The URL can be used to link to this page

6.3. SR 02-07-2005 Item 6.3. 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 January 28, 2005 File: 824180J-0030 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 RE: 2005 STREET RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY Dear Councilmembers: In September 2004, the City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility study for the 2005 Street Reconstruction Improvements. Attached is a copy of that feasibility study. In the feasibility study you will note that we held an informational meeting with the affected property owners on Thursday, January 20, 2005. A copy of the minutes from that meeting is included in the appendix of the feasibility study. Approximately 25 property owners attended the public information meeting. The main issues discussed were traffic cutting through on Tipton and Upland Avenues from Main Street to TH 10, the proposed closure of Seymour, Rush and Quinn Avenues at TH 10, and the location of sidewalks throughout the proposed unprovement. Financing of the proposed improvements is recommended to come from several different areas. The proposed sanitary sewer and water improvements are recommended to be paid for by the sanitary sewer and water enterprise funds. The Council previously passed a resolution requesting that MnDOT fund the closure of the three intersections at Seymour, Rush and Quinn Avenues with TH 10. Preliminary discussions were initiated with Cretex Companies relative to their contributing portion of the cost of the storm sewer system in the Upland and Tipton Avenue areas, since much of the their plant runoff flows through this system. Finally, the bulk of the street and storm drainage costs are proposed to be assessed at $6,000 per residential equivalent unit to the benefited property owners. This will generate approximately one-third of the total cost. The other two-thirds of the cost is proposed to be paid by the City. Phone: 763.635.1000 Fax:: 763.635.1090 www.cLe1k-river.mn.us 2005 Street Reconstruction Project January 28,2005 Page 2 Attached is a resolution for the City Council's consideration, adopting the feasibility study and ordering the public hearing to be held on February 22, 2005. We would recommend approval of this resolution. If you have any questions concerning this feasibility study, I will be in attendance at your February 7, 2005 City Council meeting. Sincerely, ~~ T~urer, PE City Engineer S:\EngineerImprovProj\200S Improvement Projects\Pavement Rehab 2005\01 28 05 Feasbility Study.doc RESOLUTION 05-_ A RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER A RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ORDERING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE MATTER OF THE STREET RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT OF 2005 WH E REAS the Feasibility Report ordered by the Council in Resolution 04-76 has been prepared with reference to the 2005 Street Reconstruction improvement and was received by the City on February 7, 2005; and WHEREAS the Feasibility Report recommends that the proposed improvement is feasible; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Elk River, Minnesota: 1. The City Council will consider the 2005 Street Reconstruction improvements as described in the Feasibility Report and the assessment of the property abutting this proposed improvement for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429, at an estimated total cost for the improvement of $1,992,600. 2. A public hearing shall be held before the City Council on the proposed improvement on the 22nd day of February, 2005, at 6:30 o'clock p.m. at the Elk River City Hall Council Chambers. The City Clerk shall provide two published notices (one week apart) in the official newspaper with at least three days between the last publication date and the hearing, and mailed notice ten days to the hearing as required by law. Passed and adopted this 7th day of February, 2005. Stephanie, A. Klinzing, Mayor ATTEST: Joan M. Schmidt, City Clerk S:\EngineerImprovProj\2005 Improvement Projects\Pavement Rehab 2005\Resolutions\Receive Feasibility Order PH.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR 2005 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA February 2005 Proj. No. 824180J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CERTIFICATION PAGE I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ~ ~/I) Terry J. Ma , P.E. Lie. No. 15316 2-/ Z/{}5 Date ~~~~ John Anderson, P.E. Lie. No. 7-/2-/ () S~ Date Howard R. Green Company Court International Building 2550 University Ave W Suite 400N St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone: 651-644-4389 Fax: 651-644-9446 Toll-Free: 1-888-368-4389 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I INDEX I. INTRODUCTION... ............ ...................... ......... .......... ..... .................. .... ...... ... ......... 1 II. PROJECT SCOPE.... ... ......... .......... ................. ............... ........... .... ... .... ................... 1 III. NECESSITY AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS ...........................................................1 IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS. .... ........... ..................... ........... ............ .... .......... ...............2 V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ........................... ... .............. .... ....... .... .............. ...... 3 VII. RIGHT-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS, AND PERMITS ....................................................6 VIII. INFORMATIONAL HEARING. .......... ......... ..... ........ ......... ........ ......... ..... ...... ............ 6 IX. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST.... ........... .................... .... .........................................7 X. FINANCING AND ASSESSMENTS ......................................................................... 7 XI. PROJECT SCHEDULE .... .............. .... ............... ......... ...... ..... ...................................8 XI I. CONCLUSiON......... ............................................................................... .................8 XIII. EXHIBIT 1 - PROJECT AREA. ..... ....... ........... ...... ............. ................................ ......9 XIV. EXHIBIT 2 - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER & CIPP LINING LOCATIONS ..........10 XV. EXHIBIT 3 - EXISTING W A TERMAIN ....................................... ......... ............ .... ... 11 XIII. EXHIBIT 4 - PROPOSED WATERMAIN ...............................................................12 XIV. EXHIBIT 5 - EXISTING STORM SYSTEM ............................................................13 XV. EXHIBIT 6 - PROPOSED STORM SySTEM......................................................... 14 XIII. EXHIBIT 7 - PROPOSED STREET SECTION ...................................................... 15 XIV. EXHIBIT 8 - ASSESSED AREAS..........................................................................16 XV. APPENDIX A - GEOTECHNICAL REPORT .............................................................. XIII. APPENDIX B - MEETING WITH CRETEX................................................................ XIV. APPENDIX C - LETTER TO ERMU .......................................................................... XIV. APPENDIX D - INFORMATIONAL MEETING ........................................................... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. INTRODUCTION On September 20, 2004 the City Council adopted Resolution 04-76 ordering the feasibility study for the 2005 Street Reconstruction Project. The area to be included in the project is shown on Exhibit 1. The proposed project is based on the October 2002 Pavement Rehabilitation Report adopted by the City Council The proposed 2005 Street Reconstruction Project includes the reconstruction of streets, sidewalks, storm drainage, water, and sanitary sewer. The streets included in the proposed project are listed below: Street Upland Avenue Tipton Avenue Fifth Street Fifth Street Seymour Avenue Rush Avenue Quinn Avenue Norfolk Avenue From TH 10 Upland Avenue Upland Avenue TH 10 Fifth Street Fifth Street Fifth Street TH 10 To Main Street Main Street Westerlv Dead End Westerly Dead End TH 10 TH 10 TH 10 Fourth Street II. PROJECT SCOPE The purpose of this study is to analyze the reconstruction of the proposed streets included in the 2005 Street Reconstruction Project. In addition, existing sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer systems will be evaluated and necessary improvements proposed. The study will discuss the existing conditions, proposed improvements, estimated construction costs, and overhead costs which include city administration, engineering, fiscal, and legal expenses. The Pavement Rehabilitation Report prepared by Howard R. Green and adopted by the City Council in October 2002 will be used as a guideline to discuss financing methods for the proposed improvements. III. NECESSITY AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS The improvements proposed in this study are necessary for a number of reasons. The reconstruction of the streets is a cost-effective means of continuing the City's proactive street efforts and ensuring an adequate means of transportation for the residents. In addition to rehabilitating street pavement, a total street reconstruction will allow for correction of existing drainage problems through the construction of concrete curb and gutter, modifying street grades, and the installation of a storm sewer collection system as needed. Watermain improvements are necessary due to under sized mains, which result in inadequate water flow. The proposed improvements will provide a project large enough to ensure a competitive bidding environment. Therefore, the proposed improvements will be cost-effective. Based on the information contained within this report, the proposed improvements are necessary, cost-effective, and feasible from an engineering standpoint. 1 , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS Street A summary of the streets to be reconstructed including existing width and whether or not concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk exist is presented in the following table: Street Length Existing Width Curb and Sidewalk (feet) (feet) Gutter Upland Avenue 1365 20 No No Tipton Avenue 825 25 No No Fifth Street 305 19 No No (Upland to West End) Fifth Street 315 32 No No (Sevmour to West End) Fifth Street 305 32 No No (Sevmour to Rush) Fifth Street 860 39 Yes One Side (Rush to Proctor) Fifth Street 425 40 Yes Both Sides (Proctor to Oxford) Fifth Street 580 34 No No (Oxford to Norfolk) Seymour Avenue 275 14 No No Rush Avenue 275 32 No No Quinn Avenue 260 28 No No Oxford Avenue 160 32 No One Side Norfolk Avenue 240 28 Yes One Side In late fall of 2004, a geotechnical evaluation was performed in the area of the 2005 Street Reconstruction Project. Eighteen soil borings were taken, one on each street block of the project. The soil borings indicated between 2-inches and 6-inches of existing bituminous and between 3-inches and 8-inches of aggregate base material throughout the study area. The geotechnical report is provided as Appendix A. Sanitary Sewer 8-inch sanitary sewer is located on all the streets in the study area with the exception of Rush Avenue, Quinn Avenue, and Oxford Avenue where there is currently no sanitary sewer. The majority of the existing sanitary sewer is made of concrete, with a few segments constructed of vitrified clay pipe. The existing sanitary sewer system is shown on Exhibit 2. Watermain 4-inch ductile iron pipe watermain is located on all the streets in the study area with the exception of Seymour Avenue and Quinn Avenue where there is currently no watermain. The existing watermain is shown on Exhibit 3. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Storm Sewer An 18-inch storm sewer pipe and catch basin is located at the south end of Upland Avenue. Runoff from Upland Avenue approximately 150 feet west on Main Street flows to this catch basin. In addition, the Upland Avenue runoff from approximately Fifth Street south flows to this catch basin. A 12-inch storm sewer system and catch basins are located at the end of Fifth Street west of Upland Ave. Runoff from Fifth Street from approximately Upland Avenue flows to these catch basins, which then flow into a pond to the north of Fifth Street located in the Bailey Beck Addition. A 21-inch storm sewer system and catch basins are located in the backyards east of Tipton Avenue. Runoff from the backyards, Tipton Avenue, TH 10 and a significant portion of the Cretex property located north of TH 10 flows through this system. The storm sewer system flows to Main Street then to the Elk River. A 12-inch storm sewer system and catch basins are located at the end of Fifth Street approximately 300 feet west of Seymour Avenue. Runoff from Fifth Street from the intersection of Rush Avenue and Fifth Street to the east flows to these catch basins. A 12-inch storm system and catch basins are located at the intersection of Fifth Street and Proctor Avenue. Runoff from Fifth Street and Proctor Avenue flows into these catch basins and then south following Proctor Avenue into a storm sewer system on Main Street. A 12-inch storm system and catch basins are located at the intersection of Fifth Street and Norfolk Avenue. Runoff from Fifth Street and Norfolk flows into these catch basins and then north into a storm sewer on the north side of TH 10. The existing storm sewer is shown as Exhibit 5. Existina Private Utilities Private utilities that have facilities in or near the project area will be notified of the project and requested to incorporate repairs and replacements with the project as needed at their cost. Private utilities include Charter Communications, Elk River Municipal Utilities, Minnegasco, Northstar Access, Sherburne Telephone Systems, and Qwest. V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The proposed improvements for