SCHEMATIC DESIGN REPORT

Grandview Parkway Tunnel

September 2, 2011

Prepared for: City of Traverse City / Traverse City DDA 400 Boardman Avenue Traverse City, MI 49684

Copyright 2011 by Northwest Design Group, Inc. This document is an instrument of service belonging to Northwest Design Group Inc. It contains privileged information pertinent only to the project named hereon, and it is intended for the sole use of the client named hereon. It is not intended that this document be reused or reproduced without permission from Northwest Design Group, Inc., nor that it be used in the preparation of derivative works based on its content.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General 1.2 Project Description & Scope 1.3 Existing Information 2.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND CONSTRAINTS 2.1 Surface Conditions 2.2 Subsurface Conditions 3.0 EXISTING UTILITIES 3.1 Electric 3.2 Water 3.3 Sanitary Sewer 3.4 Storm Sewer 3.5 Gas, Phone and Cable TV 4.0 DESIGN STANDARDS AND ELEMENTS 4.1 Design Standards 4.2 Design Elements 1. Tunnel Width 2. Tunnel Height 3. Tunnel Length 4. South Approach 5. Design Load 6. Roadway Pavement 7. Trail Pavement 8. Groundwater Consideration 9. Excavation Support 10. Snow Melt system 11. Tunnel Stormwater Drainage 12. Tunnel Water Service 13. Tunnel Power Distribution 14. Tunnel Lighting 15. Security Camera System 16. Wind Turbine System 17. Maintaining Traffic 4.3 Aesthetic Considerations 1. South Approach 2. Tunnel 3. Open Space 4.4 Construction Budget 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX A: SCHEMATIC DESIGN PLANS APPENDIX B: SCHEMATIC DESIGN ESTIMATE APPENDIX C: MDOT PERMIT APPLICATION CORRESPONDANCE

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 General This report summarizes Northwest Design Groups (NDG) schematic design-phase findings for the proposed Grandview Parkway Tunnel, located between Hall Street and Union Street along Grandview Parkway, in Traverse City, Michigan. The purpose of this report is to summarize site conditions, provide design alternatives, and present our recommendations for the proposed tunnel. Our services were authorized by our agreement with the City of Traverse City, dated March 24, 2011. 1.2 Project Description & Scope We understand that the proposed tunnel is conceived to cross beneath Grandview Parkway (US-31) in a generally north-south direction, aligned with a roughly 25-foot wide corridor between two existing buildings on the south side of US-31. The tunnel will provide safe pedestrian passage between the Warehouse District and the Bayfront. The south approach to the tunnel will be a ramp, sloping downward from the existing grade, near Garland Street to an elevation low enough to pass beneath the highway with sufficient headroom. The existing building on the east side of this south approach is expected to remain. To the west, a new hotel is planned. The tunnel itself is conceived as a pre-cast concrete box structure, placed in sections, in an open excavation across the Parkway and the TART Trail on the north side. The north approach to the tunnel has been conceived to provide a fairly broad area opening to and gradually sloping up to the waterfront, with a stairway providing direct access up to the TART Trail. Existing primary power lines, water main and services, and other utilities are located in the tunnel south approach corridor and on the north side of US-31. The project is located in Section 3, T27N, R11W, City of Traverse City, Grand Traverse County, Michigan. 1.3 Existing Information The City of Traverse City/DDA provided the following information and data: Report of Geotechnical Engineering Exploration for the Proposed Grandview Parkway Pedestrian Tunnel, Traverse City, Michigan. Prepared by Gosling Czubak Engineering Sciences, Inc. for the Traverse City Downtown Development Authority and City of Traverse City, Dated February 2011. Project Environmental Assessment for Proposed Pedestrian Tunnel, Grandview Parkway, Traverse City, Michigan. Prepared by Gosling Czubak Engineering Sciences, Inc. for the Traverse City Downtown Development Authority, Dated March 2011. Site topographic survey. Completed by Mansfield & Associates for Traverse City DDA, Dated May 2009. NDG completed additional topographical survey on May 2-3, 2011, and attended meetings with the Hotel Indigo developer and the Citys consulting engineer for the Garland Street project in order to coordinate designs and gather additional information.

