Cr 90-223 PH - Street Improvements - Campbell
.. Ii<
\ Y 0
\
(, '"
:Ca:
. October 30t 1990 o P K \ -;\ Council Report: 90~223
Public Hearing - street Improvements
campbell Addition
.PX..9posed Act. i.9..1!.
Staff recommends the folloTH'ing mction: l'1ove~~9uUQil
9-_~~t tILe ,feasJ,bili.tv report as orde:r_Etd on October 16l
199Q~-A!Ld that,: R~solutio~ No. 2.0-127, Resolutj.,on orderin,.g
Im12rov~meTJ.t Aft~~PubJ.j.c Hearinq, be ad~.
This action will continue an assessable proj~ct on Althea
Lane, Herman Terrace and Her.man Court. Plans and
specifications will be developed and bids soU.cited for
construction in the s\mmer of 1991.
~rvi~~.
The Council at. its regular October 16, 1990 meeting ordered
a feasibility report concerning Althea Lane, Herman Terrace
and Herman Court be drawn up. It also ordered a publiG
hearing concerning such a project. Residents were invited
to a public information meeting held October 25, 19901 and
. issues of street width, street condition~ construction costs
and assessments were discussed. The Council is at a point
where it must decide on ordering the project.
Primar~~sues to Consider.
0 What are the current conditions of the roadways and
.... utilities?
0 Should the Council accept the feasibility report?
0 Should the Council order the improvement?
.s.uPPQrt mJ.Jl-i9.ns.. t i on.
0 Notice of Hearing of Improvement
0 Affidavit of loiailing Public Hearing NotIce
c Mailing Li.st
0 Location Map
0 Feasibility Report
0 Preliminary Assessment Roll
0 Braun Engineering Report
0 IMS Report
0 Resolution No. 90-127
~L_,~ .
_os -:-'-41J 'll -...
James Gtassele
Engineering Superint~ndent
;.,.
- -.-- -~ -- ___ !IiIII! ~- .... - .1M'IPMAi"'- ~ ;
, ,
I
. Al1a1.ysi$..
c What are the current conditions of the roadways and
utilities?
The streets were constructed approximately forty years
ago without curb and gutter and without the benefit of
much aggregate base materials. This type of
construction without edge protection has allowed
surface water to infiltrate into the base, ~:Qakening
the base and causing failure of the bituminous surface.
Storm sewer facilities are inadequate and additional
installation is requ.ired.
Televised inspection reports of the existing sanitary
sewer system need to be examined to identify where
rehabilitation work is required.
0 Should the Council accept the feasibility report?
Staff finds the report to be complete and recommends
its acceptance. (See feasibility report for discussion
of issues).
0 Should the Council order the improvement?
:. The City is cu~rently spending a disproportionate
amount on road repairs when compared to other cities.
These streets in Campbell Addition are at a point of
diminishing returns in terms of patching and overlay
applications, and staff recommends ordering the
improvements.
A.~.
L Proceed by ordering plans and specifications to be
drawn up.
2a Conti.nue the resolut.ion for further information.
---
I .
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin county I Minnesota
. NO'I'ICE OF HEARING OF IMPROVEMENT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
WHEREAS, the City Council of the Ci.t:y of Hopkins f Hennepin
County, Minnesota 1 deems it necessary and
expedient that the improvement hereinafter
described be mads,
NOW I THEREFORE, notice is hereby given that tho City Council
will hold a public hearing on said improvement at
the following time and place within the said city.
DATE: NOVEMBER 6 I 1990
: TIME: 8:30 P~M.
lJOCATION: CITY HALL
Council Chambers
1010 First street south
Hopkins, MN 55343
The general nature of the improvement is the construction of
streets and storm sewer and inspection and repair of
sanit.ary sewer, water main, and gas utillties, city Project
90-201 in the followinq described area:
. ALTHEA lANE, HERMAN TERRACE AND HERMAN COURT IN
CAMPBELL .ADDITION TO HOPKINS
THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF SAID IMPROVEMENT IS $300,000
.
It is proposed to assess every lot, piece or parcel of land
benefited by said improvement whether abutting thereon or
not, b.ased upon benefits received withou.t regard to cash
valuation..
Persons desiring to be heard with reference to the proposed
.improvement should be present at this he~.ring.
This Council proposes to proceed under the authority granted
by Chapter 429 MSA.
Dated this 16th day of october. 1990.
-
BY OROER~ THE CITY COUNCIL
/';/ J1 #.~
/~ ,/" '//
~ ~ f1-~" ;14: ':~-,--
~. A< Gens 1 e, ~ty Clerk
:. t::~y of Hopkins, Minnesota
','- ,.
~, ' , , . ~~ ,/ P1J.blish: Hopkins Sailor
',C _ .
,',-',
October 24 and 31, 1990
. -
-,c_
r,,-
~;~L:_~:..',(;:,
a~'Illl! ___L, _ ~ ,_II !Ii T V _!iIIiII ",__'_.L~___
, ,
~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING ASSESSMENT HEaRING NOTICE
STA'rE OF MINNESOTA )
) SSG
COUtlCIL OF HOPKINS }
James A, Genelliej being first duly sworn, deposed and says:
I am a United states citizen, over 21 years of age, and the
City Clerk of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota.
On October 18, 1990, acting on behalf of the said city, I
deposited in the United states Post Office at the City of
Hopkins, Minnesota, copies of the attached notice of hearing
en proposed street and storm sewer construction, City
Project 90-20, enclosed in sealed envelopes, with postaqe
thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the following persons at
the addresses appearing on the attached copy of the mailinq
list~
There is delivery service by United states mail bet\\'een the
place of mailing and the places so addressed.
,/;-'
,//
.' / ::Y/
. . /Ji- ~? /;;Z~
~/ Signature- .
/,/ /"
S!1bscribed ~ri~ sworn to bef~re me this 18th day of Octob~r,
1990. ·
i-I J: ~
-~ ~---
Notary Publ~c ~
",", , " .........<>..........--1
" JAMES T. GESSEtE
,., ,.. ,;'11: ,_M1~TA
... Jj Ht:....NI;PIN cOUMlY
~ ., ,-,.... ,,,... ,.,....
. .......'...".'.<~
t,'
, -~,.
1~.
':0~;.':i;'~.~~
~--- '1_,- ~ ~-__",1__ Juri! -~- ~ _lIl!r 1Il_ 1m - IT ~
~.. ..__.~. ---~ -
~WJC'P6l?~(Jf2/4lPlaI22..2 ~~30t.?1~~ ~~ J~~&i_J/~1_2~nJil~ 4/2
..
.3/4-
I
I
I -
-0 -~
m
-f
-
-f
- --
0 ....
~. Z
....
m
::n
(J)
tJ_
:b-
iB
II)
~ I
~!:.hl .
-
-
___~~.~_~~.~'r_____~_~~_______'____~~__ __,_,__~__~_~ '____~_~__~"__
, .
WAatw90d Professional Ser~lc6s, Inc, '"
,. october 3~~ 1990 o 1418\1 Trunk Hwy;; o 8525 Edmbrook Crossing
Eden Pralne, MN 55344 Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
612937.5150 612424.8862
fAX 612,9375822 FAX 612.424,7994
Honorable Mayor and City Council
city of Hopkins
1010 South First street
Hopk.ins, MN 55343
Re: Feasibility Report, Campbell Neighborhood street Improvements
Dear Honorable Sirs:
We are pleased to submit the enclosed feasibility report for the Campbell
Neighborhood street Improvements. This report summarizes the history relating
to this project, the altel.-natives that were ana.lyzed a.nd the project cost
estimates.
