5. Review Lake Lucy Road Trail issue 1 C TY F
CHANHASSEN
i ‘
' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
~' (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM ✓ ��A-
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer
' DATE: March 22 , 1989
SUBJ: Review Lake Lucy Road Trail Issue 3 ? - •1
File No. 88-25
At the February 27 , 1989 City Council meeting, Council tabled
' action concerning the Lake Lucy Road trail issue and directed
that the issue be taken up by the Park and Recreation Commission
for review. The attached March 22, 1989 staff report from Lori
Sietsema summarizes the action of the Park and Recreation
Commission.
In addition to the numerous options which have been generated to
date, additional refinements have been made by the respective
property owners . I have attached these for Council con-
sideration. These are shown as options 1 , 6 and 8 in the attach-
ments. The present motivation of the residents who generated
these options is summarized in the "Neighborhood' s Collective
Objectives" section of that attachment.
' A few items of clarification have been received since our last
meeting which is pertinent to the Council ' s action on this
matter. I spoke with Chuck Weichselbaum, District 5 State-Aid
Engineer, concerning the cost ramifications if the roadway were
reduced in section to a 28-foot wide roadway as shown in most of
the neighborhood alternatives . Mr. Weichselbaum was able to
review this at a state-wide meeting of all State-Aid engineers
held March 21 , 1989 . The concurrence from that group is that if
the road is shrunk a foot or two that no reimbursement would be
' necessary; however, if a significant reduction in section were
requested such as the 28-foot road width, that a proportionate
amount of the State-Aid funds for this project would be required
to be reimbursed. Total State-Aid received on this project was
$643 ,408 .15 ,
1
Don Ashworth 1
March 22 , 1989
Page 2 '
There has been much discussion concerning the collector status of
Lake Lucy Road, i .e. high density, low density and the desire of ,
many of the local and abutting residents to have this road
downgraded in width and status . While we would all no doubt like
to be able to live on a residential cul-de-sac, this is not
always possible and the City must provide for appropriate
collectors in its system. Lake Lucy Road happens to be, for
better or worse, an important collector to the City' s
transportation system. As testimony to this fact, the original
feasibility study showed average daily traffic (ADT) counts for
old Lake Lucy Road of 405 and 460 for 1983 and 1985 , respectively
( see feasibility study excerpt) . The feasibility study used a
3z% per year escalation factor for 20 years to arrive at the 915
ADT design figure for this roadway.
Traffic counts which were conducted in 1987 for MnDOT, basically
the first year that this new section was in operation, revealed
traffic useage of 700 ADT or 76% of the 20-year design life in
the second year of the projection! This points out that the
roadway is indeed being used and in fact is well ahead of the
original design projections . Applying the same analysis as was
done in the feasibility, i .e. +31% per year, would indicate a
twenty-year design ADT for the year 2007 of 1393 vehicles;
definitely a high-density collector . This analysis also does not
reflect the increased useage that this road will no doubt
encounter once it is ultimately connected to Trunk Highway 41. I
firmly believe that diminishing this road section would be
imprudent in light of its current and potential usage being the
City' s only east-west collector in this area between Trunk
Highway 7 and Trunk Highway 5 and with the useage which is
already occurring on this roadway.
Final point of update, as you and I have spoken recently , '
contrary to earlier beliefs and in light of our recent fund clo-
sings and fund transfers for 1988 , it does not appear likely that '
there are any surplus funds available to finance any modifica-
tions to the trail system. Any requested changes, therefore,
would need to be funded through other sources .
Relating to the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain project, the
contractor has moved his equipment on-site and will be embarking
on the watermain construction in the near future. By necessity
we have separated the trail issue from the watermain construction
since the watermain construction needs to progress in as rapid a
fashion as possible . The restoration of the construction area
for the watermain project will be one of the last elements of the
project and as such there is time yet to work with further trail
alternatives if directed by the Council. I of course will be
available to further discuss any of these alternatives, including
the recent additions , Monday night.
1
I
1
Don Ashworth
March 22 , 1989
' Page 3
' Attachments
1 . Memo from Lori Sietsema dated March 22 , 1989 with Park and
and Recreation minutes dated March 21 , 1989 .
2 . Options 1 , 6 and 8 from the Park and Recreation Commission
meeting presentation.
3 . Feasibility study excerpt.
4 . Letter from Bob Spelts dated March 14 , 1989 .
5 . Letter from MnDOT to Tichys dated March 3 , 1989 .
cc : Lake Lucy Road Residents
1
I
I
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
l ,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM '
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: March 22, 1989
SUBJ: Park and Recreation Commission Action on Lake Lucy Road
Trail Issue '
The Park and Recreation Commission met on March 21, 1989 to
discuss the Lake Lucy Road trail/parking issue. Attached please 1
find the minutes of that meeting.
The general concensus of the Commission was the parking request
was not within their jurisdiction or area of expertise.
Therefore, they concentrated on the trail issue. It was felt
that a trail is currently in place and, although it is not the 11 optimal trail situation located on-street, it is more than what
currently exists in other areas of the City. The Commission was
adament that it would be unfair to the general populus of
Chanhassen to improve an existing trail while areas such as
Minnewashta Parkway, Highway 101, etc. , are in dire need of safe
pedestrian and bike trails.
The Commission felt that if the City Council makes changes from ,
the current trail alignment, it should be at least as safe or
more safe than what currently exists. To make a change that
would be less safe was felt to be a disservice to the community.
The Lake Lucy Road trail is part of the Comprehensive Trail Plan.
It is the Park and Recreation Commission' s charge to see that
parks and trails are provided where needed whenever possible.
Therefore, the Commission acted to advise the City Council that
the Commission would agree with any trail alignment that would be
at least as safe as the existing bike lanes and that would not
require the expenditure of funds from the Park/Trail Fund. This
motion was passed unanimously.
4TrAcCirtift 1
■
t .
I 7 1
CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION 1 �; ` � '
. , x. Y
REGULAR MEETING ..
•
MARCH 21, 1989
II
Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 p.m. .
IMEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Curt Robinson, Jim Mady, Larry Schroers , Dawne
Erhart and Ed Hasek
IMEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Watson
STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema , Park and Rec Coordinator ; Todd Hoffman ,
IRecreation Supervisor ; and Gary Warren, City Engineer
IAPPOINTMENT OF THE ACTING CHAIRPERSON.
Boyt moved, Mady seconded to appoint Larry Schroers as the Acting Chairman
II for this Park and Recreation Commission meeting . All voted in favor and
the motion carried .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Robinson moved , Mady seconded to approve the Minutes
I of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated February 28 , 1989 as
amended by Sue Boyt on page 25 to change the last person talking from Jeff
Bros to Steve Berquist. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
' REVIEW THE LAKE LUCY ROAD TRAIL/PARKING IL/ KING ISSUE.
II Sietsema : At the last City Council meeting this item was discussed and
referred to the Park and Recreation Commission for review. In summary,
what we' re looking to is to allow, there are residents that live along
l Lake Lucy Road that would likes to have parking allowed on Lake Lucy Road
and in a nutshell , there ' s people that use the on street trail that would
like the trail to remain . So our task here tonight is to try to reach a
II compromise so both could be accommodated. In researching what our options
are, we' ve come up with currently this is what we have existing . We have
4 feet off street right-of-way, 6 feet bike lane, a 12 foot traffic lane
and 12 foot traffic lane, a 6 foot bike lane and then another 4 feet of
I right-of-way that ' s not being used at this time. The first option that' s
outlined in your report would be to allow parking on one side of the road ,
on the south side of the road, an 8 foot parking lane, a 12 foot traffic
1 lane, a 12 foot traffic lane and then move the curb in and have an 8 foot
trail within the remaining right-of-way there. That option would take a
minor variance as it ' s a total of 33 feet of traffic and it ' s required to
have 34 feet so there would be a variance of 1 foot needed from MnDot to
Ido that option. The estimated cost on that option would be $75 , 000 . 00.
Schroers: Lori , is that trail still on street or is that an off street?
ISietsema : This would be an 8 foot bituminous trail on top of a curb
separated from the street. It' s separated from the street by a curb so it
I would be right on top of the curb. The second option that we came up
with, now north is on the other side this time so this side is the south
side . Would allow an 8 foot parking lane , a 12 foot traffic lane , another
traffic lane and then 4 feet of boulevard and a 6 foot paved bike path
■
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21, 1989 - Page 2
that would be separated from the street . This would offset the center of
the road by 2 feet so we have to move the center line as well . The
estimated cost on option 2 would be roughly $50 , 000 . 00. Both of these
options, Option 1 and Option 2, it was felt that we could work within the
remaining right-of-way to accommodate a trail without removing their
retaining wall . It would mean that we would have to narrow the trail down
at that spot but we wouldn' t have to remove the oak tree or the maple tree
or the retaining wall that ' s along that street which has been a concern
all along . The third option would provide, would leave the bike lanes as
they are on street and the traffic lanes as they are and provide pull off
parking , off street parking pads. This option would have an estimated
cost of $2, 600. 00 per pad depending on how many would be needed.
Robinson : What ' s the total distance?
Sietsema: Length of Lake Lucy Road?
Robinson : Yes , or are we talking all of Lake Lucy Road or a portion of
it?
Sietsema: We ' d be talking about the full length of Lake Lucy Road . Maybe
Gary, do you have the full length of Lake Lucy Road?
Warren: About 5, 200 feet. About a mile. '
Schroers: I 'm curious as to the size of these pads .
Sietsema : You' ve got 8 foot of off street parking
g par,�i ng with a bituminous curb.
There would be a stripe then and then the bike, the 6 foot bike lane here
and traffic and then the bike lane again here. This is north on this side '
again. So that is the 3 options that staff came up with. Of course the
other two would be to leave the road exactly as it is would be another
option or the other option would be to remove the bike lane and allow
parking . We highlighted these 3 options because they accommodated both.
Staff felt that that was a compromise.
Robinson: It ' s not up to us to determine , one of the alternatives to us
is to do nothing at all? That' s not an alternative to us and we can' t
determine whether there should be off street parking at all . That ' s the
City Council ' s . 1
Sietsema: You do have the option to recommend that those bike lanes be
left as they are and do nothing. That is another option but it did not
acommodate both of the needs that appeared to be along that road and
that ' s why I highlighted these 3 options . Again, we could do nothing or
we could take out bike lanes altogether and not have a trail along Lake
Lucy Road. Those are the other 2 options. Given the amount of discussion
that took place at the City Council level , staff tried to come up with
options that were a compromise that would accommodate of those needs .
