Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark and Recreation Advisory Commission Packet 10-14-1987Regular Meeting of the Park and RerrPation Advisory Commission October 14, 1987, 7°30 p.m. Council Conference Room AGENDA 1, Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Visitor Presentations a. Athletic Associations b. Staff c, Others 4. Report on Past Council Action s. Approved Going Out for Bids - Parkers Lake Pavilion 5, Unfin .sheet Business a. Parker4 Lake Pavilion - Review Bids (Del Erickson) 1) Update Phase II Construction b. Neighborhood Parks Update (Amhurst, Rolling Hills, County Road 61) C. 1987 Trail Projects Update d. LionsParkPlay Equipment e, Review Trail and Sidewalk Stay.,dards 6. New Business a. Neighborhood Park Siting - Northwest Selection (Co Rd 9 & 494) b. Petition from District 254 Youth Hockey C, West Medicine Lake Drive Trail Study from Strgar--Roscoe d, Letter from Heritage HOA - County Road 61 Park 7. Coaanission Presentation 8 Staff Communication 9. Advournment Next Meeting Novem,er 12 Minutes of the- Park and Rccri,ation Advisory Commission Meeting SRptember 10, 1987 Page 29 Present, Chair Ed -yards, Commissio)nors Reed and. LaTour, staff Blank, Patterson and. Pederson Absent, Commissioners Bauman,, Rosen,, Anderson and Beach 1, CALL TO ORDER Chair Edwards, began the S'eptembe meeting at 7.35 pm. in the Council Chambers 2, APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes could, not be formally approve -i, because there was not a, quorum, 3. VISITOR PRESEN TATIOIJS Athletic Associations. None were present at this meeting-. b.. Staff. Mary Patterson announced that the Labor bay Softball. Tournament was a big success. It was the largist ever softball tournament held in Minnesota, with approximately 18 teams pa,rtic,patng,- There weren't any major problems;, other th:n a corlpie of complaints about late games on Friday and Monday nights., and a letter of complaint rete ved,from a resident regarding ball players. taking practice at Zachary Elementary school early in the morning, and hftit .ng balls into surrou. ding yards north. of the school Mary in,dic,ated that some of our summer programs hit all time 'highs in attendance, with the Puppet Wagon having the biggest attendance it ever has., Commissioner Reed asked Mary if sht lad; any information yet on beach attendance at Parkers r.akk. She stated that. those figures have not bt*n compiled yet, but her experience was that Parkers had been a very popular place this: past, summer, Commissioner Reed than wondered if we had resolved our computer problems, and Mary answered thAt; we weile just in the pro,,ress of moving our offices downstxir: and along wi?h that, the computers would he hooked up as soon as possible, but until the n programs were installed, the problems would stili be with us for the time tieing; e; REPORT ON PAST COUNCIL ACTION Director BIank had nothing to report on this item L Minutes of the Park and recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Sep tamber10 0 1987 Page at) 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS. a, Parkers Lake.Pevilion - Final Plan. Approval. Del Erickson was pr r Int to show, the f r al plans, for the Parkors Lake Pa'eilion and to discuss the project's total estimated costs. Including all add alternates and deducts, the total estimated cost is $472,000, Based on this e,timate, it was Director Blank's recommendation that PRAC accept the final. plans and go oVI for bids on t,h.e project, Commissioner Reed expressed concern over the high cost, and wondered If PVAC should make decisions; now on what items to out, or to recommend project as is and Tet Council decide what things to eliminate. A.fter several minutes of discussion on items to eLimi,nste, the members present were in agreement to recommend to Council to approve the final plans as presented and go out for bid. Based on the results of those bids, PRAC suggested Council look at making cuts is the following order: lakeside observation deck $1.9,000 small pioiic shelter• _ $16,000 fireplace - S 3,500' one clock S 1,700, large picnic shelter - $29,000 b, Neighborhood Parks. Update Amhurst, Rolling Hills, CO. Rd. 61. Work has bean proceeding on sehedul.e4 with seeding and sodding taking place now. There were a iew problems at the Amhurst site with -rosion following the big rainstorm in. July, but the developer building in th.At area will be contacted about taking care of the Situation 0. 1987 Trail Projects Update, The trail along Zachary Lane to the elementary school has been paved, as well as the trail along Fernbrook from County Road' 9 down to County Road f. The construction crew will be moving to Highway 101 next, d- Lions Park Play Equipment. Pam. Brusek residing at 14535 13th Avenue, addressed PRAC with her c6ncerns regarding, the play equipment for Lions Park, She indicated that she doesn't want the type of Equipment that's at Parkers Lake, because she feels this equipment is for older kids. 1it t d, t f1 t dd`1 u to 10shesmorenenacan "equipmen ar o ers p Year olds. She stated that she's impressed with the equipment at Circle Park and would like to see something like That at Lions. Director Blank indicated to her that he would be happy to meet with the re idents around Lions Park to discuss the equipment they would like to have installed. He has a number ox play equipment catalogs he will share with them, and items can be selected from those cata-logs. arts. Brun:ek wondered if more equipment coui, be ordered it the residents were willing to raise the money for the project. Director Blank answered yes This item will 'be discussed again a.t the October PRAC m#teting, Minutes of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Stptember I0, 19,17 Page 311 6. NEW 'IMINESS a_ New Plats. D;r.ector Blank indicated that there were no new plats that r*qui.rtd PRAG action, but that park dedleation money was continuing to come in at a rapid rate, b. Review Trail and Sidewalk Standards, This item was discussed very briefly and i.t was decided to: review it in further detail at the October a-toti`nq when more members will be present. c Park Vsaq;e Policies --- General Discussion, This item was also: briefly discussed,, and it was decided to table this as %veil_, Director. BlarX did say, however, that we receive many requests from people, to reserve parks for family picnics, etc., and there; has never been an official policy on this, FRAC will discuss this tn'more detail in January, when its time to review the Park !sage Policies and Fee Schedule for 1988, d. Parkers Lake Peace Garden Item. Director Blank presented a planting plan that had, been prepared by a teacher from an area vo-tech school:. The plan was quite elaborate, and based on all the materials called. for, the estimate is $5,000, Because of this expense, FRAC members thought that it might be a good' idea. to find' a group -wil,ling, to donate the planting materials and also donate the time to maintain the garden. Director Blank said he would discuss the idea with, the park maintenance staff and look into 'possible- groups to htip finrnce this project. e. Director Blank announced that the, Minnesota Recreation and Park Association State Conference is coming up, and if any FRAC members are interested' in attending, they should contact Nancy. 7 COMMISSION PRESENTATION There was no presentation by -the oommis_sioners. 8, STAFF COMMUNICATION There was no presentation by staff. i 4. ADJOURNMENT The meeting ended at 9:90 p.m. CITY CSF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD,, PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447' TELEPHONE (612), 559-2800 MEMO DATE: October 9, 1987 70; PRAc FROM; Eric. Blank SUBJECT; PARKERS LAKE PAVILION BIDS Bids will be: opened at 2:00 p.m,, Tuesday, October 13 on the Parkers Lade Pavilion.. Del Erickson will be present at our meeting to discuss the bid results with you. t I np II BID.'TWATION - PARKERPARKERS IME PAVILION / SHELTERS inn t?PENlNG - 2t00 P M - October 13, 198' - Delano Erickson: Architects cam. NO. 8108 Bidder mase Dial Alt. G-1 Add Alt. G-2 Add Alt. G-3 Add Alt. G-4 Add Alt. t-1 Adel Alt. -5 Deduct Alt. G-t Deduct Alt. G-7 Ik duc r: MG As t.letord Umpany Bornsville, MN, r. a OZ15 G l fi. , f ",F F ( r C! l c.. C,:. 10JoeBoyer & Sons Deephaven, rQ1 a t MG Astleford W,H, sates Construction Zlicuteapolis, Tran Faue ` & Associates G.u»ner«kan, MN' Joe Boyer Sons W.il. Cates Construction Lakeland Inc, W111m r, ruv David VOlklikiY' Con$C:. Circle Lines, HW Twp raue Ix Issov is tes Lakeland Inca. Vollmun Constr.J- 1 10",) a CY iE 4" Alt. G-9 Alt. C--10 Alt. G-11 Alt. E-1 Deduct Alt. E-2 Deduct Calender Days Addenda Bid Bond Alt. G-8 Deduct Deduct. Deduct Deduct CompanyMGAstleford Joe Boyer Sons W.il. Cates Construction Twp raue Ix Issov is tes Lakeland Inca. Vollmun Constr.J- 1 David 7 IY' OF PLYMOUTHCT 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD..: PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 5544 TELEPHONE (612) 569-2800 MEMO DATE', October 14, 19$3 TO PRAO FROW Eric dank. SUBJECT* PARKSRS LAKE PAVILION BID TABS Attached for your review is a copy of the bid tabulation on the Parkers Lake Pavilion. The apparent lots bidden is David. Volkman Construction I, Company, with a base bid'. of $412,600. This bid is approximately 20 , over the cost estimate prepared. by Del Erickson for this; project. Mr. Erickson will be in attendance at the meeting in ate ,41fort to review with you some of the information he has, been able to gather as to why these. bids were higher than anticipated. Based on the. information I have available from.: Mr.. Erickson at the: time of writing this staff report, it is my recommendation that the Cit} reject all bids at this time.. Inp Attachment COM. NO. 8708 2,10 TA.t3l1lATION - VARKERS LAKE PAVILION / SHELTERS Do t pkNA ING - 2:00 P.M. -- October Y3, 1987 - Delano Erickson Architects Bidder Base Bid Alt. G-1 Alt. G=2 Alt. G-3 Alt. G-4 Alt. rFl Alt, G-5 Alt.. G-6 Alt. G77 MC Astleford Company Add Add Acid.. Ads Acid: Deduct Deduct Deduct SIC Astlerord Company Joe Boyer & Sons 2,445 724 8,346 6,070 9,150 1,740 210 Burnsville, Mtn 538,089 33,.542 2,025 7,540 15,278 21900 3 250 1,856 Joe: Troyer & Sons Tofu Faue & Associates Deephavc:n, MN 490,469 31,872 5,258 1.29052 25,361 3,356 3,542; 2,018 L 389 David Vollanant:ons tx . 2 , 550 650 10.300 W.H. Cates Construction` 6,500 800 240 1 yes Minneapolis, M a Tai Faue & Associates 2irmerman, MN Lakeland Inc. Willmar, MN David Volkman, Constr. Circle Pines, MN 412,600 33,570 1,000 14,800 18,100 3,100_t 5,600 2,050 1,200 Alt. G t, Deduct G-9 Deduct Alt. G-10 Deduct Alt. G-11 Deduct Alt. E-1, Deduct Alt,, E-2 Deduct Calender Days Addenda Did Bond MC Astleford Company 1,916 845 9,300 2,220 7,965 666 180 1 yes Joe Boyer & Sons 2,445 724 8,346 6,070 9,150 1,740 210 None Vires W.H. Cates, Guns true tion Tofu Faue & Associates Lakeland Inc. David Vollanant:ons tx . 2 , 550 650 10.300 7,900 6,500 800 240 1 yes CITE` CSF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD:, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 DATE: October 8 1987 MEMS T0. PRAC FROM: Eric Blank SUBJECT: LIONS PARK- NEW PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT On Wednesday, October, ?, 1 met. with: Donna Schmidt (1150 Kingsview Lane) and Pam Bruzek (14535 13th, Avenue:) to review the playground equipment for Lions Park. Two weeks earlier I had given the ladies four catalogs from playground manufacturers, so they could have the opportunity to review with the residents of the neighborhood many options for this park. Both Donna a~.d Pam put in. a tremendous amount of time and el. ffort in reviewing the playground. choices with their neighbors. At the conclusion of our meeting; Mrs-.. Bruzek indicated that whatever playground equipment FRAC chooses, the neighbors will be thrilled to have the improvement made, to their park. I have attached .for your review the choices and options that have been, recommended by Mrs. Bruzek and Mrs. Schmidt, As a refresher, the Commission will recall that last mono: I had recommended. the AigToy PR68 Mrs. B,ruzek was concerned that the round logs with the flat tops created. a "V" when. 