.
We will be available at the November 6, 1990 COQ~cil meeting to present this
report.
.. Sincerely,
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, XNe,
~';!.f(m 8~v:~1
Richard L. Koppy / Francis O. Hagen, Sr.
js I
enclosure
.".
-.
-:.
= "--:._,
1-:..'_:,
",,'\'-'.--_.,,"
1-.',:";'_.,,:;,.,_,,'.
.'~...'c,', ::":;, ~_'...'
,>'.'.- '
,,--
.~'l-'.".
.-_,~':; -.'.~---
::-'1:).:
~'
,.:c:",,--,,'
't':.-",:"
'~'...--;", ,,'-,.~,-,
--- 'MII'lPV !'TI'n~Il~~_ .2I:I.U,l11F3IlW 'c..-':X;. ~DMi. ~.l"i~~ I!i..~~-~ _ ..JlllII1
, .
.
Feasibility Report
Campbell Neighborbood
street Improvements
Hopkins, Minnesota
.
I
I
I
.
I hereby cGrtify that this report was prepared by 88 or under ~y direct
supervision and that I am a duly registered ProfE:.sSional Engineer undfilr the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
~ ' t\
~- \~
- ~~{)., t
Francis D. Hagen, Sr.
Registration No. 6641
'.'
.,,~
~:.
~~~Ji?-'.
,-.:,:....;:-
"'::"., '-' .
.,'.". -.-,-
,,-:
~,~j)/~..>-~,-: '.--'; _ ....... ._ ."_h_._._ ~.,_..
~
. .
D"l'ROOUC'!'IO.1
. This feasibility study addressee street iRlpro\"U.!!mts :lv. the CMpbeH
Neighborhood, specifically on Althea Lane, He.nwl Terraea and HerM&n Court
(see Location Map - Figure 1), This report W~B u~$d by the City council ou
October 16, 1990 in response to a peti tion recei veG. frOI!ll hoseotv'lltU."l! in the
C'.ampbell .J.ddi ticn. The accospanying Fi~ure 2 shows the locstionB of the
pet:!. tioners . This project was disCUSEad nt a nai~hborhood public
informational meeting on OCtober 25, 1990 (See Figur~ 3). l'igur& 4 depicts
the ehrOi"l.Ol.ogy of other events and decisions relative to this project.
.
.
\~
..
.---; 1
.- _ ow, _--"-"'~"___-'------"""""'---"-~~'---~--'--- ---,--,--
. -
~
. A1t~~YU
Three candidate alternativES were identified and GV21uated for this proj~t:
Optior.. A : Remove oi.sUng- street I replace with cencr-eta curb and gutter :md
bit!~inous surfacing_
Option 1:1: Patch existing Burface and overlay with bituminous surfacing.
Option C: Remove existing streett replacs with concrete curb and gutter and
concrete street.
The proJi'lQsed roadway width for Options A and C is 26 feet, ...,i th surmountable
0-412 concrete curb and gutter arNd concrete driveway aprons. Storlll f:'ewiU
constl-uetion on ~erman Terrace is included with Options A and C as depicted on
~igur& 5.
~;:eYiQus Analv5~ji
The roa.dways in the CaI:lpbell Neighborhood have been tested by Infrastructure
Management Servic~ and Braun Engineering Testing. Th~ purpose of these tests
was to d8tel'1Dine the structural i:nteqd ty of the existinq roadway surbce and
base. The studies c:ollcludedl based on the pavement condition index (PCI),
that these roadways should be r~con9tructed.
. The proposed typical section (for the b-itu.ir.ous recon:struction option) and
the proposed driveway 2sction are show on the attached Figures 6 and 70
,.,'.
~~\:";i:
:i ~,~-"
(-,,~..~; 2
.;~:~; :;'!
~:;~:
1'!J!K!~1~1-.m~__~_ !lfJrl'l11l "iN :"-1ASiI ~. ~l!4_B ~r- 1- VOOk-.._, ""ll~'-- !i __
, .
COST Jr.S'tDIit.'1'ES
. CQnstruction c08t e.tilUtes have been developed for all three options. The I
costs are based on. 1991 construction. I
~~A ~~B ~~C I
street Constr\lction $194,520 $ 80,368 $210,425
Storm. Sewer CO'fo..st1:uetion _~ 2~O -- _~. _~~
$230,800 $ 80.3B8 $246,705
The above cost estimates include HI' COfttingencies and 20' Fngineez'ing, !.eqal,
.Acbv.inistrati.ve and Financing costa.
PROPOSED ~
Tbe proposed financing .tor the project includelS 4 combination of! special
assessm~~ts and City participation as outlined in Policy N7-D, Roadway
Improvements, revised August 21, 1990. The City will pay 100% of the storm
sewer cost and will pay 30% of the street construction cost. Seventy percent
of the str6et construction cost will be asssssad to the benefiti~9 property
owners _
.
~'!'I0lM
Option A, the ruoval of the uistinq street and replacuent wi t:h conc1:ete
. curb and gutter and bitUIII.inous surfacing- is the racouended projec.t
a.lternative. This option, .s described in this t"eport is fusible rillative to
engi~_dng de~ign and ecoooaic analysis. A proposed schedule for the
r~inder of the project process is included with this report as Figure 8.
';.-
l-~
,~'-~:i:. .
, ,."
3
- -
.._-_._-_._-----~--------_..__._._-----_._. .....-
_............reRn~mol~~~- _ -wro'-.:J._1:
. .
.
Campbell Neighborhood Street I~~rovements
H~pkinsf Minnesota
Preliminary cost Estimate, street Improvement
Option A~ Concreta Curb & Gutter, Bituainous Surfacing
Item Oeecpription Quantity Unit Amount
price
---~---------~---------------------~-----~-~-----------~---------~-
1 Bituminous Removal 7733 SY $1.00 $7,733.00
2 Cone. Driveway Removal 160 SY $6.00 $960.00
3 Adjust San. Sewer Manholes 12 EA $150.00 $1,800.00
4i\djust Gate Valves 4 Ei\ $50.00 $200.00
5 Sul:1grade preparation 30 RS $350.00 $10,50~,OO
6 Class 5 A99. Base 263C TN $6.00 $15,780.00
7 aituminous Surfacing 1540 TN $23.00 $35,420.00
a Cone. Driveway Aprons 665 SY $25.00 $16,625.00
9 Bit. Driveway Patching 166 TN $25.00 $4,2QO.00
to Cone. Curb & Gutter, 0-412 . 5900 LF $4.00 $23,600.00
. 11 Topsoil Borrow 1278 Cl' $7.00 $8,946.00
12 sodd.ing 9600 Sy $2.25 $21,600.00
------------~---~~-~-p~---------------~-------~-~-~---------~---~~- ."
Subtotal $14 7 , 364. 00
+10' Contin9eneies S14,736.00
--......-----------
Estimated Construction Cost $162/100.00
+20t En~t Legal, Adain & Finance COats $32,420.00
____c..__..".c-._______
Estimated street taprovement project Cost $194,520.00
.'
~:}~<~:':.,~:'
,:;.\/-t~;'~...
i~;~r~{(".' ,;
--',-".
. .
.
