HomeMy WebLinkAbout2A, MnDOT I-694 Project Update EN HILLS
�
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 19, 2010 Item 2.A
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
FROM: Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Mn/DOT I-694 Project Update
Backiround
Mn/DOT is proposing an improvement project for the interchange of Interstate 694,
Highway 10, Snelling Avenue and Hamline Avenue in Arden Hills. Over the last six
months,Mn/DOT has been working through the public participation process to develop a
layout for this project. Mn/DOT has completed this process and has submitted a
Mn/DOT approved layout to the City,requesting City approval (Municipal Consent) of
the layout. The layout is attached to this packet. A full size copy of the layout is
available for viewing at City Hall, and will be at the work session. A guidance document
for the municipal consent process has also been attached.
On June 28, 2010, the City Council ordered the public hearing for this project for August
99 2010. The discussion at the work session is intended to be an opportunity for the City
Council to identify questions and concerns that can be provided to Mn/DOT for response
at the public hearing.
Discussion
The proposed project includes the following components:
■ Replace bridge infrastructure that is deteriorated and reaching the end of its useful
life.
■ Provide sufficient vehicle capacity and system continuity on I-694, Trunk
Highway 10 (TH 10) and Trunk Highway 51 (TH 51.)
■ Separate the interstate mainline from the trunk highway movements on TH 10 and
TH 51 to eliminate existing weaving movements.
■ Reduce the number of crashes by reducing congestion and eliminating existing
weaving movements between I-694, TH 10 and TH 51.
City Council Meeting
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PR&PW\Engineering\Council_Actions\2010\Worksessions\7-19-l OMemo_MnDOT_694-
51Update.doc
Page 1 of 2
■ Access modifications will include the elimination of the westbound exit ramp
from I-694 to Hamline Avenue and the entrance ramp from Hamline Avenue to
eastbound I-694.
The proposed schedule is to begin construction in August of 2011. Construction would
continue for all of the 2012 construction season, and would be completed in the 2013
construction season.
During past discussions of this project, the City Council has had questions regarding the
following topics. What follows is an update on the status of these topics.
Noise:
Additional noise analysis was completed for this project,which included the development
of the Noise Advisory Committee. Mn/DOT's consultant is currently working on
summarizing this information. This information will be incorporated into the
environmental documentation that is required as a part of the project and will be provided
to the City when completed.
Pedestrian facilities:
The resolution adopted by the City Council on May 24, 2010, in support of including
pedestrian safe infrastructure has been sent to Project Manager Mark Lindeberg and
North Area Manager Wayne Norris.
TH 10/CSAH 96 Improvement Project Schedule:
The Environmental Assessment (EA)report for this project should be completed and
posted for a 30-day comment period beginning in August, 2010. During the public
comment period, Ramsey County(the lead agency for the project) is required to hold a
public hearing. This will be scheduled in September, 2010. It is anticipated that
construction would begin late in the 2011 construction season, and be completed in 2012.
If construction on the project does not begin until spring of 2012, construction would
carry over into the 2013 construction season.
Project Coordination
As the development of both the 694 and 10/96 projects continues, Mn/DOT and Ramsey
County will be working to coordinate project staging and the construction schedules to
minimize impacts to the residents of Arden Hills and the traveling public. MnDOT is
still programming a mill and overlay of TH 10 between 694 and I-35W; this will also be
considered during project phasing development.
Council Action Requested
Provide staff with questions and concerns to be forwarded to Mn/DOT for their response
at the Public Hearing for this project, scheduled for August 9, 2010.
City Council Meeting
\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PR&PW\Engineering\Council_Actions\2010\Worksessions\7-19-l OMemo_MnDOT_694-
51 Update.doc
Page 2 of 2
._3 �. -N� ' ,y,1 i � p:. 1 .w���•� r,, � ' .:L :"'t?3 ,.z�.
1,7
link"
`iit'N..
