HomeMy WebLinkAbout2B, MnDOT I694 TH 51 Improvement Project Update EN HILLS
Request for Council Review2 B
=
Prepared By: Terry Maurer,Public Works Director Worksession Date: December 6,2010
MnMOT I-6941TH 51 Improvement Project Update
Discussion Topic:
Staff will be updating the Council on the appeal board process and negotiations with Mn/DOT.Also, staff
will be asking for direction on whether the Council wants the noise wall included in the project at a lump
sum City cost of$475,000.
Supporting Documents:
1. Memorandum dated December 6,2010 from Terry Maurer,Public Works Director
2. Letter from Mn/DOT dated November 29, 2010
3. Email from Mark Lindeberg dated November 22, 2010
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 6,2010
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
FROM: Terry Maurer, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Mn/DOT I-694 Improvement Project
Background
Mn/DOT is proposing an improvement project for the interchange of 1-694/TH51 in
Arden Hills. On October 25, 2010 the City Council adopted Resolution 2010-052
Disapproving the Final Layout of I-694/TH51 with Conditions.
Discussion
Since the adoption of Resolution 2010-052 staff has had several conversations and
meetings with Mn/DOT staff. We have been told that Mn/DOT will be perusing the
appeal process in the Municipal Consent Policy but have not received the formal letter
from the Commissioner of Transportation. Staff has received the attached letter dated
November 29, 2010 from Mark Lindeberg, North Area Engineer laying out Mn/DOT's
position on each of the 14 conditions contained in Resolution 2010-052.
Once the City receives formal notice that Mn/DOT is proceeding with the appeal board
we will be asked to name our member. As requested by the City Council, staff has asked
Chris Chromy for thoughts on the City member of the appeal board. Chris' comments
were that it is more important who the third member of the board is that is agreed to by
both the Mn/DOT and City member than who the City member is; assuming the City will
not appoint a member who does not support their position. Following Chris's suggestion
staff is researching a possible third member from the Crosstown Highway Improvement
appeal board as a possible suggested third member.
Also, staff received the attached email from Mark Lindeberg requesting direction from
the City about whether the noise wall should be included in Mn/DOT's design. As
Mark's email states the City will be asked to pay a lump sum amount of$475,000 for a
20 foot high 3000 foot long wall. This amount is for a portion of the construction cost.
Mn/DOT will be funding the remaining construction cost, all design and construction
administration costs and any construction costs above the estimate.
City Council Meeting
C:lUserslterry.maurer\Desktop\1-694 Memo.doc
Page 1 of 2
An issue raised in Mark's email that has not received much discussion is the need to clear
vegetation along about 2000 feet of the proposed wall to facilitate the construction.
Generally it would be safe to assume that all vegetation would be removed inside the
chain link fence where the noise wall is proposed.
Council Action Requested -
City Council is asked to give staff direction regarding the noise wall issue so a formal
council action item can be included on the next council meeting.
City Council Meeting
C:1Userslterry.maurer\Desktopll-694 Memo.doc
Page 2 of 2
\tiTl�Spj. -
Do� 9y Minnesota Department of Transportation
p Metropolitan District
OF AQ 1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
November 29, 2010
Mayor Stan Harpstead -
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
RE: Conditions for Municipal Consent of 1-6941TH 51 Layout
Dear Mayor Harpstead:
I am responding to the city of Arden Hills' letter of October 27, 2010, concerning the Arden Hills
City Council resolution disapproving the final layout for the 1-694 at TH 51 and TH 10 project that
was submitted by Mn/DOT. In that letter, Arden Hills denied Municipal Consent with 14 conditions.
Mn/DOT intends to continue working with you and Arden Hills city staff to at least narrow our
differences and reach agreement on many issues. In doing so, I am going to address the 14
conditions to initiate the negotiation process.
Conditions from Arden Hills-
1 — The City requests that the revised traffic data outlined in the MnDO T letter dated September
14, 2010 be added to the approved layout.
Mn/DOT responselstatement—Mn/DOT has added the revised traffic data requested. Mn/DOT
sees this condition as being met.
2— The City requests that MnDOT show the beginning and ending points of the possible noise wall
on the proposed layout MnDOT has estimated the construction cost at$1,525,000 with MnDOT
funding$1,050,000 and the City funding$475,000. The City requests that MnDOT commit to
paying any construction cost over the estimated$1,525,000. In the event that the construction_
cost is less than estimated the City requests that their share be prorated.
