HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-25 PRC Packet
.
.
.
r illwater
"~ - - ~ ~
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA J
STILLWATER PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
MEETING NOTICE
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
The Stillwater Parks and Recreation Board will meet on Monday, September 25,2000 at
7:00 p.m. at Stillwater City Hall in the Council Chambers Conference Room 213, 216 N.
4th Street.
AGENDA
1. Approval of August 28, 2000 Minutes.
2.
Review draft of Trail plan and set hearing for Joint Parks Board/Planning
Commission public hearing (Oct. 16th - 23rd)
3. Discussion of request for play equipment at the Old Athletic Field.
4. Updates:
a. Mulberry Park, city funding
b. Brown's Creek Trails - Volunteer Day, September 23,2000
c. Kolliner Park Use Policy
d. City support for St. Croix Valley Soccer Fields
5. Other items.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800
. MEMO
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Parks Board
Steve Russell, Community Development Director
Parks Agenda Items
September 21, 2000
It/'
This memo will provide a staff report and introduction for the items listed on the agenda. The
items below are listed in the order as they appear on the agenda:
1. Approval of Minutes. Minutes attached for your review and approval.
2. Review of draft Trail Plan. Over the summer, planning staff with input from the Planning
Commission, Parks Board and public have prepared the enclosed draft Comprehensive Trail
Plan. At this meeting, the Parks Board can ask questions or comment on the plan. It is
suggested that a date for a Joint Parks Board/Planning Commission public hearing be set for
October. Possibly Monday the 16th or 23rd. No action is required on the plan at this time.
After the public hearing, the two boards can again review the plan for adoption and
recommendation to the City Council.
.
3. Old Athletic Field. Attached is a memo from Nile Kriesel requesting consideration of play
equipment at the Old Athletic Field. The request for consideration has been made by
Councilmember Zoller. Ifthe proposal is acceptable, the Board can recommend it to the City
Council. The Board may want to hold a meeting and invite park area residents to see what
kind of equipment is appropriate.
4. a. Mulberry Park. The City Council approved the $35,000 requested for the play
equipment. The money was not to come out of the Parks budget (council minutes
attached).
b. Brown's Creek Trail volunteer day will be held Saturday, September 23,2000, from 9
a.m. to 12 p.m. You are invited. The trial has been roughed in. The volunteers will level
the trail and clear branches. Donations have been received by the City to purchase a
snowmobile and groomer for winter cross country skiing. A Brown's Creek Trail
Association is being formed to help maintain our newest park/natural area.
c. Kolliner Park Use Policy. Over the next couple of months, the City will establish a use
policy for Kolliner Park. The Council has directed staff to come up with a policy. In the
past, the area has been closed off to the public because of difficult access and inability to
manage/police the area.
.
d. St. Croix Valley Soccer. The City Council approved $27,000 for the St. Croix Athletic
Complex. This is 1/3 ofthe requested amount. Next year, the Council will consider
another donation (see council minuted attached of 9/5/00).
.
.
.
-f/z(
Parks and Recreation Board
Aug. 28, 2000
Present:
Del Peterson, chair
Linda Amrein, Rich Cummings, Dawn Flinn, David Junker (8 p.m.), Wally Milbrandt,
Mike Pohlena and Steve Wolff
Others:
Planner Sue Fitzgerald and City Engineer Klayton Eckles
Absent:
Sara Thingvold
Mr. Peterson called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Approval of minutes: Ms. Amrein noted that the June 26, 2000, minutes should be amended to
reflect that fact members did not visit Settlers' Park on the annual tour. Mr. Cummings, seconded
by Mr. Milbrandt, moved approval of the minutes as amended.
Lake Links Trail Network presentation
Jeff Schoenbrauer of Brauer and Associates, the consulting firm preparing the Lake Links Trail
master plan for Washington and Ramsey counties, briefly reviewed the plan which will link the
Gateway Trail to Stillwater. He said that as of July 26, 2000, the primary option for location of
the trail from White Bear Lake to Stillwater is Highway 96 to the St. Croix River. An alternate
location is the Zephyr line tracks. The Zephyr alternative is preferable because of its recreational
value, but, he said, is not a likely option. Mr. Pohlena asked if consideration had been given to
County Road 64 which runs parallel to the Zephyr line. Mr. Eckles noted the City would have to
look at the potential impact on the city trail on McKusick Road and the terminus at Owens Street
should County Road 64 be considered as an alternative.
When asked about use, Mr. Schoenbrauer stated the trail will be for pedestrian use - walking, in-
line skating, biking, etc.
Mr. Schoenbrauer stated he would keep the City and Parks Board updated as the planning
proceeds.
Mulberry Park presentation
Kathy Drinkwine, Gin Wilhelmson and Joanne Knobel of the Mulberry Park Committee were
present. Also present was Tom Kearney, principal of New Heights Charter School located in the
former Washington Elementary School where the park would be located.
The Committee is requesting that the City contribute $35,000 to purchase the playground
equipment for the park; the equipment would serve both the neighborhood at large as well as
students at New Heights. The City Council referred the request for funding to the Park Board.
Ms. Drinkwine noted that in referring the matter to the Parks Board, the Council expressed a
concern that the funding not impact other programs and projects. Mr. Eckles noted that the
project is not included in the Public Works or Parks budgets. Mr. Cummings noted that Mr.
Kreisel's concern was with the 2001 budget; there are monies in the 2000 budget that will be
.
.
.
available, he said, citing land acquisition dollars that have not been used and the savings due to
the recent mild winter as possible sources for the funding.
Committee members noted the group is working on a grant from the Bayport Foundation which
has expressed interested in contributing $40,000-$60,000 to the project; the funding request will
be reviewed in the Foundation's November budget. The main goal is to get the playground
equipment installed. The equipment, which is ADA accessible, will cost $35,000, with
installation cost of $10,000. The Committee's request is for the City to contribute $35,000 to
purchase the equipment.
Mr. Kearney noted that in the past, the City has flooded a skating rink at the former playground,
with the rink receiving more community use than school use. He stated the basketball courts and
parking lot have been removed and the area is showing a lack of interest. He stated that New
Heights will carry all the liability for the equipment and will maintain the equipment. He
concluded by saying that charter school depends on partnerships with their communities.
Mr. Pohlena pointed out the equipment should be inspected every two weeks and inquired if that
would be a problem. Johnie Johnsen of St. Croix Recreation, the equipment supplier, assured
members the bi-weekly inspection checklist is not a real comprehensive one.
Mr. Peterson said there is a contingency is that if Mulberry Park ceases to be used as a park, the
City will own the playground equipment and could move the equipment to another location.
Mr. Wolff spoke of the lack of parks on the North Hill and moved to recommend that the City
contribute $35,000 for the equipment purchase, with the money to come from undesignated 2000
funds, not from the Parks fund. Mr. Pohlena seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously.
Staff was directed to prepare the necessary agreement concerning ownership/disposition of the
equipment.
St. Croix Valley Recreation Center speaker system
Present were Doug Brady, Rec Center manager, and Jim Jenson, Muzak representative.
Mr. Jenson said he had inventoried the existing equipment at the Rec Center. The proposal is to
install the existing equipment over the balcony of the second ice sheet, which should be adequate
for practice/open skating, he said. The new equipment will include focused, small clustered
speakers over the ice; sound-proofing is recommended.
Mr. Milbrandt said he was concerned about moving the existing system to the second ice sheet
and whether it would "cheapen" that portion of the facility. Mr. Pohlena said the sound from the
existing system is OK on the ice, the problem is from the stands. Mr. Brady also noted that any
major event would be held in the main ice arena.
Mr. Jenson invited members to visit any other arenas where his company's equipment is in use,
including Blaine's National Sports Center. Mr. Pohlena said he was impressed with the Elk River
facility which uses Muzak equipment.
.
.
.
.
Mr. Milbrandt asked whether the cost is budgeted. Mr. Brady said the equipment is included in
the budget for the second ice sheet; also sound-proofing is in the capital outlay budget for 2000.
Mr. Milbrandt, seconded by Mr. Junker, moved approval of Muzak's Option 2 proposal. Motion
passed unanimously.
2001 Capital Outlay Budget
It was noted the boardwalk for Lily Lake Park had been eliminated from the budget. The
primary focus of discussion was funding for Lowell ParklMulberry Point improvements - the
request was for $200,000, recommended budget is $150,000. Mr. Eckles said the City is hoping
to get a state grant for a performance structure/pavilion. Mr. Cummings said he would rather see
the $20,000 budgeted for a metal roof for the band shell in Pioneer Park go to Lowell Park; Mr.
Eckles noted the Pioneer Park master plan calls for the removal of the band shell. Mr. Eckles
also suggested the amount budgeted for replacing the cement slabs for the Pioneer Park picnic
shelter might be redirected to Lowell Park. Mr. Junker moved to table the roof replacement of
the band shell at Pioneer Park and the replacement of the cement slabs and move that money to
the Lowell Park/Mulberry Point improvements.
Mr. Eckles pointed out that the park for Creekside Crossing is not budgeted. That neighborhood
is nearly complete, he said. Possible plans for the park might include a gazebo, drinking fountain
and landscaping. Mr. Cummings noted there is $90,000 in new park dedication fees realized
from the sale of the water tower lot. Mr. Cummings suggested including directing staff to
develop plans for Creekside Crossing park using park dedication fees as part of the motion,
which Mr. Junker agreed to. Mr. Cummings seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-1, with Mr.
Wolff voting no, saying he liked the band shell in Pioneer Park.
Ms. Flinn asked why there was no funding for land acquisition; Mr. Cummings noted that is
included in the acquisition of the public works site
Updates
Mr. Peterson briefly reviewed the updates included in the agenda packet. Regarding the Boutwell
Public Works facility/park, Mr. Peterson noted the proposed plans are attractive, but the
neighbors are not too thrilled with the public works facility, which is not really a parks' issue.
Parks Report
Mr. Peterson reviewed the parks report in the agenda packet. The discussion centered on the
report regarding the basketball court at Staples Park and the possibility of moving the courts to
the new Mulberry Park. After discussion, it was consensus that members preferred to keep the
Staples Field courts at that location. Mr. Junker, seconded by Mr. Milbrandt, moved to go on
record indicating the Parks Board would not condone the removal of the Stapes Field basketball
courts, but did approve locking the courts as a temporary measure.
Old business
Mr. Milbrandt stated he had walked through Kolliner Park and the park looked pretty clean. He
said he was impressed with the efforts of whoever is keeping the park clean. The Valley Cruisers
Car Club had been taking care of the park previously, and the Parks Board had requested an
.
.
.
update on activities at the park several months ago. Mr. Milbrandt asked for a clarification to
determine if staff had sent a letter to the Club.
