VI.1. Edge Treatment Alternatives Review - 2020-2021 Street and Utility Improvements, City Project 2019-10; Stanley October 15, 2019 Council Report 2019-109
EDGE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
2020-2021 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 2019-10
Proposed Action
Staff recommends the following motion: Adopt Resolution 2019-081, Resolution Finalizing Scope of Public
Improvement.
This action continues an assessable project for street and utility improvements.
Overview
At its September 17, 2019 meeting, a public hearing concerning street and utility improvements along
Preston Lane, Boyce Street, Goodrich Street, Ashley Road, Holly Road, Oakwood Road, Interlachen Road,
Maple Hill Road, Homedale Road, Hawthorne Road, Meadowbrook Road, and Blake Road from Spruce
Road to Boyce Street was held. Testimony at the public hearing was received by the City Council and a
petition against concrete curb and gutter was presented by a group of neighbors. Following the receipt of the
testimony, Council ordered the improvement but tabled the inclusion of concrete curb and gutter and
directed staff to evaluate alternative edge treatments along the roadways for future action. Staff has
completed an analysis of various roadway edge treatment options and is recommending B612 concrete curb
and gutter as the edge treatment option for the project.
Primary Issues to Consider
Development and Review of Alternatives
Public Input
Report Findings and Recommendations
Staff Recommendation
Supporting Information
Resolution 2019-081
Supplemental Report on Edge Treatment Alternatives
_________________________________
Nate Stanley, P.E., City Engineer
Council Report 2019-109
Page 2
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES
Development and Review of Alternatives
Following the September 17 City Council meeting, staff reached out to one of the neighbors who spoke
against curb and gutter and works as a civil engineer, as she suggested there were viable alternatives to
concrete curb and gutter. We met on September 24 and were able to collaboratively develop a list of
edge treatment alternatives for review, the following alternatives were considered:
• Thickened bituminous edge with underdrain (no curb)
• Standup bituminous curb
• Gutter-less concrete curb (B-style or similar)
• Concrete curb and gutter with integral color
• Mountable concrete curb and gutter
• Concrete curb and gutter – B612 design
• Concrete curb and gutter – B618 design
• Rural section roadway (ditches/driveway culverts)
• Low Impact Development (raingardens/shallow basins)
At the meeting we also discussed process, how the analysis would be completed, and the factors that
would be criteria in evaluation of each alternative, this included:
• Initial screening of alternatives against project goals and constraints
• Initial installation cost
• Lifecycle cost analysis – this includes ongoing maintenance
• Tree loss
• Implementation considerations
• Turf/Boulevard impacts – plowing, rutting
• Continuity with maintenance efforts
• Aesthetics
• Consistency with similar projects in the region – potential effects regarding contractor familiarity
• Green infrastructure/storm water management
On September 25 the project team met with the group of Interlachen Park residents leading the petition
effort against concrete curb and gutter to share the alternatives and plan moving forward. The meeting
began with a long discussion about trees. Staff clarified that tree impacts are not related to edge
treatment alternatives or curb and gutter, and provided an overview of why tree removals are proposed
on the project. Staff also shared a process moving forward to try and further reduce tree loss and
communicate with adjacent residents. The following actions are underway:
• An independent arborist has been contracted to GPS locate and evaluate every tree within the city
right-of-way
• The arborist will review the preliminary removal list to confirm if removal or protection is
appropriate
• For trees identified in conflict with utility construction, implement procedures for trenchless
construction of privately-owned utility service lines under trees or re-routed open-cut
construction around trees
Council Report 2019-109
Page 3
• Develop and maintain a booklet with a photo, location by address, condition, species, and
diameter of each tree that may be removed and its proposed designation for subsequent
coordination
• Outreach is completed with the property owner consistent with standard processes for past
Hopkins projects. A letter is sent to each property owner containing the following information:
o Identify proposed tree to be removed and reason (utility, condition, species, street)
o If applicable for utility service lines, include information regarding televising and
potential subsequent steps for trenchless replacement and associated costs
o Review tree replacement policy
o Request input on tree replacement for removal as appropriate based on point in process
Also discussed was that untreated ash trees slated for removal would be taken off the list if a resident
begins treatment before construction, or in the very early stages of construction. Those in attendance
were pleased with the proposed process.
The discussion then turned to curb and gutter with the neighbors questioning the need and benefits it
provides as well as the costs associated. Staff went through the alternatives and the proposed review
process outlined above. A lengthy discussion ensued in which the neighbors expressed their main
concern regarding aesthetics. The parties agreed to meet again once a draft of the alternatives review was
completed to discuss the results.
On October 9 the project team met with the Interlachen Park resident group again to present those in
attendance with a draft copy of the edge treatment alternatives review and presented a power point
detailing the draft results. A discussion ensued in which the neighbors stated that they were continuing to
work on gathering signatures for their petition. The issue of tree loss was discussed again and staff
reminded those in attendance that the curb and gutter installation was not a driver of tree loss, that the
main drivers were utility conflicts and condition or disease susceptibility. There were some in attendance
that had not been a part of the previous meeting, so there was discussion regarding rationale for the
project in general and why curb and gutter was proposed in the first place. Discussion revolved heavily
around how the results for various options were determined. The neighbors strongly reiterated that
aesthetics were the top priority to them and sought a suitable compromise. Staff stated that aesthetics is
difficult to quantify and opinions will vary greatly. All in attendance indicated they wanted to move on
and have an improved street.
Public Input
Since the September 17 City Council meeting, staff has received phone calls and emails regarding the
project. At the time of preparation of this report, the messages that staff received have generally been in
favor of curb and gutter, or questions regarding curb and gutter.
Report Findings and Recommendations
As previously stated, the evaluation weighed each alternative over a number of criteria, the following
findings were most notable:
• There is no anticipated difference in number of trees lost due to either alternative evaluated, with
exception to a rural design or low impact design strategy.
Council Report 2019-109
Page 4
• Industry accepted research has been completed along similar roadway joints located within the
region documenting the benefits to pavement systems resulting from having adequate control of
subgrade moisture causes. The most effective results are anticipated from having a concrete curb
and gutter and a sealed concrete/bituminous interface.
• The City of Hopkins standard is for installation of concrete curb and gutter during street
reconstruction. The concrete curb and gutter alternatives have the lowest life cycle cost of all
alternatives quantified due to a relatively low installation cost, ability to lengthen the life of a
pavement, providing for a sealed bituminous/concrete interface, and less costly maintenance
efforts.
• B612 and B618 concrete curb and gutter alternatives provided the lowest life cycle costs and
were within less than 3% of each other over a projected 60-year lifecycle.
• The mountable curb and gutter alternative provided similar lifecycle costs but were slightly
higher than B618.
• The thickened bituminous edge (no curb) option was found to have a lifecycle cost of
approximately 40% than the B618 concrete curb and gutter alternative.
• A B6 style curb and gutter system is preferred by Hopkins Public Works for routine maintenance
operations.
• It is recognized that a petition opposing curb and gutter has been presented to the city council.
Through discussions with the petition organizers, staff has learned that the opposition is based on
aesthetics of the edge of the road. A definitive aesthetic preference held by all project
stakeholders could not be identified based on all input received.
Based on the findings, a concrete curb and gutter alternative is recommended for the Interlachen Park
Project. The following are two recommended alternatives in consideration of the findings of the report:
• B618 concrete cub and gutter
• B612 concrete curb and gutter if a narrower gutter pan is desired for aesthetic purposes
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends B612 concrete curb and gutter for inclusion with the Interlachen Park Street and
Utility Improvements. It is staff’s opinion that this style of curb and gutter will perform in identical
fashion to the originally proposed B618 concrete curb and gutter would in this application. B612
concrete curb and gutter provides a narrower strip of concrete, but does not compromise the integrity of
the street design or maintenance considerations. The cost between B612 and B618 over the project
lifecycle of the pavement it is close enough to be considered negligible. Also, rather than using standard
white curing compound on the concrete, it is recommended to use a clear curing compound to mitigate
color contrast between the pavement and new concrete.
Staff recommends the above with adoption of resolution 2019-081.
1
616378v1HP145-22
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-081
RESOLUTION FINALIZING SCOPE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
2020-2021 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 2019-10
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 20th day of August, 2019 fixed a date
for a Council Hearing on the improvements to Preston Lane, Boyce Street, Goodrich Street, Ashley
Road, Holly Road, Oakwood Road, Interlachen Road, Maple Hill Road, Homedale Road,
Hawthorne Road, Meadowbrook Road, and Blake Road from Spruce Road to Boyce Street,
including pavement, curbing, sidewalk, signage, drainage, water and sanitary sewer improvements
and all necessary appurtenances; and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2019, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council
deemed it appropriate and expedient to make such improvements, except for the curb and gutter
elements which were tabled for future discussion and implementation per further specifications by
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2019, following additional input from staff and residents, the City
Council discussed the options for roadway edge treatment alternatives and further deemed it
appropriate and expedient to finalize the project scope by incorporating the following option for
the project’s roadway edge treatment: B612 style concrete curb and gutter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Hopkins,
Minnesota:
1. The public improvement, as previously ordered by the City Council on September 17,
2019, shall be supplemented by including the roadway edge treatment option specified
in the above recitals, and said project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as
detailed in the feasibility report and the recommendations are hereby accepted.
2. Such improvement is modified with the roadway edge treatment elements specified
herein. The total estimated project cost remains $18,174,000, of which $3,200,000 is
estimated to be assessed.
3. Bolton & Menk, Inc., the appointed engineer for this improvement, shall prepare plans
and specifications for the making of such improvement. The Mayor and City Manager
are hereby authorized to enter into a contract for engineering and construction services
for this improvement.
4. The City Attorney and City Engineer are hereby authorized to acquire necessary
easements by negotiation or condemnation.
2
616378v1HP145-22
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 15th day of October, 2019.
______________________________________
Jason Gadd, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
Preliminary Engineering Phase – Supplementary Report
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvements
Edge Treatment Alternatives Review
City of Hopkins
City Project No. 2019-010
BMI Project No. T19.118342
Submitted by:
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
12224 Nicollet Avenue
Burnsville, MN 55337
P: 952-890-0509
F: 952-890-8065
Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvements ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page i
Table of Contents
I. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 1
II. Alternatives Considered ....................................................................................................................... 9
III. Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 20
IV. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 30
Appendix
Appendix A: Evaluation Matrix for Roadway Edge Treatment Alternatives
Appendix B: Estimates of Comparative Initial Installation Costs
Appendix C: Estimates of Comparative Life Cycle Costs
Appendix D: Cross Sectional Analysis for Evaluation of Roadway Excavation Depth Due to Curbing
Appendix E: Interlachen Park Maintenance History
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Background
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 1
I. Background
Proposed 2020-2021 Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvements
The City of Hopkins, MN is planning improvements to the public infrastructure located
within the Interlachen Park neighborhood in southeast Hopkins. The feasibility report
was prepared for compliance with the MN Chapter 429 process for special assessments.
To that end, the report identifies the project location, existing conditions, proposed
improvements, estimated project costs, and proposed funding including special
assessments to individual properties as identified in the report. The report was presented
to the Hopkins City Council on September 17, 2019 and the required public improvement
hearing was conducted at that time.
Testimony at the public improvement hearing was received by the City Council.
Following receipt of the testimony, the City Council requested additional information
related to the proposed installation of concrete curb and gutter as well as associated
alternatives considered. This report has been compiled to identify and quantify
alternatives to concrete curb and gutter installation and the associated impacts of each
alternative.
This 2020-2021 project has been proposed for over 5 years in the City’s Capital
Improvement Planning process. The reconstruction of streets and utilities in the
Interlachen Park neighborhood has been identified as a need for nearly 20 years,
however. Over the same period, City considerations to edge treatments have been
routinely made and internally critiqued to develop best management practices toward
street and utility reconstructions in the most cost-effective manner based on industry
standard practices and sound engineering principles. This report summarizes such
considerations made in evaluating roadway edge treatment alternatives for the Interlachen
Park Improvements project as well as what has been considered over time on the subject.
Local road design fundamentals
1. Aggregate Subbase
A pavement subbase is commonly used where existing soils in the roadbed are
poor draining and/or unsuitable for roadway construction. Most commonly on
local roadways throughout Minnesota and the City of Hopkins, a ‘clean’ sand is
used to retain a well draining structure. The subbase of a roadway is a significant
investment as its installation requires significant excavation and hauling efforts.
Preventing water from reaching the subbase enhances its ability to support the
overlying structure without weakening it due to freeze/thaw related influences.
2. Aggregate Base
Aggregate base material is installed to provide a stable and firm layer upon
which surface pavement can be installed.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Background
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 2
During construction of road sections where bituminous pavement is installed atop
aggregate base, the suitable compaction and stability of the aggregate base is
particularly important. Aggregate base instability is caused by its saturation as a
result of improper drainage or other causes that introduce water to this layer.
3. Surface Pavement
The pavement driving surface is effectively the cap on the pavement system. For
local roadways containing utilities, bituminous pavement is almost always used.
Bituminous pavement is comprised of coarse and fine aggregates which are
adhered to each other with a bituminous oil. It is a flexible pavement, as opposed
to a rigid pavement, and is intended to flex and rebound while supporting vehicle
loads. Much of the vehicle load is transferred to the underlying aggregate base
layer(s) during this process.
The pavement driving surface layer serves the function of conveying surface
runoff to its edges. The surface is typically crowned, meaning it sheds water from
centerline to each edge, or fully tipped toward one edge.
4. Managing Surface Runoff and Moisture in a Pavement System
While many environmental factors help to deteriorate a pavement system, excess
moisture is the primary cause of deterioration and is responsible for reduced
strength in the system. Any water entering the pavement layers ultimately fall
victim to Minnesota freeze/thaw cycles in addition to other weaknesses produced
in the pavement by excess moisture. Numerous publications, including the
MnDOT Pavement Design Manual and supporting studies completed at the
MnROAD Test Facility, indicate that a pavement’s service life is greatly
impacted by the pavement system’s ability to prevent water from entering the
aggregate base layer and its ability to drain of any water that reaches it1.
Roadway edges designed for managing stormwater runoff are typically classified
as one of two roadway types:
• Urban roadway sections which are almost always comprised of a curbed
edge to direct water to the inlets of an underground storm sewer system;
or
• Rural roadway sections which are comprised of ditches that receive
water off of the roadway edge.
Both systems convey water away from the bituminous edge. Once off the
bituminous edge, the water is then conveyed via the storm sewer system or
ditches and culverts. This is a necessary pavement function for heavy rainfall
events.
1 Drainage and Pavement Performance, Roger Olson of MnDOT, December 2006
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Background
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 3
Industry Design Standards and Best Practices
1. MnDOT Studies & Related Research
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has produced a variety
of studies based on research performed at its Minnesota Road Research
(Mn/ROAD) test site. Mn/ROAD is one of the most, if not the most, ambitious
test tracks in the world in its continuous collection of environmental data2. The
facility is equipped with multiple continuous lanes of active vehicle traffic over a
variety of sensors and gauges. In particular, these measurements have aided the
Civil Engineering field with collection of empirical evidence for improved
understanding and quantification of drainage through and under pavements.
With respect to this analysis, managing water runoff that is being directed to the
roadway edge is an important design consideration for a long-lasting pavement
structure. In 2003 MnDOT completed an analysis on the effect of an unsealed
pavement edge joint (such as may be seen without curb or with curb but no
sealant) versus a sealed pavement edge joint. The study found an 95% reduction
in water entering a pavement system during a low intensity rain event and an
83% reduction during a high intensity event.3
The 2003 MnDOT study also analyzed the effectiveness of an edge drain under
an unsealed joint, but found that “the edge drain is not draining the pavement
system but rather is draining the edge joint.” 4 This study found that the
assumption that edge drains provide positive drainage to be erroneous.5 This
result has been confirmed by other analyses.6 Similarly, one study found that
moisture from an edge joint located several feet away can result in increased
moisture within the pavement aggregate base layer under the outer wheelpath. 7
2. Standards in adjacent communities
The following adjacent communities have a standard of installation concrete curb
and gutter with local street reconstruction projects:
a. City of Edina
b. City of Minnetonka
c. City of St. Louis Park
2 Drainage and Pavement Performance, Roger Olson of MnDOT, December 2006
3 Olson, R. and R. Roberson, 2003-26 Final Report; Edge-Joint Sealing as a Preventative Maintenance Practice,
Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Materials and Road Research, 2003
4 Olson, R., Drainage and Pavement Performance, Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2006
5 Olson, R. and R. Roberson, 2003-26 Final Report; Edge-Joint Sealing as a Preventative Maintenance Practice,
Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Materials and Road Research, 2003
6 Ahmed, Z., T.D. White, and T. Kuczek. Comparative Field Performance of Subdrainage Systems. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, May/June 1997.