That ' s how we came up with these 3 options . '
Boyt: What about the option of when the water system goes in? Putting
the trail in on top of that . Is that one of those?
■
e
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21, 1989 - Page 3
Sietsema : That was option 2. Option 2 would put the off street trail , a
' 6 foot off street trail , this could be bike path or multi-purpose trail on
the north side, north is on this side, on top of the watermain. That
would allow parking on the south side. It ' s confusing because on this one
' the south is on the other side.
Boyt : We might be able to get some funding from another source for this?
Sietsema: I might have Gary answer that. There might be some funds
available through the watermain project .
' Warren: I haven' t had the pleasure of meeting of everybody. I 'm Gary
Warren , City Engineer . This is like jello. You push it one place and it
comes out another place. Even since these alternatives were done. . .
' I know the residents here , Eric Rivkin in particular who he and I have had
discussions , there are several other alternatives that have really fine
tuned some of these that you' re going to want to look at . Basically the
input I think from the Park and Rec Commission, the interest of the
Council , if I can speak for the Council , is to get some discussion going
as to the type of trail that ' s suitable for this area. Either leave it as
it is , if you like it that way, or consider some off street alternatives
' becaues of the other issues that are related to it such as the need for on
street parking which two of the residents in particular are requesting .
That ' s how we' ve kind of gotten into this . With the watermain
construction , the project ' s been awarded and the graters are poised I
should say right now and anxious to start the construction. There are
some construction practicalities that if something were to be done with
these alternatives, the numbers that Lori has quoted here from our report
' are basically almost worse case scenarios if you' re going to go in right
now without any other project going on to construction these improvements .
So , there are some good in cost savings that can happen at this time if
you proceed to move the trail off of Lake Lucy Road . There are
considerations as far as the State is concerned with being a State Aid
Road as to just trimming down the road section. That is also concern to
residents there. That State Aid standards are quoted very often and
interpretted very freely by even the individuals from the State you can
get two difference answers to the same question sometimes . But there is
some possibility of shrinking the road section down to a 28 foot wide road
' section which is the minimum State road for this caliber of collecter and
then using that extra laneage and distributing it 10 foot parking lane, a
6 foot bike path. All the scenarios that seem to come up out of that are
varying widths for the trail , for the parking widths and such so that ' s ,
when you see a lot of those options that ' s where it ' s all kind of coming
from. I guess from my perspective and for your benefit , whatever
alternatives or recommendations come forth from here and however the
Council chooses to handle it , if some alternatives are selected or options
as far as road width are concerned , they would have to be run through the
State for State approval . There may be some reimbursement requested .
' That ' s an issue that they would have to look at as far as if we shrunk the
road down and such. I didn' t mean to get off on a tangent here but we do
have funds that we' ve dedicated for the Lake Lucy Road watermain project .
City Manager and I have only had a chance to talk briefly about it.
■ - -
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21 , 1989 - Page 4
There ' s been some fund closings and some fund transfers to cover some
deficit issues that were in the bonds that financed several of the
projects that we ' re looking to use those funds for this project . But his
acknowledgement to me is that we don ' t really feel comfortable that we
have monies left in that bond issue to fund the trail improvements . So I
think realistically speaking, if there are any modifications here that are
sought for the trail section , that that would be looked at pretty much in
face value. That construction dollars would have to funded through park
revenues for some other sources .
Hasek: A couple quick questions . The options that we've been shown .
Have they gone through the State yet? Have they seen them?
Warren : No .
Hasek : What is your opinion , knowing them as you do. I ' ve been talking
to them a little bit too, but of these options , which do you feel that
they are willing to approve?
Warren : It ' s hard to say. I really think that there ' s some additional '
options that have been generated since these that I think you would want
to , maybe let Mr . Rivkin , if he ' s going to speak to the group here, review
with you first. '
Hasek: Have those been reviewed by the State?
Warren: None of these have been reviewed by the State except to talk with
them over the phone .
Hasek: To me it doesn ' t make sense for us to pick an option. I think our
charge is the trail and I think we ought to direct our comments to the
trail only. We ' ve got a trail in place . We know we don ' t have any money
available to rebuild a new one. I 'm not saying that it' s even our job to
tell them that they can ' t have parking out there. If the City wants to do
it, that ' s a policy decision that the Council ' s going to have to make. If
they decide to do it here , then they' re going to have to think about the
possibility of other people in other areas coming in and asking the same
question so it' s not just this area that they have to consider when they
make the decision. I think we ought to focus on the trail . I think our
job i.s , basically we' ve got a trail in place out there and if they can
come up with an option that gives us a trail that is equally as safe or
safer but no less safe than the one that we ' ve got out there , then there' s
really no reason why we can' t keep a trail on this alignment and
everything else is par . That we shouldn' t go along with it . Personal
opinion.
Robinson : Has it been determined that there will be on street parking? ,
Sietsema: No. But I think that your comments are good . I think that ' s
the type of discussion that the Council wanted to hear as far as our ,
feelings on the trail and if we wanted to spend money on an off street
trail or how we wanted to do it.
■
t ,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21, 1989 - Page 5
Robinson : But I agree with Ed that I don ' t think it ' s our , we should be
dealing with the trail systems . We can ' t determine whether or not there
should or should not be on street parking on Lake Lucy Road .
Boyt: That' s not our area of expertise, determining which areas . . .
Hasek : I think that ' s going to come down to a discussion between ,
basically between the engineering department, the City Council and the
' State . My curiosity is if, I ' ve got some interest in what happens out
there but my curiosity is if the State pulls funding, who pays for not
only the parking that goes out there but the reduction in the road and all
of that. We've got some very specific desires out there for these people
' who want parking . Council ' s going to have a tough job. It ' s not going to
be just a matter of putting a few parking spaces out there because the
other people. . .have the same problem. They' re going to have to decide
what' s . . .appropriate for parking but that' s not our job. Ours is the
trail . We ' ve got a trail in place. I don ' t know how much farther we want
to go with this but I 'd like to make a motion and then we can talk about
it . . .people have some things to say. I 'd like to hear comments related to
the trail , not to the parking .
Mady: I guess I want to hear about the parking because right now the way
' it stands , the two are . . . The choice they have if we don' t go off street
and they allow the parking , is moving the trail .
' Hasek: But that' s fine. That' s a policy decision that the Council ' s
going to have to make and then what they' re going to have to do , if they
change policies, they' re going to have to have public hearings and all
kinds of stuff . There are things in the Zoning Ordinances and the
Comprehensive Plan that specifically say that this is what we want to do
and if they want to change that , then it ' s a can of worms . It ' s not our
job. The Planning Commission and the Council can handle that. We
' shouldn ' t need to do that .
Boyt : We are discussing whether or not it was appropriate on road . . .
That' s Gary' s job and someone elses job. We don' t have the money to take
1 one trail off and put it someplace else . We have a priority list of
trails of the trail system. This is not on our priority list for this
year or next year . I don ' t think we start moving trails around until we
have the system in place first.
Mady: I agree 100% . I think what we need to do though is allow, there
are some, obviously there are some options that have been made that are . . .
We can hear those .
Hasek: No we don' t . The Council can hear those . The point is , I can
come up with a design out there too but it doesn ' t mean anything because
the people that are going to have to make that decision aren ' t those
neighbors , aren ' t us, it ' s going to have to be the Council and the State
' because it ' s a State funded road . If the State decides no , we don ' t want
any other options and it ' s no good , we ' re not going to vote for them and
the funding is going to be back in our hands and then the question is who
pays for it? Is it the neighbors who pay for it becuase they want some
■
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21, 1989 - Page 6
parking or is it the whole city?
Boyt : I guess that is one option that maybe that ' s one of their options ,
is they want to pay for an off street trail and that ' s an option that we
would look at. If the neighbors wanted to pay for an off street trail .
So if they have an option that won' t cost us any money. '
Hasek: I think if we hear comments from the public , I think that ought to
be directed at the trail and not at the parking . To me if the trail , as
long as the trail remains in the alignment , we' ve got something in place
that we have got in our Comprehensive Plan. It' s approved. It' s there
and if Council decides to take it out of there, then that ' s a policy
decision. We' re going to have to look at the whole Comprehensive Plan
which means public hearings and all kinds of stuff .
Robinson: I agree with you but these people that have been here up to the
City Hall , this is their fourth time and if we send them away without
giving them a chance to speak tonight, I don' t think would be fair. See
if they offer to pay for a trail , we might be surprised . I think we' ve
got to give them a chance. ,
Hasek : I 'm just asking that the comments be directed at the trail and not
at the parking because the parking decision isn' t ours . The design of
the road . . . I think it ' s our job, we' ve got a trail in place out there.
It' s designed to a safe standard based upon other standards that have been
used in the past . There ' s no reason why we shouldn ' t approve an alignment
that is equal or better when it comes to. . . than what ' s out there. They
can move it off of the alignment if they want to into a ditch which would
be safer as far as I 'm concerned. I personally don' t think that anybody
is going to be able to tell anyone that putting parking outside of a bike
trail , to have cars cross that trail is going to be safer in anyway and
that ' s not what we' re approving . What we' re saying is we' d like it to be
as safe or safer than what' s out there. I think that' s our job. You can
do what you want but I would like to at least , for myself, I would like to
hear comments related to the trail and not to the parking because we can' t
do anything about the parking . The Park board has no authority whatsoever
and we can' t do anything about the road design. That' s not our job. '
Eric Rivkin : I will try to accommodate you about the trail but I think
you' ll find that it' s inseparable. My name is Eric Rivkin. I live at
6095 Stellar Court. I have some overheads that show different trail
positions and sizes that, as Gary said, they. . .beyond what has been shown
in letters and seen on the overheads here. I want you to see them so the
public can all see them so the engineering office can comment on it . I
have hard copies that I ' ll pass out to you of the overheads . This is just
to summarize our objectives here. First thing that ' s a priority is to
keep the city trail designation. One of the , I guess if we would take a
vote on it today, I don' t know whether or not everybody would favor an off
road trail as opposed to something that ' s sitting on the street right now
but everybody' s feelings about it are more than just emotional . I think
they' re one of safety. That what we have is really a line on the road .
