Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1A, B2 Guiding Plan - Implementation Report WIZEN HILLS I Request for Council Action 1A ...........-- ----- Prepared By: Jill Hutmacher,Community Work Session Date: December 10, 2012 Development Director B2 Guiding Plan —Implementation Report Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Discussion Topic: Informational only. No action required. I I Supporting Documents: 1. Memorandum dated December 10, 2012, from Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director. 2. Attachment A—County Road E(13-2 District) Implementation Plan (Draft). �- IQENHILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 10, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director J7 SUBJECT: County Road E (B-2 District) Implementation Plan Bolton& Menk has completed the draft of the County Road E (B-2 District) Implementation Plan(attached). Marcus Thomas will attend the work session meeting to present the findings and recommendations. Attachments A. County Road E (B-2 District) Implementation Plan—Draft City of Arden Hills City Council Work Session December 10, 2012 Page 1 of 1 Attachment County Road E (B-2 District) Implementation Plan — Draft December 10, 2012, City Council Work Session County Road E ( B-2 District) Implementation Plan Prepared for: City of Arden Hills AR)2EN HILLS December 2012 BMI Project No. 716.104335 •C�r4 Q � -F F i [ _ /rJ(��1 lkt lii •` COUNTY RD E (6-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS....................................................................................1 3.0 CONCEPT DISCUSSION AND DEVELOPMENT........................................................................2 3.1. FIRST CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING(APRIL 11,2012)................2 3.2. SECOND CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING(JUNE 18,2012) ............2 3.3. INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS OWNER MEETINGS ...............................................................4 3.4. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION(JULY 25,2012).........................................................5 3.5. THIRD CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING(OCTOBER 8,2012).........6 4.0 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................................7 FIGURES (Please note that figures are assembled at the end of the text.) FIGURE 1 —PROJECT LOCATION FIGURE 2—TRAFFIC INFORMATION MAP FIGURE 3—FIVE LANE OPTION FIGURE 4—MEDIAN OPTION FIGURE 5—ROUNDABOUT OPTION FIGURE 6—PHASE I CONCEPT TABLES TABLE 1 —PARTICIPATING BUSINESSES............................................................................................4 TABLE 2—ESTIMATED PHASE I CONCEPT COSTS............................................................................7 APPENDIX APPENDIX A—CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE ROSTER APPENDIX B—LANDSCAPE ARCHICTECTURE PRESENTATION APPENDIX C—DETAILED PHASE I CONCEPT COST ESTIMATE INFORMATION Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. County Rd E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan COUNTY RD E (B-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 1.0 INTRODUCTION In October of 2008,the City of Arden Hills accepted the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District("Guiding Plan"). The B-2 District is generally bounded by Hamline Avenue(Trunk Highway 51)to the west, Canadian Pacific railroad tracks to the north,Lexington Avenue(County State Aid Highway 51)to the east,and the east-west Harriet Avenue alignment to the south(see Figure 1). County Road E(County State Aid Highway 15)is the primary roadway providing access to and through this district. The Guiding Plan process examined existing conditions,created a long-range redevelopment vision and guiding principles,addressed transportation questions,evaluated market potential,reviewed land uses,and prepared design guidelines. The purpose of this County Road E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan("Implementation Plan")is to revisit the goals and recommendations of the 2008 Guiding Plan and better illustrate the recommendations of that document through more defined roadway concepts. The work performed for this project was directed by the Project Management Team(PMT)which included staff representatives from the City of Arden Hills and Ramsey County. A central focus of this planning effort has been a robust