HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.c. Revocation of County Road 38 as a mutual State Aid Highway CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 6, 1999
AGENDA ITEM: Revocation of County Road 38 as a MSA AGENDA SECTION:
Highway New Business
PREPARED BY: Bud Osmundson AGENDA���� � � �
City Engineer/Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS: Map & Two Resolutions APPROVED BY:
This item is on the agenda for Council consideration to revoke the City's designation of
County Road 38 (McAndrews Road) as a Municipal State Aid Highway and concurring
with the County's designation of this roadway as a County State Aid Highway. This was
requested by the County so that all of County Road 38 could be put on the County State
Aid System. Currently segments of McAndrews Road in Apple Valley and Rosemount are
on the MSA System which precludes them from being on the County State Aid System.
By taking this action it allows the County to receive needs over the entire segment.
This is one part of an overall strategy in a cooperative effort between Apple Valley, the
County and Rosemount to improve all of our state aid needs. The revocated segment in
Rosemount is approximately .88 miles in length. We will come back to the City Council
at a future meeting to designate Diamond Path between CSAH 42 and future County
Road 46 (which will be constructed in 1999) as an MSA street. That will leave
approximately .38 miles of MSA designation which the City can designate on another
roadway. This allows the City to claim "needs" which benefits the City of Rosemount.
I will review the action verbally with you at the Council meeting. Staff recommends that
action be taken as stated below. �
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION REVOKING COUNTY ROAD
38 (McANDREWS ROAD) AS A MUNICIPAL STATE AID HIGHWAY.
MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH DAKOTA COUNTY TO ESTABLISH
COUNTY ROAD NO. 38 (McANDREWS ROAD) AS PART OF THE COUNTY STATE AID
SYSTEM.
COUNCIL ACTION:
7
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 1999 -
A RESOLUTION REVOKING COUNTY ROAD 38 (McANDREWS ROAD)
AS A MUNICIPAL STATE AID HIGHWAY
WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of the City of Rosemount that the road
hereinafter described is a Municipal State Aid Street under the provision of the Minnesota
laws;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount that
the road described as follows, to-wit: County Road 38 (McAndrews Road) beginning at
the intersection of Shannon Parkway thence continuing in an easterly direction through
Section 17 and 18, Township 1 15 North, Range 19 West in the City of Rosemount to the
intersection with State Trunk Highway 3
BE AND IS HEREBY, revoked as a Municipal State Aid Street of said City subject to the
approval of the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of Minnesota.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to
forward two (2) certified copies of this resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation
for his consideration.
ADOPTED this 6th day of April, 1999.
. Cathy Busho, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted in Favor:
Voted Against:
GTY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 1999 -
A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH DAKOTA COUNTY TO ESTABLISH
COUNTY ROAD NO. 38 (McANDREWS ROAD) AS PART OF
THE COUNTY STATE AID SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the County Board of the County of Dakota did adopt a resolution on March
23, 1999, locating, establishing, designating and.numbering County State Aid Highway
No. 38 as part of the Dakota County State Aid System, and
WHEREAS, said resolution locates, establishes, and designates certain County State Aid
highways within the corporate limits of the City of Rosemount.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount that
the resolution adopted by the County Board, a copy of which is attached hereto and made
a part thereof, locating and establishing the State Aid County Highway System within the
City limits is within all things approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to
forward two (2) certified copies of this resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation
for his consideration.
ADOPTED this 6th day of April, 1999.
Cathy Busho, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted in Favor:
Voted Against:
1999 M SAS Streets
3
Q
Shanno
Parkway
Dodd
Boulevar 132nd
3 Street W. •
Bacard
Connema Avenu
� Trail
� �
33 � 145th
0 O� Street W.
2
a� Dod
a Blvd. �a
�
� � a � N
42 42 w�E
Chippendal
Ave. 3 g
C�O
�
�
��Q155th
� Street W
�
MSA Streets
�.
� Existtng MSA Streets U.S.Hghways �� CouMy Roed
� Unbuilt MSA Streets � State Highways � Courtty State Aid Highway
I
I TrailMississippi River Regional
Project SummaryI
I
. ..,,,,..., .„.....,,...„...„.:,,,,,,,,,..,,....„.„...„...
. .,....,,,,,,::,..:.„..,,...„...„...,,,,„4,,,,,,„.,.. .,,,;..„,.:v„.,,,
. , , , ,,......„,,;;-,-„,,:,,I,-;;`41.0,y-i"-;*;.;,;-,..:;.dtv-t',4*.-;'-.,st-F-37-tl- --,,A.,.-
I
I ( 31 °.,#5444‘.1.°4 , *
I
fin/ V � T vo7 � •-.
� rev. - lV k
xr=-;�. i.4, �ti , ?H"J�^f'c� 5F£ y ,3:,-.,
in -,I
.t,
tom..' t ,:l
•
, . .:
•
s` 3' t
,„ .
. .. .
I •;
1. , •
' t
Dakota County Office of Planning 4;J. ..'
I i
. ,..
February, 1999 1 . .
fAis :•
- . 4 .,, ,, ._ ..,
!/f A
I
i M
I
I
I
I
IINTRODUCTION
�K
This document is a summary of the Mississippi River Regional Trail draft development plan. It describes the general elements of -
I the proposed trail project. It is meant to provide an overview of the project and review process. Detailed discussion of many of
the points outlined below are available in the full text of the draft development plan. The draft development plan and this
summary are available for review at all Dakota County Libraries and on the Dakota County homepage. -
I (www.co.dakota.mn.us/planning/index.htm) Additional questions or information requests should be directed to:
a
Dakota County Office of Planning
14955 Galaxie Avenue4 - ,. -,
t Apple Valley,MN 55124 a=
(612)891-7030
I Comments concerning the Mississippi River Regional Trail draft development plan and the trail project in general should be sent
to the Office of Planning at the address above or via email at DC2020@co.dakota.mn.us. All comments received will be shared
with the Dakota County Board of Commissioners.
IPROJECT SUMMARY
I Dakota County is experiencing a growing demand for recreational opportunities, especially for trails. As the County continues to
grow,more people and families are looking places to go for outdoor activities-including trail activities such as hiking,bicycling,
and inline skating. Also,people are participating in more activities. These interests and demands are clearly evident in the
surveys and other public outreach efforts conducted by the County and by cities. The result is higher use of existing facilities and
Ithe need for new parks and trails to meet these demands.
Part of that recreational experience is the enjoyment and appreciation of the outdoors. The Mississippi River is a valuable natural View of Mississippi River Valley from hilltop prairie,Pine Bend Development property,looking southeastI .
resource. The river valley contains many natural amenities—oak woods,prairies,bluff areas, and scenic vistas—that provide not
only a pleasant experience but can also instill an appreciation for the natural environment and support for its preservation.
The proposed Mississippi River Regional Trail is well-described by its name. The proposed trail would extend for over 19 1/2 PROJECT HISTORY
I miles along the Mississippi River from the border of South St.Paul and Inver Grove Heights to the downtown riverfront of
Hastings. The proposed trail will connect to the existing riverfront trails in South St.Paul and Hastings. It will also link to other The value of a trail along the Mississippi River in Dakota County and the greater Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area has been
trails and local parks,helping create a network of trails connecting neighborhoods, schools, and recreation areas. Three miles of long recognized. The Minnesota Critical Areas Act of 1973 included a planning requirement for open space and recreation within
I the proposed trail will be within Spring Lake Park Reserve,providing access to the park's amenities and facilities as well as direct
access to the river itself. the Mississippi River corridor,including the identification of potential sites for trails, scenic overlooks and public accesses. This
requirement for identifying trail locations is also included in the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area(MNRRA)
Comprehensive Management Plan,the realization of a"continuous trail corridor"being one of the plan's goals. The Metropolitan
The proposed Mississippi River Regional Trail is a regional trail—part of the Metropolitan Council Regional Recreation Open Council Regional Recreation Open Space System includes existing and proposed regional trails along the Mississippi River,
I Space Plan. As a regional park implementing agency,Dakota County is responsible for planning, developing,and maintaining including Dakota County.
elements of the regional park system, including regional parks like Lebanon Hills Regional Park,park reserves such as Spring
Lake Park Reserve, and regional trails such as the Big Rivers Regional Trail and the proposed Mississippi River Regional Trail. In February 1994,the Dakota County Board of Commissioners directed staff to prepare a master plan for the development of the
I Funding to support the regional system is distributed by the Metropolitan Council to park implementing agencies. Mississippi River Regional Trail. A scoping report was prepared by staff to guide development of the master plan. The Board of
Commissioners released the scoping report for public review in December 1994. The Mississippi River Regional Trail draft
The proposed trail would have a ten-foot wide,bituminous(asphalt)surface with gravel shoulders. It will be for non-motorized development plan was prepared in 1996 and 1997 based on the comments from the scoping report, staff investigations of possible
uses such as hiking,bicycling, and inline skating. Winter use would be hiking,but may also include cross-country skiing. In route alternatives, and examination of issues associated with each alternative.