the 20'05 Street Reconstruction Project include street, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and watermain construction. A detailed description of each proposed improvement is provided below. Street The proposed typical section for the majority of the streets will be in accordance with the section adopted as part of the Pavement Rehabilitation Report. The proposed street 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I section, shown on Exhibit 7, consists of a 32-foot wide street with concrete curb and gutter. This typical section will require widening or narrowing of the existing roadways within the project area. Upland Avenue and Tipton Avenue will be reconstructed as an exception to the adopted typical section. Currently Upland Avenue and Tipton Avenue have no curb and gutter, which allows cars to park partially on the grass. With the construction of barrier curb, it is proposed that a 28-foot wide street be constructed so residents can safely park and travel on the street. The proposed pavement section for all the streets consists of 7 inches Class 5 aggregate base, 2 inches of bituminous base course, and 1.5 inches of bituminous wear course. The proposed street section has been verified by a geotechnical investigation. The proposed street sections are shown as Exhibit 7. In accordance with City Council direction to construction pedestrian trails with new construction, the proposed improvements also include a 6-foot wide sidewalk located on both sides on the majority of Fifth Street and along the west side of Upland Avenue. Existing sidewalk will be removed and reconstructed to City Standards. Areas where sidewalk will not be constructed include streets where sidewalk construction is not feasible due to extreme grades or where it is desired to protect trees. Other locations where sidewalk may not be feasible will be determined during design. Sidewalk along the west side of Upland Avenue is proposed as the best option to connect the trail system north of TH 10 and Main St. The proposed improvements also include the closure of three accesses to TH 10, Seymour Avenue, Rush Avenue, and Quinn Avenue. MN/DOT will be closing these accesses during their next highway improvement of TH 10, so it is proposed that they be closed under the City's direct in the 2005 Street Reconstruction Project. Seymour Avenue has a platted right-of-way but is currently a dirt road that is seldom used. It is proposed that this be closed completely from Fifth Street to TH 10. Rush Avenue and Quinn Avenue have currently right turn only access to TH 10. It is proposed that these accesses be closed at TH 10 and turn-a-rounds constructed at the TH 10 right-of-way. As with the 2003 project, it is proposed to have Elk River Municipal Utilities install street lights after the project is complete. Storm Sewer A review of the drainage patterns and pavement conditions reveals that some locations do not currently drain runoff away effectively and has contributed to the deterioration of the pavement. Replacement and addition of curb and gutter, slight grade revisions, and storm sewer extensions are needed to facilitate drainage. A significant area north of TH 10 crosses from north to south through a highway culvert located east of Upland Avenue. This drainage area is tributary to the storm sewer system in the rear yards between Tipton Avenue and the West end of 5th Avenue. City staff has had preliminary discussions with the property owner north of TH 1 0 regarding the proposed drainage improvements to this drainage system, which include repair of existing rear yard storm sewer pipe, adding storm sewer pipe capacity along Tipton Avenue and Upland Avenue, and potential ponding to control discharge rate and water 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I quality. A copy of the minutes of the meeting with the property owner can be found in Appendix B. The existing storm sewer system on Tipton Avenue and Upland Avenue is proposed to be extended and inlets installed at appropriate locations to alleviate drainage problems in this area. Additionally storm sewer on Fifth Street is proposed to be extended and inlets installed at appropriate locations to facilitate drainage in this area. The proposed storm sewer improvements are shown on Exhibit 6. Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer within the project area was televised to determine the extent that repairs or replacement would be necessary. A review of the Closed Circuit Televised Sewer Inspection Report determined that although regular maintenance would be required to remove roots in certain areas no structural damage had occurred to the pipe. The report was discussed with Mr. Gary Leirmoe, Chief Operator, and it was determined that cured in-place pipe lining of the sewer system would be used on the sections of the systems that need improvement. Cured in-place (CIPP) lining is a process where the inside of the existing pipe is lined with a new pipe that helps restore structural integrity and eliminates infiltration in the pipe. This process creates a jointless smooth inner surface that usually results in an increased flow capacity. After the pipe is lined, robotic equipment is used to restore any service connections from within the pipe. CIPP lining is done without any disturbance to the existing street. It is recommended that this portion of the project be completed before any of the other improvements are started. Sanitary sewer pipes to be lined are shown in Exhibit 2. Watermain Watermain improvements were discussed with Mr. Bryan Adams, General Manager of Elk River Municipal Utilities (ERMU). The following items were a result of the discussions and will be incorporated during design: · Some existing services may be lead or other non-copper material. ERMU policy states that non-copper services must be replaced with copper. These services will be identified and replaced as part of the improvements project. · The existing 4-inch watermain on Fifth Street between Rush Avenue and the westerly dead end will be replaced with a larger size main. The exact size will be determined during design through modeling. It is anticipated that a 12-inch main will be required. · Watermain will be directionally bored under TH 10 at Rush Avenue and at Fourth Street. · All existing old-style hydrants will be replaced and possible additional hydrants added. The location of new hydrants will be discussed with Fire Chief Bruce West. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A copy of a letter sent to Bryan Adams outlining this discussion is in Appendix C and the proposed watermain improvements are shown as Exhibit 4. VI. CITY/MUNICIPAL UTILITIES COORDINATION In 2003, groundwork was laid for cooperation between the city and the municipal utilities for the 2003 Street Reconstruction Project. It was agreed for that project that the Municipal Utilities would fund all of the construction costs associated with their water improvements. The construction costs would include a pro rato share of the mobilization bid item based on construction costs, and a pro rato share of the signing during construction based on length of construction. In addition, the Municipal Utilities agreed to pay a percentage of construction cost for plan and specification preparation. This percentage is proposed to be 10 percent. Finally, the Municipal Utilities agreed to pay directly for services during construction, including construction staking, construction observation, contract administration and record drawing preparation. This cooperation will be continued for the 2005 Street Reconstruction project. VII. RIGHT-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS, AND PERMITS Riaht-of Way and Easements No right-of-way will need to be acquired for the street improvements. Temporary construction easements may be required throughout the project area to accommodate driveway repair, water service replacement, and/or finished grading. Verbal permission will be secured from private property owners during the construction process should work need to be completed on private property, outside of obtained rights-of-way. Permits Several permits will be required prior to construction of the proposed improvements. Required permits include, but are not limited to, the following: · Minnesota Department of Transportation · Minnesota Department of Health · Minnesota Pollution Control Agency · National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Work in the Right-of-Way Watermain Grading Storm Water Quality VIII. INFORMATIONAL HEARING An informational hearing was held on January 20, 2005 with residents and the City Engineer. The project was discussed and residents were encouraged to voice their concerns and to ask questions. Issues of concern raised were traffic increase on Tipton Avenue and Upland Avenue, closure of roads with access to TH 10, and sidewalk locations. A walk through will be scheduled with the residents prior to construction. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix D describes the informational hearing in more detail including minutes and a signup sheet. IX. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST The estimated construction costs and associated overhead costs for the proposed improvements are summarized in Table 1. Based on past experiences on similar complex-type projects in the City, the overhead costs have been estimated at 28% of the total construction cost. The overhead costs include city administration, engineering design, construction staking and inspection, and fiscal and legal costs. Table 1 Project Cost Estimate Street/Drainage $1,190,650 $137,410 $115.860 $1,443,920 $404,300 $ 144.390 $1,992,610 Sanitary Sewer Watermain Total Construction Cost Administration, Engineering, Fiscal, & Legal Contingency (10%) Total Project Cost X. FINANCING AND ASSESSMENTS The improvements discussed in this report are proposed to be financed through a number of different methods. Benefiting properties would be assessed on a per unit basis for street, curb and gutter, sidewalks, and storm sewer. A residential lot that could not be further subdivided would be assessed as one unit. Lots that can be subdivided would be assessed as multiple units as appropriate. Churches and other non-residential property would be assessed as multiple units determined by the lot area. The number of assessable units is approximately 75, as shown on Exhibit 8. In accordance with the adopted Pavement Rehabilitation Report, the proposed assessment is $6,000.00 per unit. The total assessment amount would then be $450,000. The Elk River Municipal Utilities and City Sewer Department would be responsible for funding all sanitary sewer and water improvements, including construction cost plus associated overhead. Based on the estimated total project funding from the utility enterprise fund is $253,000. Based on the estimated total project cost of $1,992,610, total assessments of $450,000 and Elk River Municipal Utilities contribution of $253,000, the remaining project cost to be funding by the City is $1,289,610. Discussion is currently under way with MN/DOT, 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I who has agreed to help fund the closures on TH 10. It is estimated that the closures will cost $45,000. It is recommended that the City Street Reserve Fund be used for financing this portion of the project. XI. PROJECT SCHEDULE Informational Meeting Feasibility to City Council Plans and Specifications Ordered Public Hearing Prepare plans and Specifications Walk Through with Residents Plans and Specifications Approved by City Council Advertise for Bid Assessment Hearing Bid Awarded Begin Construction Construction Substantially Complete First Assessment Payment with Real Estate Taxes Place Final Bituminous Lift Final Project with Contractor January 20,2005 February 7. 2005 February 22,2005 February 22, 2005 30 -60 days Spring 2005 Spring 2005 30 days April 2005 May 2005 Spring 2005 Fall 2005 May 2005 Summer 2006 Summer 2006 XII. CONCLUSION The total estimated project cost for street, storm sewer, and watermain including overhead costs is $1,992,610. The project is necessary and cost-effective. As previously stated, this cost will be financed through a combination of assessments to benefiting properties, Elk River Municipal Utilities funds, and City Street Reserve funds. Based on the information gathered and the analysis presented, the proposed improvements discussed in this study are feasible from an engineering standpoint. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBITS ------------------- ~ ,.,~ -. ...... . ..... ,,,,d'rJ^ -----r ~E: ~~ Z if I~ CD en -I :::0 / m m -I en -I o OJ m( s: '1J :::0 ~ m o I III. - - A 1/1"- .~ - I ~ - I / ~<l L I I~ / L I-- ~_'" .t tnv.... VI HVL :t! ~ - t---- -" ;( II; - It .---- '---- ~, nVoJn 4 VI... .... ". . ,- J'-I 'I... J V'...." V', "..... ~ ~. I ).3S / J ',\i ./ // j up!.:- ~.. 05 ~ ~ ~ "' ~ ~ ::J CI) 'of ...., ~ ,- -- HVI... f----- t nVL-1 L-f"( ~ Vi / / !/ ~ ::J ~ i)(FORD A ~ / ~;p < ~~ en -I ::;0 m m -I en -I o OJ m ---L----- 't-r IL- l~ttL - ~ J );4""~ I ~ -' nTrr/_ 1 ~ ' \ - 3: -c ::;0 o < m o m >< ..a.:J: - OJ - -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ...T-'-',~ , I " !.LI ! I a:: i ...- -. -- ::) I::) i I I' --~-.-~ -I' . I 0 . I tLi I I U''T-'C---' !.LI I;!:' , 1:0;' I ," ~ I );I~! I-i I 1 I i Z!. ! lIJ I I~] I I I l Wi c _' fJl ' I I, I ,I' ""' I' i. .~. .... '.~" ---,-.._J~ : i F IF. T. i.l . .1 ...1. .. <( i I }) . ....' In' ] II @ ''''''''-~~'- I I i -- i\ I ' ' ~ a" ,'" I I . i i'+....,~~ ", I I_,l ;!:, I ... I . .. ! i -.. ] ;...~..'...~" I ...1-...... .-j--~:rr' .... 'U~" ' ' , I ',.". i ! ' ", ~.~, I . " ' '" -.., ~._.., / . . _.._ I I ! ". ... '. .' / / -.. ] " / / /' ...~.:~._L__ ~.. ' I ,/ ~/ ...., ... .. " "", I ,/./" ....~., .....-... ... "'. ,-,~~I ///. ~",,""" ~~,..-..... .. . ~ ../ .. " './" 'I ...... ... ,'.--.-..... . ' ' ,,,' . .'- .. . ','. / .,,/~, ' ~ "". .~. F..D. u.~,.--.-...... . , " ""'" I" ---- · TH ..- .,..--..- ---- .~/ _ ,.. .!!~.c . / __., $" ........., I I r "1"'" r . I .. _..