Campbell Ne.ighbol."hood s.treet ZWlprc\Jeaents
Hopkins, Minnesot&
preliminary Cos;t Estimate! Street Improvement
Option B: Ove.r lay with Eli tuminous Surfacing
IteJ2 Pascp:dlt,tion Quantity Uni t Amou,,"lt
price
__~__________~__~____~__~_____~__~~___~____~_~___~___.___r~__________
1 Remove Distressed Bit./Base 3100 SY $1.50 $4,650.00
2 Adjust San. Sewer Mauholes 12 EA $150.00 $1,800.00
3 Adjust Gate Valves -4 EA $50.00 $200.00
4 Subgrade Repair 1883 TN $6,00 $11,298.00
5 Class 5 Agg. Base 942 TN $6.00 $51652.QO
G aituminous Patch 512 TN $25.00 $12,800.00
7 Surface Pre~. & Leveling 7733 SY $0.75 $5,800.00
8 Bituminous Overlay 850 TN $22.00 $18,700.00
------~---,~~--------~--~----~----~---~----~---~-~~-----~-----------
Subtotal $60,900.00
+10\ Contingencies $6,090.00
. Estillated Construction CoEt ---;~~:;;~~~~-
+20% En9~ Legal, AdMin & Finance Coat$ $13,398.00
--------------
Estimated street Improvem~~t Froject Coat $~O,3e8.00
I
'...-
j.
<.~.. ..,
.'-", ,"""
,~ :,/.;-,.' ..
.., c ~i.
:" ."-.
~.'--':~" .
_-='4
,-;': ":.~
. -.-- '.'-'.' ~
"""\",,,"', :
".i~i>:(::~ ~;?..:.: ,
~..::~:~r'.:-~.' .
..,,-, ,,,'
"-~.' -'-':' ,,:'+ ,.',.<
~n:;;0:i:ii~):~if~:~~'~..,: '.
::.- I>;~t ,.,- ;".,:~-:~_.. ',: .-.~':,/;(~,;:.:~:<:~' '>, ' \_... '.,. ~~ _~'1'1I -~ Jl'R w- 11- 'Vr -" 'IT"
.
~
Campbell Neighborhood street Improvements
Hopkins, Minnesota
Preliminary Cost Estimate, street Improvement
Option C: Concrete curb & Gutter, Concrete street
Iter\} Descpription Quantity Unit AmOUL1.t
Price
-----~------~------------~~---~---------------------------~---------
1 Bituminous Removal 7733 SY $1.00 $7,733.00
2 Cone. Driveway Removal 160 SY $6.00 $960.00
3 Adjust San. Sewer Manholes 12EA $150.00 $1,800.00
4 Adjust Gate Valves 4EA $50.00 $20Q.OO
5 SUbqr:ade preparation 30 RS $325.00 $9,750.00
6 Cone. Driv-evay Aprons 665 BY $25.00 =:'6~62S.t)O
7 Cone. Curb 11 Gutter, 0-412 5900 Lr U . 00 $231600.00
8 an Concrete paveaent aOOG SY $8.00 $64,000.00
9 sit. Driveway Patching 168 TN $25.00 $4,200.00
10 TOpsoil SOrrow 1278 CY $'1,00 $8,946.00
t 1 ~ Sodding 9600 BY $2.25 $21~600.00
--_.~~----------------~------------------~---~--~----------~-~-----
S..wtotal $159,414.00
.. 1 0% contingencies $15,941.00
------------~-
Estimated Construction Cost $175,355.00
~20\ !nq, LQgal, Admin & Finance Costs $35,070.00
_________u.____
Estimated street Illprove~ent Project Cost $210,425.00
- - .............
,
tEl
0/ ~~ 0
'lI ._~
-~ ,"" ....., I ,
I!. .... ..,! e .
\ I:! . I I I II I i Q I
r"""": u. ... ". I I .I ) 1
-....... L- : i / 2 }-.:J I
) -' . ~r. - '.. . 1 .
) . ~'-
I or. ~.. .. 'I
.. ; .. .., !';.., ..' ! . 9 e
I.... .." , ~, ~ 7--
J \" ... .., . II B
. \ ~ .
'I fa ..II .. , "\: l:~ \ ~ 7 ..,a:fiKl! n.,
~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 9 ( ~ t.~n~ ~\ J i I. I
J - - . ~~ ~ IE flp)!
f&) j~..-. ~ or 3
~ ~'_.... of
~- '--- ../"r I I _ ~ ~'~--r~~,
. -i=&~~ '~~,
_. T
r:=~"'~''''l ~' · ~\. ~
. Ioc.. _ _.......~\ .1\
..-- :--' I in
~ s ( .
~ ~ - . \1\\' = ~
)I> 0 1 ~/\fle
. ~ I I i\ I~ ! '.. .
)> ire · .1:
;OliO. ~., . \~ ---.: ...
'-~. '
.. o~
. ..
...- - '..,
w
~ .
~ g
5 ~ ~
..10 n 3: :0 ;j
ao~ z:X rom
. ., '"N ~- z 2 0 F '.'
. 'Con m ",'
,,:,-,_::, _' _, W A ~ >, ,.~,:
. .", 8 0 zen' '0:.
!:IF -1 (f) -4 0 .~/~
~, ~ .--':;:'~'i
> ' )> ~ ..; .......:,
..., --0 C ~ "--::';':.
(1 0 n',
-i :% '
(5 ..',.
z..
",_;;" ,"' 8 " '...
. ..~~.~~ ".._' _.... . ~_ ~ ~zll<3. ...._ ~ -_ - -- ~;)$O; -..0-'.
- - ---________~r_
---~-...----~~~ ~~":w\I~
~ ~
L ""10 . .5'.....41 ! 1J.J~8LJ42!~ ~
~U:U-'06I2~O~222J;?261?!P12J*".w~~i ~ ~lol ~J-2,20 ~28 - _:'lQ~. 4/.?_ _
5TH. AVENu'E NO. CO. RD. NO. .~
f2fu120:~ 2/TT22/ 227-1 23FI I 2041 ~ I- ~V:OI 307/31.3'13i7-2 325 33/ 337 34:5 407 1
. I i I 1;"::J.J ' r>1
I '-D CCI ~ Ch Ul- -:> ~ r-' I - C5 Oi -oJ ()) (;!II ~ IN N;- .::l
' CO Q := Q <i)' I I l' I).' ~ ~:f ~ m, ~ , ~ g1 ~
! ~ ~ v .B .... -L. _ _ ~ _ -L t...-:~ ~ ............g -!:e .... ...,'_
f ~ 'fj; I I ~ I V!! c>> ~,':;:j 'q q ~
_....M J' .....' 0 (I)...." .......
- ..~ - i 1 .-. ...... - ____ ~ ~ .A.
(5 :: UI l,lI : .:> I ti: : Ci I -oJ/ / c:al~ ~ Jll N I::
,J I =:...L. ,~...=!- =d::I 1- J02 39J1 314 520 326 t.~-' ~3lJ
I~ . e I SWEET BRIAR '#0<"
: .319 325 331 -/337 13'4:' l~~ . t:4 '9'''''0
II /0 ~ CC -..j (II 01 .". (jI '" _ ~
/'("\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tii ffl ii) ~,~$
""T1 .v .. ... ........, _ '"-"' ~ ........, _ ~. ~ ~
m ~ -. ~ -- ~ I I -~
........, .;- ai~ ~ .-. '""' ~
-' 302 -:;: l.>I g; <.11 ~
..---., ~ -.. 2 .........
o S - N _ I\l~
~. Z -
- ....
m
~ ~~
m s
~Ui
g "i\i
-
1\>1 .
~~- 2..
_ i\).......
- O_f"l
~___~"_~_____,~_~_C_'__ --_.~~-
. .
