HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.A.6. Relocationof Existing Overhead Power Lines on C.R. 77 and C.R. 79
CITY OF SHAKOPEE IS: fl. 6,
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Relocation of Existing Overhead Power Lines on
c.R. 77 and C.R. 79 Associated with the Countryside and
New High School Developments
DATE: May 17, 2005
INTRODUCTION:
Associated with the CoUntryside development and the Independent School District
(I.S.D.) #720 new high school is the relocation of existing overhead power lines along
C.R. 77 and C.R. 79. This agenda item is for City Council to consider whether or not the
Council wants existing power lines to be placed underground or to be relocated overhead
on this project.
BACKGROUND:
With the Countryside development and I.S.D. #720 new high school, both C.R. 77 and
C.R. 79 will be need to be reconstructed to a wider width and turn lanes, with bituminous
trails and sidewalks on these roadways. With the reconstruction of these roadways, the
existing overhead power lines will be need to be relocated in order to meet County
Standards for clear zones of obstructions on these roadways. Per the City's Right-of-
Way Management Ordinance, if an existing overhead power line is relocated 300 feet or
more, the City has the discretion to require the existing overhead power line to be placed
underground or to remain overhead. Per Attorney, Jim Strommen with Kennedy and
Graven, the City's ordinance does apply even on County roads.
Per Joe Adams, of Shakopee Public Utilities, the cost to place the lines underground for
C.R. 79 is estimated to be $100,000.00 and to relocate the existing overhead power lines
is $25,000.00, and for C.R. 77 the cost to go underground is $60,000.00 versus
$15,000.00 to relocate overhead power lines. Memos from Joe Adams are attached on
these power lines. SPUC has recently approved a funding mechanism and policy to pay
for the undergrounding of existing overhead power lines if required by the City. This
funding mechanism was put into place in 2003. SPUC did approve an option to recover
the additional cost of undergrounding facilities through a special utility rate added over a
period of time. Attached to this memo are the following documents for Council review
and consideration of this item:
. Memo from Joe Adams, Planning and Engineering Director of SPUC, to Lou
Van Hout, Utilities Manager on c.R. 79 overhead electric line installation.
. Memo from Joe Adams to Bruce Loney on C.R. 77 and c.R. 79 power lines.
. Memo from Joe Adams to Lou Van Hout on C.R. 77 overhead electric line
relocation/removal.
. Letter from Don Sterna, of WSB & Associates, Inc., Project Manager on the
improvements for C.R. 77 and c.R. 79 on the roadway clear zones to
obstructions for County road highways.
. E-mail from Darin Holmgren, Scott County Highway Utility Inspector, on the
County's requirements per their Right-of-Way Ordinance No. 22.
In review of the C.R. 77 overhead electric line memo from Joe Adams, the power needs
are being evaluated on if the line needs to be removed, upgraded or left as is. It should be
pointed out that there is no action taken by SPUC at its May 2, 2005 meeting.
On the C.R. 79 overhead electric relocations, SPUC did have funds allocated for
relocating the power lines in their 2007 Budget. The Commission will need to meet to
discuss how to fund this relocation or undergrounding, as the reconstruction of C.R. 79
was moved up because of the Countryside and new high school developments in this
area.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve a motion requiring the existing overhead power lines along C.R. 77 and
C.R. 79, from T.H. 169 to the south terminus line of the construction project be
relocated underground.
2. Do not approve a motion requiring the existing overhead power lines along C.R.
77 and C.R. 79 be relocated underground.
3. Table for additional information.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend that City Council discuss the issue and make a determination on
whether to underground the existing overhead power . lines or relocate the existing power
lines. In staff's opinion, the overhead powerline alongC.R.77 will more than likely be
changed, upgraded or removed and undergrounding makes sense with the road work
being done. The overhead power line on C.R. 79 should be placed underground, if the
Council desires for that to happen, as this would be the most opportune time.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve a motion determining on whether existing overhead power lines along C.R. 77
and C.R. 79, from T.R. 169 to the south terminus of the construction to be relocated and
remain an overhead line or be placed underground.
