Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/03/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCity Council Study Session March 6, 2006 6:30 p.m. Westwood Room Discussion Items 1. 6:30 PM Trunk Highway 100 Temporary Lane Additional Project –State Project 2734-43 Public Works Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 1 1. Trunk Highway 100 Temporary Lane Additional Project – State Project 2734-43 Public Works PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To update Council on the status of this Mn/DOT project and to affirm direction in considering approval or denial of this proposed project. BACKGROUND: On January 12, 2006 Mn/DOT hosted an Open House meeting for this project. Approximately 150 people attended this meeting. Comments received by Mn/DOT at this meeting are attached to this report (Exhibit A). On January 17, 2006 the City Council held a Public Hearing where Mn/DOT officials presented and explained their plans for the proposed project. Comments from interested residents, legislators, businesses, and others on the proposed project were captured in the Council meeting minu tes which are attached (Exhibit B). Just prior to the Public Hearing Mn/DOT submitted information in response to City concerns expressed late in 2004 regarding this project (Exhibit C). PROJECT UPDATE: Since January 17, Mn/DOT staff has been working on completing final plans for the project and revising the computerized traffic model to be used for this project and the full build project. Final construction plans are expected to be completed and approved for use by March 17 – no changes have been made from the concept plans presented to Council on January 17th. Traffic model revisions have just been completed and local street traffic data for an expanded area is being built into MN/DOT’s analysis/evaluation. A meeting with City and Mn/DOT staff has been scheduled for March 16th to review preliminary results of this effort. It is expected that traffic impacts associated with both the temporary and full build projects will be discussed at this meeting. Mn/DOT officially requested use of Minnetonka Boulevard from Highway 100 to Highway 169 as a detour during the Highway 100 work. As a result, Hennepin County has now officially delayed the reconstruction of the “Hutch Spur” bridge on Minnetonka Boulevard until 2007. Staff has discussed with Mn/DOT the 2006 planned reconstruction of West Lake Street, Dakota Avenue, and Wooddale Avenue with regard to detour routes and traffic shifts. It is felt that this City Project can be constructed in 2006 in conjunction with the Mn/DOT Highway 100 project. Whatever local traffic problems are encountered during construction will be responded to and mitigated as they occur. Drawings regarding staging plans, ramp closures, and detours will be presented at the Study Session on March 6th. SCHEDULE: Based on a Mn/DOT update received on February 28, the attached project schedule has been revised (Exhibit D). City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 2 NEXT STEPS: Staff understands that Council desires to consider approval/denial of this project at the March 20, 2006 Council meeting; the attached resolution will be used for that purpose. Staff is prepared to mail notices on March 7th to interested parties informing them of the March 20th meeting. Attachments: Exhibit A – Open House Comments Exhibit B – Minutes 1/17/06 Exhibit C (1 of 2) - State of MN Memo from Tom O’Keefe (2 of 2) - Mn/DOT Submittals (From Carol Molnau) – Supplement Exhibit D – TH100 Temporary Lane Project Schedule Exhibit E - Resolution Prepared By: Michael P. Rardin, P.E., Public Works Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 3 EXHIBIT A TH 100 Temporary Lane Addition – Summary of Comments January 12, 2006 Location Comment(s) 2648 Toledo Ave. So. Delay of right of way acquisition process for full build holds property owner hostage unless something can be done sooner, therefore does not support temporary lane add project 2644 Toledo Ave. So. Temporary lane add project will help, but delay of right of way acquisition process for full build cannot continue any longer 2925 Toledo Ave. So. Right of way acquisition process for full build project must start soon; State should show other progress towards the full build project such as interchange or bridge work 2817 Quentin Ave. So. Construct full build project as soon as possible; build noise barriers; do not wait until 2015 2910 Utica Ave. So. No noise barriers 2910 Utica Ave. So. No noise barriers 2764 Utica Ave. So. No noise barriers 2780 Utica Ave. So. Noise barriers supported as part of temporary lane add project 2918 Vernon Ave. So. Concern with increased traffic diversion through neighborhood caused by construction of temporary lane add project; notes safety of kids and quiet neighborhood 2820 Vernon Ave. So. Safety concern with 11’ lanes versus 12’ lanes; increased traffic on local streets during construction especially Vernon and will police do enforcement; 27th Street access to southbound 100 should be closed with temporary lane add project; impression that this project is a “stop gap” so I35W / TH 62 project traffic can be diverted to 100 2804 Vernon Ave. So. Wanted to see comparable project in Minnesota or other states; commitment from State to keep the full build project on schedule for a 2014 letting; send handouts City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 4 Location Comment(s) - continued 2836 Xenwood Ave. So. Eliminate the 4th lane on southbound 100 between 27th Street and Minnetonka Boulevard 3800 Park Nicollet Blvd. Project will add capacity to 100; concerned about traffic to Park Nicollet Clinic and Methodist