public engagement program,discussing specific improvement strategies. The public engagement included two primary elements as summarized below: Corridor Advisory Committee(CAC)—This body was made up of local stakeholders,including property owners,business residents,and City Council members. A roster of the CAC is included as Appendix A. Bolton and Menk met with this group on three occasions to present and discuss design alternatives,and get feedback and direction. Individual business meetings—The project team solicited 25 local business owners to schedule one- on-one meetings. Fourteen of these responded and participated. In addition,a City Council Work Session was held after the first two CAC meetings to update the Council on work progress and to get its input and guidance to complete the project. Individual meetings,issues discussed, and outcomes are summarized in Section 3.0. 2.0 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Based on Mn/DOT data,County Road E currently carries over 14,000 vehicles per day. While it is classified as a`B"Minor Arterial roadway in the metro area network,it has numerous access points in the project area. Traffic counts(vehicle and pedestrian)for PM peak conditions were taken on January 5, 2012.1 This was prior to the closure of northbound Snelling Avenue,which occurred later in the spring. The resulting data is summarized on Figure 2. Level of Service(LOS)analysis for existing conditions was performed. All of the intersections in the project corridor currently operate at LOS C or better,which is acceptable. However,two specific movements are problematic: • Westbound movements at County Road E and northbound Hwy 51 ramp/Connelly Street—The total westbound movements(left,thru,and right)result in a cumulative LOS D for westbound 'It may be noted that the Walgreens Pharmacy at the corner of County Road E and Lexington Avenue was under construction while the traffic counts were taken. To account for this,trip generation estimates based on Institute of Traffic Engineers guidance were made and added to the observed traffic counts. Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.716.104355 County Rd E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 1 COUNTY RD E (13-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN traffic entering this intersection,indicating excessive delays to these motorists. The analysis shows a maximum westbound queue length during the PM peak time period of 770 feet. • Eastbound left turns on County Road E to Lexington Avenue—This movement is LOS D,but is very close to the LOS E threshold,and nearing capacity. In addition to these two problems identified at specific intersections,there also exists a common problem throughout the corridor,that being the difficulty for traffic to make left turns onto County Road E from adjacent driveways. Traffic volumes along County Road E,particularly during the peak hours,reduce the frequency of acceptable gaps for vehicles to make these left turns. Furthermore,the problem is made worse by the unrestricted left turns allowed along County Road E into these adjacent properties. When reviewing the existing traffic information,it is important to recognize the significant vacancies within the corridor. As parcels become redeveloped and occupied,existing traffic problems will become exacerbated,and new problem locations may emerge. 3.0 CONCEPT DISCUSSION AND DEVELOPMENT Since a primary focus of the project was to engage local stakeholders to discuss relatively detailed design concepts,this portion of the report will be organized according to public engagement meetings that were held. 3.1. FIRST CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING(APRIL 11,2012) The purpose of this meeting was to express the purpose of the Implementation Plan process, begin the discussions, and get general input from the CAC members regarding improvement elements or strategies they favored or did not favor. The areas of concern expressed in the 2008 Guiding Plan were summarized and discussed, as were that document's principal goals. The CAC members were asked by the project team to describe their vision for preferred ultimate corridor conditions. To set a base for the analyses and discussions to take place through the rest of the project, information was provided by the project team on the following topics: • Traffic concepts including the importance and principles of access management • Streetscape considerations • Utilities Regarding streetscape considerations, a presentation was provided by the project team to provide background on possible streetscape improvement strategies. A range of intensity and cost options was presented(please see PowerPoint presentation in Appendix B). In response to this information,CAC members generally felt that it would be best to focus primarily on transportation issues,along with some lower intensity aesthetic improvements. 