Loading...
5.4. SR 05-03-2010REQUEST FOR ACTION To Item Number Ci Council 5.4. Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Administration Ma 3, 2010 ohn Anderson P.E. Item Description Reviewed by Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation Lori ohnson, Administrator ^ Resolution Receiving Feasibility Report and Ordering Reviewed by Public Hearing ^ Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Orderin Advertisement for Bids Action Requested The City Council is asked to receive the Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation Feasibility Study, order the public improvement hearing, approve plans and specification, and authorize bidding. Background/Discussion The Feasibility Study for the rehabilitation of the Main Street pavement, ordered by the City Council on April 19, 2010 has been prepared. The project is proposed to be partially funded by special assessment to property owners benefiting from the improvement. A draft amendment to the city's assessment policy is attached to the Feasibility Study demonstrating a method of discounting assessments on high volume roads. The Council may wish to look further into this and other options for dealing with this subject. In order to proceed with the special assessment process, the City Council should approve both resolutions attached. The resolution to receive the Feasibility Report and order the public hearing sets the date of the public hearing as July 6, 2010. The resolution approving plans and authorizing bidding sets the bid opening date to be June 1, 2010. At the June 7, 2010 City Council meeting, the Council can discuss ordering the assessment hearing for July 6, 2010, the same date as the public hearing. Financial Impact The project cost is estimated at $671,500. The project is proposed to be funded by the Street Improvement Fund and special assessments against benefiting properties. Engineering costs for preparation of the Feasibility Study, preparation of the plans and specifications, and bidding documents will be billed at standard hourly rates not to exceed $29,000. This includes all previous design work completed and billed, but not federal paperwork needed for the stimulus funding application filed in 2009. Attachments ^ Feasibility Study ^ Resolution Receiving Feasibility Report and Ordering Public Hearing ^ Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids Action Motion by Second by Vote Follow Up FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR MAIN STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT CITY OF ELK RIVER APRIL 2010 .r-~ B~JM CONSULTIIdG ENGIlVEERS AND SURVEYORS, PLC FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR MAIN STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT CITY OF ELK RIVER APRIL 2010 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. John erson, P.E. Lic. No. 25889 Prep by: Jim Stremel, P.E. Lic. No. 45782 ~ ~.~~ o Date y~agl o Date TABLE OF CONTENTS L INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 II. PROJECT SCOPE ......................................................................................................................1 III. NECESSITY AND COST-EFFECTNENESS .........................................................................1 IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS .........................................................................................................1 V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ...............................................................................................3 VI. RIGHT-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS, AND PERMTTS ................................................................5 VII. INFORMATIONAL HEARING ................................................................................................6 VIII. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ................................................................................................6 IX. FINANCING AND ASSESSMENTS .........................................................................................6 X. PROJECT SCHEDULE ..............................................................................................................7 XI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................8 Appendix A -Exhibits Exhibit 1 -Project Area Exhibit 2 -Sanitary Sewer Exhibit 3 - Watermain Exhibit 4 -Storm Sewer Exhibit 5 -Proposed Street Section Exhibit 6 -Proposed Street Improvements Exhibit 7 -Previously Assessed Parcels Exhibit 8 -Proposed Assessment Area Appendix B -Informational Meeting Meeting Minutes Presentation Sign-In Sheet Appendix C -Draft Policy on Pedestrian Curb Ramp Improvements Appendix D -Draft Policy on Street Improvement Assessments to Account for Traffic Volumes I. INTRODUCTION On April 19, 2010 the City Council adopted Resolution 10-14 ordering the feasibility study for the Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project. The area to be included in the project includes Main Street from Orono Road west to Lowell Avenue as shown in Exhibit 1. The Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project includes pavement reclamation and replacement, repair of small quantities of sidewalk, concrete curb, and pedestrian curb ramps. The street sections include all of Main Street east from Orono Road to Lowell Avenue. II. PROJECT SCOPE The purpose of this study is to analyze the necessity for improvement of Main Street from Orono Road to Lowell Avenue. In addition, the existing sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer systems will be evaluated to determine the necessity for improvements. The study will discuss the existing conditions, proposed improvements, estimated construction costs, and overhead costs which include city administration, engineering, fiscal, and legal expenses. Past City practices with similar types of projects 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 reclamation of Main Street is acost-effective means of continuing the City's proactive street improvement efforts and ensuring an adequate means of transportation for local residents. The condition of the existing pavement also warrants improvement to the structural aspects of the street section and the surtace. The proposed improvements will provide a project large enough to ensure a competitive bidding environment and therefore 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. IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS Street The existing street, sidewalks, concrete curb, and pedestrian curb ramps have been inspected to determine their condition. From the field inspections, it has been determined that a vast majority of the existing concrete curb and sidewalk are in satisfactory condition and will not need to be replaced. Below is a table summarizing the existing street conditions including information regarding street length, width, curb & gutter, and sidewalk. A geotechnical evaluation will be performed in the area. Soil borings will be taken in three locations representing the existing condition throughout the project. The purpose of this investigation will be to determine the existing pavement thickness, depth of aggregate base, and a final pavement section evaluation. In addition to the street work, the pedestrian curb ramps have also been inspected and identified for improvement. Many of the existing ramps do not meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards and have exposed aggregate surfacing, curb tapers that are too short, ramps that are too steep, and do not have the proper landing area. Pedestrian curb ramps that currently meet the requirements for surfacing (truncated domes) at the intersections of Upland Avenue (2), and Tipton Avenue (2) will not be replaced as a part of this project. Intersections where curb ramps do not meet the ADA requirements include Orono Road (2), Tipton Avenue (1), Rush Avenue (2), Proctor Avenue (3), Norfolk Avenue (4), and Morton Avenue (4) for a total of 16. Vehicular Traffic Main Street is an important collector street within the City of Elk River. It is a vital route crossing the south side of Lake Orono providing emergency access to the adjacent neighborhoods. Traffic volumes along Main Street are moderately high with regard to other local streets within the City. The last traffic count was completed in 2007 where it was determined that the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) varies from 5200 (western portion) to 6500 vehicles (eastern portion) depending on the specific section of Main Street in question. Sanltarv Sewer The project encompasses 8-inch sanitary sewer from Orono Road to Tipton Avenue and 18-inch from Tipton Avenue to Lowell Avenue. In addition, there is a 6-inch forcemain stretching through the project from Orono Road to Rush Avenue. In discussions with Mr. Gary Leirmoe (Chief Operator) at the City of Elk River on April 16, 2010, it is our understanding that the existing sanitary sewer system is in satisfactory condition. The existing pipes and manholes were constructed during a Main Street project in 1988. To the best of Mr. Leirmoe's knowledge, there are no deficiencies with the existing sanitary sewer system and it is not anticipated that televising will be completed for this project. The existing sanitary sewer is shown on Exhibit 2. 