2.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND CONSTRAINTS 2.1 Surface Conditions The proposed tunnel will cross beneath Grandview Parkway, known also as US-31. At the location of the crossing, Grandview Parkway is a four-lane, concrete-surfaced Urban Other Principal Arterial (National Functional Classification), maintained by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), and with an average daily traffic (ADT) of 27,292 in 2009 based on MDOT Bureau of Transportation Planning Average Daily Traffic Report. MDOTs right-of-way at the crossing is 66 feet wide. The roadway is relatively straight and level through the project area with concrete curb and gutter on each side and concrete sidewalk immediately behind the back of curb on the south side of the road. The south approach to the tunnel is through a 25-foot wide vacant lot between existing buildings. On the west side, 223 West Grandview Parkway, the existing building is a single-story brick building, currently housing several businesses. This building is proposed to be demolished and in its place will be a new four-story hotel. The exact location of the new building is yet to be determined. The building on the east side of the corridor, 221 West Grandview Parkway, is also a single-story brick building. Bay West Antiques currently conducts business in this building and the building is currently slated to remain. The building is located on the property line and is in relatively poor condition, exhibiting several cracks in the masonry exterior. The depth of the footings is unknown, but is likely less than 3 feet below ground level. A non-motorized path, the TART Trail, runs parallel to the north side of Grandview Parkway, about 7 to 8 feet behind the back of curb. The trail is 8 feet wide and has a hot mix asphalt (HMA) surface. North of the trail, the Open Space Park slopes gently down to West Grand Traverse Bay, approximately 250 feet to the north. This property is the former site of the Traverse City Light and Power Bayside Power Plant. 2.2 Subsurface Conditions Based on the geotechnical report prepared by Gosling-Czuback Engineering Sciences, Inc., the soils underlying the alignment consist predominately of loose to dense sand with various amounts of gravel. The borings encountered up to 12 inches of topsoil. Boring SB-2 encountered 9 feet of very loose sandy material containing trace clay and wood, characterized as uncontrolled backfill. Groundwater was encountered in the borings at depths of about 14 feet below the existing ground surface, roughly correlating to the level of Grand Traverse Bay. At the date of drilling, Grand Traverse Bay was at an elevation of 577.2 relative to Traverse City Datum (NGVD 29). Based on US Army Corps of Engineers projections, Lake Michigan water levels can be expected to be in the range of 577.5 to 578.8 (NGVD 29) at the time of construction (assumed to be summer 2012). The maximum recorded level of Lake Michigan was 582.9 (NGVD 29). It is likely that groundwater levels will approximate the elevation of Lake Michigan. The geotechnical report provided recommendations for site preparation and foundation bearing pressures which will be considered as the design progresses. It did not provide lateral earth pressures for design of retaining walls.

Gosling-Czubaks environmental assessment report concludes there is a moderate likelihood of soil contamination impacting the proposed tunnel construction. Possible contaminates might include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), metals, and cyanide. Similarly, the report finds that groundwater encountered during tunnel construction and use will likely contain cyanide in levels exceeding regulatory limits, and may also contain VOCs, SVOCs, and metals. In addition, one of the soil borings drilled for the geotechnical study encountered unidentified odors, indicating possible petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. The project environmental assessment completed by Gosling-Czubak indicates the likelihood of soil and groundwater contamination at levels exceeding regulatory limits. Therefore, we concur with the reports recommendation of additional characterization of soil and groundwater to facilitate planning for management and disposal during construction. We recommend that the City/DDA procure the services of a competent environmental consulting firm to complete this work. Several subsurface utilities are located at or adjacent to the project site/alignment. Most significantly, these include a 12-inch water line running along the center of the south approach corridor and a set of four electrical conduits about 3 feet further east. Other water, electric, gas, and communications lines are located in the Garland Street and Grandview Parkway rights-of-way, as well as the south approach corridor. 3.0 EXISTING UTILITIES The existing utilities are shown on sheets C-101 and C-102 in Appendix A, and are described below. 3.1 Electric Traverse City Light and Powers existing electric facilities pose significant impacts to this project, as they conflict with the proposed tunnel alignment/severely limit the useable width of the right-of-way. There are existing underground electrical lines running north/south in multiple concrete-encased conduits that are located in the 25-foot wide right-of-way and cross to the north side of the Grandview Parkway. NDG worked with TCL&P to expose the top west corner of the concrete encasement in 3 locations between Grandview Parkway and Garland Street. A vacuum truck, operated by Team Elmers, was used to expose the concrete. The depth and locations of the concrete encasement were then recorded by NDGs survey crew. The top west corner of the concrete encasement is about 14-feet east of the west right-of-way line and 3-feet below the existing ground. The Bayfront Study did not anticipate relocation of the electrical facilities would be required to construct the tunnel. Based on the actual location, the electrical may remain in place with modifications and constraints to the proposed tunnel design, or, in the alternative, they may be relocated. The preliminary cost estimate by TCL&P for relocation is $400,000. We are in the process of confirming this with TCL&P. There are also existing electrical lines running east/west north of the Grandview Parkway. See sheets C101 and C-102 in Appendix A. We expect that these lines can be relocated under the tunnel or behind the tunnel headwall. 3.2 Water The City has an existing 16-inch cast iron watermain with lead joints that runs east-west on the north side of Grandview Parkway. There is also a 12-inch watermain running north-south along the middle of the 25-foot right-of-way and crossing Grandview Parkway. Both watermains are in direct conflict with the proposed tunnel alignment. We understand that the watermains (16-inch and 12-inch) are planned to be replaced by a new watermain extending south on Hall Street, east on Garland Street and north on Union Street. This work scope is

included in Greenan and Associates, LLCs Summary Report of Streetscape Improvements dated April 26, 2011. 3.3 Sanitary Sewer The City has an existing 8-inch clay sanitary sewer line that flows via gravity toward the west on the north side of Grandview Parkway. This line will conflict with the proposed tunnel. The start of this main is near the intersection with Garland Street to the east. We understand that the City plans to construct a new sanitary sewer main on Garland Street. This work scope is included in Greenan and Associates, LLCs Summary Report of Streetscape Improvements dated April 26, 2011. 3.4 Storm Sewer The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has a storm sewer system along Grandview Parkway that flows west from the Garland Street intersection, and is in conflict with the tunnel. We recommend requesting authorization from MDOT to abandon the portion of storm sewer that exists east of the tunnel, and picking up stormwater in new catch basins just west of the tunnel. The schematic design estimate for the tunnel project includes abandoning this portion of the storm sewer. 3.5 Gas, Phone and Cable TV There are no active gas lines in conflict with the tunnel project. The project will include a service to the north side of the Parkway if a heated sidewalk deicing system is used. Phone and cable television lines will require coordination and minor relocations during construction of the tunnel. 4.0 DESIGN STANDARDS AND ELEMENTS 4.1 Design Standards The following standards will be considered in the tunnel design: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2010; AASHTO Guidelines for Geometric Design of Roadways, 2004; AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999; AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, 3rd Edition 2006, with updated Chapter 6; Department of Justice 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design & Guidance on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, September 15, 2010; MDOT Road Design Manual; MDOT Bridge Design Manual; MDOT 2003 Standard Specifications for Construction; MDOT/MSP 2005 Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; MDELEG Michigan Building Code, 2009.

