The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-09-28 STUDY SESSIONPurpose of joint work session • Share information • Opportunity for open dialogue • Discuss outstanding questions • Review /approval process 1 Joint work session overview • Project background • Routes for review and consideration • Next steps • Questions and discussion Project Background • First Tier Regional Trails, Greenways & Parks Master Plan (2000) • Related resolutions /studies /planning • Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail status 2 First Tier Regional Trails, Greenways & Parks Master Plan (2000) .wort u�aue.mn�yr'n w�s�yi .,,� DIF AII1[l ._. _._._... _._ CORRIDON City Council Resolution: October 2000 The City of Edina supports the efforts of the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District to implement a first tier system of trails, greenways and parks and endorses the development of a conceptual plan for said systems which conceptual plan will be subject to further approval of the City of Edina " 3 City Council Resolution: December 2003 " The City of Edina supports the efforts of the Three Rivers Park District to implement the Richfield /Edina Trail Corridor " 2006 Needs Assessment Survey • Conducted by City of Edina Park and Recreation Department - Mailed to more than 3,000 Edina homes - —900 surveys were returned • Key findings of respondent households: - Walking and biking trails are the most important park and recreation facility - 'Exercise /fitness' and 'enjoying the outdoors /nature' are the most important reasons for using walking and biking trails in the City of Edina IV. Q7. Percentage of Respondent Households That Have a Need for Various Parks and Recreation Facilities by percentage of respondents imultiple choices could be made Walking and biking trails Natural areas and wildlife habitats 66" 18 and 9 hole golf courses 49% Playground equipment 45% Art center 40% Indoor fitness and exercise facilities 40% Indoor running/walking track 37 °h Outdoor tennis courts 37% Indoor swimming pools 37% Warming houses 36 Indoor golf dome 32% Indoor playground 31% Outdoor spray pool parks 28% Outdoor hockey rinks 26% Soccer fields 26% Off -leash dog park 26% Indoor hockey and figure skating rink 24 Indoor nature center 23% Senior center 21% Baseball fields 20°� Indoor sports facility 19 % Indoor basketball and volleyball court 19% Football fields 12% Softball fields 12% Skateboard park 7% Lacrosse fields 6 °.G 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 10G Source Leenme �- ��mETC Lrhhne (Nu�rudt i '� . , Q8. Parks and Recreation Facilities That Are Most Important to Respondent Households by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top four choices Walking and biking trails Natural areas and wildlife habitats 3044. 18 and 9 hole golf courses 270/,. Playground equipment 24 %', Indoor fitness and exercise facilities 17% Indoor playground 13 Off -leash dog park 13% Outdoor tennis courts 12% Outdoor spray pool parks 12% Soccer fields 12% Indoor running/walking track 11% Senior center 11% Art center 11% Indoor hockey and figure skating rink 9% Outdoor hockey rinks 9% Indoor swimming pools P% Indoor golf dome $% Baseball fields 61/4 Indoor basketball and volleyball court 5% Indoor sports facility 4% Warming houses 4 Indoor nature center 4% Football fields 3 % Softball fields 3h. Lacrosse fields 2% Skateboard park 2% Other 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 1111111111110ost Important 62nd Most Important 03rd Most Important 1■4th Most Important Source Lem1ue %'rvou ETC InAmle (N.ri'elnt)el 2006 ) 5 Q9. Reasons That Respondent Households Would Use Walking and Biking Trails in the City of Edina by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made Excercise /fitness 840, Enjoying outdoors /nature 84% Transportation 25% None, would not use trails 7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 1Oi -, Srnuce Leimre v"isiwti ETC LLAMite (Na erubel 20061 Q19. What are Respondent Households Most Willing To Fund With Additional Tax Dollars by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices Develop walking and biking trails