2 The properties along the south side of Main Street from Tipton Avenue to Lowell Avenue currently discharge wastewater to a separate sewer pipe located within an easement between the Mississippi River and Main Street. For 2010 the City budgeted for a study to determine what modifications will be necessary for this section of pipe with improvements likely to follow soon after. If the study determines that abandonment is the most practical option, the affected properties will require service from Main Street. As a part of the project completed in 1988, 4" service laterals were extended from the sewer main in Main Street south to the right-of-way line at each of the properties. Once the southerly sewer line is abandoned, the adjacent properties will be able to connect to the existing service laterals without disturbing Main Street. Watermain Existing watermain is located throughout the project area. A 16-inch pipe extends from Orono Road to Tipton Avenue and a 6-inch from Tipton Avenue to Lowell Avenue. The condition of the existing system was discussed with Mr. David Berg, Superintendent of Water and Electric Technologies with Elk River Municipal Utilities (ERMU) on April 16, 2010. To the best of Mr. Berg's knowledge there are no major deficiencies to the existing water distribution system. The existing watermain is shown on Exhibit 3. Storm Sewer Main Street conveys stormwater through a storm sewer system varying in size from 12- inches to 18-inches in size. Within the project area there are five main discharge points from Main Street. The first is between Orono Road and Watson Avenue where stormwater discharges to Lake Orono. Three of the discharge points are between Watson Avenue and Norfolk Avenue which discharge into Elk River. The final two locations are at Morton Avenue and Lowell Avenue which ultimately discharge into the Mississippi River. The existing storm sewer is shown as Exhibit 4. In discussions with Mr. Phil Hals, Street Superintendant from the City of Elk River, on April 16, 2010, the existing storm sewer system will not be televised. To the best of Mr. Hals' knowledge, there are no known deficiencies with the existing storm system. Existing 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 own cost. Private utilities include Elk River Municipal Utilities, Qwest, Centerpoint Energy, Charter Communications, Northstar Access, First National Financial Services, Qwest, and Sherburne Telephone Systems. V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The proposed improvements for the Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project includes pavement reclamation and replacement, replacement of selected pedestrian curb ramps, and repair of small quantities of sidewalk and concrete curb. It is not anticipated that any work to the sanitary sewer, watermain, or storm sewer systems will be completed at this time. The street sections include all of Main Street east from Orono 3 Road to Lowell Avenue. A detailed description of each proposed improvement is provided below. Pavement Reclamation & Street Work The process that is proposed for pavement rehabilitation is Full Depth Reclamation (FDR). The process involves grinding the existing bituminous pavement along with the underlying aggregate to a depth of 6 inches from the surface. It is anticipated that there is 3 to 4 inches of bituminous pavement currently in place. The FDR process generates an aggregate base that can be graded, shaped and compacted. On top of this aggregate base, the bituminous base and wear courses can be paved. The process of FDR recycles the existing pavement into a usable product which eliminates the need to haul out all of the old bituminous pavement and haul in any new aggregate base. A portion of the reclaimed material does need to be removed from the site to allow for placement of the bituminous pavements. The material removed from the site can be utilized by the public works department as aggregate for shouldering or gravel road maintenance. The existing concrete curb and gutter can remain in place in conjunction with the FDR process. As a result of leaving the curb in place there is no dimensional, elevation, or width changes to the street. The bituminous pavement section proposed includes 2 inches of bituminous base course and 2 inches of bituminous wearing course. The proposed street section is shown in Exhibit 5. The existing concrete curb and sidewalks are in relatively good condition and only minimal replacement will be necessary. There are several locations where concrete aprons have been installed but are not being used for street access. These concrete aprons will be removed as a part of the project and adjacent sidewalk will likely be replaced. The proposed street and sidewalk improvement locations are shown in Exhibit 6. Many of the existing pedestrian curb ramps do not meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards and have the exposed aggregate surfacing, curb tapers that are too short, ramps that are too steep, and do not have the proper landing area. A "draft policy on pedestrian curb ramp improvements" for pavement rehabilitation projects is included in Appendix C. Pedestrian curb ramps that currently meet the requirements for surfacing (truncated domes) at the intersections of Upland Avenue (2), and Tipton Avenue (2) will not be replaced as a part of this project. Intersections where curb ramps are intended to be replaced to meet current ADA Standards include Orono Road (2), Tipton Avenue (1), Rush Avenue (2), Proctor Avenue (2), Norfolk Avenue (3), and Morton Avenue (4) for a total of 14. Upgrades at two locations, Norfolk and Proctor Avenues, have been deferred in accordance with the draft policy due to the presence of retaining walls adjacent to the sidewalks. The retaining walls will be significantly impacted with a full pedestrian curb ramp replacement and therefore, only curb tapers and truncated domes will be modified and/or added. The locations can be seen on Exhibit 6. Mr. Troy Adams of Elk River Municipal Utilities has reviewed the existing street light configurations and does not anticipate that any street light modifications or installations will be made. 4 Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer system within the project area will not be televised prior to this project. Mr. Gary Leirmoe (Chief Operator) at the City of Elk River is not aware of any deficiencies and does not consider any improvements to be necessary at this time. As stated earlier, the properties along the south side of Main Street from Tipton Avenue to Lowell Avenue currently discharge wastewater to a separate sewer pipe located within an easement between the Mississippi River and Main Street. For 2010 the City budgeted for a study to determine what improvements will be necessary for this line with construction likely to follow soon after. If the study determines that abandonment is the most practical option, the affected properties will require service from Main Street. As a part of the project completed in 1988, 4" service laterals were extended from the sewer main in Main Street south to the right-of-way line at each of the properties. Once the southerly sewer line is abandoned, the adjacent properties will be able to connect to the existing service laterals without disturbing Main Street. Watermain Watermain improvements were discussed with Mr. David Berg, Superintendent of Water and Electric Technologies at Elk River Municipal Utilities (ERMU), on April 16, 2010. As a result of the discussions, there will be no improvements to the water system (including hydrants) at this time. Storm Sewer A review of the drainage patterns and pavement conditions reveal that no significant storm drainage issues exist. In discussions with Mr. Phil Hals (Street Superintendant) at the City of Elk River on April 16, 2010, the existing storm sewer system will not be televised prior to final design. To the best of Mr. Hals' knowledge, he does not anticipate any major improvement needs. Due to the modification of the pedestrian curb ramps at Proctor Avenue, it will be necessary to replace one of the existing catch basin castings with a flat top model to allow for surmountable curb. VI. RIGHT-OF-WAY, EASEMENTS, AND PERMITS Right-of-Way and Easements No right-of-way will need to be acquired for the street improvements. Permits Only one permit will be required prior to construction of the proposed improvements. Due to the disturbance of over one acre in surface area, an NPDES permit to allow stormwater discharge during construction activities will be required by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 5 VI1. INFORMATIONAL HEARING An informational hearing was held on April 26, 2010 with the affected property owners. The project was discussed and residents were encouraged to voice their concerns and to ask questions. Residents from 10 of the 126 of the properties notified for the informational meeting were in attendance; several residents own more than one parcel affected by the project. Detailed minutes and the sign in sheets from the informational meeting can be found in Appendix B. VI11. 