6.4. SR 01-22-2001City of
River
MEMORANDUM
Item//6.4.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Mayor & City Council
Pat Klaers, City Administrator
January 22, 2001
Central Business District Sidewalk
INTRODUCTION
Staff understood that reaching a consensus and decision on what to do with
the sidewalks in the central business district would be difficult. This is
especially true as the sidewalk decision is being made prior to an updated
downtown comprehensive plan being completed. There are as many options for
a downtown sidewalk plan, as there are individuals with opinions about what
looks good and what we can afford. I think everyone is going to have to come
with "compromise" on his or her mind if a consensus is to be reached on the
sidewalk replacement project.
After numerous staff meetings and discussions, our recommendation is that
the sidewalks in the central business district, including the King and Main
site, should be all the same. The downtown area needs one consistent look and
appearance. Two or more sidewalk designs installed downtown will give the
impression that the project was not well planned and the area will have a
disjointed or hodgepodge look. Additionally, it is our recommendation that the
best look for downtown is the Cobblestone paver in the random pattern rather
than the Symetry paver in the venetian parquet pattern (see attached
brochures).
Regarding which concrete paver design is best downtown; it is still staffs
recommendation that a solid (100%) Cobblestone paver is best. We have some
combination paver/fiat gray design options available for review and
consideration, but the various widths of the downtown sidewalk and the
cutting of the pavers make it difficult for some of the paver/fiat gray
combinations to look good. The extra cost between the total paver and a
13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · TDD & Phone (763) 441-7420 · Fax (763) 441-7425
CBD Project
January 22, 2001
Page 2 of 4
paver/fiat gray combination is relatively small ($74,000), especially when
considering that the project should last for a very long time.
SIDEWALK OPTIONS AND COSTS
What option is chosen for a sidewalk, the Cobblestone paver versus the
Symetry paver, impacts what recommendation is most appropriate for a
downtown sidewalk design. The Cobblestone paver with a random pattern can
more easily be broken up and look good in a non-solid design as compared to
the Symetry paver that is in the venetian parquet pattern. This comment has
to do with the width and cutting of the pavers in a non-solid or non-100
percent paver design. (This is tough to explain, but I hope the attached
pictures and the design sketches help make this clearer. Regarding the
sketches, please note that people don't really see the sidewalk from straight
above and that from this angle both the 100 percent paver options are rather
"busy," but they look better in person.)
Staff is still united in its recommendation that the Cobblestone paver is the
best appearance for the downtown sidewalk replacement program. This
appearance presents a traditional look (not necessarily historic) that is
consistent with the existing downtown streetscape program and the existing
older buildings. This look also works well with a new building as the developer
of the King and Main site discussed on 10/23. The modern paver (Symetry)
look does not work as well with the existing streetscape appearance and the
older buildings in the downtown. This modern look is all right with new
buildings, but the new buildings are not the dominant look downtown. The
Cobblestone and modern (Symetry) paver cost about the same. It should be
noted that the city does not plow the sidewalks downtown and that there are
minimal, if any, maintenance issues with a paver sidewalk versus a concrete
sidewalk. Finally, the pavers are stronger than standard concrete (less salt
damage) and are easier to replace than concrete. Also, when replaced, pavers
match old pavers better than new concrete matches older concrete.
The cost estimates and top three recommendations of the staff for the
sidewalks are as follows:
1. 100% Cobblestone paver. ($290,000)
Cobblestone paver at the intersections and along the curbline.
($250,000)
3. 100% Symetry paver. ($290,000)
CBD Project
January 22, 2001
Page 3 of 4
Staff doesn't think that the Cobblestone or Symetry paver only along the
curbline ($237,000 for either), or the Cobblestone or Symetry paver only at the
intersections ($216,000 for either) is enough of a downtown sidewalk design. I
don't believe anyone wants the 100% fiat gray concrete sidewalk, but for your
information, that cost is estimated at $183,000. All of the costs being noted
include the cost of removal of the old sidewalk, a 5% contingency, 10% for
overhead, and $25,000 for miscellaneous work.