Mr. Milbrandt, seconded by Mr. Junker, moved to adjourn at 8:40 p.m.; all in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Baker
Recording Secretary
· MEMO
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Parks Board
Steve Russell, Community Development Director
Comprehensive Trail Plan
September 21, 2000
p/
Enclosed for your review is the draft Comprehensive City Trail Plan. Direction for preparation
of the plan is contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The plan considers all types of
nonmotorized trails, sidewalks, multipurpose separated trails, on street bike trail and nature trails.
The purpose of the plan is to provide overall policy direction for trail improvements through City
capital improvements and development trail requirements.
Park's Board members should read the report and check out proposed trails in your
neighborhood.
.
The plan is being presented to the Board for your information and comments. Over the next
month, a joint public hearing will be set with the Parks Board to receive public comment on the
draft plan. After the public hearing, the Parks Board and Planning Commission can make any
changes and recommend it for adoption to the City Council.
Attachment: Draft Comprehensive City Trail Plan.
.
.
COlllprehensive Trail Plan
for
. City of Stillwater
Community Development Department
.
Fall 2000
.
.
.
EXE CUTIVE SUMMARy........ ................................. ...................... ................. .................. ........ .................. .... ........ 1
KEy ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN .................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION - OVERVIEW AND PLANNING PROCESS.......................................................................... 2
EXISTIN G CONDITIONS........ .......... ......................................... ............. .............. ............. ............... ............ .......... 3
UNDERSTANDING THE USER... ............................................ ......... .......................... ......... ............. ........ .............. 5
BICYCLISTS ................................................................................................................................. .............................. 5
UNDERSTANDING THE STREE TS ................ .............. ................... ............... ........... ..................................... ....... 7
TRAIL DESIGN : BIKEWAY TYPES AND DESIGN ELEMENTS..................................................................... 8
TYPES OF FACILITIES ...................... .,....... .......................... .... ....... .......... ......... ........ ................. ........... ... ......... .......... 8
SIDEWALKS AND BICYCLISTS .................. ...................... ................... ......................... ....... .......... ..... ............ ...... ...... 13
INTERSECTION DESIGN ............. ... .............. ......... ....... .... ........ ....... ....... .................... ...... ..... ........ ............................. 13
TRAIL SURFACES ....... .... ................... ,... ..... ....... ................................... .................................. .............. ......... ........... 14
Disadvantages.,...........,..,..,.".,..,..",.,....,.,..,.,.,.".....,..........,.,.,.,..,.,.,.,."...,.,.,.,...."....,......,..... ,..."...,....,.,.....,...... 14
Advantages,.,...,. ,. ,. ,...,.,.".,'., ,., ,., ,.,.,.,.,....,.... ,. '.", ,. ,. ,.,. ,........,.,..,. ,. '.,.'.',.,.,.,.,.",.."., ,. ,.,.. ,.,..........,. ,." .,.,...,.,.,.,.. '. 14
Disadvantages..............."."....".,.".,.,.,....,.,..,...,......".,.,...,......."...,.,.,."."..,.,.,.,.,.,.,....,.,.,.,.,........,.,..,....,.,... ,...... 15
Advantages.,......,...........".,..,..,."...,.".,.,..,.",......,.......,...,.,...".,.,.,...,...".....,.,.,.,.,.,.,....,.,.,.....,.,....,.".,..,..........., .. 15
Disadvantages,.,."",...,..".,....""..,.,.,.,..,..,.,.,.,.,..,.,.,.......,.,......,......,...".......,....,.,...,.,..,.,.,......,.,.....,....",..,..... ,.,., 16
GOALS AND STANDARDS ......... .............. ......... ...................... ........... ......... ............;.. ............. ............................. 16
OVERALL TRAIL SYSTEM GOALS...............................................;............................................................................. 16
TRAIL DESIGN GOALS ............................................................................................................................................. 16
SPECIFIC LOCATION GOALS ....... ...,... ........... ,.. .... ............. ...... .............. ........ .... ...... ...... ......... ............... ... ... ...... ........ 17
THE CO MPREHENS IVE TRAIL PLAN. ......... ............... ....,.... ................ ...... ............. .............................. ........... 17
MAINTENANCE ...... ............... .............................................................. ................. ...... ..... ........................ ..... ........ ..... 18
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ..... ... ..... ......... ..... .... ..... .... ...... ............. .... ...... ......... ........ ....... ............... .......... .......... ..... 20
Thefollowing are a set offunding and implementation guidelines: ......................,............,........,......................20
MAINTENANCE ..................... ................. ..... ......... ......... ........ ....... ....... .................................. ........ ........., ....... ........... 20
BASIC REFERENCES: ......... ................. ....... ....... ............ .......;.;.; .J....... ...;....J ,;.. ........ .................... ......................... 21
APPENDIX A: AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT GUIDELINES FOR TRAILS ............................ 22
GENERAL GUIDE: .................................................................. .................................................................................. 22
SPECIFIC GUIDE: .... ...................... ........... ....... ............................. ......... .......................... ............................. ........ ..... 22
APPENDIX B: MINNESOTA BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
.. ..... .. ...................... .. .......... ..... ... ... ..... .... .. ..... .. ....... ....... .... ................... ........................... ..... ........ ......... .. ...... .. ............ 26
.
.
.
Executive Summary
Key Elements of the Plan
The goal of the Stillwater Comprehensive Trail Plan is to increase pedestrian and bicycle
transportation and safety. Walking and bicycling should playa greater part in the Stillwater
transportation system. Bicycles are an efficient and inexpensive form of transportation which,
with increased use, could improve livability of the community, improve Stillwater's air quality,
and reduce roadway congestion.
The history of bicycle and pedestrian planning in Stillwater proves that without a plan,
development can move into the area with little consideration for a holistic approach to pathway
design. Major barriers and problems exist which deter the great majority of people, including
active recreational cyclists, from using the bicycle as a regular means of transportation. Many of
these barriers and problems have been identified:
· Gaps in the system: How to complete the bicycle/pedestrian system and connect
destinations.
· Institutionalization: How to include "bicycle thinking" in all City transportation and
Public Works projects and coordinate efforts among City departments such as Parks
Board, Planning and Development, Public Works and Transportation.
· Parking: How to get parking facilities that allow bicyclists to lock their bikes securely.
· Attitude: How to promote the concept of "share the road" (and hike and multi-use trails)
to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
The Plan concludes with a proposed network of trails, a maintenance scheme, and an
implementation strategy.
1
.
.
.
INTRODUCTION - Overview and Planning Process
The Pedestrian/Bicycle Trail Plan of the City of Stillwater sets forth a Comprehensive
Citywide Trail Plan and long-term program to guide future planning, design and implementation
of a trail system for residents for recreational and non-automotive travel. Central to the plan is
linking and interconnecting neighborhoods within the city and further developing and
emphasizing the downtown and natural areas as a focal point of community activity.
Additionally, the Plan proposes linking the community-oriented trail system with the existing
and proposed Washington County and State trail systems.
F or clarity purposes, in this Plan the term trail is used to reflect numerous possible
configurations of routes designed to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and other non-
motorized users. Throughout this plan, the term 'pedestrian' can refer to walkers and
wheelchairs. Likewise, the term 'bicycle' can refer to all modes of people-powered
transportation requiring a hard, usually paved, surface. This group can include, but is not limited
to, bicyclists, rollerbladers, rollerskiers and skateboarders, etc. A trail may be an independent
right-of-way or easement with a surface width of 8 to 12 feet. Other times a trail may be an
existing or proposed sidewalk designated by signage as a component of a bicycle or pedestrian
route.
The Comprehensive Trail Plan has been developed to be consistent with existing and
future residential developments included in the city's 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Through a
process of surveying existing roadways and trails, identifying destinations, adopting planning
guidelines, and proposing new trails, we hope to achieve the Parks, Riverfront and Trails goals as
outlined in Comprehensive Plan. These include:
· "Designate an extensive network of trails and pathway corridors."
· "Preserve and provide visual access to quality landscapes through trail location. "
· "Provide alternative means to reach city parks, county parks, regional parks, state
parks and other community destinations."
· "Preserve and enhance public owned ravines."
· "Maximize the city's recreation opportunities."
Further, regional plans such as the Washington County Trail Program, the Brown's Creek
Wetland District, the City of Oak Park Heights and state-funded trails have been considered and
anticipated in this Plan.
The Trail Plan stems from the community's increasing desire to enjoy enhanced outdoor
recreation opportunities and coincides with societal needs of reducing dependence upon the
automobile for inter-city mobility. Walking, hiking, and bicycling are recreational activities that
can be enjoyed by persons of all ages, in either groups or as individuals. Based on a resident
opinion survey there is significant community interest in improving the walkway/pathway
system in and around Stillwater. Pathways add to the "quality of life" and "sense of community"
of an area and to the relationship of one neighborhood to another. Stillwater residents are not
alone in having a desire for more walking and bicycling opportunities. Across the nation more
cities, town and villages are adopting trail plans and implementing those plans.
The development of the Trail Plan is an outgrowth of the work of the Planning
Commission, Parks Board and an intern under the direction of the Community Development
Director, which has established the overall Plan layout. The committees are composed of elected
2
.
.
.
and appointed city officials. Input has also come from numerous civic organizations and private
citizens representing both the interests of their neighborhoods and the overall city.
Late June 2000 marked the beginning of a series of meetings between the Planning
Committee and the Parks Board including interested residential input concerning
pedestrian/bicycle trail activities. During these meetings a variety of issues were discussed
relating to the scope of the overall plan. Topics including trail relationships to existing natural
open spaces such as wetlands and floodplains, man-made open spaces such as parks and
re/detention areas, and safety considerations including the concerns of handicap accessibility
were discussed. Priority routes or linkages through the city, the nature of the trail system and
trail safety, and future plan funding mechanisms and land acquisition have also been deliberated
throughout the process.
Following review of the proposed Comprehensive Trail Plan by the Planning
Commission, the Parks Board and the public, the City Council will consider and adopt the Plans.
The Plan will then be the official policy for providing future trail improvements.
Existing Conditions
The planning process began with a survey of the existing trail way network. This process
involved data collection from multiple resources including field surveys, aerial photography
survey, as well as data retrieval from recent sidewalk improvement programs. The data
compilation resulted in the following map of existing trails (figure 1).
Pedestrians and bicyclists already use all existing roadways and trails, but consideration
for pedestrian and bicycle mobility is inadequate in most instances because facilities to
encourage safe use of bicycles are not routinely designed into new or renovated roadways. Study
of the existing trails map began our analytical process. We noticed fragmentation throughout the
network. Although the existing city (old Stillwater) holds the largest amount of sidewalks,
certain areas can benefit with the addition of new sidewalks. The north hill (~5.5 miles existing,
~6.0 miles without), in particular, could benefit in the same manner the south hill (~6.5 miles, ~
3.0 miles without) did during their latest sidewalk improvement.
Another concern within the city is the degree to which our existing sidewalks comply to
the design standards of the Americans' with Disabilities Act (ADA). Design standards such as
slope, cross-slope and curb ramp accessibility are a few to be assessed for future improvement
and compliance with ADA regulations. Many of the existing sidewalks do not meet these
standards.
