Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP February 27, 1997 o (j CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW, . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 Special Joint City Council and Park and Recreation Commission Meeting February 27, t 997 Oak View Middle School 7:00 P.M. I. Call to Order 2. Coon Creek Bikeway/Walkway Trail Discussion/95-24 3. Approve Allocation Funding Source/95-24/Coon Creek Bikeway/Walkway Trail 4. Discuss Policy/Trails & Sidewalks/New Development 5. Bunker Lake Boulevard Trail Update/97-14/Discussion 6. Discuss Irrigation Well/96-9/Sunshine Park 7. 8. Adjournment ,~ . , '.JeITY OF ANDOVER "-/ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 27 1997 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Todd J. Haas~ Scott Erickson, ITEM NO. Park Coordinator Engineering 2. Coon Creek BikewaylWalkway Trail Discussion/95-24 The City Council at the request of the Park and Recreation Commission is requested to discuss the proposed Coon Creek BikewaylWalkway Trail, Project 95-24, As you recall, an informational meeting was held on February 6, 1997 with Scott Erickson, City Engineer and myself (a majority of the Park and Recreation Commission members were there also) to introduce the proposed project to the 74 adjacent properties, Approximately 12-14 (which is about 16%) of these properties were represented at the meeting, A majority of these property owners who attended the meeting were either not in favor of the trail or preferred a different alignment. There were a few present who were in favor as proposed. Staff has reviewed a different alignment at the request of the residents closer to Coon Creek. The option would increase the project by another $100,000 from the estimated $250,000. The additional cost would be associated with soil corrections that would need to be made, Irregardless of cost, this area is identified as wetland and could not be utilized for the location of the pathway, History The existing park (known as Coon Creek Park) located between Hanson Boulevard and Burlington Northern Railroad was dedicated as part of the developments of Jonathon Woods, Foxberry Farms, Old Colony Estates, Creekview Crossing and Weybridge 2nd Addition (all of these located on the north side of Coon Creek) and Hills of Bunker Lake (located on the south side of Coon Creek), The dedication was made based on past and current comprehensive plans, The Commission when reviewing the comp plan determined that this location would be an ideal route for a trail for both summer and winter recreational opportunities, These determinations and recommendations were approved for all plats by the City Council. Now that all the land is available since 1995, the Commission felt it was appropriate to begin determining the proposed alignment and the design of the project. To date, the survey work is completed and the proposed horizontal alignment has been established which is basically located over the existing trunk sanitary sewer system, Keep in mind that the City has been notified that up to $50,000 from the DNR is available to help build the trail. City staff did send another letter out to the effected adjacent property owners regarding this special meeting between the City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission, We have enclosed 3 letters that mayor may not have been already given to the City Council regarding the trail. -Letter A is from Gary & Glennice Shay -Letter B is from Robert Novak -Letter C is from Greg Larson & Patty Lindstrom ,~ , \ Also enclosed is other infv"nation that may be helpful In yo'u/ discussion regarding the proposed trail. -Item A - Andover Public Works Parks Maintenance Guidelines and Policies of trailways and bikeways -Item B - Trails plan (from Chapter 8) from the most current comprehensive plan. -Item C - Mission Statement adopted by the City Council in regards to planning and developing for walkways, trails and right-of-way, -Item D - Proposed trail route. -Item E - Information from the City of Mpls regarding their trail program. City staff has also contacted Jane Pemble, Traffic Engineer at Anoka County Highway Department regarding the crossing at Bunker Lake Boulevard just to the east of the railroad tracks, Jane has indicated that appropriate advanced warning signing would be installed such as for example a "Trail Crossing" signs. Jane also has indicated that there are 2 other trails crossing in Anoka County (one in Blaine, and one in Lino Lakes) and to date she does not recall any accidents occurring at either crossing. It is not uncommon to have these types of crossings and they do occur throughout the metro area, If the City Councilor any of the Park and Recreation Commission have any questions or need additional information at all, feel free to contact Scott Erickson, City Engineer or myself prior to the meeting, ~) UTTEP. It ~.... . -. -Y""T" : '"........ r-~ l' Y'r.'. .. >:7 ,-,::'1:. ~._,.;~' . 1 .J .:"__~, February 4, 1997 H:1:l CITY O}- "::. 199"; City Park Board and Staff Andover City Hall -.... ~,;-.tj\.~ i :::'I~ Since I have another obligation the same night as your February 6th Park Board meeting, enclosed are our comments for your consideration on the hearing for the proposed trail system in Andover. 1. From the revised trail marked on your mailed out copy, it appears there are two creek crossings planned near the railroad bridge. If two bridges are indeed planned, one crossing could be eliminated if the trail along the tracks is placed on the west side rather than the east side. However, this approach has disadvantages in the Bunker Lake Blvd area. Otherwise, run the trail shown on the southside of creek by passing under the railroad bridge, then connecting with the Bunker Lake Park path before it crosses the creek. 2. In terms of the bridge construction type, manufacturers of bridge frames often lobby to address specifications that match their format or capabilities, Spending thousands of dollars unnecessarily is usually the result of over specified requirements, I urge the Park Board and Staff to check out the bridges in the Coon Rapids park off Hanson Blvd just north of North dale Blvd; especially the bridge over the creek which is located at the back of the park. However, this time of year you may not be able to see the full aspects of those bridges. First impressions are that these bridges provide a whole lot of quality and character for potentially a lot less money. 3. It's unfortunate that the once-planned trail along the creek by the landfill was redirected along Hanson Blvd with the exit at Andover Blvd. The common good of the community is not being served with this change, for the following two reasons: A. The creek east of Hanson provides a scenic, wilderness-like pathway west to reach future sections in the city versus the proposed path along Hanson Blvd. While respecting the view of those residents in that vacated area, by contrast the residents along 141st Lane NW who support the trail system are less than one-fourth the distance to the proposed trail as those in the now vacated trail area. Now, in order to keep the trail system continuous, the trail will have to be constructed in their front yards (on Andover Blvd) to reach Crosstown Blvd. Since properties are not being assessed for this trail system, the common good of the city should be served with a trail heading west of Hanson, either on the northside or southside of the creek. B. Second, the revised trail exit/entrance at Andover and Hanson Blvds is the most hazardous point on the proposed trail. Even now, pedestrians or cyclists cannot and should not use Andover Blvd (east) as there are no shoulders to accommodate safe passage, With the exit point of the trail system at Andover Blvd, literally hundreds of people will put themselves at risk by having to use a shoulderless road east on Andover Blvd to reach the adjoining neighborhoods, Thank you for this opportunity to share our views about this worthy project. Without such a system, one realizes just how far Andover lags other planned communities in the metro. For that reason, we urge the Park Board and Staff to pursue a system that will serve the common good of the city. Through your efforts, this comprehensive system, when completed, could be one of the most profound and scenic trail systems around, Gary and Glennice Shay Andover, MN 55304 / :~J , J.