HomeMy WebLinkAbout2D, I694 & 51 - follow-up from public hearingIts, —
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 20, 2010 Item 2.1)
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
FROM: Terry Maurer, Public Works Director
Kristine Giga, Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Mn/DOT I-694 Improvement Project- follow up from public hearing
Background
Mn/DOT is proposing an improvement project for the interchange of Interstate 694,
Highway 10, Snelling Avenue and Hamline Avenue in Arden Hills. In June, Mn/DOT
submitted a Mn/DOT approved layout to the City, requesting City approval (Municipal
Consent) of the layout. On August 9, 2010, the City Council held the public hearing for
this project.
Discussion
Following the public hearing, City staff met with Mn/DOT and Ramsey County to review
comments heard from City Council members and residents. Items of discussion included
traffic/access, pedestrian movements, noise, and project benefits.
Staff requested additional information from Mn/DOT based on the comments made at the
public hearing. Mn/DOT has provided the attached letter dated September 14, 2010.
Schedule
Attached is a summary sheet outlining the Municipal Consent process. Following the
public hearing held August 9, 2010, the City has 90 days, or until November 7, 2010, to
approve/disapprove the layout. The last regularly scheduled City Council meeting before
this deadline is Monday, October 25, 2010. The City has three options when voting on
Municipal Consent:
■ Disapprove Municipal Consent with conditions
■ Disapprove Municipal Consent
■ Approve Municipal Consent
Council Action Requested
Provide staff with direction to schedule this agenda item on a regularly scheduled City
Council meeting by October 25, 2010.
City Council Meeting
\\Metro-inet\ardenhills\Admin\Council\Agendas & Packet Information\20 1 0\9-20- 10 Worksession\Packet Information\2D 9-
20-1 OMemo_MnDOT_694-51 Update. doc
Page 1 of 1
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan District
OF 1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
Date: September 14, 2010
Ms. Kristine Giga
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MIN 55112-5743
RE: State Project 6285-135:1-694 Improvement Project (Lexington Avenue to west of
CSAH 76)
Dear Ms. taiga:
On August 9, 2010, the City of Arden Hills held a Public Hearing for municipal consent of
the layout for 1-694 at TH 51 /TH 1 O/Hamline Ave. At that meeting, issues were raised by
the residents of Arden Hills and the City Council asked several questions regarding effects
on traffic, noise levels, and pedestrian accomodations. In addition, Mn/DOT met with city
staff and staff from Ramsey County to discuss aspects of the. layout and how Mn/DOT may
be able to work with the City to obtain municipal conse"nt of the layout. The following
discussion will address the comments that appear to be the biggest concerns.
Traffic Forecast Numbers
There are some 2030 traffic numbers not on the layout on the east side of Lexington
Avenue. I have looked into these numbers and the westbound exit ramp to Lexington
Avenue will carry approximately 4800 vehicles per day. The eastbound entrance ramp to
1-694 will carry approximately 7400 vehicles per day. Lexington Avenue north of County
Road F is projected to carry approximately 9,000 vehicles per day.
Some traffic numbers on the current layout on Hamline Avenue south of County Road F
seemed odd. These numbers have been checked and the existing traffic counts as well as
the projected day of opening forecasts are incorrect. The correct present counts for
southbound Hamline Avenue should be roughly 6,000 vehicles per day and- the day of
opening forecasts are expected to be less than 7,000 vehicles per day. This information
has been corrected and will be included on an updated layout.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Lexington Avenue Intersection, Improvements
At the Pubic Hearing, there were questions asked regarding the impacts at the intersection
of Lexington Avenue and County Read F: After that meeting, Mn/DOT and Ramsey
County met to discuss this intersection and any changes that could be made. The traffic
projections were looked at along with the existing problems. Potential opportunities were
looked at and some possible changes were discussed. The opportunity to modify the
intersection to allow for a northbound to westbound double left turn and an eastbound to
northbound double left seemed to be the biggest changes needed. There was also
discussion about the opportunity to interconnect the signals along Lexington Avenue to
obtain better signal operation through the area. Both Ramsey County and Mn/DOT' agreed
that Ramsey County will take an in-depth look at the intersections and work with Mn/DOT
on obtaining funding to make the changes deemed. necessary to improve this area of
Lexington Avenue. Potential funding through Mn/DDT's cooperative Agreement program
may be available as early as July 2012 for these improvements.
The existing .geometrics of the Lexington Avenue bridge over 1-694 do cause some
increased intersection delay due to the lack of storage for the left turning movements.
Mn/DOT has looked at the bridge and the full width of the bridge is 75' 10"o This width may
allow for some future modifications to the existing geometries. Mn/DOT will work with
Ramsey County on making some changes to aid in the improvement of the intersections
and their operation upon completion of the Final Design of the 1-694 improvement project.
Other Traffic Impacts in the Area
At the Public Hearing, there were -questions asked regarding how some of the local roads
(County Road 96, County Road F, Ham.line Ave, Lexington Ave and County Road E) will
be affected by the proposed project. Mn/DOT responded that with improvements to 1-694,
some regional traffic will be taken off of the local system and returned to the interstate.
This will allow the traffic on the local roadways to be reduced upon the completion of
construction. Traffic on County Road 95, from east of Lexington Avenue to west of
Hamline Avenue, is projected to be reduced by approximately 10%. Lexington Avenue just
north of County Road F, it is estimated that traffic in this area will be reduced by about 5%.
Traffic on Hamline Avenue north of County Road F is estimated to be reduced by roughly
15%. Traffic on County Road F is projected to have an increase of somewhere between 0-
An Equal opportunity Employer
25% depending on which end of County Road F you look at. And finally, County Road E is
estimated to maintain the same traffic volumes upon the conclusion of construction.