Importantly, our next examination was sidewalk and trail way networks to-and-from
community schools within the school district required walking areas. Notice the walker area as
the thin black circular line surrounding the schools (figure 1). Students required to walk live
within one mile of secondary educational facilities and three-quarters of a mile from elementary
educational facilities. When overlaying the required walking area over the city existing trails
map, it is startling to realize how much of our city falls within this polygon. Providing safe and
comfortable walking routes to-and-from schools for every community should be at the forefront
of future development and improvement plans.
Beyond the 'old Stillwater' trail network lies various city and county trails that provide
the foundation for improvements. These existing trails serve as a comer stone or framework,
creating necessary linkages between the downtown and the expansion area. So dear to the hearts
3
.
.
.
of many Minnesotian's are our many lakes. Stillwater is no less fortunate in our abundance of
lakes. Therefore, we should look to increase our educational and recreational opportunities
along our many lakes. Circumnavitable trails around city lakes can serve as passive recreation as
well as provide an interpretive educational experience. The heavily used trail along Lake
McKusick
provides a focus of activity for the immediate Oak Glen community. We look to expand this
trail into a network for safe, continuous pedestrian navigation through all of Stillwater's
communities.
We found no designated on-road city operated (there are county facilities) bicycle routes
within the city. Where there are no designated facilities, no bicycle signage exists.
Stillwater also contains large tracks of right-of-way and easement greenway corridors
with no real public access. All communities could enjoy an enhanced natural experience with
designated access and trail ways through our greenway corridors.
The Legends and Liberty developments are the first in a multi-phase annexation and
development within the city expansion area. As development occurs during Stillwater's many
phases of annexation, developers are required to meet our standards for trail design. It is
essential that we create a comprehensive plan including non-confrontational passage between
developing neighborhoods.
As development occurs and Stillwater remains a focus for Metropolitan activity, the
safety of our roads for pedestrians and bicyclists is a growing concern. Aside from harassment
from motorists, general traffic volumes have increased to a breaking point. The days of going
for a leisurely county walk or rollerblade along pastoral Boutwell road are dwindling with ever
increasing traffic. Lack of space is threatening safe recreation along Stillwater's roadways
promoting an unhealthy community.
Meeting pedestrians' and bicyclists' needs should be a city-wide objective within
transportation related departments. This policy is a major part of increasing the acceptance of
bicycling as a legitimate transportation mode. Design standards which safely accommodate
bicycles should be applied to all new street and roadway projects. A cost effective way to
increase ridership levels is to make on-street bicycling conditions better for commuters.
Providing adequate street width to accommodate both bicycles and automobiles safely can
encourage more commuting and utilitarian bicycle trips. Facility improvements such as
intersection modification, connections between routes, signal actuators, and comprehensive
signing improvements can make bicycling more inviting. Streets designated as bicycle routes at
one time can be restriped or otherwise modified with wide curb lanes and a minimum number of
stop signs. These routes should also meet both neighborhood and cyclists' needs through the
incorporation of traffic management schemes that reduce traffic speeds, cut-through traffic, and
the differential in speeds between motorized and non-motorized modes. These traffic
management schemes can offset undesirable increases in speed from wider lane widths in some
cases. Management strategies will be discussed throughout the following sections.
Understanding the User
Bicyclists
Bicyclists have a wide range of abilities. Some are advanced: these cyclists bicycle
frequently, are in relatively good physical condition and may have special training. Other
5
.
.
.
cyclists may not get out on their bicycle often enough to really feel comfortable in traffic, or
perhaps do not have strong physical capabilities. Child cyclists are an especially vulnerable
group. They often do not understand traffic rules, are unable to gauge the speed of approaching
vehicles, and are not as physically coordinated as adults are.
In an effort to better understand bicycle users groups and their specific needs for bicycle
facilities, a system of classifying cyclists by their age and ability has been developed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHW A):
Group A - Advanced Bicyclists: Experienced riders who can operate under most traffic
conditions, they comprise the majority of the current users of collector and arterial streets and are
best served by the following:
· Direct access to destinations usually via the existing street and highway system.
· The opportunity to operate at maximum speed with minimum delays.
· Sufficient operating space on the roadway or shoulder to reduce the need for either the
bicyclist or the motor vehicle operator to change position when passing.
Group B - Basic Bicyclists: These are casual or new adult and most teenage riders who are less
confident of their ability to operate in traffic without special provisions for bicycles. Some will
develop greater skills and progress to the advanced level, but there will always be many millions
of basic bicyclists. They prefer:
· Comfortable access to destinations, preferably by a direct route; either low-speed, low
traffic-volume streets or designated bicycle facilities.
· Well-defined separation of bicycles and motor vehicles on arterial and collector streets
(bike lanes or shoulders), or on separate bike paths.
Group C - Children Cyclists: Pre-teen riders whose roadway use is initially monitored by
parents, eventually they are accorded independent access to the system. They and their parents
prefer the following:
· Access to key destinations surrounding residential areas, including schools, recreation
facilities, shopping, or other residential areas.
· Residential streets with low motor vehicle speed limits and volumes.
· Well-defined separation of bicycles and motor vehicles on arterial and collector streets,
or on separate bike paths.
Bicycling takes much more coordination and physical skill than does driving an automobile.
Cyclists vary widely in age and ability. The Bicycle Federation of America estimates that only
five percent of cyclists are advanced, and that ninety-five percent of all cyclists fall under the
basic and child cyclist categories. By understanding the needs of these cyclists, engineers are
better able to choose an appropriate facility type and design, while also considering current
roadway conditions and limitations.
6
.
.
.
Understanding the Streets
Planning and designing for bicyclists involves different approaches for different situations
and purposes. For instance, an arterial street requires a different approach than a residential
street. Similarly, the approach taken will vary with intention. Here are some commonly found
situations and the approaches most often used.
1. Arterial streets are among the busiest streets in any community. Experienced bicyclists
often prefer arterials for their traffic controls and directness. Other riders tend to avoid them,
if possible, because of the traffic.
The benefits for bicyclists include the aforementioned traffic controls and directness.
Arterials, for instance, may be the only streets that break certain barriers like railroad yards,
freeways, and rivers. But arterials increasingly provide other benefits to cyclists as well.
Many popular destination-schools, worksites, shops-can only be found along arterials.
For destination-oriented bicyclists, therefore, using arterials may be the only alternative.
Basic options for improving arterial streets include:
. Wide curb lanes
. Bike lanes
2. Collector streets are generally less busy and have fewer lanes than arterial streets. Often,
the lighter traffic makes for a less stressful ride for many bicyclists and the less "hardcore"
riders tend to gravitate towards such streets.
While collector streets typically have less traffic than arterials, they still - by definition - go
somewhere. Unlike many residential streets, they can reach destinations that are important to
bicyclists. In some cases, improving a collector that parallels a major arterial can provide a
viable alternative route for many bicyclists. Basic improvements for collector streets include
the same measures as for arterial streets but they may be easier to implement:
. Wide curb lanes
. Bike lanes
. Bike routes
3. Residential streets typically don't warrant special provisions like bike lanes or wide curb
lanes. However, given that they harbor young bicyclists and casual family riders, there are
some important issues to consider. For example, several key types of residential street
bike/car crashes involve bicyclists and motorists being unable to see each other in time to
avoid a collision. In some intersections, for example, their views are blocked by vegetation
and fences.
In addition, residential streets that serve as commuter routes can often benefit from traffic
calming approaches. The purpose of traffic calming is to slow and discourage throught
traffic in neighborhoods. Therefore, residential streets may benefit from basic sight distance
improvements and, where warranted, traffic calming measures:
. Sight distance
. Traffic calming
7
.
.
.
4. Rural roads and highways are roads that travel through an area with rural land uses.
Typically, it has no curbs, gutters, or adjacent sidewalks; it may have drainage ditches or
swales, however. Some rural highways are trunk lines through highly-traveled corridors and,
as a result, carry very high volumes of traffic. Others serve a few farms or serve as "back
ways" between two destinations otherwise served by major highways.
Virtually all rural roads carry high speed traffic and this has serious implications for safe
bicycling. Being hit by a high speed motor vehicle brings with it a high risk of death.
Fortunately, such incidents are relatively rare-probably at least in part because rural bicycle
traffic is low and the riders tend to be skilled-but they are a serious concern when planning
for bicycling in either rural or newly developing areas.
On very low volume rural roads, little improvement is generally needed for bicyclists. If
such roads are popular bicycling routes, eliminating basic roadway hazards and, perhaps,
installing route signs may be all that is needed. On higher volume rural roads - particularly
those with significant percentages of truck traffic - providing adequate smoothly-paved
shoulders is one of the most helpful improvements possible. Here are some ofthe most
useful measures:
· Paved shoulders
· Interstate highway policies
. Rural route mapping
Trail Design: Bikeway Types and Design Elements
There are many books and papers dedicated to traillbikeway design and engineering. A
federally supported guide published by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) provides nation-wide standards and guidelines, as do most
states' Department of Transportation. In 1996, the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) published a comprehensive engineering and planning guide called, Minnesota Bicycle
Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines. We have adopted this guide as a standard for
engineering for trails the city designs in the future (Appendix A). We will also require
developers to design to our standard, and hence, the standards set forth by MnDOT. Lobbyists
for the Americans with Disabilities Act have also published a set of design standards for
compliance with ADA regulations (Appendix B). We will design to achieve these standards in
effort to supply the public with the most universal of all recreation.
The following section provides general recommendations for selecting roadway design
treatments to accommodate bicyclists. Specific dimensions are suggested for the width of the
recommended facility type. These recommendations reflect the current state of practice in the
design of bicycle friendly roadways.
Types of Facilities
According to MnDOT there are six types of on-road facilities to accommodate bicycle
traffic: 1. Bicycle Lanes, 2. Combination Bus/Bicycle Lanes, 3. Shared Lanes, 4. Wide Curb or
Wide Ooutside Lanes, 5. Shoulders, 6. Traffic Calmed-Roadways. The manual also describes
8
.
path planning and engineering in great detail. Refer to Chapters four and five of the MnDOT
Bikeways Manual (Appendix A) for guidelines on these types of facilities.
1. Bicycle Lanes
.
Bike lanes should always be one-way facilities carrying traffic in the same direction as
adjacent motor vehicle traffic, and should not be placed between parking spaces and the curb.
They encourage cycling by providing a visible reminder that provisions have been made to a
particular roadway to accommodate cyclists. Bicycle lanes offer the cyclist more space than
other on-road bikeways, thereby addressing the need for increased maneuverability for basic
and child cyclists. The MnDOT guide finds that field studies confirm bike lanes have a
strong channelizing effect on motor vehicles and bicycles. Bike lane stripes are intended to
promote the orderly flow of traffic, by establishing specific lines of demarcation between
areas reserved for bicycles and lanes to be occupied by motor vehicles. Bike lane signs and
pavement markings support this effect. Bike lane stripes can increase bicyclists' confidence
that motorists will not stray into their path of travel if they remain in the bike lane. Likewise,
with more certainty as to where bicyclists will be, passing motorists are less apt to swerve
towards opposing traffic in making certain they will not hit bicyclists.