.d;;;ii i��+•N,a,_-ice �`�.•1 �}a �� F��I �.it"��''�fJ I � -�� � -•�f'WA "^->`"`.,,- `jS"�'"`.... �`~
y, a t �,y , , I t� t j jI','''�"f L �I� ��b `"'aoxae-..�,• .�S ..0.'`
C7 \,� '•,'�3 iEtk t ty':� �iiy i r�(y�+'�' )"..r 4J. '�£if� `�°�'s"°'t�'y�„�'';�c„'"a.+c"'�.� ��.
': �}�,`.i^w;'•'' `at 1 (�.� ( i1,t ri�'ic Cf 7 2'.'Y � f^- '�."`"s' o'..'me.,.,.,� :.
°�.
� �� � tn•,J t;t� ;fit! 11 1}�?t i{�I .,�.''^�'l 4' �.�. �4:
t
�r l N ri �+ ° W n o to s)I t6 Iti 1 t1 j}t1t£�)�` \t'` }�1, �' ,^•i i
x {F ,k tF r✓?'� {� i
L_J
i C5 i<> a� h �a �.t4`�i � fin. �� �:��� j r��t 1t'�`��A,�� 1'lt�/r�' �i`•�J �I; ,`1
tr:i a m ., �i a a-g w � 'i � �w: z (F' l(). ✓
t
✓ I $$ {�
zo.
-7 ,1 [� 4 rssi ,T:it�F
0•i�?t, 1 ` :� •: t"•✓" ` 1 t \` ^�.
•f^^-'— � •r ,P, /�j •1 ora� ..r ��},}�} �?t�,ll trtJ •, '��„'t''�•.....,'.,.��'•>kr...;,,,,...� 1 �✓''4ar tG t�0,` .-'�i
Nil
4 .�.._.� ''• y f �� �� •<. r� {Q�l 1�"s�i� 1, � �: � r),'�'i� �t iG\,�%'\• .:.'!a:•' f' ii t , t 3° a � +✓ a
:nl ,� `k(I — N-'""'E"`-•-';�i •� •`1 ` t !�j�� ' t t1j.,'s•� ��l ,•t �;c•'. _'� �`J .t r �'v'�: r�'. S^ :,.r i
a $£ \`^fit ' �✓ ( 4tb'�ti ,, 4 1 t: ' 'Q
°KE'4j
a�-•-- y� "�� •� .�, ✓..r��} /IJ-
+` W 1sjt�tt�,t,q� R� a �,�.t i�� `�,��\.; � `�.",>i.,�i'/'
1?......•� tt i--..._I t ✓,£ t� ! t}tb` � �`? �:.•X,avSS'r �J^r\,r :���;r ✓ r/i.
�� , i � +�.g raj 1.( 1�i i}lt.s �: � �._£ `Y, 1"r •'•.��.."' '`•�,5 fit;, r��"� `r'@
jcxy. I✓��t. �ra 1)1:�I Q :} :� \. � '� u L yQ� r /�ii"i n
01.. lei' .•.ram s70- ,ter •ti ! ✓s
If � t`t i,�,t�\ ¢ � ,.*�e�\ J✓ (3 N.< �_� ��,:r,!..rim✓{ �tr .C,
j •r.ca s� ttE�1�J �� tl"B s�� pp $ �..._..--�'' � ..:"+- "`';,••.,f�``�''. :s. i, �y'�. c�
tf[ .��•✓''�,.���x^'G'"'' y .�. „ �',�t•�:1j�'�
Y Ij , t n �� ?z�"
! i f��. / ��� }p;� \..<:......„f )i)t t t '�i.. �^4�,�a'"_yi6".!t" \ 'A �� '�(t'`.'"3 ✓M'G'
I vvv jI :,13 � o- .t s_ t t�'''et .?/ c7^ :. �,�� .'a•�,�u �V'�t'/,`:r:.t. +3�^,.!
-z 7 aA � y I�`.;,✓l-' t j♦, �` �N �r r 4.s"'✓.^`J,,-!�.•,+�♦.J �,.
