Joseph Gladke with Hennepin County Public Works Charlene Roise with Hess Roise. Fremont Avenue Bridge. Not applicable.

Transcription

1 Property Location: Project Name: HERITAGE PRESERVATION APPLICATION SUMMARY Fremont Avenue bridge over the Midtown Greenway Fremont Avenue Bridge (L8901) Replacement Prepared By: Hilary Dvorak, Principal City Planner, (612) Applicant: Project Contact: Ward: 10 Neighborhood: Request: Required Applications: Joseph Gladke with Hennepin County Public Works Charlene Roise with Hess Roise Lowry Hill Ease CPED STAFF REPORT Prepared for the Heritage Preservation Commission HPC Agenda Item #3 December 11, 2018 PLAN7903 To demolish the existing Fremont Avenue Bridge over the Midtown Greenway. The bridge is not locally designated, but is located in the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation National Historic District Demolition of Historic Resource To demolish the existing Fremont Avenue Bridge over the Midtown Greenway. The bridge is not locally designated, but is located in the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation National Historic District. Current Name Historic Name Historic Address Original Construction Date 1913 Original Architect Original Builder Original Engineer Historic Use Current Use Proposed Use Fremont Avenue Bridge Fremont Avenue Bridge Not applicable Not applicable HISTORIC PROPERTY INFORMATION Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul (CM&StP) Railroad J. H. Prior, Engineer of Design, CM&StP Railroad Charles Frederick Loweth, Chief Engineer, CM&StP Railroad Vehicular Bridge Vehicular Bridge Vehicular Bridge Date Application Deemed Complete November 20, 2018 Date Extension Letter Sent Not applicable End of 60-Day Decision Period January 19, 2019 End of 120-Day Decision Period Not applicable

2 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN7903 CLASSIFICATION Local Historic District Period of Significance Criteria of Significance Date of Local Designation Date of National Register Listing 2005 Applicable Design Guidelines Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties SUMMARY BACKGROUND. The Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District was built between 1912 and The designated National Register Historic District is approximately 42 blocks or 2.8 miles long and runs parallel with 29th Street. It extends across a portion of South Minneapolis from Humboldt Avenue on the west to just east of Cedar Avenue on the east. The Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad grade separation was a massive engineering project planned shortly after the turn of the century and designed and built by the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad in cooperation with the City of Minneapolis. The grade separation project excavated a 110-foot-wide, 22-foot-deep trench in which the railroad would be relocated from street level. The project expanded the railroad from a single to double track; reconstructed the shipping and receiving facilities of numerous trackside industries whose rail access was now at a lower grade; and built 37 nearly-identical concrete bridges one block apart to carry urban streets across the trench. The bridges were built from west to east between 1912 and The project incorporated an existing bridge at Hennepin Avenue, bringing the total number of bridges crossing the trench to 38. The Fremont Avenue Bridge was designed by J. P. Prior and C. F. Loweth. Both worked for the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad who built all 37 bridges over the railroad trench. The Fremont Avenue Bridge is a three-span, Classical Revival-style, continuous, concrete deck-girder bridge. The bridge is approximately 120 feet long (measured end of rail to end of rail) and approximately 49 feet wide, the same width as most of the bridges (which were 49 or 51 feet). The center span measures 31 feet 6 inches long and the outer spans about 30 feet, which is typical of the corridor. The Midtown Greenway is located under the center and northern spans of the bridge. On top of the bridge there is a 36-inch tall parapet. A modern pipe rail was added to increase the overall parapet height to 42 inches. APPLICANT S PROPOSAL. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing Fremont Avenue Bridge and replace it with a new bridge similar in appearance. The replacement bridge would be similar to the existing bridge in location, material, size, elevation, massing and proportions. It would be compatible with the historic bridges in architectural style and detailing. The design and construction of the new bridge is not subject to the review by the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission. The historic district is listed on the National Register, but is not locally designated. The existing bridge is classified as structurally deficient. Currently it has a sufficiency rating of 27.4 (with 100 as the highest rating). In addition, the deck, superstructure, and substructure have National Bridge Inventory (NBI) condition ratings of 3 (serious condition). A bridge is considered structurally deficient if the NBI condition ratings for the deck, superstructure, or substructure are 4 or less. Due to the poor condition of the bridge, it has been closed to vehicular traffic since 2016 after numerous documented violations of posted load restrictions. RELATED APPROVALS. Not applicable. PUBLIC COMMENTS. No public comment letters have been received for this project. Any correspondence received prior to the public meeting will be forwarded on to the Heritage Preservation Commission for consideration. 2

3 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN7903 ANALYSIS DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC RESOURCE The Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Title 23, Heritage Preservation, Chapter 599 Heritage Preservation Regulations states: (a) In general. If the commission determines that the property is not an historic resource, the commission shall approve the demolition permit. If the commission determines that the property is an historic resource, the commission shall deny the demolition permit and direct the planning director to prepare or cause to be prepared a designation study of the property, as provided in section , unless the applicant meets their burden of proof with regard to subdivision (b) below. (b) Destruction of historic resource. Before approving the demolition of a property determined to be an historic resource, the commission shall make the following findings: (1) The destruction is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property; or (2) That there are no reasonable alternatives to the destruction. In determining whether reasonable alternatives exist, the commission shall consider, but not be limited to: a. The significance of the property; b. The integrity of the property; and c. The economic value or usefulness of the existing structure, including its current use, costs of renovation and feasible alternative uses. The Department of Community Planning and Economic Development has analyzed the application to allow the demolition of the Fremont Avenue Bridge over the Midtown Greenway based on the following findings: SIGNIFICANCE In CPED s review, the subject property does appear eligible for local designation. Criterion #1: The property is associated with significant events or with periods that exemplify broad patterns of cultural, political, economic or social history. The bridge is associated with significant events or with periods that exemplify broad patterns of cultural, political, economic or social history. The Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District is a 2.8-mile long transportation corridor formed by a depressed railroad trench that was constructed between 1912 and The District represents the culmination of efforts by the City and residents of Minneapolis during the early twentieth century to direct the growth and appearance of south Minneapolis, ensure the safety of residents, and accommodate industrial interests. The Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad constructed the railroad corridor along 29 th Street at street grade between 1879 and The new rail line provided opportunities for industrial development along the corridor. As rail traffic increased and industrial development expanded along the tracks in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, there were increasing calls to remove the at-grade crossings. By 1910 under pressure from residents, the Minneapolis City Council passed an ordinance requiring the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad to depress the rail line from Irving Avenue South to Hiawatha Avenue. Between 1912 and1917, the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad constructed the railroad trench and the bridge crossings, and assisted adjacent operations in shoring up their buildings. Character-defining features of the District include the depressed grade and walls of the trench, street bridges spanning the trench, and adjacent buildings that share walls with the trench. The Fremont Avenue Bridge is significant as part of this potential historic district. Criterion #2: The property is associated with the lives of significant persons or groups. The bridge is not associated with the lives of significant persons or groups. Criterion #3: The property contains or is associated with distinctive elements of city or neighborhood identity. The bridge is associated with distinctive elements of city or neighborhood identity. The Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District represents the culmination of efforts by the citizens, city government, and city planners of Minneapolis to direct the future growth and appearance of south Minneapolis while ensuring the safety of its residents and maintaining economically necessary industrial interests. 3

4 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN7903 Though the citizens of Minneapolis originally raised the grade separation issue due to safety concerns, the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad grade separation project strongly illustrates the concerns of the Minneapolis citizens and government with city planning and urban aesthetics. This concern is demonstrated by the lengthy battle waged at City Council meetings over the method of grade separation; the creation of a civic commission headed by Edward H. Bennett, a nationally prominent leader of the City Beautiful Movement, to address grade separation in the context of a comprehensive civic plan; and the final outcome in the form of a depressed rail corridor with ornamental bridges. Criterion #4: The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction. The bridge does not embody the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction. Criterion #5: The property exemplifies a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail. The bridge does not exemplify a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail. Criterion #6: The property exemplifies works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects. The bridge does not exemplify works of master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects. The Fremont Avenue Bridge was designed by J. P. Prior and C. F. Loweth. Both worked for the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad who built all 37 bridges over the former railroad trench. However, they are not considered to be master builders or engineers and this particular bridge does not, on its own, exemplify their work. Criterion #7: The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The bridge is not likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. The grade separation project excavated a 2.8-mile-long, 110-foot-wide by 22-foot-deep trench. INTEGRITY The Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Title 23, Heritage Preservation, Chapter 599 Heritage Preservation Regulations recognizes a property's integrity through seven aspects or qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The subject property does retain the integrity required to be a contributing resource. The integrity of the Fremont Avenue Bridge s location and setting remain. While the integrity of original materials is intact, the bridge is structurally deficient. All elements are in poor condition except for the concrete railings and top of sidewalks. The integrity of the original design of the bridge is mainly intact but a modern pipe rail was added to increase the overall parapet height to 42 inches. The feeling and association of the bridge as a collection of 37 bridges spaced one block apart between Humboldt Avenue South and Cedar Avenue remains intact. Overall, the bridge retains most of its integrity, with the exception of the deteriorating materials and the modern pipe rail. UNSAFE OR DANGEROUS CONDITION The Fremont Avenue Bridge is deteriorating. Spalling concrete threatens the safety of users of the Midtown Greenway, which passes below the structure. An inspection report dated March 2017 found that the bridge is structurally deficient. All elements are in poor condition except for the concrete railings and top of sidewalks. There are localized areas of severe deterioration in the deck. In one area, the primary deck reinforcing has complete section loss over a three-and-a-half-foot length. Deterioration of the concrete beams is also extensive with the majority of the beam surface areas spalled. Many spalls are deep with major concrete loss, and most of the longitudinal reinforcing in the bottom of the beams is exposed and corroded over the entire length of the beams. Deterioration of the pier concrete is also extensive. It varies from relatively minor surface deterioration (scaling) to severe spalls with exposed reinforcing on the columns, which are severe enough to be a structural concern. In addition, the abutments are unstable due to foundation settlement, especially the northeast wingwall, and a lack of rebar in the original construction. 4

5 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN7903 REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO DEMOLITION Because of the nature of the street network and the bridge s concrete construction, the Fremont Avenue Bridge cannot be bypassed to allow preservation in place, cannot be converted to a less-demanding use, and cannot be preserved by moving it to a new location. A bridge carrying Fremont Avenue over the Midtown Greenway is essential to the city s transportation infrastructure. There is no reasonable alternative to the demolition and replacement of the existing Fremont Avenue Bridge. ECONOMIC VALUE OR USEFULNESS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE The applicant has provided estimates to rehabilitate and replace the Fremont Avenue Bridge. The cost is estimated to be between $1.75 million (supplemental steel beam support alternative with a service life of 10 years) to $4.25 million (new concrete alternative with a service life of 50 years) to rehabilitate the bridge and $2.75 million to replace the bridge (with a service life of 75 years). The cost of rehabilitating the bridge would be 64 percent higher than replacing it. FINDINGS 1. The Fremont Avenue Bridge, over the Midtown Greenway, is not locally designated, but is located in the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation National Historic District. 2. The subject property does appear eligible for local designation as part of a larger historic district. 3. The property is associated with significant events or with periods that exemplify broad patterns of cultural, political, economic or social history. 4. The property is associated with distinctive elements of city or neighborhood identity. 5. The property does retain integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. 6. The destruction is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition. 7. There is no reasonable alternative to the demolition and replacement of the existing Fremont Avenue Bridge 8. The applicant has stated that the cost of rehabilitation would exceed the cost of new construction by 64 percent. RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Planning and Economic Development recommends that the Heritage Preservation Commission adopt staff findings for the applications by Hennepin County Public Works for the demolition of the Fremont Avenue Bridge over the Midtown Greenway: A. Demolition of Historic Resource. Recommended motion: Approve the demolition of historic resource application, subject to the following conditions: 1. By ordinance, approvals are valid for a period of two years from the date of the decision unless required permits are obtained and the action approved is substantially begun and proceeds in a continuous basis toward completion. Upon written request and for good cause, the planning director may grant up to a one-year extension if the request is made in writing no later than December 11, Photographic recordation of the bridge shall be prepared and submitted to staff that is in accordance with the guidelines of the Minnesota Historic Property Record. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map 2. Written description and findings submitted by applicant 3. Rehabilitation study 4. Section 106 consultation 5. Renderings of the proposed replacement bridge 5

6 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN % drawings of the proposed replacement bridge 7. Correspondence 6

7

8 FREMONT AVENUE BRIDGE (BRIDGE L8901) OVER THE MIDTOWN GREENWAY: APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF A HISTORIC RESOURCE SUBMITTED TO THE MINNEAPOLIS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION BY HENNEPIN COUNTY OCTOBER 2018

9 Narrative Description, Photographs, and Findings Project Description Hennepin County is proposing to replace the Fremont Avenue Bridge (Bridge L8901), which carries Fremont Avenue South over the Midtown Greenway. The bridge is classified as structurally deficient. Currently it has a sufficiency rating of 27.4 (with 100 as the highest rating). In addition, the deck, superstructure, and substructure have National Bridge Inventory (NBI) condition ratings of 3 (serious condition). A bridge is considered structurally deficient if the NBI condition ratings for the deck, superstructure, or substructure are 4 or less. Due to the poor condition of the bridge, it has been closed to vehicular traffic since 2016 after numerous documented violations of posted load restrictions. An inspection report dated March 2017 found that the bridge is in overall serious condition. All elements are in poor condition except for the concrete railings and top of sidewalks. There are localized areas of severe deterioration in the deck. In one area, the primary deck reinforcing has complete section loss over a 3.5-foot length. Deterioration of the concrete beams is also extensive with the majority of the beam surface areas spalled. Many spalls are deep with major concrete loss, and most of the longitudinal reinforcing in the bottom of the beams is exposed and corroded over the entire length of the beams. Deterioration of the pier concrete is also extensive. It varies from relatively minor surface deterioration (scaling) to severe spalls with exposed reinforcing on the columns, which are severe enough to be a structural concern. In addition, the abutments are unstable due to foundation settlement, especially the northeast wingwall, and a lack of rebar in the original construction. A June 2016 evaluation and load rating identified the hazard of concrete falling from the Fremont Avenue Bridge onto the heavily used Midtown Greenway trail below. It is apparent from the bridge s existing condition that concrete has fallen and continues to fall. Annually, the City of Minneapolis (as part of their agreement with Hennepin County) removes obviously loose concrete on the bridges in the Midtown Greenway to reduce the risk of concrete falling on trail users. The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a structurally adequate bridge crossing (capable of carrying legal loads) over the Midtown Corridor on Fremont Avenue for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic while improving the safety for users (e.g., pedestrians and bicyclists) of the Midtown Corridor. There are two primary needs for the bridge: Structural sufficiency Safety conditions for users of the Midtown Greenway In addition, there is one secondary need: the design should accommodate future transit improvements and bike and pedestrian facilities in the Midtown Corridor. This section of the Greenway is included in the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad (CM&StP) Grade Separation Historic District, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Because the project will receive funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), it must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition Narrative Page 4

10 Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is overseeing the Section 106 review process for FHWA. The CRU has consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as alternatives for rehabilitation the bridge were assessed and as concepts for a new structure have been considered (see Attachment B). The CRU has also participated in a public open house and held meetings with representative of two neighborhood groups, the Lowry Hill East Neighborhood Association and Midtown Greenway Coalition. These groups will be invited to concur with the Memorandum of Agreement that is being finalized between the FHWA and SHPO to address the adverse effect of the demolition of the historic bridge. Section 106 Area of Potential Effects Boundary Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition Narrative Page 5

11 The Fremont Avenue Bridge and Grade Separation Historic District The Fremont Avenue Bridge was built in and is a three-span, Classical Revival-style, continuous, concrete deck-girder bridge. It is about 120 feet long and 49 feet wide. The center span measures 31 feet 6 inches, and the outer spans measure 30 feet. The Midtown Greenway is located under the center and northern spans of the bridge. The Fremont Avenue Bridge is one of a series of virtually identical bridges built by the CM&StP Railroad as it dug a trench to depress an existing rail corridor. It undertook this major construction project in 1912 to eliminate grade crossings. Although the area had been sparsely settled when the train installed its tracks in the nineteenth century, collisions between trains and other traffic had become increasingly common as residential and industrial development filled south Minneapolis. The bridge at Fremont Avenue was among the first to be erected as the construction proceeded from west to east. The project reached its termination at 20 th Avenue South in The corridor was nominated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places in 2004 based on a survey completed in 2002, and it was designated in The district is locally significant under Criterion A for its role in community planning and development. The district s period of significance is 1912 to 1916, spanning the period during which the depressed corridor and the associated bridges were constructed. The nomination identified the district s main defining characteristics as the trench edge delineating the depressed corridor, the bridges and the visual tunnel they create, and the industrial nature of the corridor, including the hard edges of the trench, the track beds, the commercial elevations, and the volunteer foliage. Secondary features such as retaining walls, fencing, lighting, railroad crossing signals, and utility poles were also considered to be characterdefining. The Fremont Avenue Bridge was identified as a contributing feature in the district. C. H. Bainbridge, A Large Track Depression Project at Minneapolis, Railway Age Gazette, December 3, 1915 Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition Narrative Page 6

12 The Bridge and Its Setting At the time that the National Register nomination was prepared in 2002, the proposed CM&StP Historic District contained a variety of noncontributing resources (see map below). This included the bridges at Emerson and Dupont, which replaced the original structures in 1986 and 1987, respectively. A private developer erected a pedestrian bridge at Girard Avenue in An older bridge at Hennepin Avenue was not a product of the grade separation project, and it was replaced in The new bridge was modified in 2000 to serve as a transit station. A single-lane road to give buses access to the station was installed on the trench s south side, extending some 13 feet into the trench. Its north edge is supported by a prominent retaining wall stretching from Fremont to Hennepin Avenues. 1 A section of the historic district from Humboldt to Aldrich Avenues. A red box has been added to this map from the 2005 National Register nomination to show the location of the Fremont Avenue Bridge. By the time that the corridor was listed in the National Register in 2005 further changes had occurred, and that trend continued in subsequent years. The extent of these changes led MnDOT CRU to commission a reassessment of the integrity of the historic district. The report, completed by Mead and Hunt in 2017, considered modifications to the historic district since the end of its period of significance in This assessment was guided by the National Register s seven aspects of integrity location, association, design, workmanship, materials, feeling, and setting with location, association, and design considered as the most important given the 1 Mead and Hunt, Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District Reevaluation, March 2017, 13, 19-20; drawings for Uptown Transit Station prepared by Wells Engineers Minnesota and LSA Design, Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition Narrative Page 7

13 district s significance and physical characteristics. 2 The report included a block-by-block assessment, observing the following for the blocks flanking the Fremont Avenue Bridge (see figure below): Fremont Avenue west to Girard Avenue (Block 4) o A new trench wall was on the south side where a wall had not existed historically o A new building edged the north side o A new pedestrian bridge spanned the trench at Girard Fremont Avenue east to Emerson Avenue (Block 5) o A new building and landscaping on the north side were not included in the National Register s resource count; the building replaced an earlier structure considered noncontributing in the historic district o Fencing on the south side was not included in the resource count o A new bridge had replaced the original structure at Emerson Avenue Historic district map from the 2017 reevaluation. A red box outlines the location of the Fremont Avenue Bridge. The consultants concluded that both blocks had lost all aspects of integrity except location. The same was true for the adjacent blocks. Beyond Girard Avenue to the west, a new access ramp runs along the north side for the entire block, filling about one-third of the width of the trench and introducing a new wall. East of Emerson Avenue to Dupont Avenue, a new terrace extends 2 Mead and Hunt, Reevaluation, Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition Narrative Page 8

14 from the north side. The consultants recommended that the blocks between Hennepin and Harriet Avenues be considered noncontributing to the district. 3 SHPO reached different conclusions for some blocks by considering a broader range of integrity and by using a different starting point for its analysis. Rather than basing the evaluation on changes post-dating the period of significance (i.e., after 1916), only alterations since the district was listed in 2005 were found to affect integrity. This perspective led SHPO to conclude that the block between Fremont Avenue and Emerson Avenue retained sufficient integrity to contribute to the district. SHPO agreed, however, that the integrity was compromised in the block west of Fremont Avenue. Going further east and west, there was consensus that blocks between Girard and Hennepin Avenues to the west and between Emerson and Colfax Avenues to the east were non-contributing, leaving Block 5 an island in a non-contributing section of the historic district. 4 3 Mead and Hunt, Reevaluation, 21, Mead and Hunt, Reevaluation, 49. Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition Narrative Page 9

15 Photographs Top: Looking east at Fremont Avenue Bridge from Midtown Greenway. Bottom: Looking west at Fremont Avenue Bridge from Emerson Avenue Bridge. Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition Narrative Page 10

16 Top: West elevation of Fremont Avenue Bridge, looking south. Bottom: East elevation Fremont Avenue Bridge, looking north. Note the large crack in the northeast abutment. Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition Narrative Page 11

17 Top: Looking north at roadway of Fremont Avenue Bridge, which is closed to vehicular traffic. Bottom: The southwest end of the bridge s railing was cut off when the roadway was constructed for bus access to the Hennepin Avenue transit station. Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition Narrative Page 12

18 Top: Deterioration is visible beneath the deck of the Fremont Avenue Bridge. Bottom: The piers, as well as the deck, are in poor condition. Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition Narrative Page 13

19 Top: Bridges on either side of the Fremont Avenue Bridge have been replaced and the area has much new development. This view looks east from Fremont to the Emerson Avenue Bridge. Bottom: The new Hennepin Avenue Bridge and new construction dominate the view from the bridge to the west. Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition Narrative Page 14

20 The Effect of the Project on Historic Properties The bridge is a contributing feature in the CM&StP Grade Separation Historic District, the only historic property affected by the project. The Section 106 process delineated the project s Area of Potential Effects, which is outlined in red below. Girard Ave. Fremont Ave. Emerson Ave. Midtown Greenway Reasons Demolition Is Necessary and Alternatives Explored A rehabilitation study for the bridge (see Attachment A) provided an in-depth analysis of rehabilitation alternatives that were considered by the project team, which included engineers, county and city staff, planners, and a historian. A matrix starting on page 34 shows four options and the criteria and other considerations used to evaluate them. The deterioration of the structural concrete components in the Fremont Avenue Bridge is widespread. If it were localized to a few areas, there would be more rehabilitation options available to Hennepin County. The deck has widespread deterioration (100% in severe condition). In addition, widespread deterioration is evident on the beams (30% poor condition, 70% severe condition) and the abutments (100% in poor or severe condition). This level of deterioration warrants replacement in-kind. A less aggressive rehabilitation alternative was considered for the Fremont Avenue Bridge. A structure-in-a-structure approach similar to what was utilized for the rehabilitation of the 15th Avenue and 16th Avenue Bridges was contemplated. However, the Fremont beam stems and abutments are too deteriorated for this approach to be successful. The abutments are failing under the current loading and adding additional dead load is not practicable. In addition, the concrete beams are too deteriorated to carry their own weight as part of a rehabilitation project. Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition Narrative Page 15

21 The third option in the rehabilitation study, Rehabilitation New Concrete Alternative, would have reconstructed the bridge in approximately its original geometry, retaining and reusing the only salvageable component of the existing structure, the lower portion of the piers. This alternative was dismissed for several reasons: The high cost-to-service-life ratio. The poor integrity of the bridge if only the pier bases remain. Without the remaining structure, the surviving original material would be out of context. While the pier bases would retain some aspects of location, workmanship, and materials, they would be only a fragment of the original structure and lack integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association. Given the poor integrity of the existing structure, retaining the lower pier elements could inhibit the potential to create a new design that is compatible with the historic district while being a good example of twenty-first-century bridge design. Since a reconstruction of the original design is not feasible, incorporating the lower pier elements in what will inevitably be a new design would create a false sense of history. The alternative recommended at the conclusion of the extensive assessment process was to replace the structure. Replacement Bridge Renderings for the proposed new bridge are in Attachment C; plans are in Attachment D. The new bridge will be similar to the historic bridge in most respects, including the dimensions of the spans and the width of the deck. The new design will not exactly replicate the Classical Revival features of the historic bridge to avoid creating a false sense of history, but detailing will feature a simplified Classical Revival treatment. The north and center spans will reinforce the historic corridor s tunnel-like effect; these are the spans that are accessible to the public throughout the historic district. The trench s south wall east of the Fremont Avenue Bridge has a vegetated slope that will screen the view of the bridge s southern, filled-in span, and this span is obscured from the west by the modern, projecting retaining wall for the access road to the Hennepin Avenue transit station. As a result, the filled-in span will not diminish the tunnel-like effect, particularly in light of the bridge s existing physical context, which has been compromised by a series of non-historic bridges in the vicinity and the modern wall to the southwest. Classical Revival motifs will appear on the coping on the bridge seats and on the precast, haunched fascia below the deck that will have recessed panels over the piers. Instead of a smoke shield at the base of the fascia, there will be signage identifying Fremont Avenue. The new prestressed concrete beams will be integrated with the deck and visible, reflecting the belowdeck texture that distinguishes the historic bridge. The new north pier, while not structural, will maintain the form of the original, including concrete diaphragms between the beams above the pier. Three-inch-deep arched reveals in the south abutment wall, located in the vicinity of the south pier of the historic bridge, will reference the arches in that historic pier. Date blocks will be imprinted in the southwest and northeast abutment corners, as was the custom with historic bridges along the corridor. Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition Narrative Page 16

22 Findings An application for the demolition of a historic resource must address the following findings: 1. The destruction is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property As documented above, the Fremont Avenue Bridge is deteriorating. Spalling concrete threatens the safety of users of the Midtown Greenway, which passes below the structure. Due to the advanced state of the deterioration, most of the concrete could be repaired and retained in place. 2. There are no reasonable alternatives to the destruction. The Fremont Avenue Bridge is a contributing feature in the CM&StP Grade Separation Historic District, which is listed in the National Register. The bridge is in a section of the district that has been compromised by new construction and other alterations, however, diminishing the integrity of its setting. The structure of the bridge is in an advanced state of decay. It is currently closed to vehicular traffic and will eventually need to be closed to pedestrians and bicyclists as well. Fremont Avenue is an important side street in the Uptown neighborhood, which has experienced extensive development that has greatly increased its density. The bridge is a critical alternative to Hennepin Avenue and other streets for vehicular and other traffic. Given Findings 1 and 2, the demolition of the Fremont Avenue Bridge is justified. Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition Narrative Page 17

23 Attachment A: Rehabilitation Study Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition

24 Bridge Number L8901 Fremont Avenue over the Midtown Corridor Rehabilitation Study March 12, 2018

25 Table of Contents 1 Project Purpose and Need Project Purpose Project Needs Historic Background and Significance Description Significance Character-Defining Features History Changes to Setting Condition Assessment Midtown Greenway General Management Plan/Individual Bridge Management Plan: Bridge Number L Bridge L8901 Evaluation and Load Rating Report Bridge No. L8901 Fremont Avenue South over the Midtown Greenway: Report for Detailed Inspection and Testing Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Other Considerations Alternatives No-Build Alternative Rehabilitation Supplemental Steel Beam Support Alternative Rehabilitation New Concrete Alternative Replacement Alternative Alternatives Evaluation Matrix Viable Rehabilitation Alternatives i

26 List of Appendices Appendix A: Appendix B: Minnesota Structure Inventory Report for Bridge Number L8901 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form for the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District Appendix C: Midtown Corridor Historic Bridge Study (TKDA and Hess Roise, 2007) Appendix D: Appendix E: Cultural Landscape Management and Treatment Guidelines for the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Grade Separation Historic District of the Midtown Corridor (Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority, 2008) Midtown Greenway General Management Plan/Individual Bridge Management Plan: Bridge Number L8901 (Olson & Nesvold Engineers, SRF Consulting Group, Gemini Research, Braun Intertec, and MacDonald & Mack Architects, June 2015) and Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Correspondence Appendix F: Bridge L8901 Evaluation and Load Rating Report (Stonebrooke, June 2016) Appendix G: Appendix H: Bridge No. L8901 Fremont Avenue South over the Midtown Greenway: Report for Detailed Inspection and Testing (Stonebrooke, March 2017) Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District Reevaluation: Local Historic Bridge Study Phase 3 (Mead & Hunt, March 2017) ii

27 1 Project Purpose and Need 1.1 Project Purpose The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a structurally adequate bridge crossing (capable of carrying legal loads) over the Midtown Corridor on Fremont Avenue for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic while improving the safety for users (e.g., pedestrians and bicyclists) of the Midtown Corridor. 1.2 Project Needs There are two primary needs for the Fremont Avenue Bridge project: Structural sufficiency Safety conditions for users of the Midtown Greenway In addition to the two primary needs, there is one secondary need for the Fremont Avenue Bridge project: Design to accommodate future transit improvements and bike and pedestrian facilities in the Midtown Corridor Structural Sufficiency The Fremont Avenue Bridge (Bridge Number L8901) is classified as structurally deficient. Currently it has a sufficiency rating of 27.4 (see the structure inventory report in Appendix A). In addition, the deck, superstructure, and substructure have National Bridge Inventory (NBI) condition ratings of 3 (serious condition). A bridge is considered structurally deficient if the NBI condition ratings for the deck, superstructure, or substructure are 4 or less. Due to the poor condition of the bridge, it has been closed to vehicular traffic since 2016 after numerous documented violations of posted load restrictions. An inspection report dated March 2017 (see Appendix G) found that the bridge is in overall serious condition. All elements are in poor condition except for the concrete railings and top of sidewalks. There are localized areas of severe deterioration in the deck. In one area, the primary deck reinforcing has complete section loss over a 3.5-foot length. Deterioration of the concrete beams is also extensive with the majority of the beam surface areas spalled. Many spalls are deep with major concrete loss, and most of the longitudinal reinforcing in the bottom of the beams is exposed and corroded over the entire length of the beams. Deterioration of the pier concrete is also extensive. It varies from relatively minor surface deterioration (scaling) to severe spalls with exposed reinforcing on the columns, which are severe enough to be a structural concern. In addition, the abutments are unstable due to foundation settlement, especially the northeast wingwall, and the lack of rebar used in the original construction Safety Conditions for Users of the Midtown Greenway The Midtown Greenway is a 5.5-mile long former railroad corridor in south Minneapolis with bicycling and walking trails. It is owned by the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) and the 1

28 trails are maintained by the City of Minneapolis. The Fremont Avenue Bridge crosses over the Midtown Greenway. A June 2016 evaluation and load rating report (see Appendix F) identifies the hazard of concrete falling from the Fremont Avenue Bridge onto the heavily used Midtown Greenway trail below. It is apparent from the bridge s existing condition that concrete has and continues to fall. Annually, the City of Minneapolis (as part of their agreement with Hennepin County) removes obviously loose concrete on the bridges in the Midtown Greenway to reduce the risk of concrete falling on trail users Design to Accommodate Future Transit Improvements and Bike and Pedestrian Facilities in the Midtown Corridor HCRRA purchased the Midtown Corridor in 1993 for future transit use. Studies have been conducted, but funding has not been identified and transit in the Midtown Corridor is not part of the Current Revenue Scenario in the Metropolitan Council s 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. However, HCRRA does not want to preclude future transit improvements in the corridor. In addition, the Midtown Greenway trail provides an important regional connection for pedestrians and bicyclists and should be maintained. 2 Historic Background and Significance 2.1 Description The Fremont Avenue Bridge was built in and is a three-span, Classical Revival style, continuous concrete deck girder bridge. It is about 120 feet long and 49 feet wide. The center span measures 31 feet 6 inches, and the outer spans measures 30 feet. For a more detailed description of the bridge, see the Individual Bridge Management Plan (see Appendix E). 2.2 Significance The Fremont Avenue Bridge is part of the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District. The corridor was nominated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 2004, based on a survey completed in 2002, and was designated in 2005 (see the nomination form in Appendix B). The district is locally significant under Criterion A for its role in community planning and development. The historic district stretches along the former railroad corridor from Humboldt Avenue South to 20 th Avenue South. The nomination identified the district s main defining characteristics as the trench edge delineating the depressed corridor, the bridges and the visual tunnel they create, and the industrial nature of the corridor, including the hard edges of the trench, the track beds, the commercial elevations, and the volunteer foliage. The Fremont Avenue Bridge was identified as a contributing feature in the district. Secondary features such as retaining walls, fencing, lighting, railroad crossing signals, and utility poles were also considered to be character-defining. The district s period of significance was established as 1912 to 1916, spanning the period during which the depressed corridor and the associated bridges were constructed. 2

29 2.3 Character-Defining Features A 2015 management plan described characteristic features that the Fremont Avenue Bridge shared with other bridges along the historic corridor: 1. Reinforced-concrete three-span bridge carrying a city street and raised sidewalks over a railroad trench feet wide and 22 feet deep with moderately sloping sides. Classical Revival design shared by 26 bridges (originally 37). From both below and on top of the bridge, views of the trench and closely spaced identical bridges create visual continuity; the three spans create a tunnel-like effect. 2. Abutments with classical coping on bridge seats. Piers comprised of four square columns joined by rounded arches that extend to the fascia to support cantilevered sidewalks. Multiple beams integrated with the deck; beams are angled to follow the curve of the fascia beams. Fascias are haunched with recessed panel detailing over the piers. (Two characteristics of the corridor s bridges are currently missing on the Fremont Avenue Bridge: date block imprints are covered with shotcrete and both smoke shields have been removed.) inch-tall concrete railings with both posts and panels divided into classical base, shaft, and capital. Simple recessed panels. Railings move apart laterally, tracing the edge of the abutments; sidewalks widen correspondingly. 4. Unpainted concrete surfaces (most now painted) with board form lines on abutments, piers, beams, and underside of the deck; smoother finish on fascia and railings. 2.4 History A summary of the historic background is provided below. For a more complete description, see the Midtown Greenway Historic Bridge Study (see Appendix C), the Midtown Greenway General Management Plan and Individual Bridge Management Plan (see Appendix E), and the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District Reevaluation (see Appendix H) Midtown Corridor Historic Bridge Study The City of Minneapolis Public Works Department and Hennepin County commissioned a multidisciplinary study of the Midtown Corridor bridges as mitigation for the replacement of the Chicago and Park Avenue Bridges, which were contributing features in the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District. The study, which was completed in 2007, contained both engineering and historical assessments (see Appendix C). The Fremont Avenue Bridge was one of five bridges selected to receive a more extensive evaluation as part of the study. It was chosen to reflect the bottom range of bridge conditions along the corridor. Engineers concluded that due to the advanced deterioration of the beams, the extensive deterioration of other bridge components, its low sufficiency rating, and the bridge s age, the most fiscally responsible alternative was to replace the bridge within three years. In the meantime, the study recommended some immediate maintenance actions. The historical assessment reexamined the historic district in light of changes to the corridor that had occurred since its significance was evaluated in 2002 and the district was listed in the NRHP in In addition to alterations to bridges over the trench, new elements were introduced in the depressed 3