We don ' t really have a trail and I think that is probably a fair
assessment . Making the road narrower , we ' re not going to address that
11
t .
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21 , 1989 - Page 7
IIhere tonight , in front of the Council of course and putting parking back
g �pa g ck
where it ' s needed. Encroachment is also an issue and as far as cost is
I concerned , we of course want to take advantage of the restoration and
include trail safety, aesthetics and parking features all at once. This
is ideal if it can be done . We' re not going to decide it here but at
I least we want to keep our objectives in focus . One of the first options
here is keeping the road the way it is . Curb to curb. Remove the center
lines of the road to accommodate a 10 foot parking stripe along the entire
roadway so you could get a 5 foot greenway or boulevard as Lori calls it
IIon the north side over the watermai.n and a 6 foot paved trail . I guess
we' ve kind of toned down the width of the trail to 6 feet rather than 8
feet. 5 seemed a little too narrow but it' s up for debate and feel 6 foot
li_s adequate . That gives you enough room for having a snow removal or
place for both the trail and the street. When you look at what happens to
the retaining wall , things get a little different here. We' ve got the
I watermai.n on the other side of the road at that point so that you don ' t
have to move the retaining wall once again. You narrow the trail down to
4 or 5 feet, depending on where you meausre, and the feeling is that that
may be a bit uncomfortable or even dangerous because you could run off the
II road if you' re trying to by-pass somebody. You' ve got a stone wall there .
You ' re going to be riding along and you ' re going to scrape your elbows .
You ' re at arms length away from sticking your arm out into a traffic lane
I so that ' s why this isn ' t favorable. The costs here that you see here,
this is probably the least expensive option to put a trail in because the
road is staying the way it is . We' re not moving any curbs. I did get
I some quotations on the phone from Midwest Asphalt. Based on the length of
the road and everything and the price that is covered with some quotations
of bids that we have gotten recently on asphalt, it might cost , a 5 foot
trail at $13 , 433 . 00. A 6 foot trail goes up about $1, 600. 00. The
I sealcoati.ng , restri.pi.ng , replacement of the north side curb and
restoration, that ' s going to be done anyway so that' s kind of a constant
through all of these different options . One of the things that it doesn ' t
I do in accomplishing our objectives is that the road is too big and fast .
We don ' t get a chance to narrow the road . We don ' t have any snow storage
with the wall . You ' ve got a dangerous trail with the wall and the off
center line might be a problem. Gary had mentioned that it ' s possible
I that the State may or may not approve putting the road off center because
of the problems now have shifted . If you do that substantially, I don ' t
know that a 5 foot extension or not but that has to be determined .
II Another option here is the first option that narrows the road to the 20
foot minimum width. I was told by Chuck at MnDot that 20 feet is the
minimum size for a low density collector State Aid road . You ' ve got to
I have barrier curbs. I was told that 10 foot is the minimum for parking .
If you can get 8 foot out of this , it ' s going to be better because you
have less encroachment over on whatever side the parking is on .
I Hasek : Quick question . You said the low density, you ' re talking about
the traffic volume obviously?
IEric Rivkin : Yes .
Hasek : What kind of numbers was he talking about?
I
. 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting I
March 21, 1989 - Page 8
Eric Rivkin : Okay, low density collector , from my understanding is I
anywhere from a 200 to 3 , 000 ADT, average daily travel . Our road measures
about 700 and it was designed for 950 so it ' s extremely low. I
Hasek: Yes , but it also, the ADT' s were for a major collector . It starts
at 500 and goes up to like something too so you follow them both together? II
Eric Rivkin: I got the impression from Chuck that this road qualifies as
a low density collector .
Hasek : Would it qualify for a low density collector also after it was II
connected to TH 41?
Warren : If maybe I could add in. The road , according to the assign 1
ADT. . . falls under the low density collector status . MnDot, this is Mr .
Weiselbaum that we ' re talking with here , when MnDot looks at a State Aid 11 road, they have a basic criteria that qualifies it as a State Aid road .
Then it really is looked at as a high density collector as a minimal . Now
this is where the variance process and all those other things come into
play. They look at specific requests and try to be negotiable here but
their criteria for that low density collector is 200 to 3, 000 ADT. A high II
density collector starts at 1, 000 and goes to 3 , 000 so they do have
overlaps. So the 915 ADT design is getting close to a high density II collector .
Hasek : But it ' s still below?
Warren: It ' s still below that magic 1, 000. I
Hasek : That ' s interesting because Chuck is the same guy that I talked to II so now we' re getting a different story from the same person.
Eric Rivkin : They gave you an equation that they use to figure the design
level ADT. They take the actual . . . By doing this , on this option, the
center line would be moved 4 feet and we could entertain the idea of a
parking bays. For relative costs comparisons, I just picked out of the
air that we might have typically 3 parking bays , 10 foot wide , 200 feet
II
long. That' s very large. I 'm being conservative about it. That doesn ' t
mean that what I,'m proposing is just something that ' s common throughout
different options. We do have a wider encroachment because we ' re adding II from the existing curb, we' re adding 2 feet to the other side where the
curb for the 10 foot parking bay would end. On the north side you have a
comfortable green leg with a paved trail . Again , with the retaining wall , II we still have the same problem of leaving the curb in relatively the same
place of having it too narrow there. The cost of doing this kind of a
project though is a lot , $41, 000. 00. That ' s almost the $50, 000. 00 you had
brought up and it ' s pretty close to your option 2. The disadvantages
again are still you' ve got a dangerous trail in the wall and the trail has
no. . .at that point . That may be a debateable issue that the Council . . .
The third and last option that I 'm going to present, as a modification of
option 6, only we' re keeping the central line where it is . It doesn ' t I
change . . . Both, because this curb is going to get restored anyway,
I didn' t include the cost in any of the options to restore that but the
I
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21, 1989 - Page 9
other curb also moves in and we would have to slide the road 4 feet to the
south to do this . One benefit is on the north side you have a wider green
I strip and the wall , you have a comfortable passageway there with the green
strip that you can put into . . .comfort zone and emergency passes and that
type of thing . It would be about the same additional cost as option 6
' because we ' re just basically shifting, we' ve got the curb in, again we' re
replacing that but we' re adding green area that ' s really shifting black
dirt from one side of the street to the other so it stays about the same.
' From what I understood , we would keep the State Aid funds because these
options meet State standards. If we went off of standards , that we would
be jeopardizing the refund . That was my understanding from Chuck. We
just simply reduce the road by a foot, we don' t get back a foot ' s worth of
' funding . We get back 100% if we were going to go with a variance or
something. They may accept the road design but it wouldn' t be State
fundable anymore and therefore we ' d have to give back the money. That was
' my understanding. Okay so are there any questions?
Boyt: I have a real question about the cost . That we haven ' t been able
to put trails in for these dollar amounts at all . Have we Lori? The
costs for the trails that we' re looking at Carver Beach Road are a lot
higher than this?
Sietsema : Right . We' ve got a lot more intrusions , obstacles that we have
to go around in that area too.
' Warren : You' ve got concrete on Carver Beach Road too .
Boyt: What' s the dollar amount on Laredo? Do you remember ? I can' t
imagine that we can put trails in for $16 , 000 . 00 . That might be just the
bituminous material but is it everything else included?
Eric Rivkin : No , it ' s just laying 4 inches . . .
Boyt : And that ' s where we run into lots and lots of dollars and we
don' t have the dollars to do that .
Eric Rivkin: I 'm familiar with blacktopping . I did a development
in Minnetonka . These figures are. . . If you have a 6 foot wide by 4 inch
compacted to 2 inch bituminous trail , right now I was quoted by Midwest at
' a figure higher than this but I 'm using a figure that ' s as recent bids to
the City of Chanhassen. $4 . 65 a square yard . The person I talked to
there is familiar with Lake Lucy Road . He knows the map . He knows the
, road. I said okay, a watermain just went in. You ' ve got the dirt.
You' ve got it compacted . You ' ve got a clear shot 1 mile long . You' ve
got, no streets are in the way so this is pretty close to realistic. It ' s
in the ballpark. This is laying it down and pressing it in place .
Warren: I might add that we ' ve requested that the Lake Lucy trunk
watermain contractor . . . to take a look at the alternates to give us a cost
' estimate also which we hope to have by the end of his week which won' t
help you tonight but I think the dollars , it ' s very hard to make sure
you' re comparing apples to apples . The dollars , I hope we have a little
better handle on it this week.
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 1
March 21, 1989 - Page 10
Hasek : Is that , you got subgrade in and everything? You ' ve got ag lime
or whatever underneath it?
Eric Rivkin : The cost for putting in the parking bays , we would not be
required to dig up the blacktop to put in these green lanes . Dick Koppe,
consultant to the City, he ' s a consulting engineer , told me that he ' s done
this quite a few times in medians . When you've got to put in a median you
put asphalt or concrete curbing right on the asphalt, put the dirt in, put
the sod in and that' s it. He says it works out pretty well . Sometimes
even better at water retention than taking up blacktop and resurfacing .
So he' s the one that suggested to me to do this and he said also, when you
want to put in extra parking pads , you just simply scrape it up and
there ' s 8 foot blacktop already there. He says that will work out .
That ' s a plus . I was happy to hear that because it reduced the cost , the
cost of digging up the blacktop was around $16, 000. 00 and that was also
from Midwest . They would sawcut the road and take it up and recycle it.
Additional topsoil , reseeding and the topsoil itself is going for
$3, 500. 00 an acre right now. That ' s just over the phone. That ' s the
going rate. It wasn ' t included as part of the bid package or anything so
the totals here , you add 25% for city costs and you get $24, 000. 00.
That' s wrong, I 'm sorry. The total for the road modification, because
we ' re moving in the curb , replacing the curb was very expensive. $3 . 00 a
running foot is the going rate. $50, 600. 00 is the cost. So these are in
the ballpark. Getting back to the parking pads. We ' ve already got 3 foot
blacktop already there so adding, we'd have to add 2 feet to make the 10
foot State required minimum for parking width. If we can get the 8 foot ,
we don ' t have to put this, add in the. . .
Mady: I have a question , I want Eric to answer and Gary. If the Council
were to vote to remove the trail , I 'm hearing that you need 10 feet to
have a parking pad . It ' s an 8 foot width now. Does that mean that this
now still requires a variance from the State? '
Warren : I think it would be something that we would definitely have to
run through the State. If we pulled them off and let them go to a parking
lane, we would have to go to the State no matter whether we called it ,
even if we said it was going to be a 10 foot lane, we would still have to
run it through the State to get the lane approved .