Hospital, especially if Hennepin County project on Excelsior Blvd. is occurring at same time; asks for a phone call to discuss 4040 Webster Ave. So. Expresses concern city is being ignored; improved traffic flow on 100 is necessary; concerned temporary lane add project will make situation worse 3523 Sumter Ave. So. Supports project; great temporary solution 7208 W. Shore Drive Supports project; great temporary solution Edina 5716 Benton Ave. Prefers 12’ lanes over 11’ lanes wherever possible Edina 4003 Lynn Ave. Appreciates need for capacity but is concerned about: Edina safety; delay of permanent full build project; increased congestion on TH 7; negative affects on surrounding neighborhoods 4530 Douglas Ave. Supports the temporary lane add project even though it may Golden Valley be unpopular; does not see the full build happening any time soon 2244 Penn Ave. So. Does not support temporary lane add project; wants to see Minneapolis full build project completed, and ahead of the I35W / TH 62 project 3066 Minnehaha Ct. At every intersection with traffic signals, provide ample Minnetonka storage and visibility lines for added safety 13910 Knollway Dr. So. Interest in relocating beehive and picnic tables Minnetonka City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 5 EXHIBIT B OFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA January 17, 2006 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger Councilmember Phil Finkelstein was absent. Staff present: City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Community Outreach Coordinator (Ms. McDonell), Director of Technology and Support Services (Mr. Pires), Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 6. Public Hearings 6c. Public Hearing on the Mn/DOT Trunk Highway 100 Temporary Lane Addition Project: State Project 2734-43 Mr. Rardin reviewed the project history. Tom O’Keefe, MnDOT Area Program Manager, and Wayne Norris, MnDOT Area Engineer, described the project. Mayor Jacobs stated the importance of Highway 100 to the City of St. Louis Park and clarified that this was a State project. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Harlan Nelson, Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, said there are in excess of 12,000 visits a day to the hospital and clinics and he supported this project. State Representative Steve Simon, 3000 Raleigh Av. S, stated there had been a lot of dissatisfaction with the pace of this project and changing dates. He credited MnDOT for stepping up, but urged the Council and citizens to ask MnDOT how the interim project would affect the final project. He feared MnDOT would build the interim project and it would affect when the final project will be built. City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 6 Mr. O’Keefe stated they had worked with the City to make the assurances as iron clad as they could be. The full build project is scheduled for a 2014 letting. Since MnDOT proposed the interim project, they had added the full build to the list of advanced design projects and were working to get it ready for possible early letting in 2009. The advanced design list made it a strong candidate to keep it on the current schedule, it could advance the project. They were not proposing to build noise walls with the interim project. They were agreeable to the City’s suggestion as a condition of their noise exemption for this project, and they would start noise wall construction no later than 2015. MnDOT needs to acquire the right-of-way necessary for the full build project. A significant amount of grading and structures need to be built before MnDOT can construct the noise walls. The bridges and storm sewers are deteriorating and they estimated no more than 10-15 years of useful life, which would keep pressure on MnDOT to keep this project on schedule for no later than 2014. One commissioner couldn’t bind another commissioner to a course of action. Priorities and funding can change, so they were only able to go so far in offering commitments. Mayor Jacobs stated a group of representatives from St. Louis Park and Edina met with Commissioner Molnau and expressed the same concerns. It depended on what the Legislature did. It was important for the public to recognize that, but they needed to keep up the pressure. If the early letting process occurred, could the project be done earlier than 2014? Mr. O’Keefe replied yes, they were developing it for a potential letting as early as November 2009, with construction beginning in 2010. Samara Eugene, 2738 Utica Av S, stated this was a commuter fix, not a community fix. Utica did not have sidewalks and was in disrepair and she was concerned with construction traffic on the road. They had been waiting to repair the road with the construction. How much construction traffic would be on their road? Mr. Norris replied there would be periods of increased traffic on Utica Avenue. Their intent was not to have construction equipment use Utica at all. Ms. Eugene asked where traffic would be detoured when the Minnetonka exit is closed? Mr. Norris replied the traffic that normally used the access point on 27th would likely filter through the neighborhood. They were directing all detours to trunk highways and the project would be signed as such. They could not prevent people from finding their own way, so there would be increases in local traffic. Ms. Eugene asked what the estimated reduction in congestion at Utica Avenue and 27th at the on-ramp? Mr. Norris replied currently about 600-800 vehicles per day use the ramp in the peak periods. By adding 500-1000 vehicle capacity per hour, they expected to draw some of the traffic (currently using the local roads) back to the