The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.c. Shannon Parkway Pedestrian Underpass - 2010 Street Improvements Project - City Project #428""","",/'ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL City Council Regular Work Session: May 12, 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA I'7EM: Shannon Parkway Pedestrian Underpass — 2010 Street Improvements Project — AGENDA SECTION: City Project #428 PREPARE) BY: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation AGENDA NO. Director ATTACHMENTS: Location Map, Easement Map, Loss APPROVED BY: Control Memo RECOMME NDED ACTION: Council discussion. BACKGROI IND: The proposed improvements within the 2010 Street Improvement Project include a new 5 -foot sidewalk segment along the east side of Shannon Parkway between 1371h Street and Evermoor Parkway. During final design it was determined that a connection could be made to an existing trail segment south of Evermoor Parkway. The existing trail is within Oudot L (see attached map) and is owned by the Evermoor Community Association. This connection is proposed to link the existing sidewalk on Evermoor Parkway to the proposed sidewalk on Shannon Parkway and provide an alternate route for pedestrians who choose not to utilize the existing underpass. To ensure that the City maintains access across Outlot L, an easement was requested from the Evermoor Community Association over both the proposed and existing trail. Staff met with the Evermoor Community Association to request the easement at their regular monthly meeting on April 6, 2010. Prior to signing the easement, the association stated that they would require the City to review the safety of the pedestrian underpass on Shannon Parkway and requested that the underpass be repaired. Staff reviewed the condition of the underpass and determined that a plan to either abandon or replace the structure was warranted. Staff followed up with the Evermoor Community Association at the association meeting on May 4, 2010. The easement was not granted at the meeting. UNDERPASS ISSUES: The Shannon Park Parkway underpass was built many years ago to allow livestock to cross under the road when the property now known as Evermoor was operated as a sheep farm. When the Evermoor Development was built, it was decided to try to reuse the underpass as a pedestrian crossing at Shannon Parkway. Based on the comments from the homeowners association regarding the condition of the underpass, staff asked a risk manager from the League of MN Cities to come out and review the underpass. The memo regarding the inspection of the underpass is included in the packet and references the guidelines used by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) for pedestrian underpasses and tunnels. A number of critical guidelines are not met in the Shannon Parkway underpass, including the width, height, C:\ Users \ddj \AppData \Local \Microsoft \Windows \Temporary Internet Fi1es \Content.0utlook \PHIRQLAB \5 12 10 Work Session Shannon Parkway Underpass.doc illumination and visible access. Another issue that is most often talked about when referencing the Shannon Park Parkway underpass is the standing water or ice on the floor of the structure. The underpass structure was installed fairly flat and does not allow water to drain out of the structure after rainfalls or snow melts. Staff has looked into possibly overlaying the floor of the structure but would need to raise one end approximately 12 inches to get positive drainage. By adding material to the floor of the structure we add to existing height concerns of the underpass. Staff feels the drainage issue is currently the biggest challenge with the use of the underpass. SUMMARY. At this time, staff is requesting Council review the condition of the underpass and determine if there is support for a plan to abandon, replace or make limited improvements. 0 j0 ,0 EAGUE of MINNESOTA CITIES 5/3/2010 Tom Schuster Parks Supervisor City of Rosemount 13885 South Robert Trail Rosemount, MN 55068 -3438 CONNECTING & INNOVATING SINCE 1913 tom.schuster@cirosemount.mn.us Re: Loss Control Visit- Shannon Parkway Underpass: 4/30/2010 Dear Mr. Schuster: On the above date, I conducted a Loss Control survey with you of the walking path under Shannon Parkway near the school. This survey was per your request and our meeting was in conjunction with your participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust LMCIT workers' compensation and property, casualty insurance program. The following is a result of our visit. Conclusions: • Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) has offered guidelines for pedestrian underpasses and tunnels. A number of critical ones are not met in the Shannon Parkway walkway tunnel. Discussion: There are positives and negatives for having