Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.A. Southbridge/Dean Lakes Trail Improvements //.fI. CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director Meeting Date: April 17, 2007 Subject: SouthbridgelDean Lakes Trail Improvements INTRODUCTION This agenda item seeks direction from City Council on proposed trial improvements in the Southbridge and Dean Lakes area. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The 2007 Park Capital Improvement Program includes funding for constructing trails in the South bridge and Dean Lakes area. The funding is included in two separate projects: . Dean Lake Trail System . South bridge Area Park Development The two trail segments are a trail connection and trail bridge from Dean Lakes development to Southbridge (South bridge-Dean Lakes trail segment), and a trail connection from Cambridge Road to Whitehall Road (Cambridge-Whitehall trail segment.) Earlier this year, City Council authorized schematic design work on the trail and the trail bridge from these two projects. Jeff Evens from the City's Engineering Department has lead the detailed design work for the trail, and Don Sterna from WSB and Associates is designing the bridge. I appreciate the assistance both of them have provided on this project. The attached documents outline the details of the project, as well as the resident input that we have received throughout the design process. I do want to extend my thanks to the South bridge neighborhood for their input. RECOMMENDATION At their March meeting, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended to City Council: 1. To proceed with the Dean Lake-Southbridge trail connection and trail bridge as proposed. 2. To defer the Cambridge-Whitehall trail segment until such time as either MNDOT Parcel 75 is conveyed to the city and a connection can be made to the trail along South bridge Parkway, or CSAH 21 and related trails are constructed to connect. At such time that one of these events occurs, the city would review construction of the trail this trail segment. I believe that both trails are important links in the overall trail system and should be constructed at some point. If Council agrees but you are comfortable with delaying the Cambridge-Whitehall trail segment, I would also recommend that you ask each resident that abuts the trail to sign simple letter of agreement with the city that they agree to notify any future buyer of their property about the planned trail. This would hopefully address a major concern that the existing residents have where they were not informed of the ownership and potential use of this park land. RELATIONSHIP TO VISION A. Active and Healthy Community REQUESTED ACTION If City Council concurs, move to: 1. Approve plans and specifications and authorize bidding for the Dean Lakes- South bridge trail segement, trail bridge, and all related work. 2. Defer construction of the Cambridge-Whitehall trail segement until either MNDOT Parcel 75 is conveyed to the city and a trail connection can be made to South bridge Parkway, or CSAH 21 is constructed and a connection can be made to trails that would be constructe along this roadway. In addition, Council may also consider motioning that: Defering construction of the Cambridge-Whitehall trail segment is contingent on each property owner that abuts the proposed trail entering into an agreement with the city that they will provide notice about the proposed trial to any future owner of their property. City of Shakopee Capital Improvement Program 2006 - 2011 Project Manager Project Type: Project Title: Total Project Cost: Andrea Weber Park and Trail Development South bridge Area Park Development 1,430,310 Year Added to CIP: 2004 A. Ex enditure Items: 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Land & ROW 368,000 Construction 846,200 Improvements 20,000 Engineering/Admin. 196,110 - - - Total 1,410,310 20,000 - - - B. Fundin Source: General Fund Capital Improvement Funds Park Reserve Fund 1,410,310 20,000 - Grants (specify) Donations (specify) State Aid Assessments Sanitary Sewer Fund-Base Sanitary Sewer Fund-Flow Sanitary Sewer Fund-Trunk Storm Drainage Fund-Base Storm Drainage Fund-Trunk Tax Levy Total 1,410,310 20,000 - - - DescriDtion This project would develop several park areas in the Southbridge Development, including the MNDOT 75 parcel. 2007 - Parcel 75 Assessmentfor South bridge Parkway 2007 - Trail from Cambridge Road to Whitehall Road along gas easement to connect to school trail, 2600LF @ $27/LF=70,200+10% (inflation per year), $77,200+5% Design/Admin, $3860, $81,060 (Park Reserve) 2007 - Park at Southbridge Pkwy: Hockey/basketball w light 180,000, shade structure 30,000, Water ftn & water service 15,000 and Plantings 20,000, concrete and trails, $20,000, earthwork, 30,000, site furniture 15,000, = $310,000 plus 25% design and admin $77,500, total $387,500 (Park Reserve) 2007 - Construction: MNDOT 75 parcel2 mi trail @27/LF=285,000, 1 small picnic shelter. $30,000, lights at kiosk 14,000 total site fum and interp signage 30,000. sod and plant resto $25,000, 25 space parking @$75,000= $459,000+plus 25% design and admin, $114,750 = $573,750 (Park Reserve) 2008 -Improvements: Installation of fishing pier, $20,000 (DNR Fishing Pier Grant) Justification In 2001, the City worked with residents to prepare a master plan for the South bridge area. The improvements identified in this project are a portion of the overall master plan Other Comments Estimated cost for total development of the system based on the master plan is $3 million (2001). ODeratina Costs Estimated costs: Labor $50,000 + Equip/Supplies $25,000 = $75,000 (when fully developed) City of Shakopee Capital Improvement Program 2007 - 2011 Project Manager Project Type: Trail Project Title: Total Project Cost: Andrea Weber Trail Construction Dean Lake Trail System (North Segment) 230,475 Year Added to CIP: 2004 A. Ex enditure Items: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Land & ROW Construction 219,500 Improvements Engineering/Admin. 