Bruce Loney
Public Works Director
BUpmp
ENGRl2005PROJECT/C.R 77C.R. 79/WORDIPOWERLINES
SHAKO PEE PUBLIC UTILITIES
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
FROM: Joseph D. Adams, Planning & Engineering Director
SUBJECT: CR 79 AND CR 77 POWER LINES
DATE: May 11, 2005
I have evaluated the information submitted by Don Sterna ofWSB & Associates and
have come the conclusion that we will have to relocate the existing overhead electric
power lines along both roads.
The Utilities Commission was informed ofthe likelihood of this conclusion at their May
2nd meeting. '
The estimated cost to relocate the three-phase circuit along CR 79 through the length of
the project is approximately $25,000 if done overhead and $100,000 if done
underground. Our long-term plans include a second parallel three-phase circuit along CR
79 from the South Shakopee substation located south ofCR 78 to lib Avenue. This
circuit would be placed underground, on the opposite side of the road, with the portion
within the current project possibly installed now.
The estimated cost to relocate the single-phase circuit along CR 77 through the length of
the project is $15,000 if done overhead and $60,000 if done underground. We are
evaluating if the section of the circuit south of 1 ib A venue might be simply removed, as
there are to be new facilities installed along 1 ib A venue to serve the new High School
and Countryside development. However, it may be desirable to convert the single-phase
circuit to a three-phase circuit for the section north of 17th A venue to serve as a future tie
across Highway 169.
Please advise the Council of these facts, as we request direction under the.terms of the
city's right of way management ordinance on if the relocated facilities will be required to
be placed underground. Per the Utilities Commission policy, ifthe Council decides to
order the facilities relocated underground then the additional cost to do so will be
collected by a separate line item energy charge on all SPU electric customer accounts
within the city limits.
SHAKOPEE PUBLIC UTILITIES
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lou Van Hout, Utilities Manager
FROM: Joseph D. Adams, Planning & Engineering Director
SUBJECT: CR 79 OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE RELOCATION
DATE: April 29, 2005
ISSUE
The City of Shako pee, Scott County, Shakopee School District and Tollefson
Development have negotiated agreements to improve CR 79 in 2005 from Highway 169
to Hillwood Drive.
BACKGROUND
This project was not in the draft (received 11/04) City of Shakopee 2005 CIP list of
projects or in Scott County's 2004-08 CIP and subsequently was not included in the
Utilities 2005 projects. However, those parties have reached agreement that the
improvements are warranted in 2005 with the construction ofthe new high school and
adjacent housing development.
In our five-year CIP, we do have a project to relocate the overhead power lines
underground in 2007 at a budgeted cost of $72,500 from Highway 169 to 17tb Avenue.
This project was listed to coordinate with a staff anticipated development driven road-
widening project. Apparently that froject is now being accelerated to 2005 and expanded
to include the roadway south of 17t A venue to Hillwood Drive.
The total length ofthe proposed project now is approximately 0.65 miles, at an estimated
2005 cost of $74,750, plus $5,000 for removal ofthe overhead poles and wires for a total
of$79,750.
DISCUSSION
The attached letter from Public Works Director Bruce Loney indicates a determination is
forthcoming on the clear zone requirements, which will dictate whether or not the poles
have to be relocated. That in turn will trigger review by the City Council under the Right
of Way Management Ordnance on if the relocated facilities must be placed underground.
FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The Electric System Long Term Planning Update does identify one future additional
main line feeder circuit along CR 79 from the South Shakopee substation to 17th Avenue.
This circuit is to be installed when a second transformer is needed to increase the
substation capacity. Staff is investigating the pros and cons of installing a portion of that
circuit within this project area at this time. A report will be prepared and presented at a
future Commission meeting.
CONCLUSION
It is anticipated both ofthe determinations in the discussion section will occur and the
Commission will be informed at that time that the existing facilities must be relocated
underground.
ACTION REQUESTED
No action is requested at this time, this is an information item only.