Pedestrian Movements I .
The City has talked with Mn/DOT regarding pedestrian access throughout the project area.
In addition, the Council did pass a resolution supporting the inclusion of pedestrian safe
infrastructure as a part of the project. Mn/DOT has taken a proactive approach in trying to
address the pedestrian issue in this area. The design, as it exists today, does not preclude
any pedestrian options through the area for recreational use. The users out there today
will still have the ability to maneuver through the area in the future. Northbound TH 51 will
have a 10' shoulder on the outside, and southbound Harnline Avenue will have 24' of
pavement width which is sufficient for one vehicle traffic lane and commuter bicycle use of
the shoulder. -
After meeting with Ramsey County and Arden Hills staff, Mn/DOT is working on creating a
bike/pedestrian study group that should be created within four to six months. This group
will look at the bike and pedestrian facilities and the crossings of 1-694 from 1-35W to I-35E.
The group could include but is not limited to Mn/DOT, Metropolitan Council, Ramsey
County, Arden Hills and Shoreview. Ramsey County Parks took an initial look at the
crossings in this corridor and feels that crossings at approximately I mile spacing is a
reasonable expectation. This concept will need to be looked at as a part of the study, but
the end result should be a mutually agreed upon plan for the corridor. The current project
does not preclude the addition of grade separated bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
including expansion of TH 51./Hamline Avenue bridges.
As CSAH 76/old TH 1 O/old Snelling Avenue is slated for a future trail, Mn/DOT will work
with the city on the typical section for CSAH 76 from the end of the slope paving to the
back of the curb for a trail on the west side. And, there will be a shoulder on both sides of
the roadway for bicyclists to. use.
The CftY would like to participate in the construction of a segment of sidewalk from Floral
Drive to County Road F. Mn/DOT is willing to work with the City on the construction of this
sidewalk as long as no right of way is required as a part of the construction. Mn/DOT will
work with city staff in designing a sidewalk that will be included in the construction plans.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
The pedestrian crossing location will need to be looked at carefully due to the proposed
northbound free right turn movement to County .Road F that will conflict with the pedestrian
crossing.
Noise
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 cast effective. The City is
interested in the consideration of a 20' high noise barrier along the north side of the west
bound C/D road. 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. No costs associated with design or construction would be attributed to the
city.
Landscape Plan
Mn/DOT is working on establishing a landscape plan for the project area. The landscaping
would occur a couple of years after the completion of the roadway construction.
Proiect Benefits
•► Public Safety: to the last 3 years, there have been 426 crashes on 1-094 from
Lexington Avenue to Thl 10, including 3 fatalities/serious injury crashes and 423 injury
and personal damage crashes.
• With the proposed project, the traveling public, including Arden Hills residents and
employers in Arden Hills can expect:
o A reduction in the crash rate (number of crashes per million vehicle miles
traveled (MVM)) from the existing level of 4.5 to a typical freeway section in the
metre area of 1.0. Reduction in crashes will reduce traffic volumes using local
streets during these events
o A reduction in the severity rate (number of crashes, weighted according to their
injury type per MVM) from the existing level of 5.5 to a typical freeway section in
the metro area of 1.2.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
• Reduced Traffic Congestion: Presently there are up to 5 hours of congestion in the
area during weekday peak hours on this segment of freeway. With the proposed
project, the traveling public, including Arden Hills residents and employers in Arden
Hills can expect:
* Regional trips will be reallocated to 1-694 from the local roadway system
* An increase in AM peak period speeds between Lexington Ave and TH 10 from
<50mph to >60 mph.
* An increase -in PM peak period speeds from <20mph to >55 mph.
* Reduced variability in travel times and increased reliability of trip times.
* A reduction of at least 780 hours of congestion per year.
• Project benefits not only affect commuters on the freeway system, it also affects the
efficiency of freight movement.in the Twin Cities, efficiency of emergency services, and
reliability of transit services.
Mn/DOT appreciates the City of Arden Hills commitment to improve safety and reduce
congestion on 1-694, TH 96 and the local roadway system within the City of Arden Hills.
The improvements shown on the layout will allow for the traffic in this region to experience
improved travel time reliability as well as prepare for future expansion of mainline 1-694 to
the east. If you have any additional questions or if you need any further explanation of
these issues ahead of the council work -session on September 20, 2010, please feel free to
contact one.
Sincerely, 0000
ark J. Lindeberg
North Area Engineer
cc: Wayne Norris
An Equal Opportunity Employer
HPDP / Scoping / Subject Guidance Minnesota Department of Transportation
Municipal Consent
Contact
Steve Ryan, P. E. steve.r�Ca-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/1/V) 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.
4 of 5
Municipal Consent
HPDP / Scoping / Subject Guidance
Legal Basis
Mn/DOT
The Minnesota municipal consent statutes (see links below) were revised in the 2001 legislative
session.
State Municipal Consent Statutes
Definitions
MN Statute 161.162
Highway Project Review
MN Statute 161.163
Final Layout Approval Process
MN Statute 161.164
Commissioner Action; Interstate Highways
MN Statute 161.165
Commissioner Action; Other Highways
MN Statute 161.166
Reimbursement of Expenses
(for Appeal Board Members)
MN Statute 161.167
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:
0 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
of , 200_, the following Resolution was offered by
to wit:
, held on the day
and seconded by
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation has prepared a final layout for the improvement of
within
the City of
and seeks the approval thereof: and
from
to
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".
ATTEST:
Mayor
Upon the call of the roll the following Council Members voted in favor of the Resolution:
The following Council Members voted against its adoption:
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