The URL can be used to link to this page

1b-1. TH 41 Trail Extension, Approve Plans & Specs0 CITY OF CgANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director 7 February 13, 2012 or". - TH 41 Trail Extension, At -Grade Pedestrian Crossing and Stairway Connector, Approve Plans and Specifications 16 -1 PROPOSED MOTION "The City Council approves the plans and specifications for City Project No. PK &T -110 for the TH 41 Trail Extension, At -Grade Pedestrian Crossing and Stairway Connector and authorize the advertisement for bids. City Council approval requires a simple majority vote of the City Council present." Park & Recreation BACKGROUND Phone: 952.227.1120 • Highover Stairway Connection: Cole Kelly moved, Scharfenberg Fax: 952.227.1110 On December 13, 2011, the Park and Recreation Commission took the following Fax: 952.227.1310 action on this item. Recreation Center trail system. All voted in favor, except for Carron and Ryan who 2310 Coulter Boulevard • Hgihway 41 Trail Extension and Pedestrian Crossing: Phone: 952.227.1400 Cole Kelly moved, Ryan seconded that the Park and Recreation Fax: 952.227.1404 Commission recommend the City Council approve the plans and Planning & specifications for the Trunk Highway 41 trail extension and island, and Natural Resources strongly suggesst that the city look for more safety options to help with Phone: 952.227.1130 the pedestrian crossing. All voted in favor and the motion carried Fax: 952.227.1110 unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Public Works 7901 Park Place • Highover Stairway Connection: Cole Kelly moved, Scharfenberg Phone: 952.227.1300 seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Fax: 952.227.1310 Council approve the staircase from Highover to the Trunk Highway 41 trail system. All voted in favor, except for Carron and Ryan who Senior Center opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Mr. Todd Gerhardt February 13, 2012 Page 2 At the January 9 work session, Mike McGarvey from the SRF Consulting Group and staff gave a presentation describing the overall project and responded to council inquiries. In response to a desire by the commission and council to provide additional safety features at the proposed crosswalk location, an illuminated pedestrian crossing system was incorporated in the plan set. This particular component to the project will be bid as an add /alternate to the base contract. Staff has made inquires with School District 276 to gauge their level of interest in participating in the pedestrian crossing improvements. DISCUSSION The City of Chanhassen and Carver County are currently participating in a joint powers agreement to construct a pedestrian trail and underpass within the Highway 41 corridor. This project will construct a trail with a northern terminus at the Minnetonka Middle School driveway. In early discussions with Carver County, it was determined that due to funding reimbursement requirements associated with the Federal Transportation. Enhancement grant, the joint project could not be expanded to extend the trail north of the driveway or build the stairway connector. Therefore, the city entered into a separate professional services agreement with SRF Consulting Group to design and build the "city" trail extension and stairway. The northerly trail extension starts at the school driveway and extends 450 feet to Chaska Road and includes a pedestrian crossing of Highway 41 immediately south of Chaska Road. A pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of the school has been sought after for many years. The design of the crossing features a raised median landing in between the north and southbound lanes, an amenity that will provide a refuge for pedestrians as they negotiate crossing this busy roadway. The stairway connection included in this project was a feature identified during the development review phase of the Highover neighborhood. The stairway is designed to include a series of 5 ft. long and 6t /2 ft. wide landings connected by three 6t /2 -inch risers. The top side of the stairway will be connected to Highover Drive with a concrete sidewalk and the bottom side of the stairway will be connected to the new Highway 41 trail in the same fashion. Carver County will let the bid for the larger trail and underpass project in the first quarter of 2012. It is anticipated that upon city council review and authorization, the city will bid the smaller trail extension and stairway project concurrent with the county project. Bid awards for both the county and city g: \park \th \hwy 41 trail and underpass \city portion council report 2- 13- 12.doc Mr. Todd Gerhardt February 13, 2012 Page 2 projects can then occur, with substantial completion scheduled for the fall of 2012. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Cost Estimates 2. Highway 41 Trail Extension, Pedestrian Crossing and Stairway Connector Plans & Specifications 3. Capital Improvement Funding Description Sheet. 4. Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated December 13, 2011 g: \park \th \hwy 41 trail and underpass \city portion council report 2- 13- 12.doc GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS PLAN SYMBOLS CITY OF CHANHASSAN THE 2005 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE LINE ........................ — '- ' — " " "— ' STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION', SHALL GOVERN. COUNTY LINE... ............. - - - - -'- CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA TOWNSHIP OR RANGE GE LI NE ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM AND BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE SECTION LINE ...................... TO THE 'MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES' (MN MUTCO) QUARTER LINE ...................... - - -- PLANS FOR: GRADING, AGGREGATE BASE, BITUMINOUS TRAIL SURFACING, SIGN AND STRIPING, AND CONCRETE STEPS AND PART VI, 'FIELD MANUAL FOR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS'. SIXTEENTH LINE .................... - - -- RIGHT-OF -WAY LINE ................ - - - -- PRESENT RIGHT-OF LINE ....... - --- ----- �oHo �1 Q,( ��1 � 11 CONTROL OF ACCESS LINE..... ... — O —O —O- IN DEX PROPERTY LINE Ot LOnd LInes) VACATED PLATTED ED P PROPERTY........ / / / / / / / _ /�_ CITY PROJECT N 0 CORPORATE OR CITY LIMITS ......... SHEET NO. SHEET DESCRIPTION TRUNK HIGHWAY CENTER LINE ° I 1 TITLE SHEET CONC. RETAINING WALL .. 2 GENERAL LAYOUT RAILROAD ........... PROJECT LOCATION .............. 3 STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED QUANTITIES RAILROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE .. — - — - — - TRAIL SEGMENT 4 CONSTRUCTION /SOILS NOTES AND STANDARD PLATES RIVER OR CREEK ................... 5 EARTHWORK SUMMARY AND BALANCE DRY RUN ....... ................... u..,w„ / It y� X 6 e•. 6 TYPICAL SECTIONS DRAINAGE DITCH ................... SIZE A'°'" /ye "j I �� ° � ��.�aa"� 7 - 10 STANDARD PLAN SHEETS DRAIN TILE ........................ _ _ -- r. `I, I" �:' • 11 -12 MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS CULVERT ........................... -Y ' -- - - ,� ° _ i °'� �\ w :„.;a, ERCELSIOR� / ? /=' -- `• 13-14 ALIGNMENT PLANS AND TABULATIONS 90 x� oP. zaBT / a ` 15 -17 CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND PROFILES DROP INLET ........................ - - - -o Q '/ A . / F "" -•` �/ 1 -23 CROSS SECTIONS 5 GUARD RAIL . .................... - - p a ' 8 " s �l - jam a ;,;a °"'~ 5 s I / 1 ° V BARBED WIRE FENCE ....... .. 24 -25 RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON SYSTEM .. .... N i mmsn on ¢ �' QQ�\ \ / 4 WOVEN WIRE FENCE ............. ... W ,.. N W t / CHAIN LINK FENCE .................. —XCXC— I 4✓ 3 . F a y j Rt • tid'4 n e NC Itl y RAILROAD SNOW FENCE ................. — — — — — ' MtnrwwMn BHOREWOOD cpppop,�qOopOp�.c� j 2000 POP. 1,100 d d L aAryY ao �4 M p F S• r STONE WALL OR FENCE ................. HEDGE ... ............ .... .... ........ Z.^..22 ^.^..2^ RAILROAD CROSSING SIGN .......................... T o n P .1 RAILROAD CROSSING BELL .......................... pd � END TRAIL ELECTRIC WARNING SIGN ...................... 4 d d g f�"f 4 % f� ROAD STA. 360 +00 CROSSING GATE ... ........ .. .. .............. MEANDER CORNER 'I' i 'Imo y ° ara. y 7 a A t c 3'd. tt3 • r ' ('� y t ' . q in n q MAIL BOX ....... ............................... MB ,�u>tt1.....rf.Y ,... a t„ �' • „ „3 a y� g @ ,,,e, d e..,� wmw.,. �� HlgM�IN ��y 1 SPRINGS ............. .... .... ......... v S ry, w + wnwm 1 b i/ MARSH...... .. .......... .... .... .. .. 8 R p>p n. TIMBER sro a °t Fwwt n D C r g m' 9, t 4 f nBu a na i r e 7 p e- a . ❑O BRUSH (TIMBER) NURSERY ; S �•a oq¢� �} °` i 4pjy1 ,°V ,J mFp� ............. .. .. .. a 4 cr.E Auo p 7.. 6rw 4BF vrd^x a d mnn wua o �' m, d C 6S 'u. p Aa p Qyp avo W _ CATCH BASIN ..... ............................... C.B.❑ xa.te. a� ❑O .da, � n � � 1 ,,. ""`°,""' n F �mLLB_w�l .,P.:.f °O�•r� +�0 ^��,+ a,jLLa;E _ a FIRE HYDRANT . .............................. END TRAIL : ...... d ROAD STA. 376 +17 CATTLE GUARD ..................... mean .725 THIS PLAN CONTAINS W A a _ I q k [m nu mo sr. OVERPASS (HlOhway Oyerl .. ®CONSULTING GROUP, INC. UNDERPASS (fthwm Und.1) q� °` iI p I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR — n d � d n n UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ••`tea m ;'tea �a `°'°' b. °� .a a PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. BRIDGE ............................ sn�� i ma,`muw'' g aw a a tl vy BUILDING (One Story Frame)... HSi wa �s �m N C ' r l ... .... .... 0. F -FRAME C- CONCRETE tl s -STONE T-TILE �e ;d .I r o � °' n � �y "" r y r SIGNATURE B -BRICK ST- STUCCO ^.�. •�^ U.oF 43920 MARK C.HANSEN v m. mmm o.w m.. • . '" '° ^ R. � ,.,„,.,,�. `off'_ IRON PIPE OR ROD ............. ... ...... .. .... .. ... o ... n/ LANDSCAPE ARBORETUM ,.m �y 2 , DATE LIC.NO. PRINT NAME MONUMENT (STONE. CONCRETE. OR METAL) ....... .. .. D PROJECT LOCATION WOODEN HUB ........ .... .... .... .. .. .... .... .. ..... ■ GRAVEL PIT ........ ............................... QQQ " ` �a�` CONCRETE STEPS SAND PIT ........... ............................... BORROW PIT .............. — ............. ........... B 'iro°.yf. ✓• �� r,i. w, M F 3 a d J V r! S!B • a ° tl .� ROCK QUARRY.. ......... ................. ........ a tl 1 a + + RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL ... ............................... ........20........... a CITY ENGINEER, CITY OF CHANHASSEN � UTILITY SYMBOLS V 20000 POP POWER POLE LINE TELEPHONE OR TELEGRAPH POLE LINE JOINT TELEPHONE AND POWER ON POWER POLES ONTELEPHONE POLES ..................................................................... ............................... 20........... ANCHOR SCALES DISTRICT STATE AID ENGINNER :REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AID RULES /POLICY STEEL TOWER A INDEX MAP 5000' , STREET LIGHT ' S GENERAL LAYOUT 100' , PEDESTAL (TELEPHONE CABLE (J TERMINAL.) PLAN 50' GAS M "'" —G WATER MAIN —I —I— DESIGN DESIGNATION PROFILE 50 ' 10' CONDUIT — — — - HORIZ. VERT. FOR: ROAD NAME L TELEPHONE CABLE IN CONDUIT —T�— X- SECTION H R O' , f RT. , + Design Speed ........20. MPH........ ELECTRIC CABLE IN CONDUIT ====�P— r Based on Sight Distance STOPPING N TELEPHONE MANHOLE Q PLAN REVISIONS ELECTRIC MANHOLE ® Height Of eye /Height of Object ...,..4.5 0.0' ....,.. DATE SHEET N0. APPROVED BY 6 BURIED TELEPHONE CABLE T -BUR— Design Speed not achieved at: N/A BURIED ELECTRIC CABLE P -BUR PROJECT LOCATION AERIAL TELEPHONE CABLE �j SEWER. (SANITARY) —> — >- 3 SEWER, (STORM) — » — »— COUNTY :... -. CARYER..... SEWER MANHOLE —» — >— ti HANDHOLE [YH DISTRICT ;- ...