I more rural areas along the trail,equestrian use may also be accommodated. No motorized uses—motorcycles, snowmobiles,
ATVs, etc.—will be allowed. In May 1998,the Mississippi River Regional Trail draft development plan was presented to the Board of Commissioners. The
Board of Commissioners directed the Park and Recreation Advisory Committee(PARAC)to review the draft development plan.
I The proposed trail will serve both local and regional recreational users. The majority of trail users are anticipated to be local— (See Public Participation) PARAC conducted a six-month review of the project,returning the plan to the Board of
people from the surrounding neighborhoods using the trail near their homes,often for shorter walks and bicycle rides with their Commissioners with a recommendation supporting the plan and its release for public review. In January 1999,the Board of
families. A smaller group of users will be regional users—for example, people who drive to the area to enjoy the trail or Commissioners released the draft development plan for public review.
bicyclists who enjoy longer distance rides. This is similar to the mix of trail users that has been observed at Dakota County's Big
IRivers Regional Trail in Mendota,Mendota Heights,and Lilydale.
The proposed trail would be open from sunrise to sunset. The Dakota County Park Patrol with assistance from city police and the
I
County Sheriff's Department would patrol the proposed trail and trailhead areas.
I
Mississippi River Regional Trail Project Summary Page 1
I
ITRAIL ROUTE OVERVIEW
XK 4 i n
In evaluating possible alternative trail routes,a set of criteria were developed to compare and analyze the routing options. The :,
;
I
route alternatives were compared-and the preferred route was chosen-using these criteria. The criteria are listed as follows: '� ,. *Km
4p
• Amenities:Amenities along the trail route take many forms including;historic,cultural and archeological sites, city arks,
I linear open spaces, Spring Lake Regional Park Reserve, potential trailhead facilities,direct access to the Mississippi River 4e-, 1-14 thillitimp
- ' 51
Mississippi River Regional Trail
and scenic views of the river valley. '�-�" --4 f
:-711:417-\-,11--- Draft Development Plan Section Divisions
I . Compatibility with adjacent land uses: The compatibility of adjoining land uses with the trail is an important consideration. rlrx ;
Issues of compatibility can be addressed using fencing and screening and other methods. Proximity to residential areas, `t . '
u. dh '
privacy issues and interaction with transportation corridors are evaluated in trail routing. ""'`�,-----3,40 I ,
' tee. b;!' '1- +dt 1
• Connectivity: Connecting publicly owned parcels along the trail route is an objective of trail development. The trail route is �`
designed to connect parcels such as existing recreational facilities areas with future recreational potential, and County and 1
city owned property. ;,:. 11 ), }T h
I • Cost savings: Cost savings includes the use of County or city owned property,the use of existing transportation routes to _
minimize site clearance,and the avoidance of challenging topography were appropriate.
I • Access: Access to the trail via city streets,existing or planned city trails, County or city parks and trailhead facilities are Poi � ;• IlndustriMBectlon
important components of the trail as a system for both recreation and transportation. ''',....-0".
I
• Safety: Safety for trail users includes Park Patrol and other law enforcement,proper sight lines,buffering from potential
Lake Regional mon Ern
safety hazards through the use of appropriate fencing, landscape screening and berming, lighting,and signage. Safety for ,.
adjoining land uses is important as well. Fencing,lighting,and landscape screening and berming will be used to mitigate
conflicts between trail user and adjoining land use.
I
I NNW09t7WP HASTINGS
• Quality of experience: Quality of experience for the trail user is an important element of a regional trail. Routing a trail
r
through visually uneventful areas may result in low user numbers. Positive trail experience is increased by routing the trail
Ithrough a variety of amenities, and providing numerous access points.
• Connection to greater trail network:The proposed trail is a portion of a greater Dakota County trail system and the greater
metropolitan area trail system. The trail would provide connection to the regional trail in South St.Paul,and connects the
I
City of Hastings directly with Spring Lake Regional Park Reserve. It also serves to connect to city trails and County pipeline easement. The trail would follow the easement,cross a private driveway,then go east to follow the bluffline to enter
bikeways. Pine Bend Development Corporation property.
Several alternative routes for the Northern Section are discussed in the draft development plan. One alternative is to follow
IRoute Descriptions Concord Boulevard(CSAH 56)from 66th Street to the end of Old Concord Boulevard. The trail wouldithen connect to Inver
The route alternatives and preferred trail alignment identified in the draft development plan are described below and shown in Grove Trail and parallel Highway 52/55 to enter Pine Bend Development Corporation Property at 111 Street.
Figures 1 through 4. The proposed trail is divided into four I sections. (See map this page.) The Northern Section extends from rh
111th s, Three other alternatives offer route options for a portion of the Northern Section. One is to follow River Road from 66 Street
the South St.Paul/Inver Grove Height border to Street East. The Pine Bend/Industrial Section extends from 111 Street 77th u
East to the western boundary of Spring Lake Park Reserve in Rosemount. The Spring Lake Park Reserve Section includes the south to 77 Street,using 77 Street to connect to the preferred alternative or Concord Boulevard alternative. A second is to
entire length of the park through Rosemount and Nininger Township. The Eastern Section extends from the eastern boundary of follow Dickman Trail from just south of 66thStreet to 77d'Street, similar to the River Road alternative. A third is to follow Inver
I
Spring Lake Park Reserve to Veterans Park in Hastings. Grove Trail from Concord Boulevard to Highway 52/55, as an option to staying along Concord Boulevard for its entire length.
Northern Section—The trail would begin at the South St.Paul/Inver Grove Heights city border on tax-forfeit property. (See Using the route criteria as a measure,each alternative has positive and negative characteristics. The preferred route minimizes
Figure 1) The tax-forfeit property and adjoining area is part of the North Concord Redevelopment Area identified by Inver Grove road and driveway crossings to improve safety,uses tax-forfeit, city and County owned property, and offers the best user
I
Heights. The trail in this area will be integrated into the city's design of the park and recreation components of the
redevelopment. The preferred route identified in the draft development plan would cross 66th Street and extend south along the experience. However,it also crosses private property(especially in southern Inver Grove Heights)and raises railroad safety
concerns.
east side of railroad right-of-way—utilizing in part tax-forfeit property. The trail would cross to the west side of the railroad
right-of-way at an existing street crossing,and continue south,crossing 77's Street near Ernster Park. The trail would continue The Concord Boulevard alternative follows a County road(CSAH 56)for much of its length—one that is scheduled for
I south along the west side of the railroad right-of-way,utilizing a strip of County-owned property,and continuing to the reconstruction that could include a bikeway. However, a bikeway would take additional right-of-way in an already constricted
road corridor. Also,Concord Boulevard has poor sightlines caused by elevation change and other factors,as well as multiple road
Macalester College Katherine Ordway Natural History Study Area. The trail would tunnel under the rail lines,then parallel the
river side of the easternmost rail line. Crossing 102nd Street,the trail would follow the rail line before turning south to follow a and driveway crossings that cause safety issues. (See Attachment C for more detailed discussion)
I
Mississippi River Regional Trail Project Summary Page 2
MIN — — — MI NIB IIMI lNIII — — — M M MI E IN lNIIII N M
lig ul i ._.h. . • 1.f/4!.5 uth St; Pell
•
,..tv ii NI .f- .."N. ‘
.
((
d if els;
WM' — .III 1 am i i I 1 '..1111k R. __ , ,
,i 1 •
. __, paw_ , •,.. ,. \ ,
...„„ „„,,,, • . • Ii_ m _ \ , 1,...,,,.., \
1
12 _ . ...: -1 . __ , .. •,:p,
.1 . 2. • P ,,,,lk irtilil II— I
Fr
re \ \ 'Aj, SN'SIPA!' $:if L 1 • :2. '1 l'..21 1A1 ,,,,
Area of Detail
♦ 4.ium{ ', dA■-1-1; til 1 i . a ,•I. % 2•
,
it7m -1
Q .
co I
,.0 i.„'_i - • ..-.:1,..1 _Llaid 4,.1.:IN.
fir: . �.. L. .. If i I,t.