The impact of marked bike lanes is particularly important for riders with less confidence
of their ability to operate in traffic without special provisions for bicycles. These lanes offer
a designated and visible space for bicyclists and can be a significant factor in route choice.
Motorists also benefit from the channelizing effect of bike lanes, because bike lanes increase
the total capacities of highways carrying mixed bicycle and motor vehicle traffic. The
installation of bicycle lanes between residential areas and shopping / office areas is one
important factor in encouraging local citizens to bicycle commute.
.
Figure 2. Standard Cross Section: Bicycle Lanes (PACTS, 1995).
9
.
.
.
Bicycle lanes are always one-way facilities and carry bicycle traffic in the same direction
as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. On two-way streets, bicycle lanes should always be located
on both sides of the road. Bicycle lanes should be installed on the right-hand side of one-way
streets, unless installing the lane on the left-hand side can reduce conflicts. The standard
width of bicycle lanes in Stillwater should be five feet wide, with four feet being the
minimum width allowable (exclusive of the gutter pan).
Bike lane pavement and sub-base should always have the same depth and quality as the
adjacent roadway. Bike lanes are not required to have curb and gutter.
2. Paved Shoulders
Paved shoulders for bicycles serve the needs of all types of cyclists in rural areas. In
urban areas, paved shoulders may be preferable for group A (advanced) cyclists on arterial
roadways with high speeds (over 50 mph). When designed to National and/or MnDOT
standards for bicycle facilities, paved shoulders can be signed as bicycle routes. Shoulders
should be a minimum of four feet to six feet wide to accommodate cyclists. The ideal width
should be dependent upon traffic volumes and speed limit. As with bicycle lanes, paved
shoulders should have the same pavement thickness and sub-base as the adjacent roadway,
should have the same cross slope as the adjacent roadway, and should be regularly swept and
kept free of potholes.
Figure 3. Standard Cross Section: Paved Shoulders (PACTS, 1995).
The Stillwater City limits and annexation area is fortunate to already have many
roadways with wide paved shoulders. If the road is desired for bicycle travel, the existing
10
.
.
.
paved shoulders should either be striped as bicycle lanes or signed as bicycle routes, given
that their current condition is adequate and that regular maintenance needs are met.
3. Wide Outside Lanes
Outside lanes that are wider than a standard twelve feet travel lane can provide more
space for cyclists and easier passing for motorists. Wide outside lanes best accommodate
group A (advanced) cyclists, as these riders are more comfortable operating directly in
traffic.
Figure 4. Standard Cross Section: Wide Outside Lanes (PACTS, 1995).
Wide outside lanes can serve as an interim bicycle facility on roadways where the
adequate width for a bicycle lane is not yet achievable (every effort should be made to
develop standard bicycle lanes where possible). The wide outside lane is always the furthest
right-hand lane, and should optimally be fourteen feet wide. Wide outside lanes should never
be more than fifteen feet wide, as additional width may allow motorists to pass each other on
the right. The engineer should also consider that the wider lane will encourage faster motor
vehicle speeds. Wide outside lanes are not required to have curb and gutter.
4. Multi-Use Trails
Multi-use trails are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and built either within
an independent right-of-way (such as a utility or railroad right-of-way), or along specially
acquired easements across private lands. Such trails cater to a variety of users, including
cyclists, pedestrians, joggers, rollerbladers, rollerskiers and wheelchairs. Possible conflicts
11
.
between these user groups must be considered during the design phase, as cyclists often
travel at a faster speed than other users.
.
Figure 5. Standard Cross Section: Multi-Use Trail (PACTS, 1995).
.
The AASHTO Guide and MnDOT define a bicycle path as:
A pathway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier
and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way.
Two-way multi-use paths should be at least 10 ft. wide. Where possible, especially if bicycle
or pedestrian traffic is expected to be high, paths should be 12 ft wide. Given the variety of
users of most bicycle paths, 8-ft. widths will generally not be adequate heavily used trails.
Heavy use is defined by AASHTO as 25 cyclists and 25 pedestrians per hour; above these
volumes paths should be 12-13 ft wide. Movement along existing pathways does not
approach heavy classification, though it may in the future at particular times of day. One-
way bicycle paths have limited application, as without strict enforcement they will be used as
two-way facilities. If they are provided, however, they should be at least 5 ft. wide.
Child and beginning cyclists prefer separate bicycle paths for recreational purposes. These
facilities can be aesthetically pleasing and direct. Multi-use paths can help cyclists and
pedestrians avoid harassment and motorist threat in urban areas, although they sometimes do
not allow access to important destinations in congested areas. Off-road trails offer a
convenient and pleasant alternative, as well as an opportunity for a novice cyclist to get some
riding experience in a less threatening environment. Separate paths must be constructed with
adequate width and markings, according to MnDOT standards, in those locations where they
are perhaps the choice available to provide bicycle transportation and recreation corridors.
12
.
One of the greatest advantages the Parks Board and the community receive from multi-
use trails is a truly universal recreation. Multi-use trails include benefits for all ages and
multi user groups. Proper multi-use trail design can promote compatibility between the
different user groups they attract. An important aspect of which we should not loose sight is
that these trails exist for the fun of the community. As long as users remember that everyone
is there for the same objective, guard should be relaxed and conflict between user groups can
be remedied as quickly as possible. Proper signage including trail etiquette and guidelines
can be implemented. Anyone complaining about the safety of a trail associated with user
group interest should be reminded these facilities are built to accommodate all types of
recreation that would normally be a part of our roadway network. Be reminded of the many
conflicts pedestrians and bicyclists encounter when travelling next to automobiles.
5. Bicycle Routes
A bicycle route is a "suggested way" for a cyclist to get from a point of origin to a
destination. Such a route may be preferable for bicycling for a number of reasons including
directness, scenery, less congestion and lower vehicle speed limits. Bicycle routes may be
used by all type of cyclists.
A street does not necessarily have to be widened in order to be designated as a bicycle
route. A road with standard twelve-foot wide lanes (or less} can be designated as a bike route
with the appropriate signage.
. 6. Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking, including provisions for bike racks, should be provided at grocery
stores, park and recreation facilities, natural areas, office and employment centers, shopping
malls, schools, the library, and civic buildings.
Sidewalks and Bicyclists
Early bicycle path efforts were aimed at multiple use of sidewalks as bicycle paths.
While in some instances this type of path may be necessary, in most cases it should be avoided.
Sidewalks are generally unsafe because they put the cyclist in conflict with pedestrians, utility
posts, signposts, and motorists using driveways. A cyclist on a sidewalk is generally not visible
or noticed by a motorist, so that when the cyclists suddenly emerges at intersections or
driveways, the driver could be caught off guard. Cyclists are safer when they are allowed to
function as roadway vehicle operators, rather than as pedestrians.
Intersection Design
Additional measures at trail/roadway intersections can provide for more predictable
movements of trail users. There are usually two main considerations at trail/roadway
intersections: 1) keeping out unauthorized motor vehicle uses, and 2) physical design of the trail
crossing to reduce conflicts with motor vehicle traffic.
.
13
.
.
.
The following basic elements can be used to achieve safer junctions: segregated trail user
lanes, stop signs and stop bars, entrance bollards, pedestrian crosswalk striping, and warning
signage for motorists. This design reduces conflict by encouraging the trail user to use caution
when crossing the roadway, encouraging the motorist to be prepared for the crossing, generally
reducing the confusion that is often a problem at intersections through a logical structure for trail
users.
Trail Surfaces
Typical pavement design for off-road multi-use trails should be based upon the specific
loading and soil conditions for each project. Trails designed to serve bicycle transportation
purposes should be composed of a hard surface such as asphalt or concrete. One important
concern for asphalt multi-use trails is the deterioration of trail edges. Installation of a geotextile
fabric beneath a layer of aggregate base can help maintain the edge of a trail. Some of the
common trail surfaces listing their advantages and disadvantages are listed below.
1. Mowed Grass
Advantages
. Natural Material
· Low Maintenance
· Can be altered for further improvements
· Easiest for volunteers to build and maintain
· Retains snow cover on ski trails
· Cost: mow monthly minimum
Disadvantages
· If vegetative cover is lost, may rut/erode when wet
· Not an 'all-weather' surface
· Can be uneven and bumpy
. Not ADA accessible
2. Wood Chip
Advantages
· A soft, spongy surface
· Good for walking and jogging
. Reduces soil compaction
. Natural Material
· Inexpensive ($5 per Ix8')
Disadvantages
· Decomposes under heat/moisture
· Erodes heavily on slopes greater than 10%
· Requires yearly replenishment
· Not typically accessible
3. Gravel Aggregate
Advantages
· Soft but firm surface
. Natural material
14
. . Accommodates multiple-use
. Moderate cost ($8 per lx8')
Disadvantages
. Surface can rut/erode with heavy rain on slopes
. Regular maintenance required to keep consistent surface
. Replenishing stones may be a long-term expense
4. Soil Cement
Advantages
. Looks natural
. More durable than native soil
. Smoother surface
. Can be ADA accessible
. Inexpensive ($5 per lx8')
Disadvantages
. Surface may wear unevenly
. Freeze/thaw may have effects
. May erode if not installed properly
. Can be difficult to achieve correct mix
. 5. Asphalt
Advantages
. Hard surface supports all types of use
. No trail erosion
. Low maintenance
. ADA accessible
Disadvantages
. High installation cost ($15 per lx8')
. Costly to repair
. Not natural surface
. Freeze/thaw can crack surface
. Heavy construction vehicles need access
6. Concrete
Advantages
. Hardest surface
. Supports multiple use
. Lowest maintenance
. Resists freeze/thaw
. No trail erosion
. ADA accessible
. 15
.
.
.
Disadvantages
· High installation cost ($40 per Ix8')
· Costly to repair
· Not natural looking surface
· Heavy construction vehicles need access
Goals and Standards
Overall Trail System Goals
After examination of the previously discussed factors, we have set up a set of goals central to
the Comprehensive Trail Plan. They are as follows:
· Develop a continuous comprehensive "walkable community" system, including both on
and off-street routes, that makes bicycle and pedestrian travel a fun, safe and enjoyable
continuous ease of movement throughout Stillwater
· Develop a comprehensive trail system that traverses the community both east - west and
north - south and link the local trail system to existing and proposed regional trails.
· Increase levels of bicycling for commuting and utilitarian trips as a cost-effective and
efficient alternative in the transportation system.
· Establish and maintain appropriate and safe standards and guidelines for bicycle
facilities, programs, and projects.
· Concentrate providing safe pedestrian/bicycle access to downtown's historical district
and facilities along the Saint Croix River.