'they were placed together for the various decking surfaces. She found: this very difficult for her pre-school children: to operate on. She has recommended that we look at the Game Time Durascape equipment as an alternative. The Game Time Durascape structure could come with either a flat wooden deck ora flat metal deck. The commissioners may wish to visit Becker Park in Crystal which, is located on Bass Lake Road and WestBroadway to see firsthand three: pieces of the Durascape playground equipment. From my discussion with these two ladies, it was evident that they have both found; a high desire in the neighborhood for some addition!il emphasis to be placed on pre-school age childreia. They both stressed h .ung backhoe diggers and spzirged animals associated with, the play area. Mrs Schmidt specifically suggested that we buy one piece designed for pre-school age children and a second piece designed for elementary age children. The attached graphics give a number of options whereby this Could be met in the BigToy selections. If the Commission feels that the suggestions presented hereprovidean option which we should proceed with, it would be appropriate to give direction to staff to do specific research and cost analysis on a specific preferred. choice. If the Commission feels, however, that we do not have the. right options available from these choices, it would be appropriate to ask staff to research other available options for consideration.. Spedai Features Designers decks of 4"x 6" pressure -treat have a 1 G -year warranty against decay and Decks also available in 4 "x 6" redwood; wi resistance to decay, Platforms are structured for endurance. F supported, no collars for slippage. no pop Through -bolt system for all components. Huge decks can y a greater variety of play nines, as many as nine activities from orm The most advanced; materials are used in Durascape+ systems— Steeltron I" nylon c steel cables, rotational molded polyethel( panels, stainless steel, galvanized pipe,. Lexan`t material for slide sections, rind of course, the exclusive Durascape alumi- num upright., The Diamond net, the spiral staircase and spiral slides in. stainless steel, or in new Lexan material are all exclusive GameTimi playground components. t 1. MMM DURASCAPE+ Durascape Aluminum UprlghV Specialstructural designfor super strength.. Provides extra security—a child can easily grasp the Durascape upright h Cool to the touch in hottest weather.' Aluminum, will notrust, impervious to inground; 4 decay. Aluminum has been used successfullyfromcoastalareastodeserts. 10-year limited warranty on'R,tprights. providing repair or replacement V damaged by corrosion. r Brilliant Powder Coat paint with hard, tough, mar- resistant finish. z Durascape + (fir trlatic .. C i fTt t E titin F tiring pt <trtcG:0111 y in .,rir1ti:Ttrii£• "Ik,'o tic 1",, Shown with optional platform.) L)urascapeuprights can be easily grasped by children of all ages. NO. 9503 --Single slide, sliding pole, toaster climber, double slide, tube slide, SteeltronN net climber, ladder, panels. NO. 9603. p'aurxi sj xf ?:3' X : platform E13 sqft; NO. 7999 Lower platform option, i `'high. for *9600 0uraxape + r, N0. 9604-2 single slides, sliding pole, 2 ladders. 2 Steeltron_climbing nets. tubi` slide, panels. N0.9604, gr'ou 7d spne ?TX, 21'6'; p13t- form 94 sq. ft: N0. L1f05—Single slide, sliding pole. coaster climber. double slide, Lexan spiral slide. Steeltron net climber. ladder. panels. NO. L960S, ground spxe ?3'x 24. p{3(fOrm 63 $a. ft No. 9W.5 with stainless steel sp rll slide NO. 7999 Lower platform option, lhigh, for #9600 nurasc,1iV Stories t Shown with optional platform.) L)urascapeuprights can be easily grasped by children of all ages. NO. 9503 --Single slide, sliding pole, toaster climber, double slide, tube slide, SteeltronN net climber, ladder, panels. NO. 9603. p'aurxi sj xf ?:3' X : platform E13 sqft; NO. 7999 Lower platform option, i `'high. for *9600 0uraxape + r, N0. 9604-2 single slides, sliding pole, 2 ladders. 2 Steeltron_climbing nets. tubi` slide, panels. N0.9604, gr'ou 7d spne ?TX, 21'6'; p13t- form 94 sq. ft: N0. L1f05—Single slide, sliding pole. coaster climber. double slide, Lexan spiral slide. Steeltron net climber. ladder. panels. NO. L960S, ground spxe ?3'x 24. p{3(fOrm 63 $a. ft No. 9W.5 with stainless steel sp rll slide NO. 7999 Lower platform option, lhigh, for #9600 nurasc,1iV Stories 4 v 2{. s kN Shown with optional platform.) L)urascapeuprights can be easily grasped by children of all ages. NO. 9503 --Single slide, sliding pole, toaster climber, double slide, tube slide, SteeltronN net climber, ladder, panels. NO. 9603. p'aurxi sj xf ?:3' X : platform E13 sqft; NO. 7999 Lower platform option, i `'high. for *9600 0uraxape + r, N0. 9604-2 single slides, sliding pole, 2 ladders. 2 Steeltron_climbing nets. tubi` slide, panels. N0.9604, gr'ou 7d spne ?TX, 21'6'; p13t- form 94 sq. ft: N0. L1f05—Single slide, sliding pole. coaster climber. double slide, Lexan spiral slide. Steeltron net climber. ladder. panels. NO. L960S, ground spxe ?3'x 24. p{3(fOrm 63 $a. ft No. 9W.5 with stainless steel sp rll slide NO. 7999 Lower platform option, lhigh, for #9600 nurasc,1iV Stories i 1 1 o5iy F4 f C, tut .E C Z'k'i n S x 4 DI* t c• 4v.ryc 3/tc ;•,nyi.8.2s5'c ,rc (bid q. SS s L?q19 53 C"- tt ip 3i9, /pct°F LC ' , ;x 7 157ccx-' n i n ff // 9 o1 -7 toC G• t o.SrPr C fnlf yr' a plc .°° - - ` opt D 7 q a 33co4L ib 3&0[ 1 3 1 u r1j F%1o ti t' 7171 7 X30a37 a000 oajaf4. Rj Q30s 0935o a F 356 1 L0cr , 11 q , s' e74% -,c 7)V5 7/3 aft r Add on Ride Play Components RIDES play', port f ram? can be All children1ove these exciting kinetic play componer ts. The assem can be attached totructures ar a custom sup, ordeled to suit your$childrens. age group. I -- /rL "" RPC -42 GLIDERIDE 25Ibs,. Galvanized steel track up to 12 ft. long for mounting on 6 in, x 6 in, beam. Glide roller assembly is machined steel with twin roller bearings c/w grease nipples. This unit is the strongest and finest on the market. \ Hardware only — uprights & Pipe suports not included) R7'C-51 RPC -41 CABLE RIDE a a Standard length 80 ft. Various length available. Using Galv, 3/8 in, aircraft cable, { Pulley casing, RustpiDof 1 /4 in, aluminum plate enclosing 2 self lubricating 4 in, x 3/4 in. wide rollers. Available with "T" bar or trapeze ring handle. Hardware only uprights, Watforms & ramps not / included) /`/ Add onPlay Counters 6,, x 6" q0 CONSTRUC 21 RPC -53 POLY TUBE CONSTRUCTION pU1p1ES : ppOERS RNO IN INC. E pRp P YaRaUND MINH pA A. M lV PNVA 1-MUR PC -55 PC-52 u USTOM WALL GRAPHICS 2" x 6 " CONSTRUCTION RPC -54 DE%ORATIVE CONSTRUCT10i, I, a.o 7QO`IY-o7 7f5 Pe pie fe 7. 53 PK i' 3oB y of a -e k e . 41Ao ate. au,titd , Varo p' ax 4. SE3,-,76'bC)'Tjv c,,rq(,tuvLA Is, 4.a1)l)ro,, , tato for young children to 6 years old vely low kYtn the Ngll(St dei a WO!L- thleO tON al:)ove the (Yound cover Tic play twee'' , while li.m. ited, will ch"IlIcnUO childlen wp to five: to six Yew; old The total play stmt lure cow.'ish; rl tit O 'ISOPeI- rAteparts, lhi<., allows alark i'dkNa, of';exibillly ill atranging ilia unils to fit y01-1 Anottler feature 03 ltl SB 7abc. is thal it it, irAmcitial wiitr Coil- hO all!A I-vl al "o ; t: C(mw-"Ied 1, other Sct-ooiyaic; Biqfo-s e,panidk `hc *cl(i-.- (ailge tot NIMP, StfUCtUrOS Two -,iddiWi *, Ni% e bot iN i'.id, 010 SB ib A play space, u,'out ir it %r% I - i 1L ir ir 1 1 (:H IRO Twilliel 'I Ilewnnc'! Is'it I V! anijip. sr.) it Is rilm of a clavkl 110'If SB -7a SB -7b SB -7c 2 Pal iels S8 PWW X B 7, SE3,-,76'bC)'Tjv c,,rq(,tuvLA Is, 4.a1)l)ro,, , tato for young children to 6 years old vely low kYtn the Ngll(St dei a WO!L- thleO tON al:)ove the (Yound cover Tic play twee'' , while li.m. ited, will ch"IlIcnUO childlen wp to five: to six Yew; old The total play stmt lure cow.'ish; rl tit O 'ISOPeI- rAteparts, lhi<., allows alark i'dkNa, of';exibillly ill atranging ilia unils to fit y01-1 Anottler feature 03 ltl SB 7abc. is thal it it, irAmcitial wiitr Coil- hO all!A I-vl al "o ; t: C(mw-"Ied 1, other Sct-ooiyaic; Biqfo-s e,panidk `hc *cl(i-.- (ailge tot NIMP, StfUCtUrOS Two -,iddiWi *, Ni% e bot iN i'.id, 010 SB ib A play space, u,'out ir it %r% I - i 1L ir ir 1 1 (:H IRO Twilliel 'I Ilewnnc'! Is'it I V! anijip. sr.) it Is rilm of a clavkl 110'If SB -7a SB -7b SB -7c 2 Pal iels U Q. t `. i^r . d wt9zs .` ?a 1\ \ ^ , r }.w. a ,\ b.r:. e'`, V r ...{ `'• t,j , . OF -V L m D s tl is +:GIiJtId PS-V2b Otail k 2s, installed as bne.lar- esttucture or as R%ry r, 0peft goad traffic Pad- ir}atj a " wide variety of activities, my cttirert bC eccommodated at one time. s r S -112b tkG » t Decks,tt Tireswingw 11611 X716/1 Slidechut to ; tls xs r PanellTunnel Craw[ t , BigW eel a.rwt ltrax Cant :. Climbing Tire Tirenet (4) f r Horizontal Lc pS 2n ` y i r , a b} tla tl':.t#} 1 :%i°iti9 1 V ' Y •? t 4 FD Lr This dramatiC, fcCal pa!rft s s ture is a riutti-d+nienslanal rid muffs funOO' cllmbeuThe compact and Condensed ,. N S+ accesses activities, in ever), dlr tion ineludrna tiltF fr Tracktide, Spiraislide Slidechute and Tires+a 1 holdct)mT eXity 4l this trUCtUre will a hthe. Ckuld[ interest and keep thein coming back. 5 Decks 3 Solid LogAfatts s hnlltM dR `"" Tireswin x A 3`X1Q° Slldechute a. Panel r+ inclined Tonnel rt Slid' .pole z 3 Climbing Tires t 2 Tire+-+ts;+i w xw As r S Tirenet 6) 40 M ri r 1 • p s g x i1- "'OVA f far structure. the PR -3-7 has incorporated some favorite activities. Lots of dimUng is available along with a Slidechute. Tireswing and Angled Potynet, Also included is a lower deck, enclosed fer quiet play, G Decks y+ 1 3 Solid Log Walls Tireswing A Tireswing Catwalk 5 l: 31 x 12' Slidechute Panel SSidepole BigWheel 2 Climbing Tires. 9 x 9 Polynet symbol indicates equipment that encourages access h children :with varying degrees of d! -Ability r,-)Coj M-"8"RUCOA 1 ,0 yRi t, . s vr• :'. :aI`L'4 ``x,71. a r a• Y t a y S t '1'.'.1i1 `X ki '[..' ,s. ,. ^ ,. f'Sy+'.,,,,^ ,r" • Z r C s. 4 `.-+.a,. a ., , r. a*. 3• yn".e .ter• . R 4 • - . '. ; ''` Iia m . x yr"f.» '-'c : « r x3 Sys sf y . p x i1- "'OVA f far structure. the PR -3-7 has incorporated some favorite activities. Lots of dimUng is available along with a Slidechute. Tireswing and Angled Potynet, Also included is a lower deck, enclosed fer quiet play, G Decks y+ 1 3 Solid Log Walls Tireswing A Tireswing Catwalk 5 l: 31 x 12' Slidechute Panel SSidepole BigWheel 2 Climbing Tires. 9 x 9 Polynet symbol indicates equipment that encourages access h children :with varying degrees of d! -Ability r,-)Coj M-"8"RUCOA 1 ,0 yRi t, . s vr• :'. :aI`L'4 ``x,71. a r a• Y t a y S t '1'.'.1i1 `X ki '[..' ,s. ,. ^ ,. f'Sy+'.,,,,^ ,r" • Z r C s. 4 `.-+.a,. a ., , r. a*. 3• yn".e .ter• . R 4 • - . '. ; ''` Iia m . x yr"f.» '-'c : « R_, ' s n ..' Y a a,c.a; T S r-AK,!c o x i1- "'OVA f far structure. the PR -3-7 has incorporated some favorite activities. Lots of dimUng is available along with a Slidechute. Tireswing and Angled Potynet, Also included is a lower deck, enclosed fer quiet play, G Decks y+ 1 3 Solid Log Walls Tireswing A Tireswing Catwalk 5l: 31 x 12' Slidechute Panel SSidepole BigWheel 2 Climbing Tires. 9 x 9 Polynet symbol indicates equipment that encourages access h children :with varying degrees of d! -Ability r,-)Coj M-"8"RUCOA 1 ,0 yRi t, . s vr• :'. :aI`L'4 ``x,71. a r a• Y t a y S t '1'.'.1i1 `X ki '[..' ,s. ,. ^ ,. f'Sy+'.,,,,^ ,r" • Z r C s. 4 `.-+.a,. a ., , r. a*. 3• yn".e .ter• . R 4 • - . '. ; ''` Iia m . x yr"f.» '-'c : « 0 - a 1 1- C OINMO PD3 Ify 4:: u F# x Fp) Fm 50* 2 De lks a P 1' The Pfd -50 is a large traversing Exha+ prcw es many activities for awide Solid Log V+llls range of children, For you s a fortngyoungerkids, #hero i k 4m* -1 section for quiet playand hicling4 and an Inclined 14 4 Tunnel. Oder kids are prodded with a Slidectau e and Slidepole, The two sections are connected by a Z K i Balance Logs, a Horizontal Ladder, and raw series of an angledPol>rnet. Able to accommodate manyrty. r r children the PR -50 provides lots of play value 0 - a 1 1- C OINMO PD3 Ify 4:: u 2 De lksx Solid Log V+llls Tireswing 14 3`,:12` Sidechute Z K i 2 Panels Inclined Tufmel r Slid000le Bigi' heel a 9,. 9 Polynet HorizontalLadder 4 Balance Lags Z* 11 I 4 40 0 - a 1 1- C OINMO PD3 Ify 4:: 24The FIR -2 eifers decks at differ sniheichts to accommodate a variety of play h ;grouna xperiences. This.. sculptural coniigura`an includes a%Tireswing, Slidechute, Slidepolex Inclined. Tu f,4 and BigWi}eel. nne Decks 3 Solid Log Wallsk Tlreswing 3' x 1 o, SO echute Inclined Tunnel Slidepole BigWheel x 2 Climbing Tires ROM (o U 0 K• h AL Jig AIMr f S7 Qr h'-- G-Z -i.-t.. ,'f:Jc./ j...r. c :c cu .3.I x:,l'-tr..iL L4, LT 47 aleic'-f` OL j . >. ,,; ..i'../Z.t --ger-L.t-- -lu .1 — r • cc o J I of >v-cu-c.sc: c-l7crt/c.„ ,,c,,lc:o ''4-d-u- '•- CZ.C.• C metro C,..nl ,..,f.•4.,, T ,,.,_,. `%1...0 +:c c .l fi_.t .L. r lut.c c.. —!w ?iu-c._2,G J,,,....+ L .t i-,c•,..,.,..,_,/ h e+ / .0 t 11 G L 4 • •' ., i 11 t . . cit c t ftp. ,^..tom G' f .. <Z.,tch-`.`.._ ? l' to ec ".-P..:a,'.t...+r.•''•'t'' •-'.1L1it.t..Zc/'•.. ! !c%-, .,it -.t- J,.., X F F6s"7 --{"".,1•L F 4 L+t./W L/ /t..'LI. Fk ...'. , rt,.. _..7C.i./t.(_.i K: L/ lJ`.( tf5'.. - lL 1 It j v 38 r P fZ,r 71 6o ih Pt f r -,u c •t a C,a,i i ce , 40 flctAt--t ca Jm ick FGA If Gov' -iclsrep. Sp--v-'e- 60, QOM 5+ru cz' A, 0 o me -7 4 Ll(--)"r-2j I or Z 'Studd le Mat-- ' t o Wing CLO tr?^cz„1 .tc,oa ci . i cn 1pd jc ccc,Lt y t"t+ 2.-( c"td d r fi t ' Ifo `t. / a.r.' K• 7NO C,t icy c Cr t.Q 7`?•! j, ,E1C ClCt-+.. t' f?r t.0 I, -tc t4OG G,t , a'-Fu1." >.•z :.(+, `7.^Yvlt' ,.