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 projects in the City, the overhead costs have been estimated at 14% of the total construction cost. The overhead costs include city administration, engineering design, fiscal, and legal costs. Table 1 Project Cost Estimate Street Improvement Construction Cost $ 570,500 Administration, Engineering, Fiscal, & Legal (14%) $ 75,000 Contingency (5%) $ 26,000 Total Protect Cost $ 671,500 It is important to note that at the time of report completion the results of soils investigation were not available, our cost analysis and the resulting range of assessments shown contain a cost factor that reflects this uncertainty. IX. FINANCING AND ASSESSMENTS Previous projects were also taken into consideration when determining the benefitting properties and formerly assessed parcels. With the exception of the street reconstruction project in 1988, properties assessed for previous projects including the 2003 street reconstruction, 2005 street reconstruction, 2008 bituminous overlay, and 2009 full depth reclamation project will not be considered for assessments in this case. Previous project assessments can be seen graphically in Exhibit 7. 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/gutter, sidewalks, pedestrian curb ramps, storm sewer, and street lighting. A residential lot that could not be further subdivided would be assessed as 1.0 unit. Apartment and condominium units would be assessed at 0.25 of a residential unit. Lots that can be subdivided would be assessed as multiple units as appropriate. 6 Commercial properties would be assessed at 2.0 residential units and agricultural properties would be assessed at 1.0 residential units per PIN number. The number of assessable units is between 70 and 90 units with an estimated quantity of 75 for the area, which is graphically shown in Exhibit 8. The proposed assessment rate is yet to be finalized by the City Council, but it is expected that the final rate will fall within the range of $1,566 to $2,506 per unit. Therefore, the total assessment amount would then be between $117,450 and $187,950. The proposed assessment range of $1,566 to $2,506 per unit was determined based on a number of factors in conjunction with the "draft policy on adjustments to street improvement assessments to account for trafi•ic volumes" included in Appendix D. The main factor was the amount of traffic associated with the adjacent land owners. A majority of the vehicular trips that occur on a daily basis are not property owners but rather through-traffic using Main Street as a connector to other destinations. Due to the additional traffic loading, the street section is thicker than the typical residential street section to accommodate the additional traffic. Main Street is also wider than most typical residential streets to accommodate two parking and two travel lanes. In addition, concrete sidewalk and curb improvements will be very minimal compared to other similar projects completed in the past. Based on the estimated total project cost of $671,500 and total assessments range of $117,450 to $187,950 the remaining project cost to be funded by the City will be between $554,050 and $483,550. The City's portion would be funded by the Street Improvement Reserve Fund (SIR). Financing of the assessed portion is proposed to be over a 5 year period with an interest rate of 3.5%. As with similar projects in the past, residents can request in writing to extend this period up to 7 years but at an interest rate of 4.25%. X. PROJECT SCHEDULE Resolution Ordering Feasibility Study April 19, 2010 Informational Meeting April 26, 2010 Feasibility to City Council May 3, 2010 Authorize Bidding May 3, 2010 Advertise for Bids May 2010 Bid Date June 1, 2010 Public Hearing /Assessment Hearing July 6, 2010 Bid Awarded July 6, 2010 Begin Construction (After County Fair Parade) July 20, 2010 Construction Substantially Complete August 2010 First Assessment Payment with Real Estate Taxes May 2011 It is expected that construction would start the Tuesday following the Sherburne County Fair parade along Main Street on July 16, 2010 and end before school is in session in the fall (September 7, 2010). 7 XI. CONCLUSION The total estimated project cost for the street improvements including overhead costs is $671,500. The project is necessary and cost-effective. As previously stated, this cost will be financed through a combination of assessments to benefiting properties and City funds. Based on the information gathered and the analysis presented, the proposed improvements discussed in this study are feasible from an engineering standpoint. It is important to note that this report does not purport to qualify or quantify the "benefits" accruing to individual properties as a result of this project. Should the City require such an analysis it is recommended that they seek the advice of a qualified professional real estate appraiser. 8 APPENDIX A -EXHIBITS IX I I I I ~' > L_1 ¢1 8 H ST. z ~ J 0 LAKE ORONO O /~ W LION'S PARK z ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ -., ~ - v i. ,~-; ~~ ~ ~ ~ HAN~KE ELEM. _~~ ~_=" PROJECT AREA ~~ ~o ~~~ a a EXHIBIT 1 -PROJECT AREA o .600 ~ I ~ ,® °~~ o ~ Q ~, ~ ~ ~ z ~ cy~ '~~N ~~~' idd~ issi w 1 W 0 ~ ~ n as ~O~ON d N ~ ~~ w £ J J w O w O - - z ~` ~, Y U w Q ~~N ~'c' ~ ' ~/ y ~' ~ ~nN d ~ i ~ _, end s ~ ~ ~ ~ - a ~. U O -~;~ a 7 '3 d N dll \~ \ O ~~ . Nan o~ Z Q ~~ ~~~ Q 3 ~ A SON `- ~. ~ ~ W N AvE, EN\A Z a 3 d~ ~~ o O c~ Y O ~ ~ ~ o YOR M H o ~~ m M d. T M it ~~ W N Q ROW ~ ROW 66' 10'-12' 22' 22' 10'-12' I EXISTING I I I EXISTING CONC. I CONC. WALK WALK 0.67' ~.~ 3.00% 3.00 ~~~ %~ ... ,~a RECLAIM TO A DEPTH OF 6" 2.0" WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (MVWE450356) EXISTING 2.0" NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (LVNW35030B) CURB & GUTTER REPAIR PER ENGINEER TYPICAL STREET SECTION STA 00+00 TO 42+40 ROW ~ ROW 66' - 85' 9'-22' 24' 24' 9'-22' I EXISING I i i EXISTING CONC. I I CONC. WALK WALK 0.67' ~~ 3.00% 3.00% _~~~ RECLAIM TO A DEPTH OF 6" 2.0" WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (MVWE45035B) EXISTING 2.0" NONWEARING COURSE MIXTURE (LVNW35030B) CURB & GUTTER REPAIR PER ENGINEER TYPICAL STREET SECTION STA 43+30 TO 64+10 EXHIBIT 5 -STREET SECTION i ~ ~ LION'S PARK O F STREET IMPROVEMENTS • PEDESTRIAN RAMP IMPROVEMI ~ APRON REMOVAL ~ SIDEWALK HAN KE ELEM. o CHOOL Z ~ Al _ ~~~ ~o ~~~- a _~ EXHIBIT 6 -_PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS o soo ~ I I i~/j// ~/ / 77.... 7 .. j 1, ~~ (.... ~ Il 3/lb- f ~ ~ ~ r ` -' ~ ~ tl / ~ l -. .~..._f ~r .~ 3 .. I ~ 1 '1.1x?, t o ~b / _. :` -- ---- j i~C' -.Q~ i 3i1b1yp,~aoW ~' r ~ ~ y~ >.a II~~ `, _•-_.._.._....._._. ~_ anrfrfo~aow- ... ~.•• 7 ~ ~; Og 1 -~--a i ~, 9 ~;~i ~~ ~''~ ~ _~~._ ~ ` ~~~ ~ ~ - t f~,....... ~ K i/~ N ~' x ~;a~~ ~ / ~ z ~~ ~ LL 1.%r` ~ r .. ;~__ _.._~ I ~ N N N cull. ,_j ~ t " ~R' ~ V L L L j 1 •. antl aao~xo~ , N~~~i rt 4` ,:: ~ , _ _..._ ........_._.--_____._-'_-..._.. ~ Cn it Q. Q sZ ~. rn rn u~ <n; t ~ _. ~ ,~, j ~ i rn !.. ~ ~. 3ntl aal.~oad ......... .............. ::~. l.._ _...------------...............__ ___ ----- ~ c~ ~ c~ ~ r i .''' f" I ,: C OQ O O O d .../ ~.' , ~ ' ~ ~ ~ O O O N , N ~-3ntlNNIni9 "i ~ J .. W ~ U~/ l , ~ l j LL. l~ . \~ ., .... _. ., -. . , ~ _ '~ ~....._., j -_-_..~.a ~- ~,~ ~ l to ' ~ /7 ' `\~~~ 1 /~ j W / r ~ ~ .:; l j pN,A ~ ~`~ ~-Wy , o 1. >.. ~....-, ~ W j `` r r-. ; E-•---~ N u°•, 4--' + ~ o ~,~; ~-! ~ OLl a ; ~ ~ T - ~~ `.. t. ,= ....,. i 1 0 ~~ ,. ~% ,~ ~ ~ . , it 1 ~` W f J _` -_~`_.... _. ~~ `/, /% PAQ - ~.. t• 1 a.a ~ __ 171' :1~~ '•., ~ •~ 9 i i ~~ i~ ~ - ~,-_--- -,- J •..~ .M `..~ ' ; r ~`a~ --- r-----, ~~ ~ ~~ ,~_ ,f~. ~ •- t+o~ '~ - _ { ~ (/~ y r ~ MI ~y, _ I~ ~ ~ t S2 QQ ~N Q.. 2 ~ ~~ _ ` '~ t 4 ~ ) I s > ~` ~` ~ ~ w il~ ~ r~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~c ~nd-HSna- ~ > F ~ ~ Q I f r ~ --- , ~ ' ~ ~ W ~~.~ ~ ~ ~ r~ _~ ; ,_ ~, b.X,~t; _~ ~ ~~~ r _ :. a -" ~, ,, oN:pV~.t ~ 0 ~W 5v` ~- ' .~, ~ t 1 , i...