30 area such as raised paths, ramps between the trench to street level, and ornate lighting and railroad tracks and switches were removed when the Midtown Greenway was created. Along the edges of the corridor, the district s setting had been affected by the loss of industrial properties and new construction. The assessment concluded that the section from 11 th to 20 th Avenues was the best preserved and that the section between Fremont and Stevens Avenues, although its integrity was compromised, retained sufficient integrity to continue to qualify for the NRHP. The study recommended that either 1) the section between Nicollet and Chicago Avenues be classified as noncontributing, or 2) the district s boundaries be revised to form a noncontiguous district from 11 th to 20 th Avenues and from Fremont to Stevens Avenues Cultural Landscape Management and Treatment Guidelines In 2008, the HCRRA commissioned a management plan for the historic district based on the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (see Appendix D). The guidelines consider spatial organization and land patterns, topography, vegetation, circulation, water features, structures, furnishings, and objects. After describing the district s contributing features within these categories, the plan recommended actions that were appropriate and identified others to avoid. It also considered accessibility, health and safety, and environmental and energy issues. The plan adopted the Rehabilitation treatment standard, which allows for adapting a historic property for a new use while preserving its important historic features Midtown Greenway General Management Plan/Individual Bridge Management Plan: Bridge Number L8901 Hennepin County, in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Cultural Resources Unit (CRU), assembled several documents in These documents included a general management plan for the entire Midtown Greenway corridor (27 contributing bridges and 10 noncontributing bridges), bridge summary reports for each of the 10 noncontributing bridges, and a historic bridge management plan for each of the 27 contributing bridges (including Fremont Avenue) (see Appendix E). The individual bridge management plans were formatted in the same manner as MnDOT s historic bridge management plans for other local bridge owners across the state of Minnesota. The individual bridge management plan assembled for the Fremont Avenue Bridge describes the historic integrity of the bridge as follows: Bridge L8901 generally retains historic integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. However, integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association have been diminished somewhat by the large retaining wall at the southwest corner and by other changes to the setting. Despite these issues with the setting, the Fremont Avenue Bridge continued to be a contributing feature in the historic district. The structure had other serious issues though that were acknowledged by the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) during the process of reviewing the draft management plans. In a letter to MnDOT CRU dated May 21, 2015, SHPO stated that the Fremont Avenue and Bryant Avenue Bridges would be extremely difficult to repair and due to the extent of the repairs necessary to fully rehabilitate them, we agree that they may severely lack historic integrity after they are repaired. 4

31 2.4.4 Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District Reevaluation: Local Historic Bridge Study Phase 3 In 2017, Mead & Hunt reevaluated the historic integrity of the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District at the request of MnDOT CRU (see Appendix H). The report considers the appropriateness of delisting the district due to recent changes to the district and its setting. As part of the reevaluation, Mead & Hunt reviewed changes to the district and evaluated the district s present historic integrity. Between the NRHP listing in 2005 and the date of the report (March 2017), changes within the district have included: Bridge replacements at Park and Chicago Avenues The addition of wingwalls to the 10 th and 11 th Avenue Bridges Construction of large terraces with staircases accessing the trail Construction of a new apartment complex at Cedar Avenue Smaller additions including landscaping plantings, retaining walls, and patios Demolition of older industrial buildings and small-scale residences in the western portion of the district to erect five- to seven-story apartment/condominium buildings or hotel buildings (some of which removed original trench walls or added new walls where none stood historically) Mead & Hunt assessed the historic integrity of both the component blocks of the historic district and the district as a whole. They found that specific areas within the district retain substantial historic integrity while others do not. The Fremont Avenue Bridge is surrounded by blocks (from Hennepin Avenue to Harriet Avenue) that were found to have lost their historic integrity. The area directly adjacent to the Fremont Avenue Bridge (between Girard Avenue and Emerson Avenue) was found to only retain integrity of location; the six other aspects of integrity (design, association, feeling, setting, workmanship, and materials) have not been retained. Based on the assessment of historic integrity, Mead & Hunt recommended that 19 blocks within the district be considered contributing segments, and the other 23 blocks be considered noncontributing because of their significant alterations. The Fremont Avenue Bridge is within an area recommended to be considered noncontributing. The report notes that SHPO reviewed the draft recommendations and disagreed with the noncontributing recommendation for 10 of the 23 blocks, one of which is the block between Fremont and Emerson Avenues. Mead & Hunt s recommendation takes into consideration all changes outside of the district s period of significance and was not limited to those changes that occurred after listing in This approach differed from SHPO s approach, which considered only changes after the district s listing in Changes to Setting The Uptown neighborhood at the west end of the historic district has witnessed a substantial building boom in the 21 st century, transforming the district s setting and sometimes physically altering characterdefining features. Residents of new apartment complexes and tenants in new office buildings have increased the use of the Midtown Greenway, catalyzing additional changes. At the same time, the historic bridges spanning the trench are aging and a number have been replaced. The effects of 5

32 individual alterations, as well as their cumulative effect, have made the integrity of the historic district a subject of discussion. At the time that the nomination was prepared in 2002, the corridor contained a variety of noncontributing resources (see Figure 1). This included the bridges at Emerson and Dupont, which replaced the original structures in 1986 and 1987, respectively. A private developer erected a pedestrian bridge at Girard Avenue in An older bridge at Hennepin Avenue was not a product of the grade separation project, and it was replaced in The new bridge was modified in 2000 to serve as a transit station. A single-lane road to give buses access to the station was installed on the trench s south side, extending some 13 feet into the trench. Its north edge is supported by a prominent retaining wall stretching from Fremont to Hennepin Avenues. 1 Figure 1: Historic district map from the 2005 NRHP nomination. A red box outlines the location of the Fremont Avenue Bridge. By the time that the corridor was listed in the NRHP in 2005 further changes had occurred, and that trend continued in subsequent years. The extent of these changes led MnDOT CRU to commission a reassessment of the integrity of the historic district. The report, completed by Mead & Hunt in 2017 (see Appendix H), considered modifications to the historic district since the end of its period of significance in This assessment was guided by the NRHP s seven aspects of integrity location, association, design, workmanship, materials, feeling, and setting with location, association, and design considered as the most important given the district s significance and physical characteristics. 2 1 Mead and Hunt, Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District Reevaluation, March 2017, 13, 19-20; drawings for Uptown Transit Station prepared by Wells Engineers Minnesota and LSA Design, Mead and Hunt, Reevaluation,

33 The report included a block-by-block assessment, noting the following for the blocks flanking the Fremont Avenue Bridge (see Figure 2): Fremont Avenue west to Girard Avenue (Block 4) o A new trench wall was on the south side where a wall had not existed historically o A new building edged the north side o A new pedestrian bridge spanned the trench at Girard Fremont Avenue east to Emerson Avenue (Block 5) o A new building and landscaping on the north side were not included in the NRHP s resource count; the building replaced an earlier structure considered noncontributing in the historic district o Fencing on the south side was not included in the resource count o A new bridge had replaced the original structure at Emerson Avenue Figure 2: Historic district map from the 2017 reevaluation. A red box outlines the location of the Fremont Avenue Bridge. The consultants concluded that both blocks had lost all aspects of integrity except location. The same was true for the adjacent blocks. Beyond Girard Avenue to the west, a new access ramp runs along the north side for the entire block, filling about one-third of the width of the trench and introducing a new wall. East of Emerson Avenue to Dupont Avenue, a new terrace extends from the north side. The 7

34 consultants recommended that the blocks between Hennepin and Harriet Avenues be considered noncontributing to the district. 3 SHPO reached different conclusions for some blocks by considering a broader range of integrity and by using a different starting point for its analysis. Rather than basing the evaluation on changes post-dating the period of significance (i.e., after 1916), only alterations since the district was listed in 2005 were found to affect integrity. This perspective led SHPO to conclude that the block between Fremont Avenue and Emerson Avenue retained sufficient integrity to contribute to the district. SHPO agreed, however, that the integrity was compromised in the block west of Fremont Avenue. Going further east and west, there was consensus that blocks between Girard and Hennepin Avenues to the west and between Emerson and Colfax Avenues to the east were non-contributing, leaving Block 5 an island in a noncontributing section of the historic district. 4 Analysis of the Fremont-Emerson block is presented in the following sections The Trench The NRHP nomination identifies the trench as the primary structure when describing characteristic features of the historic district. It notes that the edges of the trench are typically a steeply sloped earthen wall, but several sections feature reinforced-concrete retaining walls. These walls are unadorned and utilitarian in nature, but they contribute to the character of the depressed corridor. Several segments have a parapet wall with a recessed panel (much like the associated bridges) located at street grade. 5 In the Fremont-Emerson block, the south side of the corridor is the typical earthen slope. The north side is a reinforced-concrete retaining wall (see Figure 3). This was needed to accommodate a spur line that served an industrial facility on that block and a coal yard between Emerson and Dupont Avenues. 3 Mead and Hunt, Reevaluation, 21, Mead and Hunt, Reevaluation, Andrea Vermeer and William Stark, Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation, National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, 2004, prepared by the 106 Group Ltd., 7:6-7:7. 8

35 Figure 3: Looking east from the Fremont Avenue Bridge, with the concrete wall on north side (left) and the earthen slope on south side (right) The design of the wall is different from other contributing walls in the historic district. The walls on the north side of the corridor between Pleasant and Nicollet Avenues are topped by a parapet wall and have a steeply sloped face (see Figure 4). The varied condition of the concrete suggests that these walls may have been altered. A segment directly adjacent to the Pleasant Avenue Bridge has a straight vertical face. Although the concrete is in poor condition, the top of this segment has a trace of a simple coping that is similar to the coping on the wall southwest of the Hennepin Avenue Bridge, which also has a straight vertical face (see Figure 5). The Fremont coping is a visual continuation of the line of the coping from the adjacent abutment, a rare aesthetic gesture in the district. A two-pipe railing is mounted on the Hennepin wall, which angles down from the bridge to the grade of the tracks. 9

36 Figure 4: Wall southwest of the Hennepin Avenue Bridge Figure 5: Wall between Pleasant and Pillsbury Avenues Any trace of coping on the Fremont-Emerson wall was lost a few years ago when a new apartment building was erected to the north (see Figures 6 and 7). More than half of the concrete was replaced along much of the wall, including the entire upper section. A modern railing now runs along the top of the wall, with a chain-link fence filling the void between the wall and the parapet railing on the northeast abutment of the Fremont Avenue Bridge (see Figure 8). The plain, unornamented finish of the new concrete is compatible with the historic district, and a far more appropriate treatment than the decorative pattern on the new retaining wall southwest of the Fremont Avenue Bridge. The railing is likewise plain and follows the general rhythm of the historic iron and concrete fencing along the corridor 10

37 (see Section and Figures 11-14). Nevertheless, the significant loss of original concrete and the complete removal of the original railing compromises the wall s design, workmanship, and materials. Figure 6: The north retaining wall looking northeast from Fremont Avenue Bridge Figure 7: The north retaining wall looking west from Emerson Avenue Bridge 11

38 Figure 8: Looking west at the northeast abutment of the Fremont Avenue Bridge and the modified wall on the corridor s north edge Bridges The nomination states that after the trench itself, the bridges are the most prominent structural features of the district. 6 The main railroad tracks ran beneath the center span of the three-span structures. Earthen slopes concealed the abutments under most side spans. Where side tracks were installed, a vertical reinforced-concrete wall was integrated with the abutment. A lower wall was used for one track, while a full-height wall was required to accommodate two tracks. The Emerson Avenue Bridge dates from The Fremont Avenue Bridge generally retains good integrity of design, workmanship, and materials, except at the southwest corner, where a section more than 15 feet long and 3 feet high was removed from the top of the southwest abutment wall in 2000 (see Figures 9 and 10). This alteration, done as part of the installation of the driving lane for buses going to the transit station, diminishes the bridge s integrity. 6 Vermeer and Stark, National Register Form, 7:8. 12

39 Figure 9: Looking north at the intact railing on the southeast abutment (right) and the truncated railing on the southwest abutment (left) of the Fremont Avenue Bridge Figure 10: The parapet section that extended south over the southwest abutment was sliced off in 2000 to create the bus lane 13

40 2.5.3 Minor Features The NRHP nomination also highlights minor features, including an iron picket fence with concrete posts with five discontiguous segments... placed on street grade at the top of the trench from Fremont and Lyndale Avenues South. 7 The fence segment east of the Fremont Avenue Bridge runs along the crest of the trench s slope, edging 29 th Street. The fence consists of iron pickets supported by two horizontal angles attached to reinforcedconcrete posts. The posts are square in section with chamfered corners, a pyramidal top, and a pebbleaggregate finish. Some of the panels and posts remain in relatively good condition, but many have been damaged. Others have been removed and replaced by chain-link fencing (see Figures 11-14). As the nomination notes, the fence is a minor feature, but the ongoing degradation of this feature adds to the cumulative challenges to the historic integrity of the district. Figures 11-14: Views of the historic iron-picket fence along the south side of the corridor between Fremont and Emerson Avenues Conclusion Mead & Hunt recommended that the block between Fremont and Emerson Avenues be considered noncontributing to the historic district. MnDOT CRU determined, based on this recommendation, that it was 7 Vermeer and Stark, National Register Form, 7:9. 14

41 non-contributing. SHPO disagreed, asserting that the block had sufficient integrity to retain its contributing status. This divergence is not surprising because NRHP guidelines, including aspects of integrity, are subject to a range of interpretation. The potential for conflicting views increases when considering unusual property types, such as the grade separation historic district. With this district, conclusions are strongly influenced by physical location in other words, whether the perspective is from in the trench or at street grade. Both must be considered. Another factor is orientation. From a given location, for example, integrity might be good looking east and poor looking west. These factors help to explain why opposite conclusions have been reached about the block between Fremont and Emerson Avenues. In evaluating this block, it seems likely that both sides could agree on the following: In the trench looking east (see Figure 15): The historic tunnel feeling is retained, although it is somewhat diminished by the design of the 1986 Emerson Avenue Bridge. New six-story multifamily residential complexes loom over the corridor to the north, but they have only a moderate influence on the experience of being in the trench. In the trench looking west (see Figure 16): The Fremont Avenue Bridge maintains the tunnel pattern in the foreground and provides some visual screening of the alterations beyond it. The tunnel character is diluted, however, by new elements west of Fremont Avenue including the south retaining wall, the pedestrian bridge at Garfield Avenue, and the bridge/transit station at Hennepin Avenue. With the effect of the tunnel weakened, the new construction edging the corridor is more distracting. West of Fremont Avenue, it appears on both sides of the trench, and the buildings on the south side rise even taller than the six-story apartments on the north side. From the Fremont Avenue Bridge looking east (see Figure 17): The linear quality of the historic district is evident from this perspective, and there is some sense of the repetitive nature of the bridges. At the same time, the modern aspects of the Emerson Avenue Bridge, particularly the railing, are more pronounced, and the broad, tall (mostly six-story), new residential buildings that line the north side of the corridor are one of the dominant elements in the vista. The buildings form a wall that greatly affects the district s setting, which was historically characterized by relatively small-scale industrial and residential properties. From the Emerson Avenue Bridge looking west (see Figure 18): The Fremont Avenue Bridge is visually prominent, as is the gash of the trench. This reinforces the character of the historic district. The new construction on both sides of the corridor, however, is also prominent. In sum, the corridor s linear character and depressed grade remain compelling historic traits. Their ability to communicate the district s historic significance on the block from Fremont to Emerson Avenues is influenced by a viewer s physical perspective. From the trench, the impact of the area s construction boom is somewhat ignorable. From the bridges, however, the transformation of the surrounding area has a strongly adverse effect on the district s setting. Changes to the design, materials, and workmanship of the north retaining wall and the southwest corner of the Fremont Avenue Bridge, deterioration of the iron picket fence, and the overtly modern design of the newer Emerson Avenue Bridge further compromise the block s integrity. 15

42 Figure 15: From the trench, looking east to the Emerson Avenue Bridge Figure 16: From the trench, looking west to the Fremont Avenue Bridge 16

43 Figure 17: From the Fremont Avenue Bridge, looking east to the Emerson Avenue Bridge Figure 18: From the Emerson Avenue Bridge, looking east to the Fremont Avenue Bridge 3 Condition Assessment A number of reports on the Fremont Avenue Bridge have been prepared since the NRHP listing to assess its condition and possible options for rehabilitation or replacement. A summary of these reports is provided below. 17

44 3.1 Midtown Greenway General Management Plan/Individual Bridge Management Plan: Bridge Number L8901 From an engineering perspective, these June 2015 reports (included as Appendix E) described the Fremont Avenue Bridge as follows: It is in serious structural condition with the superstructure, substructure, and deck all having structural condition codes of 3. The bridge is structurally deficient, posted, and has an inventory rating of HS 4.6. All of the beams are in serious condition with spalls and most with exposed, corroded reinforcement. There are also spalls on the underside of the deck. The substructure is cracked and spalled; the abutments are also settling. The condition of this bridge is serious and the historic fabric is believed to be irreparable. 3.2 Bridge L8901 Evaluation and Load Rating Report This June 2016 report (see Appendix F) concluded that the overall condition of the bridge superstructure concrete is very poor. The substructure concrete was found to be in a condition similar to the superstructure but somewhat less severe. This report also noted that the wingwalls were not stable and had separated from the main abutments. The load rating computations recommended reducing the size of trucks that could cross the bridge and that the bridge be posted with a six-ton load limit. If the posted load restriction was not followed, closure of the bridge was recommended. The report recommended that the Fremont Avenue Bridge be replaced, not repaired, as soon as possible because of its advanced deterioration and difficulty in making effective repairs that will remain stable and sound. 3.3 Bridge No. L8901 Fremont Avenue South over the Midtown Greenway: Report for Detailed Inspection and Testing A thorough arm s length inspection and an extensive testing program is summarized in this document (see Appendix G). Similar to prior studies, the March 2017 report found that the Fremont Avenue Bridge is in exceptionally poor condition and that effective rehabilitation of bridge elements to a reasonable service life was not possible. Key findings from the study include: Localized areas of severe deterioration exist in the deck. In one such area, the main deck reinforcing has completely corroded with complete section loss through over a 3.5-foot length, meaning the deck has no effective structural capacity in that location. Overall, the deterioration of the concrete beams is extensive with the majority of the beam surface areas spalled. Many spalls are deep with major concrete loss, and most of the longitudinal reinforcing in the bottom of the beams is exposed and corroded over the beam lengths. The abutments are unstable due to settlement, especially the northeast wingwall Deterioration of the pier concrete is occurring throughout the piers and varies from relatively minor surface deterioration (scaling) to severe spalls with exposed reinforcing on the columns, which are severe enough to be a potential structural concern 18

45 Photos from the March 2017 report illustrating the above findings are included as Figures 19 through 24. Figure 19: Spalls with rusted rebar on center span beams Figure 20: Severe spall base of south pier column 19

46 Figure 21: North abutment spalling, severe crack at northeast wingwall Figure 22: Significant spalling corrosion in the T-beam reinforcement 20

47 Figure 23: Railing gap dimension Figure 24: Overall view concrete deterioration is significant where paint is loose 21

48 4 Evaluation Criteria The No-Build and Build Alternatives (defined in Section 5) were evaluated using the following criteria. 4.1 Evaluation Criteria These are the evaluation criteria based on the primary and secondary project needs: Provide a structurally sound crossing Improve safety conditions for users of the Midtown Corridor Ability to accommodate future transit improvements in the Midtown Corridor 4.2 Other Considerations Other considerations are based on potential social, economic, and environmental impacts; constructability issues; and cost. They include: Social, economic, and environmental impacts o Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) o Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 o Transportation (e.g., traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists on the Fremont Avenue Bridge and the Midtown Greenway, detours during construction) o Right-of-Way Constructability o Need to keep Metro Transit s Uptown Transit Station functional during construction o Need to minimize impacts to the trail users below the bridge on the Midtown Greenway Cost o Construction cost o Maintenance cost Service life 5 Alternatives 5.1 No-Build Alternative Description The No-Build Alternative would leave the current structure in place with no rehabilitation. Maintenance of the structure would continue. Closure of the top of the bridge to bicyclists and pedestrians would occur as additional concrete falls away below leaving less and less structural capacity. 22

49 5.1.2 Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Structural Sufficiency The deck, superstructure, and substructure all have an NBI condition rating of 3. With this alternative, there is no improvement to these ratings; therefore, it does not meet the primary need for a structurally sound crossing Improve Safety Conditions for Users of the Midtown Corridor This alternative would not remove the hazard of falling material from the Fremont Avenue Bridge; therefore, it would not meet the primary need of improving safety conditions for users of the Midtown Corridor. Ability to Accommodate Future Transit Improvements in the Midtown Corridor To accommodate a transit guideway and safety/maintenance walkway on the outside edge of the track, 31 feet is generally needed (assuming double track with 8.5-foot clearance between the closest track centerline and the exterior face of the bridge pier and 14-foot track centers). The center portal of the Fremont Avenue Bridge is the widest at 29.5 feet, which would be further reduced to provide future crash protection (crashwalls) and would not be able to accommodate the standard width needed for transit Other Considerations Section 106 The No-Build Alternative would have no adverse effect on the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District in the short term. However, it would have an adverse effect in the long term due to either 1) eventual damage to historic integrity from repairs required to preserve the bridge or 2) a need to remove the bridge to eliminate hazardous conditions endangering Midtown Greenway users. Section 4(f) Because there would be no adverse effect to the historic district (short term), there would be no Section 4(f) use. Transportation With the No-Build Alternative, the bridge would remain closed to vehicles, but pedestrian and bicyclist access would be maintained on the bridge and below the bridge for the short term. This alternative would not impact the operations of the Uptown Transit Station. Right-of-Way No right-of-way would be acquired under the No-Build Alternative. 23

50 Cost The No-Build Alternative would not involve any construction costs and would require approximately $6,300 per year in maintenance costs. Service Life The estimated service life of the Fremont Avenue Bridge under the No-Build Alternative is three years until it is closed to both pedestrians and bicyclists. 5.2 Rehabilitation Supplemental Steel Beam Support Alternative Description The Rehabilitation Supplemental Beam Support Alternative requires the addition of external structural braces to support the settling abutment corners, supplemental steel beams, and a supplemental floor system to allow traffic back on the top of the bridge. Essentially a steel bridge would be constructed inside the existing concrete structure. An additional traffic barrier would be required inboard of the existing railing or the current concrete railing would need to be reconstructed. Protection of trail users from falling concrete would be provided by netting or plywood. The supplemental elements would hide much of the original historic fabric and reduce both the horizontal and vertical clearances below the bridge. Figure 25: Elevation View Supplemental Members are presented in green 24

51 Figure 26: Isometric View Supplemental Members are presented in green Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Structural Sufficiency The deck, superstructure, and substructure all currently have an NBI condition rating of 3. With this alternative, the ratings would be 3, 4, and 3, respectively, and the bridge would still be considered structurally deficient. Therefore, this alternative does meet the primary need for a structurally sound crossing. Improve Safety Conditions for Users of the Midtown Corridor This alternative would reduce but not remove the hazard of falling material from the Fremont Avenue Bridge. Material would continue to fall. The material would be caught by plywood or netting attached to the bottom of the steel beams. It would require periodic maintenance to remove the debris from the plywood or netting. Therefore, this alternative would marginally meet the primary need of improving safety conditions for users of the Midtown Corridor. Ability to Accommodate Future Transit Improvements in the Midtown Corridor To accommodate a transit guideway and safety/maintenance walkway on the outside edge of the track, 31 feet is generally needed (assuming double track with 8.5-foot clearance between the closest track centerline and the exterior face of the bridge pier and 14-foot track centers). The center portal of the Fremont Avenue Bridge is the widest at 29.5 feet, which would be further reduced to provide future 25

52 crash protection (crashwalls) and would not be able to accommodate the standard width needed for transit. The additional steel support members encroach on the horizontal and vertical clearance of each span. The center portal horizontal clearance would be reduced to less than 27 feet Other Considerations Section 106 The Rehabilitation Alternative would have an adverse effect on the design of the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District if struts and braces are used to stabilize the substructures. Netting or other methods used to protect against falling material would also likely result in an adverse effect. Section 4(f) If there is an adverse effect to the historic district, there would be a Section 4(f) use. Transportation With the Rehabilitation Alternative, supplemental beams and other structural elements may need to be added to restore vehicular traffic on the bridge. Pedestrian and bicycle access would be maintained on the bridge and below the bridge in the Midtown Greenway. The abutment braces and new supports at the piers would likely reduce the width of the pedestrian trail in the north span and may eliminate the walkway on the north side of the center span. The clear zones for trail users would be reduced as well. This alternative would not impact the operations of the Uptown Transit Station. It would, however, reduce the width of the maintenance road below the bridge in the center span. Right-of-Way No new right-of-way is needed for this alternative at the southwest, northwest, and southeast corners of the bridge. Support of the northeast wingwall from the corner of the bridge to the east-west retaining wall that extends to Emerson Avenue would require a permanent acquisition to a limit just beyond that needed for the installation and future maintenance of the shoring system. Cost For the Rehabilitation Alternative, the estimated construction cost is $1.75 million and the estimated maintenance cost is $25,000 per year. Service Life The estimated service life of the Fremont Avenue Bridge under the Rehabilitation Supplemental Steel Beam Support Alternative is five to 10 years. 5.3 Rehabilitation New Concrete Alternative Description The Rehabilitation New Concrete Alternative would reconstruct the bridge to approximately the same geometry it has today. Only the lower portions of the piers have the potential to be retained and 26

53 integrated into the rehabilitated structure. The other elements (abutments, upper piers, deck, sidewalks, and railings) would be reconstructed with new cast-in-place concrete. The geometry of the bridge would be slightly altered by the recent retaining wall constructed at the southwest corner of the bridge. Unlike the original bridge, the reconstructed abutments would be founded on deep foundations to minimize settlement and would have significant steel reinforcement to improve the load carrying capacity and to minimize the potential for large cracks to form. In the future, if transit is deployed in the trench, the piers would likely need to be altered with the addition of crash protection elements. Figure 27: Elevation View Original Geometry Figure 28: Isometric View Original Geometry To reconstruct the bridge in its original configuration and original foundation footprint would require extraordinary shoring of adjacent facilities. Shaded in red in Figure 29 are the limits of excavation without shoring. 27

54 Figure 29: Excavation Limits Using a ground slope of 1 Vertical on 2 Horizontal The transitway access is cut off on the southwest corner of the bridge. The retaining wall on the southwest is also impacted. W 29 th Street is cut off on the southeast. The retaining walls on both sides of the bridge on the north are also impacted. To protect and maintain service on these facilities would require very expensive shoring solutions that dramatically increase the price of this alternative. The concrete bridge construction methods necessary for this option would also be expensive. Instead of utilizing components such as standard prestressed beams, cast-in-place construction would be utilized. Compared to typical bridge construction, it is a more costly, labor-intensive approach and depending on review agency comments may also require special finishes such as board form finishes. This in turn drives the cost of the alternative up. It should be noted that custom prestressed concrete beams could be utilized. However, given the small number of beams to spread new form costs over they would be very expensive, and in the end, more expensive than cast-in-place construction Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Structural Sufficiency The deck, superstructure, and substructure all currently have an NBI condition rating of 3. With this alternative, the ratings would improve to 9, 9, and 8, respectively. Therefore, this alternative does meet the primary need for a structurally sound crossing Improve Safety Conditions for Users of the Midtown Corridor This alternative would remove the hazard of falling material from the Fremont Avenue Bridge; therefore, it would meet the primary need of improving safety conditions for users of the Midtown Corridor. Ability to Accommodate Future Transit Improvements in the Midtown Corridor To accommodate a transit guideway and safety/maintenance walkway on the outside edge of the track, 31 feet is generally needed (assuming double track with 8.5-foot clearance between the closest track 28

55 centerline and the exterior face of the bridge pier and 14-foot track centers). Given that the geometry of the bridge would remain approximately the same as existing and the widest portal is 29.5 feet-wide, the width of which would be further reduced to provide future crash protection (crashwalls), this alternative would likely not be able to accommodate the standard width needed for transit Other Considerations Section 106 The Rehabilitation New Concrete Alternative would damage the integrity of the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District due to the loss of historic materials, resulting in an adverse effect. The effect would be minimized if the new structure conformed to the Secretary of the Interior s Rehabilitation Treatment Standards for new construction. Section 4(f) If there is an adverse effect to the historic district, there would be a Section 4(f) use. Transportation With the Rehabilitation New Concrete Alternative, service to all traffic modes would be restored on the bridge and below the bridge. However, this alternative would impact the operations of the Uptown Transit Station during construction. Right-of-Way The removal of original concrete elements and the construction of new concrete elements would require temporary easements. The easements would be needed at both ends of the bridge to install temporary shoring to protect existing structures adjacent to the bridge. Approximately 15 feet of the original southwest wingwall exists below the transitway on land currently owned by Metro Transit. Removal of original concrete in this vicinity would require a temporary easement and a prolonged service disruption to the transitway and the Uptown Transit Station it serves. Minor modifications to the bridge geometry at the southwest, northwest, and northeast abutment corners and wingwalls would allow construction of this alternative without the need for permanent land acquisitions. Cost For the Rehabilitation New Concrete Alternative, the estimated construction cost is $4.25 million and the estimated maintenance cost is $4,000 per year. Service Life The Rehabilitation New Concrete Alternative would retain some historic fabric (lower portion of the piers). This concrete is 100 years old and chloride contaminated; therefore, it would not be expected to have a service life of an additional 75 years like the Replacement Alternative. The estimated service life of the Fremont Avenue Bridge under the Rehabilitation New Concrete Alternative is 50 years. 29

56 5.4 Replacement Alternative Description The appropriate Replacement Alternative would be developed during conceptual design. It would likely be a one or three span concrete structure. If a three-span structure is selected, the center span would be larger than the existing center span to accommodate double track transit need. Depending on clearance dimensions, crash protection elements may be required on the pier elements. The compatibility of bridge details with the historic district would be evaluated during conceptual design. It is anticipated that conceptual design would largely follow the process used on the recent Portland Avenue and Cedar Avenue Bridge replacements. Originally, 17 structure types were considered. Two span structures were eliminated after recognizing that they did not fit the site from a historic perspective or from a transit operations perspective. Steel structures were felt to be less historically compatible with the original concrete bridges and retaining walls and removed from final consideration. The remaining one and three span concrete options were refined during conceptual design and a preferred alternative for the Portland and Cedar Avenue Bridges was selected. Figure 30: Portland Avenue West Elevation

57 Multiple options of a single span structure were considered. They ranged from rigid frame structures (similar to Park and Chicago Avenues) to custom rectangular beams. Figure 31: Elevation view of a one span concrete bridge at the Portland Avenue site Figure 32: Rendering of New Portland Avenue Bridge In the end, a single span structure with faux piers and façade panels was selected for the replacement of the Portland and Cedar Avenue Bridges. This allows the new bridge to be compatible with the historic corridor while providing flexibility for future transit needs. The faux piers were placed slightly farther apart than the original bridge and should not require future crash protection (crashwalls) Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Structural Sufficiency The deck, superstructure, and substructure all currently have an NBI condition rating of 3. With this alternative, the ratings would all improve to 9. Therefore, this alternative does meet the primary need for a structurally sound crossing. 31

58 Improve Safety Conditions for Users of the Midtown Corridor This alternative would remove the hazard of falling material from the Fremont Avenue Bridge; therefore, it would meet the primary need of improving safety conditions for users of the Midtown Corridor. Ability to Accommodate Future Transit Improvements in the Midtown Corridor To accommodate a transit guideway and safety/maintenance walkway on the outside edge of the track, 31 feet is generally needed (assuming double track with 8.5-foot clearance between the closest track centerline and the exterior face of the bridge pier and 14-foot track centers). Whether the replacement alternative is a one-span or three-span bridge, it could be designed to accommodate transit Other Considerations Section 106 The Replacement Alternative would have an adverse effect to the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District due to the loss of a historic resource. The effect would be minimized if the new structure conformed to the Secretary of the Interior s Rehabilitation Standards for new construction. Section 4(f) If there is an adverse effect to the historic district, there would be a Section 4(f) use. Transportation With the Replacement Alternative, service to all traffic modes would be restored on the bridge and below the bridge. This alternative would be designed to avoid impacting the operations of the Uptown Transit Station. Right-of-Way The right-of-way needs for this alternative are dependent on the structure type and span lengths utilized in the replacement structure. If a slightly reduced bridge length is permitted, the new abutments could be placed inside of the current abutments, dramatically reducing, but not eliminating, the need for shoring and for temporary easements for bridge construction. Approximately 15 feet of the original southwest wingwall exists below the transitway on land currently owned by Metro Transit. Bridge concepts can be investigated that allow a portion of the original structure to remain buried, which would allow the transitway to continue service during construction. Minor modifications to the bridge geometry at the southwest, northwest, and northeast abutment corners and wingwalls would allow construction of this alternative without the need for permanent land acquisitions. Cost For the Replacement Alternative, the estimated construction cost is $2.75 million and the estimated maintenance cost is $2,500 per year. 32

59 Service Life The estimated service life of the Fremont Avenue Bridge under the Replacement Alternative is 75 years. 6 Alternatives Evaluation Matrix The evaluation of alternatives presented in Section 5 is summarized in Table 1. 33

60 Table 1: Fremont Avenue Bridge Alternatives Evaluation Matrix Evaluation Criteria and Other Considerations Evaluation Criteria Structural NBI Condition Evaluation Sufficiency Ratings for Deck, Superstructure, and Substructure Safety Conditions for Users of Midtown Corridor Ability to Accommodate Future Transit Improvements in Midtown Corridor Remove hazard of falling material from bridge Yes or No (explain) Other Considerations Section 106 Anticipated determination of effect on Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District No Build Alternative Deck: 3 Superstructure: 3 Substructure: 3 No No. The bridge portals would not accommodate the standard width needed for transit. No adverse effect in the short term; adverse effect in the long term due to either 1) eventual damage to historic integrity from repairs required to preserve the bridge or 2) a Rehabilitation Supplemental Steel Beam Support Alternative Deck: 3 Superstructure: 4 Substructure: 3 No. Beam stems and the bottom of the deck will continue to drop concrete onto netting or plywood. No. The bridge portals would not accommodate the standard width needed for transit. An adverse effect if visually intrusive struts and braces are used to stabilize the substructures. Netting or other methods to protect against falling material would also Rehabilitation New Concrete Alternative Deck: 9 Superstructure: 9 Substructure: 8 8 Yes No. Assuming a portion of the piers is retained, the bridge portals would not accommodate the standard width needed for transit. Adverse effect due to loss of historic materials; effect would be minimized if the new structure conformed to the Secretary of the Interior s Replacement Alternative Deck: 9 Superstructure:9 Substructure: 9 Yes Yes, could be designed to accommodate transit Adverse effect due to loss of historic resource; effect would be minimized if the new structure conformed to the Secretary of the Interior s 8 Assumes a portion of the piers will be retained 34

61 Evaluation Criteria and Other Considerations Section 4(f) Transportation Anticipated use determination Impacts to traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, and Metro Transit s Uptown Transit Station during construction and operations No Build Alternative need to remove the bridge to eliminate hazardous conditions endangering Midtown Greenway users No use Bridge closed to vehicles; pedestrian and bicycle access maintained above and below; no impact to Uptown Transit Station Rehabilitation Supplemental Steel Beam Support Alternative likely result in an adverse effect. If adverse effect, then a Section 4(f) use Supplemental beams and other structural elements may need to be added to restore vehicular traffic on top; pedestrian and bicycle access maintained above and below; no impact to Uptown Transit Station Rehabilitation New Concrete Alternative Rehabilitation Standards If adverse effect, then a Section 4(f) use Service to all traffic modes above and below restored; impacts to Uptown Transit Station during construction Replacement Alternative Rehabilitation Standards Adverse effect results in Section 4(f) use Service to all traffic modes above and below restored; design to avoid impacts to Uptown Transit Station Right-of-Way Parcels Acquired None 1 parcel (permanent) 3 parcels (temporary) 3 parcels (temporary) Acres of Acquired None 0.01 acres 0.10 acres 0.10 acres Estimated Construction Cost $0 $1.75 million $4.25 million $2.75 million Estimated Maintenance Cost $6,300/year 9 $25,000/year $4,000/year $2,500/year Estimated Service Life 3 years 5-10 years 50 years 75 years 9 Does not include demolition costs 35

