HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 01-03-2012 SpecialCITY OF PLYMOUTH
AGENDA
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 3, 2012, 6:00 p.m.
MEDICINE LAKE CONFERENCE ROOM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. TOPICS
A. Review proposals for Peony Lane/Lawndale Lane extension project
10015)
B. Set future study sessions
3. ADJOURN
Special Council Meeting 1 of 1 January 3, 2012
rp) City of
Plymouth
Adding QoaWy to Life
REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING
January 3, 2012
2A
To: Mayor and City Council
Prepared by: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
Consider Engineering Proposals for Peony Lane / Lawndale
Item: Lane Extension Project and Provide Direction on the Project,
City Project No. 10015
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
1) Provide direction on the process desired for this project;
2) Either select a consultant or reject/refine proposals based on the desired process.
2. BACKGROUND:
On December 13, the City Council considered proposals received from two consulting
engineers related to alignment selection, environmental documentation, design engineering,
and acquisition of right-of-way for the Peony Lane/Lawndale Lane corridor from Schmidt
Lake Road to the northern city limits. This roadway project and installation of trunk
watermain is identified in the Capital Improvements Program for construction in 2014. The
staff report for the December 13 meeting is attached, along with the Peony Lane Corridor
Technical Memo (previously provided to the Council in August 2011), and a map of the four
possible alignments that have been identified to date.
Because the two engineering proposals are very different in process, scope of work, and
outcome, I believe it is important that the Council provide direction on the desired process
for the project.
1) Does the Council wish to select an alignment or eliminate one or more of the four
alignments currently identified?
This action could be considered by using the analysis provided in the Technical Memo,
Pages 5-8. The pros/cons of each alignment are listed in this report. If the Council
believes there is sufficient information to select an alignment, this would reduce the
scope of work required of the consulting engineer, and we would have a clear direction in
which to proceed.
2) Does the Council support the roadway type recommended in the Technical Memo?
The Technical Memo recommended construction of a "wide" 2 -lane roadway initially,
with a 3 -lane section immediately south of County Road 47 to accommodate the
Page I 1
numerous residential driveways in this area. Based on 20+ year traffic projections, and to
ultimately match the northerly connection in Maple Grove, the road could be changed to
a 4 -lane if needed in the future. The possibility of a 4 -lane divided roadway is anticipated
beyond 50 years.
Currently, the north/south higher volume roadways in this area are limited to County
Road 101 and Vicksburg Lane. It will add significant capacity when there are three
higher volume roads — County Road 101, an expanded Vicksburg Lane (proposed 2015-
16 dependent on federal funding), and a new Peony Lane.
3) Does the Council wish to revisit the greenway plan in order to assist in making the
alignment decision? We could consider alternative layouts for the trailhead site to
better consider the easterly alignment.
The Peony Lane alignment contemplated in the Comp Plan was an easterly alignment,
similar to Alignment #4. This alignment provided vistas of the large wetland complex
some of you will recall this from the bus tour during the comp plan process.) This is also
the most direct route, has the correct north and south connection points, has the desired
90 degree connection with County Road 47, and impacts the least number of private
properties. This alignment does have the greatest environmental impact and affects the
greenway.
In 2007, the City purchased a large parcel as part of the greenway which is proposed for
use as the trailhead to possibly include parking, a building for restrooms, programming,
ski rental, and equestrian use. The original greenway concept included an equestrian
component which could range from simply a trailer parking area to a full equestrian
center and stables. The former Park & Recreation Director has been working with the
Silver Buckle Saddle Club for several years to discuss a possible collaborative use at this
trailhead.
Once the greenway planning began and the trailhead was proposed, the roadway
alignments were moved westerly so as to minimize impacts to the greenway and trailhead
site. If the Council wishes to consider this alignment, we could seek alternative layouts of
the trailhead site with a roadway going through the property to determine what uses
would still be possible.
4) Does the Council wish to consider whether to do an EAW?
No mandatory EAW is needed for this project.
If the minimal alignment is selected, a discretionary EAW also is not needed.
There is some disagreement among staff and consultants as to whether a
discretionary EAW should be done. Staff has included an EAW in the process to
be conservative, as well as to obtain additional information which could be useful
in project design. It could be helpful in obtaining permits from the regulatory
agencies to show that alternatives were considered. However, the City Council
may not feel the impacts are significantly different between the alternatives and
may desire to select an alignment based on other criteria.
Page 12
S) Does the Council want staff to proceed with geotechnical work now? The geotechnical
work (soils analysis) will give us better information about potential construction costs
and may assist with alignment selection. We typically do this work on only one
alignment to not incur costs and to assist with specific location. However, it could be
done on more than one alignment if that would be helpful. The geotechnical work is
likely an important factor if the easterly alignment is considered.
Options:
1. Select one of the consulting engineer proposals.
2. Reject both proposals, and:
a. Reissue an RFP with a more defined scope of work to specifically include
public meetings, right-of-way acquisition tasks, etc., related to the four
alignments.
b. Proceed with the EAW, greenway trailhead alternative layouts, and/or geo-
technical work, then consider alignment option and issue RFP for design.
c. Select an alignment and issue an RFP for design.
d. Do nothing. Let development pressure lead. However, due to the number of
small parcels, it will be difficult and not cost efficient to build the roadway
and utilities in short segments.
Project Timing
We anticipate construction in 2014 (entire construction season is needed), with preliminary
planning, right-of-way acquisition, design, and environmental review done in 2012 and 2013. It
will take 6-9 months for design, 4-10 months for right-of-way acquisition (minimum of 4 months
is required for condemnation process and additional negotiation time is desired; right-of-way
acquisition cannot begin until the environmental documents are approved); 3-4 months for
environmental review. The soils work and analysis will take only 6-8 weeks.
3. ATTACHMENTS:
Possible Alignments Map
Staff report from Dec. 13, 2011 meeting
Technical Memo provided to the Council in August 2011
Page 13
SRF No. 0107114 0120
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Robert Moberg, PE
City Engineer — City of Plymouth
FROM: David Hutton, PE, SRF Project Manager
Joel Johnson, PE, SRF Project Engineer
DATE: March 15, 2011
SUBJECT: PEONY LANE CORRIDOR — 54TH AVENUE TO THE
NORTH CITY LIMITS NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 47
CITY PROJECT NO. 10015
I. INTRODUCTION
In April 2010, the City of Plymouth authorized SRF Consulting Group to determine a
preliminary alignment and profile for Peony Lane from 54th Avenue to County Road 47 under
our General Services Contract. The project has been designated as City Project No. 10015.
The work is being done at a planning level of detail in that SRF is using existing City
information and mapping for the analysis rather than doing any additional field work. The City
provided any existing field surveying and wetland information. The overall goal of the study is
to establish the final roadway corridor based on the preferred alignment and to preserve the right
of way for the future roadway as parcels become available or as development occurs, and also to
make sure the final alignment is accounted for in the overall Northwest Greenway Master
Planning Study.
This report has been revised from the January 10, 2011 report at the request of City staff due to
comments received at a neighborhood meeting held January 13, 2011.
II. BACKGROUND
A. History
In its Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the City of Plymouth identified the need for a
continuous north -south minor arterial connection between Trunk Highway 55 and the City of
Maple Grove in the vicinity of existing Peony Lane. SRF Consulting Group completed a
Peony Lane Alignment Study consisting of five (5) alternatives in 1995, and the City of
Plymouth improved Peony Lane to a 4 -lane divided roadway from Trunk Highway 55 to the
Page 1
Mr. Robert Moberg, PE - 2 - March 15, 2011
City of Plymouth
Wayzata High School just north of Schmidt Lake Road. The improvement also included a bridge
over the Canadian Pacific Railroad.
Since the 1995 Study, the City of Maple Grove has improved Lawndale Lane north of
63rd Avenue to a 4 -lane roadway. Based on a meeting with Maple Grove staff, they eventually
would like to improve Lawndale the rest of the way to the City limits, pending the final road
alignment decision by Plymouth.
In April 2010, SRF, on the City's behalf, began further analyzing two of the original five
alternatives in conjunction with planning of the Northwest Greenway by the City's Parks
Department. The area analyzed was Peony Lane from 54th Avenue to Lawndale Lane between
County Road 47 and the City limits of Plymouth. Alternative 5 from the original 1995 study was
eliminated by City staff and is not subject to the current study.
The number of alternatives analyzed in the current study was expanded to four total, through
discussions with City staff and the neighborhood meeting comments, as shown on the attached
layout drawing.
B. Transportation Plans
In the City of Plymouth's Comprehensive Plan, the Peony Lane extension is listed as a Future A -
Minor Arterial (Expander) with an ADT of 10,400 for year 2030; this plan classifies C.R. 47 as
a B -Minor Arterial with an ADT of 6,000 to 8,300 ADT. Both are Identified Major Roadway
Improvement Needs.