• i t ( '"rtCc•l-k- + U y fj I CITY CSF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447' TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 DATE., 9 19$7 MEMO TO. FRAC FROM. Eric Blank SUBJECT: TRAIL AND SIDEWnLK STANDARDS This, item: is a carry over from the September 10 agenda. The. City Council referred, the mattez to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission in an effort to, clarify the pre£+,,rred width for sidewalks throughout the City of Plymouth. Attaened for your review and information: are two reports dealing with the issuesof sidewalk standards. The Council has requested that Blair Tremere, City Planning Director, and Fred Moore, Public Works Director, and 1, 'review the City standards and make a recommendation on the standards that the: City should be implementing. The subject has 'been brought forward because of some confusion within different residential areas: and developers using different standards in their neighborhoods for sidewalk width. Mr. Tremere, Mr. Moore, and I have: met to review this on two occasions. It is our recommendation that the City use a standard for sidewalks of five feet in width in a residential area, six feet in width in retail areas, and that trails sh(auld remain eight .feet in width minimum throughout the City. Our basic reasoning for this is that as the volume of walkers increases, on the sidewalk, the width should also increase to meet the peak demands of these areas. The only sidewalk, plan that: the City currently has is that of the: downtown Plymouth area. In this area, the sidewalk calls for six foot wide sidewalks, because of the retail, nature of the downtown business area. In our residential areas, sidewalks are generally installed, at the desire of the developer and in some cases, have been going in at four or five feet. It is our recommendation that a five foot width be used, so that in the future,, if mechanical means of snow removal. is necessary, a motorized vehicle can, more easily work on, the five foot, surface than the; four foot surface.The two attached documents do not give specifics on widths that can be taken as absolutes. I think the overall message is clear that as traffic increases on a sidewalk,, just as a public street,, the width of the, sidewalk should increase. If you add the dimension of snow removal in the northern climates, I believe it is reasonable to assume that a five foot width is: appropriate: np Attachments 11 league of minnesota cities September 16, 1987 Mike Ridley City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd, Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mr. Ridley: This is in response; to your recent request for data on the average width of sidewalks in cities, I am enclosing a copy of a report put together on average widthsinWisconsincities., I searched our files, but didn't come upwithanycomparablelnformati(,A on Minnesota cities, (The onlythingIfoundwasthatJordan's policy calls for a six foot sidewalk; *many ordinances refer to specifications kept on Fileatcityhall. We don't seem to have any of these.) You may also want to contact the American, Public WorksAssociation (13113 East 60th St., Chicago, 60637, (312) 667-2200). The association 1 a number of technical publications and manuals. I a<=lieve that as of 1976 they had apublicationdiscussingsidewalkspecifications (C round areferer,-a in our files) . I hope that this information proves useful Sincerely, Jay squires' Rei arch Assistant SEP 1 a 1 A7 CITY 01` 1 •1i i - 11n1V''P- jrY cvetnue eas".. 5L o,,u1, tnint'`esor-1 1 01 (6'1 2) 227.5SOO Cl'? pTER 1\1 SIDEWALIK STNNDARDS Tables :LTi and ? iT -.re sura :.ries of sidewalk construction de- ta,,ls .for the studied report;i o cities with Table XIV shoWinc the oe_ cenzazre dist-ributio n o2 a! l reported sidewalk standards 'or eacL population group. Required Au: ber of Sidewalks. Of 1S cities reporting, it was fou d ET -Hi 26, or no not rewire sidewalks on both sides of streets in new residential areas. Madison reported that sidewalks were required, on both sides of the street. Table XIV shows an indi- cation that the sra'? ler cities do not, as a rule, make this require - vent. Sixty-six per cc -,.t of the cities that do not require sidewa.l'_:s on both sides of streets in new residential areas make provisions to install sidewalks on petition of owners, which of course usually pro- vides a nonuniform distribution of needed sidewalks. Where there are children, and there usually are in new resiean- tial areas, sidewalks on both sides of the street is a good safety measure. The tentative number of pedestrians per day justifying the con- struction of 2 sidewalks, accordi g to the recommendations of the rmeric n Association of State Highway Officials is 500 when the assumed design speed for the street is from 30 to 50 miles per hour and the number of vehicles using the street ranges from 50 to 100 per hour. The AAS::O also rec,4mmerds that there should be one sidewalk on the street when the as64.aed design speed is from 30 to 50 miles per hour, the number of vehicles using the street ranges from. 50 to 100 per hour, and the number of pedestrians per day equals 150. Sidewalk Width. Elwyn. E. Seelye recommends that sidewalks for zr.i or res= en ia_ streets should, be from 4 to 6 feet in width. (*l) The rational Committee for Traffic Safety recommends a minimum width. of 4 feet for sidewalks on local residential streets with single- family units. (*2) Eighty-six per cent of the reporting cities have a standard sidewalk width of from 4 to 5 feet. The city of Madison has a standard sidewalk width of 5 feet 4 inches, which is wider than the recommended widths. A 5 -foot sidewalk would be more than sufficient in residential areas and would provide a saving in con- structioa cc. ..s. At the accepted standard of 22 inches :per pedes. tri.a Zane, a A. -foot sidewalk would actually suffice in the new single-family unit urban residential subdivisions. k"..Lusi"n, a a ook for Civil Engineers, Vol. 1, Second Edition, ilwyn E. Seolye, 1953, page 3-60. 2) "Building Tr;^ffic Safety into Residential Developments," National Committee for Traffic Safety, 425 N. Michigan Avo. , Chicago, Ill. n. late 5 l:lGjle.'za" :u .c4u4rth1 ar$, (s3) Y11 addition to this recOr=,1e aded v : c'o5s .` r wide t` "• x are. -s, Elwyn L. Seelyc- also recd.,=- e;ds t4at t a sideVM11Z be 6 inches Chic at resic Beat 3 d. ivc-- p shows ' h --t 83,;p o:. Z(e repot' in c`it i S ll S, s ;, ,card sial; ,vm, 14 is less than the reco-ilLm.ended 5 ~ is Ahes,. --nd o :ly 8 cities includi M' "aQ soil reported a. standard L`,ones 01 More?. There were also only 9 cities Which, re?POr ted using' thO 0 -inch thick sidewaallk at residertial, dr iv w-, ys Site\.al? Gods Prue: ion. All cities included in the survey re po: tri.; Ana sioevt ris e+ a All o% concrete. 3) Highway Design and ;;onstruction; Arthur G. Bruce, 1931, page 4) Dosign, Data Look Tor Civil Engineors, Vol. 1, Second Edition, Elwyn E. SoelYo, 1953, page 3-93. 4 -24- 25- 5i.;;alrs 11v".,:;rad Q1 h`.0 ja1L1 GX` 51do talk intr„- ua `t Sides o sn3a d Coystruc- t:- 51ack Nertcsl4nt:y k, ida:::.l:: cct.F. iCs Cor.3tr`.;cta tj cairl sidewalks. Constructior, l. Speciv::-. proved\ildt:t i ^r icl:nas$ t hes oP Concr,ete Assessed Fra\dad Astessed C. v 8n-,%,ts 5t1 Ct 7 lila Ctiq Group Ycs- oov No loka F 1. a Is s No(".") c\4. es Aa 7 b oc fo c,. 1 isov,tl F to Yes Yes: lOtJ. CiL,, iJt o. I to 5 Y' Yes 210 c;t 4 4t'3;) Yes Yes Topeka, 2 artsas Alco CW-1ti0,Ogg u^routw t.to 3.5 Y.^„ No(++:) oz Yes S5r1< 1 hrax. Corpus isti, a Yes 1 4 Y., 5' es Yes Yes Yas Y Luluth, ,?\3;:a.. QCkl 5 5 L 14s Yes, NO 1 Paso, Tax. SZ LI.E, l ;4., No Yes 5 7 aS Yes. r'tsvi Eery, lno i Yos s S SCS Ye5 o X&..15a$ City, ate.. Ao\tl) 4 Yes Y'as YesXnoxvilloTerm. ho(+ol) 5' 4 4 4 Yer. Yes ye, Yas Nobile, ; l .. Oi\ J4c i.ri., iq.'YS S.. NO E1 1'. fr. e0 w_ t Sautn Bend, Ind, Yes 5 4 4 es Yes Yes No Taco=a, Wash.. Yes 5 1S0,gvq-?Oq,gaO Grout+' No(*6) 4 4 Yes Yes es 40- Les-,eines, Iowa Grand liapids, Kich. Yes 5 to 6 4 Yas Yes Yes sw ,tavoit, Coin, Yos 5 4 Yas Y4) Yes you No No cr.. 1950 Popu ation, U.S cens= o3) Except at drivewaas where it is 6%, Nmers rewired, to build sidewalksNotSt .ted,(k4) o r$) wilt by dJvalopa;sl)- nstallad on petition of o.`rmars necui ad on both sides of artbrial 4) Only wiiara there .s a need straatc other w_se one sico o:1y t'1 G: anc-lithic 3" Bttuzinous Conc. 21' 25- 117 RA Q i'A "S Sa'a walks Both Sides Sidol'&Ik o, all St&:.dz d ndar4 Construe- intra- Block Po;;„a;aattitly Si:;” si;d' Wa k Sidew-.Iks tion Block nCo.. . CL..a.,, inproved. i t T.-&c:yess. Co^^tr,-,cted, Special. Sidewalks Spec: --O C tu Strkl'As fr =ret i7 inches o Conc-•:te s5essed Provided Assess d J 1 L O 24;; 10o GroupK badv'sr Jz No(01) 5 4( }. Yes No(+it,,) No Clhipp"'. a taus 10(ill) a. 4 Yes Yes No C}ua, by Yes 6. 5 es hto(*5)' Va,eaSVir; a Ydv 5 t.) Us es Yes No w ar,4ttc es j v ` v es Yeso< arshf elc 5 4 es. Yes No a nwi. No('z2).. 5. 1.(!'3) Y"" 14;x . ho. ` JMC\ens. J:nt or i: 7 4 Yes Yes No Yes Yes X isconsin Rapids 0041) 4 Yes Yes No Applatoa too(.,) 5 4 e s. Yes No B.aoit a 4 les Yes. o tau Claire Yes 5 4 Yes Yes No ond au Lac Yes.z 4x`3 Yes, Yes Na Lb Crosso No(iQ) n 4 It's No(*4) Yas, Igo(-6) Manitowoc or ",•) 5.33 400, as les o Sheoo3 tar' Yas 6 Yes Yes N0 Superior Yes 6 1cs Yes No 4'u'"%tosa les j es Yes No West, .2lis Vas 5 5 its Yes No 50INI)G-.l C 0001 Gtr C:, en Bay Yaps 5 4 lies Yes Yes No fey0sh. ho(! or S L es Yes No Madison, Yes 5 Yes Yeti Yes No Racine Yis 5('$) 4 Yes Yes Yes 1p$0 Population", V. Census owners requited to build sidewalks:: NS - Not, Stated 5) Future plats Fl} - It:stalled or, potition of o"rs 4t6) Built by City 2 - P.i order a_' Cor-mon Cou„e,il Lkcept at driveways where, it is 5” Lxcept at. r: ivmways where i% is 6' a 5 It. on 50 et. str+ats and 6 ft. on 60 ft. streots R No established policy 26— All cities 22 FEi M4TAGE DISTRIBUrION OF MPOhTED S1))).3'0 \1,K Gail S'l`F1Jf;TTON STAPDAms 2 2 hip SID)J1ALK T ." ATIi1,11, WxlMM, THICK1033S MID TYPE 5 3.0 48 Reporting h1on-1.1isconsin Cities Reoorbing 1lascc n:,tinn CitiesCs Q 1r001I JTZ2 01.1 DO -20014 Tota 10-2 i 25-j1YR 0-1:=4 Tot ;L I No idecawlk Re" vire on Both Sides ofStreet Yes: l 12 6 50 2 50 9 37 4 0 G 60 3 75 13 514, 88 0 2 0 15 63 6 60 r ... to l;Q r.. _ r«.,. 1 25Total81001ias4dJ241001010010IM4100 it- 100 Standard 9,idewalk 11idth 4 . 4 50 3 z5 2 50 9 37 1 10 1 10 1,.5 fit. f 1 12. 9 -?5 10 4? 1 10 1 /} 5 rt;. 3 38 z 50 5 7 70 4 too 3 75 1h, 58 N S•33 Vit. 1 10 1 25 2 8 • 6 ft. 2 20 0 5 21 Total a 100 32 100 4 100 21 100 1t7 0 10 3.00 4 J05 21j 100 Standard Sidewalk Thickness 3.5 in. 4 in. 788 1 8+ 8 67 4 100 1 4' 19 791- 8 80 C 80 3 7$ `19 79 4.5 in. 5 in, 1 12 1 8+ 1 .8+ 1 4 2 8+ 2 20 2 20 1 25 S 21 n. Total 8 lo 12 100 4 100 24 10) 10 100 1 Q ] QO 4 1Q 24 1 Sidewalks yes Constructed of Concrete 12 1.00 4 100 Ot IO0 1Q 1C10 10 3.00 1 100 2.1' 1.008100 Total 100 32 100 1+ 1Q0 J 1O0 10 lo tOQ 4 10. 24 100` All cities 22 t'.6 2 2 hip 100 11 2.3 1), 23 19 1,O 5 3.0 48 100 38 79 1 2 7 15 1 2- 148148 100 1+13 10 118 100 110.- 1`xtbC.,l1 of tinee each item repwtrde '^ `- re),ccl,lt of totalnwiber, repor'%, ui G41ch ,;you fRBS* Sidewalks typify the difficulties that,be4et suburban residential develop- ments, Problems of municipal finance, design standards, and public vs. private responsib+lity are ail, involved. Sidewalks -arc an everyday part ofthelivesofyours,. tees, who give the suburban population pyramid its char- acteristic shape a.,d for whom maae.produced subdivisions mainly exist. Though the simplest of structures, the decision an to the need kor a side- walk is based on many variables. Whether to have sidewalks depends pri- marily on population density (in turn a, function of zoning, method of sewagedisposal, and size of lot) and traffic (which is affected by car ownership,. design of streets, and major street systems). Sidewalks and Safety It seems almost axiomatic that sidewalks reduce traffic danger to pedes- trians. ,And yet this belief has been questioned When applied to children., It has been suggested that "as'accidents usually occur when they run intotheroadwayoremergefrombehindparkedcars," perhaps sidewalks do notcontributetotheirsafety. And it has been hinted that sidewalks actuallytendtoencourageplayinginthestreetratherthanin. off-street areasouchasrearyardsoraplayground (See The Community Builders Handbook, Urban Land Institute, 1737 K Street, N.W.) Wcahington, D.C.; 1954, p. 80vbicbcitestheopinionsofawidely -known Luilder. The authors of theHandbookrecommendthatingeneralthereshouldbeasidewalkonatleastonesideofthestrtt. ) Against these opinions are arrayed those of the National. Safety Council. When asked by PLANNING ADVIS01RY SERVICE if any studies had been made to de- tertaine whether sidewalks contribute to safety, the director of the TrafficOperationsDivision, National Safety Council, replied; Copyright, American Society of Planning Officials., 1957, 1 f e. eQIO[•VALYS 1 1; AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANNING OFFICIALS 1 3 1 3 E A S T Oglh ST R E E T -- CtIICA00 37, ILLINOIS t 1 -------------------------------------------------------- I I