10,975 Total 230,475 - - ~ - B. Fundin Source: General Fun!;! Capitallmprfvement Funds Park Reserve Fund 230,475 Grants (specify) Donations (specify) State Aid Assessments Sanitary Sewer Fund-Base Sanitary Sewer Fund-Flow Sanitary Sewer Fund-Trunk Storm Drainage Fund-Base Storm Drainage Fund-Trunk Tax Levy Total 230,475 - - - - DescriDtion This project would construct a trail in the Dean Lake area to connect with trail being constructed as part of tt west Dean Lake developments. Construction: $198,700 (Park Reserve) Paved trail from Wakefield to the west side of Dean Lake. Trail would be bituminous with a bridge to cross the outlet channel. Trail Construction at $30/LF for 2800 feet::$84,000 Bridge 10' wide by 20' long+ bridge footings 20,000=$135,500 Engineering/Admin: Design and engineering, (5% of project cost) (Park Reserve). Justification Identified in Southbridge Master Plan. Trail through Dean Lakes Development is constructed and dead ends at city property. This would provide trail connections to Southbridge. Other Comments Work would be conducted after planned Dean Lake outlet channel control structure is installed. ODeratina Costs Estimated costs: Labor $1,000 CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board From: Mark Themig, Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Director Meeting Date: March 26, 2007 Subject: South bridge - Dean Lakes Trail Plan and Trail Bridge Schematic Review INTRODUCTION This agenda item seeks feedback and further direction or a recommendation to City Council on proposed trail construction projects in the South bridge - Dean Lakes area. BACKGROUND The 2007 Park Capital Improvement Program includes funding for constructing trails in the South bridge and Dean Lakes area. The funding is included in two separate projects: . Dean Lake Trail System . South bridge Area Park Development Earlier this year, City Council authorized schematic design work on the trail and the trail bridge from these two projects. Jeff Evens from the City's Engineering Department has lead the detailed design work for the trail, and Don Sterna from WSB and Associates is designing the bridge. I appreciate the assistance both of them have provided on this project. Dean Lake Trail Segment The first trail is an 8' asphalt trail that would connect the Dean Lakes development on the west side of Dean Lake (Lowes and Ruby Tuesday area) with the South bridge development. This trail would connect with the trail system that was constructed with the Dean Lakes development that is owned and maintained privately by the developer (Ryan Companies), but is open to the public through the development agreement. The trail would run along Hwy 169 on city-owned park land. A pedestrian bridge that is capable of supporting maintenance and police vehicles would be installed to cross the Prior Lake-Spring Lake outlet channel. The trail would connect with Southbridge at Wakefield Circle. Overall, this trail segment and trail bridge are relatively easy to construct. The alignment is fairly straight, grades level, and the soils are anticipated to be stable for both the trail and the trail bridge. There is no wetland impact associated with the construction of either the trail or the bridge. There are easements for a gas line and the channel in the area, but both the watershed district and the gas company indicate that the trail can be constructed as proposed with an encroachment agreement. The encroachment agreements would require the City to pay for any disturbance to the trail or bridge; however, the proposed alignment takes any future gas line or channel work into account, so we do not anticipate any issues in the future. The only disadvantage to this trail is that when the trail connects to Wakefield Circle, trail users will either need to cross Wakefield Circle to access the sidewalk, or use the road until the next trail connection at South bridge Parkway. Unfortunately, given the way the development was designed, there are no alternatives. Trail Bridge The trail bridge proposed for this segment is a prefabricated trail bridge that would be delivered to the site and installed on poured-in-place concrete footings. The bridge would be typical of trail bridges that you might see in other park systems. Instead of a painted surface, we are proposing unpainted steel that requires little or no maintenance. With the unpainted surface, a very thin layer of rust forms on the surface, but the steel integrity of the bridge remains. Over time, this surface tends to appear more natural