moisture,dusty,dry to W' thick of Term (Visual Estimate) and is judged to have sufficient organic fines touch. differing material content to influence the soil properties. hrly M(Moist): Damp,although free water not or color. Fibric Peat: Greater than 67% or ureic Used for borderline cases. visible. Soil may still have a high Heroic Peat: 33-67% water content(over"optimum"). Lenses: Pockets or layers Sapric Peat: Less than 33% With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity W(Wet/ Free Water visible intended to greater than!/," of rootsto influence the soil Waterbearing): describe non-plastic soils. thick of differing properties, Waterbearing Usually relates to material or color. Trace roots: Small roots present,but not judged sands and sand with silt. to be in sufficient quantity to F(Frozen): Soil frozen significantly affect soil properties. OICLS021(2/04) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. • _ C N M x �a No- w it r re! V] 'z N � N O N Q N ~ W � I� If t r Cq e AA1 5. " imp— POP c W boo Y� M 1 W U yy, H � I yA j W � U 4w r O r s�ri f r� _ t b Q � S p Lam.... �=-:T__� _--__--.____. .:�-.. _ -_.. � ._'-_-_• AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSU"ACE BORJNG LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 1 (p. I of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements; Elk River,MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 891.9 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS IN MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. WC DEN LL PL Slo-#20 2"Bituminous pavement FEET FILL AS -\4"Apparent aggregate base FILL,a mixture of sand and silty sand,a little gavel,brown and grayish brown 17 M SS 13 2 - FILL,a mixture of sand with silt and silty sand, a little gravel,brown and dark brown 3 - 10 M SS 14 4- 5 - 4 M SS 18 6- 7 - CLAYEY SAND,grayish brown,soft, MIXED 4 M SS 18 18 laminations of silty sand(SC) ALLUVIUM SILTY SAND,fine grained,grayish brown, COARSE moist,medium dense(SM) ALLUVIUM 9- 11 M SS 18 10- SAND,a little gravel,fine to medium grained, 10 M SS 12 brown,moist,loose(SP) END OF BORING W W DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER THE ATTACHED 0-10' 3.2511 HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL 11/16/12 None SHEETS FOR AN VM S 11/16/12 AD 5.0 None EXPLANATION OF it BORING TERMINOLOGY ON 0 COMPLETED: 11/16/12 ()' THIS LOG DR: BR LG: DR_Eilg- .: 178 GM) 03/2011 0 1-DHR-060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB No: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 2 (p. I of PROJECT: .2013 Elk River Street Improvements; Elk River,MN DEPT H SURFACE ELEVATION: 891.1 GEOLOGY N MC SATYPE WMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS IN . FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WC DEN LL PL .420 ­13"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 3"Apparent aggregate base 9 FILL,mostly silty sand,a little sand with silt,a 8 little gravel,brown 14 M SS 15 2 — 3 — 9 M SS 3 4— 5 — 4 M SS 12 6— FILL,a mixture of silty sand and sand,a little gravel,brown and light brown 7— 3 M SS 14 8 — SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, COARSE brown,moist,loose(SP) ALLUVIUM 9 5 M SS 17 — 10— SAND,fine grained,light brown,moist,loose 6 M SS 13 a 11 (Sp) END OF BORING CL CL W co DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED 0-101 3.2511 HSA 11/16/12 WD None SHEETS FOR AN 11/16/12 AD 1 5.0 ---None EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON (0 COMPLETED: 11/16/12 <' THIS LOG Li DR: BR LG: DR Ria: 178 GRD ------ ----------------- 03/2011 01-DHR-060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. MW AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 3 (p. I of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements; Elk River,MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 888.9 GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS MC IN N TYPE IN. FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WC DEN LL PL .420 3. Bituminous pavement FILL )I AS 7"Apparent aggregate base I — FILL,mostly sand with gravel and silt,brown 14 M SS 11 2 — FILL,mostly sand,a little gravel,brown 3 — 9 M Ss 18 4— SAND,a little gravel,fine grained,light brown, COARSE moist, loose(SP)(possible