Loading...
4 TH 101 Trail AlignmentCITYOF 690 G0, Ce,ret Drive, PO Box 147 Cha,hasse,, Minnesota 55317 ?t~o,e 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 £ngin eering F~x' 612. 93 7. 9152 Public SafeO' Fax 612.934.2524 II~b wu,u: d. &a,hasse,.,m.,s MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: Scott A. Botcher, City Manager Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engin~ February 26, 2001 Discussion of Trail Adjacent to Highway 101 - Project No. 97-12-3 The purpose of tonight's discussion is to give staff direction on the proposed trail adjacent to Trunk Highway 101. Trail History · May 22, 2000: The City Council approved a consultant contract with HTPO Consultant Engineers for preparation of concept plans for the Trunk Highway 101 trail. The intention of the plans was to apply to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Miff)OT) for a Limited Use Permit (LUP) for a trail on MnDOT right-of-way. · June 21, 2000: The concept plans are submitted to MnDOT for LUP review. Copies of the submittal are on file in tile Engineering department. · October, 2000: The City submitted a grant application for Cooperative Agreement funding for the Trunk Highway 101 trail. September 25, 2000: The City received a copy of a letter sent to Representative Tom Worlonan stating that the Trunk Highway 101 Turn back Project had been suspended indefinitely. November 27, 2000: The City received MnDOT's comments on the LUP submittal. City staff and HTPO met with MnDOT to discuss the comments. MnDOT stated during the meeting they would reconsider the LUP denial if full plans and specifications were submitted. Plan and specification preparation would cost approximately $100,000. · January 22, 2001: The City received MnDOT's denial of the Cooperative Agreement grant request. · February 26, 2001' City Council discussion of trail. c: Laurie Johnston, HTPO Attachlnents: 1) MnDOT letter dated September 12, 2000 2) MnDOT letter dated November 20, 2000 3) MnDOT letter dated January 18, 2001 g:\eng~public\97-12-3Lstaff report - 2-26.doc Fhe C/ty of Cha,hasse,.,4 ~rou,i,¢ community, with clea, lakes, aua/in, schools, a cham~ine downtow,, thrivin~ businesses, and beautihd oarks. A vreat o/ace to live. work. a,d olay. Minnesota Depart,,,ent of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 January 18, 2001 651-582-1661 Ms. Teresa J. Burgess Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 TH 101 Trail - Pleasantview Road to West 78~ Street City Project No. 97-12-3 FY 2002 Municipal Agreement Candidate Projcet £NGINEERING Dear Ms. Burgess: We have.reviewed your request for inclusion of the above project in the Fiscal Year 2002 Municipal Agreement Program. The materials you submitted were routed to a number of our functional groups for comment. Please review the following comments and decide whether they can be incorporated into you proposed project. Keep in mind that the projects are rated on their benefit to the Trunk Highway System as well as to the local community. Comments were received from the following functional areas: Transportation Planning- Paul Czech: Waters Edge Office, (651) 582-1771. See the attached letter dated 11-20-00 from John Isackson. Given John's comprehensive comments I can NOT see much benefit to MN/DOT unless all the issues/problems in John's letter are resolved. Preliminary Design - Wayne Norris: Waters Edge Office, (651) 582-1295. 1. Trail construction will consume Right of Way that may be needed for future TH 101 improvements. 2. Trail should be designed with a standard typical section for the entire length. Permits -Keith Van Wagner: Waters Edge Office, (651) 582-1443. I'm concerned about altering the ditches to accommodate a trail, especially when the ditches get filled in. Maintenance Operations -Jeff Gibbens: Waters Edge Office, (651) 582-1431. I. It appears that meltwater during periods of freeze-thaw will be running across the surface of the trail and re freezing. This could lead to slippery (unsafe) conditions. Erosion may also wash sand etc. onto the trail which could be hazardous to bikers/rollerbladers. Perhaps the water could be intercepted. 2. It should be made clear from the very beginning that MN/DOT will not be maintaining this trail. Responsibility for maintenance will be with the City. 3. V ditches seen on cross sections should be rounded. An equal opportunity employer Final Design -Tim Johnson: Waters Edge Office, (651) 634-2327. I have the same comments I made on 11/4/00 regarding the Limited Use Permit. See copy attached. Water Resources -Benjamin Timerson: Waters Edge Office, (651) 634-2399. See attached memo to James Myers dated 12/7/00. Traffic Studies - Lars Impola: Waters Edge Office, (651) 634-2379. Our only concern is a portion of the trail that narrows down to 3 feet. Work should be done to try and remedy this situation. We are planning to make presentations to the Fiscal Year 2002 Selection Committee in late February or early March. Please submit any changes to your proposed projects by February 19, 2001 so that the Selection Committee can review the most up to date material If you have any questions about this project please call me at (651) 582-1661. Sincerely,~~. "MEhael P. Kowski, p.g/.~~.5.~ Cooperative Agreement Engineer Metro Division Bob Brown, Mn/DOT-Metro State Aid Project File Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 November 20, 2000 Teresa Burgess City of Chanhassen Public Works Director / City Engineer 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 937-1900 ext. 156 Re: Limited Use Permit for TH 10i Bike Path ( Project No. 97-12-3 ) After reviewing the TH 101 Trail Concept Plans, Mn/DOT has decided to deny your request for a Limited Use Permit (LUP) for the follo~ving reasons: '.-~ Mn/DOT Detail Design Comments: 1. It would seem much more cost efficient, cost effective, practical, safe and aesthetically pleasing to do the trail project along with a roadway upgrading project. 