...„? I , _., ._.,• , ..r §Ig{
(._ ; . ,
I
01 ii 11..„..%:L
g‘ A I S i
ROBt'.LIOUMT tlaJalOEll MPII ,`1, ` • - ,~' ,N16:10 .40'.p I • •:.
+ ♦ _ •_• � -3°
1
HASTINGSHASTINGSlam_ •3 L r• .j1,■--7••■,� r / - AII• • / )
i. ,.. • . . 4 ... . . .4
. 1-.1 '4 a ;%-. . . E7..-!, Mii„Lati,..ik-.-_—_ , •Z up
!, il 'ir .....,,,ii4.---, ., . . lia ''''••:" j 1 4,;'NI, 411111W0' ii-f
I \ %ii i.'r Val r , Irl ,r! 1r1 ti
C.,
s 1'L4. ��,-.•_ 'rti_wa.4ti-,.JA L j p �,1 • il,1r ,i) I
CI
1 •;[rr,:ill 3 [1 . •..4' .7ci II t,-.Pi . r-. ri ffia . 1 VII
Im f 1 , : :
1111111
I.. I - - ■ i.I R.; k �.,;rJ4n+..r,,,•. -'.ti.wt:--` 1..4. - 11.111P.1,11411, '
Contours(10ft.) r l rJ�'r �� Y n„�,r i f IN � �1'%. tt. /•� n I rat?
• ,,r� Railroad 1,: W'•' # .,� ' t.,..�. trAIL i !
.n r{ • r l a
• Municipal Boundary1................... jol ••••',1
t l "•-•""
_J ,,�..1_ :��, .•`� ' ' 1
�' /, _._. .• • ' * V_ Cj.� \ ,r :.1 L.vti.w j•i••_ ,0 m\1 l ll' • 1 ! I
/`\/ Roads 1. ,.• .. �'. ,� ''':'.� ,,,.,z
'
N. � Rrr
Property Boundary t .� \.. -, / f•: ,r`���i. L f•.Y.1 p\\\i\,i a_` 4' l ' i
Buildings(1992) . r '•:•+...•1.r ,;! I _ :....,.,.� '
, + �•i • ,•17u�: - 1 I _- i •,111 Ill 1
1 I f
PUP Tax Forfeit Property r t3`. I- .. • 11.;1 1. ' k.;:a;,;; ®;. q ,A-�'
�� 1 u/e ♦ Iy i®®�\v,41_ ( ' i
Macalester(KONHSA) - • ��..__ �__f
, . -, 1 r.�..
• i Ail78TH STE -ii •-i-..:.t',--�- �a w. Gilltl%�= • .s1 \,i
/\/ Proposed Trail Route 1 i •5 'ti �,I
1-r-- $fir , 1 , r •••^ a • :'w: !r_ ,,�, G 1 ,••1
Potential Trail Alternatives tH1;rn : _ , —,. .' . ; : , ` ,,,``, +\�,\ fieri
i!5_ if 11 al 1_• , w fir'
•
{I,�\ it 1 4 I �I bili t •115• 1 • ..•. • 11}�
� / River Road t,"du� � 4 '>��;loy®<;��'. : ; � ' l 4.‘,----- ,
/ tie: i4, i1n I■ 1.rt �'.1% s14 1 1 • 1.�. L{�11N :....,,,,.%."-- I�y���l Osl • I w tp 1 1.�A / Concord Blvd . '
. ',; . . a�;R�*1 ,, 6 : , Q
\\
"4- \ \
. [
!' �' Dickman Trail �, ' �' "''� 1 •• ,
/ Inver Grove Trail �r ,
/ ♦ 5 � o Ci t I . �1: 1 1
' ▪ .1, s +
PO r 4, \ m, 1
� ^ • 84b, .t1 /4 •,• • r N
1 •
F. • I! 1
ii ♦~ /g v `. v/ t
Points of Interest ; t 1 t �4 4♦ /e° : . �' ,
-- • •o w p.
mss• ' /OU �• . r i "a B a
• •
Trailhead -Inver Grove Heights _ 41 • • ,1 % \\
/` a t m
• N. Concord Redevelopment Area ,-, / 7 i . /
rea / I 1 1
. �?
• Inver Grove Historic Town Hall 4111 • / \
-
• Railroad Crossing -At Grade �• 1• ` T ,
• Possible Trail Bridge -77th St. . 1 - • .. el;`
0 City Park(Ernster Park) hol*41 .•
o�=Up� _i•
. ..
_, .
Macalester College (KONHSA) �� ' ' • . • • #
Railroad Crossing -Tunnel ;
• . ,
Mr
• ` ,1r1 . ,
,
4— �� ., s. ..
• e, _„(:•„_
• li,4 di ' r >'n '
1000 0 1000 - r •\ ' a ,
r
Feet • .. - '1 l ., ,
• a
Copyright 1999,Dakota County ,. • , • . J\ s, \ a •C ` 26,f r • )//1 -- /
This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended 1 • " I/ - J/
to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records,Information and P • - - _ .. v ' J
data located in various city,county,state and federal offices and other ~ {1 x p --� ff
sources,affecting the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes - •
. %•• . • • U i , / /
only. Dakota County in not responsible for any Inaccuracies herein contained. i �1.•' i• • -
• 11 7--,C, / /
)
I 51' i- 1 - --,t 1t /
Prepared by:Dakota County Office of Planning, 1999. Mississippi River Regional Trail
Source: Dakota County Physical Features, 1992. eol'il Northern Section -Alignment Alternatives
Dakota County Parcel Database, 1999. 6,101 (Figure - 1)
MI IIIIIII N 1 IIIIII MIIII NS MIIII N NM M 1 — i♦ MI I 1 101111 MI
7 •
y-
,\l,;I 9 ;
i �.' V - ?�
/
Illoilk ,,,i ,
' _ - ��'
I
/.i
0 1' ' ':C ' ': - ' ‘1 .:11 -// 1 /
INVER GROVE •. 0 V 1 `u, : -it,
/ i
� •
� , r
,
/
Tw 1 1 /
%
•
/'`•,0 Pipeline Easement - "‘'
Contours (10ft.) \ , I
(`Th ..
Railroad ., „ •
, 1
/'/ Municipal Boundary •t\.. -sY 0 0
/�/ Roads — 111TH ST E '"."--- -Nit '
C.\
Property Boundary -;. -- ,t v►
W
Buildings (1992) CO,i l \%. \,
_r r , r r__, 7p
Tax Forfeit Property "' I
Pine Bend Development ) �� } �� � % -`
Macalester(KONHSA) — ,,,,,,,„„ �7 i'I _� 1a j ‘, \ \
County Property is '7 `� �
i
,
liPAILLI. i____ il '1.'"
� Proposed Trail Route rP r
/� ;�I'
'' j I.: 4 ‘,
Potential Trail Alternatives l CitLr of Inbar Grove Heihtsu_ \\
�a...� .�.�
/ - _ - ' t' -- Cityof Rosemount ` ,--)
/ Concord Blvd. l , i
�,
a•. Rail Spur
iift tx
\ ' ` --�z `�h�h9r� /
\,... .0-
/ r I ;' ' ) c--� —�-��oekota`cin /
/ No Highway 55 - - �� \ CoIi ♦h' /
l
r.
(..t
Points of Interest 11" ca, �
Wit
\.-1 h
102nd Street _ y 1 •
iii,1
Pipeline Easement-Minnesota Gas .. � N �\ :�
Trail Head -Northern Site :�1.- ,� �
Pipeline Easement t,-.\--
\ : - • \ i'. .
LI
\lb -^ . 1 16.
Pine Bend Development Property pi 111 / a �'
Rainey Well Buildings r —'! .r ', ,� ,a7. '• - _ r-- f - \ t
Trail Head -Southern Site I x - • 114 � �� �,
Railroad Crossing -At Grade s'� '"i --�-
W
1
15"
loon 0 loon . .
\.. r' t
j I} r i ' ;
Feet N
I. Copyright 888,Dakota County - \
TMs drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and la not intended r ca• �. r - 1•
to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records,information and T–1 I --.,, -t STE -. '. -- � 1
data located in various city.county,state and federal offices and other �, 1- i _ I - ._ _ -
sources,affecting the area shown,and la ton bet used for reference purposes �_. .�'t_lit:;___— rc _ * «—__ _� =Lt= — --_ _
only.Dakota County in not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. �>t
I r,
Prepared by:Dakota County Office of Planning, 1999. Mississippi River Regional Trail
Source:Dakota County Physical Features, 1992. Pine Bend/Industrial Section -Alignment Alternatives
Dakota County Parcel Database, 1999. 61 (Figure - 2)
-
Ilft4b
4%1
Ill
co
o ` ♦ ss/ppb R� `_ALY% �r! *+
r CD
mer NJ j 4d�A r��_ c
I �
JJ RI Q
,, ._,, ,_:r4.,,,„ , - --- ).---- ------'-'s-: -----_-_-7-71.--. . -,---Wii- .___ h°----7:1---' I
6.
r 42 ED
_ illi ..