From-- --- --- -------- ----------- Information deport No. i From the Uhrory of AMERICAN SOCIETY OF $ PLANNING OT FICIALS 1!ebruary 1957 1 Unfortunately there is no good accident information available which would demonstrate the relationship between child safety in areas With sidewalks and without sidewalks. It is the consensus of most safety authorities, however, ,that sidewalks are desir able, in all areas in which there is any appreciable pedestrian traffic. Certainly this would apply in all residential, develop- ments, This viewpoint is further, elaborated in the National Committee for Traffic Safety Is, booklet, BUilding Traffic Safety into Residential Developments National Safety Coutacil, 425 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago tl, al): Traffic safety demands good sidewalks on each side of every res- idential street. Vehicular traffic and pedestrians should, be segregated. It is unsafe;, unreasonable and often disagreeable to pedestrians to be forced to walk on the paved roadway. Parents do, not want children playing in the roadway -- yet if they have roller skates, scooters or other wheeled toys, they will use the roadway unless a smooth sidewalk is available., Mothers with baby carriages and elderly persons should have sidewalks. Nearly three-fifths of the persons killed in traf fic are killed at night, and walking on the roadway is a majornighthazard. In numerous places state or county highway authorities have become so impressed with their need that they are building extensive mileages of highway sidewalks. How In- appropriate it would be for new residential developments not to provide them. There may be places, as in estate -type develop- ments, where a sidewalk only on one side, or even no sidewalks, can, be justified, but this should be a very rare exception. Although; there are no statistical data to support the widely held beliefthatsidewalkscontributetopedestriansafety, there are figures that shoe, conclusively, -- if proof is needed - that it is not safe for children to play, in the streets. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, in Its month1YStatisticalBulletin, reports from time to time on major causes of death among children who are industrial policyholders. About 6,000 deaths occur annually in the United States from accidents amongchildrenatages5-14 years, the leading cause of death in this group.* Motor vehicle mishaps accounted for tvo-fifths of the total accident mortal- ity among these insured children in 1953-1959. Of these, over half were pedestrians, but the proportion varied with age. Among children 5-9years How major a cause death by accident is in this age group is seen whenit ;',a compared with death from other causes., he loss of life from acci- dents among boys 5-14 years was more than four times that from cancer and other malignant neoplasms (the second highest cause), fully seven times thatfromacutepoliomyelitis, and nine times the 1086 from pneumonia and influ- enza eombLned. Among the older elementary school boy© __ those at ages 10- 14 -- accidents took a, greater number of lives than all other causes to- gether. Accidents account for well over a,four;h of (III the deaths amonGgirlsandfaroutrankanyothercause, 2 1 k of age, almcart three.-foUrths, of the victimfi were d t S * r ages 10-14 the pe es r a.,., 4 10-vaas a,, Proportion was only a little over ane -third. On occasion, an extreme condition, dramatizes the relation between sidewalks and safety ofchildren. Kentucky officials of the Veterans Administration will no longerapproveG, I. loans on big projects without side.ualks, according, to theLouisvilleCourier -Journal of June 5, 1955. The last project completedpriortothisrulingcontained520lots. It was approved for V. A. guaran- teed, loans without sidewalks, paved curbs, and gutters. The. V. A, officials observed that the chief problem in big developments with no sidewalks isdangertopedestrians,, especially children. When county school buses, un- load children in such big suburban developments "the children cover the roads as they disperse homeward." It was reported that Montgomery County, Maryland had completed 12 miles ofsidewalksduringthecourseofayear. They were built primarily to serve- public school, districts, according to the Washington Poet and Times HeraldOfMay15, 1955. Mortality from motor vehicle accidents to pedestrians isalsohighamongolderagegroups, according to the figures available to theMetropolitanLifeInsurancecompany. In the period 1953-1955, the averageannualdeathrateper100,000 among white male pedestrians was 24.7 in theagegroup65-74 years, In the next lowest age group -- 30-64 years (whishcovers35instead, of ten years) --it, was only 6.4. The company ebservecthatthesharpriseintherate, for older people is due in considerabledegreetotheirinabilityaspedestrianstocopewithcurrenttrafficcon- ditions. If it is true that juxtaposition p4, '?dren and elderly adults to movingautomobilesisan. undesirable stat fairs at the present time, what ofthefuture? Examination of trends re,:aals nothing that diminishes; the caseforsidewalksinmostresidentialdevelopments. The rising birth rate, the expansion of the population into suburbs, the growing, number of old people, and the increase in car ownership* all combine to make an increasinglyhazardoussituation. If sidewalks are needed in new developments now; it is. hard to aloid the conclusion that they will be needed, even more in the future. Motor vehicle registrations increased 7.2 per cent between 1954 and, 1955 (Department of Commerce). A study made by the Ford Motor Company pre - dicta that by 1960 about 74 per cent of Americem families Will own at least one car as compared with 66. per cent in 1955 (New York Times, June 19, 19SS). According to "The Biggest Car Market Yet" by +Gilbert; Burck, and Sanford, S. Parker, 9 per cent of American families owned two cars in 1956 compared with5percentin1953 (Fortune; November, 1956). The Ford survey showed thatonly2percenthadtwocarsin1941. Persons over 17 years of age per auto. registered was eight in 1920, slightly more than tk o in 1955, and is ex- pected to be somewhat less than two in 1975 ("Urban Areas of the Future" byRobinsonNewcomb; Urban Land, November 1956). Percentages and ratios: should. be modified by a population -increase factor to get an idea of increase inactualnumbers. Projections made for an artjc1.=M, "By 1,976 What City Pattern?* indicate that the number of cars in use will be 80 million in 1:965 and morethan100millionin1976, or roughly double the number in 1956 (Architec- tur_ a1 Fo: September 1956) 3 4 4 2 Sidevalks. as; a Tinction of Density Given the desirability of sidewalks in residential neighborhoods vhere the incidence of people and automobiles is high, can Ve say that sidewalks are. not needed Where the incidence of both is low? And if so, can. we draw a,, line between subdivisions where sidewalks are needed. and those where they are not? And finally, can we develop some kind. of a. measure that bears a reasonable relation to the factual situation? One of the measures of sidewalk traffic is population density. Population density is related, ia, turn, to size of lot and, type of dwelling. Conse- quently, we can hypothesize that where. the average lot size in a single- family residential development has a certain minimum value, sidewalks ere not needed. The problem is to determine this minimum value. Specification" are as, follows: I. Lots are so large that children have no inclination to play in the street. i. Lots are so large and development so spread out that.- d. hat. e. Distances between house and schools, stores, and pub- lic transportation terminals are greet enough to discour age_ walking and all but require travel by auto, b. Frequent visiting back and forth among neighbors is not likely to take, place. A residential development thst fits these criteria is often called an "open," a "residential estate," or a.11country homes" development., khat are the lot dimensions that fit these torms? 0"a. standardis offered by The Community Builders Handbook, which makes theobservationthat ". . . in open developments of large lots of 100 -foot frontage or more, cidevelks may be eliminated without objection." If we assume that lots with 100 -foot frontages have, on the, average, an area of one-third to one-half sere, then density io about two families a groesacre. Does this density jibe with the picture ttk,- aad by the phrase "open development"t Is it true, in experience, that at this density housewives seldom visit back and forth (pushing baby carriages) and that children play only in their own and the next door neighbors' back yards? Another standard. is offered by the Housing and Home Finance Agency in §'Ll&- gested Land Subdivision Regulations (Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Oovernment Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C.; 1952, 45 cents). Tobeginwith, this manual distinguishes three gener&l types of residential developments and sets up corresponding, standards for utility and street im- provements,, a. For, apartment=, row house, and sim ls:r nnilti,family res deny - tial types, improvements to, be in accord with STANDARD A. No matter how large the lot there should be s Bafe place for roller akoting,, tricycli,ng, and kindred activitiec. 4 b. For one-faail detached duell.i,ngs with typical lot witit"tt.s of ft. or less,* improvet en.ts to be in accord with STANDARDi3. c. For country homes with typical lot widths greater t vfoj `"t" abgve, improvements to bein accord with STANDARD C. The manual then specifies the instiRllation of eidevalks;; tlA sill three typesofdevelopments, When about a subdivision, located in an. area designated by five -acre, IQ0 foot frontage minimums under the zoning ordinance? Lots o* tbi6 size seem to fit th6 specifications above. However, subdivisions with lots, ranging from leas than five acres and 300 -foot 'widths downward to one-third of an acre and; 100 -foot widths are open to question. Where the line is to be drawn between sidewalks and no sidewalks should be determined on a local basis after a field survey. Table 1 following, is made up of various: subdivision prov;sions that relate; sidewalk requirements to residential density. Density is expressed in terms of area, frontage '- lot Width, and type of awel,ling. In a few cases, dis- tricts established oy the zoning ordinance are used as a dcnsity reference. In addition to stating whether sidewalks are required at all, these pro- visions also relate sidewalk width and location to residential density. Sidewalks as a Function of Traffic As we have see , the need for sidewalks is related primarily to the number of pedestrians. Need also is related to the amount of vehicular traffic.. Given a constant daily volume of pedestrian traffic in an area that might not require sidewalks by other standards, can we say that there are certain traffic conditions that in themselves justify building sidewalks? Common sense telly us that the answer is affirmative. And the problem again is to determine: the point at vhich traffic volume becomes critical. One attempt has been made by the American Association of State Highway Offs-' cials. Its findings on: this; subject are reproduced in Traffic EngineeringHandbook (Institute of Traffic Engineers, New Haven, Connecticut; SecondEdition, 1950) in a table headed "Tentative Number of .Pedestrians per DayJustifyingSidewalkConstruction." In all examples, design speeds of 30, 40, and 50 miles an hour are assumed. ONE sidewalk, is justified if vehicles number 30 to 100 an hour and if there In another section, the WA manual, observed that lot size should con- form with zoning ordinance standards, biat thet In the absence of a zoningordinance "generally accepted. minimums are a width not legs than; 60 feet and an area not lees than 6,000 square .feet" where served by public sever.. Lots must, be large enough to acconzt date a septic tank and les,ching field inareasnotservedbypublic $ever. TABLE 1 SIDEWALKS RELATED To RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Type of area Sidewalk requirements Association of Washington Cities Regulating Subdivisions, Informa- tional. Bulletin, No. 167, 1954). Areas proposed for SINGLE DWELLING 4 -foot sidewalks. 1 N IT homes Proposed APARTMENT HOUSES$ ROW HQVS- 8 -Soot sidewalks ING, GARDEN: APARTMENTS. Proposed COI+MRCIAL, :SHOPPING and 12 --foot sidewalks'. RETAIL LAND USES. Fairfax County, Virginia (1956) Subdivisions in which; land use con- 4 -Soot sidewalks "on both sides forms to SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (17,000 of mayor thorougnfares and one sq. ft.) or greater density, side of local, tboroughfares." Within a,subdivision block where a 4 -foot sidewalk "on one side of PUBLIC SCHOOL OR SCHOOL SITE is lo- all streets." cated and further, within the dis- tance of one, block in any direttion from such block wherein a, public school or school site is located." Greenwich. Connecticut (1954) Large -lot RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDEN- No sidewalks required'. TIAL AGRICULTURAL ZONES (12,000 sq. ft. to 4 acres), R-6 and R-7 ZONES (6,000 and 7,000 4 -foot sidewalks on at least one sq. ft_, respectively)i side of streets. R -MF MULTI -FAMILY ZONES. 