2. It appears there are already many drainage problems with the current TH 101 in this area. This trail project will probably just worsen the drainage and erosion problems. o It looks like they are thinking of using bituminous spillways in some areas. From my experience, these spillways do not work 'very well and often do not even do the job intended unless the contractor takes great care to direct the runoff to the center of the spillway and the bituminous is carefully shaped to handle the runoff. Also, there is the problem of what to do at the bottom of the spillway where the runoff is flowing at high velocity. Riprap will probably be needed in la~ge quantities at the bottom. o The proposed bit curbs and bit spillways seem to me to be so temporary and the bit spillways often tend to be an eyesore after a few heavy rains. If the trail must go in before the roadway upgrading and will be in use for a couple years, then the use of bit curbs and spillways is probably appropriate to save short-term costs. 5. The Concept Report and Plan needs to have an index map to show just where this project is located. The Concept Report needs to have page numbers. 6. The Concept Plan is very small and hard to read. o The Concept Report seems to point out many of the likely problems the proposed trail design/construction will encounter. However, then it seems to rule out the problems, but does not address resolution or mitigation of them. An equal opportunity employer 9~ 10. 11. The "Slope" narrative in the Concept Report is confusing. What does maximum 3:1 slope mean? Does it mean that slopes will not be steeper than 3:1 ? Or does it mean that 3:1 will be the flattest slope that will be able to be constructed given the constraints of the RJW and the topography? Looking at the cross sections, there appears to be many proposed slopes at 2:1, 1-1/2:1 and even 1:1 (using H:V nomenclature). These steep slopes will create serious and significant erosion and sloughing problems. The "Slope" narrative also mentions "backslopes from Hwy. 101 to bottom of ditch". I think they mean "inslopes" here. If they are serious about using very steep slopes, they should add smooth-faced fencing or railing at the PI of the trail slope to prevent bicyclists, rollerbladers, and even pedestrians from falling down the steep slopes. As Bob Brown is quoted in the Concept Report (under Project Process), Mn/DOT's primary concerns are maintenance of drainage during and after construction and the clear zone/hazards along the trail. If the trail project becomes a reality, the design of guardrail will likely become a top priority to prevent vehicles from encroaching on the trail and from encountering the very steep slopes. I do not believe the design speed or even the posted speed was mentioned in the Concept Report, so hard to know just what guardrail may be needed. The cross sections indicate that much current ditch capacity will be filled in by the trail construction. This may well cause downstream flooding or even flooding on the TH 101 roadway. The cross sections should clearly indicate whe~'e the edge of the roadway is so that reviewers of the LUP can see the. location of the trail relative to the TH 101 roadway. ShoTM edge of bit shoulder or edge of bit mm lane on each section (and label enough to be underStandable). ' Mn/DOT Water Resource Comments: o As stated in Highway 101 Trail Concept Plans there are erosion problems in the area and this project will exacerbate them. Most of the project Consists of filling in the ditch'and placing a bituminous trail on the fill. The bituminous with cause the runoff to flow faster and cause more erosion problems. Modeling of both the existing and proposed drainage areas will need to be conducted. They will need to provide these computations before WRE can approve a permit. , There appears to be several wetlands that will be impacted by this project. Mn/DOT is the LGU for all wetlands within our right-of-way. The wetland impacts will need to be delineated (including acreage of impact and type of wetland being impacted), depending on the mount of impact sequencing will have to be addressed, and appropriate mitigation will be required. Boardwalks or other structures in the wetlands may be considered as impacts and require mitigation. Appropriate agencies including but not limited to the Corps of Engineers, DNR, BWSR, SWCD, and Watershed District will have to be notified regarding wetland impacts and mitigation. o It also appears that there will be several utilities that may need to be relocated for the trail including gas and water lines and valves and fiber optic lines. ' 4. Specifically regarding the plans: Page 1 - There should be a location map for the project. Where are the estimated quantity tables? On page 2 there is a gas main and valves that does not appear to be shown on the drawing. There appears to be a wet area with cattails near Outlot B (potential wetland impact). This area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. The ditch is being filled from the start of the project to approximately' 3+40. The consultant will need to determine the drainage area coming to this ditch and the existing capacity and the proposed capacity of the ditch. The consultant will need to determine if some type of energy dissipator is needed near 3+40, where the runoff flows back into the ditch, to prevent erosion. There appears to be 3 to 4 foot retaining wall for the first 230 feet next to the road, this is a concern from both a drainage and a safety perspective. The ditch is being filled from approximately 7+00 to 10+00. The consultant will need to determine the drainage area coming to the ditch, the existing capacity and the proposed capacity of the ditch. There appears to be an apron inlet at approximately 13+20. Please provide