than a painted one, which we believe is important given the natural setting of the channel crossing. The bridge decking is proposed to be a wood material, which is commonly found on other bridges. The wood is a special wood that stands up well over time to the elements. Although it's not an entirely smooth surface for rollerblading, it is good for biking, walking, and running. (The other option, concrete, is more expensive.) Whitehall;..Cambridge Trail Segment When the design work for the Dean Lake trail segment was proposed, we also included constructing this trail segment at the same time due to the cost efficiency of doing more quantities at the same time. This trail would follow the city-owned 60' linear park that runs from Cambridge Road to Whitehall where it would connect to an existing trail that runs to Red Oak Elementary. It would also connect to future trails along future County Road 21. The trail is currently proposed to be a standard 8' bituminous trail. This linear park also contains a high-pressure gas main with an easement over the entire area. Although the easement allows trails, it would be the responsibility of the city to pay for any damage to the trail that results from work on the gas line. With this in mind, the trail alignment is proposed to be off-set 10' from the gas line, which would minimize impact to the trail should the gas main need to be serviced in the future. There is one section of the trail that would cross the gas main in order to avoid removal of some large trees. I would like to note that this trail segment was originally proposed to be constructed along with the South bridge Active Park development and connect to South bridge Parkway. At the time we developed the CIP in 2006, we anticipated that MNDOT would proceed with conveying Parcel 75 to the city and the park could be constructed on the parcel. However, that has not occurred so the trail is proposed to end at Cambridge Road. BUDGET The following is the budget and current cost estimates for the two segments: Dean Lake Trail Segment CIP Budget 230,475 Cost Estimates Trail Bridge and Design 100,130 Trail and Desion 90,525 Total 190,655 Cambridge-Whitehall Trail Segment CIP Budget 88,200 Cost Estimates Trail and Design 87,900 RESIDENT INPUT/QUESTIONS In order to get input from residents about the trails, we held a neighborhood meeting on March 8. Notice of the meeting was mailed to all property owners that are adjacent to the proposed trails. It was also publicized on the city's web site and in the Shakopee Valley News. 11 people attended the neighborhood meeting. Dean Lake Trail Segment Those in attendance at the neighborhood meeting had the following question about this trail segment: Q. Why don't we follow 169 and connect the trail to the small trail segment at the end of the Wakefield Circle cul-de-sac instead of the middle of Wakefield Circle, and continue to Parcel 75? A. Initially, we thought the land directly north of the Wakefield Circle sound wall was property of MNDOT. However it is owned by the city. We analyzed this trail alignment scenario and, given the anticipated trail movements from the south, we believe that the trail connection will function best were it is proposed. In addition, there is one property east of Wakefield Circle that abuts MNDOT right-of-way, which would make it very difficult to connect the trail to Parcel 75. Cambridge-Whitehall Trail Segment We received significant resident input regarding the Cambridge-Whitehall trail at the neighborhood meeting, at a follow-up trail walk on March 21, and in writing. I have attached a handout that was distributed at the March 8 meeting that attempted to answer approximately four pages of questions that were submitted to me prior to the March 8 meeting. At the March 8 meeting and March 21 neighborhood walk, residents raised several other questions that were not covered in the handout: Q. What about constructing the trail over the gas line. Isn't the gas line old and wont that be a problem? A. Based on our conversations with Center Point Energy, they have no objections to the trail construction. In areas where the trail would cross the gas line, the contractor would likely need to hand dig to locate the line. Q. What are the linear foot costs for this trail? A. Approximately $54.95, including all construction and design work. Q. Can we use gravel instead of asphalt? A. Some trails are constructed with gravel instead of asphalt. The most well known gravel trails are the Light Rail Transit trails (LRT) where they are designed to be "temporary". In Shakopee and most other communities, the standard trail construction material is asphalt because it ensures an ADA compliant firm and stable surface and allows the most versatile use (walking, biking, roller blading, running, etc.). A gravel trail could be considered, but our recommendation would be asphalt. a. Why is the trail needed when there is a sidewalk that leads to Red Oak trail? If we need a trail, can it be an "on-street" trail? A. Generally, since trails are wider, they accommodate more types of users. Also, generally, on-street trails are the least desirable trails due to potential vehicle conflicts. We looked at the feasibility of an on-street trail, and, given the typical street width in that area