· Expand and link the trail system between neighborhoods and to major activity and work
centers in addition to local destinations throughout the city routing pedestrians and
bicyclists off major roadways wherever possible.
· Where adequate, uninterrupted right-of-way is available, separate bicycle paths can be
used to provide long, continuous routes for commuting or recreation trips, access to
destinations not otherwise available to bicyclists, and as cut-throughs between buildings
and other breaks in the street network.
· Provide pedestrian access to both active and passive recreational facilities, as well as
access to Stillwater's natural areas.
· Ensure the construction of trails in new development to provide for trail linkages
consistent with the adopted Citywide PedestrianlBicycle Trail Plan.
· The city should continue to complete and enhance the initially identified essential
sidewalk links in those neighborhoods lacking sidewalks.
· Ensure accessibility of transportation facilities in accordance with the spirit and
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Trail Design Goals
.
Emphasis should be on maintaining existing sidewalks and adding new facilities in
residential areas where demand dictates.
16
.
· Provide adequate road width on Stillwater streets to accommodate bicycle lanes where
separate bicycle lanes are not feasible.
· Retrofit existing roadways to accommodate bicycles. Work with width of existing city
roads to create designated bicycle lanes.
· Encourage regional and state agencies to promote enhanced design standards for regional
trails passing through the city.
· Coordinate local improvements with those of outside agencies to accelerate timing of
trails through the city.
· Promote compatibility on multi-use trail using proper etiquette guidelines.
· Adhere to Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines.
Specific Location Goals
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
· Examine existing city bicycle lane signage.
· Examine potential trail sites noting their historical and natural setting such as the
Minnesota Zephyr right of way, city ravines, greenways and their ability to connect
downtown and the new expansion area.
Integrate McKusick Ravine into the trail system as a natural extension of the McKusick
Lake Trail into the downtown.
Establish trail within right of way to circumnavigate Lake McKusick and Long Lake.
Establish dock-like or appropriate trail across Brown's Creek wetland to compliment the
Brown's Creek trail system behind the Creekside Crossing development.
Encourage MnDOT to provide continuous bicycle paths along the Frontage Road from
CR 15 to TH95 and along 95 from Oak Park Heights to TH 95 through downtown.
Encourage the development of a separate path or bike route along Neal Avenue.
Encourage the development of a separate path or bike route along Boutwell Road.
Enhance and expand sidewalks in the north hill area.
Encourage the development of a trail to circumnavigate Stillwater Golf Course on north
side.
Encourage the development of a sidewalk/bikeway along Eagle Ridge Trail.
Develop a sidewalk and bike lane/route along Curve Crest Boulevard.
Encourage the development of adequate sidewalks from communities to schools.
The Comprehensive Trail Plan
A comprehensive pedestrian transportation system is vital for maintaining, appreciating
and enhancing Stillwater's local character as well as our economic base. A number oftraffic
studies have effected the Stillwater area over the years. Stillwater, along with MnDOT, Oak
Park Heights and Washington County have all conducted detailed traffic analyses and forecasts
projecting accelerated traffic volumes on our roads for years to come. These factors make an
effective pedestrian transportation system an essential alternative to auto transportation in the
years to come. To enhance the overall system, pedestrian and bicycle trails can function as an
essential component of the planned Stillwater Transportation Plan. As such, pedestrianlbicycle
.
17
.
.
.
trails must be considered in the planning process for all land use related decisions and in all
transportation related projects.
The 2000 Comprehensive Trail Plan is presented as a complete network enhancing
pedestrian and bicycle mobility throughout Stillwater (figure 6). The intent ofthe proposed trail
system is to serve both a utilitarian transportation function and a recreational function. A user
study conducted by the city found that the recreation uses of trails are greatly valued by
Stillwater residents as interest in bicycling, in-line skating, skiing, and hiking increases (1995
Comprehensive Plan). Other nation-wide studies indicate increasing interest for the utilization of
trails as an alternative transportation mode to the automobile. The major difference between the
two uses is that the primary objective of the utilitarian trip is to arrive at a specific destination as
quickly as possible with few interruptions, while recreational trips are generally more leisurely
and less direct. To provide for a trail system to accomplish both the utilitarian and recreation
functions trail alignments were assessed in relation to not only the natural features and
social/cultural features of the community but also the areas of opportunities for employment,
shopping and services.
Natural systems are those environmental features that offer attractiveness and interest to a
trail system. They also pose challenges to trail engineering in mitigating soils adverse to
development while meandering through woodland areas and around wetland and floodplain
features. Trails in conjunction with natural systems will generally be developed for recreational
purposes.
Social and cultural systems represent the built environment of a community. The land
uses associated with these systems include residential neighborhoods, historical districts,
shopping and other commercial areas such as office parks, and public and quasi-public places
such as the Public Works Facility, City Hall, library, police/fire stations and other similar uses.
The Plan proposes to link these social and cultural features to the city's neighborhoods
and to the regional trail system as well. Major land use patterns and points of interest such as
schools and parks within the planning area are indicated on the Comprehensive Trail Plan map
(figure 6). The Trail Plan provides access to employment, shopping, retail/service, commercial,
recreational, educational, and governmental destinations. In developing trail systems, existing
land use patterns along with future uses have been considered. We hope this Plan is aggressive
and progressive enough to suit community needs through the twenty-first century.
Maintenance
Proper maintenance of on-street riding surfaces is a key factor in bicycle safety and an
important consideration in people's decision to ride a bicycle. Designing bikeways to reduce
maintenance, giving priority to sweeping the sides of streets where bicyclists ride, and ensuring
that riding surfaces are relatively smooth are all requisites in attracting more of the general
public to bicycling.
Bicyclists are more sensitive to irregularities and road debris than cars. Roadway
features that cause minor discomfort to motorists can cause serious problems and accidents for
cyclists. Potholes and improper drain grates can cause bicyclists to flip over or lose control.
Traffic signals that detect automobiles but fail to respond to cyclists encourage cyclists to ignore
red lights. Repaired patches and railway crossings at acute angles to the roadway will often
divert the cyclists' front wheel and cause serious falling accidents. General maintenance
objectives are as follows:
18
.. 'n- ~1~-1 f
i I I ---' 1-. ,,,- f-----J
1 J ',,"- _
' k!J I I I , r'= ! 1 <>....",_
'-"" " I I ' , . '_
-~~. r.. , J'~"i Ie I~' , __
r -~. P ,{" 1\Jt', co,": ~,~ . " ) 'L , d_ =-1-)
I ~ 1."0' ,. I ~... 1 fi~.", 'j ,.~__ _
.., .:l.lLI~.:"~j_, '1M' r "" ",," <. , / \ I.l~'" ". ~'~ ,
i D'"'~"'il:<<!" 'i.c"i> """ ~ - .-(i~ ~. ':i, . , ,,) .}"". .~ ~i
i ~~' ~. ek'IJmL, "'1\ ...Lt..-\, 'F" .1....=1 I
Ai '~" - ~ ~ ~..~ --L~ -; I !--~ _ '~ -:' ,'" ~
~ 1..1.L. " C I.~ 0 .-i;~-Ti-~ i .., ---'j I ! ~:t
I !.r ~ " '.. . . . ~J\., ~ - I ' \ WJ~ Z j, ~.~
' I~ [ I I " 'f b! I -,~ I \..::. --t:~\ ~ _ I' I i I ~
~~~.: I,t':; ~':~~I:JJ~:'~:. - ~.',f7~i ~'~":c"~~~
f~) ~,<~' i " ~ . it- l~l-Q u7'0;' .':'Jttj J'h _ , (~~.
' ~:',"","0' 'IT"'" . · _ , "~ ""'.;0 ~'::::J' I . ~ _
,~..~r / ',~, ."C . --'- il~I:"_'~~~//f~J', --'/L~~ ~-< _p,
1,-, "i . ii't '. ~~ ;~ ~ '1l .. ~ ~7'" '
I 'i~" Y<C,",'" '''""'~'''''. l
r I V 1"., "'i'~~ .'~ {.~V'" ,;'~, __ ~J\l"~.~
I ..L -- ----- ~'J.'-., . - I I '..\:J~lPJ~ ...-..\ \\~ . ',J..-''K3:!~ l,1 \~ I'J _', I , ' \~(/r P7" --.
.,+ -Lc' _<i'" ., , .+"\.. "" V I '
'---!. ------'=::j:-. ~ , - J 1 - '~\IULI . -f '''''~i/ ~ J r~ I .j_____
\+-, \ ~ Ilo ~jl",-",: , .171'1 II "'_1!~ I" r~\ "" 1f\ ---l : ("'Q;>~.J ,;:2""d,j
-I'" \ =8:::' , ~ ~"I ' "'~',' Ie>,,, ~ TJJ,. ~
~. . -- n--mTi'lT~ ~ilJ 4' -' -', 'V ~ '~ __ J "---
I, """""',,~, - -., ,,, "-" c:> /'. r
rt--- -T i t~%~tr;:7' -'f 'J..;1- ,,' - .... a "~a' _. '-I
~-~~-~ ~~~~~"'~"""'-' ,#r.~ 9(~tBo...: .1 \L
' J ,r -, I, """"''''''-v.- - " PC I . ~. '1" ^~ ""..<, _ ~IL
I if- ~"IIP"" "", '. '~~'T,-..~.,
1.....11 \ II U 'i='b-f ~"r 'l-[ , :li'F - -;- Ie j~}r -3Up- I _, C-~II--=
I.llJ I'-,=t J 1:" . ~t'io'~ ~~!, ...L
,-J "" IT:~TJ 1;''''' b '" ,hii ,.~T lrri'-""==l . _,
::r' '11~yj ~m ". '" ,: .. " "" l.I"1I=o~IUn ~ r=1 r f= I 1,,,_
' cr' II, I I~ , r . "'" '" '"""*, _d" 'fiHilITl!Jl\!I;t'ill"" I r"'l~l
iL.1 1 I, f . I · -"""""1T'~ '-I\'f+trotrtW J~'~i< 'hl u:: 'ill!' n L~ / -'
'\"-h--' "'"" , . 'II'"" _._ '''" NJ n?/
I'I.-:.{ "'i ' II)J 1 \ V"r;u~::.J'-tTJ.J "-+I-l,'+ti ~_~: :""'.4 ~llIltt J ". " ..<:' ,,' (JV 1+ _,'-.
;:= (J.J r- --"' it i=.."F% I:+: T - ~j -t= ~' .' , ....c.l, 5Ul"" ~ 3t tm~~~ I~ '1'- j" , ~ , r-T_
-- L - ,~, .. - .. -.& ~~ , _.. IT.. .. \.,',
'TIC"" I ITI";""~"t -.,.... j"- ',,_ . ~.~" 0/',. > ,,!=, _ _ ,1','1......