details on material, apron, and guards, and size. We ~vill need computations for the proposed CB located at 13+70. There needs to be computations and plan and profile drawings for the storm sewer system. Page 3 - There needs to be details'and computations for the CBMH shown at 15+30. Where does the CBMH discharge? There may need to be riprap at the outlet. There are several locations that indicate proposed bituminous curb and overland drainage between 16+00 and 25+00. Please provide computations that this will not cause an erosion problem. There appears to be a CBMI4 at 26+00 but the pipe appears to go no where and suddenly end. Please explain and provide computations and details. Page 4 - From 26+00 to 42+00 the trail appears to be mostly out of the ditch bottom. Missing page 11 to confirm this point. Please provide page 11 and computations to confirm that ditch capacity is not being adversely impacted. Page 5 - Potential wetland impacts between 45+00 and 49+00. This area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. Provide details, plan and profile drawings, and computations for CBMH's shown at 45.+40, 47+80, and 49+70. Energy dissipator needed at outlet at 45+30 and 49+70. swale at 57+00 is a bad idea, provide another design with appropriate energy dissipation. There is an existing erosion problem in the ditch between Choctaw Circle and the stream that drains to Lotus Lake. May need additional measures to handle erosion on those slopes. Provide computations for CB at 58+10, possible need more than one CB at this location. Page 6 - The ditch is being filled from 59+50 to Choctaw Circle. The consultant will need to determine the drainage area coming to this ditch and the existing capacity and the proposed capacity of the ditch. Several utilities at 63+00 including fiber optic lines. Long steep cut from 63+00 to approximately 65+00. May need measures to reduce erosion on slopes. Draining area across trail using swale at 70+20 not a good idea, evaluate alternative design. There appears to be a wetland between 69+00 and 73+00. This area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. Wetland mitigation may be required for either a trail or a boardwalk. Page 7- There appears to be a wetland between 75+00 and 76+00. This area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. Mitigation may be required for either a trail or a boardwalk. Draining area across trail using swale at 77+50 not a good idea, evaluate alternative design. The ditch is being filled from approximately 77+50 to 85+80. The consultant will need to determine the drainage area coming to the ditch, the existing capacity and the proposed capacity of the ditch. Depending on the purpose for the construction of the Pond at Outlot A (87+00) there may be both a wetland impact and a flood storage impact, both of which may need to be mitigated. Provide drainage computations for the CBMH and culvert at 87+20 and 88+20, respectively. Page 8 - There is a storm sewer line that outlets at 89+90. There may need to be riprap at the outlet. Provide details, plan and profile drawings, and computations for storm sewer line. A pond is located in the northwest quadrant of Pleasantview Road and TH 101. Make sure to include the pond discharge when sizing that portion of the storm sewer system. There may be a wetland between 90+60 and 91 +80. This area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. Pages 9 to 16 - Missing page 11. Need to show TH 101 on cross sections. Mn/DOT Right of Way Comments 1. Use a three dash symbology for the "Existing Mn/DOT R/W" line. o Construction will take place outside of the Existing Mn/DOT R/W line. The City of Chanhassen will need to make some R/W acquisitions. Mn/DOT Surveys Comment: 1. Identify any Mn/DOT monuments found. Mn/DOT Detail Design Comments ( second reviewer from Detail Design'): 1. The trail plan is going to have serious effects on the ditches and drainage. 2. They will also need fence or rail in some areas because of drop-offs due to steep slopes or walls. Mn/DOT Traffic Comments: 1. It appears that the trail will be inside the "clear zone" which is not advisable without some' sort of physical barrier on this type of highway ( 45 m.p.h. ). 2. A 10' width is preferred for a trail expected to carry two-way bike and pedestrian traffic. 8' is the minimum width we will allow. o A 3' trail as proposed in one section is not acceptable without us seeing the other options they have looked at and eliminated. Maybe more effort should be put into getting this section wider. 4. The trail should be as far off the shoulder of the road as possible. If the trail is within 10 feet of the shoulder, a physical barrier should be provided. 5. Railing or fencing is required at retaining walls and board walk locations. 6. The grade of the trail should satisfy any ADA requirements. 7. There shall be adequate cross slopes and ditches to ensure good drainage. 8. There shall be sufficient clearing and grubbing to provide adequate sight distance. 9. Maintenance of the trail shall be the responsibility of the City. Maintenance of the path shall not interfere with the maintenance (snow removal) of the highway. If you have any questions, please contact John Isackson at 651 - 582 - 1273. Sincerely, John Isackson, P.E. Mn/DOT Area P-right-of-Way Manager CC: File [~im.,_Othy ~. Jo_h_n.son - CS 273-6 (TH '101, -. , .l__i_.m_ited Use permit- City of Chanhassen¥. ' 5 g -TRAIL aior {j'YH 1'01 "page 1 From: .To: Date: Subject: along TH 101 Timothy C. Johnson Cyrus Knutson; John Isackson 11/4/00 1:59AM CS 2736 (TH 101) Limited Use Permit - City of Chanhassen - Proposed TRAIL Cyrus and John m Late last week I received the preliminary review copy you (Cyrus) sent over to me of the data from the City/Consultant (HTPO) regarding this LUP. I was out of the office (ill) from Oct. 27 thru Oct. 31. ! realized today that I probably will not have time to review this LUP for another couple weeks unless I do it tonight, due to an extremely busy schedule fo~ most of November. So, I went thru the Concept Plan and Report late tonight. _1 have the following comments. [Please note that I am a long-time Final Design Engineer (30+ years) and probably look at things from'a more traditional viewpoint than the writers/designers who did the Concept Report and Concept Plan. I see things over a longer period of time. I do not like the thought of spending $0.5 to 1.0 million of the money entrusted to us public servants to be spent on a "rickety" project like this that may well get obliterated in just a few years when the complete fix of the roadway gets to the construction phase. Well, enough editorializing.] 