fill) ALLUVIUM OR FILL 5 7 M SS 17 6— SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, brown,moist,medium dense,lense dark brown silty sand(SP)(possible fill) 7— 23 M SS 2 8 — SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine gained, COARSE brown,moist,medium dense(SP) ALLUVIUM 9 — 12 M SS 17 10— 12 M SS 12 a 11 F- a END OF BORING LU Uj Uj CL Lu DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO SAMPLED CASING CAVE-rN DRILLING WATER DATE TIME THE ATTACHED 0-101 3.2511 HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL SHEETS FOR AN 11/16/12 N" None 11/16/12 AD 4.0 None EXPLANATION OF EL c� BORING TERMINOLOGY ON 0 COMPLETED: 11/16/12 0 THIS LOG < _2L. BR LG. DR Rig: 178 GRD 01-DHR-060 03/2011 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 4 (p. I of I) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements; Elk River,MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 886.1 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS IN IN FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE ' WC DEN LL PL 44420 4"Bituminous pavement FILL AS FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gravel,brown 1 — 12 8 M SS 14 2 - FILL,a mixture of silty sand and clayey sand,a little gravel,brown and dark brown 3 - 4 M SS 16 24 4- FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gavel,brown,a little dark brown 5 - 6 M SS 18 6- 7- 6 M SS 16 8 - SAND,a little gavel,medium to fine gained, COARSE brown,moist,loose(SP) ALLUVIUM 9 - 7 M SS 18 6 M SS 12 END OF BORING m. F DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO SAIvTLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER DATE TIME THE ATTACHED 0-10' 3.25" HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL SHEETS FOR AN 11/16/12 VM None 11/16/12 AD 5.0 None EXPLANATION OF COMPLETED: 11/16/12 TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG DR: BR LG: DR Lg. 178G 03/2011 _. PJ) 01-DI-IR-060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-OOS38 LOG OF BORING NO. - S (P. I of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street improvements; Elk River MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION. 886.6 GEOLOGY N REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS IN IN. FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL U.420i 5"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 6"Apparent aggregate base 3"Bituiinous pavement ... 29 M SS 11 FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gravel,pieces of bituminous,dark brown,brown and grayish 2 - brown 3 - 31 M SS 17 4- SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, COARSE light brown,moist, loose to medium dense(SP) ALLUVIUM 5 - 10 M SS 18 6 — 7 11 M SS 16 - 8 — 9 11 M SS 17 to- 12 M SS 12 END OF BORING W EL DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER DATE TIME 0-10' 3.25" HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED 11116/12 None SHEETS FOR AN VM 11/16/12 AD 4.0 None EXPLANATION OF 0 COMPLETED: TERMINOLOGY ON BORING 11/16/12 0 THIS LOG DR: 13R L2- DR_Pig178GPJ) 01-DI-IR-060 03/2011 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: - 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 6 (p. I of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements; Elk River,AIN DEPTH 890.1 SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS IN SURFACE ELEVATION: GEOLOGY N MC TYPE IM DEN FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WC LL PL /4-420 4.5"Bituminous pavement _fff_L AS FILL,mostly sand with silt,brown 15 M SS 14 2 — FILL,mostly sand,a little gavel,brown,a little dark brown 3 — 15 M SS 18 4— 5 — 8 M SS 17 6— 7- 3 M SS 17 SAND,fine grained,light brown,moist,very COARSE loose to loose(SP) ALLUVIUM 8 — 9— 8 M SS 17 to 8 M SS 13 END OF BORING W CL CL CL Uj LU LU a DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO W SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER 0-10' 3.25" HSA DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED 11/16/12 None SHEETS FOR AN WD 11/16/12 AD 5.0 None EXPLANATION OF a. W B0RING 0 COMPLETED: 11/16/12 TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG W DR: BR LG: DR Rig: 178 G <03/2011 01-DH R-060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. — 7 (p. I