4 -foot sidewalks on both sides of streets. BUSINESS ZONES, 10 -foot sidewalks on both sides of streets. I 6 Table 1 - continued Type of area. Howard County, Indiana (1956) Where there is proposed, an average of 3 or more lots Per gross acre. Midland, Michigan (1350) Lots 60 feet wide or less. Where necessary; Ar. the opinion of the Planning coMmission, to safe- guard the safety of pedestrians, Ir respective of the width of lots. Montgomery County, Ohio (IC Lot frontage greater than 80 ft. and where essential to pedestrian movement and safety. Lots have either a width of less than 80 ft. at building line or area is less than 15,000 sq, ft. Parsippany -Troy Hills, New Jersey (1950) LARGE LOT (40)000 sq- ft. and greater; frontage 200 ft. and. greater). mium LOT (15)000-40,000 sq. ft.; frontages 100-200 ft.). SMALL WT (less than 15,000 sq. ft.; frontages less than 100 St.) Passaic County, New JerP_X (1954) OPEN DEVELUPMEhvr (100 ft.. x 200 ft.; maXimum density, 2 families per acre). ONE -FAMILY (60 ft. x 120 ft.; mnximum density, 6 families per acre). 7 Sidewalk requirements 4 -foot sidewalks on each side of a street. Sidewalks on 'both sides of every street. Sidewalks on one or both sides of streets. Planning commission may require sidewalks. 4 -foot sidewalks on both sides of a street. No sidewalks required. Adequate graded shoulders for pedestrian traffic on each side of pavement." 4 -foot sidewalks on both sides of street. No sidewalks required. 4 -foot sidewalks. Table l continued Type of area MULTI -FAMILY AND Dow (maximum density25familiesperacre). BUSINESS. wwshtenav County, Michigan (1953) ACREAGE (5 acres; lot width 300 ft.; persons per acre -- 0.6*). LAROF aWRW (1 acre; lot width 150 ft.; persons per acre -- 3.6). SMALL SUBURBAN (i acre; lot vtdth 100 ft.; persons per acre -. 3.6). WATERFRONT RESORT (1/3 acre; lot width 75 ft.). LARGE SINGLE-FAMILY (1/4 acre; lot width 75 ft.; persons per acre -- 9.5). MDDLRATE 3INM3 34PAM ILY (1/5 acre; lot width 65 ft.; person• per acre -- 11,2). SMALL SINGLE-FAMILY (1/6 acre; lot width60ft.; persons ger acre -- 13.3). MINI7W SINGLE-FAKILY (1/7 acres• lotwidth55ft.; persons per acre -- 16). MULTI -FAMILY, ROW, AP/1KrHMS. Sidevalk: requirements 5 -foot sidevelks. 12 -foot sidewalks. Sidevalke not required. Sidewalks not required. Sidewalks not required. Sidewslke not required. Sidevalks not required. Sidevalk one side of street; 4 -foot minimum, prex7er 5 ft. Sidevalks both sides oS street. Sidevalke both sides of street. Sidevalks both sides of street. Persons per Zcre ik siap!ified here, beiag an averdesirablepersonsperacre" and "net possible people peracref fie Erose given in the source. gores as 91 are 150 pedestrians n day; or rrorc than 100 vehicles an hour and only 100pedestriansaday. TWO sidewalks are justified if vehicles number 50 to100anhourand500pedestriansaday. A footnote reads,, "Smaller pedea- trian traffic dencities may Justify two sidewalks to avoid a considerableamountofpedestriancrosstraffic." Whether any of these conditions refer to residential neighborhoods Is notindicated. Assuming, however, that; the design speed of 30 m. p., h. appliestolocalresidentialstreets,* is it possible to translate these figuresintotermsofresidentialdensity? It is pointed out in Building Traffic Safety Into Residential Developmentsthatsubdivisionvehiculartrafficwillconsistof: 1. Vehicles driven by the residents, 2. Service vehicles. 3. Visitors' vehicles and casual traffic. One automobile for each single-family unit can reasonably be assumed. (Thebreetngpointbetweenoneandmorethat; one car per family occurs "wheredensityoflandoccupancyislessthantenpersonsperacre, walking dis- tance from established transit service is over one-fourth mile and familyincomelevelisaboveaverage " Ibid.) As a rule -of -thumb, but forpurposesofcalculatingstreetcapacity, this same source observes that ordinarily not over 40 vehicles per 100 family units will move during thepeakhours." This figure brings us in the neighborhood of the first setoftrafficvolumeconditions, which justify ONE sidewalk. though compari- sons between average and peak vehicular traffic; are not, strictly speaking, comparable. The required pedestrian count is easier to approximate, if "pedestrian" isgiventhefleetingmeaningordinarilyascribedtothisterm. A boy on etricycleplayingonthesidewalkforonehourshouldnotbecountedasonepedestrianbutprobablyasthreeordour, or maybe more. In this connection, some references to Traffic Engineering Handbook are ofintere;9t. Average walking speeds, according to the Handbook, have beenroundtovaryfrom3.5 to 4.5 feet a second, depending on teiaperature, typeofcrowd, density of sidewalk use, and, other factors. A "pedestrian" asdefinedforpurposesofaccidentclassificationis "any person afoot." Butthisisinterpretedtoinclude "any 'person riding in or upon a devise movedordesignedformovementbyhumanpowerortheforceofgravityexceptbicycles, including stilts, skates, skis, sleds, toy wagons, scooters, scooter -bikes (having wheels less than 24 inches in diameter), tricycles, baby carriages, etc., while upon or adjacent to the highway." Twenty-five miles an hour is more commonly observed and is the speedrecommendedintheUniformVehicleCoue. 5 Our hypothetical boy on a tricycle, if he Slays in the street for an hourbecausethereisnootherhard,, level surface, exposes himself to accident by many more times the exposure of the adult pedestrian traversing the sameepathonceortwicewithinthathour. On this basis alone, it should not be hard to count more than 150 pedestrians a day in a typical residential neighborhood. Another approach to the relating of sidewalk; need to traffic is foundin local subdivision regulations that specify sidewalks by reference to type of street. Examples are shown in Table Z. Provisions of this kind often are found in tables that indicate minimum improvement standards for streets of different types, sidewalks being one type of street improvement. Though it is possible to derive a measure of sidewalk need from volume oftraffic, this variable is seldom sufficient in itself. On the other hand, we do know that residential subdivisions of given densities can be expected to generate pedestrians and traffic in volumes sufficient to require the in- stallation of sidewalks for purposes of safety. De etgn. Standards Construction. For residential developments, concrete sidewalks four inches thick are almost always recommended and specified. The standard manual on sidewalk construction is Sidewalks and Curbs, being Part C'of Standard Specifications for Rablic Works Construction (published. by the American Public Works: Association, 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago 37; 1)• Width of Sidewalk. The Widely accepted minimum width is four feet in low- density neighborhoods. This is based on_a foot traffic lane of two feet. If one foot, eight inches is taken as a standard dimension of an adult male, measured from elbow to elbow with arms folded,* then, a lane base of two feet seems adequate. However, the character of sidewalk traffic anticipated in a new development should be considered in determining, whether four feet is sufficient. If a sidewalk is to be used mainly by persons wheeling baby carriages and, small children riding wheeled toys, then four feet is hardly adequate: In residential neighborhoods of higher densities, sidewalks should be cor- respondingly wider. Two of the subdivision regulations listed in Table l require a width of five feet in multi -family developments. Here again, the validity of this Width should be tested against the requirements of sidewalkusers. In business districts, Widths may vary from, ten to 30 feet or more, accord- ing to Municipal Public Works Administration, (published by The Interna- tional city Managers' Association, 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago 37; 1050). See Time Saver Standards, F. W. Dodge Corp., 119 West 40th Street, New York; 1954, $12.50. 10 TABLE 2 SIDEWALKS RELATED TO TYPE OF smor Type of street Sidewalk requirements Modesto, California (1952) Along all mayor thoroughfares --. 90 ft. right-of-vay. Sidewalks required. Along the frontage of all business properties. 3ldevelks required. Other locations where deemed neces- sary by planning commission. Sidewalks required. Oklahoma County, Oklahoma (1952) Officially designated mayor streets and highways. Sidewalks may be required. Any minor street where deemed essen- Sidewalks may betialforpublicsafetybytheplan_ required. Ding commission. San Antonio . Texas (1953) New streets and existing unpaved streets locate 1 within the subdi- vision and extending the length of one ,or more blocks. Minor streets -h So ft. R.O.W. Optional-* Collector residential streets-- 60 !t. a.0.i,1. Concrete sidewalks required ft. x 4 inches P.C.c.). Collector co , orcial streets; -- Same. 70 ft. R.o.w. Arterial streets -- 5E ft, R.O.W. 4 ft. x 3 -inch concrete sidewalk ahsttingconstructedinsubstitutionforstandard the concrete curb may be sidewalkssuchconstructionmeetswiththeapprovalof in minor streets when the director of public works. 11 Location and. Placement of Sidewalks. Whether sidewalks are located on onesideorbothsidesofastreetdependsondensityofdevelopment, as we haveseen. However, if a sidewalk is located on dust one side of a street, thepresumptionmustbethatitwillbeusedbyadultpedestriansonly. If itsfunctionistoservealsoasawayforvehiclebpropelledbysmallchildrenand. for baby carriages, then location on one side only is unreasonable. The question of sidewalk placement (Nith respect treet and propertylines) is closely connected with the somewhacontroversial question of curbtype. Rolled curbs are enthusiastically endorsed by builders. If rolled curbs areused, a savings of 20 par cent over cost of installing straight curbs andgutterscanberealizedbecausetheyareeasiertolayandrequirelessforming. Steel templates can be used, and only front and beck forms areneeded. U86 of the rolled curb also eliminates the need for drivevay cuts, curbs, and aprons, thus further reducing costs. Handbook, pp. AO -83 for discussion_of tlizthat cost-cutting Community Builders Pp. 32-33 of the Home Builders Manual for Land Develo , revan & edition, ., 1950,: published by the Fational Association of Home: Builders of the U. 'S'., 1625 L Street, N. W., {eebington 6, D. C.). Types of curbs and their relation to sidewalks was one of the points consid- ered by the special Committee that prepared Building Traffic Safety intoResidentialDevelopments. pros and cons of each type of curb were consideredandthefollowingrecommendationsmode; In developed areas curbs are usually necessary to control storm - water runoff, and in most localities a curb height of about sixinchesisrequired. Either a straight curb or a roll -type curbhasbeenused. The roll curb and economy, as for example is obviating the have some advantages in and. curb returns at driveways. necessity for curb cyte i curb is usedresidentialstreetsitisrecommendedthatlthecombinationncurbandgutterbetwofeetwide, and that it be rolled on a 17 -inchradius. The principal advantage of the straight curb is that by its use, driving and parking areas are defined more effectively than byanyothertypecurb. It constitutes more of a barrier to a ve- hicle out of control than a rounded roll curb. Children arelesslikelytoridewheeledvehiclesintoroadwayshavingstraightcurbsofrecommended6 -inch height. Straight curbs are recom- mended at all intersections, whether or not they are used else- where. The general consensus among those contributing .cc) this report wasagainsttheplacementofthesidewalknexttothecurb, but therewasnotcompleteagreement. It vas generally agreed, however, that the sidewalk should never be placed adJocent to any curb on 12 L a feeder street.' In other words, the sidewalk should not be placed next to the curb an)vbere:except on a local residential strt ith teswDight curb -- and even this had no strong supportfromthetrafficstandpoint. Even if straight curbs are urid, there are overriding disadvantages to placIngthesidewalknexttothecurb. This has been convincingly outlined inanarticle; by L. K. White, City Engineer, Wichita, in the February 1949 is- sue of The American City titled "Where Should Sidewalks Be Placed?" For years It has been the practice in this city to build the sidewalk on line and grade where driveways are constructed to the property line, so that future sidewalk construction connects existing walks at the driveways. A sidewalk can be built adjacent to the curb, but there are ob- jections. 1. There will be a step at each driveway location, and in wet and snowy weather this part of the walk will be in water and snow. This step will be a hazard, particularly at night, because it will not be lighted as the steps are at the street corners. 