of 32', with 14' drive lanes (1' curb on each side) an 8' trail could not be accommodated. Q. Could the trail be constructed on the center of the easement over the gas line? A. Yes it could, but the city runs the risk of additional costs for repair in the unlikely event that the gas line would need to be repaired or replaced. a. Why is the trail being constructed now when it doesn't connect to South bridge Parkway? If it has to be constructed, can it be deferred until the park along South bridge Parkway is constructed? A. As mentioned previously, the trail was to be part of the active park in Southbridge and connect to Southbridge Parkway through the active park. We proposed moving ahead with construction now in order to capture some cost efficiency of more quantity of trail construction. Q. If the trail isn't constructed or made of gravel, can the funds that would not be used on the trail be used on another project? A. Yes. That decision would be up to the Advisory Board and the City Council. I have also attached additional information from Leanne Lehn, a representative of some of the residents, on other background information including what they were told when the purchased their lots by realtors and builders in the late 1990's. AL TERNA TIVES There appear to be four alternatives: 1. Move ahead with constructing the trails now as proposed. 2. Move ahead with constructing the trails with modifications, such as adjusting the trail alignment to the center of the easement over the gas main. 3. Defer construction of one or both of the trails until a later time. 4. Eliminate the proposed trails. I believe that both trails are important links in the overall trail system and should be constructed at some point. Since it appears that the main objection is to the Cambridge- Whitehall trail, the Advisory Board may want to focus the discussion on this trail segment. If you agree that the trail is important but you are willing to consider Alternative 3, I believe it would be important for all of the residents that abut the trail and are opposed to it enter into some type of agreement with the city acknowledging that the trail will be constructed at some point in the future, and agreeing to notify future homeowners if they choose to sell their property before the trail is constructed. REQUESTED ACTION The Advisory Board is asked to provide feedback and further direction or a recommendation to City Council on proposed trail construction projects in the South bridge - Dean Lakes area. South bridge-Dean Lakes Trail Meeting March 7, 2007 Agenda and Discussion Items 1. Process and Timeline . Early 2000's: South bridge-Dean Lakes Park and Trail Master Plan -Identified park and trails throughout the area -Master plan elements included in City's 5-year Capital Improvement Program (established each year by Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and City Council) -Due to costs, phased approach . March 7: Neighborhood Meeting -Present preliminary layout and bridge design -Get feedback from residents -No decisions made at this meeting. . March 26: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board -Present preliminary layout and bridge design -Provide resident feedback -Advisory Board makes recommendation to the City Council -Resident input encouraged . April 17: City Council -Present preliminary layout and bridge design, incorporating recommendations from Parks and Recreation Advisory Board -City Council directs final plans and specifications and authorizes bidding -Resident input usually encouraged in discussion 2. Overview of Proposed Trail Plans and Work . Whitehall/Cambridge Road Trail Connection -Connects Red Oak Elementary School Trail and future CR21 trails to Cambridge Road (will eventually connect to trails on South bridge Parkway) -Uses land that was dedicated to the City has park land with the South bridge Development -Land has underlying easement for gas line that restricts certain activities -Trail proposed to be offset to allow for gas line repair without trail disruption -Trail alignment attempts to preserve most trees, although trees could be removed at any time by gas company -Trail crossings would be marked and signed -No landscaping proposed within easement due to easement restrictions . South bridge - Dean Lakes Trail Connection -Connects existing trails in Dean Lakes to South bridge and to other City trails -Requires use of sidewalk or street from Wakefield Circle -No wetland impacts. -Some woodland impacts due to gas line easements. . South bridge - Dean Lakes Trail Bridge -Prefabricated trail bridge -Capable of supporting maintenance and emergency vehicles 3. Resident Questions (From March 5 email) General QuestionslTrail Design Q. What is the actual purpose of this pathway "connection"? A. This path was identified in the master plan and is intended to provide a pedestrian connection from Southbridge Parkway to Red Oak elementary and a trail on future CR 21. Q. Will motorized vehicles be allowed? Who will monitor this? This a safety concern for all of us. Who will fix our damaged property? Will we have to incur this cost too? A. Only maintenance and police vehicles are allowed on trails. The only reports we have of vehicle trail use are at Tahpah Park, where trails are used to access sports