Develop a new indoor recreation center 42 "4, Develop outdoor athletic fields for sports 21% Aggressively remove buckthorn from city parks 21% Dev. new indoor nature center at Bredesen Park 19 Develop new indoor sports facility for games, etc. 19%. Develop a new outdoor dog exercise park 17% Develop new outdoor artificial hockey rink 13 Other 5"i 0% 20% 40% 60% 80'?, M 1st Most Willing 02nd Most Willing 03rd Most Willing Source Lei�iue \ "rsiou ETC tu4itute (Novemhei _tu o) 0 Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail status • Regional status • City of Edina status 1 1 1 1 J It 1 1' I I unn • IN • • • 1111 '1 `brims i4 rl: / %��i1 � �► 1-10 uunp nu' a111P _w, 1111 � �_'1 � 1111. Y�• �. �� i��/»� ��- ox e �r Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail status • Regional status • City of Edina status Three Rivers Park District Regional Trails € ne.• — E- drgPWrneo Regional Tail f N— Mae Creek Regional Trail Plannrcg ✓ ,,,�+k' nlrt to Cedar Lake, �e+� - "— Nine Ole Creek Reg,onal Tall Under ConslnirJbn N % Lake Minnetonka, 1 A Minnesota River Bluffs LRT OMdsa A Regional Trails and North Cedar Regional Trail In Ho ConnKt to Minneapolis Grand Rounds at Lake krs Nokomis I e t Conner[ to r.r Minnesota 1 WiMlde Refuge N BIOOrtling[on —• .. Vislto�Cmter% 2010/2011 Construction Hopkins & Minnetonka: 7th Street South to Hwy 169; construction in conjunction with Nine Mile Creek Restoration Project 7ie onnell [o Cedar take, •e "�� Lake Minnetonka, nnesota River Bluffs LRT gional Trails and North Ceda^Regional Trail Hopkins • �cjip ! EM Three Rivers Park District Regional Trails — Exismg /Planned Reganal Traa N— Mile Creak Regional Trail Planning -- Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Under Construction N t i O MAes A Conne[t t\ Minneapolis Grand Rounds at Lak! Nokomis r. Cornett to Minnesota W1101ih Refuge at Bkwmington 2010 -2012 Construction Richfield: Xerxes to 12th Avenue; under construction in conjunction with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services sewer work f� m ..^" Connect to Cedar lake, ` Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Regional Trolls and NURn Cedar Regional Trail in Hopkins Three Rivers Park District Regional Trails — EabrtrgfPlanned Regpnel Trail Nine Mile Greek Regional Trae Planning - -- N,ne Mile C—k Regional T-1 Under Consirucaon N AC= Miles M,nn �mn. Connect to Minneapolis Grand Rounds at Lake okomis Connect try Minnesota - Wildlif¢ Refuge it Bloomington er visitor Cent 2014 Planned Construction Minneapolis /Bloomington: Link to Lake Nokomis to Mall of America; $5.5 million of federal funding available in 2014 A Three Rivers Park District Regional Trails — Exnllrgnanned Regpnal T-1 F i n — Nine Mile Greek Regional Toll Pbnning w ^°p'n`n ogTy Connect to Cedar lake, upv`r� Lake Minnetonka, —" Nine Mile Creek Regional T,ul Under Const —lion 1 N A Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Win Regional Toils and North - - - Cedar Regional Trail in Hopkins r n Connect to Minneapolis Grand Rounds J at Lake Nokomis E l tlen Conrleet to n,nv Minnesota wildlife Wu-;e at eloomington Visitor Center - Unresolved Gap Edina: Planning underway to determined preferred route A ASS e fy / �aY ��a"y4 e,,,,a..� � •y,, _ � Es'd' 41f 1 u.n^ 53 Legend c� .# � rs Ito ° wl �$ �'0•�. S! akemame Trall reo�ce ns�meer 1 ^^�« 3 � '� - �W. J 0 t 025 a 05t 075 z to retkcz 1' � •• 't_xn• Y� 'A ernat ve' �e s,n ner I eot ncaptua� tr a tort aor � Does of aaott 7 . ' S "" 11 E actual tra al ♦Inman[ . as I 1 ,awns -- ��+�' >��% Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail: City of Edina Alternative Trail Routes ThreeRivers Project status in Edina • Community Assessment Team (CAT) • Voluntary environmental assessment • Public involvement opportunities • Public comment summary 10 Community Assessment Team (CAT) • Composition • Role - Identify the constraints and opportunities - Provide design suggestions /considerations - Convey information to respective neighbors • CAT Analysis June 2010 Document - Social, technical, and economic assessment - Design suggestions - CAT member narrative on respective route Voluntary