The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About15.C.2. Huber Park Site Plan ~ '.i:... /5o/C,J, .: CITY OF SHAKOPEE MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator From: Mark Themig Meeting Date: September 21, 2004 Subject: Huber Park Site Plan INTRODUCTION City Council is asked to review, comment, and provide direction on the site plan and cost estimates for the redevelopment of Huber Park. BACKGROUND At one time, Huber Park was the focal park for the city. However, over time, the park became less desirable due to frequent flooding. Since the mid 1980's, this community resource has remained mostly unused. A planning process that began in the mid 1990's resulted in a master plan for redeveloping the park to once again be a focal park for the community. This plan included.a performance area, riverbank stabilization, trails, and landscaping. The master plan was revised in 2001. This summer, the city contracted with Bonestroo, Rosene, and Anderlik to complete a final site plan, final design, and construction documents. Stuart Krahn is the project manager from Bonestroo, and has been working closely with the city to move the master plan to the site plan you are reviewing. Huber Park Design Committee We formed a design committee to assist in developing and revieWing design components. The committee is made up of the following individuals: Yvonee Anderson Rotary Carol Schultz Rotary Bryan Turtle Vision Shakopee Lauri Glenn Vision Shako pee Terry Schwalbe Lower Minnesota Rivershed District Ed Wagner Resident Bill Wermerskirchen Business Owner Andrea Weber Park Planning Bill Egan Park Maintenance Jeff Weyandt Engineering Mark McNeill City Administrator Michael Leek Community Development Paul Snook EDA ~ ... The committee's work began with a tour of eights parks that had either a performance area as their focal point or examples of stabilization. From there, we discussed and provided direction to Bonestroo on various designs for the park amenities. These individuals have committed significant time and energy into this project, and their work is much appreciated. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Review The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed the proposed final site plan on August 23. Their comments included the following: . Views from southeast open space into performance area blocked by trees. Trees should be removed for better views . Band shell should be flood proof and easily cleaned. . Stairs need to be designed to withstand river forces. . 500-people capacity performance area-most will need to walk to park-safety in getting to park is an issue. . Nice entry; carry on "theme" of downtown Shakopee into park-connection important or could get lost at Hwy 101. . Park needs to be designed to'minimizelong term maintenance issues. . Seating area needs to be wide enough to accommodate picnicking. . Performance area- what is the functionality of the performance shelter (Le. Chaska's has a historic look, but does not function acoustically) - need to think about this structure. . Performance in community of Shakopee - High School - more plays possible at Huber Park in future. . Can Rodeo area be flooded for ice-skating and warming hut? . Snowmobiling will continue through park. . Maintain view on to stage area from open lawn area to southeast (remove three trees on eastern edge of stage). . Make crossing safer at Hwy 101 through changes and improvements of existing pedestrian crossing. . Keep rodeo area in-tack for winter activities such as sledding. . Continue the "theme" of downtown Shakopee through the use of materials and streetscape elements throughout park . The performance area should be fully functional by providing proper acoustics for musical performances. Environmental Advisory Committee Review The Environmental Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed final site plan on September 8. Their comments included the following: . Some of the proposed plantings will require fertilization to sustain and thrive, and the fertilization could travel to the river. In order to minimize this action, additional native plantings should be provided adjacent to the stormwater ponds. . The native planting areas should be designed in such a way that they can be used as interpretive areas for educational purposes. . The performance area should be constructed to allow for flooding verses at a higher elevation that will be more impacted by road noise. . The Committee would like to review the techniques being proposed for stabiliZing the riverbank. . The design should incorporate environmentally friendly design techniques that will minimize impact (rainwater gardens, green paving, eco-friendly building design, etc.) . NOTE: Due to the short time period between review by the Committee and Council, we were not able to develop these environmentally friendly design options and costs. If Council would like to consider these options, we will bring them back for your review at a future meeting. Lower Minnesota Watershed District Board of Managers Review The Lower Minnesota Watershed District Board of Managers reviewed the proposed final site plan on August 18. Their comments included the following: . The project needs to be designed to minimize impact on the floodway. . The District did a study of various riverbank stabilization techniques, and found that hard treatments are required below above average flow elevations. . The stormwater pond elevation needs to be set at a level that it will be effective (water from the river will not flow into the storm ponds during most times). . The grading plan needs to ensure that water flow will continue as it currently exists and not redirected during flooding. . The Board of Managers would like to review the final grading plan when complete. Public Open.House Reviews The three preliminary site plans were presented to the community at an open house on July 15, and the proposed final site plan was presented at two open houses on September 2. Comments included the following: . The old "rodeo" area should be preserved for winter activities. Consider enhancements that promote this use. . Bluff Avenue should not be connected to the park due to the increased traffic that would use Bluff, but an emergency access would be permissible. . There were concerns about the amount of sound that would be leaving the performance area and what kind of impact that would have on the residential areas (east of the park and River City Center). . The design should incorporate historical elements from the older parts of Shakopee (e.g. Shakopee brick, Holmes Street Bridge, etc.). . The existing alley between that connects to Fillmore should be closed. . The church at the corner of First Avenue and Fillmore needs additional parking. Could the park be designed to provide parking for the church? . Snowmobiles use the state trail during the winter. The design needs to provide for this use. . Parking is needed behind the First Avenue commercial building during the daytime, but would be available for park users in the evening. In addition, the commercial parking lot on First Avenue could be used during the evening. . The property owner on the northeast corner of Fillmore and First Avenue would like to improve his parking lot when the project is constructed. Roadway designs should be provided to this property owner. . Restrooms are needed in the park, and reuse existing restrooms too. Historic design could be incorporated. . Parents should be able to watch their children in the playground while at the performances. . Provide access on shoreline for fishing. . Make the band shell large enough to accommodate seating for a community band (up to 60 performers). . Utilize the river as much as possible. . City should finally pave roads in the area even if the city has to pay for it. . Playground should be suitable for all ages. . ; . Possible seating by ponds. . Maintain parking behind commercial buildings. Parking in front of the buildings could also be used for park activities. . Consider making the park accessible by boat. Summary We received a considerable amount of comments and suggestions throughout the site design process. Most of the comments have been integrated into the proposed final site plan. PROPOSED FINAL SITE PLAN The proposed final site plan is based on the previously mentioned 2001 master plan. As you will see, there are changes from the master plan that reflect discussion and input that we received during the final site plan design process. The following information outlines the most significant design components that were addressed through this process. Initial Site Design Concepts (Attachment A) Bonestroo prepared three final concept plans for review and refinement by the design committee that capture elements of the area: the city grid, the river and the tie in to downtown, and the bedrock ledge. Following the open house and review by the Design Committee, components of each were used to develop the proposed final site plan. Proposed Final Site Plan (Attachment B) The final site plans shows how the design would incorporate the primary elements of the design: Park Amenity Elevations One of the questions not resolved in the master plan was how to handle the flooding of the park. In 2003, the city obtained approval to begin a process of filling portions of Huber Park in the flood plain in order to raise more significant elements of the design out of the more frequent flood levels. Since that time, the city has been hauling in clean fill. However, we stopped the fill process below the approved fill level in order to complete the study on how traffic noise would impact the performance area. During this period, Bonestroo also completed additional studies of the river to evaluate frequency of flooding. Attachment C provides the results of the noise study that was performed this summer to help give us a better idea of the impact the roadway, bridge, and elevation would have on the performance area. Based on the results of the study, the majority of noise entering the performance area is from the south. Since noise primarily travels by "line of sight", locating the performance area lower is better than higher. In addition, it would be helpful to block the line of sight to the majority of the sound production (tires and mufflers) through hard surface treatments like berming. Attachment D provides a graphic representation of the likelihood that flooding will occur at different elevations. The proposed site plan has the performance area located at 714.3' above sea level. This elevation puts the performance area between the 10-year and 50-year flood elevations, and has'odds below 10% that it will flood in any given year. The play structure is proposed to be located at 719.5, which is above the 50-year flood elevation. However, additional research is needed to determine . . whether or not the proposed community-built play structure can be designed to withstand even infrequent. Finally, the overlooks proposed along the river will encounter the most frequent flooding, and will need to be constructed to withstand this force. River Bank Stabilization (Attachment E) Another key element of the final design is stabilization and beautification of over 2,000 feet of riverbank. At this point, we are looking at a design that would incorporate a combination of approaches including rip rap, sheet pile, and vegetative stabilization techniques. Given the fluctuating river levels and the results of the study by the Lower Minnesota Watershed District, vegetative approaches will be limited to above a to-be-determined elevation. Although the riverbank stabilization design is not yet complete, Attachment E shows various approaches that would be used in stabilizing the riverbank, as well as treatments proposed along the riverbank. Performance Area Preliminary Concept (Attachment F) One of the focal points of the park will be the performance area. The committee analyzed three different approaches to the performance area design: Concept 1: Modern design Concept 2: Modified bandshell design Concept 3: Historic elements design Based on comments that we received through the design process, the historic elements design proved to be the preferred option. This design incorporates historic elements from the surrounding area including brick and steel. Since it will function as a performance area and need to project sound, the design will need to incorporate elements that achieve this. We are still working on refining the design to reflect this need. Once complete, the final design would be brought back to you for review. Pedestrian Entrances (Attachment G) Safe pedestrian access to the park area is important in order to provide a tie in to the downtown area for additional parking. The primary pedestrian'access point is likely to be at Sommerville and First Avenue. Bonestroo completed a traffic study and an analysis of different options for improving the safety of this crossing, which included construction of an overhead crossing, installing an underground crossing, and improving the at-grade