~~ { ~ d ~ _ ~~1 m p - ... ~ ` 11 i~ ;, t ~: APPENDIX B -INFORMATIONAL MEETING INFORMATIONAL MEETING FOR THE 2010 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT MONDAY. APRIL 26.2010 - 6:30 P.M. ELK RIVER CITY HALL -UPPER TOWN CONFERENCE ROOM Attendees: See attached sign-in sheet. John Anderson, City Engineer gave a brief PowerPoint presentation. The City Council ordered a feasibility study on Apri119, 2010 and the informational meeting with the neighborhood is part of completing that study. The Council has directed staff to have an informational meeting with the neighborhood to solicit input as to whether or not to proceed with the proposed project this year. Mr. Anderson explained the scope of the streets involved in the proposed project He indicated that the sanitary sewer lines would not be televised based on discussions with the City of Elk River. He indicated that the water system has been reviewed by the Elk River Municipal Utilities and there will be no improvements at this time. He indicated that there are no known problems with the storm sewer either. With regard to the street improvements, he indicated that the proposal is to do full-depth reclamation of the bituminous surface. This involves grinding up the existing bituminous with the existing aggregate base to make a blended mix. As much as possible will be left in place; the only portion that will be removed is to allow enough room for the new bituminous to be placed. There will be two lifts of bituminous pavement placed with an approximate total thickness of 4 inches. Concrete curb and sidewalk is intended to be left in place, since it is in very good condition. There will be some minor spot repairs of concrete curb and sidewalk as needed, mainly in conjunction with the pedestrian curb ramp repairs. He indicated that pedestrian curb ramps that do not meet current standards will be replaced. The estimated project cost was shown to be approximately $671,500. Properties previously assessed in 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2009 will not be assessed for this project Fox assessment purposes, it was estimated that there are 70 - 90 assessable units; some single family that would be assessed at 1 unit; some residential multi-unit that would be assessed at .25 per unit; some commercial that would be assessed at 2 units, and some agriculture that would be assessed at 1 unit. The assessment rate is assumed to be between $1,400 and $3,750 and finalized by the City Council Mr. Anderson stressed that the final assessment rate will be based on several factors including street width, proposed pavement section, and traffic usage. The assessment is proposed to be financed at 3.5% for 5 years. It was indicated that the city would consider extending the term up to 7 years at an interest rate of 4.25% if an individual requested it in writing. The individual request is necessary because there will be an increase in the total amount paid, if the term is extended from 5 to 7 years; or the city would consider an equal payment option which would lower the annual payment in the early years but raise it in the late years versus the amortization schedule shown. Finally, a brief schedule was shown. It was indicated that staff would be reporting back to the City Council on May 3rd with the outcome of this informational meeting. It was also indicated that anyone who was not in attendance could still send an email to John Anderson's email, which was in the letter announcing the meeting, and that would become part of the records presented to the City Council. If the project were to proceed, plan preparation, bidding, public hearing, and assessment hearing would be accomplished between May and July. It was indicated that the public hearing and assessment hearing would likely be held the same evening, so that the neighborhood does not have to be invited back twice. If the project proceeds after hearings, construction would begin late July and be complete by the end of August With that as background, the informational meeting was opened to questions. The following is a summary of the questions that were asked and the answers that were given: Question: Do we have any say as to if the project will be completed or will it already move forward? Answer: No, the project is in the planning stages and the City Council has yet to approve the plans and authorize bidding. Question: Is there any responsibility by the County for the improvements due to traffic? Answer: No, we are not aware of any method to collect payment from the County. Question: The north side of Main Street is not contributing as much as the south side, why? Answer: Most of the parcels on the north side were assessed previously and paid reconstruction assessments in the $5,000 - $6,000 range. Question: I .live on the corner of Main Street and Main Street will I be assessed for both sides? Answer: No the assessments are based per parcel and not by frontage, corner lots receive one assessment equal to all the others. Question: Will the Triangular parcel owner at Rush Avenue be assessed? Answer: Not likely due to their recent assessment for the street reconstruction project in 2003. Question: Will the sidewalks be replaced? Answer: No, the only replacement will be at some of the pedestrian curb ramps. Question: A tree in my yard was hit by a garbage truck, can it be replaced? Answer: Not as a part of the project, I will mention it to street department at the City and see if there is something that can be done. Question: Will there be a complete pavement removal? Answer: The process proposed is Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) where the existing pavement and a portion of the underlying aggregate base will be ground-up and reused as aggregate base for the new pavements. Question: Will there be any phasing for the project? Answer: The Contractor will likely only close one lane at a time, but logistics will be left up to the Contractor. Adjacent properties and intersecting streets will always be open to traffic and emergenry vehicles. Question: How will repairs to the sewer lines be addressed? Answet: After discussions with the City of Elk River, we do not anticipate any sewer improvements to be necessary. Sewer service lines up to the main can be addressed at the expense of the individual property owners. Question: What is the anticipated cost? Answer: Past overly projects completed in the City are fully assessed, FDR projects assessed at 70%, and full street reconstructions have been assessed at 33%. Question: Who will the financing be through? Answer: The City will provide the financing through property taxes each year. No interest will be charged if paid in full up front. Question:. How is the financing setup? Answer: The financing will automatically be set up based on a 5-year payment schedule unless requested differently by the property owner. Question: What will be the final assessment rate? Answer: The assessment hearing by the City Council will ultimately determine the final rate. Question: How does the project get voted on? Answer: The City Council will hear the project at both the Public Hearing and the Assessment Hearing. At that time the City Council will vote on whether to proceed with construction. Question: Was Main Street overlaid previously, it seems that the northerly part was overlaid a couple of pears ago. Answet: No, east of Lowell Avenue, Main Street was overlaid in 2008 West of Lowell Avenue there is no record of any overlay just crack seal and seal coat projects have been completed. Question: I would like "my" Main Street saved by being made into a boulevard to reduce speed. Answer. None. Also in attendance at the meeting were Council Member Nick Zerwas and Mayor Stephanie Klinzing. Being no further questions, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Submitted by: John Anderson, P.E. City Engineer 2010 Main Street City of Pavement Rehabilitation Please sign in on the sheet as you come in April 26, 2010 John Anderson, Project Engineer i ~= ~~ ~! L' .J LY ~ W J W ~rat~~~aa=~ .~.