of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements; Elk River, MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 897.9 GEOLOGY N MC TYPE IN .SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WC DEN LL PL Y0420 3.5"Bjtun-j�jnouS pa�VeMent�... FILL AS 5"Apparent aggregate base, Fill,mostly sand with silt,a little gravel,brown 3 12 M SS 12 2 — 3 — 10 M SS 14 4— GRAVELLY SAND WITH SILT,medium to COARSE coarse grained,brown,moist,loose(SP-Sled ALLUVIUM (possible fill) OR FILL 7 M SS 12 6— SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, COARSE light brown,moist,loose(SP) ALLUVIUM 7 5 M SS 16 — 8 — GRAVELLY SAND,medium to coarse grained,light brown,moist to 9'than waterbearing,medium dense to dense(SP) 9— SS 14 10— 32 W SS I END OF BORING W 3� LU co DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED 0-10' 3.25® HSA cli SHEETS FOR AN 11/16/12 WD 9.0 11/16/12 AD 4.0 None EXPLANATION OF N D. W 130 NQ TERMINOLOGY ON 00 COMPLETED: 11/16/12 THIS LOG IL DR: BR LG: DR Rig: 178 GRD <03/2011 01-DHR-060 ERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 8 (p. 1 of PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements; Elk PjVer2 MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 898.4 GEOLOGY . W SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS N MC TYPE IN IN FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION C DEN LL PL '/o-#20 4"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 5"Apparent aggregate base FILL,mostly silty s nd with gravel,brown 11 M SS 8 2 — Slightly organic silty sand,black,moist, .,BURIED medium dense(SM-OL) TOPSOIL 3 — 10 M SS 19 47 4— SAND,fine to medium grained,brown,moist, COARSE medium dense(SP) ALLUVIUM 5 — 12 M SS 14 6— SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine gained, grayish brown,wet to Tthan waterbearing, 7— loose(SP) SS 18 8 — SAND WITH SILT,a little gravel,medium to fine grained,dark gray,waterbearing,loose 9 — (Sp-sm) 7 W SS 18 to SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, gray,waterbearing,loose,(SP) 8 W SS 15 a II END OF BORING W 3: a. W W U) LU DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER THE ATTACHED 0-101 3.25"HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL M 11/16/12 7.0 SHEETS FOR AN 11/16/12 AD 5.0 None EXPLANATION OF BORING TERMINOLOGY ON ED 1111 COMPLETED: 6/12 THIS LOG R LG DR. <L : BR LG: DR Rjig: 178 GPJI) 03/2011 01-DHR-060 ANIERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 9 (P® 1 of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements; Elk River,MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 883®1 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS f IN FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE ' DEN LL PL ®-#20 WC 4"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 2.5°°Apparent aggregate base I — FILL,mostly silty sand,brown and dark brown 10 M SS 14 2 - FILL,mostly silty sand,brown 3 - 8 M SS 12 4- SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, COARSE brown,moist,loose(SP)(possible fill) ALLUVIUM OR FILL 5 - 8 M SS 17 6- SAND WITH GRAVEL,medium to fine COARSE grained,brown,moist,medium dense(SP) ALLUVIUM Ss 17 7 - 15 M 9 - 14 M SS 13 10- SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, light brown,moist,medium dense(SP) 22 M SS 12 a I1 END OF BORING W W W Uj DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO W SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER o 0-10' 3.25" SA DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED 11/16/12 None SHEETS FOR AN VVD 11/16/12 AD 4.0 None EXPLANATION OF BORING --- TERMINOLOGY ON 0 COMPLETED: 11/16/12 0 THIS LOG 14 1 1 DR: BR LG: DR Rig: 17 i 03/2011 01-DHR-060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. — 10 (P. 1 Of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street.improvements; Elk River,MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 885.6 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS IN TYPE 'FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WC DEN LL PL '44420 2.6"Bitunji�nous pa�vement.. FILL AS --\4"Apparent aggregate base I — FILL,mostly silty sand,dark brown 18 9 M SS 18 2 — FILL,mostly silty sand,brown 3 — 6 M SS 17 4 — CLAYEY SAND,trace roots,brown,stiff(SC) MDMD (possible fill) ALLUVIUM 