HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.D.1. Mn/DOT Presentation on TH 169 and CR 69 Bridge Aesthetics I c�• D. i
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor& City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: MnDOT Presentation on TH 169 and CR 69 Bridge Aesthetics
DATE: August 21, 2012
ACTION SOUGHT:
To review the Bridge Aesthetics concepts and provide MnDOT and Scott County direction on
bridge aesthetics with the CR 69 and TH 169 Interchange Project.
INTRODUCTION:
Scott County has received funding from MnDOT to construct an interchange at TH 169 and CR
69. Part of the bridge design is to look at aesthetics to the bridge that the City, County and
Townships may want to have at this location.
BACKGROUND:
Staff has been meeting with David Hall of MnDOT and his staff to look over various aesthetic
treatments that MnDOT can support on a bridge project. According to MnDOT, 7% of the total
bridge cost is allowed for an aesthetic treatment. These treatments can include concrete treatment
to abutment and piers, railing and lighting on the bridge.
David Hall of MnDOT will be at the August 21s` City Council meeting to make a presentation on
the aesthetic concepts on the bridge over TH 169. From our meetings, staff has reviewed the
preferred option and would recommend option no. 3, and to also look at the lighting as a separate
option.
Some issues with this particular project and this item is the fact that the location of this bridge is
located in Jackson Township and none of the area is in the City of Shakopee currently. Another
item is the fact that Shakopee Public Utilities may not be the electrical provider in this area as
well. County policy is that local unit of government pays for lighting on bridges. Attached to this
memo are the three aesthetic concepts for the bridge that will be discussed at the City Council
meeting and minutes from the last PMT of August 8th which discussed the TH 169 and CR 69
interchange design.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Council to review the aesthetic treatments and to select a preferred option or provide
direction on the aesthetic concepts.
2. Table for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend Alternative No. 1 to provide feedback on the preferred aesthetic concept
in arder to keep the project moving to its schedule bid letting date of July 2013.
RELATIONSHIP TO VISIONING:
This supports Goal D: "Maintain, improve and create strong partnerships with other public and
private sector entities".
ACTION REQUESTED:
l. Review the aesthetic treatments and select a preferred option ar provide direction on the
aesthetic concepts.
ruce Loney, P E
Public Works Director
ENGR201'_PROJECTSCOUNCIL V1nDOTPresentationOdCHl69&CR69BridgeAesthe[ics
E N G I N E E R 5
� P l A N�E R S
, D E 5 I G N f R S
Consultin�Group,Inc.
SRF No. 730� F
AGENDA
TH 169/CR 69 Interchange Final Design
PMT Meeting
August 8, 2012
Scott County Public Works Facility
Maintenance Conference Room
l. Welcome and Introdtictions
2. Project Background
a. Environmental Document Complete (June 2012)
b. Approval of Level 1 Staff Approved Layout (August 2012)
3. Project Schedule
a. Review Project schedule provided by SRF
4. Final Road`vay Design
a. Need bridge geometrics and depth to verify clearance requirements
b. TH 169 shoulder design to match shoulder section from record plans
c. 30%, 60%, 90% Draft plans
d. 100% Final plans
e. Specifications
f. Cost Estimates
5. Bridge Design
a. MnDOT to prepare necessary plans, special provisions and estimates for the
bridge work on this project
b. MnDOT to provide the needed geotechnical/foundations recommendations for the
bridge
c. MnDOT to provide final bridge depth and bridge geometrics to SRF
d. Bridge Visual Quality Design Discussion
6. Noisewall Design and Sketch Rendering
a. Concrete posts and wood planks similar to I-35W MnPASS project
b. Scott County to meet with Association Board on August 13�h
www.srfconsulting.com
One Carlson Park��ov North,Suite 1i0 � Minneapolis,11N ;Sa�+,'-4-1d3 � 763.4,'S_0010 Fax:?63.�,'i.2�29
An Equnl Oyporhuiity E�r�ployer
PIvIT Nteeting,Au�ust 8.2012 Pa,e 2
TH l69!CR 169[nterchan,e Final Design
7. Water Resources
a. Data collection/Review
b. Desi�n criteria— BMP's, Spread, etc.
c. Coordination with the City of Shakopee, MnDOT and others.
d. Proposed water resource facilities—pond storaQe, re�ional pond
e. NPDES Pernlit and SWPPP y
8. Utilities
a. Gopher State One Call; completed July 2012
b. Ongoing coordination with private/public utility companies
c. Reqliired meetings and correspondence in accordance with the MnDOT utility
coordination process
9. ICE Reports
a. Reports for two intersections at ramp terminals
10. Lightin� Design and Sign Desi�n
a. Standard gore and intersection lighting to be utilized
b. Draft and final lighting plans, special provisions and estimate
c. Only ground mounted si�ns to be utilized on the TH 169 corridor
d. Draft and final signing plans, special provisions and estimate
11. Geotechnical
a. Braun Intertec to provide geotechnical services
b. Roadway borings spaced every 100 feet along the ne�v roadway and embankment,
two pond borings; piezometer installation, borings along proposed noisewall
c. R-value testing on borrow source
d. Draft and Final Materials Design Report
12. PL►blic Meeting
a. One public meeting to be held in Scott County
b. SRF will provide support materials
13. Easement Services
a. Perform field surveys to assist in easement acquisition
b. Easement legal descriptions and sketches
14. Other Items
a. Next Meeting date and time
b. Record of ineetings to be prepared by SRF and sent out for review comments
c. Record of ineeting to be `approved' at the following PMT meeting
�� ,� � E NGINEERS
P l A N N E R S
D E S I G N E R 5
Consulting Group,Inc.