1. This trail project seems to be a classic case of the "cart before the horse". It would seem much more cost efficient, cost effective, practical, safe, aesthetically pleasing, etc. to do the trail project along with the roadway upgrading expected in the not-too-distant-future. 2. The cost of the trail would Probably be a lot less if it was constructed along with the roadway upgrading. 3. It sounds like there are already a lot of drainage problems with the current TH 101 in this area. This trail project will probably just worsen the drainage and erosion problems. 4. It sounds like they are thinking of using bituminous spillways in some areas. From my experience, these do not work very well and often do not even do the job intended unless the contractor takes great care to direct the runoff to the' center of the spillway and the bituminous is carefully shaped to handle the runoff. Also, there is the problem of what to do at the bottom of the spillway where the runoff is flowing at high velocity. Riprap will probably be needed in large quantities at the bottom. 5. The proposed bit curbs and bit spillways seem to me to be so temporary and the bit spillways often tend to be an eyesore after a few heavy rains. If the trail must go in before the roadway upgrading and will be in use for a couple years, then the use of bit curbs and spillways is probably appropriate to save short-term costs. 6. The Concept Report and Plan do not even have an index map to show just where this project is located. The Concept Report doesn't even have page numbers !? 7. The Concept Plan is very small and hard to read, especially for us "seniors". I gave up trying to really see just how the proposed trail will impact the drainage, ditches, etc. 8. The Concept Report mentions "out of the box" thinking. That is fine. But it should not be used as an excuse to justify poor engineering design. 9.. The Concept Report is written in a friendly style that I like. It is easy to follow. It seems to point out many of the likely problems the proposed trail design/construction will encounter. But then it seems to just rule out the problems by saying the City Council wants the trail to be put in no matter what. 10. The "Slope" narrative in the Concept Report is confusing. What does maximum 3:1 slope mean? ~'~othy'C. Johnson- C-S-2-¢%6 ~Pl 101' . .mite_d Use-13ermit- -City of Chanhassen -,_. Dos_ed '¢~,AIE'Along TH '"l'0"'¢'--15age 2'~ Does it mean that slopes will not be steeper than 3:17 Or does it mean that 3:1 will be the flattest slope that will be able to be constructed given the constraints of the RAN and the topography? Looking at the cross sections, there appears to be a lot of proposed slopes at 2:1, 1-1/2:1 and even 1:1 (using H:V nomenclature). These steep slopes will create serious and significant erosion and sloughing problems. The "Slope" narrative also mentions "backslopes from Hwy. 101 to bottom of ditch". I think they mean "inslopes" here.. 1 t. If they are serious about using very steep slopes, they should add smooth-faced fencing or railing at the PI of the trail slope to prevent bicyclists, rollerbladers, and even pedes(rians from falling down the steep slopes. As Bob Brown is quoted in the Concept Report (under Project Process), Mn/DOT's primary concerns are maintenance of drainage during and after construction and the clear zone/hazards along the trail. If the trail project becomes a reality, the design of guardrail will likely become a top priority to prevent vehicles from encroaching on the trail and from encountering the very steep slopes. I don't believe design speed or even the posted speed was mentioned in the Concept Report, so hard to know just what guardrail may be needed. 12. The cross sections indicate that much current ditch capacity will be filled in by the trail construction. This may well cause downstream flooding or even flooding on the TH 101 roadway. 13. The cross sections should clearly indicate where the edge of the roadway is so that reviewers of the LUP can see the location of the trail relative to the TH 101 roadway. Show edge of bit shoulder or edge of bit turn lane on each section (and label enough to be understandable). Well, it is getting late and this old designer needs some sleep. These are my review comments and I won't have time to do further review when the actual routing arrives. I hope these comments are helpful. I am cc'lng the folks (offices) that are listed on the routing slip that will be reviewing this LUP or possibly have already done so. Cyrus, what do you want me to do with the package you sent me? Timothy C. Johnson Mn/DOT - Metro Final Design - GV (763) 797-3041 Fax (763) 79%3181 (GW User ID: JohnlTim) timothy.c.johnson@dot.state.mn .us CC' Brian Kelly; Elizabeth Walton; Glen Ellis; Keith VanWagner; Lars Impola; Mary Branson; Michael Christensen; Robert Brown Minnesota Depar, Memo nt of Transportation Metro Division - Water Resources Engineering 2055 N. Lilac Drive Golden Valley, MN 55422 Office Tel: 797-3055 Fax: 797-3181 December 7, 2000 To: From: Subject: James Myers, Metro State Aid BenTimerson "~ ~ Water Resources