13 OR FILL 5 — SAND,fine to medium grained,brown,moist, COARSE 7 M SS 16 loose(SP) ALLUVIUM 6— SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, mottled brown,moist,loose(SP) 7 6 M SS 16 — 8— 9— 6 M SS 18 6 M SS 12 END OF BORING LLI J W W Uj Uj Z! DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO LU DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER THE ATTACHED 0-101 3.25" LISA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL 11/16/12 None SHEETS FOR AN VVD — -il/16/12 AD 4.0 None EXPLANATION OF 0 BORING TERMINOLOGY ON COMPLETED: 11/16/12 1 THIS LOG < W DR: BR LG: DE Rig: 178 GRI! 03/2011 01-DHR-060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TES G, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 11 (P. I of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements; Elk River,MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 885.4 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS IN IN ] FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE . WC DEN LL PL 4420 -.2.5"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 6"Concrete rubble FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gavel,brown 9 M SS 12 2 — FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gavel,dark brown 3 — 11 M SS 14 4— SAND WITH SILT,a little gravel,fine to COARSE medium grained,brown,moist,loose(SIB-Sly ALLUVIUM (possible fill) OR FILL 9 M SS 16 6— SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, COARSE mottled brown,moist,loose to medium dense ALLU'VIUM 7 (SP) 8 M SS 16 — 9 — 10 M SS 15 12 M SS 14 N II END OF BORING LU Uj Uj LU DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO AMPL CASG CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER DATE TIME DEPTH ED DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED 0-10' 3.25" HSA S SHEETS FOR AN 11/16/12 WD None EXPLANATION OF C6 11/16/12 AD 4.0 None X BORING TERMINOLOGY ON 0 COMPLETED: 11/16/12 1 1 1 0 THIS LOG DR: BR LG: DR Rig: 178 GRI 1 03/2011 01-DHR-060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. Mile AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 12 (p. 1 of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Improvements; Elk River,MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 889.0 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS IN WC FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TYPE IN. DEN LL PL a-#20 6"�Bituminous pavement FILL AS 7"Concrete rubble FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gravel and 8 M SS 14 clayey sand,brown 2 — FILL,mostly sand with gravel,brown 3 — 10 M SS 12 4— GRAVELLY SAND,coarse to fine grained, COARSE brown,moist,loose(SP)(possible fill) ALLUVIUM OR FILL 5 — 10 M SS 14 6— SAND,fine grained,grayish brown,moist, COARSE medium dense(SP) ALLUVIUM 7— 16 M SS 17 8 — SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, brown,moist,medium dense(SP) 9— 16 M SS 17 10— 13 M SS 12 END OF BORING W 0. 0- W U) Of W DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER DATE TIME THE ATTACHED 0-10' 3.25" HSA DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL None SHEETS FOR AN 11/16/12 WD EXPLANATION OF (6 AD 4.0 None 11/16/12 a-— I t BORING TERMINOLOGY ON 0 COMPLETED: 11/16/12 1 1 1 1 0' THIS LOG lu- DR: BR LG_- DR_Rig178 <03/2011 01-DHR-060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 13 (p. 1 of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk over Street Improvements;,Elk River,.MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 892.8 GEOLOGY SAMPLE MC SAMPLE REC FIELD&LABORATORY TESTS IN TYPE IN. FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WC IDEN LL J PL /o—#20 7"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 8"Apparent aggregate base FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gravel,brown 15 M SS 14 and dark brown FILL,mostly sand with gravel,brown 3 — 16 M SS 14 2 4— SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, COARSE brown,moist,loose(SP)(possible fill) ALLUVIUM OR FILL 5 7 M SS 17 — 6— SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, COARSE light brown,moist,medium dense(SP) ALLLTVTUM 7— 14 M SS 16 SAND WITH GRAVEL,medium to fine grained,light brown,moist,medium dense(SP) 9— 26 M SS 18 a 10— 20 M SS 12 END OF