Mady: So it sounds like it' s a variance no matter what we do?
Hasek: You need a variance for 2 reasons . One because it moves the . . .of
the road. The second thing is the perception as you drive down the road .
The reason you don ' t let you move it off center is because when those
lines are covered and you' re out there driving the road when you don ' t
know what ' s going on, you assume that the center line is in the center of f
the road . You move it off the center, I mean who ' s liable at that point?
That ' s the biggest concern they have is the perception of the center line .
Eric Rivkin: That ' s one thing that Chuck mentioned about the 28 foot
width . If the center is in the center and you ' ve got curbs on either
side, it 'd be right down the middle in that option. If we do move the
I , '
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21, 1989 - Page 11
Icenter line and just make a parking lane on the other g tner side, it may or may
not be an issue. However, I think Brian received a letter from the State
I saying that it would be okay to move this line off center so I guess it ' s
in how they interpret and who you talk to. They kind of lose application
of the standards .
1 Hasek : Well Chuck is the one who ' s in charge of that section.
Warren: Chuck is in charge of the State Aid section, that' s correct. So
I as far as what ' s allowable, it really comes from his office. Likewise any
financial considerations . I think what you ' re seeing is kind of calling
up the IRS to 5 different people to get the answer and you get 5 different
I answers because there is some subjective reasoning I think being applied
to these standards which I guess needs to be that way. What the process
is that you basically formulate a proposal that you think meets what you
I want to do and submit it to them and then you get a readout from them at
that time. Right now all they' re doing is guessing .
Hasek : I know we ' ve had the real experience of having to put together a
I design for intersections for various things in the office and send it off
to MnDot and it gets approved until it gets to that end office and all of
a sudden they pull a policy out of the book. Even though it ' s been
I approved through 5 or 6 different departments and department heads, you
get to that last guy and he pulls a policy out to do it, he can shut the
whole thing down . We ' ve had projects that we thought were in line , ready
to go, financing and everything was all set and all of a sudden it gets to
I the last man and boom, it' s done .
Eric Rivkin : I was under the impression that if you make it clean to
I standards, that you wouldn' t need variances and have to go through that
lengthy and painful process . Just kind of like dealing with the IRS . You
just keep things really clean and you ' re not going to get called in for an
' audit so to speak. . . .by somebody in the front office saying , whoops .
That ' s why these were fine tuned . One keeping the roadway at the same
State standard and then one at another State standard with as many State
standard features as we possibly could. So I was basing it on ours and I
I had a conversation with Gary. . .and with the residents . My expectations
tonight are that maybe it would be possible to come up with a
recommendation to have an off street trail of whatever design but of
I course subject to the approval of the State. This is a recommendation
board . I understand it ' s not something that would make a decision so is
there some recommendation format?
IBoyt : If we make that recommendation , we have to pay for that trail . It
comes out of the Park and Rec funds . You understand that right?
IEric Rivkin : Yes .
Boyt: We don' t have the funds .
IHasek : By approving an off street trail , we ' re basically saying we don ' t
want the trail there. We can' t do that . We can ' t do that. That ' s
against our job up here . We ' ve got the trail in place by all of the
I
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21, 1989 - Page 12
policies and objectives and goals and everything that we' ve got to direct _
Y g g t �o d�.r�ct
what we do. It ' s there. The only thing we can do is suggest that if
there ' s a safer way of doing it, that we would approve that but we
certainly can not take the trail off of there and not have the funds to
replace it . That ' s ludicrous .
Boyt : It ' s not fair to the rest of Chanhassen . I don ' t think it is for
us to recommend taking the trail off and replacing it , say 2 years when we
do have the funds when the rest of Chanhassen is waiting for their trails
and they have to wait and we do one trail a year. We don' t have the funds
unless someone pushed for a trail referendum. I think that ' s the only way
that your road could get done before everyone else gets done.
Brian Tichy: My name is Brian Tichy. I live at 1471 Lake Lucy Road . On
March 6th a number of the residents of both Pheasant Hills and people that
live on Lake Lucy Road got together . We were discussing the issues . What
to do with the parking solution and the trail situation. We came up with
3 or 4 I guess proposals . Eric was at the meeting and a number of the
people were at that meeting. There were 4 proposals then that would be a
compromise from both parking and biking on Lake Lucy Road . We understood
the cost situations. Safety was discussed. We felt that on street bike
trails or routes , this is more of a lane on the road , a line on the road
where a bike is not a lane. Any type of bike trail on a road is not
necessarily the safest option. From a cost standpoint , we understand that
the money that is used to build a trail off street comes out of building
permits for new construction . Is that correct?
Hasek: Yes. There are several sources for it . That' s one of them.
Sietsema : It would come out of the trail dedication fund which comes off
of building permits .
Brian Tichy: That ' s the vehicle we felt that would fund an off street
trail. For an option that we have come up with, or options that we' ve
come up with , I have a transparency here I can also show you to give you a
better idea . The option A, some of these are similar to what Eric came up
with and Eric was a part of this committee. The road at this point is 36
feet wide. On Option A we came up with an 8 foot parking width which
again talking to State and MnDot and Chuck Weisenbaum?
Warren : Wichelbaum.
Brian Tichy: At that time he indicated an 8 foot parking width is
consistent with State policy. Is it 10 feet? 6 feet? I don ' t know. It
could be 8 feet . Your guess is as good as mine . There would be a
variance in option A to limit the travel lanes down to 11 feet from 12
feet in both directions and that would be necessary to get a variance from
the State. They provide a 6 foot multi-use bike lane on the north side.
Again , option B you can keep the 12 foot auto lanes and go to a 4 foot
multi-traffic bike lane. Whether it ' s horse back riding or walking .
Whatever . Option C and D, going to what Eric had just spoke about , I
don ' t need to be repetitious here but those are similar to what Eric
expanded on earlier . The cities of Minnetonka and Hopkins at this time ,
I
,
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21, 1989 - Page 13
Ifor a road of this type , a road similar to this would be Baker Road which
is a mile long connecting Minnetonka Blvd. and TH 7. It' s 36 feet wide .
I They provide parking on one side of the road . Two 12 foot auto lanes and
a 6 foot bike route that ' s designated as a bike route. There is no
parking on the 6 foot side of the road . The parking side of the road , let
I me rephrase this , the bike traffic must flow with the traffic on the road .
So on the 6 foot side of the road where there' s no parking , the car
traffic, the car and bike traffic follow on the same path in the same
direction . On the 8 foot side of the road , if there ' s a car parked , the
I bike would avoid the car and then get back on the bike lane. That is what
the cities of Minnetonka and Hopkins do with a similiar situation.
Tonkawood Road is another example of a road that is a high density
I collector road , both of them are , they both qualify for the amount of
traffic. Almost identical situations to Lake Lucy and they came back with
the bike route system through Hopkins . . . Some of the road in spots on
Tonkawood Road and Baker Road will go down to 3 feet depending on curves
Iin the road and the widths of the road . It depends on the type of road
that' s housing the property lines in the area .
I Schroers : On the 8 foot side of the road , does a bicycle have to go out
into the lane of traffic to go around the car and then go back in?
I Brian Tichy: Yes . We felt this was a compromise situation for both
parking and biking. We didn ' t feel that Lake Lucy Road , a number of us
have lived there a number of years and the parking situation previous to
this , very seldom do you see cars parked in the road unless there ' s a
1 special occasion . The amount of parking that will be on the road will not
be like a city street where there are cars lining the road . . .
I Mady: . . .the option of basically just leaving everything as stands ,
trails on both sides. Bike trails on both sides of the road and handling
the parking need as we handle it every other place in the city that has no
I parking in that if you have a special event , just handle it as a special
event and you either contact the Sheriff or contact the City or you do
like you do in some other communities where the residents who have those
needs from time to time are actually issued little cards that allow them
I to do that. Is that not an option that we have at this point without
spending . . .?
I Hasek: There ' s a ton of things that could be an option . I ' ll bet you
I ' ve seen 16 different designs and nobody can comment if the State is
going to go with any one of them. I don ' t understand why we keep looking
I at designs . It doesn ' t, make any sense. It ' s not our job. And I don ' t
mean to be cold . It ' s just , you know, we' re not the body that can do
anything for you with your parking. All we can do is make suggestions on
the trail and I feel very strongly that the trail has to stay in this
I alignment . Whether it ' s on the road or off the road, it makes no
difference to me. As long as it ' s as safe or safer than what ' s out there
because if we don ' t do that, we are going against everything that is our
11 job to do and that is to protect the public health , safety and welfare .
You take a trail off of there and put it in an alignment that ' s less safe
for the public , I would almost bet that the City could be sued at that
point for making that decision . Only for something that ' s at least a
. 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21, 1989 - Page 14
given safeness out there to something that ' s less safe . That ' s a
conscience decision to make something less safe. That ' s our job. As far
as I 'm concerned , you guys can park 50 ,000 cars out there everyday as far
as I 'm concerned. That' s not the problem with me. The problem with me is
that the trail stays in that alignment and we can ' t do anything to approve
that. It' s not a matter of us picking an option out of the 16 or 30 or 50 II
options that come before us .
Brian Tichy: The situation that occurred with the people that live on the
road and were assessed for the construction of the road, was previous to
the reconstruction of the road , we had a crummy blacktop road that was in
need of repair.
Hasek : And it was an rural section too . Not an urban section.
Brian Tichy: That' s right and parking was available. The horseback
riding and other functions of the road were available to all of us . We,
at the time the road was constructed, were not given notice by the Park
and Rec as to no parking being made a project on the road . We have
letters to the effect of that but nothing of a public hearing. Lori may
comment on that . I don' t know if you were involved in that at time but
that' s important to us . The people that live on the road and you' re
paying for the construction of the road . . . '
Hasek: But there were public hearings all along when this thing was
approved over the course of it . How long did it take to get it approved?
Warren: The feasibility study was done in 1985, early 1986. There were
public hearings as a part of that. The section that was shown as a part
of the public hearings did show part of it being a travel bike lane . ,
Brian Tichy: Those were options at the time . I 'm sure before you were
involved here. '
Warren : But I have the documents . . .