7 Birgisson, B. and R. Roberson. Drainage of Pavement Base Material: Design and Construction Issues.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Background
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 4
d. City of Golden Valley
e. City of Eden Prairie
f. City of Plymouth
g. City of Minneapolis
No adjacent cities were found to have standards which did not involve
installation of concrete curb and gutter.
3. Preventing Infiltration with Edge Joint Sealants
All concrete edge treatment alternatives evaluated in this report would receive a
bituminous joint adhesive / sealant material to prevent water infiltration from
occurring through the bituminous/concrete interface joint. Infiltration without
this sealant commonly occurs during the spring freeze/thaw period when
bituminous pavements are contracted inward due to colder temperatures, causing
the bituminous to pull away from the adjacent concrete edges. The City of
Hopkins began this joint sealing practice in 2015 and has continued it with
success.
The use of a concrete edge treatment on roadways carries several benefits when
properly implemented. Bituminous pavement installation is improved through the
presence of a confined edge to pave against. The bituminous is placed up to the
installed concrete gutter pan edge and then rolled for compaction. The roller can
compact the bituminous, essentially squeezing it up against the concrete, to
greater density as the material is compressed within that confined volume. The
improved bituminous density yields numerous benefits, including its resistance to
freeze/thaw degradation, resilience, and other factors that ultimately add to its
service life. For this reason, MnDOT specifications allow density testing to occur
up to confined edges as such density requirements can still reasonably be
expected to be met by contractors at confined edges. Conversely, at unconfined
edges such as would exist with other alternatives described in this comparative
analysis, MnDOT specifications do not require density requirements be met
within 1 horizontal foot of the roadway edge as these requirements cannot be
reasonably expected to be met in such areas. While one could deviate from a
MnDOT specification for a specific project, if not met and subsequently
challenged by a contractor, the deficiencies and specification would likely not be
upheld and associated damages for failure to meet the unrealistic specification
would be void.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Background
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 5
Pavement Management
1. Pavement Management Principles
A pavement management system is a numerical based rating system which treats
infrastructure segments as assets which depreciate over time. After rating the
current condition of each asset and applying industry standard depreciation
curves to each, forecasts can be made on each segments remaining service life of
pavements. Pavement management systems therefore enable forecasting of the
appropriate timing for major maintenance practices (mill and overlay,
reclamation and resurface, etc.) or full reconstruction. By forecasting the timing
of major maintenance, which
typically comes at a
significant discount as
compared to the costs of
reconstruction, budgeting can
be completed to coincide with
maintenance needs before the
window for their effectiveness
closes. The figure included in
this section illustrates
graphically the concept of
depreciating pavement condition over time coupled with various maintenance
activities to improve pavement conditions throughout their life.
There are limits to how much pavement maintenance work can be completed
during the life cycle of a street. For example, the process of completing a mill
and overlay involves removing (by way of milling) about half of the pavement
depth and replacing the upper half with a new pavement surface. The underlying
original bottom half of pavement remains in place and will continue to
deteriorate, and cracks will reflect through the new pavement layer to the surface.
Therefore, a roadway can typically only be milled and overlaid one or two times
during its life cycle while remaining cost effective. Typical pavement life cycles
are about 50 to 60 years on average. Best practices for major maintenance
activities have changed over time. Current typical practices include the following
minor and major maintenance activities over a pavement’s life span:
• Reconstruction begins a pavement’s life cycle at year 0
• Mill and overlay at approximately age 20 and potentially at age 40
• Crack sealing approximately every 7 to 10 years, beginning at about age
3 to 5
• Seal coating approximately every 7 to 10 years, beginning at about age 3
to 5
• Reconstruction or, if utility conditions are acceptable, major
reclamation/resurfacing at age 60 effectively restarting the life cycle.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Background
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 6
2. Historic Maintenance Activities in the Interlachen Park Neighborhood
The maintenance history of documented activities in the Interlachen Park
Neighborhood was compiled upon the request of some area residents.
Documentation on some activities could not be located, as additional activities
were known to occur based on current observations. The list of activities found in
Appendix E detail what is currently available to the City.
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvements - Project Constraints
During the preliminary design process, the following key design constraints and goals
were identified as a result of public input, design team investigations, City staff
identification of issues, and other means. The following list is not an exhaustive list of all
project design constraints and goals. Rather, this list is intended to highlight the key
issues which influence broad consideration of roadway edge alternatives described
herein. Some key issues and goals for the project include:
1. Correcting nuisance drainage issues, which necessitate a combination of
installing new storm sewer and modifying longitudinal street slopes/grades to
alleviate locations of nuisance standing water or “bird baths”.
2. Compliance with stormwater management requirements set by the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements for this project.
3. Replacement of old, outdated, and poor condition buried utility lines.
4. Replacement of the failed bituminous pavements with new roadways of
consistent widths meeting the City standards and public needs.
5. Remaining within the project budgetary constraints.
6. Retaining public roadway improvements within the established public right-of-
way.
7. Minimizing impacts to healthy, mature trees that add to the character of the
neighborhood. The City and Interlachen Park residents have expressed a desire
to minimize impacts. In response, the project design team has developed and
implemented an intensive tree protection and coordination process. This process
will be primarily implemented over the upcoming 6 months from the drafting of
this report, but will continue throughout the construction process as care is taken
to protect all trees except those that must be removed to meet other project
goals.
The process for identifying and communicating proposed tree removals for the project is
as follows:
a. Document a tree inventory, completed by a professional arborist /
forester, of all trees within the public right-of-way. The inventory is to
include the tree diameter, condition, species, and location. This process is
currently underway.
b. Review preliminary removals based on condition and species against the
inventory to confirm removal or protection is appropriate. Adjustment
will be made to the list of proposed tree impacts as necessary.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Background
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 7
c. For trees identified in conflict with utility construction, implement
procedures for trenchless construction of privately-owned utility service
lines under trees or re-routed open-cut construction around trees.
1) Coordination process with property owner and city-secured
plumber for verifying feasibility of trenchless option under trees.
A letter is sent requesting input on the property owner’s interest
in a trenchless alternative at increased cost and if interest exists,
scheduling subsequent televised inspection of the sewer service
line.
2) Following televised inspection:
a. If trenchless replacement is infeasible, conduct a
coordination process with property owner for re-routing
around trees by a property owner secured plumber.
b. If trenchless replacement is feasible, conduct a coordination
process with the property owner for trenchless replacement
by a city secured plumber (at property owner cost) or a
property owner secured plumber.
d. Develop and maintain a booklet with a photo, location by address,
condition, species, and diameter of each tree that may be removed and its
proposed designation for subsequent coordination:
1) Removal proposed due to undesirable species (list species in
parenthesis)
2) Removal proposed due to poor condition
3) Removal proposed due to utility service construction
4) Removal proposed due to street construction or grading. (also
include a narrative on street construction impact to the tree and
design consideration made to avoid impact)
e. Outreach is completed with the property owner consistent with standard
processes for past Hopkins projects. A letter is sent to each property
owner containing the following information:
1) Identify proposed tree to be removed and reason (utility,
condition, species, street, grading, etc.)
2) If applicable for utility service lines, include information
regarding televising and potential subsequent steps for trenchless
replacement and associated costs
3) Review of the City’s tree replacement policy. Removed trees
will be replaced at a 1:1 basis from a diverse list of approved
species to enhance the neighborhood’s tree biodiversity.
4) Request input on tree replacement for removal as appropriate
based on point in process
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Background
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 8
Similar coordination will be completed near the conclusion of final
design for impacts to landscaping, retaining walls, driveways with
special paving materials within the public right-of-way, and unique water
service connections at the dead-end streets or off Blake Road
Curb Design Standard
Chapter VIII of the City of Hopkins’ Legislative Policy relates to reconstruction of local
streets. The policy addresses the City standard practice of improvements to be completed
when reconstructing local streets. The policy states that new and reconstructed local
streets are to have concrete curb and gutter installed. The function of this policy is to:
1. Reconstruct streets in a cost-effective manner for all Hopkins taxpayers and
residents.
2. Position the public infrastructure for cost-effective application of future major
maintenance projects.
3. Provide uniformity and consistency in the street product provided.
4. Effect a standard for which routine maintenance operations could be applied.
5. Effectively convey stormwater runoff to storm sewer.
6. Provide a vertical barrier for motor vehicles from lawns and sidewalks.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Edge Treatment Alternatives
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 9
II. Edge Treatment Alternatives
Thickened bituminous edge with underdrain
In 1998 improvements were completed to relatively (in comparison to the magnitude of
the neighborhood area) short portions of Holly Road and Preston Lane within the
Interlachen Park neighborhood. During development of the proposed improvements,
objections were made to the use of concrete curb and gutter edge treatments. After much
discussion, a thickened bituminous edge treatment with underdrain was implemented.
The thickened bituminous edge was equipped with a tapered bituminous non-wear
thickness from centerline to roadway edge, which involves a 1.5” thicker pavement at
roadway edge than centerline. This yields on average an additional 0.75” of bituminous
pavement and associated excavation across the full roadway surface. A detail for this
alternative at the roadway edge is as follows:
At catch basin inlets, bituminous curb
was used on the 1998 project in some
cases. From review of the catch basin
inlets, there appear to be some which
have sustained snowplow damage
where the castings protrude from the
bituminous pavement. If raised grates
were not provided to avoid such
damage, the inlets would more
susceptible to clogging due to leaves,
other debris, or snow/ice. As a result,
some amount of curb at inlets would be required for compatibility with storm drainage
inlets.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Edge Treatment Alternatives
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 10
Standup Bituminous Curb
Bituminous curbing is commonly used as a temporary
installation on reconstruction projects where roadway
edge or alignment shifts are anticipated in the relatively
near future. Historically this roadway edge treatment
was perceived as a cost savings measure, however
continued use of the product over time has shown that
initial costs are only slightly lower but ongoing
maintenance costs are much higher. Bituminous curb
has less resistance to damage caused by impacts of
snowplows and vehicles due to its small structural size
and weight as compared to concrete curb and gutter.
Below are photos of its use along Hopkins Crossroad
(CSAH 73) in northwest Hopkins. The curb in that
location routinely (annually or biannually) requires
spot replacement of large segments damaged by routine
snow plowing operations or vehicle impacts.
Additionally, bituminous curbing lacks a gutter pan to
convey stormwater that is separate from the roadway
pavement.
A typical section and of the bituminous curbing
alternative is as shown below. Drain tile is also planned
for some areas of the project as shown in the feasibility
report. Associated costs for underdrains were includes
in this alternative cost calculation as well as the
subsequent alternatives discussed in this report.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Edge Treatment Alternatives
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 11
Gutter-less concrete curb (B-style or similar)
A gutter-less curb alternative consists of a concrete
barrier style curb but without a concrete gutter pan
as shown in the detailed drawings below. The
bituminous street pavement directly abuts the face
of the curb. To achieve more rigidity and integrity,
concrete barrier curb is typically installed with its
base one foot beneath the pavement surface.
Without a gutter pan, water then flows along the
shallow channel that is created at the
bituminous/concrete interface. This joint can be
initially sealed to help reduce the amount of
infiltrating water, though in areas where the sealant
fails channelized water would flow into this joint.
From a long-term performance perspective,
concrete barrier curb typically leans toward or away
from the roadway given how slender it is shaped
vertically. Below is a photo of it along 14th Avenue
in Hopkins. Concrete barrier curb was commonly
used in Hopkins in the 1950s into the 1960s but has
been getting replaced on recent street and utility
reconstruction projects over the past 20 years with
more modernly used concrete curb and gutter.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Edge Treatment Alternatives
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 12
Concrete curb with integral color
It is feasible to install all of the concrete alternatives discussed herein with a colored
concrete mixture. The use of colored concrete is most often applied in walks or street
pavements on streetscaping projects where placemaking is of great importance, in
privately owned driveways or
patios, or in median sidewalk
pavements of collector roadways
for added aesthetic value within
commercial areas. Colored
concrete is typically about two
times the cost of its initial
installation cost. Value is still
achieved commonly in the typical
applications discussed above, but
there are some long-term
considerations that occur with
decision making related to its use,
including:
• The color within colored concrete fades over time. Therefore, its aesthetic value
gained as compared to traditional uncolored concrete is diminished over time.
• Darker colors tend to fade more quickly than lighter colors and have a higher
material cost.
• With the color fading over time, the color future spot replacements (where
necessary for utility repairs, failed concrete, or other reasons) will not perfectly
match the in-place concrete color.
• The availability of exact/specific colors provided by suppliers has not remained
consistent over time. Therefore, future continuity aspects need to be considered.
Functionally with respect to the
pavement system, a colored concrete’s
performance would be consistent with
other concrete edge alternatives. The
alternative proposed for this analysis is
a colored B618 concrete curb and gutter
with the precise color to be determined.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Edge Treatment Alternatives
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 13
Mountable concrete curb and gutter
Details and images for mountable concrete curb and gutter are below. In Minnesota
mountable curb types are most commonly used in new residential developments. With
costs similar to B618 or B612 curb and gutter, this curb type is preferred for residential
new developments by developers because it allows home builders flexibility in locating a
new driveway as custom homes are requested by prospective buyers.
Functional performance of mountable
concrete curb and gutter has several
similarities to traditional 6” tall
concrete curb and gutter. Runoff
water is provided a gutter pan, the
joint of which with bituminous
pavement can be sealed, to convey it
to storm water inlets. There are some
limitations to its functional
performance as compared to barrier
style curb however, which lead most
cities to not use it for street reconstruction efforts:
• Mountable curbing
typically has a 4” height as
measured from top/back of
curb to bottom of gutter
pan. This is a smaller
capacity for conveyance of
stormwater than traditional
6” tall barrier style curb.
The impact of this
difference is additional
storm water inlets are required to meet roadway design requirements for removal
of runoff from the street (‘spread calculations’).
• At catch basin inlets transition to 6” B-style concrete curb and gutter is still
recommended to match drainage inlet casting shapes. Thus, if surmountable
concrete curbing is desired for aesthetic reasons it should be understood that
some B-style curb would still be utilized.
• At intersection corners transition to 6” B-style concrete curb and gutter is still
recommended to provide a barrier to better prevent vehicle tracking over adjacent
turf areas. Most concrete curb and gutter is installed using a slip form paving
machine and can be used at intersection corners depending on the corner radius
and contractor’s desired means/methods for efficiency purposes. A slip form
option for contractors at these corners would be eliminated if transition to a
different curb style is required, such as from mountable to barrier style curbing.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Edge Treatment Alternatives
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 14
This is a less significant issue where mountable curb is used new developments
where common modern designs have winding roadways without as many
intersections as in a grid/block style street network.
• Mountable curb can be driven over more easily than 6” curb when motorists are
attempting to park vehicles along street corridors. Additionally, the curb style is
not as compatible with snow plowing operations as the blade of plows can gouge
the face of the surmountable curb or even inadvertently ride up the curb face to
turf areas behind the curb. There is therefore some increase in potential for
damage to areas behind the curb as opposed to similar risks for barrier style curb.
• Mountable curbing is in place in a handful of areas in Hopkins. Its most recent
use on a similar street and utility
reconstruction project was in 2006 when
18th Ave S, 19th Ave S, and 20th Ave S
were reconstructed between Mainstreet
and Excelsior Boulevard. A D412
concrete curb and gutter was used.
During construction of the project, some
concern was expressed by residents at
the time over the ‘bump’ associated with
driving over the mountable curb style
into driveways. Unmodified, this bump
is more greatly felt on mountable curb
styles due to the maintained 4” height (or
3” height if further stormwater capacity
decreases are acceptable) through
driveways. On barrier style curb types,
the height of curb back at driveways is
typically 1.5” which yields a lesser bump for residents accessing their driveway.
A typical section for a mountable curb and gutter edge treatment alternative is as follows:
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Edge Treatment Alternatives
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 15
Concrete curb and gutter – B612
For this comparison of alternatives, B612 is proposed as an alternative with reduced
gutter pan width which may or may not provide some improved aesthetic value
depending on the viewer. B612 concrete curb and gutter is commonly used as a standard
in some nearby communities, including the City of Minnetonka, though B618 is more
commonly used in the state. Its cost of installation is quite similar to B618 when all
factors are considered. B612 curb has slightly less integrity due to its smaller size and
slightly less stormwater capacity, though these differences are not major in comparison to
the benefits gained associated with have a defined concrete curb edge.
Concrete curb and gutter – B618
B618 concrete curb and gutter is the standard for use on street reconstruction projects in
the City of Hopkins.