SHAKO PEE PUBLIC UTILITIES
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lou Van Hout, Utilities Manager
FROM: Joseph D. Adams, Planning & Engineering Director
SUBJECT: CR 77 OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE RELOCATION/REMOV AL
DATE: April 29, 2005
ISSUE
Coincident with the improvements to CR 79, the City of Shako pee, Scott County,
Shakopee School District and Tollefson Development have negotiated agreements to
improve CR 77 in 2005 from Highway 169 to the south end of the new High School site.
BACKGROUND
The existing single-phase overhead power line was installed to maintain service to the old
horse-training farm when Highway 169 was constructed. That farm is now gone and the
area is going to be a part of the Countryside residential development. We will be serving
the new development with underground electric power lines fed from a new mainline
feeder along 1 ib Avenue. So the need to retain the overhead line is questionable.
We asked our electric system-planning consultant Kevin Favero ofRW Beck for his
opinion and he stated he sees no long-term benefit to retaining the line. We may simply
remove the line then instead of relocating it at all.
ACTION REQUESTED
No action is requested at this time, this is an information item only.
, A
WSB
& Associates, Inc. Infrastructure I Engineering I Planning I Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel; 763-541c4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
May 3, 2005
Mr. Bruce Loney
. City of Shakopee
129 Holmes Street S.
Shakopee,MN 55379
Re: County Road 77 / County Road 79 Improvements
Clarification of Roadway Clear Zones to Obstructions
City of Shakopee
WSB Project No. 1634-00
Dear Mr. Loney:
lam writing in response to, not only the City of Shakopee, but SPUC's request for clear zone
clarification along both County Roads 79 and 77, and 1 ib A venue in the City of Shakopee.
The clear zone is defined as the distance from the edge ofthe Qutside travel lane of the roadway to a
fixed object. The clear zone requirements along high speed County roadways are typically based on
State Aid standards; however, Scott County has also adopted the policies of utilizing AASHTO
clear zone requirements which, in most cases, are the wider of the two clear zone requirements.
The County wants to ensure that they are utilizing the wider of the two clear zone limits to reduce
the possibility of injuries or property damage that would occur from vehicles leaving the roadway
and striking fixed objects. Current State Aid Standards on roadways of45 mph or higher is 30
linear feet from the outside driving lane. AASRTO requirements vary, depending on the inslopes
and hackslopesof the roadway ernbankment that are encountered along the traveling roadway. To
betterassisfboththe City and SPUC in understanding which clear zone widths apply on the project,
I have prepared the following table for your information. The table identifies from station to station
thetnaxirnum clear zone width in which no power poles or other fixed objects can be placed in
order to meet Scott County's clear zone requirements. These clear zones are also required on 17th
. Avenue, since the future plans of the City are to turn back I ib A venue to the County, who will then
take jurisdictional control of the roadway once the remaining section of 1 ib A venue is completed to
CSAH 83.
Minneapolis I St. Cloud
Equal Opportunity Employer K: 101634 -OOlAdmin \Docs ILTR -bloney-042805.dfc
, Mr. Bruce Loney
May3,2005
Page 2
Clear Zone Distances
CR 77, CR 79 and 17th Ave
City of Shakooee .
Clear Zone
Location State . Aid Mn/DOT (AASHTO)
Station to Station LT RT LT RT
CR77
207+45 to 238+28.37 30' 30' 36' 36'
CR79
365+85 to 369+00 30' 30' 40' 40'
369+00 to 371+43 30' 30' 40' 28'
371+43 to 374+50 30' 30' 40' 40'
374+50 to 385+50 30' 30' 28' 40'
385+50 to 389+00 30' 30' 40' 28'
389+00 to 399+79.08 30' 30' 40' 40'
17th Ave
500+00 to 553+19 10' 10' 17' 17'
Traffic Information
CR77
ADT 2025 I 3,500
CR79
ADT 2025 .1 13,200
17th Ave
ADT 20251 14,000
I hope this infOr1l1ation is helpful in clarifying the clear zone requirements on all three roadways
that are being improved in and around the Countryside development and new High School site in
.the City of Shakopee. Also, I have included copies of the State Aid requirements, along with
Mn/DOT alld.AASHTO.requirements for clear zones for your information.