At this time the King and Main developer is willing to pay 100% of their
sidewalk if it is a solid paver sidewalk. All of the cost estimates exclude this
King and Main intersection. Discussion has not taken place regarding the
developer's feelings for paying 100% of the sidewalk if the city requires a
combination paver/fiat gray concrete sidewalk in this location.
It should be noted that all of the costs listed are most likely going to be
reduced by about $20,000 as we work with the Utilities on their improvement
project. In general, the Utilities need to remove the sidewalk on the entire
north side of Main Street and they will pay this cost provided that the city
pays the replacement cost. This seems reasonable and it is estimated that
their expense will be about $20,000 and a direct reduction in the project
figures. As an aside, the Utilities have indicated that they would like to
complete their project prior to the Arts Soup Festival (June 22) rather than
after.
HRA FUNDS
The HRA has an anticipated 12/31/00 fund/cash balance of approximately
$90,000. Additionally, the 2001 budget shows a surplus of $51,000 for projects
that are undetermined at this time. This type of budget surplus could continue
for the next few years and, if desired, applied to a sidewalk project. In addition
to the HRA tax monies, the TIF project at King and Main needs to repay the
HRA for its net investment into this redevelopment project. This repayment of
$293,000 begins in 2003 with $49,000 and continues until the investment has
been recaptured.
Accordingly, if desired, the HRA can afford part or all of a sidewalk project
over the next few years, even if the total cost of a sidewalk replacement
program is in the $275,000 range.
CBD Project
January 22, 2001
Page 4 of 4
1988 PROJECT
In 1988 the downtown streetscape project took place. Costs that were above
and beyond a normal sidewalk and lighting project were assessed out to the
benefited property owners in the downtown area. In this regard, extra costs for
lights, tree grates, trash receptacles, and textured sidewalk were assessed.
The assessment from the 1988 streetscape project shows that lights were 55%,
tree grates 25%, trash receptacles 10%, and sidewalk 10% of the total.
Accordingly, assessments for sidewalks were a small part of the streetscape
assessments. The attached 4/4/88 minutes show the breakdown of the costs
that were assessed out thirteen years ago.
In 1988, the textured sidewalk was 22.5% more than a concrete sidewalk. With
this proposed project in 2001, the construction of a paver sidewalk is about
58% more than a fiat gray concrete sidewalk. If you think that a fiat gray
sidewalk would never happen, then it should be noted that the solid paver
design is 35% higher than the next cheapest sidewalk option, which
incorporates pavers only at the intersections.
CONCLUSION
As there was no clearly understood consensus from the 10/23 or 11/27
meetings, we are again going to try to reach an understanding on a sidewalk
program for 2001. The central business district property owners and the
Chamber of Commerce have been notified of this meeting and the developer
will be providing examples of the paver products and the sidewalk designs. All
Councilmembers are encouraged to come to the HRA meeting to see the
presentations and to hear citizen input. Ail HRA and Councilmembers are
also encouraged to see the paver examples that are in the driveway and
sidewalk of the Plaisted office at County Road 33 and Highway 169.
Goals for the meeting include reaching a consensus on: 1) the type of sidewalk,
2) the design of the sidewalk, and 3) who is to pay what for the sidewalk.
Whatever is agreed to needs final City Council approval as the sidewalk is in
the public right-of-way.
Staff recommends that there be one look throughout downtown and that this
look be the Cobblestone paver (random pattern). Staff further recommends,
but to a lesser degree, that the Cobblestone be a 100% install. Finally, it
should be noted that funds are available over the next 4-5 years to finance
whatever share of the project the HRA wants to assume.
s: \ eda \ hra \ cbdwalks.doc
City Council Meeting
April 4, 1988
Page 2
5,2.
Central Business District Beautification Improvement Assessment Hearin8
Public Hearing
Mayor Gunkel explained that the project is priced as low as possible and
meets the objectives for beautification of the downtown area. She
noted that the bids were open for the lighting aspect of the project and
that most of the prices in the project were firm.
Greg Korstad, City Attorney, explained the assessment hearing process.