1-1rQ z Al �,I.i f-t�s i•�a� '�//j�'7. �}{y'C �,•,._....__._.. � ��� "�./'/� `�el�'r,;,�r'�\* :s .�.G`'�. Vn
•\••.. `�hc��'',� old � J -✓" '��,� 3 '`s1 t?i, � % 5 �°,.'�d �' ��,,1.: .�� `''�,
�-
11 F,. t t�q�"'� ,n•^•' rr5tr Y v. `f,q�:. //,v t•.l !.'i y,�&}kF�A�j �:rr l+f j .,o��`'�+/y' ',,,.t�f
1�y�`�.w 9`''� %� � (f F �' k f r`..w.� a�, p f;p•F,,eS I / �.: � rzl, tr i x
I a 1�7�'•�" Q�1�j / S r a��� J�Q � ®'+Y4 (`a� ��yI�l� ♦^'' .!�/6. {C �_st• t� �S° 1X�,%1
�. fl�\�� ✓. I( �:� S'I f/ X' '-1 �I{I'r}tP/'�D :� �er�''1•'�.�,•`lfl�+ .T �, Fes-`*
1 r:-✓��., l ;:+'ty. ,�,,.1i \ , •� I ••/,o.:.,..u", r�J,', � '- )...s� djl �nSa'F �' LY� i �,•r`: �'^".--.-....'..�' 'k(_
\`.\�t;,,,,;.�b/ ....r,r�.Ejt +. �9 �.c.p J.. Or<'
f• t<1 \�p\i 1\ t /. .s �r f(T�s !a i k r i 1 +rF E 1'. 'I .^�/
hl
m r �11}�C x. r,..l``�• I '7
%IW I
�n '.. '1 " t ��' � ' tt 't�•�ywr`�„F i rs.N,:e� ' � �a� 1 'tr 'L•7'r»,�1 3'3 �r�'�.:�J`+-f``�- ^..,f;-
"a '/'�GL•`� ./{,t.� !�.'� ,,.w«i 9litr:'a ��a�� f} 7 S- .J O
..:�A'.� ��✓..�,,,'C���7 �4 �:i/ `i z�..i� � �,�;�� .S "srd��3�rf� a t� f/ '�
1 yQj'^ •4.� jt1 > - 1 .,.'+tss,..f 0 row:�x.
3"1'�.•-c a3�-�µw,.•.-,..--^' yi��P+Gx .�'' row
mo(:.,
\�_,,/; a,yt ..,�''",� �a,,f/;r,••+,.��',•"'r �`'a••-• �+ (I} 4 !r�,� �1,•-•� )`,j#j� f�J r,�,rf.!/ .�W���� � �,.,
,,,•7Y•++./ M ...,��;_�.,,,..�^. "'O r^ tJ I=t�r � r� �' j(�'`Y j,f f Q. . j:,•9.// ro L* ,�1.
t`t:. ,/'y:� 9���*,"�„'-.<'"". ,��, r-, `C "/�'�.. `o �.�r.,�i�e7•:)/'"' f 1 t'� p J /�'!r/t<�..:�``\8F�•r�k~�''.��`II
e9 rj 0 y�y'✓'�tjz'�"�•� , ,•,,,�.-/^roG7 �
g -�+ fl`1 4 sy1 1 r, i� � `t��t}x! 1�!Ct)��i�"'�'`�•��v'l'J?• �L�?',t
t♦tt'g��s^ i rr ry t� ( V' ! .• , r s �Z r 9 /' r w+�'`
t
:. �,�..--a.='✓ P'k 1��.1 4`�`•° +."y-.y .;,✓ '� L'}•�f ^.t,}i ,(frc�'��. r,r?O y@kr �jI: �`.?/i �'t�l� �,�,'2� r' ,�.��'
J,J..•• S�''�•r..,' 'A-j ;.y"�7i.'7' �': I'F� �G 1� �, ,ter r,f c,J s 13' /..'I�
�
� t;.=•�� � ,♦F`'� sl: FlJt.l r 3 sr t•r;j J" �.�-`!�..---...•,..--...
�^
r \ , C1
\� + 1 1�'
Z \ t\ y••-• el .r? t7 ♦ 1 tJ(J�r ( \ + qp r t i s t
co
? J � p ♦r�1r] 'd t " �rs t, vp ti A i ) }() r ..�a.� t a j rF cJ-
ti r� rt �t �
E r ,,`C,_•�\'n ' � �' �` •'y'' .1 t'T i i. 'r ' 3 j �..ram^,., t
W`Y`ro a:����,•cS N.�;r�✓a��- r-- 1- �.. -� � (" q� r.,i':S'y j(}
F� ,..`�.Ci''a'c ae�•✓ t3�y �kj�c�: � ) ,;t� E. j )\f ,� li:' +`ja '1�". � ,ems,. '1•C a �.
