Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A, Motion to Accept CP Rail Bridge Pedestrian Crossing ~ __ES Request for Council Action Prepared By: Michelle Olson, Parks and Recreation Manager and Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer Council Meeting Date: March 9, 2009 Motion to accept recommendation made by the Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee to construct the CP Rail Bridge pedestrian crossing on the west side of Snelling Ave.fOld Highway 10 and direct staff to proceed with final design Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $37,000 $37,000 Special Revenue Park Fund Recommendation: 1. Accept recommendation made by Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee to construct the CP Rail Bridge pedestrian crossing on the west side of Snelling Ave.fOld Highway 10 and direct staff to proceed with final design Supportin!! Documents: 1. See the attached memo from City staff. 2. PTRC Draft Minutes from 2/24/09 Meeting. 3. Staff is asking the City Council to please bring your copy of the feasibility report to the meeting, in case you want to refer to it during the discussion. m MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michelle Olson, Parks and Recreation Manager m& Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer itt1' SUBJECT: CP Rail Bridge improvements for a pedestrian crossing BACKGROUND At the January Work Session, the City Council directed staff to discuss the project with the Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee (PTRC) in order to determine on which side to build the bridge improvements. DISCUSSION A discussion on the CP Rail Bridge pedestrian path took place at the February 24, 2009 Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee. All members received the feasibility report in December and were asked to review the report and visit the site before our meeting. Travis Winter of Bolton and Menk, Inc. was present for the discussion. There were a number of influencing factors that were considered during the discussion: · Cost · Convenience and preference of users · User safety · Access The PTRC made a pros and cons list for each side of the road, shown below: \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PR&PW\Parks\Memos\Council Memos\030509 CPRail_ Trail PTRC.doc 3/6/2009 Page 2 EAST SIDE PROS CONS A voids boardwalk cost Very steep driveway conflicts Aesthetically pleasing corridor Crossing Bethel Entrance - safety concerns Less driveways to cross (entire corridor) More people are coming from west side - causing more people to cross a busy road, including Arden Hills children. Bethel University is on this side - better More destinations on west side accessibility for student users More trail connections on west side Retaining wall cost (entire corridor) WEST SIDE PROS CONS More people live on west side and will be Boardwalk costs accessing from that side. More trail connections on west side Not as aesthetically pleasing - walking by the lake would be a beautiful backdrop More destinations on west side More driveways to cross (entire corridor) causing safety concerns A voids Bethel entrance crossing which is very Bethel University students will have to cross to busy at certain times of day. utilize pathway Avoids steep driveway conflict If entire corridor goes on west side, the retaining wall can be avoided, balancing out the boardwalk cost Serves Arden Hills children A lengthy discussion took place regarding the possibility of a crossing at Bethel University (Ona Orth complex). The group consensus was that if a crossing did occur at that location, the existing crosswalk/crosswalk signal would need to be upgraded for added safety. The PTRC considered recommending one side or two sides (meaning a crossing at some point) for the entire corridor. However, the PTRC was uncomfortable recommending the west side for the entire corridor at this time. The committee decided to focus on the corridor directly to the north and south of the bridge, agreeing to discuss the remaining corridor in the future. 3/6/2009 Page 3 PTRC RECOMMENDATION The Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee reviewed the feasibility report for the Snelling Avenue/Old Highway 10 Trail and unanimously (9-0) recommends that the improvements to the CP Rail bridge be constructed on the west side. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION Accept recommendation made by Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee to construct the CP Rail Bridge pedestrian crossing on the west side of Snelling Avenue/Old Highway 10 and direct staff to proceed with final design. DRAFT . ~.ES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24,20096:30 PM ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chair Peck called the February 24, 2009, meeting of the Parks Trails and Recreation Committee to order at 6:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Committee Chair John Peck, Committee Members Lanny Baumann, Cindy Garretson, Jody Hilgers, Larry Jones, Don Messerly, Nancy O'Malley, Harold Peterson, and Rich Straumann. OTHERS PRESENT: Council Liaison Fran Holmes, Park and Recreation Manager Michelle Olson, Civil Engineer Kris Giga, and Travis Winter, Bolton & Menk. MEMBERS NOT PRESENT: Committee Member Rich Straumann. 2. MOTION: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Committee Chair Peck motioned to approve the agenda adding "Old Business" and "New Business" allowing the Committee to discuss a letter received by the Committee. The motion carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Januarv 13.. 2009 Mr. Messerly noted on Page 3 that Ms. Holmes should be changed to Councilmember Holmes and that in paragraph 5 the park should be a passive park and not a passage park. Ms. Olson indicated that Ms. Giga's name would need correction as well. Ms. Olson was asked to remove the word flower from the second to last paragraph on page four. Mr. Messerly stated that a comment was left out of the Valentine Park discussion stating that Valentine Park was at one time, part of Valentine Lake. MOTION: Committee Member Messerly motioned to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Committee Member Jones. The motion carried unanimously. 