- METRO m t +m THIS PLAN AND /OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PROJECT, AND ANY RE -USE OF DETAILS THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. OR SPECIFICATIONS ON OTHER PROJECTS IS NOT INTENDED OR AUTHORIZED BY THE DESIGNER. LIABILITY FOR THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO GUIDELINES OF CI /ASCE 38 -02. ANY RE -USE ON OTHER PROJECTS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON, AGENCY, OR CORPORATION USING ENTITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING LAN OR SPECIFICATION DATA FROM THIS PROJECT. SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA ". S .A. P. S ..............................•-.-•-..-.•.-......- ..- _- .- _...-- ._.- ...- .- .- ...... SHEET N0.......1. ....... OF .... 5... SHEETS is - 1 Q NN rn z 4 O _` , c '°ate ^i \ 1 � _ 6- ------------ 100 200 scale In feet am -Ek SL L 16 'IE NE BLVD r - -T. VA. 41 77 0 Wil 157 ND L , EGE ev , *0k Ak, FX CONSTRUCTION PLAN SHEET NO. 44, _ "' -/ ��:•.. O mac..` � �f�r1 2►"'s - .�sy::�' <�' I h-11 ..1tI11 that Ill. plan, s pecification. .1 .p.1t STATE AID PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and X S. MARTINS CITY OF CHANHASSEN SHEET that laws of a duly Licensed ProfeastonolEnglneer under x the of the State of Minnesota. DESIGNED BY CONSULTING 2 Print Name: MARK C. HANSEN STATE PROJECT NO. M.C. HANSEN GENERAL LAYOUT x COUNTY PROJECT N0. CHECKED BY T. H. 41 TRAIL OF - N - 0 a1ATE BY C APPR REVISION x M. GERRITY GROUP, INC. 1 ;7 -g 101. dgn Date L i cense - --439 - CITY PROJECT NO. X COMM. NO. 010723 25 LEGEND CONSTRUCTION PLAN SHEET NO. 0 100 200 sca In foot 41* 7. S X.1 law Pi A- V A ON -1 I I t TRAIL 5' S' S' S' I � • J -: ;� 0.02 6" TOPSOIL a- _� t\ 6 " TO \yp COMPACTED SUBGRADE (INCIDENTAL) TYPICAL SECTION TH 41 TRAIL SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) EXISTING T.H. 41 PAVEMENT CONC. MEDIAN -B424 C &G B424 C &G VAR. DETAIL B SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) EXISTING T.H. 41 PAVEMENT DETAIL TYPICAL SECTION TH 41 MEDIAN C 3.0' TYPE SP 12.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE C MIXTURE p1 S�PWEB230B MNDOT SPEC 2360 MN L SPEC 221 GREGATE BASE COMPACTED SUBGRADE (INCIDENTAL) DETAIL A TYPICAL TRAIL SECTION TALK 2APGREGATE BASE L,UmrAL, i My aJB BADE (INCIDENTAL) DETAIL B 4' CONCRETE MEDIAN �- TACK COAT MN /DOT SPEC. 2357 O3 2.0' TYPE SP 12.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE SPWEB440E MNDOT SPEC 2360 2.0' TYPE SP 12.5 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MIXTURE SPWEB440E MNDOT SPEC 2360 2.0' TYPE SP 12.5 BITUMINOUS NON- WEARING COURSE MIXTURE SPWEB440E MNOT SPEC 2360 2.0' TYPE SP 12.5 BITUMINOUS NON- WEARING COURSE MIXTURE SPWEB440E MNOT SPEC 2360 12' AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 MNDOT SPEC 2211 GRADING GRADE DETAIL C T.H. 41 PATCHING DETAIL NOTES O FIE TO THE PROFILE MUST BE ENGINEER. O2 SLOPE TRAIL TO THE INSIDE OF ALL CURVES. O3 GUTTER SLOPE TO MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT CROSS SLOPES. O CONTRACTOR TO PROVID 3 EA 3 CLEAR AREA FROM EDGE OF OF TRAIL TRAIL. ALL OBSTRUCTIONS (INCLUDING VEGETATION AND PLANTINGS) SHOULD BE CLEARED AWAY UNLESS UNIQUE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS EXIST, AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER. 6 v S m n 6 4 m Ihereby certify that this plan. specification, or report SIA1t AlU YKUJtL;I NU. UKAWN BY was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and X S. MARTINS CITY OF CHANHASSEN SHEET that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the to WS of the State of Minnesota. X DESIGNED BY CONSULTING 6 Print Name: MARK C. HANSEN STATE PROJECT NO. M.C.HANSEN TYPICAL SECTIONS COUNTY PROJECT NO. CHECKED BY G ROUP T T.H. H , 4 1 TRAIL OF NO DATE JBY CKD APPR REVISION X M.GERRITY I NC. ... \7237 \hi -mu \Dian \7237- te0l.dan Date License " 43920 CITY PROJECT NO. X COMM. NO. 0107237 2 5 J 10' -0" MAX. CENTER TO CENTER LINE POST END POST/ IA) PULL POST TI 0 O c0 12' FOOT NG CONCRET 10' 1 6' TYP. (TYP.) RAIL ® 0 CHAIN LINK FABRIC ALTERNATE LINE POST ANCHORAGE s�/'��' i BOTTOM RAIL 0 WIRE FENCE DESIGN VINYL COATED WIRE FENCE NOTES QI 100% BONDED VINYL COATED - 'BLACK', GALVANIZED. 22) TERMINAL POST B' END, CORNER OR PULL POST: 3' O.D. GRADE A BONDED VINYL. 3a) LINE POSTS SHALL BE 2 -1/2' O.D. GRADE A BONDED VINYL FOR 60' HIGH FENCE. 4� TOP AND BOTTOM RAIL SHALL BE 1% O.D. GRADE A BONDED VINYL. SQ ALL FITTINGS, TIES, LOOP CAPS, AND COMPONENT PARTS SHALL BE VINYL COATED - 'BLACK'. © CHAIN LINK FABRIC SHALL BE 2' MESH FOR 60' HIGH FENCE WITH KNUCKLED SELVAGE TOP AND BOTTOM, AND CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS OF AASHTO M 181 TYP IV. TQ FABRIC SHALL BE TIED BELOW TOP RAIL AND ABOVE BOTTOM RAIL EVERY 12'. ® FENCE SHALL BE GROUNDED. 0 9 GENERAL NOTE: ALL SIGNS AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST VERSION OF THE MMUTCD. NOTES: c069l1 QI SEE PEDESTRIAN RAMP DETAIL BELOW. • 91 6" CONC RAMP CURB DESIGN V CURB DESIGN V 4" CONC 4" CONC MEDIAN 4 11 MEDIAN SECTION VIEW U R� O $T®9 RI W L ct Io A ^' PROPOSED w TRAIL °o bZXJ`z c -Sa g O W3 -la � IB'XIB' TYPE I PEDESTRIAN CROSSING Q1 0" CURB HEIGHT. O2 FULL CURB HEIGHT. SHALL BE 1:10 WHEN ADJACENT TO WALKABLE SURFACES AND SHOULD BE 3'WHEN ADJACENT TO A NON- WALKABLE SURFACE 43 1/2" PREFORMED JOINT FILLER MATERIAL AASHTO M 213. JOINT FILLER SHALL BE PLACED FLUSH WITH THE BACK OF CURB AND ADJACENT SIDEWALK. JOINT SHALL BE FREE OF DEBRIS. DOMES SHALL BE SET BACK 3" FROM THE BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF ROADWAY. 53 DETECTABLE WARNING TO BE PLACED AT A UNIFORM OFFSET DISTANCE FROM 3" TO 6" FROM THE BACK OF CURB. 73 IF RAMP SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5% NO UPPER LANDING IS REQUIRED. R5 -3 PROPOSED 24X24' � qc, Nn TRAIL ; j DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC SEE SLOPED APPROACH NOSE DETAIL THIS SHT 83 CONCRETE EDGE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED 3" CURB DESIGN V PARALLEL TO THE DETECTABLE WARNING EDGE WHEN PLACED IN A RADIAL FASHION, WITHOUT FLARES. NON- WALKABLE SURFACE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC ONE -WAY DIRECTIONAL PEDESTRIAN RAMP PEDESTRIAN RAMP (MODIFIED) I hereby certlty that this plan, specitlaation, or report J I A I t Al. YKUJ.. I was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and x that I am a duly Licensed Professlonal Engineer under x the laws of the state of Minnesota. STATE PROJECT N0. Print Name: MARK C. HANSEN x aN P I ... \7237 \hl — mu \plan \7237 ,dOl. Date License a 43920 1ETY PROJECT NO. X ROAD WIDTH VARIES 3' X X)' STRIPE - 3' GAP (WHITE EPDXY) PEDESTRIAN RAMP un... MT S. MARTINS CITY OF CHANHASSEN SHEET DESIGNED BY CONSULTING 11 M.C. HANSEN MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS CHECKED BY T.H. 41 TRAIL OF M. GERRITY M IGROUP, INC. COMM. NO. 0107237 25 6" 13" 4" TOP OF GUTTER O . d p :a_ p d : LO SECTION A -A Ol 0" CURB HEIGHT. O2 FULL CURB HEIGHT. / 2' TAPER O! w a 10 SLOPED APPROACH NOSE DETAIL (SHALL BE USED ON DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF TRAFFIC) APPROACH NOSE SHALL BE PAID FOR AS CURB AND GUTTER. J SECTION RAMP (SLOPE TO CURB DESIGN V DRAIN) SEE SLOPED APPROACH NOSE DETAIL THIS SHT NON- WALKABLE TRUNCATED DOMES: TRAIL WIDTH x 2' LOCATIONS) RUCTION PLANS FOR SURFACE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC ONE -WAY DIRECTIONAL PEDESTRIAN RAMP PEDESTRIAN RAMP (MODIFIED) I hereby certlty that this plan, specitlaation, or report J I A I t Al. YKUJ.. I was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and x that I am a duly Licensed Professlonal Engineer under x the laws of the state of Minnesota. STATE PROJECT N0. Print Name: MARK C. HANSEN x aN P I ... \7237 \hl — mu \plan \7237 ,dOl. Date License a 43920 1ETY PROJECT NO. X ROAD WIDTH VARIES 3' X X)' STRIPE - 3' GAP (WHITE EPDXY) PEDESTRIAN RAMP un... MT S. MARTINS CITY OF CHANHASSEN SHEET DESIGNED BY CONSULTING 11 M.C. HANSEN MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS CHECKED BY T.H. 41 TRAIL OF M. GERRITY M IGROUP, INC. COMM. NO. 0107237 25 6" 13" 4" TOP OF GUTTER O . d p :a_ p d : LO SECTION A -A Ol 0" CURB HEIGHT. O2 FULL CURB HEIGHT. / 2' TAPER O! w a 10 SLOPED APPROACH NOSE DETAIL (SHALL BE USED ON DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF TRAFFIC) APPROACH NOSE SHALL BE PAID FOR AS CURB AND GUTTER. J EXISTING /PROPOSED BITUMINOUS ' TRAIL , END OF CONCRETE 6' CONCRETE WALK TRUNCATED DOMES: TRAIL WIDTH x 2' LOCATIONS) RUCTION PLANS FOR N 000 'o ; GRADED --0' I TRAIL WIDTH E FLARE �33' - R 0 '' _ I OURB GUTTER C 3' TAPE TAPER J L- 6 THICK CONCRETE WALK DOWEL TO STAIR 12" O.C. 1 1/2" O.D. PIPE RAIL 4" THICK CONCRETE WALK DOWEL TO STAIR`. 12" O.C. BOTH SIDES GENERAL RAILING NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT DETAILED SHOP DRAWINGS FOR APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO FABRICATION. 2• RAILINGS AND FITTINGS TO BE GALVANIZED AND PAINTED AND TOUCH UP PAINTED IN THE FIELD PER SPECIFICATIONS. 3• RAILING TO BE ASTM A500, GRADE B. 4• CAULKING SHALL BE PER SPEC. 3731. 5. REFER TO SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR RAILING FINISH. 6. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL 4'XB' -4" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION BETWEEN PROPOSED CONCRETE STEPS AND EXISTING WATERMAIN. 1 1/2" O.D. PIPE SURFACE MOUNT RAIL RAIL, (INCIDENTAL) POSTS, TYP. SUBMIT PROVIDE INTERMEDIATE ATE DETAIL SUPPORT POSTS AS BASE PL NEEDED 2' -2" 4" THICK CONCRETE WALK - DOWEL TO STAIRS 12" O.C. BOTH e SIDES 1 (TYP> Y Q' �`: `'� �'�` ' I I - 1111 I �I 1I- 6.5" n.. °' ?. a °..•, v. a .: : a. ° 1' -6" — .. •• I I I — I -III III III SECTION A FS 9 o N 9 1 M f 6 2-10" •4 EPDXY COATED NOSING BAR, CONT. PITCH TREADS 114" PER FOOT TO DRAIN :: p' o: .' •o:p o: ° ° III —III °:. o. I I o...... P. I. P CONCRETE STAIRS (3Y43) •4 EPDXY COATED REBAR 12" O.C. BOTH WAYS, TYP. COMPACTED SUBGRADE D 4" THICK CONCRETE WALK DOWEL TO STAIR' 12" O.C. BOTH SIDES 5 6" THICK CONCRETE WALK DOWEL TO STAIR: 12" O.C. �k \W m a Ihereby certify that thls plan, speolflcatlon.or report XIAIt ALU rF(UJtl:l NU. UNAWN UY CITY OF CHANHASSEN SHEET was prepared b me or under my direct supervislon and D.FITCHORN that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under X the laws of the State of Minnesota. DESIGNED BY CONSULTING 12 STATE PROJECT N0. Print Name: MICHAEL McGARVEY X M. MCGARVEY MI SCELLANEOUS ANEO A COUNTY PROJECT NO. CHECKED BY T.H. 4 1 TRAIL OF DNO CKD APPR REVISION X M.MCGARVEY GROUP, INC. e ...\7237\h[— \plan \7237 -sdO2.dan Date License a 26216 CITY PROJECT NO. X COMM. NO. 0107237 2 5 I REMOVE EXISTING CROSSWALK PAVEMENT MARKINGS LEGEND PROPOSED TRAIL O n rA, I --1 POINT ALIGN. STATION OFFSET ELE DES IPTI Al TH41 367 +75.55 45.4' LT 1016.27 FLOW LINE A2 TH41 367 +74.62 49.4' LT 1016.07 FLOW LINE A3 TH41 369 +24.22 23.7' LT 1014.31 FLOW LINE A4 TH41 369 +25.79 5.0' LT 1013.83 FLOW LINE AS TH41 369 +25.17 5.0' RT 1013.63 FLOW LINE A6 TH41 369 +11.23 45.4' RT 1013.45 FLOW LINE A7 TH41 369 +07.20 45.5' RT 1013.63 FLOW LINE A8 TH41 369 +06.75 5.0' RT 1014.53 FLOW LINE A9 TH41 369 +06.78 5.0' LT 1 1014.77 1 FLOW LINE AID I TH41 1 369 +06.99 1 21.2' LT 1 1015.10 1 FLOW LINE RADIUS 1 ALIGN. 