The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About#08 - TH 36 South Frontage Road Study STAFF REPORT DATE: June 4, 2019 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM: Approve Concept Layout for the State Highway 36 South Frontage Road Study SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer REVIEWED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator Chad Isakson, Assistant City Engineer ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Should the City Council approve the preferred Concept Layout for the State Highway 36 South Frontage Road Study? BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: In April 2013 the City of Lake Elmo entered into an Agreement with MnDOT to receive federal funding to complete preliminary engineering work to develop a preferred future alignment of a south frontage road and study approach alternatives to State Highway 36. Federal Aid Funding was obtained in the amount of 80% of the project costs, or $64,000. The City retained SRF Consulting to lead the technical design efforts. Over the past five years the project team has conducted several council workshops and has worked closely with MnDOT and Washington County staff as they have developed Concept Layouts along the TH 36 Corridor and Lake Elmo border. Design efforts were focused on minimizing property impacts and project costs for future improvements along TH 36 as well as developing strategies for maintaining access for Lake Elmo properties. The study reviewed alternative access locations, intersection layouts and a potential TH 36 South Frontage Road. The TH 36 Corridor Management Plan (2001) outlines a vision to implement an expressway design for TH 36 along the northern border of Lake Elmo. The plan reduces the number of at- grade intersections by closing them or replacing them with reduced access overpasses, and thereby reduces overall access to the proposed TH 36 expressway from Lake Elmo. The Concept Layout prepared through this study identifies an alternative approach to maintaining acceptable access from Lake Elmo along the TH 36 corridor as corridor improvements are proposed. This concept proposes some non-traditional interchange layouts to better balance cost, impacts and access for these relatively low volume connections, and considers a south frontage road to provide an east-west roadway connecting Demontreville Trail, Keats Avenue and Lake Elmo Avenue. Through this study the City of Lake Elmo is not recommending or proposing modifications to the public accesses along TH 36 at this time. However, the City is aware of the TH 36 Corridor Study and potential access modifications that may occur in the future. This study and the preferred Concept Layout submits Lake Elmo’s vision for how these future TH 36 modifications can be made while maintaining an acceptable level of access for Lake Elmo. The City of Lake Elmo recognizes that the development of a South Frontage Road is a key part in accommodating a roadway system with future TH 36 modifications. FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve a resolution, thereby approving the preferred Concept Layout for TH 36, directing the City Engineer to submit the Concept Layout to MnDOT as the Lake Elmo’s vision for how these future TH 36 modifications can be made while maintaining an acceptable level of access for Lake Elmo, and directing the City Engineer to close out the MnDOT grant agreement. The recommended motion for the action is as follows: “Move to approve Resolution No. 2019-041 approving the Concept Layout for the State Highway 36 South Frontage Road Study”. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Approving the Concept Layout for the State Highway 36 South Frontage Road Study. CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-041 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONCEPT LAYOUT FOR THE STATE HIGHWAY 36 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD STUDY WHEREAS, the TH 36 Corridor Management Plan (2001) outlines a vision to implement an expressway design for TH 36 along the northern border of Lake Elmo that reduces overall access to the proposed TH 36 expressway from Lake Elmo; and WHEREAS, in April 2013, the City of Lake Elmo received a grant in the amount of 80% of the total project agreement costs of $80,000, to study roadway approach alternatives along State Highway 36 between Hilton Trail and Manning Avenue; and WHEREAS, said grant funds are set to expire on June 30, 2019; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo, with SRF Consulting, Inc., has prepared a preferred concept layout with associated cost estimates that identifies an alternative approach to maintaining acceptable access from Lake Elmo along the TH 36 corridor as corridor improvements are proposed; and WHEREAS, this concept proposes some non-traditional interchange layouts to better balance cost, impacts and access for the relatively low volume connections, and considers a south frontage road to provide an east-west roadway connecting Demontreville Trail, Keats Avenue and Lake Elmo Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. That this Concept Layout is approved by the City Council as Lake Elmo’s vision for how these future TH 36 modifications can be made while maintaining an acceptable level of access for Lake Elmo. 2. That the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to submit the Concept Layout to the Minnesota Department of Transportation as the City’s vision for the corridor. 3. That the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to finalize all payments regarding this project, including final reimbursement for federal funding, and is directed to close out the MnDOT grant agreement No. 03330. ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE, 2019. CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: __________________________ Mike Pearson (Seal) Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Julie Johnson City Clerk 1 | Page TH 36 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD STUDY CITY OF LAKE ELMO JUNE 4, 2019 Introduction The City of Lake Elmo has been pursuing an alternative access plan to the TH 36 Corridor Management Plan (2001) over the past five years that includes alternative access locations, intersection layouts and a potential TH 36 South Frontage Road. The TH 36 Corridor Management Plan (2001) outlines a vision to implement an expressway design for TH 36 along the northern border of Lake Elmo. The plan reduces the number of at‐grade intersections by closing them or replacing them with reduced access overpasses, and thereby reduces overall access to the proposed TH 36 expressway from Lake Elmo. The Concept Layout prepared through this study identifies an alternative approach to maintaining acceptable access from Lake Elmo along the TH36 corridor as corridor improvements are proposed. This concept proposes some non‐traditional interchange layouts to better balance cost, impacts and access for these relatively low volume connections, and considers a south frontage road to provide an east‐west roadway connecting Demontreville Trail, Keats Avenue and Lake Elmo Avenue. Through this study the City of Lake Elmo is not recommending or proposing modifications to the public accesses along TH 36 at this time. However, the City is aware of the TH 36 Corridor Study and potential access modifications that may occur in the future. This study and the Preferred Concept Layout submits Lake Elmo’s vision for how these future TH 36 modifications can be made while maintaining an acceptable level of access for Lake Elmo. The City of Lake Elmo recognizes that the development of a South Frontage Road is a key part in accommodating a roadway system with future TH 36 modifications. Summary The following provides a narrative into the thought process of the current Concept Layout dated March 5, 2019, and summarizes the proposed changes along TH 36 at Highland Trail, Demontreville Trail, Keats Avenue, Lake Elmo Avenue and direct private access. Highlands Trail  City prefers this intersection remain open as a right‐in/right‐out with the westbound U‐turn connection at Demontreville Trail.  Other agencies – MnDOT would prefer this access and all median cross‐overs be closed. Demontreville Trail  The City prefers the intersection remain the current ¾ access (R‐cut intersection). If modified, the City would like to retain the westbound U‐turn for Highlands Trail and have a grade‐separated access to provide all movements onto and from TH 36.  