17 March 2020 Preliminary Update
Tuesday, 17 March, 2020
08:56
Action Items:
Complete
Assigned to
Task
Rostofer
Provide a footprint of what he will be using for an environmental study to EA
Knapp/ Weiler
Release SAFe Mod to EA for proposal submission.
Attendees:
Kenny Knapp (Notes by)
Jerry Bantz
Mike Weiler
Kent Kapustar
Fred Seling
Herb Koger
Jon Mihoci
Sheldon Schlabach
Don Rostofer
Agenda:
Replace two span arch in Mansfield
This project is influenced by the flood control project with the city and EMH&T
Scope says EMH&T will run hydraulics
Hydraulics completed for existing
Came up with options for similar openings to the existing structure
Sent to EMH&T
Went back and forth with EMH&T due to hydraulics
Came up with 4 options
City did not want three span due to piers and debris
Three sided needed to be 32' span to perform hydraulically.  
Existing stream bottom is about 20'
32' three sided would necessitate widening the channel upstream and narrow it down stream.  In general, we were not in favor of that much channel work
Flow velocities would slow and cause potential silting issues.
AER sent in December
Comments in January
Disposition of comments sent back in February
Came down to a three sided box and precast single span box beam
Three sided would have greater life-cycle costs than was originally presented.  That was modified and a revised cost was presented
Three sided life-cycle was still less than the single span box beam, but other issues resulted in other needs.
Final recommendation was SINGLE SPAN BOX BEAM BRIDGE.
The State AGREES
One question - The box beams are to be secured down to the abutments due to the structure WILL go under water
Comment on cross section - Is there no overhang?
Per KENT, there needs to be at least a 2" overhang
Are we going to need any walls?
When originally scoped, EA was to look at some walls for erosion protection and load carrying due to a building being close to the stream.
Slopes are at the steepest 1.5:1 which matches the banks around the existing structures
According to EA - They believe there is no need for proposed walls outside of wingwalls.  
The structure will have the kind of standard wingwalls and slope grading.
Don - For the wall by the carwash place - Does the proposed grading extend beyond the existing right of way limits?
YES - EA will plan on buying permanent right of way for that area.  Plus there is a water line that is being proposed to be relocated
Don - Grading - Water will flow against the bank, hit the edge of the wall, and have the potential for erosion.  Will there be armoring? Will you angle the wingwall?
EA - There will be sufficient enough armoring with rock channel and the proposed wingwalls to prevent erosion.  Based on the future condition with EMH&T's project
D3 - What if EMH&T's project doesn't get built?
The velocities are still slow enough that there should not be any issue.
Right of Way
John says that there will most likely need to be more right of way than is currently proposed.  There will need to be more for aerial power banks on the west side.  There are buildings on both sides of the roadway on the south side.  It will be TIGHT to get utilities in.  John says he doesn't really know for sure what will need to be done yet, but after we get a Stage Submission, he'll have a better idea of what's going to be needed and what will need relocated.
Further coordination with the car wash and other utilities will be needed.
There is a sanitary line on the east side of the structure that, per the city, is abandoned.  The contractor will need to go out and plug that line.
SUE needs
One North side for water line
One South side for water line
One South side for abandoned sanitary for plugging and filling existing abandoned sanitary
DON - With John's Comments, will we need wider right of way and wider construction limits for the environmental footprint/commitments?
YES in short.  There are trees on the west side by the car wash that may potentially need cut in order to get the car was power service.
The existing proposed temp may need extended west for power lines
Grading will be controlled by a channel easement, not with SH right of way.
DON - Will extend the TMP line about 50 feet in all directions.  Outside of the driveway to the north, along the car wash, west along the south side of the car wash for about 50 feet, south, then east to the corner of the existing two story brick on the south side of the structure.
THIS IS ALL FOR HIS ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, NOT ACTUAL RIGHT OF WAY, TEMP, OR EASEMENTS.
Just to make sure that we are wide enough to allow utilities and such.
EA - One other water line issues.  Bob Bianchi would like the existing 6" waterline upgraded to an 8".  
Per John, the city would have to pay for the betterment
UNLESS the city regulations state that "all water mains must be a minimum of xxx inches"
Schedule:
Hold the Stage III Submission of April 5, 2021
Stage II may need to be a little later - Currently 6/15/2020 - Most likely will not happen
ROW is the critical path
Final ROW pushed to 12/21/2020
EA will work schedule back from Stage III and ROW Plans approved
Shoot for ROW plans and Environmental to be completed by the end of this year.
We will release SAFe "fairly soon"
What items of this project are to be included in the next proposal?
Other's comments:
Name
Comment
MLW
Final recommendation is SINGLE SPAN BOX BEAM BRIDGE using 16-CB17x48 box beams instead of mixing 36" and 48" box beams.  Minimal added width will be taken up in the proposed sidewalk widths.