Barrier style curb and gutter
(“Design B” per MnDOT) is
the most commonly used
roadway edge treatment in
Minnesota for local roadway
reconstruction projects. The
proposed edge treatment for
the Interlachen Park street
and utility improvements
project is a B618 concrete
curb and gutter. Within that
name:
• “B” describes the
design style of the
curb
• “6” is the height of the curb backing (H in the figure above) as vertically
measured in inches from its top/back to its gutter line
• “18” is the width of the gutter pan (“W” in the figure above) as horizontally
measured in inches from the curb face to the bituminous/concrete interface joint
While a designer could specify effectively an infinite variety of barrier style curb types
with different dimensions for the curb height and gutter pan width, there are industry
standard types that are most commonly used, including:
• B612, B618, and B624 for low speed urban roadway edges
• B418 and B424 for higher speed urban roadway edges – the lower curb height
has been found to better perform from a safety perspective at higher motor
vehicle speed
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Edge Treatment Alternatives
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 16
• B660 (or other wide gutter pan widths) for bicycle lanes
Deviation from these typical styles can and has been done in the area for project specific
reasons, however contractors typically would need to manufacture a new slip form ‘shoe’
for their installation equipment or would need to hand form custom specified dimensions.
These deviations therefore typically incur some labor related cost increase and most
communities therefore maintain consistency with the industry standards.
An aesthetic modification to this style of curb could also be implemented involving
application of a clear curing compound after its installation. All concrete lightens in color
as it cures. To retain water in the concrete without loss to evaporation, within 1 hour of
concrete placement a curing compound (a modified linseed oil) is sprayed onto the
concrete. Standard curing compounds are pigmented so the applicator can identify where
they have sprayed against the gray concrete. A white color is chosen because white
closely matches the color of cured concrete but still contrasts visually with the fresh
concrete. To minimize the white/black color contrast between concrete/bituminous
pavement interface, a clear curing compound could be used at no noticeable additional
cost to yield a light gray/black color contrast at the interface.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Edge Treatment Alternatives
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 17
Rural section roadway (ditches / driveway culverts)
Rural section roadways convey water with ditch sections rather than curb and gutter as is
typically done in an urban roadway section. Rural section roadways receive their name
because they are typically implemented within unincorporated areas or more rural
communities where land use
density is not as high and more
space therefore exists for ditch
installations.
Rural section roadways do not
typically have a concrete edge
treatment to convey runoff water
to storm sewer. Instead, the runoff
is shed away from the pavement
edge to adjacent ditches which
vary in width and depth. Across
driveways and roadway
connections, culverts are used to convey water from ditch to ditch. A typical cross section
for what this edge treatment alternative entails is approximately as follows:
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Edge Treatment Alternatives
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 18
Low Impact Development (LID)
The term low impact development (LID) refers to systems and practices that use or
mimic natural processes that result in the infiltration, evapotranspiration or use of
stormwater in order to protect water quality and associated aquatic habitat.8 In the context
of the Interlachen Park Project, interest has been expressed in eliminating concrete curb
and gutter in exchange for a LID design. The project team understands this to imply
runoff be routed away from a bituminous edge to various basins along the roadway edges
rather than through a concrete curb and gutter type system.
LID design often centers around the concept of decentralizing stormwater management
systems into numerous basins. As shown in the example below9, a developer may
propose numerous small basins (shown in green) rather than one relatively large basin.
This enables stormwater management requirements to be met while maximizing available
space for sellable lots and associated profit.
In the Interlachen Park Neighborhood, this design would entail the installation of basins
outside the roadway in the yards of adjacent residences, redirecting stormwater to such
basins in lieu of the existing storm sewer system, and incorporating bypass flow measures
to get runoff from extreme rainfall events to the storm sewer system. There are no
stormwater management requirements (ponding, etc.) that must be met based on the
project as proposed, thus the benefits of this alternative are limited compared to its
typical application.
8 https://www.epa.gov/nps/urban-runoff-low-impact-development
9 Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG), National Institute of Building Sciences,
https://www.wbdg.org/resources/low-impact-development-technologies
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Edge Treatment Alternatives
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 19
Invisible curb
Some residents of the Interlachen Park Neighborhood have expressed interest in what
they call an ‘invisible curb’. Images shared with the project team showed a typical
section/detail generally similar to the following:
This curb alternative is not commonly installed as part of reconstruction efforts. This curb
alternative is effectively created in some situations when major maintenance activities are
undertaken to overlay a roadway without milling. On such projects where the existing
condition is a standard B618 concrete curb and gutter set at typical elevations next to the
roadway, occasionally conditions are such that rather than milling out the interior
pavements, an overlay is conducted over the full width of the pavement and gutter pan.
The results are commonly as shown in the photo above, where the crack forms in the
overlying bituminous pavement over the underlying bituminous/concrete interface.
Mixture of alternatives
Some residents of Interlachen park have expressed interest in a mixture of roadway edge
treatment alternatives based upon aesthetic preferences of the adjacent property owners.
If this approach were considered, one which bases the roadway edge treatment decision
making process on a democratic vote-bases system, the City may wish to conduct
additional outreach to determine the neighborhood preferences on a block-by-block basis.
For purposes of this report, this alternative assumes a blend of thickened bituminous edge
alternative coupled with the proposed B618 concrete curb and gutter alternative. The
exact mixture on a block by block basis is not known.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Analysis
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 20
III. Analysis
Screening of Alternatives
A screening process was first conducted as part of this analysis and documentation
process. In terms of their application and feasibility within the Interlachen Park
neighborhood, two alternatives appear impractical, infeasible, and inconsistent with the
project goals, constraints, and requirements:
• Rural section roadway
The widening of the footprint of the roadway to create ditch sections through the
Interlachen Park neighborhood would result in heavy tree losses, likely not have
sufficient space in all areas to remain within the existing public right-of-way,
would not be supported by Hopkins Public Works for maintenance reasons, and
would not be supported by the public for a variety of reasons, particularly
including more significant and less desirable tree loss. This alternative was
considered but found to be infeasible.
• Low Impact Development
This design strategy is incompatible with the project design constraints and
project requirements. Low Impact Development based design is a common
practice implemented by developers with the goal of minimizing stormwater
management costs/space, while meeting project stormwater management
requirements and maximizing developable area. The introduction of stormwater
management features can be implemented as desired with any other alternative
discussed herein but would be above and beyond project requirements. If such
features are desired to be implemented as a practice to exceed project
requirements, it is recommended those features be woven into the chosen design
rather than used as the initial fundamental basis for design. For example, it would
not be prudent to locate a number of small ponds within the project area and then
design around them; Rather, one could design the improvements and fit rain
gardens or water quality treatment structures to the infrastructure design as
desired.
These two alternatives remain within the evaluation matrix included in Appendix A for
comparison. However, estimated costs were not further evaluated for these alternatives.
Initial Cost of Installation
The Interlachen Park project consists of a variety of components which generate project
cost, including full-width street pavement reconstruction, watermain and sanitary sewer
replacement, storm sewer construction, etc. An initial installation cost estimate has been
developed for each alternative and is provided in Appendix B.
The initial cost estimates described herein include the costs for infrastructure located
along the roadway edge. The original proposed roadway edge treatment included a B618
concrete curb and gutter, which is 26-inches in width as measured from back of curb to
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Analysis
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 21
the end of the gutter pan at the bituminous/concrete joint. Therefore, the initial
installation cost estimates provided function to demonstrate comparative costs between
alternatives, and in essence, a comparison between B618 concrete curb and gutter as
originally proposed against what it may be replaced with.
Based on the results of the screening process above, initial installation costs for
alternatives 10) Rural Section Roadway and 11) Low Impact Development have not been
quantified as these alternatives appear incompatible with the project constraints. The
initial installation cost for alternative 9) Mixture of Alternatives has also not been directly
quantified as this would require further definition as to which areas are to receive a
specified alternative treatment. Initial installation costs for 9) Mixture of Alternatives
have been indirectly quantified however, if provided a percentage of neighborhood for
each desired alternative one could determine a proportion-based comparative initial
installation cost for the provided mixture.
Of interest to neighborhood residents were the quantification of excavation costs between
alternatives. Estimated excavation volumes (and associated costs) were determined for
two primary alternatives to gauge the impact of each. A design for the surface profile and
associated topography was developed for Ashley Road, from its southerly limit to
Excelsior Boulevard, for an alternative design with B618 concrete curb and gutter as well
as an alternative design with no raised curbing. A cross sectional analysis was performed
at 25’ intervals for both alternatives, as shown in figures located in Appendix D. The
design centerline profile for each alternative, as well as the resultant roadway edge
profile, varies between the two alternatives. Constraints controlling the design centerline
profile primarily include:
• Maintaining acceptable driveway slopes approaching the roadway edge. An
acceptable driveway slope is between 1% and 10%. If existing driveways are
steeper than 10%, the new driveway will be a similar slope or flatter. If existing
driveways have slopes away from the roadway, attempts will be made to have the
driveway slope towards the road where feasible.
• Maintaining acceptable boulevard / front yard slopes approaching the roadway
edge. Positive drainage towards the roadway at a minimum and 4:1 (H:V)
maximum slopes were used for tie-in slopes on turf areas.
• Maintaining or creating acceptable longitudinal slopes. For alternatives with
curbing, a longitudinal slope as low as 0.50% is considered acceptable as
concrete can be formed and installed within reasonable tolerances to achieve
positive drainage at this specified slope. The alternative without a concrete
edging was designed with the understanding that bituminous alone cannot be
reasonably relied upon at longitudinal slopes flatter than approximately 1.0%
without acceptance of some ‘bird bath’ non-draining areas. The concrete curbing
alternative therefore has more flexibility in longitudinal design to match adjacent
driveways/boulevards, and thereby allowing more flexibility/opportunity to
reduce excavation volumes through effective iterative design.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Analysis
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 22
• Maintaining a 2% crowned cross slope on the pavement. Typical sections used
for the analysis are provided in the appendix. The curbless alternative was
developed to accurately account for the additional volume of excavation for
additional pavement thickness tapered toward the roadway edge as well as the
underdrain pipe.
The excavation volume analysis found that excavation volumes will vary from block to
block between the two alternatives. The cross section figures in Appendix D illustrate the
difference in volume (excavation or fill) between the existing ground surface and finished
ground surface. Similar, essentially equal, excavation will occur beneath the ground
surface to make room for pavement, aggregate base, and subbase for each alternative (i.e.
excavation for 8” aggregate base will be consistent for each alternative). These volumes
do not represent the total excavation for either alternative, which would require a
comparison between the existing ground surface and the proposed bottom of excavation
limits. The total volume is not necessary for this exercise because all of the alternatives
will have similar pavement thicknesses and result in similar excavations. The primary
difference in the excavation between alternatives, besides any thickened bituminous or
additional drain tile, is the change in grading which is best compared when reviewing the
surface, not the bottom of the excavation. Results were as follows:
Alternative Cut Volume (CY) Fill Volume (CY) Overall Excavation (CY)
Curb 380.65 194.96 185.04
No Curb 536.62 93.32 443.30
The overall excavation is the difference between cut and fill volume and the material
hauled off site.
In terms of overall impact on project cost, the excavation costs for the curbless alternative
is more than double the excavation costs for curb alternative. The curbless alternative
produced an excavation of 0.24 CY per foot of roadway, while the curb alternative
produced and excavation of 0.10 CY per foot of roadway. In addition to the difference in
cut vs. fill as described above, the curbless alternative also accounted for the additional
excavation for the thickened bituminous and the additional drain tile, while the curb
alternative accounted for the volume of the back of curb.
Life Cycle Cost Analysis
A life cycle cost estimate has been developed for each alternative and is provided in
Appendix C. The life cycle cost estimate has been based on a variety of factors, which
can be summarized as:
• Initial cost of installation
• Cost of ongoing major maintenance operations specific to each alternative
including:
o Crack Sealing & Seal Coating
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Analysis
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 23
o Cleaning Underdrains
o Mill & Overlay with Associated Preparations (patching, spot curb
replacement, etc.)
• Estimated service life of each alternative
The life cycle cost for each alternative is expressed in an estimated total cost (inclusive of
initial and ongoing maintenance) per year of service life.
As described and referenced earlier in this report, one major factor affecting a pavement’s
service life is whether it is saturated. Some alternatives, such as the “Thickened
Bituminous Edge with Underdrain” and “Invisible Curb” do not provide a sealed
roadway edge but instead rely upon an underdrain system to eliminate water which
infiltrates to the pavement surface and aggregate base. Studies completed at the
MnROAD test facility have noted that sealing a pavement edge can reduce the volume of
water entering the pavement system by as much as 85%. The Minnesota Local Road
Research Board (LRRB) report titled “Subsurface Drainage Manual for Pavements in
Minnesota” notes it is predicted that a reduction of 50% in the pavement service life if a
pavement base is saturated as little as 10% of the time.
The practice of sealing roadway edges and preventing water infiltration is therefore
directly correlated with increased pavement service life. The actual saturation of the
pavement system, and associated service life impacts, will vary across the Interlachen
Park neighborhood depending on a variety of factors including changing
underlying/adjacent soil conditions, adjacent drainage area (i.e. front and backyards
draining toward street versus only front yards toward street, etc.), pavement cross slope /
flow direction, pavement surface area / street width, etc. The effect on a pavement service
life impact will therefore also vary anywhere between 0% to 50% reduction in service life
depending on drainage conditions.
• Alternatives 1 and 8 (as numbered in the evaluation matrix), which lack the
opportunity for a sealed pavement edge treatment, had life cycle cost estimates
prepared based on a 20% reduction in service life.
• Alternatives 2 and 3, which lack a gutter pan and therefore rely exclusively on
the sealed joint to convey stormwater runoff, had life cycle cost estimates
prepared based on a 10% reduction in service life.
• Other alternatives had life cycle cost estimates prepared based on a standard 60-
year pavement service life with proper maintenance activities.
Evaluation Matrix for Comparison of Alternatives
The overarching function of this document is to document the evaluation of several
alternative roadway edge treatments and their associated benefits and detriments.
Roadway edge treatment considerations can be made on a wide variety of factors.
Additionally, the weight of one criterion versus another may vary from individual to
individual. To provide this information in a consolidated, digestible form for decision
makers and the public, an “Evaluation Matrix for Roadway Edge Treatment Alternatives”
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Analysis
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 24
was developed and is provided in Appendix A. The matrix describes how each
alternative addresses the criteria as follows:
Green: Best alternative / exceeds project requirements / best meets project goals
and constraints
Yellow: Meets project requirements / acceptably addresses project goals and
constraints
Red: Worst alternative / does not meet project requirements / worst addresses
project goals and meets project constraints
Components of the Evaluation Matrix considerations are summarized as follows:
1. Tree Loss Due to Roadway Edge Construction
Streets within the Interlachen Park Neighborhood have been assigned proposed
widths as documented in the Feasibility Report. The proposed width of each
roadway was based on a variety of factors, most notably:
• Existing roadway width
• Available space with consideration given to minimizing impacts to
significant trees and other prominent surface features
• Consistent roadway width from corridor to corridor
• Not increasing total impervious surface area by more than 10,000 square
feet for the full project area.
In large part, with exception to alternatives considered that require additional
facilities such as ditches or basins outside the roadway, there is no difference
between alternatives with respect to tree impacts.
2. Tree Loss Due to Utility Impacts, Poor / Dying / Dead Condition, and
Undesirable Species (Ash)
Evaluations of tree losses for these reasons has been completed on a preliminary
basis and the process for confirming final proposed tree removals is underway.
Proposed tree removals identified due to underlying utility replacement needs,
due to trees in poor condition are dying or are dead, and of undesirable species
are not related to roadway edge treatments (i.e. curb versus other alternatives).
Each alternative will therefore involve the same number of unrelated tree
removals, and all alternatives are consistently ranked within the evaluation
matrix.
3. Initial Installation Cost of the Roadway Edge Treatment
This component of the evaluation matrix is taken directly from the estimated
costs of each alternative provided in Appendix B. The following range was used
for cell coloring:
Green: Under $1,250,000
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Analysis
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 25
Yellow: $1,250,000 to $1,500,000
Red: Over $1,500,000
4. Ability to Keep Moisture Out of Pavement Base & Subgrade
A pavement’s ability to keep water out of the underlying layers is a primary
function serving its longevity. This criterion evaluates how each alternative
addresses moisture / drainage of the pavement.
5. Life cycle cost of Roadway Edge Treatment Portion
This component of the evaluation matrix is taken directly from the estimated
costs of each alternative provided in Appendix B. The following range was used
for cell coloring:
Green: Under $30,000
Yellow: $30,000 to $40,000
Red: Over $40,000
6. Turf Impacts
During the preliminary engineering and
associated public engagement process, some
residents expressed interest in having a
vertical barrier to prevent vehicles and snow
plows from disrupting lawns. In some
instances, property owners have taken to
placing fixed objects (reflective markers,
stones, landscaping, etc.) along the roadway
edge to delineate it and prevent damage.