crossing. Design challenges, non-use by pedestrians, and costs appear to make the overhead and underground crossings the least desirable options. Therefore, several options are available to consider for improvements to the existing at-grade crossing: . Advanced Stop Location . Center Median Pedestrian Refuge . Leading Pedestrian Signal Timing . Countdown Pedestrian Timers . No Right Turn on Red . Additional Signs . Pedestrian Pavement Markings . Textured/Colored Crosswalk . Removing Turn Lanes on CSAH 101 ~ , In addition, the current crossing may not fully comply with accessibility standards. More work is needed as part of preparing the final design on these issues, as well as consultation and participation from Scott County. Finally, improvements to the underpass on the west side of River City Center are also shown on Attachment G. These improvements are primarily aesthetic and involve additional landscaping and replacing/adding lighting to make the underpass more inviting. Improvements would continue east where Levee Drive would be terminated at the new CSAH 101 bridge, and a trail would continue from there through Huber Park. Future Play Structure (Attachment H) Huber Park has been preliminarily identified as the potential location for a community-built playground. A community-built playground is funded primarily through donations and constructed by volunteers. Leathers and Associates, a playground design firm, is a leader in this effort and has many successful projects throughout the country. The Waconia School District completed construction of a community-built playground in 2003. Corky Mars and Dee Joos are coordinating this effort, and they have scheduled a design day for October 28 where Shakopee elementary age students will have a chance to help develop the design for the playground. Park Parking/Levee Drive Parking Lot Finally, this project provides parking for 105 vehicles in the park itself. There are an additional -35 spaces planned for the Levee Drive parking lot. If necessary, additional parking would need to come from the downtown area or local streets. Park and Levee Drive Restrooms The site plan shows a location and cost allowance for a restroom and storage building. However, designing the restroom was not part of Bonestroo's contract, so no detailed information is provided. Council may want to consider designing and constructing this building when the park is developed in order to minimize future disruptions. We have completed an analysis of the Levee Drive restrooms. These restrooms are actually in relatively good condition. There are some ADA modifications, cosmetic improvements, and re-roofing that are needed. We are working with Public Works to determine what, if any, of these can be completed by their staff. Engineering Department Review Since this is only a site plan, there are several items that Engineering has identified that need to be addressed during the final design. These include such things as final street width and design for Fillmore, the slope of Fillmore, and assessments for Fillmore Street improvements. COST ESTIMATES Attachment I details the cost estimates for this project as shown, a total of $2,589,015, plus an additional allowance of $375,000 for the building. The 2005-2009 CIP includes funding in the amount of $1 ,615,000, in addition to in-kind work from Shakopee Public I I I Utilities for undergrounding the power lines. Bonestroo's cost estimates are considerably I more detailed than what I was able to prepare for the CIP, and I believe accurately reflect the sco e of the work shown in the ro osed site Ian. For com arison: Item CIP Estimate Bonestroo Estimate I Riverbank Stabilization $600,000 $972,315 Restroom and Stora e Buildin $200,000 $375,000 I Performance Area $400,000 $431,000 I I One question that I don't have an answer to yet is what kind of grant funding might be i available for this project. Lower Minnesota Watershed District did seem receptive to some funding, and the DNR has grant dollars available. Part of Bonestroo's contract is to I identify, pursue, and apply for these funding sources. With a final site plan, it will be I more feasible to submit funding requests. I I REQUESTED ACTION I Council is asked to provide direction on the proposed site plan, as well as how to proceed given the cost estimates. I I There are several options to consider: I 1. Adopt the proposed site plan and direct staff to continue with preparing the final design plans, actively pursue additional funding, and return to Council with more I information. I 2. Adopt the proposed site plan and direct staff to continue with preparing the final design plans with the concept of only completing the riverbank stabilization at this time and postponing the park development until additional funds are available. I 3. Adopt the proposed site plan and direct staff to continue with preparing the final I design plans and allocate additional funding from the CIP for this project either by delaying other park projects or allocating other resources. I 4. Reject the proposed site plan and direct staff to develop ways to reduce the scope of the project and bring back for further consideration. 5. Reject the proposed site plan and stop the design process. 6. Other ----------. -"'- -- - Master Plan - Huber Park - City of Shakopee, Minnesota Distance To Amphitheater Park Shelter Buildings Area From Parking: . Water Treatment System . Vanety OfSI2tI . From Parill.gAn:a 1 (400-550 If) . Naturalized Und:aping . V Irious Parle Seuinp ,..... ~ ~.FromParlcingAn:a2(400-500IQ . &eW Up IoWntaincd Spa= . Picnic Arcu :-~fiF ~~..... FromParlcingAn:a3 (1200 It) Waterfront Overlook Plaza Park Access Inset Map Scak: I' = 300' .(). Stage' Performance Area 'PalJoW,thSeati.g . !liver 0m\00I: . S.... An:hit<<1Unl Cbaracler . ParleCenterpi", . Made To Witbstmd Some FJoodjng . Publi< 0mamentaI Gardens Shoreline Stabilization . BlOClIginccnxl SboreIIllC St&biIIZJlionTn:aImclIls . ACSIhdiaIly PICI8IIlg . Utiliua Nau.. M-uJ, ImprovelUpdale Fillmore Street Restrict Alley Access . Acx:eso Only From 0.. S_ And Dead-End The Other Access Open Lawn Area . Informal_OIl ~ . ~ - -'" Streetscape Design Brauer &. Associates, Lid. 4/ . Ornamental Fcoci.g ..~ ~. <fl<fl 10411 Excel,;.,Jloulevvd " r',& . Seating Sui.. Number On< 'I' ~~ . Tee ln10 OcrA'DlOwn 01aractc:r SHAKOPEE Ii !\ Hoptim. loIN moll " ,."....I-C 0.. 7.U~ Attachment A j Initial Concept Plans I I I I I I I ____.._n_______-.- - - - ---, - --~ ________. ,~__..._____._'_____'n...............'.___ __-------..------.._~_ _"~____"..__..,_.,_~-______...,---.-----~-- THE CONVERGENCE Of ORGANIC & URBAN fORMS: The City Grid, The River & The Bedrock Ledge THE CITY GRID In downtown Shakopee the rigid geometric pattern of city blocks aligns to the bank of the Minnesota Ri\'er, The formal and repetitive framework is draped over the landscape, Tlwse linear forms, prnmpting long views down to the ri\'er and the familiar travding corridors parallel to the river, dennes the orienting qualities of downtown Shakopee, jIj;~.. ~~\~I~!':~:t;~\'er is an everchanging force as it meanders through south.ern ...... . t Mmnesota and by the heart ot Shakopee, Seasonal changes, bnngmg hIgh waters in the spring and low waters in the winter, make for shifting and organic . . . patterns on the landscape, The pace of the river is at the whim of f\!other. Nature, One day showing us its calm, soothing side by reflecting the blue of .. "" ,k,' ,,,' <he",,' p,=",;,'g ",wi", ", fime, '",b,,',,', fimw", "",d""d,~ , .. ". dnd ever-rising tlows. ~-":~;-~J:^:-:<~,:-'b:~~''J~tt THE BEDROCK LEDGE Beneath the surface the liver valle\' is craddled bv the dolomitic Shakopee formation, This bedmck formation has been cM\'ed int<) led~es bv the tlowing , waters of the f\linnesota River as it first formed during the n;'ost r;'cent Ice ^g~. " As the river n~('('dl~d ovcr time and river sedin1ents have been deposited over the bedrock, the terraced river v.1l1ey of tl)dav has formed, This is e\'ident in the shapt' of the land as the surface d!'()ps from downtown Shakop,'e to the river, P('ckets (,f shallow bedrock and even l''-p<bed bedrnck are present in the upper reaches. The lower reaches indicate deep rh'er sediments ha\'e been dl'posilL'd bv the ebb and flnw of the rh'er over time, THE DESIGN CONCEPT: The concepLual design (If I lubl'lf PJrk is ,11'\ e'pn~ssit')n of the c(ltl\.ergence 1.\1 the differing fornls ~u~~est('d by th\.~ dt.'si~n infor- mants. Tlw idea i, to not onlv to reconl'ill' but cdd'r.lll' the coming tllgl'thl'f of opposing fonns of a rigid Lity grid and thl~ tlllid fonn of a shifting riv('r. As thL~ grid fOrIn becllffit.'S lL~ss l'vidt.'nt .Jt the ri\'cr's l.~d~l~. the (nnn~ptllJ.1 dl'sign cJHl'ITlpts to reflect the grid form in the infrastructure such ,b the entr\' m.ld, parking and \\',llk\\'a\'s as wdl as linear tn'e plantings, The perforn1.1nce .11'('.1 alipb with the cit\' grid but is (llisL't to acknowledge the Clmncction to downtl,wn Shakopee. The tluid mo\'ement of the river is e'-pressed in the sinunus form "i the f',lth\\'ays and trt'l' pt.ultings ..1~ they ffiPillH.ief thfnu~h the park. .A series l)f ~....L:1/"lS dfe presl'nt as (lne l~ntL'rS tlw park from the main entry on Cn, Rd, WI. traver",'s through till' I'l~rform.lI1ce area, and continues down to the river, These pla..:as highlight the diffl'rent dc\'atin!1 k\'ds through the p.lrk ,md represt'nt the terraced bedrock nf the rin'r \'alll'\'. HUBER PARK Design Informants & Bonewoo Design Concept ~=ik& PREPARED FOR THE August 2004 A''''','''e, C I T Y 0 F S H A K 0 PEE 'O;'"'''''~''''''' I ~ I I I I I I I I I I \ I I '-:1 \ i~l ~-i- I , I I \ I I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I [ I I I I I I ., '.. ~ "1 ",'" ,;f. :"~_:_"~ I ( I I I I I I , , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :ft I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I ~~ I ~ . I I I I I I . . t7~ m ~ ~ ~ * j ~lll ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ I f }~ t .. I I ~ ~~ i ~ ~~ I I I I --- ~- -----------.- ~---_.~~-- ----- --. , . __ f.llM4-lI~AA~ ~ r 1;'1 "."...,...- Ilf 1.''- v j.....~ FNI\\c , ~ t' C~'.f .:WJd 1 ~ m p' (/) r fd ~ "~ .,~~ _ ,fl'>' ~ 11~'F )t, "pL~ I~ fdH~: t ".,",. ~ Ii ~ ~.~~~~ ~., ;roil .!!f.l . j:: ;"P' tl'I !t'l~~ ..... "1'>' n~H~ ~~ I -". --.- -~ .-'" ._._.._:Jt_~ ~ " Attachment B Proposed Final Site Plan - . -. _. o~~ ~\'\J~~ REGION'AL r-, TRAl L ~S I I { I ~\~~ .'- ~~- ~\ ....~ j I OPEN RIVER U.AWN--- TERRACE ~~ -, C --- --- -- OVERLOOK TERRACE ,- 1~._"'t__.. .- ,;< ioN. _. ....,--.- -t -~_, J'~-;; RIVER -.- ~ STABILIZATION: RIPRA - z ,-- FISHING \ PLATFORM \ , ,.,.---A" , -- - -~" ..J ,- -;~ II' ..... I. "" ~ l' ...." .- ,;:,' 1 .-"" -- '- , .,,.,-,:::.:- EMERGEN'er- -- ;ACCESS WITH GATE ARM ,~ . I ;. \ . PARKING' """" 4~ SPACES '~ . l~ · ~ ,'P" ~ l~ ,t'tl,< G'f(\:L E. '( \ , ti" (> E.){\S,-'N ,r' 1f1'~ -=-,~~~~ ",;-~~ c::J 0 ~ G::I EX\SiING BUILDING -.' ',"', {gj _.._"CO 0,'_'_' ""^' * ,~ ' PE;l'RIA~ C~ SS)~G t~. .'''''',-,, . _.ill _. ,,_. :.~'-. i' : . ~ ;.: Q!J COu <<=:J ~.' 4. ~~ Nry ROAD 101 ~:e' c;::l 0,' F'ri ~ '.:'~ . ~,~ .' 0) ~~,--' \ j' ~-~ . , -;\ ;:::-~ ,,,' 0 ~. ~ 100' v_ . SCAIL: ,. - ~ ~ . , Attachment C Sound Study Table 1 'Background Noise Monitoring Results Huber Park Shakopee, Minnesota Decibels, A- W ei2hted Location Date Time L10 Lso L90 #2 7/21/04 3:24 p.m. - 4:22 p.m. 61.0 57.5 54.0 #1 7/21/04 3:32 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. 58.0 55.0 52.0 #3 7/22/04 5 :43 p.m. - 6:44 p.m. 56.5 53.5 50.5 # 1 7/22/04 5:56 p.m. - 6:56 p.m. 55.5 53.0 50.5 #1 7/22/04 7:33 p.m. - 8:34 p.m. 56.5 53.0 50.5 # 1 7/22/04 7:38 p.m. - 8:38 p.m. 53.5 51.0 49.0 -"','.. .,. I I ' I 'I' r^ \, V,J \ ,'m""I1d'T I' -->~ .:' .' ...., ./ " o 0-.----. --... \... .' I'.rli' ;' '~.~,l). ~. '. ! ^ '" tl.l;~ . .';';-'~" lP\" I c: ;1 I~~".'" ~,~ "'. .;,,, ". /~a.,.,. -..' ..' ,,_.--., ,.' ~\ .~' ~,J;]r;," I "S~iItl ." ' t1t'" I :2: "~" ""~<~~~\~l.,. \ ~~" ~,",~~.r."'~.'." I 0 ~ \\;:J\ll~" ~ ,.'1'<tlfi.sf2:1 ~3lf'f". , . \ A,' \ \ ' ('3', I II '\ ~0,\~\' /~) ifl . (.t I r- . ,I \':' \. :'ir;:;~ ~ ,;, I ~J' g . I I fJ " ~ I l11e }rl'(/~ I ~ : I ~ ;' ~z~!:! \ ~" .~ ' " f \ ""~ .'1;",'" I .' .W" I rn !It:,/j/~ ,.>> · .,,' .1 17 ,,~r.-\\- . .'r"- g~ I r-:: ! .,~, "', ~ {"'. , I ' I I ",,,-Y /! " I!!m.i .. 0 ~.~ . < il'i} I ~:-.-:/ ./ // I~~l~\ III - \.,\~ "~~~~~~ I I "-if" I ':' '"I 12"'" \ ~ .s .~~ I \\ ',,~.,~<~/i // ~ / !~~ ~~ - \\~'~ ,iI..,...,\,'f.tiM.\...'....,.'l.'..."":~...'~~..~......"'.......'. I ,~_4"" ' I I '>r - '" r.1\ \\ 1;1, ~ '(I"!11<+." I ~~" 0.. ! 91 '" {1'! ,"" ~, ", ;~"~"~" I , \:,,) " ,,,,,,.') ) [ "! ~ ~. "~'" \ 'e'. ~ ' I ~ " ~tft:r":>~~/?jY,., '" 1lt'1".t6,1 ,'\' \\i:: 'fI~t.:.."........,.. "i,............. II I """-J " 'if);l~"" 'I,,~;:':( "'1"I':r '\~\ ~~~ \ ~. t, LI[" ~ r~ ~'l) , '\' \\~.~< ~'.j.1:.~'.'. I -; 1'1 \~/,,-1 ~.1 ~ - I ,\'\\\ t'IJ,. I u ' _ r '"" ;\...) l ' 'l,,\l, ." , )il. . \:0 # ~ ~ / ,~\\ "' ~ I o '[ ~~\h~~.-7~~!&~(1; ~/;b - - ~... \)'~' '.\,\ ..".. I I ' ,II ~I;;''f'''' ,"" / Ili)L '~ I I (Xl ,JIS, nil'> g J.I< .. ;t ~ - ,-"',~. In . " " (; \ "":' (0' I I /_~' (" o~. j ..,.