2. A walk adjacent. to the curb is also a hazard to children riding "wheel goods," such as roller skates, tricycles, ecootera, and wagons. Driveways also present a hazard and limit the use of the walk for this purpose to the distance between driveways. 3. Walks have a slope of 1 -inch per foot fur drainage; driveways have a slope of 1 -inch per foot and sometimes more Which is uncomfortable" to walk on and dangerous when wet or icy. 4. A walk adjacent to the curb should be 6 inches thick, as it will be subject to vehicular travel, with an increase of SOp n cost compared with the cost of a 4 -inch Valk, which is used at the property line. S. Melting snow will be _splashed onto a walk, next to the curb by vehicles at night, will freeze, and inthe morning, just when the children are going to school, it will be covered with a frozen mixture of snow, dirt and ice. City ordinance requires the property owner to keep ,his walk clean of snow and all forms - of dirt and debris.: 'We doubt if the ordinance could be enforced if daily cleaning were necessary. 6. The detail at street crossing is very hazardous because the pedestrian must choose between crossing the street at the widest part of the intersection or make a detour back to the propertylineandback, which we doubt would be done. For crosongs havingavalleygutter (anal nearly all do in this area), the walk linewouldbeinwater. For stop streets, the walk line would. be 15 or 20 feet in front of stop signs. 13 M 0 0 7.; A lawsuit involving a pedestrian accident at either a dive way or a street crossing would be difficult to defend by the citylegaldepartmentonthegroundsthatinthiscityitisnotthe usual and customary construction. The owner of the "unusual" driveway could also be; brought into the lawsuit 8. For ;years the vire companies have placed their poles next to the curb, and if a change in policy requires moving the poles, we believe that they could Justifiably ask to be paid for the cost of the vor.k. Street -light poles must remain next to the curb in order to keep the fixture in the street and would be an obstruction. In fact, poles cannot be moved back of a curb walk because of the trees. Recommendations of Building Traffic Safety into Residential Developments re- garding sidevalk placement are as follovs_: Most technicians favored the recommendation that sidewalks be set back from the curb at least 3 feet, and if trees were planted in the strip the set -back should be at least 7 feet. Advantages of setting the sidewalk back from the curb 3 feet or more include 1) There is space to ;dile snow removed from the roadway or side- walk; (Z) Pedestrians are not as likely to be "splashed" by passingcars; (3) There is a "safer" distance between the moving vehicleandthepedestrian; (4) Children are less likely to ride wheeled toys into the roadway over an "insulation" strip; (5.) There is space for placing fire hydrants, utility poles and street signs outside of the sidewalk area. One further recommendation remains and that is vhether the set -back shouldbetheminimumofthreefeetorwidertoaccommodatetrees. Since the question, of street tree* placement was discussed in PLANNING ADVISORY SERVICEInformationReportNo. 86 (Land Development Ordinances: Grading; Curb CutsandDriveways; Street Trees, May 1956T,the reader is referred to this reportfordet%ils In brief, the arguments against placing trees in planting strips are thattheymbarcauseblindintersections, obstruct the vision of both driver andchildren (vho are apt to dash into the etreet when cars are passing), screenstreetlights, damage underground utilities, obstruct overhead utilitylines, and cause difficutly in street widening. The new trend is to encour- age or require that all trees and shrubs. be planted on the far side of thesidewalk, away from the curb. Depending on width of right-of-way, this will mean a/ther that trees vill still be located on public property or withintheprivatepropertyline. FINANCING SIDEWALKCONSTRUCTION Sidewalks are in the class of public improvements kncvn as local improve- ments. A local improvement is made in a particular locality, and it results directly in an enhancement of value to the property in that limited area. It also confers a type of benefit upon the area that is not enjoyed by all. who are under' a taxing ,jurisdiction. 15 In a-,cordance with the theory of special benefit, sidewalks, generally speer.- ing, are not eligible for general revenue financing.* If Sidewalks are: installed at the time of land development, the cost ispassedontothebuyerinthepurcha together, as the case may be. Be price of the lot, or the i:ouse and lot If the Y are put in after land development, housr_holders still pay for the sidewalk improvement, usually by specialassessment. Sidewalk Financing in New Residential Developments By far the most common practice In row subdivisions is installation and pay- ment by the developer in accordance with local ordinance. Usually he is re- quired to finish construction of sidewalks (and other improvements as speci- fied) prior to final plat approval or to post a performance bond in lieuthereof. diffeen of the prevalence this practice has been gathered in severaldifferentsurveys, Most recent and comprehensive is that reported in theUrbanLandInstitute's Technical BulletinNo. 27, Utilities and FacilitiesforNewResidential_ Development (1737 Y. 8tr eet N. W., Wa •hington 6, D. C.; 1955, $3). For this survey of municipal policy on subdivisions' question- naives were sent to 140 of the 237 cities with populations of 50,000 andover. Of the 114 cities replying, 75 (or 74 per cent) reported that the de- veloper pays the entire cost of sidewalks. Sixty seven of the 174countieswerealsoqueried. In 31 out of the 43 replying, the developerisrequiredtopaytheentirecostofbuildingsidewalks. Fifty-one out of the 97 cities, counties, and townships whose subdivisionregulationswereinspectedforPLANNIn- ADVISORY SERVICE Information ReportNo. 38, Installation of Physical impravements a8 Required in SubdivisionRe&u.lations** May, 1952) require or may require sidewalks. In the past, cities in the United States approved plats on hundreds of acresOfunimprovedlandandacceptedthefinancialobligationofputtinginstreets, sidewalks, severs, and other facilities. The disastrous results ofthispolicyarewellknown. It is largely because of the widespread lossesincurredbycitygovernmentsduringthedepressionandthecreationofvast Statutes vary, however. In the State of Washington, for Instance, amunicipalitymaypayforsidewalkconstructionoutofitsgeneralrevenue, inaccordancewitha1949act. In addition, Washington cities may use two othermethodsinfinancingsidewalkimprovements; the municipality may require theowneroftheabuttingpropertytoconstructtheimprovementathisowncostorexpeDae;,or it may do the work but assess all or any portion of the coste,94inst the owner of abutting property. e Companion reports are No. 48, Performance Bonds for the InstallationoPPhXiicalImprovements (March 1953); and No. 58, Fox ms Tar PerBoformancends (January 1454). - 1S areas of "dead" land that so many cities and a growing number of countiesnowrequirethatimprovementsbeinstalledbeforeplatsareapprovedaristreetsdedicated. Special, assessment financing of improvements in new subdivisions has not dis- appeared entirely, but it is no longer in favor for this purpose. Competentobservershavepointedoutthatwhenalocalgovernmentemploysspecial assessment financing to build improvements in new subdivisions it is actuallytakingaflyer" in the real estate business. (For further discussion seeTheecielAssessmentTodaywithDQphaeisontheMichiganExperience, byWilliam0. Winter; Michigan Governmental Studies No. 26, University ofMichigan. Press, Ann Arbor; 1952. $2.) Special assessment financing of sidewalks in new subdivisions compares un- favorably with builder -installed sidewalks in several respects. If slde- walks are built on a mass production basis at the same time as streets, curbs, and gutters, considerable economies in material, equipment, and laborcanberealized.A large economy is effected in the cost of pouring con- crete. Grading for all three types of structures can be done at the sa--etime. However, it is important to time the building of walks so that theyarenotbrokenbyheavyeguipmentrolledontothelotduringhousecon- struction. In the matter of finance, the concentrated handling of all documents by oneconsolidatedoutfitislessexpensivethanthefinancingofseveralopera- tions by different offices. On the other hand, when heavy equipment is brought into an area where housesarealreadyoccupieditbecomesasomewhathazardousoperation. If themunicipalityisinvolvedinthecontract -- as it is more often than notitisopentoincreasedchanceofpublicliabilitysuit. And finally, when a person buys a house and lot not fully served with localpublicimprovements -_ streets, sidewalks, and sewers he may buying aPiginthepoke. 71%- e ancient rule of caveat emptor still holds in thecourts, but lccal governments are now more likelythan previously to try toprotecttheunwary, as well as serve their own corporate interests. If thestreetsandsidewalksareyettobebuilt, the pro rata costs charged forinstallingthemmayincreasetheannualpaymentsonthebuyer's propertyenoughtoworkahardship1.1 his budget. And in tir..e, delinquent assessmentpaymentswillclowdtitles. Neither of these possibilities is necessarilyapparentatthetimeofpurchase. Though mass produced subdivisions are the predominant form of residentialdevelopmentatthepresenttime, individual house construction is stilltakingplaceonplatedlandinrelativelyundevelopedareas. Where thereareundevelopedpropertiesbetweenhouses, it is neither practical nordesirabletorequiretheindividualownertoputinhieownsidewalk. Ifsidewalksareneededinareasofthistype, they will probably have to befinancedbythemethodsusedinolder, sidewalk -deficient neighborhoods. In Sidewalk Financing In Established Weighborbooda Iu built-up neighborhoods, that need sidewalks, the moot cormyon method of financing is by special, assessment. The extent of this practice is shown in. the 1953 edition of The Municipal Yearbook (which reports the ,latest figuresavailable), published by The International City Managers' Association, 1313East60thStreet, Chicago 37, from which the following table is extracted. Population gromp No. cities No. cities reporting using special assessments for sidewalks Over 500,000 . . . . 13 9 250,000 to 500,000 15 14 100,000 to 250,000 . 36 30 50,000 to 100,000. . . . 77 60 25,000 to 50,000 . . . 156 122 10,000 to 251000 . . . . 415 292 All cities over 10,00,0 . 712 527 The cities surveyed by ICMA used four principal methods of financing specialassessmentprojects. (In addition to sidewalks, severs, water lines, new street paving, repaving streets, curbs and gutters, off-street parking, and street lighting were financed by these methods.) The predominance of special assessment bond financing is shown in the following breakdown, also takenfromTheMunicipalYearbook, 1953; Special assessment bonds 450 Bonds guaranteed by full faith 299 and credit of city government Bonds secured by liens against 151 the benefited properties Advance payments, from property 143 ovnere for all or part of the cost Temporary loans from various 220 city funds (usually revolving fund) with property owners repaying city over a relatively short period of time Special certificates or property 93liensissuedtocontractorwho In turn sells them to a local bank. 1.1 n There are several methods 0" floating special assessment papers, In Texascities, special assessment certificates are marketed by the contractor at ahighrateofinterestaround6percent. These certificatesdiscounted,care heavilyandinordertosecurehisInvestmentthecontractormustboast. his contract price, which also increases the building cost. In Illinois, general assessment bonds art sold. These areuytheOpecial, assessments actually collected. Guaranteed only 6 per cent about twice as much as general. Obligation tbonds. unretesrHereralso to the bonds may be discounted as high as 30 per cent, with a compensating in- crease in contractor's bid. The third method,, sometimes known as the special general obligation bond, isusedinMichiganandWisco:isin. In this type) the city appropriates enoughYm4etthedebtservicecostincageofdeficiency. These bonds sellataslightlyhigherrate. than general obligation bonds. However, sincetheyarebackedbythefaithandcreditofthecity, they reflect the creditratingofthecityandarenot. discounted., DF,spite its disadvantages, the special assessment in the best method o" financing sidewalks once the opportunity has passed for initial installationalongwithstreetpaving. Readers considering its use are referred to theexcellentMichiganstudymentionedabove with Emphasis on the. Michigan Experience. The Special Assessment Today Procedure and forme used in the various methods of financing sidewalks aredescribedinSidevalkImprovements, Informational Bulletin No. 126, publishedbythe. Aeaoclation of Washington Cities in cooperation with the BureauofGovernmentalResearchandServices, University of Washington, Seattle 5, 1950- It is a useful manual even though limited to the statutory procedurespermittedinonestate. CONCLUSIONS Sidewalks, like babies and cars, are here to stay. In mass produced sub- divisions -- the dominant form of city -building -- they arc in adjunct of amodeoflife. The trends that make sidewalks desirable or necessary nowehovnosignsofdecliningin. the future. Consequently, city and urbancountygovernmentscanexpectforsometimetohavetocopewiththeprob- lean of seeing that sidewalks are installed. Past experience has shown the inadvisability of relying on the special as- sessment to finance new local improvements, On the other hand, experiencewithlawsthatrequiredeveloperstobuildsi,devalka prior to plat approvalshows, by three prapastic tests, that they are successful: (1) sidewalksareinplaceWhenfamiliesmovein; (2) cost and risk to, local government. Is at a minimum; (3) iump sum payment .in purchase price of house is moresatisfactoryforownerthantaxesaddedlater. However, the special assessment is Gtilal a reliable method of financingsidewalksinbuilt-up areas that lack stdevalks but need them. 18 In a. period of rising capital, improvement expenditures, municipal, and urban, county government6 will be, well edvised to examine their current sidewalk policies and programs to see if they ars. designed to meet present and futuredemandsfornevaidevalks r a CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (812) 559-2800 DATE,, October 8, 1987 MEMO TO FRAC FROM; Eric Blank ` SUBJECT: CO10 JNITY CENTER PETITION - DISTRICT 284 YOUTH HOCKEY Attached for your review is part of a copy of a petition from the District 284 Youth,Rockey Association. The petition requests the City to proceed with the study and development of a bond referendum for a community center which would include an. ice skating facility. The City Council has received the petition and has forwarded it to the Park. and Recreation Advisory Commission for further review. The City is currently in the de-elopment stages of a telephone survey which will be conducted by decision Resources, Inc. This is part of an on-going. series of community attitude surveys that have been conducted by an outside consultant every other year for the last five or six years. A series of questions dealing with the community's attitude toward the desire to have a community center and their willingness to pay for a community center are being incorporated into this survey instrument. I would suggest that FRAC wait until, they have the availability ofthis information before you proceed With any study on this subject. This information will be, available before, the end of the year. np Actachment PETIT10N We, the residents of the City of Plymouth, KNI, respectfully request that the. Plymouth City Council and the Park &; Recreation Advisory Council review and study the feasibility of constructing a Community Recreation Center which could include a year—round ice skating facility for hockey figure skating and recreational, use, to be presented as soon as possible in the form of a Referendum to the: voters of the City of Plymouth. t,R lt tlt k;t#ttk*t!*Ott;akk k**lRpt;*t*lit lk kit R1!*itt*l t#,ktl 4 ikittl lti t itl.t Fa NAME ADDRESS ZIP CODE I r y S t 2. a ,tom _. 1..'' ...`_.., ,. !i. v `•,. . ,,, 5. 6. 7. V 10. G4 V 12. C ` r; 173 `s " t " ,` , . '> -r. 7` Y 13. f 7 ,fit` fate t' i+ ; ) J/ ihry! +. 14. c 16. t w \: 17 18. 19 P 1 ' a ir' _...-s Oa 4 A-,,4 t c --K L'/ 41 2-- 24.' PETliaq\ We, the residents of the City of Plymouth, MN, respectfully 'request that the Plymouth City Council and the Park & Recreation Advisory Council review and study the fusibility of constructing a Community Recreation Centex which. would include a year-round ice skating facility for hockey* figure skating and recreational use, to be presented as soon as passible in the form of a Referendum to the voters of the City of Plymouth. NME ADDRESS ZIP CODE for5. Z/11 ry 9. 10,t T-- 12 P 100 /4""f( "f( `-,w•2 ,w f X5`1 13. 14. 3 15 18. IAZ 4 j V fel VLL n) S'S`A f 20 . ttG , •. ' CCS `' c n, a . 4'.i i t.(( 21. 22. r a 4 r CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVta'., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE; October 8, 1957 TO< PMC 97 FROM; Eric Blank 6 SUBJECT: WEST MEDICINE LAKE DRIVE TRAIL STUDY Attached for your, review is a copy of the feasibility study prepared by Strgar-Roscoe with regard to the construction of a trail, along West Medicine Lake Drive from Highway 55 to 26th Avenue. The costs for this project are separated, into three alternatives ranging in price from $275 to $1.6 million. Because of the size, and scope of this project, I feel that it will take Fred Moore and me some time to fully analyze and. look at possible funding sources for this type of construction. I think it would be most appropriate that, this type of project be incorporated. in our review of the 1989-1993 capital improvements budget. If commissioners have specific areas they would like to have staff research on this subject matter, please bring the items up at our Commission meeting,, so that I can; begin researching them as quickly as possible.. No formal action is required by the Commission. on this item at this time. np Attachment STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCHt INC. C I t ENGINEERSNSULTING i'ItAlSMit'rATION a CIN IL • 8TR.11CTt'RAL ENGINEtll$ a LAND SV0EVORS Commission No. 08,70847 September S, 1487 Mr. Fred G. Moore, P. E, Director of Public Works CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota- 55.147 Dear Mr.., Moore RE; WEST MEDICINE LAKE DRIV8 TRAIL FROM T.H. 55 TO ?6TH AVENUE' CITY PROJECT NO. 663 In January of 1987, a Traffic Safety Study was completed for West Medicine Lake Drive from 26th Avenue to T.H. 55 (see Figure 1 - Project. Location) . The study concluded that due to the volumes o>: vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle traffic and existing roadway widths, pedestrians and bicyclists be separated from vehicular traffic through the study area,. As the Traffic Safety Study points out, the existing West. Medicine Lake Drive roadway is narrow with areas of little or no shoulder on the west side, variable width gravel shouldo-r on the east side and steep slopes along both sides There are also numerous vertical and hor.izonta.l curves which restrict drivers' sight, distance: The City's Comprehensive Trail Plain identifies a Class 1 - Separated, paved trail along this segment of Wes;: Medicine Lake Drive to provide connections to the Regional Trail System as well. as the City's p,4rk and beach between. 18th Avenue and 23rd, ,venue. To adequately separate the vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle traffic, several alternatives were discussed in the traffic study. 6:30 Twelve Oaks Center, 1550011'kyxata Blvd:, Wayzata MN 55591 .(612) 47!0010 z I Mr. Fred G; Moore,, P..E., 3, - September 8,; 1987 The, .least expensive alternative suggested constructing the trail, along the east sid'a of the e;xistiing -roadway. This alternative leaves the existing roadway on it ri existing alignment eparat ng the: beach from the park and parking tots. To address the problem of separation of the City park from; the beach and the desire to eliminate the, roadway,, through the park, a second alternative proposed to shift West Medicine Lake Drive west of the City park between 18th Avenue and 23rd Avenqe. North and south of the park the trail would roe adjacent 'to the roadway. A third alt<ernat.i.ve, proposed to shift West l edicine Lake Drive: west to the existing Forestvierw Lane alignment. The result would be only a trail and no roadway along the Vest Medicine Lake. Drive: alignment between the C & Ns4 Railroad tracks and 23rd Avenue. The Traffic Safety Study further recommended that an engineering study be completed to address the construction feasibility and costs for the different alternatives. Based on your request and our discussions with the City's Park Director, we have analyzed the I:hree alternatives in greater detail and have prepared an estimate of the costs for each. Figure No. 2, illustrates the three alternatives) alternative No. Alternative No.: l proposes construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side: of existing West Medicine Lake Drive from T.H. 55 to 26th Avenue. Because of the steep slope going up from the roadway's edge on the west, it would be very difficult to construct ,eche trail on that side. Because of the close proximity, of the lak, on the east side and the steep slopes, it would be difficult to provide a trail away from the roadway on that side, also. Consideration was given to a separated trail (7o'± from the roadway's edge) utilizing retaining walls or wood. decks but this becomes very expensive and would conflict in several instances with existIn« docks or stairways to the lake. It is therefore, proposed in Alternative No. 1 to provide the separation of trail androadway by constructing concrete curb and gutter section The trail would be constructed8 feet:. wide immediately behind the curb.. To provide a uniform, urban section it i.s proposed. to construct curb and gutter on the west side of the roadway, also. Storm sewer is proposed to be rzonstructed as necessary for the urbanized section. Figure No. 3 illustrates thq proposed improved section. Mr. Fred G. Moore, F.E. w d - Sep',, -amber 8, 1987 Where space will permit (primarily south of the railroad tracks), it is proposed to separate the trail from the roadway a minimum of, 10 feet. tive No. This alternative. comprehends a realignment of West Medicine Lake Drive between 18th Avenue and 23rd Avenue shifting the roadway west. of the. 'park/beach area. This eliminates the roadway through the park. The realigned roadway, segment is proposed to be a rural. (no curb and gutter) section because. of the anticipated: poor soils in the area. With the realignment of West Medicine Lake Drive, the existing roadbed can be used for the park trail. between, 18th Avenue and. 23rd Avenue.. It is proposed to remove one-half of the existing bituminous mat and restore it to sod, using the remaining mat for the trail (see Figure No. 3) North and south of the park the trail would be constructed adjacent to West Medicine Lake Drive as proposed in alternative No 1. Alternative No. Alternative No 3 creates a separation between the vehicular and pedestrian/ bicycle traffic by completely shifting the alignment of West Medicine hake Dave to the Forestv,iev Lane alignment between the; railroad track6 and 23rd Avenue (see Figure 2). By constructing a new roadway on Forest -view Lane and eliminating the existing West Medicine hake Drive roadway, that corridor can beused for trail purposes only. The trail is proposed to be constructed using one-half of the existing roadway mat as in Alternative No. 2 (see Figure No 3); Alternative No. 3 is the most expensive as it requires the taking of two existing houses abutting the railroad right-of-way and Evergreen Lane. The newly aligned roadway is proposed to be an urban section with concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer from West. Medicine Take Drive and the C & NW Railroad tracks to 18th Avenue. From 18th Avenue to 23rd Avenue a rural street section is proposed ass in Alternative No.. 2 due to the poor soils. South of the railroad, tracks and north of 23rd Avenue, it is proposed to construct the trail adjacent to the roadway as in Alternative No 1 AV t ' 27 h R EXISTING TRAILcrit 0 J' Medicine i 26th A VE 4 t 7 Lake 223rd AV f \ ca PARk \ AVE• .a \ AR BEACH f \ 4 ALT. 2 \ ALT. 1 r 18th AVE. ' . dj d X47 ALT.3 Z •. W h v. w y y La•W N a' s j C] a[ s 74 c H 'dde n t^l oN1 Al L > ok 2th AVE. N EV J O 22 0 v _ca a C -) l l th A VE• NQ rMl 10th AVE. N. p OOQ a pJ~ i. N. 9th h AVE. N. 0 73 0 lz 55 CITY OF PLYMOUTH (FIGURE 7 e .. S.T,.N.1 ftOS( v6 ilINC. c4wwla11".$2W-13wWEST MEDICINE LAKE ALIGNMENT` DRIVE TRAIL/ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES IiMI?r.1 t11.('M rr ID.W,6M.Sui•.lilU1 M.A•N. a1,• 1• IMPROVEMENT il>r r,+w H CITY PROJECT NO. 963 commiss*N No.. 0070047 L AV t ' 27 h R EXISTING TRAILcrit 0 J' Medicine i 26th A VE 4 t 7 Lake 223rd AV f \ ca PARk \ AVE• .a \ AR BEACH f \ 4 ALT. 2 \ ALT. 1 r 18th AVE. ' . dj d X47 ALT.3 Z •. W h v. w y y La•W N a' s j C] a[ s 74 c H 'dde n t^l oN1 Al L > ok 2th AVE. N EV J O 22 0 v _ca a C -) l l th A VE• NQ rMl 10th AVE. N. p OOQ a pJ~ i. N. 9th h AVE. N. 0 73 0 lz 55 CITY OF PLYMOUTH (FIGURE 7 e .. S.T,.N.1 ftOS( v6 ilINC. c4wwla11".$2W-13wWEST MEDICINE LAKE ALIGNMENT` DRIVE TRAIL/ROADWAY ALTERNATIVES IiMI?r.1 t11.