C
7r r} mzeM
r% i,
ritill' '' ''..":1141k 'I, I jc. ;'
11
5Z P ,-,8 ��tSll F, •fA
t 1 y
RI
yi N •
i 1 1.
I i - 1 CD
-r---- C
T _..s
a
,� V. ,-..-2.".`„,:•.,�. ;
.` ) L r Spring Lake . 7 �,
... Y`�'=._'"�� -_tet[_ flai- ' .� -- .
- • . i
i NZ. r "
, .
.., ,
'
,,,,
I __ - .----____ t , .
-
\ 1411 _.Lu
{4 � 1 `l
if;,/
_Y ,� —
7
•
u. I
N` 1
w
1 1, ii
COU EBL
VD S -
I
• cz
0
8
Points of Interest c
1 / Park Boundary • Trail Enters Park Reserve
sam ar N al co
o• N
Contours (10ft.) • Railcar Point I ; o m
/\/ Proposed Trail Route g, d S
I / Railroad / • Large Ravine/Wetland Complex/ Route Options - Fischer Ave. Area/ / Municipal Boundary Bremer Indian Village Site :02
NVER��a . RoadsPotential Trail Alternatives l000 o ,000 o• a1 Area of / / Bremer Indian Mounds • g/ / County Road 42 Feet o 0
Detail Property Boundary 0 DNR Boat Landing o
/\/ County Road 87-Ridgeline 0 0
1 Buildings (1992) Copyright 1999,Dakota Count'
1 Sorg Site o 0
This drawing ls neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended
aoBdpaar �.to�,w. County Property • to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records,information and
Lee Mill Cave data iocated m various dty,county,state and federal offices and other COp
sources,affecting the eree shown,and is to be used for reference purposes N m
IState Property ony. Dakota Count'In rrol responalWa for any inaccuracies herein contained. fl u)
ITrailhead -Schaar's Bluff
N
iz
,. ,,, il . • \ >
03 c
'� \\ C
icy �,1; k 0
9�. \.14_: ,i
�0 �Cn N
,,'. -iii C V � ,� L
I �y Z a CI
1 • i •,
r C
t‘ i5 l'• ")
.. f 1. �1 N C/a
II
tiI. t ( ` 2
I \ • 1_
N.1 cu
: f •
_ (- ,.
132ND Sl E 737NDST E .a. , / �`
4
I. ,
::'\:le;12.'.'P\‘:1 N'' '-'\'1'\'';:'1:-: Ill'-.--------'....''----- ----." -:' '-\\\)
� " w : ' :• • .\ ii,
W -a
\r
I
0 ._ : 1...\
. •
1
I
J
i 1 illai . ., ,1
— • -
I � ,, ` - -.:__` -,I _: • i� ,u ' a • - __,..a* \fit i 4 W 1 J� •.yJt�cis'..,,...: ail
r
1.
ti
1 ,r1■
i
'tis• i • "s ..
'ia..1. .. L5!ITh Mme' r rir'7 ' ..• y.
:. ' IiiR •• FFTp?�`'+r.� .•}, r t a G [,;in�? ,. i ..-..
'rj. ^i r „M •
' \ 1 • , -'ti _ to s,i,r +.. _� �' i t ri 71tali_an j!1
-*. I-- - ..c -4 .,red+' a_,'+ • « " l.gz.. _ •
.... _.
I
, _ I, . - I..�", j aa.anas sa»��+ ` r tau 1•_.i.:',:;1 at r.�F���a7�t'
v�. ► l • P+LL1.1.1 - ,i �.,__,,,!Irir_5�ia1 G,.�_ ._r�1. �r 1 i 5 C -
a•ai
Points of Interest m 0)in
Park Boundary Trail Enters Park Reserve N ! •c
Contours (10ft.) • 127th Street East ii o a AI
Proposed Trail Route 0 LL B
,Ave. Railroad • Road Crossing -County Road 87 II 8o
/ / Municipal Boundary • Possible Trail Bridge -Ravine c ._CD
Potential Trail Alternatives 1000 0 1000
/�/ Roads /•/ County Road 42 • Road Crossing -County Road 42 Feet to mY U c
Area of Detail Property Boundary / • Pipeline Easement/Scenic Overlook o co 03
/ County Road 87 - Ridgeline a o
j j Buildings (1992) S Earthern Berm/Lock & Dam No. 2 Copyright 1999,Dakota County .a Q Q
t This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended
,„,,,�,,,we County Property to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records,information and
wurtutos • Trailhead -Jaycees/Lake Rebecca Park data located in various city,county,state and federal offices and other a g
sources,affecting the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes Q
—Ypi
State Property oNy. Dakota County in not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. Cr- fn
6 Downtown Hastings/Veterans Park
I
I
The River Road alternative has one major positive—it is the closest to the Mississippi River. However like Concord Boulevard, '� as 4 •e
there is a lack of right-of-way, poor sightlines, and numerous driveways along the road. 4 1. ,�
., cl"� ; k
I The other route options—Dickman Trail, Inver Grove Trail—share the same negatives as Concord and River Road: driveway ` 't '= -414.-a!
. a.=
Ato '
crossings,poor sightlines and lack of right-of-way. l': .,?, '' ` ` I
IPine Bend/Industrial Section—The trail route would enter this section north of 111th Street along the treeline or from around the - ,,
pond near Highway 52/55 on property owned by Pine Bend Development Corporation. (See Figure 2) The trail would cross 111thL
I Street and continue on Pine Bend Development property to the south. The trail would drop from the bluff to the river paralleling
a pipeline easement. The trail extends along the river for approximately t/2 mile,then return to the top of the bluff at 117th Street.
The trail then parallels the spur rail line on Koch Refining Company property,crossing at the rail line at 117th and again at the
Pine Bend Cemetery. The trail then follows along the north side of Pine Bend Trail, entering Spring Lake Park Reserve.
IPurchase of the Pine Bend Development Corporation Property(See Figure 2)recommended in the draft development plan and is
included in the budget estimates for the project. Pine Bend Development Corporation has approached the County as a willing
seller of the property. The property totals just less than 100 acres. With the exception of the northern portion along 111th Street, .. . •
I the property is very rugged. The property is identified as containing high quality natural areas by the County Biological Survey
with oak woods,white pines,and prairie grasses. The property can support trailhead facilities, and allow for environmental
education and interpretation opportunities while preserving the integrity of the natural communities. , '':
Two trail alternatives exist for the segment of trail fronting CF Industries property on Pine Bend Trail. These were developed sc"
during the Park and Recreation Advisory Committee(PARAC)review of the plan to address safety issues concerning truck traffic
along Pine Bend Trail and in and out of CF Industries facility. (See Public Participation section below and Attachment E) Onek :,
I alternative crosses from Pine Bend Trail to Highway 55,paralleling that road. Crossing the railroad tracks,the trail would then _ �,r
: ,
follow alongside the rail line back to Pine Bend Trail. The second alternative would follow the side slope parallel to the rail line, Abandoned U.S.Army road leading to Rainey Well building,Pine Bend Development property,looking south.
crossing the rail line and then returning to Pine Bend Trail. PARAC recommended the preferred trail alignment be modified to
I
follow the rail spur alternative to mitigate truck traffic and safety concerns in this area.
Like the Northern Section,the trail alternatives in the Eastern Section all have positive and negative aspects. The preferred route
Spring Lake Park Reserve Section—The trail route shown within Spring Lake Park Reserve is designed to connect across the park
and provide access to existing and planned facilities in the park. (See Figure 3) Side trails off of the regional trail will connect to follows slow-volume, low-speed County road for much of its length,and provides access for the residential area of Nininger
' park facilities such as picnic areas and scenic overlooks,as well as historic and archeological sites such as the Bremer Indian Township to the trail—connecting it Spring Lake Park Reserve and the City of Hastings. The route is also within the State-
Mounds. The trail route will be refined as a part of the Spring Lake Park Reserve master plan revision. designated Mississippi River Critical Area. However,the route does cross private property—along parcel lines connecting Idell
Avenue to County Road 87.