$tr&",2. 8 U February 21, 1997 Mayor Jack McKelvey City of Andover . .. ~- h ~ /. RE: . Special Joint Council and Park Commission meeting Proposed Coon Creek Bikeway/Walkway Trail Project City of Andover letter to residents dated February 19, 1997. ;' The following questions pertaining to the proposed trail project were presented at the February 6, 1997 meeting with incomplete responses: 1. When residents purchased their homes adjacent the city park property, the proposed trail was to continue west across Hanson Boulevard along Coon Creek. That route was viewed as acc~ptable, and perhaps to many ofus purchasers, was one of the reasons we settled in the area. The present proposal changes historical plans by not crossing Hanson Boulevard but rather turning north on the east side of Hanson and continuing north to Andover Boulevard. For those of us who purchased property based on the historical proposal, this is not only a surprise, but also a change which seems predicated on available funds rather than on prudent judgment. We prefer the trail to follow the historical proposal- the proposal which existed when we purchased our homes and which continues to be the best route based on the desire for a scenic natural path away from all the traffic along Hanson Boulevard. 2. Those of us whose property is adjacent the park - where the trail will be built - are not satisfied with the responses at the February 6th meeting ccr.:::eming trail carc, maintenance, security and safety. These are important issues to us which seemed to be unimportant to the Parks Commission Representatives. Some examples: a) Today, ordinance enforcement applicable to snowmobiles, motorized bikes, and A TV's in the proposed area is poor. Improving the trail will only make ordinance violations increase and without increased law enforcement, the adjacent residents see only worse living conditions. b) We are concerned about children safety at the intersections of the trail with Bunker and Hanson Boulevards (vehicular) and with bridges over Coon Creek (water). We residents feel more is needed than just signs and bridge railings, but what? :) . ) '-./ c) When we asked the February 6th Parks Representative about care and maintenance, we were told that "we can keep the area adjacent our property clean oqrselves." This is unacceptable! It's outrageous! How will the Parks Commission keep the trail clean? How often? When it's not maintained, who do we call? 3. With the addition of an improved trail, many more people will find their way into our neighborhood. For those ofus adjacent the trail, they will finl} their way into our backyards. Our land will be more susceptible to vandalism and our homes susceptible to burglary, theft, and perhaps other criminal activity. The .City has no police force - we rely on County authorities for law enforcement. Has the council made quality, thoughtful, decisions relating to issues concerning our protection. We are concerned. I am pleased that the Parks Commission is moving forward with the project. I am a bike enthusiast and will use the trail, but we need to feel comfortable that concerns listed (above) have been resolved in a manner acceptable to Andover residents. S~IY YO"", I (, RobertN. Nowak, Sr. 1306 NW 141st Lane Andover, MN 55304 Lot 7 - Block 6 Creek View Crossing cc: Todd J. Haas ~~) u ,s--z.Cf tetlu- C To: The Mayor and City Council Members, City of Andover From: Greg Larson and Patty Lindstrom, Home Owners and residents adjacent to the north of the Nature area. 1294 141st Lane NW, Andover, MN Subject: Proposed Paved Path through City Nature Park located East of Hanson Boulevard. Present Usage: Non-Motorized - Horse and Walking Trail- Nature Present Conditions: Gravel Bed Horse and Walking Trail. Pickar Fields, creek, trees and a whole lot of them darn moles. Various wildlife, geese, ducks, mink, fox, deer, raccoon, eagles, owls, weasel, bluebirds, cardinals, Orioles and a wide variety of other song birds. Dear Mayor and Council Members, By \yay of this letter it is our wish to bring to your attention our concerns and views regarding this proposed path through the Nature Park and its potential and possible effects it may produce for the residents and City of Andover as a whole. Patty and I are the sole authors of this letter. We do not want this to be taken in any way as representing anyone else other than ourselves. For all that follows, the words us or we refers to Patty and I solely. We wish to address the fairness of the proposed path. Its location, its cost, present and future, who will benefit, and who stands to loose. Is the present plan fair to the adjacent home owners, all other residents, of and the City of Andover? To ensure fairness to all parties, are we up to speed (present day) usage of these paved park paths, or, are we following a plan conceived and developed years ago which could not have possibly conceived the changes occurring in the next 8 years. Safety; we believe should be a major consideration in any plans of the City of Andover considers. We also believe the City of Andover is safety conscious and desires to incorporate this aspect into their considerations. We believe the publicized intent for this paved path is to provide safety, however, it leaves us to wonder if this is true. Or were the developers and or promoters of tllls path simply short sighted. We believe that safety has not been accomplished ifby providing a safety item it creates several other un-safe conditions. 1 .". .~_.',....,-' , ....'..-to ~J ,,~ Is this project financially feasible at this time? We question this and where the money is coming from for the City's portion of the cost. If the City has appropriate money available for this project, perhaps alternate plans could be adopted that would save cost by making use of existing facilities already paid for and provide a greater measure of safety. We are left to wonder if crime prevention is an aspect of safety that has been included in this updated, expanded version of the paved path or is that being left up to "Everyone Fend for Themselves"? When this subject was brought up at the informational meeting, it was suggested that this along with clean-up could become a neighborhood project. If the neighborhood is unable or unwilling to do this, will this then become the responsibility of the City or another tax burden for the residents. Is the City prepared for this or will this area become like so many other communities, "residents stay away." First of all lets start with the premiss that all adjacent landowners were aware or should have been made aware by their builders that at some point and time a nature tail was going to be built in this nature area. Although it may sound harsh, we agree with the City Engineer, Scott Erickson, that if we weren't told this by our builder, we should take this matter up with them and not the City. We believe it would be unfair to all residents of Andover if this area were to be left in its present condition. It could be developed into a beautiful area yet still retaining its original intended use that all residents could enjoy and be proud of. It would be unfair to all residents of the City if it were left to become an accepted extension to the adjacent land owners back yards. Gary Gorham was the builder of our home. He and Tony Emerich were the developers of the property our home is built on. When we purchased our home and property from Gorham Builders, Gary thoroughly explained to us that the nature area would some day have a path running through it East to West. It would include access from the neighborhoods to the North and South of the area. This was clearly shown on the development