The Hennepin County Transportation Systems Plan lists the Peony Lane extension as a
Minor Expander, and classifies C.R. 47 as a Major Collector with an ADT of 7,200 to 8,100 for
year 2030. The County provided a letter of support when the City requested C.R. 47 be
reclassified as a B -Minor Arterial.
C. Wetlands/Floodplain
Elm Creek crosses Peony Lane south of 54th Avenue and flows eastward and then northward
until it crosses C.R. 47 east of Lawndale Lane. The National Wetland Index shows a large
wetland associated with Elm Creek Watershed that is east of and adjacent to the proposed
roadway; portions of this wetland have been surveyed. This wetland area is also the floodplain
for Elm Creek and the 100 -year HWL varies. The approximate Norinal Water Level of
Elm Creek is 939 at its Peony Lane crossing south of 54th Avenue and 923 at its C.R. 47
crossing east of Lawndale Lane. Peony Lane south of 54th Avenue is occasionally flooded, so
there may be an opportunity to eliminate that problem by either raising the road or upsizing the
culvert.
D. Existing Road/Adjacent Land Uses
The existing Peony Lane Roadway north of the Wayzata High School consists of a two-lane
undivided rural section, which travels along 54th Avenue, Ranier Lane, 56th Avenue, and
Page 2
Mr. Robert Moberg, PE -3 - March 15, 2011
City of Plymouth
Troy Lane through a series of sharp turns before intersecting with County Road 47
approximately one half anile west of the existing intersection of Lawndale Lane and C.R. 47.
Land uses along the proposed corridor consist of fanllland, park land, and larger residential lots
that are planned for development into other higher density, residential land uses in the future in
addition to some local single family residences along Lawndale Lane north and south of C.R. 47.
As mentioned above, Elm Creek and its associated wetlands and floodplains border the corridor
along the east.
Lawndale Lane provides local access directly to a number of properties, including the City
owned parcel. There are a total of 9 driveways south of C.R. 47 and 4 driveways north of C.R. 47
within the City limits of Plymouth.
E. Met Council Environmental Services (MCES) Interceptor
There is a Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Sanitary Sewer Interceptor
line along the eastern border of the project corridor. All four roadway alternatives essentially
parallel the interceptor for the first several hundred feet north of 54th Avenue. The proposed
roadway should have minimal impact on the interceptor; with the exception of additional fill
material and the potential raising of manholes. There may even be some opportunity to overlap
the road right of way with some easement if MCES allows it. During the final roadway design
phase, additional pipe analysis should be done to verify that it can withstand the additional soil
loadings.
The new Alternative 4, which came about as a result of components from the neighborhood
meeting, closely follows the MCES alignment. In a meeting held with MCES staff on March 8,
2011 it was indicated that they would allow the roadway to encroach on their easement, provided
their pipe is properly protected, and that agreements would be made between the City of
Plymouth and any other agencies or utilities that would reside in or adjacent to the existing
MCES easements and proposed road right of way.
F. Northwest Greenway Park Planning Study
The proposed roadway alignments were developed in coordination with the Northwest Greenway
master planning study. Some of the principal objectives for the Greenway are to preserve and
interpret the area's ecological resources, preserve and enhance wildlife corridors and
connections, establish linkages between City -owned parks/trails/open spaces/schools/etc., and
provide diverse recreational opportunities within the City.
In 2007, the City purchased a large parcel just on the east side of the proposed Peony Lane
alignment, between the proposed roadway and Elm Creek as part of their master park planning
for the NW Greenway corridor. SRF recently provided an update to the City Council in
September, 2010 on additional conceptual details for the Greenway master plan. The updated
report outlines several different options for this parcel of land, but generally it would include a
trailhead for the overall trail system, along with equestrian facilities of varying intensities
ranging from simply a trailer parking area, to a full equestrian center and stable areas. The actual
Page 3
Mr. Robert Moberg, PE - 4 - March 15, 2011
City of Plymouth
final use would depend on the amount of park land that would remain once the roadway corridor
is established.
The ultimate trail system is planned to be combined with the proposed roadway trails running
from the junction with County Road 47 south to the high school area and encircling the large
wetland. One leg of the future trail system is planned to cross the proposed Peony Lane roadway
via a grade -separated crossing to provide connectivity to the overall regional trail system to the
west. (See Section V for additional discussion on this crossing)
III. DESIGN CRITERIA / ASSUMPTIONS
Design Criteria: Mn/DOT State Aid Design Standards (including horizontal and
vertical curves).
Typical Section: Design section: urban, 2 lane roadway. 12 foot lanes, 4 foot curb reaction
distance. The section could expand to a 3 -lane section in certain areas to
accommodate driveways.
Ultimate section (Future): urban 4 lane divided roadway with boulevards
and trails on both sides.
Design Speed: 45 mph.
Right -of -Way: For Peony Lane, 120 feet was used (based on Right -of -Way needs of the
ultimate typical section).
For the local street connection to Lawndale, a 50 foot section was used for
calculating right of way needs for Alternative 2, and an additional 36 foot
right of way was used to accommodate a frontage road for Alternatives 1,
3 and 4.
Traffic Volumes: 10,400 ADT (2030 projection)
Access: One-quarter mile spacing between intersections.
Stonnwater: Treatment and conveyance will adhere to the City of Plymouth's and Elm
Creek Watershed's standards. Treatment ponds would be sized based on
National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards, and future design
should promote infiltration where feasible.
IV. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
Four (4) alternative alignments were developed and analyzed. Refer to Appendix A for a
drawing of the alternatives. Generally, Alternatives 1 and 3 are variations of the same alignment
and it basically comes down to tradeoffs between impacts to the City -owned property versus
Page 4
Mr. Robert Moberg, PE - 5 - March 15, 2011
City of Plymouth
impacts to the property located at 5705 Lawndale Lane. The fourth alternative originated out of
the neighborhood's suggestion to run the proposed alignment more in line with the existing
MCES Interceptor Line and its associated easements. A request by the neighborhood to align the
road further east of Alternative 4 was not pursued due to the major impacts to the large wetland
complex which would not be acceptable to the wetland permitting agencies due to other
alternatives being available. The following chart illustrates the potential impacts of each
alternative:
Concept level storinwater treatment ponds were placed near roadway low points - taking
advantage of any proposed road right-of-way remnants where possible. Elm Creek Watershed's
standards require National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) ponds with a minimum permanent
pool volume of the runoff from a 2.5 inch storm over the entire contributing drainage area and an
Page 5
ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE
1 2 3 4
Length of Route (miles) 1.54 1.54 1.52 1.47
Estimated wetland impacts 1.6 1.0 1.6 2.7
ac)
Estimated new Peony Lane
right of way based on 120
foot corridor (ac):
City owned park property 0.3 0.0 4.4 5.2
Private property 14.4 16.9 9.6 8.0
Total new right of way 14.7 16.9 14.0 13.2
Additional right of way
needed to provide local
1.9 1.8 2.0 2.0
street access to properties
on Lawndale Lane (ac)
Number of properties 13 13 11 10
impacted (ea)
Potential homes impacted 2 1 1 1
ea)
Impacts to City -owned yes None minimal yes
park property
Intersection degree with 90 70 90 90
C.R. 47
Number of Stormwater 5 6 6 5
Ponds (ea)
Number of Floodplain 2.1 2.1 2.7 5.8
Impacts (ac)
Concept level storinwater treatment ponds were placed near roadway low points - taking
advantage of any proposed road right-of-way remnants where possible. Elm Creek Watershed's
standards require National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) ponds with a minimum permanent
pool volume of the runoff from a 2.5 inch storm over the entire contributing drainage area and an
Page 5
Mr. Robert Moberg, PE - 6 - March 15, 2011
City of Plymouth
active pool with extended detention. The standards also promote infiltration. These standards in
conjunction with the other standards of the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission
ECWMC) should be consulted in the future design.
All four alternatives cross an Elm Creek tributary midway through the project corridor, with
Alternative 1 crossing at a manmade pond area. It is not anticipated that this mamnade pond or
any of the tributary crossings would require a bridge, but would likely require multiple round
culverts or a box culvert. The exact size would be determined in future design, but the difference
in size and cost for all the alternatives would likely be minimal.
Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 will have similar floodplain impacts at the Peony Lane crossing of Elm
Creek, and the proposed crossing of the Elm Creek tributary midway through the corridor.
Alternatives 3 and 4 will also impact the Elm Creek floodplain at the southerly extents of
Lawndale Lane south of C.R. 47, and Alternative 4 will likely impact the floodplain immediately
north of 54th Avenue. The standards of the ECWMC require compensatory floodplain mitigation
at a ratio of 1:1 by volume, and a demonstration that the 100 -year floodplain will not be
impacted. Because Alternative 4 runs closer to the wetlands and floodplain, it will have an
increased chance of surpassing the five (5) acre floodplain impact threshold which would then
require additional permitting requirements.
