Table of Contents - City of Lake Elmo, MN · 2012-10-26 · of Lake Elmo’s Lake Elmo Trail Task...

table of contents

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary ................................................................................1 Final Trail Guide Plan.................................................................... 1A

Introduction..............................................................................................2 Background ......................................................................................2 Vision................................................................................................3 Past Studies .....................................................................................4 What is a Comprehensive Trail Guide Plan? ...................................4

Trail Planning...........................................................................................7 Basic Elements of A Trail Plan.........................................................7 Use Restrictions ...............................................................................9

Guide Plan Development ......................................................................10 System Development .....................................................................10 Theory to Reality ............................................................................15 Public Involvement .........................................................................21 Final Draft Plan...............................................................................22

Special Considerations.........................................................................26 Security...........................................................................................26 Highway 5.......................................................................................27 Lake Elmo Regional Park...............................................................28 Washington County Linear Park Plan ............................................29 Maps and Signing...........................................................................30 Sunfish Lake Park ..........................................................................31 Unserved Areas..............................................................................32 Private Trails ..................................................................................33

Implementation......................................................................................34 Overview ........................................................................................34 Establishing Priorities .....................................................................34 Design Considerations ...................................................................36

Appendix Future Land Use Map Trail System Development–Base System Trail System Development–Trail Connections Trail System Development–Trail Loops Trail System Development–Local Trail Connections Trail System Development–Draft Master Plan Washington County Linear Park System Plan (PP-13) Washington County Proposed Jurisdictional System (T-12) Washington County Short-range Improvements (T-16)

November 29, 2005

Acknowledgements

acknowledgements

Acknowledgements The Contributions and support of the following officials and organizations were instrumental in the creation of this plan and are gratefully acknowledged.

City of Lake Elmo Park Commissioners Bob Schumacher (Chair) David Steele (Vice Chair) John Heroff Terry Bouthilet Jenifer Watters

Linda Wagner John Ames Todd Bruchu Chuck Nalipinski Judith Blackford

Rolf Larson

City Staff Martin Rafferty – City Administrator Chuck Dillerud – Planner/Assistant Administrator Mike Bouthilet – Parks & Public Works Supervisor Kimberly Schaffel – Sr. Program Support Assistant

The citizens of Lake Elmo who attended and participated in the Comprehensive Trails Plan Open House – thank you for your input.

Comprehensive Trails Plan Consultant - SEH - Staff Chris A. Behringer - Project Manager/Urban Designer Glen VanWormer – Transportation Engineer/Planner

Executive Summary

executive summary | page 1

Kleis Park

Executive Summary Currently, the City of Lake Elmo’s “landscape” is in flux. The population has risen dramatically over the last 10 years to 7,387 residents. Issues and demographics have changed, and the trail system needs to respond to these changes. While maintaining its rural charm, the City of Lake Elmo is entering a stage where its residents want to consider Lake Elmo as a community with easy access to Stillwater and St. Paul, but also a community that is preserving open spaces and natural areas.

The following Comprehensive Trail Guide Plan is an outgrowth of the City of Lake Elmo’s Lake Elmo Trail Task Team – 1993 Recommendations, 1998 master planning for Trail System Planning/Programming by the Trail Planning Subcommittee, and the 2000-2020 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. These studies and plans show the strong commitment the City has made to developing a trail plan dedicated to facilitating the movement of residents and visitors among recreational, residential, commercial and regional destinations.

The existing sidewalks and roadways that comprise Lake Elmo’s pedestrian pathways are distributed throughout the City. Many of the preferred commercial and recreational destinations are separated from residential areas by artificial or natural barriers. The vast majority of development trails are private, and connections to these systems, as well as public use, need to be evaluated. The City’s continuing expansion complicates how these areas can be interconnected. The City believes that the trail system should be convenient and safe within the community, but also strengthen the sense of community through interaction.

Through a four-step planning process, a Comprehensive Trail Guide Plan for the City of Lake Elmo has been developed that offers specific direction for the City to take in planning for the future. The four steps are:

• �Base features mapping

• �Project goals and visioning

• �Evaluation and alternative development

• �Draft and Final Comprehensive Trail Guide Plan

It is the planning team’s sincere hope that the Comprehensive Trail Guide Plan will serve as the next step in developing the City’s trail system for the enjoyment of future generations.

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

� �� ! � " � � � � �

#�$�� #�$��

��

��

��

��

�!��

" ��#�� ! $�� %

��!��&�' ��(�� !�)��)�� $��!��!��%

Introduction

introduction | page 2

The guide plan must preserve the charm of the “Old Village” area when bringing in a trail system.

Introduction Background The City of Lake Elmo, along with many other communities in Washington County, has grown substantially in the past 40 years. Growth in Lake Elmo has taken different patterns than in most other communities in the County. Similarly, trail development in Washington County differs between communities.

Growth in some cities, such as Woodbury, includes large areas devoted to commercial development and homes built as part of 100- or 200- unit developments. The City of Woodbury has a comprehensive system of trails providing connections within the community.

The City of Stillwater has a variety of different types of developments, including the new Liberty on the Lake, which is a closely spaced community with an “older-community” flavor and extensively connected by sidewalks. Other developments also have sidewalks, as does much of the original, older community.

Other communities, such as Lake Elmo, Afton and Grant, have developed with a rural atmosphere. Lake Elmo is somewhat unique in using cluster-type development that places homes close to each other, but with a considerable amount of open space nearby. Trails have been a part of the development of these newer types of neighborhoods. Some of the trails incorporate access to the many natural features available in Lake Elmo. The City also has an older “Village” area that was originally built for pedestrian movement.

While Woodbury has a comprehensive trail plan and Stillwater has a sidewalk installation policy, Lake Elmo primarily has only concepts. While trail plans have been developed in the past in Lake Elmo, a comprehensive trail guide plan that would guide installation of trail systems in newer developments, and provide a method of retrofitting trails into the older areas, has not been completed. While there has been foresight in trail development, it has been largely focused inward toward a specific corresponding development, with some connections to adjacent developments. Past efforts at trail plans have not been successfully implemented.

The metropolitan area has seen a growth of regional trails that includes the Gateway Trail in Ramsey and Washington counties, and the Luce Line State Trail. State recreational trails, such as the Root River Trail or Cannon River Trail, are generally very busy. There are several programs throughout states in the Midwest for developing regionally significant trail systems.

Use of both local and areawide trails has increased significantly. Trails built along roads where few pedestrians or bicyclists were previously present are now quite busy. Fitness and wellness concerns have led to trails being used for exercise by a variety of users seeking a place for short walks to aggressive workouts.


City development also fosters the development of a trail system linking specific destinations, such as schools and parks, with the various neighborhood clusters. Trails are a method of reaching from one neighborhood to another, or even connecting ends of an individual development. Although the City has developed conceptual overall plans for a trail system in the past, they lacked in support, comprehensiveness, or detailed direction to enable all individual development of trails to be coordinated towards a common goal.