K: 10 1634-001Admin \Docs ILTR -bloney-042805.doc
Mr. Bruce Loney
May 3, 2005
Page 3
If you have any questions or would like to discuss the clear zone requirements in greater detail,
please do nothesitate to contact me at 763-287-7189.
Sincerely,
Donald W. Sterna, P.E.
Proj ect Manager
Enclosures
cc: Joe Adams - SPUC
Greg Ilkka- Scott County
Brian Sorenson - Scott County
Craig Jensen - Scott County
Rick Hauser - WSB & Associates, Inc.
Tom V oll- WSB & Associates, Inc.
Tanya Gytri - WSB & Associates, Inc. ,
lh
K: \0 1634-001Admin \Docs ILTR -bloney-042 805.doc
.
4-6(14) ROAD DESIGN MANUAL (ENGLISH) FEBRUARY, 2000
,
Recommended clear zone for a 1:3 slope (cut) = 21ft (Table 4-6.04A).
Calculating ~ adjusted clear zone by considering the backslope
(34/38) = 0.89 = 89% of clear zone available
100 - 89 = 11 % of backslope clear zone needed
0.11 x 21 ft = 2 ft
34 ft + 2 ft = 36 ft clear zone required
44 ft available to the tree. The adjusted clear zone is adequate
Key To Clear Zone Distance Tables
. Curves flatter than 20 do not require an adjustment (use tangent values).
. For slopes flatterthan 1 :10, use 1 :10.
. For slopes not listed in the tables (for example 1 :3.5), and for degree of curve not shown (for
example 2.50), designers should interpolate clear zones distances.
Table 4-6.04A
CLEAR ZONE DISTANCES (ft)
De2ree of curve TANGENT
DESIGN ADT CUT SECTION FLAT FILL SECTION
SPEED ];3 ]:4 ]:5 ];6 ]:]0 ]:]0 ]:6 ];5 ]:4
< ]500 11 11 11 11 11 ]] ]] ]2 13 ]4 ".
40 mph 1500 - 6000 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 ]4 ]5 ]6
> 6000 14 14 ]4 14 14 ]4 14 ]5 ]6 17
< ]500 11 13 ]4 14 14 14 14 ]5 ]7 20
45 mph ... 1500 - 6000 . 13 14 ]5 ]5 ]5 15 ]5 ]7 19 22 I""~
I . > 6000 ]4 ]6 17 17 ]7 ]7 17 ]9 2] 25
< ]500 13 ]4 ]5 ]6 ]6 ]6 ]6 ]8 19 23 /'Nt.
50 mph ]500 - 6000 14 ]6 17 18 ]8 ]8 18 20 2] 26 "
> 6000 16 ]8 ]9 20 20 20 20 22 24 29
< 1500 ]5 18 ]9 20 22 23 23 25 29 33
I ~c..~ 77
55 mph ]500 - 6000 17 20 2] 22 24 25 25 28 3] 36
I > 6000 ]9 22 . 24 25 27 28 28 31 34 40 ~ -- '"" ,q
I < ]500 ]7 2] 23 24 25 26 26 29 3] 38 -,
60 mph 1500 - 6000 ]9 23 25 26 28 29 29 32 35 42 ,.,
> 6000 21 26 28 29 31 31 3] 35 38 46
< 1500 20 23 25 25 28 29 29 32 35 43
70 mph 1500 - 6000 22 25 27 28 30 3] 31 35 39 47
> 6000 24 28 30 31 33 34 34 38 42 51 "
*These slopes are considered to be traversable but non-recoverable and require special considerations.
Cl<..1~
-
~T2.02.s: ~500
U<.-"1"1
A-\:)T~:: 1?J, ~OD
''7 ~ -Avt..