highway. Ms. Eugene asked what safety measures would be taken on their street without the sidewalks? At the minimum the City could block off the road during construction. Mayor Jacobs responded that was something they would need to take into consideration. City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 7 Jack Moskowitz, 2764 Utica Av S, stated he was not in favor of noise walls being constructed. He also had concerns about the street disrepair. He referenced a letter to the state he believed was sent by Councilmember Sanger proposing a sound barrier and wondered if they had contacted residents on Utica. Mayor Jacobs responded there is a public process to determine if they build noise walls. Councilmember Sanger stated the issue of noise barriers could mean a wall or a berm. It was not her letter to the state. The city gave MnDOT a list with issues associated with construction of this project. One of the items raised was the issue of noise barriers, not a statement that they must be built. They wanted them included if that was what the neighbors wanted. Mr. Moskowitz hoped when the final project was done that the Utica residents would be contacted. Mr. O’Keefe replied when they do the full build project, they would propose a noise wall. A city may choose not to have it built. They have public involvement to show what it would look like and the city surveys the homeowners and makes a decision. Councilmember Sanger clarified it wouldn’t be only the houses on Utica Avenue, they would involve the larger neighborhood because other streets were also impacted. Les Wanninger, 5521 Warden Av, Chair of the Edina Transportation Commission, is currently in the process of doing a study of traffic in NE Edina/SE St. Louis Park. There is a lot of traffic in the area and a lot of complaints about traffic problems. They created a study advisory committee to represent those impacted and St. Louis Park had representatives. They were collecting data, analyzing it, prioritizing it and considering solutions. Highway 100 is nearly a parking lot during rush hour. People get off and cut through the neighborhoods: 30% of the traffic driving in this area is drive through and 70% of the traffic is generated by people who live there. Once Highway 100 is fixed, some of the cut-though traffic will remain on the highway and not drive through the neighborhoods. JC Beckstrand, 4386 Wooddale, member of the Edina Transportation Commission, stated the same thing was likely happening in other neighborhoods. He was grateful they were working with neighboring communities on this project. Anything they can do to reduce the traffic on residential streets would help. He was in favor of taking traffic off of residential streets and putting it onto the arterials and trunk highways and state highways. If that meant the interim project was a good project, then he was for it. Councilmember Basill thanked the residents for volunteering on this committee. State Rep. Ron Latz stated the importance of coming up with a long-term solution to the bottleneck at Highway 100. They had been encouraging MnDOT to commit to a permanent reconstruction, for the Legislature to find funding, and to make sure that the Highway 100 reconstruction remained a number one Metro priority. One of the results of the community pressure was the interim project. He was speaking in favor of the interim project because it would take some of the cut-through traffic off residential streets and improve the traffic flow generally throughout the Metro system. It needed to be done with great caution. It was important to stress this is only an interim and not permanent solution. They would continue to maintain the pressure and try to find State funding for the reconstruction. He encouraged residents to participate. City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 8 Barb Overshaw, Twin West Chamber, stated they were speaking on behalf of the business community. In the fall of 2004, Twin West identified the Highway 100 bottleneck as their “pet project”, meaning it was their local and regional issue of greatest importance. It was the number one issue identified because of time lost in traffic, and time equates to the thousands of businesses as money. They were concerned about getting employees to and from work and about moving goods and services. This was a regional issue as well as a local issue. In March 2005, Twin West was instrumental in forming the Highway 100 Alliance to capture some attention and keep the heat on Highway 100. Members include the Twin West Chamber, the Edina Chamber of Commerce, Cities of St. Louis Park and Edina, and many concerned citizens, residents and business leaders. After many meetings, the Board decided in October 2005 to adopt an official Twin West position on the bottleneck. Lee Engler, Chair, Twin West Chamber, said Twin West supports the proposed Minnesota Department of Transportation temporary lane addition project for Highway 100 as described in the MnDOT Metro District Project summary from September 2005. Something needs to be done now. The temporary project will facilitate future completion of the major reconstruction plan. Many components of the temporary fix are also part of the 2014 project. MnDOT has designated this project as an advanced design project which means, in Lieutenant Governor Malnau’s words, “makes Highway 100 among the very strongest candidates for advancement with new funding.” Ms. Overshaw stated they remain very committed to the final fix and advocating for long term and a permanent increase in transportation funding. A. Frances Thorne, 2910 Utica Av S, stated she was opposed to a noise wall being constructed. She couldn’t continue to