4.2 Design Elements 4.2.1 Tunnel Width The tunnel width requirements vary depending on what types of users are accommodated. Pedestrian walkways should have an 8-feet minimum width, and multi-use or bicycle trail facilities should have a 14-feet minimum width, per AASHTO recommendations. Based on City/DDA input, we understand that bicycles should be accommodated with this project. A 14-foot clear width for the tunnel is proposed to accommodate bicycles. 4.2.2 Tunnel Height The minimum tunnel height for bicycle facilities is 8-feet. Where practical, a height of 10-feet is desirable for adequate vertical shy distance. For pedestrian use, a minimum height of 7.5-feet is required. We understand that the City/DDA desires as much vertical clearance as is possible. The maximum tunnel height will be controlled by the clearance required above the tunnel for pavement structure and the length available to the south to provide ADA access. Coordination with the future hotel in the southwest quadrant and future groundwater levels also need to be considered. Future groundwater levels could be over 5-feet above the tunnel walking surface. Based on our current understanding of the design factors, we expect the tunnel height to be between 8 and 9 feet. 4.2.3 Tunnel Length The tunnel length is set by space needed for Grandview Parkway (including a possible future median) and the TART Trail (including minimum 5-feet clearance to future road and 3-feet minimum clearance to railing). These spaces add up to a total length of about 88-feet. 4.2.4 South Approach The hotel foundation wall will form the west side of the approach. A wall will be required on the east side to retain the adjacent soil, which supports the TCL&P electrical conduits and the existing building. We understand that the hotel developer adjacent to this project plans to allow the south tunnel approach to extend 4-feet onto that property, which will make it possible to construct the tunnel without relocating the electrical lines (the electric manhole south of the Parkway will still need to be reconstructed). See Section 4.3 Aesthetic Considerations for discussion about the impact of this option to the design. 4.2.5 Design Load The tunnel will be designed for AASHTO bridge design loads (specifically HL-93 or HL-93 Modified) because the road pavement will be placed directly on the structure. MDOT may require modifications to this loading, depending on the outcome of ongoing adjustments to their standards. 4.2.6 Roadway Pavement Based on preliminary discussions with MDOT, we expect the new Grandview Parkway pavement structure to consist of a 6-inch (minimum) reinforced concrete slab cast directly on the precast concrete tunnel, with 9-inch thick approach slabs, extending 20 feet east and west of the tunnel. The vertical and horizontal alignments of the Parkway will match existing. Pavement that is replaced as a result of construction beyond the approach slabs will match the existing pavement structure. 4.2.7 Trail Pavement The trail pavement for the tunnel and approaches will be concrete. The concrete will be reinforced and tied to the wingwalls and site retaining walls to provide resistance to the buoyant forces of future groundwater. The concrete will also accommodate a snow melt system. The TART Trail passing over the tunnel on the north side will consist of hot mix asphalt (HMA) wearing surface on gravel base and sand subbase, 10-feet wide. 4.2.8 Groundwater Considerations

As discussed above, groundwater levels will likely mirror Lake Michigan elevations. During construction, with lake levels potentially as high as 578.8 (NGVD 29) and excavations as deep as 575.5 (NGVD 29), water depths as deep as 3.3 feet can be expected during construction. Culvert bedding, provided it is a coarse, uniform aggregate material, can be placed in the wet. Other dewatering can likely be accomplished with a system of sumps and pumps, which are typically effective for depths up to about 3 feet below groundwater. Where excavations are deeper, additional dewatering and possibly groundwater cutoff (e.g. sheet piling) may be warranted. As dewatering water may contain contaminants above regulatory levels, disposal will require careful consideration. Lake Michigan levels, and therefore groundwater levels, are likely to someday return to elevations near the maximum recorded level. We recommend designing for levels approximately 1 foot above the maximum recorded, for a design level of 583.9 (NGVD 29). The tunnel should be designed to be dry at these water levels. We do not consider pumping as a feasible method to prevent groundwater intrusion into the tunnel as groundwater at the site is potentially contaminated and because energy costs would be excessive. Rather, we recommend waterproofing the tunnel and approaches. The waterproofing system should consist of HDPE membrane as this material is durable and resistant to petroleum products. Geocomposite drainage panels should be placed against the structure on each side to capture any leakage and to provide a cushion to protect the membrane. Nonwoven geotextile should be placed between the structure and the membrane; both top and bottom, as well as outside of the membrane to further protect it from punctures. Special connection details will be designed for the south approach, where the approach will likely share a wall with the proposed hotel. The tunnel and approaches must also be designed to resist uplift forces associated with buoyancy effects. This resistance will be provided by the structure weight, as well as the weight and friction of the adjacent soil. The tunnel structure itself will have sufficient weight to counteract these loads. Similarly, it appears that the south approach will easily meet the required resistance. We expect that the north approach will require additional measures to add requisite uplift resistance. The area with depth below elevation 583.9 (NGVD 29) should be minimized. Concrete floor slabs may be thickened and extended beyond the outer retaining walls to capture the overlying soil weight. If necessary, tie-down anchors, such as helical plate anchors, can be used where the soil and structure weights are not adequate. To relate the proposed floor elevation with existing features, NDG obtained elevations at the existing Cass Street Pedestrian Tunnel, sidewalk under the Union Street Bridge / Boardman River and concrete plaza at Cass Street Bridge / Boardman River. See table below: Description Proposed Tunnel Floor Existing Cass Street Tunnel Floor Existing Sidewalk under Union Street Bridge Existing Plaza at Cass Street Bridge Elevation (NGVD 29) 578.2 580.5 582.8 581.7