BORING 0. (L q CL LU E! DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO LU SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLIN;] WA ER 0-10, 3.25"HSA DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LE V EL THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN 11/16/12 WD None EXPLANATION OF $ 11/16/12 AD 4.0 None CL W BORI TERMINOLOGY ON 0 COMPLETED: 11/16/12 1 1 1 01 THIS LOG F- DR: BR LG: DR Rig:.178 Git ----------------- 03/2011 01-DHR-060 AMERICAN ENGINEERING SUBSURFACE BORING LOG TESTING, INC. AET JOB NO: 26-00538 LOG OF BORING NO. 14 (p• I of 1) PROJECT: 2013 Elk River Street Im prove meats;.Elk River,MN DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 895.6 GEOLOGY N MC SAMPLE REC FIELD-&LABORATORY TESTS IN TYPE 'FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WC DEN LL PL o-420 6"Bituminous pavement FILL AS 7"Concrete rubble FILL,mostly silty sand,a little gravel,dark 16 M SS 14 brown to brown 2 — 3 — 26 M SS 16 4— FILL,mostly gravelly sand with silt,brown 5 — 10 M SS 12 6— SAND,a little gravel,medium to fine grained, COARSE brown,moist,loose(SP) ALLUVIUM 7 8 M SS 16 — 8 — 9 — 6 M SS 15 10 6 M SS 12 a 11 END OF BORING 3LU: (L tu DEPTH: DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER 0-101 3.2511 PISA DATE ATTACHED DATE TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL 11/16/12 WD None SHEETS FOR AN 11/16/12 AD 4.0 None EXPLANATION OF F30RI ON NG_ TERMINOLOGY COMPLETED: 11/16/12 1 1 THIS LOG < W1 DR: BR LG: DR Rig: 178 GRJ) 01-DHR-060 03/2011 Appendix AE Project No. 26-00538 Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use AET Project No. 26-00538 BA REFERENCE This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks relating to subsurface problems which are caused by construction delays,cost overruns,claims,and disputes. This information was developed and provided by ASFE',of which, we are a member firm. B.2 RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION 13.2.1 Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes,Persons,and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique,prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one, not even you, should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. 13.2.2 Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. B.2.3 A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typically factors include:the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences;the general nature of the structure involved,its size,and configuration;the location of the structure on the site;and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise,do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored,or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building,or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team,or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes, even minor ones, and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. B.2.4 Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time;by man-made events,such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. I ASFE,8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106,Silver Spring,MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 :www.asfe.or Appendix B—Page I of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use AET Project No. 26-00538 8.2.5 Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identified subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. B.2.6 A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final,because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. 8.2.7 A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences,and by providing construction observation. B.2.8 Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions,the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. 8.2.9 Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems,give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report,but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In the letter,advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report(a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. 8.2.10 Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their report. Sometimes labeled"limitations"many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers'responsibilities begin and end,to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. 