live there if a wall was constructed. Mayor Jacobs stated it was not proposed in the interim project. There will be a discussion with residents about a noise wall when they do the larger project. Matt Berg, 2758 Utica Av, indicated Utica Avenue was one of the worst roads he had driven on. There is a problem with run-off and rain water accumulates in front of his home. The project keeps getting pushed back which was a detriment to property values. Traffic will be pushed onto these streets. Mr. Rardin indicated there were two issues, the street and the water main beneath it. The city needs to replace both of those. They were planning to do that in conjunction with the major reconstruction project that was originally scheduled for bid letting this fall. They were struggling with what to put in and if it would end up being torn up again. At this point, with the project being put into the advanced design phase, they should be able to answer those questions by the end of the year because they will know the geometric layout. Part of the question was what Utica Avenue on the west side of Highway 100 would look like. The original proposal had it as a frontage road, which was significantly different than it currently was. Mr. Berg stated the water that builds up on the street adds to the wear and tear. Councilmember Sanger indicated this concern had been raised for years. This was an issue listed on the letter to MnDOT. City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 9 Mr. Berg believed that noise already exceeded state standards and by adding a third lane, it would create more noise. It was proven if they put up a noise barrier it would add to the value of the homes. Anthony Geier, 2901 Toledo Av S, expressed concern about the safety of the off-ramp and the sharp turn and also the merging of the northbound ramp from Toledo. Mr. Norris replied the northbound ramp from Minnetonka Blvd currently merges into a thru-lane. With this project, there would be three eleven-foot lanes, plus they would build an auxiliary lane between the entrance ramp and the exit ramp at 25 ½ to provide some distance that cars could weave in and out of the third thru-lane. Mr. Geier asked how people that lived there would access their garages? Mr. Norris replied they would not impact the existing alley. This would make it safer by building a portable barrier between Highway 100 and the existing alley. Mr. Geier stated a concern about the bridges being wide enough to handle three lanes, with fast moving traffic. Mr. Norris responded in their study on twelve-foot lanes versus eleven- foot lanes, there was little difference between the safety of operation. They compromised capacity by about 3% on the narrower lanes. The bridge will be painted underneath a whiter color so when people approach them they don’t look so impending. The additional lane would reduce the incidence of stop and go traffic, which seemed to be the major issue on rear-end crashes along this segment of 100. By providing the auxiliary lane between the on- ramp from Minnetonka and the off-ramp at 25 ½, they were not forcing traffic to have to get into a thru-lane. They were giving some time to make that decision, which was safer. Mr. Geir was skeptical of this interim fix and didn’t believe it would solve their problems. Mayor Jacobs noted many people were concerned about three eleven-foot lanes underneath the bridges. Maybe they could have signs indicating that there were narrow bridges ahead. Dean Montray, 2644 Toledo Av S, asked if emission testing had been done? He was concerned about the emissions and wondered if it would become worse in his yard with the road moving closer? Mr. Norris responded in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, they looked at the carbon monoxide levels existing and expected after the project is completed. Analysis indicated they would only see minor increases in carbon monoxide concentration. They were below the standards set by the Pollution Control Agency (PCA). The PCA reviewed their analysis and have given approval for the temporary project. He would provide the air quality standards to Mr. Montray. Mr. Montray also stated concern about the interim fix becoming the permanent solution. Mayor Jacobs replied many people had the same concern. MnDOT staff indicated the bridges had a limited lifespan and would need to be replaced, which may drive the final project. They will need to hold the Governor’s office, etc, to this and continue to make sure your comments are heard. Mr. Montray indicated he was stuck with a house that nobody wanted and he didn’t want to put money into it because they would take it anyway. Mayor Jacobs responded the date of the project been a “moving target” and difficult to predict. City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 10 Steven Schachtman, 5402 Parkdale Dr, Minnetonka Terrace Apts, stated it is very difficult to get to their building during rush hour. During the time when Grove School was constructing their addition, there was a traffic problem. The other issue was entrance and exit. They didn’t want a sound barrier installed. He believed they should do the temporary project. There was deterioration and a tremendously large traffic problem. He suggested a stoplight be installed on Minnetonka Blvd at the bus stop, so people could cross safely. Another issue was the traffic exiting to Highway 100 when school gets out. Lee Cheerch, 2910 Utica Av S, asked if Utica would be opened as a thru-street? Mr. Rardin replied no, that wouldn’t be changed as part of this project. Ms. Cheerch stated MnDOT put in their driveway years ago and when it rains, the water accumulates in their driveway from Utica