He noted that the purpose of the meeting is to receive input from the
people proposed to be assessed for the beautification improvement. He
noted that the City is proposing to assess the cost of the project on a
per unit basis. He noted this is based on the City Council evaluation
of the most fair way to proportion all of the costs to the properties
benefited. He explained that all property owners should have been
notified of the assessment and of the proposed assessment method and
that the property owners should make their objections known to the City
Council at this time. Mr. Korstad also explained that the lighting
contract may not be awarded until the appeal period is expired, which is
30 days from the date of the assessment roll being adopted.
Terry Maurer, City Engineer, explained that the City has received the
street lighting bids and also has received quotes on the other elements
of the project. Mr. Maurer reviewed the cost of the project which is as
follows:
ITEM ASSESSED OTHER TOTAL COST
Street Lighting $65,000 $35,000 $100,000
Trees -0- 18,300 18,300
Tree Grates 29,000 -0- 29,000
Trash Receptacles 11,500 -0- 11,500
Textured Sidewalk 11,800 -0- 11,800
$117,300 $53,300 $170,600
Mr. Maurer explained that the method of assessment of a per unit basis
is based on the input from the mock assessment hearing held January 21,
1988. He noted there is a total of 40 assessable units; 37 whole units
to be assessed at a rate of $2,950 per parcel, and 6 half units to be
assessed at a rate of $1,475 per parcel. Mr. Maurer noted that the
interest is calculated at a rate of 10% but may be reduced when the
bonds are sold.
Mayor Gunkel opened the public hearing at this time.
Mr. A1 Nadeau, property owner and business owner, presented a letter
including a list of property owners wishing to appeal the assessment.
the following names were included in the list:
City Council Minutes
April 4, 1988
Ronald Kuhn
Harvey Wohlers
Allen Nadea~
Joseph Sipe
Michael Rafferty
Ronald Robeck
Robert Dare
Hetrick - Amoco
R.A. Dorsey
Dan Anderson (includes 4 parcels)
Mayor Gunke 1 indicated
Dale Johnson, who is
zone.
she had also received a notice of appeal from
a residential property owner in the commercial
Mr. Dan Anderson, property owner of 4 separate parcels of property,
indicated that while he did sign the document objecting to the
assessment, he was actually not opposed to the assessment or the
project, but was opposed to the fact that the commercial properties west
of Lowell were not included in the assessment. He indicated the
properties west of Lowell had requested to become part of the commercial
area and the Council extended the commercial area to accommodate the
request. He indicated that the total commercial area should be given an
opportunity to be part of the project and not to restrict the assessment
to only a portion of the downtown area.
Dick Dorsey, property owner and business owner of Dick's Main Tap,
indicated his opposition to the beautification project. He stated he
was against a majority of the improvements but was in favor of adding
trash receptacles to the downtown area. He stated he was also opposed
to the method of assessment and felt the assessment should be determined
by front footage. He stated this should be dealt with in the same
method as sewer and street assessments.
Steve Johnson, property owner and business owner of Johnson's
Department Store, indicated his support for the project. He indicated
that the City of Monticello is proposing the same type of project and
the price is much higher than the City of Elk River is charging. Mr.
Johnson stated that the' criteria for drawing new business to the
community is the location, and the beautification of downtown will draw
business to the downtown area. He also indicated that the assessment
method is the best compromise for determining the assessment amount due
per parcel of property.
Mike Rafferty, property owner and business owner of Elk River
Chiropractic Office, indicated he was not totally opposed to the
assessment, but that he was opposed to the method of assessment.
Mr. A1 Nadeau stated that the people signed the document opposing the
assessment with the knowledge that the assessment per one full unit
would be $3,750. He indicated that with the new figure of $2,950, there
may be some people willing to withdraw their signature.
City'Council Minutes
April 4, 1988
Bud Houlton, property owner, indicated his support for the project. He
stated that creating an environment and atmosphere for the downtown area
is very important. Mr. Houlton stated the First National Bank would be
willing to contribute one extra unit ($3,750) towards the cost of the
project.
Duane Kropuenske, Senior Officer of the First National Bank, indicated
he was in favor of the project. Mr. Kropuenske stated that by adding up
the total assessment and dividing it out on a per month basis, the
figure is somewhere around $30 to $40 per month. He indicated this is a
relatively small price to pay to attract business to Elk River.