The initial concepts placed the interchange bridge on Demontreville Trail. The bridge approaches would require Demontreville Trail to be raised, causing several challenges with residential driveways needing to also be raised and relocated. Another significate issue is the vertical clearance between the proposed roadway profile and the existing powerlines. These powerlines maybe be relocated, but at a significant cost. Therefore, the currently proposed layout moves the South Frontage Road east of Demontreville Trail to avoid these impacts.  The current concept represents full access to/from TH 36 which is desired by the City of Lake Elmo at this location should median access and crossovers be closed. The layout is shown to not impact the powerlines or existing 2 | Page residential properties along Demontreville Trail and bridges over TH 36 to accommodate movements to and from TH 36 westbound.  Other agencies. MnDOT/Washington County suggests that other concepts be further explored in the future to lower road lengths and costs. The City of Lake Elmo may also feel that additional concepts should be evaluated, but ultimately the concept represents full access to/from TH 36. The City of Grant is not in‐favor of the disruptive impacts of the proposed concept. Keats Avenue  The City prefers that Keats Avenue remain open as a ¾ access (R‐Cut), but adding an eastbound acceleration lane on TH 36. The City is currently submitting (due June 2019) an application for Local Partnership Program (LPP) funding with MnDOT. MnDOT and Washington County are supportive of the project.  The concept layout shows the South Frontage Road/Keats Avenue intersection located 300 feet south of the TH 36/Keats Avenue intersection, but keeping it open. An alternative concept would be for the South Frontage Road be placed in the TH 36 ROW, but would result in the Keats Avenu e / TH 36 intersection to be closed. This condition of closure is not preferred by the City of Lake Elmo.  Other agencies. MnDOT suggests a short‐term strategy would be to add the eastbound acceleration lane, but the long‐term condition would be closure of the intersection. The City of Grant would like the intersection to remain open or consider additional concepts including an interchange. Lake Elmo Avenue  The City prefers the intersection remain open and under the current traffic signal control. If modified, the city wants to retain all movements onto and from TH 36.  The City wants to build the South Frontage Road along existing ground level at Lake Elmo Avenue to avoid the overhead power lines, impacts to wells and septic systems, property impacts, and relocation of driveways. The concept shows that TH 36 would partially go up and over Lake Elmo Avenue. Lake Elmo Avenue would be lowered slightly, but meet existing ground lines near the proposed South Frontage Road intersection. This concepts allows the south frontage road to be constructed under existing conditions or with a potential future interchange. This concept has less impact on the northside of TH 36, than other previous considered concepts, by allowing the TH 36 North Frontage Road (60th Street) / Lake Elmo Avenue intersection to remain in its current location. Some of the driveways would need to be relocated to meet the new grades and retaining walls needed along portions of Lake Elmo Boulevard and 60th Street.  The concept has gone thru several minor modifications based on comments from the City, County and MnDOT. This recent version of the concept includes TH 36 ramps reducing local back‐tracking. The TH 36 westbound off‐ ramp would be accomplished at a re‐designed TH 36 / Manning Avenue interchange (current Washington County project in preliminary/final design) and use the north frontage road (60th Street). The TH 36 westbound on‐ramp would be a slip ramp from the north frontage road (60th Street) west of Lake Elmo Avenue. The TH 36 eastbound off‐ramp is a partial buttonhook and the eastbound on‐ramp would be a slip ramp from the South Frontage Road.  The initial concepts with Lake Elmo Avenue going over TH 36 would have raised the South Frontage Road / Lake Elmo Avenue intersection 10 to 15 feet above the existing ground line. This caused all the impacts mentioned previously including relocating the full access point (Lake Elmo Avenue / North Frontage (60th Street)) on the northside.  