AN
l:� � -k v,. •9,t f f t i fJ +fir = `'
1i( q i 7r ,�I,( •'p ! � G I; .�
t t�'j f !f EF
tap, rri++JJ jiex
�✓ v { _
4�.•gy All' y
! /..Cai.•♦♦tl�'.`"��..�:.)t j 5t `J: �
i�7 j�.f �:.j.>)'^z�1 t_It. .�.Ca,•
y t '�'",%�,,.•r �` +:. .
r t y/.!J�. 7 � £ �)
f���f
,( v �/ l� r^ � 7 c y
�} �� w?� �i� s � /:I iJ� •'t i� r e�a �J�...- SA'`"LAJ
g j,� ��'f��,,. ,,�j i I s hi��`,•(t.�f �/ i't.. r(�` �.+
C #J �'tv w A !1 1 `1 j l Y7 f' rg iJr J! / q; ♦i5
h/` ��j a J��ad
Ct Yp J/♦�,G i..t 1C A.
�' ^ 711 f( m p J t �.�•' .k,k•, k t�j'
Jv
}
�,LO
a f�l �'Sa"j r. yi zz.•..+
rr JCL
%N�4co
r
elm
ICE ,
;�y�yi �a J'1sfdit.�JYj�ll` ° % i�'oo`
(1 ..`F;t�`�j°•�:r ;tt y Y„ ,,( �ii.(..-� r.y .* Gy.,
# r Ctt?'r ' p ,,.r� ,,,ems is ✓
�.io•. `�•'.."".y /\.L9C:=3..`�.. a'?fi�E:
`lam.�����^`�h,"`s.,�t�✓,.<�% ;a/II( �i�1�9 !f ~�.t�'•f �.�J_ J�,,, 1 i
r--� ,s:C��u�(7°y. �•�1/ !� r �( ♦ � tip..+?'�("7 f '%; !1 � �• �f'�'�� �4 1
1 ;�'...J.��.✓�/#���� 1� i frlf � � j`"i JS /( y,��%� i. is a a •f
r 1. �j.��..�..•�.' S.'� I � f fp ': ':� '� I �f ,,/ f//' !i.:l a*w ,;'.: x �'�i ,1 ' I
�'.S)R�b z �l!j � 'r ' I. �" IJ a I '' ?'., '^' ta.? z ✓�~1 � £s i
\�✓iJ l I' J//N:f gq� a,/.' A. � f4>i f�i�! ��� W t G � � N .J J
li:}G>t'�C•`ye �1'\ �". LL'�J z��,/t�.. � '"'�dui �SJ o•'c _'t'j' a J is�-w � �y' \\\t it I
t r ti �b./ �`s r✓yr p .t�jr x a u� t �' w a $ ;r t
j w1 r✓.- �'^t Ci :/ '•�.i��'.3:�?lz z L I. �
..(mac`` w. tt Qs�( l! %r,�/ p' t }' I. tf
l.•��G: t11111�rl
�,. ' `�q � � ':.,. :,.{�� i!wr�"iifvz:si........ ��I 1 � '�. ♦l�
\%' Jvl ( liii: I( 'GY 1 t rql x: ��r,/w(�S•
gv-
\i7 5 j I y x /ji ✓ , a* ,s`* t ' ,wM+•, G$ \ i s `\ � Yl
`
f,✓/ l l"jt`,\. f ,k G� •�?o!� :.�t � A ,`,'1 .,,��y w, F qa r•+'-,\ i
ZY
N'^s, � �.�r6 ...:.•„�� ..�.��R ) '��,� ' J �5z.