1 STATION OFFSET 98.0' TH41 366 +56.96 34.2' RT 1585.6' TH41 371 +26.91 1 1500.2' LT DROP INLET DESIGN TABULATION ALIGN. STATION OFFSET PIPE SIZE PIPE TYPE STRUCTURE TYPE CASTING TYPE TOP OF CASTING UPSTREAM INVERT DOWNSTREAM INVERT DI sl TH41 366 +25 1.0' LT 12" RCP DESIGN G M -11 I 1018.87 1014.08 1014.04 DI •2 TH41 367 +58 9.0' LT. 12" RCP DESIGN G M -il 1017.52 1011.95 1011.90 NOTESt I.FINAL DROP INLET STRUCTURE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATDNS TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD. COORDINATE WITH XCEL ENERGY TO RELOCATE DOWN GUYS (IF NECESSARY) UTILITY PEDESTAL--% COORDINATE WITH CENTERPOINT ENERGY TO RAISE GAS VALVES WIRE FENCE PER DETAIL ON SHEET -T E 1 I_ 11 2.CONTRACIOR TO REPLACE 12 RCP AS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE DROP INLET INSTALUTION. � � I \ 3.CONNECTDN TO EXISTIM STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE WATERTIGHT. 0 4.DROP INLET STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRLCTED FOLLOWING MN /DOT STANDAR) PLATE 4006L FOR DESIGN G. S.DROP INLET CASTING TO FOLLOW MN /DOT STANDARD PLATE 4143 FOR M -11 INLET CASTING T. H. 41 -------- - - - - -- ti ti 6 s� a N0 I I 10' SHOULDER R rt-- 2" SOLID YELLOW (EPDXY) r 4" DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW 12' THRU I (EPDXY) 4" CONCRETE MEDIAN _ -- _ -- 12 THRU - - - - -= u 2' N m � / W {� EXISTING TRAIL REMOVE EXISTING DEPRESSED CURB & GUTTER, REPLACE WITH B424 CURB & GUTTER, REMOVE EXISTING TRAIL PAVEMENT AS NECESSARY TO CONNECT TO PROPOSED. I CONSTRUCTION LIMITS 1 I I 0 IS 30 scale In feet G I / I I EXISTING CATCH BASIN, I LEAVE AS IS O DEPRESS 4" CURB FOR PEDESTRIAN (� �a H. 41 TRAIL CURB RAMPS WITH TRUNCATED DOMES MAXIMUM OF 2% CROSS SLOPE IN GUTTER AT PEDESTRIAN RAMPS AND 5% BETWEEN RAMPS 670 L A2 1 S 5 A MOD A 4 A 4" CONCRETE MEDIAN - CONSTRUCTION ® F B424 C &G 10 A 1 r-0 - x - __ _ _- __-- _ - - -A1 A9 A8 6-1 cli N O a � 12' TF7RU- -- Al - - - -- - - -- - - - -- AT _j 00 X x C EXISTING TURN m ^� o ^I I ARROW 14' RT. TURN A EXISTING CATCH BASIN, -- -- .EAYE. AS IS O DROP INLET -1 ---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- \\ �L- \ 0 LEGEND DROP IN ET SPECIFIC NOTES: P27/72 MATCH GUTTER SLOPES WITH EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE, _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - ` (Z CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP EXISTING PAVEMENT CROSS SLOPES ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING _ WITH TRUNCATED DOMES PER DETAIL EXISTING HYDRANT AND VALVE, ON SHEET 11. LEAVE AS IS GENERAL NOTES: EXISTING TURN ARROW y © CONSTRUCT ONE -WAY DIRECTIONAL PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP WITH TRUNCATED 1. CONSTRUCT RAISED CONCRETE MEDIAN PER TYPICAL EXISTING POWER POLE, 9� DOMES PER DETAIL ON SHEET 11 SECTION AND DETAIL ON SHEET 6 LEAVE AS © SLOPED APPROACH NOSE PER DETAIL 2. SIGNING AND STRIPING AT CROSSING TO FOLLOW �� ON SHEET 11 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TYPE 1 SHOWN ON SHEET 11. DO EXTEND EXISTING 18" RCP INLET APRON. ® CONCRETE APPROACH NOSE PER MN /DOT STANDARD PLATE 7113A I hereby certlfy that this plan. specification, or report STATE AID PROJECT NO DRAWN BY was prepared by me or under my direct super0slon and X S. MARTINS CITY OF CH ANH ASSE N SHEET thot I am a duly Licensed Professlonal Engineer under X the laws of the State of Minnesota. DESIGNED BY B CONSULTING 16 STATE PROJECT N0. Print Name: MARK C. HANSEN X M.C. HANSEN A NO DATE BY CKD A1141 REVISION XOUNTY PROJECT N0. C HECKED BY T . H . 4 1 TRAIL OF M. GERRITY ... \7237 \hl - \plan \7237 A002.d3n Dote License • 43920 CITY PROJECT NO. X COMM. NO. 0107237 2 5 J r G t r. s ° ° aa M \C L- —x UNDERPASS \ (BY OTHER '\ '-�\ �� ^- OTHERS \ _� ( B Y / \ � -� �-_ P OPOSED TRAIL \\ APPROX\. 1014 X CONSTRUCT 6" WALK 1 0�` - - - -- - CONNECT WITH SLOPE APPROX. - ELEV: 2018 _ - - _ / \ \ J CITY WATERMAIN \ IX /JI CONTOURS DO NOT REFLECT RECENT LOT GRADING CONTOURS DO NDT REFLECT - \\ �\ RECENT LA GRADING \ - 'PROPOSED WALK / STAIRWAY \\ - AND RAILING, REF-ER- TQ \ DETAIL -ON -SHEET 12 - APPROX. ELEV:\, 0 - -� �' _ I / �'�� -- 0 V 0l I - - � 6" WALK � � I r / - - - -- \ \ / _ - \, �\ �\ \ __,-EXTEND TO HIGHOVFR- BRiVF, \ CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN \ � SLOPE Tf3' DRAIN � \ I ' CONSTRUCT \ \ RAMP WITH• TRUNCATED / _ _ i - _ _ _ bQMES PER DETAIL`ON SHEET 11 �� _ �' ' - -' , AVOID EXISTING CAtgH BASIN EXISTING SIDEWAL 0 15 30 y DRIVE \\ feet \ _ HIGHOVER / ,' - \ /,' I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Print Names MICHAEL MCGARVEY STATE AID PROJECT NO. X X DRAWN BY D.FITCHORN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. CITY OF CHANHASSEN SHEET 17 OF 25 STATE PROJECT NO. DESIGNED BY M.MCGARVEY CONSTRUCTION PLAN T.H. 4 Z TRAIL E.Y COUNTY PROJECT NO. X CHECKED BY M.MCGARVEY ! NO DATE REVISION 26216 COMM. NO. 0107237 .. \7237 \hl — mu \pl3n \7237— op03.dgn Date License b CITY PROJECT NO. X O PAIOO POLE FOUNDATION TYPE PA100- A25/A20 2 -SIGNS (W11 -2) "PED CROSSING" 2- RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON EXTEND INTO HH 21 3" CONDUIT 1 -12 /C •14 1 -1 /C •6 INS. GR. o zo +0 3" CONDUIT scale In feet 1 - 12/C •14� 1 - 3/C •14 1 - 1/C •6 INS. GR. PEDESTAL FOUNDATION PEDESTAL POLE AND BASE O 1 - FLASHER CABINET 1 - RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) 1 - SIGN W11 -2 1 - SIGN W16 -7P 1 - PEDESTRIAN PUSHBUTTON AND SIGN RIO -25 EXTEND INTO HH 1: 3" CONDUIT 1 - 3/C 014 / 1 - 3/C •6 (POWER) 1 - 1/C •6 INS. GR. i O T.H. 41 TRAIL O � I 3" CONDUIT 1 - 3/C •14 1 - 1/C *6 INS. GR. NOTES: 1. ALL ITEMS ARE FURNISH AND INSTALL, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CITY FURNISHED MATERIALS. 3.THE EXACT LOCATION OF HANDHOLES AND POLES SHALL BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER. 4. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THE CONNECTION OF THE POWER FOR THE RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) CABINET. 5.ALL SIGNS REQUIRED ARE INCIDENTAL. 6. THIS PLAN SPECIFIES CONDUIT SIZES, TYPES, AND GENERAL LOCATIONS. THE EXACT LOCATIONS ° WILL BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD. CONDUITS UNDER THE ROADWAYS REQUIRE BORING. ti T. ALL NEW CONDUIT SHALL BE PVC - SCHEDULE 80 OR HOPE SCHEDULE 80 AND SHALL CARRY 1 /C#6 GREEN INSULATED GROUNDING CONDUCTOR AS SHOWN IN THE PLAN. B. ONLY PVC HANDHOLES WITH METAL RINGS AND COVERS ARE TO BE USED ON THIS PROJECT. 6 (1) MOUNTING HEIGHT MINIMUM. I II � u � II II n -- I - II - II Q 1 E- T. H. 41 II r 'I - LI PEDESTAL FOUNDATION 3 PEDESTAL POLE AND BASE 1 - RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) 1 - SIGN W11 -2 1 - SIGN W16 -7P 1 - PEDESTRIAN PUSHBUTTON AND SIGN RIO -25 EXTEND INTO HH 31 3" CONDUIT 1 - 3/C 014 1 - 1/C •6 INS. GR. n O SOP- ON INPLACE XCEL WOOD POLE 2" CONDUIT TO POLE MOUNTED METER AND DISC 3 - 1/C #(2 2" CONDUIT TO HH -X: 3 - 1/C #t6 cy �sk \ O th was r p bepared by m u th nder direct supervl Ton °and XlAlt AID YROJtCI NO. DRAWN BY CITY OF CHANHASSEN SHEET that I am o duly Licensed Professional Engineer under X D. RASMUSSEN the lows of the state of Minnesota. DESIGNED BY CONSULTING 24 STATE PROJECT N0. Print Name: JONATHAN J. KRIEG X J. KRIEG RECTANGULAR RAPID T. LASHING BEACON (RRFB) LAYOUT T NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION X OUNTY PROJECT N0. CHECKED BY H 41 TRAIL OF J. KRIEG H I GROUP , I NC. ... \7237 \hl - \plan \7237 rO1.dan Date License • 40780 CITY PROJECT NO. X COMM. N0. 0107237 25 s e A SIGN PANELS TYPE C SIGN NO QTY POSTS MTG HT (1) PANEL CODE NO PANEL LEGEND NO & TYPE KNEE BRACES QTY LEN SIZE AREA TOTAL AREA FEET FEET INCH SQ FT SQ FT C -1 4 1 -U 13 7 36 x 36 9.00 36.00 W11 -2 PED CROSSING C -1 2 1 -U 13 17 36 x 36 9.00 18.00 W11 -2 PED CROSSING C -2 2 2 -U 13 7 30 x 24 5.00 10.00 W16 -7PL LEFT DOWN ARROW TOTAL 64.00 r' - -1 ABBREVDATOOKS SOGNAL PLAN LAYOUT LEGEND APS ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL NEU NEUTRAL 8112F PEDESTAL FOUNDATION 8114A AWF ADVANCED WARNING FLASHER NMC NONMETALLIC CONDUIT OA B CONTROLLER AND CABINET BL BLUE 0 ORANGE Q J1(� LUMINAIRE NO. SIGNAL FACE WITH BACKGROUND SHIELD BL /BLK BLUE WITH BLACK TRACER O /BLK ORANGE WITH BLACK TRACER F PEDESTRIAN INDICATION BLK BLACK P1 -1 (e. g.) PEDESTRIAN INDICATION (PHASE 1. NO. 1) O 1 PUSHBUTTON STATION BLK /R BLACK WITH RED TRACER PB PUSHBUTTON SOURCE OF POWER 1-2 SIGNAL PHASE AND FACE NUMBER POLE MOUNT BLK /WH BLACK WITH WHITE TRACER PB2 -1 (e.g.) PUSHBUTTON (PHASE 2. N0. 1) B EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRE- EMPTION SOURCE POWER OF _ *44 (EVP) ONE -WAY CD COUNTDOWN PEC PHOTOELECTRIC CELL PAD 2 EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRE- EMPTION CH SW CHECK SWITCH PED PEDESTRIAN ■ PVC HANDHOLE WITH METAL COVER �� (EVP) ONE -WAY CLR CLEAR 0 PHASE MAST ARM SIGNAL POLE WITH DETECTOR ONLY OPTIONAL LUMINAIRE SHAFT EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRE - EMPTION D2 -1 (e.g.) DETECTOR (PHASE 2. NO. 1) R RED 1 EXTENSION AS NOTED 4 (EVP) ONE -WAY DWK DON'T WALK RdS REMOVE AND SALVAGE LIGHT ONLY EQ.G EQUIPMENT GROUND R /BLK RED WITH BLACK TRACER INPLACE EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRE- EMPTION EVP EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRE- EMPTION RLTA RED LEFT TURN ARROW O SIGNAL ASSEMBLY PEDESTAL MOUNT (EVP) ONE -WAY 41- GROUND ROD F$I FURNISH AND INSTALL RSC RIGID STEEL CONDUIT FL FLASH /FLASHING SOP SOURCE OF POWER WOOD SERVICE POLE WITH — 0 - SPLICE G GREEN SPR SPARE WP �/` OPTIONAL LUMINAIRE SHAFT - M- MICROWAVE DETECTION AS NOTED G /BLK GREEN WITH BLACK TRACER ST LHT STREET LIGHT -[::M S- SONIC DETECTION OA � INPLACE CONTROLLER AND CABINET GLTA GREEN LEFT TURN ARROW STA STATION — 9 DOWN GUY WITH EXPANDING ANCHOR GRN GREEN SW SWITCH INPLACE SOURCE OF POWER GR. RD. GROUND ROD SWD SWITCHED �0 POLE MOUNT INPLACE SOURCE OF POWER BM O BARREL MOUNTED SIGNAL PEDESTAL PAD MOUNT GRTA GREEN RIGHT TURN ARROW TDW TELEPHONE DROP WIRE 2 o ---- INPLACE HANDHOLE --- --- - - --_= - - - - -- RIGID STEEL CONDUIT (RSC) GTHA GREEN THRU ARROW WH WHITE NMC LOOP DETECTION = __________= NON - METALIC CONDUIT (NMC) HH HANDHOLE WH /BLK WHITE WITH BLACK TRACER HPS HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM WH /R WHITE WITH RED TRACER ------ - - - - -- INPLACE CONDUIT IMC INTERMEDIATE METAL CONDUIT WLK WALK 1 O INPLACE MAST ARM OR PEDESTAL SPAN WIRE INP INPLACE YEL YELLOW INS. GR. INSULATED GROUND YLTA YELLOW LEFT TURN ARROW JB JUNCTION BOX YRTA YELLOW RIGHT TURN ARROW LED LIGHT EMITTING DIODE LHT LIGHT LUM LUMINAIRE THE FOLLOWING STANDARD PLATES, APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, SHALL APPLY TO THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS PORTION OF THIS PROJECT. L_ 9 M N F 6 STANDARD PLATES PLATE NO. PLATE DESCRIPTION 8112F PEDESTAL FOUNDATION 8114A PVC HANDHOLE 8126J POLE FOUNDATION �— I hereby certify that this plan. specification. or report IS s prepared by me or under my direct supervision and t 1 am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 2, Print Name: JONATHAN J. KRIEG \7237 \h1 -mu \p1an \7237 _sd03 I COUNTY PROJECT NO. X Data License . 