~. Sanitary Sewer • No known problem areas • River line to be studied separately Water • System history reviewed by ERMU • Coordination of service repairs can result in savings to home owners Storm Sewer • No changes expected Proposed Improvements • Full Depth Reclamation / Grind existing pavement to full depth / Shape and compact / Bituminous pavement on top of this surface • Spot repairs of concrete curb and gutter • Remove unused driveway openings • Replace concrete Pedestrian ramps that do not have truncated domes as they do not meet current standards Estimated Project Cost Storm Sewer and Street Improvements 5% Contingency 14% Overhead ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 570,500 $ 26,000 ~ ~s,ooo $ 671,500 Previously Assessed Projects • 1988 Main Street Reconstruction • 2003 Reconstruction • 2005 Reconstruction • 2008 Overlay • 2009 Full Depth Reclamation 2010 PAVEMENT MANAGMENT Main Street (Lowell to Orono) N 0 280 560 1,120 Feet Assessable Unit Determination • Residential single property - 1 unit Residential multi-unit - .25 units Commercial Property - 2 units • Agriculture -1 unit per PIN N 0 280 560 1,120 Feet ~, Legend 2010 Main Street parcels Parcels.FDRunits 2 ~2 ~~9 J; fl.25 possible deletes -Proposed Maim Street FDR FLOODPLN 900 yr FEMA map 2010 PAVEMENT MANAGMENT Main Street (Lowell to Orono) Assessment Rate • Previous assessments have ranged from $1,400 (overlay), $3,750 (FDR) to $6,500 (reconstruction) • Collector Street with more than local traffic ADT 5000 - 6500 (residential < 1000 ADT) • Wider street than typical residential street 48 feet vs 32 feet • Thicker street section needed to support higher traffic load Proposed Assessment Rate • Rate is assumed to range from $1,400 to $3,750 per unit Specific rate will be established by the city council • Financed at 3.5% for 5 years • Option to extend to 7 years at a 4.25% Proposed Schedule • Informational Meeting • Report to City Council • Hearings /Bidding • Construction April 26, 2010 May 3, 2010 May -July Late July -August Questions? City of Informntionnl Meeting E ~,~ PROJECT NAME: Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation ~~ OWNER: City of Elk River Rt~er DATE OF MEETING: 6:30 PM Monday April 26.2010 Name Please Print Address Phone No. C ~ ~ ~ M~ ~ ~ -. ~ _ ~ -n [~ / ~ K1 `--~. ~ m c ~ 'J I ~ ~ Q , ' M ~ ~ '_' ~ C~o ~ ~C ~' 7 ~' (Y~ M c~ ~ ~ ~ ttl n,~, ~ `~ ~ ~' ~ ~J ~ ~ °~ ~ ~ J ~~~\/ `~ ~ f W ~ t , v J ~~ t~ v ~' ~ ~ ,ran ~ ~' ~ ~ ` ~C 'J ~4 ~ ~ m rn `~ ~ c r' ~ ~ .~ ~ (~ I a \/ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ z ~' u ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, -~ ~ ~ "" We Welcome Your Comments April 'L6, '~U1 U Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project Informational Meeting ~r. -~aYYtQ4^~inYa-~c~ ~5~~ (o l~1 ~.. `f`~I- ,3tD i We Welcome Your Comments ?9piT 2G; ZU1 U Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation ~Z(pl ~ Project Informational Meeting I~~ .. ~ b ~ o - tJ~/~.,"'~-l ~ X1..9.1:! cJ ,,,.,° - ~ , APPENDIX C -DRAFT POLICY ON PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP IMPROVEMENTS Draft Policy on Pedestrian Curb Ramp Improvements (April 2010) The City of Elk River is interested in providing the safest, most user friendly pedestrian network possible, while at the same time providing these facilities in a thoughtful and financially prudent manner. The City acknowledges the fact that standards for pedestrian facilities have evolved over time and as a result some of the city's current infrastructure is outdated. In an effort to provide a systematic approach to address this matter the City of Elk River is establishing a policy on Pedestrian Curb Ramp Improvements and when the City will undertake work to upgrade pedestrian curb ramps in conjunction with street maintenance, repairs, and reconstruction. Street projects will be categorized into three groupings. The pedestrian ramp work will depend on which type of street project is proposed. The first category is Maintenance. The maintenance category includes work such as crack filling, seal coating, slurry seal, blade laid overlay, spot mill and overlay, patching or other maintenance work undertaken by the Street Division. For these types of projects no improvements to existing pedestrian ramps will be included with the projects. The Second category of street work is Pavement Rehabilitation. This category includes work such as machine laid bituminous overlays, full depth reclamation, edge mill and overlay and mill and overlay. For this category of work pedestrian ramps will be upgraded as right of way and existing geometry allows. If retaining walls and other such means are needed to upgrade the installation and would require additional right of way to construct a pedestrian ramp meeting all current regulations, than this work will be deferred until such time that a project of larger scope is completed in the area. If the project requires upgrades due to the funding source (MnDOT State for example) then the upgrade will be implemented as required. The third category of project is Full Reconstruction and/or New Construction. This category includes full pavement and/or curb replacement, sidewalk removal and reconstruction, new street construction, new sidewalk construction. Along with this type of work new installations or current installations of pedestrian ramps are to be built to current standards.- In situations where grades or right of way prevent an installation meeting current standards, it may be necessary to acquire right of way or easements and construct retaining walls or other installations to provide an acceptable installation. Pedestrian curb ramp upgrades will be accomplished using a prudent application of the most current MnDOT standards for design and construction of ramps and approaches. APPENDIX D -DRAFT POLICY ON STREET IMPROVEMENTS ASSESSMENTS TO ACCOUNT FOR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Draft Policy on Adjustments to Street Improvement Assessments to account for Traffic Volumes (April 2010) The City of Elk River has identified a need to modify the existing assessment policy to account for traffic volumes. Primarily, past assessable projects have been on local streets and not on through streets with higher traffic volumes. The proposed project on Main Street from Orono Road to Lowell Avenue has brought the issue to the forefront. The following is a draft policy dealing with the issue and suggests factors to apply to assessments to provide an adjustment to the assessment rate to account for through traffic. The Draft Policy presented provides a range for the adjustment factors. We suggest the City Council identify specific numbers they wish to apply for each range. The method described in this policy does not represent the only way to approach this issue. In discussing the matter with other City's there are a number of ways this topic is addressed. The City of Woodbury limits the assessment to not exceed the cost of an assessment on a comparable residential street. The City of Hasting cuts the assessment to 25% of the cost on all Municipal State Aid Streets. The City of Hopkins has a set cap dollar amount that can not be exceeded. Background The following is a summary of how the current City's assessment policy has been applied to projects in the past. This summary is presented to provide a historical perspective on what assessments have been in the past. Types of projects Assessable projects can involve street improvements in many different forms. These forms are considered categorized into the following three divisions Reconstruction, Reclamation and Overlay as it relates to assessable street projects. Reconstruction involves removal and replacement of the roadway surface, and aggregate base. It also generally includes the removal and replacement or addition of concrete curb. Reclamation involves grinding the existing bituminous surface and blending it with the existing aggregate base. The mixture of ground up asphalt and gravel is shaped and compacted and the bituminous surface is placed on top of this surface. Overlay involves adding bituminous on top of an existing surface. This process can include removal (mill) of a portion of the existing bituminous surface either along the edge or across the entire width. Types of Land Use Assessments have been scaled based on land use in previous assessments. The following is a listing of types of land use and the number of residential equivalents per land use Single family Residential -1 unit Multi family -Townhouse - 0.75 unit Multi family - Twinhomes - 0.75 unit Multi family -Apartment - 0.25 unit Multi family -Condominium - 0.25 unit Commercial within or adjacent to residential - 2.0 units Commercial Property -varies based on area Church -1 unit per potential developable residential unit School -1 unit per potential developable residential unit Agriculture - 1 unit per parcel Project Type Historically the following break down has generally been followed related to percent assessed for various project types and we suggest continuing to use these factors Reconstruction - 33% Full Depth Reclamation - 70% Overlay -100% Previous Assessments Amounts Reconstruction Assessments for reconstruction projects have been targeted to cover approximately 1/3 of the project cost. The assessment rates applied historically were based on the projected cost of the reconstruction and not an exact total final project cost. Previous assessments for reconstruction projects area shown below Project 1988 -Main Street (6500 -5200 ADT) 2003 - 4th Street Area 2003 -Boston Concord Area and sewer 2006 -Dodge Avenue (4400 ADT) 2006- Waco (2900 ADT) 2005 - 5th Street Area 2006 -Highland Road (3000 ADT) Assessment per foot, average assessment $1,000 per parcel $5,000 $ 17,500 includes street and water commercial property amount varied 50% of cost assessed to commercial property $6,000 $6,500 Reclamation There is only one project of this type so far and this project took place in 2009. The project involved pavement reclamation, spot curb replacement, and sidewalk replacement. 