62 7 Viable Rehabilitation Alternatives Based on the information in the preceding sections, Hennepin County plans to pursue the Replacement Alternative. Hennepin County will work with MnDOT CRU, SHPO, FHWA, the City of Minneapolis, and other project stakeholders to design a new bridge that is architecturally compatible with the historic district and complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Hennepin County would like to complete the necessary environmental documentation by June 2018 and finalize the bridge plans by December 2018 in order to address the existing safety concerns and restore the transportation network by the end of NOTE: Appendices are not included. They can be provided on request. 36

63 Attachment B: Section 106 Consultation Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition

64 Office of Environmental Stewardship Office Tel: (651) Mail Stop 620 Fax: (651) John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul, MN Ms. Sarah Beimers, Manager Government Programs & Compliance State Historic Preservation Office Minnesota Historical Society 345 Kellogg Blvd. W. St. Paul, MN January 26, 2018 Re: SP , Fremont Avenue Bridge, Minneapolis, Hennepin County. Dear Ms. Beimers, We are writing to begin consultation on the above-referenced project. We will be reviewing the undertaking pursuant to our FHWA-delegated responsibilities for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (36 CFR 800), and as per the terms of the applicable Programmatic Agreements between the FHWA and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The Section 106 review fulfills MnDOT s responsibilities under the Minnesota Historic Sites Act (MS ), the Field Archaeology Act of Minnesota (MS ); and the Private Cemeteries Act (MS , Subd. 9 and 10). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Hennepin County has proposed several alternatives for rehabbing, reconstructing or replacing the Fremont Avenue Bridge. We have started gathering appropriate studies to analyze all the alternatives and their effects. TRIBAL CONSULTATION Based on our existing programmatic agreements with various tribal groups, there are no tribes that want to be consulted on projects in this area of the state and/or projects with the proposed scope of work. INTERESTED PARTIES We have sent a letter to the following interested parties: Heritage Preservation Commission, Midtown Greenway Coalition, Preservation Alliance of Minnesota, Preserve Minneapolis, Lowry Hill East Neighborhood Association. So far we have heard from Midtown Greenway Coalition and the Lowry Hill East Neighborhood Association. APE The area of potential effects (APE) for direct effects of the project consists of the proposed construction limits, which will be contained within the existing right of way. However all work will be contained within previous roadway and bridge construction. There are no known archaeological sites in the APE. The APE has low potential for containing unidentified significant archaeological resources. There is one historic property within the APE for direct effects: the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation. The APE for indirect effects will include those properties directly adjacent to the proposed bridge work. The APE takes into account direct impacts to adjacent properties by

65 proposed construction activities, including bridge rehab or replacement, road and utility replacement, in-kind sidewalk replacement, and in-kind ADA ramp installation. In addition the APE takes into account indirect effects, such as noise, vibration, and visual impacts caused by temporary construction and the project activities. Visual changes to the area are anticipated to be minimal, even if a new bridge is constructed, it would still maintain the same profile as old bridge. There are no historic properties adjacent to the bridge. HISTORIC PROPERTIES The Fremont Bridge is a contributing structure within the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District, listed in The character defining features of the district include the trench, bridges and visual tunnel, and the industrial setting. The period of significance is when the grade separation was constructed. There will be many public and internal meetings regarding this project in the coming months. We welcome your input and participation in any or all of these meetings as time permits. We will also be putting together a condensed rehab study along with the alternatives that will be submitted into the NEPA documentation. We look forward to your input on these items as well when they are prepared. We look forward to working with your office on this project. If you have any questions or concerns regarding our submittal before the 30 day period is up, please contact me at or me at renee.barnes@state.mn.us. Sincerely, Renée Hutter Barnes, Historian Cultural Resources Unit renee.barnes@state.mn.us CC: Joe Gladke, Hennepin County ( ) Tim Anderson, FHWA ( ) Jeanne Witzig, Kimley-Horn ( )

66 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE February 2018 Renee Hutter Barnes Cultural Resources Unit Office of Environmental Stewardship MN Dept. of Transportation Transportation Building, Mail Stop John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul, MN RE: SP Rehabilitate or Replace Bridge L8901 on Fremont Avenue over the Midtown Greenway Minneapolis, Hennepin County SHPO Number: Dear Ms. Hutter Barnes: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above project. Information received in our office on 3 February 2018 has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and implementing federal regulations at 36 CFR 800, and per the terms of the 2014 Amended Programmatic Agreement between the Federal Highway Administration and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office. We have completed a review of your letter dated January 26, 2018 which initiates consultation with our office regarding a proposed federally-funded project to either rehabilitate or replace Bridge L8901 on Fremont Avenue over the Midtown Greenway. We are unsure as to what you are asking for our concurrence on at this point as it pertains to Section 106 findings/determinations by your agency, so we will provide the following comments and recommendations for your agency s consideration as we move forward in the Section 106 consultation process. Define Federal Undertaking and Determine the Area of Potential Effect Your January 26 th letter indicates that your agency is working with the project proponent, Hennepin County, to analyze several alternatives for the proposed federal undertaking, alternatives which involve rehabilitation as well as reconstructing or replacing Bridge L8901. For purposes of this comment letter, we consider rehabilitation a certain kind of undertaking, and reconstruction and replacement together as another type of undertaking as either of the latter two alternatives would essentially replace the existing structure with a new structure differentiated only by style. You have provided a narrative determination of an Area of Potential Effect (APE) which consists of justification for an APE for direct effects and indirect effects for either project alternative, bridge

67 rehabilitation or replacement. While this narrative provides an indication that your agency has considered most types of potential effects for either project alternative pursuant to 36 CFR 800, we believe that it will be important to document this APE in the form of a map, and to include an opportunity to illustrate project footprint and construction limits on this same map, in order for our office and all consulting parties a clear indication of this APE s delineation and how it includes not just bridge construction areas, but also adjacent road approach work, ADA improvements, staging areas, and also any temporary impacts to access both at street level and within the Midtown Corridor. Identification of Historic Properties We agree with your agency s finding that there are no recorded archaeological sites in the APE, and that there is a low potential for the APE to contain intact archaeological sites, within the existing footprint of Bridge L8901. Therefore, it is our understanding that no further archaeological survey will be undertaken as part of this proposed project. Your January 26 th letter indicates that there is only one (1) historic property within the APE for direct effects. This historic property is the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Your letter goes on to say that there are no historic properties adjacent to the bridge which we understand to mean that there are no historic properties in addition to the historic district mentioned above that are located within the APE for indirect effects. Pending receipt of APE documentation in the form of a map from your agency, our records indicate that there are two (2) inventoried properties in an area we would consider adjacent to the bridge : Machine Shop (HE-MPC-3529) located at 2901 Fremont Avenue South adjacent to the southeast corner of Bridge L8901; and Acme Tag and Manufacturing (HE-MPC-3530) located at 2838 Fremont Avenue South, at the north-west corner of Bridge L8901, but appears on Google Street View to have been demolished and replaced by a new apartment building. Consulting Parties/Public Involvement Thank you for providing a summary of your agency s efforts as they pertain to identifying and inviting consulting parties to participate in the Section 106 review of this proposed undertaking. We look forward to continuing consultation on this project. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding our review. I can be reached at and (651) or sarah.beimers@state.mn.us. Sincerely, Sarah Beimers Environmental Review Manager State Historic Preservation Office

68 Office of Environmental Stewardship Office Tel: (651) Mail Stop 620 Fax: (651) John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul, MN March 15, 2018 Ms. Sarah Beimers, Manager Government Programs & Compliance State Historic Preservation Office 50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203 Saint Paul, Minnesota Re: SP , Fremont Avenue Bridge (L8901), Minneapolis, Hennepin County SHPO No Dear Ms. Beimers: On January 26, 2018, we submitted a letter to your office to begin consultation on the above-referenced project pursuant to our FHWA-delegated responsibilities for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (36 CFR 800), and as per the terms of the applicable Programmatic Agreements between the FHWA and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The Section 106 review fulfills MnDOT s responsibilities under the Minnesota Historic Sites Act (MS ), the Field Archaeology Act of Minnesota (MS ); and the Private Cemeteries Act (MS , Subd. 9 and 10). REHABILITATION STUDY As we noted in the January 26 letter, the bridge s owner, the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA), was considering several alternatives for rehabbing, reconstructing, or replacing the Fremont Avenue Bridge and was preparing the appropriate studies to analyze the alternatives and their effects. This information has been compiled in the enclosed report, Bridge Number L8901, Fremont Avenue over the Midtown Corridor Rehabilitation Study, dated March 12, The Fremont Avenue Bridge, built in , was one of a series of bridges erected by the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad between 1912 and 1916 as part of a major grade-separation initiative. The bridge is a contributing feature in the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District, which was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in The district, which extends from Humboldt Avenue South to 20 th Avenue South, is locally significant under Criterion A for its role in community planning and development. The nomination identified the district s main character-defining features as the trench edge delineating the depressed corridor, the bridges and the visual tunnel they create, and the industrial nature of the corridor, including the hard edges of the trench, the track beds, the commercial elevations, and the volunteer foliage. Secondary features such as retaining walls, fencing, lighting, railroad crossing signals, and utility poles were also considered to be character-defining.

69 S.P Page 2 After the nomination was prepared, many of the district s secondary features were altered or removed, several bridges were replaced, and new elements were added to the corridor. In addition, the setting has changed in some sections, where new development has replaced older industrial facilities and residences on adjacent properties. In 2017, MnDOT commissioned Mead and Hunt to reassess the integrity of the historic district, resulting in a report with a block-by-block evaluation. The consultants concluded that the blocks between Hennepin and Colfax Avenues, including those flanking the Fremont Avenue Bridge, had lost all aspects of integrity except location. Based on these recommendations, our office determined that the blocks from Hennepin to Colfax were non-contributing to the district because of poor integrity. Your office disagreed with the determination for the block between Fremont and Emerson Avenues, maintaining that it retained sufficient integrity to contribute to the historic district, but agreed that little integrity remained in the adjacent blocks. While the Fremont Avenue Bridge has sufficient historic integrity to contribute to the district, its structural integrity is poor. It was closed to vehicular traffic in 2016 after numerous documented violations of posted load restrictions. A March 2017 inspection report reaffirmed the poor condition of most elements. The lack of a vehicular bridge on Fremont Avenue disrupts traffic patterns in the dense, urban, Uptown neighborhood. In addition, spalling concrete from the deteriorating structure poses hazards for pedestrians and bicyclists on the Midtown Greenway, which runs beneath the bridge. To reestablish a structurally adequate bridge crossing for Fremont Avenue, Hennepin County, which is leading the project on behalf of HCRRA, has prepared a rehabilitation study (enclosed) to assess alternatives to address the deterioration and their cost. The project will receive up to $2.4 million in federal funds administered by the FHWA, with the rest of the project s cost split between Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis. The rehabilitation study considers four alternatives, which are summarized in a matrix beginning on pages of the report: 1) No Build: The current structure would remain in place with no rehabilitation. This would have no adverse effect on the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District in the short term. However, it would have an adverse effect in the long term due to either eventual damage to historic integrity from repairs required to preserve the bridge or a need to remove the bridge to eliminate hazardous conditions endangering Midtown Greenway users. 2) Rehabilitation Supplemental Steel Beam Support: External structural braces would be added to support the settling abutment corners, supplemental steel beams, and a supplemental floor system so that vehicles could use the bridge again. Essentially, a steel bridge would be constructed inside the existing concrete structure, adversely affecting the historic character of the historic bridge and the historic district. 3) Rehabilitation New Concrete: The design of the bridge would be returned to approximately the same geometry it has today, although slightly altered in response to the newer retaining wall to the southwest. Only the lower portions of the piers have the potential to be retained and integrated into the rehabilitated

70 S.P Page 3 structure, so the other elements (abutments, upper piers, deck, sidewalks, and railings) would be rebuilt with new cast-in-place concrete. 4) Replacement: Design alternatives for a new bridge have not been developed, but it would likely be a one- or three-span concrete structure. The loss of the historic bridge would adversely affect the historic district, but that effect would be minimized by designing the new structure in conformance with the standards for new construction in the Secretary of the Interior s (SOI) Standards for Rehabilitation. Option 1 would not meet the purpose and need of improving safety conditions for users of the Midtown Corridor and would ultimately result in the loss of the historic bridge. Option 2 would introduce new steel elements that would seriously impair the historic integrity of the Fremont Avenue Bridge. By removing the historic bridge, Options 3 and 4 have an equal level of adverse effect on the historic district. The new structures produced by both options would meet the SOI Standards. The life-cycle cost for Option 4, however, is significantly lower than for Option 3. In addition to having a lower construction cost ($2.75 million vs. $4.25 million) and lower annual maintenance costs ($2,500 vs. $4,000), Option 4 is anticipated to serve for 75 years in contrast to 50 years for Option 3. Finally, given the constraints of the site, including the limited area owned by HCRRA, Option 3 presents construction challenges, and the construction process would affect the operation of the Uptown Transit Station. Option 4 could be designed to avoid impacts to the Uptown Transit Station, a critical node in the public-transit system, during construction. Based on the findings of the rehabilitation study, Hennepin County plans to pursue Option 4. Hennepin County will complete its environmental document by June 2018 and will finalize bridge plans by December Construction is anticipated to start in May 2019, with the bridge open for use by the end of that year. Area of Potential Effects/IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES In your letter dated March 2, 2018, you agreed that there is low potential for the Area of Potential Effects (APE) to contain intact archaeological sites and that no further archaeological survey will be required. The same letter requested documentation of the APE on a map showing the project footprint, construction limits, adjacent road approach work, ADA improvements, staging areas, and temporary impacts to access both at street level and within the Midtown Corridor. We will refine the APE for above-ground properties in light of the decision to pursue Option 4 and provide the APE map when the information requested is available. At this time, we know that in addition to removing the historic bridge, construction will alter the short retaining wall that supports the northeast railing. During construction a section of original fencing (concrete posts and iron pickets) at the southeast corner may need to be removed. If so, it will be salvaged and reinstalled when construction is completed. As your letter suggests, Acme Tag and Manufacturing at 2838 Fremont Avenue South (HE-MPC-3530) has been replaced by new construction. Hennepin County s consultants are currently assessing the Machine Shop at 2901

71 S.P Page 4 Fremont Avenue South (HE-MPC-3529). We will provide our determination of its National Register eligibility in a later submittal. CONSULTING PARTIES/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Hennepin County has encouraged the public to assist in identifying previously unknown historic resources in the APE and to express concerns about the effects of the alternatives outlined in the rehabilitation study on the historic district. Hennepin County held a public open house on February 28, 2018, at the Walker branch of the Hennepin County Library, located a few blocks from the Fremont Avenue Bridge. Attendees were encouraged to submit comments in writing on cards that were supplied. In addition, the project page on the county s website ( notes that the bridge is a significant feature in the historic district and provides a link allowing the public to submit comments digitally. Most of the responses did not address cultural resource issues. In fact, some wanted changes that would not meet the SOI Standards (e.g., installing a stairway or ramp from the bridge to the Greenway). Several noted the importance of making the replacement bridge compatible with nearby bridges and the corridor, and some expressed a desire for incorporating interpretation about the area s history into the project. As noted in earlier correspondence, we identified the following interested parties and invited them to participate in consultation for this project: Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, Midtown Greenway Coalition, Preservation Alliance of Minnesota, Preserve Minneapolis, and Lowry Hill East Neighborhood Association. We received responses from Paul Shanafelt, executive director of the Lowry Hill East Neighborhood Association, and Soren Jensen, executive director of the Midtown Greenway Coalition; both requested to be consulting parties. FINDING HCRRA must address the deterioration of the Fremont Avenue Bridge, which is a contributing feature in the Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District. Even the No Build alternative would require some work to avoid harm to Midtown Greenway users, and the bridge would eventually fail given its trajectory of decay. As a result, the finding of this office is that the preferred alternative, Option 4, will have an Adverse Effect to the district. To minimize this effect, Hennepin County will continue to retain a SOI qualified historian to work with their design engineers to ensure consideration and compliance with the SOI Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties is incorporated throughout the design process for the replacement bridge. Our office will submit copies of the plan sheets and the special provisions to your office for your review and comment at two critical points in the design development process (approximately 30 and 60 percent). If it is our office s determination that the 60% plans continue to meet the SOI s Standards and your office concurs, our office will continue to monitor the plans, including the 90% plans, and only consult with your office if there are substantive changes from the 60% plans. In addition, we will be preparing a Memorandum of Agreement to further mitigate the adverse effects. We look forward to working with your office on developing the stipulations for that agreement.

72 S.P Page 5 We look forward to working with your office, Hennepin County, HCRRA, FHWA, the City of Minneapolis, and other stakeholders in the completion of this important project. Please respond to our finding of effects with 30 days of receipt, as per the terms of the above-referenced agreements. Do not hesitate to call or me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Renée Hutter Barnes, Historian Cultural Resources Unit renee.barnes@state.mn.us cc: Joe Gladke, Hennepin County ( ) Tim Anderson, FHWA ( ) Jack Yuzna, City of Minneapolis ( ) Paul Shanafelt, Lowry Hill East Neighborhood Association ( ) Soren Jensen, Midtown Greenway Coalition ( ) Jeanne Witzig, Kimley-Horn ( ) Charlene Roise, Hess, Roise and Company ( )

73

74

75

76 Office of Environmental Stewardship Office Tel: (651) Mail Stop 620 Fax: (651) John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul, MN Ms. Sarah Beimers, Manager Government Programs & Compliance State Historic Preservation Office Administration Building Suite Sherburne Ave St. Paul, MN May 8, 2018 Re: SP , Fremont Avenue Bridge over the Midtown Greenway, Minneapolis, Hennepin County SHPO Number: Dear Ms. Beimers, We are writing to continue consultation on the above-referenced project. We are reviewing the undertaking pursuant to our FHWA-delegated responsibilities for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (36 CFR 800), and as per the terms of any applicable programmatic agreements between the FHWA and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Since the time of our previous letter, it appears that there is great consensus that the preferred alternative will be Alternative 4. Because of the extensive deterioration on the bridge, there is no rehabilitation alternative that meets the purpose and need and retains sufficient historic fabric of the bridge, as documented in the previously submitted report. It is the determination of this office that the area of potential effect (APE) is limited to the proposed construction limits (see attached map). Since the project will result in the removal of one bridge and the construction of an essentially similar-profiled bridge in the same location, the project does not have the potential to effect any adjacent properties. Please see the enclose APE map for the exact limits. Only one historic property is located within the project APE: the CM&StP Grade Separation Historic District. In addition, through this letter, we are providing additional information in response to questions raised in your letter dated Define Undertaking: it is important for your agency to confirm that the replacement alternative is, in fact, the federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review and that this is a decision made by your agency as delegated by the FHWA As noted above, the preferred alternative has now been selected. Please note that nothing under Section 106 or our delegation of authority from FHWA to conduct Section 106 reviews on their behalf gives us authority to decide what the preferred alternative is - that is for the project proposer and federal agency to determine as part of the NEPA process. 2. Assessment of Adverse Effect: the alternatives analysis does not specifically state that Alternative #3 would be considered repair of the existing structure

77 You are correct that it does not state that Alternative #3 is a repair approach, because it is not. Alternative #3 fits under the SOI s definition of reconstruction and therefore that is the term used in the report, not repair. Due to the bridge s advanced deteriorated condition, there is no repair approach that meets the project s purpose and need. 3. For this case, is it true that, due to the structure s condition, the extent of the repair/replacement in-kind would be so extensive that the majority of the historic fabric would be subject to this work and that is why there is really no rehabilitation alternative presented as such? The deterioration of the structural concrete components in the Fremont Avenue Bridge is widespread. If it were localized to a few areas, there would be more rehabilitation options available. The bridge has widespread deterioration (100% of the deck is in severe condition; 30% of the beams are in poor condition and the remaining 70% are in severe condition; and 100% of the abutments are in poor or severe condition). Due to the extensive deterioration, there is no feasible repair alternative. 4. Did Hennepin County consider a less aggressive rehabilitation alternative that would still meet purpose and need? A less aggressive rehabilitation alternative was considered for the Fremont Avenue Bridge. A structure-in-a-structure approach similar to what was utilized for the 15 th Avenue and 16 th Avenue rehabilitations was contemplated. However, the beam stems and abutments are too deteriorated for this approach to be successful. The abutments are failing under the current loading and adding additional dead load is not practicable. In addition, the concrete beams are too deteriorated to carry their self-weight as part of a rehabilitation project. 5. Also, we have been involved in bridge rehabilitation projects that have allowed for the preservation of a historic bridge for a 50-year additional life, yet a life span of 50 years post rehabilitation under Alternative #3 is not acceptable for this project. To clarify, Alternative #3 was dismissed for several reasons, not just that it did not meet a 50-year life span. The high cost-to-service-life ratio The poor integrity of the bridge if only the pier bases remain. Without the remaining structure, the surviving original material would be out of context. While the pier bases would retain some aspects of location, workmanship, and materials, they would be only a fragment of the original structure and lack integrity of design, setting, feeling, and association. Given the poor integrity of the existing structure, retaining the lower pier elements could inhibit the potential to create a new design that is compatible with the historic district. Since a reconstruction of the original design is not feasible, incorporating the lower pier elements in what will inevitably be a new design would create a false sense of history. 6. Based on our experience with recent, non-federally funded, bridge replacement projects in the Midtown Corridor, we believe that your agency should continue to consider Alternative #3, or some version of this rehabilitation alternative, as it would allow for the historic piers character defining to the historic property to remain in place and likely allow for the most compatible design for the replacement abutments, upper piers, deck and railings. It should be noted that only a small portion of the piers would be retained in Alternative #3, so the required scope is more substantial than a repair under the Secretary of the Interior s

78 Standards. With damaged beams, the pier caps would need to be reconstructed. All eight of the pier columns have large spalls with exposed rebar and hollow areas. Only the bottom few feet of each pier has the potential to be retained and that concrete would be negatively impacted by splicing the existing concrete to new. It should also be noted that the condition of the existing concrete in the pier foundations has not been examined and may be compromised. Further, the bridges as a whole are character-defining features of the historic district, not the piers alone. It is the findings of this office that the project will have an adverse effect to the CM&StP Grade Separation Historic District. Due to the Freemont Avenue Bridges poor condition, there is no avoidance alternative under Section 106. Please respond to our finding of effect within 30 days of receipt of this letter. In addition, in the next few days I will be contacting your office to arrange and onsite visit to discuss replacement alternatives and mitigation ideas. Please take a look at your calendar for the week of May for availability. Since the project will result in an adverse effect to the historic district, we will begin negotiations with your office and other interested parties to identify appropriate mitigation and to develop an MOA. If you have any questions or concerns regarding our submittal before the 30 day period is up, please contact me at or me at renee.barnes@state.mn.us. Sincerely, Renée Hutter Barnes, Historian Cultural Resources Unit renee.barnes@state.mn.us CC: Joe Gladke, Hennepin County ( ) Tim Anderson, FHWA ( ) Jeanne Witzig, Kimley-Horn ( ) Charlene Roise, Hess & Roise ( )

79 Area of Potential Effects SP , Fremont Avenue Bridge (L8901), Minneapolis, Hennepin County SHPO No May 7, 2018

80

81

82 Attachment C: Renderings of Proposed Replacement Bridge Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition

83 Photograph of Existing Conditions - Looking West from Greenway Figure 1 Fremont Avenue Bridge, Minneapolis, MN Hennepin County DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE Aug 14, 2018

84 Perspective Rendering of Proposed Bridge Reconstruction - Looking West from Greenway Figure 2 Fremont Avenue Bridge, Minneapolis, MN Hennepin County DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE Aug 14, 2018

85 Photograph of Existing Conditions - Looking South from Bridge Deck Figure 3 Fremont Avenue Bridge, Minneapolis, MN Hennepin County DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE Aug 14, 2018

86 Perspective Rendering of Proposed Bridge Reconstruction - Looking South from Bridge Deck Figure 4 Fremont Avenue Bridge, Minneapolis, MN Hennepin County DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE Aug 14, 2018

87 Corner Overlook Pilaster Pipe and Cable Railing Concrete Parapet w/ Inset Panels 2-0 Typ. Fremont Ave Sign Corner Overlook Imprinted Date Abutment Face Precast Arch Fascia Panel with Masked Interior 27 Concrete Beams 2-0 Typ. Existing Retaining Wall Existing Veg Embankment /- Existing Black Chain Link Fence /- Abutment Face Wing Wall w/ Shallow Arch Relief Existing Modular Block Wall Walk Trail Non-Structural Pier / / Approx. Overall Bridge Length DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE East Elevation - Looking West Figure 5 Fremont Avenue Bridge, Minneapolis, MN Hennepin County Aug 14, 2018

88 49-4 Overall Bridge Deck Width Sidewalk 26-0 Roadway 10 Sidewalk C.G. 11 Drive Lane 11 Drive Lane 2-0 C.G. Steel Pipe and Cable Railing Parapet Pilaster 3-6 Concrete Parapet Bridge Deck Arched Precast Concrete Fascia Panel Precast Concrete Beams Bridge Cross Section - Looking North Fremont Avenue Bridge, Minneapolis, MN Hennepin County DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE Figure 6 Aug 14, 2018

89 49 4 Overall Bridge Deck Width Solid Concrete Diaphragm Typ. Arched Precast Concrete Fascia Panel 1-1 Typ. Non Structural Arched Concrete Pier 9-6 Typ. 2-0 Typ. Midtown Greenway Arched Pier Elevation - Looking North Fremont Avenue Bridge, Minneapolis, MN Hennepin County DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE Figure 7 Aug 14, 2018

90 4-8 To Face of Coping 49-4 Overall Deck Width 4-8 To Face of Coping Steel Pipe and Cable Railing Concrete Parapet Wall Parapet Pilaster / Coping Existing Adjacent Concrete Wall and Railing 1-1/2 Coping Relief Midtown Greenway North Abutment Elevation Fremont Avenue Bridge, Minneapolis, MN Hennepin County DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE Figure 8 Aug 14, 2018

91 4-8 To Face of Coping 49-4 Overall Deck Width 4-8 To Face of Coping Existing Concrete Wall and Railing Typ. 3 Arched Relief 19 +/- Abutment Face 2 Typ. 9-6 Typ. Trench South Abutment Elevation - 3 Arch Relief Fremont Avenue Bridge, Minneapolis, MN Hennepin County DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE Figure 9 Aug 14, 2018

92 Attachment D: 60% Drawings for Proposed Replacement Bridge Fremont Avenue Bridge Application for Demolition

93 LAKE PKWY. QUEEN AVE. S. AVE. GIRARD AVE. GIRARD S. AVE. AVE. AVE. AVE. NEWT W. JAMES FRE MONT FRE MONT S. AVE. S. EMER SON AVE. AVE. S. E DUPONT S. AVE. COLFAX COLFAX S. ANT AVE. GAR SANT PILLS BURY AVE. S. S. AVE. VE. AVE. S. FIELD AVE. AVE. HARRIET GRAND AVE. AVE. AVE. AVE. ALLE NIC OLLET AVE. AVE. S. 1st S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. AVE. AVE. NICOLLET 2nd S. 2nd AVE. S. AVE. 3rd S. TON AVE. AVE. 2nd S. 3rd A S. S. TON AVE. AVE. 4th S. AVE. 12:09:33 PM 10/22/2018 pw:\\srf-pw.bentley.com:srf-pw\documents\projects\10771\02_structures\planstruc\10771_tsh01.dgn PLAN SYMBOLS STATE LINE COUNTY LINE TOWNSHIP OR RANGE LINE SECTION LINE QUARTER LINE SIXTEENTH LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE PRESENT RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE CONTROL OF ACCESS LINE PROPERTY LINE (Except Land Lines) VACATED PLATTED PROPERTY CORPORATE OR CITY LIMITS P.I. P.I. TRUNK HIGHWAY CENTER LINE CONC. RETAINING WALL RAILROAD RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE RIVER OR CREEK DRY RUN 45 P.C. NAME SIZE DRAINAGE DITCH DRAIN TILE CULVERT DROP INLET GUARD RAIL P P BARBED WIRE FENCE WOVEN WIRE FENCE W W CHAIN LINK FENCE XC XC RAILROAD SNOW FENCE STONE WALL OR FENCE HEDGE RAILROAD CROSSING SIGN RAILROAD CROSSING BELL ELECTRIC WARNING SIGN CROSSING GATE MEANDER CORNER MAIL BOX MB SPRINGS MARSH TIMBER ORCHARD (TIMBER) BRUSH NURSERY CATCH BASIN C.B. FIRE HYDRANT CATTLE GUARD OVERPASS (Highway Over) UNDERPASS (Highway Under) BRIDGE BUILDING (One Story Frame) 1-S-F 75' F-FRAME C-CONCRETE S-STONE T-TILE B-BRICK ST-STUCCO IRON PIPE OR ROD MONUMENT (STONE, CONCRETE, OR METAL) WOODEN HUB GRAVEL PIT SAND PIT BORROW PIT ROCK QUARRY ROAD P.T. SHERIDAN V E. N THE 22nd 24th ISLES KENILWORTH PL. 3 P ST. K WY. Lake AVE. ST. PENN W. Lake of the Isles OLIVER W. FRA 35' KNOX ROAD STA UTILITY SYMBOLS Calhoun POWER POLE LINE TELEPHONE OR TELEGRAPH POLE LINE JOINT TELEPHONE AND POWER ON POWER POLES ON TELEPHONE POLES ANCHOR STEEL TOWER STREET LIGHT PEDESTAL (TELEPHONE CABLE TERMINAL.) GAS MAIN WATER MAIN CONDUIT TELEPHONE CABLE IN CONDUIT ELECTRIC CABLE IN CONDUIT TELEPHONE MANHOLE ELECTRIC MANHOLE BURIED TELEPHONE CABLE BURIED ELECTRIC CABLE AERIAL TELEPHONE CABLE SEWER, (SANITARY) SEWER, (STORM) SEWER MANHOLE HANDHOLE DESIGN DESIGNATION FOR: T R-VALUE G G I I T P T P T-BUR P-BUR V V V V V V V V HH G S B Q END CONSTRUCTION S.A.P C.P ROAD STA ADT (Current Year) 2017 = ADT (Future Year) 2037 = PAVEMENT DESIGN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION NO. OF TRAFFIC LANES NO. OF PARKING LANES ESALS (20) Design Speed Based on Sight Distance Height of eye / Height of Object Design Speed not achieved at: THIS PLAN AND/OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PROJECT, AND ANY RE-USE OF DETAILS OR SPECIFICATIONS ON OTHER PROJECTS IS NOT INTENDED OR AUTHORIZED BY THE DESIGNER. LIABILITY FOR ANY RE-USE ON OTHER PROJECTS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON, AGENCY, OR CORPORATION USING PLAN OR SPECIFICATION DATA FROM THIS PROJECT. THIS PROJECT IS BEING ADMINISTERED BY THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY, FURTHER REFERRED TO AS HENNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANS FOR: GRADING, AGGREGATE BASE, BITUMINOUS PAVING, BITUMINOUS TRAIL, CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, BRIDGE NO. 27J72 AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT BRIDGE NO. 27J72 BEGIN CONSTRUCTION S.A.P C.P FREMONT AVENUE S OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY AVE. W. ST. AVE. KENWOOD AVE. 21st ST. ST. OLIVER LAKE VE. A ON O F W. FREMONT AVE X X X X X X X X X X X X PKWY. T HE K N LIN E. ISLES 33rd S. 43 CALHOUN LOGAN CONIARIS AVE. OF PKWY. HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO S. KNO E. 26 THE ISLES 3 W. AVE. WAY th ST. IRVING S. THE JAM ES 25 ST. GROSS LENGTH BRIDGES-LENGTH EXCEPTIONS-LENGTH NET LENGTH REF. POINT LAKE S. HUM BOLDT AVE. LIN CO AVE. LAKE PL. EU CLID IRVING W. OO W K N AVE. HOLMES D W. HUM BOLDT AVE. W. W. ISL PL. S E R. D HENN MALL LAGOON STATE PROJ. NO HENN EPIN EPIN 25 ST. W. W. AVE. W. 31st EM ERSON 22 nd W. W. W. W. AVE. AVE. 43 W. 26 th DUPONT X XXXX X X 25 th 27 th 34 BRYANT A 28 th LA KE th th ST. W. X BRY 24 th ALD RICH LYN DALE 22 RIDGEWOOD FRANKLIN 5 ST. 32 nd ST. 33 rd ST. W. FEET FEET FEET FEET TO REF. POINT 35 th 36 th AVE. ST. ST. W. th EL ROY PLEA ST. MILES MILES MILES MILES XXXX LENGTH AND DESCRIPTION BASED UPON (FREMONT AVE S) AVE. ST. ST. VE. 29 PILLS BURY AVE. ST. BLAIS DELL LaS ST. ST. ST. INDEX MAP CECIL LA. ST. 3 ST. ST. 1st AVE. E. E. AVE. E. NEW MAN SCALE GENERAL LAYOUT PLAN ENTITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA". X X X X ENS STEV E. E. E. E. E. E. E. CLIN E. E. E CLIN 5 th 35W E. nd T 29 N SHEET NO. T1 T4-T5 B1-B49 C1-C8 MINN. PROJ. NO. BROS 2719( ) GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS THE 2016 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION" SHALL GOVERN. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM AND BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE TO THE "MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES" (MN MUTCD) AND PART VI, "FIELD MANUAL FOR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS". THE 2017 EDITION OF THE "STANDARD SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS". T2-T3 TITLE SHEET DETOUR PLANS BRIDGE PLANS CIVIL PLANS WATERMAIN PLANS INDEX SHEET DESCRIPTION STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED QUANTITIES THIS PLAN CONTAINS XX SHEETS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. SIGNATURE DATE XX/XX/XXXX LIC. NO PRINT NAME CASEY E. BLACK 20 APPROVED: MINNEAPOLIS CITY ENGINEER OR DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER 20 APPROVED: DIRECTOR, TRAFFIC & PARKING SERVICES 20 APPROVED: DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & DESIGN 20 APPROVED: DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & PROGRAMMING R 24 W 20 APPROVED: DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE & REPAIR 20 APPROVED: DIRECTOR, SURFACE WATER & SEWERS 20 APPROVED: DIRECTOR, WATER TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION 1000' ' RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: HENNEPIN COUNTY DESIGN DIVISION ENGINEER 50' PROFILE 50' 5' 20 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: HENNEPIN COUNTY ENGINEER X-SECTION 20' 20' 20 APPROVED: HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PLAN REVISIONS DATE SHEET NO. APPROVED BY REIVEWED FOR COMPLIANCE 20 PROJECT LOCATION WITH STATE AID RULES / POLICY DISTRICT STATE AID ENGINEER COUNTY : HENNEPIN APPROVED FOR STATE AID FUNDING 20 DISTRICT : METRO STATE AID ENGINEER THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO GUIDELINES OF CI/ASCE % PLAN SUBMITTAL SECTION 33 W1-W3 S.A.P SHEET NO. T1 OF T5 SHEETS