13.2.11 Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings,conclusions,or recommendations;e.g.,about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Appendix B—Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC APPENDIX F Public Comment Summary 185th Avenue Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Exhibit 185th Avenue Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Estimate Feasibility Report 2013 Street Improvement Project City of Elk River,MN WSB Project No.1992-01 o x W m ° m x a� N y o) U 2 N 3 O y o) N o) ° Q y A N N y 0 — O Q o o)lo o "6 o) -O Q w °-L o N N D (m0 'J y Y Q Q N N L T y O U � ° o d a• o) N 2 > W 0I W O C L'0 N > y 0 C o C o O+� Q > o'— Q O -6 "o O �-Y jp y y�° O O y L fl->W N C y O Q TY T O L o o N O L N o t3 5 1E o O o) N C fy/1 y o) 0 N > O o. 0 V a Q T N Q A Y y A y O E O U ° O A y O O 0 A y _ 2i 2i U o)w A A A y y O o O Z U ° m U U °�F y (n m ii(n wo o oQ Yw o � o � ��� _ = o N 0I y y N 'L O O O T o o go o F 0 N 3 3 N o E2 o-O U B "6 L�; N O O U N y y y N OL N o d K Q N N N N in y > m o °'O > m o CL Z: -o o Yp a T-o c°o m °- E o M m M Y1 o m T o o o-a AW y C y Y V "6 o W C y41 U O O"6 N w C y C ° o L aI W V w A ° E N O ON"3 d 2i y W 2i �� ro`oL Gl E m � o E � u ° m o�_ 0 N o E w-o y J 0'm ".. o V! 0 m ° oo o M N U o m m m L N U E K ° m R U ° m'o o m m y y m � V -6Q �.. > o N o w �C o m T Y C (O N U o N y A Q"6 Q o a• O �m"m y" o m o o o a >Q O o m Q U o E E ° - a-o > t s 3 V R rn o K s o N _E o -a d 3 °m N m m.. o o L o� o a U? 0 O O s y m m N o m E E o o- 0 E m m o N y N N- L r U y o u y E V E Y T obi T T E CL o .L > N y Y N > m E4 o E4 L ._ s S O r s T n o.. O o 0 o s.. E.-Y °� o y E a�E o°� m y s y+• - 7 3-o L _ o o o Q (/� m a�°o m ° o > m `m�O o°�i m -0 3 °� Y 3 Y o E � m (O N -w co)> N(nzo:-5 ��0� � Q o Q m 0 v v v N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 CL O co 0 C C C O o m m m in ro o) > (O a D r. m m Z m m N ¢V N o (n a0`� "06 O(n o ° � o..�t a �� v U`E K ° K ormi v inU min 0 O co, y of of o� K rn0 u� o �Um m 0 v Z o °I Z 0 N O Z Q N o m > o O � Q N K cl E N m E N m I*El N W W d T A�•rf U E U (D :n Z m Ln _ u) Q m m e'oi _ El Oq � Z - W 2 O c LO ol. W NCO Ix v � s a ♦ J MN aO7VOSVd D - - �. N1S N33no M (.MN al3 w33ni9 '' LLI FL ao 3snoHlanoo b i r s 3 m a o Sewer and Water costs for west 185th $69,000.00 8" gravity sewer $15,000.00 manholes $2,500.00 castings $8,000.00 services $48,000.00 8" watermain $15,000.00 hydrants $5,700.00 Valves $25,000.00 Surface restoration of Troy St $15,000.00 Turf restoration $203,200.00 Total construction $40,640.00 Administration $243,840.00 1 $27,093.33 Lateral cost per property(9 total) Sewer and Water Costs for East 185th $28,500.00 8" gravity sewer $5,000.00 manholes $1,000.00 castings $5,000.00 services $33,000.00 8" watermain $3,000.00 hydrants $1,900.00 Valves Surface restoration of Troy St Turf restoration $77,400.00 Total construction $15,480.00 Administration $92,880.00 1 $18,576.00 Lateral cost per property(5 total) RESOLUTION 13- A RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IN THE MATTER OF THE 2013 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS pursuant to Resolution No. 13-03 adopted by the Council on January 7,2013, a feasibility report was accepted and a public hearing was called to be held on the 2013 Street Improvement projects which includes sanitary sewer,watermain, storm sewer, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter,bituminous surfacing, and appurtenant work; and WHEREAS ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held on the 4"' of February 2013 at which time all person desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon;and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Elk River, Minnesota: I. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. Such improvements are necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 3. WSB &Associates, Inc.,under the direction of the city engineer,is hereby directed to prepare plans and specifications for the making of the improvement and the solicitation of competitive bids. Passed and adopted this 4ffi day of February 2013. John J. Dietz,Mayor ATTEST: Tina Allard, City Clerk 2013 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING February 4, 2013 Project Areas Proposed Improvements • Wear Course Paving on Unfinished Streets ▫ Spot curb and gutter replacement ▫ 1 ½ inch bituminous over existing bituminous base course • Overlay with Edge Mill ▫ Spot curb and gutter replacement ▫ 8’ edge mill along existing curb line and/or edge of pavement ▫ 1 ½ inch bituminous over existing bituminous base course Proposed Improvements • Full Depth Reclaim with Curb Patching ▫ Spot curb and gutter replacement ▫ Reclaim existing bituminous pavement to be re-used as aggregate base ▫ 3 ½ inch bituminous pavement section ▫ Water main improvements •Replace existing undersized water main along 4 th Street between Jackson Road and Gates Avenue (existing services to remain in place) Proposed Improvements • Reconstruction ▫ Install concrete curb and gutter ▫ Reclaim existing bituminous pavement to be re-used as aggregate base were feasible ▫ 3 ½ inch bituminous pavement section ▫ Pedestrian improvements •Extend bituminous trail along 185 th Avenue •New concrete walk along Business Center Drive/Gary Street Proposed Improvements • Reconstruction (cont.) ▫ Drainage improvements as necessary to accommodate new concrete curb and gutter ▫ Water main improvements •Replace existing undersized water main along 3 rd Street between Railroad Drive and Holt Avenue (service replacement to City right-of-way) •Install new water main loop along 185 th Avenue between Queens Way and Waco Street Improvement Selection Process •City Pavement Management Program •Field Inspections •Pavement Coring Pavement coring identifies what exists under the visible layer of the pavement and can give a wealth of information including depths of the pavement layers, signs of bonding or unbondingand distresses that might not be visible from the road surface. Pavement Coring Examples: Projected Costs Estimated Project Cost:$3,685,810  Surface Improvements$2,988,640  Sanitary Sewer Improvements$63,250  Water Main Improvements$539,310  Storm Sewer Improvements$94,610  Projected Funding Estimated Project Cost:$3,685,810  Special Assessments$1,277,820  Elk River Municipal Utility Funds$539,310  City Capital Improvement Funds$1,868,680  Estimated Assessments Estimated Street Assessments by Category WearCourse Paving on Unfinished Streets (100% Assessed) $4,048.79 Eagle Marsh Unit Assessment: / unit • $4,976.63 Hillside Estates Unit Assessment: / unit • $4,788.03 K & L Addition Unit Assessment: / unit • $2,159.59 The Woods at Hillside Unit Assessment: / unit • Estimated Assessments Estimated Street Assessments by Category Overlay with Edge Mill (Residential –100% Assessed) $6,600 nd 202Avenue Unit Assessment: / unit • $4,300 Country Side Acres Unit Assessment: / unit • $2,400 th Deerfield 4Addition Unit Assessment: / unit • $2,400 Meadowvale Heights Unit Assessment: / unit • Overlay with Edge Mill (Commercial –100% Assessed) $18.46 Avon Acres Front Foot Assessment (50% Cost): / front foot • $4,249.14 Avon Acres Unit Assessment (50% Cost): / unit • Estimated Assessments Estimated Street Assessments by Category Full Depth Reclaim (Residential –75% Assessed) $4,000 Royal Oaks Ridge Unit Assessment: / unit • $4,000 th 4Street/Irving Avenue Unit Assessment: / unit • Full Depth Reclaim(Commercial –75% Assessed) $42.56 Evans Avenue Front Foot Assessment: / front foot • Estimated Assessments Estimated Street Assessments by Category Reconstruction (Residential –33% Assessed) $7,000 th 185Avenue Unit Assessment: / unit • $7,000 rd 3Street/Railroad Drive Unit Assessment: / unit • Reconstruction (Commercial –33% Assessed) $33,103.79 Business Center Drive/Gary Street Unit Assessment: / unit • $26.58 th 4Street Front Foot Assessment: / front foot • Proposed Project Schedule NeighborhoodOpenHouseDec.13.2012  PresentFeasibilityReporttoCityCouncilJan.7,2013  PublicHearing/OrderProjectFeb.4,2013  ApprovePlans/AuthorizeBidsMarch4,2013  AssessmentHearingMay20,2013  ConstructionJune–Sept.2013  Next Steps Resolution to Order the Improvement and Prepare  Plans and Specifications Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize the  Advertisement for Bids March 4, 2013 Questions???