2009 -Lowell, Marton, Norfolk $3,750 represents +/- 72% of total project Overlay Assessments for overlay projects in the past have been targeted to cover 100% of the projected project costs. As with any assessment the density of parcels play a large role in arriving at the actual dollar amount assessed. Project Assessment 2004 Overlay $1,975 2006 Overlay $2,150 2008 Overlay $1,400 Multiple properties In previous assessments residential properties have been assessed one unit per parcel for a typical lot within the neighborhood. If property owners own more than one parcel the owner has been assessed for each parcel. If the property owner wishes to combine parcels to one parcel with one property identification number and the resulting parcel cannot be split into multiple buildable parcels in the future then the single parcel has been assessed one unit. Large parcels Larger parcels that can conceivably be split into multiple parcels in the future are assessed based on the number of potential buildable single family lots that can be divided. Modifications to the Existing Assessment Policy. The following describes the factors proposed to modify the assessment rate to account for traffic volumes. Traffic Volume Traffic volumes are often considered when assessing. Currently the City only counts traffic on the roadways that are designated as a part of the MnDOT state aid system. Traffic volume and the amount of heavy vehicle traffic plays a part in how a street is designed, built and maintained. The traffic volumes affect the overall useful life of the pavement. Streets that cant' through traffic as well as local traffic provide benefits to a larger group of residents than local residents. Proposed Factors to Apply to Assessments by Project Type The same factors would continue to be applied for certain project types as have been historically used on previous assessments. The factors for the project types are as follows: Reconstruction - 33% Full Depth Reclamation - 70% Overlay -100% Types of Land Use Land use factors as previously applied on other assessments would continue to be applied in the same manor on local streets and higher volume streets. Single family Residential -1 unit Multi family -Townhouse - 0.75 unit Multi family - Twinhomes - 0.75 unit Multi family -Apartment - 0.25 unit Multi family -Condominium - 0.25 unit Commercial within or adjacent to residential - 2.0 units Commercial Property -varies based on area Church -1 unit per potential developable residential unit School -1 unit per potential developable residential unit Agriculture - 1 unit per parcel Traffic Factor The following adjustments to the assessment rate based on traffic counts on the road to be improved are recommended. ADT Factor 0-1000 100% 1000-3500 70% - 40% 3500-6600 40% - 25% 6600 and up 25% - 0% Proposed methodology to be implemented 1. Determine total project cost (estimated /actual). 2. Multiply residential equivalent factor and total to determine total number of assessable units. 3. Divide total cost by total number of assessable units to get 100% assessed rate. 4. Multiple 100% assessed rate by project type factor to get project adjusted rate. 5. Multiply project adjusted rate by ADT adjustment factor to get final assessment rate. Proposed Main Street Example (5200 - 6500 ADT) Total Estimated Cost = $671,500 Total assessable units (estimated) = 75 100% assessed rate = $671,500 / 75 = $8,953.33 Project adjusted rate = $8,953.33 x 70% (FDR) _ $6,267.33 Final assessment Rate (high) _ $6,267.33 x 40% _ $2,506.93 Final assessment Rate (low) _ $6,267.33 x 25% _ $1,566.83 The resulting range in proposed assessment is based on applying a range of ADT adjustment factors of 25% to 40% as suggested in the policy above. The City council should determine a specific percentage to apply to this factor if this method is intended to be applied. RESOLUTION 10- 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 2010 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT WHEREAS The Feasibility Report, prepared by BDM Consulting Engineers as ordered by the Council in Resolution 10-14 has been prepared with reference to the 2010 Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project and was received by the City on May 3, 2010; and WHEREAS the Feasibility Report recommends that the proposed improvement is feasible; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ciry Council of the Ciry of Elk River, Minnesota: 1. The Ciry Council will consider the 2010 Main Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project 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 $671,500. 2. A public hearing shall be held before the Ciry Council on the proposed improvement on the 6~ day of July, 2010, at 6:30 o'clock p.m. at the Elk River Ciry 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 3rd day of May, 2010. Stephanie, A. Klinzing, Mayor ATTEST: Tina Allard, Ciry Clerk RESOLUTION 10- A RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATION AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS The City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for Improvement No, 226212, the improvement of Main Street between the west line of Lowell Avenue and the West line of Orono Road by Full Depth Reclamation and has presented such plans and specifications to the council for approval; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ciry Council of the Ciry of Elk River, Minnesota: 1. Such plans and specifications, acopy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby received. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for 21 days, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be received by the Clerk until 10 a.m on June 1, 2010, at which time they will be publicly opened in the council chambers of the city hall by the City Clerk and Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the council at 6:30 p.m. on June 7, 2010 in the council chambers of the city hall. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the clerk for 5 percent of the amount of such bid Passed and adopted this 3rd day of May, 2010. Stephanie, A. Klinzing, Mayor ATTEST: Tina Allard, City Clerk PLAN SYMBOLS STATE MNE ---- CWNn LINE - "'- - - TOWNSXIP OR RANGE LINE SECNON LINE - - - WARIEfl LINE - SIZTEENM LINE - - E%IBWNC RICXT M WAY LME ~~ ~---- PROPOXD RIGHT OE WAY LINE - - - vfloPrnn uNE CORPORATE OR CITY UNITS ~ RAILROAD RalROAO RIGHT OF WAY RIVER CR CREfK - --- s~ CULVERT =____: ...:.. GVARDRAX. W000 FENCE - BARBED wIRE FENCE x - CHAIN LX•M FENCE - TIMBER WALL a -s- o STONE wAll RAILROAD CROSSING SIGN ~, PERMANENT EASEMENT ---- - CONSTRUCTON LIMITS - - - - - - - DEGDUWG TREE ~ CONKEROUS TREE w yyNE +qs BUSH OR SHRUB BRIDGE LANE Ols POND UTILITIES SYMBOLS UTLITY POLE GUY IXi ANCNOit .~ STREEL LIGHT TELEPHONE PEDESTAL ~^ GAS MaN A 5 E%ISTNC WATER MAIN 1 TELEPHONE VAULT °L^ ELECTRIC vAULT Rx~O TELEPHONE CABLE ai ELECTRIC CABLE LEc EXISTING STORM SEWER E%ISTING STOR4 MANHOLE • E%ISTING SANITARY SEWER > EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE GATE VALVE LN CONTROLLER CABINET E%ISTING HIDRANT 4 CA%E TELENSION BURIED CATJ FlBEft OPTC CABLE f0 TRAFFIC 9GNAL LINE SC 1RAFFIC 9GNAL HAND HOL E-- E%16TNG CATCH BASB1 POLE LIG+r 4 RaLRDAD vcNAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL BEGIN PROJECT PROJECT SCALES PLAN- PROFILE-HOR12.- 0 20' O VERT.- - - CROSS-SECTIONS- nvRli zs, zoDT V JIL Jl JL JL/ V JlJ 2010 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR : FULL DEPT H RECLAMATION AN D BITUMINOUS SURFACE LOCATED IN THE CITY OF ELK RIVER ON MAIN STREET BETWEEN ORONO ROAD AND LOWELL AVENUE FROM A POINT 1,100 FT. NORTH AND 80 FT. EAST OF TO A POINT 1,160 FT. SOUTH AND 460 FT. EAST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SEC. 33, T.33, R.26 THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF $EC. 34, T.33, R.26 GROSS LENGTH 6,410 FEET 1.214 MILES BRIDGES-LENGTH 0 FEET 0 MILES E%CEPTIONS-LENGTH 0 FEET 0 MILES NET LENCrH 6,410 FEET ~~ II I U 1.214 MILES / Iw ca ®L-:~~' ACC \I lv d Ir„ PAPK ~~ lsnnaac. L'~ C \it.. , GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS THE 2005 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATON - IMPROVEMENTS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION' SHALL GOVERN. M ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL. STATE AND LOCAL LAWS AND ORDINANCES WILL BE BD COMPLIED WITH IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT CON6ULTWG ENGINEERS, PLC Engineers end Surveyors ALl TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AND SIGNING SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST IlU4U IU:irtl Circle Nw EDITION OF THE MMUTCD. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL HAVE Elk P.iver. NV 55330 RETRO-REFLECTIVE SHEETING. Phone. (TU3) 44l-OBTY FRS': ('35:i) 441 -7724 namee.rDTn ELK RIVER, MN. CITY PROJECT N0. 