~' Ii ,']:)~ /."" '. I" . ' ,w "io'}' 'I " ' ' .~/ UF'P! ,..' '--. I i [I ! i /1 ./"" S T ", '," 18 " '" I 1 ,! /, .'1' A'rION / "" ", ~ i -,~~ , III ',/ / ' "~'; I/",~l i- "..' ^I.~ / i"" I I r"~ -' I !1'b I / / /' " )/ / / 'r," , (!; . " ' ,,' ' ,," , ;, / " "" /1 / I /,It / '~ " I I' ;/1 I; , I"~, 1 j I / 1/ J' // /(///r I . ! '/ </ ;' ! i ,~ I Ii", [J -~ , ,I S L.~!.._..t. ~I _.~. .... ' 'B";"- ..... .- o J'.......^";,:~. I ....r~ ". /~ <;1 \ I) \ / . 1/ ! V / ,~ LINE MANHOLE @ I i i II January 14. 2005 3:28:17 p.m. I 62flllOl\F......Ilty\ElCl.1lWC (U<IEWEL) 250' o I I US HIGHWAY 10 '\ SANITARY SEWER TO BE LINED ~ ~ "I ........,..-UJ, I~ --r - -: I I ~i I I I, I IZI 'I . I 'WI , . 1 I ::>1 1 ! I I I <(I i 'It' \ I I L.__SJI-'~~5.__J. L..,I 8" ~...~ ,. ~ '1'- T iQI -T-I--+Tl~ I I i Q::I ' I ! I I :. : I I '0\ I I ! I : i",["" I I I 1 lL.1 ' ! I I 1 I "l- I Ii: _I !..L'~'''i 'I 'I' ! ! I', ~ .-...... ... ...1........1...... '.. I. ".' '& i ,~-.e."1 l _ _., .L .._I__"___L_~__.__ Ii _M~.J.._.____J.. ~-'r"'--'''j i I" T' ....: .... r t... I, ~. i I i I ! \ \ ! I ~~".-"-I i- ~ ---'r" -. "i i i I I I, \ i I I : ! \ \ : I " I 1'1 I ' , i' 1 "1m I', 'I I I I ~ I I' i: i I I! Iii I I : I... _~_,.L ...._.J_____... ,____ J..___ _L._.__ .1___ ....__..__J_~_.;.._"____~.J 8" ~ -.------.....-)l ~ 8"->: _ w.1 ~I ZI "Wi :>' <(I T-~"'-'(-" "'~-I , I Q:I i j -i I . ~I I ~,_~ ' , Ui ! 1 01 ! i 1 -"+'-1- ..,....-.-~l ~~-_.! : 1 i : i i I I i , ..\ .._, STREET EXISTING SANITARY SEWER 2005 STREET IMPROVEMENTS Howard R. Green Company ,I,: EXHIBIT 2 A ; '~ j , " ,~ 9;~~~,I,,,,FI'! )-~. \', .. )' " ' :$-~ \ )--' -- \ " -,--'-- ~-- - - ~ - \ \ ~- /'-/ /' "> j! J I Ifr--' \ " '<" " '''Z/ :ft'------'1 -..... 1-- t'" ~ ,/~ / "'" ",/ O:J/'~- -'-/ ,_ I ~_( ,,"// L- ~ !) ;' '_" 'f'O'.' , /''/ ,,")1'1 'I '. .,./'/' "y / //A:::::~~~D -7 *-_4,VCNuE,____.J: 'L ___ ,__,/ / " '--"-,_,.,r/ /I'~"~~" '""5~.::= ,-' -"~-'--:;:-Jf.~--::.;L'---" 9- I~"/"'( i I ;~~">"j ~"jf"" ,~,_,~~I~~I" ~----- -~- , .... '. i 'F '" i ~;('li'" ,iT' 'T'-l 1---,,--1 ~-i / '. '-.It ! ,I" ' " , '-", ")~/,'" 'I / 7 "1, ", ilPT~~L~fERlE==:] J~ _ ! "'~"'/ } '_ ,~I '-7 ",, ',"" It---- -. ,--,~- -,' ,-'--'- )1 /.,:{(/~,../... !. / " .~, \ (I '''c.-.,~ J /'"""- ""-. "",, I ._--..." ~,..// / "'-'- ; !~"'" - - - - - - - 1InlI'a_t~'" U -! II -l? I'" j] ~ o ~. (,.I o q ;/'- ;//" ~./ /--..., '.~., " , ""..{ '''~'''' j! I i ""''''''''-1'/ ". \ \'., ..( " " "~~ \ \ "-", '~,..,-,. ". -', ~"~ '~" \ , , / ..".........----'->---.- I / / ~/ Iii -"'--"~,,~. ! ~'''''~ "', " "'-",- -~... / "'/ . ;If F..~! .. "r "---~ I ~ ill a. ~ GJ CD (J) ::J o o :3 D ill ::J '< -~~- ~~'(:-,,"~~. ? "-~---.. \ '\ / / / "~....~j ~.",~ ~""---'",., -'''~. ---j \ - ""''''~"" .~.. r:::::::::>._ ~" ::::.::::::;- '""-"--- , ~~~.,~-,{,~ / ,----'if "-'-"'- ~, """-"'~--.J "'.. /(.. "',,--.~ 't-. ---........ / / --'j/ I\) 8 OI~ ~- m~ mt5 ~~ -u~ ~~ s::)> rnZ ~ /' - --1---.--- ; /j ,.<::,,-~ ~c:.'~.""~'~~,Z~,"~~;:~, i '. :~j' -"''''-'~, I '';' j-...... ~~ ~-"~~, J.. / '^'~-k.~~"" '~'::::::'::,C;'<J' ~-'~m__._. I )-..-- I I -~,---- ---.., ...--)'--..,---.- '--,1 ! --~~, f-'--+- i i j -"-.--,., ." -j -"-~._--- ---.----.! (,J m x J: m =i - - - - - // / , / ,/ l/ ""-.,-l. -_..,--->.,~ ""'-- -~--.~.-/ '--"''''-''--..; '- i- \ ------~----~-~ \ sill i ...,....,~ ....!'~~1' ;"-"-"1 i---! I i~~9!!~JAVE :.... "__~_"""L,,_..IIII'--".'--l / ~----~----i ["';-" '1'"'1-''' . '11 [,~-~~:=,-"~: -I;~'~l~:m~ A=:~_ " !! i" !." l I r---.-t---i-''''-1 J ~ ' ,.... ..p. ," .---..--, :s fil"T 'I I i rt'.-'''''-l ~ --~i I I ' ; I !.,. II ! i QIJINH 1-1 AVENUE ~ f--=rf~i~~-: . ~.~.~ .- " It...,..,! J I , ! ! . '--'--' .J._'~_'~____j JJ..-~".~~=r~--=~=-'--I ,\,_. "'T.-i 'rt_~~~i [A~-,- I i~="'~"=='1 ,., 'Mr'....- . P" i .j2>.1~L-=,'-'.l . l---...-- '~.Y.~N~ ; -"--_.._._-_.~ &i en m .... - - - - - - .\ // \ ~.~)//'\ /./ //--.-.. . ! ---"--7 ! ~~ I 0 ~ 300' i I I i'i ! ~~~~a8~~~a~:'~~::'~IEWEL) US HIGHWAY 10 ['. '.'1 .... "'r --~ i i _i I I..... . ....' - . ."'- I T'~ I I 'I <1:1 I ' I ! _~__~._J... ! ~._._-- _. , , I " ,.' . LLI ! : I --"~] I ' -, ! iLl! I " :::10\ IEJF1:tt J, I .qi Howard R. Green Company .'............'T'.-,.-'... r'-1U I i I I '1 1;:)1 '. ! I I I ;;el., I , . I I II, " ' , I I ':::!:"' ! I il'...i i 'ii i .,.ql i.~T8EI;.r .i., LJ DIRECTIONAL BORE STREET PROPOSED WA TERMAIN 2005 STREET IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT 4 E I I '>~ I I I I i I I ""....,.."" if' I' (r---'-'~ -I __ I ~ .. .. _.-,~-_..._--,-_..., ~i 5:i I _I i ',I II I ~~_. _ L~_ I I ..-:...~~' I I L I ! I I I '. I ~ ~! ", ~/ \.~! I \ / I I! ' J '{,~\ i ,,'\ " \,~ 1\ I I I I I / @ 250' o I I I ~ I i i II January H. 2005 3:28:17 p.m. I e241OOj\fo",bll11y\EX1.DWG (LJ<IEWEL) I "~ - --1m-- om '..... 1:1 ..'...., ( ""'>r--'r' ~ / I , -T~ I ! Itt: 'I i.!.. ,I 1 .i 1IIIiii:! . ,..-- i I I ,_I I 0'_ I! I I 0 .i :)_ I i I ,~ _.__,'....' '.' I' ~,' '7 '. I );;; , , I i I I Lu I / r.... ..._J I I "// ~ S', r~--._+----L(I)J I~L,;\i~_ i i ' . r' r-- " r""-r-'l I I ! I 1 -L... I ~' I ,-_._--~_._-- , . I I ,~ LI I ~ r------J. . . ... ....s !T-i I '""", 1_2:! gl Q.,I ',._ ~_ __..,~.~J .'i ~I \ '/ UJ --- Tn' :::) I ",12:1. ; !!I i ! -, I ! <[, i I I I I I I I I ~_.___~L ____,j i --'-1 I i I ___..___._.L_._ < I I] ':)11 i ~'!o<;;;'l -~.,,: I I '.::""""'1c J " "'" ~,tIl 'I I /J /" I 1 ~-ilr12T'" I I ,^! ! ['--.....-"'-. -5. 'i'.. Ii,. I 0:: I I L.~___ _____~ _~ i I l: i ......--ill.> I i....-i~ ) ! i ! .--^,.-..---..---' i ! ,I<~I ';i ~ i" rl.. /,' "!~' 9Y /~' '. '" ....... " .... -~, -""'.' / ....., ) J:;; }/ ", "'41,\/ -'. . I I ,.,.' 'r i I ..., ......~.. "1 I I I, Iii ' I i IJ _Jl '" li'T I 1- ]...2/~'" ", I ! '. ..~~ . --"'-~"". / i US HIGHWAY 10 ,-~! 21 ~I <[I I i , I ,...L___.._.I I I i fJEJJt -2:1 ZI .....5] Qi '<-" -....---.--'- .... FO'R"" ~- . ..--...-.- "'..., ". "'-", u'-'--..'- $,.~,,1]2J'.... i TH " ~t,. ""'. ..~ ""'j t.. I / / / I '-., I I ! Howard R. Green Company i -'---'~I 2 "---T'''wl ~I <[I I -r--"-'~"f- .-- T-"'-- ! Iii I ' I I I I I i Ii! ' I ",$[REeT, 12" ~i1 ...,! ru '~ STRE, EXISTING STORM SEWER 2005 STREET IMPROVEME r- ^,:, ~~. ...-f .///.., '\ A~' o I ~ <[ -'],--,,,,-,--- i --~-, I I i I \~! I 101 ! x: I I I I>: i , I I.. I I I . I ~J. Ij L ,~1:J -iT I I , 1 -. i. i ~I ~,_L__:)_j 13:: I --~"-------'1 US HIGHWAY 10 .-~1 21 ~I <[Ii LIJ --T~I , hi, I :;:; I-I I "I I I _..J__~__.J I " FIFTH :..,_______.~___._.~_.J______ I f///////~ STORM SEWER TO BE LINED i i ~ >>1 January 14, 2005 5:15:52 p.m. Ii 1!l2.4180j\Feaslblltty\EX3.DWO (LKlEWEL) Howard R. Green Company ----~I i _~:Zl I .._.... i--- - I :;:1 \ <tl ' ! I --r-~l '1~1 ! ~, '-I I <[I \ ' , , I I 1-- ~1 i I , I ': ~__l12"-L-- r '~--'--'-I-^""'~-' r--- --1 I i I I I ! _StIR~~r ,. [21 0\ LL.I ~! .....,-, I I 1 HI 13:1 0' c-----~ 1 U: O'i __ __.Q::l a.: 1 STREET PROPOSEID STORM SEWER 2005 STREET IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT 6 AREAS TO BE ASSESSED EXHIBIT 8 ~ E~ t~ ~ ~}- /0 ":::::: I ~ Sherburne Lodge L---/ I No. 95 h.- ~~ 4 ~ \"0 '(:\ ~111 i i ~~ "'( ~ CJ ~ '"" Lot split has been , approved for two parcels ./I ::::::c::: -urrrST T 2 1 ~ -., -<:: [ill 1111r111 1 ~~~ 1 11 11 I 1 3 lIl- 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 I 1 . 5- TH S T 1/ 1 J 1 , 1 I 1 1 1 11 1 I 1 11 1 ~ E 1, 111 I 111 11 11-1 \1~ r; \1 .4 .......... 1 1~ I-- 1 11 11 1 2 K . f--'-- f--- -~ ~ ~ 1 z] Emmanuel Lutheran Church Previously Assessed $2,405.00 in 1988 -trTH-;:rr ~ s: ~ S 1 I ~ N \ .. Legend c=J AREA TO BE ASSESSED .. AREA PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED ~~ IN 1988 OR 2003 Jj "'- W ASSESSABLE UNITS 30 I I Feet ~ I---- kd - - 1 \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A I I I I I I A Geotechnical Report for The City of Elk River I Proposed 2005 Roadway Improvements Elk River, Minnesota I I Professional Certification I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota I I (~G Date: December 8, 2004 Registration Number: 21153 I I I I I I Projec:t BN-04-06875 I Braun.lntertec Corporation I BRAUN INTERTEC Braun Interlec Corporation 1017 109rh Avenue NE Blaine, MN 55434 Phone 651.4877070 Fox 763 754 2750 VVeb: brounintertec_com December 8, 2004 ProjectBN-04-06875 Mr. Terry Maurer City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 Dear Mr. Maurer: Re: Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed 2005 Street Improvements, Elk River, Minnesota. Tue geotechnical evaluation you authorized on October 20, 2004, has been completed. The purpose of the evaluation was to assist you in designing the proposed roadway improvements and in preparing plans and specifications for their construction. The evaluation was performed in general accordance with our October 7,2004, proposal to you. Summary of Results Eighteen standard penetration test borings were completed along the existing alignments. The general soil profile in the borings was approximately 2 to 6 inches of bituminous pavement over about 3 to 8 inches of aggregate base materials. Below the pavement section the borings initially encountered existing fill consisting of mainly of poorly graded sand with silt but areas of silty sand (that locally appeared organic or concealed what appe~ed to be topsoil). The fill was underlain by alluvium consisting of poorly graded sand. Groundwater was generally not observed though four borings in the western portion of the site encountered waterbearing sands at about the 4- to 4 1/2-foot.depths. Summary of Recommendations Both the fill and alluvial soils generally appear suitable for use as roadway subgrade. It appears, however, that these materials may be locally organic, and so we recommend that provisions be made to remove organic soils having an organic content over 5 percent by weight from within 3 feet of subgrade elevation (the botto~ of the aggregate base of the new pavement). To further enhance subgrade strength and uniformity, we recommend surface compacting the exposed subgrade soils prior to placing any additional fill, or the new pavement section. p~ ('lIJii!'.{ dH;i:li..uu~~ iLnd t;."JlI. in.'HmeiHLll '.()[/.lit!:I)]) ~lnt.:! 1957 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The City of Elk River Project BN-04-06875 December 8, 2004 Page 2 I I General Please refer to the attached report for a more detailed summary of our analysis and recommendations. Ifwe can provide additional assistance, observation and testing services during construction, please contact Darin Hyatt at (651) 487-7070. I Sincerely, I I -b~ Jd\ Darin E. Hyatt, PE b Project Engineer /~ C~ " . " " . -,. en ". , , PG Senior Technical" Consultant! Associate Principal UN INTERTEC CORPORATION I I I Attachment: Geotechnical Evaluation Report I I I I I I BN04068751 I I I I Table of Contents ,. I Description Page A. Introduction ......... .w........... ..................................................... ......... ........... ................................. I A.I. Project .......... .................... ............. ..... .................... ............... ........... ........... ...... ............ I A.2. Purpose of This Evaluation.. .............................. ..................................................... I A.3.. Scope ..... ...... .................... ............... ................. ............ ............. ..... ..................... ....... 1 A.4. Documents Provided ....... ................ ...................... ............ ...... ........................ ............ 1 A.5. Locations and Elevations .................................................................. ........m.............. 2 B. Results '.. ............ ....... ....... ......... ......... ........... ..... ... ....... ............ ......... .......... ........ ................ ....... ....2 B.I. Logs.. ............... ......... ............ ........................... ....... . ..... .............. .................................2 B.2. Site Conditions ................ .............. ..... .......... ....... '" .................... ..... ......... ........ ...........2 B.3. Soils................. ................ ...... ............. ........................................ .................................. 2 B.4. Groundwater ........................... .................... ........ ... ..:... .... ......... ..... ...... ............. .........3 C Analysis and Recommendations .................. .... ...... .......... ........... ............ ........... ......... ............... 3 C.1. Proposed Construction ............................ ................ ............ ................. ....... ............... 3 C.2. Evaluation of the Boring Data................. .:.............. ............... .... ............... ...... ...........4 D. Recommendations ......... ................................ ..................... ................ ...... ...... ....... ......... ............4 D .1. Roadway Construction ....... .......................... ....... .... ....... ................. ................. ........... 4 D.2. Excavation. ....... ................ .............. .................... ........................................................ 5 D.3. Observations... ............... ............................... ................................................. ...... ........ 6 D.4. Backfills and Fills ....,................................................._...................... ....... .................. 6 D.5. Testing .........,......... .................................................................. .......... ........... ....... ........ 6 D.6. Cold Weather ................................................. .......... ............................. ............. ........ 6 E. Procedures.............. .......... .........;............ :... ............ ........................ ................ .............. ...... ........ 7 E.1. Drillilng and Sanlpling ....,....................... ..... ............................................................. 7 E.2. Soils Classifications..... .:.. ....... ................ ...... ..... no.................................. ..... ..... ......... 