4.2.9 Excavation Support The majority of the construction can occur in excavations which are laid back to stable slopes. Because of the sandy soil conditions, we expect that these slopes will be 1 vertical to 1 or 1.5 horizontal. As maintaining safe excavation conditions depends heavily on the means, methods, and sequencing of construction, the selection of excavation slopes (pursuant to OSHA and MiOSHA requirements) will be the responsibility of the contractor.

Along the south approach, we expect the west side will be either excavated for the proposed hotel or the hotel foundation wall will be in place at the time of construction. However, the existing building on the east side of the alignment will require excavation support to avoid undermining the foundations. Similarly, the existing TCL&P conduit bank runs within the zone of influence of the excavation. We understand that the City/DDA is considering demolishing the existing building, which could allow open cut of the excavation (with temporary support of the conduit bank). Temporary support of the conduit bank could be completed with cribbing or similar means. Assuming that demolition of the existing building is not feasible; excavation of the approach will require temporary shoring. Shoring options include sheet piling, soldier piling and lagging wall, and tangent/secant pile wall. Though sheet piling represents a relatively low-cost alternative and will provide for some groundwater cut-off, it is our opinion that this option presents significant risks. These risks are due mainly to vibrations and vibration-induced settlement as sheet piling is typically installed and removed using vibratory hammers. Vibrations could be detrimental to the adjacent existing building, especially considering its age, condition, and construction. Other options include a soldier pile and lagging wall, which would consist of steel H-piles, concreted in bored holes, with timber lagging spanning between piles and retaining the soil. Though low cost and able to be placed with minimal vibration, care will be necessary to prevent raveling of the sandy soils while excavating and prior to placing lagging. Though significantly higher in cost, a tangent or secant pile wall will provide support for the soil and building with little movement or vibrations. This type of wall consists of adjacent or overlapping holes bored into the soil and filled with concrete. Planning level costs for these various shoring alternatives are as follows: Sheet Pile Wall Soldier Pile and Lagging Secant Pile Wall $75,000 - $105,000 $85,000 - $110,000 $150,000 - $200,000

Based on the estimated costs and the relative risks and merits of the options, assuming that open cut along the southeast quadrant of the alignment is not feasible, our opinion is that the soldier pile and lagging wall is the preferred shoring alternative. Design of shoring will consider potential groundwater levels, earth pressures, and surcharge loads. The temporary shoring can/will be incorporated into the final wall. 4.2.10 Snow Melt System (Optional) The snow melt system is conceived to keep the approaches snow-free throughout the winter months. The snow melt system will be a hydronic (i.e. boiler water with 40% glycol) system with diameter PEX tubing at 9 on center over the entire length of the tunnel sidewalk and, also, the steps and curved walks at the north end of the tunnel. The bottom surface of the concrete on the sidewalk, between the concrete and the compacted sand, will have an insulation layer of concrete barrier foil insulation (e.g. Ultra CBF Rfoil which is a bubble wrap sandwiched between foil-faced top and bottom protective layers). The snow melt system will also have two piping manifolds located under the sidewalk in the tunnel; one at 100-feet and one at 150-feet into the tunnel from the south end. The manifolds will be installed in 30 x 48 x 18 deep precast polymer concrete enclosures. These manifolds, fed from the boiler via 3 diameter supply / return mains located under the walkway, distribute the heated hydronic fluid over the distribution network of under-slab PEX tubing. One 1,200 MBH gas-fired condensing boiler will be installed in a small equipment building at the north end of the tunnel. That building will also house the boiler hydronic auxiliaries (e.g. air separator, expansion tanks, pumps, boiler & snow melt controls), a unit heater to keep the building warm in winter, and domestic water and gas services.