94 STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED QUANTITIES NOTES ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT (10) VIBRATION MONITORING LUMP SUM MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM FIELD OFFICE TYPE D EACH (1) CLEARING TREE (1) GRUBBING TREE (11) DISCONNECT WATER SERVICE EACH (11),(19) REMOVE WATER MAIN LIN FT (1) REMOVE CURB & GUTTER LIN FT (10) REMOVE CONCRETE RETAINING WALL LIN FT (1) REMOVE CHAIN LINK FENCE LIN FT (1) REMOVE BITUMINOUS WALK SQ FT (1) REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SQ YD (1) REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD (11) REMOVE MANHOLE EACH (11) REMOVE GATE VALVE EACH (1) SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT (1) SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT (10) SALVAGE FENCE LIN FT (1) SALVAGE CHAIN LINK FENCE LIN FT (1),(16) REMOVE MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES EACH (10) SALVAGE STONE RETAINING WALL SQ FT HAUL AND DISPOSE OF CONTAMINATED MATERIAL CU YD (2) EXCAVATION - COMMON (P) CU YD (2) EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE (P) CU YD (2) SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT MOD 10% (CV) (P) CU YD (2) COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV) (P) CU YD (4) STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) HOUR (2) AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 (P) CU YD (2) BITUMINOUS PATCH SPECIAL (P) SQ YD (2) TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,B) TON (2) TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,F) TON (2) TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIX (3,B) TON (10) STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (1G52) (P) CU YD (10) STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B52) (BR 27C50) (P) CU YD (10) TYPE MOD P-1 BARRIER CONC (3S52) (P) LIN FT NOTES: (10) SIDEWALK CONCRETE (3S52) (P) SQ FT (1) SEE REMOVAL PLAN. (10) REINFORCEMENT BARS (P) POUND (2) SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS FOR LOCATIONS. (10) REINFORCEMENT BARS (EPOXY COATED) (P) POUND (3) SEE CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND PROFILE. (10) REINFORCEMENT BARS (STAINLESS-60KSI) (P) POUND (4) SEE CONSTRUCTION/SOILS NOTES FOR DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATION RATES. (10),(18) STRUCTURE EXCAVATION LUMP SUM (5) SEE EROSION CONTROL AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT PLAN. (7) SEE LIGHTING PLANS AND DETAILS. (10) BRIDGE SLAB CONCRETE (3YHPC-S) (P) SQ FT (8) SEE PAVEMENT MARKING PLAN. (10) ORNAMENTAL METAL RAILING TYPE SPECIAL (P) LIN FT (9) SEE SIGN PANEL DETAIL. (10) ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD TYPE 1 (P) EACH (10) SEE BRIDGE PLANS. (1),(3),(13) SALVAGE & INSTALL METAL RAILING LIN FT (11) SEE WATERMAIN PLANS. (10) CONCRETE WEARING COURSE (3U17A) (P) SQ FT (12) SEE STAGING AND TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. (13) PROVIDE 4 CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS (INCIDENTAL). FOUNDATIONS SHALL BE 12-INCH DIAMETER CONCRETE FOOTINGS WITH 4'-6" MINIMUM DEPTH. CONCRETE SHALL BE (10) PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMS 36M (P) LIN FT MNDOT MIX (10) DIAPHRAGMS FOR TYPE 36M PRESTRESSED BEAMS (MOD.) (P) LIN FT (14) INCLUDES REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY LIGHTING SYSTEM BRIDGE APPROACH PANELS SQ YD (15) 6-FOOT HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE. PROVIDE A GATE IF DESIRED (INCIDENTAL). (10) PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL PANELS (P) SQ YD (16) REMOVAL INCLUDES (2) 2 - POST TIMBER SIGN STRUCTURES. 60% PLAN SUBMITTAL (18) ITEM INCLUDES EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL FOR BRIDGE NOS. 27C50 AND 27C51. EXCAVATION FOR WATERMAIN RELOCATIONS IS INCIDENTAL TO WATERMAIN BID ITEMS. (19) INCLUDES REMOVAL OF 6-INCH AND 8-INCH WATERMAIN ON CEDAR AVE. (20) INCLUDES PAYMENT FOR VIDEO TAPING BEFORE AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. (P) DENOTES PLAN QUANTITY. (10) STONE MASONRY VENEER SQ FT (10) ANCHORAGES TYPE REINF BARS EACH (10) MMA FLOOD SEAL (P) SQ FT (10) REMOVE EXISTING BRIDGE A LUMP SUM (10) TEMPORARY VERTICAL SHORING LUMP SUM TOTAL ESTIMATED QUANTITIES C.P S.A.P ROADWAY BRIDGE CITY (10) STEEL H-PILING AUGER CIP 10" EACH I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ENGINEER UNDER ARCHITECT THE LAWS UNDER OF THE LAWS STATE OF THE MINNESOTA. STATE OF MINNESOTA. 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE XX/XX/XX DESIGN BY: CAD BY: CHECKED BY: CASEY E. BLACK, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC S. NEFF E. JOHNSON C. BLACK STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED QUANTITIES (SHEET 1 OF 2) FREMONT AVE S OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT SHEET T2 T5 10/19/2018 4:22:23 PM pw:\\srf-pw.bentley.com:srf-pw\documents\projects\10771\02_structures\planstruc\10771_est01.dgn

95 STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED QUANTITIES NOTES ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT (10) STEEL H-PILING AUGER CIP 10" LOAD TEST EACH (1) CLEAN AND VIDEO TAPE PIPE SEWER LIN FT (10) DRAINAGE SYSTEM TYPE (B910) LUMP SUM (11) " WATERMAIN DUCTILE IRON 52 LIN FT (11) " WATERMAIN ENCASEMENT LIN FT (10) GROUTED RIPRAP CU YD (2),(3) " CONCRETE WALK SQ FT (2),(3) CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B624 LIN FT (10) CONDUIT SYSTEM (LIGHTING) LUMP SUM (10) CONDUIT SYSTEM (FIBER OPTIC A) LUMP SUM (10) CONDUIT SYSTEM (FIBER OPTIC B) LUMP SUM (10) CONDUIT SYSTEM (FIBER OPTIC C) LUMP SUM (7) LIGHTING UNIT TYPE SPECIAL 1 EACH (7) UNDERPASS LUMINAIRES TYPE LED EACH (7) LIGHT FOUNDATION DESIGN E MODIFIED EACH (7) " NON-METALLIC CONDUIT LIN FT (7) UNDERGROUND WIRE 1 COND NO 2 LIN FT (7) UNDERGROUND WIRE 1 COND NO 4 LIN FT (7) UNDERGROUND WIRE 1 COND NO 10 LIN FT (7) SERVICE CABINET EACH (7) UNDERGROUND CABLE SPLICE EACH (7) EQUIPMENT PAD EACH (7) HANDHOLE EACH (14) TEMPORARY LIGHTING SYSTEM LUMP SUM (7) " LIQUIDTIGHT FLEXIBLE CONDUIT LIN FT (10) WIRE FENCE DESIGN W-1 LIN FT (10) INSTALL FENCE LIN FT (3) INSTALL CHAIN LINK FENCE LIN FT TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM DETOUR SIGNING AND STRIPING LUMP SUM (9) SIGN PANELS TYPE SPECIAL (BRIDGE MOUNTED) EACH (5) DECIDUOUS TREE TREE (12),(15) TEMPORARY FENCE LIN FT (5) SILT FENCE, TYPE MS LIN FT (5) STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH NOTES: EROSION CONTROL SUPERVISOR LUMP SUM (1) SEE REMOVAL PLAN. (4) FERTILIZER TYPE 3 POUND (2) SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS FOR LOCATIONS SEEDING ACRE (3) SEE CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND PROFILE. (4) SEE CONSTRUCTION/SOILS NOTES FOR DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATION RATES. (4),(5) SEED MIXTURE POUND (5) SEE EROSION CONTROL AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT PLAN. (4),(5) SODDING TYPE SALT TOLERANT SQ YD (7) SEE LIGHTING PLANS AND DETAILS. (8) SEE PAVEMENT MARKING PLAN. (8) " SOLID LINE EPOXY LIN FT (9) SEE SIGN PANEL DETAIL. (8) " DOTTED LINE EPOXY LIN FT (10) SEE BRIDGE PLANS. (8) " SOLID LINE EPOXY GR IN LIN FT (11) SEE WATERMAIN PLANS. (8) " BROKEN LINE EPOXY GR IN LIN FT (12) SEE STAGING AND TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. (8) " DOUBLE SOLID LINE EPOXY GR IN LIN FT (13) PROVIDE 4 CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS (INCIDENTAL). FOUNDATIONS SHALL BE 12-INCH DIAMETER CONCRETE FOOTINGS WITH 4'-6" MINIMUM DEPTH. CONCRETE SHALL BE MNDOT MIX (14) INCLUDES REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY LIGHTING SYSTEM. (15) 6-FOOT HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE. PROVIDE A GATE IF DESIRED (INCIDENTAL). (16) REMOVAL INCLUDES (2) 2 - POST TIMBER SIGN STRUCTURES. 60% PLAN SUBMITTAL (18) ITEM INCLUDES EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL FOR BRIDGE NOS. 27C50 AND 27C51. EXCAVATION FOR WATERMAIN RELOCATIONS IS INCIDENTAL TO WATERMAIN BID ITEMS. (19) INCLUDES REMOVAL OF 6-INCH AND 8-INCH WATERMAIN ON CEDAR AVE. (20) INCLUDES PAYMENT FOR VIDEO TAPING BEFORE AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. (P) DENOTES PLAN QUANTITY. TOTAL ESTIMATED QUANTITIES C.P S.A.P ROADWAY BRIDGE CITY I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ENGINEER UNDER ARCHITECT THE LAWS UNDER OF THE LAWS STATE OF THE MINNESOTA. STATE OF MINNESOTA. 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE XX/XX/XX DESIGN BY: CAD BY: CHECKED BY: CASEY E. BLACK, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC S. NEFF E. JOHNSON C. BLACK STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED QUANTITIES (SHEET 2 OF 2) FREMONT AVE S OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT SHEET T3 T5 10/19/2018 4:22:26 PM pw:\\srf-pw.bentley.com:srf-pw\documents\projects\10771\02_structures\planstruc\10771_est02.dgn

96 C L E 28TH ST 8.0' 11.0' 11.0' 7.0' 7.0' PARK THRU LANE THRU LANE BIKE BIKE TYPICAL SECTION A-A E 28TH ST - GIRARD AVE S TO BRYANT AVE S STAGING/DETOUR CONFIGURATION C L GIRARD AVE S 8.0' PARK 15.0' SHARED THRU / BIKE LANE 8.0' PARK TYPICAL SECTION B-B GIRARD AVE S - MIDTOWN GREENWAY TO E 28TH ST STAGING/DETOUR CONFIGURATION C LBRYANT AVE S 8.0' PARK 15.0' SHARED THRU / BIKE LANE 8.0' PARK TYPICAL SECTION C-C BRYANT AVE S - MIDTOWN GREENWAY TO E 28TH ST STAGING/DETOUR CONFIGURATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE 10/19/ CHECKED BY: C. BRABAND MICHAEL J. MOHS, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC pw:\\srf-pw.bentley.com:srf-pw\documents\projects\10771\03_design\plan\finalplan\10771_ts02.dgn 10/19/2018 4:22:32 PM D. WALDEN J. VAN BECK DETOUR PLAN - TYPICAL SECTIONS FREMONT AVE S OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT SHEET T4 T5

97 LEGEND TRAIL CLOSURE AVE S AVE S AVE S DUPONT COLFAX EMERSON FREMONT AVE S DETOUR DETOUR A DETOUR SIGN DETOUR DETOUR THE ROAD SHARE TWO-WAY BIKE TRAFFIC GIRARD AVE S DIRECTION OF CYCLISTS TYPE III BARRICADE F LOW INTENSITY WARNING FLASHER, TYPE A SCALE IN FEET AVE S HENNEPIN C THE AHEAD DETOUR DETOUR F DETOUR CLOSED TRAIL ROAD DETOUR DETOUR END C SHARE DETOUR DETOUR B LYNDALE AVE S THE SHARE B ALDRICH ROAD DETOUR DETOUR AVE S BRYANT AVE S DETOUR DETOUR DETOUR DETOUR A DETOUR DETOUR W 28TH ST F MIDTOWN GREENWAY TRAIL DETOUR TRAIL LAGOON AVE F DETOUR CLOSED END TRAIL CLOSED DETOUR F DETOUR AHEAD DETOUR W 29TH ST F W LAKE ST I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE MICHAEL J. MOHS, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC 10/19/2018 4:22:42 PM pw:\\srf-pw.bentley.com:srf-pw\documents\projects\10771\03_design\plan\finalplan\10771_dl01.dgn LICENSE NO. 10/19/2018 DATE D. WALDEN CAD BY: J. VAN BECK CHECKED BY: C. BRABAND LAST REVISION: DETOUR PLAN - MIDTOWN GREENWAY FREMONT AVE S OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY SHEET T5 S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT T5

98 NOTES: THIS PROJECT IS BEING ADMINISTERED BY THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY, FURTHER REFERRED TO AS HENNEPIN COUNTY. THE FREMONT AVENUE BRIDGE IS CURRENTLY CLOSED TO ALL TRAFFIC AND WILL REMAIN CLOSED FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. BRIDGE IS LOCATED IN THE CM&StP GRADE SEPARATION HISTORIC DISTRICT, LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. 1 NON-STRUCTURAL AESTHETIC PIER. PIER DOES NOT SUPPORT SUPERSTRUCTURE. 2 MEASURED TO STRUCTURAL BEAM. SEE PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS FOR PANEL ELEVATIONS AND HEIGHTS. < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) & 3 LOW BEAM ELEVATION WORKING LINE MAINT. ROAD ELEVATION = VERTICAL MAINTENANCE ROAD = 19'-1 " VERTICAL FUTURE TRANSIT = 17'-7 " 4 SEE LIGHTING PLANS. 5 FUTURE TRANSIT CONSIDERATION ASSUMES TOP OF LRT RAIL ELEVATION APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO TOP OF REMOVED CM&S+P RAIL AT ELEVATION EXISTING BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE TO BE SALVAGED AND INSTALLED. SEE RETAINING WALL PLANS. 7 EXISTING MODULAR BLOCK WALL TO BE SALVAGED AND INSTALLED. SEE RETAINING WALL PLANS. 8 VARIES, 2'-8" MINIMUM. 9 VARIES, 1'-11 " MINIMUM. 10 VARIES, 11'-8ƒ" MINIMUM. 11 VARIES, 10'-1 " MINIMUM. 12 SEMI-INTEGRAL SOUTH ABUTMENT. CORNER DETAILS TO BE DEVELOPED IN COLLABORATION WITH ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS DURING FINAL DESIGN. PARAPET STYLE ABUTMENT TO BE USED IF CONDITIONS FOR A SEMI-INTEGRAL ABUTMENT CANNOT BE MET. CONSTRUCTION NOTES THE 2018 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION" SHALL GOVERN. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ALL XXXX.6XX SERIES PAY ITEMS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. BAR SIZES SHOWN IN THIS PLAN ARE IN US CUSTOMARY DESIGNATIONS. BARS MARKED WITH THE SUFFIX "E" SHALL BE EPOXY COATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPEC EXISTING RR ROW W. 29TH STREET HANDHOLE PVC STA PVC EL TRANSIT WAY EXIST. WALL TO REMAIN APPROACH PANEL METAL PIPE & CABLE RAILING SIDEWALK 75'-8" (OUT-TO-OUT) 1'-10" 1'-10" < BRG. S. ABUT. BRIDGE SIDEWALK NAMEPLATE INPLACE BRIDGE NO. L '-6" LONG x 48'-8" WIDE 3 SPAN CONTINUOUS CONCRETE DECK BUILT IN 1913 TO BE REMOVED UNDER BRIDGE PORTION OF CONTRACT TYPE MOD P-1 BARRIER CONCRETE (3S52) BEGIN BRIDGE STA EL CONDUIT SYSTEM (FUTURE) PROP. < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) AZ. = 0-14'-28.0" 3 5 MAINT. ROAD CONDUIT SYSTEM (FUTURE) < BRG. S. ABUT. STA E '-00.0" CONTROL POINT: SCALE 72'-0" < MIDTOWN GREENWAY TRAIL (XTRAIL) < PIER '-18.6" < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) STA < MIDTOWN GREENWAY TRAIL (XTRAIL) STA X= Y= GENERAL PLAN 13'-0" 10'-0" 1'-8" PVI STA PVI EL ' VC M = -1.23' G1 = +3.38% G2 = -3.19% ROADWAY NAME VERTICAL CLEAR PT. 'A' AZ.=89-41'-46.6" 1'-8" 10'-0" 13'-0" 49'-4" PROPOSED BRIDGE NO. 27J72 < BRG. N. ABUT. EXIST. WALL TO REMAIN 12'-3ƒ" VERTICAL CLEAR POINT 'A' E PRECAST ARCHITECURAL PANEL < BRG. N. ABUT. STA END BRIDGE STA E EXISTING ROW APPROACH PANEL EXISTING RR ROW HANDHOLE PVT STA PVT EL EL. 890 SIDEWALK VARIES VARIES SIDEWALK EXISTING ROW HL-93 LIVE LOAD DESIGN DATA DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2017 AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS DEAD LOAD INCLUDES 20 POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT ALLOWANCE FOR FUTURE WEARING COURSE MODIFICATIONS MATERIAL DESIGN PROPERTIES: REINFORCED CONCRETE: f'c = 4 KSI CONCRETE fy = 60 KSI PLAIN AND EPOXY COATED BARS fy = 60 KSI STAINLESS STEEL BARS n = 8 FOR REINFORCEMENT PRESTRESSED CONCRETE: f'c = 9 KSI CONCRETE fpu = 270 KSI LOW RELAXATION STRANDS n = 1 FOR REINFORCEMENT 0.75 fpu FOR INITIAL PRESTRESS DESIGN SPEED: OVER = 30 MPH UNDER = N/A APPROXIMATE DECK AREA = 3,733 SQUARE FEET 2038 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES: ROADWAY OVER 1,600 HL-93 LRFR ADT ROADWAY UNDER N/A BRIDGE OPERATING RATING FACTOR RF = x.xx B1 B2 B3 B4 - B8 B9 & B10 B11- B15 B16 - B19 B20 & B21 B22 B23 B24 & B30 B31- B38 B39 B40 & B41 B42- B45 B46 B47 B48 B49 LIST OF SHEETS GENERAL PLAN & ELEVATION TRANSVERSE SECTION & QUANTITIES BRIDGE LAYOUT STAGING PLANS SOUTH ABUTMENT REMOVAL DETAILS SOUTH ABUTMENT DETAILS NORTH ABUTMENT DETAILS PIER DETAILS FRAMING PLAN 27M PRESTRESSED BEAM DETAILS SUPERSTRUCTURE DETAILS RAILING DETAILS BRIDGE MOUNTED SIGN DETAILS WATERPROOF EXPANSION DEVICE B-DETAILS AS-BUILT BRIDGE DATA BRIDGE SURVEY BORINGS - PLAN & PROFILE SOIL BORINGS HENNEPIN COUNTY BARS MARKED WITH THE SUFFIX "S" SHALL BE STAINLESS STEEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. THE PILE LOADS SHOWN IN THE PLANS AND THE CORRESPONDING NOMINAL PILE BEARING RESISTANCE (Rn) WERE COMPUTED USING LRFD METHODOLOGY. PILE BEARING RESISTANCE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD SHALL INCORPORATE THE METHODS AND/OR FORMULAS DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CI/ASCE 38-02, ENTITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA". 12" DIA. C-I-P CONCRETE PILING 5 1:2 EL '-0" PROP. GROUNDLINE E F 4 EXISTING GROUNDLINE 11 LEVEL 12'-0" ROAD 4'-6" 6'-0" 1'-9" MAINT '-0" SPREAD WALK 1 FOOTING 8 3'-0" 2'-0" 14'-0" TRAIL 6'-0" 8'-0" ' ' EL. ` < MIDTOWN GREENWAY TRAIL (XTRAIL) 28'-0" 4 EL EL. 880 EL. 870 EL. 860 EL % PLANS BRIDGE NO. 27J72 FREMONT AVENUE SOUTH OVER THE MIDTOWN GREENWAY 0.14 MILES NORTHEAST OF EXISTING JUNCTION OF HENNEPIN AVE. & W.B. CSAH 43 (LAGOON AVE.) IN THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 72'-0" PRESTRESSED CONC. BEAM SPAN 26'-0" RDWY. 0-26'-15.7" SKEW, TWO TYPE MOD P-1 CONC. RAILS, TWO CONC. CURBS & TWO 10'-0" WALKS BRIDGE I.D. NO. 501 GENERAL PLAN AND ELEVATION SEC. 33 T 29 N R 24 W MINNEAPOLIS HENNEPIN COUNTY B.M. ELEVATION (NAVD88) ALUMINUM DISK "DUPONT" IN SW CORNER OF DUPONT AVE. BRIDGE OVER 29TH ST. GREENWAY SOUTH ABUTMENT GENERAL ELEVATION SCALE '-0" (FACE-TO-FACE) PIER 1 NORTH ABUTMENT APPROVED: APPROVED: MINNEAPOLIS CITY ENGINEER STATE BRIDGE ENGINEER DATE DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF GENERAL PLAN & ELEVATION DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B1 B49

99 NOTES: 1 MEASURED TO THE POINT AT BASE OF CONCRETE RAILING. SCHEDULE OF QUANTITIES FOR ENTIRE BRIDGE ITEM NO. ITEM UNIT QUANTITY SIDEWALK DIMENSION AS MEASURED TO THE POINT AT BASE OF CONCRETE RAILING PILASTER IS 9'-10". APPLY MMA FLOOD SEAL AFTER DECK IS CURED. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. ITEM SHALL BE QUANTIFIED AND PAID FOR AS ITEM ORNAMENTAL METAL RAILING TYPE SPECIAL. TOP OF DECK TO BE LEVEL BELOW CONCRETE BARRIER. SEE EDGE OF DECK DETAIL IN SUPERSTRUCTURE PLANS. PERMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION JOINT. CONTRACTOR SHALL FINISH EDGE OF DECK TO REDUCE THE APPEARANCE OF ANY COLD JOINT TO THE ENGINEER'S APPROVAL. CONDUIT SYSTEM (FUTURE) FOR CITY. STEEL DIAPHRAGM FOR PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL PANELS. SEE SUPERSTRUCTURE DETAILS VIBRATION MONITORING LUMP SUM TYPE MOD P-1BARRIER CONC (3S52) LIN FT STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (1G52) CU YD STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B52) CU YD SIDEWALK CONCRETE (3F52) SQ FT REINFORCEMENT BARS POUND (P) REINFORCEMENT BARS (EPOXY COATED) POUND (P) REINFORCEMENT BARS (STAINLESS-60KSI) POUND (P) STRUCTURE EXCAVATION LUMP SUM BRIDGE DECK PLANING SQ FT BRIDGE SLAB CONCRETE (3YHPC-M) SQ FT BEARING ASSEMBLY EACH (P) ORNAMENTAL METALRAILING TYPE SPECIAL LIN FT PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMS 27M LIN FT DIAPHRAGMS FOR TYPE 27M PRESTRESSED BEAMS LIN FT BRIDGE APPROACH PANELS SQ YD TEMPORARY RETAINING WALL LIN FT PRECAST ARCHITECTURALPANELS SQ YD MMA FLOOD SEAL SQ FT REMOVE EXISTING BRIDGE LUMP SUM C-I-P CONCRETE TESTPILE 80FTLONG 12" EACH C-I-P CONCRETE PILING 12" LIN FT DRAINAGE SYSTEM TYPE (B910) LUMP SUM CONDUIT SYSTEM (FUTURE) LUMP SUM CONDUIT SYSTEM (LIGHTING) LUMP SUM (P) (P) (P) (P) (P) (P) (P) (P) (P) (P) (P) (P) (P) 49'-4" (OUT-TO-OUT) 26'-0" (ROADWAY) 3'-6" 2'-8" 10" 1'-1" 1'-8" 10'-0" 1 5 SIDEWALK CONCRETE (3F52) SEE DETAIL 'A' ON ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS SHEET 4".015 ' ' ' ' 2'-0" SHLD. 6" 11'-0" LANE MMA FLOOD SEAL 3 9" CONC. DECK (3YHPC-M).02 ' ' 11'-0" LANE < FREMONT AVE. & WORKING LINE PROFILE GRADE (FREMONT).02 ' ' 2'-0" SHLD. 10'-0" 1 2 SIDEWALK CONCRETE (3F52).0317 ' '.015 ' ' 1'-8" 5 METAL PIPE & CABLE RAILING 4 TYPE MOD P-1 BARRIER CONC. (3S52) 6 6 VARIES 2'-0" TO 4'-5ƒ " 1" GAP 4" 8 2'-5" 7 SLOPE TO MATCH TOP OF DECK 27" PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM (TYPE MnDOT 27M) CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE DIAPHRAGM AT PIER 3'-3" 2 4'-10" = 9'-8" 4 5'-10 " = 23'-6" 2 4'-10" = 9'-8" 2'-5" 7 8 3'-3" PRECAST ARCH. PANELS WEST SIDE TYPICAL SECTIONS (SYMMETRICAL ABOUT WORKING LINE) EAST SIDE 0 5 SCALE BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF TRANSVERSE SECTION & SCHEDULE OF QUANTITIES DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B2 B49

100 72'-0" 50'-7 " 21'-4 " < WEST FASCIA BEAM < BRG. SOUTH ABUTMENT < PIER < BRG. NORTH ABUTMENT 9" SLAB.0317 ' ' TOP OF FINISHED DECK ' ' SLOPE BOTTOM TO MATCH ROADWAY FASCIA BEAM 1 W.P. 'A' 21'-5" 21'-5" < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) & WORKING LINE W.P. 'C' 102 AZ. = 0-14'-28.0" '-00.0" PC PT AZ.=89-41'-46.6" W.P. 'B' W.P. 'D' 89-27'-18.6 CONTROL POINT: < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) STA < MIDTOWN GREENWAY TRAIL (XTRAIL) STA X= Y= W.P. 'E' W.P. 'F' SIDEWALK DETAIL < EAST FASCIA BEAM 41'-6" Dc=11-27'-33.0" < MIDTOWN GREENWAY TRAIL (XTRAIL) 30'-6" WORKING POINT LAYOUT SCALE 0 20 TOP OF ROADWAY TO BRIDGE SEAT SLAB THICKNESS STOOL HEIGHT BEAM HEIGHT BEARING HEIGHT INCHES TOTAL FEET SOUTH ABUTMENT 9" 2" 27" 5 1/4" 43 1/4" 3.60' NORTH ABUTMENT 9" 2" 27" 3 1/4" 41 1/4" 3.44' DIMENSIONS BETWEEN WORKING POINTS ELEVATION NOTES: POINT STATION X-COORDINATE Y-COORDINATE A B C D E F TOP OF FIN. DECK BRIDGE FIN. DECK TO BR. SEAT SEAT POINT 1 NON-STRUCTURAL AESTHETIC PIER. PIER DOES NOT SUPPORT SUPERSTRUCTURE. A A B B C C D D E E F F BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF BRIDGE LAYOUT DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B3 B49

101 TEMPORARY SHORING FOR ABUTMENT REMOVALS REMOVE CONC. RAILING, DECK, BEAMS & ABUT. & PIER DIAPHRAGMS TEMPORARY SHORING TO MAINTAIN TRANSIT WAY BRIDGE EXCAVATION PIERS CONSTRUCTED MONOLITHIC WITH DECK, ACTUAL STAGE PIER REMOVAL LIMIT TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR MAINT. ROAD TEMP. PATH CLOSURE TEMP. TRAIL CLOSURE BRIDGE EXCAVATION SALVAGE FENCE PROTECT EXIST. PATH PROTECT EXIST. TRAIL SALVAGE OR PROTECT MBW PROTECT MBW EXIST. SOUTH ABUTMENT (WEST END SHOWN) EXIST. NORTH ABUTMENT EXIST. PIER 1 EXIST. PIER 2 STAGE 1 SECTION ON ALIGNMENT TEMPORARY SHORING FOR ABUTMENT REMOVALS WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PHASE 1 PARTIAL ABUT. REMOVAL CLEAR AREA OF DEBRIS MAINT. ROAD PATH (OPEN) TRAIL (OPEN) BRIDGE & WATER MAIN EXCAVATION INSTALL FENCE EXIST. SOUTH ABUTMENT (MID-ABUT. SHOWN) EXIST. NORTH ABUTMENT EXIST. PIER 1 EXIST. PIER 2 STAGE 2A SECTION ON ALIGNMENT BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF STAGING PLANS (SHEET 1 OF X) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B4 B49

102 TEMPORARY SHORING FOR ABUTMENT REMOVALS FULL ABUT. REMOVAL PIER REMOVAL PATH (OPEN) TRAIL (OPEN) WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PHASE 2 TEMP. SHORING AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN MBW EXIST. SOUTH ABUTMENT (EAST END SHOWN) TEMP. SHORING FOR ABUT. & WM CONST. & PATH SALVAGE MBW EXIST. NORTH ABUTMENT WATER MAIN ENCASEMENT BRIDGE & WATER MAIN EXCAVATION EXIST. PIER 2 FTG & PILE NOT TO CONFLICT PROP. SOUTH ABUTMENT EXIST. PIER 1 STAGE 2B SECTION ON ALIGNMENT TEMPORARY SHORING FOR ABUTMENT REMOVALS FULL ABUT. REMOVAL PIER REMOVAL BURIED PARTIAL ABUTMENT SALVAGE FENCE REMOVE PATH REMOVE TRAIL WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PHASE 3A SALVAGE MSE WALL EXIST. SOUTH ABUTMENT (MID-ABUT. SHOWN) BRIDGE EXCAVATION EXIST. NORTH ABUTMENT WATER MAIN EXCAVATION WATER MAIN ENCASEMENT PROP. SOUTH ABUTMENT EXIST. PIER 2 STAGE 3 SECTION ON ALIGNMENT BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF STAGING PLANS (SHEET 1 OF X) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B5 B49

103 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PHASE 3B MAINT. ROAD PATH (OPEN) TRAIL (OPEN) (LIFT 1) (BIT. LIFT 1) BURIED PARTIAL ABUTMENT INSTALL FENCE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PHASE 2 EXIST. SOUTH ABUTMENT (MID-ABUT. SHOWN) INSTALL MSE WALL PROP. SOUTH ABUTMENT PROP. PIER PROP. NORTH ABUTMENT STAGE 4 SECTION ON ALIGNMENT CONSTRUCT PIPE & CABLE RAILING, CONC. RAILING, SIDEWALK, DECK & BEAMS W/ OPEN PATH & TRAIL. PROTECT OR SHIFT PEDS. AND BIKES AS NEEDED. MAINT. ROAD PATH (OPEN) TRAIL (OPEN) (FINISHED) (FINISHED) PROP. SOUTH ABUTMENT PROP. PIER PROP. NORTH ABUTMENT STAGE 5 ELEVATION BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF STAGING PLANS (SHEET 1 OF X) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B6 B49

104 MIN. LIMIT OF CLASS 5 PROTECTION MATERIAL FOR TEMP. TRANSIT WAY SURFACING SCALE FEET PARCEL FREMONT AVE. S. PARCEL FREMONT AVE. S. LIMIT OF EXIST. BUILDING 12'-0" MIN. TEMPORARY TRANSIT WAY TEMP. EASEMENT MAINT. ROAD PATH (OPEN) TRAIL (OPEN) EXIST. ABUT. TEMP. SHORING TEMP. FENCE TEMP. CONC. BARRIER EXIST. PIER EXIST. PIER WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PHASE 1 MIN. LIMIT OF CLASS 5 PROTECTION MATERIAL FOR TEMP. TRANSIT WAY SURFACING PARTIAL ABUT. REMOVAL TEMP. SHORING TEMP. FENCE EXIST. MBW EXIST. MBW TEMP. CONC. BARRIER FULL ABUT. REMOVAL INSTALL FENCE CLEAR AREA OF DEBRIS PRIVATE PARCEL 2901 FREMONT AVE. S. STAGING PLAN - STAGE 2A I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF STAGING PLANS (SHEET 1 OF X) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ BRIDGE NO. 27J72 PARCEL 4 SHEET B7 B49

105 MIN. LIMIT OF CLASS 5 PROTECTION MATERIAL FOR TEMP. TRANSIT WAY SURFACING MAINT. ROAD PATH TRAIL SCALE FEET PARCEL FREMONT AVE. S. PARCEL FREMONT AVE. S. LIMIT OF EXIST. BUILDING TEMP. EASEMENT MAINT. ROAD TEMP. FENCE TEMP. CONC. BARRIER WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PHASE 3A TEMP. FENCE MIN. LIMIT OF CLASS 5 PROTECTION MATERIAL FOR TEMP. TRANSIT WAY SURFACING TEMP. FENCE BURIED PARTIAL ABUT. SALVAGE MBW TEMP. SHORING TEMP. CONC. BARRIER SALVAGE FENCE FULL ABUT. REMOVAL PRIVATE PARCEL 2901 FREMONT AVE. S. FULL WALL REMOVAL STAGING PLAN - STAGE 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF STAGING PLANS (SHEET 1 OF X) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ BRIDGE NO. 27J72 PARCEL 4 SHEET B8 B49

106 `16'-5 " MIN. `7'-0" `9'-5 " MIN. `18'-9" FULL REMOVAL `18'-1" E E A B C PROP. WATER MAIN, SEE WATER MAIN PLANS D `16'-9" CONC. RAILING & WING WALL REMOVED TO `3' BELOW EXISTING GRADE BY OTHERS TO REMAIN `8" A B C 2'-0" MIN. WM REMOVAL D `2'-7" `8" `6'-11" `8'-10 " `39'-11 " `6'-11" `15'-9 " MIN. FULL REMOVAL `46'-10 " PARTIAL REMOVAL PLAN `15'-9 " MIN. FULL REMOVAL `46'-10 " PARTIAL REMOVAL `8" `6'-11" `8'-10 " `39'-11 " `6'-11" A D B C EL MIN. REMOVAL EL. ` `INV SEE WM PLANS EL NOTES: EXIST. GROUNDLINE MIN. REMOVAL DENOTES REMOVALS 2'-0" MIN. `19'-5 " EL. ` TEXT `EL A B C D ELEVATION BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF SOUTH ABUTMENT REMOVAL DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 2) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B9 B49

107 15'-11" 2'-6" 11'-6" 3'-4" 1'-1" 3'-6" 3'-0" 6'-0" 1'-5" 4" 1'-6" 1'-0" 11'-6" 2'-6" SUPERSTRUCTURE REMOVAL 3'-6" 6'-0" 1'-6" 4" 1'-0" 1'-3" SUPERSTRUCTURE REMOVAL EL MIN. REMOVAL 1'-6" 4" 1'-11 " 1'-1" 1'-3" 3'-4" EL MIN. REMOVAL 3'-0" 1'-5" 4" 1'-6" 1'-11 " 2'-0" 13'-2 " 3'-0" 1'-5" 4" 1'-6" 2'-0" 4'-0" 1'-0" 7'-0" 10'-6" 10'-6" SECTION E-E (FULL REMOVAL) SECTION A-A SECTION B-B SECTION C-C SECTION D-D (FULL REMOVAL) (FULL REMOVAL) (PARTIAL REMOVAL) (PARTIAL REMOVAL) NOTES: DENOTES REMOVALS 1. TEXT BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF SOUTH ABUTMENT REMOVAL DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 2) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B10 B49