Some alternatives propose temporary storage
or conveyance of stormwater through turf
areas adjacent to the roadway. Form past
experience on similar projects, it is known to
the project team and City that storage of
public stormwater runoff in lawns, even if in
the public right-of-way, is not well-received
by adjacent property owners. This is
particularly poorly received in late winter /
early spring months when frozen ground
conditions and lingering snowbanks prohibit
proper drainage from lawns and therefore
prohibit the enjoyment and use of lawns by
adjacent owners.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Analysis
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 26
This criterion evaluates the ability of each option to address these concerns and
project constraints related to turf areas adjacent to the roadway edge.
7. Stormwater Conveyance Capacity & Continuity with Drainage Inlet Castings
Roadways are almost always ‘crowned’ meaning the
center of the roadway is higher than the roadway edges.
It is therefore the duty of the roadway edges to
convey/transport water from the street to either a ditch
system or a storm sewer inlet.
The storm sewer inlets selected by the City of Hopkins
(and almost all other roadway authorities) involve a
slotted grate typically located in a concrete gutter pan as
well as a hooded opening above the gutter for high flows
or in the event the grate becomes clogged. The
alternatives vary in their compatibility with this type of
structure.
This criterion evaluates the stormwater conveyance
functionality of each alternative as it relates to the edge
treatment’s ability to get water to its intended destination
in a reliable fashion.
8. Consistency with similar projects constructed in other communities – contractor
risks
Project cost estimates provided in this analysis are based on historically observed
unit prices as bid by contractors on similar projects. Similarly, estimates for time
of construction are based on observations of work completed on past similar
projects. In some cases, particularly where innovative / atypical designs are
completed, actual costs of work and the associated duration to complete the work
may significantly increase as a result of contractor uncertainty / contractor risk
aversion. Contractors are often hesitant to complete work which they are
inexperienced with, particularly when they are required to provide a two-year
warranty as is the City of Hopkins standard. In response to that risk, contractors
typically either extend the schedule for the work or, as is more often, increase the
associated price bid to account for risk.
Contractors will be required to provide a two-year warranty for the project, but
given certain conditions, may make claims of a warranty being voided if a
product design is inadequate. For example, with respect to edge treatment
alternatives; if the invisible curb alternative were chosen and if cracking
consistently develop along it as is anticipated, a contractor may argue that the
warranty of the cracked pavement and associated pavement infrastructure is void.
The contractor’s argument would be strengthened if it could be proven such
cracking should have been anticipated during the project design process and is
therefore outside the contractor’s control.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Analysis
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 27
This criterion was established to compare the consistency of the alternative to
what work is being commonly completed in other communities, thereby
providing reference as to how it may be perceived by contractors and the
associated risks to the project.
9. Stormwater management
Each alternative meets the project stormwater management requirements.
Stormwater pond, rain garden, or other permanent stormwater management
construction is not required for any alternative as conceptualized. The “Low
Impact Development” alternative however, proposes to implement permanent
stormwater management features in the lawns of adjacent properties for
stormwater quality and rate control benefits.
This criterion evaluates how each alternative address project stormwater
management requirements.
10. Aesthetics
The public has expressed an interest in considering the aesthetics of the roadway
improvements.
• A petition has been circulated to neighborhood residents demanding
alternatives to concrete curb and gutter be considered. From discussions
with those leading the effort to circulate this petition, the project team
was informed the primary objection to B618 concrete curb and gutter is
their dissatisfaction with the aesthetics of a raised curb along the
roadway edge, regardless of raised height and gutter pan presence/width.
This testimony is in conflict with Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 (as
numbered/labeled in Appendix A).
• Input has been received from other residents noting their dissatisfaction
with the existing roadway edge treatments (without raised curb) from an
aesthetic perspective, as vehicles may park on lawns and snowplow
impacts can be encountered. Some also feel that roadways with concrete
curbing looks more finished and traditional. This testimony is in conflict
with Alternatives 1, 5, 8, and 9.
• Input has been received that the preservation of trees is of utmost
aesthetic importance. This testimony is in conflict with alternatives 10
and 11 which would involve heavy losses of significant trees.
Aesthetic testimony has been received in conflict with every alternative. The
conflicting / subjective opinions on what is aesthetically pleasing therefore
cannot be objectively differentiated based on this input. Without clarity on a
collective aesthetic consensus, all alternatives were provided a consistent
‘yellow’ ranking. Individual users of the evaluation matrix may desire to consider
this criterion based on their individual opinion of the roadway aesthetics.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Analysis
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 28
11. Disruption / Temporary Construction Impacts
This criterion was included for evaluation of the duration and magnitude of
temporary construction impacts.
For example, the installation of concrete requires approximately 5 to 7 days to
adequately cure or harden to sufficiently support vehicles. During that time, as is
typical with street and utility construction, access to residential driveways is
restricted and residents will be required to park on the roadway adjacent to their
home.
The installation of concrete as part of the roadway edge treatment (as opposed to
bituminous or gravel edging) may or may not result in an overall increased
construction duration. While the concrete curb and gutter cures to support vehicle
weights, depending on whether the contractor is ahead of or lagging on its
schedule as compared to contractual deadlines, the contractor may continue to
complete the following street and utility construction efforts:
• Completion of concrete curbing at catch basins, intersection radii, or
other locations within the project area.
• The addition of aggregate base to the roadway in preparation for
bituminous street paving.
• Backfill of concrete curbing outside the roadway in preparation for
placement of topsoil borrow.
It is not anticipated that the deletion of concrete edging will reduce the total
duration of the neighborhood construction. It is anticipated that the contractors
working on the project will allocate staffing and equipment resources necessary
to meet project deadlines. The roadway edge treatment is a relatively small
component of the project in comparison to the construction effort associated with
the other roadway and utility components of the project, and therefore a
substantive reduction in project deadlines would not be recommended.
Evaluation of each alternative was completed in consideration of these factors
related to temporary impacts.
12. Continuity with Routine City of Hopkins Maintenance Practices
The Hopkins Public Works Department is responsible for ongoing maintenance
operations for the Interlachen Park neighborhood streets following completion of
the project. The quality and costs of maintenance are benefitted by having a
consistent set of infrastructure components throughout the community that can be
matched with staff training and equipment ideally suited for community-wide
maintenance activities.
The City of Hopkins has completed significant street and utility reconstruction
projects for over 20 years utilizing similar concrete curb and gutter edge
treatments which require similar maintenance routines and programming.
CONCRETE CURB/GUTTER ALTERNATIVES REVIEW
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Analysis
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 29
Significant deviation from past practices in favor of a unique edge treatment (the
loss of continuity with the rest of the community) in the Interlachen Park
neighborhood would be a detriment to the quality and cost of ongoing
maintenance activities and programming.
As one example, Hopkins Public Works is not equipped or have programs in
place to routinely replace large segments of bituminous curb damaged plowing
operations, which is a common occurrence with bituminous curbing. In such
cases, the duration that defective bituminous curb were to remain in place would
increase, thereby demonstrating a detriment to the quality of maintenance
operations that should be anticipated with the bituminous curb alternative 2.
The following input was provided by the City’s Streets Superintendent:
• Curb defines the street edge for the plow so plows can move over to the
edge of the street, feel the curb, and plow the street to full width. You
can’t do that without curb or you’ll roll up sod so plows will plow less
than full width if there is no curb.
• Having a curb edge allows the plows to get closer to the edge when
wrapping corners so the snow in the corners gets off the street which can
improve visibility, drivability, and drainage. Again, without curbs we’d
roll up sod on the corners trying to reach the street edge.
• With a straight plowed street edge, against a curb, thawed snow and ice
have a better opportunity to drain away in the curb line and there is less
refreezing in the street. This can be especially helpful at driveway ends.
The refreezing at driveway ends can damage the blacktop in front of the
driveway over time.
• Sod creeps into the street over time because we cannot run the street
sweeper along the true edge of the street or we will pull up sod with the
broom. The street becomes narrowed over time and narrower when the
plows have to stay away from the edge.
This criterion was used for evaluation of continuity from an ongoing
maintenance perspective.
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Recommendations
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 30
IV. Recommendations
The typical decision-making process for determining which edge treatment is most appropriate
has become largely based on industry standards which were developed through decades of
collective experience across numerous agencies. The function of this exercise was to provide
reference to industry standards, alternative considerations made prior to and during development
of this project, estimates of initial installation cost, and estimates of long-term life cycle costs for
each edge treatment alternative.
The evaluation matrix provides a consolidated review of the proposed alternatives. The following
aspects were most notable from this evaluation:
1. There is no anticipated difference in number of trees lost due to either
alternative. Tree losses proposed are primarily due to utility impacts,
poor/dead/dying tree condition, or undesirable tree species; none of which are
influenced by roadway edge alternative chosen.
2. Industry accepted research has completed along similar roadway joints located
within the region documenting the benefits to pavement systems resulting from
having adequate control of subgrade moisture causes. The most effective results
are anticipated from having a concrete curb with gutter and a sealed
bituminous/concrete interface.
3. The City of Hopkins standard is for installation of concrete curb and gutter
during street reconstruction. The concrete curb and gutter alternatives have the
lowest life cycle cost of all alternatives quantified, primarily due to:
• A relatively low installation cost.
• Ability to lengthen the life of the pavement by providing a confined concrete
edge
• An opportunity for a sealed bituminous/concrete joint with a continuous
gutter pan, as is routinely completed on Hopkins projects.
• Less costly future major maintenance efforts.
4. B612 concrete curb and gutter alternative provided similar life cycle cost
estimates within three percent ($36,000 over 60 years) of the B618 alternative.
5. The mountable curb and gutter alternative also provided similar life cycle cost
estimates, but at slightly higher life cycle cost of about five percent higher
($66,000 over 60 years) than the B618 concrete curb and gutter alternative.
6. The ‘no-curb’ thickened bituminous edge alternative was found to be 40% more
costly on an annual basis ($440,000 over 48 years) than the B618 concrete curb
and gutter alternative.
7. It is recognized that a petition has circulated regarding opposition to the initial
proposal of concrete curb and gutter installation. Through discussions between
City Staff and organizers of the petition, City Staff has learned the petition
organizers’ preference on edge treatment is based in aesthetics. A definitive,
comprehensive aesthetic preference held by all project stakeholders could not be
identified based on all input received.
Prepared for: City of Hopkins, MN Recommendations
Interlachen Park Street & Utility Improvement ǀ BMI T19.118342 Page 31
8. A concrete curb and gutter system is preferred by Hopkins Public Works for
routine maintenance operations. A B6 style curb would best support those
efforts.
A concrete curb and gutter alternative is recommended for the Interlachen Park Street & Utility
Improvements Project. The following are two recommended alternatives in consideration of the
findings of this report:
• B618 concrete curb and gutter
• B612 concrete curb and gutter if a narrower gutter pan is desired for aesthetic
purposes. Modifications to the curb style could be made at catch basin inlets for
compatibility with City Standards at those locations.
The two recommended alternatives are within three percent in terms of estimated life cycle cost.
The actual cost of installation and long-term maintenance will be based on a variety of economic
factors impacting contractors. The three percent difference in life cycle cost is negligible over the
anticipated 60-year life cycle. A B612 alternative, with its narrower footprint, may also yield
some aesthetic benefits over B618 which has received more vocal aesthetic criticism.
Additionally, if desired for aesthetic purposes, a clear curing compound could be used to lessen
the color contrast between concrete edge treatment and bituminous surfacing.
Appendix A: Evaluation Matrix for Roadway
Edge Treatment Alternatives
1. Thickened bituminous edge with
underdrain (no curb)$1,060,000 $32,000
Best alternative/exceeds project requirements/best meets project goals and constraintsMeets project requirements/acceptably addresses project goals and contraintsWorst alternative/does not meet project requirements/does not address project goals and meets project constraintsInitial installation cost of roadway edge treatment Tree loss due to roadway edge constructionTree loss due to utility impacts, poor condition, and undesirable speciesAbility to keep moisture out of pavement base and subgradeTurf impactsStormwater conveyance capacity and continuity with drainage inlet castingsConsistency with similar projects constructed in other communities -Contractor costs, installation riskStormwater managementAesthetics Disruption/temporary construction impacts Continuity with routine city of Hopkins maintenance practicesLife cycle cost of roadway edge treatment portionLEGEND$1,350,000 $51,900
$1,380,000 $37,700
$1,970,000 $46,400
$1,150,000 $23,900
$1,040,000 $23,400
$1,080,000 $22,800
$1,440,000 $42,400
Varies Varies
NA NA
NA NA
2. Standup bituminous curb
3. Gutter-less concrete curb (B-style or
similar)
4. Concrete curb with integral color
5. Mountable concrete curb
6. Concrete curb and gutter--B612, clear
curing compound sub-option
7. Concrete curb and gutter--B618, clear
curing compound sub-option
8. Invisible curb
9. Mixture of alternatives
10. Rural section roadway (ditches/
driveway culverts)
11. Low-impact development (rain
gardens/basins/storm sewer/culverts)
Roadway Edge Alternative Evaluation Matrix
Appendix B: Estimates of Comparative Initial
Installation Costs
Estimates of Comparative Initial Costs: Edge Treatment Portion of RoadwayINTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTSCITY OF HOPKINS, MNBMI PROJECT NO. T19.118342ItemUnitUnit PriceQuantityCostQuantityCostQuantityCostQuantityCostQuantityCostCOMMON EXCAVATIONCU YD24.00$ 9459227,016$ 5110122,640$ 4624110,976$ 4624110,976$ 4624110,976$ CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASETON18.00$ 183633,048$ 183633,048$ 103318,594$ -$ -$ BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE (SPWEA240C)TON85.00$ 113196,135$ 1412120,020$ 78266,470$ -$ 18015,300$ BITUMINOUS NON-WEARING COURSE (SPNWB230C)TON75.00$ 3978298,350$ 1412105,900$ 78258,650$ -$ 18013,500$ BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COATGAL3.50$ 4921,722$ 6002,100$ 3401,190$ -$ 40140$ 6" PERF PIPE DRAINLIN FT10.00$ 40801408,010$ 23132231,320$ 23132231,320$ 23132231,320$ 23132231,320$ BITUMINOUS CURBLIN FT18.00$ -$ 40801734,418$ -$ -$ -$ B8 GUTTERLESS CURBLIN FT22.00$ -$ -$ 40801897,622$ -$ -$ COLORED CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERLIN FT40.00$ -$ -$ -$ 408011,632,040$ -$ D412 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERLIN FT19.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 40801775,219$ B612 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERLIN FT16.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERLIN FT18.00$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL1,060,000$ 1,350,000$ 1,380,000$ 1,970,000$ 1,150,000$ Estimates of Comparative Initial Installation CostsThickened Bituminous Edge w/ UnderdrainStandup Bituminous Curb Gutter-less Concrete Curb Concrete Curb w/ Integral ColorMountable Concrete Curb & Gutter
Estimates of Comparative Initial Costs: Edge Treatment Portion of RoadwayINTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTSCITY OF HOPKINS, MNBMI PROJECT NO. T19.118342ItemUnitUnit PriceCOMMON EXCAVATIONCU YD24.00$ CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASETON18.00$ BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE (SPWEA240C)TON85.00$ BITUMINOUS NON-WEARING COURSE (SPNWB230C)TON75.00$ BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COATGAL3.50$ 6" PERF PIPE DRAINLIN FT10.00$ BITUMINOUS CURBLIN FT18.00$ B8 GUTTERLESS CURBLIN FT22.00$ COLORED CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERLIN FT40.00$ D412 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERLIN FT19.00$ B612 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERLIN FT16.00$ B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERLIN FT18.00$ TOTALEstimates of Comparative Initial Installation CostsQuantityCostQuantityCostQuantityCost4624110,976$ 4624110,976$ 6261150,264$ 3446,192$ -$ 56710,206$ 26122,185$ -$ 86973,865$ 26119,575$ -$ 86965,175$ 113396$ -$ 110385$ 23132231,320$ 23132231,320$ 40801408,010$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 40801652,816$ -$ -$ -$ 40801734,418$ 40801734,418$ 1,040,000$ 1,080,000$ 1,440,000$ B612 Concrete Curb & GutterB618 Concrete Curb & GutterInvisible Concrete Curb
Appendix C: Estimates of Comparative Life
Cycle Costs
Estimates of Comparative Life Cycle Costs: Edge Treatment Portion of RoadwayINTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTSCITY OF HOPKINS, MNBMI PROJECT NO. T19.118342Life Span Ratio of Bit Edge vs. Conc. Curb:80%Life Span Ratio of Bit Curb vs. Conc. Curb:90%YearMaintenanceCostYearMaintenanceCostYearMaintenanceCostYearMaintenanceCost0Reconstruction1,060,000$ 0Reconstruction1,350,000$ 0Reconstruction1,380,000$ 0Reconstruction1,970,000$ 4Crack Seal & Seal Coat19,911$ 4Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 4Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 4Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 10Crack Seal & Seal Coat19,911$ 11Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 11Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 12Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 16Mill & Overlay177,200$ 18Mill & Overlay691,275$ 18Mill & Overlay293,475$ 20Mill & Overlay408,000$ 20Crack Seal & Seal Coat19,911$ 22Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 22Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 24Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 26Crack Seal & Seal Coat19,911$ 29Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 29Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 32Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 32Mill & Overlay177,200$ 36Mill & Overlay691,275$ 36Mill & Overlay293,475$ 40Mill & Overlay408,000$ 36Crack Seal & Seal Coat19,911$ 40Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 40Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 44Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 42Crack Seal & Seal Coat19,911$ 47Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 47Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 52Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 48ReconstructionTBD54ReconstructionTBD54ReconstructionTBD60ReconstructionTBDTotal Costs before 2nd Reconstruction1,534,000$ Total Costs before 2nd Reconstruction2,800,000$ Total Costs before 2nd Reconstruction2,034,000$ Total Costs before 2nd Reconstruction2,786,000$ Cost per Year32,000$ Cost per Year51,900$ Cost per Year37,700$ Cost per Year46,400$ Thickened Bituminous Edge w/ Underdrain Standup Bituminous Curb Gutter-less Concrete Curb Concrete Curb w/ Integral Color
Estimates of Comparative Life Cycle CostsINTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTSCITY OF HOPKINS, MNBMI PROJECT NO. T19.118342Life Span Ratio of Bit Edge vs. Conc. Curb:80%Life Span Ratio of Bit Curb vs. Conc. Curb:90%YearMaintenanceCostYearMaintenanceCostYearMaintenanceCostYearMaintenanceCost0Reconstruction1,150,000$ 0Reconstruction1,080,000$ 0Reconstruction1,040,000$ 0Reconstruction1,440,000$ 4Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 4Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 4Crack Seal & Seal Coat3,733$ 4Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 12Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 12Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 12Crack Seal & Seal Coat3,733$ 10Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 20Mill & Overlay142,800$ 20Mill & Overlay142,800$ 20Mill & Overlay169,225$ 16Mill & Overlay262,875$ 24Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 24Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 24Crack Seal & Seal Coat3,733$ 20Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 32Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 32Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 32Crack Seal & Seal Coat3,733$ 26Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 40Mill & Overlay142,800$ 40Mill & Overlay142,800$ 40Mill & Overlay169,225$ 32Mill & Overlay262,875$ 44Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 44Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 44Crack Seal & Seal Coat3,733$ 36Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 52Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 52Crack Seal & Seal Coat-$ 52Crack Seal & Seal Coat3,733$ 42Crack Seal & Seal Coat11,200$ 60ReconstructionTBD60ReconstructionTBD60ReconstructionTBD48ReconstructionTBDTotal Costs before 2nd Reconstruction1,436,000$ Total Costs before 2nd Reconstruction1,366,000$ Total Costs before 2nd Reconstruction1,401,000$ Total Costs before 2nd Reconstruction2,033,000$ Cost per Year23,900$ Cost per Year22,800$ Cost per Year23,400$ Cost per Year42,400$ B612 Concrete Curb & Gutter Invisible Concrete CurbB618 Concrete Curb & GutterMountable Concrete Curb & Gutter
Appendix D: Cross Sectional Analysis for
Evaluation of Roadway Excavation Depth Due
to Curbing
R/WTYPICAL SECTION - ASHLEY ROAD
STA 11+22 TO STA 29+00
30'
13'
30'
VARIES
4
℄
4" TOPSOIL MIN
TC=100.18
2.00%2.00%
B618
CURB &
GUTTERCL=100.00
PROPOSED
CENTERLINE
GRADE
0.67'R/WBLVD LIMITS VARY
SEE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (TYP)
CUL-DE-SAC TO EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
13'
VARIES
TC=100.18
2.00%
B618
CURB &
GUTTER
0.67'
BLVD LIMITS VARY
SEE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (TYP)
2" TYPE SP WEARING COURSE (SPWEA240C) (2360)
BITUMINOUS TACK COAT (2357)
2" TYPE SP NON-WEARING COURSE (SPNWB230C) (2360)
8" AGGREGATE BASE, CL 5 (2211)
SUBGRADE PREPARATION (2112) (INCIDENTAL)
MASTIC AT TOE OF CURB (TYP.)
DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\118342C101.dwg 10/3/2019 5:37:54 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342
C1.01
ASHLEY RD EXHIBITS
TYPICAL SECTIONS ARE NOT TO SCALE
900
905
910
915
920
925
930
935
940
945
900
905
910
915
920
925
930
935
940
945
2.82%
2.00%-2.00%-0.75%1.03%-0.50%
-2.00%-3.59%
-1.25%VPI: 10+67.85EL: 923.93VPI: 10+91.33EL: 923.46VPI: 17+29.29EL: 925.72VPI: 17+44.29EL: 926.02VPI: 17+59.29EL: 925.72VPI: 15+70
EL: 924.91
A = -1.79%
K = 55.84
L=100'
VPI: 16+75
EL: 925.99
A = -1.52%
K = 65.68
L=100'VPI: 11+37.93
EL: 921.79
A = 2.34%
K = 21.37
L=50'
VPI: 13+60
EL: 919.00
A = 4.07%
K = 61.42
L=250'HP: 16+92.33EL: 925.82LP: 13+12.04EL: 920.08VPC: 15+20EL: 923.51VPC: 16+25EL: 925.48VPC: 18+00EL: 925.41VPT: 11+62.93EL: 921.47VPT: 14+85EL: 922.52VPT: 16+20EL: 925.43VPT: 17+25EL: 925.74VPC: 11+12.93EL: 922.68VPC: 12+35EL: 920.57924.410+50 923.79923.6923.15922.911+00 922.28922.4921.67922.011+50 921.32921.6921.01921.312+00 920.69921.0920.40920.712+50 920.20920.5920.10920.313+00 920.10920.2920.20920.413+50 920.41920.5920.71920.814+00 921.12921.2921.63921.814+50 922.25922.3922.94923.015+00 923.64923.7924.27924.315+50 924.78924.9925.19925.416+00 925.48925.6925.69925.716+50 925.80925.8925.82925.917+00 925.74926.0925.91925.917+50 925.60925.6925.41925.418+00IVBXOEOEOEOEOEOEOCOCOCOCGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCBENCHMARKTNH=924.55CCCCCCCCCCOCOCOCOCOCOC262 238254 230 220
209
201
204
265
253
245 237
221
210
IVBXOEOEOEOEOEOEOCOCOCOCGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCBENCHMARKTNH=924.55CCCCCCCCCCOCOCOCOCOCOC11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00703+00704+00DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\118342C6_ASHLEY.dwg 10/4/2019 12:33:36 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342 RC6.03STREET PLAN & PROFILE
ASHLEY ROAD
FEETSCALE
0 25 50
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
ASHLEY ROAD GOODRICH STEX ROW (TYP.)
PROPOSED ℄ PROFILE
EXISTING ℄ PROFILE
2
2
2 42
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
2
4
4" CONCRETE WALK
6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
8" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY/TRAIL
7" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER
6" CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
SALVAGE REINSTALL PAVERS
CUSTOM CONCRETE DRIVEWAY/WALK (SPECIAL)
R-1733 CASTING
R-3067-V CASTING
CONCRETE PAVEMENT AS NOTED
BITUMINOUS STREET PAVEMENT
BITUMINOUS TRAIL/DRIVEWAY AS NOTED
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
B618 CURB & GUTTER, EXCEPT AS NOTED
ADA 2.0% MAX SLOPE (ALL DIRECTIONS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
LEGEND
4
8
900
905
910
915
920
925
930
935
940
945
900
905
910
915
920
925
930
935
940
945
-0.75%
-1.37%
2.00%-2.00%
-1.32%
1.20%VPI: 24+01.25EL: 917.60VPI: 24+16.25EL: 917.90VPI: 24+31.25EL: 917.60VPI: 18+50
EL: 925.04
A = -0.62%
K = 162.42
L=100'
VPI: 25+10
EL: 918.54
A = -0.69%
K = 72.30
L=50'
VPI: 22+25
EL: 919.92
A = 0.05%
K = 1019.97
L=50'VPC: 18+00EL: 925.41VPC: 24+85EL: 918.24VPT: 22+50EL: 919.59VPT: 19+00EL: 924.36VPC: 22+00EL: 920.26925.60925.617+75 925.41925.418+00 925.21925.2924.96924.918+50 924.68924.6924.36924.219+00 924.02923.9923.67923.619+50 923.33923.3922.99922.920+00 922.65922.6922.31922.420+50 921.97922.1921.63921.721+00 921.29921.3920.94921.021+50 920.60920.7920.26920.422+00 919.92920.1919.59919.922+50 919.26919.5918.93919.223+00 918.60918.9918.27918.623+50 917.95918.2917.62918.124+00 917.72918.1917.82918.224+50 918.12918.3918.41918.525+00 918.61918.625+25PXOUOUOUGGE
E E E E
G G G G G G G G G G G GGG G G G G
XXGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGBENCHMARKTNH=921.06I= N 910.89G G
GGGGCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC C C C CBENCHMARKTNH=924.55EEEEC152
153
146
130
105
100
113121
120
106
46
35
145
133 PXOUOUOUGGE
E E E E
G G G G G G G G G G G GGG G G G G
XXGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGBENCHMARKTNH=921.06I= N 910.89G G
GGGGCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC C C C CBENCHMARKTNH=924.55EEEEC138
18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00
25+00603+00604+00DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\118342C6_ASHLEY.dwg 10/4/2019 12:34:32 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342 RC6.04STREET PLAN & PROFILE
ASHLEY ROAD
FEETSCALE
0 25 50
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
ASHLEY ROADGOODRICH STBOYCE STPROPOSED ℄ PROFILE
EXISTING ℄ PROFILE
2
4
2 1 2 2 2 2 1
12222
4" CONCRETE WALK
6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
8" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY/TRAIL
7" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER
6" CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
SALVAGE REINSTALL PAVERS
CUSTOM CONCRETE DRIVEWAY/WALK (SPECIAL)
R-1733 CASTING
R-3067-V CASTING
CONCRETE PAVEMENT AS NOTED
BITUMINOUS STREET PAVEMENT
BITUMINOUS TRAIL/DRIVEWAY AS NOTED
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
B618 CURB & GUTTER, EXCEPT AS NOTED
ADA 2.0% MAX SLOPE (ALL DIRECTIONS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
LEGEND
1
9
0.50%-1.07%VPI: 29+10.63EL: 917.87VPI: 25+10
EL: 918.54
A = -0.69%
K = 72.30
L=50'
VPI: 27+40
EL: 919.70
A = -1.58%
K = 63.44
L=100'HP: 27+21.96EL: 919.53EL: 918.24VPC: 26+90EL: 919.45VPT: 25+35EL: 918.67VPT: 27+90EL: 919.16918.41918.525+00 918.61918.6918.74918.825+50 918.87919.0918.99919.126+00 919.12919.2919.25919.426+50 919.37919.5919.49919.527+00 919.53919.7919.47919.827+50 919.31919.6919.06919.428+00 918.79919.3918.52919.028+50 918.25918.5917.98918.129+00 29+50CGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
X X X X X X
XXX X X X
OU OU OU OU OU OU OUOUOUOUG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
XXXXXXBENCHMARKTNH=922.40BENCHMARKTNH=922.00G G G G G G G
GGGGGGGC C C C C
CCC C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C S1
5
"
R
C
P 48" RCP42" RCP18" RCP42" RCP
15
"
R
C
P
18" RCPCCCCC42
35
20
8311130129
1016
CGE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
X X X X X X
XXX X X X
OU OU OU OU OU OU OUOUOUOUG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
XXXXXXBENCHMARKTNH=922.40BENCHMARKTNH=922.00G G G G G G G
GGGGGGGC C C C C
CCC C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C S1
5
"
R
C
P 48" RCP42" RCP18" RCP42" RCP
15
"
R
C
P
18" RCPCCCCC25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 30+10
500+00501+00900
905
910
915
920
925
930
935
940
945
918.2900
905
910
915
920
925
930
935
940
945
DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\118342C6_ASHLEY.dwg 10/4/2019 12:35:33 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342 RC6.05STREET PLAN & PROFILE
ASHLEY ROAD
FEETSCALE
0 25 50
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
ASHLEY ROAD
EX ROW (TYP.)