Brian Tichy: You' ll be hard pressed to find someone that was a resident
who lived on the road who was informed of the bike lane, parking as a
final option until it had been decided . It ' s a frustrating experience for
us and we' re trying to . . . '
Hasek: Sure. I understand . I 'd be pissed off too .
Brian Tichy: Well , it ' s gotten to that stage. Are there any other . II
questions of me?
Willard Johnson : I 'm going to talk to you as a citizen. I 'm Willard
Johnson. I live on 63rd Street. I have no way, one way or the other on
park trails but we got the road there . We' ve waited for many years . I ' ve
driven it more than most of these people. I ' ve only lived there for 33
years . Why don ' t you just . . . I don ' t understand . I don ' t feel you should
spend the taxpayers money to rebuild the road for just a few people that
live along there . First the City doesn ' t owe the people parking . Half
I
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21, 1989 - Page 15
these people have got 5 acre lots so there ' s no reason they have to have
on street parking. Occasionally, Thanksgiving, parties , whatever but I
t don' t see nothing wrong with keeping the trails the way they are . You can
have his own parking in his own yard or you issue a ticket for them.
Spending $60, 000. 00 of mine and everybody elses is a waste of money.
Scott: My name is Scott (?) . I live at 1206 Lake Lucy Road and that was
a great idea . I definitely stand behind that . Just issue permits for
them to park and stuff and as far as the jogging goes and stuff, I 'm not
crazy about having a track in my front yard anyway. I live real close to
the road and I do have a concern.
' Hasek : Which side? On the north side?
Scott: Yes . I 'm the one with the little picket fence and I really don ' t
' want no track in my front yard . If you can put it on the other side ,
fine. I should have a right to say what I feel . I thought that cured the
whole problem with the parking and the jogging , you ' ll have to handle that
in your other ways. Have more meetings but I have to say for myself I 'm
not interested in you moving in on me. Okay? Thank you.
Judy Schaefer : My name is Judy Schaefer. I live at 6501 Devonshire
'
Drive. As far as use of the trail goes , I use it regularly. I Nave 4
sons . They all use it. They ride bikes . They ride their skateboards on
it . We all use but not during the winter but during the summer , we ' re out
' there every day and I want to make sure that they stay safe. I would hate
to see my kids riding skateboards on 4 feet . That just isn ' t safe .
Mary Cordell : My name is Mary Cordell and I have property along Lake Lucy
' Road . First of all , I 'd like to say something , an interpretation that I
had from the City Council meeting and that was , some of the Council
members were saying that any trail restoration , etc . would come out of the
' City' s water money and that they would be paying for it. One council
member said , instead of spending $60 , 000. 00 for a trail or whatever , I ' d
just as soon put in the next water tower or something to that effect. So
it was my understanding , as a person at the Council meeting , that the
' funds would come out of the water money. The watermain project .
Boyt : I think Gary addressed that earlier . That ' s not the way it ' s going
' to be handled anymore.
Warren : It was thought initially that that could be the case but the fund
' closings that just occurred and the transfers that had to be made, right
now the best guesstimate is that we have enough to put the watermain in
and we don ' t have any surplus that we could allocate at this time .
' Mary Cordell : Okay, but that was my understanding from the meeting .
Also, it seems that the restoration, when they' re digging on the property
which is going to be on our property when they' re on the north side ,
' they' re digging and restoration has to be done. I think if you ' re looking
at putting in an off street trail , this is the time to do it because it ' s
already dug up. The costs have been maybe cut in half by already
accomplishing that portion of it so this night be , taking in the big
{ t a
Park and Rec Commission Meeting 11 March 21 , 1989 - Page 16
picture, this might be the most cost effective time to put an off street
trail in. I have young children. One is 4 and one if 6 and I do not feel
that the current trails are safe at all . You have that traffic on there
right now. It' s not very high but the speed of the cars is high. There
are some somewhat blind corners on the road and there are a lot of young
children in the area. Go up in Pheasant Hills which has now 80 to 90
homesites in Lake Lucy Highlands. There are a lot of young children there
and they are not able to safely use the trails so for me safety is an
issue too . From moving it on street to off street which I will favor . I
just think that being that the digging is going on and the watermain is
going in , that this would be an opportune time to put in an off street
trail and probably at a lesser cost.
Hasek : I called Minnetonka , that ' s where I grew up and I realize that
they have trails . I ' ve been using that trail system, similar to what we
have in place out here for years . In fact most of their trails , in
talking with the planner and public safety administrater or director out
there , are of this type . They are moving to move them off of the
alignment in Minnetonka but not because they. . . I find it curious that we
haven ' t seen any alignments on the south side of the road yet. Is there a
reason why nobody' s taken a look at that? We ' ve had 16 designs and
there ' s not a single one for a trail on the south. Park ' s on the south
but not the trail . ,
Mary Cordell : I think because the watermain is going in on the north
side.
Hasek: Everybody just kind of thought , but I ' ve seen that the watermain
is on the south side on some of them too. Is it bouncy through the
alignment?
Warren : Only where the line-ups don ' t . . . There ' s a 300 foot section where
we' re jacking under to get past that but because our trunk system, we' re
connecting on Galpin and on Powers , the connections are available on the
north side. Plus the topography is a lot tougher on the south side .
Hasek : But that would just mean that the trail would be up and down as
opposed to flat. Has anybody looked at putting it on the south side?
Warren : I think one of the reasons , one of the main reasons why it ' s
being looked at at this time as an off street trail is because of the
economies that could be accomplished as a part of the restoration of the
watermain. That ' s the only reason. If you go to the south side, then
you' re looking at completely starting from scratch on grading and
everything else. The costs would go up considerably.
Schroers : Just as a point of interest , it is policy of this Commission to
have off street trail wherever feasible and practical and it is economics
a lot of times that governs whether or not it is feasible . We are in
favor of off street trails where we can have them. Is there anyone else
that has anything to add?
r
I , .
II Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21, 1989 - Page 17
ITom Steinkamp: Tom Steinkamp. I live at 1771 Pheasant Circle. I was to
the Tichy' s meeting and I 'm seeing all 16 or 18 or whatever designs have
I been developed and I guess I came here tonight hoping that somebody had
$60, 000. 00 in your back pocket to spend but I can see that' s not going to
happen . I guess I ' ve talked to a lot of the people in Pheasant Hills and
II maybe if I can represent them, all of the people that I 've talked to want
to keep the trail system. Want to keep it at least as good as it is . If
there' s some way that you folks could fund a better trail , and I think you
folks would like to do that if you could fund it but I can see here that
I you can ' t. I think the consensus of the neighbors in our development is
that we like the trail . We want the trail . If you can accommodate the
folks in the parking, if the city can accomodate the folks who need
I parking , fine but not at the expense of the trail . We want the trail at
least as good as it is , if not better . Thank you.
Resident : . . .earlier today. There were construction cars on both sides
in the trails today next door to the Tichy' s . You had all you wanted to
do to get two cars through so I guess if they' re talking width , here ' s a
for instance. You ' ve barely got enough room for 2 cars to meet today on
I the center line . I think you ' re talking about making off street parking
right along side . . .hit the road.
IBrian Tichy: That ' s a truck full of bricks by the way.
Resident: I know the difference between a truck and a car . It ' s on the
curb man . I checked . . . The trucks were out to the edge of the curb and
I you couldn ' t get around them unless you run into the shoulder . It was
tight in the middle . I know a truck from a car . I ' ve been in the
business long enough .
Al Harvey: My name ' s Al Harvey and I live at 1430 Lake Lucy Road . We
built in 1965. The 11 acres there. We enjoy the country like it is .
I Trails are a nuisance . People run buy. They throw their pop cans or
papers . They bring their dogs through your yard. Most of them are on a
leash but once in a while our dog isn ' t and it chases their dog . It ' s
kind of, I don ' t want you coming any closer on the north . That ' s
I basically what I 'm saying . Our trees , we planted those trees when we
built in 1965 . They' re getting to be a nice size tree now. You come
closer to them and pretty soon the evergreens have to be cut . They' ve got
I nothing . Until they get sewer in that area , I would like to see the road
left the way it is . Then go ahead and do your final trails . When you
give me sewer , I ' ll give you a trail because I need sewer . My front yard
is full of septic tank and drainfields . If you come any closer , I don' t
I know where I ' ll go . I 'm waiting for construction to get through so I can
handle the situation then. So I would like to see no more added money put
in that area on trails , off street . Use what we ' ve got . But I would like
I to see the signs changed . Rather than a bike trail , put a bike route so
rather than just taking them down completely so they'd be used like the
road was used prior . We had a blacktop road. We went to a gravel road .
I We' ve got dust . We ' ve had a lot of things there in 20 years but now we ' ve
got a good road and acceptable trail but take down the signs so you can
use the road the way you want to use it . If you want to walk, you walk.
If you want to ride your bike, you ride your bike. If you want to park,
II
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21, 1989 - Page 18
you park. I think the signs are very misleading . Thank Y ou .
Mark Williams : I 'm Mark Williams . I live at 1655 Lake Lucy. First a
question for the council . When the trail was initially put in in
conjunction with the new Lake Lucy Road, was any funding from your
commission used for that trail system at that time? '
Sietsema: No .
Mark Williams : The point being that no park board funds have been used
for trails in that area per se? It was basically done kind of as a piggy
back along with the State road . Is that correct?
Sietsema: Yes .
Hasek: The next question you should ask is , did we have a trail fee at
that time?
Sietsema: No .
Mark Williams: I don ' t know where various funds and necessities , things
that I ' ve paid were included in my house have gone but I assume that some
of those have gone towards something that is funded this commission in
some small way. So in that respect, I think that our neighborhood has an
obligation or a right to use some of those funds and come up with a trail
that we consider to be safe for that neighborhood. I definitely peel that
this present trail configuration is not safe at all and at some point in
time , maybe next year or 5 years from now, we ' ll be saying we should have
done something . That trail is going to lead to some sort of accident and
I pray to God it ' s not my kids someday when he ' s old enough to ride his
bike on that road . I ' ve noticed numerous times lately that that road is
being used as a thoroughfare and you find people going 50 mph on that
road . That is not a safe condition to have people going at those speeds
along curves like that with kids riding bikes . Whatever . It is not safe
and that is my primary consideration in this whole thing . Parking is a
minor concern. It can be handled by permits , whatever but safety is the
primary issue here and if we don' t address this here, I think years from
now somebody can look back at this and say, I wish I would have done
something .