Vision As part of developing a comprehensive trail plan, the Lake Elmo Parks Commission developed a vision statement that reads:

“The City will develop a safe, convenient and integrated system of trails linking neighborhoods, schools, the “Old Village,” and parks that will focus on the natural resources and character of Lake Elmo and help safely meet the recreation, health/fitness and transportation needs of its residents.”

This vision statement was a result of several Parks Commission meetings, with the statement continually refined to meet the final objectives for development of Lake Elmo’s trail system.

A number of goals and objectives were developed to supplement the final vision statement. These goals and objectives include the following:

• Provide connections to natural resources, historical landmarks and cultural elements in the City.

• Provide a trail system that meets the desires of and has the support of the residents.

• The comprehensive master trail plan seeks to integrate the trail system with existing and future development, the general transportation system, trail systems in adjacent communities, and state and county trails and facilities.

• Develop safe and convenient methods of crossing barriers such as Highway 5 and the Union Pacific Railroad.

• Provide a trail system that links to Lake Elmo (the lake).

• Develop a uniform and comprehensive signage system that will promote park and trail use and enhance City identity and character.

• Develop construction criteria for sidewalks, and paved and unpaved trails.

• Develop an overall plan to provide a system of trails that is affordable, maintainable, and can be implemented in a reasonable timeframe.

The goals and objectives were used to help refine the trail system and to develop the various components and elements. Implementing the trail plan will also require developing policies and procedures to meet some of the other goals and objectives, such as the signage system and trail maintenance.


Past Studies In 1993, the Lake Elmo Trail Task Team completed a plan that had 24 trail segments. The team evaluated service areas and destinations, first looking at bike trails and later attempting to include rollerbladers and pedestrians. Most of the trail segments are on-road routes; a few, such as along Highway 5, are considered undesirable by today’s trail safety standards. Each of the 24 trail segments was reviewed for potential incorporation into the 2005 Trail Guide Plan.

The 2000-2025 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan had a planning policy that the density and pattern of development should encourage pedestrian and bicycle usage. One of the objectives stated, “…it will be the objective of the City to establish policies and prepare plans that will encourage pedestrians/bike circulation within the entire village area in safe, dedicated corridors.” There are seven additional policies.

The Open Space Preservation Ordinance indicates trail construction is required in any development. Connections to other trail systems are also required; however, the ordinance lacks an overall plan and does not have standards for specific trail design.

The Parks Commission approved a trail system in the past; however, it was not formally adopted by the Council and was not made part of the subsequent Comprehensive Plan.

In summary, the City has made numerous efforts toward developing a trail plan and has, to date, developed several trail segments. The lack of a fully supported, comprehensive trail system is impacting the effectiveness of these efforts.

The Existing Conditions Map, provided on the following page, indicates the architectural and environmental flavor of Lake Elmo.

What is a Comprehensive Trail Guide Plan? A Comprehensive Trail Guide Plan provides an overall plan for developing a coordinated, efficient system of trails through a community. It will provide not only locations, but assistance with standards and operations policies and with establishing priorities.

Although the system was developed carefully to connect various origins and destinations and provide desirable loops and connections, it does not provide details for final location of a specific system component. There is flexibility in locating trails in undeveloped areas and in choosing specific streets that will comprise a “route.” But there is also enough direction given so that any deviation from the trails and routes shown on the Final Trail Guide Plan can be compared to original goals and objectives, and to the development plans of the system to make certain that the change still meets the original intent of the component.


It is comprehensive in that it used origins, destinations, desires, various users, existing components, barriers, safety, maintenance, operations and public involvement in developing the system. It is a guide in that changes can be made with sound reasoning and documentation. It is a plan since it will be used to implement the many system components into an integrated, coordinated trail system.

Trail Planning

trail planning | page 7

Trail Planning Basic Elements of a Trail Plan Trail plan implementation requires the plan itself to be carefully developed to meet well-defined needs of users and to have reasonable support from the community. Merely drawing lines or connecting dots on a map does not provide the substantive background needed for funding a trail regardless of the source of the funds.

Instead, the development must be based on a clear understanding of who will be using the trail and for what purpose, what the origins and destinations are, and how the plan can provide a complete trail system connecting destinations and other trail systems. It is also necessary to clearly understand traffic impacts and conflicts, set policies and procedures for maintenance and usage, and develop public support. Drawing lines alone cannot take all these into account.

In developing a trail guide plan, the ideal system will have trails totally separated from vehicular traffic to minimize conflicts. In reality, the system in some built-up areas, or where barriers or limiting topography exist, existing streets will be used. In the Lake Elmo system, a “trail” refers to a separate off-road segment, while a “route” refers to a section of road to be used by bicycles and pedestrians.

Demographics Demographics play and important role in determining the final recommendations of current and future trail needs. Demographics that were looked at for Lake Elmo are the following:

1. Total Population – 6,863 • Male/Female – 50/50 • Largest age groups: 35 – 44 1,361 19.8%

45 – 54 1,185 17.3% 55 – 59 402 5.9%

• Median Age – 37.3 years • Diversity – 4.2%

2. Relationships within Families

• Head of Household 2,347 34.2% • Spouse 1,628 23.7% • Child 2,410 35.1%

Average household size 2.91 persons Average family size: 3.19 persons 3. Employment Status

Population 16 years and over 5,140 • In labor force: 3,770 73% • Not in labor force: 1,370 27%


4. Commuting to Work (16 and over) • Motorized vehicle – alone 2,89 82.7% • Motorized vehicle – carpool 371 10.6% • Public Transportation 36 1.0% • Worked at home 5.3% • Other means .4%

Average travel time 23.1 minutes 5. Income

• Median family income $84,562

Users The primary users of trail systems generally are bicyclists and pedestrians. While there are some conflicts between these two users, such as senior citizens on a leisurely stroll and a group of bicyclists on a 50-mile jaunt, they generally are compatible if the trail system is properly planned, designed and constructed.

Trails are often designed first for bicycle use. Bicycle riders generally have either a specific destination to which they are traveling, or they are traveling on a recreational trip. Bicycle trips may be for a specific purpose, such as to reach a park or a school. Occasionally, they are used for commuting or for trips to and from commercial establishments. Often they are recreational, but with some route planning.

Most destination-based trips are between home and schools, parks or commercial areas. Most recreational rides begin at the home and could include a short, simple four- to six-mile ride, a more strenuous 10- to 20-mile route, or a significantly longer route that will generally include trips into adjacent communities or rides on regional trail systems. This means the Lake Elmo trail system will not only accommodate Lake Elmo residents, but occasionally be part of a recreational trip by residents of other areas, just as Lake Elmo residents may choose to use other communities’ trails for part of their trips. With the paving of shoulders along rural highways, more of the larger cycling groups on long-distance rides will look for semi-rural or rural areas where they will be unimpeded by conflicts and, therefore, tend to stay off trail systems.

Pedestrians generally have similar uses, although recreational walking is limited in distance. Residents will frequently use the sidewalk or trail system as a method of activity and will have a one- to six-mile loop for fitness purposes. Trails can also connect origins and destinations, but there is a limit to distances most people will walk.