Mr. Ron Kuhn, property and business owner, stated his opposition due to
the fact that the commercial properties west of Lowell are not included
in the assessment district and also that the properties east of his
business will receive more benefit than his property. He indicated he
would like to see the project vetoed until the Council has a chance to
look at the benefitting properties and assess them according to benefit
received.
Mike Rafferty proposed a different assessment method at this time which
he indicated was a more fair method than that being proposed by the City
Council. He indicated that his method would increase the financial
burden of the large properties and decrease the financial responsibility
of the smaller properties. This proposal is placed on record with the
official City Council minutes.
Mr. Jim Mulroy, business owner of Snyder Drug, indicated that he is in
favor of the project.
Mr. Rob VanValkenberg, property and business owner of three parcels,
indicated he was in favor of the project.
Councilmember Tralle indicated that both the Governor's Design Team and
the 2001 group have heavily encouraged the City to work on the downtown
area. He indicated the downtown beautification would serve as a major
focal part of the community and it would encourage retail growth and
also encourage people to shop in the downtown area. Councilmember
Tralle stated that the front footage assessment method was unfair in
that the large property owners do not receive much more benefit than the
small property owners. He further indicated that the Council should
possibly look at extending the assessment district to the commercial
properties west of Lowell since these properties are within a
commercially zoned area.
Robert Dare, business owner and property owner, stated that he is not
against the cost of the project but opposes the fact that the commercial
properties west of Lowell Avenue are not included.
Elmer Anderson, property and business owner, thanked the Council for all
they have done so far for the downtown beautification project. He
indicated his support of the project.
Mr. Keith Holme, business owner, indicated his support for the project.
City Council Minutes
April 4, 1988
rage
Mr. Cliff Lundberg, business and property owner, and Chairman of the
Downtown Committee, stated that the proposal before the Council and the
residents is a very cost effective proposal and that it would possibly
be more expensive if the project were delayed until a later date. He
stated that he would like to see the Council order the project tonight
so the electrical contractor can start work and not delay the project.
Charles Christian, property owner and business owner, indicated his
support for the project.
There being no further comments from the public, Mayor Gunkel closed the
public hearing.
Mayor Gunkel indicated that there was a lot of discussion and thought
process by the Council and Staff in determining the method of
assessment and the area to be assessed. She indicated that the main
element in this is timing and coordinating the lighting aspect of the
downtown beautification project with the entire Main Street Project.
She indicated that if the Council did choose to reconsider the method
and area of assessment, the carefully planned timing schedule would no
longer be valid.
Pat Klaers, City Administrator, informed the Council that if the
assessment roll is adopted at this time, the people who have submitted
letters of objection will have the right to appeal, however, there are
additional steps to the appeal process which must be taken by these
individuals.
Councilmember Dobel indicated that if the Council does not go ahead with
the project, valuable time from a number of people will have been lost.
He stated that this project is needed and has been needed for a long
time and if the opportunity is missed it may never present itself again.
He indicated he was in favor of approving the project but would like to
look again at the method of assessment.
Mayor Gunkel indicated that the Council has tried everything possible to
make the project acceptable. She stated that if property owners do
appeal the project, the City would be in a defensible position regarding
the amount and the method of assessment. She indicated that one of the
reasons for keeping the assessment area east of Lowell was to keep the
assessment at a defineable boundary, which is Lowell Avenue. She
indicated she felt the Council is satisfying a majority of the people
and that the project is very cost effective.
Councilmember Holmgren indicated he was in favor of the project,
however, would like to see the Council look at extending the assessment
area to the commercial properties west of Lowell.
Mayor Gunkel indicated that if the Council were to look at possibly
changing the assessment area, it would be a great inconvenience to the
customers. She noted a lot of preliminary work has went into
coordinating the project in order to keep a strict time schedule. She
stated that the Council has already reviewed and determined the area to
be assessed and method of assessment at a previous meeting, and stated
Page 6
City Council Minutes
April 4, 1988
there is no reason to reconsider these elements as it will result in
delaying the entire project.
The City Administrator indicated that if the four or five commercial
properties west of Lowell Avenue were added, it would add to the expense
of the project and more than likely would not decrease the assessment
amount to the property owners.