fields where users park on the grass illegally. We don't have reports of vehicle use on other trails. Q. Will the association incur any costs? A. No. Q. By adding fences or large shrubs it takes away our backyard community to where our kids can run and play. Plus, it takes away why we move to Shakopee to be in a neighborhood "friendly" community. Why do we have to put up walls or barriers? to keep us safe? Our other community neighbors can use the sidewalks that are in place throughout the neighborhood. A. Adding fences is up to each resident. The Upper Minnesota Valley Drainage Ditch trail has some yards with fences and some without. Q. How big is the trail going to be and made of what? I thought there was Minnegasco gas pipeline running back there? Can we put a trail over pipeline? A. The trail is proposed to be an 8' wide bituminous trail. The trail can be installed within the easement, but if the gas line needs repair, trail repair is responsibility of the City. The trail is proposed to be off-set 10' from the gas line in most areas. Q. Will they be adding any landscaping? If so, who will take care of it? It is just going to be dead weeds/grass if there is a drought? Is the landscaping included in the funding for this trail? Is it going to be done at the same time the trail is put in? A. Landscaping is not proposed. It is not is allowed within the easement area. Q. Are they adding any benches/picnic tables adjacent to the paths? I DO NOT WANT THIS!!! Who wants to have some person gawking at you while you are doing whatever in your backyard. Plus the extra garbage and smell. A. Benches or picnic tables are not proposed. Q. Will there be any lighting? I do not want lighting as it would make it feel like an airport runway. We have lights on the streets. People can use the sidewalks that we pay for and maintain. Is the trail going to be lit? A. Lighting is not proposed. Q. Why add this trail now? It stops at Cambridge. There is a proposed trail that goes from Cambridge to the Parkway for sometime in the future. Wouldn't it make sense to do either all of it rather than this little "chunk" that leads to nowhere? A. The trail was part of the proposed "active park development" planned for this year. However, we have been unsuccessful in conveying MNDOT Parcel 75 to the City. Until that occurs, we can not make the trail connection to Southbridge Parkway. a. Who is paying for the funding for this? A. The funding is coming from the City's park reserve fund. a. Why were the sidewalks put in? There are sidewalks that reach Red Oak (correct???) . A. Sidewalks are usually installed on one or both sides of all city streets and primarily serve pedestrians. Trails are usually installed to provide connections and can accommodate both pedestrians and bicycles. a. How many trees are going down in order to put the path in? A. The plans call for the removal of 10 smaller trees, but the larger trees have been preserved. The gas company could remove the trees at any time. a. Why, as an association, do we not get a vote on this? We have to run everything else by the association.......... Why, as taxpayers, do we not get to vote on this, assuming taxpayers are paying for this. A. Residents can provide their opinion to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and City Council. The Association can also take a formal position. a. When is this going to happen? A. If it proceeds, the project would be bid this spring for summer construction. a. Why can't we spend this money on updating the park or putting in a hockey rink or basketball court? A. The Capital Improvement Program has additional funding identified for active park development in South bridge, tentatively planned for 2008, but contingent on the status of MNDOT Parcel 75. a. Can we get some reimbursement to put some privacy landscaping in the backs of our yards to maintain our privacy and safety? Especially for people who have been here 2001 and before who had no clue this was going to happen in their back yards. The developer and builders failed to tell us that the easement was actually park land. We did not know until there was a meeting for Dean Lake a few years back. A. Landscaping on private property is not being proposed. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and City Council could make that decision. The land was dedicated park land on the original plat. School Related a. Will it take away our bussing privileges since it only leads to Red Oak? A. According to Shakopee School District Superintendent Jon McBroom, the installation of trail will have no impact on bussing. Bussing decisions are made based on the location of the driveway connection to a public street. Pedestrian Crossings a. Who will be monitoring children crossing the streets to Red Oak? Or will they have to cross at their own risk during the busy mornings and afternoon? Will the school have to pay for items for a cross guards? As far as I know only one block of kids are considered walkers and the school does not offer cross guards for them because they do not cross a major street. A. If children walk to school, they will have to cross the streets from either the sidewalk or the trail. The sidewalks are generally located at intersections. Q. In our development their are 2 major