Avenue. It is especially difficult in the winter with ice. Utica really needed help with the water problems. Mayor Jacobs responded when they reconstruct the road that would be addressed. Mr. Rardin added assuming MnDOT went ahead with the geometric layout and they could work through those issues, they would know where they were at for Utica. Then it was a matter of if they could reconstruct it sooner than later. At the least, they may be able to do part of it next year. Zack Rethlake, 3148 Salem, was concerned this was a “band-aid” approach and with the changes on the exit ramps to Highway 7. It would bring the road closer to the neighborhoods and the addition of stop lights would cause traffic issues on Highway 7, when there wasn’t one presently. Idling traffic on the ramp would increase pollution. He was also concerned about construction continuing for years. He had seen different plans and wondered which was the correct one? Mayor Jacobs asked if the work that was done in 2006 would need to be re-done? Mr. Norris replied this would be stage one of the major reconstruction project. They needed to have the cloverleaf removed so they could facilitate speeding up the major reconstruction project. The bridge on Highway 7 needed to go higher. On the east side they were proposing a diamond interchange. On the west side they were proposing a standard diamond. The future project called for signals at both of those locations. They were looking at feasibility of using non-signalized intersections (round-about designs). They could construct a standard diamond if the railroad bridge was not a barrier. This project reduced the bigger project construction time frame by approximately a half a year. Mr. Rethlake asked why they would clog up Highway 7 with more lights? Mr. Norris replied they were introducing the signals during the temporary lane project to facilitate safe movements. Mr. Rethlake asked if they were temporary lights? Mr. Norris replied yes, they were on wood poles. They would be replaced with permanent fixtures, with either signals or a roundabout. Councilmember Basill asked when the lights would be in and how long they would be there? Mr. Norris replied they were calling them temporary signals because they were mounted on wood poles in lieu of standard light poles. They did not want to invest money in signals for a short-term period. They expected the temporary signals to be in place and operating for no more than ten years. Mr. O’Keefe added if they went with the design that had been on the table to this point, there would be signals there after the full build project. They were looking at rounds about as an alternate, which would not require signals on Highway 7. City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 11 Councilmember Basill wanted to be sure they looked at the ramp carefully to make sure they put as much distance between the road and the neighborhood as they could while still making a safe entry onto the highway. Has that been looked at and was there a way to configure it to put more distance? Mr. Norris responded with the future proposed reconstruction project, the intersection moved closer to Highway 100. Signals were in this location to provide a long enough left-turn lane to meet the demands for making the Eastbound 7 to Northbound 100 move. Mr. O’Keefe added they were still working on the plan and MnDOT would finalize it with the city by the end of the year so they could move ahead with right-of-way acquisition. Their goal was to have the full plan out in the fall of 2006. They had been working on the full plan for four or five years, now it was more tweaking. The plans displayed in City Hall were what they would move ahead with. Keith Robinson, 2575 Vernon Av, stated his concern was this was a temporary fix that would become the permanent fix. He did not have a lot of space in his back yard. With the changes to Highway 100 there will be increased noise, traffic and pollution and they will not be able to use their back yard. He believed they needed to push the state hard that this not be a temporary fix. Mayor Jacobs indicated they met with the Lieutenant Governor and pushed as hard as they could to let them know this wasn’t a permanent fix. The fix needed to include the bridges in the final plan. It came down to a question of money from the Legislature. Janet Weivode, 2750 Yosemite, stated a concern about the eleven-foot lanes under the bridges. Mr. Norris replied by narrowing the lanes, they provide some, even though minimal, lateral reaction to the bridge abutments in the median bridge piers. Ms. Weivode believed that twelve-foot was already tight and had concerns about the merging traffic. She wondered how the traffic merging on to Highway 100 would change and she was concerned about safety. Councilmember Sanger stated they had talked about how eleven-foot lanes would decrease rear end crashes, but hadn’t said anything about sideswiping crashes. What does the research show and is there a place in the Metro area with eleven-foot lanes on a freeway? Mr. O’Keefe replied there are regularly eleven-foot lanes through construction zones and those are often places where the barrier is flush with the lane. He didn’t know of anyplace with permanent eleven-foot lanes. They are fairly common on the East coast. The research they had seen suggested there was no real difference in safety between eleven-foot and twelve-foot lanes. The safety benefit was not gained from narrowing the lanes, it was from adding capacity. Tracy Joyce, 2855 Toledo Av S, asked if they went ahead with the temporary fix and make due, why would they ever spend their money here? Mayor Jacobs hoped they would do it because it was