plans in his office. What he couldn't tell us was the exact location, North and South, where it would be built. We paid a premium price for our lot to have our home located overlooking the nature park. We considered it a real benefit and a personal enjoyment to be close to nature. For the life of me, I couldn't remember any talk or information about this path going anywhere specific or being connected to anything else. It was shown and described as a nature path thorough a nature park. I called Gary to question him regarding this. He informed me that previously to and in 1992 when we purchased our property this expansion was not in the plan. Connecting this to future paths and Bunker Hills Park is a recent expansion of the plans that has come about in the last couple of years. We feel it is unfair to us too have the original plans greatly expanded without first contacting us for our input. Especially when it could have a drastic affect on the value of and the very reason we purchased this property. We believe fairness here can only be achieved by staying with the original plan and leaving this a Community Nature Park. 2 :. ) (~ We question the fairness of the proposed location of the path. At present there is a non motorized gravel bed, horse and walking trail running East and West along the northern boundary of the area. Located directly under this is the City of Andovers' main water and sewer lines. If the paved path is placed here as proposed, is it fair to us (living on the northside) that all of our privacy is lost while property to the south retains all of their present privacy? If their is a negative or positive affect on property values is it fair that only one side shares, or is burdened with the brunt of this? We think not. Property owners on both sides should share in this equally. To achieve fairness here the path, if or when it is built, should be placed in the middle of the area nmning East and West placing the path down the middle. also creates a fair solution to the loss of privacy. A buffer zone is created on both sides of the path. These areas could be partially used to plant pine trees. These would provide a needed boost to the nature aspect of the area, enhance the visual value of the landscape and in time replace some of the lost privacy to the adjacent properties. Two weeks ago we received a notice for an informational meeting regarding this proposed path. Approximately 25 citizens took the time to attend this meeting. Granted they were all home owners whose property borders with the nature area. Of the people attending, one person was in favor of the path. One person said he would use it if it were put in but would rather not have it at the edge of his back yard. The balance were all strongly against it. The point of this is that not one other person in favor or opposing the proposed path found it important enough to attend the meeting. This leads me to wonder how many people from our community would actually use this paved path. Are we building it for the residents and taxpayers of Andover or for people outside of our community (transients)? If it is for the latter, is it fair to the residents of Andover to use this land and spend money for this purpose? We think not. At this meeting we were expressing our concerns, asking for information, trying to develop solutions or alternatives to the present proposed path. It seemed we hit a dead end on every issue. After direct questioning, it was fmally revealed to us that this was far past the proposed stage. Construction was scheduled to begin within two months, May 1997 at the latest. The topics picked up some intensity at this point. We tried restating our concerns and were met by the response, "Tough' from Tom Anderson, I believe to be from the City's Parks Commission. The City Engineer, Scott Erickson, and the balance of the people from the Parks and Recreation supported their position on how much work has already gone into this plan and that it was going ahead as scheduled. We have all had to face disappointment when our plans have fallen through or we encounter opposition to them. Is this fair or unfair, I don't know. The question I didn't ask though is if all of them are volunteers, or is this the work they are being paid to do? I was amiss in this. 3 :- ) (J However, we do feel it is unfair of our City employees to present something as one thing only to find it is something entirely different. We feel it is unfair that we had to repeatedly ask the same and similar questions to fmally receive the facts. Is there some reason to hide or mask information? We feel it was totally unfair to change and expand the original plan and make preparations to proceed without fIrst contacting the parties who would be directly affected by these changes. We feel it is unfair to be verbally discounted, negated and dismissed by public officials. There is still a question as to motorized traffic on this proposed trail. The present gravel bed horse trail is marked NON-MOTORIZED. We have experienced many problems with A TV's and motor cycles using this area during the summer. This past winter has been snowmobiles. Two members of the 8no-Dragons visited our next door neighbors after they had called to register a complaint. As talk got around to the new proposed paved path, these members stated that if they paid the additional cost to bring the pavement up to a class 5, snowmobiles would be able to use the trail during the winter months. They stated the source of this agreement to be the DNR. The City Engineer and park's people state this is not so, that i~ would be a non motorized trail. I fmd it hard to imagine that this snowmobile club dreamed this up. Has anyone closely scrutinized the DNR's agreement and conditions of their $50,000.00 grant for this project. We would consider it totally unfair if this trail were made seasonal motorized now or at any future date. The City Engineer stated the reason for tills path is to create a safe corridor for the children of Andover to reach areas like Bunker Hills Park and Andover's Recreation Center. We question this, no provisions have been made to get the children safely across Bunker Hills and Hanson Boulevard, such as a tunnel under the road or a bridge over these roads. They did state they would be installing traffic controls, which after much direct questioning turned out to be small stop signs on the ends of these trails where they cross these busy roads. I know how well children pay attention to these signs. Hanson Boulevard has four way stop signs which will help. However Bunker Lake Boulevard does not. In fact it is a high speed thoroughfare. The west bound traffic approach comes out of a hill and a blind curve. Majestic Oaks Golf Course, which is located on a straight stretch, built a tunnel under Bunker Lake Boulevard. This is for adults driving golf carts to the course located south of Bunker Lake Boulevard. Yet we the City of Andover fmd it acceptable to encourage our children to cross this high speed, busy road without stopping traffic. Even if we put traffic lights at this crossing, would you want your children taking this risk? We certainly would not. If someone is injured or killed at this crossing with todays lawsuits, would the City of Andover be considered partly responsible and be liable for damages? If we are truly considering tile safety of our children, we would not consider a tunnel as a safe alternative. 