Alternative No. 1
Alternative No. 1 generally skirts the existing large wetland complex, avoids the City
property except for a small coiner in the northwest, and then follows the existing driveway of
5705 Lawndale Lane and the existing Lawndale Lane roadway both south and north of C.R. 47.
The following are the pros and cons of this alternative:
Pros:
Cons:
Low impacts to City owned park property
Crosses C.R. 47 at 90 degrees
Lowest floodplain impacts
Requires lowest number of stormwater treatment ponds (5)
Greatest number of potential home impacts
Higher right-of-way impacts to private property
Highest number of property impacts
Higher wetland impacts
Impacts the existing residential driveways on Lawndale Lane, which
would require a local frontage road to provide access to Peony to avoid
direct driveways onto an arterial street. For the design year, a 3 -lane
section could be utilized.
Page 6
Mr. Robert Moberg, PE - 7 - March 15, 2011
City of Plymouth
Alternative No. 2
Alternative No. 2 goes north of the main wetland complex and generally avoids the property at
5705 Lawndale Lane before crossing a fairly large undeveloped farmland property on the south
side of C.R. 47 and then crossing C.R. 47 at a 70 -degree skewed angle before tying into existing
Lawndale Lane north of C.R. 47. The following are the pros and cons of this alterative:
Pros:
Cons:
No impact to City owned park property
Least wetland impacts
Lower number of house impacts
Lowest impacts to MCES Interceptor Line
Least floodplain impacts
Highest right-of-way impacts to private property
Higher number of property impacts
Crosses C.R. 47 at 70 degrees rather than the desired 90 degrees
Requires a fairly lengthy and not very convenient connecting City street to
proved access to Lawndale Lane
Requires 6 stormwater treatment ponds
Severs a large agricultural property, thereby impacting its future
development options
Alternative No. 3
Alterative No. 3 generally skirts around the existing wetland but generally goes through the
property that the City previously acquired as part of the Greenway Corridor for a potential trail
head and parking lot. It then follows the existing driveway at 5705 Lawndale Lane and the
existing Lawndale Lane roadway south of C.R. 47. The following are the pros and cons of this
alternative:
Pros:
Cons:
Lower right-of-way impacts to private property
Lower number of property impacts
Lower number of house impacts
Crosses C.R. 47 at 90 degrees
Higher impact to City owned park property.
Higher wetland impacts
Page 7
Mr. Robert Moberg, PE - 8 - March 15, 2011
City of Plymouth
hnpacts the existing residential driveways on Lawndale Lane, which
would require a local frontage road to provide access to Peony to avoid
direct driveways onto an arterial street. For the design year, a 3 -lane
section could be utilized.
Higher floodplain impacts
Requires 6 stormwater treatment ponds
Alternative No. 4
Alternative No. 4 follows the existing MCES Interceptor Line keeping the manholes located in
the boulevard area of the ultimate typical section (future). It takes a more direct route through the
City property then follows the existing Lawndale Lane roadway both south and north of C.R. 47.
The following are the pros and cons of this alternative:
Pros:
Cons:
Lowest number of property impacts
Lowest right-of-way impacts to private property
Lower number of house impacts
Requires 5 stormwater treatment ponds
Crosses C.R. 47 at 90 degrees
Highest impact to City owned park property.
Highest floodplain impacts
Highest wetland impacts
Impacts the existing residential driveways on Lawndale Lane, which
would require a local frontage road to provide access to Peony to avoid
direct driveways onto an arterial street. For the design year, a 3 -lane
section could be utilized.
Page 8
Mr. Robert Moberg, PE - 9 - March 15, 2011
City of Plymouth
V. GRADE -SEPARATED TRAIL CROSSING
As a part of the Northwest Greenway, a grade -separated crossing is proposed for the overall
trail network. The City desires to have a connection from this area to an overall regional trail
system to the west. Two options were looked at.
One option is to place the proposed trail crossing about 200 feet south of 54th Avenue.
This option avoids crossing the MCES Interceptor Sanitary Sewer line completely but would
require that the roadway profile be raised about five additional feet, resulting in the placement of
additional roadway fill material over the interceptor line. This raises several concerns including
impacts of the additional weight on the pipe and substantial manhole extensions in the order of
five additional feet.
A second option would place the pedestrian crossing approximately 100 feet north of
54th Avenue. This option for the crossing would place the actual structure directly over
interceptor pipe, but would require less roadway embankment due to the lower invert elevations
of the proposed crossing. The actual clearance of the bottom of the structure and the top of
the pipe, along with the additional weight of the structure on the pipe would need to be evaluated
further.
The final location of this pedestrian crossing would need to be determined as part of the specific
design of the roadway and structure, based on a number of factors such as soil strength, depth of
interceptor pipe, water table and drainage and embankment fill weight. Either option would
accommodate the City's overall desire to provide a trail crossing under the new roadway and
connection to the overall regional trail network in the northwest part of the City.
VI. Cost Estimate
All four alternatives are approximately the same length and the estimated costs of each should be
relatively equal. Estimated construction costs for this roadway using the design year 2 -lane or 3 -
lane urban section should be in the range of four to five million dollars ($4-$5 million).
The estimated construction costs for the ultimate future design incorporating a 4 -lane divided
urban section should be in the range of eight to ten million dollars ($8-$10 million). These costs
do not include right of way costs or engineering/administration costs. A more detailed analysis
including soil borings/investigation should be done in the future to more accurately determine
the estimated costs.
VII. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
Based on the 20 year projected traffic volumes, our recommendation is to construct a 2 -lane
roadway initially, with a 3 -lane section immediately south of C.R. 47 to accommodate the
numerous residential driveways in this area. Ultimately, looking out at the future (50 year
horizon), the City should consider preserving enough right of way to accommodate a 4 -lane,
divided roadway (120 feet wide), and in the area immediately north and south of C.R. 47 there
would be additional right-of-way acquisition to accommodate a residential access road
Page 9
Mr. Robert Moberg, PE _10- March 15, 2011
City of Plymouth
156.5 feet wide). It makes good planning and fiscal sense to preserve the potential corridor now
for transportation needs rather than allow the corridor to be taken by other potential uses or
development.
From an engineering and transportation design viewpoint, Alternative 2 is not recominended
because of the 70 degree skewed intersection at C.R. 47, the severing of a large undeveloped
parcel and the circuitous local street connection that would be needed to provide access to the
existing properties on Lawndale Lane.
Alternative 4 is also not recommended due to greater impacts to the wetland complex and
potential long term maintenance costs of having a major sanitary sewer interceptor under the
roadway.
Based on the overall impacts and advantages, our recormnendation would be to use
Alternative No. 1 if the City desires to minimize the direct impact to the City -owned park
property, although this does have a large impact to the adjacent parcel at 5705 Lawndale Lane.
If the City desires to minimize the impact to that parcel and utilize as much of the City -owned
parcel for the future road aligmnent, our recommendation would be to use Alternative No. 3.
From transportation planning viewpoint, Alternative 1 or 3 are both acceptable and meet State
and City design requirements.
The City should move ahead with the environmental analysis and documentation on all four (4)
options to further investigate and determine the best overall alternative with the least ainount of
overall impact.
DEH/bls/gib
Attachrnents: Exhibits
H.•IProjectsl71141H1-MUIDOCITech Men2oU10315 Technical Menzorandmn.docx
Page 10
APPENDIX A
Page 11
r
L
d a $(
1 a = 65th AVf, v 65th PLpN
GLEASON RD. J W Wp 55 th 3 '
z
G9
ELM - RD. o
4
J o FIE LDST0 AV. > Q 69th AVE. Q iOl, Xh 64th PL.
69th5
p
f-1 6R f(•lfz4ttipVE• 6gth AVE. N. O QL• a v
r
Q'
AVE. N. 00 63rd Pt-• 'o z P I6LO ST E BLVD. 63rd J F RD
63rd
a
AVE.
o
a AVE. N. 62nd >PL. 2 N, °- '' FOUtP w J 63( 6• o a
r` r
a
ORB 2 x - 62hd wy'
A ll, ll 1°L
2n Lp N.
V
EI
UP
HACKAMORE RD. 4 LP• pV
t
y \r t y v0a Gist AV
DR. CITYll F p1,7 r
JC"ll.s ll lJ JL m z !9
101ROSE !
9
47 d
2 47 J
60
60th AVf,
47 41
47
59
z
STUDY AREA
q N.
0 5ltt
o d
p°
OSS
R. 0 ~
Sit
D
z
ADN,
f J 56th E.