not a satisfactory fix for traffic or safety. MnDOT’s interest is to move traffic efficiently and safely and this wouldn’t cut it. They had spent a considerable amount of time and money on engineering and designing the final project and that is not done City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 12 lightly. It needed to be done at some point because the bridges needed to be replaced with a more modern bridge. Mr. O’Keefe added they should see progress this year. They hoped to begin right of way acquisition in 2007. The intent was to get on the “fast track” schedule. Carol Becker, 27th & Utica, asked the cost of the temporary fix? Mr. O’Keefe replied about $5.5 million. Ms. Becker asked the permanent cost? Mr. O’Keefe replied $96 million. Ms. Becker how much of the money spent on the temporary project would have to be re-spent on the final project? Mr. Norris replied the temporary lane project is like phase one of the larger reconstruction projects. The $5 million they would spend on this project would reduce the overall cost of the major reconstruction, which would place it better on the list for advanced design projects. Gaylord Fries, 2742 Utica, asked if MnDOT had a studied traffic patterns on Highway 100 in six years? Mr. Norris replied they didn’t look at how much the traffic would go up in five to six years after this project is completed, but had looked at the demand for the roadway with the larger project. MnDOT estimates that to be in the range of 128-130,000/day vehicles in the year 2031. It would probably be 5,000-6,000 vehicles/day. The temporary lane will function adequately for eight to ten years. Mr. Fries stated the Minnetonka bridge was hit last year and the concrete had hairline cracks in the sidewalk. He asked if they watched that? Mr. Norris replied they do bridge inspections every one to two years. If they warrant repairs, they do maintenance. These structures cause their maintenance staff a lot of time and effort and they would like to see them replaced as well. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Sanger suggested adding in contact information for MnDOT officials on the city web site. Councilmember Carver asked what an advanced design project was and how many there were? Mr. O’Keefe replied they have tended to get money from the Legislature in fits and starts. When they get the funding allocation, the Legislature wants to see the projects under construction and if they don’t have projects ready to go, they were at a disadvantage. They decided to take projects to 30% of completion, which makes them ready for a design/build letting. It is an attempt to anticipate and be ready if they get funding increases. In the Metro area the current list has six projects. Councilmember Carver indicated in November there would be a proposed constitutional amendment to dedicate motor vehicle sales tax to transportation, which would include this project. Is this project more likely to happen if that amendment is passed? Mr. O’Keefe replied it was more likely to happen either on the 2014 schedule or earlier. That money by itself would not be enough to advance it to 2009 because it is phased in and because MnDOT gets a portion of that amount. City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 13 Councilmember Carver asked if Highway 100 would be a detour when work is done on 62 and 35W? Mr. O’Keefe responded there would be times, including several weekends, when they will close 35W and/or 62 and Highway 100 would be the likely official detour. Councilmember Carver asked when the 62/35W work was scheduled? Mr. O’Keefe replied July 2006 and be completed in 2009. Councilmember Carver asked if the interim project went forward, at what intervals does MnDOT plan to come back and monitor levels of congestion, noise and air quality? Mr. O’Keefe responded they had continual data collection for traffic issues. They could report annually or on intervals the Council would like. For air quality and noise analysis, they will be doing an Environmental Assessment for the full build project and because they are advancing that design, they will be working on that over the next year or two and should see analysis in that time period. Councilmember Carver reviewed the options and asked about the appeal board process? Mr. Scott replied there is an appeal board process and even if the appeal decided one way or the other, the Commissioner of Transportation could ignore the appeal panel and do what they chose. Going to an appeal panel would be an unusual step. The City needed to act within 90 days one way or the other. Mayor Jacobs asked if that would have the impact of delaying the project? Mr. Scott replied correct. If the City did not consent to the project, it could not go forward until the other processes were completed. Mayor Jacobs asked if the city did not approve this project, would there be an appeal process. How long would that take? Mr. Scott was unsure. Mr. O’Keefe believed they would lose a construction season if they went through that process. Councilmember Sanger asked how MnDOT could help neighborhoods manage cut- through traffic? Does MnDOT have an ability to pay for law enforcement to help direct traffic in neighborhoods or other steps to help mitigate the side effects of cut through traffic? Mr. O’Keefe replied they are working with the city on a traffic study to understand the impacts. They are very difficult to forecast. They have weekly meetings during construction with the city to identify problems and possible mitigations for those problems. He was not aware of a situation where they have paid for additional local law enforcement to deal with changes in local traffic