Loading...
2. EDSR JOINT CC 03-01-2010z~ 2 MEMORANDUM T its ~uncii c®n~n1~c evel®pn7ent uth~rity iann~n ~r~nl~ssi~n er~nly arnhart9 tannin anaer SATE: arch p~ N 5U ~ T: ~cuse rya tudy a rans~rtati®n At its meeting on February S, ~Oio, the Council requested more information on the potential for an interchange at the current intersection of Highway 10 and ~ 67th Avenue. Additionally, the Council requested that the road from the interchange connect d~ectly with Twin Lal~es Road, rather than an intersection as previously shown, Attached you will find three plan alternatives -~ each with two stages of development, and a generalized cost comparison for the three options. In addition, this memo sum~aarizes the project objectives and guiding principles, MnD~T's requirements, general discussion, and pros and cons to each option as observed by staff. The Council, EDA, and Planning Commission are asl~ed to choose a preferred option so that further steps of the plan fray be completed. Among other steps, with the preferred location of the interchange, the land use plan fnay be created. G~U~DING P~~~C~PLES The original purpose for this project has been to develop a plan that attempts to do the following. 1. M'~nimize impacts to existing businesses and properties as fnuch as possible. 2. Develop a traffzc pattern that will continue to support existing businesses even after changes to Highway i 0 access, 3. Provide direction on the development of the City's Gateway property. S.~PLANNING MAIN~Prajects~~AST Study Area~TAS"1" memo to CC 17E transparta~,an 3-1-10 Bruce-DII changes.doc 4. Leverage changes to the market that will come with the Northstar Rail Line and Highway 10. 5. identify a location for a future interchange that meets MnDQT's requirements below}. MI~~T C~TER~A a} Zntersectian and interchange spacing 1.} Minimum 1/~ mile between at-grade intersections 2.} Minimum 1 mile between Hwy. 101 interchange and new street interchange b} Zntersection~interchange angle - 90 degrees to Hwy.10 or very close to it c} Interchange type -use standard diamond for preliminary planning purposes the phase of wor'l~ we're cu~•rently in} d} Interchange dimensions -see attached diagram e} Minimal realignment of Highway 10 ~ Minhnal project cast g} Minimal wetland/environmental impact wetland conservation act requirement} ~E~~R_A.L I]~SCUSS~~~ MnDOT's role ~t is commonly understood by the planning team that the greater the deviation from MnD~T's criteria, the less likely MnD~T will follow the plan once construction becomes necessary. For example, i~ MnD~T requires at least 1 mile interchange separation from Highway 101, and the selected plan indicates .87 mile spacing, MnDOT may determine that this spacing is not adequate, and may choose to locate its interchange farther south ~MnDQT representatives have already said that they expect the off ramps at Highway 101 to be improved and lengthened, which would require additional spacing}.This does not mean that MnDOT holds all the cards in the location of an interchange. Municipal consent will still likely be necessary; it just may mean putting in an interchange where it works for MnD~T, not putting one in at all, or the City taxpayers paying more to alleviate design concerns. Cost chile not a main guiding principle i.n the design of these options, cost should be a consideration. MnDQT's expectation is that the City taxpayers will pay for a portion of any improvements to any intersections in the area, including signalsonce warranted} and interchanges. City taxpayers should expect to pay more proportionally for any improvements S:~PLANNING MAIN~Prajects~rAST Study Area~FAS'I' memo to CC RE transportation 3-1-1D Bruce-DI I changes.doc or activities over and above MnDOT's base level plan. Common costs that should be expected include lowering Highway 10, additional wetland mitigation, business acquisition and Right of way acquisition, etc. The greater the unnecessary cost to implement a plan, the less likely that implementation will occur. 