12-16-08 PTRC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES November 25, 2008 Page 2 of 5 findings of impacts on both sides of the road to help determine which side of the bridge a trail should be completed. Ms. Giga reported an engineering pool is used for projects that are too large for City staff. She noted Bolton &Menk were hired to assist the City with the feasibility report for this bridge. Ms. Giga indicated the driving force of the project was to eliminate the bottleneck at the CP Rail Bridge. She stated the report would comprehensively study the entire trail corridor from Trunk Highway 51 South all the way up to County Road 96. Ms. Giga explained that evaluation was needed to see which side makes the most sense for the trail location, so when the bridge is constructed, the trail has been well planned. Ms. Olson indicated the numbers within this report were preliminary and that a final report would be presented to City Council on December 8th. Ms. Giga turned things over to Travis Winter an engineer from Bolton & Menk to review the CP Rail Report with the Committee. Mr. Winter reviewed the location of the suggested trail and explained both the east and west sides of this corridor have been reviewed to see which the most viable location for the trail was. Mr. Winter stated he relied on the MnDOT bike race manual for design standards. Mr. Winter reviewed several handouts with the Committee members. Councilmember Holden questioned if the proposed trail would be within the right-of-way. Ms. Giga stated the trail would be within the right-of-way as the railway has roughly 100+ feet of right-of-way through this corridor. Council Liaison Holmes asked what the width of the trail would be throughout this corridor, rural versus urban. Mr. Winter indicated the curb and gutter would be a large delineator between vehicle traffic and the pedestrians. He stated the rural trail could be 24 feet in width where the more urban trail would be five feet wide. Ms. Giga indicated a large part of the width difference was the need for a ditch for water runoff on the more rural trails. Mr. Winter reviewed an aerial view of the roadway with the different sections of the proposed trail. He stated the size was altered depending on the terrain. Mr. Winter indicated a retaining wall would be needed for portions of the trail along with a variance to bring the trail into compliance with City setbacks near the wetlands. Acting Chair Peck questioned what the barrier or retaining wall would look like. Mr. Winter explained there were a variety of options available for the Committee to choose from. Acting Chair Peck questioned if the 694 bridge was scheduled for repair or reconstruction. Ms. Giga stated she did not feel this bridge was due for any reconstruction for the next 15-20 years based on the current MnDOT program. Councilmember Holden questioned the height of the retaining walls. Mr. Winter stated the average height would be five feet.