SRF No. 7305.01
RECORD OF MEETING
TH 169/CR 69 Interchange Final Design
S.P. 7005-97; C.P. 69-03
PMT Meeting
August 8, 2012
Scott County Public Works Facility
The following discussion occurred. Please note that a summary of Action Items and Meeting
Attendees is included at the end of these meeting minutes.
1. Welcome and Introductions
Meeting attendees introduced themselves.
2. Project Background
Environmental document was completed in June 2012.
Level 1 Staff Approved Layout was approved by MnDOT in August 2012. MnDOT will
provide SRF with a PDF of the signature block. SRF will reference signature block into the
layout drawing and make copies for distribution.
Lisa Freese advised that the County Funds for this project are proceeds from the wheelage
tax which amounts to approximately$500,000/year. The County will need to accumulate
their portion of the funding over several years.
3. Project Schedule
SRF provided the group with the following dates for the major project deliverables:
• 30% submittal: September 14, 2012
• 60% submittal: December 7, 2012
• 90% submittal: March 1, 2013
� Final Plans: May 10, 2013
• Project Letting: July 2013
MnDOT advised that Julie Dresel will be administering the reviews and that MnDOT
typically needs 30 days of review time for each submittal.
www.srfconsulting.com
One Carlson Parkway North,Suite 1"s0 � Minneapolis,MN G��4i-d443 � 763.475.0010 Fax:763.4'S.2429
An Egual O�portuxity Ernployer
PMT Meeting, August 8, 2012 Page 2
TH 169/CR 169 Interchange Final Design
4. Final Roadway Design
SRF will need MnDOT to provide CAD bridge geometrics and bridge depth to verify
clearance requirements are met. Tony Lesch advised that the total bridge depth will be 5.7-
feet.
TH 169 shoulder design will match the shoulder section from the record plans which includes
3-inches of bituminous pavement over 3-inches of aggregate shouldering.
SRF advised that they are planning for all roadways and ramps to be designed with a
bituminous pavement section. MnDOT will confirm that this is acceptable for ramp designs.
The group discussed the cost participation percentages to be 85% MnDOT and 15% Scott
County; trail on one side of CR 69 to be 100% MnDOT and trail on other side to be 100%
Scott County. Cost participation far the noisewall still needs to be determined.
5. Bridge Design
MnDOT will prepare necessary plans, special provisions and estimates for the bridge wark
on this project. Tony Lesch advised that they are proceeding with a two-span 54" prestressed
concrete girder bridge design with slope paving. MnDOT is currently collecting data for
their preliminary design plan.
MnDOT will prepare a preliminary estimate and a final estimate for the bridge. They
advised that they have estimated the bridge area to be approximately 26,000 SF, which is
larger than SRF had assumed, and advised that the concept estimate per square foot for this
project seemed to be low for the bridge. SRF advised of the contingencies and is confident
that the overall estimate covers all costs associated with the proposed bridge. MnDOT
advised that they may need to prepare a scoping estimate for the entire project, which would
include the bridge.
MnDOT will provide the needed geotechnical/foundations recommendations for the bridge.
SRF advised that Braun Intertec will be performing the boring work for the roadway and
noisewall design.
Melissa Schultz presented three aesthetic concepts for the bridge that will be discussed at the
August 21sr City Council Meeting. The group agreed that at the Council Meeting,
County/City/MnDOT should have a recommendation on the preferred option. Currently the
City prefers option 3. The group also agreed that lighting should be shown as a separate
option.
MnDOT advised that 7% of the total bridge cost is allowed for aesthetic treatments. MnDOT
will verify if lighting can be included in the 7% amount for aesthetics.
Scott County policy requires local participation for lighting. Jackson Township is the local
jurisdiction in the project area. Further investigation on who pays far and maintains the
lighting along CR 69 is still needed. Paul Westveer advised that the Township would like to
see lighting included on the bridge for safety reasons.
PMT Meeting, August 8, 2012 Page 3
TH 169/CR 169 Interchange Final Design
SRF will coordinate with MnDOT and provide current CAD files in order for MnDOT to
complete design for barrier treatment, approach panels, etc.
MnDOT expects to begin final bridge design in December 2012.