��-r�•-;7 �.. J�j� '��r�•-'"1'\,,,,1`._a�xs`y„'� ',i f �1 f �;'yp � ��' �#7..'�"a 1,'{,,, '..N t J i f w
tap !// a / }4�Ttl" ` y 7 / "� 9 B •
All w' / ,•^ (,";
.•{/' - .r z '" r�� Q ,�•/z/• 4• 6. ./r \ c� f3.i,..?? ,c,.'.
el ��/ /r + i� t y IJ;/ f.♦•�, \ p1 C , a x{l f k
,�•1• ::,y!''�. Ft1\,.1111..-.,�*A}^/ yt+, f 8
�ln�U /
J,
✓' .x fl�,� � �y ('y, t\ry;, {� \ etY :sa ,.� 1 5 /' � 7`f �
'� h�'� v�/tJ 1n!� !�""!y�At�t !f �\�, \t-✓r/`,k✓♦ s° i i ,S aU G.`�;,..�r'+fps, '�I I' �.
y./ ,�•,,,�J�'11/zJr,}'t..'e5 z�f !! tr' S�;'r// V• �),'>. 1. 7 �'. y`�y11
I !� / .P'Y•%f^J* /;�G.r''`' L�i t\"... "�•./��'3yt?3,'},'� ��>V� �.'S� `\ '/�^J G� •-' �' .i tS
� .Lw �.%/..� ✓/�:�? +�r�/�"y'�\/ F�v2 a* /7 I�.���' �,t Y t� }1/� ��y.�O t E-"F Jam' �'�, � �_
//,¢n /,..�t.i t ,t \ ...,.€('"{}1 t'' y��*.;'1�'�� `` ' `toy t. !'• .j� ,t �'.✓.,� � ;� r��� d:
//1/''�>��'�/ 1 s+�.x 1 '.'ram r'.�.a'�A)' � ki 'r,• .,�♦� f t~"
HPDP/Scoping/Subject Guidance Minnesota Department of Transportation
iConsent
MunicpaI
Contact
Steve Ryan, P. E. steve.rvan@dot.state.mn.us
Project and Process Guidance Engineer
Office of Technical Support
395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 676
St. Paul, MN 55155
(651) 366-4675
Forms
For a generic layout-approval resolution for use by a municipality, see Sample Resolution in the
Appendix.
Threshold Criteria
Municipal consent should only be requested from a city if it is required.
When Required
Municipal approval is required for any trunk highway project that results in any of the
following within a municipality:
• Alters access,
• Increases or reduces traffic capacity, or
• Requires acquisition of permanent right-of-way.
• (Changing capacity means adding or reducing the number of through lanes. For
example, adding auxiliary lanes is not a change in capacity).
Exceptions
Municipal consent is NOT required (regardless of impacts to access, capacity, or R/W)for
projects needed for any of the following:
• Regulate traffic, or
• Install traffic control devices, or
• Other safety measures
• The term "other safety measures" refers to traffic safety measures. For example,
the addition of a turn lane is a traffic safety measure; the replacement of a
structurally-deficient or fracture-critical bridge is not.
1 of 5
Municipal Consent
HPDP/Scoping/Subject Guidance Mn/DOT
Also, maintenance activities do not trigger the need for municipal consent.
Examples
Permanent Easements (such as Drainage Easements) require municipal consent
(because they take permanent right-of-way).
Roundabouts are used for traffic regulation and as a safety measure, and thus are
exceptions that do not require Municipal Consent even if they involve permanent
right-of-way taking.
Roles and Procedures
Municipal consent should only be requested from a city if it is required. (See Threshold Criteria
above).
Sometimes a city may choose to waive municipal consent on a specific project. In that case the
city council must pass a resolution clearly identifying the project and waiving its right to
municipal consent for that project. However, the typical municipal consent process is as outlined
below.
Procedure (for obtaining municipal consent)
1. Mn/DOT (District)submits to the city the final layout with a letter requesting city
approval. The letter includes a good faith cost estimate of the city's share of the
project's cost and the following (either in the letter or in an attached report):
• project purpose
• route location
• short description of the proposed design of the highway
• any additional supporting data
2. City schedules and holds public hearing (within 60 days of submittal).
City must schedule within 15 days of receiving Mn/DOT's request for approval and
must give 30 days public notice.