108 12'-0" SOUTH ABUTMENT COMPUTED PILE LOAD - TONS/PILE FACTORED DEAD LOAD + EARTH PRESSURE x.x FACTORED LIVE LOAD x.x * FACTORED DESIGN LOAD x.x * BASED ON STRENGTH xx LOAD COMBINATION 16'-8" 12'-6" 1'-6" 9'-6" 1'-6" PILE SPACING PILE NOTES: X - 12" C-I-P TEST PILES, XX FEET LONG. XX - 12" C-I-P PILES, ESTIMATED LENGTH XX FEET LONG. XX - 12" C-I-P PILES REQUIRED FOR XX ABUTMENT. 16'-0" 6'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0 " W.P. 'E' 90-00'-00.0" INPLACE BRIDGE NO. L8901 ABUTMENT FOOTING < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) & WORKING LINE W.P. 'C' < BRG. S. ABUT. W.P. 'A' 18'-6" 6'-0" 24'-6" PILE SPACING SHOWN IS AT BOTTOM OF FOOTING. PILES MARKED THUS SHALL BE BATTERED 3" PER FOOT IN THE DIRECTION SHOWN. PILES SHALL HAVE A NOMINAL DIAMETER OF 12". FOR PILE SPLICE, SEE DETAIL B201. PILE SPACING (BACK ROW) PILE SPACING (FRONT ROW) WORKING POINT SPACING 8'-1" 21'-5" 21'-5" 8'-1" 59'-0" FOOTING PLAN BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF SOUTH ABUTMENT DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 6) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: E. HANSON S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B11 B49

109 FOOTING 3'-2" 8" 1'-6" 1'-10" 1'-6" 9" 4" 42-57'-53.6" 1'-6" < BRG. E C REFERENCE LINE 4" COPING 4" 3'-9 " FOOTING 1'-3 " 2'-10" 1'-6" 3" 1'-4" 3" 1'-3" 5'-1 " 3 " 10'-2 " REFERENCE LINE 1'-10" 2 1 SOUTHWEST CORNER DETAIL 2" 1'-6" < BEAM 1'-6" 3" COPING 3'-0" D D BRIDGE SEAT TYPE 1 DETAIL E F SEE SOUTHWEST REFERENCE LINE INPLACE BRIDGE NO. L8901 ABUTMENT FOOTING CORNER DETAIL 1'-6" < BRG. 1'-0" 27'-6" 1'-6" B 2 1'-10" CONSTRUCTION JOINT W/ 3" x 12" KEYWAY W/ MEMBRANE WATERPROOFING SYSTEM PER MnDOT B REQUIRED. (A 24 HOUR DELAY IS REQUIRED BETWEEN ADJACENT POURS FOR VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION JOINT) - 1 SEE BRIDGE SEAT TYPE 2 DETAIL 1 W.P. 'E' B3 B2 1'-6" 1'-6" 1'-9" SEE BRIDGE SEAT TYPE 1 DETAIL (TYP. U.N.O.) 90-00'-00.0" B2 B2 B2 < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) & WORKING LINE 90-00'-00.0" W.P. 'C' FRONT FACE REFERENCE G END BLOCK 1 SEE BRIDGE SEAT TYPE 2 DETAIL W.P. 'A' B2 LINE B2 B2 B1 1'-10" 2 REF. LINE G B 1'-6" 15'-3" 1'-0" 2'-10" 2" 1'-6" 1'-4" 3" COPING < BEAM 1'-6" 1'-7" 3'-1" BRIDGE SEAT TYPE 2 DETAIL BEAM SPACING WORKING POINT SPACING CONSTRUCTION JOINT SPACING C F 2'-11" 2 4'-10" 4 5'-10 " = 23'-6" 2 4'-10" 2'-11" = 9'-8" = 9'-8" 2'-11" 21'-5" 21'-5" 2'-11" 1'-4" 20'-6" 25'-6" 1'-4" 48'-8" NOTES: 1 PAYMENT FOR MEMBRANE WATERPROOFING SYSTEM SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B52). 2 DIMENSION AT TOP OF WALL. PLAN BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF SOUTH ABUTMENT DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 6) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: E. HANSON S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B12 B49

110 4'-9" 3" 1'-6" 1'-6" 1'-6" EL. 8XX.XX EL. 8XX.XX EL EL EL EL. 8XX.XX EL A EL EL EL EL. 8XX.XX EL. 8XX.XX 1'-4" 8" BRIDGE SLAB CONCRETE (3YHPC-M) TO BE INCLUDED IN SUPERSTRUCTURE QUANTITIES 1'-3" MIN. EL EL (LEVEL) 1'-4" EL EAST 3" REFERENCE LINE 2" EL CONST. JOINT 4'-9" 1 3 1'-6" 3" 1'-3" EL EL EL EL EL '-1 " MIN. 2'-0" 4'-9" 9'-6" 17'-9 " < BRG. START OF RADIUS 1'-6" 1'-6" 2'-0" 2'-3" CONST. JOINT 7'-3" PROPOSED GROUNDLINE ELEVATION B-B LINE 3" REFERENCE 2" VARIES 2'-0" A R = 4'-9" 9'-6" EL < BRG. 2'-0" EL '-0" CONST. JOINT 4'-9" " +0 REFERENCE LINE 1'-4" EL WEST 3'-9" 23'-8" 1" EL PILE SPACING 6" CONSTRUCTION JOINT W/ 2"x4" KEYWAY PERMISSIBLE CONST. JOINT W/ 2"x6" KEYWAY 1 < BRG. BACK FACE FRONT FACE & REFERENCE LINE 4'-6" 4'-6" 7'-0" 3" '-0" PILE 3 3 CUTOFF 1'-6" 5'-0" 8'-0" 1'-6" 24'-0" VARIES 3'-6" STRUC. STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B52) CONCRETE (1G52) 2'-0" 1'-9" 2'-0" 1'-9" 16'-0" 7 " 1'-7" W.P. 3" 7 " 1'-7" W.P. 3" SECTION A-A NOTES: 3'-1" AT BACKWALL FRONT FACE OF ABUTMENT & REFERENCE LINE 3'-1" AT STEM FRONT FACE OF ABUTMENT & REFERENCE LINE 1 MEMBRANE WATERPROOFING SYSTEM PER MnDOT SPEC B RQUIRED IF JOINT IS USED. PAYMENT FOR MEMBRANE WATERPROOFING SYSTEM SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO "STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3YHPC-M)". CORNER DETAIL (SE CORNER SHOWN, SW CORNER SIMILAR) CORNER DETAIL (SE CORNER SHOWN, SW CORNER SIMILAR) 2 4" PERFORATED PIPE, SEE DETAIL B910 FOR DRAINAGE DETAILS. (WINGWALL COPING NOT SHOWN) BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF SOUTH ABUTMENT DETAILS (SHEET 3 OF 6) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: E. HANSON S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B13 B49

111 29'-0" 2'-6" 2'-6" 16'-9" EL '-6" EL H EL EL EL EL EL H 1'-6" EL EL '-4 " 4'-0 " 11" EL. 884.XX EL '-0" R = 25'-0" R = 25'-0" R = 1'-0" R = 1'-0" 2" 2" 8'-3" 11'-5" 8'-3" +3" SEE DETAIL 'C' SEE DETAIL 'C' +3" R = 25'-0" R = 1'-0" 2" 2'-0" 1'-0" SEE DATE IMPRINT 6" DETAILS 8'-3" 7'-6" PROPOSED GROUNDLINE +3" +3" +0 REFERENCE LINE +0 REFERENCE LINE PROPOSED GROUNDLINE 22'-6 " 22'-6 " EL EL EL EL H ELEVATION C-C 6'-2" 10'-2 " H 1'-6" 3'-2" 1'-6" EL EL '-8 " EL J 6'-11 " 1'-6" EL ELEVATION F-F ELEVATION G-G 2'-0" PROPOSED GROUNDLINE ƒ" 3ƒ" 1'-3" 3ƒ" PROPOSED GROUNDLINE +3" K +0 REFERENCE LINE +4 " +3" +5" K 3ƒ " 3'-8ƒ " ƒ " ƒ " 4'-5ƒ " MIN. REFERENCE LINE 3" 3ƒ" 1'-3" ƒ" ƒ" 2'-0" 2" 3ƒ" 1'-6" EL EL DETAIL 'C' SECTION K-K J ELEVATION D-D ELEVATION E-E BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF SOUTH ABUTMENT DETAILS (SHEET 4 OF 6) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: E. HANSON S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B14 B49

112 1'-6 " 0 " 1'-6" 0 " VAR. 1'-1" SEE DETAIL 'B' 4" 3" 1'-10" 3" 4'-5 " 0ƒ" 0 " 0 " FACE OF ABUT. BEGIN BACK OF LETTERING IMPRINT RECESS BACK OF LETTERING RECESS " CHAMFER ALL BACK OF IMPRINT FACE OF ABUT. 6.0" 10.3" M M 13.9" 1.2" 5.5" 1.3" (LETTERING) 0 " 8" 0 " 8 " 1.2" 15.6" (LETTERING) 1.2" SECTION M-M ELEVATION 1 24 DATE IMPRINT DETAILS 3'-9" VARIES EL FRONT FACE & REFERENCE LINE 5'-2" 3" VAR. BACK FACE 1 3'-6" VARIES STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B52) STRUC. CONCRETE (1G52) SEE DETAIL 'B' 2'-6" VARIES 4" FRONT FACE & REFERENCE LINE 6" EL '-10" BACK FACE 1 24 VAR. 3" 1 (LETTERING TO BE "2019" SABLON UP 420% SPACING) VARIES STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B52) 1'-1" 2" 2'-3" STRUC. CONC. (1G52) 1" 9" 1" 3 " 1" 1" 2" DETAIL 'B' 12 1'-0" PILE 3 CUTOFF 12 1'-0" PILE 3 CUTOFF PILE SPACING 1'-6" 9'-6" 1'-6" PILE SPACING 1'-6" 7'-6" 1'-6" 12'-6" 10'-6" SECTION H-H SECTION J-J NOTES: 1 4" PERFORATED PIPE, SEE DETAIL B910 FOR DRAINAGE DETAILS. BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF SOUTH ABUTMENT DETAILS (SHEET 5 OF 6) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: E. HANSON S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B15 B49

113 NORTH ABUTMENT COMPUTED PILE LOAD - TONS/PILE FACTORED DEAD LOAD + EARTH PRESSURE 77.4 FACTORED LIVE LOAD 14.2 * FACTORED DESIGN LOAD 91.6 * BASED ON STRENGTH I LOAD COMBINATION PILE NOTES: PILE SPACING 1'-6" TEST PILE NO. 6 < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) & WORKING LINE 6'-3 " 1'-6" PILE SPACING (BACK ROW) PILE SPACING TEST PILE NO. 7 1'-6" 11'-0" 8'-0" EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN 1'-0" SHEAR LUG 1'-6" 2 4'-9" 1'-6" PILE SPACING (FRONT ROW) = 9'-6" 19'-1" 22'-7" 2-12" C-I-P TEST PILES, 30 FEET LONG " C-I-P PILES, ESTIMATED LENGTH 25 FEET LONG " C-I-P PILES REQUIRED FOR NORTH ABUTMENT. PILE SPACING SHOWN IS AT BOTTOM OF FOOTING. PILES MARKED THUS SHALL BE BATTERED 3" PER FOOT IN THE DIRECTION SHOWN. PILES SHALL HAVE A NOMINAL DIAMETER OF 12". FOR PILE SPLICE, SEE DETAIL B '-0" 3'-6" 6'-6" 7'-0" 1'-0" SHEAR LUG W.P. 'B' 90-00'-00.0" W.P. 'D' < BRG. N. ABUT. W.P. 'F' 3'-6" 1'-6" 2'-6" SHEAR LUG FRONT FACE OF ABUTMENT & REFERENCE LINE PILE SPACING 1'-6" 7 8'-0" = 56'-0" 1'-6" (BACK ROW) PILE SPACING 1'-6" 9 EQUAL ABT. 6'-2 " = 56'-0" 1'-6" (FRONT ROW) WORKING POINT 8'-1" 21'-5" 21'-5" 8'-1" SPACING 59'-0" FOOTING PLAN BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF NORTH ABUTMENT DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: E. HANSON S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B16 B49

114 EXISTING RETAINING WALL 1'-6" 4'-4" 1'-0" 1'-6" 10'-11" 4'-5" FRONT FACE OF ABUTMENT & REFERENCE LINE 1'-10" 4 1 3'-10ƒ" < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) & WORKING LINE CONSTRUCTION JOINT W/ 3" x 12" KEYWAY W/ MEMBRANE WATERPROOFING SYSTEM PER MnDOT B REQUIRED. (A 24 HOUR DELAY IS REQUIRED BETWEEN ADJACENT POURS FOR VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION JOINT) - 1 < BRG. N. ABUT. < FREMONT AVE. W.P. 'B' 1'-10" 1'-6" 1'-0" SEE BRIDGE SEAT (FREMONT) & DETAIL WORKING LINE 90-00'-00.0" W.P. 'D' W.P. 'F' B1 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B2 B3 1'-10" 4 1 3'-10ƒ" 1'-5" 1'-6" 19'-1" PRECAST ARCH. PANEL 4" SEE DETAIL 'A' 14'-6" 1" 1'-0" 1" < BRG. FRONT FACE & REFERENCE LINE 2'-0" 6" 1'-6" 1'-6" 4'-0" BACK FACE 4'-0" 2 VARIES 13'-10" 1'-0" STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B52) BEAM SPACING 7'-7" 2 4'-10" 4 5'-10 " = 23'-6" 2 4'-10" 7'-7" WORKING POINT SPACING CONSTRUCTION JOINT 1'-6" 7'-7" = 9'-8" 25'-10" 29'-2" = 9'-8" 7'-7" 1'-6" 2'-9" EL '-6" STRUC. CONC. (1G52) SPACING 58'-0" 3 12 PLAN PILE SPACING 1'-6" 7'-0" 1'-6" EL EL EL '-0" EL EL A 1'-0" EL SECTION A-A EL EL EL EL EL EL EL EL EL " SEE DATE IMPRINT DETAILS EL " 1" CONSTRUCTION JOINT CONSTRUCTION JOINT CONSTRUCTION JOINT 1'-0" EL PROPOSED GROUNDLINE EL ƒ" CHAMFER 4" DETAIL 'A' NOTES: EL PAYMENT FOR MEMBRANE WATERPROOFING SYSTEM SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B52). 2 4" NOMINAL DIA. PERFORATED PIPE, SEE DETAIL B910. WEST SIDE ELEVATION A EAST SIDE 3 4 ELEVATION IS AT THE ABUTMENT REFERENCE LINE. DIMENSION AT TOP OF WALL. BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF NORTH ABUTMENT DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: E. HANSON S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B17 B49

115 1'-8 " 12'-5" 9'-2 " 1'-6" 4" 4" 1'-6" 20'-7" 17'-4 " 1'-8 " B EL EL EL EL EL C EL '-6" EL SEE DETAIL 'B' SEE DETAIL 'B' PROPOSED GROUNDLINE PROPOSED GROUNDLINE 1'-1" 4" 1'-0" 1'-1" 4" 1'-0" 0ƒ" 0 " 0 " B NORTHWEST WINGWALL ELEVATION FACE OF ABUT. BACK OF IMPRINT RECESS BACK OF LETTERING RECESS " CHAMFER ALL AROUND BEGIN LETTERING EL EL " 1'-6" 0 BACK OF IMPRINT FACE OF ABUT. 6.0" 1'-6 " 10.3" M M 13.9" C NORTHEAST WINGWALL ELEVATION 1.2" 5.5" 1.3" (LETTERING) 0 " 8" 0 " 8 " VARIES 2'-9" FRONT FRONT FACE & FACE & REFERENCE REFERENCE LINE BACK FACE LINE BACK FACE 6" VAR. 6" VAR. VARIES 1 1 EL EL SECTION B-B VARIES 2'-6" STRUC. STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B52) CONC. (1G52) VARIES 2'-9" 12 3 PILE SPACING 1'-6" 8'-0" 11'-0" SECTION C-C 1'-6" VARIES 2'-6" STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B52) STRUC. CONC. (1G52) 1.2" 15.6" (LETTERING) 1.2" SECTION M-M ELEVATION NOTES: DATE IMPRINT DETAILS 1 PAYMENT FOR MEMBRANE WATERPROOFING SYSTEM SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B52). (LETTERING TO BE "2019" SABLON UP 420% SPACING) BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF NORTH ABUTMENT DETAILS (SHEET 3 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: E. HANSON S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B18 B49

116 4" 1'-6" SEE DETAIL 'B' 1'-0" 1'-6" 1'-11" COPING MEMBRANE WATERPROOFING 1 D VARIES 1'-1" 4" PERMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION JOINT < BRG. FRONT FACE & REFERENCE LINE 1'-6" 1'-0" 1'-6" 1'-0" BACK FACE VARIES STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B52) SEE DETAIL 'B' " VARIES STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B52) REFERENCE LINE 4" 1'-6" 1'-0" 2'-9" 3'-4" FRONT FACE OF ABUTMENT & REFERENCE LINE 2'-2 " D 7'-7" CORNER DETAIL W.P. 4" 1'-6" 1'-0" 1'-6" COPING EXISTING RETAINING WALL E E 1'-7" 1'-6" 4" COPING FRONT FACE OF WINGWALL & REFERENCE LINE NORTHEAST CORNER DETAIL 1'-6" (NW CORNER SHOWN, NE CORNER SIMILAR) (ABOVE ABUTMENT STEM) 2'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" VARIES VAR. 6" 1 1 4" VARIES 2'-9" EL '-6" STRUC. CONC. (1G52) 2'-6" 2'-9" STRUC. CONC. (1G52) COPING D MEMBRANE WATERPROOFING 1 REFERENCE '-0" PILE CUTOFF 1'-0" PILE CUTOFF 12 3 LINE PILE SPACING 1'-6" 7'-0" 1'-6" 1'-6" 8'-0" 1'-6" PILE SPACING 1'-6" 10'-0" 11'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" SECTION D-D SECTION E-E 3 " 2" 1'-6" 9" 1" 1" 2'-4" 1'-0" 1'-4" 1'-6" 1'-6" FRONT FACE OF ABUTMENT & REFERENCE LINE D 7'-7" 2'-2 " W.P. 4" COPING 2" CORNER DETAIL (NW CORNER SHOWN, NE CORNER SIMILAR) (THRU ABUTMENT STEM) 1" 1" < BEAM 4" COPING 2" 1'-8" 1'-8" NOTES: DETAIL 'B' 3'-4" BRIDGE SEAT DETAIL 1 4" NOMINAL DIA. PERFORATED PIPE, SEE DETAIL B910. BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF NORTH ABUTMENT DETAILS (SHEET 4 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: E. HANSON S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B19 B49

117 SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES : PIER ITEM UNIT QUANTITY < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) & PIER STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (1G52) STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B52) REINFORCEMENT BARS REINFORCEMENT BARS (EPOXY COATED) CU. YD. CU. YD. POUND POUND 8'-3" 3'-3" 8'-3" 1'-7 " 1'-7 " 8'-3" 3'-3" 8'-3" 3'-1 " 2'-0" 3'-1 " 1'-0" 1'-0" < PIER < PIER < PIER < PIER 4'-1 " 3'-1 " STA OFFSET: FT. RT. 8'-3" 4'-1 " 3'-1 " 2'-0" < PIER & COLUMN PIER SPREAD FOOTING LOAD DATA * FACTORED DESIGN BEARING PRESSURE x.x TONS/SQ FT EFFECTIVE WIDTH B' (PERPENDICULAR TO PIER) x.x FT STA OFFSET: FT. LT. STA OFFSET: 5.75 FT. LT. STA FOOTING PLAN 90-00'-00.0" STA OFFSET: 5.75 FT. RT. CONCRETE COLUMN EFFECTIVE LENGTH L' (PARALLEL TO PIER) FACTORED BEARING RESISTANCE q n x.x FT x.x TONS/SQ FT * BASED ON STRENGTH xx LOAD COMBINATION NOTES: 1 EXISTING 6" WATERMAIN TO BE RELOCTED. 2 PROPOSED CONCRETE ENCASED 6" WATERMAIN TO REPLACE EXISTING SEE WATERMAIN PLANS. INV. EL. AT < PIER = `. 3 EXISTING ABANDONED 12" GAS LINE TO BE REMOVED. INV. EL. AT < PIER = `. BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF PIER DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 2) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B20 B49

118 STA OFFSET: FT. LT. 2'-2" < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) 2 1 & PIER 3 STA OFFSET: FT. RT. 2'-2" 2'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" STA '-00.0" 90-00'-00.0" < PIER NOTES: 1 EXISTING 6" WATERMAIN TO BE RELOCTED. 2 3 PROPOSED CONCRETE ENCASED 6" WATERMAIN TO REPLACE EXISTING SEE WATERMAIN PLANS. INV. EL. AT < PIER = `. EXISTING ABANDONED 12" GAS LINE TO BE REMOVED. INV. EL. AT < PIER = `. BL1 BL1 BL1 BL1 BL1 BL1 BL1 BL1 BL1 KINK POINT KINK POINT KINK POINT KINK POINT KINK POINT 3'-3" 6'-3" 14'-1" 14'-1" 6'-3" 3'-3" PLAN 3'-3" 6'-3" 14'-1" 14'-1" 6'-3" 3'-3" KINK POINT KINK POINT KINK POINT KINK POINT KINK POINT EL EL '-6 " MIN. EL EL EL EL EL VARIES FROM 0" TO 2 " 1'-0" 2'-0" 1'-0" < PIER 1'-7" 4'-9" 7" R=4'-9" R=4'-9" 4'-9" VARIES FROM 1'-6 " TO 6'-4ƒ " 17'-10 " START OF RADIUS 17'-8 " START OF RADIUS 4'-9" 2'-0" 9'-6" 2'-0" 5'-4" STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (3B52) 17'-8 " OR 17'-10" START OF RADIUS CONCRETE FOOTING SEE FOOTING PLAN 2'-6" EL EL STRUC. CONC. (1G52) 2'-6" WEST SIDE 2 1 ELEVATION EAST SIDE SECTION A-A BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF PIER DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 2) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B21 B49

119 72'-0" 41'-6" 30'-6" 6 8 PRECAST PANEL INSERT SPACING 7'-6 " 3 9'-0" = 27'-0" 6'-11ƒ" 5'-11ƒ" 2 9'-0" = 18'-0" 6'-6 " < BRG. S. ABUT. < PIER < BRG. N. ABUT. 5 W.P. 'A' 4 BL1-B1 7 W.P. 'B' 2 4'-10" = 9'-8" X E X E < WEST FASCIA BEAM BL2-B2 F F 21'-5" X E BL3-B2 F 42'-10" 2 4 5'-10 " = 23'-6" 4'-10" = 9'-8" 21'-5" < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) & WORKING LINE X E W.P. 'C' X E 90-00'-00.0" X E X E X E X E < EAST FASCIA BEAM 103 BL4-B2 BL5-B2 BL6-B2 BL7-B2 BL8-B2 BL9-B3 F F W.P. 'D' F F F F LEGEND: F FIXED CURVED PLATE BEARING ASSEMBLY TYPE F-1. SEE DETAIL B310. E EXPANSION CURVED PLATE BEARING ASSEMBLY TYPE E-1. SEE DETAIL B311. BEAM SPACING W.P. 'E' 4 7 W.P. 'F' LEGEND: 1. X DENOTES WHICH END OF THE BEAM IS TO BE MARKED WITH AN "X". BLK DENOTES BEAM LINE NUMBER BX DENOTES BEAM NUMBER U.N.O. DENOTES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE FRAMING PLAN 2 POLYSTYRENE MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH SPEC PAYMENT SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO ITEM " STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (1G52)". 3 ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD TYPE 1 MATERIAL AND PAD CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH SPEC STEEL INTERMEDIATE DIAPHRAGM (MOD.). 5 CENTERLINE PIER AND CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE DIAPHRAGM. 6 SEE PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND STEEL INTERMEDIATE DIAPHRAGM (MOD.) DETAILS FOR INSERT INFORMATION. 7 < HANGER 'A'. INSTALL TWO THREADED RODS. SEE PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS FOR MORE INFORMATION. ALL OTHER LOCATIONS ARE < HANGER 'B' AND INSTALLATION OF A SINGLE THREADED ROD. 8 EAST PRECAST PANEL INSERT SPACING IDENTICAL. BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF FRAMING PLAN DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B22 B49

120 2'-6" 7" 3" 3 8" 3" = 2'-0" 8 G806E SPG. G508E NO CHAMFER 2" 2" " ' " " G505E 2" CLR. " G301E (SPACE WITH G505E, G508E OR G402E) ' " " G402E SPG. EXCEPT AS NOTED PERMISSIBLE SPLICE 4'-11" MIN. LAP CENTER OF GRAVITY 4-G806E OF DRAPED STRANDS 7" 1 " CLR. 6" 9 1'-3" 1'-6" 10 1'-3" G402E 6" 9 G301E G806E 5 Y DISTANCES (INCHES) NO. < SPAN END STRAIGHT STRANDS DRAPED STRANDS TOTAL STRANDS 27" 2" SPG. 3 G505E 2'-2" G301E DRAPED STRANDS G303E G307E ƒ" CHAMFER Y DISTANCE SEE CHART " CHAMFER 2-G505E G402E 2-G508E SOLE PLATE - CAST WITH BEAM. < BEARING SEE DETAIL B HOLD DOWN POINT 7 ` 1'-0" SYMM. ABOUT < SPAN EXCEPT AS NOTED < SPAN 27" 7 " 3 " 6 "3 " 6" 2" 1 " 1 " CLR. 2" 8" 2" 11 DRAPED STRANDS 6" 1 " CLR. 2" 6" 2" G303E 2" 4 3 2" Y = DISTANCE TO CENTER OF GRAVITY OF STRANDS FROM BOTTOM OF BEAM. ALL STRANDS SPACED 2" CENTER TO CENTER, HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY, EXCEPT AS NOTED. A TOLERANCE OF ` 1" WILL BE PERMITTED IN THIS DIMENSION. ERECTION CAMBER EST. DEAD LOAD DEFLECTION EST. RESIDUAL CAMBER END VIEW CUT STRANDS FLUSH WITH CONCRETE. COVER ENDS WITH SEALANT PER APPROVED PRODUCTS LIST "BRIDGE-PRESTRESSED BEAMS-CUT STRAND SEALANT." 2" 2-G303E & G307E (SP. W/ G505E) 7 " 2-G303E & G307E 2-G303E (SP. W/ G402E) (SP. W/ G402E) 2-G303E & G307E (SP. W/ G508E) < TO < OF BEARING OUT TO OUT OF BEAM INITIAL PRESTRESS LB. 4 2" 2'-2" 4 2" SECTION AT < SPAN < BRG. < BRG. BEAM ELEVATION CAMBER DIAGRAM 27M BEAM 27M BEAM CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY STABILITY OF FASCIA BEAMS FROM OVERTURNING (NO PERMANENT BEAM DIAPHRAGMS ARE PRESENT). CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TEMPORARY BRACING. 1'-11" 1'-0" DEAD LOAD DEFLECTION SHOWN IS FOR WEIGHT OF SLAB, WEARING COURSE, BARRIER, SIDEWALK AND MEDIAN WHERE APPLICABLE. CONTRACTOR WILL TAKE ELEVATIONS AT TOP OF BEAMS AFTER ERECTION AND WILL ALLOW FOR DEFLECTION SHOWN TO ENABLE BUILDING FORMS TO CORRECT GRADE AND SPECIFIED SLAB THICKNESS. PROVIDE COPY OF ELEVATIONS TO THE ENGINEER. 10" G505E GENERAL NOTES OVERHANG SUPPORT CONCEPT SKETCH SEE THE "CONSTRUCTION NOTES" ON FRONT PORTION OF THE BRIDGE PLANS. THIS CONCEPT HAS BEEN USED SUCCESSFULLY ON PREVIOUS PROJECTS. CONTRACTORS MAY CONSIDER THIS OR ANOTHER SYSTEM AT THEIR DISCRETION. CALCULATED PRESTRESS LOSSES ELASTIC SHORTENING LOSS KSI LONG TERM LOSSES KSI TOTAL LOSSES KSI 2'-7" PROVIDE HANDLING HOOKS OR DEVICES AS REQUIRED BY CONTRACTOR. MARK EACH BEAM SHOWING BRIDGE NUMBER, CASTING DATE, AND INDIVIDUAL IDENTIFICATION LETTERS AND NUMBERS ON THE FACE OF THE BEAM, NEAR THE END, SO LOCATED THAT THEY WILL BE EXPOSED AFTER THE END DIAPHRAGMS HAVE BEEN CAST. MARK FASCIA BEAMS ON THE INSIDE FACE. ENSURE ALL MARKINGS ARE STENCILLED AND CLEARLY LEGIBLE. FOR LOCATION OF BEAMS, SEE FRAMING PLAN. 4" 4" SEE FRAMING PLAN < END DIAPHRAGM 4" 4" SEE FRAMING PLAN < END DIAPHRAGM 1 " DIA. HOLES SEE FRAMING PLAN MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH - K.S.I. 1 f'ci 2 f'c G508E 2'-7" ALL MATERIAL AND WORK SHOWN OR NOTED ON THIS SHEET IS INCLUDED IN UNIT PRICE BID FOR PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMS. SEE SPEC SEE FRAMING PLAN FOR BEAM END MARKED "X". AS AN ALTERNATE TO THE END DIAPHRAGM ANCHORAGES SHOWN, THE CONTRACTOR MAY SUBMIT DETAILS OF A CAST-IN-PLACE ANCHORAGE TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL. ANCHORAGE MUST PROVIDE AN ULTIMATE PULL OUT STRENGTH OF 15 KIPS PER ANCHORAGE. 1 " DIA. HOLES KSI KSI 3 " APPLY AN APPROVED SEALER TO THE SIDES OF THE BEAM NEAR EACH END PER THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. PLAN G402E 1 MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH AT TIME OF PRESTRESS TRANSFER. REVISED: DECEMBER 02, 2015 APPROVED: JANUARY 13, 2015 THREADED INSERT SEE DETAIL "A" PLAN AT FASCIA BEAMS PLAN AT INTERIOR BEAMS ALONG < BEAM TOP OF THREADED INSERTS 1 " DIA. HOLES (INTERIOR BEAMS) OR THREADED INSERTS (FASCIA BEAMS) ELEVATION CONCRETE END DIAPHRAGM PARAPET ABUTMENT (SEE DETAIL B814 FOR DIAPHRAGM DETAILS) STATE BRIDGE ENGINEER 10" 4" BEAM 1'-0" 4" ALONG < BEAM < 1 " DIA. HOLE FOR REBAR. SEE FRAMING PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2 " LONG THREADED INSERT BOTTOM OF BEAM EDGE OF BEAM ƒ" DIA. x 2'-0" ROD 2" THREADED. SEE SPEC K ELEVATION FOR COATING REQUIREMENTS. CONCRETE END DIAPHRAGM SEE SUPERSTRUCTURE DETAILS AND REINFORCEMENT FOR DIAPHRAGM DETAILS. 3" 5" 5 " G301E G307E 12 " 2'-2" 1'-8" G301E & G307E 1 3 1'-10" DETAIL "A" G303E 2 MINIMUM CONCRETE STRENGTH WHEN BEAM CAN BE TRANSPORTED AND INSTALLED. 3 DRAPED STRANDS. 4 STRAIGHT STRANDS. 5 USE 0.6" DIA. 7-WIRE LOW RELAXATION PRESTRESSING STRAND, CONFORMING TO ASTM A416, GRADE FOR INTEGRAL ABUTMENT, SOLE PLATE CAN BE ELIMINATED OR REPLACED WITH AN APPROVED PROTECTION PLATE. BEAMS DETAILED TO INCLUDE A TAPERED PLATE PER STANDARD FIGURE B309 MUST INCLUDE SOLE PLATE. 7 CENTER OF GRAVITY OF HOLD DOWNS WHEN MULTIPLE HOLD DOWNS ARE USED. 8 TWO INSIDE BARS MAY BE PLACED ADJACENT TO VERTICAL STIRRUP FOR TYING CONVENIENCE. 9 STEEL TROWEL TO SMOOTH FINISH AND APPLY BOND BREAKER PER APPROVED PRODUCTS LIST. 10 ROUGH FLOAT AND BROOM TRANSVERSELY FOR BOND PER SPEC D. 11 TYP. CLR. FOR ENTIRE BOTTOM FLANGE. BEAMS FIG BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF 27M PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMS DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B23 B49

121 74'-8" (OUT-TO-OUT OF DECK) < BRG. S. ABUT. < PIER < BRG. N. ABUT. 1'-8" EDGE OF DECK < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) & WORKING LINE 90-00'-00.0" 49'-4" 11'-0" '-0" SIDEWALK 11'-0" LANE LANE 2'-0" SHLD. 10'-0" SIDEWALK 2'-0" SHLD. 1'-8" EDGE OF DECK BRIDGE DECK LAYOUT BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF BRIDGE DECK DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B24 B49

122 49'-4" (OUT-TO-OUT) TOP LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT 5" 1'-0" 31 1'-6" = 46'-6"; 32-D401E OR 32-D402E 1'-0" 26'-0" (ROADWAY) 5" 1'-8" 10'-0" 1 2'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 2'-0" 9'-10" 2 1'-10" 5 SIDEWALK CONCRETE (3F52) SHLD. LANE LANE SHLD. SIDEWALK CONCRETE (3F52) 2 3'-6" 10" 2'-8" 6" 9 1'-0" = 9'-0" 6" SEE DETAIL 'A' ON ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS SHEET 4" 10-D4XXE D4XXE 6" MMA FLOOD SEAL 3 < FREMONT AVE. S. (FREMONT) & WORKING LINE 9" CONC. DECK PROFILE GRADE % (3YHPC-M) (FREMONT) 3" CLR % 6" 9 1'-0" = 9'-0" 6" 10-D4XXE D4XXE 6 METAL PIPE & CABLE RAILING 4 TYPE MOD P-1 BARRIER CONC. (3S52).02 ' '.02 ' ' 1'-1".02 ' '.02 ' ' CONDUIT SYSTEM (LIGHTING) VARIES 2'-0" TO 4'-5ƒ " 1" GAP 4" 8 7 2'-5" D4XXE 1" CLR. 27M PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM SLOPE TO MATCH TOP OF DECK CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE DIAPHRAGM D4XXE 7 8 PRECAST ARCH. PANELS BOTTOM LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT 7" 65 ABT. 9" = 48'-2"; 66-D403E OR 66-D404E 7" 3'-3" 2 4'-10" = 9'-8" 4 5'-10 " = 23'-6" 2 4'-10" = 9'-8" 3'-3" WEST SIDE (AT MID-SPAN) TYPICAL SECTIONS EAST SIDE (AT PIER) 1'-1" 5" 2" CLR. 6 3" 1'-6" MAX. 3" SD406E EDGE OF TOP EDGE OF TOP FLANGE FLANGE A TOP OF DECK 4 " EXT. BEAM 2'-7" 2'-6 " STOOL 4 " CLR. PERMISSIBLE CONST. JOINT < PIER & DIAPHRAGM SD406E TOP OF DECK TOP OF BEAM 1'-0" 4" 1'-0" 3" NOTES: 1 MEASURED TO THE POINT AT BASE OF CONCRETE RAILING. SIMILAR ON EACH SIDE OF BRIDGE. 2 MEASURED TO THE POINT AT BASE OF CONCRETE RAILING PILASTER. SIMILAR ON EACH SIDE OF BRIDGE. 3 APPLY MMA FLOOD SEAL AFTER DECK IS FULLY CURED. 4 ITEM SHALL BE QUANTIFIED AND PAID FOR AS ITEM ORNAMENTAL METAL RAILING TYPE SPECIAL. 1" 4" CLR. 7" ARCH. PANEL INT. BEAM A ƒ " SD505E 1'-4" 2" CLR. 5" 5 6 TOP OF DECK TO BE LEVEL BELOW CONCRETE BARRIER. SEE EDGE OF DECK DETAIL IN SUPERSTRUCTURE PLANS. PERMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION JOINT. CONTRACTOR SHALL FINISH EDGE OF DECK TO REDUCE THE APPEARANCE OF ANY COLD JOINT TO THE ENGINEER'S APPROVAL. EDGE OF DECK DETAIL L = DISTANCE ALONG < OF DIAPHRAGM SECTION A-A 7 8 CONDUIT SYSTEM (FUTURE) FOR CITY. STEEL DIAPHRAGM FOR PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL PANELS. SEE SUPERSTRUCTURE DETAILS. INTERMEDIATE CONCRETE DIAPHRAGM DETAIL BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF BRIDGE DECK DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B25 B49