6. Noisewall Design and Sketch Rendering
Noisewall design will include concrete posts and wood planks (standard MnDOT design)
similar to the MnPASS project in Burnsville.
Scott County is having an informational meeting with the Townhome Association Board on
August 13th to discuss noisewall design (color, 20-foot height, aesthetic treatments, cap vs.
no cap). MnDOT will provide County with standard noisewall color information to present
at this meeting.
The group discussed landscaping around the noisewall and agreed that plantings will not be
part of this project. The goup did agree that the design should save as many trees in this
area as possible.
The group discussed construction access for the noisewall and noted that it will most likely
work best to access this area from Vierling Drive. SRF to review temporary easement needs
for noisewall construction.
7. Water Resources
SRF will prepare a matrix of the drainage design criteria and send to appropriate agencies for
concurrence prior to beginning drainage design. SRF will use state aid standards for CR 69.
SRF will set up a meeting with Scott County, MnDOT and the watershed(s) to discuss any
current drainage issues and the regulatory criteria. The project falls within the Lower
Minnesota Watershed District, and a portion of it may also be within the Scott County
Watershed Management Organization (SWMO). Jason Swenson (496-8881) will be the
contact for the County and the SWMO and can confirm jurisdiction.
MnDOT will verify if they will own/maintain drainage system on CR 69 between the ramps.
Pond inside the loop will be a wet pond. An infiltration basin is proposed outside of the loop.
The City advised that they will not be requesting to use the ponds on MnDOT right of way so
no upsizing should be required.
NPDES Permit and SWPPP will be prepared for this project. SRF will verify permit
requirements with the watershed(s).
SRF noted that CR 69 will slope from the median out to the rural shoulder(no crown in the
center of the two lanes). Craig Jenson expressed concern with water sheeting across the two
PMT Meeting, August 8, 2012 Page 4
TH 169/CR 169 Interchange Final Design
traffic lanes particularly during the spring thaw. SRF will plan to install a few catch basins in
the center median (curb gutter sloped in) to minimize water sheeting across CR 69.
8. Utilities
The Gopher State One Call was completed by SRF in July 2012. Required meetings and
correspondence will be in accordance with the MnDOT utility coordination process. A
Utility Coordination meetin�will be scheduled with all utilities after the 30%plan submittal.
SRF is working to set up a meeting with Scott Dentz with Met Council to discuss the
forcemain that crosses CR 69. The design may need to increase casing size due to profile
raise over the forcemain and/or adjust the existing structure on the east side of CR 69.
The City of Shakopee advised that they will not need casings installed under this project for a
future storm sewer system extension.
SRF needs to identify any conduits that will need to cross the bridge (i.e. future signal
interconnect) and provide to MnDOT Bridge.
9. ICE Reports
ICE Reports will be prepared for the two intersections at the ramp terminals with CR 69; stop
control is anticipated to be adequate at this time.
10. Lighting Design and Sign Design
The project scope includes the following lighting and signing items:
• Standard gore and intersection lighting
• Draft and final lighting plans, special provisions and estimate
• Only ground mounted signs utilized on the TH 169 corridor
• Draft and final signing plans, special provisions and estimate
Signing along the TH 169 corridor will need to be inventoried and reviewed to determine if
any changes/adjustments are needed due to the new interchange at TH 169/CR 69.
11. Geotechnical
Braun Intertec will be providing geotechnical services for this project and will complete
roadway borings spaced every 100 feet along the new roadway and embankment, two pond
borings, piezometer installation, and borings along the proposed noisewall. They will also
complete R-value testing on the borrow source and prepare a Draft and Final Materials
Design Report.
PMT Meeting, August 8, 2012 Page 5
TH 169/CR 169 Interchange Final Design
MnDOT will want to review and approve the soil boring layout prior to Braun completing
field work.
Scott County requested Braun's schedule so they can notify property owners in the area,
particularly in the vicinity of the proposed noisewall. Scott County will plan to survey the
right of way in the proposed noisewall area.
12. Public Meeting
One public meeting will be held in Scott County prior to construction of this project. SRF
will provide support materials far the meeting as requested.
13. Easement Services
SRF will perform field surveys to assist in easement acquisition and prepare easement
descriptions and sketches as needed.
14. Other Items
Lisa Freese informed the group that the County budget is set in September for next year and
ultimately approved by the County Board on December 1 St
MnDOT questioned if a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) and Quality Management Plan
(QMP) will be prepared. SRF confirmed that they will be preparing these items.
MnDOT questioned if any retaining wall will be included in this projects. SRF advised that
at this time there are not, but there is potential that one may be needed to protect the existing
forcemain structure.
City of Shakopee is pursuing a turn back of land in the northeast quadrant of the TH 169/CR
69 intersection. Scott County informed that they will need to keep access to some of this
land during the project for side slope gading. Paul Westveer advised that the farm field in
this area is currently being leased. SRF will provide MnDOT with the construction limits in
this area for use during negotiations.
Next PMT meeting is scheduled for October 18, 2012 at 9:30 am in Scott County.