3.2. SECOND CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING(JUNE 18,2012) At this meeting,three differing concepts were presented to the CAC. The intent behind these concepts was to provide a better balance between the access and mobility functions of the roadway and to improve accommodations for non-motorized travelers consistent with the Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.T16.104355 County Rd E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 2 COUNTY RD E (8-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2008 Guiding Plan principles. These concepts were quite different from each other in terms of the extent and cost of improvements. This was intentionally done to provide a broad range of alternatives to evaluate and discuss. The three alternatives,illustrated in Figures 3,4,and 5,respectively,included: Improved Five-Lane Option—This option was the most similar to current conditions,but included a significant number of access closures to allow for better traffic movement (mobility)along the corridor. Center Median Option—Through the use of a raised center median,this option restricted left turn movements to and from County Road E,but fewer access points needed to be closed. Roundabout Option—This option had similar access restrictions to the Center Median Option,but provided for easier U turns along the corridor with the roundabouts. The roundabouts would offer operational and aesthetic benefits as well. Along with these three access management alternatives,various backage road alternatives were identified to support access to parcels along County Road E and to help mitigate access closures directly along County Road E. All of the alternatives included comparable improvements to better accommodate non- motorized travelers. These improvements included closing gaps in the existing sidewalk system along to County Road E,as well as providing narrowed vehicular lanes to allow for five foot shoulders which bicyclists could use more safely than under current conditions. These options generated a robust and valuable discussion at the second CAC meeting. Differing opinions were revealed in terms of the perceived degree of traffic problems,the desired level of investment for improvements in the corridor, and other issues. Another topic of discussion was the presence of private utility boxes along the project corridor. Concern had been expressed previously that these boxes are not attractive elements in the streetscape,and Bolton&Menk had therefore been tasked with investigating the possibility of burying,consolidating,or otherwise reducing the visual presence of these boxes. At the second CAC meeting,Bolton&Menk staff summarized their investigation and conclusions: • Based on information from the utility companies involved,utility boxes are required to provide access to switches and other controls to allow operation and maintenance of the respective systems. • Burying the utility boxes would not be viable because utility workers must have reasonable access to the relevant wiring and controls. • It may be possible to consolidate utility boxes,but this would require the installation of additional buried cable at substantial cost. • The frequency of utility boxes along County Road E is typical for this type of corridor with buried cable. Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.T16.104355 County Rd E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 3 COUNTY RD E (B-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • The most viable and cost effective approach for addressing this issue is through strategic landscaping. 