environmental assessment • Evaluated potential impacts regarding: - Wildlife /ecologically sensitive resources - Wetlands /flood plain - Surface water runoff /erosion /sedimentation - Parking • Conclusion: - Potential environmental impacts are addressable in design, permitting, construction, and operation phases 11 Public involvement opportunities • CAT • Bike Edina Task Force open house • 4 City of Edina open houses • 30 -day official public comment period 30 -day public comment summary • 175 unique emails or letters • 2 form letters (21 correspondences) - Form letter 1: creek based preference (15 letters) - Form letter 2: high school cross - country ski interests (6 letters) • 3 petitions - Petition 1: high school running interests (20 signatures) - Petition 2: issues specific to routes 2 and 3 (42 signatures) - Petition 3: general trail concerns (88 signatures) 12 30 -day public comment summary Support / Opposition Unique & Route Preference Emails Letters Form Letters Petition Support Trail 97 21 20 Prefer route adjacent to creek 77 21 20 No route preference Indicated 19 0 0 Prefer route adjacent to roads 1 0 0 Oppose Trail _ 42 0 130 Cost of trail too high 30 0 130 Environmental concerns 29 0 130 Unsafe for non -trail users 18 0 130 Priority should not be recreation trails 14 0 0 Too noisy construction, trail users 4 0 130 Position about Trail Unclear 36 0 0 If built, prefer route adjacent to creek 14 0 0 If built, prefer route adjacent to roads 10 0 0 No route preference indicated 1 12 0 0 13 74 :14 19-2 20-2 T" "I Creek-based option 14 Legend Creek -BaseC Route j SE� alive Trail Route number F--L--j -------- L ------ I ----- 7mfl.s 0 025 05 0 15 1 N d— nm d,lft actual tall a11pnT<n 19-2 20-2 T" "I Creek-based option 14 15 Road-based option 16 -7, ? 3 4 - - - - -- 5F En Legend Al ..d D.-d R.O. 8 g 8-4j L. Aft—t— T,,A R,,t,,• -,a i SE Rkernative Trail Route Number 777�` .5 19 2 20-2 0 025 05 075 1 _`l*dA,. —0— Road-based option 16 17 Road -based route: • Is route on- street? • Is trail on private property? • What about parking? Example: Luce Line Regional Trail Three Rivers Park District Regional Trails Minnetonka :i' Ou St Pew a Evisltng /Planned Regional Trail Nine We Cteek Regional Trail Construckon 2010 -2E12 N I Mopk— OMilas Connectto Minneapolis p ✓; ' / Grantl Rountls A 6 a .neEm � arvon t M,,, `1 "°" Connectto - Ma. Mln e sofa WIItl"feRefuge at 8bomington Visitor Center No route option Key CAT considerations • Social Assessment - Number of adjacent homes - Distance from home to trail • Technical Assessment - Driveway /road crossings - Available right -of- way /public land • Economic Assessment - Preliminary trail construction costs 19 Key CAT considerations adjacent residential yards Key CAT considerations proximity of adjacent homes Creek -based Route Road -based Route No Route Average • 17 front yards • 34 front yards distance from Number of • 16 side yards • 38 side yards N/A adjacent • 216 back yards • 82 back yards Average residential - yards • 243 total adjacent • 147 total adjacent N/A residential yards residential yards property line Key CAT considerations proximity of adjacent homes MI Creek -based Route Road -based Route No Route Average distance from • 175' • 90' N/A house to trail Average distance from . 60' • 45' N/A house to property line Number of homes < 25' • 3 homes • 8 homes N/A from trail MI Key CAT considerations space requirements (available road right -of -way) Key CAT considerations road crossings Creek -based Route Road -based Route No Route Proposed . 11 road crossings g • 31 road crossings N/A street • 9 @ 30 MPH or less • 29 @ 30 MPH or less N/A redesign/ • 2 @ 31 -40 MPH • 2 @ 31 -40 MPH reconstruction • 4 routes require road 8 routes require road N/A parking lane/ redesign /reconstruction redesign /reconstruction N/A reduce 2 @ 7,000 to 9,000 AADT • 4 @ 7,000 to 9,000 AADT shoulder • 3 @ 9,001 to 47,000 AADT • 2 @ 9,001 to 47,000 AADT width) • 4 local roads • 23 local roads Key CAT considerations road crossings 21 Creek -based Route Road -based Route No Route Number of road crossings . 