Other agencies. The City of Grant appreciates the effort in minimizing impacts and, at this time, thinks this could be a reasonable concept. MnDOT has several detailed design comments about the proposed concept, but perhaps the most notable is their concern about the spacing/weaving between the potential TH 36 eastbound on‐ramp at Lake Elmo Avenue and a proposed ramp for the TH 36 eastbound off‐ramp at Manning Avenue. Their preference would be the Lake Elmo Avenue TH 36 eastbound on‐ramp be placed with the buttonhook at the location of the TH 36 eastbound off‐ramp. 3 | Page Manning Avenue  Washington County is leading a project at TH 36 / Manning Avenue. The City supports this interchange as long as the interchange design does not preclude the ability to construct a future interchange at Lake Elmo Avenue. Washington County is in the Preliminary and Final Design Stage (June 2018 to November 2020). https://www.co.washington.mn.us/Manning36Interchange Private Access Points  Private access points directly connected to TH 36 would eventually be removed. Access would be replaced via the proposed TH 36 South Frontage Road or another public street. Construction Costs / Potential Implementation Plan Concept level costs were developed for the proposed layout. These costs are broken down to include construction costs, soft costs (administration, engineering and construction observation) and right‐of‐way needs from private properties. Construction costs were based on 2018 unit prices for construction with a 30 percent contingency for unknowns. Costs are reported in 2018 dollars and DO NOT include escalation costs. Soft costs are based on 25 percent of the construction costs and property acquisition is based the assessed value of the land, although costs are typically higher and could result in additional costs. This larger South Frontage Road project was broken down into several logical smaller projects. These include:  Project A – Approximately 7,000 to 7,500 feet of the South Frontage Road from 55th Street (Demontreville Trail) to Keats Avenue.  Project B – Approximately 4,500 feet of the South Frontage Road on either side of Lake Elmo Avenue. It would include picking up the last driveway onto TH 36/property east of Lake Elmo Avenue (2,500 feet) to about 2,000 feet west of Lake Elmo Avenue. This would not include reconstruction of Lake Elmo Ave/TH 36 to an interchange or any ramps connections to TH 36.  Project C – This would be for a Lake Elmo Avenue/TH 36 intercha nge project. The City of Lake Elmo is not proposing this project, but if MnDOT or County wanted to remove the existing signal, then the City would request full access.  Project D – Approximately 3,000 feet of the South Frontage Road from Keats Avenue to the east at the Project B termini.  Project E – This would be for a Demontreville Trail/TH 36 interchange project. The City of Lake Elmo is not proposing this project, but if MnDOT wanted to remove the existing signal, then the City would request full access. The project costs are shown in the appendix, including potential right‐of‐way need/private property acquisition. MnDOT, Washington County and City of Grant Comments on Current Concept The current concept is a plan to better understand the City of Lake Elmo’s position if access along TH 36 is proposed to change by other agencies. The City of Lake Elmo’s plan is to pursue a South Frontage Road (shown in bright yellow) and not other projects shown in the concept. At this time, the following comments have been received by MnDOT, Washington County and City of Grant on the current concept and are in the appendix.  MnDOT – April 24, 2019  City of Grant – May 6, 2019  Washington County – May 21, 2019 5/21/2019 FOCUS Engineering, Inc. Mail - RE: Lake Elmo - TH36 South Frontage Road https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=885060bd59&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-2495294930448318935%7Cmsg-f%3A163416236982…1/2 Jack Griffin <jack.griffin@focusengineeringinc.com> RE: Lake Elmo - TH36 South Frontage Road 1 message Frank Ticknor <Frank.Ticknor@co.washington.mn.us>Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:11 PM To: "Josephson, Adam (DOT)" <adam.josephson@state.mn.us>, Jack Griffin <Jack.Griffin@focusengineeringinc.com> Cc: Wayne Sandberg <Wayne.Sandberg@co.washington.mn.us>, Joe Gustafson <Joe.Gustafson@co.washington.mn.us> Washington County concurs with MnDOT’s comments and has no addional comments on the revised TH 36 South Frontage Road concept. Thank you. Frank Frank Ticknor | Design Engineer Phone: 651-430-4319 | Fax: 651-430-4350 | Cell: 651-428-5300 Frank.ticknor@co.washington.mn.us Washington County Public Works Department 11660 Myeron Rd North | Stillwater, MN 55082 “Plan, build and maintain a beer Washington County” From: Josephson, Adam (DOT) [mailto:adam.josephson@state.