3. City passes resolution approving /disapproving (within 90 days of public hearing).
After 90 from the date of the public hearing, if the city has not passed a resolution
disapproving the layout, the layout is deemed approved.
2of5
Municipal Consent
HPDP/Scoping/Subject Guidance Mn/DOT
4. If city disapproves, Mn/DOT decides whether to:
a. Meet city's condition(s), assuming city approved with conditions:
Mn/DOT writes city a letter indicating this and attaches revised layout with
change(s). This ends the MC process.
b. Go to the appeal process.
c. Stop the project (do not build the project, or scale project down so that municipal
consent is no longer required).
5. If in the final plan Mn/DOT alters access, capacity or R/W, Mn/DOT must re-submit
changed portion of plan for city's approval. (The city is not required to hold another
public hearing and has 60 days to approve or disapprove).
City Approval
The city can approve either by a formal approval resolution (see generic resolution in
Appendix), or by not passing a resolution disapproving the layout within 90 days of the
public hearing.
The city's review—with regards to layout approval —is limited to the project elements
in the final layout that are within the boundaries of that city. A city cannot impose a
condition on its approval that is outside of the city's boundaries.
The process allows the city one opportunity to exercise approval or disapproval of the
final layout (unless Mn/DOT alters the plan with regards to access, capacity, or
right-of-way). Once a city approves the layout, it cannot rescind its approval later. If a
city disapproves with conditions, and if Mn/DOT agrees to meet those conditions—and
notifies the city in writing (including copy of revised layout)—then municipal consent
has been obtained.
The municipal consent statute applies to changes on "any route on the trunk highway
system lying within any municipality." If a T.H. borders a city and no section of the T.H.
is completely within the city limits, municipal consent is still required for any of the
designated changes (access, capacity, or right-of-way)that do occur within that city.
However, if the changes triggering the municipal consent process are on the other side
of the T.H. —and thus outside the city's limits—then municipal consent is not required
from that city and is not requested from that city.
3of5
Municipal Consent
HPDP/Scoping/Subject Guidance Mn/DOT
City Disapproval
If a city disapproves the final layout, Mn/DOT can stop the project (or scale it back so
that municipal consent is no longer required), or Mn/DOT can take the project to the
appeal process.
If the city disapproves— but includes condition(s)for approval, Mn/DOT has the above
options plus the option of meeting the city's condition(s), and thus obtaining the city's
approval. To do this, Mn/DOT sends the city a letter to that effect with the layout
attached (revised to show the change(s)). This completes the municipal consent
process; Mn/DOT then has the city's approval. (Sending the letter and revised layout is
NOT a resubmittal for further consideration by the city).
Appeal Process
The appeal process is the same for interstate and non-interstate projects. However,
the Mn/DOT Commissioner is not bound by the recommendations of the appeal board
with respect to interstate highways.
If Mn/DOT decides to go to the appeal process, the first step is to establish an Appeal
Board of three members: one member appointed by the Commissioner, one member
appointed by the City Council, and a third member agreed upon by both the
Commissioner and the City Council. (If a third member cannot be agreed upon,the
Commissioner refers the selection to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who then
has 14 days to appoint the third member).
After the appeal board is established, the Commissioner refers the final layout to the
Appeal Board. The Appeal Board then has 30 days to hold a hearing at which the
Commissioner and the City Council may present their cases for or against approval of
the layout. Within 60 days after the hearing, the Appeal Board must make its
recommendation regarding the final layout. The recommendation can be:
• for approval, or
• for approval with modifications, or
• for disapproval.
The board can also make additional recommendations consistent with state and
federal requirements as it deems appropriate. The board must submit a written report
with its findings and recommendations to the Commissioner and the City Council.
4of5
Municipal Consent
HPDP/Scoping/Subject Guidance Mn/DOT -
Legal Basis
The Minnesota municipal consent statutes (see links below)were revised in the 2001 legislative
session.
State Municipal Consent Statutes
Definitions MIS Statute 161.162
Highway Project Review MIS Statute 161.163
Final Layout Approval Process Mfg Statute 161.164
Commissioner Action; Interstate Highways M1 Statute 161,165
Commissioner Action; Other Highways MN Statute 161.166
Reimbursement of Expenses MN Statute 161.167
(for Appeal Board Members)
Helpful Links
Mn/DOT Public Involvement
Glossary
Municipality: A statutory or home rule charter city.