MnIDOT response- MnIDOT has shown the possible noise wall on our final layout. The funding
of the noise wall can be established as a lump sum agreement where the city pays $475,000
towards the design and construction of the noise wail, or Mn/DOT and Arden Hills could agree to
use a"Schedule I"breakdown of costs for the noise wall. Arden Hills would then be responsible for
An Equal Opportunity Employer
�"e' o,_ � -.��r � ,t-` Sp;,
-�J' r n� ��
r�� hz�r' � _ �'"��'r3 4 � • • r�yti � 3c..5 �� f�_N
whatever the costs are above and beyond the $3250 per decibel per benefiting resident_ This -
option has much more uncertainty to the city than does the lump sum option.
Please be aware that the installation of approximately 2000 feet of the 3000 foot noise wall will
impact existing trees in the area. Some of these trees are mature Oak trees and other areas are
very dense clusters of trees. So, the impacts will be very large.
3— The City requests that MnDOT commit that fill generated an the project will first stay on the
project and be used for sound mitigation berming in all areas where noise walls are not proposed.
Additional fill material, if it exists, should be used for berming along both sides of 1-694 west of the
project limits.
Mn/DOT response--Mn/DOT has investigated potential berming areas on the project. In looking
at berming areas, it is necessary to look at areas that would allow berming within the existing R/W.
The only area where berming can be constructed within the existing RNV is on the south side of I-
694 west of old TH 10. Mn/DOT is able to berm in this location while avoiding the area needed for
ponding. The berm will be constructed meeting Mn/DOT design standards for clear zone setbacks,
drainage requirements and wetland impacts. There will be impacts to mature trees with this
berming. Mn/DOT will identify these impacts and requests that these impacts be discussed and
agreed to by Arden Hills.
4— The City requests that MnDOT prove that the traffic modeling for the 1-6941TH 51 improvement
considered the entire region and the effect the proposed grade separated intersection of TH 10/CR
96 with the loss of some movements will have on the entire transportation system_ Furthermore,
the City wants MnDOT modeling to document that the proposed improvement wit cause no harm
and actually provide benefit to the county and local road system beyond Hamline Avenue, County
Road F, Lexington Avenue, County Road E and Lexington Bridge over 1-694.
Mn/DOT response—Mn/DOT can confirm that the traffic modeling for this project has considered
the entire region and the effect the'proposed grade separated intersection of TH 10/CR 96 has on
it. In addition, Mn/DOT will prepare an exhibit showing the 2010 traffic counts for the local roadway
system for both the no build and the build condition. This exhibit will show the local traffic
conditions resulting from both projects.
5 — The City requests that MnDOT commit that there are no city costs associated with the
proposed improvements necessary on interstate, county or local system (including changes that
might be required on County Roads E, F, Hamline Avenue, Lexington Avenue or the junctions
An Equal Opportunity Employer
between) to construct the 1-6941TH 51 interchange shown on the proposed layout with the -
exception of noise walls.
MnIDOT response—Based on the Mn/DOT construction project, the costs that will be associated
to Arden Hills will be due to requests made by the city. The city, in addition to the noise wall costs,
will be responsible for paying for the cost of construction of the 6' concrete sidewalk from Floral
Drive to County Road F. The signal that is being constructed at Hamline Avenue and County Road
F will have county cost participation. Mn/DOT is unable to state what the Ramsey County cost
participation is. There may be city participation in the signal. Also, Ramsey County will be looking
at future roadway improvement projects in the area. The county cost participation policy will be
implemented on these projects. Ramsey County should be consulted on their cost participation
policy.
6 — The City requests that MnDOT work with Ramsey County staff to identify necessary
improvements to the Lexington Avenue/County Road F intersection, assist in estimating the costs
of such improvements and encumber funding from the Cooperative Agreement funds or other
appropriate fund source in a year agreed to by the County in consultation with the cities of Arden
Hills and Shoreview.
MnIDOT response—MnIDOT has already met with Ramsey County to discuss this area and the
possible improvements. It has been agreed upon that Mn/DOT will continue to work with Ramsey
County in assessing possible improvements. Mn/DOT will work with the county in the submittal of
a Cooperative Agreement project. The Cooperative Agreement process is a very timely process
that allocates money within the same year as the application. If successful, this may allow for a
project to be completed shortly after the completion of the I-6941TH 51 project.