Cq I<!y
o
a
T 1 1
PR
o o
CREEK 101
54th AVE. >
z
U
EVERGREEN RD. T116N
CHERRY HILL (
SFP -
ui
6 6 N. -n 'n
CT.
xp =
o
C R22WHERRYow . a N• 50th
Q mQ hICC 't R. 9<no LILq(, `
51st AVE,
y!
v 4= Op y DUNKIRK PL q SDxh 50thCF
CL YDfs TR. A WAYZATA o os, vP -K = Q F p• PL, w
0q f ^ 'CLYDESDALE TR. HIGH SCHOOL = P! ! 'v " 50th AVE. F'
101 Z,/
qq, NARCIS US LA. SCHMIDT KE z RO•
9yo qN0 (4, 49th PL, N. P
o z —
VV
E• o o w
F, U 4 h AVE. 49ht
55
J OatPL. j v P CT TONhAMEIo
L w 48th qVE: N. a
r COMANCHE v' ? 48th Q AVE. N. 48 T 9c PJE'
Plop
a PLYMOUTH Q z
z
TR. RD.
J
2'
MILL DR• a o z Q = oy xr .ria e°
q
2000 POP, 65,894 w
c a ro m J a P• m ofs V v
H Mel a `
PJF'•
z J
P
i ti`
s
C'' etc, fSTo a
gT 46th w hAVE.
46th AVE. N.
o 'ED
w 'j- TR.
u
ah
N•
R h
kVE. N• w nT F 45th AVE. 45th AVE. 45th AVE. N.
w a CKFORD = ?! z a J z ? gAth
T118N a
J
RD. ' OLD 9VE.N' U
0 1217 z
w z 93r a a z 43rd AYE. R23W R22W a J o tl w
a
43rd R C y04131181awQo0kFo
1
ORD. E. Z a oQ2 w = J qGF, 0R rte
c
NAVpS
a a` qVf• w o _ O IV
0
RD. d N. 4
Jlist
12.
PL. N.
4I
F% 41 stnd3•q VE' 2 a 13.
D list AVE. N. PJ 6 k pVE• N' A VE. a•,5 r z 41st AVE. 4
40th PL. N• `^
i AVE• iO x
N.
z d 40th -ai AVE. N. I\e Ki N.
a 40th AVE. N. .o z
39th LA. N. 55 39th9 PU• N' w z 39 th
may,
N, z i '11EDIIy 9th
z 39th CT. N. w 039th AVE. 0xr O
da 39 th IVF. 4 r N•
39th AVE. N. ' 38 th AV,. ^' Qom• 38xh
MN
31.
IN
38th AVE. N.
y
m w d 4Vf,-
Z r
C
01PROJECT LOCATION
cow.kkgcm.P,1— PEONY LANE N.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
7114
1112912010
Figure 1
Page 12
A.H.
4J
DNY L .
ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
Consulting Group, Inc. . — —, . ' " .— ...
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
7114
3/1512011
m
U
r.
HOLLY LN. Nt)
500 1000
scale In fleet
O
1
I
I
1
D
1
z
WAYZATA -
HIGH SCHOOL ----N#.1
Of — '
L
Y
O
iis Wm o i
Z
TIER LN. N >
Q
f .. Or
M ES INTERCEPTOR LINE
LN.
11 i 11
RFFk
A
ham
06
w
o
0 0
LU
J J
11
IN
Figure 2
Page 13
q PEONY LN.
0' __ 60.•.01
B.0' 14.0' 4.0' 12.0' 12.0' 4.0'
60.0'
WALK SHLD THRU THRU SHLD
B618 C&G nAut
0.02 0.02_ j-l
TYPICAL SECTION (DESIGN)
L PEONY LN.
ULTIMATE TYPICAL SECTION WITH TURN LANES (FUTURE)
TYPICAL SECTIONS
C,,,G-p,,. PEONY LANE N.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
7114
11712011
Figure 3
Page 14
60.0' 60.0'
8.0' 1 14.0' 14.0' 14.0' 18.0' 14.0' 14.0' 12.0' 10.0'
WALK THRU THRU MEDIAN THRU THRU TRAIL
B618 C&G
PROFILEGRADE
8618 C&G 8618 C&G
0.02
0,02_.
ULTIMATE TYPICAL SECTION (FUTURE)
R/W L PEONY LN. R/
60.0' 60.0'
8.0' 14.0' 14.0' 14.0' 6.0' 14.0' 12.0' 14.0' 12.0' 10.0'
WALK THRU THRU CONC. LEFT TURN THRU THRU TRAIL
MEDIAN
8618 C&G
rGRADEROFILE
G
X8618 C&G 8618 C&G--\
ULTIMATE TYPICAL SECTION WITH TURN LANES (FUTURE)
TYPICAL SECTIONS
C,,,G-p,,. PEONY LANE N.
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
7114
11712011
Figure 3
Page 14
l LEGEAD
r, 1 DRAVA—
NW] WETLAND
ELM CREEK
r'r, '\tiirl`rr\ t—'S sk< r, \\i''`i'h\ ,4\ .`r.i_ `e'r `r'-i, \+\ r +
4 _
S [CHU
4
1 f
IL
ok
ag,. ,, `'7 .:. , - BVI ' 1 . •_
40—
Molt -Ar
r i
1,ri ' ' iii. ` •gum-,
i
RL
Ao,
Al 0-
71,
Fit
M
V
r
AERIAL MPO GRAPHYM
ssuFs N1/\i
rp) City of
Plymouth
Adding QoaWy to Life
REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING
December 13, 2011
Agenda
Number:
To: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
Prepared by: Robert Moberg, P.E., City Engineer
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
6.14
Receive Proposals and Designate Consulting Engineer
Item: For Peony Lane / Lawndale Lane Extension Project
City Project No. 10015
Adopt the attached resolution receiving engineering proposals and designating an engineer
for environmental review, design engineering, and right of way acquisition services for the
above referenced project.
2. BACKGROUND:
Realignment and expansion of the Peony Lane / Lawndale Lane roadway corridor from
Schmidt Lake Road to the Maple Grove border, as well as installation of a trunk water main
in the corridor, has been identified in the 2011-2015 Capital Improvements Program (CIP),
with construction of corridor improvements scheduled for 2014. Staff believes it is necessary
to designate a consulting engineer now to allow adequate time for completion of alignment
selection, environmental documentation, design engineering, and acquisition of right of way
in advance of the programmed year of construction.
Requests for proposals were sent to four engineering firms with the technical expertise
required to deliver this project. Two of the firms opted not to submit proposals. Two
proposals have been received and evaluated by a staff selection committee. Criteria used for
the evaluation consisted of the following:
Experience and success performing similar projects
Project understanding and proposed scope of work
Experience of the consultant's project team
Proposed schedule for completing the work
Proposed cost to perform the work.
The categorized and total estimated engineering fees proposed from each consultant
are as follows:
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. - $35,350 (Environmental) + $316,200
Design) + $129,000 (Right of Way) _ $480,550 (Total)
Page 1
WSB & Associates, Inc. - $24,046 (Environmental) + $212,022 (Design) +
154,000 (Right of Way) = $390,068 (Total)
After meeting on November 10, 2011 to discuss the proposals, the selection committee,
consisting of Public Works and Parks and Recreation staff, concluded that the proposal from
SRF Consulting Group, Inc., demonstrates the best overall response to the evaluation criteria.
Specifically, SRF's proposal includes elements in their work plan that allow for better
transparency in alignment selection, greater public involvement, development of a
comprehensive wetland replacement plan, and greater flexibility in right of way acquisition
activities. These elements are further identified as follows:
1. Development of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will include
the use of a matrix approach to evaluate four alignment alternatives identified
previously and then using the matrix results to guide selection of a preferred
alignment. Although use of a matrix was not required in the RFP, SRF proposes
to use it and staff believes that using this approach will bring transparency to the
alignment selection process for affected residents and will better position the City
Council to make a fully -informed alignment selection.
2. Inclusion of 5 staff meetings and 3 public meetings throughout the environmental
review and design development process (as required by the RFP). In addition, 2
utility coordination meetings with public utility companies and 1 meeting with the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) have been included in the
work plan and have been clearly identified on the proposed schedule. While the
additional meetings were not required by the RFP, staff expects that public utility
companies will have an interest in planning new facilities in the Peony/Lawndale
corridor and that PRAC will have a strong interest in understanding the
relationship between the selected roadway alignment and the Northwest
Greenway Master Plan. Staff believes a more robust public participation process,
as identified in the SRF proposal, will result in greater public support for the
selected alignment.
3. Completion of a wetland replacement plan for the selected alternative. The RFP
identified this task to be done if needed. A recently -completed wetland
delineation report for the corridor indicates wetland impacts will occur with all
four alignment alternatives.