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 7:04 AM To: Jack Griffin <Jack.Griffin@focusengineeringinc.com> Cc: Wayne Sandberg <Wayne.Sandberg@co.washington.mn.us>; Frank Ticknor <Frank.Ticknor@co.washington.mn.us>; Joe Gustafson <Joe.Gustafson@co.washington.mn.us> Subject: RE: Lake Elmo - TH36 South Frontage Road I am not able to aend today’s meeng due to a conflict. K:\013267-000\Admin\Docs\Memorandum Highway 36 Corridor City of Lake Elmo r1.docx 70 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | SU I T E 3 0 0 | MI N N E A P O L I S , M N | 55 4 1 6 | 76 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | WS B E N G . C O M Memorandum To: Kristina Handt, Administrator, City of Lake Elmo Kim Points, Administrator, City of Grant From: Brad Reifsteck, PE, City Engineer WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: May 6, 2019 Re: Trunk Highway 36 Frontage Roads Layout We have completed a preliminary review of the Trunk Highway (TH) 36 Frontage Road layout prepared for the City of Lake Elmo by SRF Consulting Group. The preliminary layout includes TH 36 frontage road alignments and typical cross sections between Demontreville Trl N and Manning Avenue. The City of Grant’s corporate limits lie north of the north frontage road centerline. WSB has reviewed the following documents prepared by SRF Consulting Group for the City of Lake Elmo: · 8132_loe_ALT3_MOD_190227_2.pdf Preliminary Highway 36 Frontage Road layout Comments: 1. The City of Grant is assuming no cost sharing or responsibilities for any of these improvements. Any work associated with local streets within the City of Grant as part of any or all future projects will be the responsibility of the City, County, State or other agencies pursuing these improvements. 2. The City would like to participate in any future meetings with the City, County, or State agencies during the development of the TH 36 Frontage Road Improvements. 3. The City of Grant approves the Manning Avenue interchange as shown. This layout seems consistent with the layouts shared by Washington County and SRF Consulting Group at the Local Advisory Team (LAT) meeting in January 2019 4. The interchange at Lake Elmo Avenue seems reasonable with minimal disruption for Grant residents to ingress and egress onto TH 36. 5. The City of Grant would prefer other options be reviewed at Keats Avenue to allow ingress and egress onto TH 36. A full access interchange should be studied as an alternative. 6. The Demontreville Trl N interchange is most disruptive to the City of Grant without obvious benefits. The City would prefer to eliminate this options or other alternatives should be explored. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at 763-512-5243. SRF Comm No 8132 H:\Projects\8132\HI-MU\EXCEL\Estimate\8132_ConceptCostEst_ALT3_MOD.xlsx PRINTED: 5/29/2019 4:06 PM 8132 - TH 36 South Frontage Road - Alternative 3 Modified Concept Cost Estimate (based upon 2018 bid price information) Prepared By: SRF Consulting Group, Inc., May, 29, 2019 UNIT EST. EST.EST. EST.EST. EST.EST. EST.EST. EST.EST. EST. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT PAVING AND GRADING COSTS 1 2106 Excavation - common & subgrade cu. yd.$10.00 25,700 $257,000 19,200 $192,000 102,800 $1,028,000 12,900 $129,000 2,700 $27,000 22,900 $229,000 2 2106 Common Embankment (CV)cu. yd.$6.00 65,000 $390,000 73,000 $438,000 3 2106 Granular Subgrade (CV) cu. yd.$14.00 17,200 $240,800 12,800 $179,200 78,500 $1,099,000 8,600 $120,400 2,200 $30,800 16,900 $236,600 4 Mainline Pavement (1)sq. yd.$40.00 31,500 $1,260,000 4,100 $164,000 5 Mainline Shoulder Pavement (1)sq. yd.$35.00 13,200 $462,000 1,600 $56,000 3,300 $115,500 6 Local & Frontage Road Pavement (1)sq. yd.$35.00 18,700 $654,500 15,300 $535,500 22,100 $773,500 9,800 $343,000 8,000 $280,000 7 Local & Frontage Road Shoulder Pavement (1)sq. yd.