7 E.3. Groundwater Operations .................... ......._. ......... .................. ..,........... ....... ...............7 F. General Recommendations ................................. ................. ........ .......... ............. ........................ 8 F .1. Basis of Recommendations.......... ...... .................. ........ ......... ................... .... ...... ......... 8 F.2. Review of Design ........................ ........... ....................... ............ ................................. 8 F.3. Groundwater Fluctuations . ............ ................... ...:....................................................... 8 F .4. Use of Report... . .......................,..................... .............. ..................... ........... ................ 9 F.5. Level of Care.. ................................................... ..._00............ ...... ............. ......., ..............9 I I I I I I I Appendix: Boring Location Sketch Log of Boring Sheets Descriptive Terminology I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BRAUN INTERTEC Braun Intertec Carporation 1017 109th Avenue NE Blaine, MN 55434 Phone 6514877070 Fox: 763 7542750 Web: brounintertec com A. Introduction A.I. Project The City of Elk River is planning to improve various streets within the city. A shown in Figure 1 in the Appendix, the main roads being improved include Upland Avenue from Highway 10 to Main Street, Tipton Avenue from Upland Avenue to Main Street and 5th Street from one block west of Seymour Avenue to Norfolk Avenue. A.2. Purpose of This Evaluation The purpose of this evaluation was to obtain subsurface soil information to help ML Terry Maurer of the City of Elk River design new pavements and prepare plans and specifications for improvements to the roadway. A.3. Scope The desired scope of services was outlined in a meeting between Mr. Maurer and Mr. Darin Hyatt of our fIrm on October 4, 2004. On October 7, we submitted a proposal to the City of Elk River, which was subsequently authorized by ML Maurer. Our services were provided under the terms of our General Conditions dated March 1, 2003. Our scope of services was limited to: staking prospective boring locations and coordinating the locating of underground utilities near the boring locations, conducting eighteen penetration test borings to a 5 feet along the existing alignments, classifying the samples and preparing boring logs, analyzing the results of the field tests, formulating recommendations for earthwork and pavements, discussing the results and recommendations with Mr. John Anderson of the City of Elk River, and submitting this geotechnical evaluation report containing logs of the borings, our analysis of the fIeld tests, and recommendations for earthwork and pavements construction. A.4. Documents Provided Mr. Maurer provided us with a partial map ofthe City of Elk River titled "2005 Proposed Street Reconstruction," indicating the project location. Neither the preparer nor the date it had been drawn was indicated. After completion of the borings, the city emailed us another copy of the map with the boring locations indicated on it (Figure 1). Pi ~q idlri~ <. ;1!Zn1<':',,>~ in~. (in,} 1!1~ ~ i1dlim...'nrnl ,(dUf/',)~~5-;i1iC2 1957 :1 City of Elk River Project BN-04-06875 December 8, 2004 Page 2 I I A.5. Locations and Elevations With assistance from Mr_ John Anderson of the city of Elk River, we selected and staked the boring locations. Boring ST-5 had to be offset from its staked location to the opposite side of the street to avoid utilities. The location we drilled was thus designated ST-5A I I Ground surface elevations at the borings were also provided by the city. I I B. Results I B.t. Logs Log of Boring sheets indicating the depths and identifications of the various soil strata, penetration resistances and groundwater observations are included in the Appendix. The strata changes were inferred from the changes in the penetration test samples and auger cuttings. It should be noted that the depths shown as changes between the strata are only approximate. The changes are likely transitions and the depths of the changes vary between the borings. I I Geologic origins presented for each stratum on the Log of Boring sheets are based on the soil types, blows per foot, and available common knowledge ofthe depositional history of the area. A detailed investigation of the geologic history of the site was not performed. I I B.2. Site Conditions The borings were complete~ along Upland Avenue, Tipton Avenue, 5th Street, Rush Avenue, Quinn Avenue, Oxford Avenue and Norfolk Avenue. Those alignments are currently .. bituminous-surfaced. 1 I B.3. Soils I B3.a. Pavement Section. The pavement profile encountered by the borings included approximately 2 to 6 inches of bituminous over 3 to 8 inches of aggregate base; the average, however, was typically about 3 1/2 inches of bituminous over 5 1/2 inches of aggregate base. I I I I I I I City of Elk River Project BN-04-06875 December 8, 2004 Page 3 I I B.3.b. Existing Fill. All of the borings encolllltered existing fill below the pavement section. The existing fill consisted of silty sand, and poorly graded sand with silt, that extended to depths of about 4 to 5 feet. At Borings ST-3, ST-4, ST-6, ST-9, ST-ll and ST-ll, however, the existing fill was not penetrated at the borings' 5 1/2-foot termination depths.. Also, at Borings ST -8 and ST-9, the existing fill at about the 4 1/2- and 2 1/2-foot depths, respectively appeared slightly organic. I I B.3.c. Alluvial Soils. Where the fill was penetrated, the borings ultimately encountered and terminated in alluvial soils consisting of poorly graded sand. I B.3.d. Penetration Resistances Penetratien resistances in the existing fill ranged from 2 to lO blows per foot (BPF), indicating it was generally poorly compacted. Penetration resistances in the alluvial poorly graded sand ranged from 2 t08 BPF, indicating it was very loose to loose. I I B.4. Groundwater Groundwater was observed in only four of the borings (ST-2, ST-6, ST-7 and ST-8) on the western portion of the project while driiling. Groundwater was observed at depths of about 4 to 41/2 feet after the auger had been withdrawn from the holes in Borings ST-2, ST-6 through ST- 8. No water was observed to cave-in depths ranging from 3 1/2 to 4 feet in the remaining borings. Based on these observations, it is our opinion that groundwater in the western portion of the site is located in the range of elevations of about 884 to 888 (below the bottoms of many of our other borings). Seasonal and annual fluctuations of the groundwater levels should be anticipated. I I I I C. Analysis and Recommendations I c.1. Proposed Construction Mr. Anderson indicated the proposed construction will consist of removing the existing pavement section and replacing it with a new section. The vertical and horizontal alignments will remain approximately the same. However, it is our understanding that 5th Street may be narrowed while Upland and Tipton Avenues may be widened. We also understand that cmb and gutter as well as sidewalks may also be added. Mr. Anderson provided a traffic cOllllt indicating I I I I I City of Elk River Project BN-04-06875 December 8, 2004 Page 4 I :1 the ADT and the percent trucks (any vehicle not a car or pickup). It is Oill understanding that there are likely no semi-trailers within the truck counts and that the trucks are likely comprised of a mixture of busses, delivery trucks and garbage trucks. Therefore, we have assumed that the distribution of vehicles using the streets will have a 20 year design equivalent single axle load (EASL) value on the order of 100,000. I II I It should be noted that utility reconstruction may be necessary prior to reconstructing the streets. Our borings were relatively shallow and not completed with the intent to explore soils at a depth sufficient to comment on that work; as such this report does not address utility construction. I If the proposed construction changes or if the proposed grades change, we should be informed. Additional analysis and revised recommendations may be necessary. I C.2. Evaluation of the Boring Data Based on the borings the soils encountered (both fill and natural) are considered generally suitable for subgrade soils, however, they are generally loose. To further eIihance subgrade strength and uniformity, we recommend surface compacting the exposed subgrade soils prior to placing any additional fill, or the new pavement section. We recommend buried organic soils, such as those encountered in Borings ST -8 and ST -9, be removed to at least 3 feet below the aggregate base of the new pavement. I 1 I 1 D. Recommendations I 'I D.l. Roadway Construction D.l.a. Subgrade Preparation. We recommend organic soils (having organic contents over 5 percent by weight) be removed to a depth of at least 3 feet below the bottom of aggregate base. Borings ST-8 and ST-9 contained soil that appeared to be organic. Since the sandy subgrade soils are typically loose, we also recommend that the upper 6 to 8 inches of the resulting subgrade be scarified, moisture-conditioned to a moisture content near optimum and recompacted to a minimum of 100 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density. If there are areas which cannot be compacted, we recommend that the unstable materials be subexcavated to a depth of2 feet and be replaced by materials which can be compacted. Where fill is required, we recommend that it also be moisture-conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 100 percent. I II I I I I I I City of Elk River Project BN-04-06875 December 8, 2004 Page 5 I I D.l.b. Proofrolls. Before placing the aggregate base, we recommend the pavement areas be proofrolled to help detect soft areas. As a final check, just prior to placing the bituminous, we recommend the areas again be proofrolled. This precautionary measure will assist in detecting localized soft spots. Any soft spots noted during the proofrolling process should be subexcavated, replaced with drier soils, and compacted. A qualified geotechnical engineer should observe the proofrolling process to make a [mal evaluation of the subgrade. I I D.l.c. Anticipated Subgrade. After the preparation, we anticipate the subgrade will be compacted silty sands and poorly graded sand with silt. Laboratory tests to determine the R- values of these soils were not included in our scope of services. In the absence of additional data, we recommend an R-value of30. I I D.l.d. Design Sections. For the above subgrade and the assumed traffic (see Section C.l), we recommend a minimum of 3 1/2 inches of bitumin pus surface over 7 inches of crushed gravel base. I I D.l.e. Materials and Compaction. We recommend all backfill and fill placed beneath proposed pavements be compacted to a minimwn of 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density up to within 3 feet of the final subgrade elevations.. We recommend all fill placed in the top 3 feet of the pavementsubgrades be compacted to a minimum of 100 percent. I We reco:inmend specifying aggregate base meeting the requirements ofMn/DOT SpeCification 3138 (Class 5). We recommend the bituminous base and wear courses meet the requirements ofMnlDOT Specifications 2350, Type MV. We recommend the aggtegate gradation for the asphalt mix meet the gradations inMnlDOT Table 2350-1. The gradation chosen will depend on the bituminous layer thicknesses. We recommend thePeIfolmanc~ Graded Asphalt cement be a PG 64-22 or 58-28. I I We recommend compacting the Class 5 to at least 100 percent of its maximum standard Proctor dry density. We recommend compacting the asphaltic concrete to at least 91 1/2 percent of its theoretical maximum density. I I D.2, Excavation It is our opinion that the soils encountered by the borings can be excavated with a backhoe, front- end loader, motor grader Or scraper. The borings indicate that the soils in the sidewalls of the excavations will be Type C soils under Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. I I I I City of Elk River Project BN-04-06875 December 8, 2004 Page 6 I I I D.3. Observations We recommend a geotechnical engineer observe all excavation and pavement subgrades. These observations are recommended to evaluate if the sub grade soils are similar to those encountered by the borings and adequate to support the proposed construction. I I D.4. BacklIlls and Fills Site soils, which will be excavated and reused as backfills and fills, appear to be dry of optimum. We anticipate it will be necessary to moisten these soils to achieve the recommended compaction. We recommend that backfills and fills be placed in lifts not exceeding 4to 12 inches, depending upon the size of the compactor and material usecl I I D.S. Testing We recommend density testing be performed beneath pavements. We also recommend density testing of the compacted pavement subgrade and gravel base course. Samples of proposed backfill and fill materials should be submitted to our testing laboratory at least three days prior to placement for evaluation of their suitability and determination of their optimum moisture . contents and maximum dry densities. I I I We recommend at least one density test be performed on the subgrade for every 10,000 square feet of pavement area, with at least one test for every 2 vertical feet of embanlanent placed. We recommend the gravel base and bituminous surfacing be tested at a similar frequency. I I I D.6. Cold Weather If site grading is anticipated during cold weather, we recommend good winter construction practices be observed. All snow and ice should be removed from cut and fill areas prior to grading; Roadbed embanlanents should not be constructed during peliods when the embanlanent material freezes while being placed and compacted, nor should any embanlanent material be placed on soil that is frozen to a depth greater than 4 inches. When the foundation soils are frozen to a depth exceeding 4 inches, at a time when weather conditions are such that embanlanent construction could be continued without the material freezing as it is being placed