Record of ineetings will be prepared by SRF and sent out for review comments. Final
version of record of ineeting will be `approved' at the following PMT meeting.
PMT Meeting, August 8, 2012 Page 6
TH 169/CR 169 Interchange Final Design
ACTION ITEMS
Name Action
__ —_ _— __ - — — ___— — — — —
SRF • Make copies of Level 1 Staff Approved layout with final signature
block and distribute to MnDOT and County.
• Send MnDOT preliminary noisewall alignment and profile
[completed 8/9/12J.
• Maintain ongoing coordination with MnDOT Bridge.
• Investigate temparary easement needs for noisewall construction.
• Prepare and distribute drainage design matrix for approval.
• Set up a meeting with Scott County, MnDOT and the watershed to
discuss any current drainage issues.
• Verify permit requirements with the watershed.
• Identify any conduits that will need to cross the bridge and provide to
MnDOT Bridge.
• Review signing along TH 169 corridor.
• Provide County with Braun's schedule.
• Provide MnDOT with the construction limits in northeast quadrant.
• Submit 30% design package on September 14, 2012.
— -- —--
Scott County • Determine cost participation for noisewall.
• Determine who pays for and maintains the lighting on CR 69.
• Survey right of way by proposed noisewall.
MnDOT • Provide staff approved layout signature block to SRF[completed
sisir2�
• Confirm that bituminous pavement section is acceptable for ramp
designs.
• MnDOT Bridge to maintain ongoing coordination with SRF.
• Verify if lighting can be included in the 7% amount for aesthetics.
• Provide noisewall color options to County for use at August 13��'
meeting.
• Verify if they will own/maintain drainage system on CR 69 between
the ramps.
PMT Meeting, August 8, 2012 Page 7
TH 169/CR 169 Interchange Final Design
ATTENDEES:
NAME AGENCY PHONE NO. E-MAIL ADDRESS
Craig Jenson Scott County 952 496 8329 cjenson@co.scott.mn.us
Lisa Freese Scott County 952 496 8363 lfreese@co.scott.mn.us
Diane Langenbach MnDOT 651 234 7721 Diane.langenbach@state.mn.us
Melissa Schultz MnDOT Bridge 651 366 4465 melissa.schultz@state.mn.us
Tony Lesch MnDOT Bridge 651 366 4458 tony.lesch@state.mn.us
Michael Leek City of Shakopee 952 233 9346 mleek@ci.shakopee.mn.us
Jeff Weyandl City of Shakopee 952 233 9362 jweyandl@ci.shakopee.mn.us
Paul Westveer Jackson Township 952 210 0734 male4pop@hotmail.com
Kristy Morter SRF-Highway 763 475 0010 kmorter@srfconsulting.com
Kevin Jullie SRF-Project Manager 763 475 0010 kjullie@srfconsulting.com
Lisa Goddard SRF-Water Resources 763 475 0010 lgoddard@srfconsulting.com
H:AProjects\7305_F1 Correspondence�Meetings\Meeting Records\PMT 120808_MtgMin.docx
�
� �
_. �
''��°"� �dr � -
� —
� , �
�. � _
�. �
€ a` - ? i
° � t _ .
� „ �
�x c� .�a� _--_°4.. � � '� �
":�' � � ,��� � �,
�. � ,�
_� u � � _ _
� , , � � -:
f � t ;. �'� ... -- " .. . .��a; �F' ,.�
, r
; , ,
s � +' 6
.. �
� � �'�� � ' . .a-- � �� „: � �
a �
,„ _e.� , �
� , � �..�... __ ..
,�;�� �� �s � � i',�
� � a..�.�s.n .. '""'"'""H . . .. = ��* .�
- ,� , ��
� �: ; �:�`' „� . .
- � : d��'um�
;f '�S s-"* '�'����°a�,a -� .,,�� � ��'"
s 3 �^'"e"� � -
�+��. ��� . . ,�� .
4 ��� , �� r _ . .
�� �Y'!.� `,,'��.�'f��; �� z s�t ��F= � ' �„.� , �"'3
� �: ff
' �� -� ` " j ���y a ��r � � . � ,,, �.„�,� ,
�� ���ti��`�r�', � �L ��� ,i` � ��`�•-�# �� � � - --_v_.
� � � - � �.
yj �� '�,a��, x �'�`� � �°��.,�` p 4 r•.. �, .j�, �:,„�,
f� � � {� ,"6�. ��� � M ;,�� �� i� � j}4 'p� k � � - � •�'�� *u`��������...
� '. J ! � �a;} . . __ � .