Municipal Consent: A municipality's approval of Mn/DOT's final layout for a project on a Trunk
Highway when such approval is required by State Statute—see Threshold Criteria below.
(Approval is by a resolution passed by the elected council of the municipality—the City Council).
Appendix
Municipal Consent Process
Sample City Resolution
5of5
Municipal Consent Process
Mn/DOT—HPDP/Scoping
Basic Process
1. Mn/DOT submits the final layout to the City with a letter requesting City approval of the layout.
2. The City holds public hearing within 60 days of Mn/DOT's submittal 60 days
and gives a 30-day(minimum) public notice of the hearing.
Mn/DOT presents the layout at the public hearing
3. The City Council passes a resolution approving/disapproving the layout
(within 90 days of public hearing).
If after 90 days from the public hearing the City has not passed a 90 days
resolution disapproving the layout,the layout is deemed approved
4. If the City approves, Mn/DOT can proceed with the project.
5. If the City disapproves, Mn/DOT's options are:
o Make the changes requested by the City(if any)
o Refer the layout to an Appeal Board
o Stop the project
o Modify the project so municipal consent is not required
o Prepare a new final layout and start the MC process over from beginning
Before Appeal: Total Maximum time = 150 days
Appeal Process
1. Mn/DOT notifies the City that it is appealing.
2. An Appeal Board of three persons is established:
o Mn/DOT appoints a member Undefined time to
o The City appoints a member establish appeal board
o Third member selected by mutual agreement between the City& Mn/DOT.
If they cannot agree, Mn/DOT requests the MN Chief Justice to select.
The Chief Justice appoints third member within 14 days of Mn/DOT's request. 14 days
3. Mn/DOT refers the final layout to the Appeal Board. Undefined time
4. The Appeal Board holds a hearing (within 30 days of receiving final layout from Mn/DOT).
The City and Mn/DOT each present their case 30 days
5. The Appeal Board makes its recommendation (within 60 days of the hearing): 60 days
o Approval, or
o Approval with modifications, or
o Disapproval of the final layout Maximum for Appeal Process = 104 days +
(plus time to establish appeal board, etc.)
6. If the Board approves, Mn/DOT can proceed with the project.
7. If the Board disapproves, or approves with modifications, Mn/DOT's options are:
o Make recommended modifications(if any), and proceed with the project
o Stop the project
o Modify the project so municipal consent is not required
o Prepare a new final layout and start the MC process over from beginning
o If it is an Interstate Highway project, Mn/DOT may proceed with the project using
the layout that was not approved (and sends a report to the City and the Appeal
Board stating the reasons for doing so).
TOTAL Possible Time = 254 days +
NOTE: If final construction plans contain changes to access, capacity, or right-of-way from the layout approved by the
City, Mn/DOT resubmits the changed portion of the plans to the City for approval. (City has 60 days to approve).This
holds whether municipal consent was obtained through the basic MC process or through the appeal process.
Sample City Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION FOR LAYOUT APPROVAL
At a Meeting of the City Council of the City of , held on the day
of , 200_, the following Resolution was offered by and seconded by
to wit:
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has prepared a final layout for the improvement of
within
the City of from to ;
and seeks the approval thereof: and
WHEREAS, said final layouts are on file in the Minnesota Department of Transportation office, ,
Minnesota, being marked, labeled and identified as Layout No. S.P. from R.P.
to ; and
WHEREAS, improvements to city streets and appurtenances have been included in the said final layouts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said final layouts for the improvement of said Trunk
Highway within the corporate limits be and is hereby approved".
Upon the call of the roll the following Council Members voted in favor of the Resolution:
The following Council Members voted against its adoption:
ATTEST:
Mayor Dated , 200
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
CITY OF
I do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to
and adopted by the Council of the City of , Minnesota at a duly
authorized meeting thereof held on the day of , 200 , as shown by the
minutes of said meeting in my possession.
(SEAL)
City Clerk