4. Inclusion of property appraisal work that addresses simple and complex appraisals
for each parcel needed for right of way. Until an alignment has been selected, it
will be difficult to determine whether individual right of way parcels can be
obtained using simple appraisals or ones that are more complicated. The work
plan also includes relocation assistance for one property, should the need arise.
This task was not required in the RFP but with one of the alignment alternatives,
relocation for one residence is probable. Staff believes that flexibility in the work
plan could result in a cost savings at the time right of way acquisition is
undertaken.
These work plan elements, when coupled with SRF's experience in developing the
transportation chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan and in developing the Northwest
Greenway Master Plan, gave the selection committee confidence that some overall cost
efficiencies will be realized for the project. By committing to completion of environmental
review, preliminary and final design, and right of way acquisition in a streamlined manner,
the City will be better -positioned to complete construction of Peony/Lawndale corridor
Page 2
improvements in 2014. Completion of the Peony/Lawndale connection is critical to providing
an alternative route in advance of construction of anticipated improvements in the Vicksburg
Lane corridor.
Recently, the City Council expressed concerns about the timeliness and perceived delays of
progress for this project. A timeline of activities to date is outlined below:
February 2010 Initial field survey work conducted
April 2010 Corridor study initiated
July 2010 Supplemental survey work completed
December 2010 Draft corridor study report completed
January 2011 First neighborhood meeting held to review three alignments
March 2011 Final corridor study report completed and
2nd neighborhood meeting held to review four alignments
May 2011 City Council receives update on Northwest Greenway
Master Plan
August 2011 City Council receives staff memo forwarding the corridor
study report and providing a project update
October 2011 RFP for consultant services sent out and proposals received
November 2011 Wetland delineations completed for corridor
After the first neighborhood meeting was held, it became apparent to staff that greater public
participation would be needed in selecting a preferred alignment that balances the desires of
the residents affected by the project with the City's plans to incorporate the City -owned
parcel along the corridor into the Northwest Greenway Master Plan. Staff notified residents
along the corridor each time that City -sponsored activity was taking place in the corridor. A
copy of all correspondence sent to residents to date is attached. Meeting minutes from the
two neighborhood meetings held to date are also attached.
3. BUDGET IMPACT:
This project is identified in the City's 2011 — 2015 Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
with an estimated cost of $7.3 million. Financing for engineering services will be from the
Municipal State Aid Fund. It should be noted that the proposed cost of engineering services
is an estimate only and that actual costs are likely to change as the project evolves.
4. ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
Request for Proposals
Correspondence sent to residents
Meeting minutes from two neighborhood meetings
Resolution
Page 3
Proposed Peony/Lawndale Lane Corridor
Project Location Map
z
Q
ry
Q
O 47
56TH AVE
63RD AVE N
ity of Maple Grove
City of Plymouth
J J
cn , .
63
2N0
W
Approximate Corridor Location
s
JB
fT4 P
VIE O O, t G
TH CT
2,
Y
y Page 4 0 0
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
PEONY LANE / LAWNDALE LANE EXTENSION
CITY PROJECT N0. 10015
To provide engineering, surveying, environmental, and right of way acquisition services to the
City of Plymouth for the extension and expansion of Peony Lane / Lawndale Lane from Schmidt
Lake Road to the City boundary north of County Road 47. The project will include the extension
of street and water main improvements through a corridor connecting Peony Lane and Lawndale
Lane.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City's 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes the extension and expansion
of Peony Lane from Schmidt Lake Road to the City border with Maple Grove, with construction
anticipated for 2014 and an estimated total project cost of $7,000,000. The City's 2030
Comprehensive Plan identifies the corridor as an A -Minor Arterial with a 2030 traffic volume of
more than 10,000 vehicles per day. A technical memorandum was completed by a consultant for
the City in March 2011. The technical memorandum provided a planning -level analysis of four
4) alignment alternatives. Each one of the alternatives proposes to connect the Peony Lane
corridor to the Lawndale Lane corridor within City limits. Attached is a location map showing
the four alignment alternatives included in the technical memorandum.
The City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan also identifies the need to extend a 16 -inch trunk water
main in the Peony Lane / Lawndale Lane corridor from a point north of Wayzata High School to
County Road 47.
Existing right of way is limited in the project corridor and a substantial amount of right of way
must be obtained in advance of proposed construction.
Proposed improvements include the following:
1. Roadway improvements designed to Municipal State Aid standards with a 45
mph design speed.
2. Installation of a traffic signal with channelization at the Peony Lane/
Lawndale Lane intersection with County Road 47.
3. Extension of a 16 -inch trunk water main from a point north of Wayzata High
School to County Road 47.
4. Storm water conveyance and treatment measures that comply with City and
Elm Creek Watershed Commission standards.
5. Installation of a grade -separated crossing between the proposed roadway and
the proposed Northwest Greenway trail corridor.
O:\Engineering\PROIECTS\2010-2019\10015\Miscellaneous\RFP_PeonyLane.do cx
Page 5
SERVICES REQUESTED
The Consultant is to prepare a proposal to provide environmental, surveying, and engineering
services to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), recommend a preferred
alignment, secure permits necessary for construction, and prepare plans, specifications, and cost
estimates in accordance with Mn/DOT's Municipal State Aid and City standards.
The Consultant is also requested to include a proposal to provide right of way services in
accordance with State and Federal standards, once a final alignment has been selected. This part
of the proposal is to be identified as an optional service.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
The Consultant is to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) that analyzes
the four alignment alternatives identified in the March 2011 technical memorandum and that
recommends a preferred alternative. The EAW shall be prepared in conformance with State and
Federal environmental documentation requirements.
MEETINGS
At a minimum, the Consultant should plan on attending five staff meetings at City Hall and three
public meetings during the environmental review and preliminary/final design process. Staff
meetings are:
Kick-off meeting.
Draft environmental assessment worksheet review meeting.
Selected alternative review meeting.
50% plan completion review meeting.
95% plan completion review meeting.
The Consultant should identify additional meetings, if needed, to complete their proposed work
program.
O:\Engineering\PROJECTS\2010-2019\ 10015\Miscellaneous\RFP_PeonyLane.docx
Page 6
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DESIGN
I.
II.
Field/Boundary Survey
A. The Consultant shall perform a property boundary survey and field control survey
and develop control points and perform topographic survey of the project
boundaries in English units. The City conducted some survey work in the
corridor in 2010 and that information can be made available if the Consultant so
desires. The boundary survey will be needed to determine the limits of existing
rights of way and easements, to confirm property line locations, and to determine
the extent of additional right of way needed along the corridor.
Plans
A. Using topographic and survey information, prepare base plans showing:
1. Locations and elevations of all physical features.
2. Existing right-of-way/easements and property lines.
3. Existing utilities (electric, gas, telephone, cable TV, MCES sewer, etc.).
4. Existing City systems (sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer).
B. Prepare preliminary and final design plans in a format required for regulatory
agency review including the following:
1. Removals
2. Roadway Alignment and Profile
3. Roadway Typical Sections and Cross Sections
4. Drainage System
5. Sidewalks and Trails
6. Traffic Signal and Traffic Control
7. Traffic Signage and Striping
8. Roadway Lighting
9. Water Main Alignment and Profile
10. Erosion Control
11. Wetland Replacement (if needed)
12. Restoration / Landscape
13. Estimated Quantities
Specifications and Contract Documents
A. Prepare contract documents and specifications of a form and substance required
by the City and by regulatory agencies.
B. Prepare opinion of probable construction cost (Engineer's Estimate).
C. Submit to City and all applicable agencies for review and approval.
0:\Engineering\PROJECTS\2010-2019\ 10015\Miscellaneous\RFP_PeonyLme.docx
Page 7
D. Furnish up to 25 copies of the plans, a digital copy of the plans (Auto -CAD), an
electronic copy of the Engineer's Estimate, and an electronic copy of the
specifications (Word Document) for bidding purposes.
E. Furnish all survey information to City in point file ASCI format.
IV. Permits
A. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
B. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR)
C. Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)
D. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES)
E. U.S Army Corps of Engineers
F. Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission
G. Hennepin County Transportation Department
H. City of Plymouth (LGU for Wetlands Conservation Act)
RIGHT OF WAY (OPTIONAL)
I. Plan Preparation
A. Prepare right of way plan in accordance with State and Federal requirements.
B. Prepare easement descriptions for approximately 20 parcels.
II. Right of Way Acquisition
A. Perform appraisals of right of way and easements needed for construction.
B. Acquire right of way and easements in accordance with State and Federal
requirements.