I Two trail route possibilities are shown in the western portion of the park, near Fischer Avenue. (See Figure 3) The preferred The County Road 87—ridgeline alternative shares the same positives and negatives as the preferred route. However,it has a
route for the trail would be along the river. However if acquisition of the remaining inholdings in this area is not completed at the greater impact on private property,crossing parcels and farming areas instead of along parcel lines or field boundaries.
time of trail development,the inland route can be used.
I
Eastern Section—Three potential trail routes were examined in the Eastern Section, all ending at the completed portion of the trail
near the Hastings city limits. (See Figure 4) The preferred trail alignment identifiedThe CSAH 42 alternative uses a County Road for its entire length. However,the road has a higher level and speed of traffic than
in the draft development plan would leave County Road 87,and currently has inadequate right-of-way for a trail. The route does not serve the residential area of Nininger
Spring Lake Park Reserve at Idell Avenue, following 127th Street to County Road 87. (127th Street from Idell Avenue to County Township and is also outside of the Mississippi River Critical Area. (See Attachment D and F for more detailed discussion.)
I Road 87 is currently a farm access road.) The trail would follow the north and west sides of County Road 87, crossing the road to
follow its south side at 125th Street. The trail would then follow the south side of County Road 87(Lock Boulevard)to the Trailheads
Hastings city limits. The portion of the trail within the Hastings city limits is almost complete—built as a partnership between the Trailheads are a necessary element of regional trails. They are the main points of access for people to the trail. Trailheads
city,Dakota County,Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The trail
I
extends from CSAR 42 to an overlook at the river bluff, along the top of the earthen berm to the Lock and Dam No. 2 visitors
provide parking areas,restrooms,drinking water,picnic areas,benches and informational kiosks. There are four trailhead areas
proposed for the Mississippi River Regional Trail. One will be in the North Concord Redevelopment area,built in conjunction
area,then along the river connecting Jaycees Park and Lake Rebecca Park, ending at Veterans Park in downtown Hastings. with Inver Grove Heights as part of the ballfields/parkland redevelopment of the area. Another will be on Pine Bend
Development Property in Inver Grove Heights,accessed from 111th Street. (An alternative for this site would be accessed from
I One trail alternative would be the County Road 87—ridgeline alternative. The trail would leave Spring Lake Park Reserve 117th Street.) The other two trailheads identified in the draft development plan already have facilities in place—Schaar's Bluff
following the ridgeline to the southeast. The trail would then cross County Road 87 and follow along the south side of the road area in Spring Lake Park Reserve and Lake Rebecca Park/Jaycees Park area in Hastings. Other secondary trail access points—
along the same alignment as the preferred route. with some facilities currently present—include Ernster Park in Inver Grove Heights and the United States Army Corps of
I A second trail alternative would be the CSAH 42 alternative. The trail would leave Spring Lake Park Reserve following the east Engineers visitor area at Lock and Dam No. 2 in Hastings.
side of Idell Avenue. The trail would cross CSAH 42,and follow along the south side of CSAH 42 to the Hastings city limits.
I
I
Mississippi River Regional Trail Project Summary Page 3
I
IDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
�j' '1%,:4, i
The proposed trail would be built in stages—the trail being divided into smaller projects for design and construction. What
II portion will be developed first depends on several factors, including: proximity to populated areas(closest to trail users), `y -
connection to existing parks and trails, and timing of other projects such as construction of adjacent roadways. The draft
development plan identifies the Eastern section—connecting Hastings,Nininger Township, and Spring Lake Park Reserve—as d
I the first segment for development. However,the County will be flexible in its development program in order to take advantage of
opportunities that arise such as the redevelopment of an area like the North Concord area in Inver Grove Heights, or potential
partnerships or willing sellers. This opportunistic approach is a cost-effective method for developing portions of the trail.
IProject Funding
Funding for the proposed trail will come from a variety of sources. The main sources of funds will be Federal transportation
enhancement grants and Metropolitan Council Open Space grants. The construction of Dakota County's Big Rivers Regional " "
I Trail relied almost exclusively on these sources. Other sources may include state funds such as Legislative Commission onq 3
Minnesota's Resources(LCMR)grants,Department of Natural Resources(DNR)trail grants,and other state appropriations. . ,_ .
Additional fundingcould be available directlyfrom the Countyor participating cities foundations or othergrant programs. { Y
P P 8 P gr -�- � �$ ' r :� � ''���� .� � w -��� 4�j; c�� � .� a� �.� ��
r sox : x ti
I Funding may also be available in the future from a National Park Service grant program. - �
`,a b mss+ ,- � 4
Timing of Development ` } � h �
Timing of the proposed project—when development of the trail may begin—depends on the availability and funding cycles for
I grants. Construction funding is projected to come mainly from Federal transportation enhancement funds. Assuming the
proposed project was adopted late in 1999,the County could apply for grants in early 2000,with the funds to be received(and
trail construction to begin)in 2007 or 2008. Further,the project would be built in phases—with later sections built after this date.
I
Project Budget
An estimated budget for the proposed trail was developed as part of the draft development plan. The estimated budget for the View of Spring Lake at Railcar Point,Spring Lake Regional Park Reserve looking north/northeast.
project is$4,635,000 in 1997 dollars. This budget includes all the costs for the development of the project including easement
1 acquisition and trail construction, support facilities such as trailheads,fencing and vegetative screening. These numbers are based trail corridor. These efforts focused on individuals and organizations within the trail corridor, not the communities or Dakota
on the development of the trail following the preferred trail alternative. The table below provides further cost details. (Details County as a whole. (Meeting dates and summaries are included in the draft development plan.)
concerning the deriving of these figures are included in the draft development plan.)
I
Park and Recreation Advisory Committee Review
Table 4. Estimated Costs for Trail Acquisition and Construction Public participation was also a significant component of the Dakota County Park and Recreation Advisory Committee's
(PARAC)review of the draft development plan. At the direction of the Board of Commissioners,PARAC conducted a six-month
Cost Category Eastern** Spring Pine Northern Total Cost by Percent of review of the plan, from August 1998 to January 1999. (PARAC had previously reviewed the plan on several occasions during its
' Lake Bend/Industrial Category Total Cost development.) In addition to reviewing the draft development plan,PARAC also requested and received more detailed analysis
Acquisition 6,000 0 397,000 65,000 468,000 10% concerning specific issues or areas of the trail project. PARAC held six meetings during the review process, as well as taking
Construction 385,000 615,000 1,155,000 691,000 2,846,000 61% several tours of the trail corridor. Four of the meetings focused on specific issues, at which representatives of groups relating to
I
Trailhead* 0 0
111,000 111,000 247,000 247,000 494,000
327,000 11% these issues and the general public provided comment to PARAC. (Summaries of the meetings are included in Attachment A.)
Bridging 0 105,000 7% PARAC developed a recommendation based on the draft development plan, site tours, staff presentations,additional reports and
Tunneling 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 11% analyses on specific issues, and comments from representatives and citizens.
Total 502,000 726,000 1,799,000 1,608,000 4,635,000 100%
I
*Denotes Spring Lake Park and Hastings t existing'railhead facilities PARAC recommended that the draft development plan be released for public review. (PARAC's recommendation and findings
"Denotesenolenotes only portion of trait not constructed summary are included in Attachment B.) As part of the recommendation,PARAC identified their preferred route for the trail,
based on the information they gathered and discussed during the six-month review process. PARAC's preferred route follows the
I
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION route identified in the Mississippi River Regional Trail draft development plan—with the exception of a route alternative at CF
Industries in Rosemount. (Reports requested by PARAC concerning Concord Avenue, CSAH 42, and Pine Bend route
alternatives are included in Attachments C through E. Dakota County Department of Highways memorandum concerning CSAH
Several different methods have been used to involve communities and citizens throughout the planning process. Methods such as 42 as a bikeway corridor also reviewed by PARAC is included in Attachment F.)
I open houses, staff presentations,and meetings with individuals have been used to inform and to gather comments concerning the
trail project. During the preparation and review of the trail project scoping report in 1994 and 1995,public participation included Current Public Review Process
open houses and presentations to city staff. (The scoping report and public comments received at the open houses are included in The current public participation process was begun with the Board of Commissioners releasing the draft development plan for
I the draft development plan.) public review. The review period will be from February to August 1998. The review process will include open houses,meetings
with landowners,and presentations to city and township staff, advisory groups and officials. The intent is to expand the review
During the writing of the draft development plan,citizen and community involvement included meetings with city staff and process to inform and receive comment from people throughout the County and region that have an interest in the project. (See
township officials, presentations to city and township advisory committees,open houses,and meetings with landowners along the Introduction for how to comment on the project.)