10/25/90
CITY OF HOPKINS FIG. 3
. PUBLIC WORKS
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
CAMPBELL NEIGHBORHOOD
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
OCTOBER 25. 1990
I. INTRODUCTION
a. Pattiei pants
b. Agenda Review
c. H&'1d .outs
II. BACKGROUND ON CAMPBELL NEIGHBORHOOD SfREET IMPROVEMENT PROCESS
&. Chr'ono]ogy
b. Previous Studies
III. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
a. Overview,.
b.. TransportAtion Projects
IV. STREET CONDiT!ON SURVEY
'. L IMS Study
b. Bt&un Tuting
V. ROADWAY IMPROVEME.NT FOLley
a. Petition Procedure
b. Policies
Vi, SPECIFiC STREET DISCUSSION
a. Slides
0, Impro....ement Di,ll:u~ion ~ alt.ernati'fe&:
VII. FINA.NCfS FOR PROJECT
.- ,"~'
a. Cost Esthnat~s fok' A1te:rnatives ..-,- "
.;,._-t
b. AUMSmefits :.'","
. -.;"o!'
" - ~ :~:f~
;::.
VIII. SCHEOULE
..,<~~:i!.
iX. SUMMARY "~l"~J.
e. Review asenda .. Whit hay. we covered'i ..,.;~
.: !::"":~
.~~~':':::Ji
b. Wher~ do 'W'\') '0 froM nerd r" .':I,~.;':.
:~,,~,\
~' ,':).~<~:}~
..>.:~;!
~:~~~:,~~-f~
..i;~~~
l,iil
.-...:..'.-;
->':~:.i~-':-~
';~'WlilL' M ,-- --'-'-"'I-~ wlrdiil:6. ~ __'1IIIMli .,;;~
----, - --,- -------, - '~.-~ "-"~ ----~--~'-~'._---'~-~--- ~"_I
. .
Q\\eation: Was the leval of maintenance in the Campbell streets
studied in 1988 determined with council approval?
.' Answer. : Ye5~ the following is a chronological listing of events
related to these streets.
June 1987 P.W~ staff completed visual street condition study
placing these streets in generally poor condition.
-
August 1987 Council and Staff reviewed street conditions and
began work on a comprehensive roadway improvement
policy..
Nove:m.ber 1987 Council adopted a comprehensive roadway
improvement policy.
May 1.988 council approved a comprehensive pavement
management study by Infrastructure Management
Services (IMS) ~sinq funds from delaying 1988 se~l
coat are~s designated as poor by the 1987 staff
study (see report 88-96 and 5/19/88 Council
::ainutes) .
June 1988 ~etition received to study the feasibility of
street improvements for Althea La,ne, Campbell
Drive, Herma.n Terrace: and Herman Court. The TKDA
study recommended reconstruction~
. Dec~ 1988 Petition received to delay reconstruction as
proposed by the feasibility study.
January 3.989 council acted to remove project from 1~e9 projects
and reconsider streets for reconstruction in 1990
(see 1/17/89 Council minutes)..
I
December 1989 i
I
to July 1990 Council discussed portions of roadway improvement I
pqlicy~ staff put projects on hold awaiting
policy decision. i
I
August 1990 Council amends roadway improvement policy.
:1
October 1990 Petition received to reconstruct Alth,ea Lana,
Herman Terrac~ and Herman Court as pe~ policy. m
October. 1990 council adopted Capital IIDprovement Plan including
proposed strest reconet~uction ~sed on 1MB study~
Th. streets to be evaluated in ~or~ detail in th~
year prior to t.~.e elF indicat~d yea1" includinq
publio information ~@etin9s.
FIG. 4
- -
- -
-
.
~ ",
- -
-
, .
& ~
~ ~
S' '"0 ...........~--.~
OJ -~ -
$f' m 5Ttt~ENUE
~ r ~-Y
5 r
~ -
~
r.l>
0 Q
....
Q) I
I ~,
::0
:c
0
8
~
Xi
m
m
-t
3::
-0
:D .
~
m
~.
m
~
J
--
~~. ,- -," I
.'\
"
~.:;.,:" ;
~,;~. ,:"
('," .{~
~:>~-,
i- , , ."., "
~. , .-A - '.,-,.'--.....
J.} ; is 0 J ".. . .e,i"
~ :, r:J
a'I
........-
~, .-" . t1i 8
~~' ~ .... ~ d.
~j.<-T ( ~ r-
~r..>_:'.': . ---.. ~
~~:':--.-','., ,.
. .... ",". .....
',:; ., ~ ':'~~fMMJ'
~iI'~,' ,;;;.:~"-,,:,,,
-~~
> ::....~ ~..."4
'"'>,0",,_,. ...
~t<.::,,:"':-.
?f~;-:'-:~.~'.~ ' . ,::,,",~---.:.:....:.,-
'i.~~:' - ..-
k:~:.j:.~.~~~:,<?i1di'_'~:.4,_ aww-- ---....."
._. lh._
I
,"'---~-
-
- --~ ---~-
~__"''''''_4~_'~_~_~
-"'"""l""
A
r -,
I 0 I . !
o ~ .
~ ~
~ ~ .
" v .
i" OJ ___I
SO; p1 _\
~ r I
~ \
(!) Z \ '
8 m ~ I
- r. .... .
OJ ~ }-__ __ I -1 ~ !
8 I;>> I
~ 0 _
~ 0 1\),
::r.: _ I
o * i
o .
~ ~=,~} N
-( ""!:", Ul
~ S~:, (
..:.: ~, ". " ~ "'" .
I rr . " . '.. , .' i
m ~,:.:~~:;-;, .;:"": 'I _ U)
--l ""~"'. . . N m
-M -< ..'." ." '. -. i -
v ,.. . j . ".
13 lJ '~;!Y:i .; :.':, ~ I
< () \::":";::",:: ~ ',:., r'i\5 ':- H
m ::.....;.. :. :. v _
s:: )> ;...~..., ....:.; .
m r .-.... .. '. '.. ;, ~
", ,~: .....;..,l , ".
z ~~'_,_
---1 .:....._ __, . ~
-, ....,','
(..f) (J) ~ :' ---- I'
iT1 ! ~
o i I ( ;:
.::! "l, "'. -= ~ p . I
o 0' CD N; h 0 I-!
Z r - r;:o ~ ~ lot
.;-1_ l~.... I L
Ul co;-i f~'" ,
>~ ~;-i I
G') (!);E a If,,: , f:.n
G"J1Tl~ 1'";i + ~
::0_..", _'.'
. ;!:#... f\.),
~z~ O~i - ,.
(i) '- ~ 0 l~
filg~ :z 1
~..o P " N
!'\) ~ n t 'q -
~ MI'o ~
(A N ;.ow- 1;
::; '" G> .1 ---1. ~,
J;:. \ J .,- -_. :E _ ..
~- ,
---------- ~.....,;
t ...~
I. .....
~ - - .-- l,j:
:ll <:> ,_ .. __ ... '.. '\~'{.:"
fil 5l j ., ... j~
;tD ?a , '. ., ..,., ',,' ~'!t
" .>,
Llk.<!II:! 1-",-... fJ~5..4>. ~~ ....~'"
q"l~.!oC..Ll, ':l~. ~ ~~""- '_.
..............'.-.-.,..., ...... f'
---......... - "-'.
-~ ---~---- --.----""-
llIRl~~..AtliI"l!IllII"I' .~~
.".. . ...- --
- --W~II'II';~__.".
Wl"~
....... ...--..,- 1.dI -4.- -
~--.... ...
~_If""" r- _.
:x ~ .
"
~ ~
:.1' "'0
.tt:> !Xl
s: m
r
:r r
?J )>>
Z 111,
m m n ...