>.,...\ I!"~ I : w t,~ ,~~~!fn~!)i5-6'":-:~~--\~~: ~\\ ! I 0 ,.... ',' ~ n~C1II,\ Ik,~ _,' \ \ \ ,:'ill.y,\ \ I . ~) 'oJ I\) "\ t-i _ -., \{ 'i9f ~, l' I I i 0 ('_ ~'l Ji. 01 '. ' - .~ .\ k. \ I i 1Jg I' h "'fJ."~ ?' I' ,c \ ~ ,~\ \\,\ \ ::::- \ \ ._ r II 01 ~'" '," \ \- ~~~' . I I ~ ~ ". F P Ii (j; :Y ~': ,\.' ~\ \ I I . t ' ,\ \1 0 ,,'-' , iii I I'. \ """ ~.--- \ \0 ' ~\ ~ I : \.! \~t\O~.'~~~~\~ [ \ '_.._~\ I'~~\ \ I I ~ \ l'lr"L,---- r II ~ - '\ \ ' \ It:. ~;;::\ ~! ~\ r W.. u,"I "~'~~;'>C1I \ .',\ ~~,~~,. I .,i 1\ ~ ""'~ ~tl~jQ . w. \. \\~~ " ,l,\;.{ n::}^ .~ ~ I L, ' 't:\~jIIl1~ l~ '5 1'~~ b\'. ,,, I \!'; \ (./:lo. \ ;:-,,_---t--<..-.,\ 0: --~..-" -, ~ I' ,_ \ ~ \"~. "\ .' " · ",,,,~P,,,-06\ ~ I \ ,."," ) ~l~ ", .:./ ~.. <;& 't", \ y.J \~\'~'\ \ I''! \-." j.::-'",r .' ,.-cl" .~ ~ ~ ~,' -''-0 ~ \ ! .c.-~- ~~~~~~ ~~r<~f:: ~. \ Q ~Q rl~. \, 1 ,~---------- ~~~ ~ j, l~~ ,'. 't(t \ ,,~ \ '" I ~ \ -" 1( ,:. \..t!:i\ ,," <. :~-:'~)'" \ '.iil1!..~....-,~. -. ". .'J?'...'...<~-C:'O... (J i'l''>. \ ;~ : ' ",' \ \ t!J6 ~);0.~05i" \\ I \ 1\. ~uOO'- \\ I \ j' \ ., \ ~~" '. \ \. \ ~ : f\l I \\. \~\".. \7J \ \1 " \ ~ \. \ \ a..',.' .... . \ ' "1 ,,;' \ ),.'t.~ . 'f!~ , . \ ,,/~~1T , '\ /,,.;;:;,lJJlb Sound Stud D' PREPARED FOR THE Y lagram ~~ l t,1lones"oo CITY OF SHAKOPEE September 2004 ...--...... ~~=ik& SHAKOPEE !.l.-::~es I I 1 , Attachment D Flood Elevations ~ , Memo JLlI. Bonestroo -=- Rosene 1\11 Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Project Name: Huber Park Client: City of Shakopee To: Stuart Krahn, John Smyth File No: 77-04-105 From: Jason Swenson Date: August 2, 2004 Re: Minnesota River Water Levels This memo summarizes the information regarding high water levels of the Minnesota River in Shakopee, just downstream of the current Highway 101 Bridge. High water levels at the location of the proposed Huber Park improvements are summarized in a table in this memo. The high water levels and the methodology used to determine the high water levels is presented below. High water elevations for four flooding return periods are easily obtainable from data collected to prepare Flood Insurance Studies (FIS). A FIS and the associated Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Boundary Maps were prepared for the City of Shakopee in 1978 as part of a larger effort to prepare maps and studies for communities all along the Lower Minnesota River. Flood elevations and flow rates for four flooding return periods are presented. These flood events include the 10-year, the 50-year, the 100-year, and the 500-year events. The projected elevations and flow rates are presented below. Flood Event Flow Rate (cfs) Hiah Water Elevation (feet) 10-Year 48,400 712.0 50-Year 91,400 719.0 100-Year 115,000 722.2 500- Year 182,000 728.5 The Flood Events do not correspond to any particular rainfall event, as is common when studying smaller systems. (For example, urban stormwater management plans are often based on a 100-year rainfall event, often the 6.0" 24-hour, SCS Type II Rainfall.) Instead, given the large drainage area of the Minnesota River Basin (well over'16,000 square miles at Jordan, MN), the recurrence interval is calculated using statistics based on flow records collected for the Minnesota River. In this case, the flows are calibrated using the gauging station located upstream of Shakopee, near Jordan, MN. After determining the flow rates and recurrence intervals, the flow rates were input into a water surface profile model called HEC-2. HEC-2 calculates the water levels required to pass each flow using cross section information entered into the model. A map showing the cross section locations in the vicinity of Huber Park is attached. The map as shown is taken from the figures associated with the 1978 FIS study. It is not the entire map as presented in the study, only a portion of it required for this narrative. As shown, the new Highway 101 bridge crossing is not shown on the map, though it has been added for clarity. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. www.bonestroo.com o St. Paul Office: o Milwaukee Office: o Rochester Office: o Willmar Office: o St. Cloud Office: o Grayslake Office: 2335 West Highway 36 1516 West Mequon Road 112 7th Street NE 205 5th Street SW 3721 23'd Street S 888 East Belvidere Road St Paul, MN 55113 Mequon, WI 53092 Rochester, MN 55906 Willmar, MN 56201 St Cloud, MN 56301 Grayslake, IL 60030 Phone: 651-636-4600 Phone: 262-241-4466 Phone: 507-282-2100 Phone: 320-214-9557 Phone: 320-251-4553 Phone: 847-548-6774 Fax: 651-636-1311 Fax: 262-241-4901 Fax: 507-282-3100 Fax: 320-214-9458 Fax: 320-251-6252 Fax: 847-548-6979 , . Memo ~ Bonestroo -=- Rosene l\J1 Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Elevations for the 100 year flood event are presented in the FIS in a tabular format. Flood profiles in the FIS were used to determine the elevations for storms other than the 100-year event. Across the Huber Park site, flood elevations do not vary along the length of the park. Thus, one elevation is valid for each storm event across the site. In addition to determining the flood elevations and flow rates, an attempt to quantify the duration of high flows has been made. The table below shows the seven years that flow rates have exceeded the 10 year or 50 year events (during a 69 year period of record), and the duration that each was above the respective event. Year Days above 10-Year Flows Days above 50-Year Flows 1951 8 1952 7 1965 12 7 1969 13 1993 13 1997 12 2001 27 As seen in the table, in the years where flows exceeded the 1 O-year flood, the water remained at or above the 10 year elevation for a period of 1-2 weeks in all events except the 2001 event, which remained high for nearly 4 weeks. Estimates of lower flow events can be made based on the records gathered as part of this estimate at additional time and expense. This would also require obtaining and running the existing HEC-2 model for the Minnesota River from the DNR for smaller storm events in order to determine flood elevations. In summary, this memo provides the approximate flood elevations for various storm events in the vicinity of Huber Park in Shakopee. Stream bank rehabilitation and park amenities should take this information into account as they are being designed. Additional lower flow information can also be developed if required. Please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4867 with any questions on the content of this memo. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. www.bonestroo.com o St. Paul Office: o Milwaukee Office: o Rochester Office: o Willmar Office: o St. Cloud Office: o Grayslake Office: 2335 West Highway 36 1516 West Mequon Road 112 7'h Street NE 205 5th Street SW 3721 23'd Street S 888 East Belvidere Road SI. Paul, MN 55113 Mequon, WI 53092 Rochester, MN 55906 Willmar, MN 56201 SI. Cloud, MN 56301 Grayslake, IL 60030 Phone: 651-636-4600 Phone: 262-241-4466 Phone: 507-282-2100 Phone: 320-214-9557 Phone: 320-251-4553 Phone: 847-548- 6774 Fax: 651-636-1311 Fax: 262-241-4901 Fax: 507-282-3100 Fax: 320-214-9458 Fax: 320-251-6252 Fax: 847-548-6979 ',.;,1 , . Memo ~ Bonestroo Rosene 1N Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Project Name: Huber Park Client: City of Shakopee To: Stuart Krahn, John Smyth File No: 77-04-105 From: Jason Swenson Date: August 24, 2004 Re: Additional Minnesota River Water Level information This memo is intended to provide additional information regarding high water levels for the Minnesota River in Shakopee, just downstream of the current Highway 101 bridge. An earlier memo (dated August 2,2004) was prepared that summarized the information on various flood levels that was available from existing flood insurance studies. Additional statistical analysis has been prepared and modeled, particularly for lower flows in the Minnesota River. The methodology used to determine these elevations and results are presented below. Flow Rate Analysis The flows presented in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for the Minnesota River in Shakopee are derived from the gauging station on the Minnesota River located near Jordan. The flows for various recurrence intervals were calculated using a statistical analysis, and the flows were agreed upon by all of the various parties that are involved in managing the Minnesota River. Since the preparation ,of the FIS, flow records from an additional 25 years have been collected at the Jordan gauging station. Flow statistics for the period of October 1 ,2004 to September 30, 2003 were collected from the USGS website. Information collected included average daily streamflow, average monthly streamflow, and annual maximum flow rates for the period. Annual maximum streamflows were analyzed using the methods outlined in USGS Bulletin 17B, "Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency". Specifically, a Log-Pearson Type III statistical analysis was performed on the annual maximum flow data using a weighted skew coefficient. The weighted skew coefficient was -0.1 , which is in line with the regional skew coefficient adopted for this area by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in their recent study of the Mississippi River. Using the statistical analysis with the 69 years of available records, the flow frequencies were to determined to be as follows: Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. www.bonestroo.com o St. Paul Office: o Milwaukee Office: o Rochester Office: o Will mar Office: o St. Cloud Office: o Grayslake Office: 2335 West Highway 36 1516 West Mequon Road 112 ih Street NE 205 5th Street SW 3721 23rd Street S 888 East Belvidere Road SI. Paul, MN 55113 Mequon, WI 53092 Rochester, MN 55906 Willmar, MN 56201 51. Cloud, MN 56301 Grayslake, IL 60030 Phone: 651-636-4600 Phone: 262-241-4466 Phone: 507-282-2100 Phone: 320-214-9557 Phone: 320-251-4553 Phone: 847-548-6774 Fax: 651-636-1311 Fax: 262-241-4901 Fax: 507-282-3100 Fax: 320-214-9458 Fax: 320-251-6252 Fax: 847-548-6979 . . Memo Jl]J Bonestroo -=- Rosene 1\l1 Anderlik & Associates EngJ~eers & Architects Recurrence Interval Statistical Analysis 1978 FIS 1-Year 3,030 2-Year 19,990 , 5-Year 38,200 10-Year 53,200 48,400 50-Year 94,000 91,400 100-Year 114,500 " 115,000 500- Year 169,800 182,000 As shown in the table, the values used in the 1978 FIS are provided for reference. The variation in the the various flow events is not unexpected given the additional flow data that has been collected since the preparation of the 1978 FIS. In any event, the flows are not drastically different than those that appear in the 1978 FIS. This appears to confirm the validity of this analysis. Typical River Flows As part of the analysis for the park project, the "normal" water elevation of the Minnesota River is to be determined. However, the level of the Minnesota River varies dramatically over the course of a year due to the large watershed (over 16,000 square miles) upstream of Shakopee. In other words, unlike a stormwater pond, there is not one elevation near the outlet elevation that the river will maintain itself at most times. Using the 69 years of available records, a "typical" flow rate was determined using two methods, each with two variations. One method is to determine the mean, or average, flow rate at the site. However, this value can be somewhat misleading, as the size of relatively infrequent flood events can dramatically alter the average flow value. As a second method, the median flow rate was also determined. The median is the value where exactly half the flows are lower and half the flows are higher. In other words, this value represents the daily average flow that the river spends 50% of the recorded flows below and 50% of the recorded flows are above this value on a daily basis. Means and Medians were determined for two variations. The first variation is using the recorded flows for the entire recorded 69 year period, including flows during the winter, spring, summer, and fall. However, this may not be correct for determining use in Huber Park. Instead, the months where the park is most likely to be used, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. www.bonestroo.com o St. Paul Office: o Milwaukee Office: o Rochester Office: o Willmar Office: o St. Cloud Office: o Grayslake Office: 2335 West Highway 36 1516 West Mequon Road 112 ih Street NE 205 5th Street SW 3721 23'd Street S 888 East Belvidere Road St. Paul, MN 55113 Mequon, WI 53092 Rochester, MN 55906 Willmar, MN 56201 SI. Cloud, MN 56301 Grayslake, IL 60030 Phone: 651-636-4600 Phone: 262-241-4466 Phone: 507-282-2100 Phone: 320-214-9557 Phone: 320-251-4553 Phone: 847-548- 6774 Fax: 651-636-1311 Fax: 262-241-4901 Fax: 507-282-3100 Fax: 320-214-9458 Fax: 320-251-6252 Fax: 847-548-6979 . ; Memo ~ Bonestroo -=- Rosene 1\11 Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects particularly in regards to observing the river, may be more important. In this case, the period from May 1 to September 30 was selected as time period where potential use of the park is more likely. The results of the analysis are shown below: Time Period Mean (average) Daily Flow Median Daily Flow Full Calendar Year 4460 cfs 1850 cfs , Mav 1 - Seotember 30 5560 cfs 3270 cfs As shown, there is a significant difference in the average and median flows, and a significant difference between year around values and the May 1 - September 30 time period. In particular, the median daily flow over the May-September time period is nearly twice as large as the full calendar year value. This reflects the fact that under normal conditions, the Minnesota River is at low flows throughout much of the winter months until spring snowmelt begins. It is suggested that for Huber Park, the "typical" river elevation should be considered to be the Median Daily Flow for the May-September period. Again, averages can be misleading, as large flood events can significantly skew this value. Flood Elevations After conducting the statistical analysis of the flow rates, the flood elevations corresponding to the various flows had to be determined. To do this, the HEC-2 model representing the Minnesota River from Chaska to the confluence with the Mississippi River was obtained from the Minnesota DNR. The HEC-2 model is the model used to determine the water surface profile of the Minnesota River for various flows to prepare the FIS. The model has been updated as time has passed to reflect modifications made along the river. The model as sent was checked and run to verify the flood elevations as shown in the 1978 FIS. All water elevations as shown in the FIS were verified to within 0.2 feet (approximately 2.5 inches) of the values shown in the FIS report, as interpreted from the flood profiles. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. www.bonestroo.com o St. Paul Office: o Milwaukee Office: o Rochester Office: o Will mar Office: o St. Cloud Office: o Grayslake Office: 2335 West Highway 36 1516 West Mequon Road 112 ih Street NE 205 5th Street SW 3721 23'd Street S 888 East Belvidere Road SI. Paul, MN 55113 Mequon, WI 53092 Rochester, MN 55906 Willmar, MN 56201 SI. Cloud, MN 56301 Grayslake, IL 60030 Phone: 651-636-4600 Phone: 262-241-4466 Phone: 507-282-2100 Phone: 320-214-9557 Phone: 320-251-4553 Phone: 847-548- 6774 Fax: 651-636-1311 Fax: 262-241-4901 Fax: 507-282-3100 Fax: 320-214-9458 Fax: 320-251-6252 Fax: 847-548-6979 . , . Memo ~ Bonestroo -=- Rosene 1\l1 Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Additional flood profiles were then added to model to determine high water elevations for several additional flood frequencies. This includes the 1-year, 2-year, 5-year, mean annual flow, median annual flow, May 1- September 30 mean flow, and the May 1-September 30 median flows. When running these events, several errors in the model became apparent that needed to be corrected. In particular, additional data for several cross sections needed to put into proper order, and several bridges required adjustments to properly handle lower flows. After making the necessary modifications, the following high water levels were determined: Event Flow Rate (cfs) High Water Elevation (feet) 1-vear 3,030 692.0 2-year 19,990 705.4 5-year 38,200 710.0 Annual Mean 4,460 694.0 Annual Median 1,850 689.3 Mav-Seotember Mean 5,560 695.5 May-September Median 3,270 692.1 As shown in the table, there is a large variation in river elevations for even relatively frequent flooding events. While the "typical" river elevation suggests that park features can be placed as low as elevation 692.1, one must be careful to recognize that there is a 50% probability the river will reach elevation 705.4 in any given year, and a 20% probability it will reach elevation 710.0. Conclusions This memo summarizes a statistical analysis of flood elevations on the Minnesota River in Shakopee for various flow rates. A "typical" river elevation is suggested for use in designing park features, such as staircases leading to the river. Flood elevations for use in designing bank stabilization measures are also provided. These data points should provide a basis for design activities in the park. Please feel free to call me with any questions on this memo at (651) 604-4867. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. www.bonestroo.com o St. Paul Office: o Milwaukee Office: o Rochester Office: o Willmar Office: o St. Cloud Office: o Grayslake Office: 2335 West Highway 36 1516 West Mequon Road 1127th Street NE 205 5th Street SW 3721 23rd Street S 888 East Belvidere Road SI. Paul, MN 55113 Mequon, WI 53092 Rochester, MN 55906 Willmar, MN 56201 SI. Cloud, MN 56301 Grayslake, IL 60030 Phone: 651-636-4600 Phone: 262-241-4466 Phone: 507-282-2100 Phone: 320-214-9557 Phone: 320-251-4553 Phone: 847-548- 6774 Fax: 651-636-1311 Fax: 262-241-4901 Fax: 507-282-3100 Fax: 320-214-9458 Fax: 320-251-6252 Fax: 847-548-6979 ! .' 40 ------- ------ ------ 735------------ 735 ENTRY PLAZA 1-------- ------ ------ -------------- 732 ENTRY SIDE PLAZAS 1-------- ------ 173'0------------ 730 ENTRY WALK 728.5 500 YEAR 25 1-------- ------ ...------ -------------- 723 RESTROOMS 722.2 100 YEAR ------ ------ ------ -------------- 720.4 MID-AMPHITHEATER PLATFORM ------ --- - - - ;z.;;..o. -- 719.5 PLAYGROUND 719 50 YEAR ------- ------ ------ -------------- 716-719 PARKING -. -. .- 12.____________ 714.3 PERFORMANCE AREA STAGE ~ .- - - 712 10 YEAR 712 PERFORMANCE AREA PLAZA 1710 710 5 YEAR ------ 1------- ------ -------------- 708 WOOD STRUCTURE OVERLOOK ------ f------- ------- 1--------------- 707 OVERLOOK TERRACE 705.4 2 YEAR 05 00 :>go------------- 695 RIVER TERRACE ------ ------- ------ -------------- 693 FISHING PLATFORM 692 1 YEAR MAY-SEPT MEDIAN b90 689.3 ANNUAL MEDIAN 85 680 HUBER PARK FLOOD ELEVATIONS - ----- --------- ------------------- --- ------- ------------------ ------- ---- --- ---------- ----- - . KEY ~:>) " 500 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION 728.5 t~ (0.2 % CHANCE) '-ll(:.~ 1 D 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION 722.2 ~\ ~ O~ \>- O\\>- ~ (1 % CHANCE) ~l(:.5 ~l(:. XJC09' D 50 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION 719.0 ~\~ \)\>-\- O~ .- (2% CHANCE) \>-~~'-l\>-~\ GJ 10 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION 712,0 l(:.\- I " ~ (10% CHANCE) 5 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION 710.0 ~ ~ (20% CHANCE) II 2 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION 705.4 (50% CHANCE) D 1 YEAR MAY-SEPT MEDIAN 692.0 (100% CHANCE) ~, ",..'-: , '-'-',~ ~",-",~ . -'"'-'~a~~----' :;-... ~-!i.<'~____.., !'--, *- ~~.~- " -....,'~~ 1 ~-- '-- .~ '~ .........~.. -.. ., J {;,-'j> ~ , .;.1:' ,:~" i -~ ~'" , ", I, :;:;/ r \ \~::. ~/ .'1 IJ o 2!lo' SO' ,"'. ;;: ';;Z .~~; Iw"'" , ~: ,''-SO' t';;;';"';,/' ------ I I Attachment E River Bank Stabilization and Treatments _ _ _ _ _ ~ ,- __ _ ~ _ _~ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _~ ~ ~ _ t-- _ _ __ __ ~ _J I I I -_._~_._~-,.-. ..~.----_._~ ,.- -_.---- ,,- -- --------- - --- - - - - - ----- ________ - _n___ _ ___ ______ , I I I 1 I Attachment F I ! ! I I I I ! I I Performance Area Design I I ! I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I ! I J I I I I I I ! ! 1 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I ! I I ! I 1 I I I I I j , , I I I \ \ I I I I ! I ! \ I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r--~?===':=~~-] I If" \ I ~ ~ ! I ( o} \ I [ /1 I I ~~....,.:-.._.-;:;...LJ I I I I I I I I ! I \ i I I I \ 1!1~~!~~~~ I I I I .. - .. I 'I."c 'Jr.. JiI! Huber Park II II I I, "I' I" 'I 11'\ ili I tj ,J) i .:,1 )',1 : ~, ',',' , "J I ~~: ':'i~ :;c n I I I // - --- ~ --'--~-'-"""'----~ --' --_._._--~ -----_..,.......-----~'_.,-_.- -.--- . I : , I , , , , : I , , , : I i , J ----~--- ---~----,.- --~~ -- ------- --.------ --- -- -~-_._---- --.--- ---~--~- ----.------- ---- -- - --- ---- ~ . Attachment G Pedestrian Entrances ~ JIJAJ Bonestroo Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderllk and Associates, Inc. Is an Affirmative Action/Equal . Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E.. Marvin L. Sorvala, P.E.' Glenn R. Cook, P.E.' Robert G. ~(':il li;;.1 Rosene Schunicht, P.E, . Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Senior Consultants: Robert W. Rosene, P.E. . Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. . Richard E. Turner, l\N Anderlik & P.E.. Susan M. Eberlin, C.PA Associate Principals: Keith A. Gordon, P.E. . Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. . Richard W. Foster, '. .Y Associates P.E. . David O. Loskota, P.E. . Mark A. Hanson, P.E. . Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. . Ted K. Field, P,E. . Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. . Mark R. Rolfs, P.E. . David A. Bonestroo, M.BA . Engineers & Architects Sidney P. Williamson, P.E., L.S.. Agnes M. Ring, M.BA' Allan Rick Schmidt, P.E.. Thomas W. Peterson, P.E.' James R. Maland, P.E.' Miles B. Jensen, P.E.' L. Phillip Gravel III, P.E.' Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E. 'Ismael Martinez, P.E. . Thomas A. Syfko, P.E.. Sheldon J. Johnson. Dale A. Grove, P.E.' Thomas A. Roushar, P.E.' Robert J. Devery, P.E. Offices: 51. Paul, 51. Cloud, Rochester and Will mar, MN . Milwaukee, WI . Chicago, IL Webslte: www.bonestroo.com SHAKOPEE CROSSING STUDY Introduction This report discusses the pedestrian crossing across County State-Aid Highway (CSAH) 101 at the intersection with 1 st A venue in the City of Shakopee. The future importance of this crossing is briefly discussed followed by an analysis of pedestrian crossing options. Recommendations for the pedestrian crossing conclude this document. Existing Conditions Located on the northern edge of Shako pee, CSAH 101 provides east-west travel from Trunk Highway (TH) 169 to the intersection with CSAH 69 in the downtown City area. Sidewalk is provided on both sides of this highway from the intersection with 1 st A venue east to the City borders. 1 st A venue provides a local by-pass of the intersection of CSAH 69 and CSAH 101 as well as access to local businesses. Sidewalk is also provided on both sides of this roadway along its entire length. Controlled by a traffic signal system, the intersection of these two roadways provides an at-grade pedestrian crossing. Pedestrians are currently able to use this crossing to traverse CSAH 101 to/from downtown area parking and local businesses to/from the sidewalk on the north side ofCSAH 101, a westbound bus stop, and Huber Park immediately north of this intersection. The pedestrian crossing across CSAH 101 is designated with zebra striping on the west side of the intersection. Pedestrian crossing on the east side of the intersection is prohibited. Crossing five lanes of traffic (an approximate 100-foot crossing distance), the existing striping does not use the center median or the right turn separation island as pedestrian refuge. Once activated by pedestrian push button, the pedestrian phase of the signal system provides a 7 second 'Walk' time followed by an 18 second flashing 'Don't Walk' time to finish crossing. Vehicle counts at this intersection show 98 northbound left turning vehicles and 68 eastbound right turning vehicles potentially conflict with pedestrians during the p.m. peak hour. This count was taken on July 28,2004 and also showed 137 northbound right turning vehicles during the p.m. peak hour. Westbound left turning vehicles on CSAH 101 numbered 93. Eastbound and westbound through volumes on CSAH 101 were not counted at this time. . . Proposed Park A reconstruction is planned for Huber Park, north of the crossing intersection that will revitalize the park. Among the proposed improvements are: a performance stage, gathering space, improved parking, a riverfront trail, and a river valley overlook. Due to these improvements, pedestrian movements between Huber Park and the downtown area are expected to increase. TheCSAH 101 crossing becomes a vital link for the new park and its safetyis a primary concern. With regard to improving safety at the pedestrian crossing, the remainder of this report examines different crossing options and improvements. Analyses For the pedestrian crossing of CSAH 101 between downtown Shakopee and Huber Park, three basic options are available - overhead, underground, or at-grade. As mentioned, the current crossing is at-grade. Each option is explored separately below. Overhead Pedestrian Crossing An overhead crossing spanning CSAH 101 would require a bridge at a minimum of 20 feet above the roadway (for large truck clearance). This facility would completely separate vehicle and pedestrian movements. To comply with the Americans with DisabilitiesAct (ADA), a ramp needs.to be provided for pedestrians from move between the ground and the bridge. Advantages of this type of separated crossing include: . Safer crossings. Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts are completely eliminated. . Continuity. Pedestrian would be able to continue from one facility to another without having to stop ,for traffic by using the overhead crossing. . Shorter vehicle queues and delays. Without pedestrian movements, the signal will be able to react quicker to vehicle movements and motorists will be able to proceed without the need to wait for pedestrians. . Signature architecture. · A new bridge would provide the City an opportunity to create a unique and distinctive connection between the downtown area and Huber Park. Disadvantages of an overhead crossing include: . Expense. The deck of the pedestrian bridge over CSHA 101 alone would likely cost $200,000. Adding to that cost is the price of the entry ramps, which may stretch 500 feet on the south side and 1,000 feet on the north side to meet proper standards, traffic control, lighting, aesthetic enhancements, type of fencing on bridge, etc. In addition, right-of-way may be needed, especially on the south side of the intersection, to provide the needed space for the entry ramp. . Illegal at-grade crossings. The lack of space on the south side ,of the intersection would likely require a tight spiral ramp for pedestrians to reach the bridge. The grade change on the north side of the intersection may require the use of either a long gentle slope or a larger spiral ramp. In additiqn, it may be difficult to connect the entry ramp to the 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113.651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 . - sidewalk on the north side of the intersection. Pedestrians on the northern sidewalk may have to walk down the slope to the entry ramp or use an extension that would require them to walk away from the intersection before going up and over. Studies have shown that pedestrians may avoid a grade-separated crossing if it appears inconvenient or difficult to use. If the overhead crossing is perceived to increase travel time by 50 percent or more compared to the at-grade crossing, virtually no one would use the overhead crossing even if the at-grade crossing is prohibited. In this specific case, pedestrians may perceive the overhead crossing as an added burden and still attempt to use the at-grade crossing without the benefit of pedestrian timing in the signal system. . Vehicle sight distance. An overhead bridge may block all or portions of the signal for approaching vehicles on CSAH 101. Fixing this problem would likely require additional signing and/or additional signal heads~ driving up the cost of this option. . Reduction of green space. The stairs/ramps to the bridge will require land that could otherwise be used for additional green space. . Increased maintenance. This type of facility would add a new bridge that the City, potentially in conjunction with the County, would be required to maintain. Besides the physical structure, maintenance may also include general cleaning, plantings, and/or graffiti removal. An overhead pedestrian crossing would needto be maintained to ensure pedestrians do not avoid it because of its appearance. . Traffic delays. During construction~ traffic may need to be reduced to one lane in each direction to allow building ofthe bridge supports. Reducing the driving lanes for through traffic on CSAH 101 would create significant delays, especially during the peak periods. Although this condition would only be present during construction, it is a concern. Despite the potential gain in safety~ the primary drawbacks to an overhead crossing include the cost and potential non-use by pedestrians. A crossing ofthis type would be an expensive undertaking by the City and/or County in terms of design, construction, and maintenance. Encouraging pedestrians to use an overhead crossing at this specific location would require a unique and special design. The physical layout of the site does not lend itself toward this type of crossing~ as it is not along the normal path of pedestrian movement. The entry ramp on the north side would rise up about 40 feet above the Huber Park, which would likely be very imposing to some pedestrians. Fencing or other physical barriers designed to promote its use could become . unsightly, drive the cost up~ and may still be ignored by some pedestrians. Therefore, the overhead crossing would not be recommended for this site. Underground Pedestrian Crossing Similarto the overhead crossing, an underpass would physically separate pedestrian and vehicle movements. While the overhead crossing requires a minimum 20-foot roadway clearance, an underpass could be as little as eight feet high. A ramp would again be necessary to comply with ADA requirements and move pedestrians to and from the underpass. Advantages of an underground pedestrian crossing include: . Safer crossings. Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts are completely eliminated. . Continuity. Pedestrian would be able to continue from one facility to another without having to stop for traffic by using the underground crossing. 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113.651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 . . Shorter vehicle queues and delays. Without pedestrian movements, the signal will be able to react quicker to vehicle movements and motorists will be able to proceed without the need to wait for pedestrians. . Natural fit. The slope on the north side of the intersection appears to provide a good fit for an underground crossing. The tunnel would be able to exit directly to the park without the need for entry ramp. Disadvantages include: . Expense. The box culvert used for the underground crossing would likely cost in excess of $500,000, depending upon the exact lighting, aesthetic enhancements, lengthldepthof the entry ramps, type of fencing around the entries, security, etc. In addition, right-of- way may be needed on the intersection's south side to provide the needed space for the entry ramp. . Drainage issues. The underground crossing would likely alter drainage around the site, which could require more an extensive storm sewer network or other measures to properly control rain water. . Security. Underground crossing generally require additional security measures to. ensure pedestrians fell comfortable with their use. Items such as video cameras, 24-hour lighting, and/or extra police patrols would drive up both construction and maintenance costs. The.existing underground tunnel to the west of this site provides lighting, but does not have any visible security. It is unknown whether that has had any effect on its use. . Utility conflicts. The underground crossing could require moving one or more utilities resulting in increased costs. . Illegal at-grade crossings. The north entry/exit to the underground crossing would likely lead directly to the park. Therefore, uses of the northern sidewalk adjacent to CSAH 101 and of the bus stop would need to travel up or down the slope to make use of the crossing. On the south side, the entry, while likely not as extensive as an overhead crossing, could still discourage users depending upon its perceived convenience. Either case could result in some pedestrians still making use of an at-grade crossing on CSAH 101, even if the movement is prohibited. Studies have shown that pedestrians may avoid a grade-separated crossing if it appears inconvenient or difficult to use. Similar to the overhead crossing, if the underground crossing is perceived to increase travel time by 50 percent or more compared to the at-grade crossing, limited use would be expected. In this specific case, some pedestrians may perceive the underground crossing as an added burden and still attempt to use the at-grade crossing without the benefit of pedestrian timing in the. signal system. . Reduction of green space. Specifically on the south side, the entry ramp would require land that is currently undeveloped. . Increased maintenance. As with an overhead crossing, ,the new underground crossing would require physical maintenance as well as periodic cleaning, graffiti removal, and/or security updates. . Traffic delays. During construction, traffic would likely be reduced to one lane in each direction to allow cutting into the ground. Reducing the driving lanes for through traffic on CSAH 101 would create significant delays, especially ,during the peak periods. Although this condition w()uld only be present during construction, it is a concern. 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113.651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 , . The potential gain in safety with this type of crossing is offset by the expense and potential non~ use by some pedestrians. Drainage, utility, and security are all issues that could potentially drive the cost up further than expected. In addition, any security provided for this crossing would likely need to be duplicated in the underground crossing to the east, adding more construction and maintenance fees. Despite all this expense, some pedestrians, especially those using the sidewalk and/or bus stop on the north side ofCSAH 101, may cross at-grade (which would be. , illegal with this option) to avoid the perceived inconvenience of the underground crossing. For these reasons, the underground crossing would not be recommended at this time. However, an underground crossing may be appropriate at a future date. The underground ground crossing is a better option that the overhead crossing. The existing green space on the east side of the intersection appears to have sufficient space for the entry ramp and, as mentioned, the west side could open at the same elevation as the park without the need for an entry ramp. An appropriate time to more fully examine the feasibility of an underground crossing would be when CSAH ,1 0 1 is totally reconstructed. Added to the preliminary planning of a CSAH 101 construction, the drainage, utility, and security issues of this type of crossing could be fully determined. Waiting would also allow the extent of vehicle-pedestrian conflicts to be better known as determined by the success of the park in attracting pedestrians and potential increases in CSAH 101 traffic volumes. With this information, a more accurate cost-benefit analysis could determine the viability of an underground crossing at this location. At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing As mentioned, the current crossing ofCSAH 101 is at-grade on the west side of the intersection with 1 st Avenue. Features include zebra stripes marking the crossing area, push button activated pedestrian timing for the signal, and 'no'pedestrian' signs for the other side of the intersection. Advantages ofthis type of crossing include: . Convenience. Pedestrians do not have stairs or a ramp to go up or down to get to the crossing. They simply push the button and wait for the walk signal. . More green space. When compared to the overhead or underground crossing, the at- grade crossing uses very little green space. . Less expensive. The road and signal system are needed regardless of the type of pedestrian crossing. The remaining costs include the pedestrian push buttons and indications, some signs related to the crossing, and pavement markings. These costs are minor compared to the structural costs of grade separated crossings. Additional items are also available to improve the safety of an at-grade crossing which are relatively inexpensive. . No drainage or utility issues. The road design deals with these types of issues and would be needed whether the crossing is there or not. . Less maintenance. Although the pavement markings, signs, and signal indications need to be maintained, the cost is minor compared to upkeep of a bridge or tunnel. 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113. 