Gas for the boiler will come from an active DTE gas main line at the south end of the tunnel on the south side of Garland Street. The project will tie into that line and route an underground gas line to the small equipment building to connect into the boiler. (Note: According to Ken Lake of DTE Energy the project will be responsible for the costs of the gas main tie-in and the boring under Garland Street to get the new gas line from the south side of Garland Street to the south end of the tunnel). 4.2.11 Tunnel Stormwater Drainage One (1) 36 diameter x 8 deep fiberglass storm water basin with a 3 HP submersible pump will be located beneath the floor of the tunnel at the north end. This will receive storm water from edge drains on the side of the tunnel and the approaches. 4.2.12 Tunnel Water Service (Optional) If desired, domestic water service will be routed underground to the equipment building from a city water utility manhole approx. 100 east of the building on the north side of Grandview Parkway. Domestic water may also be utilized to feed two (2) freeze-proof wall hydrants at each end of the tunnel for hose wash down of the tunnel. 4.2.13 Tunnel Power Distribution We plan to add a new 225 amp 120/208V-3PH-4W panel in the new mechanical enclosure and meter it separately for the project. It will power all loads in the work area, including the snow melt boiler, two pumps, snow melt control panel, unit heater, and a storm sewer lift pump. Six weatherproof receptacles are planned along the tunnel route for maintenance operations. 4.2.14 Tunnel Lighting LED fixtures are planned for down lighting incorporated into fish-shaped overhead panels at the south entrance to the tunnel. Linear LED (rope) fixtures are being considered to outline the five fish panels. Fixture manufacturers and catalog numbers for all areas have not been selected yet. A new lighting relay panel with integral time clock and photocell will be added to control the lighting on the project. Lighting inside the tunnel is planned to be low temperature linear fluorescent or LED fixtures running the entire length of the tunnel along one side at the ceiling and sealed to limit bug access. The emergency lighting inside the tunnel will be provided by battery backup inside the ambient light fixtures. On the north entrance of the tunnel, step lights are planned around the circular retaining walls. Two spotlight fixtures are planned to highlight the sculpture at the center of the grassy area. Two fluorescent strip lights are planned to illuminate the inside of the mechanical bunker. 4.2.15 Security Camera System (Optional) Four new CCD CCTV cameras are planned to survey the project area, one at each end of the tunnel pointing inside and one covering each of the two approaches to the tunnel. The cameras will be hardwired to modems in the mechanical bunker and the images will be available via the internet for monitoring remotely.

4.2.16 Wind Turbine System (Optional) To produce electricity that will power some of the lighting for the project, a new 1KW wind turbine is planned on the north side of Grandview with an inverter inside the mechanical bunker. 4.2.17 Maintaining Traffic Maintenance of traffic on Grandview Parkway during construction is a critical and costly part of this project. Because traffic volumes are so high (over 27,000 vehicles per day), MDOT has indicated to us that 4-lanes should be maintained throughout the duration of the tunnel construction. This can be accomplished by either building a temporary four-lane runaround through the Open Space north of the project, or by constructing a temporary four-lane bridge a few feet above the project. We examined both options and recommend constructing a four-lane runaround (See drawing for runaround location). While both options have roughly the same cost ($230,000 - $250,000), the runaround option provides space for easier and faster construction with fewer constructability and quality control issues to work through, ultimately resulting in lower overall construction cost and higher quality workmanship. We understand that temporary occupancy of the Open Space for maintaining traffic would not require electorate approval. We also understand that the extent of temporary construction in the Open Space will be limited to certain times of year and should be minimized to the extent possible. We will consider partwidth construction with input from MDOT during preliminary design to possibly reduce the limits of the runaround. 4.3 Aesthetic Considerations This section of the report summarizes the efforts within the Schematic Design phase relative to site planning, and primarily site aesthetics. In addition to the established engineering scope, the City and DDA have indicated the tunnel should be a site element that not only provides a utilitarian function to pedestrians, linking Front Street and Downtown, through the Warehouse district, to the Bayfront district; but is designed with an aesthetic that allows it to complement both of these districts that it will serve. Our objective in this design phase was to establish the minimum dimensional and spatial guidelines that allow the tunnel to be a successful series of spaces that relate to their surroundings. Beyond this objective, our goal is to provide to the City and DDA an illustration of possibilities that exist once dimensional standards are established and we begin to work toward establishing contextual relationships. To this point, the Schematic Design should be viewed only as a portrait of possibilities within established minimum dimensional guidelines. Once we begin to meet with local stakeholders, we will further develop the design to allow it to best respond to the specific district and users. In meeting the criteria mentioned above, a first step was establishing dimensional minimum standards for the spaces within the proposed project. These standards were established by recognizing established AASHTO standards, ADA accessibility guidelines, and the available space. In addition to these standards, the design team considered spatial relationships between the site and proposed improvements, and the user. The geometry necessary for the pedestrian underpass presents challenges of spatial perception in order to create spaces that feel safe and unconfined, comfortable, and interesting. To the limits of the site, these spatial relationships were used to guide dimensional standards and to further refine the design. Beyond establishing dimensional standards, the design team understands the importance to the City and DDA of sense of place. The project can actually be broken into three separate spaces: the ramp from Garland Street and the Warehouse District north to the tunnel; the North entry to the Bayfront and open space; and the tunnel itself.