A-f;:)T 2.0~S ~ /4 , 000
t .J;
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
-
:1 STATE-AID OPERATIONS
:f
J
J CHAPTER 8820
,
Extracted from Minnesota Rules 2003, including
amendments adopted through October 25, 2004
Reprinted: December 2004
<,
I Text Provided By:
The Office of Revisor of Statutes
7th Floor, State Office Building, St. Paul, MN 55155
.. Distributed By:
Minnesota Department of Transportation
> State Aid for Local Transportation Division
MS 500, Transportation Building
395 John Ireland Boulevard
Saint Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 651-296-9973
the commissioner. Following receipt of the advisory committee's ' EXHIBITS. FIGURES. AIm TABLES
recommendation, the commissioner may remove the natural 8820..9920. GEOME'1'R:rC DESIGN STANDARDS~ RURAL AND SUBURBAN
preservation route designation from the roadwa!.. :he mmIVIDBD~ NEW ORRECONSTRUCTIOR PROJECTS.
commissioner shall base the decision on the crlterla in part New or reconstruction projects for rural and suburban
8820.4030., subpart 2, notify the political subdivision in . undivided roadways must meet or exceed the minimum dimensions
writing of the decision, and include a written explanation wlth indicated in the following design chart.
the notification.
SA: MS s 162.0.21 162.o.21~ 162.0.9 Pro- Lane 'Shoulder In- Recovery Design Sur- Struc- Bridges
mST: 18 SR 32 jected Width Width slope Area ~ Speed facing tural to ~ernaiIl
ADT ~ Design (f)
8820..9910. [Repealed, 20. SR 10.41) Strength Width
(b) (g) (c) (d) (e) (h) Curb to
8820..9911 [Repealed, 15 sa 2596] Curb
8820..9912 [Repealed, 15 SR 2596) rise:
feet feet run feet mph tons feet
8820..9913 [Repealed, 15 SR 2596)
0-49 11 1 1:3 7 30.- Ag9. 22
8820..9914 [Repealed, 15 SR 2596] 60
8820..9915 [Repealed, 15 SR 2596] 50.- u 3 1:4 9 40.- Ag9. 22
149 60.
8820..9916 [Repealed, 15 SR 2596)
150.- 12 4 1:4 15 40- Paved 9 28
8820..9917 [Repealed, 15 SR 2596) 749 60.
8820..9918 [Repealed, 15 sa 2596J 750.- 12 4 1:4 25 40- Paved 9 28
1499 60.
8820..9919 [Repealed, 15 SR 2596J
C r<.:7 ~ 150.0.. 12 6(g) 1:4 3D 40.- Paved 10 3Q
>- and -:;:::. 60.
d, c.." 1~ over
Engineering jUdgment may be used to choose a lane-width or
shoulder-width dimension other than the widths indicated in the
chart for roadways. Factors to consider may be safety. speed,
population/land use, benefit/cost analysis, traffic mix, farm
GY<..'1-'1 equipment, environmental impacts, terrain limitations, bicycle
traff~c, pedestrian traffic, other nonmotori~ed uses, functional
classification, or other factors. .Widths less than those
At:>T2,02.6 ~ 3,,5CO indicated in the chart require a variance in accordance with
parts 8820..330.0 and 8820..340.0..
(a) For rural divided roadways, use the geometric design
U<:1 CJ standards of the Mn/DOT Road Design Manual, with a minimum ten
tons structural design and minimum 4o.mph design speed.
(b) Use the existing traffic for highways not on the
A-C'~25 ~ IS,200 state-aid system.
(c) Applies to slope within recovery area only.
(d) Obstacle-free area (measured from edge of traffic
17'k1 AvL . 39
38 A-D '2025" ~ I~ 000
,
~ lane) . Culverts with less than 30-inch vertical height allowed 8820.9922 GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS~ NEW BRIDGE, BRIDGE -
without protection in the recovery area. REPLACEMENT, OR BRIDGE REHABILITATION PROJECTS AND APPROACIl
Guardrail is required to be installed at all ~ridges where ROADWAYS ON RURAL OR SUBtIRBAN UNDIVIDED ROADWAYS !l'BAT ARE NOT ON
the design speed exceeCls 40 mph, and either the ADT exceeCls 749 THE STATE-AID'SYSTEM.
or the bridge clear wiClth is less than the sum of the lane anCl New bridge; bridge replacement, or bridge rehabilitation .
shoulder widths. projects and .approach roadways on rural or suburban undivided
Mailbox supports must be in accordance with chapter 8818. roadways that are not on the state-aid system ~ust meet or
For roadways in suburban areas as defined in part exceed the minimum dimensions indicated in the following design
8820.0100, the recovery area may be reduced to a width of ten chart.