4 :_J o They are dark and a predator could use this condition to their advantage. I would think a fenced-in bridge would be the safest solution. Coon Creek which runs through the bottom, south side of the nature area, is not what we would think to be termed, children safe. The banks are loose, crumbling sand and are extremely steep. The water is often high and fast moving. When a dog goes into it, they are completely worn out from their efforts getting back out of it. Most children in the neighborhood are told to stay out of this area due to these conditions. However with this paved path we are now encouraging these children and children who are not aware of these conditions to go into this area. In light of all the problems, other communities are experiencing with Roller Bladers, Skate Boarders, high speed bikers and pedestrians tying to use the same path, are we are making a wise safe decision putting in a paved path? Most traffic using the paved path will be fast such as roller blades. Today mountain bikes travel at speeds in excess of 40 mph. These are certainly not conducive to pedestrians. In fact it may fall under the heading of dangerous to walk on these paths. Last smnmer the news was full of other communities experiencing these very same problems. Must our City blunder into the same situation. What will be the future cost be ifwe have to build a second path to provide fair access for all the varied uses? If the path absolutely has to be paved, would it not be better to wait to see how other communities will resolve this dilemma before we blunder into the same situation? The financial portion is the reason we were given to our question why the big push is on to get this project going, were led to understand a time window closes on the $50,000.00 grant by the DNR. We have been told that by using the existing horse trail located on the north side of the nature area the project will cost $250,000.00. We were also told it had not yet been determined how much of the remaining balance, $200,000.00 the City of Andover would be responsible for and how much the County Parks Board would pay. I'm guessing that if the trail is not connected to Bunker Hills Park and or other Anoka County Trails, the County would not contribute or world contribute less. Beyond that this project is scheduled to start in May at the latest according to the City Engineer. As citizens and tax payers of this community, we are wondering how can a proposed project be scheduled to start until costs are on paper in black and white? It was explained to us that Tax $ (dollars) would not be used for this trail but once again after repeated questioning, it was finally revealed that Andovers money would be coming from a special tax, the Auto Junk Yards Pay. We believe Community Tax Dollars are tax dollars regardless of their origin. As we mentioned before, the new proposed paved path is to be located on top of the existing gravel trail (which underneath lies Andovers main water and sewer lines). 5 .C.. -.'c-o..'. "~"-"''''..~<::~~.~:,J;IO~~' :.J I..J In the past we have asked pennission for limited use that allows us to get materials and equipment into our back yards for landscaping projects. These requests were at fIrst refused and then limited to a small truck and or bob cat. The reason for this as explained to me by Scott Erickson, City Engineer, is "after the pipes were laid, they back fIlled the trench with common earth. This was not substantial enough to support heavy equipment." The back fIll used could allow the pipes to shift, which could result in damage to these lines. The question we have is fIrst of all, our contractors equipment is no heavier or lighter than anyone else. Which makes us think obviously, this project will have to be done with light equipment. How much does this add to the cost? We think it's reasonable to expect these water and sewer lines will age and need repairs. Obviously when this work is needed, we will first have to remove the portion of the paved path to dig the hole to work on the lines. Wait a minute, how will we get heavy equipment to the area with the weight restrictions. Will we have to pay additional cost for light equipment or will we have to damage and repair other areas of the lines and pavement to gain access? Who bears the additional cost burdens for these repairs. Even if it is just the additional cost of removing and replacing the asphalt, will it be the City of Andover and the tax payers? Is it fmancially sound to place the cities future maintenance cost in this position? Are we being short-sighted (penny-wise and dollar foolish) by placing a paved path on top of the City's main water and sewer lines when it can be moved a short distance to the center of the area, thus eliminating this future maintenance quagmire. When considering future cost, isn't it financially sound to send the additional money now to provide a new gravel bed in the center of the area for the paved path? This also resolves many other potential problems. In summary we ask your attentive consideration to the fairness, safety, present and future cost of this proposed paved path through the nature park. Is it fair to all parties? The adjacent landowners, all residents and the City of Andover as a whole? From our experience we have to say, no. We already have more than enough paved roads to facilitate roller blading and biking, what is disappearing is places for time to slow down and nature to flourish. A place where people can get away from the high-speed drive of daily life. This area is a place where the residents of our community can experience that. If we pave this, connect it to other paths and parks, if we take outside money from other sources, this possibility will be lost to Andover forever. Is it fair that citizens of Andover are made to feel discounted when the City Government decides to expand the original plans, 6 . "_;,., ....- '.,:",~'''''';;:.'''..;-.;.Jf"".'''ry'"~~!tM~.''~ ~-J '--) doesn't contact the citizens who are directly affected before they place the plan in motion and then won't listen when concerns are raised? We feel that fairness to all parties is sticking to the original plan. Fairness is placing the path down the middle of the area so neither the north or south sides will stand to gain or loose more than the other side. If the City decides to proceed with the path as is presently scheduled, expanded from the original plan, then the City should be fair. The City should address and guarantee the concerns of the property owners who will be directly affected by their decision. Ifby our good intentions we the City are building this to provide safety for the children of our community, shouldn't we consider all aspects of this project to ensure we are truly accomplishing our goal. Are we truly providing safety for the children if we lead them to an extremely busy high- speed road, place the reward on the opposite side and then not provide the children with a way of safely crossing. Are small stop signs (traffic controls), the children are left to interpret for themselves going to keep our children safe? Have we provided for their safety if by providing this paved path we take them into a dangerous area? An area we have now made publicly accessible to predators. An area this City or any other could afford to provide proper police protection to ensure their safety and protection. Coon' Creek, which runs through this nature park, has what we would consider reasonable water running in it. However it is actually more like a Venus-Fly-Trap. This is due to the soft cnunbling soil on the river banks. Have we achieved safety by providing this path when in other communities the cry is already being heard their paths are not safe anymore due to the high-speed activities taking place on them? Must we make the same mistakes? Must we blunder forward and provide the very same unsafe conditions other communities are trying to fmd a way out of! We question the financial feasibility of this project at this time. Yes of course, 20% or $50,000.00 is not pocket change. It is a respectable amount of money. However we do question what we are giving up for this and the counties portion. Is Andover selling its autonomy over this piece of land? Are we changing a nature area to a recreational area for the price of asphalt? Are we jeopardizing citizens property values and safety to save some dollars now? Things look bright now. What if it doesn't work so well? What if the residents of Andover decide it was a bad idea? Will we be able to shut it down or will the county and the DNR prevent this because they have invested in it also? Will they at some later date be able to change the usage of this path because they provided funds? Who will bear the financial burden for clean-up, repairs and policing of this area? No matter how we look at it, it will end up being the tax payer. Regardless of whether it's the State, County or City, the tax payer will pick-up the tab. We are willing to bet in most cases or at least the largest cost will fall on Andovers back. Who 7 ; ....;.....