$30.00 6,800 $204,000 3,600 $108,000 4,900 $147,000 3,100 $93,000 2,500 $75,000 8 Driveway Pavement (1)sq. yd.$25.00 160 $4,000 300 $7,500 1,300 $32,500 9 Aggregate Pavement (1)sq. yd.$20.00 180 $3,600 200 $4,000 100 $2,000 10 Concrete Walk / Trail / Median (2)sq. yd.$45.00 530 $23,850 4,600 $207,000 200 $9,000 11 Concrete Curb and Gutter lin. ft.$20.00 2,100 $42,000 8,600 $172,000 200 $4,000 1,900 $38,000 12 Concrete Median Barrier (Permanent)lin. ft.$80.00 1,600 $128,000 SUBTOTAL PAVING AND GRADING COSTS:$1,363,900 $1,092,050 $5,699,000 $691,400 $113,800 $1,585,100 DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL 1 Drainage - urban 10%$110,000 $570,000 2 Drainage - rural (3)mile $110,000 1.4 $154,000 0.9 $99,000 2.3 $253,000 0.7 $77,000 0.7 $77,000 1.7 $187,000 3 Turf Establishment & Erosion Control 10%$137,000 $110,000 $570,000 $70,000 $12,000 $159,000 4 Landscaping 2%$28,000 $22,000 $114,000 $14,000 $3,000 $32,000 SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL $319,000 $341,000 $1,507,000 $161,000 $92,000 $378,000 BRIDGE COSTS 1 Bridge - EB TH 36 sq. ft.$250 7,500 $1,875,000 2 Bridge - WB TH 36 sq. ft.$250 7,500 $1,875,000 3 Bridge - Demontreville Trail Overpass sq. ft.$250 14,700 $3,675,000 SUBTOTAL BRIDGE COSTS:$3,750,000 $3,675,000 RETAINING WALLS & OTHER MINOR STRUCTURAL COSTS 1 CIP Ret. Walls 10' high (50' pile foundation)(4)lin. ft.$1,000 2,800 $2,800,000 300 $300,000 2 CIP Ret. Walls 15' high (50' pile foundation)(4)lin. ft.$1,500 5,300 $7,950,000 3 Ret. Walls Architectural Treatments (normal)sq. ft.$15 28,000 $420,000 3,000 $45,000 79,500 $1,192,500 SUBTOTAL RETAINING WALLS & OTHER MINOR STRUCTURAL COSTS: $3,220,000 $345,000 $9,142,500 SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS 1 Mainline Signing (C&D)mile $35,000 1.4 $49,000 0.9 $31,500 2.6 $91,000 0.7 $24,500 0.7 $24,500 1.7 $59,500 2 Mainline Striping mile $5,000 1.4 $7,000 0.9 $4,500 2.6 $13,000 0.7 $3,500 0.7 $3,500 1.7 $8,500 SUBTOTAL SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS:$56,000 $36,000 $104,000 $28,000 $28,000 $68,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS:$4,958,900 $1,814,050 $20,202,500 $880,400 $233,800 $5,706,100 MISCELLANEOUS COSTS 1 Mobilization 5%$248,000 $91,000 $1,011,000 $45,000 $12,000 $286,000 2 Non Quantified Minor Items 20%$992,000 $363,000 $4,041,000 $177,000 $47,000 $1,142,000 3 Temporary Pavement & Drainage 2%$100,000 $37,000 $405,000 $18,000 $5,000 $115,000 4 Traffic Control 3%$149,000 $55,000 $607,000 $27,000 $8,000 $172,000 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS:$1,489,000 $546,000 $6,064,000 $267,000 $72,000 $1,715,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS without Contingency:$6,447,900 $2,360,050 $26,266,500 $1,147,400 $305,800 $7,421,100 1 Contingency or "risk" 30%$1,935,000 $709,000 $7,880,000 $345,000 $92,000 $2,227,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS PLUS CONTINGENCY:$8,382,900 $3,069,050 $34,146,500 $1,492,400 $397,800 $9,648,100 OTHER PROJECT COSTS: R/W ACQUISITIONS Lump Sum $373,400 $273,400 $540,400 $95,800 $265,200 AREA ACQUIRED sq. ft. 562,360 362,860 224,770 223,030 539,710 DESIGN ENG. & CONSTRUCTION ADMIN.Lump Sum 25% $2,096,000 $768,000 $8,537,000 $374,000 $100,000 $2,413,000 SUBTOTAL OTHER PROJECT COSTS $2,469,400 $1,041,400 $9,077,400 $469,800 $100,000 $2,678,200 TOTAL PROJECT COST $10,852,300 $4,110,450 $43,223,900 $1,962,200 $497,800 $12,326,300 TOTAL PROJECT COST (OPENING YEAR DOLLARS)$10,852,300 $4,110,450 $43,223,900 $1,962,200 $497,800 $12,326,300 NOTE: (1) Includes aggregate base class 5 and PASB or OGAB, as appropriate. (2) Includes aggregate base class 5. (3) Does not include pavement edge drains, see separate item. (4) Assumes 50' Piled Foundations & Mn/DOT Standard Plan Sheet designs; does not include excavation or backfill. R/W Acquisitions based upon: Based on Washington County GIS Property Information Project D TH 36 Access Closure at Keats Ave (MnDOT Funds) Project E Demotreville Trail Overpass (MnDOT Funds) Project C Lake Elmo Underpass & TH 36 Overpass (MnDOT Funds) Project A Frontage Road from DeMontreville Trail to Keats Ave (City Funds) Project B Frontage Road near Lake Elmo Ave (City Funds) Project D Frontage Road from Keats Ave to Lake Elmo Ave (City Funds)