Project Manager Limited Use Permit, City of Chanhassen, (TH 101, C.S. 2736) The squad went out to field review th/s proposed project during the rain event of November 6th. This project is located on the west side of TH 101 in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, and Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. In this area TH l01 is the dividing line between Hennepin and Carver County, with Hennepin on the east side of the road and Carver on the west side. As stated in Highway 101 Trail Concept Plans there are erosion problems in the area and this project will exacerbate them. Most of the project consists of filling in the ditch and placing a bituminous trail on the fill. The bituminous with cause the runoff to flow faster and cause more erosion problems. Modeling of both the existing and proposed drainage areas will need to be conducted. They will need to provide these computations before WRE can approve a permit. Also, there appears to be several wetlands that will be impacted by this project. Mn/DOT is the LGU for all wetlands within our right-of-way. The wetland impacts will need to be delineated (including acreage of impact and type of wetland being impacted), depending on the amount of impact sequencing will have to be addressed, and appropriate mitigation will be required. Boardwalks or other structures in the wetlands may be considered as impacts and require mitigation. Appropriate agencies including but not limited to the Corps of Engineers, DNR, BWSR, SWCD, and Watershed District will have to be notified regarding wetland impacts and mitigation. It also appears that there will be several utilities that may need to be relocated for the trail including gas and water lines and valves and fiber optic lines. Specifically regarding the plans: · Page 1 - There should be a location map for the project. Where are the estimated quantity tables? On page 2 there is a gas main and valves that does not appear to be shown on the drawing. There appears to be a wet area with cattails near Outlot B (potential wetland impact). This area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. The ditch is being filled from the start of the project to Limited Use Permit City of Chanhassen November 7, 2000 Page 2 approximately 3+40. The consultant will need to determine the drainage area coming to this ditch and the existing capacity and the proposed capacity of the ditch. The consultant will need to determine if some type of energy dissipator is needed near 3+40, where the runoff flows back into the ditch, to prevent erosion. There appears to be 3 to 4 foot retaining wall for the first 230 feet next to the road, this is a concern from both a drainage and a safety perspective. The ditch is being filled from approximately 7+00 to 10+00. The consultant will need to determine the drainage area coming to the ditch, the existing capacity and the proposed capacity of the ditch. There appears to be an apron inlet at approximately 13+20. Please provide details on material, apron, and guards, and size. We will need computations for the proposed CB located at 13+70. There needs to be computations and plan and profile drawings for the storm sewer system. Page 3 -There needs to be details and computations for the CBMH shown at 15+30. Where does the CBMH discharge? There may need to be riprap at the outlet. There are several locations that indicate proposed bituminous curb and overland drainage between 16+00 and 25+00. Please provide computations that this will not cause an erosion problem. There appears to be a CBMH at 26+00 but the pipe appears to go no where and suddenly end. Please explain and provide computations and details. Page 4 - From 26+00 to 42+00 the trail appears to be mostly out of the ditch bottom. Missing page 11 to confirm this point. Please provide page 11 and computations to confirm that ditch capacity is not being adversely impacted. Page 5 - Potential ~vetland impacts between 45+00 and 49+00. This area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. Provide details, plan and profile drawings, and computations for CBMH's shown at 45+40, 47+80, and 49+70. Energy dissipator needed at outlet at 45+30 and 49+70. Swale at 57+00 is a bad idea, provide another design with appropriate energy dissipation. There is an existing erosion problem in the ditch bet~veen Choctaw Circle and the stream that drains to Lotus Lake. May need additional measures to handle erosion on those slopes. Provide computations for CB at 58+10, possible need more than one CB at this location. Page 6 - The ditch is being filled from 59+50 to Choctaw Circle. The consultant will need to determine the drainage area coming to this ditch and the existing capacity and the proposed capacity of the ditch. Several utilities at 63+00 including fiber optic lines. Long steep cut from 63+00 to approximately 65+00. May need measures to reduce erosion on slopes. Draining area across trail using swale at 70+20 not a good idea, evaluate alternative design. There appears to be a wetland between 69+00 and 73+00. This area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. Wetland mitigation may be required for either a trail or a boardwalk. Page 7 - There appears to be a wetland between 75+00 and 76+00. This area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. Mitigation may be required for either a trail or a boardwalk. Draining area across trail using swale at 77+50 not a good idea, evaluate alternative design. The ditch is being filled from approximately 77+50 to 85+80. The consultant will need to determine the drainage area coming to the ditch, the existing capacity and the proposed capacity of the ditch. Depending on the purpose for the construction of the Pond at Outlot A (87+00) there may be both a wetland impact and a flood storage impact, both of which may need to Limited Use Permit City of Chanhassen