40780 DRAWN BY D.RASMUSSEN CITY OF CHANHASSEN SHEET DESIGNED BY CONSULTING J. KRIEG ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGNAL PLAN LAYOUT LEGEND 25 CHECKED BY T.H. 41 TRAIL OF J. KRIEG H GROUP, INC. COMM. NO. 0107237 2 5 J SRF COMM. #7237 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2/71201210:16 AM H:\ Projects \723THI -MU \EXCEL \Estimate \SEQ Estimate.xls BY: MCH TH 41 TRAIL CHECKED BY: MG ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE NOTES ITEM NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT I ESTIMATED QUANTITY ESTIMATED UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED COST 2011.601 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING LUMP SUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 20214501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 2101.501 CLEARING ACRE 0.04 $5,000.00 $200.00 2101.506 GRUBBING ACRE 0.04 $5,000.00 $200.00 2102.501 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL SO FT 400 $1.00 $400.00 2104.501 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LIN FT 120 $5.00 $600.00 2 2104.503 REMOVE CONCRETE SIDEWALK SO FT 320 $1.00 $320.00 2104.503 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SO FT 2800 $2.50 $7,000.00 2104.503 REMOVE BITUMINOUS WALK SO FT 1800 $0.50 $900.00 2104.509 REMOVE CONCRETE APRON EACH 1 $350.00 $350.00 2104.509 REMOVE DROP INLET EACH 2 $400.00 $800.00 2104.513 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH LIN FT 500 $5.00 $2,500.00 2104.523 SALVAGE SIGN TYPE C EACH 2 $40.00 $80.00 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD 352 $5.00 $1,760.00 2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION - Lpi CU YD 200 $7.50 $1,500.00 2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW CV CU YD 200 $12.00 $2,400.00 2105.523 ICOMMON BORROW (LV) CU YD 360 $10.00 $3,600.00 3 2105.604 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V SO YD 300 $1.50 $450.00 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER WITH PICKUP BROOM HOUR 10 $100.00 $1,000.00 2123.610 1.5 CU YD BACKHOE HOUR 10 $100.00 $1,000.00 2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE CV CLASS 5 CU YD 280 $25.00 $7,000.00 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL 12 $5.00 $60.00 2360.501 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX 4,E TON 50 $200.00 $10,000.00 2360.503 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX 2,B 3.0" THICK SO YD 1325 $18.00 $23,850.00 9 24114601 CONCRETE STEPS LUMP SUM 1 $60,000.00 $60.000.00 25014515 18" RC PIPE APRON EACH 1 $600.00 $600.00 2501.561 18" RC PIPE CULVERT DES 3006 CL V LIN FT 8 $100.00 $800.00 2502.604 4" INSULATION SO YD 430 $5.00 $2,150.00 2503.541 12" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LIN FT 16 $75.00 $1,200.00 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 2 $500.00 $1,000.00 2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN G LIN FT 10.5 $300.00 $3,150.00 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 2 $600.00 $1,200.00 8 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING EACH 1 $300.00 $300.00 2521.501 4" CONCRETE WALK SO FT 1365 $4.00 $5.460.00 (5).(7) 2521.501 6" CONCRETE WALK SO FT 1220 $10.00 $12.200.00 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B424 LIN FT 370 $10.00 $3,700.00 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES SQ FT 300 $40.00 $12,000.00 2557.501 WIRE FENCE DESIGN 60V -9322 LIN FT 70 $20.00 $1,400.00 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 F lo 2564.531 SIGN PANELS TYPE C SO FT 48 $50.00 $2,400.00 2564.537 INSTALL SIGN TYPE C EACH 2 $50.00 $100.00 2564.552 HAZARD MARKER X4 -2 EACH 2 $75.00 $150.00 2565.616 PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK FLASHER SYSTEM SYS 1 $33,000.00 $33,000.00 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED LIN FT 400 $1.50 $600.00 2573.512 TEMPORARY DITCH CHECK TYPE 2 LIN FT 500 $3.50 $1,750.00 2573.530 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION EACH 15 $500.00 $7,500400 2573.602 TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EACH 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 2575.523 EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 SO YD 1000 $1.00 $1,000.00 2575.571 RAPID STABILIZATION METHOD 3 M GALLONS 5 $250.00 $1,250400 6 2575.605 TURF ESTABLISHMENT ACRE 0.3 $2,000.00 $600.00 2582.502 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW -EPDXY LIN FT 285 $1.00 $285.00 2582.502 12" SOLID LINE YELLOW -EPDXY LIN FT 110 $1.20 1 $132.00 2582.503 CROSSWALK MARKING -EPDXY SO FT 510 $1.50 1 $765.00 TOTAL= $250,162.00 NOTES: (1) QUANTITY IS FOR ALL CURB TYPES AND INCLUDES CURB AND GUTTER TO BE REPLACED WITH PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP CONSTRUCTION. (2) QUANTITY FOR REMOVAL OF EXISTING CONCRETE MEDIAN AND PEDESTRIAN RAMPS AT GAS STATION DRIVEWAY. (3) CALCULATION ASSUMES FABRIC TO BE USED WHERE POOR SOILS ARE ENCOUNTERED THROUGHOUT PROJECT. (4) FENCE TO INCLUDE TOP AND BOTTOM RAILS, AND TO BE CONSTRUCTED PER DETAIL SHOWN IN THE PLANS. (5) QUANTITY FOR CONCRETE MEDIAN NOSES PER MN /DOT STANDARD PLATE 7113. (6) REFER TO THE CONSTRUCTION SOILS NOTES FOR SEED AND FERTILIZER RATES. (7) QUANTITY FOR PEDESTRIAN RAMPS. (8) QUANTITY FOR ADJUSTMENT OF SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ALONG EAST SIDE OF T.H. 41. (9) CONTRACTOR TO REFER TO PLAN DETAIL AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CONCRETE STEP REQUIREMENTS. QUANTITY TO INCLUDE RAILING AND EXCAVATION REQUIRED FOR CONCRETE STEPS, AS WELL AS ADJACENT 6" WALK. ADJACENT 6" WALK AND AGGREGATE BASE ARE PAID FOR SEPERATELY. (10) TYPE C SIGNS ON SHEET 24 ARE PAID FOR UNDER THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK FLASHER SYSTEM. (P) DENOTES PLAN QUANTITY. Capital Improvement Program 2012 thru 2016 Department Park & Trail Improvements City of Chanhassen, MN Contact Todd Hoffman Project # PK &T -110 Project name Hwy 41 Trail Extension /Stairway Type Improvement Useful Life Category Park Account #1 410 - 00004706 Account #3 Priority n/a Account #2 Account #4 cription Total Project Cost: $205,000 ision of the Highway 41 trail from Minnetonka Middle School West to the intersection of Highway 7 and Highway 41 and construction of a ;trian stairway connecting to Highover Drive. Justification The current trail project being undertaken by Carver County in cooperation with the City terminates at Minnetonka Middle School West. Extending the trail to Highway 7 will allow for a signalized at grade pedestrian crossing. Expenditures 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Construction 205,000 205,000 Total 205,000 205,000 Funding Sources 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Park Dedication Fund 205,000 205,000 Total 205,000 205,000 Budg Imp I Will need to be included in the pavement management program. Park and Recreation Commission — December 13, 2011 Cole Kelly: No, I've got one change. Daniel: Thank you Cole. Cole Kelly: When I said Fortune 500, 5,000 they put a dollar sign in front of the 5,000. That should be removed. Page 5. Daniel: Okay. With that change noted. Are there any other changes? If not let's go ahead and make the approval with the change noted on page 5. Carron: I'll make the motion to approve the minutes. Cole Kelly: Second. Carron moved, Cole Kelly seconded to approve the verbatim and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated November 22, 2011 with the change noted on page 5 of the verbatim minutes. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. REVIEW PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS HIGHWAY 41 TRAIL EXTENSION AND STAIRWAY CONNECTOR. Hoffman: Thank you Chair Daniels and members of the commission. It is not without anticipation that we're here to talk about Highway 41. This project started in 2005 in concept and here we are on the eve of 2012 ready to put the shovel in the ground come this spring. This topic tonight is the complimentary project to the larger County, City joint powers project. When that project was awarded the grant dollars, the federal grant dollars, we got into the County had made the application. We got into the specifics of the application. Where does it start? Where does it stop? And during the submittal process the County chose to stop the northerly terminus of the main trail at the middle school. That was their destination of choice. We need to get to the middle school. Get the kids from the middle school down to the regional park but there's a short gap in there from the middle school driveway to Chaska Road that is important for Chanhassen residents and area residents to the north because without that connection you're still walking on the shoulder of Highway 41 in order to make that access point so early on in the process we tried add that into the larger project. The County was not in the position to do that because of the funding requirements, reporting requirements and so they thought it would become too cumbersome to report those dollars spent on that portion of the trail through the reimbursement process for the federal grant so we set out to do a separate project just to make that final connection and then we added the stairway connection to the Highover neighborhood which was that outlot where that stairway or trail connection was to be built was platted as a part of the neighborhood. When that plat came through, it came through the park commission. City Council review and took at look at okay, we're going to build a bunch of homes up on top of this ridge. We have the regional park. We know there's going to be some sort of a future underpass connection so that was held out, that outlot. In many cases those type of situations are an easement where you just have an easement between two homes. In this case it is an actual physical outlot which is owned by the City of Chanhassen. So SRF consulting group was hired by the County to complete the larger trail project so we retained that firm as well. Mr. Mike McGarvey who is a landscape architect and a principal with that firm tonight is here this evening and he'll go over the plans. These plans will be presented to the commission for your review and comment and then we're asking that with any changes that you would recommend, you make a recommendation to the City Council. If they approve these plans and specifications and they will take that up in their first meeting in January. It's important that we have these plans approved by both the commission and the council so we can get them out to bid at the same time that they're bidding the larger project sometime in February or perhaps early March of next year. So with that introduction we'll allow Mike to come up and give an overview of the Park and Recreation Commission — December 13, 2011 plan. What's going on with the City portion of the project and then take questions from the commission. We'll also leave time for audience comments at some point after the presentation. Daniel: Okay. Mike McGarvey: Thanks Todd. Chair Daniel and members of the commission. As Todd mentioned this is a complimentary project to a project that we are also doing for Carver County which is the larger trail that runs along 41 from the school entrance drive located here and to the south making the connection to the existing trail at Longacres Drive and then just through the, in the vicinity of where we're going to have the stair connection there is also a crossing underneath Highway 41. A box culvert crossing that then provides the connection into Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. As Todd mentioned as part of the project that is a federally funded project. A Transportation Enhancement project that was funds were applied for that some years ago and when that project was originally identified the northern terminus that was identified was the school entrance and because of the funding was based on that application and the PM and so on, we needed to be consistent with the funding application so that's why we ended up with this short little gap between, basically between the school road and really wanted to make a connection all the way up to 7. Excuse me, so as Todd mentioned we have been working with the City in conjunction with the County to fill that gap