4. CP RAIL/TRAIL DISCUSSION Ms. Olson reviewed the Old Snelling/Old Highway 10 trail with plans provided by Bolton & Menk. She indicated the group has discussed the trail location, the impacts of the trail based on location, including price estimates at our December meeting. Ms. Olson stated this information PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES February 24, 2009 Page 2 of8 DRAFT was forwarded to Council where the report was accepted and made the official report for the corridor. Ms. Olson stated the Council further discussed how this item would proceed and approved engineering fees to cover the design of the bridge and working with CP Rail. She explained the Council would like additional PTRC input on the trail placement and design to allow the bridge to be completed yet this year. Chair Peck indicated that the goal of tonight's discussion would be to come to an agreement on the trail placement that would then be recommended to Council. He explained that the Council was looking for a recommendation for this item to move forward and be designed based on this recommendation. Civil Engineer Giga explained that Council has authorized Bolten & Menk to work on the final design of the bridge. She indicated the next step in this process would be to survey the area, which could be completed once the snow melts, along with passing along the plans to CP Rail for their review and comment. Ms. Hilgers questioned if the bridge construction was the same expense whether the trail was on the east or west side of the corridor. Ms. Olson reviewed the expense information within the CP Rail report. The Committee reviewed the trail map and discussed the potential trail location in depth and . detail. Mr. Baumann stated that he would be in favor of placing the trail on the east side of the corridor based on the fact there were fewer intersections for the pedestrians to cross. He added that the trail would be aesthetically more pleasing on the east side due to the fact pedestrians would be walking closer to the lake. Mr. Jones was in agreement stating the large number of driveways that would need to be crossed on the west side would be a hazard to both pedestrians and bikers. Chair Peck stated his preference thus far has been the west side. He explained the west side would provide access to more Arden Hills residents but that there were several steep driveways that would need to be addressed to soften the grade. Chair Peck indicated a resident expressed concern to him that this underpass would bring more traffic into an already congested area and create a bigger problem. While he didn't entirely agree with this statement, safe passage under the bridge would benefit all users of the trail. Chair Peck explained that he walked the trail on the east side against traffic and stated the heavy level of traffic entering Bethel was a detriment. He indicated the west side would serve the residents more conveniently than if placed on the east. DRAFT . PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES February 24, 2009 Page 3 of8 Ms. O'Malley stated she felt the west side was safer for children coming out of the neighborhoods and would not have to cross the busy roadway to get to the trail. Mr. Jones questioned if there would be a barrier between pedestrians on the trail and traffic along Highway 10. Mr. Winter explained he has recommended some concrete barriers. Chair Peck stated the Committee does not want a crossing but does need to make a recommendation on where the underpass should be located for this trail. Mr. Messerly questioned if the trail would be lit and that if it was not, the pedestrian and bicycle traffic would need to be very cautious while crossing driveways. Chair Peck agreed that site lines would need to be reviewed. Council Liaison Holmes stated an additional benefit to the west side would be connection to the trail created by Roseville along the south segment near Snelling Avenue. Discussion ensued regarding a trail crossing near the Bethel entrance along with the safety concerns for pedestrians and bicycle traffic. Ms. Olson indicated if the City were to recommend a crossing, this would have to be a safe crossing. Mr. Winter indicated the west side could require board walk construction near the lake, which was a bit more expensive and was written into the estimate. He explained that along the east side, there were several steep driveways that would need grading work, which added to the expense of the trail. Chair Peck questioned how wide the trail would be under the bridge. He asked if the engineering work has been completed for the underpass and if CP Rail was approving the plans. Mr. Winter explained the trail would be eight feet wide and that CP Rail was in favor of the underpass as long as the City does not impact the structural integrity of the bridge. Ms. Hilgers question~d if the west trail estimate of $238,000 included the boardwalk. Mr. Winter stated the boardwalk was required and that this number did include the boardwalk. Ms. Olson stated the City could possibly seek federal funding and grants to assist with the trail corridor expense. Ms. Hilgers stated she would like to see the trail stay on one side of the corridor and that she was not crazy about the idea of pedestrians crossing over this roadway, especially children. Chair Peck agreed. Chair Peck questioned if the watershed district would need to be involved with this project. Mr. Winter indicated he has already met with the watershed and that there were several requirements for linear trail projects with regard to storm water. PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES February 24, 2009 Page 4 of8 DR FT Councilmember McClung indicated this would be a difficult decision to pass along to Council. There were many factors to consider and that the benefits to the residents would have to be considered. The Committee discussed the traffic that would be along the trail, again addressing the safety of pedestrians with regard to the numerous intersections and driveways along the west side of the corridor. Ms. O'Malley stated she felt the heart of the activity and destinations were located on the west side of the corridor. Chair Peck indicated he was not aware of the added expense caused by the required boardwalk on the west side and stated he could be swayed to now pursue the east side. However, he was still leaning toward the west side. He indicated the cost would be a deciding factor to the Council. Council Liaison Holmes questioned if the boardwalk was needed to complete the west side underpass. Mr. Winter stated this was not required for the underpass but would have to be completed with the rest of the trail. He explained that the trail corridors were fairly similar in price due to the fact the east side required a retaining wall. MOTION: Committee Member Hilgers motioned to place the trail underpass along the west side of the bridge. Committee Member Messerly seconded the motion. Further Discussion: Ms. Garretson stated she felt the only difference was the future expense of the boardwalk. Ms. Hilgers responded that the boardwalk costs would even out with the expense of the retaining wall on the east side, stating there was only a $70,000 difference between the two trail estimates. Chair Peck stated that once we have the underpass, foot traffic could be monitored and that could possibly help with the final decision on the entire corridor. The motion passed unanimously.