November 7, 2000 Page 3 be mitigated. Provide drainage computations for the CBMH and culvert at 87+20 and 88+20, respectively. Page 8 - There is a storm sewer line that outlets at 89+90. There may need to be riprap at the outlet. Provide details, plan and profile drawings, and computations for storm sewer line. A pond is located in the northwest quadrant of Pleasantview Road and TH 101. Make sure to include the pond discharge when sizing that portion of the storm sewer system. There may be a wetland between 90+60 and 91+80. This area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. · Pages 9 to 16 - Missing page 11. Need to show TH 101 on cross sections. MEMORANDUM CITYOF CHANHASSEN 6QO Ci~, Ce,ret Drit.'e, PO Box 147 Cha,hasse~, Minnesota 55317 Pho,e 612.937. lQO0 Ge,era/~r 612.93Z5739 E, gi,eeri,g F~_v ~12.937.9152 Pztb/ic S~O, E= ~I2.93(2524 ~I3b totctt~ ti. cha,h,zse,, mu.~ts TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Scott Botcher, City Manager Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engine,3r~r'~-) December 11, 2000 Limited Use Permit for TH 101 Bike Path-Project Number 97-12-3 Attached is a copy of the comments received from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) concerning the limited use permit application made by the City of Chanhassen. Following receipt of the comments, HTPO and I met with Mn/DOT to discuss the comments. Based on that meeting it was determined that Mn/DOT was willing to reconsider its denial of the request if the questions outlined in the letter were addressed. Addressing the comments would require detail design of the project. Even with detail design, there would be no certainty that that limited use permit would be approved. Also, Mn/DOT has stated they believe changes they have recommended will increase project costs to approximately $1 million. For estimating purposes, detail design can be assumed at an additional 10% or $100,000. Discussion of the comments has tentatively been scheduled during the worksession on February 26, 2001. G:".,ENGWERESA',staff reportsX, correspondance l 2-11 .doc Minnesota Departme, a of Transportation Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 November 20, 2000 Teresa Burgess City of Chanhassen Public Works Director / City Engineer 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 937-1900 ext. 156 Re: Limited Use Permit for TH 101 Bike Path ( Project No. 97-12-3 ) CiTY OF NOV g 7 2000 ENGINEERING DEPZ After reviewing the TH 101 Trail Concept Plans, Mn/DOT has decided to deny your request for a Limited Use Permit (LUP) for the following reasons: Mn/DOT Detail Design Comments: 1. It would seem much more cost efficient, cost effective, practical, safe and aesthetically pleasing to do the trail project along with a roadway upgrading project. 2. It appears there are already many drainage problems with the current TH 101 in this area. This trail project will probably just worsen the drainage and erosion problems. o It looks like they are thinking of using bituminous spillways in some areas. From my experience, these spillways do not work very well and often do not even do the job intended unless the contractor takes great care to direct the runoff to the center of the spillway and the bituminous is carefully shaped to handle the runoff. Also, there is the problem of what to do at the bottom of the spillway where the runoff is flowing at high velocity. Riprap will probably be needed in large quantities at the bottom. , The proposed bit curbs and bit spillways seem to me to be so temporary, and the bit spillways often tend to be an eyesore after a few heavy rains. If the trail must go in before the roadway upgrading and will be in use for a couple years, then the use of bit curbs and spillways is probably appropriate to save short-term costs. 5. The Concept Report and Plan needs to have an index map to show just where this project is located. The Concept Report needs to have page numbers. 6. The Concept Plan is very small and hard to read. o The Concept Report seems to point out many of the likely problems the proposed trail design/construction will encounter. However, then it seems to rule out the problems, but does not address resolution or mitigation of them. An equal opportunity employer . o 10. 11. The "Slope" narrative in the Concept Report is confusing. What does maximum 3:1 slope mean? Does it mean that slopes will not be steeper than 3:17 Or does it mean that 3:1 will be the flattest slope that will be able to be constructed given the constraints of' the R/W and the topography? Looking at the cross sections, there appears to be many proposed slopes at 2:1, 1-1/2:1 and even 1:1 (using H:V nomenclature). These steep slopes will create serious and significant erosion and sloughing problems. The "Slope" narrative also mentions "backslopes from Hwy. 101 to bottom of ditch". I think they mean "inslopes" here. If they are serious about using very steep slopes, they should add smooth-faced fencing or railing at the PI of the trail slope to prevent bicyclists, rollerbladers, and even pedestrians from falling down the steep slopes. As Bob Brown is quoted in the Concept Report (under Project Process), Mn/DOT's primary concerns are maintenance of drainage during and after construction and the clear zone/hazards along the trail. If the trail project becomes a reality, the design of guardrail will likely become a top priority to prevent vehicles from encroaching on the trail and from encountering the very. steep slopes. I do not believe the design speed or even the posted speed was mentioned in the Concept Report, so hard to know just what guardrail may be needed. The cross sections indicate that much current ditch capacity wii1 be filled in by the trail construction. This may well cause downstream flooding or even flooding on the TH 101 roadway. The cross sections should clearly indicate where the