Coun¢ilmember Tralle indicated that he agreed with the City
Administrator and also with Mayor Gunkel in that changing the assessment
district would delay the project.
COUNCILMEMBER DOBEL MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 88-23, A RESOLUTION
ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE MATTER OF THE DOWNTOWN BEAUTIFICATION
IMPROVEMENTS OF 1987. COUNCILMEMBER TRALLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Councilmember Schuldt indicated that he has heard many indirect negative
comments from the business people (tenants) regarding the downtown
project. He stated he had hoped that the people would have come forward
and personally voiced their concerns, but has not heard any first hand
objections since the start of the project and noted that because of this
he would be voting to order the improvement.
THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
~0UNCI~M]~M]$ER TRAL~E MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 88-24, A RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE MATTER OF THE DOWNTOWN
$~AUTIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS. COUNCILMEMBER DOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Councilmember Tralle indicated that to reconsider the method or area of
assessments would delay the project and would be too costly at this
point.
Councilmember Schuldt stated that street and sewer is based on a front
footage basis. He noted that the method of assessment for the
beautification items is a different matter as the items being assessed
do not run by properties on a front foot basis. He noted that it is
difficult to assess this in the same manner as the sewer and street
improvements. He noted that because the improvements are of the nature
they are, he is in favor of the method of assessment.
THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
C0UNCILM~aMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 88-25, A RESOLUTION
ACCEPTING BID FROM SPENSOR ELECTRIC AT A PRICE OF $73,243 AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACT IN THE MATTER OF THE DOWNTOWN STREET
LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT OF 1988. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE
MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
EXISTING
BUILDING
<~
Z
O
EXISTING
GAZEBO
WIDE VARD
EX. STREET
LIGHT (TYP.)
EX. TREE
GRATE (TYP.)
10' WIDE BOULEVARD
MAIN STREET
,////---10' WIDE BOULEVARD ~~~~~~.
////////////////////////////////// r////////////,
/
/ /
/ /
/ EXISTING / EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING / ALLEY
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
/
/
NOTE: SIDEWALK PAVERS ARE NOT SHOWN TO SCALE
NO.DATE ~Y R~M~ON DESC~PTION
~ ~J~aY c[R'~"Y 'mA'r 'mrs PL~, ~[OnC~T~0~, 1326 ENERGY P~K DRI~
DE~ED BY:~ DRA~ BY: EY ~~ ~R~m ST, PAUL, MINNESOTA ~108
~ ~ ~AT I ~ A ~LY ~S~R~ (651) 644--4~59
~RO~D BY:APPRO~D BY ~ NUMBER 81142~ ~ ENGN~R ~ ~ LA~ ~ ~[
~ ~,~:~ .... ~ ,,. ~oo, ,,:~,:,~ .... ~d R. ~en Company
C~ FILE: 2300~m~exhlblts~AIN-JAC[SON6.DW~ ~ A~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS
cn'Y OF B_K RNER
COBg_E - RANDOM PA'FrERN
MAIN STREET AT JACKSON AVENUE
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
o lO
SHEET NO.
1
EXISTING BUILDING
-- EX.
STREET LIGHT (TYP.)
EX. TREE
GRATE
(TYP.)/
EXISTING
GAZEBO
WIDE
10' WIDE BOULEVARD
MAIN STREET
////////////.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EXISTING
ALLEY
EXISTING BUILDING
/
EXISTING
/
/
/
/
BUILDING
NOTE: SIDEWALK PAVERS ARE NOT SHOWN TO SCALE
DESIGNED BY:K7 DRAWN BY: EY
APPRO~D BY:APPROVED BY JO~ NUMBER 811420J
CAD DATE: Jonuory 11 2001 11:54:18 o.m.
CAD FILE: ~,3000Om~exhibits",,MAIN-JACKSON6o.DWG
~ 1526 ENERGY PARK DRIV~
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA ,55108
(651) 644-4589
-Ioward R. Green Company
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CITY OF ELK RIVER
TOWN-SQUARE + ~ PA'F['ERN
MAIN Sq'REET AT JACKSON AVENUE
SIDEWALK IMPROVEIVlE~[TS
0 10
S~££T NO,
EXISTING
BUILDING
· ' .~' - · ' ' ' ' '~' '~' '~. -'~' ~' .',~ '. ""
EX. TREE GRATE (TYP.)