PROPOSED ℄ PROFILE
EXISTING ℄ PROFILE EXCELSIOR BLVDPRESTON LN2
2
2
4
1
1 2
4
42 4
2
4
2 7
4" CONCRETE WALK
6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
8" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY/TRAIL
7" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER
6" CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
SALVAGE REINSTALL PAVERS
CUSTOM CONCRETE DRIVEWAY/WALK (SPECIAL)
R-1733 CASTING
R-3067-V CASTING
CONCRETE PAVEMENT AS NOTED
BITUMINOUS STREET PAVEMENT
BITUMINOUS TRAIL/DRIVEWAY AS NOTED
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
B618 CURB & GUTTER, EXCEPT AS NOTED
ADA 2.0% MAX SLOPE (ALL DIRECTIONS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
LEGEND
10+75
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
10+91.33
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
11+20.50
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
11+50
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
11+73.97
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
11+98.58
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
12+25
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
12+46.54
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
12+75
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
12+99.25
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
13+25
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
13+50
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
13+66.90
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
14+00
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
14+04.03
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
-40 -30 -20 -10 923.6923.79CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 923.1923.46CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 922.5922.50CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 922.0921.90CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 921.6921.57CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 921.3921.23CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 921.0920.87CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.8920.58CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.5920.31CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.3920.19CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.2920.16CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.4920.25CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.5920.37CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.8920.73CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.9920.79CL +10 +20 +30 +40
19.8923.825.7924.631.0925.524.2924.4-19.8923.417.8%1:6
12.1%1:8 14.8%1:79.6%
1:10 25.7923.434.6925.3-25.7923.4-34.1923.82.0%
20.7%1:5
2.0%5.2%
1:19 13.7922.6-13.7922.6-28.8922.82.0%1.3%1:772.0%1.6%1:63 13.7921.829.9922.8-13.7921.8-30.1922.42.0%5.7%1:182.0%3.1%1:32 13.7921.529.8921.9-13.7921.12.0%2.4%1:422.0%6.7%13.7920.8-13.7921.2-30.2922.02.0%5.7%2.0%
4.5%
1:22 13.7920.924.1921.2-13.7920.9-29.5921.12.0%3.1%1:322.0%1.7%1:59 13.7920.2-13.7920.6-20.4921.02.0%10.4%2.0%5.7%
1:18 13.7920.424.3920.8-13.7920.4-19.0920.72.0%3.9%1:262.0%5.7%
1:18 13.7920.324.1920.8-13.7919.92.0%4.8%1:212.0%6.2%13.7920.329.6920.8-13.7920.3-30.4920.52.0%3.5%1:292.0%1.5%1:65 13.7920.429.6921.1-13.7920.4-30.4920.62.0%4.5%1:222.0%1.6%1:63 13.7920.529.6921.0-13.7920.12.0%3.3%1:312.0%5.8%13.7920.5-13.7920.52.0%4.3%2.0%8.3%13.7920.5-13.7920.52.0%4.0%2.0%7.7%
Material(s) at Station 10+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
21.14
1.79
Volume
0.00
0.00
Cumulative Volume
0.00
0.00
Material(s) at Station 10+91.33
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
17.02
7.35
Volume
11.54
2.77
Cumulative Volume
11.54
2.77
Material(s) at Station 11+20.50
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
1.70
8.56
Volume
10.11
8.60
Cumulative Volume
21.65
11.36
Material(s) at Station 11+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.49
9.03
Volume
3.38
9.61
Cumulative Volume
25.04
20.97
Material(s) at Station 11+73.97
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
3.51
2.02
Volume
3.55
4.90
Cumulative Volume
28.59
25.88
Material(s) at Station 11+98.58
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.18
5.34
Volume
3.50
3.35
Cumulative Volume
32.09
29.23
Material(s) at Station 12+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
5.84
2.92
Volume
4.90
4.04
Cumulative Volume
37.00
33.27
Material(s) at Station 12+46.54
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
9.91
1.36
Volume
6.28
1.70
Cumulative Volume
43.28
34.97
Material(s) at Station 12+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
6.54
1.89
Volume
8.67
1.71
Cumulative Volume
51.96
36.68
Material(s) at Station 12+99.25
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.56
2.73
Volume
4.99
2.07
Cumulative Volume
56.94
38.75
Material(s) at Station 13+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
2.74
4.70
Volume
3.48
3.54
Cumulative Volume
60.43
42.29
Material(s) at Station 13+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
5.08
3.57
Volume
3.62
3.83
Cumulative Volume
64.05
46.12
Material(s) at Station 13+66.90
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
5.85
1.53
Volume
3.42
1.59
Cumulative Volume
67.46
47.72
Material(s) at Station 14+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
6.53
0.00
Volume
7.58
0.94
Cumulative Volume
75.05
48.65
Material(s) at Station 14+04.03
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
6.27
0.00
Volume
0.95
0.00
Cumulative Volume
76.00
48.65
DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\118342C9_ASHLEY.dwg 10/4/2019 2:22:56 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342
C9.07CROSS SECTIONS
ASHLEY ROAD
FEETSCALE
0 10 20
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
LEGEND:
= CUT VOLUME
= FILL VOLUME
14+25
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
14+50
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
14+75
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
15+00
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
15+30.30
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
15+50
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
15+62.32
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
15+75
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
16+06.83
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932R/W
30'
R/W
30'
16+25
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932R/W
30'
R/W
30'
16+50
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932R/W
30'
R/W
30'
16+75
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932R/W
30'
R/W
30'
17+00
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
934
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
934R/W
30'
R/W
30'
17+13.59
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
920
922
924
926
928
930
932R/W
30'
R/W
30'
17+75.06
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
-40 -30 -20 -10 921.2921.13CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 921.8921.64CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 922.3922.25CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 923.0922.94CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 923.8923.79CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 924.3924.27CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 924.6924.54CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 924.9924.78CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.5925.28CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.6925.48CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.7925.69CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.8925.80CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.9925.82CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 926.0925.79CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.6925.18CL +10 +20 +30 +40
13.7921.326.2920.8-13.7921.3-30.3921.92.0%-3.6%
1:282.0%3.4%
1:29 13.7921.818.9921.9-13.7921.8-30.3922.52.0%1.1%1:912.0%4.1%
1:24 13.7922.429.8923.2-13.7922.4-30.2922.52.0%4.6%1:222.0%0.7%1:150 13.7923.129.9923.8-13.7923.1-30.1923.42.0%4.5%1:222.0%1.5%1:65 13.7923.5-13.7924.0-23.7924.22.0%10.4%2.0%2.5%1:40
13.7924.423.7925.0-13.7924.4-23.7924.72.0%5.5%1:182.0%2.9%
1:34 13.7924.723.7925.5-13.7924.32.0%7.4%1:142.0%4.0%13.7925.023.7925.8-13.7925.0-23.3925.32.0%8.6%1:122.0%3.8%
1:27 13.7925.0-13.7925.5-21.6925.72.0%6.5%2.0%3.3%1:30 13.7925.723.7926.5-13.7925.7-22.4925.62.0%8.1%
1:122.0%-0.5%1:204
13.7925.923.8926.6-13.7925.9-23.6926.02.0%7.3%1:142.0%1.1%1:88 13.7926.023.8926.4-13.7926.0-19.3926.22.0%4.6%1:222.0%3.3%
1:31 13.7926.023.9926.4-13.7926.0-22.3926.32.0%4.4%1:232.0%3.6%
1:28 13.7926.023.9926.4-13.7926.0-23.7926.42.0%4.1%1:242.0%4.1%
1:25 13.7925.820.7925.9-13.7925.8-22.9926.113.7925.820.7925.9-13.7925.8-22.9926.12.0%1.9%1:532.0%3.1%
1:33 2.0%1.9%1:532.0%3.1%
1:33
Material(s) at Station 14+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.79
2.33
Volume
4.29
0.91
Cumulative Volume
80.29
49.56
Material(s) at Station 14+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.79
1.54
Volume
4.43
1.79
Cumulative Volume
84.73
51.35
Material(s) at Station 14+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
2.62
4.79
Volume
3.43
2.93
Cumulative Volume
88.16
54.29
Material(s) at Station 15+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
2.18
3.17
Volume
2.22
3.69
Cumulative Volume
90.37
57.97
Material(s) at Station 15+30.30
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
3.46
1.69
Volume
3.16
2.73
Cumulative Volume
93.54
60.70
Material(s) at Station 15+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
3.43
2.45
Volume
2.51
1.51
Cumulative Volume
96.05
62.21
Material(s) at Station 15+62.32
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.85
0.89
Volume
1.89
0.76
Cumulative Volume
97.94
62.97
Material(s) at Station 15+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
5.20
1.91
Volume
2.36
0.66
Cumulative Volume
100.30
63.63
Material(s) at Station 16+06.83
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
8.56
0.70
Volume
8.11
1.54
Cumulative Volume
108.41
65.17
Material(s) at Station 16+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
5.11
1.61
Volume
4.60
0.78
Cumulative Volume
113.00
65.94
Material(s) at Station 16+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
2.21
2.87
Volume
3.39
2.07
Cumulative Volume
116.39
68.02
Material(s) at Station 16+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
2.47
2.34
Volume
2.17
2.41
Cumulative Volume
118.56
70.43
Material(s) at Station 17+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
5.43
1.02
Volume
3.66
1.56
Cumulative Volume
122.22
71.99
Material(s) at Station 17+13.59
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
8.02
0.68
Volume
3.39
0.43
Cumulative Volume
125.60
72.42
Material(s) at Station 17+75.06
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
10.68
0.50
Volume
21.29
1.34
Cumulative Volume
146.89
73.76
DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\118342C9_ASHLEY.dwg 10/4/2019 2:23:02 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342
C9.08CROSS SECTIONS
ASHLEY ROAD
FEETSCALE
0 10 20
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
LEGEND:
= CUT VOLUME
= FILL VOLUME
18+00
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932R/W
30'
R/W
30'
18+25
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932R/W
30'
R/W
30'
18+58.61
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
18+75
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
19+00
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
19+32.41
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
19+50
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
29'
R/W
31'
19+64.28
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
29'
R/W
31'
20+05.61
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
29'
R/W
31'
20+25
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
29'
R/W
31'
20+50
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
29'
R/W
31'
20+66.95
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
29'
R/W
31'
20+92.55
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
29'
R/W
31'
21+23.44
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
29'
R/W
31'
21+50
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
29'
R/W
31'
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.4925.41CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.2925.21CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 924.8924.87CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 924.6924.68CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 924.2924.36CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 923.8923.91CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 923.6923.67CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 923.5923.48CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 922.9922.92CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 922.6922.65CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 922.4922.31CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 922.2922.08CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 921.8921.73CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 921.3921.31CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 921.0920.94CL +10 +20 +30 +40
13.7925.619.7925.9-13.7925.6-19.2925.62.0%5.4%1:192.0%0.9%1:106 13.7925.421.7925.8-13.7925.4-23.7925.72.0%5.0%1:202.0%3.0%
1:33 13.7924.6-13.7925.0-27.3925.62.0%5.7%2.0%4.0%
1:25 13.7924.920.4925.4-13.7924.9-25.1925.62.0%7.4%1:132.0%
6.5%
1:15 13.7924.517.0924.7-13.7924.5-23.7924.72.0%4.5%1:222.0%1.8%1:55
13.7924.123.7924.8-13.7923.72.0%7.3%1:142.0%5.5%13.7923.923.7924.6-13.7923.9-23.7924.12.0%7.0%1:142.0%2.0%1:49 13.7923.2-13.7923.7-23.7923.82.0%7.7%2.0%1.5%1:65 13.7923.119.2923.8-13.7922.72.0%12.1%1:82.0%7.8%13.7922.820.9923.5-13.7922.8-22.7923.22.0%9.1%1:112.0%3.9%
1:26
13.7922.523.0922.8-13.7922.5-20.5922.82.0%3.2%1:312.0%4.2%
1:24 13.7921.8-13.7922.3-20.8922.92.0%8.4%2.0%
9.3%
1:11 13.7921.928.6922.3-13.7921.52.0%3.0%1:342.0%7.8%13.7921.529.3921.9-13.7921.12.0%2.7%1:372.0%6.9%13.7921.123.0921.2-13.7921.1-23.7921.82.0%1.4%1:732.0%6.8%
1:15
Material(s) at Station 18+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
1.27
2.84
Volume
5.52
1.54
Cumulative Volume
152.41
75.30
Material(s) at Station 18+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.61
3.37
Volume
0.87
2.88
Cumulative Volume
153.28
78.18
Material(s) at Station 18+58.61
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
1.07
7.42
Volume
1.04
6.71
Cumulative Volume
154.32
84.89
Material(s) at Station 18+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.12
7.76
Volume
0.36
4.61
Cumulative Volume
154.68
89.50
Material(s) at Station 19+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.13
8.58
Volume
0.11
7.57
Cumulative Volume
154.80
97.06
Material(s) at Station 19+32.41
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.11
2.81
Volume
0.14
6.83
Cumulative Volume
154.94
103.90
Material(s) at Station 19+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.94
7.01
Volume
0.34
3.20
Cumulative Volume
155.28
107.10
Material(s) at Station 19+64.28
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.48
4.62
Volume
0.38
3.08
Cumulative Volume
155.66
110.17
Material(s) at Station 20+05.61
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.09
4.45
Volume
0.44
6.94
Cumulative Volume
156.10
117.12
Material(s) at Station 20+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.31
8.83
Volume
0.14
4.77
Cumulative Volume
156.24
121.89
Material(s) at Station 20+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
1.66
4.05
Volume
0.91
5.96
Cumulative Volume
157.15
127.85
Material(s) at Station 20+66.95
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
2.51
2.71
Volume
1.31
2.11
Cumulative Volume
158.46
129.95
Material(s) at Station 20+92.55
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
2.60
3.44
Volume
2.42
2.92
Cumulative Volume
160.89
132.87
Material(s) at Station 21+23.44
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
1.70
4.22
Volume
2.46
4.38
Cumulative Volume
163.35
137.25
Material(s) at Station 21+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
2.22
4.21
Volume
1.93
4.14
Cumulative Volume
165.28
141.40
DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\118342C9_ASHLEY.dwg 10/4/2019 2:23:07 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342
C9.09CROSS SECTIONS
ASHLEY ROAD
FEETSCALE
0 10 20
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
LEGEND:
= CUT VOLUME
= FILL VOLUME
21+67.06
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
29'
R/W
31'
22+00
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
22+25
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
22+61.06
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
22+75
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
23+00
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
23+25
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
30'
R/W
30'
23+50
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
30'
R/W
30'
23+85.21
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
31'
R/W
29'
24+47.10
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
25'
R/W
35'
24+75
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
25'
R/W
35'
25+00
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
26'
R/W
34'
25+25
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
26'
R/W
34'
25+50
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
26'
R/W
34'
25+75
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
27'
R/W
33'
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.8920.71CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.4920.26CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.1919.92CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.7919.45CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.5919.26CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.2918.93CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.9918.60CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.6918.27CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.1917.31CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.1917.79CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.3918.12CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.5918.41CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.6918.61CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.8918.74CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.0918.87CL +10 +20 +30 +40
13.7920.5-13.7920.9-23.7921.62.0%6.9%2.0%
7.5%
1:13 13.7920.421.9920.9-13.7920.4-23.7920.62.0%5.2%1:192.0%1.7%1:57 13.7920.119.2920.3-13.7920.1-23.7920.42.0%3.3%1:302.0%3.3%
1:30 13.7919.2-13.7919.22.0%9.8%2.0%7.4%13.7919.422.9920.0-13.7919.4-23.0919.82.0%6.1%1:162.0%3.4%
1:29
13.7919.119.4919.7-13.7919.1-20.8919.62.0%9.6%1:102.0%7.3%
1:14 13.7918.820.1919.2-13.7918.8-21.9919.22.0%5.9%1:172.0%5.2%
1:19 13.7918.523.7919.1-13.7918.5-23.7919.12.0%6.9%1:152.0%6.5%
1:15 13.7918.023.6918.8-13.7918.0-23.7918.813.7918.023.6918.8-13.7918.0-23.7918.82.0%8.0%1:132.0%
7.8%
1:13 2.0%8.0%1:132.0%
7.8%
1:13 13.7918.022.3918.5-13.7918.0-24.8919.12.0%6.3%
1:162.0%
10.1%
1:10
13.7918.323.5919.1-13.7918.3-23.6919.82.0%7.9%1:132.0%
15.5%
1:6 13.7918.625.1919.5-13.7918.6-23.0920.22.0%7.7%1:13
2.0%
17.5%
1:6 13.7918.823.3919.4-13.7918.8-22.8920.32.0%6.4%1:162.0%
16.4%
1:6 13.7918.921.8919.5-13.7918.9-23.4920.42.0%7.1%1:142.0%
15.3%
1:7 13.7919.023.0919.5-13.7919.0-23.6920.62.0%4.6%1:222.0%
15.7%
1:6
Material(s) at Station 21+67.06
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
3.54
1.68
Volume
1.82
1.86
Cumulative Volume
167.10
143.26
Material(s) at Station 22+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.35
2.11
Volume
4.82
2.31
Cumulative Volume
171.92
145.57
Material(s) at Station 22+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
6.47
1.31
Volume
5.01
1.58
Cumulative Volume
176.93
147.15
Material(s) at Station 22+61.06
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
11.00
0.00
Volume
11.67
0.88
Cumulative Volume
188.60
148.03
Material(s) at Station 22+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
6.97
1.49
Volume
4.64
0.39
Cumulative Volume
193.23
148.41
Material(s) at Station 23+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
5.91
1.61
Volume
5.96
1.44
Cumulative Volume
199.20
149.85
Material(s) at Station 23+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
7.60
1.30
Volume
6.26
1.35
Cumulative Volume
205.45
151.20
Material(s) at Station 23+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
8.46
1.10
Volume
7.44
1.11
Cumulative Volume
212.89
152.30
Material(s) at Station 23+85.21
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
19.81
0.43
Volume
18.44
0.99
Cumulative Volume
231.33
153.30
Material(s) at Station 24+47.10
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
9.44
1.37
Volume
33.53
2.06
Cumulative Volume
264.86
155.35
Material(s) at Station 24+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
5.10
3.01
Volume
7.51
2.24
Cumulative Volume
272.37
157.60
Material(s) at Station 25+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
1.78
5.04
Volume
3.18
3.73
Cumulative Volume
275.55
161.32
Material(s) at Station 25+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.66
6.17
Volume
1.13
5.19
Cumulative Volume
276.68
166.51
Material(s) at Station 25+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
2.02
5.05
Volume
1.24
5.19
Cumulative Volume
277.92
171.71
Material(s) at Station 25+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
3.50
3.96
Volume
2.55
4.18
Cumulative Volume
280.47
175.88
DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\118342C9_ASHLEY.dwg 10/4/2019 2:23:13 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342
C9.10CROSS SECTIONS
ASHLEY ROAD
FEETSCALE
0 10 20
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
LEGEND:
= CUT VOLUME
= FILL VOLUME
26+00
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
27'
R/W
33'
26+25
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
27'
R/W
33'
26+43.48
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
28'
R/W
32'
26+75
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
28'
R/W
32'
27+06.62
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
28'
R/W
32'
27+09.63
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
29'
R/W
31'
27+66.34
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
27+75
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
28+00
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
31'
R/W
29'
28+10.08
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
31'
R/W
29'
28+27
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
32'
R/W
28'
28+43.86
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
33'
R/W
27'
28+75
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
34'
R/W
26'
28+91.40
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
34'
R/W
26'
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.1918.99CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.2919.12CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.3919.21CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.5919.37CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.6919.51CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.6919.52CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.7919.37CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.6919.31CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.4919.06CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.4918.95CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.3918.77CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.0918.59CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.5918.25CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.2918.08CL +10 +20 +30 +40
13.7918.8-13.7918.82.0%4.6%2.0%10.5%13.7919.321.7919.6-13.7919.3-23.5920.02.0%3.6%1:272.0%
7.5%
1:13 13.7919.419.5919.8-13.7919.02.0%6.7%1:152.0%6.0%13.7919.525.9919.8-13.7919.5-21.8920.32.0%2.5%1:412.0%
9.7%
1:10 13.7919.726.4919.6-13.7919.32.0%-0.8%1:1182.0%6.3%13.7919.727.7919.6-13.7919.32.0%-1.0%1:1002.0%6.2%13.7919.524.0919.5-13.7919.5-21.0920.42.0%-0.2%1:5872.0%11.6%
1:9 13.7919.522.1919.6-13.7919.5-20.7920.22.0%1.6%1:612.0%10.4%
1:10 13.7919.223.4919.5-13.7919.2-23.2920.02.0%2.3%1:432.0%
8.3%
1:12 13.7919.123.8919.4-13.7918.72.0%2.8%1:362.0%7.6%13.7918.924.2919.5-13.7918.52.0%4.9%1:202.0%7.2%13.7918.3-13.7918.8-21.8919.82.0%6.0%2.0%
12.9%
1:8 13.7918.425.5918.9-13.7918.4-21.7919.12.0%4.0%1:252.0%
8.6%
1:12 13.7918.326.7918.7-13.7918.3-22.1918.82.0%3.4%1:292.0%5.9%
1:17
Material(s) at Station 26+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
7.25
0.00
Volume
4.98
1.84
Cumulative Volume
285.45
177.72
Material(s) at Station 26+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.66
1.86
Volume
5.52
0.86
Cumulative Volume
290.97
178.58
Material(s) at Station 26+43.48
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
5.74
1.09
Volume
3.56
1.01
Cumulative Volume
294.53
179.59
Material(s) at Station 26+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
3.25
3.20
Volume
5.25
2.50
Cumulative Volume
299.78
182.09
Material(s) at Station 27+06.62
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.36
3.64
Volume
4.45
4.01
Cumulative Volume
304.23
186.09
Material(s) at Station 27+09.63
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.61
3.80
Volume
0.50
0.42
Cumulative Volume
304.73
186.51
Material(s) at Station 27+66.34
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
8.78
1.44
Volume
14.04
5.54
Cumulative Volume
318.77
192.04
Material(s) at Station 27+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
8.71
1.46
Volume
2.81
0.47
Cumulative Volume
321.58
192.51
Material(s) at Station 28+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
11.93
0.45
Volume
9.56
0.88
Cumulative Volume
331.13
193.39
Material(s) at Station 28+10.08
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
17.25
0.14
Volume
5.45
0.11
Cumulative Volume
336.58
193.50
Material(s) at Station 28+27.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
19.34
0.00
Volume
11.46
0.04
Cumulative Volume
348.04
193.55
Material(s) at Station 28+43.86
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
18.11
0.00
Volume
11.69
0.00
Cumulative Volume
359.73
193.55
Material(s) at Station 28+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
9.43
1.14
Volume
15.88
0.66
Cumulative Volume
375.61
194.21
Material(s) at Station 28+91.40
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
7.15
1.33
Volume
5.04
0.75
Cumulative Volume
380.65
194.96
DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\118342C9_ASHLEY.dwg 10/4/2019 2:23:18 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342
C9.11CROSS SECTIONS
ASHLEY ROAD
FEETSCALE
0 10 20
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
LEGEND:
= CUT VOLUME
= FILL VOLUME
R/WTYPICAL SECTION - ASHLEY ROAD - NO CURB
STA 11+22 TO STA 29+00
30'
13.67'
30'
VARIES
4
℄
4" DRAINTILE
(TYP.)