, <sf_,� Cf ♦ ,y.2�.� x 'Ai. . �?�y`f �$��°� � . '�po
� CSAH 16 over TH 494
; i�',� Bridge No. 82016
G � Woodbury, MN
� � ..� � � Type: Prestressed Concrete Beam
��. _-
{ ���--- Architectural Concrete Texture: Thin Brick& Cut Stone
� �
`� ^`� Railin St. Peter Railin
�a�� �� g: g
��� �
��.� �� �5� -�,� � � Colors:
a � � '— 6 .�.°` �m. � �.
t "�� � ��� ..�_� � � � � Smooth Concrete Surfaces -#33522 "Light Buff"
�""° Concrete Texture - Multi-Color
,,.,
e ,, ., ;�, ,
�° �`�� � .._t Railing - #20040 "Dark Brown"
a_�� --
;� �,}'� I
�,<<
�° ,� ����`
. � �� ��� �
g '' ""%����'-
��
a
� . � � � �, � � .s _
4 i p �* 5 .
a� � � _'��f • �
�� �< �°-�{ .
�� �� � ��
ti
,�._
� � <;.,'
�,:
� '
�
� � �,
�
f � �
T �
J. '� �>,
%;
�
r�.� � �� �
�; ��,, e(t�. �
,�����y��� ��p,o
� ,, ��r '�'IYiI� d��lY
>`�% j
� � ��
*"" j
�,
«��;.._�„„�- _
� �-�a�---�"M �c . �.�
� � _��� 1
,...,.,, .„....,,„„„ ,�, ,
..�8 ____�._...�.�-- r- ,- rr- � �
..�.,,�,.W __.....�. , .. �. ' ;
.c.�r �� . ..
,_ ��+r'�,�-,.,�- - -�
_�,�,.__..__..� . . . . ,
.... � � - . .re;- -�e_. „ ..
.� � � .._�5, ��
m.._
� .. ... . ..� ,.._�,._..,�....,_ _``ti�-�.... � ,�.,_..� , `'�,..
�„
� '
a���� �. '�`:+� ' ..
a ���� ��� �� .'��
� ��'
v_,
;,
,
� �r.
� �.,
- � �d t"
� ��* ''
�',-�d �`�
�,, �
� �
CSAH 17 over TH 35
Bridge No. 13519
Lent, MN
Type: Prestressed Concrete Beam
ArchitecturalConcrete Texture: Fractured Fin
Railing: Structural Tube Railing with Fence (Design T-3)
Colors:
Concrete Surfaces - Mn/DOT Gray-Modified
Railing - #27038 "Black"
E L.S.A.H.I�_�,
�C.S.A.H.� 69 S.B.I �
69 N.B.
- � J^ `�'--k� �
�'� �4 �. , o
E C.S.A.H.� �j, C.S.A.H.�
69 N.B. 69 S.B.
e� �
� � � � � ��£ -"��' I �— �—'�' °--� � __— ,
1��'.
ELEVATION VIEW A-A ELEVATION VIEW B-8
' PIER ABUTMENT FACE
�A
8
' ,
..'.�.„ � � i
NORiH A6LI��f'.'
� SOUTN ABUTMENT
� � _ _. _ .:8
�
d .
_ _ _ ,i:: 3� �
� ,.
� ---�
E T.N.169 W.B.—+� � G--� T.H.169 E.B.
��A
WEST ELEVATION
o �o•
NOT FINAL
AESTHETIC CONCEPT 1 °R` u.^.s. `""' o.�.w gRIDGE N0.
STATE PROJECT N0. 7005-70007 SHEET N0. 1 OF 6 SHEETS 70007
,�,
E �.s.�.N.
E C.S.�.M. 69 S.B.
69 N.B.
-$o � l—
, ___\ i /.�-...:� �l
Y
�,� Yr';oy ' 9_.,_.:Pi ��� _�.�'.h i l� �� } ;
2----- RECESSED PANEL fTYP.)
PIER ELEVATION
�
�
_. ___
_— , , lIP �� # .
(�� : �,��;� ,� . ��"
I �� �g��...
�
� ARCHITECTURpL CONCRETE TEXTURE
IFl.UTE�RIB)
� � d .� �.� ' ,..
� � `� '
.�:i �.$.' ..
,;�i
ABUTMENT ELEVATION
NOT FINAL
AESTHETIC CONCEPT 1 °Ri u.^.s. `"`' o.A.�. gRIDGE N0.
STATE PROJECT N0. 7005-70007 SHEET N0. 2 OF 6 SHEETS 70007
�
f{ C.S.A.H.�
� C.S.A.X. 69 S.B.
69 N.B.�
� J�` -.� � .c;.
�� �^� �..
Q C.S.A.N.� rt C.S.A.M.�
69 N.B. 69 5.8.
� � M4 �+ `, I - ��'r I --
i
EIEYATION VIEW A-A ELEVATION VIEW 8-B
PIER ABLITMENt FACE
rA
� � � ; � re
� � ���
� �
_
� r � ��.
��.,
NORTH ABUTMENT '�"- -_ y� � � �
r:
�� `"��� S.^,l1iH ABLITMENT
r . �
�` r . � .-e
� , _ .�
�F_�
, � �
4 T.N.169 W.B.-�i �-E 7.N.169 E.O.
A
WEST ELEVATION
o �o�
NOT FINAL
AESTHETIC CONCEPT 2 °Ri M.as. �"K' o.e.H. gRIDGE N0.