1
I
Mississippi River Regional Trail Project Summary Page 4
ATTACHMENT A December 1998—Community issues meeting
• Representatives from each of the cities and township within the project area presented information about recreational demand
' Meeting Summaries of PARAC Review Process and trail use in their communities,and how the Mississippi River Regional Trail project fit with projects or plans for their
communities.
Park and Recreation Advisory Committee reviewed the Mississippi River Regional Trail project and draft development plan over • The representatives from the cities were supportive of the trail project. However,because the plan had not been released for
a six month period,from August 1998 to January 1999. (PARAC had previously reviewed the plan on several occasions during its public review, city representatives stated that their communities had not taken a formal position in support or opposition to a
' development.) PARAC held six meetings during the review process,as well as taking several tours of the trail corridor. Four of
the meetings focused on specific issues,at which representatives of groups relating to these issues and the general public provided • Nispecificninger
route.
r Township stated that their revised comprehensive plan identifies CSAH 42 as their preferred route, whereas their
comment to PARAC. previous plan identified the route shown in the trail draft development plan.
• PARAC received a copy of a memorandum from the County Highway Department concerning trail opportunities along
CSAH 42—including discussions of state and federal bicycle standards, shoulder conditions and right-of-way issues.
August 1998—Introductory meeting
' • PARAC approves a review process and timeline for the draft development plan.
January 1999—Summary meeting
• PARAC pulled together the information and issue statements it had developed through the six-month process into a
September 1998—Railroad issues meeting recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.
' • A representative from Union Pacific Railroad Company discussed the railroad's concerns about trails near their right-of-way
and at-grade crossings. • PARAC passed a recommendation(6-0)that identified the Committee's preferred trail route and recommended the Board of
Commissioners release the draft development plan for public review. (See Attachment B)
• Discussion focused on design methods for addressing safety,such as fencing,grade separation,and other mitigation • PARAC's preferred route follows the route identified in the Mississippi River Regional Trail draft development plan—with
strategies. the exception of a route alternative at CF Industries in Rosemount.
' • Railroad crossing safety was also discussed,noting that the preferred route minimizes at-grade crossings—crossing at-grade • An amendment to the recommendation—that PARAC found the CSAH 42 trail alternative through Nininger Township was
at points of existing street or roadway crossings. acceptable if their preferred route along CR 87 and 127th was not acceptable—failed. (2-4)
• PARAC suggested that staff continue to work with Union Pacific on crossing design and that they consider the Big Rivers • Concerns about right-of-way availability,traffic volume and speed, State Critical Area requirements,serving residential
' Regional Trail as a model for successful co-existence of railroads and trails. areas,safety and user experience were among the reasons mentioned by the Committee not supporting the CSAH 42
alternative. Further,the Committee stated that the route alternatives were still a part of the draft development plan and were
available for the Board's consideration without the Committee's recognition of them in the amendment.
' • PARAC heard comments for citizens alongthe trail corridor and received apetition from citizens of Nininger Township.
October 1998—Residential issues meeting S
• Representatives from Inver Grove Heights and Nininger Township neighborhoods presented concerns of their areas about the • PARAC stated that releasing the draft development plan will provide the public with additional information to address their
trail project.PARAC also heard comments from residents of these neighborhoods. (A meeting notice was sent to all owners questions and concerns.
of residential property adjacent to the proposed trail route.)
• The concerns expressed included loss of privacy,possible crime or vandalism,landowner liability,and safety of trail users.
• Discussion included comparison of possible alternative routes-how they may or may not address these concerns.
• Discussion also examined mitigation techniques such as fencing,vegetative screening,and Park Patrol and local police
' coverage.
• PARAC requested and received from staff additional studies—one concerning trail alternatives in Inver Grove Heights,and
one concerning trail alternatives in Nininger Township.
' November 1998—Industrial issues meeting
• Representatives from the industrial landowners in the Pine Bend area commented on the trail project.
' • Representatives of industrial landowners were generally supportive of the project,wanting to continue to work with staff on
providing local access for their employees and but also on security concerns.
• Koch Industries representatives were supportive of the project,and suggested possible collaborative projects in conjunction
' to the trail.
• CF Industries had safety concerns for trail crossings of business driveways. PARAC, staff and CF Industries representatives
identified several potential route alternatives to address these concerns.PARAC suggested that staff further research route
alternatives with CF Industries representatives,and further safety and security discussions could be part of the design phase
of the project.
• PARAC requested and received from staff a study identifying trail alternatives in the CF Industries area to address safety
concerns.
1
Mississippi River Regional Trail Project Summary Page 5
I
ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT C
IPARAC Recommendation and Findings Summary Park and Recreation Advisory Committee
Report Concerning Concord Blvd (CSAH 56) and Preferred Route
I
PARAC recommends the following to the Dakota County Board of Commissioners concerning the Mississippi River Regional
Trail project: Pros and Cons ofRoute Alternatives
The trail segment through Inver Grove Heights should be the preferred route as described in the Mississippi The positive and negative aspects of the route alternatives were detailed in the Mississippi River Regional Trail draft development
I River Regional Trail draft development plan. plan and in presentations to PARAC. A review of these aspects for Concord Boulevard and the draft development plan preferred
route are as follows.
The trail segment through Nininger Township should be the preferred route as described in the Mississippi
IRiver Regional Trail draft development plan. Concord Boulevard(CSAH 56)Alternative:
The trail segment in the Pine Bend Trail/Highway 55 corridor should follow the alternate Union Pacific spur • Heavy traffic volumes and road speeds—Concord Boulevard currently carries high volumes of traffic and will carry
route as described in the staff report. much higher levels in the future. Average daily traffic counts(ADTs)for Concord Boulevard range from 5,000 ADT
I
The Board of Commissioners release the Mississippi River Regional Trail draft development plan for public near Old Concord Boulevard to over 15,000 at the Inver Grove Heights/South St.Paul boundary. The County's traffic
model estimates that by the year 2020,the range for the same segments will be 12,000 to 22,000 ADT—with over 3 of
review. the 4 miles of the roadway in question between 18,000 and 22,000 ADT. Posted speed limits along Concord Boulevard
Irange from 35mph to 50 mph,with over 2/3 of the distance posted at or greater than 45 mph.
• Poor sightlines—Sightlines along Concord Boulevard are negatively impacted by changes in elevation. (climbs and rolls
PARAC conducted four hearings which evoked concerns re:the preferred routes,i.e. safety,privacy, security,liability and in the roadway) Combined with the high number of intersections and driveways,the sightlines raise safety concerns for
Iconstruction challenges. There was also some opposition to having a regional trail at all. pedestrians and bicyclists during automobile turning movements and crossings.
In recommending these trail routes, PARAC acknowledges there will be specific locations which will require special measures of • Lack of adequate right of way—Right-of-way availability for a trail or bikeway along Concord Boulevard is currently
I
accommodation. These measures could range from signage to construction of a tunnel overpass. inadequate,and more questionable for the future. Currently,the County does not have enough right-of-way available for
a trail or bikeway along Concord. The County envisions the need to reconstruct the road,planned for 2001 or 2003. The
PARAC reviewed proposed alternatives and specific concerns which were raised. A Union Pacific Railroad Company traffic model estimates(see above)are high enough to require changing the 2-lane roadway into a 4-lane. Right-of-way
representative voiced safety concerns and urged the County to come up with appropriate designs to mitigate potential hazards. acquisition along much of Concord will be hampered by businesses and residences close to the mad. Inver Grove
I Residents suggested the trail be located on Highways 56,42 and 55 rather than the preferred routes. PARAC looked at these
options and determined all had serious drawbacks. Heavy traffic, Heights has also expressed an interest in a parkway or boulevard-type road,which would necessitate more right-of-way.
high speeds,inadequate right-of-ways and many driveway How much right-of-way will be available for a reconstructed road—plus a trail or bikeway—without the removal of
crossings preclude the construction of a regional trail. The utilization of Highway 42 does not meet Mississippi River Critical businesses or homes is unclear. (see below for more details concerning the possible reconstruction of Concord
Area requirements as it is outside the Critical Area. Boulevard)
I
The Pine Bend Trail segment does create a problem for CF Industries in that four access driveways must be crossed. PARAC
revised the preferred and alternative routes in this industrial area. Because Highway 55 has the aforementioned problems with Preferred Route:
I speed,heavy volume and right-of way,PARAC recommends the Union Pacific spur route which alleviates most concerns.