and compacted, the contractor may be permitted to excavate the frozen foundation soil and proceed I I I I I I I I City of Elk River Project BN-04-06875 December 8, 2004 Page 7 I I with the embanlanent construction for so long as the weather will permit with the understanding that the additional costs involved shall be borne by the contractor. The fr"ozen soil should be pulverized or wasted and replaced with other suitable soil, as may be necessary to construct the embankments as specified. I I E. Procedures I E.1. Drilling and Sampling We performed the penetration test borings on November 1, 2004, with a truck -mounted core and auger drill equipped with 3 I/4-inch inside diameter hollow-stem a,uger. Sampling for the borings was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, "Penetration Test and Split- Barrel Sampling of Soils. " We advanced the boreholes with the hollow-stem auger to the desired test depth. A I40-pound hammer falling 30 inches was then used to drive the standard 2-inch split-barrel sampler a total penetration of 1 1/2 feet below the tip of the hollow-stem auger. The blows for the last foot of penetration were recorded and are an index of soil strength characteristics. Samples were taken at 2 I/2-foot vertical intervals to the termination depths of the borings. A representative portion of each sample was then sealed in a glass jar. I I I I E.2. Soil Classifications The drill crew chief visually and manually classified the soils encountered in the borings in accordance with ASTM D 2488, "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedures)." A summary of the ASTM classification system is included in the Appendix. All samples were then returned to our laboratory for review of the field classifications by a geotechnical engineer. Representative samples will remain in our Blaine office for a period of 60 days to be available for your examination. These samples will then be discarded unless we are notified in writing to retain them longer. I I I I E.3. Groundwater Observations Immediately after taking the final samples in the bottoms of the borings, the crew probed the holes through the hollow-stem auger to check for the presence of groundwater. Immediately after withdrawal of the auger, the holes were again probed and the depths to water or cave-ins were noted The borings were then immediately backfilled. I I I I City of Elk River Project BN-04-06875 December 8, 2004 Page 8 I !- I F. General Recommendations I F.1. Basis of Recommendations The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the attached sketch. Often, variations occur between these borings, the nature 'and extent of which do not become evident until additional exploration or construction is conducted. A re-evaluation of the recommendations in this report should be made after performing on-site observations during construction to note the characteristics of any variations. The variations may result in additional foundation costs, and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose. I I I I It is recommended that we be retained to perform the observation and testing program for the sub grade preparation phase of this project. This will allow correlation of the soil conditions encountered during construction to the soil borings, and will provide continuity of professional responsibility. I I F.2. R~view of Design This report is based on the design of the proposed roadways as related to us for preparation of this report. It is recommended that we be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the designs and specifications. With the review, we will evaluate whether any changes in design have affected the validity of the recommendations, and whether our recommendations have been correctly mterpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. I I F.3. Groundwater Fluctuations We made water level observations in the borings at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs. These data were interpreted in the text of this report. The period of observation was relatively short, and fluctuation in the groundwater levei may occur due to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, spring thaw, drainage, and other seasonal and annual factors not evident at the time the observations were made. Design drawings and specifications and construction planning should recognize the possibility of fluctuations. I I 1 I .1 I I I I I City of Elk River Project BN-04-06875 December 8, 2004 Page 9 I I FA. Use of Report 1ms report is for the exclusive use of the City of Elk River to use to design the proposed roadway improvements and prepare construction documents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report The data, analyses and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. I I F.5. Level of Care Services performed by Braun Intertec Corporation personnel for this project have been conducted with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time resttaints. No warranty, expressed or implied, is inade. I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - ~ I x Q) "tJ E:: .?;- :2 I in m 0: I I I Descriptive Terminology ~ INTeRNATIONAL Standard D 2487 - 00 Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Soils Classification Group Names Using Laboratory Tests a Group Symbol Group Name b e: Gravels Clean Gravels Cu;" 4 and 1 5- Cc 5- 3c GW Well-graded gravel d '" 0 More than 50% of Less than 5% fines' :a~ Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Co> 3 c GP Poorly graded gravel d :~~ coarse fraction retained on Gravels with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty ravel dIg eD lE,~ No 4 sieve More than 12% fines' Fines classify as CL or CH ravel.,g e: '" GC Clayey m~o ~oo Sands Clean Sands Co;;" 6 and 1 5- Co 5- 3 c SW Well-graded sand h ~l.ON ~~~ 50% or more of Less than 5% fines; Cu < 6 and/or 1> Cc> 3 c SP Poorly graded sand" "'- coarse fraction o <Il Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand f g h (,)0 passes E No_ 4 sieve More than 12% ; Fines classify as CL or CH SC Cia e sand fg" <Il PI > 7 and plots on or above "A" line I CL Lean cla ., m L: Silts and Clays Inorganic "'- Silt" m = "0 PI < 4 or plots below "A" line' ML 0", '" Uquid limit UJ"'> less than 50 Liquid limit - oven dried OL Organic clay · I m n 't:f ~ .9! Organic < 075 <Il a. '" l- uid limit - not dried OL Organic silt . ; m 0 ~~~ PI plots on or above <<A" line CH Fat cia k'm c;nEcj Silts and clays Inorganic PI plots below" A" line MH Elastic silt. I m ~oz Liquid limit U:~ 50 or more Organic Liquid limit << oven dried < 075 OH Organic clay. , m . 0 Li uid limit - not dried anic silt" m q <D OH Highly Organic Soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color and organic odor PT Peat a Based on the material passing the 3-in (75mm) sieve b If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add 'with cobbles or boulders or both to group name c Co = D""I D,o Co = (D3,l 0'0 x D60 'd If soil contains;;' 15% sand, add "with sand. to group name e Gravels witih 5 to 12% lines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly grl!d.ed gravel with clay f If fines classify as CL-ML use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM g If fines are organic, add "wilh organic Uoes' to group name h If soH contains ..,15% gravel, add 'with graver to group name Sands with 5 to 12% TIOeS require dual symbols: SW-8M weII-graded,sand wilh sHt SW-SC weU-graded sand with day SP-8M poorly graded sand with sm SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay j If Alterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, sHty clay k If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200. add "with sand or 'with gravel whichever is predominant I If soil contains ;;, 30% plus No, 200, predominantly sand. add 'sandy" to group name m If soil contains ~ 30% plus No 200 predominantly gravel, add 'gravelly' to group name. n PI;;' 4 and plots on or above "A . line - o PI < 4 or plots below "A" line p PI' plots on or above "A" line q PI plots below "A" line 60 Rev 10/04 Particle Size Identification over 12" 3" to 12" Boulders Cobbles Gravel Coarse Fine Sand Coarse Medium Fine Silt 3/4" to 3" No 4 to 3/4" No 410 No 10 No 10toNo 40 No 40 to No 200 <No 200, PI< 4 or below "A" line < No 200, PI;;, 4 and on or above" A" line Clay Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils o t04 BPF 5 to 10 BPF l1t030BPF 31 to 50 BPF over 50 BPF Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense.: Consistency of Cohesive Soils Very soft . 0 to 1 BPF Soft 2 to 3 BPF Rather soft .4 to 5 BPF Medium . 6 to 8 BPF Rather stiff 9 to 12 BPF Stiff 13 to16 BPF Very stiff 17 to 30 BPF Hard . ,over 30 BPF Drilling Notes, Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 3U" or Bu" 10 hollow-stem augers unless ncited otherwise, Jetting water was used to clean dut auger prior to sampling only where indicated on logs Standard penetration test borings are designated by the prefix "S. (Split Tube). All samples were taken with the standard 2" 00 split-tube sampler. ex- cept where noted Power auger borings were advanced by 4" or 6" diameter continuous- flight, solid-stem augers. Soil c1assificalions and strata depths were in- ferred from disturbed samples augered to the surface and are, therefore, somewhat approximate.' Power auger borings are designated by the prefIX "B" Hand auger borings were advanced manually with a 1'" or 3C diam- eter auger and were limited to the depth from which the auger could be manually withdrawn. Hand auger borings are indicatad by the prefix"H " BPF: Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard penetralion test, also known as "N" value. The sampler was set 6" into undisturbed soil below the hollow-stem auger, Drivin9 resistances were then counted for second and third 6" increments and added to get BPF Where they differed signifICantly, they are reported in the following form: 2/12 for the second and third 6" increments, respectively WH: WH indicates the sampler pen~trated soil under weight of hammer and rods alone; driving not required WR: WR indicates the sampler penetrafed soil under weight of rods alone; hammer weight and driving not required, 40 50 30 20 MH r OH OH TW indicates thin-walled (undisturbed) tube sample Note: All tests were run in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards 10 7 _ 4 00 10 16 20 30 DO WD MC LL PL PI P2000 Dry density. pcf Wet density. pet Natural moisture content, % Liqiuid limit, % Plastic iimit, % Plasticity index % pa5si~1q 200 Sle'.~ 40 50 60 70 Liquid Limit (LL) Laboratory Tests OC Organic content, % S Percent of saturation, % SG Specific gravity C COhesion psf CO Angle of internal ffiction qu Unconfined compressive strength, psf qp ::>,-.- !':r:! ~:.::p"=-fi:-:rn~_t " :':'ir:::"-l:l~ .::;[ 80 90 100 110 BRAUN lNTERTEC BRAUN'" INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota DRlLLER: . 1. Chermak Elev. feet 893.0 Depth feet 0.0 891.9 1.1 ~ 889.0 4.0 - N ... '" <:> ... <c '" '" b o ~1-- ;2 "'~ a: " ~~ "" <:> 2- m 81- -l S! '-------'-- ~ '" 5- ~ BN .04.0687 5 ASTM Symbol PAY FILL SP 5.5 I METI-lOD: 3 1/4" HSA, Autohmr Description of Materials (ASTM 02488 or 02487) 6" Bituminous over 7" Aggregate Base. BORING: LOG OF BORING ST-l LOCATION: See attached sketch DATE: FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-grained, drk brown, moist. - POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist, l<;lose. (Alluvium) END OF BORING. Water not observed during drilling. Water not observed with 4 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of3 1/2 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. Braun lntenec Corporation, St Paul - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - -- - - - - - 11/1/04 BPF WL 10* - 8 - - - - - - - . . I SCALE: 1"=4' Tests or Notes -- Benchmark: Ground surface elevations at the borehole locations were provided by the City of Elk River. - * MC = 8% P200 = 6% ST.! page I of I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BRAUN'" I NTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota DRILLER: J _ Chermak Elev_ feet 888.0 887.4 Depth feet 0.0 0.6 AS1M Symbol PAY FILL - - 884.0 4.0 SP -882.5 ~ o ~t- ;> ~ :;51- '" '+-< ~I- -g ~- '" q ~- '"' <2_ ., ~ "'- g <5 c: -@- ~ ., ;> ~ .... o '" ., Q- ., ., ~I- 5.5 f--- I- M ~ ~f- ..,. " ~I- .... - Cl o ~- ~ 01 ;:: o .,.; :;; "" ~ o ;z; 01 o o -' u ~- '" z => :S :;; BN.04.06~7:> I METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA, Autolum Description of Materials (ASTM D2488 or D2487) 4" Bituminous over 4" AggrCQate Base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine- to medium-grained, dark brown, wet. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine.- to medium-grained, gray, waterbering, very loose. (Alluvium) END OF BORING. . Water observed at 4 feet while drilling. Water observed at 4-foot depth immediately after withdrawal of auger_ Boring then backfilled. Braun [ntertec Corpomtlon, $( Paul BORlNG: LOG OF BORING ST-2 LOCATION: See attached sketch. DATE: 11/1/04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - BPF WL 7 4 I SCALE: 1"=4' Tests or Notes - 'Sl An open triangle in the water level (WL) column indicates the depth at which groundwater was observed while drilling. ST-2 page I of! BRAUN'" INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota DRILLER: J. Chermak. Elev. feet 881.5 Depth feet 0.0 ASlM Symbol PAY FILL 880.5 1.0 I- I- r- 1-876.0 ~r- o ..., .~I- ~ ;gr- '" .... 01- a '" ~I-- ]1- eu .. .a -I- eu eu ..<: ~I- ~I- l'i '~I- ~ ~r- ~I- <> '" eu Clr- eu ., ~I- 5.5 i-- I- M ... O\~ o ... ~ ~f- tic- o ~- ;2 ~- "" o ~- '" o 2- III g- .... o ~- III 5- ~ BN-04-06875 I MElliOD: 3 1/4" HSA, Autohmr Description of Materials (ASlM D2488 or D2487) 4" Bituminous over 8" Aggregate Base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist. END OF BORING. Water not observed during drilling. BORING: LOG OF BORING ST-3 LOCATION: See attached sketch. DATE: Water not observed with 4 feet of hollow-stem auger in - the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of3 1/2 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. Braun In[ertec CorporatIon. S[ Paul - - - - - - - , I - - - 11/1/04 BPF WL - 6 - - 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I SCALE: 1"=4' Tests or Notes ST-3 page 1 of I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BRAUN"" INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota DRIlLER: J. Chermak: Elev. feet 881.7 881.0 Depth feet 0.0 0.7 - -876.2 ~ o -p ~1- 2:! 