-"'-..---..~....III1llt....;..,.. -" , ') --_/- ---.) will be financially responsible for the additioinal policing cost. Who will be financially responsible liable and when the ambulance chasing attorneys point their fmgers at who provided access to an unsafe condition? Who will be financially responsible to the adjacent property owners if they experience a rise in crime due to assesebilty to their home this public path will create? Who will be financially responsible if the value of their property decreases or they have a harder time selling their property as a result of this paved, interconnected, path? Yes, outside money is available. Would it still be available if we didn't connect this path with the outside areas? We do not believe it is in Andovers best :fmancial interest to commit itself to this at the present time just because outside money is available. Andover is risking all the future :fmancial burdens this proposed paved path presents. Patty and I do not see where proceeding with this project is fair to all parties concerned. In fact we see it as "we are being treated very unfairly." In fact if this paved path proceeds as proposed, the property owners located to the north side of this nature area will bear the full brunt ofloss of privacy, the potentail for added crime and property devaluation. All of this because the City wishes to save the cost of providing a new gravel sub-base for the proposed paved path. This proposed paved path is unfair, unsafe and full of financial pit falls. Several other possi~le solutions were presented at the informational meeting by citizens. Solutions that may not be financially feasible this year but certainly will be in the future. These solutions included using our already well paved slow traffic, publicly visual, safe neighborhood streets. Plans like these relieve the financial burden of providing new services and facilities. Plans such as these help save tax payer dollars instead of promoting tax growth. We respectfully urge you to carefully review your poisition. Please give our concerns your undivided attention and decide for yourself if this proposed paved path meets the standards of fairness, safety and is it truly financially feasible and in the communities best interest. Thank you. Sincerely, 11.~t(ftjd~ Greg Lars c~ ~ ,7 . t6bcJI;\ . . I!iC::- Patty L ostrom 8 ",""i>:""'r;~,,""'~l.+~~lL. .1S...lA~~; ," " , '. ttJ~~!i~ik~i~4~~~.~tiili~J[i~:!~~!~~l~~111ii~t~{~it(tf[~N:ggMr;Bi[QJl~:.~it~~~~~~~i~tti~~~f.2~itt~1~~~{i~?;::;';';';'; '. Wetland Area 1 ...-....-.......... ...................... .....-............. .:.;....-........................->..: . Developed by: Gorham Builders, Inc. 421-0998 , Tony Emmerich Const. Inc. 755-6554 ~ou-" [ \-f\, ~OL~~ \ \--\ \ \ \ ~ C> \:- \:l'- v'-~. r~_l_~ f- 'C_ t. .... . ~ '-. :' ..;,- "-"",, ,,' .. "., " . ~ . . . . ,. " ... "'~:.".. . .'\~~.~.:, . ;~,' ~ ~ . <S-~~'~,. '.' .- :.~~-~:.,. r'::'.,~ '; ~5;?;;'" ,,' ..:.Ai~> . ~. -\~;'I. ,_"~"c:}':?'~' '. .," :~~' .~ , ,'.-" ,", . '" '. .:'f ' .'..... . . ~ ': . ...... .,.:' , '~.) -j . ,. '. ,- .~_ ,'-:~,,~'""l1\lII'If"~,._~......,"...~:..ot..~' ::r f-ewr ~ ... , ) '--' ,---I Trails & Pathways · Mowing of trail system will be done less frequently than turf areas. Growth heights will also be kept higher. · Grass and vegetation will be maintained at a four to six inch height, where possible. · Grass and vegetation will be maintained four to six feet from the trail's edge where possible. · Efforts will be made to maintain grass trails at the same degree as all other turf areas throuhout the City. · Discharge chute shall be directed away from the trail's surface. · Significantly lower speeds will be used while mowing trail sides. PTO should still be set high. · Tree branches shall be cut at a minimum height of eight feet on all trails. Multiuse trails will be cut at a height of ten feet. · Branches shall be trimmed back three feet from edge of trail, where possible. · Deadfalls and Widowmakers should be taken care of before they become a problem to trail use. · Shrubs and trees should not be planted closer than six feet from edge of trail. · Sweeping blacktop trails will be done in spring and fall, as well as when conditions call for it: washouts, broken glass, storm damage etc.. · Gravel and woodchip trails will be graded as needed. · Pesticides will be applied to gravel and woodchip trails in late spring or early summer, depending on weed growth. · Noxious weeds on all trails, will be controlled four to six feet from the trails edge, where possible. · All gates, fences, bridges and vehicle deterrents shall be kept in a safe working order. · All signs shall be kept clear of all obstructions, in a reasonable sight line. ~) u · All signage will be maintained in a clean, safe and presentable manner. · Andover Park's Department does not believe in, nor endorse snow removal on City trails and paths, except where pedestrian traffic dictates it; near schools, bus stops, and ice rinks. · Such trails will be cleared the. width of the implement used. · Time of snow removal will take place after all city streets, lots, ice rinks, sidewalks etc. are cleared, unless otherwise warrented. - .. I . , : : t I ' I I : : I , ; I I I I t,.;::: i 1111,1 I r "'" i i I; I" I '-TT-'.::.I : I ...::: i i i i; III J -IHlll '~dT'=_--:IT I-~'-'T ' , , : : : , : , , , fT " ,.tffi '" Po,' , '., i i i i i~i i "~' ;"11 r ',I, ~t tl" , ::;:. ~ ":Ii '';''1 I ,~,' ~:=r~TJ,' 1I"'.~ j'I'U.~ 'Ii'::+-; [jr! I~rr!~~... L.i~t-!9l1t .= -I II l' .-,,<. . un ,c ": ",.. r - '11!;;'J; :/1 I fNl'Q~\ :~~ ~\\~ : I k. iI ~ !d: ~ t., ~::~....~..:..\!~~ 'TE-l 'l .:.7. -. L-..o ~l'\.J: I ~ rim'''lil nIT ... !\ . II ~. ' M h.__ ~.- .{TIl I . 1....~ ......m ., ., . : .' . . "'. ,uT"" . ,,= "......... .... '"", !.. : --, L - - I ' ". :" " I' ""i l\o" L " .. .::: I~ 'l~~, . -.- - n[ r,= .!= +)JI...:* Ill- "==".. _ .. 3 rnl~ I~ r--.....~ r-...~ ,,,", ,. . , . -, '/'''-" .... "- u..,.C' ~,. · : .. " , '?-_ ; .1,"" ':=.if ~I'I no! Ii" C "IUI' '. "_!no 1<':lTITIW :=., IT ]rl' I II ri~,'1 nii rfl ';<o! ".I....~T;!lIj1.; no' i , ~ .,:;: no;; '1{{j'4L~'i'f\-,~,t.;. I :-n u -(VI ' ~~l .:::= ~,!~ iI"0, .'j'" .'::, ~I-\:,,,, " ~ V , ~ . , ; ; . ~ 1 .,'- . ';.., j'.ii\' ."n -.-1. n '" ~..... ", :-1i.~~=... u _ ,= "'11 .lII. '. . II'], L C--- ~ " _ :..- + '; Ion II 'II' =7l+ ---- - -! : =::L , "= .1" . ~,,( " I ~ /\ I ._. -r ~., l . '!;;J- hd I =.:.: ~~H::;J:' ,Ir~, 1~ i:r~_I~-I-- ____=_ tii iih.l,; ;," " ::. 1!"'}-' iird '!;; I-Vvm'-I~1i1 J-~ r- - ,~i':v}k. ~ ~\.t .:= -):\1' .' 1 ~t,1 !::~ UiJJ IIit'j; ~ [1 'if1P,t, v _, q. , ;,;)0', . .' === -# ,Iill I .: '_'" ;'1'1 '! " . ' ' ;~~ f 'f'~, f.u I~'E' -~ 11~1. I" - n;_ ~- j" ~. ~ ~.~. ~,' ~:,~' -il) i,\~'" ~:' \ '~~ !: :::: 'I~ .J., r: I --'. 1--- ll}\ , , iihY.:-.;r"1 '~, i '"I ~ I ,= k ' "'~'I- , , ..- _"',. . "n . ~ .:= _~lAllIlI iI. - ,!II'''''' . i-~'lt -n 11\ ~~~[} ~,:~:< fln-fJ' ?'~ ~ I~~ ,f:.t-::'\:,: ':,.U:.: ~ :;: --- ,~- -i_.....! '.fl,'J,"-I't!""i1 i~"'Ii.4 ] ~,~'W '. 0 - ... ",;!., "\P.;;>, ',. "", . z ::: ....I'!hl!., . in. ;.- ~;f.'~~ll1!+ I ~!:I ~ ~ ; ~ ,,= "-'1'. -',. I 1-., \",r~ '0 "j ;)'1'11 ';'lljE,~i'7i,~~' -il'-' ~ ~;~ "'"" ,i fJry--w...,- I .::: "'" ~ - C\ " '" '5 ~ " 'I:l " 0.- ~ .!!8 Ea ~iI ~-) o ~ '--- .. - .