STATE PROJECT N0. 7005-70007 SHEET N0. 3 OF 6 SHEETS 70007
{
E C.S.A.H.
4 C.S.A.H.� 69 S.B.
69 N.B.
I , . "l I �._—..� J� ..p � '—� I
..� ...�. � i �-':
� /'k r�.:=',. I�i� _ ��
�� �
��'�� _�. .. ..... ._ .
j��l �-HECESSED PANEL ITYP.1
PIER ELEVATION
�
� i
<. �
,fi:. z--� ----tiECES5E0 PANEL(TYPJ
J
- - - � �� ���
S �
q � °
�el�
CUT STONE PATTERN
#
� � i
,�� ,�E
ABUTMENT ELEVATION
NOT FINAL
AESTHETIC CONCEPT 2 °R` M.A.s. �"K' o.�.„. gRIDGE N0.
STATE PROJECT N0. 7005-70007 SHEET N0. 4 OF 6 SHEETS 70007
E C.S.A.H.I�����-,
E C.S.A.H. 69 S.B.I �
69 N.B.�
�, �_.-� I ��� .l � ;_-_•
YI �� _ ��,, o
E C.S.A.H.� 4 CS.A.H.�
69 N.B. 69 S.B.
� I
.,_. : , . � �� � .,,�,...
_ �
._ { . .�:� � �
i
: . . .. .. �� {��r I — ' � -� �:!:
ELEVATION VIEW A-A EIEYATION VIEW B-B
' PIER ABUTMENT FACE
rA re
, � ,
� ;� � � � , �
-- = ��� � � �
r. ... � �_I ; -' ,
NORiM ABUI.��lr�' ... �
'���:��� �� : `�;..�� SCUTN ABUTMENT
� r . � �b `B
�, . #._=3� `�
E T.N.169 w9.� �--E T.H.169 E.B.
A
WEST ELEVATION
o to�
NOT FINAL
AESTHETIC CONCEPT 3 °Ri M.A.S. ��1 D.A.H. gRIDGE N0.
STATE PROJECT N0. 7005-70007 SHEET N0. 5 OF 6 SHEETS 70007
� C.S.A.H. � C.S.A.H.
69 N.B.� 69 S.B. �
I
I - --- �
;� - -� , �( 1� "�_ '� I
' ?� �a I �.:.nP( � �� � i
s� _
— __ ,
. ..�,x ...
.. � . " .s�. 3 .e�`� �_�I ��.qRCHITECTURAL LONCRETE TE%TURE
��.� _ I ''.,.cCUT STONEI(TYP.1
PIER ELEVATION
,
IARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE TEXTl1RE
/"i,(THIN BRIGKI
�—/'
��
�
_�
._ —.
_— __. ..—_. . ___'_ �
�
\IAFCHITF._�.URaL CONCEiETE TEXTURE
��(Cl�i .,fJNEI
#�
��e�:
g1 �
�R,
. ��y���::.� ..
�e �K
�.,. '
ABUTMENT ELEVATION
NOT FINAL
AESTHETIC CONCEPT 3 �R1 M.A.S. ��0 O.�.K BRIDGE N0.
STATE PROJECT N0. 7005-70007 SHEET N0. 6 OF 6 SHEETS 70007
� 8/21/2012
: • • ' 111 � - -
. � • � . � .
� . �
,�
O :;,;,;� � � � ° ° O �fl
� . �
•
, I � ��� -� .� .w
.�. . 1 i �� r I I �; •
� _ .: � 1� � �
_ ' � ' � —
a , , i 1— �
..�. , �,.� � _
� „' _•, _
�—� �s�. � I � � , _
- �� _ 9 r !I ".� ��' . . ' �C� ����__.
� I ( T � y_ _
_ ' �--- �t - � 4 Q - .��� „
..a..__r�z � �� �t.!.—. �' —.::� =�.
. _ . �
�__.
._.._�.o_ .
� : . ....�
4 �_,.
.. o. .. . �....�� � ._.���.�. -____.
.. . —_ " . _ .-.. -
.. -�r . ......._..._..."_"__ .+..�......... ... . �--.. �....�M..::�......
.._ _._ V ...�.. � ��vA _I:_�.„o ' ^ � .. .......
... , .., _ ... . '.-�.:�'.:�. .......... ..
_�,.,,..�,�..,.M __._.. nn�r eina�.
.. _,.
O =' � � O �•u O �f
1
: �
Concept 1
�...............�
GC' �� Lr � ,.....:........:..�
%. .�,�. , _..�., .��� .a,.,.,,.. ..,.. .,...
_ :__ _ _ __
��.�.�� te....��
. � y
�
� � � � �
Concept 1
���----�- -� - � --
. :�����l��--.-�
��
��� � 1 1 1 �`
�...�.