More recently, rollerblades or short skis are used for training or fitness purposes. These users will frequently take trips of several miles, and require a smoother surface and less interaction with streets and other conflicts. In addition, they frequently will require a wider trail due to the use of either poles or their skating techniques. These users are more frequently found on regional trails, such as the Gateway Trail or the County Road 12 Trail.


Destinations As stated earlier, obvious destinations by either bicyclists or pedestrians include parks with some type of activity that can either be related to the same mode of transportation or might be used for passive or active purposes. Similarly, schools are a destination for school attendance, a school activity or a school ground function.

Bicycles are frequently found near convenience stores and fast food restaurants. Trips to these types of establishments are generally shorter in length, but can be part of a recreational trip.

Bicycles are infrequently used to commute to work.. Reviewing the trail system potential and the location of employment in Lake Elmo indicates there would be relatively few trips for this purpose.

Systems The trail system in Lake Elmo cannot be developed in a vacuum. There will be interaction with parks and trails in the surrounding communities. It is very desirable to connect the Lake Elmo system to the regional system, such as to the Gateway Trail, and to well-developed systems in adjacent communities, such as Woodbury and Oakdale. Connection into the Stillwater and Oak Park Heights area is also desirable. The City of Grant does not have a trail system.

Use Restrictions When considering trail system development, the users to be accommodated were reviewed periodically. It was unanimously felt the trail system should be primarily developed to provide for pedestrians, bicycle riders and similar uses. No motorized vehicles are to be accommodated on the system.

Allowing snowmobiles, ATVs or other similar motorized vehicles was discussed at meetings. At the public open house, the question of motorized vehicle use was raised by citizens several times, only to be met each time with firm affirmation from citizens that “no motorized vehicles” was desired. It appears the public, as well as the Parks Commissioners, are not interested in providing access for motorized vehicles.

Similarly, developing a trail system to accommodate horses was discussed, and it was felt this could not be done. In most instances, horses would require a separate gravel path. This cannot be accommodated in most developments, and may even be undesirable in some of the residential areas. Where the trail system becomes an on-street trail route, accommodating horses would be difficult.

Guide Plan Development

guide plan development | page 10

Guide Plan Development System Development While it is possible to use observations, knowledge of existing uses, predictions of development, potential uses or other methods to develop a “connect-the-dots” type of trail plan, it is more desirable to systematically identify origins, destinations, desire lines and restraints, and to develop a system based on these elements. This conceptual system can then be modified to reflect existing trails, potential constraints, system connections to other locations, and funding options to develop a final trail system. The latter method was used to develop the Lake Elmo trail system, and has been successfully used in other communities.

The Parks Commission reviewed specific types of land uses and developed 20 specific destinations (outlined on the map on the following page) for the trail system. In general, the Committee reviewed schools, parks, commercial developments and geographic areas, such as the Old Village. The 20 specific destinations are:

• Gateway Trail

• Stillwater Senior High School

• Demontreville Wildlife Park

• Cloisters

• Kleis Park

• Pebble Park

• Sunfish Lake Park

• Lake Elmo City Hall

• Lake Elmo Elementary School

• Twin Point

• Lion’s Park

• Hagberg’s Country Market

• VFW Park

• Old Village

• Reid Park

• Tablyn Park

• Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve

• Lake Elmo (the lake)

• Stonegate Park

• Oak-Land Junior High School

Home origins were defined as specific areas of residential development. The City was divided into 40 separate “neighborhoods” that were designated primarily by using portions of the street system to cordon off each area. These are shown on the Existing Neighborhood Graphic. Each area or “neighborhood” would then have a center for use in developing the origin and destination relationship.

For each destination, a direct line was drawn from the center of each of the 40 neighborhoods (as origins) to the destination. This first line ignored all types of constraints and geographical elements. Where several destinations were relatively close together, such as the Twin Point, Lions Park, Hagberg’s Country Market and the VFW Park, only


Connecting to private trails will be a goal of the trail guide plan.

one series of lines was developed that connected the 40 neighborhoods with these four destinations at a common point.

The second step was to combine lines so there were fewer than 40 lines from each destination. This was done, for example, by combining several lines leading from the Stillwater High School to a single line between the several neighborhood destinations. The individual neighborhood center was then connected to the combined line via a perpendicular line. Thus, the single line would radiate to the southeastern corner of Lake Elmo and the neighborhoods along Lake Elmo Avenue, 10th Street and 20th Street would be linked to this single line, rather than have several closely spaced lines lead to the school.

The third step was to identify constraints to trail system development. The constraints were physical, such as Lake Elmo, Eagle Point Lake or Lake Jane, or involved large private developments, such as Tartan Park or the Cloisters. Linear barriers, such as the railroad track or major highways, were also considered constraints, and specific locations for potential crossings at existing railroad crossings and several locations along Highway 5 were identified. With these constraints and barriers identified, the several lines still radiating from each of the destinations were bent to travel around the constraints or to cross the barriers at specific locations. As an example, the single line connecting several southeast neighborhoods with the Stillwater High School was bent and basically followed Lake Elmo Avenue to the Old Village area, and then became a direct line to the high school.

At this step, several of the lines to one destination from several neighborhoods would pass through or close to a second destination or destinations. This showed how trails connecting several destinations could be used in place of numerous direct line connections. Thus, the concept trail from Stillwater High School to the southeast section of the City would pass through the Old Village area and then be combined with the Old Village connections to the southeast area. The result was a first draft, conceptual guide trail plan for the City based on this systematic approach.

The following figures depict the existing neighborhoods as they were delineated, and give an example of origin-to-destination alignments from the Old Village.


Theory to Reality In-place Components The City of Lake Elmo has a number of short trail segments. Some are under Washington County ownership, such as the trail along Keats Avenue leading into the Lake Elmo Regional Park. Others are within developments, such as the system in Hamlet on Sunfish Lake or in the Fields of St. Croix. Some are private, and some are open to the public. Some are paved, and others are merely a grass base, such as in Stonegate.

City staff compiled an inventory of existing trail segments (see Parks/Open Space and Existing Trails map on following page). As expected, some citizens were concerned to hear their development trails were open to the public.

It is desirable to use development trails wherever practical. As an example, the connection between the Old Village and Stillwater High School passes through the Fields of St. Croix and other developments. Although the trail concept line between the Old Village and Stillwater High School becomes less direct, its alignment can be altered to follow the existing trails in the Fields of St. Croix, Tana Ridge and Tamarack Farm Estates.

Whenever a desired path for the trail system passed near an in-place trail, the potential use of that in-place trail section was reviewed. In most instances, the desired trail line was re-aligned to follow the existing trail, or at least a portion of the distance. A section of the Old Village to the Gateway Trail used portions of Hamlet on Sunfish Lake and Meyers Pine Ridge Trail system. Trails in The Homestead were not used as part of the trail along County Road 17.

New Development In some locations, trail design lines went across undeveloped property. In each location, the most desirable trail alignment was selected and shown based on environmental considerations and travel desires. As development plans are presented, the trails would be incorporated, hopefully being as close as possible to the most desired alignment. This has already taken place in some recently proposed developments such as Tapestry. The goal, however, is to complete connections; some deviation from the shown alignment can, and has been, tolerated.