- ~ ~ ~ - ;',' , I' " I I ../1-_1 ""1 ~I rllUll t " I If l"1 lu"" I 1111111 I 1111111 I"".. L - :~~lISSION STATEMENT ~~ -:J:-f'GM C-. The elected and appointed officials of the City of Andover shaH be guided by the principles of providing for the good and bettennent of the community, through quality development, protection of natural resources and regulation of the use of property to ensure the safety and well being of all residents Community These objectives promote a sense of community. identity and pride. A) A new or enhanced City logo will be created for better community identity. B) Community and business events will be held to promote identity and enhance a sense of community pride. C) The City shall plan and direct development of community facilities for meetings, recreation and other public needs in conjunction with other public entities within the City. Development Focuses on the safety, values and interests offuture residents and business. -?'" A) It shall be a City policy to develop or plan for, pedestrian walkways, trails and rights-of-way for alternate transportation in not only new developments but throughout the City. (Engineering - lead, Completion Goal - June '96) B) The City will adopt its own Wetlands Conservation and Marginal Land Use Ordinance to define and protect land within the City from inappropriate development. (Planning - lead, Engineering - support - June '96) C) The Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review land zoned for retail, commercial and light industrial, to assure an optimal siting throughout the City for the convenience of citizens and to provide for an expanded tax base. (planning - lead, EDA - support - Sept. '96) D) The Tree Preservation Policy shall be amended to require tree planting as well as preservation of trees in developments. (planning - lead, Engineering - support - Sept. '96) E) To accommodate a maturing population, elderly housing units will be encouraged in appropriate areas. Such options shall include consideration of transportation, convenience for shopping and medical assistance. (Planning - lead, June '97) F) The City shall develop an ordinance on unit clustered housing which will allow diversity in density and provide for green space. Such green space shall, at a minimum, be no less than for an unclustered development within the same zoning district. (Planning - lead, Engineering - support - June '96) - 'J \ I I " ii/I' [] -,Y. . .: '\ . . i' ..' '''. I I, \ I --,y 1"1: ,. -:.is: ~ '., ,I l . J .:-, J I ..... '~".(fII... I!"" ' III '--4 .1 'AE 00'0"''''''' ,g~AlTLYL' :: ,J. ""s'~", 111,1 , ,U ~ I J~""/....""':~Yi"''''i tilL':; / i ! i I: I "" ....' -:; I "";'''/I'~''\';(&~~':\~'J I -::=;;-:.:,." III' : . I ~'-'4';'~-{ '~.~.:. ~ D 'I =--;; -"'-... - ,'----"~ . .k' 'i~' r;.'i" ... , , , , ~., ~;J:i:' r., ~ ---C-----__ -- . ~ ..:::/.. ~ ': ' ,e 1f . t-+ '- :1 ,r/ -hi I ,=-!:jfj'~~"';;'~'O":";? "~ I "- .., '.. ...... ..;..; ;'':''':-N '., cr- " .. ".' ~~ ~.....~::: ",". ': '""'''-''' J I ~ ""...................' I I ... ""'" ' , - J-b~..,;;.;oo':,;=:!:"""'" '11 . , ,/. ',', ", . i,' .. "',"""'- ',_' 2. ' I, ':, \.\ . t-H..""'.E~.;;;;;>!-!,--,-j.,.,.,.''i!~AK.2. ," 11-. .\ c- '2, ~~" ~!t: I: ..,.,., ,.~\ . /1 , \\ I Li WN,' ~~.~*;~~.:A"I'~..:.~.. "F_.::. ::e--, BARNis~. D;,.~Jl./M~~r;~_- I ' . I 'j4l~~' '4;..,.,_.a.~ ! '.;;1", ': ~ ',.' ." , ' ~'/, :--.. !'~"~~}."~' .~~~<-i.j:"_"''ZNtrJ'i.i.;; '/.' ';'---.L.. OAK.~' "AV~J".,,,;,: \ -_________I 'I- '= .en", eN .. "~~~i2.J' .....,.."... _, ""i'/, - ." , :[--,- ,=' ..;;J_~ ,IV' ',. l/IJ. , 1---. 'I'~ - -" g~~ ' ' .'- 1. I- I.... I I 'I 'eS;Al~~'~:'~':'~; l~;~;/:;i~:-:,:'~ : ---~ ~'- -~-.r-L-.p6-', [~- " ~' , ~I ' .1 ~ :..tm.-":r~~'). J .' '''~ESrAr~.~:: ,.,. i~.'oOS" : !:: I I .. )/" Z i', I ~ r I '~ , .. -'" ~..; " ~~ -...... '. ._.0. , I I": " .. j B'AR"~S" Ii . '-," bm:=;';:;::- '_~ - ""'. 1/ r "e, ~ "jlf'4~\' ,:~~;:;~ ~,. -. ~",~~!+!fo~~I" ,[', ...., 'r---!'- i I !"qAI(~ " ,.. ~.' / ~','" " fI ~ , '.' '.' ': ~,I-;" :, --, in, ,l~;;;: ~ ,',' :;'~"..,.f~ I " I, iI, ' , "I i ; s 1 . 1- , ' '-- -l , Ill: ,.... " -! ~ 17 : ;1'1;Y..,.....6..'1 'f-- Ii' i .:x;"..~....l:r..~~;;:: il'IL'.I'i , , 'Ul j,'j"' v.:::.:.-."~R~;t'''':, fJi. '''''''''< rD1 r-"'I....::',:-::-; I' ,/.' ': I :1" t~~~,\'" i ' '", : ~~~a:, ,~\ ~ ~--; / i M~,..'~2.~k~ I II II I ~:<;-.' I .'\:' ;'::: 'i ''''~~wrJ ~ ~~1t' ';1 0". ,; '"jil I ~ . i; I.. .'. '. ~ .. "".,~ ~ ~~ -H 1 ! ~ v~;{'/'/ 14 O'll '. I : ! . '., I I.' "., d'" no,'" .' '. "-; . \R.::; I.: '. "/' Gfl /, ' '-- ' . '.... - ...'" :~".:'- '''..- , -', , ,. ~ . /. / ' ' -: '~~ , - ! I ~ : ':-"~ ~:~-: ~,~ ~~", '~i,./~' ~~ ":..; < -': I '1. ~~ ,""",'J~J."'." -, "'~lO .!i~'l"'~ . r.-f'<~"'/ ' r---: i ,- -" " "h .-""',.... . , ' .,=~,,'.i ........ w;:::::.. " >." "....."i3~: I ...~,.~.. ..~ ~~""'.. --"~-;-r--- ''i'~~~.:l:I.~ w '.., '. . . """ . I 'T' ~~. " -.x- , ' / ./, .... ....;,., '.. 9 ~."'~"""--.~ 61""'I''''ltS{t"O~D~ ~ . ::t ,'~::..., "".' f I -1:::-"- '"'- : .', .~..""" .....,:(:I.L. .-"'II~__~"""'<ll~'" .i" NPWT!!.1r. I 2.~~...../~ ,"'., ~ .0' "~~'~' " ! ~ ' .' " "..". '" -,', ,.,...,.."" '. :f """, ~,.. ''', .4 . ..'...,.....'..:......., I-----. ~ ,.... ~~ "'" ,..['J\ '. '" .... L;~ ." ~ '. I I ,'Iii/I. }--;;-:;..... ' ~c.. " . ~..".,..'~'''l' ,.: . ''...'e:, ", ..' .. . ,.c/O...'.... "'.'.""".AI II" .. or. '$TfC", I ! "ii;i.l8,.,.~:.~'"'."1..l a::-:< ,; I :,~,~;'.'~. ~~~i~'Y ,,;,~.,~ ! ~1r{r;;"':;1.-,,-'HI:''''''' ~"~""" i>9 '-....~~5!:J /L ~l ,- - ~v -" ~ . ,,~-,~ "5J'.~;'~ . I \.... /'. ~ 11', v,v..",;,.. ~:.= ,.gt.5"","''',o,,~ //,4...'.......'L:..;.;8 ~.~'7 'I I \'/.~~~~D~~.~ /'IIi." '._<" ..,.. /~:..;..:."'.,,~.,.''''.,.._..'"''!'':~::: 'i-~~.': h~": ES.i;0;.~F..:,~~~'i'.I~/,,! '''~iiF:'''.~~~ ~~0/;.;;~~..';"."."..".:...~~,.. ~~~ . j i ~~;~~.,.~~~~".. . I ;,.\14 A1<~. ,'7~" ;,. ~~:"'. ,,,: .I....~d "tdJi . .,. . , . r " NlLU,"..,r:+ -i?itI,8'<~'" ~~:; IJrI"~" '<;';""i-';; :. Ii ~~,~" .. ~~I'f' "",:)T ~~4: ' I~ . Y;,.~, ,.:'; ~8 g'~ . """.' rg,'$.2. ; ~~~#~~~ ~~'j~ ---------~-----,--,' ",::~ ::.;.~':: ri.. -.~? "~::,R~' "'~,-..,:-;;.0...~ ~t~_ '~7~~~ BonOI<'$., --'-fr"''''''' . , SUN' '"'' ' "'UN"R_ , .' 1;-'-7;;r r.' j/;R.j' oOW f'- "..>;i...,..-,\ --"';~~:: \' :_:, -:' ~ " .""'"~A.-:i :' :~.~: ,,,.,?t:ir.AD;~ jC:'0.~'/'SH. "'~.,'~ ""...."'.'...':...o-cr~'~..,;.,'~':'l :. ....-..,..08.., ': '.. It ~~~, '" '"......... :: ~'.5f/'l.,..,: _ <i~O ' r:-'" \'j "~'~~~.. I ' '-I)-;/'~ """" "'''','''''''''00 ",,' . ~",~,~ '~ ,u_':;, ; ~~: (: ,I: "~'~'~~h'...,.,~?~::4!;.:: ':'2"2'~; l~~4"""".> "~/)' ~~\~' ':r,;.':':"~:"1iL' . ~~-=!'''''''' I I I -- ~.,.~.,.p> ?,. " .. ~';;~~;~:~l' ADO ~ --'I:,' f/ \ . I ' , " : ~ I rlll"I~"I".III.~"~~6"" ---:If-1:- .~i/ / 1/""'1 . , , ~~:'.:~"J~i::.; ,,::A:"P ". ~~, ) ----I----I---~I r \7 ...... " .....[...2\\' ~I~ eo !:Ii III ~'M€~oo...J'''''" ,. . ~ ..,'. I I I, . '.' 'J I:' ':"". ~.. ....':0,:':','" >'<':',',"":: 1 ..........!f-;; ~.Jit;.~, ..,]:8 ',:". ::, ,I I I' / If " ...... . -"I" ...-::'~ .., lO' I I I' '. ~.' ":"K-"~". :p; 'of +"i c'.c':;'...~...:.. :._:1 II I '/.' "C~"-~ . ..,- . 'P . I i ~ ,;;--"",:;:;;.,.,:,...," ~--,~,......." . !" . .. I ......~ ....:':\..,..:.~ .........~ ---...:.. . / 1// : ci : / ~ ~I '" , :>.. i , --- = ~ '9- PA I~ .. PIoPo$IO Tit A IL X/EM D. ;"1= ~,.. ...t';fr." . ;~f ....~~y ~ ' '~ : '\ :T}E:M ~ J '-. ?/7/ C'r ?-"7/ d/v,E,Il f7::,.L /S Project Overview Overall Perspective: In broad terms, there are essentially two major park system related objectives: 1) The development of trails that tie into the larger trail system (both locally and regionally) and provide a viable recreational opportunity for vanous user groups. 2) The preservation and, in some cases, enhancement of the land area within the designated project area. This includes (but is not limited to) the preservation of the area north and north-east of Cedar Lake as well as the overall enhancement of the remaining project area to create a park-like environment. Each of these have significant merit and are integral to the development of the Minneapolis Park System. In addition to park system related objectives, equal consideration must also be given to the needs of commuters. As previously established as part of this process, developing a network of trails for commuting purposes is another major objective of the project. Project Program Statement: To develop a comprehensive set of trails that effectively serve the intended user groups while protecting or enhancing the integrity and character of the adjacent public open spaces. Focus: Within the context of this study, the focus is on: . design of the trail system (alignment as well as specific trail characteristics) conceptual programming and area definition of adjacent land uses (define use areas in broad terms - such as "Conservancy Area", etc.) .' 