('M rr ID.W,6M.Sui•.lilU1 M.A•N. a1,• 1• IMPROVEMENT il>r r,+w H CITY PROJECT NO. 963 commiss*N No.. 0070047 EXISTING ROADWAY TO EXISTINGREMAIN INPLACE PROPOSED GROUND LINE 8'TRA IL PROPOSED PROPOSED LAKE CONC. CURB CONC, CURB — GUTTER Ek GUTTER WEST MEDICLNE LAKE DRIVE TYPICAL SECTION TRAIL ADJACENT TO EXISTING ROADWAY WINEW C A G ALTA -AR TO 26TH AVE ALT.2-RR TO ISTH AVE' A 23RD AVE TO 26TH AVE ALT.3-23RD AVE TO 26TH AVE BITUMINOUS REMOVED PORTION OF AND AREA RESODDED ROADWAY LEFT IN PLACE EXISTING - - -- GROUND LINE LAKE WEST MEDICINE LAKE DRIVE TYPICAL -SECTION TRAIL ON EXISTING ROADBED W. MEDICINE LAKE 'DA. RELIGNED TO THE WEST) ALT.7-18TH AVE TO 23RD AVE ALT:3- AR TO 23RD AVE tiTR1 1R•kC,GUF.•k'Atlst'il INCCITY OF PLYMOUTH FIGURE 3; 1•,-,1,,1•. WEST MEDICINE LAKENSIi(K.i 11}!{1.41114\ii\I.1\40.4{ii\I,..1 .11 \I+. DRIVE TRAIL TYPICAL SFr.TIONS 1ai l'14 1Alm 14k IMPROVEMENT CITY PRO.IECT NO. 663 commisum too, 0.8;7'0647 Mr.. Fred G_ Moore., P.E. - 7 September 8 1987 FA t mated Costs The following table presents the estimated cost for each alternative.. The estimated costs include a 15% additive for design, inspection and administration, 5% for interest and a 5% Contingency. The costs also include estimated right-of-way acquisition costs TABLE i SUMMARY OP ESTIMATED COSTS CITY PROTECT NO. 663 ALTERNATIVEESTIMATED COST Alternative No. 1 West Medicine. Lake Drive Alignment $ 275,000 Alternative No. 2 New roadway alignment between 18th Avenue and 23rd Avenue: $' 500,000 Alternative,No. New roadway alignment between railroad and 23rd Avenue $1,6600000 Constructing a guardrail between the roadway and the trail would add $105,000.01 (y25 00/ft) to the estimated cost. A breakdown of the estimated costs is presented in the Appendix. Table 2' briefly summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of, the three alternatives for providing a separated pedestrian/ bicycletrail along West Medicine Lake Drive from T.N. 55 to 26th Avenue. Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E. _ 8 September 8, 1987.' TABLE Z ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON CITY PROJECT NO. 663 ALTERNATIVE DISADVANTAGEADVANTAGE No. l o Lowest cost o Least amount of physical separation , o Least amount of concrete curb only) disruption to between vehicle and neighborhood pedestrian/bicycle traffic o Park/beach area still' divided by West Medicine Lake, Drive No. 2 o Separates road o Trail adjacent to from beach/park area roadway for majority of study area o Less costly than Alternative No. 3 o Probable higher road, maintenance cost in area of poor soils No 3 o Separates road o Highest cost from trail for majority of study o Greatest amount of area disruption to neighborhood o Probable higher road maintenance cost in area of pool: soils o Requires taking of 2 existing houses Mr. Fred G. Moore, P.E.. - 9 - September 8, 1987 We would be happy to review this report with, - 'i.ty Council and answer any questions you may have. Very truly yours, STRGAR-;tOSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. amen R. Dvorak, P.E. Senior Engineer Timothy D. enow, P.E. Senior Associate JRD:TDP:bba i ESTIMATED COST BREAKDOWN TRAIL. FROM T.H. 55 TO 26TH AVENUE CITYPROJECT NO. 663 SEGMENT I SEGMENT II SEGMENT III SEGMENT IV T.H. 55 TO C & NW RR TO 18TH AVENUE TO 23RD AVENUE, TO C & NW RAILROAD) 18TH AVENUE) 23RD AVENUE) 26TH AVENUE) TOTAL ALI-TERNATIVE NO. Trail $ 40,000 50,000 30,000 32,000 F Curb. and Gutter 36,000 30,000 18,000 Street Storm Sewer 14,000 10,000 15,000 Trail (Remove 1/2 road) Right-of-way House Acquisition Subtotal $ 40,000' 1000000 70,000 65,000 275,000` ALTERNATIVE NO. 2, Trail $ 40,000 50,000 32,000 Curb and Gutter 36,000 180000 Street 250,000 i Storm Sewer 14,000 30,000 15,000 Trail (Remove 1/2 road) 15,000 Right-of-way House Acquisition Subtotal $ 40,000 100,000 295,000 651000 500,000 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 Trail $ 40,000 32,000 Curb and Gutter 18,000 Street 300,000 280,000 Storm Sewer 60,000 30,000 15,000 Trail (Remove 1/2 road) 25,000 Right-of-way 230,000 230,000 House Acquisition 4000000 Subtotal $ 40,000 1,015,000 5400000 65,000 1,660,000 CITY QF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 DATE. October 9, 1987 MEMO TO: PRAC FROM; Eric Blank SUBJECT. HERITAGE HOMEOWNERSASSOCIATION — LETTER WITH REGARD TO COUNTY ROAD 61 PARK CONCERNS Attached you will find a copy of a letter from Merilee Riley, President of the Heritage Homeowners Association, expressing concerns with regard to the County Road 61 park project. Also attached is the response that I j drafted at the request of the City Manager. The construction at the County Road 61 site is about 98% completed at this time. If you have the opportunity between now and Wednesday, you might wish to take a walk through this site, so you have a little firsthand knowledge with regard` to the park. This is an information item only at this time. I do not contemplate that any action is necessary by the Commission. The City Council may direct action by PRAC at some later date. np Attachments r I CITY OF PlYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD... PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 TELEPHONE (612) 559-2800 MEMO DATE: October 8, 1987 TO. James G. Willis, City Manager ea FROM: Erie J. Blank, Director of, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT:. LETTER DATED OCTOBER 2 FROM MERILEE RILEY Mrs. Riley raises a number of concerns which l believe should be discussed and. reviewed. 2. The planning and design process for County Road61 park was the same process that was used for Amhurst and Rolling Hills neighborhood parks.. The, residents in attendance at the review meetings played a tremendous role in determining the location and size of the open play area, hard court, parking lot, play structure tot lot area and trails within the County Road 61, master plan. At the public meetings, I believe Commissioner Rosen asked the residents some questions about the play structure location.. The northerly site was a preferred site for the play area for two reasons: a. The residents wished to keep it as far away from Northwest Boulevard as possible. b. They wanted to keep the smaller children away from the older children that would tend to play in the open games area and the hard court area. The entrances to this park have been a difficult issue since first under- taking the park design. Northwest Boulevard is: a barrier to those resi- dents living southeast of the park area. Access to the north was limited because the Ives Lane right of way was, the only other public access available. We have attempted to place cross walks on Northwest Boulevard at the most northerly median in the roadway and at the Inter- section of West Medicine Lake Drive to provide for safe crossing of Northwest Boulevard. The entrance from 34th Avenue is steeper than anyone would have liked for this situation. The limited space for this trail access (30' wide for half the distance and 15>' the other half) allowed for very few economical designs for this trail entrance. If the Council believes that the 34th Avenue access is inadequate to serve the public need', I would' agree with Mrs. Riley that a trail from 34th Avenue along County Road 61 to the open play field on the south end of the park is an option. The estimated cost for adding this additional trail of approximately 2,400 feet is $15,200. This cost does not include seed or sod restoration. Because of the difficulty getting to and from this park from all portions of the neighborhood, we did build' a parking lot in the County Road 61 park to allow for vehicular access. Parking .lots were not included in the Amhurst or Rolling Hills parks. James G. Willis Re: Merilee Riley Letter Page 2 ' Mrs. Riley has raised a concern about the secluded area around the children's play area. In the next two weeks, the park maintenance crew will be going into this area and thinning out the hackberry and thistle bushes that are obscuring, much of the view around the play area. Once this selective thinning has taken place, the new residential homes built on Sycamore Lane and 32nd Avenue within the Heritage Ridge development will provide a higher level of comfort we all wish to provide at this location. Some of the other issues which Mrs. Riley has raised are very subjective and. difficult to quantify. This original park site was selected because of the rolling terrain and the mature oak and other trees on the hillsides. I believe this was an effort on the part of the City to retain much of the natural beauty of the area without having the trees or hills removed for residential construction. The park totals 11.5 acres. Within this, 2.96 acres is planned to be mowed, or the active area, while 8.5 acres i, designated for the passive, or unmowed areas within the park. i believe every effort was made by the residents, the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission, the consultant and staff to retain as much of the natural beauty of the site as possible. I look forward to working with Mrs. Riley and other members of the neighborhood, City Council and PRAC to work toward alleviating any concerns that the neighbors may have. I will await your further direction on this matter. np i October 2 1987 The Honorable Virgil Schneider, Mayor City of Plymouth 11520 - 54Th Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55442 Dear Mayor Schneider In February of this year we were invited to, and partici- pated in planning meetings for our new neighborhood park. At that time in correspondence to, and conversations with, Mr. Blank and at a meeting of the City Council, we repeatedly requested that the City's Park Standards for Neighborhood Parks be adhered to and that our concerns regarding park path and equipment placements be considered. We were assured that such; would be the case. Now our park has been constructed, and we find that our fears have been realized, and our concerns have not been addressed-. Certain aspects of the park are not usable safely. Specifically we had asked that: l The park and trails be developed in the existing open areas. 2. The trails be constructed only where the design is safe for users. 3. The park equipment be located in open areas. 4. No trail be located along the north 75' corridor due to its topography. 5 Safe access to the park: be provided for our children. We find that these neighborhood park standards have been violated• 1. The emphasis should be on use by ages 5-15 and their parents. 2.. The access should be primarily pedestrian and bicycle. 3. Steep slopes — should not be considered as developable Page 2 I Since the park was "opened", several accidents have occurred because of the steepness of the trails. One was serious enough. to require removal of the biker by ambulance. The trails into the park are unbikeabl.e safely in the opinion of many. Many residents will not let their children play in the park because they feel the secluded areas are unsafe. The relative seclusion of some areas has prompted several incidents of unlawful behavior. We realize that it is impossible to design the perfect facility. We further realize that with any new facility there must be a get - acquainted period while the users adjust to its correct usage. We do feel, however, that in this instance an attractive nuisance has been created. Given the fact that we specifically, repeatedly and emphati- cally voiced our concerns about safety of access and trails, we are deeply upset with the finished product. The Park and Recreation Director has asked us to organize and fund a dedication ceremony for the park. At this time, we feel. we cannot participate in such an event given the widespread dis- satisfaction with the park which is evident in our neighborhood. We, therefore, have decided that we must respectfully defer our participation until we are able to discuss with you the unsafe conditions in the park and we have so informed our neighborhood association, the Westminster Homeowners Association. We further respectfully invite you to tour the park with us to see our concerns first-hand. We also request your immediate consideration of these actions: 1. That the 34th Avenue North access be regraded to eliminate the present steepness. 2. That a path be constructed on the west side of County Road 61 from the intersection at. County Road 9 to the park parking. lot. Our neighborhood looked forward eagerly to its new facility. We are somewhat isolated by the busy roads which border us. A safe, accessible play area for our children tapas exciting to anticipate. We are deeply disappointed that our input was solicited and then ignored. At the first planning meeting, reference was made by the staff to the light turnout from the neighborhood. Perhaps those who chose not to attend knew what those of us who did attend now know - that our input was given lip service and then ignored. N Page 3 Thank you for any consideration you may be able to give our concerns. Sincerely, Merrilee P. Riley President 13010 37th Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55441 CC; City Council. Members Mr. James Willis, City Manager At. Eric Blank, Park and Recreation Director Mr. Bill Cior.a, President, Westminster Homeowners Association