edge of the roadway is so that 'reviewers of the LUP can see the location of the trail relative to the TH 101 roadway. Show edge of bit shoulder or edge of bit turn lane on each section (and label enough to be understandable). Mn/DOT Water Resource Comments: As stated in Highway 101 Trail Concept Plans there are erosion problems in the area and this project will exacerbate them. Most of the project consists of filling in the ditch and placing a bituminous trail on the fill. The bituminous with cause the runoff to flow faster and cause more erosion problems. Modeling of both the existing and proposed drainage areas will need to be conducted. They will need to provide these computations before WRE can approve a permit. o There appears to be several wetlands that will be impacted by this project. Mn/DOT is the LGU for all wetlands within our right-of-way. The wetland impacts will need to be delineated (including acreage of impact and type of wetland being impacted), depending on the amount of impact sequencing will have to be addressed, and appropriate mitigation will be required. Boardwalks or other structures in the wetlands may be considered as impacts and require mitigation. Appropriate agencies including but not limited to the Corps of Engineers, DNR, BWSR, SWCD, and Watershed District will have to be notified regarding wetland impacts and mitigation. 3. It also appears that there will be several utilities that may need to be relocated for the trail including gas and water lines and valves and fiber optic lines. 4. Specifically regarding the plans: Page 1 - There should be a location map for the project. Where are the estimated quantity tables? On page 2 there is a gas main and valves that does not appear to be shown on the drawing. There appears to be a wet area with cattails near Outlot B (potential wetland impact). This area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. The ditch is being filled from the start of the p~oject t° approximately 3+40. The consultant will need to determine the drainage area coming to this ditch and the existing capacity and the proposed capacity of the ditch. The consultant will need to determine if some type of energy dissipator is needed near 3+40, where the runoff flows back into the ditch, to prevent erosion. There appears to be 3 to 4 foot retaining wall for the first 230 feet next to the road, this is a concern from both a drainage and a safety perspective. The ditch is being filled from approximately 7+00 to 10+00. The consultant will need to determine the drainage area coming to the ditch, the existing capacity and the proposed capacity of the ditch. There appears to be an apron inlet at approximately 13+20. Please provide details on material, apron, and guards, and size. We will need computations for the proposed CB located at 13+70. There needs to be computations and plan and profile drawings for the storm sewer system. Page 3 - There needs to be details and computations for the CBMH shown at 15+30. Where does the CBMH discharge? There may need to be riprap at the outlet. There are several locations that indicate proposed bituminous curb and overland drainage between 16+00 and 25+00. Please provide computations that this will not cause -an erosion problem. There appears to be a CBMH at 26+00 but the pipe appears to go no where and suddenly end. Please explain and provide computations and details. Page 4 - From 26+00 to 42+00 the trail appears to be mostly out of the ditch bottom. Missing page 11 to confirm this point. Please provide page 11 and computations to confirm that ditch capacity is not being adversely impacted. Page 5 - Potential wetland impacts between 45+00 and 49+00. This area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. Provide details, plan and profile drawings, and computations for CBMH's shown at 45+40, 47+80, and 49+70. Energy dissipator needed at outlet at 45+30 and 49+70. Swale at 57+00 is a bad idea, provide another design with appropriate energy dissipation. There is an existing erosion problem in the ditch between Choctaw Circle and the stream that drains to Lotus Lake. May need additional measures to handle erosion on those slopes. Provide computations for CB at 58+10, possible need more than one CB at this location. Page 6 - The ditch is being filled from 59+50 to Choctaw Circle. The consultant will need to determine the drainage area coming to this ditch and the existing capacity and the proposed capacity of the ditch. Several utilities at 63+00 including fiber optic lines. Long steep cut from 63+00 to approximately 65+00. May need measures to reduce erosion on slopes. Draining area across trail using swale at 70+20 not a good idea, evaluate alternative design. There appears to be a wetland between 69+00 and 73+00. This area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. Wetland mitigation may be required for either a trail or a boardwalk. Page 7 - There appears to be a wetland between 75+00 and 76+00. This area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. Mitigation may be required for either a trail or a boardwalk. Draining area across trail using swale at 77+50 not a good idea, evaluate alternative design. The ditch is being filled from approximately 77+50 to 85+80. The consultant will need to determine the drainage area coming to the ditch, the existing capacity and the proposed capacity of the ditch. Depending on the purpose for the construction of the Pond at Outlot A (87+00) there may be both a wetland impact and a flood storage impact, both of which may need to be mitigated. Provide drainage computations for the CBMH and culvert at 87+20 and 88+20, respectively. Page 8 - There is a storm sewer line that outlets at 89+90. There may need to be riprap at the outlet. Provide details, plan and profile drawings, and computations for storm sewer line. A pond is located in the northwest quadrant of Pleasantview Road and TH 101. Make sure to include the pond discharge when sizing that portion of the storm sewer system. There may be a wetland between 90+60 and 91+80. This area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. Pages 9 to 16 - Missing page 11. Need to show TH 101 on cross sections. Mn/DOT Right of Wav Comments 1. Use a three dash symbology for the "EXisting IvLn/DOT R/W" line. 2. Construction ,,,,'ill take place outside of the Existing Mn/DOT R/W line. The City of Chanhassen will need to make some R/W acquisitions. Mn/DOT Survevs Comment: 1. Identify any Mn/DOT monuments found. Mn/DOT Detail Design Comments ( second reviewer from Detail Design ): 1. The trail plan is going to have serious effects on the ditches and drainage. 