that exists basically between school road and Chaska Road and ultimately to connections to the west and along the east, or I'm sorry, the west side of 41 up to 7. We did look at, at one point at an alignment that was entirely on the east side of the roadway of Highway 7, or Highway 41 but for a variety of reasons the crossing of the free right at the intersection of 7 and 41, some utility conflicts and wetland issues at that same southwest or southeast quadrant of the intersection of 7 and 41. We looked at the idea of crossing just south of Chaska Road as a more cost effective way to make that connection, making use of the striped median there and replacing that with a raised concrete median to allow pedestrians crossing Highway 41 a pedestrian refuge. Essentially what we are doing is taking the existing crossing that is at the school entrance that really is disconnected from any sort of trail system and integrating that crossing into the regional trail that runs to the south, as well as connection to Chaska Road and trails that exist on the west side of Highway 41 and basically moving that crossing to a safer location by providing that pedestrian refuge that would allow somebody to cross 41 in two stages and basically have to only look for traffic either in the northbound or southbound direction and not have to be paying attention traffic going both ways so they can cross the northbound lanes. Look for another gap and cross the southbound lanes. Significantly safer way to deal with that. And then as I mentioned, and Todd has mentioned, at the south end of the project the other element of this is the pedestrian connection into the Highover neighborhood that exists there. There are a number of detail sheets that I can go through at a later time but one just kind of quickly get to the gist of the project. You can see here again what was largely identified in the aerial photo in just a little bit greater detail, that we are looking at a 10 foot wide trail that would extend from the northern terminus of the regional trail project at the school entrance. Continue along the west side, or I'm sorry the east side of Highway 41 to Chaska Road. One of the changes that we just made was adding a little spur that connects directly to Chaska Road and a pedestrian ramp at that location that will allow for residential traffic, local traffic, foot traffic to access the trail at that point. And then as I mentioned we will have a new concrete median within 41 in the location that is currently striped. We will remove some of the pavement there and put in curb and gutter and a raised median to allow pedestrians to cross that as I said in kind of a two stage crossing. And then we'll tie into existing trails that are on the west side of 41 adjacent to the development on that side of the roadway. Tie into that to make our, continue our trail on north to the intersection with Highway 7. The lower sheet you can kind of see some of the grades as we proceed along that stretch, and that's the profile area. The next sheet is a further detail of what this connection's going to look like. We will be re- striping both that painted median and putting in new crosswalk striping at the new crosswalk. There will be some signage as well that will be modified to reflect the new median. There are some minor utility relocations that have to be made on the west side. There's a number of electrical and telephone boxes. A couple guide wires that need to be relocated and then we make that connection to the existing trail. For the Park and Recreation Commission — December 13, 2011 stairway component you can see here the box culvert underneath Trunk Highway 41 that extends into Lake Minnewashta Park. The regional trail runs along the east side of Highway 41 and then tying into that and leading up into the Highover neighborhood is the stairway. The trail itself is a bituminous trail. The connection into the neighborhood and the stairway will be a concrete construction to differentiate it from the regional trail. Roughly 30 feet of grade change between the trail elevation in this area and the roadway elevation at Highover Drive. So there a pretty significant stairway that will be constructed there. Scharfenberg: Mike if I could interrupt. How wide is that stairway? Mike McGarvey: That is, well if I go to the next sheet here quickly, that is, we are looking at basically a 6 foot clear stairway so the walking surface is 6 feet. The overall dimension is 7 feet with roughly a 6 inch kind of curb along each side of the stairway. Scharfenberg: Thank you. Mike McGarvey: So it's a fairly substantial structure but not over sized by any means. Would allow somebody I think to, you know if they're walking a bike or something up or down that, they could probably do that without any issues. Again that is concrete construction. We do have basically a series of steps and landings to facilitate that to give plenty of space for individuals to rest in making that trip up or down. Again given the fact that there's 30 feet of grade change there it's a fairly lengthy stair. One of the other things that we will be, to note is that if we go back to the prior sheet, one of the other things that happens to be located in this outlot is a city watermain. There's a pump station is located up in this area so there's a watermain that runs along here and then runs along the Highway 41 right -of -way. The City has requested, the City Engineer has requested that we put some, do the uneven cover that will result from the stairs and more likely, a greater potential of frost getting to a deeper depth or encroaching on that watermain. We are going to be placing insulation underneath the stairway to prevent that freezing from happening. So that is generally it. One thing I did show in the details. The trail construction will typically be a 10 foot wide trail with a, that will include a 6 inch Class V aggregate base and 3 inches of bituminous surface so the trail itself will be a bituminous trail. And so with that I'd open it up to any questions that you may have. Daniel: Great, thank you Mike. Let's open it up. Steve. Any questions? Scharfenberg: Todd I know that we had talked about before with the median down at Chaska Road that there was going to potentially be I think similar to what we have on Powers with the flashing lights. Is that still going to happen or not? Hoffman: No. That grant application was submitted by our engineering division and it was not awarded. Scharfenberg: Okay. That's all I have. Daniel: Okay, Elise. Ryan: I just have serious concerns about the location of the crossing out from Chaska Road. You know I don't have a solution and I don't like to present problems without, or giving some sort of solution or suggestion but just the way that people when they're coming off Highway 7 and the acceleration going down 41 and kids or people crossing there, I just think it's a very dangerous location for people to cross or to encourage people to cross and I don't know if I had thought possibly closer to the intersection but I just would like to discuss it a little more because I do have some serious concerns about that location. Whether there's a crosswalk or flashing lights, I just think it's a very busy and a dangerous location I think. Park and Recreation Commission — December 13, 2011 Mike McGarvey: I think as Todd mentioned it was, and was asked about earlier that I think the City is well aware of concerns there. As I mentioned one of the things that we are doing is providing that pedestrian refuge space which is one of the, really one of the most effective ways of minimizing conflict by allowing, again allowing a pedestrian to cross the travel way one direction at a time so not having somebody say looking to the south and paying attention to traffic there and then trying to get across at that location, essentially 4 lanes of traffic with you know and still having to pay attention to traffic in both directions so allowing them to cross the northbound lanes and then look, look for vehicles coming in the southbound direction and crossing that single lane is a much more, much safer way to go. Certainly if we can, funds can be found to enhance that with some sort of signal or flashing lights you know I think that should continue to be pursued. I think there are some, if I understand correctly there was some very specific comments, reasons why the proposal was not awarded money this time that could be addressed. I believe the fact that the school doesn't have a formal safe crossing to school plan was the primary comment that came back so if the school was to initiate that, there seems to be a fairly high likelihood that the funding would, the project would be grant, more grant ready in a next funding cycle. Ryan: I mean can things be done to the road? Not speed bumps but you know something done in the road to slow people down, especially if you're coming, going south. Not only the people coming off Highway 7 but my concern is people coming out of that, where that Walgreen's and that you know little strip mall. They're looking back over their shoulder and looking to see cars coming towards them and not looking ahead at people possibly crossing the road so I just, I have that concern with particularly the southbound direction of that road so I don't know, I mean it's something to continue to work on, whether with the school or whomever but just to make sure that that's safe as this moves forward. Hoffman: Can I provide some response? We absolutely share, staff shares your concern and I don't think it's our position that we're presenting this as a safe crossing but as an alternative as a crossing point for those who choose to use it. I would think citizens in this area would agree that this is a high volume area of our community as far as traffic, and this is, presents a choice for those who want to cross, both as adults and then as parents who, you know they have to make a decision when they're going to allow their children, at what age or at what stage of maturity they're going to allow their children to cross there to utilize the facilities at the school or not. If you characterize, even if we had the lights, if we're successful in getting those lights, this is, the nature of that highway is going to be a situation where pedestrians are not going to assume that Highway 7 traffic is going to stop, and I don't think we're even going to get Highway 7 traffic to stop for pedestrians at that location, whether you have lights or not. Providing a safe refuge l think is about, under this design without lighting, without pre - warning signals is about the best that we can do. But all pedestrians are not going to utilize that crossing. It's only going to be those that select that crossing as a destination because of the recreation that they do or the jobs that they're traveling to and it's not going to be a pleasant crossing. It's going to be a high speed, high volume crossing that people are going to have to make a choice to cross and use appropriate caution when doing so, so we agree. Staff concurs with your concerns and we are not presenting this in any way as the safe crossing or a safe pedestrian crossing. It is just a choice for citizens in the area. People who want to utilize that area. It's probably the best scenario that you could present with the current conditions. I think that safe refuge does allow for that, but there's no stop light there and you know, but there is the trail. The residents to the west are coming up that trail and that's really