feet for projected AnT under 1,000 and to 20 feet for projected
ADT of 1,000 or over. Wherever the legal posted speed limit is Existing Lane Shoulder Inslope Recovery Design
40 mph or less, the recovery area may be reduced to a width of ADT Width Width Area Speed
ten feet. (a) (h) (b) (c) (e)
(e) Subject to terrain. In suburban areas, the minimum
.. design speed may be equal to the current legal posted sp~ed (feet) (feet) (rise: (feet) (mph)
where the legal posted speed is 30 mph or greater. run)
(f) Inventory rating of fi IS is required. A bridge
narrower than these widths may remain in place if the bridge is 0-49 11 1 1:3 7 30-60
not deficient structurally or hydraUlically.
(g) Shoulders are required to be a minimum width of eight 50-149 1+ 3 1:4 9 30-60
feet for highways classified as minor arterials and principal
arterials with greater than 1,500 ADT projected. 150-400 12 4 1:4 15(d) 30-60
(h) Phased projects must be constructed to attain design
strength within three years of completion of final grading. 'In Engineering jUdgment may be used to choose a lane-width or
suburban areas, the minimum structural design strength is nine shoulder-width dimension other than the widths indicated in the
tons or ten tons as needed for system continuity. chart for roadways. Factors to consider may be safety, speed,
Approach sideslopes must be 1:4 or flatter when the ADT population, land use, benefit/cost analysis, traffic mix, farm
exceeds 400. equipment, environmental impacts, terrain limitations, bicycle
liS 25 loading with AASBTO Standard Specifications or BL-93 traffic, pedestrian traffic, other nonmotorized uses, functional
loading with load and resistance factor design (LRFD) is classification, or other factors. . Widths less than those
required for new or reconstructed bridges. as 18 loading is indicated in the chart require a variance in accordance with
required for all rehabilitated bridges. The curb-to~curb .parts 8820.3300 and 8820.3400.
minimum width for new or reconstructed bridges must be no less (a) For existing ADT greater than. 400, part 8820.9920
than either the minimum required lane plus shoulder width or the standards apply.
proposed lane plus shoulder width, whichever is greater, but in (b) Applies to slope within recovery area only.
no case less than the minimum lane widths plus four feet, and in (c) Obstacle-free area (measured from edge of traffic lane).
no case less than required per ~innesota Statutes, section Culverts with less than 3D-inch vertical height allowed without
165.04. protection.in'the recovery area.
For roundabout design, the design criteria of the current (d) For roadways in suburban areas, the recovery area may
edition of the Minnesota State Aid Roundabout Guide are be reduced to a width of ten feet for projected ADT under 1,000
recommended. and to 20 feet for projected ADT of 1,000 or over. Wherever the
SA: ~S s 162.02; 162.09 legal posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour or less, the
BlST: 20 SR 1041; 23 SR 1455; 24 SR 1885; 29 SR 449 recovery area may be reduced to a width of ten feet.
(e) Subject to terrain.
HS 25 loading with AASHTO Standard Specifications or BL-93
loading with load and resistance factor design (~RFD) is
required for new or reconstructed bridges. HS 18 loading is
required for all rehabilitated bridges. The curb-to-curb
minimum width for new or reconstructed bridges must be equal to
the proposed lane plus shoulder widths, but in no case less than
40 41
.
.
the minimum lane width plus four feet, and in no case less than highway turnback, may be recondition~d.
required per Minnesota Statutes, section 165.04. The proposed structural design strength must be a minimum
Bridge structures of minimum 20-foot clear width may be of seven tons. .
constructed where existing AnT is less than 50, potential for For roundabout design, the design criteria of the current
increasing AD~ is low, and the local government agency finds edition of the Minnesota State Aid Roundabout Guide are
that the bridge width can operate effectively at that width for recommended. ,
the expected life of the bridge. Subp. 2. [Repealed, 23 SR 1(55)
SA: MS s 162.02; 162.09 SA: MS s 162.02; 162.09
mST: 29 SR 449 BIST: 20 SR 1041; 23 SR 1455; 24 SR 18851 29 SR 449
8820.9925 (Repealed, 20 SR 1041] 8820.9930 [Repealed, 20 SR 1041]
8820.9926 GEOMETRI.C DESIGN STANDARDS: RURAL AND SUBURBAN 8820.993i [Repealed, 23 SR 1455J
UNDIVIDED; RECONDITIONING PROJECTS.