2262120 INDEX SHEET N0. 1 TITLE SHEET SHEET N0. 2 SHEET INDEX MAP SHEET N0. 3 ESPMATED QUANTITIES SHEET N0. 4 TYPICAL SECTIONS SHEET N0. 5 MAIN STREET PLAN 0+00 TO 11+00 SHEET N0. fi MAIN STREET PLAN 11+00 TO 22+00 SHEET N0. ~ MAIN STREET PLAN 22+00 TO 33+00 SHEET N0. 8 MAIN STREET PLAN 33+00 TO 44+00 SHEET N0. 9 MAIN STREET PLAN 44+00 TO 55+00 SHEET N0. 10 MAIN STREET PLAN 55+00 TO 64+10 SHEET N0. 11 MAIN STREET STRIPING 0+00 TO 11+00 SHEET N0. 12 MAIN STREET STRIPING 11+00 TO 22+00 SHEET N0. 13 MAIN STREET STRIPING 22+00 TO 33+00 SHEET NO. 14 MAIN STREET STRIPING 3}+00 TO 99+00 SHEET N0. 15 MAIN STREET STRIPING 44+00 TO 55+00 SHEET NO. 16 MAIN STREET STRIPING 55+00 TO 64+10 SHEET N0. 17 STANDARD DETAILS THIS PLAN CONTAINS 17 SHEETS UTILITY CONTACT INPOR1dAT10N n RvFR:T DEPARTMENT Tai-635-N]N GARY IEIRNDfaTR%wD2 DEPARTMENT 33-635-1110 FAX T6}635-n1~ I]O65 giIXXO vpR%NAY fIK PoSER, uu SSJJs FIX MM:R MUNIOPa U11UnEk OA~xEN FUCKS -WMKwIRR M 5]5 ~.SMRi FAx. M}Aai 2318 f~OLER~RIIN 55330 Y DNEST: score xIa3NAx T63-Tt3-sots rAC Tai-nz-soz3 Axax~R4N~5~~R bJ ~ ~RPpIT CHCRCY: ~~ .Pay 6t2.321_~~ FAx 6t,_3,1.5.~ x ~ s3«D-nes CM 5 Au4ER UNCAlI0N5: T - B -5982 01L. ]20-s80-?669 63 EXT. tt0 BuFEAAO, w SSJt3 BW L .. IIx~RC33309 D T63-263-sTY3 rAX T6J-3aJ-ban ktE BIRNf 1fL[SYS1PIk 6X1 aREWER T63-382-atSB HEREBY CERTIFY 1HAi THIS 0.AN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER NY DIRECT ANERNSICN AND i11AT I AN A pAT LK;IXSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER 1HE LFW-S OF~l1TE STAt,T,E~O~/F~)MIN~N~E~SOTA. SIGNA111RE: V ~ DATE: =~~U~~IU vRNlEO NAME: JOFN M. ANDERSON UC ~ 26688 APPROVED 2010 lTY aF Fix BnER EN(NNFER SHEET EFTS 1 ~17 Y% C ~~ ~ I /~ / /~ ~' '~ ~ ~ i. _.~ ~ W 1 ._ R TNT ~ " ~ ~ \. ~1~E' ~~~ h ~ \ / 1 ~ ~ ,.% ~ .~--~1 ~", - I X NIA, ~~ ', ~i ~~~ d ~N~, ~-~ rr, J ~ - -~ d Z ~, NQ ~ i7- ` - - ~~ tR~,' ~. - ~~ ~~ .~ ,- ~, i N ~~~ -- S~~p,~, '~A,~ ~ .~ '~~,~;`TIFT~N;AW ~ i Q S~F~ j"~.,, / ~ ~ ~_ .~~ ~~ \ ,~ - ----- ~ Y'~I I ~ //~ -~ \~ ~ - /~' ~ k ~,~1__ AV ,d --I-- ~\ ~ ~.~- \ _- _ --- .- --- A I m r-~', ` _ - ---- _ ~ - ,~x ~d / ~ Z- i - r C/~j ,a ~ I _ _ ~~ _ c ~ , r- - ~~ ~ ~ 6~~qm A_ ~"~ -' ~ ~ , _ ~ 0(K r E - ~ ~i _ c~- ~ m ~ i I I E '7 - __ I ,___ Ofd ~ ~ ~ i M IJR ~~ r- e _ I ~ ~ „{.~- _. ___. - r- ._, ~„ . - ~! ~ r O y ~ ' f_~ . _ ~ J `~,;' ~ I~' I -- Y ~a,lE- , m CITY OF ELK RIVER '~"ER~D".~D", Da FEP~.'~I<; GRfPAaED N ^ o ~ '-may 2070 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT ~D"~"°" ~ ;`Ea';Y DIftE; r"wPEft~sgD" ftE~~IDN: ~ `~ GEES GNaL"ftkLluEEft u'NDEa Ii"E L NJ. DAiC CY CGCRI'iION - -~" REHABILITATION ""`sD~A' o?w~ aPrint Nurnear "OHIJ Ni. 1NOEFSON ~m .m~~ signature: L"'~O .~ ,N SHEET INDEX m Daie-. GS-03-10 ~cmee p G~Ctl9 mm ~ ;; a ~ ~~ ~< O '7 A i ~ y °A ~ s~ y n ~" C7 >~ .O C °m z t~ ~< ~ "° -" ' CITY OF ELK RIVER NERERV GER."°'"".'"'wASa" SPfCiEiCa ~i°N. °R REPORT PPEP FRED `R ". DiRfGi SUPERN SiDN o ;` Mr °. ~ N RE ViSiDNi w ~ ~ ~ ~ of ° %~ 2010 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT ^ ^ SSiONPL CNG NEER UNDER`~RE Laws PROE N0. DATE By DESCRiPLiDN ~ o ~" H °` E "'A.E Gf "'""`~°`" ~m ; ~ m w REHABILITATION ANDERSON JOHN M P int N me: m~ ° q ~ . . r a ~ jl ~ ' ° 9mm o° !il S'9°°~~~e ' " ESTIMATED QUANTITIES ~ V '~" Doke: OS-03-10 Liee"se Y 25889 a O ; W ~ ~A ~ ~ ~ r~ N ~9 O ~i O ~i o o ~J O O ~ O~ p ~ tY N A ° 0 0 ~ N ~.` C m ~ E~ Ff p W ~ r v rm m i o '^ VI y ~ ~ m ~ U1 x z ~ m E 0 ° ~ ~ ~ ~ c~i a °z i m g ~ o ; p > ut '~' D ~ p > m i; < ~ H 9 c~i _ ~ ~ o X ~ o A a ~ ; ~ y tJ i ~ o i ~ D o o ~ o 9 w C o c ~ o ~ i '" d ~ o o ~ c "p' ; s° C ~ - i~ n m ~ i= H C+7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~A~ - -mo m ~ m ° €Aa ~~ ~ o m 00 o ~ . ~ 8 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~o go o ~ o ~I ~ i ;' - ~ f ~~ ~ ~ i ~ i +,~ a___ o N ii ~OrTI DO?< ~ N O ~ C]fn DO?< 1 O N r Z~ N _ r Z (/ 1 N T.O ~ ~ N S.O~ N O ~ Z O p: O C7 a ~~ ~ a ~~ r- DD - ~ DD ~J A A A y z z ~ z Z ~ " " ~ " ~ m g° m °°i m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~D ~ ~D N X X~ Iw y X X~ m ~~~ W m ~~-~ w :0 ~7 O O T ~ A 77 O O O T f'T fTl D O o4 rn ~ m f l D o O < < fTl 1 -rA O ~ ~ ~ rn O -~ Z ~ ~ ~ W W ~ `~ ~ ~ O y W A S o W o O ~ NJ VT V~ O o 0 0 a o~ ~ W~ ~ n o~ 1 ~ ~m A O N N O y T 0 ~ ~ Q O ~ J ~ J O O ___ ~ O ~ ~ O fTl -y• , ~ O C'1 T O T ~ O ~, ~~~~ _ X Z ~~ W ~~-~ 1~ - N Z T .p O r„~~~~, X rn Z ~~ ~ s r Z V1 I ~~~ z O 1~ _ GJ ~ -1 :TJ VJ ', ~,,', CJ N ,` ,. O ~ -i :0 ~ '~~ O N z D m CD ~ j ~~~~~~_ 1 Z D m CO ~ m ~ A ~ z ~'. III A f'T'Tl ~ 'N c$e ~ I~ ~. ~. .ZJ ~~ O O ..-- ~-o -- _ O m ~ ~ m ~ A ~ wo - ~ CITY OF ELK RIVER ' "ERE6v "RT"""a.."'~ PL"". SPECiEiCATiON. OR REPORT wAS PREPaREO m m ° °'" P aR ""oER ~. DAR"' wRERws~a" ° ~` REws~DNS A - ~ n $p i 2010 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT " A DULY uI NE"SED ROrESStONALMC"Gi"EER DER HE LAwS O. DPTE Rv DES CPoPTiDN N °` T"` s aTE DE "'"NES°Ta. 3 ~ $ ~ W REHABILITATION PNDERSON Print Nome:: JOHN M ~ . m c mm~ ~ 3 m ° -gna 5i `Ofe .j o ~; TYPICAL SECTIONS m e: OS-03-10 License q 25889 «< nR~.r[ RICHi ~'". ' : y - (n ~'cRC- ~'i ~ ..: ~..- ....t ~ ~ ~..._ N _ __.. r -- ? o ~ 'i NO , ---- 3 , ~, ~ ` m - - ~ ~ ~ a ~ g - - ~ ; = Aim I ' ~ ~ A ~~~ mog m r~ m -I °im gu, A ~ i a 1 I ! I _ - I ' ~ --- i i d 3 ~ I a ~ ~ -_, ~ L I, 1 XENIA ' `~ - - - AVENU ~ ~~ ~ _ _ a ~ ~- ;, ~ - ~ ~ _ I s ~ z _ a !n m ~ m - , ~ ' m ~ z r ' o '~ ' ' - A , l { YORK ~ ------------- " ---- --------- AVENUE ~ -- ._:.__~.. \ - - ~_ z ~ 1 -- ------ ' _ m D . ~ z N ---------- C ~ ~ Z1 ~ ri ~, , ~ E_ _..__. . B:~ a I ___ ____ _ _- __-_-_- _9: o =F ~ CITY OF ELK RIVER ' HEREFY EE°i" ."~"HIS °`"". OF RT°ORi w45 °FEFARED 5°EJIEICAnGN ~ ^ m '" ' ~ ° ` , ~ ` O 2010 MAIN STREET PAV EMENT C ` °" NA `ti N,NEe1R~`.N~N"R"s'°N A ~ ` RE":IDN' , ~ ; - m q m ^ w OEE55ONAE~oNGIiJENR UHOER iNE LAW] F ° NJ. DAT[ EY CESCRI~iIDN o ~ s~..>, ` REHABILITATION °~ i' ` ' AiE NIN E.D.". m m ~ v$ `n Print Narn e: r JOFIIJ MM.. ANDERSON ~ ~ ? s.m ~ ~ v„ ~ PLAN 0+00 TO 11+00 ''9"°t°`e -Et =~' 0 Dnt ~. C~5-03-10 ~i~~~~ N 25&89 3EE nB°vE RCHT t // "` """ ` - ~ _ / 1 / r / y // I ~ I - _.. . .. _... I f I WATSON ~ I ' - - - AVENUE/f F~ 1~ V E ~ ~ ' ~J '~ ^~ ~ ~ ri _ ~ y ______________ i ~ E C y D Z i, : ~~ 'I _ i ~ I ~~ a ~ ' .ZJ - m ~ ~ - - -- m ------ I r i.„, ~_ } i _ _ _ ~ ~~ i '' ~- i - - -- - - - ., i _ 9 ' ~ 1 /~F, E ' m i~ C ~' z 0 ----- --- ---- .,.. ~ ° ~ _ ~. ~ ~ _. ~ i j `i - ~ ` ' 1 r ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~V 1.. kkk \ . m ~ ' ~ B ~ Z O 9 N r ~ SEE SHEET ] . ~ ~`, _~ I 10 `rte iEE 3EL'in vs i ^ 'm ~ `° a, m CITY OF ELK RIVER ' "`REE" "ft"`` "'"""'s """ :E`E_IFICAiIC", OR RT PGFi YI45 PFEPAFE° °IR". ~°P`R"sl°N a„ °" °"`ER M °` R`"I°lo": ~ _ - n S j c 2010 MAIN STREET PAV EMENT ^, , H PRCEE550NaL'ENGI~i~EER Uu°Eft`~iHE LPY~i NJ. OAiC Cx CESCFI'll°N " z ~ ~ BILITATION °i " ` aaiE ° '""`~°`" m - 9$ I"'1 REHA Print Name: r JOHN h1. \NOERSON n M ° V U ~ ___ ~ y B n ' ' F I >'y"°`Ufe~ll v N ~'sm PLAN 11+00 TO 22+ 00 n oa~a~ CS-03-10 i~«~3a x 25689 i ~'- :: MAIN `---~ ~ ~ ' STREET ~~`t~"~ ' o ~ ~ < I z c m -~ _ _ ._ ~~ ~ ~ -~ jj ~ ~ .- 0 > - ~ - ~ A ~ I ' ~ ~ ~ __.. lis> :::.: 3f1N3~b' ~ mim _ - - c '~ QNb'~dfl , m I ~~ m _. I 7 I ~~ r m ~ ~ I D Z ~ ~. r \ Z ., I ~ ~ (n ~ I I rn m -~ ~ rn m m ~ -, -~- I I I ~ I _ ; ,.. _ FY I; / ', I I I I ~ -- J , i ~. -`- II `- 1 i I 1 , ,. 'I ------------------ I 4 1 i i _ m ~ I \ 1 0 , ! _, %l o \ ~ A D -_ _--~ L y ~~~~ W ti ,~ ~~, 9 o ___-- ~ - A~ ~z 9:~ o SEE SNEEI b 0 "^ `E~' ^ _ m °~ m ~ CIT7 OF ELK RIVER "ERfBY "R"`` `"°' ."'s ",.". ,REancnno", oR aERORi was Rafvaafo s°PER~s °" W °R ~ "~`^ ~~ ~~R". R"~°~° N: v S + - a ~ n S~ ~ 2010 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT " q ~ En ER BN°ER inF L > iONAL fnGiiI NJ. LA IC CY CESCRI'lION ~ ~ w ~ I C N ~ "i` °` "' "``"°' m a$ zp REHABILITATION \NDERSON Print Narn : !OHIi M _ ~ n . ¢ r ~ ~ ~ (} P ~ , "°n°`°fe .j N ~ PLAN 22+00 TO 33+00 ~ s€ ~ e: 05-03-10 :r p 25&89 LK~ .EE AEOVE RIORi SEE i ~ ~ i I ~ ~ i i L ~~ ~ ;C`\ I /'' !' r r 1 .~ /// ~~ F I ~~'~ _ / ~~~ ~~ ~ / Y /~' // ~I , /''// ~' ~ L / W ut y~ C t ~ ~ j o~p I Cym ~ ~ A ti A v 7 ~ ~ ~ ',/ ~~ I ~^ ~ i \ i ~ I ` ~ i m0 L ~ ~ r r D ~_ \ ~~ ~y -~ i , 1:' o o ~ A ~ ~ ~~ .\ { II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I i \ ` _- ~~ m ':; . t \ ~ ~I obi ~ m ' I \ / \ ______- ~ C a2r4i _ ~ ~ I ~ Co~ D i I ~ ~ ~ a z om I I ~ r- ~ ~ m ~ ~ m ~ c `^ ~ m o c ~ ,- rn I ya, ' I i ~ 9oL . - - CITY OF ELK RIVER FaF~A.~RnE, ,~.. i"'s °`""~ cv°ai rv E aREO N oR R s~ ~ ~ ~ "' ~ R s O" HE ore rIRL `r ; ~`; ~N R REVISIONS ae ^ ^~ - ~~ c 2070 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT A , L, ,„,~ kL iHE L a PCFES~ONaL ErvGIIiEfR E NJ . DAiC CT CEiCRI'l1pN ~ u a] pia a "" ' "" °r " ` m u~ o REHABILITATION ANDERSON Prfnl NOrne:: JOHN M ~- o ~ ~ s ~ . ~ m D ~ m ~ ~ ' e Siynat Nre: .~ ~ ov PLAN 33+00 TO 44+00 N m a CS-03-10 L~ o N 25fi89 ~e~ . -- AHnv~ - ii / i i' ~ SEE SHEET 3 / L ' C m.~9 m2~i _ ` I I L~~ / ~' ~.. r~.. ~ m02 ~ " i _ xi I - ~ "-,~.