streets that need to be crossed to use the path connection. They are not connected to any major intersection. The curve on Cambridge Rd has a slight bend in it and people park on the streets, my concern is that a driver and a path user will not see each other which will leave to a major accident and a possible life! If the path used stays on the sidewalk the scenario could be different. A. The crossing at Cambridge Road is proposed to be at the intersection of Cambridge and Sussex Lane Criminal Activity/Police Q. Will a police officer be present to make sure that a outside sexual predators or Bullies are not lurking in the pathway? As a community member whose backyard has the pathway behind it, am I going to spend my morning watching other children on the path rather than my own getting ready for school to make sure they are safe? Probably not. Who is going to monitor the trail? Are we the crime watch for the trail because its in our back yard? We have had at a lot of crime in our neighborhood and this is just another access now the back of people's homes. With existing crime in our community (mail theft, garage theft, backyard theft, the man doing obscenities in his car and following neighbors while walking, the teenage boy who approached my neighbors son asking him if he was lost, needless to say she called her son in and he said there were 2 other boys-what was their motive?) Why add another pathway to give access to OUR homes. I am sure many people will be adding fences (which our association prefers not to have and if you do put up a fence it has to be approved and a certain type of fencing has to purchased without being fined, this cost time and money for us) or large shrubs (again costs us money). This will add costs to the families in our neighborhood. We can not watch both the front and the backyards at the same time. Will we have to call the police every time we see something suspicious? What a waste of our tax dollars. Will we have to approach suspicious people who are biking, walking, rollerblading...what ever they are doing who come into our yard. That makes me very uneasy. A. The Police Department is responsible for crime enforcement. Recently, the Police Department has launched a park watch program in parts of the City, which will be expanded in the future. We have not had reports of significant issues with criminal activity on the Upper Minnesota Valley Drainage Ditch trail that runs through the center of Shakopee. Maintenance Q. Summer Maintenance- who will pick weeds regularly (not mow them over), pick up trash (not mow over it), pick up animal feces (or mow them over) and control animal urine smell. People do not always pick up after their pets or themselves. A. Our park maintenance division is responsible for maintaining the park area. Due to the use of the area by residents, they have had difficulty mowing around play structures, landscaping, etc. in the past. Thanks to the cooperation of residents, this should be less of an issue in the future. A. Animal feces is an issue in all of our parks. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is working on creating off-leash dog areas, and locating one in Southbridge is a possibility in the future. Q. Winter Maintenance-Will it be plowed? If not, why put a pathway that can only be used only a few months in the year while the sidewalks offer a perfect existing option. A. Yes, the trail would be plowed. Trails are plowed after roads and parking lots. Q. What time will they mow/plow? Since they mow the corner lot between 6:00-7:30 am. They should obey some set noise ordinance. In the summer, people usually have windows open and with small children around, we would like them to sleep until it is time to wake up. NOT by a lawn mowing strolling in the backyard for a trail that we don't want! A. In the past, Park Maintenance has started work earlier than 6:30 a.m. Their new contract has a 6:30 a.m. start time. It is possible that they could mow after 7:00 a.m., which is in compliance with the noise ordinance. Some snow events require night plowing, but generally trails are cleared after roads and parking lots. Q. What is it going cost the city to maintain this trail each year or is it on the taxpayers or association? They don't cover the boulevard so they are covering this? Are the going to do the mowing and weeding? I've only seen mowing of the easement just in the last year, nothing previous to this. A. Park Maintenance will be maintaining the trail since it is park land. Maintenance of the boulevard was part of the original Southbridge developers agreement. (No specific cost information was available for this meeting, but we will have this information for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting.) Additional Comments One of my neighbors went to the city offices to get more information on the easement before they built their home (1999). The area was called South bridge in all of our information. The city clerk could not find anything on this area. Needless to say no one told her this development is actually called Dean Lake on all the legal documents. We did not know this until the Dean Lake meeting. All of us were very miss lead. Of course, the huge predator issue. There is far too much crime around the area with the lack of