The URL can be used to link to this page

6.2. PRSR 01-10-2018 Elk Request for Action River To Item Number Parks and Recreation Commission 6.2 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Discussion January 10,2018 Tim Sevcik,Park Superintendent , Item Description Reviewed by Trails Master Plan Michael Hecker,Parks and Recreation Director Reviewed by Action Requested Review staff comments and provide feedback as necessary Background/Discussion The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the trails master plan at the December 13,2017 Commission meeting. Following that meeting,the finalized plan was distributed to staff sections for review. Several comments and concerns were submitted from staff sections regarding the proposed trail corridors. Staff recommends the Commission reviews staff section comments and considers modifying the plan to address concerns from staff sections. A revised final trail plan will be brought back to the Commission in February for recommended approval. Financial Impact None Attachments • Staff Section Comments • Trail Master Plan Map LOWERED BY NATURE Parks and Recreation Trail Master Plan Comments Staff • Potential concerns for the trails on the environmental departments end would be wetland impacts.The city ordinance allows nature trails comprised of natural materials within both the buffer strip and buffer strip setback, so that shouldn't be an issue.The only concern would be if the trails are proposed to go through wetlands which would then fall under the Wetland Conservation Act(WCA).Those would be case by case and require review from the State and Soil&Water Conservation District,the environmental department makes the final decision at the city level under WCA. • The trails along lakes or ponds may be more concerning but just something to review as they come along. • Should the library trail be connected to the south along Denver St? • Why the trail is on the south side of Meadowvale Road between County Road 1 and 209`'' Ave to only be pushed across Meadowvale Road? • Trials proposed around Kliever Marsh and Pintail Pond are not likely to happen. • No trail on north side of Hwy 10 from Upland Ave to the west. Can't cross at Hwy 10 bridge. Crossing can happen at Proctor. • Why have trails switch sides midpoint on both Meadowvale and Twin Lake Road? • Remove west side trail between CSAH 1 and existing trail • Keep trail on east side of Twin Lakes Road or add east side extension • 165th has widened shoulders to serve bike movements • Connect Kelley Farm to river? Sherburne County • County comments would be that with any new platting on County Roads,we request a 100' R/W corridor (50'each side of Centerline).We have allowed trails to be constructed within the 50'R/W. However,we do not allow a trail easement to be within the 50'. If the City would like a dedicated trail easement,it must be outside of the 50'. • We would certainly like to be kept informed of trail work you are proposing near and adjacent to our County roadways. It allows us to understand the connectivity of the trail system you are proposing. MnDOT (A) Below are MnDOT Metro District's preliminary comments on the Park Trail Master Plan Map ahead of your Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. MnDOT Metro District is unable to provide any substantive comments on the Trail Plan until it has gone past the concept level. However,we are able to offer the following guidelines: 1. Any bicycle/pedestrian trail or sidewalk that is within or crosses a MnDOT right-of-way will need to meet the requirements set forth in the MnDOT Bikeways Facility Design Manual (https://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/design-engineering.html) and/or the Pedestrian Design and Engineering guidance available on https://www.dot.state.mn.us/peds/design- engineering.html and other best practice guidelines found on the same webpages. 2. Any trails and/or sidewalks facilities proposed within MnDOT right-of-way will require a Limited Use Permit (LUP). For questions concerning LUP's,please contact Dan Phelps (651-234-7585 or dan.phelps(&,state.mn.us). 3. They will also have to meet Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/ada/). 4. If trails are proposed within MnDOT right-of-way, for the safety and comfort of trail users, it is recommended that trails are located as far as practically possible from the highway given environmental and design constraints. This is not a complete list of items and if plans develop that include a trail within or impacting MnDOT right-of-way further review will be necessary. The plans will be routed to other MnDOT Departments for review,however,the above mentioned items should answer many questions about design requirements,etc.We encourage the early coordination with MnDOT as any of the plans for trails along or crossing MnDOT trunk highways proceed further towards implementation. Any questions concerning MnDOT Metro District's comments above can be directed to Mackenzie Turner-Bargen (651-234-7879/cc'd). Thanks, Jennifer Wiltgen,AICP Principal Planner (B) MnDOT District 3 would like to comment similar to MnDOT Metro District in that there are guidelines that would need to be followed if and when projects reach construction phase. Additionally, our comments are preliminary based on the draft information with a short comment timeframe.As plans progress,please keep us informed of discussions related to the State Trunk Highway system. I would like to offer an additional comment for your Commission to consider: • Bike/ped crossings at uncontrolled intersections on the two major trunk highways in Elk River is a concern. • The plan shows a crossing at approximately US 10/Simonet Dr. NW. Crossing at-grade here would be a safety issue with the higher speeds and traffic volumes. • Another area of potential concern is at the TH 101/TH 169/US 10 interchange where the trail along the river would pass through the interchange. Once again,higher speeds and traffic volumes may require some type of grade separation to allow bikes/peds to cross. Thank you, Jon Mason MnDOT District 3 Senior Planner II II I I I 1 I€ 11 I I I II I I 1 1 iF 1 I I I 1 1 I! I I I I I I I I -. 11 II 1 1 '1 i I s I_ 1 1 I I iHi 11191I i1i1ii1Ii1111i1I 11111 1iJili1 Iii1 1 11311111 g81@PV; gal _ 1 / 111111 dill : a .� M� � , � / Ili( kiti �- _ 1,..urm .a ,rli i �b. ..�`,�wir �� am11 A ��• ��R' Iii'■ _=m %I•4111. mem . ►��Ai..s� 1Io '1 4,„ MIN 1Zi1111 —7.26,(11 Wilir ■1! .� lr��'/ ' v,n C-i'lk(12.';'' il lifi/ , I I IIIIIIFI TM I ANI il , .11rPitilill1"- '' „.~14f4tEIrdrdI/ \. m .■illin ��I� a =�`� Puy