• Existing transportation corridors—The route shown in the draft development plan follows existing transportation
Other impacted government jurisdictions did not voice objection to the regional trial but reminded us that they have not had an corridors through Inver Grove Heights—mainly railroads and also local streets. The trail can follow these features for
opportunity for formal review. They did acknowledge that trails have overwhelming support according to local surveys. nearly the entire length of the city.
I • Minimize road and driveway crossings—By not paralleling a major roadway,theP referred route minimizes the number
of road and driveway crossings for the trail. Crossings present safety issues for trail users and roadway users during
Iautomobile turning movements and other crossing-related situations.
• Existing environmentally impacted area—The route uses areas that have been environmentally impacted—such as
I
railroad corridors and pipeline easements—to the greatest extent possible. This minimizes tree-clearing and other
impacts associated with trail construction.
• Railroad issues—Paralleling the railroad does present safety issues for the preferred route. These issues concern
I proximity to the railroad tracks as well as crossing issues. Proximity issues need to be addressed as the plan is refined
through the public review and design phase—discussions concerning fencing,vertical and horizontal separation,etc.
The County's experience in constructing and operating the Big Rivers Regional Trail near an active rail line will be used
I
I
Mississippi River Regional Trail Project Summary Page 6
I
I
in this process. Regardless of what route alternative is used,some crossings of railroad lines are necessary. Resolving
crossing issues will focus on design aspects—using tunnels,overpasses,and signage. ATTACHMENT D
IPark and Recreation Advisory Committee
Concord Boulevard Reconstruction Process and Timeline Report Concerning CSAH 42 and Preferred Route (CR 87-127th)
I During PARAC's review of the MRRT draft development plan, questions concerning the possible reconstruction of Concord
Boulevard—and the potential for pedestrian and bicycle facilities—was raised. The following is based on discussions with staff Pros and Cons of Route Alternatives
from the Highway Department.
The positive and negative aspects of the route alternatives were detailed in the Mississippi River Regional Trail draft development
I Improvements to Concord Boulevard are anticipated within the next decade. The potential project area is Concord Boulevard plan and in presentations to PARAC. A review of these aspects for CSAH 42 and the draft development plan preferred route are
from the 1-494 interchange south to the division of Old Concord Boulevard and"new" Concord Boulevard,north of the State as follows.
Highway 52 interchange. But exactly what type of work will be done or the final configuration of the roadway—including
I
whether or what kind of trail or sidewalk may be built—has not been determined. (see below) CSAH 42 Alternative:
The Concord Boulevard project is included in the Dakota County Highway Capital Improvements Program(CIP)for 1999 • Heavy traffic volumes and road speeds—CSAH 42 carries higher volumes of traffic than CR 87 and will carry much
through 2001. The 1999 CIP includes funds for preliminary engineering and design work,and for public input. The 2000 and higher levels in the future. Average daily traffic counts(ADTs)for CSAH 42 are 2,400 ADT between Idell Avenue and
I
2001 CIPs include funding for any necessary acquisition and construction for the roadway improvements identified during the the CSAH42/CR 87 interchange. These current counts have already exceeded the County's traffic model for the year
1999 process. The source of these funds would be Minnesota Department of Transportation(MnDOT)road turnback funds. 2020 and are expected to continue to climb. CSA}{42 also carries high levels of truck traffic,and higher speed traffic
However,the recently released MnDOT turnback study did not allocate any funds for Concord Boulevard until 2003. The than CR87.
I beginning of the construction phase of the project will be based on the availability of those funds
• Most expensive alternative—Construction of a trail along CSAH 42 is more expensive than other alternatives. The
Eligible expenses for turnback funds include preliminary engineering and design,right-of-way acquisition,road construction,as wider lanes, shoulders and ditches along CSAH 42 means there is not adequate right-of-way for construction of a trail
well as pedestrian/bicycle trails and landscaping. without additional acquisition from adjacent property owners. Also,the current construction of the roadway and rolling
I
terrain along the road alignment will significantly increase costs of trail construction in comparison to other routes.
The extent of the project and details of what is done to Concord Boulevard will be determined during the preliminary
engineering/design work/public input process in 1999. The possibilities range from a bituminous overlay to complete • Does not serve Nininger Township residential area—Nininger Township's current residential area are concentrated north
I reconstruction with additional lanes. The County will work closely with the cities of South St.Paul and Inver Grove Heights of CR 87. The township's growth management plan indicates that future residential development will also be directed to
during this process. this portion of the township. A trail along CSAR 42 will not serve the residential areas of the township,neither
connecting them to Spring Lake Park Reserve nor to the City of Hastings.
One component of the discussions will be providing a pedestrian and bicycle facility as part of the road project. Currently,there
I
is no trail or bikeway along Concord Boulevard. The County's policy is to provide a sidewalk or trail along County roads in the • Outside State Critical Area/MNRRA boundary—The State Critical Area Act of 1973 and Executive Order No. 13 in
urban areas of the County. The County works with the cities as to the width and type of surface that is appropriate for the area, 1976 identified 17 action projects for the Mississippi River Critical Area,one being a trails system along the river. State
often deferring to the city's preference. For example,through commercial areas or in areas where homes or businesses are close law requires that communities identify trail routes within the Critical Area when doing long range planning,such as
I to the roadway, cities have chosen sidewalks instead of bituminous trails. This is the situation along much of Concord Boulevard. comprehensive land use plans. This requirement was incorporated into the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan
A sidewalk-type facility—a concrete walkway narrower than 10 feet—would not meet the requirements for a regional trail. in 1988. A trail along CSAR 42 is outside of the Critical Area and does not meet this statutory requirement for Dakota
Because of the narrowness of the resulting sidewalk,some communities have also banned bicycles and in-line skates from using County or Nininger Township.
them,placing these users into the roadway.
IPreferred Route:
I • Low traffic volume and speeds—CR 87 carries significantly less traffic—now and in the future-than CSAH 42.
Average daily traffic counts(ADTs)for CR 87 range from 140 ADT between CSAH 42 and Ivanhoe Avenue to 600
ADT between Ivanhoe Avenue and the CSAH 42/CR 87 interchange. The County's traffic model estimates that in the
year 2020,the range for both segments will still be less than 1,000 ADT. Driving speeds along CR 87 are lower than
Ithose along CSAH 42.
• More right-of-way available—CR87's narrow roadway,minimal shoulders and ditches means than more of the right-of-
Iway in the corridor is available for constructing a trail. Additional acquisition of right-of-way would be minimized.
• Serves Nininger Township residential area—The preferred route described in the MRRT draft development plan follows
the south side of CR 87. The concentration of residential development is to the north of CR 87 along the Mississippi
I River. The preferred route places the trail close enough for residents of the area to access it,while not crossing directly
through the center of residential area.
I
I
Mississippi River Regional Trail Project Summary Page 7
' • Crosses private property—The preferred route does cross private property when it leaves CR 87 right-of-way going west ATTACHMENT E
to connect to Idell Avenue and 127th Street. The route follows a property line paralleling an existing farm access mad.
The route is also along the alignment of 127th Street,were it to be extended to connect CR 87 to the existing segment of Park and Recreation Advisory Committee
127thStreet -the Spring Lake Park Reserve access road. (see below) Report Concerning Route Alternatives Near CF Industries
Issues Concerning Route Alternatives PARAC has expressed concern over the preferred route as detailed in the Mississippi River Regional Trail draft development plan
in relation to routing along Pine Bend Trail as it fronts CF Industries property. There are safety issues concerning heavy truck
Nininger Township Comprehensive Plan—Nininger Township revised its comprehensive plan in 1995,adopting the revisions in traffic,driveway crossings and staking of trucks on a public road. Staff has developed route alternatives to address these
' April 1996. That plan stated the Township's preferred location for the trail to be the CR 87—127t Street alignment. In March concerns.