an underpass. The greatest positive is children do not have to cross the street and can get out of the weather. But unless the tunnel is well designed negatives can include access difficulties, pedestrian/ bicycle interaction, water drainage, slippery walking surfaces which could make it just as hazardous. All of these items I just noted apply to the tunnel reviewed. MNDOT's design guidelines for bicycle and pedestrian underpass and tunnels can be found at hftp://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike/bikewaysdesignmanual.htmi Some of the applicable desi n guidelines from section 6 -6.0 of this instrument are as follows: • The tunnel should be straight for the full length. o It meets this guideline. • The tunnel should have a minimum of 8' of vertical clearance for walking or bicycles. This is increased to 10' minimum if motorized or emergency will be using them. o It meets the minimum 8' requirement if the sign currently posted (8') is correct. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST 222 SOUTH 9TH ST., SUITE 1300 PHONE: (612) 766 -3000 FAx: (612) 766 -3199 LOSS CONTROL FIELD SERVICES MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55402 -3332 TOLL FREE: (800) 449 -7707 WEB: WWW.LMC.ORG City of Rosemount 08/14/09 Page 2 of 2 The tunnel should have an adequate distance for each approach. I interpreted this to mean you should be able to see into the tunnel when you are still a ways away from the tunnel entrance. o It does not meet this guideline. The approach from the east side of the tunnel is nearly a 90 degree turn into the tunnel. The tunnel should have a minimum width of 12'. o It does not meet this guideline. The tunnel has a width of 4' at the walking surface. It is recommended that tunnels longer than 50' have constant illumination. AND lighting should be recessed and vandal resistant. o It does not meet this guideline. This tunnel is over 108' in length and has no illumination. New Recommendations: O1 -04/10 (Important) Discuss MNDOT Guidelines I recommend that you review the MNDOT document referenced above and discuss at your next meeting. Document the discussion and the city's plans which ever direction you plan to go. Be sure to record anticipated improvement dates (include budget year and anticipated dates) and /or closures date. 02 -04/10 (Important) If it is decided that the city would like to keep the tunnel operational. • Install signage at both entrances 1. Warning of the narrow opening 2. No motorized vehicles allowed 3. A stop sign at the entrances • Install lights. If electric is not available or cost prohibitive you can consider installing solar panel lighting. • Consider sealing the joints in the floor and up the walls a little then paving the floor of the tunnel with asphalt to run the water out. A gutter line could potentially be made to move the water through the tunnel. 03 -04/10 (Important) If it is decided that the city will close the tunnel. • Review requirements for sidewalks and road crossings in school zones in an effort to protect the children crossing the street. Future Service: Our next activity should continue to work on other LMCIT Loss Control initiatives with the city. As always, should you require any additional Loss Control service, or should have any safety - related questions, please let me know. Finally, I would appreciate an update of the results of your meeting. Recommendations and comments are provided for loss control and risk exposure improvement purposes only in conjunction with the insurance program referenced above. They are not made for the purpose of complying with the requirements of any law, rule or regulation. We do not infer or imply in the making of these recommendations and comments that all sites were reviewed or that all possible hazards were noted. The final responsibility for conducting loss control and risk management programs must rest with the insured. City of Rosemount 08/14/09 Page 3 of 2 Sincerely, Andrew F. Miller, ARM Senior Loss Control Consultant (612) 766 -3173; Fax: (612) 766 -3199 amillera,berkleyrisk.com Agent Horizon Agency Inc. 6500 City West Parkway 4100 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Recommendations and comments are provided for loss control and risk exposure improvement purposes only in conjunction with the insurance program referenced above. They are not made for the purpose of complying with the requirements of any law, rule or regulation. We do not infer or imply in the making of these recommendations and comments that all sites were reviewed or that all possible hazards were noted. The final responsibility for conducting loss control and risk management programs must rest with the insured. v. .,R� , ;, _..., _,L. \, i. _ _ ..r.. I� P�,�J 1 f ,,,r .�l „' �rC. ,. .r J> Ax fib 1' I 4A NOW a. ZA 10,