17151 Avenue Qverp~, All plans suggest the patential for an overpass at 17151 Avenue. while recognized as desired and beneficial by the planning study, this potential will need to be studied in greater detail from an engineering viewpoint. There is limited room on the west side of Highway 10 for a ramp to touch down, requiring Highway 10 to be lowered to create the majority of the necessary 15-20 feet of vertical separation, Lowering Highway 10 any appreciable distance will require either significant property acquisition on either side of the highway removing or relocating businesses} and/or large retaining walls that would restrict views to businesses. Connection to Twin Lal~es Road The Council requested that Twin Lakes Road be connected directly to the interchange, This is shown. Staff continues to strongly support designing Twin Lakes Road as an arterial spine continuing southward and intersecting the highway with it. Twin Lakes Road and County Road 13 have or are anticipated to have connections with the following major roadways; County Road 33, 193rd Ave., County Road 12Main S~•eet}, this interchange, and Jarvis Street. All of these will linl~ to planned interchanges with Highway 10 or Highway 1 G9. we believe this is the best long-term approach to organizing the traffic movements in the area, and south of the interchange. CAST C~NPA~z~~N To help the Council and public understand the cost implications of the three plans, staff has prepared an informational spreadsheet. These numbers reflect recent City projects, or the City's engineering staffs best estimate for canstr•uction of highways; these are not accurate numbers relative to actual construction costs for this project. They are offered only as an apples-to-apples comparison between the three options. Additionally, no attempt has been made to quantify acquisition costs associated with highway, street, or wetland mitigation; staff suggests that the City avoid acquisition as much as possible. Impacted wetland acres are identified as a comparison, S;~PLANNING MAIN~Projects~1iA5'I' Study Area~FAST memo to CC I~ transportation 3..I-10 Bruce-DPI ch~nges.doc based on County GIS data. A comprehensive wetland delineation has not been completed. ~letland impacts are a critical component of transportation planning; MnDUT must demonstrate how it has avoided wetlands, according to the Wetland Conservation Act. C~MPARIS~N ~F PTI~NS The plan~aa~ng team offers some comparison between the options. This is offered as a way to organize the information in a palatable format. The most desirable of each option is highlighted in bold. Issue Lion A tiou. ~ Lion C 1 Property acquisition needs from Roughly Roughly Most currently develo ed properties a ual to ~ e ual to .A 2 Property acquisition needs from currently Least Roughly Roughly undeveloped properties equal to C equal to B 3 Gas main impacts E ual E ual E uai 4 Wetland impact Middle Least Most 5 New development potential east side Equal to C Most Equal to A G New development potential west side Middle host Least 7 Appears to meet MNIDGT criteria Mostly Best Marginal 8 rmpact on residential street traffic Minimal Mininrial 1Vlinimal 9 Anticipated land acquisition costs Middle Least Most 10 Anticipated roadway construction costs Middle Least Most Comments: #1 Reflects property needed for eventual interchange scenario. Land would be needed for Highway 10 realignment, future interchange, and local street circulation. In intersection„stake o,f,im~emen~, land needs axe roughly equal among options, #2 Same comments as above except intersection sta e, "B" will require the most land, "A" is in the middle and "C" would require none. #3 Gas main alignment urould have fill placed over it in all three interchange options, There would be relatively no impact with intersection options. #4 Most wetland impacts would occur with interchange, Some wetland impacts will occur' with the intersection with "A" and "B" being equal and "C" being the most. #5 Primary factor is developable terra,nant parcels resulting from interchange location, gas main, wetlands and Twin Lakes Parkway alignment. #G "A" and "B" offer new development potential associated with intersection/interchange on currently undeveloped property. #7 "C" does not meet intersection spacing requirements and has more property and envrtonmental impact, #S All options tt•eat Yale Street equally. S;~PLANNING MAIN~Projects~rAST Study Area~1±~S'I' memo to CC RE transportation 3-1-IO Bruce-DII