police officers. I am sure there are many crime ridden people who realize this fact and know that we are a target area to hit. The word spreads and if we don't have enough officers to help correct the problems it will only get worse. What a perfect opportunity with this trail for child molesters to prey on children and hop on HWY 169 to never land. There is an added liability exposure with curious kids wanting to try someone's trampoline, play set, basketball hoop/court, pool. There is easy access. Yes, one can say you can limit the exposure by fences (which you addressed costs), but the reason for the additional increased exposure is due to the trail. The exposure is not as great without the trail! So the city then should foot the bill for fences (which I don't want a non-access fence) rather than the homeowners incur higher insurance premiums due to the incidental increase in exposure and the coverage for the added a fence to our policy. We have sidewalks in front of our houses and a trail in the back? There is no reason that should even exist! They are two parallel paths a few hundred feet apart that would achieve the same purpose for the people using them! This is just an extra expense the city is doing just to say that "we have lots of trails". Find a natural place for that to happen, not sandwiched between peoples houses! I would prefer to walk on the sidewalk than this purposed trail. Who wants to look at peoples backyards? I'm curious as to what the position of the association is? I plan on putting in a fence if the path goes in - preferably a 6 foot cedar one that will prevent a stranger from walking 43ft from the easement to my basement window. Any idea how many others are planning on putting in a fence and if that will influence the support of the association? Also, if a path goes into our backyards does the association plan on changing its fencing policies to support the safety of its residents? For whatever it is worth I think the questions of safety and purpose are the most important. Nowhere else in town does a trail go through the backyards of homes in the same subdivision. Coming from California my family really enjoys the open yards of Minnesota and at the same time are amazed by the access to people's homes that it gives strangers. A trail like the one proposed for our backyards only make easy access even easier. The safety question begs the purpose question in that the trail is going into the backyards of homes that have a sidewalk in their front yards. To me the purpose of a trail is to create safe access to a destination where there is none. Our neighborhood is full of sidewalks that provide safe access to the school and other homes in the subdivision. I consider myself a heavy trail user and have used nearly every trail in Shakopee. The same holds true for every other town I've lived in from California, to Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska. I've also traveled all over the country to run in races. The one thing I've learned from being so lucky is that a good outdoor city uses its sidewalks and trails together, without redundancy, to connect as many of its neighborhoods, parks, schools, and city attractions as is safely possible. A city, using trails as a compliment to the sidewalks of these destinations can cost effectively build a trail system that in itself is a city attraction. Trail Plans and Images www.ci.shakopee.mn.us Comcast Webmail- Email Message Page I of3 ",", ""'~ .-' ", ''''''''~ ..'d'.~.._".." '. ,.... ,. . ,_" >- . "....,....,-. From: "Tom Pitschneider" <TPitschneider@cLshakopee.mn.us> To: <lehn4@comcast.net>, <board@hamlet-southbridge.com> SUbject: RE: Path way Date: Wednesday, March 07, 20075:10:35 PM . dO.. __. .. _....". "". _". . . ...... ._. _. ~.. ._ - ._n, .- .~ Leanne, The BOD's primary responsibility is to maintain a quality neighborhood. Our main goal is to disseminate information important to the community. As in the case of future Co. Rd. 21 a group of Hamlet residents formed a group opposing the construction ofthe roadway. The BOD asked this group to provide updates to the BOD so the information could be distributed throughout the association. If there is a group of residents opposed to the trail I think the BOD would ask that group to provide any information to the Board for distribution any we could them provide information from all sources to the entire community.. Fences up to 6 feet in height are allowed. We certainly would like to discourage them to maintain the open feel of the neighborhood, however there are no covenants restricting them. All fences would require approval by the Architectural Committee prior to installation. If the trail is constructed there will be no costs to the association. Both mowing and plowing would be done by the City of Shakopee. You may want to add to your question list the following: When maintenance of the trail is required (resurfacing or replacing) will there by any assessment to adjoining properties? I do not know the answer to this one so it might be a great question to ask. The initial packets that were created by the developer of South bridge included a map showing the development and related improvements. In http://mailcenter3 .comcast.net/wmc/v/wm/45EF5BA50003 7BD90000598922 I 6525 806CBO... 