Subpart l. Minimum reconditioning standards. 8820.9935 [Repealed, 20 SR 1041]
Reconditioning projects for rural or suburban undivided roadways
must meet or exceed the minimum dimensions .indicated in the 8820.9936 GEOMETlUC DESIGN STANDARDS, URBAN; NEW OR
following design chart. .5ee part 8820.0100, subpart 13b, for RECONSTRUCTION PltOJECTS.
the description of activities allowed. New or reconstruction projects for urban roadways must meet
or exceed the minimum dimensions indicated in the following
Existing Statutory or Lane Width Combined Lane design chart.
AnT Regulatory (Paved) (Paved) and
Posted Speed Shoulder Width . Functional Design Lane Curb Parking
Classification Speed Width React.ion Lane
1-749 I Under .50 mph I 10 feet I 11 feet and PrOjected (a) Distance Width
I 10 feet I Traffic Volume (e)
1-749 I 50 mph or over 12 feet mph feet feet feet
750 and Collectors 30-40 (b) 11 2 8
over I Under 50 mph I 10 feet I 12 feet or Locals
with AnT
750 and I < 10000* I
over " I 50 mph & over I 11 feet 14 feet lover 40 112 I 2 10
Engineering judgment may be used to choose a lane or shoulder
width dimension other than the widths. indicated in the chart for Collectors 30-40 (b) 11 (c) 4 10
roadways. Factors to consider include. safety, speed, or Locals
population/land use, benefit/cost analysis, traffic mix, with AnT
environmental impacts, terrain limitations, bicycle traffic, ~ 10000
pedestrian traffic, other nonmotorized uses, functional and I. over 40 112 1 (C) 4 1 (d) 10
classification, or other factors. Widths less than those
indicated in the chart require a variance in accordance with ~ Arterials",
~~tL- (a) One-way turn lanes must be at least ten feet wide,
parts 8820.3300 and 8820.3400~ Jr ex.ep' 11 fee' io require. if the .eoig. ope.. io over " "ph.
Widths of bridges to remain in place must equal roadway
pavement width. Bridges narrower than these widths may remain ~ (b) Wherever possible, lane widths of 12 feet, rather than
in place provided that the bridge does not qualify for ~ 11 feet, should be used.
federal-aid bridge funds. H 15 inventory rating is required. ~~~~~~ (c) May be reduced to two feet if there are four or more
Any. highway that was previously built to state-aid or state traffic lanes and on one-way streets. .
standards, that was granted a variance to standards in effect at (d) No parking is allowed for six or more traffic lanes or
the time of construction or reconstruction, or that is a trunk when the.posted speed limit exceeds 45 mph.
42 43
,
-
" recommended.
(e) Curb reaction must be provided only where parking is SA: MS s 162.02; 162.09
not provided. BIST: 20 SR 1041; 23 SR 1455; 24 SR 1885; 29 SR 449 ..,..
One-way streets must have at least two through-traffic
lanes. 8820.9940 [Repealed, 20 SR 1041)
When a median is included in the design of the two-way ,
roadway, a one-foot reaction distance to the median is required 8820.9945 [Repealed, 20 SR 1041)
on either side of the median. Minimum median width is four feet.
Urban design roadways must be a minimum nine tons 8820.9946 GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS, URBAN; RECORDITIOJnNG
structural design, or ten tons if needed for system continuit~. PROJECTS.
Phased projects must be constructed to attain design strength Subpart l. Two-way streets. In the following design
within three years of completion of final grading. chart, total width is from face-to-face of curbs.
Roadways not on the state-aid system are not subject to the Reconditioning projects for two-way urban roadways must
minimum structural design strength requirements. meet or exceed the minimum dimensions indicated in the chart.