651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 . Disadvantages of an at-grade crossing include: . Decreased safety. Pedestrians will cross in front ofCSAH 1 Oltraffic and with traffic from 1 st Avenue. This creates a crash potential from vehicle-pedestrian conflicts that could result in injury or death to pedestrians. . Increased vehicle delays and queues. When a push button activates the pedestrian timing, traffic on CSAH 101 is forced to wait longer than would be necessary without the pedestrians. . Less direct route. Pedestrians traveling between the downtown area and Huber Park face anincline between the sidewalk on the north side ofCSAH 101 and the actual park grounds. The current path from the northern sidewalk to the park is located just east of the intersection. Some pedestrians may view this as an obstacle compared to the grade separated crossing which would likely provide entries directly onto the park grounds. The primary advantage of an at-grade crossing is the lower costs while the primary disadvantage is the decrease in safety. In this case, the cost and safety must be weighed against the same factors for the grade-separated crossings. The at-grade crossing has three factors that suggest it would be a more logic crossing at this location. First, concerts, activities, and general use by the public are likely to occur in the evening hours outside of the peak traffic periods. Therefore, more pedestrian crossings are expected during off-peak traffic times, which help reduce vehicle- pedestrian conflicts. Second, other measures are available to provide added safety to the at-grade crossing. Most ofthese items are relatively inexpensive and have helped pedestrians, and vehicle recognition of pedestrians, in other areas. Finally, with the need for entry stairs/ramps and the potential to increase perceived travel time, pedestrian use of an overhead or underground crossing is uncertain. Based upon these factors, an at-grade crossing is recommended for this site at this time. To improve safety, additional measures should be taken, which are detailed in the next section. Crossing Improvement Options Several options are available to help improve pedestrian safety at the existing crossing. These options are discussed separately in the following paragraphs. Additional Crossing on the East Side of the Intersection Currently, pedestrians are allowed to cross CSAH 101 only on the west side of the intersection. Crossing could be allowed on the east side instead of the west side, or on both sides. The advantages of switching the crosswalk to the east side include a reductionin potential vehicle- pedestrian conflicts (137 northbound right turns versus 68 eastbound right turns and 98 northbound left turns) and closer proximity to the path between the Huber Park and the north sidewalk on CSAH 101. Disadvantages of providing the crossing on the east side only include the cost of switching signs and pedestrian indications to the opposite sides, the cost of removing the west crossing pavement markings and adding new ones on the east, and the reduction in safety due to the likely additional crossing of 1 st Avenue by pedestrians between Huber Park and 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113.651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 . . the downtown area. Finally, sidewalk would need to be added between the east crossing of CSAH 101 and the sidewalk to the south of the intersection, which does not currently extend to the intersection on this side. The advantages of providing crossings on both sides include a more direct crossing for pedestrians coming from either side and elimination .illegal crossings by people who currently determine the east side is better for crossing. It should be noted that no illegal crossings were witnessed during the limited observations of the intersection. Disadvantages include increasing the potential vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, the cost of providing additional pedestrian indications for the signal, the cost of additional pavement markings, and the cost of extending the sidewalk on the south side to the crossing point on the east side of the intersection. The exact cost of providing a crosswalk on the east side of the intersection, either with or without the crossing on the west side, depends upon which option would be selected and other factors such as the amount of sidewalk needed. Due to the likely higher cost of this option, it. is not recommended. The safety of the intersection for pedestrians could also be decreased with this option, especially if eastbound right turn on red is prohibited. Advanced Stop Location This option includes apavement marking (12- or 24-inch white solid line parallel to the crosswalk) for eastbound traffic placed four to 20 feet in advance of the crosswalk. Additional signing could also be installed on each side of the stop bar with the text 'Stop here on red' and an arrow pointing to the stop bar (Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices - MN MUTCD - sign RI0-6 R or L). This option strives to reduce motorists' incursions into the crosswalk area. The primary advantage of this option is allowing motorists to better identify where to stop when approaching a red light as well as the location of the pedestrian crossing. The disadvantage of this option is if vehicles are stopped too far from the intersection, which would reduce the audible cues for visually impaired pedestrians crossing the street. In addition, the existing eastbound loop detectors may not be in an ideal location and may need to be moved. Continued maintenance to ensure the pavement marking is visible could also be considered a disadvantage. Limited studies of this option have shown some improvement in the number of drivers stopping at least four feet in front of the nearest crosswalk marking. Cost for this option depends entirely upon the type of pavement marking material used and whether supplemental signs are used. Using paint without signs, the costs could be $500 or lower. Poly-preform pavement markings with one sign on each side could cost $2000 or more. Advanced stop bar pavement markings, preferably with supplemental signage, is recommended for this intersection. Center Median Pedestrian Refuge A pedestrian refuge provides a safe stopping point in the middle of a roadway. Currently, the CSAH 101 center median does not extend into the current crosswalk. In addition, a minimum median width of six feet and a pedestrian push button must be provided for pedestrians that are stopped in the middle of the roadway. For this option to work at the CSAH 101 and 1 st Street 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113.651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 . . intersection, the existing crosswalk would need to either shift west or the existing center median would need to be extended. Shifting to the west would allow the crosswalk to use the center median where 6 or more feet of width is currently provided., This shift would ,likely be 30 or more feet and require the eastbound vehicle stop bar to also shift to the west. A pedestrian push button would also need to be provided for pedestrians to use if stopped on the center median. The advantage of this option is providing a safe refuge in the center of CSAH 101 for those who cannot finish crossing, because they are slower than the programmed walk time or start late. The signal timing could also be altered in this case to reduce the pedestrian crossing time, since pedestrians only need to get to the center median rather than fully across the road. Reducing the crossing time would likely reduce vehicle delays on CSAH 101. The primary disadvantage of this option is moving the pedestrian 30 or more feet away from the intersection. Motorists, especially westbound, would not likely anticipate pedestrians this far removed from their expected position at the intersection. In addition, some eastbound motorists may not stop at the new stop bar and proceed forward closer to the signal. These increase the potential conflicts between pedestrians and motorists and may.result in a less-safe crossing even with the center median. Other disadvantages could include providing additional sidewalk to reach the new crossing location, the' cost to provide a pedestrian push button in the center median, and criticism from pedestrians if the crossing time is shortened and they must cross one side of the road at a time. In this case, the negatives outweigh the positives and this alternative is not recommended. The second alternative would require extending the center median 60 feet or more to provide the necessary 6-foot minimum width. The advantage of this alternative is providing a safe. stopping point in the middle ofCSAH 101 without moving the existing crossing. As mentioned, the signal timing could also be revised in this case to potentially reduce vehicle delays on CSAH 101. The primary disadvantage of this option is its effect on turning traffic from 1st Avenue. The current location and shape of the center median on. CSAH 101 provides a taper that allows semi tractor-trailers an easier left turn from 1 st A venue to westbound CSAH 101. With an extended center median, semi-trucks would likely encroach on adjacent lanes or drive over the center median. Other disadvantages could include the cost to provide a pedestrian push button in the center median and criticism from pedestrians if the crossing time is shortened and they must cross one side of the road at a time. The cost of this item depends mainly upon the degree to which the center median would be extended. Due to the potential effects upon semi-truck traffic, this option is not currently recommended. However, this alternative could become more feasible if truck traffic is determined to be minimal and/or encroachment upon other lanes is determined not to be a concern at this location. Leading Pedestrian Signal Timing With this option, the pedestrian walk indication would be activated for about 3 seconds in advance of the green indication for traffic on 1 st A venue. The purpose of this option is to allow pedestrians a head start across the intersection before 1 st Avenue traffic receives a green light. In addition, left turning traffic from 1 st A venue may better recognize the pedestrians in the crosswalk and would be less likely to cut in front of pedestrians. Advantages for this option include reducing vehicle-:pede~t:rilW c()nflicts and increasing motorists' awareness of pedestrians. 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113.651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 ~ . The disadvantage to this option applies to visually impaired pedestrians. Without a surge in traffic, these pedestrians may not recognize that they are allowed to proceed and the advanced time would be wasted. In addition, the extra time for the pedestrian phase may have repercussions on traffic operations. The traffic impact is anticipated to be minor since the time only occurs when the pedestrian phase is activated. Limited studies have shown a significant reduction in the number of pedestrian right~of-way violations once the leading time is installed. This option is estimated at $1,000 depending upon the present capabilities of the existing signal controller. The cost reflects personnel time needed to re-time the controller and could be higher or lower based on the expertise of the personnel and the time needed for re-programming. Additional cost could be incurred if accessible pedestrian signals are installed to provide audible cues for visually impaired pedestrians. The use of a leading pedestrian signal timing is recommended for this location. Countdown Pedestrian Timers A countdown pedestrian timer provides the pedestrian with exact knowledge of how much crossing time remains. Used in conjunction with existing pedestrian indications, the timer would start counting down at the onset of the pedestrian phase of pedestrian clearance phase. Reaching zero on the timer would coincide with the end of the pedestrian phase and the change to a steady 'Don't Walk' display. This option is to provide additional information to pedestrians to be better informed about when to enter the crosswalk. The primary advantage of the pedestrian countdown timer is preventing pedestrians from crossing at the end of the pedestrian and then being stranded in the roadway when the 'Don't Walk' phase begins. Disadvantages of this option include its use by motorists to get a head start before the green light and the encouragement of pedestrians to start crossing during the flashing 'Don't Walk' clearance phase. Studies conducted in the City of St. Paul and elsewhere have shown success in preventing pedestrians from crossing at the end of the pedestrian phase. Countdown pedestrian timers cost about $500 per signal indication. The cost has been decreasing in recent years as their use becomes more widespread. The installation of countdown pedestrian timers is recommended for this location. No Right Turn on Red The July 2004 turning movement count showed 68 eastbound right turning vehicles during the p.m. peak hour. Although a small raised concrete island provides separation, the eastbound right is not a free right. When eastbound and westbound traffic is stopped at a red light, eastbound right turning vehicles should stop before the crosswalk and then proceed only if their path is clear. This situation creates a conflict with pedestrians who also cross CSAH 101 during this phase. By posting 'No Right Turn on Red' signs (MN MUTCD sign RlO-11d), this conflict is removed. Thus, the advantage of this option is providing pedestrians a safer crossing by reducing the vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. The disadvantage of this option is the reduction in service for vehicles and likely increase in delay and queues. The precise increase in delays and queues could be determined by a capacity analysis of the intersection. 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113. 