EXISTING
GAZEBO
WI DE VARD
10' WIDE BOULEVARD
MAIN STREET
///--10' WIDE BOULEVARD
/ EXISTING / EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING / ALLEY
· ·
CAD DATE:Jonuary 11, 2001 11:54:18 e.m.
CAD FILE: 230000m\exhibits\MAIN-JACK$ON.DWG
DESIGNED By:K'f DRAWN BY: EY
APPROVED BY:APPROVED BY JO~ NUMBER 811420J
KO. DATE -BY [
[ 1526 ENERGY PARK DRIVE
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA .5.5108
(651) 644 - 4,~89
Howard R. G'een Company
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
crfY
MAIN STREET AT JACKSON AVENUE
SIDEWALK IMPROVE~
0 10
NO.
2
aa'
EXISTING BUILDING :'~,'
· '. "'i .,' 4~ ....... ~ .' . . . · ....' · ,1, . ,~ . ~.. . /1' . . .. . .
a , . ' ' ,~ - ' .- .,~,; - ' . ' ' . ' ' - - ~ .. . .. '~ · "~ - 4l' " ~, ·' - ~
EX. TREE GRATE (TYP.) -~
Z
0
3.5' WIDE PAVERS
MAIN STREET
3.5' WIDE PAVERS
/ EXISTING / EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
/ ALLEY
NOTE: SIDEWALK PAVERS ARE NOT SHOWN TO SCALE
DESIGNED BY: KT DRAWN BY: ~
APPROVED BY:APPROVED BY JO~ NUMBER 811420J
CAD DATE: Jonuery 11 2001 11:54:18 o.m.
CAD FILE: 230000m~exh;bltsX, MAIN-JACKSON7.DWG
I 1,326 ENERGY PARK DRIVE
ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55108
(651) 644-4589
Howard R. Green Company
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
MAIN STF:EET AT JACKSON AVENUE
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
o Io
~'lEE T NO.
3
· ~ ." , .~ · ~. · ,~ . ,, .~ · · . ..~ ., ,. , . . :. '..- , .., ~ .~ .~..~,;,~.,~//
EX. TREE GRATE (TYP.)-~
Z
<I:
3,5' WIDE PAVERS
MAIN STREET
/ EXISTING / EXISTING ILDING
EXISTING BUILDING / BU
/ ALLEY
NOTE: SIDEWALK PAVERS ARE NOT SHOWN TO SCALE
DESIGNED BY: k'T DRAWN BY: EY
APPROVED BY:APPROVED BY JOB NUMBER 811420J
CAD DATE.' Jonuory 11 2001 11:54:18 o.m.
CAD FILE: ~3000Om~,exhiblts~MAIN-JACKSON7A. DWG
ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55108
(651) 644-4,389
R. Green Company
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
jOI'TY OF ELK RIVER
TOWN-SQUARE -I- 8YMETRY PATTERN
MAIN STREET AT JACKSON AVENUE
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
0 10
~F..~T NO.
3A
EXISTING BUILDING " '
'"""' '"""'"':' ;' '" '" '?..'"~" "t .""' '"' "" " '
':. 'i'.'i:' 'rb7 i-.~-,.i~ .i,~. ,. i.,",.. '..-.' :'..?"..." ' F51. "~
GRATE
EX. TREE
TYP.)
Z
0
EXISTING
GAZEBO
MAIN STREET
,~ 10' WIDE
BOULEVARD
EXISTING BUILDING
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EXISTING
ALLEY
· .' '. 4 . . ;' ~' ''
/
/
/
EXISTING BUILDING
NOTE: SIDEWALK PAVERS ARE NOT SHOWN TO SCALE
DESIGNED BY: K'f DRAwN BY: EY
APPRO~B BY:APPROV~D BY JOI3 NUMBER 811420J
CAD DATE:Januor¥ 11 2001 11:54:18 o.m.