1998,Nininger Township adopted a Regional Trail Corridor Policy that stated its preferred location for the trail to follow CSAR Description and Pros and Cons of Route Alternatives-See Attached Map
42. Nininger Township is currently updating its comprehensive plan.
' 127a,Street—The portion of 127th Street on which the preferred route would traverse going west upon leaving CR 87 is currently Preferred Route as stated in MRRT Draft Development Plan-Green
not a public street. A farm access road used by adjacent property owners follows the alignment of 127th Street were it to extend The Preferred route parallels Pine Bend Trail,crosses four access driveways to the CF Industries facility and two railroad
from Idell Avenue to CR 87. Discussions between the County and the Township have occurred in the past concerning the tracks along the spur line. Once past the access driveways,the right-of-way available between Pine Bend Trail and the end of
upgrading of this alignment to a township road. Currently,no plans exist for this extension. This extension may come about in the spur line widens significantly. Once past the spur line,the trail enters Spring Lake Regional Park.
the future as the residential development in this portion of Nininger Township increases and necessitates mad network
improvements. Alternative 1: Highway 55 Union Pacific Spur-Blue
' Mississippi River Critical Area Requirements—One of the statutory requirements for communities of the Mississippi River Alternative 1 breaks south from the preferred route crossing Pine Bend Trail at the property line between Dixie Petro-Chem
Critical Area Act is the identification of trail routes through the critical area. Discussions with staff from Minnesota Department Inc.and the Walbon Partnership property. Once across their properties the trail would cross the Union Pacific spur route and
of Natural Resources(the agency responsible for administering the Critical Area Act)concerning this requirement have clarified continue to follow parallel to Highway 55. The trail would cross the tracks again before turning northeast along the railroad
' that compliance with the Act necessitates the identification of trails within—not simply connecting to—the critical area. This and right-of-way. The trail will railroad right-of-way until it reaches the south side of Pine Bend Trail. The trail
all other Critical Area Act requirement will be part ofni the review ofhi all local comprehensive plans,which are due to be submitted will cross Pine Bend Trail east continueof the alongF Industries facility access driveways and continue along the preferred mute
by the end of the year. Both Dakota County and Nininger Township are required to submit updated comprehensive plans by this paralleling the Union Pacific spur,then enter Spring Lake Regional Park.
deadline.
•Would be crossing Pine Bend Trail further west,requiring appropriate signage,signals and speed reduction techniques
for trail users at the crossing
•Eliminates the need to cross CF Industries facility access driveways
' •Crosses private property
• Same number of railroad crossings as preferred route
Alternative 2: Union Pacific Spur-Yellow
Alternative 2 breaks south from the preferred route crossing Pine Bend Trail at the property line between Dixie Petro-Chem
Inc.and the Walbon Partnership property. Once across their properties the trail parallels the Union Pacific spur route to the
north before dropping south,thereby crossing two sets of tracks. Once the trail crosses the second set of tracks the trail again
parallels the railroad right-of-way. The trail will cross Pine Bend Trail east of the CF Industries facility access driveways and
continue along the preferred route paralleling the Union Pacific spur,then enter Spring Lake Regional Park.
' •Would be crossing Pine Bend Trail further west,requiring appropriate signage,signals and speed reduction techniques
for trail users at the crossing
•Eliminates the need to cross CF Industries facility access driveways
' •Crosses private property
• Same number of railroad crossings as preferred route
•Challenging topography may add to the difficulty of routing the trail along this alignment
Issues Concerning Route Alternatives
' Alternatives 1 and 2 represent safety improvements over the preferred route as stated in the MRRT draft development plan. The
alternatives are feasible routes based on topography and other physical factors. However discussions with additional stakeholders
will be held. Additional stakeholders include;adjacent landowners,MnDOT(along Highway 55)and the Union Pacific Railroad.
These discussions can occur as part of the public review process,as well as part of the future design phase of the project.
' Mississippi River Regional Trail Project Summary Page 8
ATTACHMENT F
Staff has met with representatives of CF Industries to discuss the route alternatives described above. CF Industries stated that
' these alternatives address their concerns with driveway safety. Additional discussions with CF Industries and other landowners Dakota County Department of Highways Memorandum
will continue if the draft development plan is released for public review.
December 29, 1998
TO: Jade Templin, Office of Planning
1 FROM: Lezlie Vermillion, Transportation Engineer
Tom Anton,Asst. Traffic Engineer
' SUBJECT: MRRT - CSAH 42 Alternative
We offer the following comments from the Highway Department regarding the construction of a bicycle trail along CSAH
' 42 from TH 55 to CR 87. The following information is provided assuming that this would be a regional trail and need to
follow Federal Highway Funding procedures. The information we are basing our recommendations on comes from the
"Minnesota Bicycle Transportation Planning and Design Guidelines". This is the design manual for state and federal aid
t bicycle/pedestrian trails. The type of trail we would be designing for is the"average"bicyclist who is considered a casual
adult cyclist or child.
CSAH 42 Segment Information
Lane Shoulder R/W 1997 Daily Speed
Segment Termini Widths Widths Widths Traffic MPH
TH 55-Idell Ave. 12' 0' 66' 2150 50
Idell Ave. - 1000' West CR 87 12' 3' 66' 2350 55
1000' West CR 87 to CR 87 12' 8' 100' 2350 55
Currently Dakota County owns and maintains a 66'foot right of way corridor for CSAH 42. This means there is
' approximately 33'of right of way on each side of the centerline. From TH 55 to Idell Ave. there are 12'paved lanes and
basically no paved shoulders. It was determined while constructing the 1997 overlay that it was better to not pave what
little shoulder was available in some segments than to encourage people to cycle on this highway. The segment of CSAH 42
' from Idell Ave. to 1000'west of CR 87(east)has 12'paved lanes and 3'shoulders. The shoulders on this road are not wide
enough to be classified a bike trail following the bike design guidelines as shown in Table 4-6.OB. This table requires a 6'
shoulder minimum for a highway carrying 1000-2500 motor vehicles/lane/day with a speed limit over 43 mph. Dakota
County staff would recommend an 8'-10'shoulder for this type of road. We would base this decision on speeds of 55 mph,
' and the vertical and horizontal curves along this segment of road.
CONCERNS
The segment of road from 1000' west of CR 87 to CR 87 was completed in 1998. This section of road would be adequate as
a bike trail. It has 8'paved shoulders and connects to the off-road trail at Monroe Street in Hastings.
' It is also critical to remember that when you are planning for an on-road trail,you will need to provide shoulders on both
sides of the road. It is not legal to encourage wrong way traffic on shoulders because of safety issues. To provide
shoulders on both sides of CSAH 42 would require the addition of 20'feet to provide adequate shoulder width in order to
Mississippi River Regional Trail Project Summary Page 9
designate it a bike trail. The guidance is very clear that"where the need is to serve Average Bicyclists, it is essential to
commit the resources necessary to provide facilities that meet the recommended design treatment. Only then can routes
' and facilities be designated for bicyclists and provide the desired access to the community".
Right-of-way will be a significant concern for either an on -or off -road trail. It will be critical to maintain drainage along
this highway. By widening the shoulders,the ditches will need to be reconstructed. A 10'shoulder plus the existing 12' lane
would take up 22'of the existing 33'owned by the County. Staff feels it would be very difficult to construct the
appropriate ditch section in the remaining 11'with the terrain in this area.
An off-road trail raises some of the same issues. To construct the trail and meet the design guidelines will be physically
impossible within the current right-of-way. According to table 5-3.0A the separation requirements between a 55-mph
highway travel lane and off-road bike trail should be 30'. The bike trail itself should be 12'plus 2'of clearance from any
' trees or fences. This would require 44'from the edge of the travel lane to meet the design guidelines. The County(except
for the easterly 1000')owns only 33'of right-of-way. (When actually designing the facility,it could possibly require more
rights of way to provide for appropriate drainage,slopes, required sight distance and design speed. Since we would be
' constructing a new facility,staff felt it was important to construct to the "good"standard versus adequate,after our
experience with heavy use on the Big Rivers Regional Trail. In a rural section,this also provides adequate space for snow
storage during the winter, if the trail is to be used.)
' Since this road was originally constructed somewhere around 1920,the plans for the road are not on file. We currently
have no information regarding the slopes,vertical or horizontal curves. This information would require field surveys and
further analysis to comment on sight distance issues. The slopes from a windshield survey do appear to be rather steep in
' some areas.
SUMMARY
In summary, Highway Staff has concerns about the existing highway as a bike trail. The existing corridor does not have
adequate right of way to provide a trail that meets state guidelines. It also would require additional survey and analysis on
' the existing slopes and curves to see if sight distance and design speed issues exist. This route also has higher traffic
volumes than other roads in this area, which is of concern to staff from a safety standpoint. If a regional trail is to be
constructed along this highway whether on-or off-road,it should be designed to the state guidelines as a minimum.
' Please feel free to call me at 891-7104 with any questions you may have.
' CC: Louis Breimhurst, Director Physical Development Division
Jack Ditmore, Deputy Director Physical Development Division
Don Theisen,County Engineer
Mississippi River Regional Trail Project Summary Page 10