Boyt : There is a group called the Public Safety Commission and if you see
cars that are going too fast on a regular basis , you can go into the
Public Safety Commission and talk to them about it . They' re the people
that would recommend a radar check on that road .
Mark Williams : I think that ' s something that everybody should consider .
Mady: To give you some information on spending some money in that area ,
we' ve stated a number of times we do have very limited funds . In that
area , this Commission is looking to put a park real strongly. The
Pheasant Hills area , the land alone is probably going to cost us well over
$50, 000. 00. We ' re not real sure where that money' s going to come from
right now which is too bad .
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21 , 1989 - Page 19
I
Boyt : But that ' s a separate fund from the trail fund .
IMady: Still , because we get maybe a certain amount of money from your
specific neighborhood , you ' re sharing in the , the trail system isn ' t just
I a trail system for your particular neighborhood. It ' s a community wide
thing . People who live outside of your neighborhood will be on that
trail . They' ll be passing through . They' ll be going to the park in
Pheasant Hills . The park in Curry Farms which hopefully will be developed
Iin a couple of years. So it ' s actually a community thing. Trails is a
community item. It ' s not a neighborhood item. The whole community shares
in it. That' s why this commission pushed twice for a trail referendum to
I be passed so we would have the funds to do this . We recognize that the
Lake Lucy Road trail being on the street is not very safe. We know that .
We wouldn ' t have asked for that initially. None of us were here when that
I got put on. It was a compromise at best then. It recognized some of the
concerns of the residents at that point in time and not to encroach
further into their property and I believe that ' s probably how that all
came about . If we had the opportunity to do it differently, we would have
I done it differently. But we have a number of areas that we ' ve been having
residents scream for trails for the past 3 years . So as we have funding
available, those are going . We ' ve gotten the one up by school here just
I approved this past 2 weeks and we ' ve gotten a couple others that have been
shown to be terribly unsafe. There ' s a trail now in existence and those
are the ones that are being addressed . It may not be the best in the
I world but it ' s a heck of a lot better than what we have in some cases
which is basically a 24 foot wide road and nothing .
Schroers: It wouldn ' t be ethical or fair to tear out an existin4 trail
1 and replace it with a new one in the same area before residents in other
parts of the city that don' t have a trail have it .
I Mark Williams : I thought you just stated that trails were a community
type thing as opposed to a neighborhood .
I Boyt : That ' s what we ' re trying to meet the needs of the whole community.
Schroers: That' s exactly what we' re saying .
IMady: If we had more money we'd do it all .
Terry O' Brien: My name is Terry O ' Brien and I live on 1420 Lake Lucy
I Road . I ' ve lived there. 25 years . I think the city trails are a community
thing. I don ' t know where the community was when I paid my assessments
for that road . They were paying much on those trails . Now that it' s
there, I had to pay for it, let ' s not make another one. That ' s probably
I one of the best roads in the State . Now you want to tear it up and screw
it up. Let' s leave it alone. . .We don ' t need more trails off on this
side. Like I say, it ' s a community trail , some of these people are so
I concerned , start pitching in a little bit of money. I ' ll pay more in
assessments this year and last year then I paid for my whole farm. I
think some of these people better think of that when they start saying
they want more trails and more of this and more of that . That ' s all I ' ve
11
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21 , 1989 - Page 20
got to say.
Scott : Back to the safety thing of it all . If the joggers , and I 'm
concerned too about that, down Powers Blvd . right? Down by the church
there . Remember they always had a speed trap there . Everybody does 35
mph there. Why can' t they do the same on Lake Lucy and improve the
safety?
Hasek : Talk to your Public Safety Commission.
Sietsema: The Public Safety Commission meets the third Thursday of the
month .
Hasek : Just for your own information , the reason I started using
Lake Lucy Road when I moved in here 6 years ago since I got a ticket there
and it just drove me nuts . I guess I was going 33 in the 30 at that time
and they were tagging for 31. I found Lake Lucy Road and that ' s the last
time I drove the bridge out of Excelsior . I go Galpin Lake Road to Lake
Lucy so I ' ve driven Lake Lucy Road for 6 years . I know how crummy it used
to be . '
Schroers : Do we have anything else?
Joe Morin : My name is Joe Morin . I 'm building a house at 1441 Lake Lucy
Road. In Eden Prairie where I live there' s a road called Linden Road and
it ' s a road about the same size as Lake Lucy Road and on either side of
the road they have what they call a bike route. It ' s posted on both
sides . There aren ' t any no parking signs and when people have
Thanksgiving or Christmas and stuff they park on the road there and it ' s
still not a problem. That might be the easiest solution to this problem.
Just post it as a bike route. There ' s a couple other points . I don ' t
think it' s really safe for 3 or 4 year old kids to be skatboarding on that
road. I would like to see an off site trail someday but I can understand
the feelings of our neighbors to the north too so it ' s a tough problem. I
have a piece of advice for you though. You talk about things not being
fair. If you don' t do it here, don' t it there, but I think if you want a
trail system in this community, you' re going to have to start forging some
wings to the chain and say hey, let' s put it in whether it' s fair or not .
Otherwise , you' re not going to get anything done .
Schroers: Anything else? We do have some other things on the agenda
tonight so we' re going to have to. . .
Eric Rivkin: I just wanted to briefly state , address the safety issue one
more time. It needs to be said. The Schroeders who own a lot on
Lake Lucy Road next to this gentleman here , put up a for sale sign and I
asked her why they were selling their house. She said, I fear for the
life of my kids on that road . Now we ' re losing people and a lot of people
feel the same way about the safety. I know it ' s a real emotional issue
and I would conjecture that the reason. . . for 14 years . I conjecture that
the reason that people don' t . . .any accidents is because they are good and
sensible parents that don' t send their little children on the roads like
that. The same is true here. People aren ' t going to send their kids out
11
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21 , 1989 - Page 21
Ion this road . They should be on this road . They should have a safe
passage between the park system. Between these links around the
I neighborhood , the community as you want to refer to it now. It ' s a real
issue and it isn' t going to go away. I hope you never have to regret it .
I Boyt : That ' s the reason that a lot of us worked real hard to get a trail
referendum passed. We live in areas with unsafe roads . We have children.
We would like our children to be able to walk to a park or to school
safely and right now they can' t. The citizens of Chanhassen voted down
I the trail referendum so we are trying to piecemeal , put together a trail
system bit by bit. We have some trails going in this year . We have plans
for trails next year . We' re working on it . It ' s high priority to us . We
I are the first group that ever asked for trails . Before we were here they
thought , let the kids walk on the road . This is the country. We' ve
always done it. Why shouldn ' t we always do it. It' s not the safest way.
We know that .
I
Hasek : I think what we ' re left with, the referendum cost us , and I hate
to push this too much but the referendum cost us getting the trails built
I without having to wait and do it piecemeal . If we would have had those
funds , we could have built trails off the road like we really wanted to
do . Now because of the limited funding , we ' re forced to take advantage of
I other ways of getting those trails put in place and on street trails on
projects like this are very real inexpensive. Free to us . We don ' t have
to pay for them but we get our trail . We ' re caught between a rock and a
hard spot here . We ' re nor going to give up on the referendum to put the
I trails in but I think it ' s important enough . . . to be able to swing those 8
people to our side.
IBoyt : Do you know that ' s what it lost by? The trail referendum.
Hasek: I 'd like to make a motion.
ISchroers : Before we get into that , I would just like to thank everyone
for coming in here tonight and sharing your information with us . I guess
we' ve closed down the public sector of it right now and just address any
I concerns that the commission members might have and when we get to that
point, if we have a motion , we ' ll entertain it . Jim, do you have anything
you'd like to add?
IMady: I guess all I want to really state is , I think you ' ll find the
Commission as a whole to a person is wanting to put an off street trail in
there. Taking the striping off the road and allowing parking on both
Isides of that road or one side of that road is not going to improve the
safety in any way, shape or form. There ' s no one here that I think could
say that and keep a straight face. What I want us to do, I hope , is keep
I at least what we have. Not give up something . If the City takes a big
step backwards and allows parking on that road at the expense of removing
the trail , I think we ' ve all lost . Sitting through the council meetings
1 where this item has been discussed, it appears that the parking issue
really isn ' t a great need outside of an occasional party time type of
situation and so to lose what little bit of safety we have because of
IIthat , to me is just outrageous . I just hope when this goes to Council ,
111
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21 , 1989 - Page 22
that they recognize that removing what little bat of safety we have, and
,
we all recognize it as not much , just simply doesn ' t make a lot of sense.
There are ways of handling the situation without , at this point in time at
least, costing a lot of money. Once the sewer goes through and that' s
probably 10 years down the road , the way it sounds , that might be another
opportunity because obviously something' s going to have to be torn up and
maybe then the City will have money. I hope we don ' t have to wait that
long. I sincerely do but until we can get a funds mechansim or source ,
we' ve got situations that are a lot more unsafe in other parts of this
ci.ty. . .real thin now and we need to address those needs also. Those are
my comments .
Robinson : No real comments other than I would like to see it remain the
way it is. Leave the trails the way it is . I don' t like spending any
additional dollars from the Park and Rec Commission ' s standpoint . I 'd
like to leave the trail as is . '
Boyt : I would always like to see off street trails for safety reasons
but I can' t support taking this trail off because we don' t have the funds
to build an off street trail . I think if the neighbors are still very
concerned about the trail safety, that they could look at the option of
assessment for having a trail built.
Schroers : If I said anything I 'd basically just be repeating what ' s '
already been said. I 'm all in favor of off street trails. I ' d like to
see them wherever we can gat them but I don ' t feel that we can justify
spending the money to build an off street trail there . As a matter of
fact , we don' t have the money to build an off street trail there now so I
would like to see the trail stay the same as it is right now. Any trail
is safer than no trail so unless through another way the trail can be made
better or safer , I guess I 'd be in favor of keeping it the way it is . Do
you have a motion Ed?
Hasek: Yes . The recommendation from this board to Council with the
background understanding that we feel we have performed according to the
Comprehensive Plan and the duties that are given to us , we have a trail in
an alignment that' s in the Comprehensive Plan. We have achieved getting
it in place at little or no expense to the community from the park board
funds. I would like to recommend that this board would agree to any
alignment for a trail along Lake Lucy Road which would be at least as safe
as, by design and based upon the public health, safety and welfare as the
one that ' s in place . That would be part A I suppose . Part B, that there ' s
no additional cost to the general community if the trail is realigned .