651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 . The cost of providing this option includes purchasing at least two signs to be posted at the intersection and the labor to install the signs. A capacity analysis of the intersection is recommended to fully determine the impact to traffic operations. Assumingthe effect on traffic operations is minor, this option could then be used. Additional Signs Additional signage could include signs mounted at ground level or on the signal mast arms for both motorists and pedestrians. Signs could be mounted for the. northbound vehicle approach (for the left turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts) and the eastbound vehicle approach (for the right turning vehicle-pedestrian conflicts). Warning signs could include pedestrian crossing signs (MN MUTCD sign WII-2) or a 'Trail Crossing' signs (MN MUTCD sign WI1-X7). Regulatory signs could include 'Do Not Block Crosswalk' (MN MUTCD sign RI0-7a), 'Stop for Pedestrian in Crosswalk' (MN MUTCD sign RI-Xl), or 'Look' (MN MUTCD sign RI5-8). Other customary signs, such as a 'Watch for Turning Traffic', could also be installed for pedestrians. The purpose of the signs is to better alert motorists to the presence of pedestrians and/or better alert pedestrians to the conflicts withturning traffic. The potential advantages are better awareness of this location as a major crossing site and thus, improved safety. The disadvantage is increased sign proliferation and potential overload depending upon the number of signs used. Motorists and pedestrians may start to ignore the messages due to being overwhelmed by the sheer number of signs. Regular users may also tend to ignore the signs after the initial installation, reducing the effectiveness of the signs. Signs cost approximately $200 each depending upon the exact size and message (standard or customized). At this point, additional signs are not recommended to avoid overuse at the intersection. Based upon the limited observations ofthe intersection, most motorists did not infringe upon pedestrian right-of-way and were aware of their presence. However, signs could be installed at a later date if a specific reason provides justification for their use. An example would be continued violation of the crosswalk by motorists. In that case, a 'Do Not Block Crosswalk' sign may 'provide a greater benefit. Pedestrian Pavement Markings Provided at the start of the crosswalk on each side, text could be added on the pavement, such as 'Watch Turning Traffic', to better alert pedestrians of the potential vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. Pavement markings for pedestrians are in widespread use in London, England, where the text re- enforces the driving direction (on the left, rather than on the right) for tourists. The advantage of this option is improved safety through a better informed and alert pedestrian. Disadvantages include increased maintenance to ensure the text remains readable and reduced effectiveness over time as regular users become familiar with the location. The cost for pavement markings depends upon the type of material used and the exact text used. Painted pavement markings could be $500 or less with poly-preform pavement markings costing $1000 or more. Pedestrian pavement markings are not recommended at this time due to the increase in maintenance and decreased effectiveness over time. Based upon the limited intersection observation~, the majority of motorists did not infringe upon pedestrian right-of-way 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113. 651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 n ! 0 and were aware of their presence. However, pavement markings could be used at a later date if deemed appropriate for a particular situation. Textured/Colored Crosswalk Textured or colored crosswalks are used to better differentiate the crosswalk for approaching motorists and for crossing pedestrians. Examples used in other cities include red or orange colored bituminous, stamped bituminous to look like brick, and brick placed into the bituminous or concrete. The advantage is better informed drivers and pedestrians of the crossing area to help avoid right-of-way infringements and provide a safer crossing. Disadvantage includes the cost of installation and the maintenance of upkeep. The exact cost of this option depends upon the exact type of crossing desired as well as the timing of the improvement. A stand-alone project to change the crossing will cost more than a change during a reconstruction of a street. At this time, a colored or textured crossing is not recommended due to the cost of installation. However, when CSAH 101 is scheduled for regular maintenance, such as mill and overlay or reconstruction, this option should be considered. Remove the Turn Lanes on CSAH 101 Turns lanes, both left and right, on CSAH 101 add to the roadway width that pedestrians must cross. If the eastbound right turn lane and the westbound left turn lane were removed, the crossing distance would be shortened and/or a larger median could be provided to act as a pedestrian refuge. The advantage includes improved pedestrian safety by less exposure to traffic on CSAH 101. The disadvantages include the cost of reconstruction the intersection without turn lanes, the increase in delay to vehicle travel, and the decrease in vehicle safety. The cost of this option would likely be very high since a majority of the intersection would need to be reconstructed. In addition, the signal system could need adjustments such as shorter mast arms or the moving of one or more pole bases further driving up the cost. This option is not recommended due to the high cost, the decrease in vehicle safety, and the increase in vehicle delay and queues. Other Issues Americans with Disabilities Act Acceptability The ADA guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public transportation, among other things. Several items on the signal system and crossing should be examined to help ensure compliance with this act and the safest use for all pedestrians. The pedestrian push buttons could be replaced with new larger red buttons, easier to locate and push. The existing curb ramps at each end of the crossing should be checked against current standards. Accessible pedestrian signal information, such as directly audible tones or speech, should be considered for visually impaired pedestrians. The cost of these items depends upon the exact type of work needed. 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113.651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 . . Finally, the clearance phase for pedestrian cycle should be re-timed to comply with current Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) standards. Currently, 18 seconds is provided for the clearance phase. Standards state the distance traveled is considered the edge of curb to the far side of the farthest travel lane. The rate' of travel is assumed. to be 4 feet per second. With an approximate distance of 100 feet, the more appropriate flashing 'don't walk' clearance time is 25 seconds. In addition, if a higher volume of children or senior citizens is expected, the assumed speed may need to be reduced to 2.5 feet per second, increasing the clearance time to 40 seconds. Increasing this time will cause increased delay for vehicles on CSAH 101 only when the pedestrian phase is activated. Street Lighting Any weekday concerts at the reconstructed park would likely be in the evening ended at twilight or later. Therefore, lighting of the crosswalk.is essential to ensure the safetyofpedestrians. Overhead lights are provided as part of the signal system and omamenta1 lights are located around the sidewalks on each side of the intersection. These lights would appear to provide the necessary degree of lighting for safe crossings. However, this intersection was not observed during the night when a true determination of lighting adequacy could be made. Lighting should be examined to ensure safe travel for pedestrians across CSAH 101 as well as on the sidewalks surrounding the intersection. Treatment of 1st Avenue/Sommerville Street Intersection Besides the treatment of the pedestrian crossing at the CSAH 101/1 st A venue intersection, the adj acent intersection on 1 st Avenue should be examined. The 1 st Avenue/Sommerville' Street intersection is also likely to experience an increase in pedestrian activity with the reconstructed park. Currently, the crosswalk striping at this intersection is either totally gone or fading. It is also unclear whether crossing is allowed across all the approaches or only selected ones. Based upon observations of the intersection, crosswalks should be provided on the three sides required to stop - the north, south, and west sides. Striping, preferably zebra stripes to match the CSAH 101 crossing, should be provided at these locations. Signs directing pedestrians to Huber Park would also benefit pedestrians by ensuring they travel to CSAH 101/1 st Avenue intersection crosswalk on the west side and are not forced to either backtrack or cross illegally. Conclusions and Recommendations Based upon the analyses presented in this report, the pedestrian crossing at the intersection of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 101 and 1st Avenue is recommended to: . Remain at-grade on the west side of the intersection at this time. The disadvantages of a grade-separated crossing, namely costs and potential non-use, out-weighed the advantages at this location. In addition, other measures are available to improve the safety of the at-grade crossing. A crossing on the east side of the intersection, either in 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113.651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 . . addition to or replacing the west side, did not provide enough benefits over the current single crossing to be justified. . Provide additional safety measures. To help improve the safety of the crossing for pedestrians, the following items should be used: advanced stop bars, a leading pedestrian phase, countdown pedestrian timers,' and prohibiting right turns on red for the eastbound direction. A capacity analysis should be completed to fully understand the impactto traffic operations before the right turn prohibition is enacted. . Consider extending the center median on CSAH 101 to the east to provide a pedestrian refuge without moving the crosswalk. In addition to potential signal timing changes and the need for a pedestrian push button, in the median, semi tractor-trailers turning from northbound 1 st A venue to westbound CSAH 101 would likely need to encroach upon more than one lane for this option. These effects from this option should be clearly understood before extending the median. . Consider other safety measures. Additional warning or regulatory signs and/or pedestrian pavement markings could be used to further improve safety. Although these items do not appear necessary now, they could be easily installed at a future date. Care needs to be taken to avoid the over use of signage reducing the effectiveness of all the signs. . Consider an underground crossing in this location at a future date. Combined with preliminary planning for total reconstruction ofCSAH 101, the exact drainage, utility, and security issues could be determined. The exact number of pedestrians using the at- grade crossing would be known as well as if traffic on CSAH 101 continues to increase. This information would allow a better cost-benefit analysis of the underground crossing. . Provide a textured or colored crosswalk area. When CSAH 101 is reconstruction at some future date, textured or colored pavement could be considered for the crosswalk to help differentiate the crossing area from the drive lanes for both motorists and pedestrians. . Improve the 1 st A venue/Sommerville Street crossings. Providing zebra stripes to designate the crossing areas as well as signs directing pedestrians to Huber Park would improve the safety at this intersection and reduce illegal crossings at the CSAH 101/1 st A venue intersection. . Provide American with Disabilities Act (ADA) acceptable items. The existing signal components and curb ramps may not meet new ADA standards for accessible transportation. Although not required to immediately retrofit, providing new standards would increase the ease of use for all pedestrians. . Retime the clearance phase of the pedestrian cycle. Currently at 18 seconds, standards suggest a minimum time of 25 seconds be provided. If a significant amount of children and senior citizens are expected to use this crossing, the clearance time should be further increased. . Ensure adequate lighting of the crossing and surround sidewalks. . Improve the pedestrian amenities at the intersection of 1 st A venue and Sommerville Street. At a minimum, zebra stripes for the crosswalks and signs directing pedestrians to Huber Park would improve the safety of this intersection and help prevent illegal crossings of the CSAH 101 intersection. 2335 West Highway 36. St. Paul, MN 55113.651-636-4600. Fax: 651-636-1311 --- . .c, "'vis . )2;t! 1 COUNry - ROA.D --..:. --- 10 1 ~r. -----~ "~ AT-GRADE .lJ, PEDsSIRIAN ~ CROSs~G ,~ - - ~ f '" ~< ~ \ _ ,,"".kJ _ _,v ~ Qa" 0" ~ -'I'" , .." ;:'. \-"r} /~ -- o ""., ,..r: "'--- \. ~. :; I , ,~, ./ ~'.. " ler- ", &' \ "0 ',' "'~i >\i uE.-. /' " r\RS1,AV~: '\, , '!-,;->c<~ S j ,,~.;. ~ ~"V "5-~" , ~ ," .,~~~.....~- - ~ -, ~ '" )0" "'. ~ ,,;- "'blDi~;:;,~/;~;~~A , 'Y"~BRIDGE"'b /. r 1, ___ ~ ....~.::~~5J/1I) . ,'~ ; /' ;/ ,4REG'lONAL '- 'JW ~f/JR~1t _. . 1,~'J ';X-:.-:- ~.., f< -.-- ~ 1Ii"\ .