21- '" '- ~1- .9 ~r-- '" iL v .... <2 -l- v <U ~I- ~ '01- <=: ~r- ~ ~I- :g u '" <U o <U <U ~- - M " ~J-- g ~t- se- e> 5- ;:2 "'- a:: o ~- '" o " o ;1: '" o o ...l U ~- '" z :::> ~ BN.04-0687j ASlM Symbol PAY FILL 5.5 I METIfOD: 3 1/4" HSA, Autohrru Description of Materials (ASlM D2488 or 02487) 3" Bituminous over 5" Aggregate Base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fme- to medium"grained, with Gravel, brown, moist. END OF BORING. Water not observed during drilling. BORING: LOG OF BORING ST-4 LOCATION: See attached sketch. DA 1E: 1l/lJ04 BPF WI.. - - 4 - - - 2 - - Water not observed' with 4 feet of hollow-stem auger in - the ground. - Water not observed to cave-in depth of 4 feet irrunediately after withdrawal of auger. ~ Boring then backfilled. Braun Inlertec Corporation, SI Paul -' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I SCALE: 1" = 4' Tests or Notes ST.~ page 1 of 1 BRAUN'" INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota DRILLER: L Chermak Elev feet 880.8 880.1 - Depth feet 0.0 0.7 - - 816.8 4.0 - - .... ~- <> ". ~- c::: b o Z ::>- ;2 <Xl - ... o ..; ,.. 8 2 <Xl o o .... gf.- ~ <Xl 51- :s BN-04-06875 ASTM Symbol PAY SP- SM SP 5.5 I ME1BOD: 3 114" HSA, Autolunr Description of Materials (ASTM D2488 or 02487) 3" Bituminous over 5" Aggregate Base. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, brown to dark brown, moist POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to mediwn-grained, trace of Gravel, brown, moist, very loose. (Alluvium) END OF BORING. Water not observed during drilling. Water not observed with 4 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground. LOG OF BORING BORING: ST -SA LOCATION: See attached sketch_ c.l/;~ !;t;..r 'TO ,J",2-T'Lot "':;::~ c:.r &=;-ItAAI DATE: 11/1/04 I SCALE: 1" =4' BPF WI.. Tests or Notes - - 7 - - ------- - 2 - - Water not observed to cave-in depth of 4 feet immediatelY.... after withdrawal of auger. - ST~5A page 1 of 1 I I t- I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 11 'I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BRAUN~" INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Str'eet Improvements Elk River, Minnesota DRILLER: L Chermak Elev. feet 893.1 892.4 Depth feet 0.0 0.7 AS1M Symbol PAY FILL I- - - 5.5 I--- I-- M :- o ,.. ":? '" <<: 13 o ~- ~ CQ ~ .,. o ~~ '" o ;51-- ;z; CQ 81- ....l u ~ I--- CQ 31- <<: e< '" BN-04-06375 BORING: LOG OF BORING ST-6 LOCATION: See attached sketch. I METIIOD: 3 114" HSA, Autolunr DATE: Description of Materials (AS1M 02488 or 02487) 3" Bituminous over 5" Aggregate Base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-grained, brown - to dark brown, moist to waterbearing.. - END OF BORING. Water observed at 5 feetwhile drilling. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 4 feet immediately- after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. - . - -- - - - - - - - - - - Braun Intertec Corporation, S1. Paul - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - . 11/1/04 BPF WL 9 2 I SCALE: 1"=4' Tests or Notes ~ ST-6 page 1 of] BRAUN'M INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota LOG OF BORING BORING: LOCATION: See attached sketch. DRILLER: L Chennak I METIIOD: 3 114" HSA, Autohmr DATE: 11/1/04 Elev. feet 891.9 891.1 - Depth feet 0.0 0.8 ASlM Symbol PAY FILL BPF WL Description of Materials (AS1M D2488 or D2487) 2" Bituminous over 8" Aggregate Base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine- to medium-grained, mixed with layers of dark brown Silty Sand, dark brown, moist. 10 - - - - - 887.4 4.5 - Sl SP " " POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained, 2 -886.4 5.5 ",' gray, waterbearing, very loose. - ~- \" '(Alluvium) l 0 END OF BORING. '.,:I .~- - e Water observed at 41/2 feet while drilling. ;2- - as Water not observed to cave-in depth of 4 1/2 feet ..... ~- immediately after withdrawal of auger. - 0 '<::J g- Boring then backfilled. - as 1L - ll) ... . cE -" -- ., ., ~'- - g - -0'- ::: -S - ...- ~ ~- - '~ .g- - () ~ CL - 3 ~- - - - - - M ~- - ~ - ~- s- - C1 5- - ;i ~- - a.. C1 ~- - .. '" 0 ~- - al C1 - 3 u - ~- al ;z: - ::> ;'i : '" BN.O+-06875 Braun Imenec Corporation, 51 Paul ST-7 I SCALE: I" =4' Tests or Notes I I ~- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ST-7 page 1 of I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BRAUN'" INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota DRILLER: L Chennak Elev. feet 891.5 890.7 ~ Depth feet 0.0 0.8 AS1M Symbol PAY FILL I- f- f- 886.5 886.0 ~- o "J:l .~ - ~ .D .0 c>1 .... o a -.c ~~ ]f- o ... <2 ...f- o l! ~I- .!2f- g l~f- ~ ~f- -.c g- o '" o 0- o o ~- 5.0 5.5 - ~ 0\ '" .... g ~f- til- e ?h- ;:J (tIf- ;;:: e ~r- '" ~'- <II 8- ...I (J ~- <II ~ ~ BN-O.l-06S75 LOG O~F BORING BORING: ST-8 LOCATION: See attached sketch. I METIIOD: 3 1/4" HSA, Autolunr I SCALE: 11/1/04 DATE: 1"=4' Description of Materials (AS1M 02488 or D2487) 3" Bituminous over 6" Aggregate Base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-grained, with - layers of dark brown Silty Sand, brown, moist to waterbearing. BPF WL Tests or Notes 5 - - ;,J-.;;-... ~ ~t: 13....I!.t-~ .T'fh46.(;~~~ - SP..:.. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium.:gnrined, f \ gray, waterbearing, very loose. r "(AlluviUm) END OF BORING. _ 2 '5l- Water observed at 4 1/2 feet while drilling. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 41/2 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. . - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ST-8 page) of) Braun [ntertec CorporatIOn. St Paul BRAUN'" I NTE RTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota DRILLER: 1. Chermak Elev. feet 899.9 899.1 I- Depth feet 0.0 0.8 I- 897.4 2.5 I- 895.9 1---894.4 ~I- o '+:J .gl- > e :81- <<I ... ~I- o -., <<II--- a ~I- I\) ... ~I- I\) I\) {il- g ol- e: '81- ~ ~I- :gl- o ~ OI- l\) I\) ~'-- -- - .., ... 0;- o ... Ii! 0">_ ~ 1-1- Q- C) ~'- ~ al- a: C) ~- ", o 2~ l%l 8- ..... g '--- ~ l%l ?;- ~ BN..M-06875 ASTM Symbol PAY FILL FILL 4.0 FILL 5.5 I METHOD: 3 114" HSA, Autolunr Description of Materials (ASTM 02488 or D2487) 3" Bituminous over 6" Aggregate Base. FILL: Silty Sand, fine-grained, slightly Organic, dark brown to black, moist.. FILL: Silty Sand, fine-grained, brown, moist.. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist END OF BORING. Water not observed during drilling. BORING: LOG OF BORING ST-9 LOCATION: See attached sketch. DATE: Water not observed with 4 feet of hollow-stem auger in - the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 4 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. -- Boring then backfilled.. Braun Intertec Corporation, 5t Paul - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - 11/1/04 I SCALE: BPF WL 1"=4' Tests or Notes 3 4 ST-9 page I of I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BRAUN>-~ INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota Depth feet 0.0 DRIILER: J. Chermak Elev. feet 9035 902.7 8995 -898.0 ~ o .+:: .~t-- 2: ill- <d ..... ~t-- o "+:I ~'-- <d ~- ., ... <E _r- II "'I- ~ 'Or- s:: 'g r--- ~ ., > "+:I .~ (,l ~ Cl ., ., ~ - I- '" gt-- ~ ~I- !-or- g z_ ~ a:l_ ;;: <:> ~..:.... co '" o ... ~ a:l <:> 9 o ~- a:l Z ::> ;;2 BN-04-Ob875 AS1M Symbol 0.8 PAY FilL 4.0 SP 55 BORlNG: LOG OF BORING ST-IO LOCATION: See attached sketch. I ME1HOD: 31/4" HSA, Autolurn DATE: Description of Materials (AS1M 02488 or 02487) 4" Bituminous over 6" Aggregate Base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-grained, brown, - moisl POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, trace of Gravel, brown, moist, loose.. . _ i Alluvium) END OF BORlNG. _ Water not observed during drilling. Water not observed with 4 feet of hollow-stem auger in - the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of3 1/2 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. - - Braun lntcrrec Corporation. 5t Paul - - - - - - - 11/1/04 BPF WL - 7* 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - I SCALE: 1" =4' Tests or Notes * MC = 7% noo = 7% ST-IO page I of I BRAUN'" INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota DRILLER: J. Chermak Depth feet 0.0 0.8 AS1M Symbol PAY FILL I- I- I- 903.9 1-902.9 ~I- .9 .~- > ~ .0_ ~ '- ~- o 'C ~- ]- '" ... .a - '" .8 ~ o "8 ~- ~ '" > 15 .;:: <) '" '" Q '" '" ~I- 4.5 5.5 FILL I--- I- '" ~~ ... ~I- '" 61- o :z: ;:J~ ~ "ll- a:: o ~- '<> o 2- <II 8- .... 8- ~ al 2: ;:J < c: ::> BN-04-06S75 I MEIBOD: 3 1/4" HSA, Autohrnr Description ofMateIials (AS1M D2488 or 02487) 4" Bituminous over 5" Aggregate Base. FILL: Si7amt; fine-grained, brown, moist. " .. 7f-r FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fme- to medium-grained. brown moist. END OF BORING. Water not observed during drilling. Water observed at 4 feet while drilling. BORING: LOG OF BORING ST -11 LOCATION: See attached sketch. DAlE: Water not observed to cave-in depth of 4 feet immediately - after withdrawal of auger. ~ Boring then backfilled. Braun Imenec Corporation, SI Paul - - - - - - - - - - - - 11/1/04 BPF WL - - 3 - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - I SCALE: I" =4' Tests or Notes ST. I I page 1 of I 1 1 :1 I ,I il 1 1 'I II I 1 .1 I I II 11 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BRAUN'" INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota DRILLER: J. Chermak Depth feet 0.0 0.8 ASTM Symbol PAY FILL I- - 904.7 4.0 SP -903.2 E o OJ ;; ~ .J::J .J::J '" .... o c: o "+=' :g I--- '" ]1- ., ... ~- <U <U .1'1 ~- ~- g '€J- ~ <U > ~ ... o <Il <U o ., <U f:2. 5.5 ~ I- ... ... 6\- o ... ~ "'- '" b o :z: .;:l- ;2 01 ii: o ~- ~ o 2 - ; 01 8~ -l !d !--- ~ 01 S~ <( "" '" BN-04-06375 I MElliOD: 3 1/4" HSA, Autohrru Description of Materials (ASTM D2488 or D2487) 3" Bituminous over 7" Aggregate Base. FILL: ~alJ.d, fine-grained, dark brown, moist. ..7 ;;~-~H., /I BORING: LOG OF BORING ST-12 LOCATION: See attached sketch . DATE: POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, trace of Gravel, brown, moist, loose. _ (Alluvium) ~ END OF BORING. _ Water not observed during drilling. Water not observed with 4 feet of hollow-stem auger in - the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 4 feet immediatelL after withdrawal of auger. - Boring then backfilled. Braun In~l1ec Corporation, S1. Paul - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11/1/04 I SCALE: 1" ""4' BPF WL Tests or Notes 3* * Me= 13% nOD = 8% ST.]2 page I of I BRAUNSM INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota DRilLER: 1. Chermak I- Depth feet AS1M 0.0 Symbol 0.8 PAY FILL m ~ 904.9 4.0 FILL f-903.4 ~f- o +:l .!l! f- > f :81- '" .... ~I- o <=l ~1-- '" 11f- Q) .. ~~ Q) Q) ..c: ~I- -a~ c: '~f- ~ !!;'~ .~ '5 - '" Q) 0_ Q) Q) e2_ 5.5 - N ... .;; o ~ c: t5 o ~- ~ <!l 0: o vi l;; .., o ... o Z <!l o o -I <.l ~- <!l 51- ~ <II BN-04-06375 BORING: LOG OF BORING ST-13 LOCATION: See attached sketch. I METHOD: 3 114" HSA, Autohmr DATE: Description ofMateriaIs (AS1M D2488 or D2487) 3" Bituminous over 6" Aggregate Base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist. . END OF BORING. Water not observed during drilling. Water not observed with 4 feet of hollow-stem auger in - the ground. . - Water not observed to cave-in depth of 4 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. ~ Boring then backfilled. - Braun Imertec Corporation. S[ Paul - - - - - - - 11/1/04 BPF WL - - 5 - 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I SCALE: 1"=4' Tests or Notes 5T-13 page I of I :1 1 t. [I 'I I I ; I "I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BRAUN'" INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota DRILLER: J. Chennak Depth feet 0.0 0.8 AS1M Symbol PAY FilL f-. - 903.3 4.0 SP 5.5 I--- f-. N ... 0\- <:> ." <:> 0;- ~ !:i- o :z: ;:>- c2 III ;;:: o ~- '" ~- 2 III 8f-. .... !,ll-- ~ III sf-. ~ III BN-04-06S75 I METIIOD: 3 1/4" HSA, Autolunr Description of Materials (ASlM 02488 or 02487) 4" Bituminous over 6" Aggregate Base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist. " ' , POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist, very loose. (Alluvium) END OF BORING. Water not observed during drilling. BORING: LOG OF BORING ST -14 LOCATION: See attached sketch, DA1E: -'- /" - Water not observed with 4 feet of hollow-stem auger in - the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 4 feet immediateIY- after withdrawal of auger. Boring then backfilled. Br..:lun Imenec Corporatlon, St Paul - - .- - - - - - - - - - - 11/1/04 I SCALE: 1"=4' BPF WL Tests or Notes - - 10 - 4 - - - - - - - - - ST.I-l page I 011 BRAU NS\< INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota LOG OF BORING BORING: ST -15 LOCATION: See attached sketch. DRJLLER: J Chermak I METHOD: 3 1/4" HSA, Autohmr DA1E: 11/1/04 I SCALE: 1"=4' Elev. Depth feet feet ASlM 905.0 0.0 Symbol 904.2 0.8 PAY FlLL Description ofMateriaIs (ASTM D2488 or 02487) 3" Bituminous over 6" Aggregate Base. FlLL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist BPF WL Tests or Notes - - 2 - .901.0 4.0 SP POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained, 1-899.5 brown, moist, loose. - 5 5.5 " (AlIuvium) ~I- END OF BORING. - 0 --= .~I- Water not observed during drilling. - e :151- Water not observed with 4 feet of hollow-stem auger in - 0:1 ""' the ground ~I- - 0 Water not observed to cave-in depth of 4 feet inunediate1Y- '.z:: ~1-- 0:1 after withdrawal of auger. ]1- - C> Boring then backfilled. .... '!:I- - C> ~ - ~~ ~I- - s:: .;:; EI- - ~ ~I- - +:l -g~ - (.) '" ~- - ., ., !=!?- - - - - - ... ". gj- - ". ~- - s 6- - 0 ?5- - ;:! 