123 < BEAM < FASCIA BEAM < BEAM < BEAM < BEAM 1'-2 " 1'-2 " < ANCHOR ROD < ANCHOR ROD PARTIAL END DIAPHRAGM PLAN AT NORTH ABUTMENT TOP OF PEDESTAL 1" LOW DENSITY POLYSTYRENE PEDESTAL ELEVATION DETAIL (TYPICAL AT NORTH ABUTMENT) REINFORCEMENT ELEVATION - NORTH END DIAPHRAGM (ABUTMENT REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY) NOTES: 1. F.F. DENOTES FRONT FACE B.F. DENOTES BACK FACE 2 TYPICAL BETWEEN EACH BEAM. 3 TYPICAL AT EACH BEAM. 4 MEMBRANE WATERPROOFING SYSTEM. BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: E. HANSON BRIDGE DECK DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: E. HANSON S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B26 B49

124 " x 7" BIT. FELT " x 7" BIT. FELT B.F. B.F. F.F. F.F. SEE DETAIL 'A' SEE DETAIL 'A' < DIAPHRAGM < BRG. < DIAPHRAGM < BRG. 1'-3" 1'-0" 6" 1'-3" 1'-0" 6" 2 2 1'-6" 1'-6" 1'-6" 1'-6" SECTION A-A SECTION B-B (BETWEEN BEAM) (AT BEAM) 4 NOTES: 1. F.F. DENOTES FRON FACE B.F. DENOTES BACK FACE 1" BACKER ROD 2 3 3" LOW DENSITY POLYSTYRENE. 1" HIGH DENSITY POLYSTYRENE. 4 WATERPROOF MEMBRANE PER MnDOT B EXCEPT THE STRIP SHALL BE 24" WIDE TO ALLOW MOVEMENT. THE MEMBRANE PLACEMENT SHALL BE SUCH THAT A 1" WRINKLE SHALL BE FORMED OVER THE JOINT OPENING. THE COST IS INCIDENTAL TO "BRIDGE SLAB CONCRETE (3YHPC-M)". 5 TYP. BETWEEN EACH BEAM. BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: E. HANSON BRIDGE DECK DETAILS (SHEET 4 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: E. HANSON S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B27 B49

125 < BRG. S. ABUT. < BRG. N. ABUT. 1" FRONT FACE ABUTMENT P-B " P-A REFERENCE LINE ARCH. PANELS P-C FRONT FACE ABUTMENT PRECAST ARCHITECTURALPANELTABLE ARCH. PT. PT. PT. PANEL 'A' 'B' 'C' DIM. 2 BL1-B1 MARK ELEV.* ELEV.* ELEV.* 'L' 4 P-A < WEST FASCIA BEAM P-B P-C '-102 " 1 27'-102 " 24'-4" PANEL NOTES: PANEL MARKS ARE AS FOLLOWS: < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) & WORKING LINE P - X DENOTES PANEL TYPE DENOTES PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL PANEL 24'-4" < EAST FASCIA BEAM BL9-B3 STEEL INTERMEDIATE DIAPHRAGM MOD. 1 1" P-B P-A P-C 90-00'-00.0" FRONT FACE ABUTMENT " REFERENCE LINE ARCH. PANELS FRONT FACE ABUTMENT PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL PANEL LAYOUT TOP EDGE OF DECK < BRG. SOUTH ABUTMENT PT. 'A' BOTTOM EDGE OF DECK PT. 'C' PT. 'A' PT. 'B' PT. 'B' PT. 'A' PT. 'C' PT. 'B' < BRG. NORTH ABUTMENT 10" LEVEL 3 P-B P-C P-A PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL PANEL ELEVATION (EAST FASCIA) < BRG. NORTH ABUTMENT PT. 'B' PT. 'C' PT. 'B' PT. 'A' PT. 'A' PT. 'B' TOP EDGE OF DECK BOTTOM EDGE OF DECK PT. 'C' PT. 'A' < BRG. SOUTH ABUTMENT NOTES: 1 SEE FRAMING PLAN FOR LOCATIONS OF STEEL INTERMEDIATE DIAPHRAGMS AND LOCATION OF THREADED RODS THROUGH DECK FOR ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE PANELS. 2 ELEVATIONS ASSUME ƒ" GAP BETWEEN BOTTOM OF DECK & TOP OF ARCHITECTURAL PANELS AT ENDS. GAP WILL VARY SLIGHTLY ALONG ARCHITECTURAL PANELS. P-C P-A P-B LEVEL 3 10" 3 4 SEE SIGNAGE PLANS. MEASURED ALONG REFERENCE LINE OF ARCHITECTURAL PANEL. SEE PANEL ELEVATION ON SHEET 2 OF 2 FOR LOCATION OF DIMENSION 'L'. PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL PANEL ELEVATION (WEST FASCIA) BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 2) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B28 B49

126 8ƒ" " 2" HANGER 'A' 2 ANGLE " 6ƒ" HANGER 'B' 2 ANGLE 4'-5ƒ " PANEL TYPE B OR C R = 25.0' DIMENSION 'L' (LEVEL) B B 2'-0" MIN. SLOPED ƒ"chamfer 2'-0" (LEVEL) 1'-0" A < PANEL REF. LINE -ƒ" +0" 3ƒ" 4'-5ƒ " 4'-5ƒ " REF. LINE ARCH. PANEL 3 CONC. INSERT VARIES 6" 1 ANGLE 'A' VARIES 2'-0" TO 4'-5ƒ " 3 CONC. INSERT VARIES 6" 1 ANGLE 'A' 2 2 REF. LINE ARCH. PANEL R = 1.0' 2" (LEVEL) VAR. 8'-3" (LEVEL) 2" (LEVEL) A PANEL TYPE A PANEL ELEVATION (B & C) (FRONT FACE OF PANELS SHOWN) " SECTION B-B SECTION A-A NOTES: 1 CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH PRESTRESSED BEAM FABRICATOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL CALCULATE HEIGHT BASED ON ESTIMATED STOOL THICKNESS AND PRESTRESSED BEAM CAMBER SUCH THAT INSERTS PLACED IN THE ARCHITECTURAL PANELS AND THE PRESTRESSED BEAMS ENSURE A NEAR LEVEL STEEL INTERMEDIATE DIAPHRAGM UPON INSTALLATION. 2 SEE STEEL INTERMEDIATE DIAPHRAGM MOD. DETAILS. 3 CONCRETE INSERTS CAST WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL PANEL SHALL BE INCLUDED IN PAYMENT FOR ITEM "PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL PANELS". SEE STEEL INTERMEDIATE DIAPHRAGM DETAILS FOR INSERT REQUIREMENTS. BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 2) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B29 B49

127 9" CONC. RAILING " DIA. x 2'-3" LONG THREADED ROD EDGE OF DECK SEE EMBEDMENT PLATE DETAILS ANGLE 'B' TOP OF CONC. DECK TOP OF SIDEWALK 6" 1 " 2 " 6" PANEL FACE 1 " 6" DIAPH. FACE 1 " 1 " 3" 1 " 6" " 1 " 3" 3" BEAM FACE 6" DIAPH. FACE 1 " 3" 1 " 6" 1" DIA. HOLE IN PLATE CENTERED FOR " DIA. x 2'-3" LONG THREADED ROD " "? 8" x 8" x " HANGER ANGLE A A CONC. STOOL 1'-0 " 1 " BOTTOM OF BEAM 1 " DIA. HOLE FOR " DIA. BOLT. 1 " x 2 " LONG SLOTTED HOLE FOR " DIA. BOLT. 11" 9 BOTTOM OF BEAM 1 " 1 " DIA. HOLE FOR " DIA. BOLT. 1 " x 2 " LONG SLOTTED HOLE FOR " DIA. BOLT. DECK EDGE OF DECK REF. LINE PANELS TYPE 'B' & 'C' PRESTRESSED CONC. BEAM DIAPHRAGM CONNECTION - ANGLE 'A' ( " x 12" BENT PLATE) DIAPHRAGM CONNECTION - ANGLE 'B' ( " x 15" BENT PLATE) 2'-3" CHANNEL C6x13 " DIA. CAST-IN-PLACE BOLT ANCHORAGE, 10 " x 2 " H.S. BOLT PER SPEC B AND 3" SQ. x Š" PLATE WASHER CONTRACTOR MAY FORM HOLE WITH 1.25" DIA. RIGID STEEL CONDUIT. FILL WITH NON-SHRINK GROUT WHEN SETTING THREADED ROD. (INCIDENTAL) REF. LINE PANEL TYPE 'A' ANGLE 'A' " DIA. HIGH STRENGTH BOLTS PER SPEC B WITH HEX NUT AND ONE 3" SQ. x Š" PLATE WASHER ON SLOTTED SIDE AND HARDENED WASHER ON DIAPHRAGM SIDE 1'-1ƒ" PAYMENT LENGTH FOR DIAPH. TRANSVERSE SECTION AT DIAPHRAGM CHANNEL C6x13 A A 3" 1 " < 1 " DIA. HOLES EMBEDMENT PLATE DETAILS < HANGER 'A' & 3" 3" THREADED ROD BACK FACE OF ARCH. PANEL < 1 " x 2 " LONG SLOTTED HOLE FOR " DIA. BOLT. 6 " 1 " 7 " 7 " 1'-2 " < THREADED ROD 3" 3" PLAN (HANGER 'B') BACK FACE OF ARCH. PANEL < SLOTTED HOLE 3" 3" 0ƒ" < 1 " DIA. HOLES? 2 " x " STIFFENERS SECTION (HANGER 'A' & 'B') < HANGER 'A' < THREADED ROD 3" BACK FACE OF ARCH. PANEL 3" < 1 " x 2 " LONG SLOTTED HOLE FOR " DIA. BOLT. PLAN 7 " 1 " 7 " 1 " 1'-0 " 1'-0 " (HANGER 'A') 2'-0ƒ " 3" 3" (6" x 6" x " ANGLE) 7 " 1'-2 " 1ƒ" 5 " 5 " 1ƒ" 3" 3" < SLOTTED 0 " HOLE 3 " " HANGER ANGLE DETAILS 6ƒ" ELEVATION 1'-0 " 7 " (HANGER 'B') 3 " 2'-0ƒ" " STIFFENER < 1 " DIA. HOLES FOR " DIA. BOLTS. 1'-0 " 6 " 5 " 5 " 6 " 8 " " < HANGER 'B' & SLOTTED HOLE 6ƒ" ELEVATION (HANGER 'A') < HANGER 'A' 8 " < SLOTTED HOLE " STIFFENER 1'-0 " " DIA. BOLTS. 11" < 1 " DIA. HOLES FOR 0 " DETAIL 'A' " DIA. CAST-IN-PLACE BOLT ANCHORAGE, " x 2 " H.S. BOLT PER SPEC B AND 3" SQ. x Š" PLATE WASHER. 1 " 2" CHANNEL C6x13 " DIA. CAST-IN-PLACE BOLT ANCHORAGE, 11 " x 2 " H.S. BOLT PER SPEC B AND 3" SQ. x Š" PLATE WASHER " x 12" PLATE < BOLT ANCHORAGE AND < DIAPHRAGM 3" 90 0'0" FACE OF BEAM OR ARCH. PANEL SECTION A-A TYPICAL SECTION AT FASCIA BEAMS & ARCH PANELS 90 0'0" NOTES: THE CONTRACTOR MAY CHOOSE TO PROVIDE THE HANGER ASSEMBLY DETAILED OR AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD. IF THE CONTRACTOR ELECTS TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD, THE CONTRACTOR'S ENGINEER SHALL PREPARE CALCULATIONS AND PLANS FOR THE ENGINEER'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL AT LEASE 6 WEEKS PRIOR TO FABRICATION. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 1. PROVIDE STEEL PER SPEC INSTALL PER SPEC K. 3. TORQUE ALL BOLTS, INCLUDING ANCHOR BOLTS TO 80 FT.-LBS GALVANIZE STEEL PLATES AND SHAPES PER SPEC GALVANIZE BOLTS, THREADED RODS, NUTS AND WASHERS PER SPEC INSERTS INCLUDED IN PAYMENT FOR PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL PANEL. 11 INSERTS INCLUDED IN PAYMENT FOR PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM SHOP BEND THE LEG OF THE 12" OR 15" PLATE TO CONFORM TO THE DIAPHRAGM. A " x 6" x 6" ANGLE MAY BE USED FOR DIAPHRAGMS PERPENDICULAR TO BEAMS. INCLUDE ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL SHOWN ON THIS DETAIL, INCLUDING BOLTS, THREADED RODS, NUTS AND WASHERS, IN UNIT PRICE BID FOR DIAPHRAGMS FOR PRESTRESSED BEAMS. BENT PLATES MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF CHANNELS IF THE BENT PLATES HAVE THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE CHANNELS THEY REPLACE, ARE Š" IN THICKNESS, AND HAVE LEGS 5" LONG. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE HOLE LOCATIONS WITH PRESTRESSED BEAM FABRICATOR. LOCATE INSERTS SUCH THAT PRESTRESSING STRAND IS NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACTED. 1 THREADED ROD AT HANGER TYPE 'B' ARCHITECTURAL PANEL TYPE 'B' & 'C'. 2 THREADED ROD AT HANGER TYPE 'A' ARCHITECTURAL PANEL TYPE 'A'. BURR THREADS OR PROVIDE ANOTHER METHOD TO PREVENT NUT BACKOFF AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF STEEL INTERMEDIATE DIAPHRAGM DETAILS DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B30 B49

128 10'-0 " xx-r502e & X-R4xxE xx-r502e & X-R4xxE < CONCRETE RAILING 4'-8" W.P. 'A' OUTSIDE FACE xxx-r501e, xxx-r502e & x SETS OF x-r4xxe < CONCRETE RAILING PILASTER TYPE 'A' < MIDTOWN GREENWAY TRAIL (MTGRAIL) 4'-8" PILASTER TYPE 'B' < CONCRETE RAILING PILASTER TYPE 'B' 6" W.P. 'B' xx-r502e & X-R4xxE 18'-3" 41'-0" 30'-6" 89'-9" (MEASURED ALONG < CONCRETE RAILING) < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) 102'-0" (MEASURED ALONG < CONCRETE RAILING) 30'-6" 41'-0" 30'-6" PILASTER TYPE 'B' xx-r502e & x-r4xxe < CONCRETE RAILING 4'-8" W.P. 'E' 6" xxx-r501e, xxx-r502e & x SETS OF x-r4xxe < CONCRETE RAILING PILASTER TYPE 'A' OUTSIDE FACE W.P. 'F' 4'-8" xx-r502e & X-R4xxE < CONCRETE RAILING xx-r502e & X-R4xxE PILASTER TYPE 'B' xx-r502e & X-R4xxE 20'-9 " 10'-4 " CONCRETE RAILING LAYOUT BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF CONCRETE PARAPET DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B31 B49

129 10 " 29'-7ƒ" 41'-0" 17'-4ƒ" 10 " 8'-6" 12'-7ƒ" 8'-6" 8'-6" 24'-0" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-10ƒ" < PILASTER TYPE 'B' ƒ" CHAMFER < PILASTER TYPE 'A' 2'-8" 1 " 1 " " 1'-0" 3ƒ " 2ƒ " 3 " A C B < PILASTER TYPE 'A' < PILASTER TYPE 'B' ƒ" 10 " 1'-8 " TOP OF SIDEWALK 1'-0" 2'-0" 3ƒ" 3 " 2 " 3ƒ " A 1'-0" 2'-0" B 10 " 1'-8 " C CONTROL JOINT 4'-11 " 9'-7 " 11'-7 " 10'-4 " 9'-0 " 10'-6 " 9'-0 " 10'-4 " 7'-8 " 6'-2 " SPACING 30'-6" 41'-0" 18'-3" 89'-9" (MEASURED ALONG < CONC. RAILING) OUTSIDE WEST ELEVATION (INSIDE ELEVATION SIMILAR) 10 " 29'-7ƒ" 41'-0" 29'-7ƒ" 10 " 8'-6" 12'-7ƒ" 8'-6" 8'-6" 24'-0" 8'-6" 8'-6" 12'-7ƒ" 8'-6" < PILASTER TYPE 'B' ƒ" CHAMFER < PILASTER TYPE 'A' 2'-8" A 1 " 1 " C < PILASTER TYPE 'A' " 3 " 2ƒ " 3ƒ " 1'-0" B < PILASTER TYPE 'B' ƒ" 10 " 1'-8 " TOP OF SIDEWALK 1'-0" 2'-0" A 3ƒ" 1'-0" 2'-0" 3ƒ " 2 " 3 " B 10 " 1'-8 " C CONTROL JOINT 4'-11 " 9'-7 " 11'-7 " 10'-4 " 9'-0 " 10'-6 " 9'-0 " 10'-4 " 11'-7 " 9'-7 " 4'-11 " SPACING 30'-6" 41'-0" 30'-6" 102'-0" (MEASURED ALONG < CONC. RAILING) OUTSIDE EAST ELEVATION (INSIDE ELEVATION SIMILAR) BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF CONCRETE PARAPET DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET #RAL02 B49

130 10 " 1'-8 " 10 " 4 " 6" 6" 4 " ƒ " 10 " 1'-8 " 10 " 4 " 6" 6" 4 " ƒ " CORNER CORNER 2'-0" 1'-8 " L 1'-0" 1'-0" 10 " 10 " 1 1" GAP 10 " L/2 4 L/ " 4 " 7ƒ" 7ƒ" 4 " 4 " 6" 6" 4 " < PILASTER < BRIDGE TYPE 'B' PILASTER TYPE 'B' A C < PILASTER TYPE 'B' ƒ" CHAMFER " 3 " 2ƒ " 3ƒ " 1 " 1 " 4 4 B A 2'-8" < PILASTER TYPE 'B' C ƒ" 90 0'0" 90 0'0" 2 3ƒ" ƒ" 1'-0" 3ƒ" < PILASTER & CONC. RAIL < PILASTER & CONC. RAIL 3 A TOP OF WALL C TOP OF WALL 3 " 2 " 3ƒ " B A 3ƒ" 4 6'-0ƒ" 8'-8" 6'-0ƒ" C CONTROL JOINT < PILASTER PILASTER TYPE 'A' TOP & BOT. EDGE PILASTER < PILASTER PILASTER TYPE 'B' TOP & BOT. EDGE PILASTER 1" 10 " 10 " 10 " 10 " 10 " 10 " SPACING 4 (SEE SECTION C-C FOR DETAILS) (SEE SECTION C-C FOR DETAILS) 3'-8ƒ" 10 " 10 " VARIES 10 " 4'-7" (MEASURED ALONG < CONC. RAILING) TYPICAL CORNER ELEVATION (OUTSIDE ELEVATION SHOWN, INSIDE SIMILAR) VARIES (MEASURED ALONG < CONC. RAILING) NOTES: GAP SHALL BE FLUSH WITH TOP OF PILASTER CAP. FILL GAP WITH POLYSTYRENE (INCIDENTAL) AND REMOVE AFTER CONCRETE HAS CURED. INFILL CONCRETE TO EDGE OF GAP MATCHING THE GEOMETRY OF THE CONCRETE RAILING ON TOP OF THE ABUTMENT WALL. 1/2" POLYSTYRENE BETWEEN ABUTMENT WALL AND CONCRETE END DIAPHRAGM TO REMAIN. " 3 " 2ƒ " " ƒ" 4 PANEL SPLIT IS ON NORTHEAST CORNER ONLY. 3ƒ " " ƒ" 1'-4 " 1'-4 " 1'-8 " ƒ " ƒ" 4 " 8" 4 " 4 " 8" 4 " 4 " 1'-0" 4 " 10" " SEE CABLE RAILING DETAILS 10" " SEE CABLE RAILING DETAILS 10" " SEE CABLE RAILING DETAILS DETAIL 'A' 3'-6" 10" DETAIL 'A' 3'-6" 10" DETAIL 'A' SEE SECTION A-A 3'-6" 10" DETAIL 'A' ƒ " ƒ" 2'-8" 9 " 1'-0" DETAIL 'B' 3 " MATCH RECESS PATTERN ABOVE BEGIN SIDEWALK SLOPE 2'-8" 9 " 1'-0" DETAIL 'B' 3 " MATCH RECESS PATTERN ABOVE BEGIN SIDEWALK SLOPE 2'-8" 9 " 1'-0" DETAIL 'B' RECESS PANEL 1 " SEE SECTION A-A SEE SECTION B-B MATCH RECESS PATTERN ABOVE BEGIN SIDEWALK SLOPE 3ƒ " 2 " 3 " " " ƒ" ƒ" EDGE OF CONC. SIDEWALK 1'-4 " EDGE OF CONC. SIDEWALK 1'-4 " EDGE OF CONC. SIDEWALK 1'-4 " DETAIL 'B' SECTION A-A SECTION B-B SECTION C-C (PILASTER TYPE 'A' &'B') BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF CONCRETE PARAPET DETAILS (SHEET 3 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET #RAL03 B49

131 2" CLR. 4" CLR. 1'-3" 3 SEE GUARDRAIL CONNECTION DETAIL 1'-8" APPROACH PANEL 10'-8" MINIMUM PARAPET LENGTH SHOWN SAW CUT JOINT 2" CLR. < END OF BRIDGE JOINT BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE SEE CONTROL JOINT " NAME PLATE. SEE SHEET NO. FOR DETAILS BELOW LOCATION. SEE DETAIL B101 OR B102 FOR 1'-9" ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 2'-6" MIN. LAP B TOP OF SIDEWALK 2" 3 1'-3" 2" PULL UP TO 2" CLR. 2 5" 9" = 1'-6" F503E 2 A 2'-8" 11" A 1'-8" SAW CUT E E 7" TOP OF CURB FACE 2 5" 9" = 1'-6" F503E 1'-1" 2" CLR. 2'-8" 1 " 10" PROJ. 1'-0" D D D D 6" 1" R. 2" 10" PROJ. 3 " END VIEW APPROACH CURB (SEE APPROACH PANEL PLANS) SEE DETAIL F502E "A" BELOW TOP OF APPROACH 2-F4 E T0 3 PANEL F4 E 3" 3" 6" 6" = 1'-6" 1'-0" MAX. SPG. 6" F502E & F5 E 5" 3"3" 6" 6" 2-F4 E T0 F4 E 1'-0" MAX. SPG. F501E & F5 E < CONTROL JOINT 10'-0" MAX. SPG. B TOP OF SLAB 3" F501E SECTION B-B CONST. JOINT ROUGH FINISH LINE A LINE B JOINT AT ABUTMENT CONTROL JOINT 1" STANDARD PIPE 1.68 LBS./FT. 2 TYP. INSIDE ELEVATION OF PARAPET GENERAL NOTES CONTINUOUSLY GROUND ALL METAL RAILINGS; SEE THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. REFER TO THE ELECTRICAL PLANS AND ELECTRICAL SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR DETAILS REGARDING BONDING MULTIPLE ELECTRICAL GROUNDING SYSTEMS. " TYP. 1'-1 " 11 " 1'-1 " 1'-1 " 11 " PARAPET MEETS MASH TL-2 REQUIREMENTS MEASURE PAYMENT LENGTH BETWEEN THE OUTSIDE ENDS OF THE PARAPET. CONCRETE PARAPET = 473 LBS./FT. (0.117 CU. YDS./FT.) FRONT FACE OF " x 12" BARRIER x 1'-8" PLATE SECTION A-A (REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN) TRIM GUARDRAIL BOLTS SUCH THAT NO MORE THAN 1 " PROTRUDES FROM BACK FACE OF BARRIER. DIMENSIONS INCLUDE " PLATE TOP PIPE LINE A BOT. PIPE LINE A TOP PIPE LINE B MID PIPE LINE B BOT. PIPE LINE B " WIDE SAW CUT JOINT BACKER ROD (TYP. THREE SIDES) PARAPET APPROACH CURB (SEE APPROACH PANEL PLANS) 2" TAPER 1'-0" TAPER VIEW F-F FRONT FACE NOTE: REINFORCEMENT TO BE 95% SUBMITTAL OF PARAPET TAPER BRUSH FRONT FACE CURB FROM BRUSH CURB FRONT FACE 2" WIDE TO 0" OF PARAPET F F CONCRETE PARAPET W/ADJACENT SIDEWALK (BASED ON A " SIDEWALK HEIGHT) = LBS./FT. (_. CU. YDS./FT.) FINISH ALL EDGES OF PARAPET WITH " CHAMFER, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE NOTED. SPACE CONTROL JOINTS AT 10 FT. MAXIMUM. REFER TO SUPERSTRUCTURE SHEET FOR SPECIFIC SPACING INFORMATION. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION AND NAME PLATE TO BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO PARAPET. PARAPET QUANTITIES ARE LISTED IN SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES FOR SUPERSTRUCTURE. 1 JOINT SEALANT PER MnDOT APPROVED/QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST - CRACK AND JOINT MATERIALS - SILICONE JOINT SEALERS. LINE A LINE B 2" 8" 2" (PLAN VIEW) 6" BRUSH CURB 2 3 REMOVE CONCRETE FROM PIPE ENDS AFTER SLIPFORMING OR FORM REMOVAL. 4 " MIN. FROM FRONT FACE OF PARAPET TO VERTICAL METAL RAILING POST IF NOT PROTECTED BY A TRAFFIC BARRIER. < 1" DIA. HOLES IN PLATE " x 12" x 1'-8" PLATE 3Ž " 2 " 7 " 7 " 2 " 10" 10" SECTION E-E 1 ƒ" DEEP X ƒ" WIDE VEE JOINT (TYP. THREE SIDES) PER APPROVED PRODUCTS LIST "CRACK AND JOINT MATERIALS: RIGID PLASTIC EXTRUSION." (TYP. THREE SIDES) APPROACH CURB (SEE APPROACH PANEL PLANS) F502E F501E 9" 1'-0" TAPER DETAIL "A" (ELEVATION VIEW) 1'-0" TOP OF ROADWAY 9" BILL OF REINFORCEMENT FOR PARAPET BAR NO. LENGTH SHAPE LOCATION F501E F502E 5'-2" 5'-4" PARAPET VERTICAL PARAPET VERTICAL F503E 7'-1" PARAPET VERTICAL F504E PARAPET VERTICAL F4 E PARAPET LONGIT. GUARDRAIL CONNECTION DETAIL GALVANIZE AFTER FABRICATION PER SPEC ESTIMATED WEIGHT = 34 LBS. REVISION: 1 SECTION D-D SECTION D-D CAST-IN-PLACE CONSTRUCTION SLIPFORM CONSTRUCTION CONTROL JOINT DETAILS 1" JOINT DEPTH 1'-6" 1'-5" F501E, F502E F503E 2'-4" F504E 2'-4" PLUS SIDEWALK HEIGHT AT FACE OF PARAPET F503E, F504E F4 E PARAPET LONGIT. F4 E PARAPET LONGIT. MODIFIED APPROVED: SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 STATE BRIDGE ENGINEER FOR SLIPFORM CONSTRUCTION: IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCRETE IS PLACED AND WHILE IT IS STILL WET, CREATE A ONE INCH STRAIGHT GROOVE USING A TROWEL. INSERT RIGID PLASTIC EXTRUSION INTO GROOVE TO A DEPTH " BELOW THE SURFACE; FINISH OVER GROOVE COMPLETELY HIDING THE EXTRUSION. FIG (A) BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF CONCRETE PARAPET DETAILS (SHEET 4 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET #RAL04 B49

132 1'-5 " 2'-11 " 1'-5 " 2'-11 " 6'-7 " OUTSIDE FACE 1'-5 " 8'-10ƒ" 8'-6" 8'-6" 3 EQ. SPS. = 24'-0" 8'-6" 8'-6" 2 EQ. SPS. = 12'-7ƒ" 8'-6" 1'-5 " 88'-0 " (MEASURED BETWEEN < OF POSTS) < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) 100'-3 " (MEASURED BETWEEN < OF POSTS) 1'-5 " 8'-6" 2 EQ. SPS. = 12'-7ƒ" 8'-6" 8'-6" 3 EQ. SPS. = 24'-0" 8'-6" 8'-6" 2 EQ. SPS. = 12'-7ƒ" 8'-6" OUTSIDE FACE 2'-11 " 2'-11 " 6'-11 " 1'-5 " 1'-5 " 7'-9 " 9'-6 " CABLE RAILING LAYOUT NOTES: SEE CABLE RAILING DETAILS, SHEET 3 OF 4 FOR CABLE RAILING NOTES. BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF CABLE RAILING DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B35 B49

133 A B B B B B B B B B B A 88'-0 " 8'-6" 2 EQ. SPS. = 12'-7ƒ" 8'-6" 8'-6" 3 EQ. SPS. = 24'-0" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-10ƒ" SEE DETAIL 'A' BOTTOM OF PIPE RAILING TOP OF PIPE RAILING 1'-0" MIN. CABLE RAILING TOP OF CONC. RAILING 3'-6" 10" < POST CONTROL JOINT OUTSIDE WEST ELEVATION 2'-8" A B B B B B B B B B B B B A 100'-3 " 8'-6" 2 EQ. SPS. = 12'-7ƒ" 8'-6" 8'-6" 3 EQ. SPS. = 24'-0" 8'-6" 8'-6" 2 EQ. SPS. = 12'-7ƒ" 8'-6" 1'-0" MIN. < POST BOTTOM OF TOP OF PIPE CABLE TOP OF CONC. SEE DETAIL 'A' PIPE RAILING RAILING RAILING RAILING 3'-6" 10" CONTROL JOINT OUTSIDE EAST ELEVATION 2'-8" NOTES: X DENOTES POST TYPE SEE CABLE RAILING DETAILS, SHEET 3 OF 4 FOR CABLE RAILING NOTES. BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF CABLE RAILING DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B36 B49

134 A C < CORNER POST A A C < CORNER POST B A 1/4"DIA. STAINLESS STEELCABLE TENSION REQUIREMENTS: 3 1'-5 " `2" 2'-11 " 1'-5 " VARIES 7'-9 " 4 9'-6 " 4 AMBIENT TEMPERATURE ( F) RAILING PRE-TENSION FORCE (LB) GAP < BRIDGE PILASTER & POST `2" GAP TOP OF CONC. RAILING < POST CABLE RAILING SEE DETAIL 'A' BOTTOM OF PIPE RAILING 3'-6" TOP OF PIPE RAILING 2'-8" 10" END OF WALL NOTES: X DENOTES POST TYPE CONTROL JOINT TYPICAL CORNER ELEVATION (OUTSIDE ELEVATION SHOWN, ALL CORNERS SIMILAR) POST SPACING IN THE TYPICAL CORNER ELEVATION DETAIL REFLECTS THE POST SPACING FOR BRIDGE NUMBER 27C50, THE CSAH 152 (CEDAR AVENUE) BRIDGE OVER THE MIDTOWN GREENWAY. FOR POST SPACING REQUIRED FOR BRIDGE NUMBER 27C51, THE CSAH 35 (PORTLAND AVENUE) BRIDGE OVER THE MIDTOWN GREENWAY, REFER TO THE CABLE RAILING LAYOUT DETAIL IN THE CABLE RAILING DETAILS FOUND IN THE BRIDGE NUMBER 27C51 PLANS. ALL OTHER CABLE RAILING DETAILS SHOWN IN THIS PLAN ARE SIMILAR. 9'-0" MAX. 9'-0" MAX. CONTINUOUSLY GROUND ALL METAL RAILINGS; SEE THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. REFER TO THE ELECTRICAL PLANS AND ELECTRICAL SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR DETAILS REGARDING BONDING MULTIPLE ELECTRICAL GROUNDING SYSTEMS. < POST 'A1' OR 'C' < POST 'A2' OR 'B' < POST 'A2' OR 'B' PAYMENT LENGTH SHALL BE MEASURED AS THE OUT TO OUT LENGTH ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF THE RAILING BETWEEN THE OUTSIDE ENDS, WITH DEDUCTIONS FOR THE LENGTH OF CONCRETE POSTS, IF PRESENT. PRICE BID FOR METAL RAILING SHALL INCLUDE ANCHORAGES AND ALL MATERIALS ABOVE TOP OF CONCRETE RAILING. 5ƒ" 2 " 2 " TURNBUCKLE PROVIDE SCHEDULE 40 STRUCTURAL STEEL PIPE IN THE RAIL CONFORMING TO SPEC PROVIDE PLATE ELEMENTS OF GRADE 50 STEEL MATERIAL CONFORMING TO SPEC ALL OTHER STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO SPEC " 4" " CABLE SHALL BE 1/4" DIAMETER 1x19 STAINLESS STEEL, TYPE ƒ " 2 " 2 " " 4" " 1 " 1 " " "? ƒ x 2 " < POST BASEPLATE DETAIL? " x 5ƒ" x 0'-5ƒ" < POST & RAILING " DIA. HOLE, TYP. 2" PROJ. STOP END FITTING " DIA. CABLE TURNBUCKLE " DIA. CABLE " DIA. CABLE END ELEVATION THRU ELEVATION THRU ELEVATION 8ƒ" 8ƒ" SEAL WITH SILICONE JOINT < POST & FILLER FROM MnDOT < POST & RAILING APPROVED PRODUCTS RAILING LIST 1 CONC. RAILING REINF. CABLE CONNECTION DETAILS 2" PROJ. 6" ADHESIVE ANCHOR DETAIL CAST-IN ANCHOR DETAIL (POST TYPE 'B') (POST TYPE 'A' & 'C') SEAL WITH SILICONE JOINT FILLER FROM MnDOT APPROVED PRODUCTS LIST 2 CONC. RAILING REINF. TACK 1 GRIND ALL EXPOSED EDGES SMOOTH. EACH SEPARATE RUN OF CABLE SHALL HAVE A STOP END FITTING ON ONE END AND A TURNBUCKLE ON THE OTHER END FOR CABLE TENSION ADJUSTMENT. NUMBER AND LOCATION OF TURNBUCKLES SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR BASED ON CABLE MANUFACTURERS REQUIREMENTS. GALVANIZE BOLTS, NUTS, WASHERS AND ANCHORS PER SPEC GALVANIZE ALL OTHER STRUCTURAL STEEL PER SPEC. 3394, AFTER FABRICATION. CABLE SHALL NOT BE GALVANIZED. FOR RAIL COATINGS, SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. CABLE SHALL NOT BE PAINTED. COAT THE GALVANIZED RAILING, BASE PLATES, AND PROTRUDING PORTIONS OF BOLTS, NUTS, ANCHORS, AND WASHERS. INSTALL RAIL POSTS NORMAL TO GRADE. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR REQUIREMENTS NOT INCLUDED ON THIS SHEET. SEE CONCRETE PARAPET DETAILS FOR CONTROL JOINT SPACING AND DETAILS. ADHESIVE ANCHORAGE WITH 1/2" DIA. ANCHOR ROD PER SPEC. 3385, TYPE A WITH HEX NUT AND WASHER. PROVIDE AN ADHESIVE WITH A MINIMUM CHARACTERISTIC BOND STRENGTH IN UNCRACKED CONCRETE OF 1.5 KSI. EMBED THE ANCHORAGE NO LESS THAN 6" REGARDLESS OF CHARACTERISTIC BOND STRENGTH. DRILL THROUGH REINFORCEMENT (IF ENCOUNTERED) TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM EMBEDMENT. ENSURE HEX NUT IS IN CONTACT WITH THE ADJACENT SURFACE AND TORQUE TO 60 FT-LBS UNLESS A HIGHER TORQUE IS RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER. PROOF LOAD TO 3.8 KIPS. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 2 " CAST-IN THREADED ROD WITH WASHER AND 2-HEX NUTS. 3 TENSION THE " STAINLESS STEEL CABLE TO THE VALUES SHOWN BASED ON THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION. 4 MIDDLE POST IS ON NORTHEAST CORNER ONLY. BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF CABLE RAILING DETAILS (SHEET 3 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B37 B49