4.3.1 South Approach The twenty-foot wide South ramp to the tunnel, shown on Sheet C-201, is an extension of an existing pedestrian alley that also figures prominently in the Citys future development plans for the Warehouse District and the proposed Garland Avenue streetscape improvements. The ramp will also border the proposed Hotel Indigo to the west. The design team visited the site to identify the visual and aesthetic flavor of the district, and reviewed illustrative graphics from the Streetscape plans, as well as plan and elevation drawings of the proposed hotel. The objective in preparing the schematic design for the pedestrian ramp was to draw from the existing sense of place of the district, the possible streetscape improvements and the proposed hotel to design a pedestrian thoroughfare that is not only functional and accessible but that emphasizes the context of its surroundings this space has the potential to contribute to further aesthetic development of the warehouse district, so it should be taken very seriously. We attempted to accomplish this through the use of materials that relate to the district and the proposed hotel, by drawing from the arts content of the district, and by providing opportunities for display of public art. Paving of the ramp is proposed to be concrete with pedestrian-scale detailing. The landings, however, are proposed to be surfaced with cut stone representing an indigenous material. Where the cut stone meets concrete paving, we are suggesting a cut stone band engraved with educational or wayfinding information. The placement of the cut stone landings is coordinated with the hotel building columns. The landings are enlarged in width compared to the ramp, which allows for placement of fishform benches. Behind these benches and between the hotel building columns, we are proposing a decorative trellis designed to echo the window detailing of the hotel. The trellis would carry ground cover and vines planted behind the benches, but would also represent an opportunity to attach artwork. The wall on the east side of the tunnel would be placed in two terraces to allow for light to reach the space and to provide as open a space as possible. To establish an overhead plane and provide site lighting, we are proposing a leaping fish form ornamental overhead light. The placement of this motif suggests the local heritage of the lake and the Boardman River. During our field inventory and discussions with the City, an electrical ductbank was discovered approx. 10 west of the existing building to the east. At this point, it is unclear whether the ductbank will be removed; however, our initial design for the ramp would require removal and relocation of the ductbank. For this reason, we have prepared an alternate concept for the ramp, shown on Sheet C-301, which leaves the ductbank in place, maintains the 14 tunnel width, and maintains but simplifies the ramp design in order to allow narrowing the ramp to 14 width. In this version, the treatment of the west tunnel wall and pavement remains the same, but benches on the east side of the tunnel are eliminated. Because the duct bank location prevents stepping back or terracing of the east retaining wall, that wall now reaches from pavement grade to 2 below existing grade. Cross sections of each design are shown at the bottom of the respective sheet. While we believe that the drawings show in plan, profile and cross-section that either ramp option results in an interesting and attractive space, we believe the volume of people using the route, when combined with the narrower space, will cause users to move through the space more quickly and possibly with less opportunity to linger and enjoy the space. 4.3.2 Tunnel The tunnel continues the approach of drawing from the local site context to prepare the schematic design. The materials and forms proposed for the tunnel interior represent what may be found within the warehouse district. One example is the overhead structure entering the tunnel on either side, a canopy of structural steel beams with translucent composite infill to allow light passage and backlighting at night. Once inside the tunnel, a series of stainless steel columns and overhead beams with exposed rivets is placed within, appearing as a structural element. The fact that the tunnel is the most confined of spaces within the sequence suggests to us that the space within needs significant embellishment to ensure it is an interesting space and not merely a confining space that users prefer to enter and exit as quickly as possible. In order to achieve this, we drew from the Citys desire to incorporate educational opportunities. The west wall of the tunnel is proposed to be faced with backlit glass block, with the suggestion that the wall can be used for artwork. Another suggestion for treatment of the glass block wall is to etch the

profile of Grand Traverse Bay and the profile of the landform above it into the block itself. Glass blocks below the etched waterline could be filled with masses of suspended small medallions that could play off the light to represent schools of fish. The tunnel floor is proposed to receive tile, which could be etched to provide educational and wayfinding information, possibly corresponding with the etched profile of the bay and landforms. Finally, the tunnel ceiling is proposed to be perforated and backlit in a manner resembling a starry night sky. Linear fluorescent or LED lighting on one side of the tunnel ceiling will supplement the ceiling lighting. 4.3.3 Open Space The North Entry Plaza, shown on Sheets C-202 and C-302, is where the Warehouse district meets the Bayfront district. This district has the completely different spatial relationships of the existing park open space. Thus, the space should respect the established Bayfront context and its spatial relationships. However, when approaching and entering the space, it should also make a visual connection to the Warehouse District that it serves. Our objective in developing the space was to bring the user to grade level with as open, universally accessible, and unconfined a route as possible; to mark starting points for the different districts, and to respect the open space and lake views by minimizing disturbance of the open space and obstruction of the bay. As in the Schematic Design of the south ramp and tunnel, the proposed improvements shown for the North Entry should be viewed as a proposed establishment of spaces and a menu of possibilities in terms of site features and finishes that require the input of the City, DDA and local stakeholders. Included in our plans are two design options for the North Entry Plaza. The initial option, shown on Sheet C-202, brings users through the end of the tunnel and around a central island bordered with a seat height retaining wall. The center island includes a terrace facing the tunnel, proposed to be faced with brick matching the hotel. The terrace and island itself are shown planted with dune grasses and low evergreens to resemble native dune vegetation. Within the island, a small sculpture pool is located for placement and rotation of sculpture work. Pedestrians can follow the concrete and cut stone ramps and landings around either side of this island to walks taking them to the open space or marina. The sidewalk leading to the marina also passes through the central plaza on its way up a set of proposed stairs and to the Grandview Parkway, providing a strong sightline from above. The plaza reaches grade as the two walks bordering the center island come together to form a circle. In this area, pavement is widened, bollard lights and Mast and Yard Arm poles carrying banners, and benches are proposed, and the space is enclosed with more low, native vegetation in order to emphasize a sense of arrival. Upon presenting the concept for the North Entry Plaza shown on Sheet C-202, we received feedback that a lower-impact solution may be desired. We have prepared an alternate design solution for this space that reduces the impact, brings users centrally through the space as opposed to around a landscape island, and spreads grading and earthwork in a more gradual manner toward the bay and open space. This option is shown on Sheet C-302. The retaining wall framing the tunnel entry is now profiled to resemble a dune form and planted foreground and background with dune grasses and low evergreen vegetation. Sculpture bases are suggested in front of the dune-form wall within the drifts of dune grass. Sense of arrival is maintained with a smaller central plaza that retains the benches, Mast and Yard Arms, and lighting of the initial option. While the ramps in this option extend further and more gradually into the existing open space, the overall impact of the improvements will be less dramatic.