1 :_) (~ Trail Development Program Statement Identified User Groups: . Commuters . Recreational Users Definitions (within the context of this study): . Commuter: Anyone using the trail system for transportation purposes (getting from Point A to B as conveniently as possible). _ This includes (but is not necessarily limited to) those commuting to: . work . social activity areas (downtown, riverfront, etc.) . other parks and recreation areas other communities (friends, relatives) Forms of Commuters: bicyclists pedestrians skaters wheelchair users . . . Recreational Users: Anyone using the trail system for strictly recreational purposes. This includes (but is not necessarily limited to): . . bicyclists walkers /j oggers skaters wheelchair users skateboarders cross-country skiers . . . . It is important to recognize that the two uses are not mutually exclusive: meaning a commuter might also be a recreational user as well (and vice versa). .' In fact, the recreational aspect of the trail system may actually promote more use of the trails for commuting by those who would otherwise use a different form of transportation. 2 ,-) '--/ u The Challenge To develop a trail system that combines both of these uses in a functional, safe, and aesthetically appealing fashion. From a quality of life perspective, we want to leave the user with the perception that they are: . promoting alternative modes of transportation reducing their personal impact on the environment . promoting better personal health and fitness . having fun while doing it The challenge is also to integrate the trails with adjacent land uses in a manner that protects the integrity of those areas. Trail Design Criteria Naturally, the trail must be designed to achieve our stated objectives. The following specific criteria define the needs of each user group and serves as the starting point in the design process. For Commuter Use: . directness to commuting destination . safety (personal and physical) speed convenience . ease of identifying routes For Recreational Use: recreational experience uninterrupted park-like environment . safety (personal and physical) . speed* * - It is a bit of a misperception that recreational users are not particularly interested in speed. In fact, most bicyclists prefer to ride at speeds of between 10 and 20 mph. However;' most trails are simply not designed to allow for speeds over 10 mph, which is relatively slow even for casual recreational bicyclists. 3 '..) .\ v Trail Design - Conceptual Overall Philosophy: To design a consistent, easily definable system of trails within this corridor that serve the needs of both user groups and sets the standard for future trail corridors of similar character. Specific Trail Types Under This System: . separate pedestrian trail. . two-way bike trail (one pavement width with traffic in both directions) . divided bike trail (two pavement widths with directional traffic) In General: separate pedestrian trails will be used throughout divided bike trails will be used where space permits (because they meet our established objectives and are undoubtedly the safest) two-way bike trail will be used where space is limited or where conflicts with other land uses are to be minimized (such as the Conservancy area) Trail Width Criteria: . provide adequate space to safely accommodate planned uses, particularly commuters (whose needs are not adequately met by typical recreational trail design standards) provide for the needs of all potential user groups . meet or exceed minimum established standards Trail Surfacing Criteria: . provide adequate tread stability to accommodate planned uses provide for ease of access to all potential user populations (as well as meet new ADA requirement) . meet or exceed minimum established standards Signage: A complete program that clearly: . defines the intended use of these trails . provides necessary directional information clearly establishes the "rules of the road" Lighting: . pr9vide adequate lighting for user to see trail and potential hazards. . provide adequate lighting for user to see into the periphery for personal safety. select a standard(s) that is aesthetically appealing and in line with the theme being established in the corridor. 4 10' Wide :-- '; One Direction Varies (8' Min.) Median Space ") JO ' Wide One Direction L Median (Concr~te Strip Level W'ith Aspha: Clearly Defines Appropriate Lane. Serves As "Psychological Median~ Hard Surface (Asphalt) - Objective: Provide adeC'l'.u.ce space and safest riding. conditions for both commuter and recreational riders where space is no~ limited. Divided Bike Trail Riding Lane (Passing Lane For Opposite Lane Traffic) ~ 7 . . \ /Wide l' Wide ry ftWide ~ ..., Hard Surface (As~halt) J . Objective: Provide adequate space and safe riding conditions for both commuter and recreational riders where space is limited, such as narrow corridors or adjacent to Conservancy area. . -.' f.:.:!'II.J:~~i_ .' / Two-vVayBike Trail :J u 8' Wide Hard Surface (Asphalt) - \ Objective: Allow adequate but not excessive space for pedestrians and runners shared use of trail. Pedestrian Trail - Option A 3' Wide -:7 6' Wide Runner Lane (Or Passing) - --At - Pedestrian Lane Soft Surface (Agg-Lime) Hard Surface (Asphalt) ;- --. -" .'::- , '...,...., Objective: Provide separate lanes (with preferred surfacing) for pedestrians' and runners. Pedestrian Trail - Ootion R f~:' ~ !.'.. ,- . ..-, ." ;l'. . l~~ r' f~" .' l~:::-. . l\';-~: '-J.: ~ - .' :~:. ~:;- ,':. ::~ ..... ,~ "," 'fr" .,'-. t..._'. :;'. ,. . '. ...... '''',' '-;',,- -~ ~'i .:~:~ :. '_"t-. - '. !."- ;~;~ ,: !'.,.. '.:' ~ l;t:~ f-,~' . >~_:'- t-. ..~ . ..;: :, . ~:..~. ." _..d' ~: '.:- ,~, ,- , '->'CITY OF ANDOVER \J REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 27 1997 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Todd J. Haa~ Scott Erickson, ITEM NO. Park Coordfrfator Engineering 3. Approve Allocation Funding Source/95-24/ Coon Creek BikewaylWalkway Trail The City Council is requested by the Park and Recreation Commission to approve the allocation funding source for the Coon Creek BikewaylWalkway Trail, Project 95-24, The funding source that is being recommended by the Commission is to utilize anticipated Tax Increment Funds (TIF), The Commission does understand at this point that the current funds are being used to purchase and cleanup the salvage yards and redevelop the area, The Commission would, in this case, be willing to utilize the current available park dedication funds and request when TIF funds become available that the park dedication fund would be reimbursed, TIF funding has been used on past park improvements, .- " "JellY OF ANDOVER 'J REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 27 1997 AGENDA SECTION ORIGIN~AIN DEPARTMENT Todd J. Haas, Scott Erickson, ITEM NO. Park Coord nator Engineering 4. Discuss Policy/Trails & Sidewalks/New Development The City Council is requested to discuss establishing a policy for including bituminous bikeway/walkways and concrete sidewalks within new development projects. The current process is to evaluate each development separately and attempt to determine if sidewalks or bituminous pathways are to be included as a part of the development. The process as it currently stands has not been consistent among the developments, The two issues to address are as follows: Concrete Sidewalks Although the City currently has the ability to require that concrete sidewalks be included as a part of a new development the direction of the Council has been not to include them within a new development (with the exception of Woodland's Timber Oaks Estates development where a small section of sidewalk was required), In a attempt to provide some basis or consistency for requiring or not requiring sidewalks, a policy should be identified, A established policy will help provide consistency and also identify for the developers what will or will not be required for the improvements, A few possible policy statements to consider are as follows: 1. Concrete Sidewalks will not be required within new developments. 