J( I" 'LIlllULj -.Lli- -:tc ~~...... . ~ ..,. h ..... ,,"',~
~ . -,rr =!::" ;~ ' \'r ~ -\\t.mji--- h ~""
~ r"""'" -. ~.~ ~,l'lJl.."..~,,, ~":!i' clO'r ~ ' ,'...,.~'--'
'. I } n1;;.. " , '",",' '" 'l ,~ ~ ,n+! II :::k-' I ,'; . /
",." .Jllll' i_'" '" ~~, )c Ie 'l> ~ '" '" ,'''" ~; 1tft'TIP' '!4 " ,. ".
'~d 1:.- ""~' ~ V~~~ Ij/i " ""W , , ;.~
~EIJL wmr ~"MU. 'i'i<... . " -c:! ~ fb;. '_"",",,,",, = _" "'"
-hiJ' ~, ""W' ", __ _--' ,
' "i= '1;"", )'
I .1 I ' """", "'HI!" ....,...
>'" , I , ,WI ,,,,,1 '''''' '" ~
1c..L\ ".lJ I ~'. ~~!II ~LlJ. ~ " l\ifIY,t ~ ~~~ ' G. ""
Ii 'TP, fi-,ytLI- i'!
-- L .L. -1_ fnJn'po tht J, \f+trtf 'It-J
t -i B ,J --.== 1- f+%+\-I'l!E J. ,!;"rn, lftl~ r:.:< or
..,.bwt~-...L,....,~.,' L=t.::if-t1tr.~. t~
c 11~~m5 -#ltr ",
r;"'~rnlr;ffi~, 4:1, [-8~. 8J --t $, . ,
id1~jjj~btJE1j., tcE 'J.l,
L_.J [[3, IT:t'J[;4fr.tf.IT : Pit.. ' ~ I I
0l~~~L-
\&YB~~~ I~"
!~~~.~
.:~~, V"
/~V
)
r 0
-~ ~
~
I II
~.
~ ~ w 9 r-
~ :>;'" (l) t""" 1il
g ~~:
[ Jj 11
9-
I e.
I~ ~
'"
~
""
1;l
,~)
Jra...:=
:\:.-.1:
t:Il "d ifJ
~. i3 ,g
<JIg. "8 5
<JI ....
CJQ (l) (l)
>-1 0.. 0..
.. ~ ~
~ ~ ~
'Cn_
..... ifJ
~ a:
Z ~ i
-
~\::)
a~ D
l'JBIIJ
~
(l)
P>
0..
"d
~
g.
CJQ
.[)~
~
a-
n
=
fI)
....
~
t-1
...
~
~
-
~
=
(
~
I~
.
-
"d ifJ
i3 g.
"8 ~
<JI
a.
"d
~
:;d
(l)
n
..
(l)
P>
a.
g
R'
Z
P>
g
e.
"d
..
o
"0
o
<JI
a.
t:l:l
I
(l)
~
:>;'"
"d
~
<JI
-
. · Trails located within highway right-of-way should be maintained by the state department.
· Strive to provide quick and effective remediation of dangerous and inconvenient facility
problems for bicycle transportation.
· Assign maintenance responsibility for each pedestrianlbicycle facility before construction.
· Provide ongoing and regular maintenance for all pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
· Eliminate or reduce hazards such as grates and other drainage features along pathways.
Project Implementation
The following are a set of funding and implementation guidelines:
.
· Designate a percentage of total available roadway funds exclusively for provision and
maintenance of bicycle facilities. Average percentages designated for trailways range
between one and five percent in other cities.
· Provide consistent and on-going funding for pedestrian and bicycle transportation.
· Accelerate improvements for existing trails and construction of new trails.
· Acquire maximum available funding from state and federal sources. The community should
make a commitment to increased non-motorized transportation use by committing a higher
percentage of state and federal funds to bicycle and pedestrian transportation.
· Include trail construction in City Capital Improvement Program.
· Require new development to plan trails to our standards.
· Generally follow the guidelines and standards set by MnDOT and ADA for the design of
trailways. Refer to Appendix A for MnDOT Planning Guide and Appendix B for ADA
Guidelines.
· Ensure the construction of trails in new development to provide for trail linkages consistent
with the adopted Comprehensive Trail Plan.
Maintenance
· Provide quick and effective remediation of dangerous and inconvenient facility problems for
bicycle transportation.
· Assign maintenance responsibility for each bicycle facility.
· Provide ongoing and regular maintenance for all bicycle facilities.
· Schedule inspections, maintenance, and repair annually.
· Prevent and remove debris from the bikeway.
· Eliminate hazards from grates and other drainage features.
· Reduce hazards to cyclists from edge markings.
.
20
.
.
.
Basic References:
1. 1993 Austin Bicycle Plan, City of Austin Department of Planning and Development.
Making Communities "Bicycle Friendly, " Bill Wilkinson, Planning Commissioners
Journal, #10, 1993.
2. Building Bikeways-These paths are no longer the roads less traveled by. Michael G.
Jones, Planning, 1993.
3. Greenwavs-A Guide to Planning, Design, and Development, Charles A. Flink and
Robert M. Seams, The Conservation Fund, Island Press, 1993.
4. Liberty BicycleIPedestrian Plan, City of Liberty, Missouri, 1997.
5. Minnesota Bicycle Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines, Minnesota
Department of Transportation, 1996.
6. NRPC Region Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan-Technical Supplement, Nashua Regional
Planning Commission, 1995.
7 . PACTS Regional Bicvcle and Interim Pedestrian Plan, Portland Area Comprehensive
Transportation Committee, 1995.
8. Pro Bike Pro Walk 98 - Creating Bicycle-Friendly and Walkable Communities, City
of Santa Barbara included in the National Conferences of the Bicycle Federation of
America, 1998.
9. 1995 Stillwater Comprehensive Plan, City of Stillwater Planning Department.
10. Trails for the Twenty-First Century-Planning, Design, and Management Manual for
Multi-Use Trails, Karen-Lee Ryan, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Island Press, 1993.
11. Walkable and Bicycle Friendly Communities, Dan Burden, Florida Department of
Transportation, 1997.
21
.
.
.
Appendix A: Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines for Trails
General Guide:
So what is an accessible trail?
· Under the proposed guidelines, an accessible trail would meet these minimum technical
provISIOns:
. Clear tread width: 36" minimum
· Tread Obstacles: 2" high maximum (up to 3" high where running and cross slopes are 5%
or less)
. Cross Slope: 5% max.
· Running slope (trail grade) meets one or more of the following:
- 5% or less for any distance.
- up to 8.33% for 200' max. Resting intervals no more than 200' apart.
- up to 10% for 30' max. Resting intervals 30'.
- up to 12.5% for 10' max. Resting intervals 10'.
· No more than 30% of the total trail length may exceed a running slope of8.33%.
· Passing Space: provided at least every 1000' where trail width is.less than 60"
· Signs: shall be provided indicating the length of the accessible trail segment.
Specific Guide:
Proposed Technical Specifications for New and Reconstructed Trails to Comply with ADA
From: REGULATORY NEGOTIATION COMMITTEE ON ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR OUTDOOR
DEVELOPED AREAS, FINAL REPORT, SEPTEMBER 1999
Following is the portion of the report dealing with trails:
16. OUTDOOR DEVELOPED AREAS
Outdoor developed areas covered by this section shall comply with the applicable requirements
of section 4 and the special application sections, except as modified or otherwise provided in this
section.
16.1 General. All newly designed and constructed pedestrian trails or altered portions of existing
pedestrian trails connecting to designated trailhead or accessible trails shall comply with 16. All
newly designed and constructed camping facilities, picnic areas, and beach access routes or
altered portions thereof shall comply with 16.
16.1.1 Extent of Application. Departures from specific technical provisions of this section shall
be permitted where specified, and where at least one of the following conditions is present. The
conditions in this section do not obviate or limit in any way obligations to comply with 16 at any
point that the conditions are not present.
22
.
.
.
I.Where compliance would cause substantial harm to cultural, historic, religious, or significant
natural features or characteristics; or,
2.Where compliance would substantially alter the nature of the setting or the purpose of the
facility, or portion of the facility; or,
3. Where compliance would require construction methods or materials that are prohibited by
federal, state, or local regulations or statutes; or,
4.Where compliance would not be feasible due to terrain or the prevailing construction practices.
Definitions.
Trail: A route that is designed, constructed, or designated for recreational pedestrian use or
provided as an pedestrian alternative to vehicular routes within a transportation system.
Designated Trailhead: A designated point of access that may contain a parking area,
information kiosks, restrooms, water hydrants, and may be reached by vehicular or pedestrian
access.
Tread width: The path or visible trail surface perpendicular to the direction of travel. The clear
tread width of the trail is the width of the useable trail tread, measured perpendicular to the
direction of travel and on or parallel to the surface of the useable trail tread. The minimum clear
tread width is the narrowest measurement on the useable trail tread.
16.2 Trails. Where trails are provided, the trail shall comply with 16.2. Where provided,
elements located on accessible trails shall comply with 16.5 through 16.21. Elements are not
required to be connected by an outdoor recreation access route.
EXCEPTIONS' 1. Where one or more ofthe conditions in 16.1.1 exists, and where one or more
of the conditions in this exception exists, the provisions of 16.2 shall not apply after the first
point of departure. The segment of the trail between the trailhead and the first point of departure
shall comply with 16.
2 unless the trail segment is 500 feet (150 m) or less in length. Where there is a prominent
feature less than 500 feet (150 m) from the trailhead, the trail segment between the trailhead and
the prominent feature shall comply with 16.2.
The conditions of this exception are:
(a) The combination of running slope and cross slope exceeds 40 percent for over 20 feet (6100
mm); or
(b) A trail obstacle 30 inches (760 mm) or more in height across the full tread width ofthe trail;
or
(c) The surface is neither firm nor stable for a distance of 45 feet or more; or
(d) A clear width less than 12 inches (305 mm) for a distance of20 feet (6100 mm) or more
2. Where one or more of the conditions in 16.1.1 are met resulting in departures from the
technical provisions in 16.2 for over 15 percent of the length of the trail, 16.2 shall not apply
after the first point of departure. The segment of the trail between the trailhead and the first point
of departure is required to comply with 16.2 unless the trail segment is 500 feet (150 m) or less
in length. Where there is a prominent feature less than 500 feet (150 m) from the trailhead, the
trail segment between the trailhead and the prominent feature shall comply with 16.2.
16.2.1 Surface. The trail surface shall be firm and stable.
EXCEPTION The provision shall not apply where a firm and stable surface can not be provided
because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 applies.
16~2.2 Clear Tread Width. The clear tread width of the trail shall be 36 inches (915 mm)
mInImum.
23
.
.
.
EXCEPTIONS 1. The clear tread width shall be permitted to be reduced to no less than 32 inches
(815 mm) minimum where at least one ofthe four conditions specified in 16.1.1 apply.
2. The provision shall not apply where 32 inches (815 mm) minimum clear tread width can not
be provided because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 applies.
16.2.3 Openings. Openings in trail surfaces shall be of a size that does not permit passage of a *
inch (13 mm) diameter sphere. Elongated openings shall be placed so that the long dimension is
perpendicular or diagonal to the dominant direction of travel.