3/7/2007 Corneast Webrnail- Ernail Message Page 2 of3 many cases those were never given to the homeowners when they purchased their homes from various builders. This is a concern the BOD has heard on many occasion which is why all the association documents are now posted on the website. Tom Pitschneider President Hamlet Home Owners Assn. P.O. Box 154 Savage, MN 55378 <mailto: > < > From: [mailto: ] Sent: Sunday, March 04, 200710:04 AM To: Subject: Path way \M1at type of involvement/direction will the board give to the City in regards to the devleopment of the pathway from Southbridge Parkway to Red Oak? We as neighbors have collected a list of questions that will be present to Mark T., the Park and Rec Board and City Council. One of the concerns is if the pathway goes up people want to know if they put up fences how will that effect the association rules and regulation? http://rnailcenter3 .comcast.netlwrnc/v/wm/45EF5BA50003 7BD9000059892216525806CBO... 317/2007 Comcast Webmail- Email Message Page 3 of3 Will the pathway cost the associaion with additional fees? I look forward to your response. Leanne Lehn -- (Attachments successfully scanned for viruses.) Attachment 1: (text/html) http://mailcenter3.comcast.net/wmc/v 1wm/45EF5BA50003 7BD9000059892216525 806CBO... 3/7/2007 Cons We did not attend all the planning meetings with the Park and Rec. Advisory board. Pro Those who attended the 1 sl two meetings, their names were put on a list to receive notes and details from the meetings. We knew not all of us would be able to attend all the meetings but we still wanted to be involved. We never received any follow up information, Voice mail messages and emails were sent to the P&R department and to Mark M and their was no response. Public Meetings were miss represented as the Dean Lake Area. We did not know that Dean Lake area was divided into 3 sections. We only know our area as Southbridge. And if you spoke about Southbridge we were under the impression at the first meeting that you were discussing the park preserve trail system and the fire department Pedestrians access to school (pg. 2.12). We were told sidewalks were put in for the connection of the pathway to school, not a trail system. In respect to open natural spaces we see our gas easement as valuable open space. The developer and the builders told us that this land would remain open and only used by the Gas Company for repairs and service. In the master plan the document lists the trail to loop around the development. It does not list using the gas easement as a means of transportation. The developer and the builders told us that this land would remain open and only used by the Gas Company for repairs and service. 9/27 I spoke to Mark M. The meeting is at the community center at 7pm sharp. We have a few minutes for comment. He told the chair that we are coming. I told him some of my concern listed on the attachment especially the name of Dean Lake area. They did or are in the process of changing the name of the area. Plus, they cxl one of the last meetings. He said the Dean Lake residence did take over the meeting to discuss their concerns. Which is good for us. He said we could make our comments, than we he will assign someone from the city to work with us this fall to further discuss, I He made a comment of the dollar amount that will be spent on this long- term project. I told him we could save him money to not use our easement. He laughed. He mentioned the land belongs to P&R and I said we were missed informed by the developer/builder and that is what making us upset. He said Carol (?) (who lives in our development) and he were speaking about developing a law that a builder and city need to disclose information. We just spoke about that last night. She is running for city council. I guess we are not alone on what we were told from our developer and builder. Agenda and notes from City P&R meetings are not updated on web page. 9/27 neighbor responses For example, Use sidewalk system verses trail Leave connecting point to Southbridge Concern over maintenance of trail system Do the rest of the trail system first, review need in a year or two. I I I I I I I I I \ I I I I I I I ., I ~ 2007 Pedestrian Trail Improvements I I SHAKOPEE City of Shakopee, Minnesota i ----- --- --- --- - -~ -"------- ---- ---- _n____ _ - ----------~"------- --- - --- --- i I i Pedestrian Trail Bridge Dean Lake Outlet Channel Bridae Information The proposed pedestrian bridge will be a prefabricated steel pratt truss bridge with reinforced concrete pile supported abutments. The bridge will span the Dean Lake Outlet Channel at a length of 70-90 feet. The bridge will have a timber deck and will be ten feet wide. It will be designed to accommodate both pedestrian traffic and maintenance vehicles. Mn/DOT and AASHTO specifications will govern the design. Weathering steel will be used to provide a low maintenance, durable and aesthetically pleasing appearance. Safety Rail Top Chord '.'Job Diagonals Ho.-izol'llal (shOwn) Prall Vcrl>Cal Special Rubrail lpo (ShOMl) Sleel BoUom Chord VerliC<11 Decking Floor Beam Treated wood. Douglas Fir (shown) Tropic.'ll M.dl'o'oOd . lpo Floor Slringer Concroto ~-~- \ I I I to: .' ~ \' I r.J I "- i ,. ~;;. I ) \ I ... I " I '" I I I I I 'I I I I I i I I i I \ I