patterns. Councilmember Sanger asked if there is cut-through traffic, what steps could they take? Mr. O’Keefe replied most cities accept that the goal of the project is to reduce cut- through traffic in the long term. While there is some pain during the construction, in this case it is one construction season. To get that greater good of the reduction of cut- through traffic on a more long term basis, the city will need to accept some short term problems. They will work with city to identify signing and sometimes make changes in signal operations to help with traffic during construction. City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 14 Councilmember Basill felt it was good for the community to know what they could and couldn’t do in this process. The only way they could have more control is if financially they were to try to support this project. They couldn’t do it without significant bonding, nor should they do it. Highway 100 serves much more than St. Louis Park and that meant that the burden should not come out of their residents, but should come out of the State. They needed the Representatives to keep pressure on that and that was the way they would get the permanent fix, which would take care of the things they were concerned about. Councilmember Paprocki asked if they acted within 90 days, would it give them a better chance at getting the project done this summer? Mr. O’Keefe replied their intention was to advertise for bids in mid March. It becomes difficult to advertise if they don’t have a response from the City. 10. Adjournment City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 15 EXHIBIT C 1 of 2 State of Minnesota DRAFT OFFICE MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT: Mn/DOT Metro Division DATE: December 29, 2005 TO: Mike Rardin Public Works Director City of St. Louis Park FROM: Tom O’Keefe West Area Manager PHONE: 651 582- 1296 SUBJECT: Highway 100 Mike, with this memo I’m responding to the concerns you identified in your memo of October 28 to Tom Harmening, City Manager which was shared with Mn/DOT on October 31 and which we discussed at our meeting of November 2. Our response must be consistent with our policy, particularly our Cooperative Agreement Policy. We have applied the policy to its practicable maximum extent. 1. Noise and Air Pollution – The modeling completed as part of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the interim project predicts minor increases in Carbon Monoxide concentration and only minor increases in noise. The Carbon Monoxide concentrations predicted are well below state standards. The noise levels existing and predicted do exceed state standards and we do plan to build noise walls with the full- build project. The noise wall locations proposed for the full-build project are either outside right-of-way currently owned by Mn/DOT or on right-of-way requiring re-grading with or without retaining walls. We are not proposing noise walls with the interim project. We would not oppose the City’s suggestion that our required Noise Exemption from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency require that Noise Walls be built with a project let no later than 2015. City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 16 1. 2. Flooding / Storm Water Quality – We are and will continue to coordinate with the City and with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on our drainage plans for this project. On the north end of the project we are adding less than 1/3 acre of impervious surface. We plan to treat this stormwater with grit chambers. On the south end of the project we add less than 2 acres of impervious surface which we intend to treat with water quality ponding. 3. Unnecessary Construction / Traffic Delays – The full-build project will include a reconstructed bridge carrying Highway 7 over Highway 100 resulting in new profiles on Highway 7. This work is not affordable and not needed for the interim project. The elimination of the loops at the Highway 7 interchange is needed for the early stages of the full- build project, this is accomplished with the interim project. 4. Traffic on Neighborhood Streets – We have hired a consultant to forecast traffic on local streets before and after the interim project. If that work predicts significant impacts we will work with the City to determine how to best address. Generally we would anticipate that the expanded capacity on Highway 100 will draw some trips off of local streets. Actual volumes may increase because of changes in development or other factors outside our control; however, MnDOT will work with the City to determine how to best mitigate impacts associated with actual unanticipated volume increases that are mutually agreed to have been caused as a result of the interim project. 5. Emergency Vehicle Access – The attached visualization demonstrates that the shoulders and adjacent berms proposed provide very similar shoulders and adjacent berms to what exists today. 6. Narrow Lanes Jeopardize Safety – Mn/DOT will conduct and provide the requested study as a part of the municipal consent submittal. 7. Legal Liability – To our knowledge a City has not been named in an accident claim on a State Highway as a result of their approval of a Mn/DOT project. If the City is sufficiently concerned and did not want to necessarily disapprove our project layout, they may choose to allow the municipal consent period to expire without action. 8. Lack of Public Process – Mn/DOT will hold additional open houses during the municipal consent process and in advance of construction next spring. We will respond to any recommendations by the City for additional public process. 