The third thing would be, that there would be no additional costs to the
funds of the park board for a trail to fit in this realignment .
Schroers : Is there a second to that motion? '
Hasek: Is there anything anyone would like to add?
Boyt : Is that a motion?
Hasek : That ' s a recommendation .
■
1 .
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21, 1989 - Page 23
Robinson : I ' ll second it .
' Schroers : Any additions?
Hasek moved , Schroers seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend to agree to any alignment for a trail along Lake Lucy Road which
would be at least as safe as , by design and based upon the public health ,
U safety and welfare, as the one that ' s in place. That there ' s no
additional cost to the general community if the trail is realigned .
Finally, that there would be no additional costs to the funds of the park
' board for a trail to fit in this realignment . All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
1
I
1
I
I
J
Neighborhood's Collected objectives
g
• Keep the city trail designation, and make it an off-road trail that is
P Y 9
safe to use and join the park system and the neighborhoods. The
roadway with a line in it is an unnacceptable "trail".
• Make the road narrower. The wide road design encourages
higher speed traffic than is posted, and esthetically creates an
overdesigned highway on what is evidenced as a low travelled road
in a purely residential country setting.
• Put adequate parking back where it is needed.
• If encroachment because of the watermain is unavoidable, take
advantage of the restoration and include trail, safety, esthetic and
parking features all at once.
• Fund the improvements through means other than assessments,
namely the watermain funding and/or trail construction funds.
ArroduA z &GO' %Veil 1
P4 metlet,
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
• Option 1 Existing 36' blacktop & curbs 5' Greenstrip
III With existing watermain plan 6' Paved trail
10' Parking 12' Autolane with 12' Autolane with Restored
Meets standards to keep g 1 shoulders 1'shoulders easement
' state aid status
•
........: .... .......
' }:::.:;::�:�C{:+'i�ti)•:}:::.R;;:;:�';.WrR•:+::T\\+.�•.w.a,,\wc„'3«ta;.r\ti\::::+:iS::J+:t;:w:..a.,.•»,.•.Tx:..:.::+'>.;•::<•i::.;)':;..:..+:....•.:),,,,+aa'';i'+.;�:2+xa:$:Ali#:+6cii:<�c,:,::>,}}:S}::>a.:'v.:r;:i>:)R2;:.3•.':'t:>::::.i.::: ...:)•):v+:�i
/ 5' I 1 :•
Exist. Centerline ► ' ' '
Watermaii igh
' Up to 49' Encroachment 1_ _ _
66-74' Easement
I 4'-5' Paved trail
Existing 36' blacktop &curbs Existing
Option 1 at Retaining
retaining wall . Parking 12' Autolane with ! 12' Autolane with Wall
shoulders ! 1'shoulders
G.;.;.v;ny^)}?:?.+,±Y;.,+,±:.\+1;G:i�•5;.,,G•,:!n}}T\+}}:C•?}}?}Y•; I +:nSJ}}:i:.+>:!S,^.,Y..rr,.�,.,+�{
[:: .;;;Y.':tY:A';i,::::::}x:;:4:'0:•;*) S:
„.. ?��:�;<;::;•:SS::z� • •}�.;'••s:..;:r: ',•'�±:;>:ii?•;kiss:;is5i::?;:::::::.:.;:i�::••.:::?;•:: ...... .. .
' .y,;•..1:•:\.:\..+•n\A:A:,T\++\\k1A%%::J.ti\Q:.\�\.:uVA1.Y{+x1,1T1:.\A:....)..:)T.,.}1:{.n::.,+,:i:t.}r.:......'}.)n:....{.:.,.):.::..:{.TY{.:.:.is1:+A\{,isn\'J\tiV}:>.1{.}}:O::t.}::+4:i:{.:{n{.:{{:4n{•:•:{{{6:+'n:Y.:n...:{.:i.:f,.;{:\\::�:{.•::{{{:{{iw{�
Exist. Centerline J-'+
Waterman gek about 41'
North ► Scale: 1/10"=1'
• On-street parking
I • Safe for pedestrians, esp. children, except at wall
• 6' Real trail joining parks and neighborhood
• 5' Greenstrip seperating trail from street, wide enough for snow storage
I • Keep state aid funds
• Least expensive option with a trail
5'trail x 4"at $4.65/sq yd = $ 13,433
IAdd 25%for City Eng.$3358
Grand total $16,791
ISealcoating, restriping, and replacement of north side curb and restoration would be done anyway
Sources: Midwest Asphalt Road is 5200 ft long
I Disadvantages
10 Road is too big and fast -unsafe motorist speeds
No snow storage at wall
Dangerous trail at wall
Off-centerline may be problem
■
1
Option 6 3-10 x 200' blacktop
5'Greenstrip
p Narrowed to 28' p 5'Paved
With ex.watermain plan Parking Bays trail Restored 1
w/greenstrip 12'Autolane 12' easement
Meets standards to keep between Autolane ___
p with 2'shoulder with 2'shoulder
state aid status
. ;:;„ ss;:,•,kx4+}}..;;g•re•��,Y,,fi +,..�xq'k:; :ssse;:{.<,.. .. .'>`+. °t:�l!I,.*11 !�R%. ;}{''�rxsf I
•}
.IK.
:{:'n'r' r�' :.T::4'•:.,r.,n.,x,;r.r...r}.......... n}$'i•4 ?;:!4$�•:
Yv}.. �.}� .{.'•'!.•}}.;is
::.:.v:::•v.;•;4:. +.1 ..v.,.•.+ •:: v}:4:}�}.}}. ...... ::::::•::.:.v.,.,n..•�A �:4++'V�Y v ;i::,i:>.4`i:?'..,. ':'i�•:�}ititi}::�:;
:::�•;:;`•'.;,,.�',�\'?�+'arA.��a,�o3Gw2,\ {,4x,+.4oc„a.�:LY4�taLcawxoc{'{u4:awo»oA''3�Je23Ecci:wiotoi:. .. '�:?.a dao :4cY{. ..:4:u•.�:{;k�boo:• w".v:�'3",SiS:iico�;::; I
j 1 1 4 Exist. Exist.Centerline ��”; Exist. Curb ;
Curb Watermain gh 1
Up to 51' Encroachment '- - - -( I
66-74' Easement f
4'-5' Paved trail
Option 6 3-10'x 200' Exisitng
p Parking Bays Narrowed to 28 blacktop Retaining Wall I
at retaining w/greenstrip i
Wall lbetween 12 Autolane i 12 Autolane
with 2'shoulder j with 2' shoulder
:{4;q•;:+`;x}"�.+x;;cx;x};c;;:}}};;}{•:'.•:}:�>;c,.F".•;;: �- ;v:+.}}}g sm;?.;m:)±r,.;{� :,:;w;.::::,w.}sn.,,.}}v);{?.}}r{;;;.".:3.
;:;r}:::•::::•... ::>:i;•'.;;i::•:{;t:�i�:E�iF.�f �1F�i�:ik:�t:�t:`•ik•f•: .......
Q >:';?:iiv$T:':G:?vr:•{r:ii:•::•'r:i:•:+:'.•:::'r,•:<:::
,•.....::v.,+.•�>..,:4:.V:.•..:4 ..v.4,v.+n0.:rv.,•:.:.v.v.:inv:\\�,•4ik}.�vC•.v...�M+•}7,•R+k�i4.U.•.4.,W+a•'+W�:•:C•i�Jv.\'•':.,v:M:..:6£w..:.�:}:.•F.{:f„'{,oo'YrkoCN:v3.0:ds&{',?.�.•.,du•.•.:1.•..•r.:,�.,:...?{{;::}:.i >:::: ?>::k;:}:•:;;:i:;.•:::d}Ih}:i•.:•?
I 1 1
I I
I Watermain j North No- Scale: 1/10"=1'
1 - - -_I
I
• Parking bays in selected areas
I
• Safer for pedestrians, esp. children, exc. at wall
• 6' Real trail joining parks and neighborhood I
• 5' Greenstrip seperating trail from street, wide enough for snow storage
I
• Narrower road will feel more like a country residential street and naturally slow down traffic
• Additional 8' greenstrip between parking bays on south side. I
• Keep state aid funds
I
5'trail x 4"at$4.65/sq yd =$ 13,433 Disadvantages.
I
Replacing barrier southside curb at$3/ft=$15,600 Dangerous trail at wall
Add BT for 3 park bays 2'x200'ea. 133 sq yd at$2.50/sq yd =$332. Trail at wall has no snow storage
6"Topsoil and Reseed at $3500/acre = $3500
Total for road modification$32,865
I
Add 25%for City Eng.$8216
Grand total$41,081
Sealcoating, restriping, and replacement of north side curb and restoration would be done anyway I
Sources: Midwest Asphalt Road is 5200 ft long 20'per car for parking
Parking bay(s)constructed at City expense with state aid refund not necessary.
I
No need to dig up blacktop,could add parking bays later
■
1
Option 8 3-10' x 200' 8' Greenstrip 6' Paved
1 With ex. watermain plan Parkin Bas Narrowed to 28'blacktop
w/greenstrip i tr it Restored
between 12' Autolane j 12'Autolane easement
• Meets standards to keep with 2'shoulder i with 2'shoulder i
I state aid status
I
..................:.. ......
,
Exist.curb location ' Exist. Centerline I
Watermain
IUp to 55' Encroachment '- - - ''
66-74' Easement
1
3.10'x 200' 3'Greenstrip
1
Option 8 Narrowed to 28'blacktop 6' Paved Exisitng
trail Retaining
p Parking Bays We
at retaining w/greenstrip
Wall between 12' Autolane j 12' Autolane
1 with 2'shoulder j with 2'shoulder
>k'::,.;:::;•:;:,.:;6::::. .::a::::;;is;:::::;•::;::v:'•::::::.w;.:•: :::: : ti::i;;;o;;k.'•::::::c.,:•.o:;::�:... ....... ........................................... .. ..