@,~ '~'2'- 1\}1 1\~~.W ;tj < ~ . I ,,,., ~ ,~. :ll!it ..:- I c:::: :.2- vt-- -=~- TRAIL TO HUBER PARK ~ PEDESTRIAN ~ ACCESS TO RIVER FROM o 1:;' 30' ",. DOWNTOWN ..r- SCo<L:l-.'O' f . Attachment H Community Built Playground l ~ Community Built Playground l SHAKOPEE Process Imagine.... Design Day is like a giant brainstorming session where members of your community gather to create a new design that is all your own. The children guide the designer, who weaves their ideas into a drawing of your ideal project. The day ends with a community party that unites everyone and builds enthusiasm for our project. Joining... Community Built is an interactive process that involves the local community in the design, organization, and construction of projects. At the core is a firm belief in volunteerism and the value of community. The community-built process joins the "pieces" and the "people." People of all ages and skill levels will join together to work on your project. The children are an integral part of the process from design to construction to years of playing enjoyment. Building... Volunteers of all ages will work hard side by side, sharing in the great experiences of community built. Construction consultants from our staff and volunteer captains from your community will assign workers by skill level to specific tasks as you all work together to accomplish your goal. In the span of about five days, you prepare your site and work until every last bolt is in place. People will come and go as their schedules permit and work anywhere from a few hours to the full five days. Some will volunteer for a four- hour shift and wind up coming back every day of the build. During construction, your committee feeds'hundreds of people two meals a day and provides childcare for the young children. The Result... After several days of hard work drilling and hoisting and joining, your community will be a place forever changed. The community-built experience is greater than the sum of its parts. Volunteers working together over several days make connections that wouldn't normally occur. New friendships begin that will last a lifetime. People will have a new sense of commitment to each other and to the community. Volunteer Co-Chairs: Corky Mars Dee Joos l- I I I , I i I I M; .. , . ...... "~'r rr~"" ~~ . , I I - ~ ~ - ~ - --- ~ ---- -- -- ~ - - - _I 'l, . Attachment I Cost Estimates t: . Huber Park Recommended Concept Cost Estimate Septem ber 2004 ITEM QUANTITY I UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL COMMENTS I , RiVER STABlUZATlON RIPRAP WI GEOTEXTILE FILTER 2091/ LF $450 $940 950 WUow stakes and aeoarid in selected areas FLOTATION SILT CURTAIN 20911LF $15 $31 365 RIVER STABlUZATlON SUBTOTAL COST $972315 EARTHWORK & EROSION CONTROL GRADE SITE 11LS $25 000 $25 000 Maior aradino/shaeinc under SBosrate ora 'ect SILT FENCE , 2091/ LF $3.00 $6 273 EARTHWORK & EROSION CONTROL SUBTOTAL COST $31 273 HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS 4" CONCRETE WALKWAYS 9021 SF $5 $45 105 BITUMINOUS TRAILS 4437 SY $15 $66 555 CONCRETE OVERLOOK PLAZA 669 SF $25 $16733 STEPS AT OVERLOOK PLAZA 88 SF $25 $2212 CONCRETE PLAZA AT RIVER 340 SF $25 $8 495 Reinforced concrete with Dillnos CONCRETE STEPS AT RIVER 80 SF $25 $1998 CONCRETE FISHING PAD 230 SF $8 $1840 RECYCLED MATERIAL STRUCTURE OVERLOOK AT RIVER 536 SF $25 $13403 HANDRAILS 245 LF $100 $24 500 GUARDRAIL AT PLAZA 65 LF $150 $9 750 HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS SUBTOTAL COST $190 590 LANDSCAPING CANOPY TREES 205 EA $500 $102500 SHRUBS 240 EA $50 $12000 PERENNIALS 300 EA $15 $4 500 SOD 1174 SY $4 $4 696 LAWN SEEDING 25343 SY $2 S50 686 NATIVE PLANTINGS - SEEDING 2,4 AC $4 000 $9 600 STEEL EDGING 550 LF $10 $5 500 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 7871 SY $1.50 Sl1807 IRRIGATION 56275 SF $0.60 $33 765 LANDSCAPING SUBTOTAL COST $235 054 PERFORMANCE STAGE & AREA CURVED POURED CONCRETE SEATWALL-ABOVE GRADE 1382 SF $35 $48 370 18" hloh x 1.5' wide' wi inteoral color CURVED POURED CONCRETE SEATWALL - BELOW GRADE 3225 SF $25 $80 625 Frost footino CONCRETE MOW STRIP AT SEATWALL 952 LF $15 $14280 l'wide 4" CONCRETE PAD FOR ADA SEATING 257 SF $4 $1028 4" concrete CONCRETE STAIRS 501 SF $25 $12 525 CONCRETE STAGE + STAIRS 1965 SF $50 $98 250 CONCRETE RAMP AT STAGE 125 SF $50 $6 250 FREESTANDING BRICK COLUMNS 3EA $10000 $30 000 OVERHEAD METAL STRUCTURE 1430 SF $50 $71 500 WI acoustical comoonents STAGE STRUCTURE POSTS 6 EA $10000 $60 000 METAL LETTERING 45 LF $200 $9 000 PERFORMANCE STAGE & AREA SUBTOTAL COST $431 828 ENTRY BRICK COLUMNS WI FOOTING -SMALL 4 EA $6000 1 $24 000 BRICK COLUMNS WI FOOTING -LARGE 2 EA $10000 I $20 000 CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS 1 LS I $5 000 I $5 000 ENTRY SUBTOTAL COST I $49 000 INFRASTRUCTURE BITUMINOUS ROADWAY 6960 SY $20 $139200 CURB & GUTTER 3080 LF $14 $41 580 BURY EXISTING ELECTRICAL SPUC Donation STORMWATER PIPE 500 LF $30 $15000 CATCH BASINS 4 EA $1800 $7 200 INFRASTRUCTURE SUBTOTAL COST $202 980 AMENITIES PRE-FABRICATED BENCHES 15 EA $1500 $22 500 TRASH RECEPTACLES 8 EA $500 $4 000 BIKE RACKS 4 EA $400 $t 600 PICNIC SHELTER 1 EA $40 000 $40 000 , , PICNIC TABLES 20 EA $2 200 $44 000 INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE 4EA $1500 $6 000 AMENITIES SUBTOTAL COST $118100 ELECTRiCAL ELECTRICAL HOOKUPI SERVICE 1 LS $15000 $15000 PEDESTRIAN SCALE UPRIGHT LIGHT FIXTURES 15 EA $3 500 $52 500 PARKING LOT LIGHT FIXTURES 4 EA $5 000 $20 000 LANDSCAPE UPLlGHTS 4EA $1000 $4 000 SPECIAL LIGHTING AT STAGE 10 EA $2 000 $20 000 PROJECTION SCREEN 1 EA $2 000 $2 000 SOUND SYSTEM 1 LS $70 000 $70 000 ELECTRICAL OUTLETS SLEEVES ETC. 1 LS $5 000 $5 000 ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAL COST $188 500 I SUBTOTAL I $2,419,640 I $120982 $48 393 U TOTAL PARK CONSTRUCTION COST $2,589,015 II FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS RESTROOM & STORAGE BUILDING RESTROOM & STORAGE BUILDNG 1500 SF $250 $375 000 POTENTIAL FUNDING PARTNERS MnDNR GRANT PROGRAMS LOWER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED DISTRICT ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN KINO CONTRIBUTIONS NAMING RIGHTS DONORS . ' J City of Shakopee Capital Improvement Program 2005 - 2009 Project Manager Project Type: Project TItle: Total Project Cost: Mark Themig Community Park Development Huber Park Development 1,815,000 A. Expenditure Items: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 land & ROW Construction 440,000 885,000 200,000 Improvements 150,000 EngineeringlAdmin. 110,000 10,000 20,000 Total 550,000 1,045,000 220,000 - - B. Funding Source: General Fund Capital Improvement Funds Park Reserve Fund 500,000 745,000 220,000 Grants (specify) 50,000 Donations (specify) 250,000 State Aid Assessments 50,000 Sanitary Sewer Fund-Base Sanitary Sewer Fund-Flow Sanitary Sewer Fund-Trunk Storm Drainage Fund-Base Storm Drainage Fund-Trunk Tax levy Total 550,000 1,045,000 220,000 - - - Description This project continues development of Huber Park, including grading, installation of a performance area, landscaping, trail connections, and parking. 200415 - Construction: River bank stabilization, $600,000 (Park Reserve and Grant Funding) 2004 - EngineeringlAdmin: Design and construction of bank stabilization and park design, $110,000 (Park Reserve) 2005 - Construction: Grading and remaining fill (if needed), installation of performance area, landscaping, trails, parking and roadway $635,000 ($585,000 Park Reserve, $50,000 Rotary donation, $50,000 (?) assessments) 2005 -Improvements: Undergrounding of utility lines, $200,000 (Donation by Public Utilities) 2005 - EngineeringlAdmin: Completion of design and construction of performance area, landscaping, trails, and parking lots: $10,000 (Park Reserve) 2006 - Construction: Restroom and storage building, $200,000 (Park Reserve) 2006 - EngineeringlAdmin: Design and construction of building, $20,000 (Park Reserve) Justification Redevelopment of focal park for the community. Comments Cost for perfomance area, seating, landscaping, power, and irrigation is based on recent construction costs for similar facilities. River bank stabilization needed. Cost based on recent stabilization upstream ($400Ift X 1,500 ft.). Operatina Costs: Estimated year operating costs: labor $15,000 + EquiplSupplies $5,000 = $20,000 Perform ace costs and funding are unknown at this time. ..... 1 ~ ... Huber Park - ~aster Plan - II ~. . Cli)' ofShal; ~' -, ;;=,=- _ -. ",..,""" ....!f.;~.... -_:=::::.=::::.... '"':...~-- -... ..... ~ ---. --=- ._~ ...... Q' .~#- .- - =-:.. ~ ~_ ~- ;::"=:-1 M~:::-':: .=- "\ ::::."::- -.... _ . .WJ. ..-:, ~'1 I:> .. ..~l"l':::'-:'-:~ __-::::.. \ ..._ _ \ .;.;. [i;f-'" . 0 L:!:-- ..._ \ __-- ..r5 .... i . A9 ...:-- - '="=- : .~ . . . .=: ~ ~ .. ".... t---- ;J.lt:';r~~ '\ \: ~t:.l\ '"'" r~ =--=- \ ",y' "'..::;.....~ ,#~./~." \[~!09ff<> - tZ ~ t---.."'+- .~""",."t~ ..~.. .. .... - .;r'~# O.....rI~. .-.;r",,"',!f" · ~::: . ~',!)J ]j!;f\fI" !/,vr -- .-=--= . ~:3 ~ :,,",, 'Ii ~= :::':'-=~A~&'~~';' ...:' ~ .~\\ V- :;:=- ,-:::./ . - . ~ ---=::-- :::::;:.__ _.' I .....'-# i \ '0 :::;-- ,_ _" ~. :1,,- _=__ , " ......!,;J.f . ,.1,_ .,. .:=., :_.--=:.::- ,..~.;l.lu..~~"'- .--- -- .' \.- ,;;..-'.-' .-- -(,- -- / -:- - -- .---=- ~ . '\ - . I , I 2 _.,_ ~_ _~J~-~------------"".~- I I I I I \ I I I \ I I I I I I ~ 'v>4.J..IJ~. 3 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I , , , I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 ____I . I I I I I I I I I I i I I - 5 -......"'1 -- - ,,/ I I"'~~ yc/ ~.~,;:_"" ~~./r/ \~" \1 ". ~ I c I .....". - - ~.,""' , I '-T ., I I ~ mOOrrAA ~:~~~~ ~~~~~:~=== :~===~~====~ ~~;~~M:':' ~:::::::::::::: ;~.;;~,'::o,~~""" [Hl' -.-- .-----.. .---...-.... Oil .mm _ j __ --1=::::::-::::: ~,.'" ""^" tU=r!" ~~ 689.3 ANNUAl. ~EOWl I EEB 6 ~ -- -- --.--' ----- I KEY C SOD YE"R flOOD ELEV"TlOH 128.5 1l)2~ CHANCEl [] (If: ~~~~~~?OD ElEV....TION 122.2 ~ o i:""Y~~::~~JOO ELEVATION 11\l,0 ~ 10 YEAR flOOD nEVATION 112 0 (10% CHANCEl R S YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION 110,0 . (211"" CH"NCE\ . 2 YEAR flOOO ELEVATION 70S.. (SO'llo CHANCEl [] 1 YEAR MAY-SEPT MeDIAN 692.0 . (lOO'll. CHANCE) ~ I 7 . -~ ~:::::n',"'\ I !I\!:~ Concept 1: 1 1(. iL "\ 11 ~~'I Modern Design .....'>'<>!i /1~ jI '~ /~~~-- ~~ ~yr ~i\! ' \ I Concept 2: ! \\1 .. ~ Modified Bandshell Design f,- ..._.....~,j Concept 3: Historic Elements Design I I I I 8 I I . I I I I I I I I ... I I ... I I I West Pedestrian Entry I I I I , I I I I 1 I I I I I I --, 9 - . I I Huber Park Recommended Concept Cost Estimate September 2004 QUANTITY UNIT UNliCOST SUBTOTAL COMMENTS I 2091lF "'" $940950 Willow'5l9k....and rld In selected areae. 2091LF '" S~l 365 RIVER STASlUZATJON SUBTOTAL COST $97231& HS ""'" '25000 M. tad! all '11 und~", /ale .. I 2091LF $300 $6,273 EARTHWORK & EROSION CONTROL SUBTOTAL COST $~1 2730 HARDSCJl,PE EL.EMENTS .4" OONCRETE WAL'tMIAYS 0021 SF ""05 BITUMINOUS TRAILS ....37 SY '" ....... CO"ICRETE OVERLOCK PLAZA .. " '" $16733 I STEPS ATOVERLOOi< PlAZA "" '" $1212 I .Rf' 1 ~~~ '" .., R"lnfQroedoonc:tel"v.<111 IIn CONCRETE STEPS AT RIVER " 1 CONCRETE FISHING J:lAQ 230 SF ".. RECYCLED MATERIAl STRUCTURE OVERLOOK AT RIVER '" " '" S13403 HANDRAILS 245lF $100 $2.(,500 GUAADRAlLATPLAZA 'H' $1'" .,,'" HARDSCAPE ELEMENrs SUBTOTAL COST $19l>ll90 LANDSCAPING CANOPY TREES 205 EA '500 102500 SHRuBS ". EA "" $12000 PERENNALS mEA '" 54,500 SOO 117<1 SY " ."" LAWN SEEDING 2S343SY " ""'" NATIVE PLANTlNGS. SEEDING 2.4AC "000 "500 S ELEOOING 550LF " $5500 EROSION CONTROL BlANKET 7871 SY 1.'" $11007 IRRIGAnON 5e275SF "'''' $3"" LANDSCAPING SUBTOTAL COST $23&064 PERPORMANCE STAGE & AREA CURVED POURED CONCRETE SEATWALL" ABOVE GRADE 18" hi h ~ 1.S'wlde' w'ln! raleolor CURVED POURED OONCRETE SEATWALL - BELOW GRADE FI'OIlt(OOlin CONCRETE MOO STRIP AT SEATWAlL 1'wll:le 4" CONCRETE PAD FOR ADA SEAnNl3 4"oonaete CONCRETE STAIRS CONCRETE STAGE" STAIRS CONCRETE RAMP AT STAGE FREESTANDING BRiCK COlUMNS OVERHEAD METAl STRUCTURE STAGE STRucnJRE POSTS METAL LETTERING I I I QUAN ITV UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL COMMENTS 'EA $6000 $24,000 'EA $10000 $20000 as $6000 $5.000 ENTRY SUBTOTAL COST .000 6960SY '20 $139200 30M" ." """ SPIJCOonalion 500" "" $15000 .EA "'" $7200 INFRASTRUCTURE SUBTOTAL COST $202.60 "EA 1500 $22500 BEA '500 "000 .EA ""' "'" 1 EA "",000 "",000 20EA $2200 ,..000 .EA "500 ".000 AMENITIES SUBTOTAL COST $118100 ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL HOOKUPI SERVICE as $15000 $15000 PEOESTRIAN SCALE UPRIGHT LIGHT FIXTURES "EA $3500 $52.500 PARKING LOT LIGHT FIXTURES 'EA $5000 $20000 LANDSCAPE UPLIGHTS "A $1000 ",000 I SPECIAL UGHTlNQ AT STAGE 10EA 12000 $20000 PROJEcnON SCReEN lEA 12000 12000 SOUND SYSTEM '" ,roooo $70.000 ELECTRICAL OUTlETS SLEEVES ETC. HS ",000 $5000 ELECTRICAL SUBTOTAl. COST $'88500 I SUBTOTAL I S2,41U40 I I I I I i 10 . 1.'" ~\'\J'i.~ ~ ,w::a ""..so c~ .".~1. ~<- ~e~_.e~' _'"~. e" .'.,.. = ,,',\~:: ,~ ,fA' ~~~.u ,::,r~ " ,~,~/r~~' " ,~~-~~~,;,,~-/ i~~~~""8""~t--." . "1,....' <_'" oq ~ ..._..0 ~ ........ A-"." <,e" ~o"'S.ai'tl ~"', I = A""'" =~. '11" ..... ~.~-~7 ~ '~f .,. ~ ~ "-il' _A-' . .~. ~ .' '" ,..'" ..- \ ..1:..... t~"'" ,,'" ,'~- ~\;t ",-:-.~'~r ,.~~_~1l; - ~....J .:<~ ~..~.~' .. .' -~ ~, I 11