EXCEPTIONS 1. Elongated openings are permitted to be parallel to the dominant direction of
travel where the opening does not permit passage of a 1/4 inch (6.5 mm) diameter sphere.
2. Openings shall be permitted to be of a size that do not permit passage of a 3/4 inch (19 rom)
diameter sphere where at least one ofthe conditions in 16.1.1 apply.
3. Where openings that do not permit passage ofa 3/4 inch (19 mm) diameter sphere are not
feasible, because at least one ofthe conditions in 16.1.1. applies, the provisions of 16.2.3. shall
not apply.
16.2.4 Protruding Objects. Protruding objects on trails shall comply with ADAAG 4.4.1.and
shall have 80 inches (2030 mm) minimu clear head room.
EXCEPTION Where vertical clearance of a trail is reduced to less than 80 inches (2030 mm)
where one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 applies, a barrier to warn blind and visually
impaired persons shall be provided.
16.2.5 Tread Obstacles. Where tread obstacles exist, they shall not exceed 2 inches (50 mm)
high maximum.
EXCEPTIONS. 1. Tread obstacles shall be permitted to be 3 inches (75 mm) maximum where
running and cross slopes are 1 :20 or less.
2. The provision shall not apply where tread obstacles greater than 3 inches (75 mm) exist,
because at least one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 applies.
16.2.6 Passing Space. Where the clear tread width of the trail is less than 60 inches (1525 rom),
passing spaces shall be provided at intervals of 1000 feet (300 m) maximum. Passing spaces
shall be either a 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum by 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum space, or an
intersection of two walking surfaces which provide aT-shaped space complying with ADAAG
4.2.3 provided that the arms and stem ofthe T-shaped space extend at least 48 inches (1220 mm)
beyond the intersection.
EXCEPTION The provision shall not apply where passing space cannot be provided because at
least one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 applies.
16.2.7 Slopes. Slopes shall comply with 16.2.7.1 and 16.2.7.2.
EXCEPTIONS 1. For open drainage structures, a running slope of 14 percent is permitted for 5
feet maximum (1525 mm) with a cross slope of 1 :20 maximum. Cross slope is permitted to be
1: I 0 at the bottom of the open drain, where clear tread width is 42 inches (1065 mm) minimum.
2. The provisions of this section do not apply where one or more conditions in 16.1.1 applies.
16.2.7.1 Cross Slope. The cross slope shall not exceed 1:20 maximum.
16.2.7.2 Running Slope. Running slope of trail segments shall comply with one or more of the
provisions of this section. No more than 30 percent ofthe total trail length shall exceed a running
slope of 1: 12.
16.2.7.2.1 Running slope shall be I :20 or less for any distance.
16.2.7.2.2 Running slope shall be 1:12 maximum for 200 feet (61 m) maximum. Resting
intervals complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 200 feet (61 m)
apart.
24
.
.
.
16.2.7.2.3 Running slope shall be 1:10 maximum for 30 feet (9150 mm) maximum. Resting
intervals complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 30 feet (9150 mm)
apart.
16.2.7.2.4 Running slope shall be 1:8 maximum for 10 feet (3050 mm) maximum. Resting
intervals complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 10 feet (3050 mm)
apart.
16.2.8 Resting Intervals. Resting intervals shall be 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum in length,
shall have a width at least as wide as the widest portion of the trail segment leading to the resting
interval, and have a slope not exceeding 1 :20 in any direction.
EXCEPTION The provision shall not apply where resting spaces cannot be provided because at
least one of the four conditions specified in 16.1.1 applies.
16.2.9 Edge Protection. Where edge protection is provided along a trail, the edge protection
shall have a height of 3 inches (75 mm minimum.
16.2.10 Signs. Newly constructed and altered trails and trail segments complying with 16.2 shall
be designated with a symbol * at the trail head and all designated access points. Signs identifying
accessible trail segments shall include the total distance of the accessible segment and the
location of the first point of departure from the technical provisions.
OUTDOOR RECREATION ACCESS ROUTES
Definition.
Outdoor Recreation Access Route: A continuous unobstructed path designated for pedestrian
use that connects accessible elements within a picnic area, camping area, or designated trailhead.
16.3.1 Surface. The surface of the outdoor recreation access route shall be firm and stable.
16.3.2 Clear Tread Width. The clear tread width of outdoor recreation access routes shall be 36
inches (915 mm) minimum.
EXCEPTION The minimum width shall be permitted to be no less than 32 inches (815 mm)
minimum for a distance of24 inches (610 mm) maximum where at least one of the conditions in
16.1.1 applies.
16.3.3 Openings. Openings in the surfaces of outdoor recreation access routes shall be of a size
that does not permit passage of a * inch (13 mm) diameter sphere. Elongated openings shall be
placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular or diagonal to the dominant direction of
travel.
EXCEPTION Openings are permitted to run parallel to the dominant direction of travel so long
as, the opening does not permit passage of a 1/4 inch (6.5 mm) diameter sphere.
16.3.4 Protruding Objects. Protruding objects on outdoor recreation access routes shall comply
with ADAAG 4.4
16.3.5 Tread Obstacles: Where tread obstacles exists, obstacles on the outdoor recreation access
route shall be I inch (25 mm) high maximum.
EXCEPTION Tread obstacles of2 inches (50 mm) high maximum shall be permitted where
beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2 and where at least one of the conditions in 16.1.1
applies.
16.3.6 Passing Space. Where the clear tread width of outdoor recreation access route is less than
60 inches (1525 mm), passing spaces shall be provided at intervals of200 feet (61 m) maximum.
Passing spaces shall be either 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum by 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum
space, or an intersection of two walking surfaces which provide aT-shaped space complying
25
.
.
.
with ADAAG 4.2.3 provided that the arms and stem ofthe T -shaped space extend at least 48
inches (1220 mm) beyond the intersection.
EXCEPTION Passing spaces shall be permitted at intervals of up to 300 feet (91 m) maximum
where at least one of the conditions in 16.1.1 applies.
16.3.7 Slopes. Slopes shall comply with 16.3.7.1 and 16.3.7.2.
16.3.7.1 Cross Slope. The cross slope of outdoor recreation access routes shall be 1 :33
maxImum.
EXCEPTION Cross slopes of I :20 maximum shall be permitted to ensure proper drainage.
16.3.7.2 Running slope. Running slope of trail segments shall comply with one or more of the
provisions of this section.
16.3.7.2.1 Running slope shall be 1 :20 or less for any distance.
16.3.7.2.2 Running slope shall be 1:12 maximum for 50 feet maximum. Resting intervals
complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 50 feet apart.
16.3.7.2.3 Running slope shall be 1 :10 maximum for 30 feet (9150 mm) maximum. Resting
intervals complying with 16.2.8 shall be provided at distances no greater than 30 feet (9150 mm)
apart.
16.3.8 Resting Intervals. Resting interval shall be 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum in length, shall
have a width at least as wide as the widest portion of the trail segment leading to the resting
interval, and have a slope not exceeding 1 :33 in any direction.
EXCEPTION. Where the surface conditions require slopes greater than 1 :33 for proper drainage,
a 1 :20 slope is permitted.
16.3.9 Edge Protection. Where edge protection is provided, the edge protection shall have a
height of3 inches (75 mm) minimum.
One of the first steps towards bringing outdoor parks into compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is not to "pave the wilderness," but rather
to evaluate existing environments and provide. information to users about the level
of access.
Appendix B: Minnesota Bicycle Transportation Planning and Design
Guidelines
26
.
.
.
ft,3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FR: City Administrator
RE: Request for consideration of
playground at Old Athletic Field
DA: September 15, 2000
Discussion:
Councilmember Terry Zoller has asked me to submit a memo on his behalf to have the Park and
Recreation Commission review his request for establishing a playground area at the Old Athletic
Field. The proposed playground would be located at the NE comer of the field, as shown on the
attached aerial photograph. The rectangular segments of the map are 50' x 130'. Therefore, it
would appear that a playground area of at least 50' x 100' could be established.
The project would include the purchase and installation of the playground equipment (including
"resilient" material), maybe the removal of a section of the existing fence and perhaps installing
a smaller fence to define the playground area. Landscaping work would appear to be minimal.
Although the cost of the project is unknown at this time, it would appear that the work could be
accomplished for about $50,000.
Mr. Zoller and I recently met with an ISD 834 official and he appeared to be receptive to the
idea. Mr. Zoller will be at the meeting Monday night to discuss this further with you.
Recommendation:
Commission review request for installation of playground at Old Athletic Field.
~A
i
, I
II
II
II
, I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
~ I
II
II
'I
II
II
II
.-
II 1" = 150'
II ~n,..,.\....1JO Feet
Ii ---
\. \,'---------~-- ,
r~
I(
, I
II
,
, I
II
II
II
I,
II
i I
II
II
II
.1
II
II
II
, I
II
II
i i
I'
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
N City of =====n
t~i
Engineering Department lr) I
,/
Old Athletic
Field
._~'"
\ 1
II
II
II
II
I,
II
II
II
I,
[I
II
II
, 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
.
.
.
City Council Meeting No. 00-18
September 5, 2000
1-(~ )
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. SUB/00-56. Request from Dianne Hark and Michael Rice for a subdivision of a building into
two condominium units at 150 South Third Street in the CBD, Central Business District.
Community Development Director Russell reviewed the request with Council and stated that the
Planning Commission unanimously approved the request with conditions of approval.
Mayor Kimble opened the public hearing.
There were no comments from the public.
Mayor Kimble closed the public hearing.
Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Zoller approving Resolution No. 2000-
245 approving the subdivision of a building located at 150 South Third Street.
Ayes: Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller, and Mayor Kimble
Nays: None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Mulberry Neighborhood Park Proiect
Community Development Director Russell stated that the issue has been before the Parks Board
and they recommended approval of the expenditure of$35,000 for the equipment, but that it is
not taken out of the Park Fund and that ifit is not used be returned to the City.
Kathy Drinkwine stated that if the City could contribute the $35,000 the Friends of Parks would
corne up with the other $10,000.
Councilmember Zoller expressed a concern for setting precedent on paying for playground
equipment for other areas in the City that are not City owned.
Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Cummings approving Resolution No.
2000-246 approving the expenditure of $35,000 for playground equipment out ofthe Capital Project
Fund.
Ayes: Councilmember Bealka, Cummings, Thole and Mayor Kimble
Nays: Councilmember Zoller
Possible Approval of Annexations
Community Development Director Russell requested that the Council refer the proposed
annexation of areas that include Brown's Creek Park, Minnesota Zephyr right-of-way up to
County Road 15 and Boutwell Road to the Joint Board.
5
Lf(h J
.
r illwater
~ -- - ~~
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA J
Brown's Creek Park and Natural Area Trail
Improvement Day
You are invited to help improve Stillwater's newest hiking and ski trails, the
Brown's Creek Park and Natural Area Trail System (see Map on reverse side).