2.00%2.00%
PROPOSED
CENTERLINE
GRADER/WBLVD LIMITS VARY
SEE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (TYP)
CUL-DE-SAC TO EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
13.67'
VARIES 2.00%
BLVD LIMITS VARY
SEE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (TYP)
2" TYPE SP WEARING COURSE (SPWEA240C) (2360)
BITUMINOUS TACK COAT (2357)
2.75" TYPE SP NON-WEARING COURSE (SPNWB230C) (2360)
8" AGGREGATE BASE, CL 5 (2211)
SUBGRADE PREPARATION (2112) (INCIDENTAL)
4" TOPSOIL MIN
DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\118342C101.dwg 10/4/2019 1:26:06 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342
C1.01TYPICAL SECTIONS ARE NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL SECTION ASHLEY ROAD - NO CURB
900
905
910
915
920
925
930
935
940
945
900
905
910
915
920
925
930
935
940
945
2.82%
2.00%-2.00%1.03%-0.50%
-2.00%-3.59%
-1.25%VPI: 10+67.85EL: 923.93VPI: 10+91.33EL: 923.46VPI: 17+29.29EL: 925.72VPI: 17+44.29EL: 926.02VPI: 17+59.29EL: 925.72VPI: 15+70
EL: 924.91
A = -1.79%
K = 55.84
L=100'
VPI: 16+75
EL: 925.99
A = -1.52%
K = 65.68
L=100'VPI: 11+37.93
EL: 921.79
A = 2.34%
K = 21.37
L=50'
VPI: 13+60
EL: 919.00
A = 4.07%
K = 61.42
L=250'HP: 16+92.33EL: 925.82LP: 13+12.04EL: 920.08VPC: 15+20EL: 923.51VPC: 16+25EL: 925.48VPT: 11+62.93EL: 921.47VPT: 14+85EL: 922.52VPT: 16+20EL: 925.43VPT: 17+25EL: 925.74VPC: 11+12.93EL: 922.68VPC: 12+35EL: 920.57924.410+50 923.79923.6923.15922.911+00 922.28922.4921.67922.011+50 921.32921.6921.01921.312+00 920.69921.0920.40920.712+50 920.20920.5920.10920.313+00 920.10920.2920.20920.413+50 920.41920.5920.71920.814+00 921.12921.2921.63921.814+50 922.25922.3922.94923.015+00 923.64923.7924.27924.315+50 924.78924.9925.19925.416+00 925.48925.6925.69925.716+50 925.80925.8925.82925.917+00 925.74926.0925.91925.917+50 925.56925.6925.31925.418+00IVBXOEOEOEOEOEOEOCOCOCOCGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCBENCHMARKTNH=924.55CCCCCCCCCCOCOCOCOCOCOC262 238254 230 220
209
201
204
265
253
245 237
221
210
IVBXOEOEOEOEOEOEOCOCOCOCGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCBENCHMARKTNH=924.55CCCCCCCCCCOCOCOCOCOCOC11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00703+00704+00DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\No Curb Option\118342C6_ASHLEY_NO CURB.dwg 10/4/2019 1:26:21 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342 RC6.03ASHLEY RD EXHIBITS
ASHLEY ROAD - NO CURB
FEETSCALE
0 25 50
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
ASHLEY ROAD GOODRICH STEX ROW (TYP.)
PROPOSED ℄ PROFILE
EXISTING ℄ PROFILE
2
2
2 42
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
2
4
4" CONCRETE WALK
6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
8" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY/TRAIL
7" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER
6" CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
SALVAGE REINSTALL PAVERS
CUSTOM CONCRETE DRIVEWAY/WALK (SPECIAL)
R-1733 CASTING
R-3067-V CASTING
CONCRETE PAVEMENT AS NOTED
BITUMINOUS STREET PAVEMENT
BITUMINOUS TRAIL/DRIVEWAY AS NOTED
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
B618 CURB & GUTTER, EXCEPT AS NOTED
ADA 2.0% MAX SLOPE (ALL DIRECTIONS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
LEGEND
4
8
900
905
910
915
920
925
930
935
940
945
900
905
910
915
920
925
930
935
940
945
-1.00%
-1.36%
2.00%-2.00%
-1.32%VPI: 24+01.25EL: 917.60VPI: 24+16.25EL: 917.90VPI: 24+31.25EL: 917.60VPI: 19+10
EL: 924.21
A = -0.36%
K = 138.48
L=50'VPI: 22+25
EL: 919.92
A = 0.05%
K = 1088.36
L=50'VPC: 18+85EL: 924.46VPT: 22+50EL: 919.59VPT: 19+35EL: 923.87VPC: 22+00EL: 920.26925.56925.617+75 925.31925.418+00 925.06925.2924.81924.918+50 924.56924.6924.30924.219+00 924.00923.9923.67923.619+50 923.33923.3922.99922.920+00 922.64922.6922.30922.420+50 921.96922.1921.62921.721+00 921.28921.3920.94921.021+50 920.60920.7920.26920.422+00 919.92920.1919.59919.922+50 919.26919.5918.93919.223+00 918.60918.9918.27918.623+50 917.95918.2917.62918.124+00 917.72918.1917.79918.224+50 918.04918.3918.29918.525+00 918.54918.625+25PXOUOUOUGGE
E E E E
G G G G G G G G G G G GGG G G G G
XXGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGBENCHMARKTNH=921.06I= N 910.89G G
GGGGCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC C C C CBENCHMARKTNH=924.55EEEEC152
153
146
130
105
100
113121
120
106
46
35
145
133 PXOUOUOUGGE
E E E E
G G G G G G G G G G G GGG G G G G
XXGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGBENCHMARKTNH=921.06I= N 910.89G G
GGGGCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC C C C CBENCHMARKTNH=924.55EEEEC138
18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00
25+00603+00604+00DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\No Curb Option\118342C6_ASHLEY_NO CURB.dwg 10/4/2019 1:27:28 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342 RC6.04ASHLEY RD EXHIBITS
ASHLEY ROAD - NO CURB
FEETSCALE
0 25 50
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
ASHLEY ROADGOODRICH STBOYCE STPROPOSED ℄ PROFILE
EXISTING ℄ PROFILE
2
4
2 1 2 2 2 2 1
12222
4" CONCRETE WALK
6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
8" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY/TRAIL
7" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER
6" CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
SALVAGE REINSTALL PAVERS
CUSTOM CONCRETE DRIVEWAY/WALK (SPECIAL)
R-1733 CASTING
R-3067-V CASTING
CONCRETE PAVEMENT AS NOTED
BITUMINOUS STREET PAVEMENT
BITUMINOUS TRAIL/DRIVEWAY AS NOTED
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
B618 CURB & GUTTER, EXCEPT AS NOTED
ADA 2.0% MAX SLOPE (ALL DIRECTIONS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
LEGEND
1
9
EX ROW (TYP.)
-1.01%1.00%VPI: 29+10.63EL: 917.87VPI: 26+85
EL: 920.14
A = -2.01%
K = 49.82
L=100'HP: 26+84.87EL: 919.89VPC: 26+35EL: 919.64VPT: 27+35EL: 919.64918.29918.525+00 918.54918.6918.79918.825+50 919.04919.0919.29919.126+00 919.54919.2919.77919.426+50 919.88919.5919.87919.527+00 919.73919.7919.49919.827+50 919.23919.6918.98919.428+00 918.73919.3918.48919.028+50 918.23918.5917.98918.129+00 29+50CGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
X X X X X X
XXX X X X
OU OU OU OU OU OU OUOUOUOUG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
XXXXXXBENCHMARKTNH=922.40BENCHMARKTNH=922.00G G G G G G G
GGGGGGGC C C C C
CCC C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C S1
5
"
R
C
P 48" RCP42" RCP18" RCP42" RCP
15
"
R
C
P
18" RCPCCCCC42
35
20
8311130129
1016
CGE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
X X X X X X
XXX X X X
OU OU OU OU OU OU OUOUOUOUG G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
XXXXXXBENCHMARKTNH=922.40BENCHMARKTNH=922.00G G G G G G G
GGGGGGGC C C C C
CCC C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C S1
5
"
R
C
P 48" RCP42" RCP18" RCP42" RCP
15
"
R
C
P
18" RCPCCCCC25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 30+10
500+00501+00900
905
910
915
920
925
930
935
940
945
918.2900
905
910
915
920
925
930
935
940
945
DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\No Curb Option\118342C6_ASHLEY_NO CURB.dwg 10/4/2019 1:28:45 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342 RC6.05ASHLEY RD EXHIBITS
ASHLEY ROAD - NO CURB
FEETSCALE
0 25 50
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
ASHLEY ROAD
EX ROW (TYP.)
PROPOSED ℄ PROFILE
EXISTING ℄ PROFILE EXCELSIOR BLVDPRESTON LN2
2
2
4
1
1 2
4
42 4
2
4
2 7
4" CONCRETE WALK
6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
8" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY/TRAIL
7" CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER
6" CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
SALVAGE REINSTALL PAVERS
CUSTOM CONCRETE DRIVEWAY/WALK (SPECIAL)
R-1733 CASTING
R-3067-V CASTING
CONCRETE PAVEMENT AS NOTED
BITUMINOUS STREET PAVEMENT
BITUMINOUS TRAIL/DRIVEWAY AS NOTED
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
B618 CURB & GUTTER, EXCEPT AS NOTED
ADA 2.0% MAX SLOPE (ALL DIRECTIONS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
LEGEND
10+75
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
10+91.33
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
11+20.50
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
11+50
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
11+73.97
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
11+98.58
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
12+25
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
12+46.54
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
12+75
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
12+99.25
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
13+25
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
13+50
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
13+66.90
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
14+00
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
14+04.03
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
-40 -30 -20 -10 923.68CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 923.46CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 922.43CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 921.67CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 921.33CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 921.02CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.69CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.43CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.20CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.10CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.10CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.20CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.33CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.71CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.77CL +10 +20 +30 +40
31.0925.516.1%1:69.5%
1:11 34.6925.2-34.1923.81.7%
24.5%1:4
2.5%11.9%
1:8 29.5922.8-28.8922.82.0%4.1%1:242.0%4.6%
1:22 29.9922.8-30.1922.42.0%8.5%1:122.0%5.9%
1:17 29.8921.92.0%5.2%1:192.0%7.0%-30.2922.02.0%6.0%2.0%7.3%
1:14 24.1921.2-29.5921.12.0%7.4%
1:132.0%4.5%
1:22 -20.4921.02.0%10.7%2.0%12.4%
1:8 24.3920.8-19.0920.72.0%8.1%1:122.0%14.1%
1:7 24.1920.82.0%9.1%
1:112.0%6.6%29.6920.8-30.4920.52.0%6.3%1:162.0%4.2%
1:24 29.6921.1-30.4920.62.0%7.3%1:142.0%4.3%
1:23 29.6921.02.0%6.1%
1:162.0%6.2%
2.0%4.7%2.0%8.6%
2.0%4.3%2.0%8.0%
Material(s) at Station 10+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
26.58
1.58
Volume
0.00
0.00
Cumulative Volume
0.00
0.00
Material(s) at Station 10+91.33
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
22.15
7.49
Volume
14.74
2.74
Cumulative Volume
14.74
2.74
Material(s) at Station 11+20.50
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
5.79
1.86
Volume
15.09
5.05
Cumulative Volume
29.83
7.80
Material(s) at Station 11+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
14.41
1.09
Volume
11.03
1.61
Cumulative Volume
40.86
9.41
Material(s) at Station 11+73.97
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
15.14
0.00
Volume
13.12
0.48
Cumulative Volume
53.98
9.89
Material(s) at Station 11+98.58
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
11.73
0.39
Volume
12.25
0.18
Cumulative Volume
66.22
10.07
Material(s) at Station 12+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
16.30
0.00
Volume
13.71
0.19
Cumulative Volume
79.94
10.26
Material(s) at Station 12+46.54
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
15.69
0.00
Volume
12.76
0.00
Cumulative Volume
92.70
10.26
Material(s) at Station 12+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
12.66
0.00
Volume
14.94
0.00
Cumulative Volume
107.64
10.26
Material(s) at Station 12+99.25
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
7.87
0.02
Volume
9.22
0.01
Cumulative Volume
116.85
10.27
Material(s) at Station 13+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
8.68
0.00
Volume
7.89
0.01
Cumulative Volume
124.75
10.28
Material(s) at Station 13+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
11.32
0.00
Volume
9.26
0.00
Cumulative Volume
134.01
10.28
Material(s) at Station 13+66.90
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
9.68
0.00
Volume
6.57
0.00
Cumulative Volume
140.58
10.28
Material(s) at Station 14+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
7.48
0.00
Volume
10.52
0.00
Cumulative Volume
151.10
10.28
Material(s) at Station 14+04.03
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
7.15
0.00
Volume
1.09
0.00
Cumulative Volume
152.19
10.28
DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\No Curb Option\118342C9_ASHLEY_NO CURB.dwg 10/4/2019 2:33:14 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342
C9.07ASHLEY RD EXHIBITS
ASHLEY ROAD - NO CURB
FEETSCALE
0 10 20
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
LEGEND:
= CUT VOLUME
= FILL VOLUME
14+25
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
14+50
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
14+75
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
30'
R/W
30'
15+00
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
15+30.30
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
15+50
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
15+62.32
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
15+75
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
16+06.83
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932R/W
30'
R/W
30'
16+25
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932R/W
30'
R/W
30'
16+50
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932R/W
30'
R/W
30'
16+75
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932R/W
30'
R/W
30'
17+00
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
934
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
934R/W
30'
R/W
30'
17+13.59
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
920
922
924
926
928
930
932R/W
30'
R/W
30'
17+75.06
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
-40 -30 -20 -10 921.12CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 921.63CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 922.25CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 922.94CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 923.79CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 924.27CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 924.54CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 924.78CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.28CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.48CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.69CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.80CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.82CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.79CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.56CL +10 +20 +30 +40
26.2920.8-30.3921.92.0%-0.0%1:2601
2.0%6.1%
1:16 18.9921.9-30.3922.52.0%9.7%1:102.0%6.8%
1:15 29.8923.2-30.2922.52.0%7.4%
1:132.0%3.4%
1:30 29.9923.8-30.1923.42.0%7.3%1:142.0%4.3%
1:23-23.7924.22.0%10.8%2.0%7.0%
1:14
23.7925.0-23.7924.72.0%10.0%
1:102.0%7.4%
1:13 23.7925.52.0%11.9%1:82.0%4.4%23.7925.8-23.3925.32.0%13.1%1:82.0%8.4%
1:12-21.6925.72.0%6.9%2.0%9.0%
1:11 23.7926.5-22.4925.62.0%12.6%1:82.0%4.6%
1:22
23.8926.6-23.6926.02.0%11.8%1:82.0%5.7%
1:18 23.8926.4-19.3926.22.0%9.0%1:112.0%11.2%
1:9 23.9926.4-22.3926.32.0%8.8%
1:112.0%8.8%
1:11 23.9926.4-23.7926.42.0%8.5%1:122.0%8.5%
1:12 20.7925.9-22.9926.120.7925.9-22.9926.12.0%8.8%
1:112.0%8.4%
1:12 2.0%8.8%
1:112.0%8.4%
1:12
Material(s) at Station 14+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
9.82
0.00
Volume
6.59
0.00
Cumulative Volume
158.78
10.28
Material(s) at Station 14+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
8.68
0.00
Volume
8.57
0.00
Cumulative Volume
167.35
10.28
Material(s) at Station 14+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
6.64
1.05
Volume
7.09
0.49
Cumulative Volume
174.44
10.76
Material(s) at Station 15+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
6.81
0.04
Volume
6.23
0.51
Cumulative Volume
180.66
11.27
Material(s) at Station 15+30.30
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.43
0.05
Volume
6.30
0.06
Cumulative Volume
186.97
11.33
Material(s) at Station 15+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
5.93
0.03
Volume
3.78
0.03
Cumulative Volume
190.75
11.36
Material(s) at Station 15+62.32
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
6.55
0.00
Volume
2.85
0.01
Cumulative Volume
193.59
11.37
Material(s) at Station 15+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
8.12
0.00
Volume
3.44
0.00
Cumulative Volume
197.04
11.37
Material(s) at Station 16+06.83
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
9.97
0.00
Volume
10.66
0.00
Cumulative Volume
207.70
11.37
Material(s) at Station 16+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
8.15
0.00
Volume
6.10
0.00
Cumulative Volume
213.80
11.37
Material(s) at Station 16+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.34
0.07
Volume
5.78
0.03
Cumulative Volume
219.58
11.40
Material(s) at Station 16+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.27
0.16
Volume
3.99
0.11
Cumulative Volume
223.56
11.51
Material(s) at Station 17+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
9.05
0.00
Volume
6.17
0.08
Cumulative Volume
229.73
11.58
Material(s) at Station 17+13.59