the reason for the location for this crossing. The pedestrian stripe down at the school is just in response to you know past school administrators and parents saying to the highway department, of the State of Minnesota we have to have some semblance of crossing and from what I understand in most cases either a principal or a teacher went down there for the few kids that would use that crossing and try to facilitate that crossing but that's still difficult to do as an individual or as a school administrator trying to get traffic to behave on Highway 7 is not going to be something you're going to be able to handle. The only way that the school crossed to go to the Minnewashta Regional Park for any type of school activities was to have a highway patrol there facilitating some kind of crossing and Park and Recreation Commission — December 13, 2011 even that got to be precarious and they started to avoid doing that. So the trail and the pedestrian underpass farther south is really going to be what the school is looking for to get into the regional park but kids are going to use this trail crossing to get back into their neighborhoods but it's going to be you know W" grade, 10' grade, 1 V" grade, or well these are middle school kids so it's going to be middle school kids, their parents that choose to allow them to cross there. Scharfenberg: Todd correct me, just so I'm clear. For people to access coming north on, from Highway 7 onto 41, for them to access the park they have to cross at that intersection, right? And then. Hoffman: Go down. Scharfenberg: Go up on the east hand side. Is there any way to keep that trail on the west or a portion of the trail from the park down there so people don't have to cross? Hoffman: I think the best alternative is going to be many people are going to use the Herman Field connection. Scharfenberg: Right, right. Hoffman: And use that as a, continue to use that to get into the regional park. To build a second section of trail, it's a pretty long section of trail and then the regional park would have to grade another entryway into their park system so that's something that they were not interested in taking a look at. Scharfenberg: Okay. Daniel: Alright, thanks Elise. Tom. Tom Kelly: No additional questions. Daniel: Peter. Aldritt: I just have a few. On the stairs, were the residents notified about these going in and they were up to date on the plans on what was the connection? Are lots taken right now? Hoffman: Correct. Yeah, the two lots on either side, the owner of those lots was aware. As stated in my introductory comments, this right -of -way was taken as a part of the platting of the project so, and the neighborhood was aware of it. At least those that were aware, take a look at what was going on. I don't have the picture but there was a sign on the lot, I think it said park or trail outlot. Something like that. That was posted there from the time of the development. Mike McGarvey: And the owner of those two, I know that one of those two properties attended at least two if not a couple more of the public meetings and individual property owner meetings that were held for the County project. Aldritt: Oh okay. Daniel: Thank you Peter. Aldritt: Yeah. Daniel: Brent. V/ Park and Recreation Commission — December 13, 2011 Carron: I guess I've got a couple questions here for you just starting back down on the Chaska Road crossing. Is there plans to have crosswalk bars through there like up on. Mike McGarvey: Across Chaska Road? Carron: Yeah. No, no, sorry. Across 41. Mike McGarvey: Yes. Carron: There will be crosswalk bars at those two areas. Mike McGarvey: Correct. Carron: Because I see that there's one at the school entrance but then also going across there as well? I didn't see them on the plans. Mike McGarvey: If you look at the detailed plans. Daniel: Oh there they are. Carron: Oh are they? Okay. Okay. That will help. I with Elise as well have concerns with funneling our traffic across that spot, especially because that area up at, just north of there at the school entrance is kind of like the hit point if you will. It's at the top so there's not a lot of reaction time for people that are going northbound. And then like with people coming southbound, speeding up the hill, and unfortunately the safe zone in the middle is a great idea. I don't know if it's going to help and I guess I don't know if future funds are, would future funds if we would be able to Todd get money for a pedestrian crosswalk light or a signalized pedestrian crosswalk, would that come from park and rec fund or how would that work? Hoffman: The application was for State safety dollars for safe crossing and that would be the source that we would seek out again and so Paul Oehme, our City Engineer /Public Works Director and I will continue to work with the school. Get their safe cross the school plan in place. Get that re- application in but you know in my mind that is going to notify you know the vehicles in another fashion but it's still going to be the responsibility of the pedestrian to figure out is that car going to stop just because there's a warning light there or not or are they going to take a look. The other thing, as a pedestrian in these type of situations what you find is that if one car stops, the next one won't and so again as a pedestrian you always have to, you can't just trust the first one in front because the next one's coming around. We see that in major intersections. Pedestrian vehicle intersections in our community, but we will resubmit for that application and that's for the warning lights and the pre - warning lights and the warning lights above the intersection so, and if successful those will go in and be a compliment to what is being included here in this application. Mike McGarvey: I would just to piggyback on that a little bit, I think again the median island cuts down in addition to providing a pedestrian refuge. It does prevent somebody from going around a stopped vehicle if somebody chooses to stop for a pedestrian as they should. The other thing to note is that in the evaluation that we did looking at alternatives in addition to the pedestrian refuge, the lighted signals and we looked at a couple different alternatives in assisting the City with the development of that safe route to school application. In all those scenarios we would still do this base work of the pedestrian median and then there's nothing that would in our current design that would preclude us coming back and doing the sign... Park and Recreation Commission — December 13, 2011 Carron: Okay. Alright, if we can go to the staircase then. Todd question for you. Since the staircase would be on City owned property, who would take care of the maintenance and would there be shoveling during the winter or who would take care of the sod growing in the springtime? K Hoffman: A typical scenario where we have two neighboring residents, it's really up to their choice. If they want to mow it to the edge of the staircase as a part of their lawn, they can do that. If not, then the City would come out and maintain the right -of -way or the outlot. Mow it or maintain it. Weed whip it, those type of things. In the winter, by city ordinance we would be required to come out and shovel this walkway just as any resident would be required to shovel a walkway so that would be a requirement of the City to come and do that. And there are, that being said there are certain sections of trail we do not plow and maintain in the winter because of the hilly nature but in this case that would have to be something that would be addressed by the commission or the City Council if we wanted to not maintain that in the wintertime. By our current city code we would be required to come out and maintain that just as a property owner would. Private property owner. Carron: Okay. Mike, the contours out there with the recent building of the property to the north have changed since this plan was put together. Mike McGarvey: Correct. Carron: Is it the goal, if when these are installed to match the contour? Mike McGarvey: Correct. Carron: As much as possible. Mike McGarvey: We did go out with staff and do kind of a rough survey at the time that some of that, the new construction was ongoing. In order to assist that property owner in making sure that they had their grades at least relatively close to where we were going to be the stairs. We took a couple shots so that we can get as close as we can. We're going to have, obviously have to field verify that but the intent is with the design that we have right now that it should match fairly, pretty closely with what's there to minimize the grading that we have to do. Carron: The other question I have is the restoration for that. I know the homeowner to the north just sodded and did some landscaping there and the restoration, what you had planned, it looks like a seed and a disc mulch. Mike McGarvey: We probably, you know given the fact that when we initiated that, that was a vacate lot. 1 think one of the final tweaks we need to make here is probably adding an item for sod so that we can replace that in kind. Carron: Okay. Rail height. Must be a typo but 2 foot 10. Mike McGarvey: Yes, that must be a typo. That would be higher than that. Carron: Okay. And then there's two rails? Put one on each side? Mike McGarvey: Yes. Park and Recreation Commission — December 13, 2011 Carron: Okay. You're not I guess an electrician but do you have any idea what, what were we, maybe Todd you could say too, what was the total dollar amount of let's say if we did get that safe zone access where we got the funding to put in that light. What was that dollar amount for? Hoffman: I don't recall what the application was. Mike McGarvey: I can't off the top of my head, I can't say. Yeah I'm sorry I can't answer that but that should be readily available to Todd. Carron: The only reason why I'm asking is, if it's brought up or depending upon the commission, I think the estimate that you had given was about $65,000 for the staircase and if the $65,000 might be able to cover that safe zone, I guess there's money there in the park fund if not. If the staircase is a go or not a go. Just wanted to bring that up so. That's all I had. Thanks. Daniel: Okay, thank you Brent. Mr. Kelly. Cole. Cole Kelly: Todd, are the middle school administration for this crossing or what's their feeling on it? Hoffman: 1 can't speak for an individual administrator but the school district is in favor of this project. In favor of the crossing and they have not officially reviewed it that I'm aware of. It's not on their property but they're in support of improving pedestrian connections and access in this area at any level. They were involved in the safe route to school application. They'll be involved in the reapplication and it's a challenging site due to the proximity of the highway and the speeds and the volume of traffic at that location. Anybody that uses that intersection is aware of what goes on at that particular location and the route off of Lake Lucy to Highway 7 is used a lot. Chaska Road is used quite a bit and so people are up there driving in that area. They recognize the volumes but this school supports the ability to access their students to the west and other families to the west. Cole Kelly: Thank you. Ryan: Todd, one more question. Was it ever looked at a crossing at, coming off of Lake Lucy? Since that's such a major intersection anyways, doing something more with that intersection. People coming, turning, having that