SPECIAL SERVICES
I. Geotechnical Investigations
The City will independently retain Geotechnical Consultant services. The Consultant
shall be responsible for the following:
A. Stake boring locations or locate after borings are completed.
B. Review geotechnical logs and report to identify areas of concern.
C. Determine if additional investigation is needed after review of logs and report.
D. Arrange for additional investigation as needed.
E. Review supplementary reports.
F. Coordination with Geotechnical Consultant during design.
O:\Engineering\PROJECf S\2010-2019\1001 i\MisccUaneous\RFP_PeonyLane.docx
Page 8
II. Wetland Delineations
The City will independently retain Wetland Delineation services. A wetland delineation
report will be provided to the Consultant for incorporation into the EAW and roadway
design. The Consultant will be responsible for the following:
A. Review wetland delineation report to identify areas of concern.
B. Use wetland delineation information to develop a wetland replacement
plan, if needed, for the selected roadway alignment.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
Evidence must be presented which reflects the qualifications of those individuals the Consultant
will assign to perform the work as to having environmental documentation, roadway and utility
design, and right of way acquisition experience. The proposal shall reference any similar
projects which have been completed within the last five (5) years. References should include a
contact person and phone number.
TIME FRAME
The proposal must identify the major work tasks and dates of accomplishment. These work tasks
must include tasks which the Consultant anticipates will be done by the City and any
subcontractors on this project. Work on this project should be initiated within two (2) weeks of
the contract approval and diligently performed thereafter. The proposed accomplishment dates
will be monitored by the City to evaluate the Consultant's performance on the project. Any
deviation from the milestones as proposed by the Consultant shall be approved by the City
Engineer. It is desired that the Environmental Assessment Worksheet prepared by the
Consultant be submitted to the City Council for consideration by March 2012.
BUDGET AND FEES:
The budget for this project is $7,000,000 including design, engineering and construction. The
proposal should indicate the total cost for consultant services, should be submitted with
breakdowns of each phase and should itemize major cost components anticipated for the project
as outlined in this RFP. The proposal should include hourly rates for specific professional
services, including meeting and presentation costs. Payment of Consultant fees will be made
every thirty days upon receipt of a progress report and an invoice itemizing services performed
and hours worked with the approved budget amount and requested payment to date. The City of
Plymouth may stop the project at the end of any phase or may eliminate a phase or phases if
desired.
0:\Engineering\PROJECTS\2010-2019\ 10015\Miscellaneous\RFP_PeonyLane. docx
Page 9
CONTRACT RESPONSIBILITY
The City will prepare the necessary contractual agreement for this project. The Principal
Consultant may consider subcontracting portions , of the work program. However, any
subcontractor shall be approved by the City Engineer. All subcontracts will be between the
Principal Consultant and the subcontractor and the only responsible party for the contractual
fulfillment will be the Principal Consultant. Qualifications and project experience must be
submitted for any subcontractors proposed on this project.
SUBMISSION AND SELECTION PROCEDURE
Consultants interested in performing the professional services requested shall submit five (5)
copies of their proposal to:
Bob Moberg, City Engineer, City of Plymouth, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard,
Plymouth, MN 55447, by 4:00 p.m. on October 28, 2011.
Questions concerning the proposal may be directed to Bob Moberg at (763) 509-5525. Proposals
will be evaluated by a selection committee and City Council consideration of a Consultant
services agreement is anticipated to be made on November 8, 2011.
The selection committee, at a minimum, will consider the following factors in evaluating the
proposals:
1. Experience in performing similar projects.
2. An understanding of the work to be completed.
3. Experience of individuals the Consultant will assign to this work.
4. Success other communities and agencies have experienced in constructing
projects designed by the Consultant.
5. Proposed cost of the engineering services.
6. Proposed schedule for completing the work and the ability to perform the
work within the specified time.
7. Familiarity with the City of Plymouth and other related agencies' policies,
procedures, and standards.
The successful consultant will enter into a Master Agreement for Professional Engineering
Services with the City if one does not currently exist. Payment will be based on actual time
worked with a not to exceed amount in the agreement. Please include an hourly rate schedule.
0:\Engineering\PROJECTS\2010-2019\ 10015\Miscellaneous\RFP_PeonyLane.docx
Page 10
January 22, 2010
Dear Resident,
This letter is to inform you that the City of Plymouth will be conducting a field survey in your area
over the next 2-3 months. Some of the survey work will be done on a portion of your property.
As part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, a future extension of Peony Lane from 54th
Avenue to
County Road 47 is proposed, with the connection to County Road 47 planned to be in the vicinity of
Lawndale Lane. The City has no plans to construct the Peony Lane extension in the foreseeable
future.
As you are probably aware, the City acquired a parcel of land from Bruce Nedegaard (formerly the
Powers property), that will become part of the Northwest Greenway. The City Parks department is
exploring the possibility of building a trailhead facility on the property.
In order for the City to move forward with our Greenway planning, it is necessary to develop a
preferred alignment for the future extension of Peony Lane. The field survey will help us in
identifying the preferred alignment.
A representative from the City will be contacting you shortly to obtain right -of -entry for the survey
work. Please call me at 763-509-5525 if you have questions. Thank you in advance for your
cooperation.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Moberg, P.E.
City Engineer
Page 11
City of
Plymouth
Adding Quatity to Life
Scherber Investment Ltd. Partnership
11415 Valley Drive
Rogers, MN 55374
Dear Property Owner:
July 7, 2010
This letter is to inform you that the City of Plymouth will be conducting a field survey in your
area over the next 2-3 weeks. Some of the survey work will be done on a portion of your
property.
As part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, a future extension of Peony Lane from 54th Avenue
to County Road 47 is proposed, with the connection to County Road 47 planned to be in the
vicinity of Lawndale Lane. The City has no plans to construct the Peony Lane extension in
the foreseeable future.
As you are probably aware, the City acquired a parcel of land from Bruce Nedegaard
formerly the Powers property), that will become part of the Northwest Greenway. The City
Parks department is exploring the possibility of building a trailhead facility on the property.
In order for the City to move forward with our Greenway planning, it is necessary to develop
a preferred alignment for the fixture extension of Peony Lane. The field survey will help us in
identifying the preferred alignment.
A representative from the City will be contacting you shortly to obtain right -of -entry for the
survey work. Please call me at 763.509.5525, if you have any questions. Thank you in
advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
ffobertP.E.
City Engineer
3400 Ply,-,iout NO/d . i0ty'`1OUth, Ntirinesotn'55'1 17-1482 3c1: 763-11-019- 15000 9:Ctys? o,,ft. h. ;:r,S
0AEngineeringWR01ECTS\1_010-3019\10015\Ltrs\Scherber_FTe1dSumey_R/0a 12
City of
P I YMOUt
Adding Quality to Life
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Bowen
5730 Troy Lane
Plymouth, MN 55446
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Bowen:
July 7, 2010
This letter is to inform you that the City of Plymouth will be conducting a field survey in your
area over the next 2-3 weeks. Some of the survey work will be done on a portion of your
property.
As part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, a future extension of Peony Lane from 54`" Avenue
to County Road 47 is proposed, with the connection to County Road 47 planned to be in the
vicinity of Lawndale Lane. The City has no plans to construct the Peony Lane extension in
the foreseeable future.
As you are probably aware, the City acquired a parcel of land from Bruce Nedegaard
formerly the Powers property), that will become part of the Northwest Greenway. The City
Parks department is exploring the possibility of building a trailhead facility on the property.
In order for the City to move forward with our Greenway planning, it is necessary to develop
a preferred alignment for the future extension of Peony Lane. The field survey will help us in
identifying the preferred alignment.
A representative from the City will be contacting you shortly to obtain right -of -entry for the
survey work. Please call me at 763.509.5525, if you have any questions. Thank you in
advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Moberg, P.E.
City Engineer
34fCO Pbgnou h SINC) f; J [:ttii 1, M r :5cr-a -3-;A17-1482 s tet, 63-509-. iii, i`. i CrtiL ?. Tlii. t5
0'.\Engineerinv\P2olECTS\2010-3019\10015\Urs\Bmen_FIeldSurvey_040W13
December 28, 2010
SUBJECT: PEONY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY
CITY PROJECT NO. 10015
Dear Property Owner:
The City of Plymouth has completed a study of the Peony Lane / Lawndale Lane corridor
between Schmidt Lake Road and the City border with Maple Grove.
You are cordially invited to attend a neighborhood meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday,
January 13, 2011 in the Medicine Lake Room at Plymouth City Hall (3400 Plymouth
Boulevard). At the meeting, City staff will identify the alignment options being considered
and will ask for your input on the various options.
I look forward to your participation in this important process. Please email me at
rmoberg_gplymouthmn.gov or call me at 763.509.5525, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Moberg, P.E.