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
12.46
0.00
Volume
5.41
0.00
Cumulative Volume
235.15
11.58
Material(s) at Station 17+75.06
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
6.19
0.22
Volume
21.24
0.25
Cumulative Volume
256.38
11.83
DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\No Curb Option\118342C9_ASHLEY_NO CURB.dwg 10/4/2019 2:33:19 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342
C9.08ASHLEY RD EXHIBITS
ASHLEY ROAD - NO CURB
FEETSCALE
0 10 20
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
LEGEND:
= CUT VOLUME
= FILL VOLUME
18+00
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932R/W
30'
R/W
30'
18+25
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
932R/W
30'
R/W
30'
18+58.61
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
18+75
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
19+00
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
19+32.41
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
30'
R/W
30'
19+50
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
29'
R/W
31'
19+64.28
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
930R/W
29'
R/W
31'
20+05.61
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
29'
R/W
31'
20+25
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
29'
R/W
31'
20+50
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
29'
R/W
31'
20+66.95
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
29'
R/W
31'
20+92.55
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
29'
R/W
31'
21+23.44
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
29'
R/W
31'
21+50
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
928R/W
29'
R/W
31'
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.31CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 925.06CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 924.73CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 924.56CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 924.30CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 923.91CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 923.67CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 923.47CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 922.91CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 922.64CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 922.30CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 922.07CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 921.72CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 921.30CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.94CL +10 +20 +30 +40
19.7925.9-19.2925.62.0%14.6%1:72.0%11.0%
1:9 21.7925.8-23.7925.72.0%12.4%1:82.0%9.0%
1:11-27.3925.62.0%7.5%2.0%8.3%
1:12 20.4925.4-25.1925.62.0%15.9%1:62.0%11.5%
1:9 17.0924.7-23.7924.72.0%19.5%1:52.0%6.9%
1:15
23.7924.82.0%11.9%1:82.0%6.0%23.7924.6-23.7924.12.0%11.6%1:92.0%6.6%
1:15-23.7923.82.0%8.1%2.0%6.1%
1:16 19.2923.82.0%20.3%1:52.0%8.2%20.9923.5-22.7923.22.0%15.4%1:62.0%8.9%
1:11
23.0922.8-20.5922.82.0%8.1%
1:122.0%10.9%
1:9-20.8922.92.0%8.8%2.0%15.6%
1:6 28.6922.32.0%6.0%1:172.0%8.1%29.3921.92.0%5.6%1:182.0%7.2%23.0921.2-23.7921.82.0%6.2%1:162.0%11.3%
1:9
Material(s) at Station 18+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.89
0.07
Volume
5.12
0.13
Cumulative Volume
261.50
11.96
Material(s) at Station 18+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
7.03
0.00
Volume
5.52
0.03
Cumulative Volume
267.01
11.99
Material(s) at Station 18+58.61
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.94
2.24
Volume
7.45
1.40
Cumulative Volume
274.47
13.39
Material(s) at Station 18+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
2.59
1.43
Volume
2.29
1.11
Cumulative Volume
276.75
14.50
Material(s) at Station 19+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.53
3.71
Volume
1.44
2.38
Cumulative Volume
278.20
16.88
Material(s) at Station 19+32.41
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
1.60
1.37
Volume
1.28
3.05
Cumulative Volume
279.47
19.93
Material(s) at Station 19+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
2.20
3.05
Volume
1.24
1.44
Cumulative Volume
280.71
21.37
Material(s) at Station 19+64.28
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.70
1.95
Volume
0.77
1.32
Cumulative Volume
281.48
22.69
Material(s) at Station 20+05.61
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.14
2.67
Volume
0.64
3.54
Cumulative Volume
282.12
26.23
Material(s) at Station 20+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.38
4.62
Volume
0.19
2.62
Cumulative Volume
282.31
28.85
Material(s) at Station 20+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
2.61
0.77
Volume
1.38
2.50
Cumulative Volume
283.69
31.35
Material(s) at Station 20+66.95
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
2.79
0.88
Volume
1.70
0.51
Cumulative Volume
285.39
31.86
Material(s) at Station 20+92.55
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.06
1.05
Volume
3.25
0.91
Cumulative Volume
288.64
32.77
Material(s) at Station 21+23.44
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
2.56
1.11
Volume
3.79
1.23
Cumulative Volume
292.43
34.01
Material(s) at Station 21+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
3.13
0.26
Volume
2.80
0.67
Cumulative Volume
295.23
34.68
DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\No Curb Option\118342C9_ASHLEY_NO CURB.dwg 10/4/2019 2:33:25 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342
C9.09ASHLEY RD EXHIBITS
ASHLEY ROAD - NO CURB
FEETSCALE
0 10 20
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
LEGEND:
= CUT VOLUME
= FILL VOLUME
21+67.06
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
29'
R/W
31'
22+00
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
22+25
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
22+61.06
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
22+75
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
23+00
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
23+25
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
30'
R/W
30'
23+50
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
30'
R/W
30'
23+85.21
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
31'
R/W
29'
24+47.10
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
25'
R/W
35'
24+75
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
25'
R/W
35'
25+00
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
26'
R/W
34'
25+25
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
26'
R/W
34'
25+50
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
26'
R/W
34'
25+75
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
27'
R/W
33'
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.71CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 920.26CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.92CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.45CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.26CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.93CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.60CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.27CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 917.81CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 917.76CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.04CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.29CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.54CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.79CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.04CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-23.7921.62.0%7.3%2.0%12.0%
1:8 21.9920.9-23.7920.62.0%10.7%1:92.0%6.2%
1:16 19.2920.3-23.7920.42.0%11.4%1:92.0%7.8%
1:13
2.0%10.2%2.0%7.7%22.9920.0-23.0919.82.0%11.0%1:92.0%8.2%
1:12
19.4919.7-20.8919.62.0%17.4%1:62.0%13.7%
1:7 20.1919.2-21.9919.22.0%13.0%1:82.0%10.6%
1:9 23.7919.1-23.7919.12.0%11.4%1:92.0%11.0%
1:9 23.6918.8-23.7918.823.6918.8-23.7918.82.0%12.5%1:82.0%12.2%
1:8 2.0%12.5%1:82.0%12.2%
1:8 22.3918.5-24.8919.12.0%11.9%1:82.0%14.4%
1:7
23.5919.1-23.6919.82.0%13.3%1:82.0%
20.9%
1:5 25.1919.5-23.0920.22.0%12.7%1:82.0%
23.5%
1:4 23.3919.4-22.8920.32.0%11.8%1:82.0%
22.1%
1:5 21.8919.5-23.4920.42.0%12.1%1:82.0%
19.5%
1:5 23.0919.5-23.6920.62.0%7.6%1:132.0%
18.5%
1:5
Material(s) at Station 21+67.06
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
4.74
0.23
Volume
2.49
0.15
Cumulative Volume
297.71
34.83
Material(s) at Station 22+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
6.82
0.03
Volume
7.05
0.16
Cumulative Volume
304.77
34.99
Material(s) at Station 22+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
9.07
0.00
Volume
7.36
0.01
Cumulative Volume
312.12
35.01
Material(s) at Station 22+61.06
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
11.26
0.00
Volume
13.58
0.00
Cumulative Volume
325.70
35.01
Material(s) at Station 22+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
10.05
0.00
Volume
5.50
0.00
Cumulative Volume
331.20
35.01
Material(s) at Station 23+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
7.61
0.00
Volume
8.18
0.00
Cumulative Volume
339.38
35.01
Material(s) at Station 23+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
10.02
0.00
Volume
8.16
0.00
Cumulative Volume
347.54
35.01
Material(s) at Station 23+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
12.27
0.00
Volume
10.32
0.00
Cumulative Volume
357.86
35.01
Material(s) at Station 23+85.21
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
15.36
0.00
Volume
18.03
0.00
Cumulative Volume
375.89
35.01
Material(s) at Station 24+47.10
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
13.12
0.09
Volume
32.64
0.10
Cumulative Volume
408.53
35.11
Material(s) at Station 24+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
10.19
0.06
Volume
12.06
0.07
Cumulative Volume
420.59
35.18
Material(s) at Station 25+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
7.22
0.93
Volume
8.06
0.46
Cumulative Volume
428.65
35.64
Material(s) at Station 25+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
2.92
1.16
Volume
4.69
0.97
Cumulative Volume
433.35
36.61
Material(s) at Station 25+50.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
1.82
2.09
Volume
2.20
1.51
Cumulative Volume
435.54
38.11
Material(s) at Station 25+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.92
2.92
Volume
1.27
2.32
Cumulative Volume
436.81
40.44
DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\No Curb Option\118342C9_ASHLEY_NO CURB.dwg 10/4/2019 2:33:30 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342
C9.10ASHLEY RD EXHIBITS
ASHLEY ROAD - NO CURB
FEETSCALE
0 10 20
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
LEGEND:
= CUT VOLUME
= FILL VOLUME
26+00
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
27'
R/W
33'
26+25
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
27'
R/W
33'
26+43.48
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
28'
R/W
32'
26+75
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
28'
R/W
32'
27+06.62
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
28'
R/W
32'
27+09.63
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
29'
R/W
31'
27+66.34
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
27+75
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
30'
R/W
30'
28+00
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
31'
R/W
29'
28+10.08
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
31'
R/W
29'
28+27
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
32'
R/W
28'
28+43.86
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
33'
R/W
27'
28+75
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
926R/W
34'
R/W
26'
28+91.40
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924
910
912
914
916
918
920
922
924R/W
34'
R/W
26'
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.29CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.54CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.72CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.88CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.84CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.83CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.32CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 919.23CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.98CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.88CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.71CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.54CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.23CL +10 +20 +30 +40
-40 -30 -20 -10 918.06CL +10 +20 +30 +40
2.0%2.0%2.0%7.9%21.7919.6-23.5920.02.0%4.0%1:25
2.0%7.8%
1:13 19.5919.82.0%5.8%1:172.0%1.3%25.9919.8-21.8920.32.0%2.0%1:50
2.0%9.0%
1:11 26.4919.62.0%0.1%1:1272
2.0%3.3%27.7919.62.0%-0.0%1:7312
2.0%3.4%24.0919.5-21.0920.42.0%4.7%1:212.0%18.4%
1:5 22.1919.6-20.7920.22.0%7.9%
1:132.0%17.8%
1:6 23.4919.5-23.2920.02.0%7.7%1:132.0%13.7%
1:7 23.8919.42.0%7.9%1:132.0%8.6%24.2919.52.0%9.7%1:102.0%8.1%-21.8919.82.0%6.7%2.0%18.9%
1:5 25.5918.9-21.7919.12.0%8.0%
1:132.0%14.5%
1:7 26.7918.7-22.1918.82.0%7.0%1:142.0%11.4%
1:9
Material(s) at Station 26+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.22
3.70
Volume
0.53
3.07
Cumulative Volume
437.34
43.50
Material(s) at Station 26+25.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.19
8.14
Volume
0.19
5.48
Cumulative Volume
437.53
48.98
Material(s) at Station 26+43.48
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.01
11.42
Volume
0.07
6.70
Cumulative Volume
437.59
55.68
Material(s) at Station 26+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.10
14.07
Volume
0.06
14.88
Cumulative Volume
437.65
70.56
Material(s) at Station 27+06.62
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.00
8.93
Volume
0.06
13.47
Cumulative Volume
437.71
84.03
Material(s) at Station 27+09.63
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
0.00
7.92
Volume
0.00
0.94
Cumulative Volume
437.71
84.97
Material(s) at Station 27+66.34
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
13.61
0.00
Volume
14.30
8.34
Cumulative Volume
452.01
93.31
Material(s) at Station 27+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
13.68
0.00
Volume
4.38
0.00
Cumulative Volume
456.39
93.31
Material(s) at Station 28+00.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
18.96
0.02
Volume
15.12
0.01
Cumulative Volume
471.50
93.31
Material(s) at Station 28+10.08
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
22.21
0.00
Volume
7.69
0.00
Cumulative Volume
479.19
93.32
Material(s) at Station 28+27.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
24.14
0.00
Volume
14.52
0.00
Cumulative Volume
493.71
93.32
Material(s) at Station 28+43.86
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
21.92
0.00
Volume
14.38
0.00
Cumulative Volume
508.09
93.32
Material(s) at Station 28+75.00
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
14.06
0.00
Volume
20.75
0.00
Cumulative Volume
528.84
93.32
Material(s) at Station 28+91.40
Material Name
Ground Removed
Ground Fill
Area
11.55
0.00
Volume
7.78
0.00
Cumulative Volume
536.62
93.32
DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2019, All Rights ReservedcH:\HOPK\T19118342\CAD\C3D\No Curb Option\118342C9_ASHLEY_NO CURB.dwg 10/4/2019 2:33:36 PMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.
R
12224 NICOLLET AVENUE
BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
Phone: (952) 890-0509
Email: Burnsville@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.comNICHOLAS J. AMATUCCIO
53639 MM/DD/YYYY
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
MH/CB/LW
JB/JW
NA/MW
T19.118342
C9.11ASHLEY RD EXHIBITS
ASHLEY ROAD - NO CURB
FEETSCALE
0 10 20
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
LEGEND:
= CUT VOLUME
= FILL VOLUME
Appendix E: Interlachen Park Maintenance
History
INTERLACHEN MAINTENANCE HISTORY
INTERLACHEN PARK STREET & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF HOPKINS, MN
BMI PROJECT NO. T19.118342
YEAR ASHLEY RD BOYCE ST GOODRICH ST HAWTHORNE RD HOLLY RD HOMEDALE RD INTERLACHEN RD MAPLE HILL RD MEADOWBROOK RD OAKWOOD RD PRESTON LN
1977 SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT
1978 OVERLAY
1979 OVERLAY
1980 OVERLAY
1981
1982
1983 SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT
1984 OVERLAY OVERLAY
1985 OVERLAY OVERLAY OVERLAY
1986
1987 OVERLAY
1988
1989 SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT
SEAL COAT &
OVERLAY SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT
1990
1991
1992 FULL DEPTH PATCH
1993
1994
1995
1996 SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT
1997
1998
1999 OVERLAY OVERLAY
OVERLAY &
REHABILITATION
2000 CRACK SEAL
2001
2002 CRACK SEAL CRACK SEAL
2003
2004
2005
2006
CRACK SEAL &
SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT
CRACK SEAL &
SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT SEAL COAT
CRACK SEAL &
SEAL COAT
2007 SEAL COAT SEAL COAT
2008
2009
2010
2011 CRACK SEAL CRACK SEAL CRACK SEAL
STREET & MAINTENANCE TYPE
Services Provided:
Civil and Municipal Engineering
Water and Wastewater Engineering
Traffic and Transportation Engineering
Aviation Planning and Engineering
Water Resources Engineering
Coatings Inspection Services
Landscape Architecture Services
Surveying and Mapping
Geographic Information System Services
Funding Assistance
www.bolton-menk.com