7— The City requests that MnDOT agree to work with Ramsey County to identify any potential
changes that could be made to the Lexington Avenue Bridge and adjoining intersections that would
improve their operation and make such improvements prior to the completion of the 1-694
interchange.
MnIDOT response—MnIDOT has already discussed this issue with Ramsey County. Mn/DOT
has continued to provide data to Ramsey County as they look at the possible improvements for the
area. This would be a county lead project with Mn/DOT providing assistance in any way possible.
Potential construction would occur some time after completion of the 1-694 bridge replacement
project.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
,�n• ax -, -r�. �...� 7, �_�x �k- ,.� ..,.. k'.,a.s`? .. -ti_.,.u"o-a3��:"k_ _ ,. _. I.w.,. . r..7- ,o
8— The City requests that MnDOT change the layout as necessary to provide the required spacing -
and appropriate (barrier) separation for a 10 foot wide bituminous trail on the west side of old
Snelling Avenue%ld TH 10 as it passes under 1-694.
Mn/DOT response—In the development of the layout, MnIDOT work with the Minnesota Rules to
design the appropriate trail crossing under a bridge.
9— The City requests that MnDOT construct a non-motorized/pedestrian bridge across TH 10 to
connect North Snelling Avenue to the trail connection under 1-694 identified in #S above.
MnIDOT response—The development of a TH 10 non-motorized/pedestrian bridge crossing is a
project that should be developed using the Federal STP process. This project would compete with
other projects in the region with the best projects being selected for funding. Building connecting
facilities to the project would benefit the City by enhancing the proposed pedestrian bridge project
submittal.
16— The City requests that MnDOT show on the approved layout a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk
on the west side of HamGne Avenue from Floral Drive to County Road F and on the south side of
County Road F towards Lexington Avenue to the existing and/or planned sidewalk.
MnIDOT response—Mn/DOT is showing the 6'wide concrete sidewalk along Hamline Avenue
from Floral Drive to County Road F. Mn/DOT is willing to construct any additional sidewalks that
the City requests, but Arden Hills is responsible for the costs of the sidewalks, and Arden Hills will
need to provide the required RIW.
11 — The City requests that MnDOT include as part of the proposed bridge structure crossing 1-694
a non--motorized/pedestrian facility that will provide for movements from the west side of Hamline
Avenue to the west side of TH 51.
Mn/DOT response—First, the bridges that are being constructed will be able to be widened in the
future to accommodate a trail. The development of an 1-694 non-motorized/pedestrian bridge
crossing is a project that should be developed using the Federal STP process. This project would
compete with other projects in the region with the best projects being selected for funding. Part of
the project development should include working with the 1-694 pedestrian crossing committee that
will be'formed to analyze pedestrian crossings of 1-694 from 1-35W to 1-35E. The committee may
include representatives from Arden Hills, Shoreview, Ramsey County, Mn/DOT, FHWA and the
Met Council, but not limited to this group.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
12— The City requests MnDOT clearly state that the existing area on TH 51 available for non-
motorizedlpedestrian movements will not be lessened in the future with the proposed
improvements.
Mn/DOT response—The existing bridge structures have less width for non-motorized/pedestrian
movements than the proposed bridge structures.
13-- The City requests that MnDOT commit to including the design standards laid out in the
Architectural and Aesthetic Design Guidelines for the 1-694 Corridor from the Mississippi River
Crossing in Fridley to the 1-6941nterchange in Oakdale, July 2002.
Mn/DOT response—Mn/DOT commits to using the Architectural and Aesthetic Design Guidelines for the 1-694 Corridor from the Mississippi River Crossing in Fridley to the 1-694 Interchange in
Oakdale, July 2002. This document has been given to the bridge design consultants and is being
used by the Mn/DOT bridge design unit in the development of the bridges for the project.
14— The City requests that MnDOT affirm the intentions for 2015 reconstruction of County Road E
bridge over TH 51 and consider the possibility of moving this construction up in time to match the
balance of the regional construction (for bid economies of scale and logistics). The City may be
able to advance the funds necessary for this construction given a firm repayment in 2015.