I I I
1
1 - - -
W-aI termain North Obi- Scale: 1/10".11
I
I
I • Parking bays in selected areas
I • Safe for pedestrians, esp. children, including at wall
• 6' Real trail joining parks and neighborhood, including wall
1 • Wider 8' Greenstrip separating trail from street, added greenstrip at wall for snow
storage and buffer, added 4' more greenstrip to south side p
I • Narrower road feel more like a country residential street and naturally slow down
1 motorists
• Centerline and road crown same
I • Keep state aid funds
1 • Additional cost same as option 6
1
illi f 3l P� 1 L! G.,cizio
ii
LAKE LUCY ROAD DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
ii
ill The geometric standards, or minimum design criteria set by Minnesota
II
Statutes for State Aid Roadways are based on projected average daily traffic
MI (ADT) counts. These are established by taking actual current traffic counts
and assuming a constant annual growth factor for a 20 year period. On Lake
sail Lucy Road counts were taken in 1983 and in 1985, the results of which are shown II
below:
flWESTBOUND EASTBOUND II
1983 145 260 = 40c
1985 156 4. 304 = LOAO I
Difference 11 44 X 1,075- �zo 71 S�
Annual Growth 3.7% 8.1% ci 15
IIAfter reviewing the level of density in the d pment plans for Lake Lucy I
Highlands and future Pheasant Hill Additier<TIC was determined that an annual
iltraffic increase of 3.5% best �re acted the traffic counts that would be I
realized b his segment 6 Chanhassen's MSA system. Therefore, the design ADT
used wa 915, whiich classifies the roadway as a low density, collector
roadway. e accompanying geometric design standards are as follows: 03�Jill
Kv
II URBAN SECTION ■
(Curb) RURAL SECTION Shoulders / 3M
_--------AO'
I
p OO
Minimum Design Speed 30 MPH 40 MPH ,
Minimum Width 44 (1) Feet - 2 Traffic 36 Feet - 12 Foot
aLanes and Parallel Traffic Lanes with II Parking 6' Shoulders
Recovery Area 2 Feet 25 Feet
11 (obstruction free zone I
measured from edge of
pavement)
IIIMaximum slopes in - 4:1 I
Recovery Area
Pavement Strength 9 Ton 7 Ton - Ultimate I
9 Ton
al Minimum Right-of Way 60 Feet 74 Feet
Width II
(1) This width can be reduced if the City Council passes resolutions banning
parking on the roadway. The recommended design is 36' . II
11 Arrftrau kjt # 3 li
...
11
, Mo n4,(A (4111'0'1
. , If\A
I I ' If VIC.44 Olz LC)Jet\ CPPIAlt .., ( _IA/1-t&I/t tO)A4
• (Z, : 1 itL____L,4ilp a.Q__( A,oviL{,v„(A,66
lck.iA..z,L,_____uyrr , I , ; citAAA t_ ,t_kr euutus a
I „ L, ..
, . • . , t__ _ . AI I• t A..I ' . ___F4)*CU.
I
I -Ilk J._ (LC-0 rv\/■v■LAA., acir _____Itzu-roLA) `eLl4._ rOPS/A)9 i
liki-CZATLYat )__trul. L (
I— a,,_,:„,,p ____4_c,„ - Of 4t-i. Orn 2 11_ 4. _AS-- f(ZZAA-
i- (A)0-1A/LCLA-4—A-te/Lc-4- , 115 NA 44,1,1nediz_t 1 Goovt,/e(
11____ _4-(A/el o r 4- ‘so . .--;1:_y\. ____
1 al It _0_,5:06Aki p7__, -?4,Z AQ/: id,_ ri, Lyr F4
.,
I
I
1
- -
1\
A l c-
111----- 13-ot S C JJZ
I LI 1,007,-- --D uck bl
. 1
,,-...,•
I
,.,.1.:.c.-
111— _------ _.„.. ,:.. !...)
_________._________ ------ MAR 1 6 1989 ____ . _.
I------------ - crry.OF CHANHAbsEN
I
______________
ArTIN-C14- 7t tit If
_
I
A
I
r
Road Section Comparisons North I
66.74'Easement
Existing, 36'Blacktop 8 to 10' I
Watermain 6'Bike , 12'Autoiane 12'Autolane 6'Bike ' nt;
Plan a
I
Watermltn 1
_ I
Up to 49'Encroachment , •__1
Option 1 Existing 36'blacktop Greenstrfp I
Paved traU
With existing 8.ping 12'Autolane 12'Autolane _
watermain plan I
\a tsv M �'•; �.-. YY ,,,..'',;,',,,,-•J•^t�,x .e - x •i l
'N , zx»"L �: aa� x .;c �M, F i,., ¢ g- ^z x -- {;4.:7,..,:...,,,,,,NM: \ :s'R
I I
1 I
1 1
Up to 49'Encroachment ;_ __1
I
Option 2 Leave 32'blacktop Greenstrip
S r
With watermain Paved trail
nv"d Q'to co..fh I8,v...,�;.. I 12'Autolane I 12'Autolane I L , 1
I
h_t I Leave ty alone J"..L, property alone
DS O`,'-4,, ,may, >w ',>',."...^:.,u,,,, 3 9 \�` <'"C� .,• Coll°1 tgi'v I Exist. 1 1
Curb 1 1
Up to 39'Encroachment 1__ _ 1
I
(37'with 11'autolane variance)
Greenstrip 1) I
Option 3 Leave 24'Blacktop paved trait
With 'to air 8'Parking 12'Autolane I 12'Autoiane
moved d 8 8'to south Greenstrip Leave existing
=.,
. .property alone 1
-..,-.•, , ms's ,ysy"i�°P3 � .',--P u r �C e t � s""�. t
Move curb and 1 1
change to � 1 I
surmountable Up to 39'Encroachment is_0__i
(37'with 11'autolane variance)
1
Existing 36'blacktop
Option 4 12'Autolane I
With existing 8'Parking 17 Autolane
watermain and No Trail
� � ,��\\�\\yyam�\\\\
s>. ' a i4 a..r ry?3�\.e rir"' ',:,44,,,„-, z a dy" cRr { '.;7;%f I•
' ,,.
1 1
Up to 49'Encroachment ;_0_ '
. ,
1 0\141Tq Minnesota
' /° wrct. - to Department of Transportation
n District 5
cg. 2055 No. Lilac Drive
.op-n:0 Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
March 3, 1989
(612)593- 8408
Ms . Nancy L. Tichy -
1471 Lake Lucy Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
' RE : Lake Lucy Road
Dear Ms . Tichy:
You requested the possible configurations required to have
both parking and a bike path on Lake Lucy Road. There are
three alternatives :
' 1 . Leave the roadway at 36 ft. as it presently is, allow
parking on one side only, and make an independent bike
path. The removal of the present striping, the
restriping, and the construction of the independent
bike path would be at the City' s expense.
' 2 . Widen to 44 ft. This would allow parking on both sides
of the street and make an independent bike path. The
removal of the present curb and gutter and the
' _ construction of the new curb and gutter would be at the
- City' s expense. State Aid could participate in the
required additional surfacing. An independent bike
' path behind the curbs could then be constructed at the
City' s expense .
- 3. Leave as a 36 ft. street with no parking and the bike
lanes as they presently are with off-street parking, at
the City' s expense.
Enclosed is a chart indicating the required widths for a
II street on a State Aid system. Lake Lucy Road would be
considered a two-lane collector, high density. Your City
Engineer, I am sure, will help you with any questions you
' may have about this chart . However, if there are questions
he can not answer, I will be happy to help you . •
'Alternate 1 leads to confusion for a driver. I would hope
that if the City Council chose Alternate No. 1, that they
would drive some of these roads that are striped accordingly
I before they make their decision.
CITY OF C}MNNASSE
GREZ1 D
'
111AR 06 1989
' An Equal Opportunity Employer ENGINEERING DEPT.
A
Ms . Nancy Tichy 1
March `3, 1989
Page 2
I hope I have answered your questions . 1
Sincerely,
e_ �� -
C. E. Weichselbaum
District State Aid Engineer 1
1
1
1
i
••
•
. 1
AsYI _r 1
. Y
1
1
1
1
1 •
I
I8820.9910 STATE-AID OPERATIONS _
I (3) Subject to terrain. r
(4) Minimum widths listed apply, except that lesser widths may be approved
upon justification when the bridge length exceeds 200'. HS-20 loading required.
*Initial roadbed width must be adequate to provide a finished roadbed
Iwidth for nine-ton design.
Statutory Authority: MS s 161.082; 161.083; 162.02; 162.09; 162.155; Laws
1983 c 17
IHistory: 8 SR 2146
8820.9911 SUBURBAN GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS.
I (I 3 - •) (2)
New and Bridges to Remain I
Structural Rehabilitated
Projected Lane Shoulder Recovery Design Design Bridges Width Width Structural - - .
ADT Width Width Inslope Area Speed Strength Curb-Curb Curb-Curb Capacity `
I Less Than
1000 12' 6' 4:1 20' 40 9-Ton 36' 28' H•IS
1000&Over 12' 8' 4:1 20' 40
9-Ton 40' 30' H-15
I This standard applies only when the project is located in an area where the
following conditions exist:
1. a platted area or an area in a detailed development process; or
I 2. physical restraints are present which prevent reasonable application of
the rural design standards.
(1) Applies to slope within recovery area only.
I (2) Obstacle-free area (measured from edge of traffic lane). Culverts with less
than 27-inch vertical height allowed without protection in recovery area.
(3) Minimum widths listed apply, except that lesser widths may be approved-'
upon justification when the bridge length exceeds 200'. HS-20 loading required.
IStatutory Authority: MS s 161.082; 161.083; 162.02; 162.09; 162.155; Laws ;
1983 c 17
History: 8 SR 2146
8820.9912 URBAN STATE-AID STREETS, 30 MPH DESIGN SPEED.
TOTAL WIDTH IN FEET •
FACE TO FACE OF OUTER CURBS
Undivided,with With 4'Median
• No.of Undivided,No With Median,No Parking Lanes Parallel Parking Lanes and Two Parallel
I Through Lanes Density Parking Lanes 4'Median 14'Median One Side Both Sides Parking Lanes
2 Low 28 34 40
I (Collector) High 32 36 44
4 Low 44 50 60 56 64 70
(Collector) High 50 54 64 60 68 74
2
I (Aiterial) Low 36 38 48
4 Low 50 54 64 60 68 74
(Arterial) High 52 58 68 62 72 80
6
I (Arterial) High 76 82 92 86 96 104
INOTE: All urban design roadways must be a minimum nine-ton structural
design. New and rehabilitated bridges must have a curb to curb width equal to
the required street width. 1-IS-20 loading required.
I 22