~ DO;m - " ~N A _ .._. ._..... ~ / _____________ ti ~ a ~ ti ' ' 1 1 I/ 1 ~m r~, P EN ~ s ------------ ~, _ o~ P r - r, -__ - ~~ °' ~~ _~ ~ ~- ~ ' 4 ' ~ D r_-'-__ A z mom m ~ .. z ~ n~ ~" ~ (Q n~ i ~ A og g L fVAI FK ~ Z~C - ." m ~ S `' A . -~ ~ N9 I r? ~ - _ - m~r9~1 --_-- ~ - -''- - _----_-----_-___ ~ ~mAI/1 CC~.~ .~i ~W W ~ y ~Dp~~ C AOCA ; A~ m Z i O n~NV N - " F A m Cf r -I - Z ~ ______ ,"~"/' -- "" I ~ I ~ mC0 ~ _ ~ I mZm mm N ~ ~~~ Z ~ .-... W - A~oia NORFO ~ ' ~ ' LK ~ ~ ~Nm ~ AVENUE z ' - '"" g ~ ';; ,~ o a i m p ~ ~ ~ ~ - `-- -g- - mm~^ __ _ <~>~ =mo> r ~ 1 ~ ~~o ~~ A ~~ °mA -- _ ~ I - ~o >~" i I ~ ~ > I - :~ N F ~ z OR OLK AVENUE ~ ~ _ ~~ >~ ~~ ~ ~~ -. 1~ ~ i ( e~ g - CITY OF ELK RIVER ' HEHEHY fEF"" i"„""'s o, ". SFE~~i~CAiiC". OR FfPOFi W FFEPAFfD sDHE"~~~D" DH D"CEF ". D~a`Di p. uE "E~.~oNs m ~ a ~ ~ -_ 2010 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT " , H ofe ~rHE EAVr Paoie~s ouu AENe~ueca u~ rv~. oar[ ev o[scei=norv , ry REHABILITATION r °` "` `i" ` '"""° ANDERSON Prinl Narne or "OHf{ ~,{ `/~ , ~ ~ v' iignoture:~~ m ~ PLAN 44+00 TO 55+00 v N m s~ e~ CS-03-10 -e N 25&89 3n 5-= 400V£ NICHT ~ SEE SHEET 3 NORFOLK I AVENUE ;; r r---. _ ~ ~~ «~. €~ADg oFa I D CN A ; ~ I I _- _ O __ y~ Oi I I I I I Do O;m C~ 1 ~ - :11 A ~ ~. - I 1 _ D Z N S: fTl ~ 'i rF 1 fTl ~ m C ~ Z ? - - Z ~ MOR70N I' AVENUE i"~i ~ cin ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ 9 - - " J 3 ~ ~ _ ~, o ;~ w h , ~ ~_ m ~ iAA~ ~ m o~A I y`' ~ M ` ~"a / ORTON ., z o ~ ~ ~ IA ~ 1 ~NUE ~ - - o m ~; ~, ~ r ` A ~ a: ~ ~ i I _ ~~ <'tI rn.~m Wpm t7 mog ~ a ~„ ,~~ z g ~ ~ Na ~ m A ~ ~ LOWELL 4 AVENUE - - : ~ ;_ ®y ~ ~- _ ~ N ... r- -.. __ o ~ a - LOWELL `- AVENUE D ~ Z j ri m ~ 0 m ::: ~~~ ,~ ; _ ~:. - BFI ~ 9a' "° CITY OF ELK RIVER ' REREOT """`- ';"AF iFE~IT~CAiiCN, OR .._. .,~., A ~" m ° D n m ~ ° - ~ BT NE OR °NCEF uT DIP~ri SUPER\ SiOU RENEIONS p ~ 2 - _ r .9 ~a u 2010 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT ND ~~~~ ~ a ~~ A„_ PRDEE9-ONaE~EN Ia E ° R iNE L ~ R N>. DALC ET CESCRI'iION ° ' °' REHABILITATION _°i °` T"` ,TATE uN Or M e Print N°mF \NOERSONI OHfI M o ~ . ~ . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ PLAN 55+00 TO 64+10 ''~"°`°'e; ~ , ° " oat ~ C5-03-1U ~,~e~;e p 25589 SEE ABOJ= RIC NT ~_ I ' o ~ ~~. D ~ oroa ° ~ ~ oNOao N D W Z I ~ ~ m ~ • 8 m n m n o ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ A E _ `~~ - Z 'P A m A ____ = N ~ A -~-- -~~ ~ f r-I r-I ry $ ° XENIA ``' S AVENUE ~ 6 ' ~ ~ ~ + 0 0 > o ~ ° . A ~ A x I~ N Z a d ? g ~ -I =~ Oo D ^ rn ~ r '< ~ ~ I _ .:.. YORK ~, 4VENUE _ ~, ~ - ,_ D P z ~~ ~ m ~!' SE. SHEET 1 2 B~~ ° ~ SEE PEL°W LEFT 9~ a ~ CITY OF ELK RIVER ' HEREeT EER"`, 'H,T .HIS ". oR RraoR. vio, vREVAREp ;v carlcw -1 i x m m c ` ' ~ c R' NE °" °" EF I. pIRE°' spRER~sIpN RE,9510N5 m o ~ m ~ ~ im y 2010 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT PRCfE>ON:.L ~fN°IIiEER plop RL~iHE LPYI> NJ. DATC CT CESCRI'ilgJ °` °` "'AT` ° ~""`~`T T` REHABILITATION r\NDE SON '^ONN MM Print N°rn ' m e ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ''9"°`°`E v ~ _~ ~° STRIPING PLAN 0+00 TO 11+00 ~ ~ ~ es-o3-io w zseas „ m ,« ~ ~ SEE )HEEi Il MAIN i I + S REET ~ ° z 1 1 1 m ~ ' ~ C ~ m I ~~ ~ ~ - ~ - _ g., w N ,~ - ; ~ ,.-- - _-. _.. ~ ~ 3f1N3~V ~ N ~ U ° = `I aNVldfl ~ _ N T. s. Z D to Z ~1 ~ ~ ' fTl ~ m ~' ~ N ~ m j ~ ' °o ~ z ~ p ~z ° i F z A ~ ~ _ ~ o _ - O Z v ~ L Z ' - - - - - O _ In A FY ~ FY ~ O Z ~ F ~ ~ f A o p m G I ~ 0 > m ~ I ~ D O O O A { 8 a ~~¢~ I S B~ A~ ~z 9~ SEE S HEET Id SfE BEL°W LEFT =a CITY OF ELK RIVER ~FFr~oF;'w`PREFaRED ~ ~ _ _ y A ~ r cIRE~r wcEa~sloH B xEVICIOH: W - 9 P 6 Sw y ~ ~ 2010 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT a°FC~S OHnL IEfiIGIV~EEt+ UNDERC THE IAVrS `'°`" or M NJ. DATC CT CESLRI`rIIXJ a$ n w~ REHABILITATION N M \NDERSON Print N°r E H O' ~ " J_cmW•~ ~ ) ~~ (G y - ~ ' "°` 'E V ~ ~ STRIPING PLAN 22+00 TO 33+00 ' ~ " m ~~ Dale. GS-03-10 rcmse M 25889 SEE ABOVE RIGHT SEE SFEET 13 m { $Q B-Cr~n o Z u Y m N 9 N 0 ~ n i ~ Z ~ p ~ _ v ~ Z L n ~ ~ I ~ Z - - - ~ ? 2 O Z ~ ~ ~ m ~ A W O c Z ~ ~ 8 :~ " o O D o i D o U ® T A x ~ ~ (I~ In iW D . ni .i.. n~ ~ in n n in s ..... 1 _._ ,.. ._ 3 NS~~ o - ~ ~ ~o ~+ ~i S 8 D Z t cn S ~ m ' ifE .'S HEET 15 .• 8:~ o 9a ~. Ff flil flW ~. o ~FE, =° CITY OF ELK RIVER "R ' R `° `"AT r"' ° "" E ~ E C i " y~ - °j~m ~ - ar VE urpRECr suvERrlso H a+ u"cE~ " REwsiaas p ~ o q x ~ s; a 2010 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT ENC~yyEER ~'„oER~',HE EA. PRE",_;~A~ eo. oArE cr oESCRi=norv v ~ ~~ y° REHABILITATION Of nC .tATC Of ~nirv"COOL<.. m § . $ A nNDERSON Print N°rne:: JOHN M ~ ~ e ~ . ~ m y rS w-6 ~ C O I I m ''~"°`Ofe .j = ~; s STRIPING PLAN 33+00 TO 44+00 ~ a e~ CS-03-10 rzwne N 2`fi89 E 3F' ~~. P P' ~_ ' \ sz '4~":; ~ i 8 D 7 n ~ M1. .Z7 m 8$ S _ i NORF .. . AVEN , .. ~ ~ : ; :i , >RFOLK VENUE ~ _ i i Boy 90~ SEE SH-= T 16 YEE bL LDW l_~I ° '° CITY OF ELK RIVER T"'~ P`°" 6 ' , ` E P ~ t _ m D~ m "~- >= 2010 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT NE 0R urvCEF iaY DiRECi SUPERN50 N Br ~ E~ REVI EIONE. N ~~ o ~ x _ m - ~~ y' ROi EC~OHAC E NCIi If NR UNDER iNE LAV~~ NJ. DATC CT DESCRI~BON ~ REHABILITATION O O " `~°T"~ m r ~ 1 / Print NarnE: r MOHN M11 ANDERSEN ~ v ~ m' ~ ''~"°`Ofe~ „ ' ~~ STRIPING PLAN 44+00 TO 55+00 - ~ cs-o3-~0 ~~«„e x zsbe~ SEE n30vE FIC„i SEE SNEEi IS RFOLK 'ENUE ~ _ m 0 z ° mo~ v, m ~ i E 2 A O y ° z .. D_ ~~ Z A ~ T Z E :~ " ~ : t ~ A :m ~ S N - f ~ ~ ~ f v10RTON 0 AVENUE _ ~ A m __ .® - ' m 4 ~ L+ - - ~ i P ~ A m ~ o II O ~ u N > - -._- - - IJ . _.... -. MOR1 _ ~ AVEN ~~, ~i o 0 0 o p '~ ~~ Cn LOWELL - ° P `~ AVENUE ~^1 - _I ` - LOWELI - AVENUE D ., Z ,._..._...._ m ~~ lA B4 ~ - ~ :U m m I "' ~~ 'y ° SEE 3ELDW LEFT ~ ~~/ o - , ~'P CITY OF ELK RIVER ' "E"FR.r E_i iCn i ~T CN OR FEFOFi W4, PRERnRED E°"` `"°""'~ R`"" i 'a °m o x ¢ C ' NE GR UNCEfi tnr DiRECi SUPERN510N REVISIONS p~ m o ~ =, gm yg 2010 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT PROECS;o„ L N .~'"E~~;iEER ~ '~„E LaW- E No. DArz c. cESCRI=noN ~ "" " O "" °E " ~ 2 REHABILITATION Prinl Na rn : !OHII Mp ~NN m .- ~ o ~ ~ ~ .j N N ' C STRIPING PLAN 55+00 TO 64+10 ` ''9"°`°'E' -b'- ` 'm t: CS- 0'-iG ~~~sa N 25889 t~ tie C C yb ~-16' 0'-D'MAAINIIM -1 €g - ° : ~ Q ~ ~ ~ i °s ~ F • e®e a give Y 0'®®®e\®®® }g o~~ o ~ a y x ~ ~ .. ppp ~ R O e®6®e e~®®e;®e®~ee F ~ i u ~ m ~ ' i x ~ ~ _ _ a s®e®e®s`e~e eeB®® a _ ~ t ~~~ ~m 1 ~ 000 y, s~o, .,a „W ~"4 y $ ~ s p v S a i ~ ~ D ~ u 8 $ 6' ~ DER to g : ~ spFF ~e 2 p>~ ~_ ~~~"3 ~~~o Z ~ o' s~ :> pm A a g'~ ~ ~~€m ~~~' ri ¢~ ~R~ 8 ~fi~~ v 5 ~ r ~ ~ +~°~ R ~ R ~~g° ~ 4 ~ ~ §~~ ~ ~~L ~ ~ ~ >, H ~ C~ ti ~ C~ h ! ~ ~ - r ~ a t _ ~ W pp _ A En20 ~ N % A ~$ i ~~ ~' ~ x. &r. AwrAtE ~ °c 'A mn ~ , i i 9c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p I E~ °• m~ ~~ '~ ~ ~i j m I I ~ II ~~ ' ~~J. ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~A ~ ~ ~ . ~~ N :°' ~ 8 ~ C=1i ~ C ~ n 3e '-' as §_~ C mq :'~ ~~ spa ~"~~ a ~~_~~ ,a~ gW ~ ~,~ m - ~ o a~-R~iDs m - ~ ~i i '~ ~ ® ~9 go ~ A ~~ ~ " ~~ - S cy ~' mA m J Y o _ _ _-- \ SNfA =a 3 $ ~ 1 S pp p ° 8° ~ ZD ` ~ Jff m - o e. 5 ~m g ~ ~ z - ~ 3k ~ bp o~ Z ~ ~ ~ n B a i N o p'3EF3 $ ~ "~ ~ 48 ~\1P. 4? ~ H g~ ~~ ' ~` -\~~ ~m :Om C °, ° ~ Awl: /N ~ - ~ $ ' #.4 s ` O ~ ~ £n - ; ~ ~~ 2q ~{ ' ~ ~ ' R R =;~ p°q Ase o a p4 ~ z ° ~~ O 4 ~ ~ W y ~ ~ $ G Q~ ~ ~$ >a ,s~ o~'`a~ A C f ~ ° e f.~8s6°gg~ $q?e ~§~iBZ$ ~ - pQ QL.' as ' , M , I NNN - :8 ~ e ~ & b `~e ~ €€ AR S ~ • a ~ ¢ ~ R dR g ~. ~ L ~~ / f / y Ili ~ J "~~J-ve ~~~ ~ " €~g R ~ E ~ ~ ~p'~ ~ p~ ~ a 9 y9 -F" ~ B.. B ; ` ~ F SA ~-~ ^"; 94:x' te. p ~ Q , ~"~ s ~ E ~ M ~ '. ~ Q Q `e, J ,n9 ~~a-F €, ~ZE ; ~ $~ A ~xe ® ..w 4 .a F g9 ER g S 6A '~ q3f A¢ $ ® a u Ni o ~ a eg ` ~m % AAa=%- ;°..~~~a s4 S 6 "~~ Y q s 4 °-e Y'r 8 e; ~ g $e~pA A A H A A D °m~ "' " ~ #~ # °~ `~ R°~qR": ~ ~° z ~ '~ sa ~~ _ g ~ O~A § ~ 4 ~r ~ ~ ~~ ~' ° A ~y y Z ~mc~ J m A . N A A 2g g0. &'sfi$ ~ ;€ s§FS ? ~ ~ pF~A ~ [§ gR 3 ~s b9, A ? R ' s ~~? a ASR ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ F~~ g A~ • ~ ~ ~ N D N W ~ $ p ® 6 p .~ ee °. 38sF~ y° ~R~~'~ 04 N ¢` ~ a' A~ ~ ~s~~ a ~~ A~°~R~Y YF ~ I Rs s N j N S 3 ~ E b~ Sj~ypa #~ 8¢ ~ 'N 9~(i A ~ 4F a~9 S A94; ~ ~ 9 ~5 '~ 'z ~ t 4 ~ ~ 5 ° ? 9 ~'~~' 9 R9~ ~~ 5 a 9 9 F . " _ ~ ~ aa F ~ R R ~ 8X8. ~~ z L 0 6 € $' 2 'a ~ € :J` ,L 3be; g P ~ ~ A a a ~ 2 9 N ~G:a > q ~~'4 q'2 g~.qS .; s'°~~E ~ §~~© ® ~} ~~ R 6~q~m. ~$~R`s" ~ I -J € ~ N ~ _p:~> ~'4 A R- p.E '" 5 _~gs ~ „ e; ~sz a sRa- $$ q ~ ' '° ~ r~ ~ ~ L r .- F §A 9a ~ 9 :~Z- z:A R 8 u p ~ CITY OF ELK RIVER ' "EREDY DER"a"" PE"" SPECiEiCAi~ON. R REa~"'WAS PREPARED = p,~ a m e D~RLCi sDPERWSioN "` ": °" °"MER "r RfWSioNS Vy ~ ~ "P'oo - ~ 2010 MAIN STREET PAVEMENT L AND NiiA WER iN NSED DER "E LAWS EE SONAL E N0. DAiE Of SCRiPTON m 3 ~w a E ui"NEEDi '" ~'"" ~Y $ $ ,~ REHABILITATION ANDERSON Print Nam e d JO HN M 9 ~ . ~mi; , CC ~~ //11 ~ 9n0 th si .°re: .j ~ ~~ STANDARD DETAILS e m Date- OS-03-10 ~cense Y 25889