2. They will also need fence or rail in some areas because of drop-offs due to steep slopes or wails. Mn/DOT Traffic Comments: 1. It appears that the trail will be inside the "clear zone" which is not advisable without some sort of physical barrier on this type of highway ( 45 m.p.h. ). 2. A 10' width is preferred for a trail expected to carry two-way bike and pedestrian traffic. 8' is the minimum width we will allow. , A 3' trail as proposed in one section is not acceptable without us seeing the other options they have looked at and eliminated. Maybe more effort should be put into getting this section wider. 4. The trail should be as far off the shoulder of the road as possible. If the trail is within 10 feet of the shoulder, a physical barrier should be provided. 5. Railing or fencing is required at retaining walls and board walk locations. 6. The grade of the trail should satisfy any ADA requirements. 7. There shall be adequate cross slopes and ditches to ensUre good drainage. 8. There shall be sufficient clearing and grabbing to provide adequate sight distance. 9. Maintenance of the trail shall be the responsibility of the City. Maintenance of the path shall not interfere with the maintenance (snow removal) of the highway. If you have any questions, please contact John Isackson at 651 - 582- 1273. Sincerely, e...~~ ~. /~ John Isackson, P.E. Mn/DOT Area Right-of-Way Manager CC: File CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 Cky Center Drive, PO Box I47 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General ?ax 612.937.5739 £ngineefing Fax 612.937,9152 h~blic S~ry ?ax 612.93(2524 I¥Ob www. ci. c/;~mhasse,, mn. us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor City Council FROM: Scott A. Botcher, City Manager DATE: October 5, 2000 SUB J: Highway 101 Correspondence Please find attached a copy of con'espondence dated September 12, 2000 from the Minnesota Department of Transportation to Representative Tom Workman. The Council may wish to (but certainly is under no obligation to) have some discussions this evening as to what this action on the part of MnDOT means to the City of Chanhassen. Should the City wish to pursue some of the traffic control improvements considered for Highway 101, there are several issues that raise their ugly head. Obviously MnDOT would have to give permission for any improvements to be made to a State highway. Secondly, there is the philosophical question of ~vhy the City of Chanhassen should spend municipal money on a State highway. Thirdly, there is the very real question of whether or not we can afford to make these improvements at all. Again, please understand that no action is required on the part of the City. IfI were to give a recommendation to you this evening, it would be that the City simply receive the correspondence and take no action. There are several complicating factors present should the Council wish to move ahead with any particular course of action as it relates to Highway 101. At this time, given the fact that it is for now and for the foreseeable future a State road, I believe our best course of action may be to lobby the State to improve the pavement condition. Now that the turn-back has gone by the wayside, the State does need to step up and perform this long deferred maintenance. If you have any questions, please let me know. g:\user'xscottb\th 101 .doc SEP-25-2000 15:35 FROM: ,. Minnesota Department af Tran=par~tion Metropc~lltan Division Watem Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Rosevlile, MN 5511;3 T0:612 937 5739 · P.002/002 Representative Tom WOrkman I00 Coustitufion Avenue 537 State Of:rice Building Saint Paul, l~rmnesota 55155-12(16 · RE: T.H. 101, Towr)]ine Road from T.H. 5 to I-Iennep~ County C.S.A.H. 62 Dear Rcpresent~ve Workman: La response to your. telephone inquiry of thc stares of T.H. 10 [ (referenced above), I offer the following: In regvmt years Hennepin Coun~ has been performing murine ma/ntenance of th/$ road at no cost to Mn/DOT. Mn/DOT released the portions of. the mad that lie L-. Ffennepin County to the Count. MnFDOT's intention is to resume jurisdiction and maintenm'~ce.of.th/s segment of th= marl As such, the. overall change of jt~sdicdon. (to thc coan. d~) is st~d. ed indefinitely. Th~ roadway will contihue to be shown as a ju.risdicrdonai tr~mfc..-canut~ate in ow Iong-r~,mge plans. MnDOT will resume rnaintenmce msponsibili~ (relieving Hennep!n CountyJ and reinstate the roadway in our pavement preservation program for monitoring n~_-..~I of repair. Mn/DOT is reviewing a limited use permit request by the City of Chanhassm for off-mad bicycle trail constmcti.on. There appears to be significant difficulty with the proposal, but the review is not yet ¢omptete. M. nfi3OT '.wilt deal directly with the city of Chanhassen on this issue, Thank yon for your continued interest and involvement in ~ansportation. Your leadership ha~ clem:l); impacted the transportation sy,tem in the Chanhasseu area and beyond.. . Respectfully, Division State Aid Engineer Cc-' James Grube, lRe,,mepin County Roger Gustafson, Carver County An equal opportunity employer i-