135 1'-5" 1 " < RAILING 3" 1.5" DIA. STD. PIPE 1 " < RAILING 1 " < RAILING 3" 3" 3" 1.5" DIA. STD. PIPE 2.5" DIA. STD. PIPE A 6 " 6 "? ƒ" x 2 "? ƒ" x 2 "? ƒ" x 2 "? ƒ" x 2 " 6 " 7 " 9" 1'-0" " DIA. HOLE 1'-0" " DIA. HOLE 1'-0" " DIA. HOLE " DIA. HOLE 4 " SEE BASEPLATE DETAIL 4 " SEE BASEPLATE DETAIL 4 " SEE BASEPLATE DETAIL 1 " A POST TYPE 'A' DETAIL POST TYPE 'B' DETAIL POST TYPE 'C' DETAIL 3 TO < BRIDGE 1'-0" 1 " 6" 4 " < RAILING 4 " 1.5" DIA. STD. PIPE 2.5" DIA. STD. PIPE " DIA. BOLT? ƒ" x 2 " " DIA. HOLE 2 SEE BASEPLATE DETAIL 1'-0" 4 " 6" 1 " < RAILING 4 " 2.5" DIA. STD. PIPE? ƒ" x 2 " " DIA. HOLE 2 SEE BASEPLATE DETAIL 1.5" DIA. STD. PIPE " CLR. 1 " " CLR. 1 " " DIA. THROUGH BOLT W/ " DIA. HOLE " DIA. THROUGH BOLT W/ " DIA. x 1" SLOTTED ONE END ONLY < POST 2.5" DIA. STD. PIPE? ƒ" x 2 " POST 1 " 1 " 1 " 1 " TYPICAL POST ELEVATION (ALL POSTS) SECTION A-A (POST TYPE 'C') DETAIL 'A' NOTES: 1. SEE CABLE RAILING DETAILS, SHEET 3 OF 4 FOR CABLE RAILING NOTES. 2 CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A GROMMET OR ISOLATION BUSHING SIZED FOR A " CABLE. ADJUST HOLE DIMENSION AS NECESSARY TO FIT. 3 SEE CABLE RAILING LAYOUT FOR LOCATION OF POST 'C'. BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF CABLE RAILING DETAILS (SHEET 4 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B38 B49

136 15'-8" TO END OF PANEL 7'-6" 15'-8 " TO END OF PANEL BOT. PRECAST CONC. BEAM PRECAST ARCH. PANEL LEVEL 6" MIN. FF SOUTH ABUTMENT PIER ELEVATION (EAST ELEVATION SHOWN, WEST SIM.) NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE ENGINEER AND CULTURAL RESOURCES REPRESENTATIVE FOR FINAL COLOR SELECTION PRIOR TO FABRICATION INCH DIA. HOLE SPACES AT 19.5 = 78.0 (HOLES) [FREMONT AVENUE] BANKGOTHIC MD BT 95% SPACING; ALL SIGN DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE INCH THICK STEEL PLATE, (GALV. & PAINT) AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE SIGN DETAIL AND FONT CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE CONTRACTOR UPON REQUEST. 3. SIGN SHALL BE BRIDGE MOUNTED. 4. SIGN SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BID ITEM "SIGN PANELS TYPE SPECIAL (BRIDGE MOUNTED)". 5. COUNTERSINK HOLES AND PROVIDE HARDWARE TO PROVIDE A FLUSH, SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE. 6. AFTER INSTALL, TOUCH UP PAINT AS REQUIRED AND PAINT ALL EXPOSED HARDWARE. 7. ATTACH SIGN PANEL TO PRECAST ARCHITECTURAL PANELS WITH POST INSTALLED CONCRETE ANCHORS. ANCHORS SHALL BE GALVANIZED. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT CRACK OR CAUSE DAMAGE TO CONCRETE PANELS. BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF BRIDGE MOUNTED SIGN DETAILS DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B39 B49

137 1" 3" 3" 2 1" x 6" LONG SLOTTED HOLE FOR ƒ" DIA. x 1 " FLATHEAD CAP SCREW WITH " SQUARE OR HEX SOCKET. " x 10" x 2'-2" PLATE APPLY BRIDGE BEARING LUBRICANT PER MnDOT APPROVED 2" LONG HEX COUPLING TO BE RECESSED " BELOW PRODUCTS LIST TO SCREW THREADS. 9 NUT AND ƒ" DIA. x 4" FACE OF BARRIER BOLT 10" 2 2" TOP OF EXTRUSION 7 TOP OF DECK " BEVEL 8 BLOCK OUT CONCRETE * TO PERMIT GLAND 2" LONG HEX COUPLING NUT AND ƒ" DIA. x 4" BOLT. PLACEMENT DO NOT TIGHTEN DOWN CAP SCREW. SEE DETAIL "A". SEE BENT STUD DETAIL 1 " MINIMUM RADIUS Œ" SQ. x 1'-3" LONG BARS OR " DIA. x 1'-3" LONG RODS 2" SECTION THROUGH BARRIER BAR-ROD DETAIL B 2" 4" 2" 1" 3"` 3"` 3" 6" 8" TOP OF DEVICE SEE BENT 1" MIN. STUD DETAIL * TOP OF BLOCK OUT 4" GUTTER LINE GUTTER LINE TYPE F BARRIER 2 B TRAFFIC BLOCK OUT FLARED AREA AS SHOWN FOR 5 GLAND INSTALLATION 1" MIN. 1 TRAFFIC 1 " DIA. x 6" LONG BENT 5 1'-6" (MAX.) SPG. IN NON TRAFFIC AREAS. WELD TO EXPANSION DEVICE. B BENT STUD DETAIL PLAN EXPANSION DEVICE 2 BARRIER FACE SEE BENT SLOPE BREAKLINE STUD DETAIL SEE BENT STUD DETAIL GUTTER LINE 4" MAX. MEDIAN OR SIDEWALK ALTERNATE 2 B 3" 1ƒ " " BARRIER ELEVATION GLAND CHAMFER < ƒ" DIA. x 1 " FLATHEAD CAP SCREW WITH " SQUARE OR HEX SOCKET. APPLY BRIDGE BEARING LUBRICANT PER MnDOT APPROVED PRODUCTS LIST TO SCREW THREADS. 9 " x 10"x 2'-2" PLATE TO BE RECESSED " BELOW FACE OF BARRIER AND ƒ" DIA. x 4" BOLT TOP OF DECK 1" CLR. EXPANSION DEVICE 3 TOP SECTION C-C TYP. C C TOP OF DECK WELD DETAIL "B" EDGE OF PLATE POSITION PLATE AND BOLT ANCHORAGE IN CONCRETE TO ALLOW " PLATE TO CROWN BREAK FIELD FIT AND WELD CLOSE COMPLETELY DETAIL "A" GENERAL NOTES ƒ" DIA. x 1 " FLATHEAD CAP SCREW WITH " SQUARE OR HEX SOCKET. APPLY BRIDGE BEARING LUBRICANT PER MnDOT APPROVED PRODUCTS LIST TO SCREW THREADS. 9 " PLATE 2" LONG HEX COUPLING 2" LONG HEX COUPLING NUT NUT WITH BOLT 8 SPEC L. IN 10 FT. PER MnDOT APPROVED PRODUCTS LIST TO SCREW THREADS. 9 THE CENTERLINE OF JOINT. " ( " MAX.). EMBED THREADS ƒ" GALVANIZE STRUCTURAL STEEL AFTER FABRICATION PER SPEC GALVANIZE FASTENERS PER SPEC LOCATE JOINTS IN EXTRUSION AT BREAKS IN TRANSVERSE PROFILE AND AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED, WITH CLOSE FIT, WELDED JOINTS. REPAIR AFTER WELDING PER PROVIDE STRUCTURAL STEEL PER SPEC OR SPEC STRAIGHTEN EXPANSION DEVICE TO A TOLERANCE OF " ƒ" DIA. X 1 " FLATHEAD CAP SCREW WITH " SQUARE OR HEX SOCKET PER SPEC COUNTERSINK CAP SCREWS ˆ" BELOW TOP OF PLATE. APPLY BRIDGE BEARING LUBRICANT PAYMENT LENGTH IS BASED ON THE HORIZONTAL DISTANCE BETWEEN THE OUTSIDE EDGES OF THE DECK MEASURED ALONG DIMENSIONS ARE ALONG CENTERLINE OF JOINT. " ( " MAX.) WHEN SNOWPLOW FINGERS ARE USED. SNOWPLOW FINGERS ARE REQUIRED FOR SKEWS OVER 6" MIN. TO CURVE. 8 4" MAX. TRAFFIC 5 5" SEE BAR-ROD DETAIL " SEE SUPERSTRUCTURE DETAILS FOR RADIUS. SEE SHEET NO. FOR DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC. PLACE BAR-ROD NORMAL TO JOINT ON NEW BRIDGES AND JOINT REPLACEMENTS. ON JOINT REPLACEMENTS 4 4" GUTTER LINE TRAFFIC 5 B PLAN EXPANSION DEVICE 6 FIELD WELD CROWN BREAK A A 1 EL.. (_. ABUT.) EL.. (_. ABUT.) 7 " x 3" x 8" PLATE DETAILS SYMMETRICAL ABOUT < JOINT GUTTER LINE CROWN BREAK SEE DET. "B" " SECTION A-A EL.. (_. ABUT.) EL.. (_. ABUT.) EL.. (_. ABUT.) EL.. (_. ABUT.) TYP. 1'-O" TYP. < ROADWAY EL.. (_. ABUT.) EL.. (_. ABUT.) TOP OF EXP. DEVICE GUTTER LINE RODS PARALLEL TO < ROADWAY. 7 EXTEND GLAND 1" MIN. BEYOND THE TOP OF THE EXTRUSION. 8 PROVIDE SMOOTH CONCRETE FINISH BENEATH PLATE WITH 0" MIN. TO " MAX. GAP BETWEEN CONCRETE AND UNDERSIDE OF PLATE. PROVIDE BOND BREAKER ( DUCT TAPE, ETC.) TO UNDERSIDE OF COVER PLATE. 9 LUBRICANT PER MnDOT APPROVED/QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST: BRIDGE GREASE. EL.. (_. ABUT.) EL.. (_. ABUT.) 7 WITH CURVED DEVICE ALTERNATE REVISION: FEBRUARY 22, 2018 B 4" MAX. 1'-6" MAX. SPG. 9" 9" 1'-6" MAX. SPG. 9" 9" 1'-6" MAX. SPG. 9" 9" 1'-6" MAX. SPG. 4" MAX. APPROVED: AUGUST 24, 2016 STATE BRIDGE ENGINEER PLAN EXPANSION DEVICE WITH STRAIGHT DEVICE ANCHORAGE SPG. 1 SECTION B-B ~ ALONG < JOINT ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE " BELOW TOP OF < JOINT ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE " BELOW TOP OF < JOINT FIG (A) BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: E. HANSON WATERPROOF EXPANSION DEVICE (SHEET 1 OF 2) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: E. HANSON S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B40 B49

138 2" 1'-6" MAX. SPG. 5" BOLT AND FLAT HEAD CAP SCREW 1"`.01'/ FT " 30 00' 1" ƒ" RADIUS 3" TOP OF DECK 2" 1'-6" MAX. SPG. 5" BOLT AND FLAT HEAD CAP SCREW 1"`.01'/ FT " 1" ƒ" RADIUS 6" 2 MAX. 2 SEE DETAIL "A" 1" MIN. TOP OF DECK 3" "x 1'-9" RAISED PATTERN PLATE TO BE RECESSED " FROM HORIZONTAL TOP SURFACE AND " FROM VERTICAL CURB FACE OF SIDEWALK 6" 2" MAX. < ƒ" DIA. x 1 " FLAT HEAD CAP SCREW WITH " SQUARE OR HEX SOCKET. APPLY BRIDGE BEARING LUBRICANT TO SCREW THREADS. 4 2" 2" LONG HEX COUPLING NUT ƒ" DIA. x 4" BOLT TOP OF DECK SEE BENT STUD DETAIL 1'-6" MAX. SPG. BLOCK OUT FLARED AREA 1" MIN. BLOCK OUT FLARED AREA 1" MIN. 1" CLR. TRAFFIC BLOCK OUT FLARED AREA AS SHOWN FOR GLAND INSTALLATION GUTTER LINE SECTION THROUGH RAISED SIDEWALK - OPTION 1 2 3" 2" 1 " " x 1'-0 " RAISED PATTERN COVER PLATE < ƒ" DIA. x 1 " FLAT HEAD CAP SCREW SEE BENT STUD DETAIL GUTTER LINE 1'-6" MAX. SPG. SECTION THROUGH RAISED SIDEWALK - OPTION 2 10" 2 2 2" ELEVATION RAISED SIDEWALK DETAILS "` " 6" MINIMUM " RAISED PATTERN COVER PLATE 2 1" " 1 SEE DETAIL "A" TOP OF DECK " 1" x 6" LONG SLOTTED HOLE FOR ƒ" DIA. x 1 " FLAT HEAD CAP SCREW TOP OF BRUSH CURB " x 1'-0" x 2'-2" PLATE TO BE RECESSED " FROM 2" LONG HEX WITH " SQUARE OR HEX SOCKET. SCREW WITH " SQUARE OR HEX SOCKET. COUPLING NUT APPLY BRIDGE BEARING LUBRICANT TO APPLY BRIDGE BEARING LUBRICANT TO SCREW THREADS. 4 SCREW THREADS. 4 2" LONG HEX COUPLING NUT AND ƒ" DIA. x 4" BOLT. DO NOT TIGHTEN DOWN CAP SCREW. SEE DETAIL "A" ƒ" DIA. x 4" BOLT ON STANDARD FIGURE (A). 2" LONG HEX COUPLING NUT STAGGERED AT AND ƒ" DIA. x 4" BOLT 1'-0" MAX. SPACING SECTION D-D 3 TOP OF DECK (INTEGRAL SIDEWALK) " BEVEL 2 BLOCK OUT AREA TRAFFIC * TOP OF BLOCK OUT FLARED AS SHOWN FOR GLAND INSTALLATION 1" CLR. " GAP ELEVATION TYP. BLOCK OUT CONCRETE (CONCRETE PARAPET AND BACK OF TYPE F BARRIER) TO PERMIT GLAND PLACEMENT FACE OF BARRIER < ƒ" DIA. x 1 " FLAT HEAD CAP DETAIL "A" GENERAL NOTES SEE OTHER WATERPROOF EXPANSION DEVICE SHEET FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS AND NOTES. TRANSVERSE DECK REINFORCEMENT MAY BE SHIFTED THE MINIMUM DISTANCE REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION DEVICE PLACEMENT. ƒ" DIA. X 1 " FLATHEAD CAP SCREW WITH " SQUARE OR HEX SOCKET PER SPEC COUNTERSINK CAP SCREWS ˆ" FROM TOP OF PLATE. APPLY BRIDGE BEARING LUBRICANT PER MnDOT APPROVED PRODUCTS LIST TO SCREW THREADS. 4 1 PROVIDE SMOOTH CONCRETE FINISH BENEATH PLATE WITH 0" MIN. TO " MAX. GAP BETWEEN CONCRETE AND UNDERSIDE OF PLATE. PROVIDE BOND BREAKER (DUCT TAPE, ETC.) TO UNDERSIDE OF COVER PLATE. 2 SEE NOTE 2 ON OTHER WATERPROOF EXPANSION DEVICE SHEET. 3 2" LONG HEX COUPLING NUT ƒ" DIA. x 4" BOLT BLOCK OUT CONCRETE TO PERMIT GLAND PLACEMENT SEE BENT STUD DETAIL " MIN. 2" " x 1'-0" x 2'-2" PLATE WITH BRUSH CURB TO BE RECESSED " FROM FACE OF BARRIER (ƒ" INSIDE BEND RADIUS) 10" * 4" 7" 2" 1'-1" D D TOP OF DECK 2" LONG HEX COUPLING NUT AND ƒ" DIA. x 4" 1" 1" 1'-1" 4" 7" 2" BOLT 10" * 2" " " x 10" x 2'-2" PLATE TO BE RECESSED " FROM FACE OF BARRIER 2" 4" 2" 1" 3" 6" TOP OF DEVICE 1" MIN. 1" MIN. 9" * "x 1'-9" RAISED PATTERN PLATE TO BE RECESSED " FROM HORIZONTAL TOP SURFACE AND VERTICAL CURB FACE OF SIDEWALK 6" TOP OF DECK 2 MAX. 1" MIN. 2 6" 2" MAX. < ƒ" DIA. x 1 " FLAT HEAD CAP SCREW 2" 1" CLR. 2" LONG HEX COUPLING NUT AND ƒ" DIA. x 3" BOLT TOP OF DECK 3 DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH A.D.A. STANDARDS. 4 LUBRICANT PER MnDOT APPROVED/QUALIFIED PRODUCTS LIST: BRIDGE GREASE. GUTTER LINE 2ƒ" RADIUS TOP OF DECK 1" MIN. 12 5" 1'-6" MAX. SPG. 2" X SYMMETRICAL ABOUT BOLT AND CAP SCREW 12 X < MEDIAN 6" " GUTTER LINE 6" 1'-6" MAX. SPG. 4" 4" REVISION: FEBRUARY 22, 2018 APPROVED: AUGUST 24, 2016 CONCRETE PARAPET BENT STUDS GUTTER LINE TYPE F BARRIER TRAFFIC MEDIAN ELEVATION BLOCK OUT FLARED AREA 1'-6" MAX. SPG. MEDIAN SECTION SEE BENT STUD DETAIL STATE BRIDGE ENGINEER SECTION THROUGH BARRIERS - INTEGRAL SIDEWALK FIG (A) BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: E. HANSON WATERPROOF EXPANSION DEVICE (SHEET 2 OF 2) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: E. HANSON S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B41 B49

139 ƒ" ƒ" 2" " " WELD B 1" 1" SET NAMEPLATE FLUSH WITH " " THICKNESS (MIN.) " 5 " PLAN VIEW A " " SURFACE OF CONCRETE A 120 A " DIA. ROD 4 " " R " ƒ " " 1" " DRILL AND TAP FOR " DIA. BOLT " 2Š " PLAN VIEW - SPLICE BACK-UP RING PILE NOT SHOWN B SECTION B-B PILE NOT SHOWN PILE SHELL A " " SPLICE BACK-UP RING 6" " " ELEVATION SECTION A-A SPLICE BACK-UP RING " 45 THE DASHED NUMBERS SHOWN ABOVE ARE FOR ILLUSTRATION. DATA TO BE SHOWN ON NAMEPLATE IS AS FOLLOWS: 27J72 BRIDGE FULL BUTT WELD ALL AROUND 1 T " B-U4a YEAR 2020 PILE SHELL " 1" T NUMBERS FOR NAMEPLATE DETAIL "A" 1 SECTION A-A NOTES: NOTES: MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH SPEC LETTERS AND NUMBERS SHALL CONFORM TO THOSE SHOWN. DRAFT ON LETTERS AND NUMBERS SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN 3" IN 12". HORIZONTAL SPACING OF LETTERS AND NUMBERS SHALL PRODUCE A BALANCED LAYOUT IN PROPORTION TO SPACING SHOWN. TOP SURFACE OF LETTERS, NUMBERS AND FRAMES SHALL BE BURNISHED. FURNISH 2 STEEL BOLTS " DIA. x 3" LONG WITH EACH PLATE. ALL DIMENSIONS FOR ƒ" HIGH LETTERS AND NUMBERS SHALL BE IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO THOSE SHOWN FOR THE 1" HIGH LETTERS AND NUMBERS. APPROVED COMMERCIAL PILE SPLICE BACK-UP RING MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF THE TYPE DETAILED, PROVIDED THAT " ROOT IS MAINTAINED. BACK-UP RING SHALL HAVE A TIGHT FIT. WELDING ELECTRODES SHALL BE CELLULOSIC TYPE ELECTRODES E-6010 OR E ELECTRODES WHICH HAVE BECOME WET, SOILED OR DAMAGED SHALL NOT BE USED. WELDING SHALL NOT BE DONE WHEN THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE IS LOWER THAN O F. OR WHEN THE PILE IS WET OR EXPOSED TO FALLING RAIN OR SNOW. WHEN THE PILE METAL TEMPERATURE IS BELOW 32 F., THE PILE METAL IN THE AREA OF THE WELD SHALL BE HEATED TO A MINIMUM TEMPERATURE OF 7O F. AND MAINTAINED AT THIS TEMPERATURE DURING WELDING. 1 FOR PILE SHELL THICKNESSES GREATER THAN ", USE A B-U4a WELD CONFIGURATION. SEE DETAIL "A". APPROVED: NOVEMBER 22, 2002 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REVISION DETAIL NO. APPROVED: NOVEMBER 22, 2002 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REVISION: DETAIL NO. STATE BRIDGE ENGINEER BRIDGE NAMEPLATE (FOR NEW BRIDGES) B101 STATE BRIDGE ENGINEER PILE SPLICE (CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE PILES) B201 BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF BRIDGE DETAILS (SHEET 1 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B42 B49

140 2 2 6 " 8 " 6" 6" M AND RB SHAPE BEAMS MN SHAPE BEAMS 12" X 24" ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD < BEAM (SYMM. ABT. <) TYP. " X " X 10" SOLID BAR 2 13 " 6" MW SHAPE BEAMS " DIA. x 4" TO 5" LONG UNHEADED SHEAR STUD (6 TYP.) 10" < BEARING ASSEMBLY ƒ " A A Š 3 " CLEAR (6) M AND RB SHAPE BEAMS 2'-1ƒ" CHAMFER (SIDES ONLY) 10" 2" 10" 1" MN SHAPE BEAMS 2'-5ƒ" PATTERN A-1 MW SHAPE BEAMS 3'-2ƒ" (VIEW AT BOTTOM OF BEARING PLATE) FRONT ELEVATION " DIA. x 4" TO 5" LONG 6" 6" 2 UNHEADED SHEAR STUD (6 TYP.) 16" X 36" ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD < BEAM (SYMM. ABT. <) TYP. 1'-5" 8 " 1'-3" 7 " 3" 3" 2 < SHEAR STUDS < BRG. 6" 2" 6" " X " X 10" SOLID BAR TYP. ON LONG SIDES " X " X 6" SOLID BAR TYP. ON ENDS < BEARING ASSEMBLY MW SHAPE BEAMS M, MN AND RB SHAPE BEAMS M AND RB SHAPE BEAMS 4 " 8" < PINTLE HOLE (2 REQUIRED) < BEAM 10" 2" 10" 2" 10" PATTERN A-2 (VIEW AT BOTTOM OF BEARING PLATE) " CLEAR 1" MN SHAPE BEAMS MW SHAPE BEAMS 6 " 8" 11 " 8" SECTION A-A " X " ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD < BEAM (SYMM. ABT. <) TYP. " X " X " NOTES: PROVIDE STRUCTURAL STEEL PER SPEC " MIN. 10" MAX. SOLID BAR TYP. ON LONG SIDES < BEARING ASSEMBLY 2 " ƒ " " BEVEL SOLE PLATE ALL AROUND 1ƒ" DIA. 1 PINTLE HOLE DETAIL 2 " LONG x 1ƒ" DIA. POLYSTYRENE, TYPE B, PLUG. REMOVE PLUG PRIOR TO BEAM INSTALLATION. PROVIDE WELDED STUDS OF WELDABLE CARBON STEEL PER SPEC D. GALVANIZE SOLE PLATE FOR BEARING ASSEMBLY PER SPEC AFTER FABRICATION. ENSURE PINTLE HOLES ARE FREE OF ZINC BUILD UP FROM GALVANIZING. SOLE PLATES ARE INCIDENTAL TO PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMS. 1 2 FOR 1 " DIA. PINTLES. THESE DIMENSIONS MAY BE MODIFIED TO CLEAR PRESTRESSED STRANDS. HOWEVER, CHANGES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 6" MIN. 2" 10" MAX. " X " X " SOLID BAR TYP. ON ENDS 6" MIN. 6" MIN. 10" MAX. 2" 10" MAX. PATTERN A-3 (VIEW AT BOTTOM OF BEARING PLATE) " CLEAR NOTES: INSTALL " X " SOLID RESTRAINT BARS SYMMETRIC 1" TO CENTER OF BEARING PLATE WITH CLEAR DISTANCE OF " FROM EDGE OF BEARING PAD TO INSIDE FACE OF RESTRAINT BAR. RESTRAINT BARS INCLUDED IN PAYMENT FOR BEARING ASSEMBLY. 3 STUD WELDING PER AWS D1.1. APPROVED: SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REVISION DETAIL NO. APPROVED: NOVEMBER 02, 2017 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REVISION DETAIL NO. STATE BRIDGE ENGINEER SOLE PLATE (PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMS) (FOR BEARINGS WITH PINTLES) B303 STATE BRIDGE ENGINEER BEARING PAD RESTRAINT B307 BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF BRIDGE DETAILS (SHEET 2 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B43 B49

141 E E H * * * EQUAL DISTANCE " H " C 1" A 1" CLR. B 8" 8" 2" < BEAM (SYMM. ABT. <) G M 2 Y 2" DIA. HOLE FOR ANCHOR RODS < BEARING ASSEMBLY BEARING PLATE L F J 1" EXACT ˆ " 1 " DIA. PINTLE (DRIVING FIT) " BEVEL CURVED PLATE 1 BEARING PLATE C 1" A G 1" CLR. B 8" 8" < BEAM (SYMM. ABT. <) Y ƒ" " DIA. HANDLING HOLE < BEARING ASSEMBLY ƒ " L BEARING PLATE F J 1" EXACT ˆ " 1 " DIA. PINTLE (DRIVING FIT) " BEVEL CURVED PLATE 1 BEARING PLATE 1" HOLE FOR PINTLE CURVED PLATE PINTLE ANCHOR ROD 1 " MIN. PROJ. Y ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD PLAN ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD SECTION X-X SECTION Y-Y X MN SHAPE SHOWN (OTHER SHAPES SIMILAR) 1 " DIA. CURVED PLATE BEARING PLATE TOP OF BRIDGE SEAT D TOP OF PAD ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD RESTRAINT BAR 3 X ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD SIDE ELEVATION ANCHOR RODS NOT SHOWN L 1'-3" ANCHOR ROD DETAIL 1" HOLE FOR PINTLE CURVED PLATE Y ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD SECTION Y-Y PLAN X MN SHAPE SHOWN (OTHER SHAPES SIMILAR) CURVED PLATE PINTLE BEARING PLATE TOP OF BRIDGE SEAT ELASTOMERIC ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD BEARING PAD X L D 3 " " SECTION X-X SIDE ELEVATION SECTION THROUGH ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD D ELASTOMERIC BEARING PAD TOP OF PAD RESTRAINT BAR 4 STEEL PLATES 2 " ALL SIDES LAMINATE THICKNESS SEE TABLE TABLE TABLE ASSEMBLY TYPE LOCATION BEAM SIZE BEARING PAD BEARING PLATE CURVED PLATE ANCHOR ROD ASSY. SIZE SHAPE SIZE SIZE OFFSET HEIGHT FACTOR A B D C E F G H J R 1 +/- 2 M L RESTRAINT PATTERN 3 ASSEMBLY TYPE LOCATION BEAM SIZE BEARING PAD STEEL BEARING PLATE CURVED PLATE ASSY. SIZE PLATES LAMINATES SHAPE SIZE SIZE HEIGHT FACTOR A B D NO. THICK. NO. THICK. C E F G H J R 1 L RESTRAINT PATTERN 4 RB, M, & MN 12" 24" " " 1 " 4 " 26" 1 " 3 " A-1 RB, M, & MN 12" 24" " " 14" 27" 1 " 4 " 26" 1 " A-1 MW 16" 36" " " 1 " 4 " 38" 1 " 3 " A-2 MW 16" 36" " " 18" 39" 1 " 4 " 38" 1 " A-2 NOTES: NOTES: PROVIDE ELASTOMERIC MATERIALS AND PAD CONSTRUCTION PER SPEC REFER TO BEARING PAD RESTRAINT SHEET FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DETAILS. PROVIDE ELASTOMERIC MATERIALS AND PAD CONSTRUCTION PER SPEC REFER TO BEARING PAD RESTRAINT SHEET FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DETAILS. PROVIDE STEEL PLATES PER SPEC PROVIDE STEEL PLATES PER SPEC PROVIDE ANCHOR RODS PER SPEC PROVIDE PINTLES PER SPEC GALVANIZE PER SPEC PROVIDE PINTLES PER SPEC GALVANIZE STRUCTURAL STEEL BEARING ASSEMBLY AFTER FABRICATION PER SPEC. 3394, EXCEPT AS NOTED. GALVANIZE STRUCTURAL STEEL BEARING ASSEMBLY AFTER FABRICATION PER SPEC. 3394, EXCEPT AS NOTED. PAYMENT FOR BEARING ASSEMBLY INCLUDES ALL MATERIAL ON THIS DETAIL. PAYMENT FOR BEARING ASSEMBLY INCLUDES ALL MATERIAL ON THIS DETAIL. 1 THE MIN. RADIUS IS 16" UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE TABLE. THE MAX. RADIUS IS 24". FINISH TO 250 MICRO. THE FINISHED THICKNESS OF THE PLATE MAY BE ˆ" LESS THAN SHOWN. 2 " "DENOTES OFFSET AS SHOWN. " DENOTES " OFFSET OPPOSITE OF SHOWN. DESIGN DATA: MAX. FACTORED SHEAR RESISTANCE: KIPS PER 1 " DIA. PINTLE KIPS PER 1 " DIA. ANCHOR ROD 1 THE MIN. RADIUS IS 16" UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE TABLE. THE MAX. RADIUS IS 24". FINISH TO 250 MICRO. THE FINISHED THICKNESS OF THE PLATE MAY BE ˆ" LESS THAN SHOWN. 2 DO NOT GALVANIZE THESE PLATES. 3 THE TOTAL THICKNESS SHOWN INCLUDES THE STEEL PLATES. DESIGN DATA: MAX. FACTORED SHEAR RESISTANCE: KIPS PER 1 " DIA. PINTLE APPROVED: SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 STATE BRIDGE ENGINEER STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CURVED PLATE BEARING ASSEMBLY (PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMS) (FIXED) REVISED DETAIL NO. B310 APPROVED: SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 STATE BRIDGE ENGINEER STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CURVED PLATE BEARING ASSEMBLY (PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMS) (EXPANSION) REVISED DETAIL NO B311 BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF BRIDGE DETAILS (SHEET 3 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B44 B49

142 EDGE OF TOP FLANGE 3" 1'-6" MAX. SPACES 3" SD401E AND SD508E 5 EDGE OF TOP FLANGE BRIDGE APPROACH 3 TOP OF ROADWAY SLAB PERMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION JOINT A 2-SD403E 1 PLACE ADDITIONAL SD508E AT END OF BEAM AS SHOWN PER NOTE 5 4 " CLR. FRONT FACE ABUTMENT SD 05E CONCRETE SLAB 4 3 4'-0" 9" SD401E SD506E (IF L < 8') 1 PERMISSIBLE CONSTRUCTION JOINT TOP OF BEAM THREADED RODS, SEE BEAM DETAIL SHEETS. 4'-0" < END DIAPHRAGM ALONG < BEAM 4 " CLR. SD 05E OR SD506E SD 04E SECTION A-A (M SHAPE PCB SHOWN) 9" TYP. 5 SD508E SPCD. WITH SD401E " 1'-4" A M SHAPE PCB L = DISTANCE ALONG < OF DIAPHRAGM PART TRANSVERSE SECTION SD 05E (IF L > 8') (L > 8' SHOWN) 3" 1 1 4" 2" CLR. 2-SD 04E SEE PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAM SHEET FOR THREADED ROD DETAILS 2 10" MIN. FOR 27M & 36M 1'-1" MIN. FOR MN45 - MN63 1'-2" MIN. FOR 82MW & 96MW 4" (27M & 36M) 2" (MN45 - MN63) 1ƒ " (82MW & 96MW) 27M 1'-6" 36M & MN45 1'-8" 2'-0" SD507E ENTIRE LENGTH OF DIAPHRAGM 5 2" MIN. ALONG WEB FACE SD508E MN54 & MN63 5 2'-8" 82MW & 96MW USE OF CONSTRUCTION JOINT REQUIRES CLEARANCE 2 3 AT INTERIOR BEAMS UP TO 8' OVER 8' TO 11' OVER 11' TO 13' OVER 13' TO 15' OVER 15' TO 18' STRAIGHT NO BARS REQUIRED SIZE BILL OF REINFORCEMENT FOR END DIAPHRAGM BAR NO. LENGTH SHAPE NOTES: LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT IN BOTTOM OF DIAPHRAGM DISTANCE "L" ALONG < OF DIAPHRAGM 5'-0" NO. SIZE LOCATION VERTICAL TIE BENT LONG. THRU BEAM LONG. TOP LONG. BOTTOM LONGITUDINAL LONGITUDINAL CONCRETE FOR END DIAPHRAGMS SHALL BE THE SAME MIX AS USED IN DECK. 11E QUANTITIES FOR END DIAPHRAGM CONCRETE AND REINFORCEMENT SHOWN ON THIS DETAIL SHALL BE LISTED IN SUPERSTRUCTURE QUANTITIES. THREADED RODS ARE INCIDENTAL TO PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMS. 4 5 SD401E SD702E SD403E SD 04E SD 05E SD506E SD507E SD508E 10E 11E FOR EXPANSION DEVICE. WHEN CONSTRUCTION JOINT IS USED AT THIS LOCATION, DIAPHRAGM FALSEWORK SHALL REMAIN INPLACE UNTIL COMPLETION OF SLAB CURING PERIOD. 2-SD702E LONGITUDINAL VERTICAL TIE PERPENDICULAR TO CENTERLINE OF DIAPHRAGM. 1'-11" (27M); 2'-1" (36M AND MN45); 2'-5" (MN54 AND MN63); 3'-1" (82MW AND 96MW). BASED ON 3" STOOL AND 9" DECK. 1'-10" (27M); 2'-0" (36M AND MN45); 2'-4" (MN54 AND MN63); 3'-0" (82MW AND 96MW). BASED ON NOTE 3. REINFORCEMENT. SPACE SD508E AT 1'-6" MAX. FOR TRANSVERSE SECTION" ABOVE. 6E ENTIRE LENGTH OF DIAPHRAGM. REFER TO "PART 7E 8E ADD SD507E AND SD508E ONLY IF NO. OF BARS 9E AND LENGTHS ARE INCLUDED IN BILL OF 5E 6E 8E SLOPE PROTECTION 3 2 FOOTING 45 ELBOW 1 WINGWALL DAYLIGHT END OF PIPE IN SLOPE APPROACH B A BRIDGE B A 4" NOMINAL PERFORATED PIPE SECTION B-B 4" NOMINAL DIA. PERFORATED PIPE 2 SECTION THROUGH PARAPET AND SEMI-INTEGRAL ABUTMENTS 4" NOMINAL DIA. PERFORATED PIPE (HIGH SIDE) 6" LOW SIDE FRONT FACE ABUTMENT CAP END SECTION THROUGH INTEGRAL ABUTMENT 4" NOMINAL DIA. UNPERFORATED PIPE 2 FRONT FACE ABUTMENT FRONT FACE ABUTMENT 2 CAP END ON HIGH SIDE FOOTING 4" NOMINAL PERFORATED PIPE NOTES: PIPE THROUGH ABUTMENT SECTION A-A CONCRETE HEADWALLS. SLOPE CAN BE MAINTAINED. " PER FT. MINIMUM SLOPE. REQUIREMENTS. 4" NOMINAL DIA. UNPERFORATED ALL PIPE TO COMPLY WITH SPEC (6). WINGWALL COUPLING SEE STANDARD PLATE 3131 FOR DETAILS. PIPE SLEEVE 45 ELBOW 1 2 DAYLIGHT END OF PIPE IN SLOPE PAYMENT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE SINGLE LUMP SUM PRICE FOR "DRAINAGE SYSTEM TYPE (B910)", INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO 4" DIAMETER PERFORATED AND UNPERFORATED PIPE, ELBOWS, END CAPS, COUPLINGS, SLEEVES AND PRECAST SLEEVE PERFORATED PIPE WITH GEOTEXTILE KNIT SOCK PER SPEC. 3733, TYPE 1. ATTACH TO PIPE PER SPEC B. AT CONTRACTOR'S OPTION, TIE APPROACH PANEL DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND ABUTMENT DRAINAGE SYSTEM INTO A SINGLE PRECAST CONCRETE HEADWALL OR INTO A CATCH BASIN AS LONG AS A MINIMUM OF 1% POSITIVE USE PRECAST CONCRETE HEADWALL WITH RODENT SCREEN. REFER TO GRADING PLANS FOR ABUTMENT BACKFILL APPROVED: SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 STATE BRIDGE ENGINEER STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONCRETE END DIAPHRAGM (27M & 36M, MN45 - MN63, 82MW & 96MW PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMS) (PARAPET ABUTMENT) REVISED DETAIL NO. B814 APPROVED: JANUARY 13, 2015 STATE BRIDGE ENGINEER STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DRAINAGE SYSTEM REVISED DETAIL NO B910 BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF BRIDGE DETAILS (SHEET 4 OF 4) DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: J. HOFFMAN FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B45 B49