be a crosswalk or some sort of an intersection off of Lake Lucy onto 41? Hoffman: It was not due to the fact that on the west side there was not planned improvements for pedestrians to the west side. At this location that existing neighborhood connection is in place. The proximity of Chaska Road is in place. The connector to Highway 7. There is a signalized crossing of Highway 7 so many Shorewood residents are going to access the crossing at Highway 7, and again that's not a kind of choice that you make on a recreational walk on a daily basis but the desirability of the school grounds, what's going on at that campus and then also the off leash dog park in the regional park is going to get people to cross the intersection so that's going to be the first crossing. Then you're going to have to negotiate this second crossing at Chaska Road to get down to the regional park and make their way into the underpass. Into those facilities. I'm confident people are going to do it but it's, you know it's one of those choices that as a pedestrian you have to be aware of what you're putting yourself into and what kind of a traffic environment you're entering each time you use that as a crossing. Daniel: My only comment Todd is, or question excuse me is, on the island are there any other indicators, flags or anything that either on the north side or south side, just to kind of reflective. U Park and Recreation Commission — December 13, 2011 Hoffman: There's signage and there's no doubt that the presence of that is going to be a visual reminder to motorists that this is you know a pedestrian crossing and that we have a pedestrian safe refuge so it's going to be, provide some of that visual identity to motorists. Mike McGarvey: The painted, or the painted median will be restriped and then you can see here that there will be some signage that will be added to that median to make it more visible. Daniel: Any thoughts on fixed posts at the crosswalk points? Mike McGarvey: Like a bollard type? Daniel: Yep. Mike McGarvey: We have not looked at that. I'm not sure what MnDOT would, I'm not sure that MnDOT would bite into that idea having a kind of pretty significant obstruction there from a just day to day safety standpoint for the vehicles but it's something we could inquire about. Daniel: Okay. I'm looking at it more from you know, I like the idea of having the island. I think given the alternatives that we do have, it's something better than nothing and you're absolutely right. Only having to deal with one direction at a time makes sense but I'm also trying to envision myself being a pedestrian stuck on an island with cars zipping past me at 50 miles an hour in all reality. Having something there besides just 6 inches of concrete or whatever the height may be, or 8 inches of concrete puts me above, is more of a comfort feeling and I realize some of these pillars, or something like that, that you know I guess I'd be more concerned about the safety of a pedestrian at any given point if there happened to be something there. That gives them something, I mean I can't expect concrete barriers all the way across. You know that creates a true island or protection barrier but at least possibly something that gives some level of comfort that they have, that if something does happen they've at least got something there to slow thern down or slow the vehicle down because like I said, I do know and I agree with Elisa's analysis on, at least you know coming out of southbound, coming out of 7 going southbound on 41 that cars certainly do accelerate and there's also a merging point right there as well. And then during school hours gets awfully crazy between Chaska Road and the school so again I think this is, certainly given the circumstances, a good idea but again if there's something that we can investigate as far as some sort of like I say a pillar or something, corner pillars at the crosswalk that, and again maybe MnDOT may not want that just from a safety perspective for the vehicles but I just think more importantly if they have a fighting chance if you've got to stand in that crosswalk don't if something happens. So that'd be my only comments or questions if we could take a look at. Outside of that I think it's certainly I think it's going to be something well needed. My children, or at least my oldest child, as I found out going to his friend's house, that's, they cut right across 41 at the school entrance and they bike all the way down over to the school and right across and as I found that out my, you know it's like, you know it's like playing frogger in my mind you know for him but they've done it quite often but this is again something I'd feel a heck of a lot more comfortable with if, if they had that alternative to go visit their friends so. With the exception of like I said a cross, an actual lighted section or crosswalk is about as good as it's going to get so some of that. Very good design and appreciate the work. Thank you. Any other questions? Hoffman: Hear from the audience members. Daniel: Yes. Certainly if there are anybody from the audience wants to comment on the project, please step up to the podium and state your name and your address and feel free. Park and Recreation Commission — December 13, 2011 Matt Chambers: Thank you very much commissioner. My name's Matt Chambers. I live on Highover Drive right across from where the proposed staircase is going. One question I just have and some of the other residents in the neighborhood have is, the choice to use a staircase versus just a flat trail. Most of us have small children. My daughter's wheelchair bound so we're not able to use that staircase and would have to hence, if I understand correctly, go down to Lake Lucy Road just to come right back when this is right across our street so just a question as to if there's a possibility for just a flat trail, whether it's next to the staircase or instead of the staircase. Daniel: And it's been a while since I've seen the grade on that Todd. I think the only alternative based off the grade and the length, the height and the length as far as what you have to deal with would be a switchback right? Hoffman: Yeah. If we were to build a trail that would meet you know standards for grade we would have to have a significant switchback. It's not that we don't have steep trails in the community but this, do you know the grade? The overall grade. It's 30 feet in that period of time so it's going to be a pretty much straight down. It would not be accessible for, in the case of a wheelchair, it's going to be a difficult traverse and as a community I'm just not sure we would want to put a person in a bike or a person in a wheeled type of piece of equipment on a steep downhill grade that's going to end up at a T intersection at the bottom and so it's not that people aren't going to walk their bikes or go along the side of this thing. We think that's going to happen but it's just from a really the design is about responsibility. What is the responsible thing to build in this particular situation and from our analysis and our work with our consultants and with staff it's the responsible thing to do here is to build a staircase instead of a trail just due to the nature of the grade. Daniel: And we have something like that similar in my neighborhood Matt, to be honest with you. Over in Curry Farms on that west side, and you've probably seen it Dale. Coming off the back side of Bretton or Teton. You go straight down and that's before all the probably changes in ordinance. I don't think that would be planned nowadays. They don't even, I don't think you guys plow it do you Dale? Yeah, it just turns into a sliding hill in the winter because it is such a steep grade and you can really get cooking. Actually the best thing they ever did was clear the trees off from this landing area because it kind of curves at the bottom so at least eliminate the possibility for somebody running into it but I mean that's probably about the same grade I'm going to say as far as what the steps, if not maybe even a little bit steeper so. Hoffman: There's a similar situation in the next neighborhood over where that stairway that goes up to the highline trail so that's a similar situation. Where we got to that point, the highline trail was built and we would have liked to have just run it down to the street and be just straight asphalt but again just isn't responsible and indicate to people that they're going to be able to go down that grade. There's no federal money involved in the staircase but if there was you could not build a trail. They wouldn't fund that. 5% grade is max grade for a trail in any type of situations. This far exceeds that. Daniel: Thank you Matt. Appreciate it. If there's anyone else, please feel free. We welcome you. Jill Zafke: My name is Jill Zafke, thank you. I am the new homeowner in Highover Drive and I just, pardon me I haven't heard all the plans and I just, I'm being inquisitive. The intent for us as homeowners to take care, if we choose to take care of that grass, the intent of this is for Highover Drive and the community to use it, correct? Hoffman: Correct. 12 Park and Recreation Commission — December 13, 2011 Jill Zafke: Down into the park. If it's going to be majority families and children using it, I'm just thinking about strollers, bikes, they're going to be going around so the maintenance of that grass, is that going to be our choice as well or is the City going to maintain the bikes and the strollers and everything going down onto it? Hoffman: Yeah, that's yet to be seen. The volume of traffic here, you're going to see some kind of a, it just all depends on if the bikes go down the center or if they're going to ride down the side. If they ride down the side, there's going to be some type of you know goat trail or a dirt trail that's going to be created but the volume of traffic here I just don't think is going to lead to some kind of an erosion gully situation but that's something yet to be seen and so if you mow up to the edge, that's your choice. Otherwise we will come out and mow to your lot line and then meet you at that location so. It's one of those situations where in most cases the property owner, it's going to be about you know 7 to 10 feet. Most neighbors just mows right up to the trail or right up to the public improvement. Jill Zafke: I just have one concern. If it is for the community and for our children, I don't see it being usable for kids and families as much as you might think it could be. Hoffman: And again, we don't disagree with that. Basically this is a choice. You're either going to, a runner's going to run up and down this stairway. A walker's going to walk up and down this stairway. If you have any other type of vehicle with you, you're either going to have to carry it or go down along the side but basically what the stairway is, it's preserving the public right -of -way in a way that the public can use it. If you don't put some type of improvement in there, either a trail, a hard surface trail if it was appropriate, or a stairway, the public doesn't have the ability to utilize the set aside right -of -way to make that connection so again we don't disagree that a stairway is not ideal. We don't like to build stairways in a public trail system but in this case the best choice that we have so again that's for the commission to decide if you want to build that. Make that recommendation, that's what staff is recommending. Daniel: Yeah I think Jill it's real easy, especially given