1Il_ - ;;: 0 on - .... :g ... - 2 CQ 0 - 3 Sl~ ~ ~ .' CQ :z - ;:l ~ '" - BN-04-06875 Braun lntertec Corporation, St Paul ST-l~ page 1 ofl I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BRAUN'" INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota DRILLER: J. Chermak Elev. feet 906.8 906.2 Depth feet 0.0 0.6 AS1M Symbol PAY FILL I- - - 902.8 4.0 SP ... -901.3 "ii o 'p ..s .;;: ~ .0 .0 oj '- ~I- o '.j:l jg I-- d ]1- Q). .... ~~ Q) Q) {;;,- ~ -- 8 'g- ~ Q) ;> +:: g (J gJ Q ~ ~ 5.5 I-- . M ;;;'- o ~c- '" 1-1- Cl o 5- ~ tQ 0: o vi ~ -0 ~ tQ o o .... u ;;;1-- <<: tQ 31- ~ BN-04-06375 BORING: LOG OF BORING ST -16 LOCATION: See attached sketch. I ME moo: 3 1/4" HSA, Autohrm DATE: Description of Materials (AS1M D2488 or 02487) 3" Bituminous over 4" Aggregate Base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-grained, brown, _ moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to coarse-grained, trace of Gravel, brown, moist, very loose. _ (Alluvium) END OF BORING. _ Water not observed during drilling. Water not observed with 4 feet of hollow-stem auger in - the ground. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 4 feet immediate1Y- after withdrawal of auger. - Boring then backfilled. - Braun Imen..~ CorpOlation, St Paul - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - 1111104 I SCALE: 1" =4' BPF WL Tests or Notes - - 3 4 - - - - - ST-16 page 1 of I I BRAUNSM INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk River, Minnesota LOG OF BORING I BORING: ST -17 I LOCATION: See attached sketch. DRILLER: J. Chermak r METHOD: 3 114" HSA, Autohmr I DATE: 11/1/04 I SCALE: 1"=4' Elev. feet 909.1 Depth feet 0.0 0.8 AS1M Symbol PAY FILL Description of Materials (AS1M 02488 or 02487) 3" Bituminous over 6" Aggregate Base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, tine-grained, brown, - moist BPF WL Tests or Notes I ~ I - 4 I- - 905.1 4.0 SP : POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, trace f-9OJ.6 of Gravel, brown, moist, loose. - 5 5.5 - -- (Alluvium) ~I- END OF BORING. - 0 :;::l .~- Water not observed during drilling. - > e ;8- Water not observed with 4 feet of hollow-stem auger in - '" <0-< the ground. ~- - 0 Water not observed to cave-in depth of 4 feet immediate1Y- '.0 ~- '" after withdrawal of augeL ]- - IU Boring then backfilled. ... ~- - ., l! - ~ 0 - ~ E- - ~ ., - > ~ - ... 0 '" ., 0 - ., ., ~ - I-- - ~ - '" .... - O\J- '" !~ - 5~ - 0 ~I-- - ~ <Ill- - 0:: 0 vi - ~ '" '" .... - 2 <Il 0 - - 0 ....l Sl_ ~ ~ '" z - ::> ~ BN-04-06875 Braun Intertec Corporation. 5t Paul I I, I I I I I I I I I I ST-17 page I of1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BRAUNSM INTERTEC Braun Project BN-04-06875 Geotechnical Evaluation 2005 City Street Improvements Elk lliver, Minnesota DRILLER: J, Chermak Elev. feet 908.7 908.3 Depth feet 0.0 0.4 ASlM Symbol PAY FILL t- I- - 904.7 4.0 SP -903.2 ~- o '''' ,~- e flt- .. ..... o d o '.t:l ~- os ~- '" 5.5 ... <E ] ~ gt- .~ EI- ~ ~I- ..t:l .g- o ~ Q ~ ~ - I- M ... ~'- ~ ~~ ::: p. o Cl 5"- ~ alf- 0: Cl ~r- '" o 2- (Q 8- .... o ~- al Z :J ..: ~ '" BN-04-06875 I METHOD: 3 114" HSA, Autohmr . 'Description ofMateriaJs (ASlM 02488 or 02487) 2" Bituminous over 3" Aggregate Base. FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine- to' medium-grained, brown, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fme- to medium-grained, brown, moist, loose. (Alluvium) END OF BORING. Water not observed during drilling. BORING: LOG OF BORING ST-18 LOCATION: See attached sketch. DATE: - Water not observed with 4 feet of hollow-stem auger in - the ground. - Water not observed to cave-in depth of 4 feet immediate1L- after withdrawal of auger. - Boring then backfilled. Braun Intertec Corporation, Sl. Paul - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1111/04 I SCALE: 1"=4' BPF WL Tests or Notes 4 5 ST-18 page I ofl 300 IFeet , Geoteclmieal Evaluation 2005 Street ImprOVements Various Streets Elk River, MN - - - - - - - - - ~ .. . ... .. .......... ... ~ '" BRAUN'" INTERTEC - - - - - - ,- - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B I I I INFORMATIONAL MEETING CITY ENGINEERING STAFF AND CRETEX COMPANIES WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26,2005 I Attendees: Don King, Cretex Elk River Plant Manager; Dave Anderson, Cretex Companies, lnc. Terry Maurer, City Engineer; John Anderson, Project Manager I I The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the storm drainage system associated with the proposed 2005 Street Reconstruction system; specifically, the system where a portion of the Cretex Elk River plant crosses TH 10 and flows through. Terry opened the meeting by giving a brief history of the proposed improvement project. John Anderson provided an analysis of the existing storm sewer system. The contributing areas as determined by City Engineering from the Cretex Elk River plant area, TH 10 area, and the residential properties lying south ofTH 10. John Anderson gave a brief description of the proposed storm sewer system improvement and rehabilitation of the existing system that is planned with the 2005 Street Reconstruction Project. I I With that as background, Dave Anderson talked about the storm sewer system that he is aware of and has personally installed on the Cretex plant property. He also talked briefly about the prairie grass plantings and the depression that was put into this landscaping in an attempt to hold back any debris carried in the storm drain runoff. I I Terry indicated that the purpose of this meeting was to provide some background to Don and Dave relative to the proposed improvements, and to approach the topic of whether or not Cretex Companies had any obligation to pay for portions of the storm sewer improvement in the Upland and Tipton A venue areas. Both Don and Dave indicated that they were aware that their drainage went that way, and they wanted to continue to be good corporate citizens and do what was right. Dave questioned whether or not we had a specific dollar amount in mind. Terry indicated that when it came down to negotiating dollar amounts, City Administrator Pat Klaers would likely need to be involved, and that the purpose of this meeting was only to provide information and raise the question. Terry indicated that it would be the City's intent to have a direct negotiation with Cretex relative to contributing toward the cost of the storm sewer system, rather than include them as a benefited property owner in the feasibility study and propose an assessment against their property in a public forum. I I 'I I There was further discussion about the possibility of building a larger quality control! detention pond on Cretex's property west of the plant boundary, where the homes along Upland Avenue owned by Cretex are located. Terry indicated that the City had discussed this issue with Cretex in the past, but that that point in time, they were informed that Cretex Companies felt the homes provided a better buffer than would be in place if the homes were removed and ponding installed. The other issue that was briefly discussed was the potential of Cretex making a contribution of material in-kind; perhaps supplying a portion of the storm drainage material needed for the 2005 Street Project. I I The meeting concluded with Terry indicating that he would prepare these minutes and an informational packet of the items discussed relative to the proposed improvements and the contributory areas, and then submit this information to Don. After Don has had an opportunity to review the information internally with Cretex staff, a follow-up meeting would be held. I Submitted by, I Terry J. Maurer, PE City Engineer I C\Documents and Settings\tlamkin\Desktop\012605 Cretex.doc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~oward R. Green Company November 4, 2004 File: 824180J-0030 Mr. Bryan Adams General Manager Elk River Municipal Utilities 13069 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 RE: 2005 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENT W ATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS Dear Mr. Adams: Thank you for meeting with John Anderson and me to discuss the City's proposed 2005 Pavement Rehabilitation Project. As you aware, the City is planning to reconstruct 5th Street, Tipton Avenue, and Upland Avenue. As we discussed the proposed street improvement relative to your watermain system, you requested that the following watermain improvements be added to the project: · On Rush Avenue from 5th Street to Trunk Highway 10 and under Trunk Highway 10, you have requested an 8-inch watermain be installed, connecting to the existing watermain on the north side of Trunk Highway 10. · On 5th Street from Rush Avenue to the west, you have requested a 12-inch watermain be installed, connecting to the existing lO-inch HDPE pipe in place at the end of 5th Street. · You have requested a bid alternate be included in the project for a 12-inch watermain under Trunk Highway 10 at the east end of the 5th Street project. · You requested that all old-style hydrants be replaced with new Waterous hydrants. · The Elk River Municipal Utilities will have your personnel survey the properties along the 2005 Pavement Rehabilitation Project to determine if any of the existing water services are of a lead material. Based on the results of that survey, direction will be given to us relative to any water services to be replaced. · We will pull together all pertinent information from the 2003 project relative to temporary water services in areas of watermain replacement and for connection of copper service pipe to differing materials for your review, prior to final preparation of project plans and specifications. · As project plans are prepared, we will review the 90 percent completed plans and specifications with you and your staff and will present a probable estimate of cost. 2550 University Avenue West. Suite 400N · St. Paul, MN 55114 . 651/644-4389 fax 651/644-9446 toll free 888/368-4389 I I 2005 Improvement Project November 4, 2004 I · As with the 2003 Pavement Management Project, the City will look for the Elk River Municipal Utilities to pay for their construction costs based on actual bids and pay estimates plus 10 percent for preliminary and [mal design and bidding. The constmction services such as inspection, staking, and administration will be billed directly to the Elk River Municipal Utilities. I I I If any of the points listed above do not reflect your understanding of our conversation regarding watermain improvements included in the 2005 Street Reconstruction Project, please call me immediately. Sincerely, I Terry J. Maurer, P.E. City Engineer I cc: Lori Johnson, Finance Director I I I I I I I I I I I Document in Microsoft Internet Explorer Howard R. Green Company Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX D I I INFORMATIONAL MEETING MINUTES 2005 STREET RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ELK RIVER CITY HALL THURSDAY, JANUARY 20,2005 - 6 P.M. I I Present: Terry Maurer, Elk River City Engineer; John Anderson, Howard R. Green Company I Terry Maurer, City Engineer, welcomed those present to the informational meeting regarding the proposed 2005 Street Reconstruction Project. Terry also introduced John Anderson, who will be the Project Manager for the improvement. The project includes the reconstruction of 5th Street from the west end to Trunk Highway 10, including Seymour, Rush and Quinn Avenues. It also includes Tipton Avenue and Upland Avenue, and a short stretch of 5th Street west of Upland Avenue. The project area is shown on the attached exhibit. Also attached is the sign-in roster for the informational meeting. I I Terry gave a brief history of the City's Pavement Rehabilitation Program, explaining that the City Council adopted a plan in early 2002, and the ftrst project was constructed in 2003. The proposed project will follow a very similar schedule. Terry indicated that the City Council has already authorized preparation of the feasibility study. A lot of that work is done, but minutes of this meeting will be prepared and presented in the formal feasibility study, which is anticipated to be presented to the City Council in February. I I I Terry briefly reviewed the sanitary sewer and water existing in the project area. He indicated that some of the sanitary sewer is old and it is anticipated that the sewer mains would be lined as a rehabilitation of those pipes. He indicated that the Water Utility is going to replace a small portion of the watermain on 5th Street from Rush Avenue to the west. He also indicated that the Utilities would be analyzing the types of service material and would replace any lead service lines that can be identifted Finally, on the sanitary sewer and water issues, Terry indicated that a funding source would be the Utility enterprise funds. I I Next Terry discussed the concept for the street portion, indicating that in the Tipton and Upland area, it is anticipated that the streets would be widened slightly from the approximately 22'-24' width to a proposed 28-foot width including the concrete curb and gutter. On the 5th Street portion of the project, the current streets are approximately 40 feet wide and are proposed to be reconstructed at the City standard width of 32 feet wide, since there is no apparent need for signiftcant on-street parking. It is felt that 5th Street could be narrowed to 32 feet. Terry indicated that Seymour, Rush and Quinn Avenues are proposed to be closed at TH 10. Terry discussed the issue of concrete sidewalk and indicated that the Council's direction in the adoption of the Pavement Rehabilitation Program was to attempt to get pedestrian facilities adjacent to all reconstructed roadways. Terry also very briefly laid out the proposal for improvements to the storm drainage system in the area. In the Tipton/Upland Avenue areas, storm sewer is through the rear lot area of these properties. In this area there is proposed to be additional storm sewer constructed in the Upland Avenue right-of-way. There is also planned to be some rehabilitation of the rear lot storm sewer system, because there are areas that are dependent on this that cannot be re-routed, the storm sewer line must stay functional. I I I I I At the close of the discussion on the improvements, Terry talked about