cl~angcs,dac #9 Currently developed properties are typically the most expensive to acquire. #~0 Predominant factors are length of ~lighway ~0 needa.ng to be realigned and wetland/poor soils impacted by Highway 10 realignment. EC~N~I~A.T~~ Based on the original project objectives, guiding principles, and circulation issues, the planning team recommends the use of Option B as the preferred option. Staff believes that this option achieves the goals established by the City Council, Economic Development Authority, and Planning Commission the most effectively, and with the least amount of taxpayer cost in the short and long term. Staff' also believes that Option A is a viable alternative but not to the level of Option B. ~lhile option B does not meet the public's preferred option C explicitly, staff feels it captures many of the goals enumerated in the petition of December ~ 4, 2010: 1t keeps residential properties residential, and commercial property commercial. Option B also established a long term tt•affic pattern with the creation of an interim signal where, an interchange can be located protects the long-term use of land in its present zoning Bullets #1-4~. None of the options prohibit the overpasses at 173x`' Avenue and 1715r Avenue, given the current level of detail; however, optian B is a less expensive alternative, preserving financial resources to complete these overpasses i.n the futureBullet #G}. The plan does not reflect the cul-de-lacing of Ulysses Street Bullet #7~, None of the options prohibit the overpasses at the railroad, given the current level of detail. Option B is a less expensive alternative, preserving financial resources to complete these overpasses in the futureBullet #S~. Option B uses existing street networl~s urhere possible. The additional footage is necessary to mini.tnize impacts on existing businesses and properties Bullet #9}. S,~PLANNING MAIN~Projects~rAST Study Area~rAST memo to CC R~ transportation 3-1-10 Bruce-DH chan~es.doc I I I I ' I ' ~ I I ' ~ i I ' I I I I a~aa ' 1 I I I I . I • I ~ . I a , I ~ i I i I I ' ~{ ' I ' I 1 I. I; l~ `, I l . I ' ~ I ' I ' l . I I 1 ' I I I ,~ ~ I I ~ . I ~ . I '~ •' 1 ~ . I y I ' l ~ l I { N I '`' I I I I . ~ I 1 I I I , 1 ' I ' I ' ~ 450' I , I I ,OSb-... --~.u~~ 1 I ~ ~'~ ~ ~~^ I .r I 4F a55 r}1+~i71or~no5 gsa~r ~+-~--~-sil~lllo~tuo3 s~aoaY ~~ a59 iN~. I i ° I I I I ~ I I c.a I 1 o I f ' I I Q ~ I I ~ I f I . ~ ~ l i v I I . . © ~ o I ~ N I I N W ~ Q ~ ' ,' . I ~ I r-, z ~ ~, ! ! ,~ ,~ , ~a ~ ~ ~ o ~ I 1 I I , , ~~N~ w ~ ~ ~ I I +~ I I ~ ~ ~ m ~© ® ~ , I I ~ w ~ ~ " ~~ I I I i ; ~, ~ r~ I I! ~ . , , I ~~ ` I ~`~ I I I . ~U I I .~ ~ . ~ ~ 1 a ~a ~° E I ~ d Y ~ I I ~~aoi . I I , ,, ~~ I I ~ I N p ;~ o ~ ~ N {~ lil N O o N M N 0 0000 0000 ~a®o oo~o oooavo oONoDN ~~~~ NaO~ ffl~ d3~ ~}} bg a~ou~o c~oro ~i o ui o ~0~-O r I` l!7 O : ~ *,+ ,~. ~ ~ ti o .~ V 'c ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ .. ~ .~ ~ c .~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~"w ~C ~ . „ ~. ~ v U ~ N ~ ~ ~~ ~ ti+~ ~ C J L i~ ~ C , 0 3,rnm ~~~~ ~ooo~ ~~°~~°Q o D o ~ Dooms LD (0 '~t' C~ C'~? li7 °o co D N 0 w ,~ v ,~ m fV 0000 0 0voo 0 uio~iov u~ o r o ~ cvv~-o~ NDNO d' u7 f'~ r ~i7 d' 00 I` N r- O N D ID b9~ ~} bF} {f} 6F} a~o~no c~o~-o d7 O u7 D OOD~D rf~u7D ~ ~ ~ o ~` .~ 'c ~~~~~ .. e ~ o i~ {~ ~ N a. o ~ ~ rn o ~ O 0 ~ ` ~ L 1~ n (~ ~ e e .C .}~ o~~~°-'°~ v~ ~~~~w ~ooo~ O O 0 0 U ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ooocv 000 lf}Dr ~'~d. u 0 ,_ ,~ ,~ °v m 00 m m 00000 00000 ~ou~~ai oo~o ~ OQ D ~" D N ~'- ~ u} ~ N ~ ~ ~ ti ~ (D d~ ~ 00 u7 NOe-'d' ~} {f} ~} Fh} ~} a~ou~o r~ o ~- o O o ~ o QD O t`-' D r- f~ ~t7 O '~-' r In o ~` 'c ~~~~~ rri c ~' U N ~ a`~. 0 0 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 'Y ~ 'II ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ .c .~ .~ °~~~w ~- ~ L ~ooo~ O 0 0 0 U ~~~~Q ooo~n 0 C] O N (~ u7 Cr} C~ C~ {D e~ QC~ ~ ,G ,G ,~ ~ ~ ~ C~. ~ Q, ~ C C ,0 0 o ;e E E ~ ~ o0 ~ N u7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ti~P 0~ ~0 f` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r[y]f`~ ~ ~ r ]~ .~ o000 ~ o000 ~ oovc~ ~ o©oo 0 0000 o Novo ~ 0voo a 0000 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t0 N ~ ~~~~ ~~ o~ ~~ ~~ ~~ L {~ '~ {~ {y U ~ _~ J® 2