CAD FILE: 230000m~exhlbits%MAIN-JACKSON8.DWO
? 1526 ENERCY PARK DRIVE
ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA ,55108
(631) 644-4589
rd R. Green Company
SULTING ENGINEERS
crI'Y OF ELK BVE~
COBBLE - RANDOM PA'R'ERN
MAIN STREET AT JACKSON AVENUE
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
0 10
~'IEET NO.
4
z
EXISTING
GAZEBO
WIDE ~VARD
10' WIDE BOULEVARD
MAIN STREET
10' WIDE BOULEVARD
,4' ~ '~.. .. ,a .'~ "" :,~ ': .... . :- ~ ',4 . . ,~.~' ~, : , · ''
.' ~ : .. .. ~ ... . . ~ ... ',~ '. . . ~ .. .~ '.
· . . : ' . . . . ..'. . . · . · . ' ..~ ~ ' . .,~ ,4" ~ ' ,~ ,~'~. .. .. ~. · . . '.. ·
-/ EXISTING / EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING / ALLEY /
NOTE: SIDEWALK PAVERS ARE NOT SHOWN TO SCALE
DESICNED BY: K'I' DRAWN BY:
APPROVED By:APPROVED BY JO~ NUMBER 811420J
CAD BATE: Jonuory I1 2001 11:54:18 a.m.
CAD FILE: 230000rn~exhiblts~MAIN-JACKSONSA. DWG
1526 ENERGY PARK DRIVE:
ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55108
(651) 644- 4,.~89
-Ioward R. CN'een Company
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CITY OF ELK RNER
TOWN-SQUARE + SYMETRY PATFERN
MAIN STREET AT JACKSON AVENUE
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
0 10
SHEET NO.
4A
EXISTING BUILDING ~ '
· ',:-":,.~ ...-... :.' .. '.. ..-.-.' -,, .,.. ;.. ., 4',;. ' .'-. 'L
.~ . . .,~ · ' 4~ '. ." .*" '" ,, -. '.'.. ': " '. -' -' . .- . ~' ' . ~* · E
· ~. . · .. .'~. .~...~. . .- . · ... . .~ .-.... ~ ... . . ~,. :.. -,~..~
LEX. STREET LIGHT (TYP.)
EX. TREE GRATE
(TYP/)/
Z
0
(/3
,,~
CD
MAIN STREET
3.5'
WIDE
PAVERS
/////////////////////////////////~
EXISTING BUILDING
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EXISTING
ALLEY
////////////,
/
/
EXISTING BUILDING
/
/
/
/
/
NOTE: SIDEWALK PAVERS ARE
DESIGNED BY:KT DRAWN BY: EY
APPROVED BY:APPROVED BY JOB NUMBER 811420J
CAD DATE:Jonuory 11 2001 11:54:18 o.m.
CAD FILE: 2.30000m~exhibits%MAIN-JACK$ONg.DWC;
NOT SHOWN TO SCALE
(651) 644-4589
~ IHoward R. Green Company
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CITY OF ELK RIVER
COBELE - RANDOM PA'i'rERN
MAIN STREET AT JACKSON AVENUE
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
0 10
SHEET NO.
5
L3 5' WIDE PAVERS
MAIN STREET
.....,..~'. ,.: ~'.~,.~ .?., '..!, ,., ,,.......,-- ,...;- -.. -.- .-.,-.. ,- , .... -. ~, . -...:
////////////////////////////////// ////////////,
/
/ /
/ /
/ EXISTING / EXISTING BUILDINO
EXISTING BUILDING / ALLEY /
/
/ /
/
/ /
/ /
/
NOTE: SIDEWALK PAVERS ARE NOT SHOWN TO SCALE
DESI~/ED BY: KT DRAWN BY: EY
APPROVED BY:APPROVED BY ~ NUMBER 811420J
CAD DATE: Januory 11, 2001 11:54:18
CAD FILE: 230000m~exhiblts'~MAIN-JACK~ONgA.DWO
l 1326 ENERGY PARK DRIVE
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55108
(651) 644-4589
Howard R. Green Company
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CfTY OF ELK RIVER
TOWN-SOUARE + SYMETRY PATTERN
MAIN STREET AT JACKSON AVENUE
SIDEWALK ~PROVEMENTS
0 10
~ET NO.
5A