0 00
.... G)
tl) z:
("l I>>
I . 11'1
OJ n" I I c,
:;:> t>
0 ~l 6. V2" EX? JOINT ~ 1'1
:n n ~
i\l . --;: :I'l
I ~ -, x
0 TK<-i ~ :'l.1
"" <t-
O c fTl ~~
J ~
0 :"l Z I!. I fl-l
-i :n
~ :0 I ~ I j
:0 ~ ~ ----
fT1 Z
m .:j ()
-1 .... M I
~ .... I
0 i
'"U -1 ~ I I I
:D ::r
~ :0 ~Ilr~f
-
I .......
(.Ii (') . I I
rr1 0)> ! .
(j 0 iY-i
-; z I~
-
0 ()
Z ;.u
)> m I
:P -i ~ t . I
~
i (") ~ l'
C ! I
:u [~l
00 i,
,.
r .g> I 2"- ,1
-0 fll
~ C)
;;:I I ~
lI> , I
tQ
~ I . t I _ r l/2" t.. JO,"T
.'
i
n
!:"
. )o...j
~o !l'.v N" J
,
~: ,: ~~
t\6
fli'
.... $I
,a " .~:L~~
.'
i\) ,", ......'..':
. " '-~'
{J" .,,':'--
...a 8 c, ;;:~:;
- ~:;,~;~
.. ~ '~'.
J .
. """:--'--"-:?
. ;
10/25/90
. FIG. 8
,
Campbell Neighborhood
Proposed Schedule
October 16, 1990 Council orders feasibility report and sets
pubHc hearing dat~
October 18, 1990 Publie hearing notices malJed
October 24 & 31. 1990 Notice of Hearing on bnprovements u Hopkins Sa11o'!
October 25, 1990 . Neighborhood IoJormation :M~eting
Nove-mber 6. 1990 Council accepts feasibility report Ilttdho!d, pubHc h~arittg
. Nov.~ Dec. 1990 Plans ~nd ~peclfications 4raw up
December 1990 Neighborhood infotmati~n meeting
January 8. 1991 Council accepts plar.5 and O~d0rs bleb:
February 5. 1991 Bid opening and Council sets as:.essm~nt hearing data
I
March 5, 1991 Assessment hearing t
April 16. 1991 A ward of bid
May 1991 Construction begins
____,~_..__..~~___. _~_~__~~_~__.____"""""~_~____~C_~'-'--'---'-'-~~~T__ - -----'-"--~-------------'--~~~
, ,
Perllmlnary A....smen! Roll
Project 90..20: Campbell Addition
. Addr-eS8 Lot Block Pin No. -':W. -4 ~bl. R3.~ AswL"-
FIlmt Avtf,.
Footage Front/Ft. Foota,ge '''ulal
217 Althea Lan(: 15 35.50 -
2 24.:117-22 14 0017 6.1. 58 65.00 65.00 2307.50
218 Althea Lane 18 3 24-1!7-2214 0031 73.20 65.00 65.00 35.50 2301.50
221 Althea ume 16 2 19-.t17-2123 0048 66,00 Red. 66.00 35.50 ~'343. 00
222 Althea Lane 17 3 24-117-22 14 00:30 64.00 Red. 64.00 35.50 2272.00
225 Althea Lane 1.7 2 19.117-2123 0049 86.00 Hect. 66.00 35.50 2343.00
220 Althea Lane 16 3 :l.'H 17-22 14 002t) 84.00 Rect 64.00 35.50 2272.00
229 Althea Lane 18 2 19-117-2123 0050 66.00 Reel 66,00 35.50 2343.00
230 Althea Lane 15 :) 24-117-2214 0028 64.00 Rect. 64.00 35.50 Z272.00
233 AHhea Lan" 19 :2 19-117~21 23 0051 5$.00 Rect. 66.00 35,50 2343.00
234 Althea Lane 14 3 24-117-22 14 0027 64.00 Rect. 64.00 35,50 2272.00
237 Althea Lane 20 2 19-117-2123 0052 66,00 Rect 66.00 35.50 2343.00
238 Althea Lane 13 3 24-117-2214 0026 64.00 Rect 64.00 35.50 227:2.00
30 1 Althea Lane 21 :2 19-111'2123 0053 66,00 Reet. 66.00 35.50 Z343.00
302 Aith..~ Lane 12 3 24.117-2214 0025 64,00 Recto 64.00 35.50 2272.00
306 Althea Lane 22 2 19-117-2123 0054 66,00 Rect. 66.00 35.50 2343.00
306 Althea Lane 11 3 24-117-2214 0024 ~4.0Q Rect. 64.00 35.50 2272.00
309 Althea I...ane 23 2 19-il7-2123 0055 S6.00 Rect. 66.00 35.50 234'3.00
310 Althea Lane: 10 3 19-117-2123 0060 64.00 RecL 64-.00 35,50 Z272.'JO
313 Althea Lane 24 2 19.117-21 23 0056 63.60 Rcct 63.50 35.50 2257.80
314 Althea Lane 9 3 19-117-21 ::t3 0059 64.00 ReeL 54.liO 35.50 2272.00
317 Althe&.1.ane 25 2 19-117-2123 0057 85.50 65,00 65.00 35.50 2307,50
318 .AJthea lane B 3 19-117-2123 0053 165.80 65.00 65.00 35.50 2301.50
350 Althea Lane 1 3 24-117-22 14 OO.2~l 65.1)0 Reet. 65.00 35.5(1 2307.5G
353 Althea J..a.ne Pt3 1 19"117-2123 0005 &1.00 G5.00 65.00 35,50 2301.50
3...J14 Althea Lane 6 3 24-117-2214 0022 65,00 ReeL 65.00 35.50 2307.50
357 Althea. Lane Pt2 1 19-117-2123 0097 80.00 65.00 60,00 35.50 23{)1.50
358 Althea Lane Pt4,5 3 24-117-2214 0021 95.00 65.00 35.00 35.50 2307.60
361 AltMa Lane i 1 24-117-2214 0016 211.67 65.00 65.00 35.50 2307.50
300 Althea. Lane 3.Pt4 3 24- i 17-22 14 0020 94.8D 65.00 65.00 35.5C 230'1.50
370 Althea Lane 2 3 24-117-22 14 0019 62.20 65.00 65.00 35.5C 22;01.50
374 Althea Lane 1. 3 24-iI7.2214 0018 89.30 65.00 65.00 35.50 :!.SO? .50
tii Hmman Terraoo 14 2 19-111-21 ~ 0047 102.85 65,00 65.00 35.50 ~07.50
Hamwt Te1"laCe 13 2 19.117-21 23 004-6 65.00 Reet. 65.00 35.5D 2307.50
o Hennan Tenacc: 12 2 19-117-21 23 0045 65.00 Re.::t 65.00 35.50 2307.50
234 Haman Tt:miICe 11 2 19-117-212S O(}44 65,00 Reel. 65.00 35.50 "-107.50
236 Hernan Tf';t'I'aCe 10 2 19-117-2123 0043 65.00 Rect €S.DO 35.50 23Q7.50
302 Herman Tern.ce 9 2 19-117-2123 O\M2 135.00 Rect. 65.00 35.50 2::J;07.50
306 Henna.'1 Terrace 8 :2 19-117-2123 0041 65.00 Re~t. 65.00 35.50 ~~'!.5C
310 HC!lMl1 Tunu:e 7 2 lIH 17-21 23 0040 65.00 Recl. 65:00 35.50 2307.50
314 He:nngn TelTace 6 2 19-117-21 Z3 0039 65.00 Rc-.ct. 65.00 35.50 2307.50
318 Herman Te-nace 5 2 1rJ-1l1-2123 0038 65.60 65.00 65.00 35.50 23Q7,50
322 Herman Terrace 4 2 19-117-2123 0037 99.72 65.00 6E-.OO 35.50 2-307.50
~ Herman Te!"t'aCt' 3' 2 19-117-212..'1 0038 ~O3.30 65.00 65.00 35.50 2301.50
333 Human Tenw;e P1.8 1 19-117-2123 OOW 59.71 65.00 65,00 35.50 2307.50
336 He-rman Terrace 2 2 19-117-2123 0035 10C.80 65.00 65.CO 35.50 2307.50 i
337 Herml1n 'Thn'ace 7 1 19-117-2123 0009 63.13 65.00 65.00 35.50 2307.50 1
'1
M 1 He:rman Terr:at'e 6 1 19-1l7-2i 23 0008 68.13 65.00 65.00 35.50 2.')07.50 I
342 H~ Tt:J'1"aCe 1 :2 19-117-2123 0034 98. 33 65.00 65.00 35.50 :t301.50 I
345 Hermazl 'f'~ 5 1 19-117.2123 0007 69.52 65.00 65.00 ~i5.5(I ~O7.50 !
34:~ Ht:mJ.a71 T et'tul:: 4 , 19-117-2123 0006 102,50 65.00 65.00 35.50 2307.50
A
2DO HCJ"nT&i C~urt 14-1f 1 19-117-2123 0099 90.9B 65.00 6S.00 35,50 2307.50
205 Herman Court Pt8.9 1 19..117-21 23 0011 86.9C 65.00 65.00 35.50 2301.50
209 H~ c.:.un 13 1 HH17-2123 0015 35.60 65.00 65.00 3fi.50 ~7.60
State Hwy. 169 Leis (Six Lots) 390.00 (6x6I5') 390.00 3S,50 ll.iM5.00
T<<:ItaJs 3832.60 1360i7:30
-- ~ - ;- 'VSi~ ;II.I2:1L Ill~
Z.
-.
- ._~ _~'P'I -or ~_ - ~
. .
.
.
PAVZMElM! BVALU1A~ION
:rOR
. CITY OF HOPF..IHa
"
I
Octobe"t: 1990
Co~iasion N~8 90-515
.
:'-:":'." ,-c.'
......".. lr ii/::~"I.._.__ml'i!l ~ .. .,~~~ -
,
.
october 221 1990
CITY OF HOPKINS
Mr. Jon Thiel
Public Works Director
1601 Second st. So.
Hopkins, MN 55343-7573
Dear HI'. Thiel;
Enclosed please find a copy of our. report entitled
PAVEMENT EVALUATION
FOR
CITY OF HOPKINS
. ' We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to ~e ot service to you
'and to the City of Hopkins. Should thare be any question$
rsgardinqthe contents of the report or any of our other
services, please do not hesitate to call. .
I b.er~by certify that. this.. report was prepared by me l.1nder my
direet supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professi~nal
Enqineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota..
David W. Janisch, P.E.
Registration Number: 18562
Da i:e :
Erland o. Lukanen, P~E.
Registration Number: 11932
Date; ,
-
'".-" -"-',,:','
',' . -'.."..-.-'""
",. --' - -~ .,'-' ,. "-. .~ -' ..~
. ... - r~_ _ ._. _'__.__.__'~~_..__;'__.':'~_h~___~___'________.___._'_.___..__.__-'__.._._____._~_.:..___.__,~..._...O_~..~~,...,;'~':"\,':'i.':,:',':i:.\::,;;;i.~,~'::,:;:i~i:'
__IT....- 11'- i N.-~lB'm - '111lff" l~ _~_........... "wrII
,
.
October 22, 1990
CITY OF HOPKINS
Mr. Jon Thie,l
Public Works Director
1601 Second st. So.
Hopkins, MN 55343-7573
Dear Mr.. Thiel;
Enclosed please find a copy of our report entitled
PAVEMENT EVALUATION
FOR
CITY OF HOPKINS
. ' We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you
and to the city of Hopkins. Should there be any questions
reqardinqthe contents of the report or any ot our other
services t please do not hesitate 'to call. .
I hereby certify that this. report was prepared by me under my
direct supervision and that r am a duly Registered Professional
Engineer under the laws of the S~ate. of Minnesota.
David W. Janisch, P.E.
Reqi,stration Nulnber: 18562
Date:
Er'land O. Lultanen, P~E.
Reqistr~tion NUmber: 11932
Date: ,
'f;,
-
-..... ---_--..-._~---_.._---_.. .--. -.
~T'_ ~-
.
INTRODO"C'I'rON
. The Braun Pavement Technologies, Inc~ was contacted, by the City
of Hopkins to conduct pavement analysis and make pavement
rehabilitation recommendations for several roadways located in
the north central part of the city. The following roadways were
evaluated:
- Althea Lane from Minnetonka Mills Road to Pavement Change
south of Farmdale Road
- Campbell Road from Burnes Drive to Pavement Change south of
Farmdale road
- Herman Court from Herman Terrace to the Cul-de-Sac
- Herman Terrace from 2nd Avenue ME to Althea Lana
The pavement evaluation was conducted using two methods. The
first method. is a surface condition survey. The survey procedure
used is similar to the PA.VER procedure developed by the US Corps
of Army Engineers and adopted by the ~merican ,Public Works
Association.. This rating technique measures actual quantities of
pavement surface distress and calculates a numerical .r.ating
between 0 and 100. This rating can b~ used to prioritize blocks
of street for rehabilitation purposes. The second method of
evaluation .is deflection testing.. The pa~e~e~ts were tested with
a Model 8000E Falling Weight Oeflectometer ( FWD) l.l.t 100 foot
intervals in both directions. The testifiq was staggered in :
. opposite directions so that a net spacing of 50 feet was I
achieved. The purpose of the deflection testing was to calcul~te I
the in-place subgrade soil strenqth( in-place pavement and
reqUired overlay thickness to obtain a 7-ton roadwal"": i
I
Further discussion of these analysis procedures is included I
within the report. · I
I
I
.
~
-...;--~ .......-. - - J~___~ 1~ 11.7 y~v y ~~"KII" -
. .
BASIS OF ANALYSIS
. The analysis was based on the results of the deflection tests and
also on information furnished by the client as fol1ows~
-the average annual daily traffic
-the thickness of asphalt surfacing
-the type of soil in the subgrade
In addition to the determinatiou of the allo~..,able' spring axle
load limits for each sectionl design ar:alys.is were ;.ncluded as
requested which includes the following:
-the effective subgrade soil R-value
.-the recommended NOT thickness design and/or
reconstruction thickness as appropriate
Deflection tests are at intervals of about 001 mile and the
al'la1x"sis and recommendations have been made over sections of
roadway with logical termini. Determining thesa recommendations
makes use of a statistical procedure to prevent the adapt ion o.f
overly conservative values. This procedure raises the
possibility that the rec~mmendations may not reflect the
condition or strength at some points. The~efore, the condition
of all the roadway surfaces should be monitored periodically to
observe whether occasional spots of distress occur.
'. The Braun Pavement Technologies program NOT was used for the
analysis of the defle~tion data. N~ incorporates the structural
relationships that were developed by MnjDOT Office at R~search
and Development and the thi.ckngss desiqn. relationships for
flexible pavements from the '~Guide for i)~sign of Pavement
Structures", published by,MSHTO in 1ge6. The design e'T.1ation
used is for an 85 percent confidence level based on the avera~e
AASHTO recommended factors.
The traffic volumes provided by the client were transformed into
daily equivalent. 18,000 pound axle loadings (ESALs) fOi: the
analysis. This conversion was based en st-ate.w:l,de. c,verages for'
vehicle ~i8tribution and weiqhts as shown in Chapter 7, Pavement
Design of the ROAD DESIGN ~~ALl Part rIa A tahulation is
included showing the typical vehicle distributions and truck
factors.
,The BSALs may vary by l\ considerable amount on loW' volume T.oads I
I
and, if it is found that the E~ALs are not repr.esentative of the
5$ction, then the analysis should be done over with the current )
.c.j
traffic data. <I
The analysis resultz and design recommendations for each of the
s~ctions evaluated are placed directly before the computer
... tabulations and plots for each of the sections evaluated.
-'
~
-~ _~_~T_____ .,_________,_ _.__..__.._. _.".__.,.
. ...
.
EQUIPMENT USED
. A Model 8000E Dynatest Falling Weight Deflectometer ( FWD) (Figure
1) was used for the nondestructive testing (NOT). 'l'he FWD is an
electro-hydraulically activated device that imposes a dynamic
impulse load ont.o the pav'ement~ The amplitude of the load is
adjusted by the operator of the FWD.
An 11.S-inch diameter contact plate was used to apply the load to
the pavement. The deflections were measured at the center of the
load area and at a~ J.2, 18, 24, 36, and 60 inches ahead of the
center of the load plate. A diagram of. the deflection basin and
deflection measurement locations is shown in Figure 2.
I
-- i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
--
. I
l l..d ~ 1"__ .-.... .nI.1III __.____________..__~ -~
Fiqure 1. Model SOOOE Dynatest Falling Weight Oeflectometer
__, 111 -A"_..............l!Il , L.. ..~ - --
DEfLI!CTlQ~S:
Itl~l t 1
LGftO
:;-------r
..e L_ ~~...lI. ...._.....__""'...1Ir __'_I"' . _____......... Jl.bd._ ~~J
Figure 2. Oeflection Basin as measured by the FWD
,'-.
.
,---
iii- .~......... -" -~-----~-~--~_._---------
~ - ......-v- ~--
.
DATA TABULATXONS AND PLOTS
. The data ta~ulations sheets contain a heading section at the top
of the page and a tabul tat ion sec'\~iQn listing the data and
analysis results. The heading section ~ontains infarmation
relevant to the section tested. The name of the section tested
and information rega.rding its loc.:.t,t:ion is in the \"pp~:r.-' rIght af
each page.. The left part of the heading corltains the date.
testedf the estimated Daily- Equiv.alo2r.1t 18,000 pound single axle
loadings (ESALs) that are applied to the pavement, temperature of
the asphalt mat at approximately one inGh below the surface at
b~e time of test, thickness of all the bound asphe.l t layers I a
Surface Condition Rating Number, A Seasonal Correction Factor,
and a line for comments relevant to the section or the analysis~
The Surface Condition Rating Number is determined by the
equipment operator and is based on the following scale:
5 new pavement (no crackn)
4 unconnected linear cracking
3 large block pattern cracking
:2 alligator cracking
1 potholes and loss of Gurfacing
Th6 Seasonal Correction Factor is used to calculate the
deflectian that is expected to occur during the spring thaw
period.
. The tabulations contain ten or eleven numeric columns for the
Falling Weiqht Deflectometer or Road Rater r~spectively and one
commeilt column. These are described as follows:
TEST LOc..~TIONS: . A referenc~ us~d to locate the position of
tne test point, uS4ally in distan~e from the beginning of .
the sec'cion. A left ar~d ::i.ght. colUlnn is included to show
which lane the t~st was taken, if tests wer-e t.aken in both
directions. .
FORCE: The ~uount of dynamic load applied to the pavaEent.
It is listed in kips for th~ Road Rater {one ki~ a~Jals
1000 pounds), or pounds for thc9 FalJ, ing Weight
Deflectometer.
FREQ: (Road Rater only) The nl.unbeJ: .:>f load pu13es 'applied
each second.
OEFL il..14~ These four columns contain the measured
deflection at each test point in mils. One mil is ~qual
to O.OOlinC\h.
EFFEC1lIVE GRANULAR EQUIVALENT (&GE): This is the granular
equivalent thickness that is needed to match the overall
pavement defleotion.
\
. ,,-,
~.~
- .'.->::\:
_.,~~~_~_~_~___~~.......~~~____.u~-.:.;.;.:.:~~.':.;::,:~~~:.
~~~ -- ..._----~-~~~ -~~----~-^----'---
. .
EFFECTIVE SUBGRADE R-VALUE: The effective strength of the
. subgrade soil as calculated from the resilient modulus
which is based on the deflections~ It is 6xpressed as an
Effective R-value based on the back calculated resilient
modulus of the subgrade soil.
REQUIRED OVERLAY: This column contains the overlay required
to increase the structural capacity of tne pavement to
carry the number of ESALs expected in 20 years. The
thickness design from the ~!Guide for Design of Paveme,nt
structuresU, published by AASHTO in. 1986, is used to
calculate the structural requirement of the section. The
design is based on an 85 per~ent confidence level using
the factors recommended in the Guide. Also, for sections
with a Surface Condition Rating Number of less than 3.0,
additional overlay is based on the following formula:
Additional overlay (inches) ~ 3~O-SCR
AXLE LOAD RESTRICTION: This column contains the re.ccmmended
axle load restriction that w'ould r~s1.l1t in a spring
deflection equal to the deflection that would result from
the design section. The design section is determined from
the design procedure described in the "Guide for Design. of
Pavement structure.s".
. COMMENTS: This column contains the equipment operatorls
comments regarding the pavement in the vicinit.y of e~ch
test point or location information.
The location, deflection data, ,and commehts are always list.ed in
the p-rintouts. In addition, the EGE; Effective R-value, overlay
thickness and tonnage are ,listed as re~lested by the client.
Plots are also included following the data tabulations. The
plots are proportionally scaled for both the horizontal and
vertical axis. This makes it possible to easily visualize where
changes occur throughout the. section. A plot is made for one or
more of the following dQpending on what is re~lested by the
~lient: Effective Granular Equivalent, Effective Subgrade
R-value, 9-ton overley Thickness and Allowable Axle Load.
;~.
-_-.,,_,r_.
~;....\ .',: - ,:'-,
~t:'., .',
F6:~::',;.,:
~"u-
,'.
~~~~r:. ' ~
~~}
~~~----
. ,
DESCRIPTION OF ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
. The following text will describe the analysis procedures used for
both the surface condition surveys and the nondestructive testing
(deflection testing) & Whenever a common factor was used f~r all
of the roadways in question.t it is so mentioned.
Surface condit~on.Survey
The procedure used to conduct the surface condition surveys is au
adaptation of the procedure developed by 'the U.S. .Army Corps of
Engineers known as PAVER~ This -method has been adopted by tIle
American Public Works Asso~iation as thei= standard for
performing surface condition surveys. Braun j?avement
TeChnologies, In.e. has modified this pl..ocedure slightly to
reflect conditions found in Minnesota. We have used this program
to perform condition surveys on over 1,000 miles of city street
in the last few years.
The information collected during 'the condition survey is entered
into our Pavement Management Program (PMP)~ This program
calculates a numerical score known as the P~vement Condition
Index (PCl). The PCI is calculated based en T.he type and amount
of the distress present. A number between 0 and 100 is qenerated
with 0 being a failed pavement and 100 being a new pavement wi~~
no visible cracks of any type.
. The PCl is used to prioritize pavements by condition. It also
gives a qood indication as to appropriata maintenance. Our work
with several municipalities has shown that pavements with a pcr
bet.ween 0 and 35 qenerally will nead to be reconstructsd~
Pavements in this ca teqory tend to haV'la larqe areas of load
related distress such as alligator cracking and potholes.. Due to
the cost of re.moving and r~placing these areasl an overlay
typically is not an economical alternative for pavements in this
ca:tag-ory ..
Pavements with a PCl between 36 and 55 generally will bene~lt
qreatly from an overlay. The a~ount ct load related di$tress, on
tiles!\:! pavements, if any; is small.. Typi.cally distress types :such
as block cracking, patching and non-load related cracking are
predomina~'lt. .
Pavements with a PCl between 56 and 100 t~~ical1y will benefit
qreatly from crack sealing, patching and seal coating. For these
pavements the medium and high severity cracks typically are
sealed; a.reas ot load related distr'ess such as E.lligator cracking
and potholes are repaired: and the pavement is then 'seal co~ted.
Typically the amount of load related distress, if any, is ~inimal
on theae pavements.
Although ~les6 ranqes are not d~finitive; they have been used
with a .hiqh degree of confidencE! in s$veral municipa.lities~ One
national study indicates that the ranges appropriate for th,~ San
Francisco area are 0 to 25, 26 to 60, and 61 to 100.
~
. .
Based on the above definitions each block of street was
. identified as being a candidate for a particular type of ~epair.
~~~~Qti9n Test1ng
The deflection testing was ~one using a Model 8000E Falling
Weiqht Deflecto~eter (FWv) testing at 100 f00t intervals in both
directions. The testing was staggered in opposite directions so
that a net spacing of 50 feet was achieved.
Deflection testing measures the deflection ~espon~e to an applied
load.. This information can be used to calculate in-plac.e
material strength~ Our analysis includes tha determination of
the in-place subqrade soil R-value, the in-pl,ac,~ effeotive
granular equivalency I th~ required overla:y to obtain a 7-t.cn
roadf as well as the existi.ng in-place spring load ca.r:r"'ling
capacity.
The deflection data were analyzed using a ~ethod developed by
Braun Pavement Technologies I Inc,. which incorporates beth the
Minnesota Road Desiqn Ma~ual and the AASHTO Guide for Design of
PaveJl\ent structures. The two crit;ical input data required for
this analysis are the daily traffic in tents of Equivalent Single
Axle Loads (ESALs) and the asphalt thickness. Thickness
info:nnation was obtained from boringst.uke.n r.s shown in Table 2.
The boring was done by Braun Enqineerinq Testing, Inc.
the traffic was a.ssumed to be reai,c1elrtial in nature. As a result
. a daily ESAL count of 3..() was used tor each roadway. Th:ts is
equivalent to a two-way ADT of about 300 vehicles; based on the
distribution table listed in the Minnesota Road Oeaign Manual.
.
,
,: ~ '
'~"
'.,'
"
.;'-,;',',.'..."
',: ,}~
'_ l~
~ ~
'c.,.." .:'::~;,~
,~.'" - ....,-." .',,,.
I,,~:.' .~, .,"~ ,-,'," .,'
~:.;:'t:; ,.,.,>.;~
j- .,~
I~'!: .. .' . .. . ......... ...s;~1
iiiili:-~~__IIIlIII__IiIIIlI.lI._-,---- -~I-- --1Illl5.auUaJ_ --.- .---_'llIIIJ:i!lI__II!l!r- 'I ~.J..;:..~i'iiil!Birt'lfliill-'tfU'iI
IV"" ~---]lQIlI~~--
. ,
P:INDJ:NGS
e, Without exception all of the pavements have a surf8ce condition
rating- below 35. This indicates that all of these roadways have
larg'e amounts of alligator cracking andjorother load. related
distresses. As mentioned previously, pavements ,with a PC! below
35 are qQnerally not cost effective to overlay. . Due to the cost
of removing and replacing the numer.ous areas of load related
distree.s, an overlay is not an economical altexnative. It should
also be noted that there is no curb and gutter or.storm sewer
facility on any of these roadways. As a result the expected life
of any overlay would be greatly reduced due to the ease with
which water is able to permeate belQw the asphalt surface and
into the aggregate base.
The in-place granular equivalency fo~ all of the sections tested
is below what would be expect ad for the given pavement structure.
As a result of these two factors,reconstructiol1 is recommended :
on all of the' roadways. Based on 't.he affect.ive in-place soil R-
value the new pavement designs are listed in Tahle 1.
.
.
.
.
l~i~\!..", ,",,",": .",;
I~;
; .,1:~ c,:': &
,~, ,--:~,",
~~;:.~ '-," .
:~~,~~-L:_~'
>:_;-~":"""" '
-r~:.d}~\:,,;~.,'. --~~-,--_._----
- -~-----~-~.-------
r:::r: .... (') ~,,:"":":,:::
...... tIl :::!'... ". "', '
Ql <II 3 :f :::::":::::::
:;:j ::J _ G ,:,:..,',.:.:::,:.".,,::," .
:;:$ ::$ "0 I>> -"~,::':;..fjl'--
~ ! 0" r- ::::::>-\.~ ::.:
at ID ..;':''';'~'.:o ,,~.;
~ )) ;; i Ji*'im::r
~ ;!! g;,::,m..
g ;) Q. :t*{:::::,;::;::
..~,J~:,..
~:~~"*:~?:.
, II
'" :lnu~:
_ :r CXl ~ .~w4~.'''>-
... Q) C ....
; 3 ~ i
I ~ 0 g
z ~ :t ~
m ~ G ~
...
:u
a.
;!
aI
r,;
)>. n ~:p ..
~ ~ 3 ~
g 0. -+
. i ~ ~ a :0
. 0 m W ffl
. 0 0 ~
I;, ~ ~
s ~
'& ~ rt.
G. 0
::D:n "
Q. a. ~,.
, ()
-~, i
iZ ~ Ql rJ I
o
I S
.wit -' ........ __ i.
.... .;) ,Jt, UI
P P ~ ~
"., 0 0 t.Jo
. ( i f i
if Ii it In i
!~ i[~ rl !~ .i(
) . '.
. ,.;,~
. .,
. ....,r.:#~'i~:~:.~'~..~: '" ~: ;',. 'n <~O .:. OC,. ;:;;"!..:;t~~,~;;.'~ "'.i.:~'i,,": ~ ._....' '.;;~~ -",.' 'V'':f
I- ..
. CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County: Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 90-127
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AFTER PUBLIC HEARING
WHERE..lI..S , a resolution of the City Council adopted the
sixteenth day of October, 1990, fixed a date for a
Council hearing on the proposed improvement of
Althea Lane, Herman Terrace and Herman Court, and
WHEREAS, the Council deems it appropriate and expedient to
reconstruct Althea Lane, Herman Terrace and Herman
Court, including curb and gu.tter and storm sewe.1:'"
and
i.'HEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published
notice of the hearing was give.n, and the hear l.ng
was held thereon on the sixth day of November,
1990, at which all persons desirlng to be heard
were given an opportunity to be heard thereon,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY 'l'HE COTrNCIL OF THE CITY OF
. HOPKINS, MINNESOTA:
1. Such improve.ment is hereby ordered as proposed in
the Council resolution adopted the sixteenth day
qf October, 1990.
2+ Westwood Professional Services, Inc. is hereby
designated as the engine~r for this improvement
and shall prepare plans and spec:ifications for the
making of such improvement.
Adopted by the Coancil of the city of Hopkins this 6th day
of Novem.b~r, 1990.
By:
Nel&on W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST: ,- ~
-'" I -~
James A. Genell e, C1ty Clerk