Bring shovels, rakes, handsaws and a willingness to work for two to three hours.
Meet at Neal Road and railroad tracks on Saturday, September 23,2000 at 9 a.m.
We will work until noon or as long as you can help.
. Thank you.
Brown's Creek Recreation Group, The Stillwater Open Space Committee and
Parks Committee
.
CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800
.
.
~*DOODII
_? ~~f~~f.ifI~
-ij g.~ 9E.!;0dl
!!l = ~.l a. [~11
~;~~ ~ ;
g~.~~~ ~I <
,ilf " a. ~
:+' I i
, : Z 1'!1:!, 5 if
i ~ ! ~
g "
"
,
;
If I
l<l 0 ol -i ~
~~]~~
It " ~ ';j '"
f~~~l
-0 "-
E
/' )
c'
':"--\'
-, -i
,..j,-S:~'(:..-;]
or-
n
;:0:-
en
.
';0.
..(D"m
: (J),.. )(-",
. 'g.!!l-~"j
::F:::J : --
-co.'..
OF . .:
f~;rit
:,fk~lJ
. _.'.l _"' ,-....i ~
'::0;:Q;:~~
'-".<C:; &-
.c~~~~
~~~:.--:r'(i/<
" ,,;!, I '
'l1;/',
t~~q
\ t .r4n~,~
\~f ~~ ~~?4:~
\~. /,61..-;..r'",~
~~~
..... ~jf ,~/!
~'-yt
(<~/
.
.
.
II
'f(tt}
September 5, 2000
City Council Meeting No. 00-18
City Administrator Kriesel asked if other communities would share this funding of $78,500.
Mr. Junker stated that they will be asking the other communities involved such as Bayport and
Oak Park Heights.
Motion by Councilmember Cummings, seconded by Councilmember Thole directing staff to investigate
the funding options and report back at a future meeting so that Council could make a decision.
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Belka requested that the St. Croix Athletic Partnership payment on the List of
Bills be removed for discussion. He stated that he wants this to be a one-time contribution.
Motion by Councilmember Bealka, seconded by Councilmember Zoller to remove the item from the
List of Bills.
Ayes: Councilmember Zoller, Bealka, and Mayor Kimble
Nays: Councilmembers Thole, Cummings
Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Zoller approving the consent agenda.
All in favor.
Resolution 2000-237: Directing payment of bills
Resolution 2000-238: Ordering preparation of assessment roll for Mulberry and Water Street
Improvements
Resolution 2000-239: Resolution Commending Larry Viers for over 15 years of serve on the Fire
Department
Resolution 2000-240: Approving Addendum No.2 to Agreement Between City and AFSCME
Resolution 2000-241: Approving Renewal Rates for Group Life Insurance with MIl Life
Approval of Banner Permit - St. Croix United Way
Approval of the extended warranties and the maintenance agreement for the new police cars
Resolution 2000-242: Authorizing staff to complete application for reconveyance of parcels in Radles
Hilltop Addition
Approval of proposal ofMuzac to install sound system at recreation center and approve proposal to
install sound absorbing material in main arena.
Approval of the 25th Annual Rivertown Restoration Home Tour to be held on September 16,2000.
Approval of Lakeview Hospital walking program at dome.
Resolution 2000-243: Participating in the Minnesota Cities Building Quality Communities Program
Resolution 2000-244: Approving Job Classification Point Values
Approval of Utility Bill Adjustments - Sewer Charges
Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Cummings to pay $27,000 this year and
the future Council could determine funding for the St. Croix Athletic Complex for future years.
Ayes: Councilmembers Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble
Nays: Councilmember Bealka
4
O€$/PJO;) ~;)und ssod O~ 'AI!WOl/€$
O~$/pJO;) ~;)und ssod O~ '~Inpo/~$
S$/pJO::l 4::lund ssod O~ 'SJO!U9S pUO II~nOA/OS'$
WV OO:L ~o 6u!uu!69q AOP!J~ ~6noJ4~ AOPUOW
SS9JpPV
JGiU9:> UOHD9J)9'H AanDA X!OJj .~S
'UO!~OWJOlU! 9JOW JOj 00C8-LSf;-LS9
~o uo!~o::lnp3 Al,unwwo:) SIOO~::lS OGJV Ja~oMII!~S 110:)
Wd OC:8-0C:S
'<opsJn~l ~6noJ~~ AOPUOW
IpdV ~6noJ~1 J9g0PO P!W
'IOO~::lS ,
46!H 09JV J9IOMII!IS ~o 6uPfloM SS9Ul!1 JOOPU! Ao!u3
Ja~OMfI!~S "N 'p^la JG~OMII!lS LOLS
IOOlPS y6!H 09JV' Ja~DMIIHS
Beautiful nalural multi use path. Parking available at
Rutherford School and 62nd and 72nd Street. Handicap
accessible. Distance:
A short and simple walk route designed for families and
individuals beginning an exercise program. This route offers
an even terrain and is handicap accessible. Downtown
parking. Distance: 1 mile
..;
-
-
1:
G)
E
a.
o
1
G)
o
~
l0-
G)
..0
:.::i
<<
~
;::.
.~
"*:
i
\
t
k)J
c::
'2
s:
o
:E
c,'/.E4TO
~l~
'"' ..
.. 0
-:1 0
~ ~
SUO!P9SJ9~UI snOJa6uoQ - uonno:)
~.6e
11ft
punoJ6,{old
\1IDI
AlJadoJd ~JOd
6U!~JOd
SJ!O~S
--,
.
SfI!H
I;~
,~,
,I",
'!~
InU4iU1>~CU)ll
(slalno~ <<-,.<
~::lJn~::> s,la04::1!W '~S - CD
asno4pno::> ::I!JolslH - @)
(~6!H JO!unr Plol sa::l!jJO a~oJodJo:) spoo~ 'In:) - @
Jo~o^aI3 Japuowwo:) - @
a6oJoD pUOJ~ a~l - 8
sdo4S a::l!HO ~sOd PIO a~l - (1)
UUlllaMol - €)
AJOJg!l ::l!lgnd JaIOMfI!~S - 0
f1!WMOS saldo~s ::lOOSI - @
'fJOd JaaUO!d - $
JA4daZ o~OsaUU!W - 4)
Downtown historic route, A difficult and intense walk route,
featuring hills and stairs, designed for veteran walkers.
Downtown parking. Distance: 3 miles
..J "i"v(j
9 a4no~ I.....
V a4no~ "UI"'"nlll...UI
'!..oM ouo SOI!W S[O :6:>UojS!O
(OA!JO 060110:> uo UN 6UO)
OAPO 060110:> OJ 'pAJa JOjoMlI!jS OJ JOjuo:> JO!UOS (:>
'!..oM ouo Sl'L :o:>UojS!O
'SU06PO IsoM OJ ~:>oq 'pAIa uosuoa (a
'!..oM 6UO S6J!W 6'0 6:>U01S!O
(JejU6:> JO!U6S WOJj I/!Yl '1JOd uosuoa OJ (v
:SUO!l:>916S OOJYI soy ojno~ 'sJnoy Jo(n60J 6u!Jnp J61U6:> jO
OlqOI!OAo sO!l!lPo~ 'J6jUO:> JO!UOS JOjOMII!jS OYjlO 6u!~Jod
;>,~
o ~
o ..
t> ,..
'? ~
0')'3\0
.
.&&.I1S pJJ:lIl!W
III
o
c:
:r
::t:
Q
=l
i
III
::r
CI>
~
DO
.saM SU13&I.IO
10Q"pS
y6!H )()!W'lf
JaloMIIHS
;>,~
o ~
o ..
t> ,.,
'? ~
0/1'3\0
SOI!W +l- 8'0 :o:>UOjS!O 'jOOJjS suoopO
UO OICjDl!oAo BU!~JOd 'alqoj!oAo salpuoq puo J9jOM "ljlod
JO!JOjU! 6u!~IOM I! eJOW JO S91!W l 'SpOOJ ap!SlnO uo saJ!w
8'0 'yjod esn !llnw :l98 L U! pOl.Js!lqojsa NejOwa:> !..(6AOl
~...,~
o ~
o ..
p ,..
'? ~
0'1'1,0
~aaJ~S SUD9PO
'IS sUDapo
'~i:\\'
saj!w 6' L e:>uojs!O 'olq!ssa:>:>v dO:>!PUOH ''1JOd
Je60MS jO alqoJ!oAo SjJnO:> S!Uuaj puo oaJO punoJ6!..oJd
'SJoe!.. S-ljxau 0"11 U! OjnOJ 0"11 6uol0 a:>old O~OjU!M
uo!pnJISUO:> owoS 'punoJ JOo!.. P6U!OjU!oW 6q Ij!M olno~
'~JOd JS60MS ollloH ~O olloolj:>S lj6!H OOJV JOjOMlI!lS
9& ~D^"lj6!H
(sal!W &) III 4lj6pap!J4S IIlIllUlIllUllllm
(sal!W c:) II 4lj6!Jap!J~S ",,":'",,':""""""*"'"
(SOI!W l;) I 4lj6!Jap!J~S l OM r# M M OM
e"
...
..,~
~ .~
% .f
0/1'1,0
~,
,
9SJOO:)
ilo~
ual~ >too
'SUOMO pUO ~:>!sn)l:>W jO JOI ~P 0 JO SJnolj (ooy:>s-uou 6u!Jnp a6p!JCleuOjS jO 6uppod '~:>!sn)l:>W
0'101 puo OSJno:> 110~ 'slSO!Snljlu6 OspJaxe puo SSOUj!! JOj pou6!sap 'U!OJJOl 0ljua6 6u!Jnjooj SOlnOJ '110M OjD/OPOW :1IJ J~6!Jop!JJS
'~:>oq 9Iqnop/s91!W l :a:>UDIS!O 'SU6MO pUO ~:>!sn)l:>W 10 JOI ~p 0 JO sJnolj 1001.J:>s-uou 6u!Jnp 06p!JqouolS
jO 6u!~JOd 'aSJno:> JIO~ "SjSO!Snl{lua aSPJOXO puo SSOUj!j JOI pou6!sap 'UlOJJal !..lIfl{ 6upnjooJ sOlnOJ ~IDM OjDJOpOW :UI1l6pap!JJS
'S91!W l :a:>uolS!O 'suaMO puo '1:>!sn)l:>W jO JOI ~p 0 JO sJnoy JOoy:>s-uou 6upnp a6p!JqauolS jO 6u!~JOd 'ssmo:> Jl00 'poOI.JJOqI.J6!9U
ID:>!JOjSlH 'sjso!snl.Jjua 6SpJ6X6 PUD sS6Uj!1 JOj p6u6!sap 'U!oJJal !..IIII{ 6U!Jnj06J ajnoJ ~IOM ajoJOpoW :ljI{6!JOPl./lS :1 Jl.f6P6P!JJS