9. Exit Ramp Flooding – Our project as proposed does include the fix recommended. 10. Deterioration of Utica Avenue – Our project does not impact Utica Avenue, participation in repairs is not allowed under our Cooperative Agreement policy. City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 17 10. 11. Hardship to Nearby Homeowners – We share your goals for completion of the preliminary layout and plan to submit to the City for Council approval next fall. Based on the availability of Metropolitan Council Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Funds and an Official Map of the full-build project, the purchase of homes required for the reconstruction project can proceed. Minnesota Statutes 2005, 473.167, subd. 2a. Hardship Acquisition and Relocation, which applies in this situation states; “Loans shall be in the amount of the fair market value of the homestead property plus relocation costs and less salvage value.” The acquiring authority, the City, will own these properties until the reconstruction project is nearing contract letting, at which time the properties shall be conveyed to “…the commissioner of transportation at the same price it paid, plus relocation costs and less its salvage value.” 12. Pedestrian Crossing Delay – Mn/DOT is able to fund construction of the piece of proposed trail lying on our right- of-way near the historic property immediately north of the RR tracks to Toledo Ave. 13. Long-term Solution Delayed – The Lt. Governor’s letter constitutes the extent of the commitment we are able to provide. MnDOT has designated the Highway 100 full-build project as an “advanced design project”. This means we will continue developing the project so plans are ready for letting in 2009 if sufficient new funding is available. 14. Timing of Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange – Mn/DOT supports the proposed Highway 7/Wooddale interchange. The extent of Mn/DOT’s financial participation will be determined by competitive processes for the programs identified. There are many candidate projects for limited funding. Some of the programs have all funds programmed through 2009 and beyond. Wayne Norris and I will work with the City to ensure this project competes as well as possible. 15. Additional Wear on Wooddale Avenue – If Wooddale Avenue is identified as an official detour for the Highway 100 project(s), it is eligible for restoration. At this point we have not determined if such a detour is necessary. City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 18 EXHIBIT D TH 100 Temporary Lane Project Schedule St. Louis Park City Council – March 6, 2006 Project Development / Implementation Schedule: EAW Comment Period – ended September 28, 2005 Mn/DOT Staff Approved Layout – November 2005 Project Plans Turn-in – February 2006 Advertise for Bids – March 20, 2006 Open Bids – April 28, 2006 Construction Start – May 15, 2006  Stage 1 – May 2006 to June 2006  Stage 2 – June 2006 to Aug. 2006  Stage 3 – Aug. 2006 to Sept. 2006  Stage 4 – late Sept. / early Oct. 2006  Stage 5 – early Oct. 2006 Construction Completion – October 15, 2006 Municipal Consent Approval Process Schedule:  Access changes  Capacity increases or decreases  Acquisition of permanent rights-of-way City Council Work Session – Sept. 26, 2005 Municipal Consent Package to City – Nov. 22, 2005 City Schedules Public Hearing – Dec. 5, 2005 Mn/DOT Open House – January 12, 2006 Public Hearing – January 17, 2006 City Council Work Session – Sept. 26, 2005 City Council Meeting for Project / Plan Approval/Disapproval – March 20, 2006 (deadline of April 17, 2006) City Council Study Session Item: 030606 - 1 - Th100 Interim Project Page 19 EXHIBIT E RESOLUTION NO. 06-_____ MUNICIPAL CONSENT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL LAYOUT OF THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 100 TEMPORARY LANE ADDITION IN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park is the official governing body of the City of St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation will perform all preliminary and final design engineering for the temporar y improvements on Trunk Highway 100 between Excelsior Boulevard and Cedar Lake Road including potential retaining wall(s), relocation of public utilities, right -of-way acquisition (Commissioner’s Orders), storm water improvements, intersections and interchanges improvements, and preliminary and final roadway plans; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation will construct on State rights of way a pedestrian trail connection to the proposed pedestrian bridge over Hennepin County C.S.A.H. 25 in conjunction with the TH 100 temporary improvement project; and WHEREAS, the right-of-way costs for this project are part of the Minnesota Department of Transportation project; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of St. Louis Park will work cooperatively toward the construction of the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park authorizes City staff to work with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to make minor modifications to the final design layout for the TH 100 temporary improvement project; and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park grants Municipal Consent approving the final design layout for the TH 100 temporary improvement project on TH 100 between Excelsior Boulevard and Cedar Lake Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of St. Louis Park based on the available information, studies, and input received by the City Council approves the final design layout of the TH 100 temporary improvement project. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 6, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk