9.C.1. PRSR 02-14-2001 • ~ Item #9.C.1.
City of
Elk ,. River MEMORANDUM
TO: Park and Recreation Commission
FROM: Michele McPherson;Director of Planning
DATE: February 14, 2001
SUBJECT: Cross-City Transportation Corridor
Staff members representing the City have been meeting with members of the
Highway 169/County Road 33 Interchange Technical Advisory Committee. In
2000, the Governor's Office appropriated monies to improve bottlenecks and
traffic flow on inter-regional corridors. Highway 169 has been identified as an
inter-regional corridor and therefore, several projects were funded including the
interchange at County Road 33 and Highway 169.
In conjunction with the interchange discussions, staff has also been working with
Sherburne County and representatives from the gravel industry on the
realignment of County Road 33 in accordance with the County's transportation
plan. There has been a long history regarding this cross-city transportation
corridor. With the advent of the interchange, this issue will no doubt be
discussed as part of the "local approval" of the proposed interchange design.
Chair Kuester has requested that an update be provided to the Commission
regarding this issue as staff anticipates needing local approval of the interchange
design within the next 30-45 days.
Attachments
• Location Map
• Preliminary Designs
• Excerpt from Sherburne County Transportation Plan
S:\PLANNING\MICHMC\PARKN REC\CROSSCTY.DOC
13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • TDD & Phone (763)441-7420 • Fax (763) 441-7425
m
4 \ 1
-- ' -Oki,\'‘
' \ 1
' '1 ill illi
nano
I die
a ailli
E
1
, . , ,,i, ,' MI
. k } __ , R ter►
.. ... ...., _ _ ..,.........
iiiiii• 1 il w,,,,,iiirapiii, 14 ..
IIILAMIIIIIEMIIIIII
MINIMIIIIIIMII
1 41111111111111)' iN t 1 .
...
4 Jill l
y iiiii, n: -, ,,,,,' ,
il ,, ,„10114(i r i'll . It
- ' io 1111 :.:LF
1 ' k
.1, I , iallittAll, at ,,,,,,,,. Ai,.
i I 1:ial
lilt itkipriopr amiiis immeinci, Pritt
iv *Ad IN 1,,tt ,010111t, - 4 V?
; 1
,,..111, ..
r *Ab 4t 1111 . 01111111 maw ii.t's0 ,ia =III
A * ' q# ' '4 itSli Pt'
r t.Ai Aghttinumi.p1,!, am* . itottest - '
IL viti., samilr,----egirlit; Isis iliclern ,iiiiii. f frAti ..
ill
,..,i,,,,,,,I,,,,teirm.,,,,,,„..90_ ,,,,„„,,_,..iii 4,111 ;,,,,Iniii.,,,.,,. ffyillislaw itxmok Iiiiiiiiiiiii It•IPP' ' * ' iiiii i ". t
t� I ' Illb 11 P74"1
/ ---\"(
/ LOCATION N
i1kjver itMAP
13065 Orono Parkway •P.O. Box 490 CASE: Cross-City Corridor
Elk River,MN 55330
Example of Proposed Alternatives
ash IIP
r �i
F X qh-
..ki /Ii4uii,r ii1 X ei :•.•
,,( ,i NI f
( I /11e1®® I
I II m Vii _!1�1_1M ,_ _i, I NFL.. 0;11 ►A1-111111111.111011
Iti ,:v 1 g�-�"�oils
li 1 Il. /1r,' Williar i: li: levilinvil
1 ' Ilitill 14%74 1 Eta 111111;
74yfirve-rii
MI
' NI ��&I3 p �!iW
1 i s I,� � i�. �,1.'' .
I I 1121-0\--T* ..r. i ; i ow\---y-1, ..?%-
Ili I. i iti :-:- 11414 91 II I III �r q I x 'II I Jr- iv,,,1 //.1_ 11 I._ It ii, 1 0.
. , al WA IS
o�. , ,.UUP,a 1 III a. �i illiii I i
'f�' till glie-47.1411111trial',411,1,ii ii,,+_: 1 III ,• •
1 1111111 I'lltir I lit IlInt,4
ii ifilliVil'1.1111,,l'i,14,..xr-a-N- /1, t ; � '_rt.470.010 1111/qa a
Ha�s,� �I'i '.oar, -o4�io ►� �' A«�,
•.�,o o
if III.�► 4,00aI1It4iI bilk. ,rr4oil��ea���of\l���tpm�i�11
For More Information
For more information about this project,
contact Mn/DOT Project Manager:
Mr. Roger Risser, P.E
Mn/DOT District 3
1991 Industrial Park Road
. Baxter, MN 56425
Phone: (800) 657-3971 or (218) 828-2482
In view of these problems, a special study was requested to determine the options for
• realignment of CSAH 4 or other alternatives that would improve operations through this
corridor. As part of the special study, a field review of the area was made to determi' the
potential physical constraints of the area. Information gathered from this field visit . '• aerial
photos were used to develop the following findings and recommendations:
• The collector routes in the area are insufficient to effectively distribut raffic.
The lack of good collector routes in the area results in almost all oft• local traffic being
funneled through Zimmerman on CSAH 4. It is recommend• that a north-south
frontage road along TH 169 be pursued with at least one east-w;.t connection to TH 169
north and south of the City (see Figure 12). These east-w- connections should be a
minimum of one-half to two-thirds of a mile from the .AH 4/TH 169 intersection.
These routes would provide alternatives to CSAH 4 f• local trips wanting to access
TH 169 or businesses along TH 169.
• Realignment of CSAH 4 does not appear to be feasible alternative.
A potential realignment of CSAH 4 was co•.idered to the south of Zimmerman. Upon
review of the area, it was determined that •ditional development has taken place on the
west side of Zimmerman, south of CS • • 4, to the point where realignment of CSAH 4
would be extremely difficult. In ads on, any reconnection of CSAH 4 east of TH 169
• may involve crossing wetlands.
• Operation of the corridor s Id be managed.
The City and the Coun ould coordinate efforts to manage factors that affect traffic
operations in the corn . . . It is recommended that all access to the corridor be reviewed
and that access poi be consolidated over time. Access goals should be developed for
the area. For ex. • sle, additional access to CSAH 4 should be reserved for public streets
and spacing s Id conform to County access guidelines. Consolidation of existing
access point ould be pursued when opportunities are presented and as redevelopment
occurs. • .ditionally, access points within proximity of TH 169 should be spaced to
provide ..portunities for turn lane storage and separation of turning movements. Also,
the City should consider potential off-street parking facilities that could accommodate
existing on-street parking demand.
6.2. ELK RIVER EAST—WEST CORRIDOR
The issue of an east-west corridor in the City of Elk River was identified during the
development of the City's Transportation Plan. The draft plan recommended that an east-
west collector route be constructed from the junction of TH 169 and 205th Avenue to the
junction of CSAH 1 and County Road 32 (see Figure 13). This recommendation was very
Sherburne County Transportation Plan
46
controversial, primarily because of anticipated truck traffic that would use this route to get
from TH 169 to TH 10 and the proximity of truck traffic to rural residential developments.
The County had not taken any position on the need for this route and wanted the overall plan
to review the recommendations in the context of the entire County transportation plan.
The review of this issue was based primarily on a review of the functional classification
system, future land use and the growth potential of the area, and a field review of the area.
The findings and recommendations are as follows:
• The existing east-west collector system is insufficient to distribute future traffic.
There is an insufficient number of east-west collector routes in the developing northern
portion of the City. This is evident in the two-mile gap in the east-west collector system
between School Road to the south and 205th Street (County Road 33) to the north. This
deficiency in the collector system puts increasing traffic pressures on School Road (first
east-west collector route to TH 169 on south) and will result in more cut-through traffic
on neighborhood streets such as 193rd Street and 197th Street. Since most of the
commercial and commuter destinations are to the south and east, access to TH 169 would
be the primary function of an east-west collector in this area. In the long term, the
proposed connection would improve the distribution of traffic from the northeast part of
the City to TH 169. In addition, the area adjacent to TH 169 may ultimately be
developed as a future commercial area once existing gravel mining operations have been
40 completed. If commercial development occurs at this location, this collector route would
provide access to the area from the west.
• The timing and type of east-west corridor improvement is an important factor.
The timing of the construction of this east-west corridor is important because it relates to
the type of traffic that could be attracted to the corridor. Based on discussions with the
County, City and gravel pit operators, the east-west corridor would not be feasible to
construct until after the mining operations are completed (estimated to be 20 years). In
the meantime, it is recommended that the route be planned (right-of-way protected), but
not constructed until -the mining operation has been completed and the area is
redeveloped. The City and County should consider constructing the route as a potential
parkway because of the topography and parks that it would traverse. Trails and other
amenities should be considered during the design and planning of the route.
The recommendations of this study differ from recommendations in the draft Elk River
Transportation Plan, which showed an east-west arterial route from TH 169 to eventually
connect to TH 10. In theory, this would help reduce some of the traffic through
downtown Elk River on TH 10, which is expected to have operational problems. In
addition, there is a lack of north-south connections to TH 10 west of Elk River; this
connection would help reduce the traffic demand on Proctor Avenue (CSAH 1).
• However, the western portion of Elk River has significant residential development and
Sherburne County Transportation Plan
49
• development of an arterial connection would be extremely difficult. In addition, there is a
lack of good origin-destination information to support development of such a facility. If
this route is to be pursued any further, it is recommended that a detailed origin
destination survey be completed to assess the existing traffic movements from TH 169 to
TH10.
6.3. BIG LAKE COLLECTOR ROUTE ANALYSIS
This special area study began as an analysis of growth and traffic issues along County
Road 73 which extends north of TH 10 along the west side of Big Lake. This route primarily
serves older residential neighborhoods that have been established along the west . de of
Big Lake. This roadway is narrow (22 to 26 feet) with residences, docks and other .uildings
in close proximity to the roadway. The City of Big Lake and Big Lake To ship have
experienced significant growth in the northwest area of Big Lake. This ►.s resulted in
additional traffic using this narrow route to access TH 10. Increased tra and continued
expansions to the northwest have prompted many complaints by horn: owners along this
route. Their primary concerns are the increased traffic volumes, sp-, :, safety and loss of
local street (lake lot) character. Based on the close proximity of hou s and the lake, it would
be difficult to improve County Road 73 (i.e., widening to improv: afety) without significant
impacts. There is some urgency for addressing this issue becau- of future developments that
are likely to occur in the area that could limit potential ahem. - routes.
• The g roadway system analysis of the area involved examination of the e •. in roadwa s stem to determine if
Y
County Road 73 could be downgraded in import. ' to discourage through traffic, and if
other routes could be improved to serve as the mary collector route for the area. The
analysis involved a review of functional clas • ication, land use and growth trends, field
review of the area, and discussion of optio, with the City, County and Mn/DOT. The
findings and recommendations are as folio
• County Road 81 and 200th Stre> ntersection
It is recommended that a lo -term plan be developed to connect these two routes at a
single intersection with T• 10. This would eliminate the short jogs on TH 10 being
made between these two •utes.
• Arterial Realign II • it Concept-Concept 1
This concept ould realign TH 25 north of Monticello following the 200th Street
alignment to onnect to TH 10 (see Figure 14). This route would then bypass Big Lake
and remo some of the heavy turning movement problems associated with commercial
develo ents at the corner of TH 10 and existing TH 25. It is recommended that
additional consideration be given to realigning CSAH 5 from north of Big Lake to
connect with TH 25 at this intersection with TH 10. A significant portion of the new
•
Sherburne County Transportation Plan
50
^si* t'
it iArr., T 44" .'> , *:ti _ r.`'1.w . . 1* e@ r 1 x „'.pair s .A,•
" , Y ' �% 4 • . k•'`.A M 1 i*ae
s''Y•�„`rY"7yy
.
s`..e' 17;i7;;, t ~X .
?;$'"6'61'' y 1 i ( r*t •vex '„:-.1..� 1 K�'P•
410 1�,.. » f'� + 4 y c, i, 1 h „ : 4 r- r j+ Y ” ,. 5, w , f ' \
r
.. r <4,/ ; f .? r „b;� ° rP H .. 0t
c ' ,
M;4�' p "nc r"v��y.a.ter '"4 wR' .'..• A' ! I iR *. '+�yyn. , iv' `'4:s tm.
' '4' 44•'!44 -'' TAr 4' '' -- NA:
fj.� ' > k ~»r#, ti'µ Itr t.. 11111111 x • - { ,,� d .
y.� 'f 3r �- ° c ' .wr, .,��, .4.�2.,{i r a M t .,,-1-4,;''' ../411.,:, ""-rte • ..p ° s
.,i• t. •,.y''"�y 1., t sY''�• n.ce,[%�e.i ..7,•,'•;'
"w ,n "' 0 „, 1V t ,,�. °"',qr.
alb r. �' x I !i`
M, 1 c ,, ,,, .. ,` 1<� . , M ,-..,, fry L.. .c:.-.Ykr�N i 'rS, s . - 1' ,�a! .*•:::,
Zan s. :4'a y� 'q ;,,,4. ;t•. ,-.. ,k.„w ,,-.',. _ ',��1.,� - iv, .? { or t r•r p ;•.•
` '.`-}i<.F 4„ ",". y'' � ��1 u n ,. , 4 imp ` . .,••
"vr �• -� i y l�E t� • f ,,sir ,? . •S 1.. ._ i.•
- a+ 4.: ,,, .-']k �i4it t,ifiyilt ! lri¢DtkV, i- 4,: / S itr.... ,, .�. ,'"< ,, � `.j•
'?•t"� �1 i '.S - . � 3{, .av . , Z,74. ' • ¢ ,`, 8
a � � "1 Y ' .T bd .
^C �,-..4? � ,,
.,,..r
� � k rs 5v rlT . }. k x a
.,x,,A, a� ,fir ai-e. _ -,t,,..,-, x•k �,� 44i .-• . , . « .• . 6,rA '' + . s ..t .{ '.#11.•
.':li,
1+f; ''; � ..'.t .,R`.. � _ G Mlh "F, +W- ca ." . I 1. {.4 ' *�.� g n #ems.: Ii
r
'y S .r. rk ' �,
� r � .,i ,.� w. d`Gr , 1ir �Y n • f' .4 ?r• , . ,.e•,.,. , r te0 . 4
: w F
«' .4 7 '4 '4.-' w !$� x • �,44: , ; i s ..
,r ' y r'S - ''',',4';'''
.'F. "*' ;:'ma _ . } �
w� s .1 r °
'
„ -, ,'hr . _fi r 0yh k •1.- —.0.'1* y '''M'17
lit
y j ' l-
�N�, ..:<. '�ys.�� r 0.'„,,<., ,y� , - l�,. " ll.,•'�,., tx, r,� ":r�:� .� a,� .` � yM'.ti.. „��
•• ,r. .'�t ,ate 4,.. ,t w:',,,-. ?• +� 1.,,*.. ; y,:Z,,... . r M4 :,3,.;4 f '� " '. - :'} P r, , ..
„ -- ;;. s ?.7 4.0,4 w„, M.,•f'., t s t« 1 "' Y &.tom, •:::;;T: 4 a)"•
.. k» • ; {. 14's",=',.N y .' � .... 'v.R '.,}T: r,+''''q k, r. y ' $•^i • . ..
• -�+. F „t .Ire n» a . _^, .-,,. ''
. . 7 r^Y ,x !` •t t S ° t;+ b '.• 7 4,4.,x' 7�"^':.. .:. ',e.:ffi n:3
y Y 1.Y..Y'y h Topoikii ...,� '- I'lE Park
N V S ! , 3v• n' � , cARR��OMfls
.- •
sa . ar as tear t r x r '' +M tw 5 "''- 'i ! o. a .r
y�y *.8v Doteet 'u
tra
Ik. ,t-•, =..,•'.; • ••• - •"4--,-n4?',,'
i! PdlFxnr*s;' w�' FIGURE River- a V West Corridor
13
K•, ,w.1'..,.. , ,..se. Sherburne County Transportation Plan