the situation that the two options are either going far south, all the way down over to Longacres and make the trail connection there or go you know 2 1/2 blocks, 3 blocks down to Lake Lucy Road and then come all the way back if there is, and I think the intent at the time is obviously creating a public right -of -way so that people from other areas of Longacres can make that trail connection there. Jill Zafke: Right. Daniel: But yeah I mean you're right. Given the situation, especially as a homeowner right there, it's real easy because I can go right in my back yard and end up in the trail but I also, we have to still look at the bigger picture as well for people across the street. Jill Zafke: Oh no, and I don't mind that a trail is going in there. I just want it to be usable for everyone. Daniel: Yes. Yeah, oh absolutely and like I said unfortunately if this were any other situation you know it wouldn't be, given the grade in which we have to deal with it wouldn't be as big a concern so. Jill Zafke: Right. Right. Daniel: But thank you. Appreciate it. Jill Zafke: Thank you. Daniel: Okay, if there's anyone else. If not. 13 Park and Recreation Commission — December 13, 2011 Carron: Before we make a motion I just, my first of all talk here just to let the rest of my commissioners know, from the feedback I've been getting from my neighbors and what I've been hearing and talking to quite a bit of them about, it's up to you guys what to you want to do but I'm going to vote against the staircase portion if we can, I don't know if you can break that up but I would much rather see the money be spent on something that's useful, and I don't know if this can even work either but the intersection down on Chaska Road rather than a staircase that could be used, could be not used and a lot of my people, my neighbors are either against it or indifferent. Very indifferent. I don't think I've heard one person that's completely for it so that's my piece. I guess I'm just letting everyone else know. If it goes for the motion it passes I'll probably vote it down, that's the reason. Ryan: I would also like to add, when we decide 1 think it would be a great idea if we could possibly break it up in two because I know we had this conversation when we were doing, working on the numbers before. There was opposition with the staircase and then it go put back into our budget so that's one piece of it but the second part, if we, or when we make a motion in terms of the crosswalk area, I think because we all have so many concerns I think we should clarify or specify that we would like some more work or research done about safety lights. The things that you brought up Chair Daniels about some of the, what were they blockades or. Carron: Bollards. Ryan: Yeah, just for protection so if we could add that those things should be included in it in order to be approved, I'd like to include that in the motion as well. Tom Kelly: So would you be able to, if I can elaborate. If we're able to break these two would you then be, would you prefer to table the motion on the median until more research could be done or approve the motion and then hope that research could be, more research could be done? Ryan: I would like more research to be done. Tom Kelly: Okay. Ryan: I'd like to have that be part of it. That those pieces would be included. Whether it's getting the grant from the State from, you know in conjunction with the school district but I think that those pieces are critical into developing this crosswalk because even though it's, we're not encouraging it as a safe place to cross, people are going to cross there and I think we should do our due diligence in making sure that it is safe. Scharfenberg: So Elise just to comment on what Tom said, instead of making it part of the motion are you okay with just saying to encourage staff to continue to pursue safety grants for that intersection. Ryan: Right. Scharfenberg: Okay. Daniel: That will work for me. Tom Kelly: I had a question too about the neighborhood meetings. What kind of feedback did you get? Did you get the same ambivalent type of attitude about the staircase at the neighborhood meetings as well? 14 Park and Recreation Commission — December 13, 2011 Hoffman: We've heard from both in favor and against so there's a variety of reasons for both. The people that are in favor of it say that it has been identified as a community feature from the time they purchased their lot, they were expecting that it would go in. The people that don't want it, again that's for a variety of reasons as well. Tom Kelly: Does a crushed limestone trail alleviate some of the concerns about a grade because you have a little more friction? Hoffman: You couldn't maintain a crushed limestone trail in that grade. Tom Kelly: It would just wash on down to the street. Daniel: It would wash out. Because the alternative with nothing there is that the City still owns the property and one way or another... the only difference is the steps. Carron: As a visual it's going to be tough to mow period. That's how steep it is. Ryan: But the concern will also be that you're going to get, it is very steep and people will take bikes and strollers around the side of it and then it would be a very dangerous, a dangerous path to take. ` Daniel: Okay, Tom Kelly: So if 1 can summarize, it's almost like we're encouraging by building a path, we'd be encouraging people to do something unsafe and by building a median we're also encouraging people to do something that's unsafe. Ryan: In my view, yes. Daniel: I guess Tom to a certain extent I would disagree that we're encouraging people to do something unsafe because right now. Tom Kelly: They're doing it anyways? Daniel: They're doing it anyways. Tom Kelly: Okay. Okay. Daniel: So if anything we're providing a safety alternative. I mean you know it's a lesser degree of evil in essence. Tom Kelly: Okay. Daniel: The alternative would be you know to, the ideal alternative would be to have some sort of controlled intersection but that's I don't think feasible given the funding that's available. Carron: With the Carver County project that's going on in this trail extension I think it's a must that this takes place just to provide that access and that concrete median in the middle is going to help huge. The problem is that I just me personally it's kind of like doing a project to have's. You wish you could do more now but we can't and if it could all be done now as far as a, even a lit intersection for night, for people crossing at night would be a big benefit I think. 15 Park and Recreation Commission — December 13, 2011 Daniel: Not our alternative. Okay. But I do like Steve your, obviously some sort of motion needs to be made to get this project moving forward. I mean we're looking at essentially two components. One being really the crosswalk from the County perspective. I mean looking at what the County really wants from us. They're not too concerned about the staircase. You know for all practical purposes but more importantly the crosswalk. I do like Steve your comments that we need to, that as part of the motion we should probably put something in there for both the, for the City to continue to pursue some sort of safety grant or safety alternatives at that point prior to construction but I guess what the City will want from us and what the council ideally will want from us as well is some sort of motion to get this project moving forward to the next level. Whether or not we break this up into two different motions, one having to pertain to specifically the steps and one has to do with the rest of the project because I don't know if the two necessarily have to be dependent upon each other. If there's any disagreement on that. I'm just trying to come up with some alternatives here so we can get something moving because like I said I would hate to see us have any issues with regards to stairways delaying this issue, so. Tom Kelly: Do we need a motion to break this into two? Daniel: I would certainly recommend it because that seems the direction that we're going because right now as it stands I don't want to create any other delays on this project because obviously at the end of the day we want to make sure this is what, so the council has something to approve. Hoffman: Commissioner Kelly you would just offer up two different motions if that's the way you wanted it. Tom Kelly: Oh, okay. Daniel: Yes. Tom Kelly: So you wouldn't have to make a third motion to create, okay. Daniel: Well right now as it stands we have, I mean the proposed motion by the City is to approve the project period. As well as under one statement, including the staircases. You know going back to the staircases, my point being that if there is no staircase there, that is City owned property providing two residential properties that eventually will or will not get used. And what I mean is, if it's not used, if we just leave it as blank, we do not pass this motion, will it get used anyways? And how safe is that and that's something we need to take into consideration as well because at some point or another somebody, kids are going to figure out that that's wide open property. The signs will stay there. It will be property, City property and eventually they will be using it and how safe is that alternative as well? So that's something to take in consideration as far as you're thinking about the staircases. So, and I'm just looking at it from a practical standpoint. Hoffman: And you're making a recommendation to the City Council. What the City Council chooses to do is up to them. Daniel: Is up to them, exactly so. I guess why don't we break this into two. One motion pertaining to the staircase. The other pertaining to the proposed project for highway, Trunk Highway 41 with Carver County including the, again some comments with regards to pursuing additional safety measures at the safety island so, if anyone wants to try to figure that one out and put it together please. Let's start first with the trunk highway 41 project. Cole Kelly: I'll make a motion that the Park and Rec Commission recommend to the City Council that we approve the plans and specifications for the Trunk Highway 41 trail extension and island. We also V Park and Recreation Commission — December 13, 2011 strongly suggest that the City move to look for more safety options to help out the pedestrians that cross this area. Daniel: Okay. Second? Ryan: Second. Cole Kelly moved, Ryan seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve the plans and specifications for the Trunk Highway 41 trail extension and island and strongly suggest that the City move to look for more safety options to help with the pedestrian crossing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Daniel: Alright, why don't we go to the next motion which would be to approve the stairway connection from Highover to the Highway 41 trailway system. Cole Kelly: I'll make a motion that we approve the staircase from, is it Highover Drive to, how did you state that? Daniel: Trunk Highway 41, Cole Kelly: To Trunk Highway 41. Daniel: Trail project. Cole Kelly: To the trail project. To the City Council. Daniel: Okay. All in favor. Scharfenberg: How about a second? Daniel: Oh second, thank you Steve. Scharfenberg: Second. Cole Kelly moved, Scharfenberg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve the staircase from Highover to the Trunk Highway 41 trail system. All voted in favor, except for Carron and Ryan who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. 17