the costs of the project and the assessment proposal. The amount proposed to be assessed is $6,000 per residential unit. Based on the cost of the street and the storm drainage, the assessment will fund approximately 1/3 of the cost of the project, with the remaining 2/3 being funded by the City. A sample assessment schedule was then shown assuming a 7-year payback at 5 % percent interest. I I I Informational Meeting Minutes January 20, 200S I The final item discussed in the presentation was a tentative project schedule and the typical construction issues and how they would be addressed. I A period of questions and answers followed: I How much of the prqject cost is for sidewalk and what happens if there is no sidewalk constmcted in front of an individual properry? Will that ciffect the assessment rate? I City Council direction was to provide sidewalks wherever possible. Mature vegetation, right-of-way, or topography may prohibit sidewalks being installed, but essentially, we believe that most of the project area can accommodate sidewalks. With regard to assessments, there is no differentiation between a property that has a sidewalk in front of it and one that doesn't relative to assessments, the City Council has deemed that all properties in these projects should be assessed the same residential equivalent rate. I I With the new sidewalk being six feet in width, are we going to lose atry of our yards? I There is no where on this project where we anticipate any right-of-way or land acquisition to accommodate a sidewalk. There are areas where there is currently grass boulevard area within the City right-of-way which may be converted to sidewalk after construction. In that regard, you may be losing some of the grassed area in front of your home, but it is all within the City-owned right-of-way area. I Will there be sidewalk installed going around the Veteran'J- Memorial Park? I We are still looking at where it is appropriate to put sidewalks. There could be an argument either way that sidewalk around the Memorial Park is important for pedestrian movements, or that the sidewalk around the park would detract from the intent of the Memorial Park. This is an issue that the public should give comment to the City Council if they have strong feelings one way or the other, regarding the installation of a sidewalk. I I Will there be a cui-dc-sac put in on Quinn Street and what would be the width of the street? We would propose to make Quinn Street a minimum of 24'-28' in width and there will not be a full cul-de-sac, but rather, a turnaround in a hammerhead manner for maintenance vehicles. I Has safety been addressed for Tipton Avenue? I believe that the curve on Tipton Avenue is unstife and making the road wider will make people drive faster. I The purpose in making the road slightly wider is not to encourage higher speeds but to allow for on- street parking as is occasionally needed. Currently, with no curb and gutter, a parked vehicle can be partially on the paved surface and partially on the grass boulevard area. With a barrier curb being installed with the new street, it will not be possible for a parked vehicle to be partially on the road and partially on the boulevard. Therefore, the road needs to be slightly wider to accommodate parking all within the paved surface. There is no intention of trying to acquire additional right-of- way to change the two curves on Tipton Avenue. Hopefully, the concrete curb and gutter along the edges will give the perception that Tipton Avenue is a residential street with two fairly sharp curves and will cause people to drive slower. I I I Has the possibility of changing Tipton Avenue into a one-wCDJ been addressed? I We have briefly discussed that among staff after the question was raised earlier. Typically, when a street is changed to a one-way, there is an adjacent street that is also made one-way in the opposite I Page 2 I Informational Meeting Minutes January 20, 2005 I direction. In this case, we would likely be talking about Tipton and Upland Avenues. No matter how we look at that, there is always going to be property owners that are inconvenienced in their normal trips or that will just chose to drive the wrong way for a short period of time, rather than take the longer route around that area. For that reason, we do not believe that Tipton and Upland being changed to one-directional roadways would solve any of the problems. I I Will Tipton Avenue still be a nanvw street? I Yes. The City standard is 32 feet, face-of-curb to face-of-curb. The proposal for Tipton Avenue is to only widen it to 28 feet, face-of-curb to face-of-curb, given the limited number of properties adjacent to it and the seldom use of on-street parking in significant numbers. I Will the City be responsible for yard restoration where sewer lining is completed? I There should be minimal disruption to yards with the sewer lining project, but certainly the City will be responsible for restoration of anything that is disrupted, due to the sewer lining project. Won't the closing rif S rymour, Quinn and Rush Avenues result in more trciffic on Tipton Avenue? I It is possible that vehicles that currently exist TH 10 onto Seymour, Quinn or Rush Avenues will chose to exit TH 10 at Upland Avenue and then travel down Tipton Avenue. There are other options for vehicles that are used to turning off at TH 10 on Seymour, Quinn or Rush that could continue their trip down to Proctor and exit the Highway at Proctor Avenue. We do not anticipate a significant increase in the amount of traffic on Upland Avenue or Tipton Avenue, due to the proposed closing of Seymour, Quinn and Rush access to TH 10. I I Have there been or will there be a'!)' studies on how the downtown improvement will qffect the Trciffic on Tipton Avenue? Would this be an issue to bring up to the City Council? I There have been no traffic studies that I am aware of linking the downtown proposed redevelopment project to increased traffic on any other City streets. My initial reaction to the question is the increased residential and commercial redevelopment in the downtown area will have negligible affect on traffic increases as far out as Tipton Avenue. I Are the assessments based on lot size or frontage? I Assessments are actually based on residential equivalent units, so each lot that cannot be further subdivided is deemed to be one residential lot and will be proposed to be assessed $6,000. I I was assessed on an earlier project and my house was marked again for assessment. How can I check if I should be assessed? I Any property that was assessed for the 2003 Street Rehabilitation Project or the 1988 Main Street Project street construction portion will not be assessed for this project. I believe your property was assessed for the Main Street project, but for sanitary sewer improvement involved in that project, not for the actual reconstruction of Main Street. We can research that either through my files or by contacting the City Finance Department, which is the keeper of the formal assessment history. I I What will be done for the storm sewer on Tipton Avenue and Upland Avenue to improve the existing condition? I There will be new storm sewer including catch basins installed on the northern portion of Tipton Avenue and Upland Avenue down to an existing line that enters into Lake Orono. The backyard storm sewer line has been televised and the problem areas noted. These areas will be corrected by I Page 3 I Informational Meeting Minutes January 20, 2005 I one of two methods; either spot replacement of sections of pipe, or utilizing the same pipe lining technology that is proposed for the sanitary sewer mains. I Can we get a printout of this presentation? I A copy of the presentation and meeting minutes will be sent to all who have signed the attendance roster. I Will there be a'!)' sidewalk installed on Tipton Avenue? I It is not proposed at this point in time to put any sidewalk along Tipton Avenue. The proposal is to extend a sidewalk along the west side of Upland A venue from Trunk Highway 10 to Main Street to continue the pedestrian corridors that are currently on Main Street and are anticipated to be included on Upland Avenue north of Trunk Highway 10. I Will sidewalk be installed on the short stretch of 5th Street west of Upland Avenue? I There is no sidewalk proposed on this portion of 5th Street and only the public portion of 5th Street is proposed to be reconstructed. The private portion will be left as it is. Will adding sidewalk and widening the street result in Iosingpart of our yard? I For the Tipton and Upland Avenue areas where the street is widened and a sidewalk is added along the west side of Upland Avenue, parts of the lawns as they currently exist will become street and sidewalk areas. However, there is no land acquisition necessary. We believe that all of these improvements can be constructed within the existing platted rights-of-way. I Who is responsible for underground sprinklers? I Certainly, if you have an underground sprinkler, let us know. If our surveyors did not notice the heads and we have no record of it, if you would let us know during the walk-through, we will get that noted on our construction plans. If your sprinkler system provides heads at the back of curb or at the edge of the street, they will likely be disrupted during the construction. The City policy has been that we will allow a resident to obtain a quote from their sprinkler repair service. The City will review the quote and if appropriate, agree to pay for the restoration and/or repair of sprinkler systems found to be in the public rights-of-way. I I Who maintains the new sidewalk and who is liable if it is not cleared? I I The City maintains the sidewalk as far as cracking, replacement, and repair of it. The homeowner will be responsible for the removal of snow from the sidewalk. The sidewalk is a public improvement constructed in the public right-of-way, therefore, although I am not an attorney, I would assume that the City would be held responsible should someone injure themselves on a piece of sidewalk that is found to be in disrepair. The City Code does have some language relative to snow removal at properties who do not routinely shovel their sidewalks, but I am not familiar with exactly what that portion of Code says. The Code can be accessed on the City's public website. I What is the reason for adding sidewalk on a dead-end street? I The rationale would be exactly the same; that the public street is not a place to expect pedestrians and cars to co-mingle; that if there is room for a pedestrian movement facility such as a sidewalk outside of the street but within the public right-of-way, the City Council has indicated that they believe it should be constructed as part of this project. I I Page 4 I I Informational Meeting Minutes January 20, 2005 I Won't dosing Srymour, Quinn and Rush Avenues result in more trciffic at the other intersection? Doesn't that increase the probability for accidents? I Yes, there will be some more traffic at Upland and Proctor Avenues which are signalized intersections. Although with more traffic there may be more accidents, but typically a right angle accident which occurs when a vehicle is turning onto or off of the highway at an unsignalized intersection tends to be more severe than the types of accidents that occur at signalized intersections, which more often than not are rear-end types of accidents. I When would MnDOT close the highwqy access to Trunk Highwqy to? I Although MnDOT has no set program for closing Seymour, Rush and Quinn, they certainly have a stated policy of attempting to minimize access points on the trunk highway system. They have a formal access policy relative to allowing new accesses. There is also the Inter Regional Corridor Study for Trunk Highway 10 which calls for it to become an expressway in this area, which means the only access points would be the signalized intersections. However, at this point in time, there is no money programmed in MnDOT"s plan for any improvements on Highway 10 relative to the Inter Regional Corridor Study. I I Is the closure definite at this time for these three streets? I The closure is not definite; it is a proposal by us to the City Council. MnDOT is not in the business of closing these access points unless there are major accidents at one of the points, or they undertake a highway project which would require them to be closed. At this point, it is simply a recommendation from the Engineering Department to the City Council. I Do all three streets have to be closed or can just one or two of them be closed? I We are proposing to close all three at this time, but Seymour is certainly the priority because it is close to a break in the median on Trunk Highway 10, which allows full movement at Seymour Avenue onto TH 10 and the reverse. Rush and Quinn have medians across them at TH 10 so it would only allow right-in and right-out traffic. I Is Upland Avenue access to Highwqy to ever going to be closed? I It may be closed by MnDOT eventually relative to the Inter Regional Corridor Study, but that is a long distance off in the future as it stands. I At this time there were no further questions. Terry stated that this information would be provided to the City Council in the formal feasibility study. Terry also thanked those present for taking time to discuss this project with them, and indicated that they could contact either John or Terry at City Hall if they had any questions at any time in the process. I I The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by, I Terry J. Maurer, PE City Engineer I I Page 5 I I I I PROJECT NAME: OWNER: I DATE OF MEETING: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Informational Meeting 2005 Street and Utility Improvements City of Elk River 6:00 P. m. . January 20th. 2005 Mailin Address/Zi Phone No. >< c.{'f/-Y'w cL ~Jt- It. ::2 I?c, 13 ~1{ l-J.t.S"" ~ 1- /'" j(') g t p $j 1$ ~ M /-;0 .---~ .:::>/ tld. - ~..--- ?ev~)~cL .-c5VJ~ ~.,... . <V'V / - /"'-./ W/-~~-J~ ~~/-7'~7 Li-Lj / -,4 t,t (,tI? ~; / ( ~ --it f:f ;f/t/