The minimum curb-to-curb width of anew bridge must be the
required street width, but in no case less than required'per Number of Through Total Total Width Total Width Proposed
Minnesota Statutes, section 165.04. HS 25 loading with AASHTO Lanes, Functional Width with Parking with Parking Structural
Standard Specifications or HL-93 loading with load and Class, and Present with No' on One Side on Both Design
resistance factor design (LRFD) is required for new or Traffic Volume Parking Sides Strength
reconstructed bridges and a minimum of HS 18 loading is required
for all rehabilitated bridges. Where the new bridge approach (feet) (feet) (feet) (tons)
roadway includes elements for the accommodation of pedestrians
or bicycles, the new bridge width must also provide for 2-Lane Collector 26 32 38 . (b) 9
pedestrians or bicycles unless pedestrians or bicycles are or Local with
otherwise accommodated. ADT < 10000
For ADT. less than 150, the widths of bridges to remain must
be at least the sum of the lanes. For ADT greater than or equal 4-Lane Collector 44 52 60 (b) 9
to 150, the widths of bridges to remain must be at least the. sum or Local with
of the lanes plus half the sum of the shoulders, parking lane, ADT < 10000
~ and curb reaction distance. .
Clearance of 1.5 feet from the face of t~~ to fixed 2-Larie Collector 26 32 42 9
ob 'ects must be ov ded when the posted speed is !.0_tp_.,4a..J!.l~ ,or Local, wi th
~~ ten-foot clearance from the driving lane must be provided when ADT ~ 10000
the poste spee ~lC_c:E1E!~!tA"S.._J!Iph-,,- or 2-Lane
\ ~\.i For vo1um., gr.at.r thou 15,000 proj..t.. AOT', .t ,..,t Arterial (a)
four through-traffic lanes are required.
*Additional average daily traffic may be allowed if a 4-Lane'Collector 44 54 64 9
capacity analysis demonstrates that level of service D or better or Local with
is achieved at the higher traffic volume. If the capacity ADT ~ 10000 or
analysis demonstrates that additional lanes are required only 4-Lane Arterial
during peak traffic hours, then each additional driving lane may
be used as a parking lane during nonpeakhours. 6-Lane Collectors 66 (c) (c) 9
"Level of service" has the meaning given it in the Highway or Arterials
Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, as revised and pUblished by
the Transportation Research Board of the National Research (a) Permissible for present traffic volumes less than
Council, WaShington, D.C. The definition is incorporated by 15,000 ADT.
refere.nce, is not subject to frequent change, and is located at (b) When AnT is less than 5,000, seven tons is allowable.
the Minnesota State Law Library, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King (c) No parking is allowed.
Jr. BlVd., St. Paul, Minnesota 55155. When a median is included in the design of the two-way
For roundabOUt design, the ~esign criteria of the current roadway, a one-foot reaction distance to the median .1s required
edition of the Minnesota state Aid Roundabout Guide are
45
44
Page 1 of1
Bruce Loney
From: Holmgren, Darin [DHolmgren@co.scott.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 2:53 PM
To: jadams@shakopeeutilities.com
Cc: Rasmussen, Mitch; Sorenson, Brian; IIkka, Gregory; Bruce Loney
Subject: CSAH 79 Relocation of Utilities
Joe, I have been asked to contact you in regards to the relocation of SPUC's overhead power lines along CSAH
79 for the CSAH 79 reconstruction project.
Our policy is quite clear, as stated in our R/W Ordinance #22; a copy of which I have attached that in order to
protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, the County may assign a utility to a specified corridor. In the
case of overhead electric, that will always be outside of the clear zone. All above ground facilities will need to be
located outside of the clear zone. Underground utilities may remain in the clear zone but not under (parallel) the
county road
SPUC must apply for a permit for relocation of their facilities within the County right-of-way. Within the permit
issued will be conditions that will specify where the facilities are located within the highway right-of-way during the
construction. project.
Feel free to contact me regarding this issue.
Thank you,
Darin Holmgren
Scott County Public Works
Hwy Utility Inspector
952.496.8487 Office
5/10/2005