2. Concrete Sidewalks will be required within new developments when the traffic volumes are anticipated to exceed vehicles per day. 3, Concrete Sidewalks will be required within new developments along the main collector streets as determined by the City. 4. Concrete Sidewalks will be evaluated on a case by case basis and will be recommend by the Andover Review and the P&Z with final determination made by the City Council. (This is the process we are currently working with.) 5, Other? Bituminous Trails The City Council is also requested to review and provide direction regarding including bituminous pathways as a part of new development improvements and who should pay for them. In order to provide consistency and a non-arbitrary basis for identifying trail improvements a policy should be identified. As the Council is aware it is often difficult to install these improvements after the property owners adjacent to these trails have moved in, If trails are to be constructed they should be included right up front to eliminate the difficulties associated with installing them at a later date. There are basically two types of trail systems or trail users: 1. Transportation based trail system or user 2. Recreational or Park related trail system or user. What we will be referring to is the Transportation based trail system for the City of Andover as identified in the City Comprehensive Plan. The transportation base trail system provides for off-road transportation system for bicyclists, rollerbladers, walkers, etc. It also provides them with the ability to reach various destinations in the City without the use of a car. ,-, If a transportation trail is idei,uried adjacent to a new developmen.,-should it be constructed as a part of the development and who should fund the improvement? A few possible scenarios are as follows: 1, The developer is responsible for the cost of the installation of the trail. 2. The City is responsible for the cost of the installation of the trail. 3. A combination of developer funding and City funding will be used for the trail improvements, Example: A. The cost of the trail improvement will be funded % from the developer and_ % from the City (park dedication or other funding sources?) B, The developer will clear, grub and provide a subgrade for preparation of the trail. The City will fund the installation of gravel and an asphalt surface. C, Other .~ ~JCITY OF ANDOVER \.J REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 27,1997 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINA TI~ DEPARTMENT Todd J. Haa~ Scott Erickson, c:Jl ITEM NO. Park Coordinator Engineering 5. Bunker Lake Boulevard Trail Update/97 -14/Discussion The City Council is requested by the Park and Recreation Commission to discuss the Bunker Lake Boulevard Trail, Project 97-14. An informational meeting was held on February 20, 1997 with myself (about half of the Park and Recreation Commission members were also there) to introduce the proposed project to the adjacent property owners along Bunker Lake Boulevard and Hills of Bunker Lake 5th Addition Park, About 6 different property owners attended the meeting and were supporting the development of the park so long as the softball field was relocated so that outfield was abutting up to the backyards and the proposed parking lot was moved closer to the County Road. Attached is a revised drawing showing these suggestions, There were a couple property owners along Bunker Lake Boulevard that were concerned about the trail and removal of existing trees to accommodate the trail. In discussions with the Anoka County Highway Department, when Bunker Lake Boulevard is reconstructed the trees will be removed for safety reasons and would be from right-of-way to right-of-way, There would be no replacement of those trees. We have indicated to the residents that because the bikeway/walkway trail is eligible using Municipal State Aids that would be in position to have trees installed along the property line to help offset the trees that would be removed as part of the walkway/bikeway trail project. If the City Council is in support of this project with replanting of trees, we will incorporate those into the feasibility report which will be presented to you in the near future, b.=-'--' .1:..lt..", . a''''bl'''\., '. ,,,>- '''II) 1 " ~ -..... f I ~, '" ' . ............... ,t ,"...., ,.._.. " - 66FT WIDE / - / ~ " j .. .. ....... - '::l ~ I.P. "" "'~" t. I I".., ~ :!:....~ , !, --- , i I ~ ~ 1 t "-l ~ ~ ::s ~ ~' )1''' glA~L.IIJ(;TbW f-JofZT~R,.Jy, ,.,l2:A/l~. ~~~:;:;:::;;:;.:i:::::;:;:::;:.;:;:;:::::~::::::::::::~~:::::::::::::::::i8.:i~~:;:::::::::::~:~~;::::::::::::~::~::.::~::::::::::::::::::i::~::::::::;::::.:.~~~::::::::8:~~.;:::::::::::::::8~:::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:: "l;i.'"'"~'- ~~ ~ ~ ..,'""'.......""1111_"..' .....t",.MI""""',,..~.......,... ...,..."',,,,,.,.,,.....,,,...',,,,.. 'It,'IIIW1'''''''''''''Iml''''"I11 ,.'"1Il'IllTIIo1l1ll1;l't:,',"III._ NOTE:' All orC()~ rfhtllrnMI ,too";"""" ,,~,",Il~_ ,~,,,.,,,',""""'''''''''.' 14f . --' .' , -, --.-/ CITY OF ANDOVER '---I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: February 27 1997 AGENDA SECTION ORIGIN~TIN DEPARTMENT Todd J. Haa Scott Erickson,~C ITEM NO. Park Coord ator Engineering 6. Discuss Irrigation Well/96-9/Sunshine Park The City Council is requested by the Park and Recreation Commission to discuss the irrigation of Sunshine Park, Project 96-9, As most of the City Council is aware, the Park and Recreation Commission is concerned with the estimated 1997 watering cost of approximately $48,000 (April to October) (which is about 30,000,000 gallons of water) if the current user rate the City charges to its residents is used to irrigate Sunshine Park. The Commission has indicated that if the rate cannot be waived, it was recommended that the $48,000 would be useful in installing a new irrigation well. A new 10" well and pump, based on an estimate from EH Renner and Sons, will cost in the neighborhood of $41,000, This is just starters because there will be additional costs around $4,000 for the discharge pipe (this is the pipeline from the well to the point of entry into the irrigation system). In addition, it will be necessary to prepare a wellhead protection plan for this facility at a later date. This would be an additional expense in the range of $10,000- $15,000. Estimated annual operating costs per EH Renner and Sons will be approximately $2,000 per year. The long term costs associated with the well maintenance are estimated at an additional $10,000-$15,000 approximately every 10 years to pull and rehab the pump, motor and well. Note: Some mechanical work will need to be done to make a connection from the irrigation controls located in the mechanical room of the concession building to a new well and pump. Public Works has indicated to Engineering that approximately $1,000 worth of chemicals is used for about every 30,000,000 gallons of treated water. Based on this information, the City Council may want to consider waiving the requirement to pay for the use of water and establish a flat yearly user rate. We have contacted other cities to determine the water user rates for irrigating their fields. They are as follows: -Fridley - Charges a user rate, This is funded by General Fund. -Plymouth - Charges a user rate. This is funded by General Fund. -Blaine - Charges a user rate. This is funded by General Fund. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, feel free to contact Scott or Todd at City Hall.