11 road crossings g • 31 road crossings N/A Speed limits of • 9 @ 30 MPH or less • 29 @ 30 MPH or less N/A road crossed • 2 @ 31 -40 MPH • 2 @ 31 -40 MPH Average annual • 4 @ <5,000 AADT • 23 @ <5,000 AADT daily traffic of 2 @ 5,000 to 6,999 AADT • 2 -@ 5,000 to 6,999 AADT N/A road Crossed 2 @ 7,000 to 9,000 AADT • 4 @ 7,000 to 9,000 AADT • 3 @ 9,001 to 47,000 AADT • 2 @ 9,001 to 47,000 AADT • 4 local roads • 23 local roads Functional 5 collector roads • 6 collector roads class of road 1 'B' minor arterial road • 1 'B' minor arterial road N/A crossed 1 'A' Minor arterial • 1 'A' Minor arterial (reliever) road (reliever) road 21 Key CAT considerations driveway crossings Creek -based route: considerations • Pros: - Meets regional trail network needs /connects Edina to network - Opens public park land along creek to public use - Provides a high quality recreational trail experience - Off -road access to school complex • Cons: - Larger number of residences adjacent to trail - Perceived negative impacts of trail on adjacent residences - Limited access points to trail when along creek - Higher initial cost than road route 22 Creek -based Route Road -based Route No Route • 7 single family driveway • 24 single family driveway crossings crossings • 18 multi - family driveway • 23 multi - family driveway crossings crossings • 4 low turnover commercial • 9 low turnover commercial N/A Number of driveway crossings driveway crossings driveway * 2 high turnover • 4 high turnover crossings commercial driveway commercial driveway crossings crossings • 31 driveway crossings • 60 driveway crossings N/A Creek -based route: considerations • Pros: - Meets regional trail network needs /connects Edina to network - Opens public park land along creek to public use - Provides a high quality recreational trail experience - Off -road access to school complex • Cons: - Larger number of residences adjacent to trail - Perceived negative impacts of trail on adjacent residences - Limited access points to trail when along creek - Higher initial cost than road route 22 Road -based route: considerations • Pros: - Meets regional trail network needs /connects Edina to network - Lower cost than Creek route - Fewer residences adjacent to trail - More frequent access points • Cons: - Less safe for trail users due to more road and driveway crossings - Less attractive trail setting and experience - Some instances where trail will be very close to adjacent residences - Less direct route No route: considerations • Three Rivers funding will be directed to other Park District projects • Edina will not be connected to the regional trail network • Access to the Edina High School complex north of Hwy 62 will continue to be on sidewalks along Gleason and Tracy 23 Cost Financing - capital costs • Federal transportation funds • Park District General Obligation Bonds • Metropolitan Council Regional Parks Capital Improvement Program funding • Minnesota DNR Parks and Trails Legacy grant program funds • Other: donations, non - profit grants, small scale opportunities • Cost savings from partnerships 24 Creek -based route Road -based route No route Capital costs for $20 million $17 million $0 Edina segment Operations and $185,000/ $185,000/ $0 maintenance annually annually (O /M) costs for entire regional trail Financing - capital costs • Federal transportation funds • Park District General Obligation Bonds • Metropolitan Council Regional Parks Capital Improvement Program funding • Minnesota DNR Parks and Trails Legacy grant program funds • Other: donations, non - profit grants, small scale opportunities • Cost savings from partnerships 24 Financing - capital costs partnership opportunities • Creek -based sections • Road -based sections • Pentagon redevelopment area • Park sections Financing - operations and maintenance (O /M) costs • General operating fund Property tax revenue - State O/M funds through the Metropolitan Council 4.1 Approval process • Edina Park Board • Edina City Council • Nine Mile Creek Watershed District • School District • Three Rivers Park District 01:1 Implementation steps • Master plan completion • Cooperative trailway agreement • Trail easement • Grant applications • Construction 27