143 WEARING COURSE PAINT SYSTEM OTHER ITEMS 1 1 UTILITIES ADDED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND SPECIALTY ITEMS. LOW SLUMP MnDOT SPECIFICATION NUMBER 2478 OR 2479 OR OTHER FINAL QUANTITIES ENTERED ON SCHEDULE OF QUANTITIES: YES NO OTHER TYPE OR MANUFACTURER MANUFACTURER NAME AND ADDRESS (CITY, STATE) REMOVE & PATCH QUANTITIES (SF) CONCRETE SURFACE REPAIR (SF) TYPE A: TYPE B: TYPE C: TYPE D: TYPE E: TYPE F: CLEAN & PAINT REINF. (SF) EXPANSION JOINTS PRIME COAT MnDOT MATERIAL SPECIFICATION NUMBER INTERMEDIATE COAT JOINT MANUFACTURER MnDOT MATERIAL SPECIFICATION NUMBER FINISH COAT MANUFACTURER'S IDENTIFICATION MnDOT MATERIAL SPECIFICATION NUMBER COLOR MFR'S No. AND/OR LETTER DESIGNATION FOR JOINT USED GLAND MANUFACTURER NAME AND ADDRESS (CITY, STATE) PLAN QUALITY SIZE OF GLAND RATE 1 (AGREE), 2 (NEUTRAL), OR 3 (DISAGREE, PLEASE COMMENT BELOW) MANUFACTURER'S IDENTIFICATION MFR'S No. AND/OR LETTER DESIGNATION FOR GLAND USED DIMENSIONING AND DETAILING ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION. BAR LISTS AND QUANTITIES WERE TYPICALLY COMPLETE AND FREE OF ERRORS. ELASTOMERIC BEARING PADS SCALE OF DRAWINGS AND OVERALL LEGIBILITY OF LINES AND TEXT WAS GOOD. (SB) SPECIAL PROVISIONS ADEQUATELY DESCRIBED SPECIAL WORK AND PAYMENT. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AS-BUILT CHANGES PAD MANUFACTURER NAME AND ADDRESS (CITY, STATE) COMMENTS: SPECIAL SURFACE FINISH PRODUCT NAME: COLOR & TEXTURE: FINISHING ROADWAY FACES OF BARRIER OR PARAPET PRODUCT NAME: COLOR & TEXTURE: NUMBER OF BRIDGE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS: COST: LIST SIGNIFICANT ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN PLAN DETAILS OR PAY QUANTITIES IN THE SPACE PROVIDED AT RIGHT. $ NOTIFICATION TO ADD, REMOVE, OR REHAB A STRUCTURE MANUFACTURER PRODUCT NAME: ANTI-GRAFFITI COATING NAME AND ADDRESS (CITY, STATE) LOCATION: PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING WEBSITE AND COMPLETE THE FORM WHEN ADDING, REMOVING OR REHABILITATING A STRUCTURE: (CONTACT THE BRIDGE INVENTORY MANAGEMENT UNIT AT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS) - WHEN ADDING A NEW STRUCTURE - (SEND WHEN THE BRIDGE IS OPEN TO TRAFFIC) - WHEN REMOVING A STRUCTURE - (SEND WHEN THE BRIDGE IS NO LONGER IN SERVICE) - WHEN REHABILITATING A STRUCTURE - (SEND WHEN THE REHABILITATION IS COMPLETE) CHANGE OF VERTICAL CLEARANCE PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING WEBSITE WHEN CHANGING THE VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF EXISTING BRIDGE STRUCTURE: (CONTACT THE BRIDGE INVENTORY MANAGEMENT UNIT AT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS) THE AS-BUILT INFORMATION WAS ADDED TO THE PLAN BY: INSPECTOR(S) SIGNATURE DATE REVISION: APPROVED: MAY 10, 2017 AS-BUILT DETAILS CHECKED BY: PROJECT ENGINEER/SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE WHEN BRIDGE IS OPEN TO TRAFFIC, COMPLETE THIS AS-BUILT BRIDGE DATA SHEET AND SUBMIT TO THE BRIDGE OFFICE VIA AT: BridgeForms.dot@state.mn.us. STATE BRIDGE ENGINEER (AS NEEDED) FIG BRIDGE NO. 27J72 DESIGN BY: S. NEFF AS-BUILT BRIDGE DATA SHEET CAD BY: CHECKED BY: LAST REVISION: J. HOFFMAN C. BLACK / / FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT B46 B49 $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$

144 AVE. S. LAKE PKWY. QUEEN AVE. GIRARD AVE. AVE. AVE. VE. A NEWT W. OF JAMES GIRARD AVE. FRE MONT FRE MONT EMER SON AVE. AVE. S. E W S. S. AVE. S. COLFAX COLFAX S. ANT AVE. S. AVE. S. AVE. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. FIELD AVE. GAR AVE. HARRIET CONTRACTED PROFILE < FREMONT AVE. S. (FREMONT) 0 50' 100' 0 5' 10' SCALE : HORIZONTAL VERTICAL VPI STA VPI EL VPI STA VPI EL VPI STA VPI STA VPI EL VPC STA VPC EL VPI STA VPI EL VPT STA VPT EL VPI STA VPI EL VPI STA VPI EL VPI EL VPI STA VPI EL VPI STA VPI EL VPI STA VPI EL VPI STA VPI EL PROPOSED PROFILE ' VC < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) M = -1.23' PROPOSED BRIDGE NO. 27J % -3.19% < MIDTOWN GREENWAY TRAIL (XTRAIL) VPC STA VPC EL VPI STA VPI EL VPT STA VPT EL VPC STA VPC EL VPI STA VPI EL VPT STA VPT EL VPI STA VPI EL VPI STA VPI EL ' VC M = +0.36' -1.00% +0.44% < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) PROPOSED BRIDGE NO. 27J ' VC M = -0.43' PROPOSED PROFILE < MIDTOWN GREENWAY TRAIL -3.00% (XTRAIL) -2.14% -0.50% VPI STA VPI EL LOCATION ENGINEER'S OBSERVATIONS AT BRIDGE SITE 1. SPECIAL FEATURES: WATERFALLS, DAMS, FLOODS, ICE, DEBRIS, SLIDING BANKS, RECREATIONAL BOATING. 2. OTHER BRIDGES OR CULVERTS OVER THE SAME STREAM ( PARTICULARLY STRUCTURES WHICH CARRY HIGH WATER WITHOUT OVERFLOW OF ROADWAY ) : GIVEN LOCATION,TYPE, LENGTH, HEIGHT ABOVE HIGH WATER, CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA ETC. 3. APPARENT HIGHWATER ELEVATION OBTAINED FROM: 4. OTHER DATA: APPROX. VELOCITY OF WATER AT TIME OF SURVEY. HYDRAULIC ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATION DATE +3.34% -3.14% STREAM OR DITCH DESIGNATION % +2.67% +2.14% -3.34% -3.68% -3.02% DRAINAGE AREA MAX. FLOOD ON RECORD MAXIMUM OBSERVED HIGHWATER ELEVATION DESIGN FLOOD ( YR. FREQ. ) C.F.S. 870 HEADWATER ELEVATION FT. DESIGN MEAN VELOCITY THROUGH STRUCTURE F.P.S. TOTAL STAGE INCREASE FT. LOW MEMBER AT OR ABOVE ELEVATION FT. 860 < MIDTOWN GREENWAY TRAIL (XTRAIL) < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) WATERWAY AREA REQUIRED BELOW ELEVATION = SQ.FT. AT RIGHT ANGLES TO CHANNEL BASIC FLOOD ( 100 YR. FREQ. ) C.F.S '-0" VAR. VAR. 13'-0" TO 15'-0" VAR. 13'-0" TO 15'-0" VAR. 6'-0" HEADWATER ELEVATION FT. TOTAL STAGE INCREASE FT. WALK BLVD. LANE LANE BLVD. WALK MEAN VELOCITY THROUGH STRUCTURE F.P.S. FLOWLINE ELEVATION SKEW ANGLE ESTIMATED DEPTH OF PIER SCOUR = FT. PLAT SCOUR CONFIRMATION RECOMMENDATION DATE SCALE : 0 50' 100' PROPOSED B624 CURB TO TRANS. TO EXISTING B618 C&G TOTAL SCOUR AT PIER EL. (500 OR OT YR. FREQ.) INPLACE BRIDGE NO. L '-6" LONG x 48'-8" WIDE 3 SPAN CONTINUOUS CONCRETE DECK BUILT IN 1913 TO BE REMOVED UNDER BRIDGE PORTION OF CONTRACT AZ.=89-41'-46.6" CONTROL POINT: < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) STA < MIDTOWN GREENWAY TRAIL (XTRAIL) STA X= Y= TYPICAL APPROACH SECTION PROPOSED BRIDGE NO. 27J72 SCOUR CODE = BENCH MARK ELEVATION (NAVD88) LOCATION ALLUMINUM DISK "DUPONT" IN SW CORNER OF DUPONT AVE. BRIDGE OVER 29TH ST. GREENWAY. 2nd BENCH MARK ELEVATION (NAVD88) (2013 ADJ.) AZ.=0-14'-28.0" PROPOSED BRIDGE NO. 27J < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) < MIDTOWN GREENWAY TRAIL (XTRAIL) GOPHER STATE ONE CALL BRIDGE SURVEY SHEETS MADE FROM: BOUNDARY/TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PROJECT NO. CSP-858, DATED OCTOBER 15, 2015 BY HENNEPIN COUNTY Union Pacific THOMAS AVE. UPTON AVE. AVE. AV E. SHE RIDA N KENILWORTH 28 th UPTON THOMAS LAKE AVE. THE W. 22nd 24th ISLES PL. ST. KENWOOD 3 P 21st ST. K WY. ST. PENN W. Lake of ST. the ST. Isles OLIVER LAKE ON O F PKWY. T HE Lake Calhoun MakaSka E. ISLES KNOX 43 CALHOUN PKWY. E. 26 THE ISLES 3 W. AVE. th ST. IRVING S. THE 25 LAKE HUM BOLDT AVE. AVE. LAKE PL. EU CLID IRVING W. OO K N AVE. HOLMES D W. PL. LAGOON R24W HENN EPIN 25 ST. W. INDEX MAP HUM BOLDT AVE. W. W. ISL S E R. D HENN MALL EPIN W. AVE. W. 31st 22 nd W. W. W. W. AVE. 26 th AVE. 43 DUPONT 25 th 27 th 34 LA KE th th ST. ST. Bde POP. 382,618 BRYANT 28 th BRY 24 th ALD RICH LYN DALE 22 ST. 32 nd ST. MINNEAPOLIS 5 33 rd ST. LOCATION TOP NUT OF HYDRANT AT SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF FREMONT AVE. SOUTH AND 29TH ST. WEST. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T29N BRIDGE SURVEY AT MILE POINT X ON X (T.H., C.S.A.H.,C.R. etc.) PROPOSED BRIDGE LOCATED 0.1 MILES N. OF JUNCTION WITH MIDTOWN GREENWAY & LAKE ST. SEC 33 TWP T29N R 24W CITY MINNEAPOLIS COUNTY HENNEPIN BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF BRIDGE SURVEY DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B47 B49

145 ST M E M ST MH not found U W M W M S M ST PC PI PI 179 CB ST CB ST M EXIST. WATER MAIN TO REMAIN AZ. = 0-14'-28.0" W S HISTORIC DISTRICT EXIST. WATER MAIN < FREMONT AVE. BOUNDARY (FREMONT) STA TO REMAIN TEST PILE NO M M OTHERS EXIST. GAS ABANDONED EXIST. OH POWER TO BE TEMP. RELOCATED BY ST-1 3.5' RT. < FREMONT AVE. STA TEST PILE NO. 1 < BRG. SOUTH ABUTMENT (TO BE REMOVED) STORM SEWER TO REMAIN EXISTING BRIDGE NO. L8901 EXIST. FIBER OPTIC 2 EXIST. FIBER OPTIC '-00.0" ST ' LT. < FREMONT AVE. STA EXIST. MBW EXIST. MBW TO BE REMOVED 4 EXIST. WATER MAIN 6 & FENCE 3 < PIER 1 PT Dc=11-27'-33.0" AZ.=89-41'-46.6" < MIDTOWN GREENWAY TRAIL (XTRAIL) < BRG. NORTH ABUTMENT 89-27'-18.6 EXIST. FIBER OPTIC EXIST. POWER 2 2 ST ' RT. < FREMONT AVE. STA CONTROL POINT: < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) STA < MIDTOWN GREENWAY TRAIL (XTRAIL) STA X= Y= STA HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY OHP NOTES: BRIDGE IS LOCATED IN THE CM&StP GRADE SEPARATION HISTORIC DISTRICT, LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CI/ASCE 38-02, ENTITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA". SEE UTILITY PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL SITE UTILITY INFORMATION. 1 NON-STRUCTURAL AESTHETIC PIER. PIER DOES NOT SUPPORT SUPERSTRUCTURE. 2 PROVIDE TEMPORARY SUPPORT DURING CONSTRUCTION. 3 REPLACE WATER MAIN BELOW BRIDGE. NEW WATER MAIN TO BE ENCASED. SEE UTILITY PLANS. 4 SEE ROADWAY PLANS. 5 SALVAGE AND INSTALL. SEE ROADWAY PLANS. 6 EXISTING 12" STORM SEWER TO BE RELOCATED. SEE UTILITY PLANS PVC STA PVC EL ST-1 PROPOSED < FREMONT AVE. (FREMONT) PVI STA PVI EL ' VC M = -1.23' PVT STA PVT EL % EL % EXISTING GROUNDLINE ST-3 EL ST-2 EL EL '` EL '` EXIST. WATER EXIST. GAS MAIN 3 ABANDONED EL '` SEE SOIL BORING SHEET FOR SOIL BORING INFO 12" DIA. C-I-P CONCRETE TEST PILES 80 FT. LONG ' LT. 25' LT. 12" DIA. C-I-P CONCRETE TEST PILES 80 FT. LONG SEE SOIL BORING SHEET FOR SOIL BORING INFO SEE SOIL BORING SHEET FOR SOIL BORING INFO 830 C/L 25' RT. 50' RT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT $model$ CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ LICENSE NO. DATE DESIGN BY: LAST REVISION: S. NEFF / / BORINGS - PLAN AND PROFILE BRIDGE NO. 27J72 SHEET B48 B49

146 890 ST Elevation Coh SPT-N 885 (psf) (BPF) 21 5 inches of bituminous over 4 inches of 10 aggregate base. 880 FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to 5 medium-grained, with Gravel, recycled 4 bituminous below aggregate base, dark brown to brown, moist. ST FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, 3 fine-grained, light brown, moist. Elevation FILL: Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, Coh SPT-N 870 (psf) (BPF) 16* brown, moist. 4 SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, ST-2 FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel and with Gravel, occasional Cobbles at Elevation roots, dark brown to black, moist. feet, brown, moist, medium dense FILL: Sand with Silt, fine- to POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to Coh SPT-N 20 medium-grained, trace Gravel, light 10 medium-grained, with Gravel, trace (psf) (BPF) pieces of bituminous, trace glass at 4 brown, moist, medium dense to very FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to 26 feet, moist. 860 dense. medium-grained, trace Gravel, dark FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to 45 brown, moist. medium-grained, with layer of Lean 43 POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to 53 Clay at 7 feet, light brown to dark medium-grained, light brown, moist, 29 brown, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, dense. CLAYEY SAND, fine- to 60 fine- to medium-grained, with Gravel, 37 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, light brown, moist, very dense. 46 fine- to medium-grained, brown to light 35 moist, medium dense to dense. 850 POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to brown, moist, dense to very dense. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to 41 medium-grained, brown to reddish 67 POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to 26 coarse-grained, little Gravel, light brown, moist, dense to very dense. 54 medium-grained, brown, moist, dense brown, moist, medium dense to very to very dense. 33 dense. 845 POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, medium dense to dense POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, little Gravel, brown, moist, dense. 50 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, 835 POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to fine- to medium-grained, brown, moist, coarse-grained, with Gravel, brown, very dense. moist, very dense. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to 70 medium-grained, brown, moist, dense 830 to very dense. 105 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, 137 POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel, fine- to coarse-grained, little Gravel, 825 brown, moist to 55 feet then wet, very 122 brown, moist to 42 feet then wet, very POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, dense. dense. fine- to coarse-grained, trace Gravel, brown, wet, dense to very dense. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with END OF BORING.** SAND, with Cobbles, brown, wet, dense 820 Bottom of Borehole at 61 ft 88 to very dense inch layer of Lean Clay at 45 1/2 feet. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to 78 coarse-grained, little Gravel, brown, wet, very dense. BORING LOG TERMINOLOGY 3.0 C... Clay L... Loam S... Sand Si... Silt T... Glacial Till G... Gravel (No. 10 Sieve to 3 in.) The above soil terms are from the MN/DOT Triangular Textural Classification System, as shown below. blk... Black brn... Brown orng... Orange grn... Green IOS... Iron Oxide Stains VF... Very Fine pl... Plastic F... Fine Cr.... Coarse Rope & Cathead system. Lmst... Limestone Sst... Sandstone Dolo... Dolostone wx... weathered Bldr... Boulder (+3 in.) wht... White yel... Yellow lt... Light dk... dark gr... Grey slpl... Slightly Plastic SPT N Mn/DOT Modified Standard Penetration Test 60 Blows per ft. with 140 lb. hammer and a standard energy of 210 ft-lbs. This energy represents 60% of the potential energy of the system and is the average energy providede by a WR... Weight of Rods WH... Weight of Hammer COH... Cohesion (Undrained Shear Strength) REC... Percent Core Recovered RQD... Rock Quality Description (Percent of total core interval consisting of unbroken pieces 4 in. or longer) ACL... Average Core Length (Average length of core that is greater than 4 in. long) Core Breaks... Number of natural core breaks per 2 ft. SAND 100% Measured or assumed ground water level Mn/DOT Triangular Textural Classification System S 10 LS 60 %SAND SC CLAY 100% 50 C %SILT SiC SCL CL SiCL (plastic) SL (slightly plastic) L SiL %CLAY Si % SILT END OF BORING. Water observed at 35 feet while drilling. END OF BORING. Water observed at 42 feet with 54 1/2 feet of hollow-stem auger in the ground Water not observed to cave-in depth of 13 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. Water not observed to cave-in depth of 27 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger. 805 Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout. Bottom of Borehole at 51 ft Boring immediately backfilled with bentonite grout. Bottom of Borehole at 56 ft BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: S. NEFF SOIL BORINGS DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: E. JOHNSON FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE /19/2018 CHECKED BY: C. BLACK S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CASEY E. BLACK, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: / / $model$ $username$ 10/19/2018 $FILEL$ SHEET B49 B49

147 INPLACE R/W INPLACE R/W LEGEND XX INPLACE TOPOGRAPHY & UTILITY PLAN SCALE FEET BUILDING MIDTOW N GREENW AY BRIDGE NO. 27B93 XX XX XX REMOVAL PLAN CONSTRUCTION PLAN & PROFILES INTERSECTION DETAILS GIRARD AVE INPLACE PARKING LAGOON AVE C7 CONST LIMIT C4 C5 C6 C8 W 28TH ST CONST LIMIT { FREMONT INPLACE R/W INPLACE R/W FREMONT AVE FREMONT AVE CONST LIMIT INPLACE R/W BEGIN CONST LIMIT S.P , C.P FREMONT STA END S.P , C.P FREMONT STA TH ST W MIDTOW N GREENW AY BRIDGE NO. 27J72 EMERSON AVE BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: M. BRANDON GENERAL LAYOUT SHEET DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE - DRAFT ANITA L. BENSON, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. 10/18/2018 DATE CAD BY: CHECKED BY: LAST REVISION: K. MIDTHUN K. BESSER / / FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT C1 C8 1 - General Layout kmidthun 10/18/2018 S:\PROJECTS\TRANS\0534_SRF\T-00686\Road_Design\Sheets\T-00686_gl.dgn

148 SCALE FEET GIRARD AVE LAGOON AVE { XTRAIL W 28TH ST FREMONT AVE { XFREMONT XTRAIL2 { FREMONT FREMONT AVE XTRAIL TH ST W MIDTOW N GREENW AY MIDTOW N GREENW AY BEGIN S.P , C.P FREMONT STA END S.P , C.P FREMONT STA XTRAIL4 EMERSON AVE BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: M. BRANDON ALIGNMENT PLAN & TABULATION SHEET DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE - DRAFT ANITA L. BENSON, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. 10/18/2018 DATE CAD BY: CHECKED BY: LAST REVISION: K. MIDTHUN K. BESSER / / FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT C2 C8 1 - Alignment Plan - Pllan kmidthun 10/18/2018 S:\PROJECTS\TRANS\0534_SRF\T-00686\Road_Design\Sheets\T-00686_al.dgn

149 ALIGNMENT TABULATION POINT NUMBER POINT STATION CIRCULAR CURVE DATA DELTA DEGREE RADIUS TANGENT LENGTH COORDINATES X Y AZIMUTH FREMONT 100 POT , , POT , , XFREMONT 1 POT , , POT , , POT , , POT , , XTRAIL 1000 POT , , PC , , XTRAIL1 PI ' 6.269' ' 522, , PI CC 522, , PT , , PC , , XTRAIL2 PI ' 4.356' 8.713' 522, , PI CC 522, , PT , , PC , , XTRAIL3 PI ' ' ' 522, , PI CC 522, , PT , , PC , , XTRAIL4 PI ' ' ' 522, , PI CC 522, , PT , , POT , , ALIGNMENT POINT/CURVES ARE NOT SHOWN ON ALIGNMENT PLAN VIEW. BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: M. BRANDON ALIGNMENT PLAN & TABULATION SHEET DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE - DRAFT ANITA L. BENSON, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. 10/18/2018 DATE CAD BY: CHECKED BY: LAST REVISION: K. MIDTHUN K. BESSER / / FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT C3 C8 2 - Alignment Plan - Tabulation kmidthun 10/18/2018 S:\PROJECTS\TRANS\0534_SRF\T-00686\Road_Design\Sheets\T-00686_al.dgn

150 INPLACE R/W INPLACE R/W SCALE FEET CONST LIMIT CONST LIMIT M { FREMONT INPLACE R/W M M INPLACE R/W U M M M FREMONT AVE M M M M M FREMONT AVE CONST LIMIT M M INPLACE R/W BEGIN S.P , C.P FREMONT STA TH ST W MIDTOW N GREENW AY CONST LIMIT END S.P , C.P FREMONT STA BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: INPLACE TOPOGRAPHY & UTILITY PLAN SHEET DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE - DRAFT ANITA L. BENSON, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE CAD BY: CHECKED BY: LAST REVISION: K. MIDTHUN K. BESSER / / FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT C4 C8 1 - Inplace Topo and Utility Plan kmidthun 10/18/2018 S:\PROJECTS\TRANS\0534_SRF\T-00686\Road_Design\Sheets\T-00686_apl.dgn

151 INPLACE R/W INPLACE R/W SCALE FEET CONST LIMIT CONST LIMIT M { FREMONT INPLACE R/W M M INPLACE R/W U M M M FREMONT AVE M M M M M FREMONT AVE CONST LIMIT M M INPLACE R/W BEGIN S.P , C.P FREMONT STA TH ST W MIDTOW N GREENW AY CONST LIMIT END S.P , C.P FREMONT STA BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: M. BRANDON REMOVAL PLAN SHEET DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE - DRAFT ANITA L. BENSON, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. 10/18/2018 DATE CAD BY: CHECKED BY: LAST REVISION: K. MIDTHUN K. BESSER / / FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT C5 C8 1 - Removal Plan kmidthun 10/18/2018 S:\PROJECTS\TRANS\0534_SRF\T-00686\Road_Design\Sheets\T-00686_rem.dgn

152 INPLACE R/W INPLACE R/W CONST LIMIT SCALE FEET CONST LIMIT { FREMONT INPLACE R/W INPLACE R/W FREMONT AVE FREMONT AVE CONST LIMIT INPLACE R/W BEGIN S.P , C.P FREMONT STA TH ST W MIDTOW N GREENW AY CONST LIMIT END S.P , C.P FREMONT STA { FREMONT PROFILE GRADE INPLACE GROUNDLINE % +2.67% +2.67% +3.03% +3.34% VPI EL BEGIN FREMONT STA VPI EL VPI EL VPI EL VPC EL VPI EL HIGH POINT STA EL % SSD = 176' K = ' V.C % VPT EL VPI EL % VPI EL VPI % EL % -3.68% END FREMONT STA VPI EL % BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: M. BRANDON CONSTRUCTION PLAN & PROFILES SHEET DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE - DRAFT ANITA L. BENSON, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. 10/18/2018 DATE CAD BY: CHECKED BY: LAST REVISION: K. MIDTHUN K. BESSER / / FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT C6 C8 1 - Construction Plan and Profile kmidthun 10/18/2018 S:\PROJECTS\TRANS\0534_SRF\T-00686\Road_Design\Sheets\T-00686_cp.dgn

153 XXX LEGEND CONTROL POINTS AT GUTTER FLOW LINE TRUNCATED DOMES (SEE STANDARD PLATE 7038) MIDTOWN GREENWAY CONSTRUCT CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER X" BITUMINOUS TREATMENT (SEE REMOVAL PLAN FOR TYPES) CURB HEIGHT S LANDING AREA - 4' X 4' MIN. DIMENSIONS AND MAX 2.0% SLOPE IN ALL DIRECTIONS INDICATES PEDESTRIAN RAMP - SLOPE SHALL BE BETWEEN 5.0% MINIMUM AND 8.3% MAXIMUM IN THE DIRECTION SHOWN AND CROSS SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.0% 29TH ST W 0 SCALE FEET F INDICATES PEDESTRIAN RAMP - SLOPE SHALL BE GREATER THAN 2.0% AND LESS THAN 5.0% IN THE DIRECTION SHOWN AND CROSS SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.0% T TRANSITION PANEL(S) - TO BE USED FOR TRANSITIONING THE CROSS-SLOPE OF A RAMP TO THE EXISTING WALK CROSS-SLOPE. RATE OF TRANSITION SHOULD BE 0.5% PER 1 LINEAR FOOT OF WALK. DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW M INPLACE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE PROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 29TH ST W 102 GUTTER PROFILE POINTS CONST LIMIT INPLACE R/W INPLACE R/W CONST LIMIT INPLACE R/W { FREMONT FREMONT AVE BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: M. BRANDON INTERSECTION DETAIL PLAN SHEET DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE - DRAFT ANITA L. BENSON, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. 10/18/2018 DATE CAD BY: CHECKED BY: LAST REVISION: K. MIDTHUN K. BESSER / / FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT C7 C8 1 - Intersection Detail - ADA kmidthun 10/18/2018 S:\PROJECTS\TRANS\0534_SRF\T-00686\Road_Design\Sheets\T-00686_in.dgn

154 LEGEND { FREMONT XXX CONTROL POINTS AT GUTTER FLOW LINE CONST LIMIT X" S TRUNCATED DOMES (SEE STANDARD PLATE 7038) CONSTRUCT CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER BITUMINOUS TREATMENT (SEE REMOVAL PLAN FOR TYPES) CURB HEIGHT LANDING AREA - 4' X 4' MIN. DIMENSIONS AND MAX 2.0% SLOPE IN ALL DIRECTIONS INDICATES PEDESTRIAN RAMP - SLOPE SHALL BE BETWEEN 5.0% MINIMUM AND 8.3% MAXIMUM IN THE DIRECTION SHOWN AND CROSS SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.0% INPLACE R/W INPLACE R/W 0 SCALE FEET F T M INDICATES PEDESTRIAN RAMP - SLOPE SHALL BE GREATER THAN 2.0% AND LESS THAN 5.0% IN THE DIRECTION SHOWN AND CROSS SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.0% TRANSITION PANEL(S) - TO BE USED FOR TRANSITIONING THE CROSS-SLOPE OF A RAMP TO THE EXISTING WALK CROSS-SLOPE. RATE OF TRANSITION SHOULD BE 0.5% PER 1 LINEAR FOOT OF WALK. DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW INPLACE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE FREMONT AVE PROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 104 CONST LIMIT GUTTER PROFILE POINTS INPLACE R/W MIDTOWN GREENWAY BRIDGE NO. 27J72 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: M. BRANDON INTERSECTION DETAIL PLAN SHEET DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE - DRAFT ANITA L. BENSON, LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. 10/18/2018 DATE CAD BY: CHECKED BY: LAST REVISION: K. MIDTHUN K. BESSER / / FREMONT AVE SOUTH OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT C8 C8 2 - Intersection Detail - ADA kmidthun 10/18/2018 S:\PROJECTS\TRANS\0534_SRF\T-00686\Road_Design\Sheets\T-00686_in.dgn

155 WATERMAIN PLAN NOTES: 1. WATERMAIN CONSTRUCTION, WORKMANSHIP QUALITY, AND MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT OF ACCEPTED WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST VERSION OF DIVISION WM-WATERMAIN. IN THE CASE OF CONFLICTS THE PLAN NOTES SHALL GOVERN. 2. THE SCHEDULE FOR WATERMAIN REMOVAL, INSTALLATION, AND PERFORMANCE TESTING SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY OR THE COUNTY'S PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT. 3. COORDINATE WITH WATER TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES (WTDS) FOR WATERMAIN ISOLATION. COMMENCE WORK UPON RECEIPT OF CONFIRMATION FROM THE WTDS PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE WORK SITE IS ISOLATED. 4. CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM SITE PLAN ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. FINDINGS OF DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE WTDS PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. 5. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF WATERMAIN, MANHOLES AND ANCILLARY WATER UTILITY AS NOTED HEREIN. DISPOSE OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH WASTE DISPOSAL REGULATIONS. 6. MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT FOR REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF WATERMAIN AND ANCILLARY ITEMS SHALL BE BY THE LINEAR FOOT AND INCLUDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS, AND DISPOSAL COSTS. 7. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EMPLOYING THE REQUISITE MEANS AND METHODS TO PREPARE THE SITE TO COMPLETE THE WATERMAIN REMOVAL/INSTALLATION WORK AS PLANNED HEREIN. 8. EXCAVATION AND SOIL HANDLING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN OR AS DIRECTED BY THE COUNTY OR THE COUNTY'S PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. 9. FINAL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING WATERMAIN SHALL BE COMPLETED BY WTDS FOLLOWING A PASSING PERFORMANCE TEST BY THE CONTRACTOR. 10. FURNISH AND INSTALL WATERMAIN, FITTINGS, PIPE BEDDING, CONCRETE ENCASEMENT AND ANCILLARY MATERIALS AS NOTED HEREIN AND DESCRIBED WITHIN DIVISION WM - WATERMAIN. 11. CONSTRUCT CONCRETE ENCASEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STEEL REINFORCEMENT AND CONCRETE MIX TYPE. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALLOW FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE WTDS PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO WTDS. 12. CONCRETE ENCASEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS ONE CONTINUOUS POUR. COLD JOINTS ARE PROHIBITED. 13. FLEX RING JOINT RESTRAINED PIPE AND FITTINGS, OR EQUIVALENT, SHALL BE USED AT ALL JOINTS WITHIN CONCRETE ENCASEMENT. FULLY EXTEND THE PIPING AND FITTINGS SO THAT THE WELDED RING OF THE SPIGOT PIPING IS DIRECTLY SEATED AGAINST THE SOCKET LOCKING PRIOR TO ENCASEMENT. MEGALUG JOINT RESTRAINTS AT REMAINING JOINTS. 14. THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS WATER TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICE (WTDS) DEPARTMENT WILL BE INSTALLING NEW GATE VALVES AND GATE VALVE MANHOLES AT THE LOCATIONS INDICATED IN THE PLANS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WORK ON THIS PROJECT. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH WTDS BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK RELATED TO WATERMAIN ON THIS PROJECT. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE 10/19/ CHECKED BY: C. BRABAND MICHAEL J. MOHS, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC pw:\\srf-pw.bentley.com:srf-pw\documents\projects\10771\03_design\plan\finalplan\10771_wmn01.dgn 10/19/2018 4:23:45 PM D. WALDEN J. VAN BECK WATERMAIN PLANS - WATERMAIN CONSTRUCTION NOTES FREMONT AVE S OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. X SHEET W1 W3

156 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DESIGN BY: DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CAD BY: 60% SUBMITTAL PACKAGE 10/19/ CHECKED BY: C. BRABAND MICHAEL J. MOHS, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER LICENSE NO. DATE LAST REVISION: SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC pw:\\srf-pw.bentley.com:srf-pw\documents\projects\10771\03_design\plan\finalplan\10771_dd02.dgn 10/19/2018 4:23:51 PM D. WALDEN J. VAN BECK WATERMAIN PLANS - STANDARD PLATES FREMONT AVE S OVER MIDTOWN GREENWAY S.P / HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. X SHEET W2 W3