4.4 Construction Budget The Engineers Opinion of Probable Construction Costs is summarized in the table below. The table is organized to allow comparisons to the Traverse City Bayfront 2010 budgets and to identify optional versus required work. Also note that the items covered in our estimates are coordinated with Greenan and Associates, LLCs Summary Report of Streetscape Improvements dated April 26, 2011, to avoid repeated budget items. A more detailed breakdown is included in Appendix B of this report.

Engineers Opinion of Probable Construction Costs - Summary Table

Item General Maintaining Traffic Tunnel Aesthetic Treatments Landscaping / Amenities Snow Melt System General Mechanical Electrical / Lighting TCL&P Relocation 10% Contingency Totals *Tunnel $434,600 $235,800 $0 $14,800 $0 $15,000 $26,800 $0 $72,700 $799,700 **South Approach $183,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,300 $201,300 ***Open Space $117,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,760 $129,360 ****Optional Work $0 $0 $168,800 $287,200 $165,000 $19,400 $32,000 $400,000 $107,240 $1,179,640 Totals $735,200 $235,800 $168,800 $302,000 $165,000 $34,400 $58,800 $400,000 $210,000 $2,310,000

* Tunnel consists of work between and including the tunnel headwalls. ** South Approach consists of work south of the tunnel headwalls and is referred to as South Ramp to Warehouse District in the Drawings. *** Open Space consists of work north of the tunnel headwall and is referred to as Bayfront Entrance in the Drawings. **** See Appendix B for a detailed breakdown of Optional Work. Notes: 1. MDOT costs are unknown and therefore not included at this time. MDOT costs will include permanent use of right-of-way, agreements, MDOT reviews and a construction permit. 2. Design, construction and environmental engineering costs are not included in the Engineers Opinion of Probable Construction Costs. 3. Maintenance and operation costs of the project are not included in the Engineers Opinion of Probable Construction Costs at this time. 4. Options 1 and 2 for Open Space work are estimated to have roughly the same cost, so the numbers indicated in the table are for either option. 5. Actual construction costs may vary significantly depending upon the timing of construction, market conditions and other factors beyond our control. We understand that the current budget for this project is about $1.1 million. We will work with the City/DDA to assist in making project scope decisions.

5.0

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend proceeding with preliminary design consistent with the design element recommendations described above. However, the following items require special consideration and input from the City/DDA: A decision is needed regarding option with or without TCL&P electrical relocation. Resolution of schematic design estimate versus current budget. Decisions regarding recommended optional items are needed. NDG will actively work with the City/DDA to resolve these and other issues as required to successfully complete this project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions concerning this report or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted,

LUCAS C. PORATH, P.E. Vice President

APPENDIX A SCHEMATIC DESIGN PLANS

CITY OF TRAVERSE CITY

GRANDVIEW PARKWAY (US-31) PEDSTRIAN TUNNEL

APPENDIX B SCHEMATIC DESIGN ESTIMATE

Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

File: Estimate

Schematic Design Estimate City of Traverse City/DDA Grandview Parkway Pedestrian Tunnel Traverse City, Michigan Lucas Porath, P.E. Northwest Design Group, Inc. Petoskey, Michigan

Estimate Date: NDG Project No.