:
� � � � �
: �
TH169 Corridor
��
w�l.,l� i��` � ,,� �
� -w s. s���,�:,.,..
�-.
,-R�'�^
�% -�
� � � � �
Concept 2
�-.:.....�.��.�*.:.-
� �
c ��� �- -�
L. - - - - - �...............-�:
--�,.,,.a�..�.�,.....��..�.___�r�_r._�.�_.
= �� =�
c
� � � � �
: 1
Concept 2
-. :�������-�_ -
� �
r-` r-
C � I L � L�
- - - - -
���i■���i� �
.__.�
� � � � �
CSAH101 / Memorial Park
� �
,"=t-y
tr.
a+v s y � �k s,
�
� I �t
g
��
' '��� . : :� .
.a. . . .�... �� �
CSAH101 / Memorial Park Railing Example
� � � � �
�
Concept 3
..
-...............
- - � � � �....�..........�
. ,,. ......�� .� �_�� wr, ,. ...,..,..,..,�,.....w,,...,.,�.o.�
_ _-- --- -- . w.., ..
__
,�«.�... ..�._. -- --
.� ,��
� � � � �
Concept 3
-� -____ � -- -- - -. -
. ��.��������-
_
� � _ -
�...� ��...
� -
� � � �
s/21/zo12
� • -
,.:.
,_� _ _ -- _.�
., �- -,�
�` �' � �rr.•�.� ,
( �' � �° - ' ��
(' ppp r
� ,►I � I� .> I t �.pa�� � . �t 1'.\Nh�.�_
� � ��-
������ � .�� � � � � �- ��� ,��,��. .
� i � Y� - L
. I ... �'.� `' � T♦
�:.. �f �. - ,y �tY
J - _. . . .�x.
_4 �� •
_ . .. ._ .S. s�:��0. �y,` .
� �F' y
a,k. ,
O � � � O 4-J O �/
, � � � • � • � � � �
T
�
1 � �
.�.,.-� I ; '��=i _ r' - .._
� ,= _..
- � : ���� :[EII . � i
� .... . � . ..., � a,. . . ,
_ �
., � __ _- _,,,,..
, � __�___ _ ,.. i ,
, �. ...___-., -
.
�` ��
,
, �,. ,_ _ , - .
,: � - s s
, �: r � , - 'e
' __��_
���p��r. ,�,?��;:,'�" � --._ < =y..�'`
4. "� t
O � � � O pn,V O �
6
NOTESe DESIGN DATA
P.C.STA.685+91.601 N�TES'
Ol � C.S.A.H.69 N.B.WBCR69l P.O.C.STA.2707�51.08 = '�' 2010 AND CURRENT INTERIM AASHTO LRFD
X=502,619.806 Y=209,788.726 � BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
� T.H.169 E.B.(WB101)P.O.C.STA,1208+09.00 � O1 � C.S.A.H,69 S.B.(SBCR69)P.O.T.STA.2707+46.06 =
X = 436,899.046 Y = 211,715.059 � j P.C.STA.685+16.861 � T.H. 169 W.B.(WB1011 P.O.C.STA.1207+62.73 LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN METHOD
�� X = 436,853.070 Y = 211,709.820 H�93 LIVE LOAD
2O � CS.A.H.69 N.B.(NBCR69)P.O.C.STA.2706�60.55 = � � X=502,559.520 Y=209,848.295 DEAD LOAD INCLUDES 20 PSF ALLOWANCE FOR
T.H. 169 E.B.(EB10U P.O.C.STA.1207+99.17 2O C.S.A.H.69 S.B.ISBCR69l P.O.T.STA.2706+55.52 = FUTURE WEARING COURSE MODIFICATIONS
X = 436,899.473 Y = 21L,624.525 n � � T.H. 169 E.B.1E8101)P.O.C.STA. 1207*52.90
I v X = 436,853.498 Y = 211,619.286 MATERIAL DESIGN PROPERTIES:
N I REINFORCED CONCRETE:
v
,r, � I 122'-7'�± � 244'-3%g�� OUT Tp � f'c = 4 KSI n = 8
c c� I � OUT fy = 60 KSI REINFORCEMENT
ti > SPAN 1 � I PRESTRESSED CONCRETE:
� o , I I I I f'c = 9 KSI n = 1
�- �Ny � iv 121'-g� ���± I fipu = 270 KSI LOW RELAXATION STRANDS
"' � I I _ SPAN Z 0.75 fpu FOR INITIAL PRESTRESS
o, a °J � ~ DESIGN SPEED:
o ,i, �o � CRITICAL VERTICA� _ I - ^
�., o OVER = 50 MPH UNDER = 65 MPH
� c CLEARANCE POINT "A" o �
4 U i � � i _ >
U APPROXIMATE DECK AREA S� FT
� a X BEG.BRG. � � `V I � N ,` m
� — —'li - - _ _ _ sTa.z7os�za.39� i cRtTtca� vERricn� N 2033 PROJECTED
� — - — - — - _ � i ' � aEaRaNCE PotNT B° � � TRAFFIC VOLUMES
o - - � _ _ 2�oe 1 � _ a i i
o � ' � - i _ - - _ _ _� � � ' , i i � N