3.3. INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS OWNER MEETINGS The project team solicited 25 business owners in the project area to schedule one-on-one meetings to discuss the issues being addressed in this study. Fourteen of the business owners (56 percent)chose to participate in the project in this manner. These meetings were held from July through September of 2012. The businesses which participated are identified in Table 1. Table 1—PARTICIPATING BUSINESSES McDonalds Pugleasa Company,Inc. Flaherty's Arden Bowl Arden Shoreview Animal Staples Holiday Inn/McGuires's Hospital (closed) Brausen Automotive Group WJ Anderson(dentist) Anchor Bank Wells Fargo Bank Northpark Corporate Center Arden Square,LLC (vacant) Focal Point Flooring State Farm Insurance The discussions with these business representatives were intended to understand opinions and perspectives regarding the following factors: • Current access conditions for their business,including what works and what does not work • Degree of reliance on high visibility • Perception of general efficiency of traffic operations in the project corridor • Degree of importance for pedestrian access to their business • Perception of current corridor aesthetics and vitality • Willingness to invest in corridor improvements In addition,the three corridor concepts identified in Section 3.2 and depicted in Figures 3,4, and 5 were provided at each of the meetings to help generate discussion relevant to the goals of this study. The project team did not anticipate a consensus among the business representatives,nor was there any sort of structured balloting system used to try to quantify perspectives or preferences. The intent,rather,was to identify trends and common themes. The findings included the following highlights: • There was broadly held concern with the current vacancies within the B-2 district. Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.T16.104355 County Rd E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 4 COUNTY RD E (B-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • There was recognition of the Holiday Inn site as a prominent parcel regarding the overall development/redevelopment of the district. • There was a common desire for and expectation of some level of City investment in the corridor. • There was relatively wide variation regarding the perception of current traffic conditions in the corridor. Some feel traffic operates acceptably, while others see significant deficiencies. Not surprisingly,those that perceive deficiencies are more interested in seeing traffic-related improvements. • There was concern with ambiguous traffic control at Pot O' Gold Bingo entrance off of Connelly Street. • There was wide acknowledgement of the benefits associated with an additional eastbound left turn lane on County Road E to Lexington Avenue. • Regarding aesthetics,two types of preferences were expressed;proper maintenance of what is already in place, and upgrading with additional streetscape improvements. • While there was no sweeping consensus,the five-lane option was generally the best received alternative. • Most participants expressed concern with the perceived risk associated with a large up-front investment for an extensive corridor improvement approach. 3.4. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION(JULY 25,2012) The primary purpose of this meeting was to advise Council regarding the findings of the public engagement efforts to that point,including the two CAC meetings and initial one-on- one meetings with local business representatives. The three improvement concepts described previously were also presented and used in the discussion. In addition to a review and discussion of the public engagement efforts to date,the Council was asked to consider the following broader questions which had emerged from that process: • What is the Council's current vision for the B-2 District relative to the vision reflected in the 2008 Guiding Plan? • Should changes or improvements along County Road E be more oriented towards existing land use conditions or towards a long term vision for the corridor? • Does the Council prefer a more controlled planning approach to the corridor or a more market-driven approach? • How involved should the City be in implementing infrastructure improvements within private property(such as coordinated access improvements)? Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.716.104355 County Rd E(8-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 5 COUNTY RD E (B-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 3.5. THIRD CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING(OCTOBER 8, 2012) 3.5.1. GENERAL After recapping the previous CAC meetings and the findings from the individual business owner meetings,Bolton&Menk presented a new improvement concept to the CAC. This concept was intended to address the general goals identified in the 2008 Guidance Plan,but also reflect the sentiments expressed by stakeholders during the Implementation Plan outreach process. This concept,referred to as the Phase I Concept,is based on an incremental approach to improvements to the corridor. Rather than making a large front-end investment with uncertain future outcomes in terms of the broader economy and development within the project area itself,the strategy is to make improvements that will support the baseline project goals,be reduced in scale,and be flexible to meet future conditions. The baseline project goals were proposed to: • Better balance the mobility and access functions of the roadway • Better accommodate non-motorized travelers • Improve corridor aesthetics 3.5.2. PHASE I CONCEPT The Phase I Concept is depicted on Figure 6. Of the three preliminary concepts it most resembles the Improved Five Lane Concept. It includes the following primary elements: • Close certain access points along the corridor to improve the flow and safety of traffic • Provide an additional eastbound left turn lane on County Road E to Lexington Avenue. • Provide improved access to the redevelopment area north of County Road E including the old Holiday Inn site and the adjacent parcels to the west. • Narrow roadway lanes to allow for five foot shoulders on both sides which bicyclists can use. • Close sidewalk gaps to allow a full length of sidewalk throughout the project corridor on both sides of the roadway. • Create aesthetic improvements by repair or replacement of failing infrastructure such as cracked curbs and broken walks and sidewalks. • Introduce lower intensity streetscape improvements such as boulevard trees (every 40 feet assumed)and lighting upgrades. A potential future improvement would be to provide backage access for the businesses south of County Road E and west of Pine Tree Drive as depicted in Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.716.104355 County Rd E(B-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 6 COUNTY RD E (B-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Figure 6. This would be provided in conjunction with a median extension on County Road E at Connelly Street as depicted. The joint modifications are colored in blue in the figure. Costs associated with these improvements are included in the overall project costs(see below). It may be noted that the operational difficulties at the County Road E and northbound Hwy 51 ramp/Connelly Street intersection noted previously are influenced by the current design of the County Road E bridge over Hwy 51/Hamline Avenue,and therefore beyond the scope of this study to address. MnDOT currently has plans to replace the bridge with geometric(lane and operational)improvements in 2015. The costs associated with the Phase I Concept are presented on Table 2,below. More detailed information is provided in Appendix C. Table 2—ESTIMATED PHASE I CONCEPT COSTS Project Construction Component Cost 1 CR E Medians(Connelly St&Pine Tree Dr) $49,900 2 CR E Seal Coat and Striping $79,600 3 CR E Corridor Decorative Lighting $370,900 4 CR E Trees(40'Spacing) $44,400 5 CR E Sidewalk $104,200 6 Pine Tree Dr. Sidewalk $61,400 7 Pine Tree Dr. Signal Revision $71,900 8 Connelly Street Signal Revision $71,900 9 Lexington Signal Revision And Widening $559,400 Property Access Modifications 10 Holiday Inn and Adjacent Properties $160,300 11 TCF/North Park Access Connection $28,800 12 Staples/Baskets By Design Connection $28,800 Anchor Bank/WJ Anderson Backage Road and 13 1 CR E Median Extension $95,900 141 Connell Street/Bingo Hall Access $64,900 15 1 TCF CR E Access And Parking Improvements $21,900 Total Cost 1 $1,8149200 Note:All estimates indicated include total project costs(contingencies, engineering, construction administration, etc.). ROW acquisition costs are not included. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the technical analysis performed for this project as well as the discussions that have taken place with the Project Management Team,the Corridor Advisory Committee,individual business owners, and the City Council,Bolton&Menk recommends that Council consider the implementation of the Phase I Concept. This concept is generally consistent with the vision identified in the 2008 Guiding Plan,but reflects a pragmatic approach that is favored by local stakeholders. Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.716.104355 County Rd E(8-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 7 COUNTY RD E (B-2 DISTRICT) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN If Council decides to advance the Phase I Concept,the following general tasks will need to be initiated: • Complete preliminary design • Garner more detailed input from property owners directly affected by the proposed improvements • Refine cost estimates • Initiate cost participation approach The following is a possible schedule for the implementation of the Phase I Concept improvements: • January 2013—June 2013: complete feasibility study • June 2013—December 2013: complete final design • January 2014—March 2014: complete project bidding and assessment proceedings • May 2014—September 2014: construction Prepared by:Bolton&Menk,Inc. Project No.T16.104355 County Rd E(8-2 District)Implementation Plan-Page 8 Figures Cl t� p� • N !CO O O _ a m o .5 cn _ 06 w � J ° O o cv a . � � C C !Z U J W m CL 0 y m C E G c v -i U. o IL M31A3HOHS N 3M 10010NOM N 3AV NOIDNW:n e. Z AVM NOLy,� SIIIH N3a21V ° :X rt = _ t 33813NId r �3AY All3NNOO � ��� n r N 3AV 3N KVN ; Y L TC F J O OII N3OMVN3VO Z f' Y b O K � Wd Bf�fS�Z Z LOZIEIZ4:Panes ale(I paw[4yLl tleW uai�rw�SCCOOL\stleW\ItlS3\SCC004941\HOLtl\'H-luewnaod tleW N W I.L N U Nr 7o COW S� WJ 2.9 a Z Z � a � tv- J J r Wg�y _ ~ 4 WZ Ix = RQ x D as rp i a Z 0 o� s ?.4u 0 4Z 2' O ..,Z r W W= V Y a v iY 0o Ylry� t �OY�M� ZZ ��� lixapZ�7aii# e Y �SJ�O_1Zy � NNN WW�G3 6 1j WC) C WyYI Zz ;O I== �I V•`� WE ►W W YY W u- r .®c W�Zy I� �i �D'uotd uo�yox�,.�apwl ZOtJ�ndL�OD�0�JS5{L�0t9it UtON7�M Wd if-t L�£ Z102JL/Zt iCx'IWO 6i>x W'xyoo-iO4 u�z.AZ�. M W OC W _ gg V LPL CNO W - W 'g V Sky Poll e s f.aa; J i y � I 4, F? 6 I 1. ,s _ r ~ !Vow! Caaao MARNE 'w W a` ' D L ,f a W w ff '` E"bow: ---° W 1 Y � _ k� #Nl a ♦ w! F 4 r W lls r ,k ' xw3 O J LM W OG � o u. CC z e �. � �• x n G � N x* O a0 m W o " # 0 W 0 � Q F: r. • • V �h z O�r i w .� a U .Jv 0 CDD000 t0 W LL Tu»• k { lei 6t � o W � Q �4j I �Io" F DOGODOI, Appendix A County Rd E (B-2 District) Implementation Plan Corridor Advisory Committee Members Business Representatives Wally Anderson—Wallace J.Anderson,DDS Harald Borrmann—Senior Vice President,Catholic United Financial Theodore Brausen—Owner,Brausen's Shell and Repair Jon Commers—Advisor,Arden Square,LLC Daniel Flaherty—President/General Manager,Flaherty's Arden Bowl Kara Frank—Property Manager,Arden Plaza,LLC Randy Hagerty—Property Manager,Country Financial Ja Hi ins—Owner,Fourth Dimension Architectural Sign e City Representatives Councilmember Fran Holmes Councilmember Ed Werner City Planner Meagan Beekman Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher Public Works Director Terry Maurer Appendix 6 4 SO Mot; A lam ;. "*4* )moll oil i. A J •, ggs awe w NOW low! 2 � t , G -�- i P4 s t �s Z C7 N � u �' on o ° ON ' T ° c •�t lk t NO } J tB F i � ! i ! ! i • i • • i i a s • i i i �' • a � a i i '• CO CU Z� 4 J { lt, �1 _L ILI) r j C/) CD CL U Z) . 1� � r l l) l .' ill t j u v v •� 06 = moo rr s cf) CL Q ,i t�1 tt, 161 ? eli IL L� ?.. A,i, e .%. Cz lip o U Q) zv 0 411} Cr- 1-�- 0 41t) s C /, ��P x Q) M a) 05 vo..a' v ., moo ' cu .� vovv 4/ 1 5 t1 1 4t1 _. x � c • KrY �� ���r111111U t �RUI���II�•� II��1 AL 1 L� L ` _u 5t} I) C� - LL-', �.• in %—� ! • i t 1t �/1 lite Aga Ali r. l t �F i Aw'l4•] 1i a) U c 1 13 •�••+ *� U) C Q E E $ �� co 0 U („} t a In s. {9} CL s o .... CD v r C �a r r L C? LO a) _1 Q r 4 A� _L1 , µ� d _ 7 co > ° -�, ° co Co Co o L) (M CD 1 L i (CS Q O Co © © J -1 i 7Wa • bi �A t �l , --, . ll"°1 / / CD .1� 0 CV o . 06 N c co � M c . E t� co tl ti} ) a) QL 2 2 x C C v) 0 _ 0 � t0 � C) 0 0 C 4-0 -0 > > w C7 E --- cr .0 c37 C CAS N tU � - � CL E l Z)n l.. WAMM _0 cr 0 o o C O r . �� . F � 4m get , �_ f • o T "'111- �A•: -'Ott/��o.� • • f i • • i • f 1 f • i • f '� i i ! • • i f f fi • • ff� i i • • i • i • f i • i owl i i f • i f • S i i • i f � • Yti +-y- ` //��yy 0) y.-.i + E/ - 0fR t� 0 Yl W f C' C (U ` c C77 E ' cZ # wa C 0) tT3 {g 'a w C) Jam= U- to C: --� � . . as m C � : CZ CO v fit? CLO LL =3 o t �-, LL m tV .� cu s --, L2 tr,CL N U) W . . . t V i Cy C7) .1' Qi a cv > ., r s CL tt�In O C l Q '67 q �5 k IL ., % z11 z il� ti -�---7 _� _ � l ltd t� L L . � w r f .................. -------------------- ... ............, . ` s 111 W, I y�) t1 -1-7 t LI t * 4 i9i9i9 +�?leFn„ 4�) ; f fi. a x � L i z` .q K N 3 4�1 _'L._j i w f- ' II i' r , 11 ll� 1t� 3 CD 4a, od C3 CL C: �--, 43 '�'� 4 m +' .. CL-- L �_ 4i S_2 0 CL m Um 0. LLJ S �.