Mn/DOT response— Mn/DOT will continue the development of the CR E bridge project in
partnership with the County and City. The current Mn/DOT scoping document has been shared
with Arden Hills and Ramsey County. This proposed project could move up if a funding source can
be found.
Mn/DOT appreciates Arden Hills' continued involvement with this project. Please let me know if
you have any questions. I am available at 651-234-7722.
Sincerely,
ark J. LindeWerga
North Area Engineer
Minnesota Department of Transportation
An Equal Opportunity Employer
cc:Thomas O'Keefe
Wayne Norris
Patrick Klaers
Terry Maurer
Jim Tolaas
An Equal Opportunity Employer
.-g E .f u } -- 'j ✓+� '�_..�aW � -.Vy�. .,�5_�3cir��k +'�'„-s„- ��„,sr.J --� � ����„ - �^ c,:-s-n'r S 5�
sx �
Terry Maurer
From: Lindeberg, Mark (DOT) [Mark.Lindeberg@state.mn.us] _
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 3:44 PM
To: Terry Maurer
Cc: Norris, Wayne (DOT); Patrick Klaers
Subject: FW: 694 Noise Wall
Terry -
I just wanted to convey a bit more information regarding this wall. As far as the cost split of the wall goes, the City can
either pay as a lump sum for the wall,which the cost to the City would be$475,000. This cost includes all design costs
and construction costs. Or, Mn/DOT would go with a schedule I breakdown of the wall. The City would then be
responsible for whatever the costs are above and beyond the$3250 per decibel per benefiting resident. This option has
much more uncertainty to the city than does the lump sum option.
Also, during the NAC process,the location of the proposed noise wall was established to obtain the best noise reduction
possible. This location was determined to be just off the R/W line (we need it to be 10' off the line for repair purposes).
This alignment does dramatically impact trees in the area. From our preliminary look, approximately 2000' of wall
construction will impact trees. Some of these areas are Oak trees and others are very dense areas of trees. The total
length of the noise wall is 3000', so the impacts will be quite large. Also,trees will need to be removed to allow us the
ability to construct the wall, at least 10' on the roadway side of the wall. I am conveying this information as there will be
a dramatic change to the look of the area that the local residents may not be prepared for or expecting. This is a detail
that was not really ever discussed as apart of the NAC process. Mn/DOT will do its best to minimize these impacts
through construction, but this is the information that is available to us at this time.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this information.
Thanks
Mark
From: Lindeberg, Mark (DOT) ' ....M....µ_�_
Sent:Thursday, November 18, 2010 12:39 PM
To: 'terry.maurer@ci.arden-hills.mn.us'
Cc: 'Patrick.klaers@ci.arden-hil Is.mn.us; Norris, Wayne (DOT)
Subject: 694 Noise Wall
Terry
I am writing you regarding potential noise wall construction as a part of the 1-694 project. As a part of the Noise
Advisory Committee (NAC), Mn/DOT analyzed the noise walls for the entire project. While some walls were determined
to be reasonable (reduce the noise by a minimum of 5dBA), no walls were determined to be cost effective.
In conversations with the city, I was made aware of Arden Hills possible desire to include the construction of a 20' high
noise barrier along the north side of the west bound C/D road. 1n letters to the City of Arden Hills dated August 5, 2010
and September 14, 2010, Mn/DOT stated that the total cost of this wall is approximately$1,525,000. Mn/DOT is willing
to participate up to$3250 per decibel per benefiting property. This means that the City could request that Mn/DOT
construct this wall. In doing so, Mn/DOT would contribute approximately$1,050,000 and the City would be required to
pay the remaining cost, approximately$475,000. These costs are based on the most cost effective wall construction.
Mn/DOT is proceeding with the roadway design for this project, and due to the tight schedule we are following, Mn/DOT
kindly requests that Arden Hills consider this noise wall issue in a timely manner. And, if Arden Hills could provide
i
Mn/DOT with direction on this issue by November 30, 2010 it would be greatly appreciated. This will allow us the
necessary design time to meet our plan review and plan turn-in schedule.
In consideration of the noise wall construction, please be reminded that it will require the removal of mature trees all -
along this area.
Regards
Mark
Mark J. Lindeberg, R.E.
MnDOT Metro District
North Area Engineer
mark.lindeberg@state.mn.us
office-(651) 234-7722
cell-(651)775-5485
2