o � � C.S.A.H,69 N.B. — I `� Y ROADWAY OVER ROADWAY UNDER
� - - _ _ 2707 I � * � C.S.A.H,69 - 2 WAY T.H.169 - 2 WAY
� WBCR69) , - — _ _�_ _ 2 � �
� � I STA.2708+11.92 a I - - - _ _ _ o C.S.A.H.69 N.B. � � m 45,000 A.D.T. 11,000
�o � 26-0° LT. �� � N _ _ _ � I "' a 3,800 D.H.V. 1.000
� � Q � C.S.A.H.69 N.B. - - - _ � _ _ 2�06 � a a m 4,300 A.DJ.T. 1,000
� � � T.H. 169 W.B.(WB101)-- ► � _ � �
v I I (NBCR69) � - _ -I � �
� P � STA.2706+31.92 I � - - - - - _ � P
� � I _� 14'-0" LT. � END BRG. - - - _ � � X NOTESa
�i � BEG.BRG. I I o : � � STA.2705+85.12± /� NUMBER AND SPACING OF BEAMS IS APPROXIMATE
� — —�— _ _ _ STA.2708+23.37� � I ' 1D I ' I �—� AND WILL BE SET IN FINAL DESIGN.
I
0 0� - � - - _ I 27pg I � � I I TRAFFIC TO BE DETOURED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
. � - - _ — _L � � � � � �
Q ° � � — � — - _ _ _ 3 I � T.H.169 E.B.(EB10ll—► �
Z � ti I
_ _� I — I I I � HATCHED AREA TO BE REMOVED UNDER GRADING
W ,� N I 7T� — 27�7 I PORTION OF CONTRACT.
� N N � I � ��� _ � 4 I I
� � ' I � , ° I - - -� C.S.A.H.69 S.B. � � AZIMUTH OF ALL SUBSTRUCTURES = xx°xx'xx.x"±.
�i �o � I I ^ � I � -� � _ _2��6 I � BRIDGE APPROACH PANEL LAYOUT STANDARDS THE
I SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN
c a � I � I � � I - - - - _ _ IS UTILITY pUALITY LEVEL D. THIS UTILITY
a � � I 1D o ,J I � I END BRG. - - — � QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO
� X ' � N � I I I i STA.2705+80.08±� �,n m TSTANDADRD IGUIDEOLI ES FOR T HEOCOLLECTION� AND
c
o Q; ': DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY
� � + m DATA".
IN � ti �D
o I � N ° SEE SHEE7 4 FOR INPLACE UTILITIES.
� I I I � � r
o � � , � , � � �, PROPOSED TYPE OF STRUCTURE
� � � �'
,�,� CONCRETE SLOPE PAVING (TYPJ ° � OECK:
c, ,� � ,� � m MN54 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMS
� � � SEPARATE CONCRETE WEARING COURSE
� � �� v ALL BARS EPDXY COATED
X
Q P.T.STA.704+08.181
o�i VC = 1675' X=504.409.638 Y=209,781.163 SUBSTRUCTURE:
� V.P.C.2701+70.10 GENERAL PLAN P.T.STA.704+08.181 INTEGRAL TYPE ABUTMENTS SUPPORTED ON
`�' EL.832.507 XXXX
O V.P.I.2710+07.60 0 10' X=504.409.638 Y=209.781.163
� EL.862.657 COLUMN PIERS SUPPORTED ON XXXX
� V.P.T,2718+4510 CRTL.CLR.POINT "A" C�TL.CLR.POINT "B"
� EL.833.345
ti G1 = 3.60% „ +� AESTHETICS:
� G2 = -3.50% - � �, LEVEL B
N o �L.850--------------------� ti'------------------------------ °' --- --"', ---- PRO�ft£-GftAf�-tPtVBY'R6{Ji------------------------
� , „ - ---- --- ---------Gl7TTERLIN�----
� O � N � - N N
N
v N m � � � , N MINNESOTA
Q � ..
N Q � EL_840-------------- --- ------------------------------ `° � ------`° �— -+-- --------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
--------- -----------------------
� N = 2 6�� �1 sPAN 1 sPAN z z i PRELIMINARY PLAN
W - -----
� EL.830---------- 1�--
.. � --TYP.- ------ -----�----I�------------------ --- 4 4'-Oc - -----q--------- --------------------1�--- -- --SOUTH ABIJTMENT BRIDGE NO, 70007
� � CONCRETE SLOPE PAVING (TYPJ �I �1 4.0% _2.0%_ 2�_0% 4.0% �1 PIER 1� 4'�� z'�� 2•�� 2•0% 4.0% 1�
�— — — — �
ti —
W h � - - -- - ° - _ _ -`----