City Engineer
Page 14
0:\Engineering\PROJECTS\2010-2019\10015\Letters\PropOw ers_NeighborhoodMtg_I00I5.docx
March 10, 2011
SUBJECT: PEONY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY
CITY PROJECT NO. 10015
Dear Property Owner:
The City of Plymouth has updated a study of the Peony Lane / Lawndale Lane corridor
between Schmidt Lake Road and the City border with Maple Grove.
You are cordially invited to attend a neighborhood meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday,
March 23, 2011 in the Black Box Theater at the Plymouth Creek Center (14800 34th Avenue
North). At the meeting, City staff will identify the alignment options being considered and
will ask for your input on the various options.
I look forward to your participation in this important process. Please email me at
rmoberggplymouthmn.gov or call me at 763.509.5525, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Moberg, P.E.
City Engineer
Page 15
0:\Engineering\PROIECTS\2010-2019\ 10015\.etters\PropOwoers_NeighborhoodMtg_ L 0015_031011. docx
City ('.up o
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
July 29, 2011
SUBJECT: PEONY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY
PROJECT STATUS UPDATE
CITY PROJECT NO. 10015
Dear Property Owner:
Since the last neighborhood meeting on March 23, 2011, the City of Plymouth has received
several inquiries regarding the status of the Peony Lane/Lawndale Lane corridor project
between Schmidt Lake Road and the City border with Maple Grove.
The City will be hiring a consultant this fall to complete an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for the project. Once the EAW is completed, a final alignment will be
selected with construction anticipated to occur in 2014. I expect the EAW will be completed
by the end of this year.
Please call me at 763.509.5525 or email me at rmoberggplymouthmn.gov, if you have
questions.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Moberg, P.E.
City Engineer
3400 Plymouth Blvd m Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 a Tel 763-509-5000 e www.ptymouthmn.gov
Page 16
0:\Engineering\PROJECTS\2010-2019\10015\Leriers\Property Owners 072911.docx
City of
y mouth
Adding Quality to Life
October 12, 2011
Name_1»
Name 2»
Address»
CSZ»
SUBJECT: PEONY LANE CORRIDOR STUDY
WETLAND DELINEATIONS
CITY PROJECT NO. 10015
Dear Property Owner:
In the next few weeks, an agent for the City will be locating all of the existing wetlands in the
vicinity of the Peony Lane/Lawndale Lane corridor (see attached map). The wetland
information is needed to assist the City in preparing an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
EAW) for the project. As indicated previously, a final alignment for the corridor will not be
selected by the City until the EAW is completed.
Please call me at 763.509.5525 or email me at rmoberg_(apl Mouthmn.gov, if you have any
questions.
Thank you for your continued cooperation
Sincerely,
Robert L. Moberg, P.E.
City Engineer
enclosure
3400 Plymouth Blvd • Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 • Tel 763-509-5000 • www.plymouthmn.goviAff
10
Page 17
O:\Engineering\PROIECTS\2010-2019\10015\Letters\Wetland Delineation 10 .docx
City of Plymouth
Peony Lane / Lawndale Lane Corridor Study
Neighborhood Meeting #1
Meeting Minutes
January 13, 2011
1. PROJECT BACKGROUND / HISTORY
City Engineer Moberg provided some history of the corridor, discussed alignment alternatives
developed in a previous study, and explained the current status of the project. The project is in
the City's current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and is scheduled for construction in 2014.
2. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS & EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following considerations are being used to develop alignment alternatives for the corridor:
A. Projected traffic volume of 10,400 vehicles per day in 2030
B. Design speed of 45 mph
C. Limit access to 1/ mile spacing
D. Desired right of way width of 120 feet
E. Treat storm water runoff to Elm Creek Watershed and City standards
Alignment alternatives are being evaluated using the following criteria:
A. Route length
B. Amount of right of way required
C. Wetland and floodplain impacts
D. Private property impacts
E. Park property impacts
F. County Road 47 impacts
3. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
Three alternatives were presented to the neighborhood for discussion purposes (figure attached).
For Alternative No. 1, Peony Lane curves northwesterly at 54th Avenue to avoid a large wetland
basin connected to Elm Creek, then curves northeasterly toward existing Lawndale Lane south of
County Road 47, crossing the northwesterly corner of the City park property, then curves
northerly to follow along existing Lawndale Lane. Alternative No. lA is similar to Alternative
No. 1, except that it cuts through more of the City park property. For Alternative No. 2, the
alignment goes further north before curving back toward existing Lawndale Lane and intersects
Lawndale Lane north of County Road 47. The three alternatives were evaluated using the criteria
identified above and the evaluations were done relative to the other alternatives. A summary of
the evaluation of each alignment alternative is as follows:
A. Alternative No. 1
a. Moderate right of way impacts
Page 18
Peony Lane Neighborhood Meeting #1 Minutes
January 13, 2011
Page 2
b. A frontage road is likely to be required along Lawndale Lane
c. Highest wetland impacts / lowest floodplain impacts
d. Highest private property impacts
e. Minimal impact to City park property
f. Intersects County Road 47 at 90 degree angle
B. Alternative No. I
a. Lowest right of way impacts
b. A frontage road is likely to be required along Lawndale Lane
c. Moderate wetland impacts / highest floodplain impacts
d. Lowest private property impacts
e. Highest impact to City park property
f. Intersects County Road 47 at 90 degree angle
C. Alternative No. 2
a. Highest right of way impacts
b. Requires a connecting road for existing properties on Lawndale Lane
c. Lowest wetland impacts / lowest floodplain impacts
d. Highest private property impacts
e. No impact to City park property
f. Intersects County Road 47 at 70 degree angle
4. RESIDENT INPUT & FEEDBACK
After a lively discussion, the residents in attendance indicated they were not in favor of any of
the three alternatives presented and they requested a fourth alternative be considered. The fourth
alternative would generally lie further east of the other three alternatives, would more closely
follow the alignment of the existing Elm Creek Interceptor Sewer, and would cut through more
of the City park property. The neighborhood requested clarification on whether a frontage road
along Lawndale Lane on the north side of County Road 47 would be considered. The
neighborhood requested more information on how the project would be financed and whether
special assessments would be part of project financing. The neighborhood also requested more
information on the City's Master Plan for the Northwest Greenway and how it relates to the
future Peony Lane / Lawndale Lane corridor.
5. NEXT STEPS
City staff will work with its consultant to develop and evaluate a fourth alternative, as requested
by the neighborhood. Once a fourth alternative has been developed and evaluated, another
neighborhood meeting will be scheduled to present the results.
Page 19
Peony Lane Corridor Study
January 13, 2011
Name Address Phone No.
I6 23 QS-/'
f. VO
17
r
7
r
L/J
j
b 7o
Page 20
Peony Lane Corridor Study
January 13, 2011
Name Address Phone No.
eo 61,
pl- c
0 & 14le 1c, c A
1-7 7 Olq 7
gn
t -n
5130
4c
Iz
Page 21
City of Plymouth
Peony Lane / Lawndale Lane Corridor Study
Neighborhood Meeting #2
Meeting Minutes
March 23, 2011
1. PROJECT BACKGROUND / HISTORY
City Engineer Moberg provided some history of the corridor, recapped the discussion from the
first neighborhood meeting held on January 13, 2011, and explained the current status of the
project. The project is in the City's current Capital linprovement Program (CIP) and is scheduled
for construction in 2014.
2. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS & EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following design considerations are being used to develop alignment alternatives for the
corridor:
A. Projected traffic volume of 10,400 vehicles per day in 2030
B. Design speed of 45 mph
C. Limit access to I/ mile spacing
D. Desired right of way width of 120 feet
E. Treat storm water runoff to Elm Creek Watershed and City standards
Alignment alternatives are being evaluated using the following criteria:
A. Route length
B. Amount of right of way required
C. Wetland and floodplain impacts
D. Private property impacts
E. Park property impacts
F. County Road 47 impacts
3. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
Four alternatives were presented to the neighborhood for discussion purposes (figure attached).
The first three alternatives are carryovers from the previous neighborhood meeting and have
been renumbered for clarity. The fourth alternative was added at the request of the neighborhood.
For Alternative No. 1, Peony Lane curves northwesterly at 54th Avenue to avoid a large wetland
basin connected to Elm Creek, then curves northeasterly toward existing Lawndale Lane south of
County Road 47, crossing the northwesterly corner of the City park property, then curves
northerly to follow along existing Lawndale Lane. For Alternative No. 2, the alignment goes
further north before curving back toward existing Lawndale Lane and intersects Lawndale Lane
north of County Road 47. Alternative No. 3 (previously 1A) is similar to Alternative No. 1,
except that it cuts through more of the City park property. Alternative No. 4 lies easterly of the
Page 22
Peony Lane Neighborhood Meeting #2 Minutes
March 23, 2011
Page 2
other alternatives, more closely follows the Elm Creek Interceptor Sewer alignment, and cuts
through a significant portion of the City park property. The four alternatives were evaluated
using the criteria identified above and the evaluations were done relative to the other alternatives.