Safety will be key in placing a trail where parked cars, delivery service vehicles and right-turning vehicles are competing for the same space.

“Trail” vs. “Route” In the Lake Elmo System, a “trail” refers to a separate off-road segment, while a “route” refers to a section of road to be used by bicycles and pedestrians.

The “ultimate” trail would consist of a 10-foot-wide paved trail without vehicular conflicts that incorporates gentle grades and leads directly to the destination while passing scenic views. While some “ultimate” sections might actually exist in Lake Elmo, completing the system in a reasonable timeframe will require connecting on- and off-road segments.

Most trail systems try to use off-road trails, also called “exclusive trail segments” or simply “trails,” as the primary component. In urban areas, the trail system often uses portions of existing streets. While definitions sometimes differ, a trail segment can follow a street either as a “route,” which is merely signed, or an “on-street trail,” which has exclusive areas marked for bicycle use as “bicycle lanes.” A “shared roadway” can refer to either a “route” or a “lane.” Only routes were considered initially for the Lake Elmo system.

The first conceptual guide trail plan for Lake Elmo had numerous areas where no off-street trails existed. Options were to propose a trail or to use a local street as a connection. Several elements were considered in determining if a street should be designated for a route.

Bicyclists are required to follow driving rules and ride to the right on a street. Trails marked for bicycle purposes must be marked as such on both sides of the street. Conversely, pedestrians must walk facing opposing traffic, including the bicycles. Thus, they will also be on both sides of the streets, sharing the area with bicycles. Parked vehicles, delivery services and right-turning vehicles also compete for the same space.

This competition may work well if the volume of use (cars, bikes and pedestrians) is low, making the conflicts between them few. Once the number of conflicts becomes higher, an off-street, multi-purpose trail is generally the best solution. Even when the conflicts and uses are low, there is still a concern with parked or turning vehicles interfering with bicycles and pedestrians.

It is not anticipated that marked “bicycle lane” symbols or other markings would be used on the routes where streets become part of the system in Lake Elmo. Bicycle route signs can be used to provide directional guidance to cyclists and some warning to motorists, but will not restrict other use of the same area. The streets where bicycle routes will be used generally have very low volumes, and the conflicts between bicyclists and traffic volumes or parked vehicles will be low. Marking the lane for exclusive bicycle use restricts parking, creates concerns over bicycle/pedestrian conflicts, and confuses motorists who want to use the area for right turns to streets or driveways.


Bringing the trail along Lake Elmo Road give trail users a beautiful

view of the lake.

Several routes are incorporated into the Lake Elmo trail system. These are generally very low-volume residential neighborhood streets, such as 59th Street, Legion Avenue and 53rd Street. Occasionally, a busier street with a wider shoulder will also be used, but only where other options are not possible or financially feasible. The primary example is Lake Elmo Road from County Road 10 to the Old Village where no other routes exist and where the view of the lake itself is a very desirable feature of the trail system. Other similar routes are along Jamaca Avenue from Lake Jane south to Highway 5, and Stillwater Boulevard from Highway 5 south and west. Both these roads have higher volumes, but also have wide shoulders and connect to one of the better bicycle or trail crossings of Highway 5.

System Trails, Routes and Supplements Base Trail System The system has been developed by determining the origins and destinations for trail users, creating desired alignments between origins and destinations, combining the alignments wherever possible, delineating the alignments to fit existing trails or to bypass constraints and barriers, and to use in-place streets as routes where needed. This creates a base trail system that connects many origins and destinations. While there is some continuity between the trail segments at common destinations, they essentially provide for origin-to-destination movement.

Eight base trail sections were developed (see Trail System Development–Base System map in Appendix). They are:

• Gateway Trail connecting trail

• Stillwater High School Trail

• Southeast Trail

• Lake Elmo Regional Park Trail

• Southside Trail

• West Side Trail

• Pebble Park Trail

• Railroad Corridor Trail

Trail Connections Based on comments from Parks Commission members and from SEH design experience, a number of connections were made between the base system trails (see Trail System Development–Trail Connections map in Appendix). For example, a connection was made along 15th Street to the existing City of Oakdale trail, and then extended east from the West Side base system trail (next to Inwood Avenue) to the Lake Elmo Regional Park, ultimately connecting to the Keats Avenue Trail in the park.

Seven trail connections were added to the system. They are:

• 15th Street extension


• Jamaca Avenue/Stillwater Boulevard connection


• Lake Jane Road connection

• County Road 17/Hamlet Avenue connection

• The Gateway Connection/Sunfish Park connection

• Pebble Park/Ideal Avenue

Trail Loops Installing trail loops was the third component of the trail guide plan (see Trail System Development–Trail Loops map in Appendix). These loop suggestions came from the Parks Commission or from past trail plans, and included one loop extending east from County Road 17 along 20th Street, using existing streets within a subdivision, a new connection to existing trails connecting to 30th Street, and connections back to County Road 17.

Three loops were added to the system. These are:

• 20th Street/30th Street loop

• I-94 frontage road loop

• Marquess Way/50th Street loop

Local Trail Connections The fourth and final component was to add local trail connections that would enable residents from virtually any neighborhood to get to the trail system (see Trail System Development–Local Trail Connections map in Appendix). These local trail connections also provided some additional connections between neighborhoods and ultimate trails. As an example, specific neighborhoods west of Inwood Avenue and south of Stillwater Boulevard were connected along a trail leading back to the base trail system. Other trail connections were made into the potential development areas north of I-94. Other potential trails were shown leading into undeveloped areas that would be at the end of the trail system in the northeast corner of the City.


Draft Plan Several local trail connections were added to the system. These include:

• Torres Pines

• Wildflower Shores

• Clear Lake north


• Eagle Point/Stonegate

• 3 extensions from I-94 frontage road

• Whistling Valley

The base trail system that was developed using the origins and destinations and the system components of trail connections, trail loops, and local trail connections were all combined to a single master plan.

A map of the preliminary draft of the trail system is provided in the Appendix (see Trail System Development–Draft Master Plan).

Other Systems Oakdale The City of Oakdale has a system of bike lanes and paths with some connections to Lake Elmo. On the south side, the pathway along 15th Street extends to the Lake Elmo border and could easily be connected into the Lake Elmo system, affording an opportunity for use of the Oakdale and Lake Elmo systems by residents of both cities. The City of Oakdale also has bike lanes along 4th Street from I-694 east to Inwood Avenue, and along the west side of Inwood Avenue. A trail is provided in the Oak Marsh development with a connection to the system on Inwood Avenue. Finally, there is a combination of bike lanes and trails along County Road 10 in Oakdale. These three components also can have connections to the Lake Elmo system.

One of the trails in the City of Oakdale is the path along Helmo Avenue. The Oakdale trail from 15th Street and Helmo Avenue to a path on the west side of Ideal Avenue north of Stillwater Avenue and ultimately to 36th Street North (north of Imation) will provide a major north-south flow for area residents. The City of Oakdale also has bike routes along Ideal Avenue, Olson Lake Road and 50th Street that connect back to the City’s major Hadley Avenue trail system. Lake Elmo residents can have connections at Stillwater Road or the Pebble Park connection, or could use the shoulder of Highway 5 from Jamaca Avenue to Ideal Avenue, although this is not shown as part of the trail system. These connections will all provide opportunities to travel into the City of Oakdale and ultimately to Ramsey County suburbs.

Woodbury The City of Woodbury has numerous trail segments that are complete; the City is providing additional connections as development occurs. The major consideration is where to cross I-94 in a safe and convenient location. Based on recent cooperative work between Washington County and Woodbury, it


is believed that Keats Avenue would be the best location for the connection. This will provide a separated bicycle trail along the east side of Keats Avenue, across the freeway and into the Woodbury system. The Woodbury system is rather extensive, and this connection offers great opportunities for Lake Elmo residents to use the Woodbury system, and vice versa.

Gateway Trail The physical connection in Lake Elmo is at the northwest corner of the City where the Gateway Trail can be accessed via a park trail from Hytrail Avenue North and 59th Street. The Gateway Trail can also be accessed in Oakdale via the Hadley Avenue trail. Thus, the multiple connections in Oakdale will also provide additional connections to the Gateway Trail.

Stillwater and Oak Park Heights Highway 5 separates the trails in Oak Park Heights from Lake Elmo. Connections to trails in Stillwater will require a connection through Oak Park Heights or along county roads at the northeast corner of Lake Elmo. It is felt it is best to connect to both systems near commercial areas in the southwest quadrant of the interchange of Highway 5 and Highway 36. A designated trail on 58th Street exists east of County Road 5. A connection via Memorial Avenue and 58th Street across Highway 5 at a traffic signal would provide access to the commercial areas in Oak Park Heights, the Stillwater High School, and ultimately to the Oak Park Heights and Stillwater systems. Since this segment is in Oak Park Heights, it is not shown on the Lake Elmo Guide Plan.

Public Involvement A key element in developing and implementing any type of plan is public involvement. The Lake Elmo Parks Commission was involved in the entire trail plan development process. The trail system and its development were discussed at regular Parks Commission meetings for several months. Parks Commission members developed the vision statement and several goals with help from SEH. Each step of the systematic development of the trail system was presented to, and discussed by, the Parks Commission. All of the Parks Commission meetings were open to the public.

The Parks Commission also hosted a public open house on February 22, 2005. Park commissioners, staff members and SEH staff were at the meeting to discuss the system with the general public. Comment cards were provided, and all attendees were asked to fill out the cards. Responses received were reviewed in detail, and some trail system modifications were made at subsequent reviews and meetings.

Several newspaper articles provided information on the trail system’s development and announced meetings of the Parks Commission when trails were discussed. The public open house was also well documented in the newspapers.


Finally, trail maps and general trail information was posted on the City web site. Based on comments from citizens at the public open house and at other functions, the web site was reviewed by a number of individuals.

The Comprehensive Guide Trail Plan was discussed by the Planning commission at two separate formal meetings, the second with the Parks Commission present. After these discussions, the Park Commission and SEH again reviewed the plan and made language changes, primarily for clarification.

Final Draft Plan After many reviews, much discussion, public comments and Planning Commission review, the Parks Commission approved the Final Draft – Trail Guide Plan, which is shown on the next page. A pictorial sample of trail sections follows.

Special Considerations

special considerations | page 26

Special Considerations Security As with any facility open to the public, security must be considered. Based on experiences of other governmental agencies in maintaining trails, the following points should be considered in developing a security program.

The trail system for Lake Elmo should be designed to accommodate motorized vehicles. The extremely popular Gateway Trail has had several medical emergencies on the trail, and emergency medical service vehicles needed access to reach the scene. Public safety (police or sheriff) needs to be able to patrol the trails regularly and to reach the scene of incidents or emergencies. The design for accommodating motorized vehicles could also be beneficial for maneuvering smaller fire vehicles to the scenes of brush fires or similar emergencies.

Although designing a trail to accommodate motorized vehicles is recommended, the need for emergency vehicles to use the trails is probably relatively small considering the anticipated use of the Lake Elmo system; however, maintenance vehicles will have to do brush work and pavement maintenance on the trail system, and public safety should have access for occasional patrolling or a potential emergency.

Unauthorized motor vehicles will be prevented from traveling on the trail system. Signing, especially if it is prominent at intersections with road systems, generally works. Placing posts on the trail at intersections alerts trail users to the road crossing and helps prevent unauthorized motor vehicles from entering the trail system. Unfortunately, the posts also prevent authorized vehicles from traveling on the trail. Removable posts work well, but removing them is time consuming and can have problems in freezing temperatures. Breakaway posts can be used, although they will also prevent routine patrolling and regular maintenance. The best system would be signing with a combination of trail crossing signs, other signs indicating the trail is not a road, and signs to prohibit motorized vehicles.

No place is immune from crime. Verbal reports from public safety agencies indicate that of the few crimes occurring on the trail systems, most involve vandalism to trail facilities. On major trails, such as the Gateway Trail, the biggest crime problem appears to be vehicle break-ins in remote parking areas. Carefully siting parking lots for trail users can significantly reduce the occurrence of the crime.

It is possible to limit hours of use of the trail system; however, in some neighborhoods, trails will be used at night for exercise or short walks, especially in winter when darkness occurs early. The Lake Elmo Regional Park has hour limitations (from one-half-hour after sunset to 7 a.m.) In summer, there is a considerable amount of activity before 7 a.m. on most trail systems. Trail hours can be limited, but with the trail system in Lake Elmo, it would create some interference with desired use by Lake Elmo residents.


Highway 5 A big concern and an often-asked question is, “How will the trail cross Highway 5?” A number of options exist because there are numerous intersections and potential crossings. The biggest consideration is the major crossing in the vicinity of the Old Village.

A recent City study of traffic in the Old Village (draft report dated February 24, 2004) indicated three potential traffic signal locations along Highway 5 at County Road 17 north near Lake Elmo School, County Road 17 south across from Lake Elmo Chrysler, and 39th Avenue. Any of these three intersections could be used with trails, although there are some limitations with the location relative to destinations and the ability to have a safe approach to the crossing.

Crossing by the Lake Elmo School would require the trail system to travel through the schoolyard and to follow the school’s walking route south of Highway 5. One concern is that the school area to the north has a considerable amount of congestion at school arrival and dismissal times, and in the evenings for special events. The trail system south of Highway 5 also would need a connection between the existing school walking route and the destinations that are primarily on the east side of the Old Village. This would require a trail system or route through the Village, and crossing County Road 17 in a less-than-desirable location.

Using the County Road 17 intersection near Lake Elmo Chrysler would also have a problem with trail location on the north side. There is a considerable amount of congestion and parking south of Highway 5 on either side of County Road 17. An on-street route would be difficult because of congestion and parking, and there is no room for an off-street trail.

This leads to 39th Avenue as being the preferred alternative. There are at least four destinations close to 39th Avenue, including parks and commercial areas, and it provides opportunities for a more prominent crossing. On the approaches to highways, 39th Avenue is clear of congestion, driveways and buildings with zero lot line setbacks. If a traffic signal is installed at this location, pedestrian provisions will be included, and a crossing will be as safe as possible. Without the traffic signal and with some roadway widening and improvement, the intersection could still create a safe environment for pedestrians. If the road is widened and a wide center median is included, it will provide emphasis to the intersection for approaching motorists and will alert them to the potential crossing of pedestrians and bicyclists. The median will provide a safety island for the crossing, which will allow pedestrians and bicyclists to cross only one lane at a time.

Additional crossings at Highway 5 could be made at other intersections. The existing Oakdale trail crosses Highway 5 at Ideal Avenue, which has a traffic signal. This is incorporated into the Lake Elmo trail system.

Another crossing of Highway 5 as part of the trail system will be at Stillwater Boulevard and Jamaca Avenue. Although this is in a location where the road is divided with four lanes, sight distance to the intersection is


The plan is to tie the park’s major north/south trail into the City’s

comprehensive trail plan.

extremely clear, and Highway 5 can be signed and marked properly for pedestrian crossing. It also has a median that means pedestrians cross one direction of an approach at a time. Although the speeds are high, this can be made into a safe crossing location. The Jamaca Avenue crossing would allow system users access to the Ideal Avenue Crossing.

It has been suggested that a trail be installed to connect Sunfish Lake Park with the Lake Elmo Regional Park, crossing Highway 5 west of Kelvin Avenue. This should be discouraged because the crossing is being made at a high-speed location in an undivided, two-lane section of Highway 5 where a motorist is unlikely to anticipate any type of a crossing. At 39th Avenue, the development nearby and the closeness to the Old Village creates an atmosphere where motorists might expect pedestrians to cross. There is no similar environment near Kelvin Avenue, and even with signing, medians, etc., a pedestrian crossing would be of concern.

Lake Elmo Regional Park Lake Elmo Regional Park is a major destination for trail users in the area. With more than 2,150 acres, it is by far the largest recreational facility in the area; however, 80 percent of the park has been designated for preservation. The park also has numerous on-site trails that could be incorporated into the Lake Elmo system, but many of these trails are passive and most are unpaved.

While Lake Elmo Regional Park is a major feature in Lake Elmo, it is also a barrier. The trail system was developed to reflect the park as both an asset and a barrier. A single base trail traveling north and south through the park connecting Keats Avenue and Klondike Avenue is part of the trail system. This was developed to provide access into the park from two directions and to provide relatively easy access from some origins and destinations to others.

The trail system also has several proposed trail segments that run adjacent to the regional park and will be placed on public right-of-way, such as streets adjacent to the park; on easements either on public land or in developments; or, with park cooperation, on the park’s outer fringes. Access into the park from any of these trails will be at two locations Keats Avenue and Klondike Avenue.

A meeting was held with the Washington County Parks staff, and comments were received relative to cooperative efforts. The park has preservation areas in the northwest, west and southeast sections of the park and does not want, nor should they have, intense trail use through these areas. County Park staff also would prefer to keep trails away from the maintenance area in the northeast section of the park. The proposed trail system, which could skirt the outside of the park boundaries or connect Keats Avenue and Klondike Avenue, would be consistent with these concerns.

An additional concern of having trails in the park is regulating park hours. Currently, the park is open from 7 a.m. to one-half hour after sunset. Thus, an early morning user of the trails would be prohibited from walking or


riding through the park. This is another reason to place the trails around the park, rather than direct access into the park at several locations.

Washington County is currently preparing a new comprehensive plan for the Lake Elmo Regional Park. Incorporating the Lake Elmo trail system into the plan would be very desirable. Thus, the City of Lake Elmo needs to provide input into the comprehensive plan for the park and, at the same time, be able to react and respond to changes in park plans by adjusting the trail system.

Washington County Linear Park Plan The Washington County Comprehensive Plan approved in 1996 established a linear park system, which is a countywide system of trails. The system’s backbone is a north/south corridor along county roads 15 and 19 called Washington Parkway, which would provide direct connections to Big Marine Park Reserve, Lake Elmo Park Reserve and Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park. Several east/west collectors would intersect Washington Parkway.

The system network is illustrated as Figure PP-13 in the Appendix. Figure PP-13 shows Washington Parkway following County Road 15 from Highway 97 past Big Marine Park Reserve south to Highway 36. From Highway 36, it follows a straight line through private and some public lands to the County Road 15/Highway 5 intersection. It then follows Highway 5 to downtown Lake Elmo, County Road 17 south, and County Road 10 west to County Road 19 (Keats Avenue) and the entrance to Lake Elmo Park Preserve. It then follows County Road 19 through Woodbury and Cottage Grove.

The section between Highway 36 and Highway 5 does not exist. The Transportation Section on Figure T-12 shows a “possible future trunk highway” also following the direct route between highways 36 and 5. Figure T-16 shows a different connection between Highway 36 at County Road 15 and Highway 5 closer to the high school. Figure T-16 calls this “right of way reservation.”

Right of way for a future direct connection has not been reserved, and development in Oak Park Heights and Lake Elmo will preclude construction of this connection. If Washington Parkway is to continue to follow state and county roads, it would logically follow County Road 15, Highway 36 and Highway 5. A connection to the trail on the proposed St. Croix River Crossing could also be made.

The Lake Elmo Trail Guide Plan supports the Washington County Linear Park System. An off-road trail is proposed from the intersection of County Road 15 and Highway 36, south to 55th Street (extended) and then east along an unvacated section of 55th Street to the Oak Park Heights city limits. The county system could follow the trail in Lake Elmo, and reach Highway 5 for continuation along a state route.

The Lake Elmo Trail System and the Washington County Linear Park System could again follow the same plan from the Highway 5 crossing


proposed for 39th Street. The trail would then follow a trail south from Highway 5 and a route on low-volume city streets to County Road 17 north of the railroad tracks. The Lake Elmo Trail System proposes a route from County Road 17 south of the railroad tracks along 33rd Street, and then along Klondike Avenue to the north trail entrance to Lake Elmo Park Reserve.

From the railroad tracks south, the Lake Elmo Trail Plan calls for a route following County Road 17, as does the Washington County Plan. The County Plan follows County Road 10 west to Keats Avenue, while the City Plan follows Lake Elmo Avenue south to a proposed off-road trail that connects to Keats Avenue. Both routes provide a connection to Keats Avenue, which is the route between Lake Elmo Park Research and Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park.

The Lake Elmo Trail Guide Plan shows support for the Washington County Linear Park System, or the Washington County Greenway Regional Trail as it is now called. The Lake Elmo system coincides with it along County Road 17, offers new alignments between Highway 36 and Highway 5, offers alternate routes between Keats Avenue and Lake Elmo Avenue, and offers alternate access (north trail entrance) to Lake Elmo Regional Park. As Washington County refines the details of the Greenway Regional Trail, the Lake Elmo Trail Guide Plan could be revised to show these details.

Maps and Signing As the City develops the trail system with multiple connections, there is a need for a trail map to be made available to the public. The map should be easy to read, compact in size, and show connections to adjacent communities’ trails and destinations.

Signing the trail system for multiple destinations would be difficult since there are several trail options to reach some of the destinations. With 20 separate destinations, a trail signing system for each would be complex. Signs should be few, if any, for destinations except where there are trail intersections close to a single destination.

Naming trail segments for people, places or things would also be difficult due to the numerous trails and connections. Incorporating names of developments into trail systems would also be compounded by the fact the Lake Elmo trail system uses only a portion of the trail systems in some developments.

The primary information to be provided to trail users should be information relative to their current location. This should be done if coordinated with the trail system maps. As an example, boards or kiosks with trail information at key trail intersections should be very beneficial. Trail users could stop, confirm their location on a specific map, and use the map to plan their next trip segment. A map could be provided at the boards or kiosks behind plexi-glass that shows the system and provides information on nearby locations. The board or kiosk could also add educational information relative to the location.


Kiosks, or trail information boards, at destinations in Lake Elmo would also be beneficial. These could be used to advise citizens of the trail system in general, and to help trail users with route options to their desired destination(s).

The primary consideration in developing the map and information board system is establishing how to keep the information current. This concern should be included as part of the overall maintenance programs for the City trail system.

Sunfish Lake Park Sunfish Lake Park has unique topographical features and a number of hiking or cross-country ski trails. It is a major destination for many Lake Elmo residents. There is a desire by many to keep the park more natural and not pave any trails within the park; however, bikes may be used by some residents for park access.

To meet both desires, the following general plan was agreed on:

• There will be no paved trails in the park

• Bicycles and motorized vehicles would be prohibited from using park trails

• Trail system access would be from Jamaca Avenue, a spur trail from the Tapestry Development on the north end and a spur trail from the east

• The three system access locations would be clearly signed to prohibit bicycles, and facilities for parking and locking bikes would be provided

It is also recommended that signs indicating that no bicycles in Sunfish Lake Park are allowed be posted at the last trail system intersection before the park access spur trails.

Unserved Areas During the trail system’s development, a few suggestions were made for additional destinations or loops that could not be safely implemented into the proposed system.

County Fairgrounds The Washington County Fairgrounds are east of Highway 5, outside the City of Lake Elmo in Baytown Township. Planning for trails and connections to and into the fairgrounds should be the responsibility of the County and Township.

Connections in Lake Elmo toward the fairgrounds are dependent on the fairground connection. The only safe crossing of Highway 5 in the area is at the traffic signal at Manning Avenue. With the Cenex Station in the southeast corner of the intersection, placement of an off-street trail is difficult.


The Lake Elmo trail system could be expanded to add a connection from the “Stillwater High School Trail” through the Fields of St. Croix 2nd Addition and Bluestem at the Fields of St. Croix developments to the Highway 5/Manning Avenue intersection. This expansion would be dependent on cooperation from developers and property owners in Lake Elmo, and Washington County and Baytown Township for the remainder of the connection.

Until this cooperative effort can be tested, the County Fairgrounds local trail connection should not be on the system.

Tri Lakes Loops Several individuals suggested loops around the Tri Lakes area, including a loop on the west side of Lake Demontreville or a route between Olson Lake and Lake Jane.

Demontreville Trail (County Road 13) on the north and west side of the lake was reviewed in detail. SEH staff agreed that the alignment of Demontreville Trail and its restricted width in several areas would not provide a safe environment for an on-street route. Limited right-of-way and topographic factors also precluded construction of an off-street trail. Rather than show a loop or connection around the lake when safety was a concern, the segment was not included in the guide plan.

Similarly, trying to develop a route or trail connecting Pebble Park or Ideal Avenue through the existing development to the north side of Lake Jane at the end of Jane Road was not possible. Existing private land that would be impacted by the trail and the narrow, twisting alignment of local streets were deemed too severe to safely support the loop or connection.

Sunfish Lake Park/Lake Elmo Regional Park A connection between the two parks was requested. SEH staff was concerned over the safety of crossing Highway 5 at this location (see Special Considerations – Highway 5). This connection, therefore, was not included in the guide plan.

Private Trails The Lake Elmo Trail System uses on-street routes and off-street trails. The City currently has some public trails, with others in developments where the trails are private. In several instances, the Trail Guide Plan calls for incorporating private trails into the public system.

Where private trails become public, the City assumes responsibility for maintenance and operation, including security and liability. Thus, there are advantages to the homeowner associations (or other groups owning the private trails) to allow the trail to become public. The City also needs to review the trail segment for safety, standards and condition.

It appears there is enough opportunity for cooperative negotiation for transfer of private to public that the concept of showing currently private


sections on the trail plan has validity. Because these are often key components of the overall system, high priority should be given to beginning negotiations with the private-section owners.

The City does not need to absorb all sections of private trails in developments. Where sections are not needed to complete the Trail Guide Plan, they could remain in private ownership. Signing for “private trails” could be a component of the City system of signing, with the homeowner associations assuming sign maintenance responsibility.

Implementation

implementation | page 34

Implementation Overview After completing the concept for the trail system, a tiered implementation system was presented and agreed to by the Parks Commission in December 2004. The steps and work to date were as follows:

• Review System – Planning commissioners have completed a review of the system, and several modifications were made as a result.

• Public Open House – This was held on February 22, 2005.

• Modify the system to reflect public input – This has been completed.

• Internal Approval – A process has been setup to gain approval of the Comprehensive Trail Guide Plan through the Planning Commission and City Council. Planning Commission meetings on the Trail Guide Plan have been held. This process is critical in gaining formal status as part of the comprehensive planning for the City. It should be formally adopted as the comprehensive trail plan for the City of Lake Elmo.

• External Approval – The trail system, as shown on maps, should be submitted to other agencies and neighboring jurisdictions. It should be submitted to Washington County to obtain comments from both Transportation and Parks staff. The submittal should be made to the County administrator, with copies going directly to staff members requesting specific reviews by Parks and Public Works.

The system map should also be sent to Mn/DOT since it involves Mn/DOT Highways 5 and 36, as well as the frontage road of I-94.

The map should be sent to the adjacent communities of Oakdale, Woodbury, Oak Park Heights, Stillwater, Baytown Township, West Lakeland Township and the City of Grant. The letter accompanying the map should request comments and provide a 45- to 60-day response period.

• Implementation Details – These should involve reviewing each section of road, with some modifications made where needed. Priorities should also be set, and some system of developing the priority should be the first step in this procedure. Policies need to be developed and adopted by the City for items such as non-motorized vehicles, winter maintenance and other general maintenance. Finally, there should be an opportunity to address several questions related to acquiring existing private trails, funding and financing opportunities.

Establishing Priorities It is suggested two parallel processes be developed to establish priorities for implementing the trail system. The first should be a general overall priority for trails. The various main trail sections, such as the trail from the Old Village to Stillwater High School or the trail connection from the southwest neighborhoods to the Old Village, should be considered. These sections would then be prioritized. The overall priority list may have the connection


of the Gateway Trail to the downtown area, or the connection through the Lake Elmo Regional Park or some other trail section, as a top priority. This would provide some overall direction for staff efforts and for funding on the Capital Improvements Program.

At the same time, a process should be set to help develop the simpler sections of trail. For this, a process for categorizing and then prioritizing within the categories should be established.

The first step should be to divide the trail system into four categories: 1) existing on-street routes, 2) proposed on-street routes, 3) existing off-street trails, and 4) proposed off-street trails. Each category should then be reviewed on its own merits, and priorities would be set to implement the more easily established sections first. As an example, the category of existing on-street routes would only need to be reviewed to determine if any additional signing, pavement marking, or physical improvements need to be made to provide for safety and effectiveness of the route. This should then be merged into street maintenance and improvement programs.

Proposed on-street routes should also be evaluated in terms of shoulder condition, physical condition, needed signs, etc. A list should be made of what needs to be done on each street to make it safe to be included as part of a proposed route for the trail system. Where the jurisdiction is under a different agency, those agencies should be contacted for cooperative efforts. A priority list for the potential physical improvements and for signing and marking should be done to quickly bring proposed on-street routes into the system.

Existing off-street trails would fall into either public or private sections. The public section should be evaluated for condition, safety features and especially any needed improvements. These should be included in the Capital Improvement Program, or should be upgraded by maintenance staff.

The private existing off-street trails would be evaluated for implementation into the system. Those that are set to come into the Lake Elmo trail system as public features could have the paperwork and the agreements negotiated relatively quickly. Others that would take a longer amount of time for negotiations should get prioritized and started.

The proposed off-street trail represents one of the larger time efforts. Where the trail system will be part of future development, it is primarily a matter of refining the preferred route through the area and waiting for the development to be proposed. For those developments that are already in existence, retrofitting the trail system into the development or through one or more parcels of private property needs to be reviewed and prioritized. As an example, a single parcel easement is needed to make a connection from the existing trail system in Meyers Pine Ridge with 53rd Street. If the now private trail system in Meyers Pine Ridge can be incorporated easily into the public system, then this single parcel easement would be a major element in opening up a long section of trail. This is the way the priority should be established for the off-street trail system.


By using this parallel process, a number of small segments of trails can be implemented that may ultimately lead to restructuring of the overall priorities to complete a section of lower priority trail and get miles of trail open to the public sooner. It should be remembered that regardless of the priority placed on trail segments, they are all part of the overall trail system and need to ultimately be implemented for a successful system.

Design Considerations Design Requirements As indicated earlier, the trail must be designed to meet the needs of the expected users, but the trail width that can be actually constructed is often a function of available right-of-way and funding.

Recognizing the diversity of modes using a trail system, the standards and guidelines for bikeway design issued by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and other groups recognize the need for some additional width and for some design speed considerations. A summary of guidelines for off-road bikeways published by Mn/DOT that shows a typical off-road design section is provided on the following page. The section is approximately 10 feet wide and provides a basic clear zone and shoulder on either side. An 8-foot-wide trail has been used in areas of restricted right-of-way. Maximum grade is approximately 8 percent, with a “landing area” near intersections. Recognizing that inline skaters may also be using the trails, grades and curves are a special consideration.

Mn/DOT’s booklet on planning and design guidelines, published in 1996, is 57 pages long. By contrast, their guidelines several years previous consisted of less than 10 pages. The process of planning and designing trails is constantly changing, and design for trails to be built should reflect the standards in effect.

To safely develop an off-road trail does require careful design considerations, and the standards and guidelines of Mn/DOT need to be adhered to unless there is a specific exemption for which there are extenuating circumstances. For practical purposes, an 8-foot-wide minimum and 10-foot-wide desirable section should be used throughout the Lake Elmo trail system.


Maintenance As indicated earlier, maintenance is critical to a usable trail system. Sand from adjacent streets or dirt and debris blown onto the trail will occur. Inline skaters require a smooth surface for safe travel and especially for braking. Thin-wheeled bicycles should not use trails that have loose material on top of a hard surface. For these reasons, periodic sweeping of those longer trail sections must be part of the system.

Snow removal is required wherever year-round trails are used. This means design standards must have some area adjacent for snow storage. In addition, careful intersection design must provide for snow storage to eliminate snow bank sight distance restrictions. A policy decision should be made as to what types of trails need to be plowed and maintained for year-round travel. Snow removal may also be necessary where distances between street and parallel trail are minimal.

Surface maintenance is also required. This means methods of patching, creating joints and other surface restoration must be carefully considered. Patching can create a break in the smooth surface for inline skaters and some bumps for bicycle riders. Patches installed on trails need to be smoother than those installed on streets.

Alternate wintertime trail uses should also be considered. There has been demand trail use by cross-country skiers, which is in conflict with snowplowing to provide for pedestrian use and other types of activity.

An often forgotten requirement along trails is the need to mow or otherwise control vegetation that may encroach on the trail system. Low-hanging branches have been known to strike bicycle riders, creating hazards and even accidents. Although litter is seldom left behind by bicycle riders on trails, local systems have accumulated some debris from a few bicycle riders, from motorists on the adjacent street, or from pedestrians using the same system. A continual effort to pick up trash along the trails, and especially to remove animal waste, is essential in maintenance efforts. Because of these additional costs, it may be desirable to establish a specific trail maintenance portion in the City’s budget. Segments of trail can be “adopted” by citizens who will pick up litter and perhaps even mow, trim and provide minimum maintenance.

Cost Once priorities have been established for the comprehensive trail plan, the next step for each of the recommended trail projects is to complete a conceptual study of the selected segments that specifically identifies the preferred alignment and assesses feasibility for any acquisition, construction and associated costs. This will enable the City to pursue a plan for acquiring land as it becomes available, and to identify funding sources.

There are several funding alternatives available for improvements to trails. Below is a list of funding sources that can be used:

• Federal Aid funding


• State DNR Grants

• Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources

• County funding

• City funding

Each of these funding sources has a unique set of requirements and criteria that must be met to receive funding; in some cases this includes successfully competing for limited funding. The City implementation and acquisition will be successful if the City can allocate money each year through its Capital Improvement Planning (CIP). Annually devoting a set dollar amount for acquisition and implementation efforts for a period of 10 to15 years to develop Lake Elmo’s trail system is recommended.

The City’s highest priority for trails should be funding the acquisition and preservation of the trail system plan’s proposed trail corridors. Once preferred routes are lost to development, they are difficult or impossible to recover, and secondary routes along the same corridor are sometimes so undesirable the trail is no longer worth pursuing. Cost estimates to be used for determining trail segments are as follows:

Simple Design: (basic alignments, bituminous on- or off-road) = $155,500 per mile

Complex Design: (difficult alignments, topographic issues, easement/land issues, bituminous on- or off-road) = $225,000 per mile

Appendix

Table of Contents - City of Lake Elmo, MN · 2012-10-26 · of Lake Elmo’s Lake Elmo Trail Task...

Documents

Transcript of Table of Contents - City of Lake Elmo, MN · 2012-10-26 · of Lake Elmo’s Lake Elmo Trail Task...