-, Appendix C CR E IMPROVEMENTS COST ESTIMATE ARDEN HILLS,MN CR E MEDIANS(CONNELLY ST&PINE TREE DR) 810 ITEM UNIT CITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 105 $2.83 $297 REMOVE CONCRETE MEDIAN SY 263 $4.92 $1,296 REMOVE CURB&GUTTER LF 135 $3.60 $486 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 26 $10,00 $257 BITUMINOUS PATCH SPECIAL SY 124 $26.68 $3,320 CONCRETE MEDIAN sy 1 205 1 $27-05 $5,551 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 1 942 1 $14.00 $13,188 B"CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 1 26 1 $50-00 $1,283 TURF WORK L SUM 1 $4,000.00 $4,000 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND STAGING L SUM 1 $5,000-00 $5,000 SUB TOTAL $34,678 +15%CONTINGENCY $5,202 +2S%ENGINEERING $9,970 TOTAL� $49,851 CR E SEALCOAT AND STRIPING BID ITEM UNIT CITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 311 $10.00 $3,108.89 SEALCOAT SY 12,105 $1.75 $21,184 8"CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 311 $50.00 $15,544 PAVT MSSG(LT/RT ARROW)EPDXY EACH 14 $125.00 $1,750 PAVT MSSG(ONLY)EPDXY EACH 1 $300-00 $300 4"SOLID LINE WHITE-EPDXY LF 3,225 $0.25 $806 4"BROKEN LINE WHITE-EPDXY LF 562 $0.25 $141 24"SOLID YELLOW-EPDXY LF 483 $5.75 $2,777 4"SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY LF 1,443 $0.25 $361 4"DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY LF 991 $0,50 $496 14"BROKEN LINE YELLOW-EPDXY LF 254 $0.25 $64 ICROSSWALK MARKING-EPDXY SF 666 $5.81 $3,869 ITRAFFIC CONTROL AND STAGING LSUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000 SUB TOTAL $55,400 +15%CONTINGENCY $8,311 +25%ENGINEERING $15,928 TOTAL $79,640 CR E CORRIDOR DECORATIVE LIGHTING BID ITEM UNIT CITY I UNIT COST TOTAL COST LIGHTING SYSTEM L SUM 0.44 1$540,000.00 $237,045 LIGHTING REMOVAL LSUM 0.44 1 $47,850.00 $21,005 SUBTOTAL $258,050 +15%CONTINGENCY $38,708 +25%ENGINEERING $74,189 TOTAL CR E TREES(40'SPACING) JSID ITEM UNIT CITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST JINSTALL TREE EACH 103 $300.00 $30,900 SUB TOTAL $30,900 +15%CONTINGENCY $4,635 +25%ENGINEERING $8,894 TOTAL, $44,419 CR E SIDEWALK BID ITEM UNIT CITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SF 3417 $1.46 $4,989 AGGREGATE BASE(CV)CLASS 5 CY 157 $19.84 $3,115 4"CONCRETE WALK SF 12,685 $3.50 $44,398 TURF WORK I-SUM 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 SUBTOTAL $72,501 +15%CONTINGENCY $10,876 +25%ENGINEERING $20,844 TOTAL I $104,222 BOLTON MENK,INC. 12/5/2012 CR E IMPROVEMENTS COST ESTIMATE ARDEN HILLS,MN PINE TREE DRIVE SIDEWALK BID ITEM UNIT QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST AGGREGATE BASE(CV)CLASS 5 CY 89 $19.84 $1,766 4"CONCRETE WALK SF 7,148 $3.50 $25,018 CROSSWALK MARKING-EPDXY SF 162 $5.81 $941 TURF WORK L SUM 1 $15,000.00 $15,000 SUB TOTAL $42,725 +15%CONTINGENCY $6,409 +2594 ENGINEERING 1 $12,283 TOTALI $61,418 PINE TREE DRIVE SIGNAL REVISION BID ITEM I UNIT QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST SIGNAL REVISIONS AND ADA IMPROVEMENTS L SUM 1 $50,000.00 $50,000 SUBTOTAL $50,000 +15%CONTINGENCY $7,500 +25%ENGINEERING $14,375 TOTAL $71,875 CONNELLY STREET SIGNAL REVISION BID ITEM UNIT QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST SIGNAL REVISIONS AND ADA IMPROVEMENTS L SUM 1 $50,000.00 $50,000 SUBTOTAL $50,000 +15%CONTINGENCY $7,500 +25%ENGINEERING $14,375 TOTAL $71,875 LEXINGTON AVE SIGNAL REVISION AND WIDENING BID ITEM UNIT QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 3,711 $2.83 $10,502 REMOVE CONCRETE MEDIAN SY 186 $4.92 $917 REMOVE CURB&GUTTER LF 938 $3.60 $3,377 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT LF 1,150 $5.00 $5,750 AGGREGATE BASE(CV)CLASS 5-12" CY 387 $19.84 $7,671 GRANULAR BORROW-12" CY 387 1 $10.62 $4,106 COMMON EXCAVATION-30" CY 967 $4.05 $3,915 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE-4" TON 281 $70.00 $19,649 BITUMINOUS NON-WEAR COURSE-2" TON 140 $60.00 $8,421 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT GAL 116 $2.00 $232 SEAL COAT SY 7,095 $1.75 $12,416 CONCRETE MEDIAN SY 285 $27.05 $7,709 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 2,364 1 $14.00 $33,096 PAVT MSSG(LT/RT ARROW)EPDXY EACH 11 $117.00 $1,287 4"SOLID LINE WHITE-EPDXY LF 1,741 $0.25 $435 4"BROKEN LINE WHITE-EPDXY LF 278 $0.25 $70 4"SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY LF 648 $0.25 $162 24"SOLID YELLOW-EPDXY LF 195 $5.75 $1,121 4"DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY LF 886 $0.50 $443 4"BROKEN LINE YELLOW-EPDXY LF 130 $0.25 $33 CROSSWALK MARKING-EPDXY SF 486 $5.81 $2,824 TRAFFIC SIGNAL L SUM 1 $250,000.00 $250,000 TURF WORK L SUM 1 $10,000.00 $10,000 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND STAGING L SUM 1 1 $5,000.00 $5,000 SUB TOTAL $389,134 +15%CONTINGENCY $58,371 +25%ENGINEERING $111,876 TOTAL $559,382 BOLTON MENK,INC. 12/5/2012 CR E IMPROVEMENTS COST ESTIMATE ARDEN HILLS,MN HOLIDAY INN AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES 810 ITEM UNIT CITY UNIT COST TOTAL C05T REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 1,766 $2.83 $4,998 REMOVE CURB&GUTTER LF 282 $3,60 $1,015 AGGREGATE BASE(CV)CLASS 5-8" CY 304 $0.70 $213 GRANULAR BORROW-12" CY 457 $19.84 $9,060 COMMON EXCAVATION-24" CY 913 $10.62 $9,700 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE-2" TON 166 $70.00 $11,604 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE-2" TON 166 $60.00 $9,946 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT GAL 137 $2.00 $274 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 1,973 $14.00 $27,622 8"CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 41 $50.00 $2,067 MOVE PRIVATE UTILITIES L SUM 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 TURF WORK L SUM 1 $10,000.00 $10,000 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND STAGING L SUM 1 1 $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $111,499 +15%CONTINGENCY $16,725 +25%ENGINEERING $32,056 TOTAL $160,281 TCF/NORTH PARK ACCESS CONNECTION BID ITEM UNIT QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS L SUM 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 SUB TOTAL $20,000 +15%CONTINGENCY $3,000 +25%ENGINEERING $5,750 TOTAL $28,750 STAPLES/BASKETS BY DESIGN CONNECTION BID ITEM UNIT QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS L SUM I 1 1 $20,000.00 $20,000 SUBTOTAL $20,000 +15%CONTINGENCY $3,000 +25%ENGINEERING $5,750 TOTAL $28,750 ANCHOR BANK/WJ ANDERSON BACKAGE ROAD AND CR E MEDIAN EXTENSION BID ITEM UNIT CITY I UNIT COST TOTAL COST REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 301 $2.83 $852 REMOVE CURB&GUTTER LF 225 $3.60 $810 AGGREGATE BASE(CV)CLASS 5-8" CY 231 $0.70 $161 GRANULAR BORROW-12" CY 346 $19.84 $6,860 COMMON EXCAVATION-24" CY 692 $10.62 $7,344 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE-2" TON 126 $70.00 $8,786 BITUMINOUS NON-WEAR COURSE,2" TON 126 1 $60.00 $7,531 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT GAL 104 1 $2.00 $207 8"CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 25 $50.00 $1,272 CONCRETE MEDIAN SY 285 $27.05 $7,709 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 1,299 $14.00 $18,186 4"DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY LF 305 $0.50 $153 CROSSWALK MARKING-EPDXY SF 486 $5.81 $2,824 TURF WORK L SUM 1 $4,000.00 $4,000 SUB TOTAL $66,696 +15%CONTINGENCY $10,005 +25%ENGINEERING $19,175 TOTALI $95,876 BOLTON MENK,INC. 12/5/2012 CR E IMPROVEMENTS COST ESTIMATE ARDEN HILLS,MN CONNELLY STREET/BINGO HALL ACCESS BID ITEM UNIT QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 854 $2.83 $2,416 REMOVE CONCRETE MEDIAN SY 62 $4.92 $303 REMOVE CURB&GUTTER LF 245 $3.60 $882 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 33 107 333 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE-2" SY 140 $70,00 9,788 BITUMINOUS NON-WEAR COURSE•2" TON 140 $60.00 $8,389 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT GAL 58 $2.00 $116 8"CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 33 $50.00 $1,667 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 449 $14.00 $6,286 TURF WORK L SUM I i 1 $10,000.00 $10,000 TRAFFIC CONTROL AND STAGING L SUM 1 1 $5,000.00 $5,000 SUBTOTAL $45,179 +15%CONTINGENCY $6,777 +2S%ENGINEERING $12,989 TOTAL $64,946 TCF CR E ACCESS AND PARKING IMPROVEMENTS BID ITEM UNIT QTY UNIT COST TOTAL COST REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 159 $2.83 $449 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SY 73 $10.00 $733 REMOVE CONCRETE MEDIAN SY 43 $4.92 $212 REMOVE CURB&GUTTER LF 176 $3.60 $634 BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE-2" SY 37 $70.00 $2,590 BITUMINOUS NON-WEAR COURSE-2" TON 37 $60.00 $2,220 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT GAL 31 $2.00 $61 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER LF 306 $14.00 $4,277 4"SOLID LINE WHITE-EPDXY LF 234 $0.25 $59 TURF WORK L SUM 1 $4,000.00 $4,000 SUB TOTAL $15,234 +15%CONTINGENCY $2,266 +25%ENGINEERING $4,380 TOTAL $21,901 BOLTON MENK,INC. 12/5/2012