7/28/2011 1110302

Tunnel Description General Pavt, Rem Curb, Rem Excavation, Earth Excavation, Fdn Backfill, Structure, CIP Culv Bedding, Box Culv Tunnel Structure, 14 foot by 9 foot Tunnel & Approach Waterproofing Tunnel Edge Drain Excavation Shoring Concrete, Grade S2 (Retaining Walls, Etc.) Reinforcement, Steel, Epoxy Coated Sidewalk, Conc, 6 inch Steps, Conc Pipe Railing Pipe Railing for Steps Ornamental Guardrail HMA Concrete Pavment Aggregate Base, 8 inch Aggregate Base, 6 inch Storm Sewer Trench Drain Maintaining Traffic Curb, Rem Excavation, Earth (Construct Temp Runaround) Subbase, CIP Aggregate Base, 8 inch HMA (Temp Runaround) Temp Pavement Markings Temp Signs, Maintaining Traffic Excavation, Earth (Remove Temp Runaround) Conc Curb and Gutter Aggregate Base, 6 inch (Path and Parking Lot) HMA (Path and Parking Lot) Tree Removal and Replacement Restoration MDOT Fees Tunnel Aesthetic Treatments Aesthetics Treatment, Tunnel Floor Aesthetics Treatment, Tunnel Wall Aesthetics Treatment, Tunnel Ceiling Aesthetics Treatment, Retaining Walls Site Landscaping and Amenities Screening Fence Site Furnishing, Bench Site Furnishing, Trash Recepticle Site Furnishings, Signage Site Furnishings, Mast Arm with Banner Site Furnishings, Decorative Entry Arch Site Furnishings, Decorative Lighting, Ramp Landing Site Furnishings, Decorative Trellis Sodding Restoration Landscaping, Planting Beds Landscaping, Shrubs Landscaping, Trees Mechanical Domestic Water tie-in w / meter Domestic Water Piping Freeze-proof Wall Hydrants Snow Melt System Mechanical Building Stormwater Basin & Pump, Controls, etc. Electrical 120/208V-3PH-4W Panel, 30 ckt 100 Amp Feeder for Panel from Pwr Co Branch Wiring 30 Circuits at 50 Feet/Circuit Pump Connections and Starters Storm Water Sump Starter WP Receptacles LED Downlights on Fish Panels LED Rope Lighting on Fish Panels Lighting Relay Panel LED Tunnel Lighting Step Lights Sculpture Lighting WI-FI Cameras WP Fixed 1KW Wind Turbine TCL&P Electrical Relocation Unit Syd Ft Cyd Cyd Cyd Cyd Ft Sft Ft LS Cyd Lbs Sft Cyd Ft Ft Ft Ton Syd Syd Syd Ft Ft Unit Price $4.00 $5.00 $4.00 $8.00 $12.00 $35.00 $2,500.00 $6.75 $5.00 $110,000.00 $425.00 $1.00 $4.50 $800.00 $90.00 $95.00 $100.00 $80.00 $75.00 $5.50 $4.00 $30.00 $150.00 Qty 335 120 0 1,780 755 165 88 10,225 390 0 30 3,700 1,160 0 465 0 80 15 335 335 90 250 34 SUBTOTALS: 970 1,070 1,470 4,300 925 7,000 1 2,900 970 1,960 305 5 8,300 SUBTOTALS: Sft Sft Sft Sft $22.00 $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTALS: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 550 1 0 0 0 SUBTOTALS: 0 0 0 0 0 1 SUBTOTALS: 1 100 1,500 2 1 6 0 0 1 80 26 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTALS: Amount $1,340.00 $600.00 $0.00 $14,240.00 $9,060.00 $5,775.00 $220,000.00 $69,018.75 $1,950.00 $0.00 $12,750.00 $3,700.00 $5,221.60 $0.00 $41,850.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 $1,200.00 $25,125.00 $1,842.50 $360.00 $7,500.00 $5,100.00 $434,632.85 $6,790.00 $5,350.00 $16,170.00 $25,800.00 $64,750.00 $2,100.00 $10,000.00 $14,500.00 $17,460.00 $10,290.00 $24,400.00 $5,000.00 $33,200.00 $235,810.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,750.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $3,700.00 $2,505.00 $10,380.00 $502.00 $1,375.00 $273.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 $4,000.00 $2,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $26,835.00 $727,027.85 $72,702.78 $799,730.63 0 0 0 0 Qty

South Approach Amount $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $110,000.00 $51,000.00 $12,950.00 $8,997.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $182,947.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $182,947.75 $18,294.78 $201,242.53 0 0 0 0 Qty 0 0 750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 18,550 3,290 10 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Open Space Amount $0.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $63,750.00 $18,550.00 $14,802.75 $8,000.00 $0.00 $9,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $117,602.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $117,602.75 $11,760.28 $129,363.03 1,250 1,600 1,250 3,100 Qty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Optional Work Amount $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $27,500.00 $48,000.00 $31,250.00 $62,000.00 $168,750.00 $1,950.00 $27,500.00 $7,500.00 $5,000.00 $16,500.00 $60,000.00 $75,000.00 $4,725.00 $0.00 $0.00 $60,000.00 $25,000.00 $4,000.00 $287,175.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $400.00 $165,000.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 $184,400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $680.00 $4,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $300.00 $18,000.00 $8,500.00 $400,000.00 $431,980.00 $1,072,305.00 $107,230.50 $1,179,535.50 $2,099,883.35 $209,988.33 $2,309,871.68

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 120 12,950 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ft Cyd Cyd Syd Ton Ft LS Cyd Ft Syd Ton Ea Syd LS

$7.00 $5.00 $11.00 $6.00 $70.00 $0.30 $10,000.00 $5.00 $18.00 $5.25 $80.00 $1,000.00 $4.00 UNKNOWN

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ft Ea Ea LS Ea Ea Ea Ft Syd LS Sft LS LS

$65.00 $2,500.00 $1,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,500.00 $30,000.00 $15,000.00 $35.00 $5.00 $12,000.00 $10.00 $25,000.00 $4,000.00

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

30 11 5 1 3 2 5 135 0 0 6,000 1 1

Ea Ft LS LS Sft LS

$3,000.00 $40.00 $200.00 $165,000.00 $200.00 $15,000.00

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

1 100 2 1 60 0

Ea Ft Ft Ea Ea Ea Ea Ft Ea Ft Ea Ea Ea Ea LS

$3,700.00 $25.05 $6.92 $251.00 $1,375.00 $45.50 $170.00 $30.00 $1,500.00 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 $4,500.00 $8,500.00 $400,000.00

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 4 150 0 0 0 2 4 1 1

TOTAL ALL CATEGORIES: CONTINGENCY (10%): TOTAL INCLUDING CONTINGENCY:

Notes: Actual construction costs may vary significantly depending upon the timing of construction, market conditions and other factors beyond our control.

PROJECT TOTAL: PROJECT CONTINGENCY TOTAL: PROJECT GRAND TOTAL:

2010 Northwest Design Group, Inc. P:\2011-Active\1110302\Estimate\Copy of Engineer's Estimate-Concept Revised2

Page 1 of 1

Form Issued: 03.10.2010 Revised: 03.10.2010

APPENDIX C: MDOT PERMIT APPLICATION CORRESPONDANCE