A summary of the evaluation of each alignment alternative is as follows:
A. Alternative No. 1
a. Moderate right of way impacts
b. A frontage road is likely to be required along Lawndale Lane
c. Moderate wetland impacts / lowest floodplain impacts
d. Highest private property impacts
e. Minimal impact to City park property
f. Intersects County Road 47 at 90 degree angle
B. Alternative No. 2
a. Highest right of way impacts
b. Requires a connecting road for existing properties on Lawndale Lane
c. Lowest wetland impacts / lowest floodplain impacts
d. Highest private property impacts
e. No impact to City park property
f. Intersects County Road 47 at 70 degree angle
C. Alternative No. 3
a. Moderate right of way impacts
b. A frontage road is likely to be required along Lawndale Lane
c. Moderate wetland impacts / moderate floodplain impacts
d. Moderate private property impacts
e. Moderate impacts to City park property
f. Intersects County Road 47 at 90 degree angle
D. Alternative No. 4
a. Lowest right of way impacts
b. A frontage road is likely to be required along Lawndale Lane
c. Highest wetland impacts / highest floodplain impacts
d. Lowest private property impacts
e. Highest impact to City park property
f. Intersects County Road 47 at 90 degree angle
4. NORTHWEST GREENWAY MASTER PLAN
City Engineer Moberg presented an overview of the City's Master Plan for the Northwest
Greenway and identified specific elements proposed in the vicinity of the Peony Lane /
Lawndale Lane corridor.
5. RESIDENT INPUT & FEEDBACK
After much discussion, the residents in attendance expressed a preference for Alternative No. 4.
The neighborhood's second preference is Alternative No. 3. There also was a small amount of
support for Alternative No. 2, because of the smaller amount of wetland and floodplain impacts
Page 23
Peony Lane Neighborhood Meeting #2 Minutes
March 23, 2011
Page 3
associated with it. The neighborhood desires more information on how the project would be
financed and whether special assessments would be part of project financing.
6. NEXT STEPS
City staff will be soliciting input form other project stakeholders (Hennepin County, Met Council
Environmental Services, and various wetland permitting agencies) to determine their issues,
concerns, and preferences. Staff will then present its findings, along with a technical
memorandum prepared by a consultant, to the City Council and will request authorization from
the City Council to initiate the formal environmental review process. At the completion of the
environmental review process, an alignment alternative will be selected and a final design will be
completed.
Page 24
Peony Lane Corridor Survey (C.P. 10015)
Public Information Meeting
Plymouth Creek Center — 6:30 p.m.
March 23, 2011
Name Address Telephone No.
n{,
Gr f
r 577
z C- I • i'1 .. YO f/ (sd Br bl f J r
I'{e t I
yr
i' J .s 13e
4 0 Fe, 7r— 62—j /
zi7 57- 7)
js2
Page 25
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION N0. 2011 -
RECEIVING ENGINEERING PROPOSALS AND DESIGNATING THE CONSULTING ENGINEER
FOR PEONY LANE / LAWNDALE LANE EXTENSION PROJECT
CITY PROJECT N0. 10015
WHEREAS, the Peony Lane / Lawndale Lane Extension project is listed in the 2011-
2015 Capital Improvement Program at an estimated total cost of $7,300,000; and
WHEREAS, a request for proposal was sent to four engineering firms that have expertise
in environmental review, roadway and utility design, and right of way acquisition; and
WHEREAS, two proposals were received and evaluated by city staff, and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that SRF Consulting Group, Inc. be designated as the
consulting engineer for this project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, SRF Consulting Group, Inc. is designated as
the City's consulting engineer for environmental documentation, design engineering, and right of
way acquisition services of the Peony Lane / Lawndale Lane Extension Project, City Project No.
10015 in the amount of $480,550.
FURTHERMORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the funding for this project shall
be from the Municipal State Aid Fund.
Approved this 13th day of December, 2011
Page 26
rp)City of
Plymouth
Adding Quaky to Life
SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING
January 3, 2012
Agenda 2BNumber:
To: Mayor and City Council
Prepared by: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
Item: Set Future Study Sessions
1. ACTION REQUESTED:
The Study Session that was scheduled for February 21 to review the Fire Study needs to be
changed as Fire Chief Kline is unavailable that date. Calendars are attached to assist in
rescheduling this meeting. Also attached are the pending study session items.
Page 1
Pending Study Session Topics
at least 3 Council members have approved the following study items on the list)
Update on Peony Lane
Discuss trails
Discuss Parker's Lake Cemetery
Other requests for study session topics:
Discuss streamlining street lighting rates
Update with City Manager (first quarter 2012)
Update on redistricting (report sent)
Noise Ordinance
Update on Northwest Greenway acquisition (after 5/1/12)
Funding infrastructure improvements in Northwest Plymouth
Page 2
r Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
January 2012
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6:00 PM
7:00 PMNEWYEAR'S DAY SPECIAL COUNCIL PLANNINGObservedMEETING
NEW YEAR'S DAY Discuss Proposals for COMMISSION
Peony Lane/Lawndale MEETING
CITY OFFICES Lane Project Council Chambers
CLOSED Medicine Lake Room
8 9 10 5:30 PM 11 12 13 147:00 PM 7:00 PM
SPECIAL COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL PARK $ REC
MEETING* QUALITY ADVISORY
Medicine Lake Room COMMITTEE COMMISSION
7:00 PM EQC) MEETING PRAC) MEETING
REGULAR COUNCIL Council Chambers Council Chambers
MEETING
Council Chambers
15 16 17 18 19 20 216:00 PM 7:00 PM 5:00 PM
SPECIAL COUNCIL PLANNING SKATE WITH THE
MARTIN LUTHER
MEETING COMMISSION MAYOR
KING JR.
Discuss Council Goals MEETING Parkers Lake
BIRTHDAY
and Legislative
Priorities for 2012
Council Chambers
Observed Medicine Lake Room
CITY OFFICES
CLOSED
22 23 24 5:30 PM 25 26 27 287.00 PM
SPECIAL COUNCIL
PLYMOUTH 7:00 PM
MEETING
ADVISORY HRA MEETING
Discuss Private Utilities
COMMITTEE ON Medicine Lake Room
for Silverthorn
Medicine Lake Room TRANSIT (PACT)
STUDY SESSION
7:00 PM Medicine Lake Room
REGULAR COUNCIL
MEETING
Council Chambers
29 30 31
Receive update from the Citv's prosecutor
Modified on 12130111
Page 3
r Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
February 2012
Modified on 12130111
Page 4
1 2 3 4
7:00 PM 6:00 PM
PLANNING BOARD AND 2:00 PM
COMMISSION COMMISSION FIRE 8 ICE
MEETING RECOGNITION FESTIVAL
Council Chambers EVENT Parkers Lake
Plymouth City Hall
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
7:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM
PRECINCT ENVIRONMENTAL PARK It REC
CAUCUSES QUALITY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE COMMISSION
EQC) MEETING PRAC) MEETING
Council Chambers Council Chambers
12 13 14 15 16 17 187:00 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL PLANNING HUMAN RIGHTS
MEETING COMMISSION COMMITTEE
Council Chambers MEETING MEETING
Council Chambers Medicine Lake Room
19 20 21 2 2 23 7:00 PM 24 256:00 PM 7:00 PM
POLICE DEPT.
SPECIAL COUNCIL PLYMOUTH ANNUAL
PRESIDENTS MEETING ADVISORY RECOGNITION
DAY Discuss Fire Study COMMITTEE ON EVENT
Medicine Lake Room TRANSIT (PACT) Plymouth Creek
MEETING Center
CITY OFFICES Medicine Lake Room
7:00 PM
CLOSED HRA MEETING
Medicine Lake Room
26 27 28 297:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
MEETING
Council Chambers
Modified on 12130111
Page 4
City of
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
March 2012
Modified on 01/01/12
Page 5
1 2 3 9:00 AM -
12:00 PM
CITY SAMPLER
Plymouth City Hall
4 5 6 7 7:30 AM 9 10
STATE OF THE
CITY MEETING
Council Chambers
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
11 12 13 14 15 16 177:00 PM 7:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL
MEETING QUALITY
Council Chambers COMMITTEE (EQC)
MEETING
Council Chambers
Daylight Savings
Time Begins
18 19 20 21 22 23 247:00 PM 5:30-8:00 PM
PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION QUALITY FAIR
MEETING Kimberly Lane
Council Chambers Elementary School
7:00 PM
HRA MEETING
Medicine Lake Room
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
7:00 PM 7:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL PLYMOUTH
MEETING ADVISORY
Council Chambers COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT)
STUDY SESSION
Medicine Lake Room
Modified on 01/01/12
Page 5