Loading...
City Council Minutes 11-19-2008 SpecialCouncil Minutes: November 19, 2008 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION PLAN WORKSHOP Wednesday November 19, 2008 - 5:30 p.m. Members Present: Clint Herbst, Wayne Mayer, Tom Perrault, Brian Stumpf and Susie Wojchouski Members Absent: None 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 5:37 p.m. City Engineer, Bruce Westby, thanked those in attendance and acknowledged officials from other agencies including Wright County Highway Engineer Wayne Fingalson, Terry Humbert from Mn/DOT, and various officials from the City of Big Lake and Big Lake Township. Deb Steiskal, Constituent Services Officer for Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, was also acknowledged. Bruce Westby outlined the format for the meeting which included a formal presentation, followed by a question and comment period and an open house. Bruce Westby pointed out that the City's Transportation. Plan affects other areas outside the City limits. It has regional as well as local impacts. 2. Trunk Hishway 25 Study Presentation. Chuck Rickart from WSB & Associates made a formal presentation on the City's TH 25 study. They collected data, analyzed existing conditions and did traffic projections for the year 2030. From the data collected they suggested improvement alternatives and did an analysis of each alternative. They also looked at funding sources for the work. Chuck Rickart briefly reviewed traffic count data. When counts were done in 2007 there were 23,200 vehicles daily south of I-94 and 31,000 vehicles crossing the Mississippi River bridge towards Big Lake. Traffic projections for 2030 increased to 37,000 and 45,000 vehicles respectively. Chuck Rickart noted the need for the Fallon Avenue overpass which is a ~roposed improvement that would pass over the freeway at Fallon Avenue and connect to 7t Street to the east of Washington Street (near St. Henry's Catholic Church). Improvements that were considered included: 1) Signal timing modifications; 2) Turn lanes; 3) Access modifications; 4) Roundabouts; 5) Additional through lane; 6) One-way pair and 7) Additional river crossings and I-94 interchanges. Access modifications included the closing of River Street. The one-way pair would have existing TH 25 be the southbound lanes and Cedar Street would be the northbound lanes. This improvement would require widening the interchange at I-94 and constructing another bridge over the Mississippi. He noted the possibility that there could be two interchanges between County Road 39 and Orchard Lane. Three sites were looked at as possible river crossings which are Orchard Road, Washington Street and CSAH 18. The proposed improvements and modifications were broken into short term, medium term and long term improvements. The short term (0-5 years) improvements covered: 1) signal Council Minutes: November 19, 2008 timing modifications; 2) River Street access modifications; and 3) Addition of turn lanes. The City would need to work with Mn/DOT and the County to implement the short term improvements. Mn/DOT is currently looking at the signal timing on TH 25 in Monticello as well as at Sherburne County Road 11 in Big Lake. Modifications to the River Street access to TH 25 are in process now. Traffic counts will be taken in the next few weeks. The addition of turn lanes is being considered at Broadway, 7~' Street and the westbound ramp of I-94. Chuck Rickart indicated that some of these improvements would be done through maintenance and cooperative agreements with the County and the State Medium term improvements, projects they would expect to do within 5-15 years, included: 1) Access modifications and 2) Roundabouts. These improvements would be driven by development and/or downtown redevelopment. Chuck Rickart noted that they are looking at the possibility of a roundabout at Broadway and TH 25. For long term improvements (15-30 years) they would be looking at adding an additional lane to TH 25 in each direction, aone-way pair, an additional river crossing and/or additional interchanges on I-94. These improvements would take significant traffic off of TH 25 and would likely require federal funding. The next steps in the TH 25 study include 1) Council input; 2) Meeting with the Big Lake Joint Transportation Committee; 3) Public input from tonight's meeting as well as another meeting in January and 4) Presentation of the final Transportation Plan to the Council sometime in January. The final report will have preliminary cost estimates that could be used for future funding purposes. 3. Transuortation Plan Presentation. The purpose of spending time and effort on a transportation plan is multiple. Transportation Plans are tools that can be used by local officials and staff to consider the big picture when making decisions that can be impacted by the effects of transportation. It is also a valuable piece of information that residents, businesses and property owners can utilize to see how traffic would impact the use and development of their property. The plan is also the basis for cooperation between different agencies as what happens in one area as far as traffic and roadways has impacts extending outside the area. The objectives of the Transportation Plan include a plan that would 1) Provide a roadway system that would facilitate growth; 2) Provide access to residents and commercial businesses; 3) Promote mobility for motorized and non-motorized traffic; and 4) Support the regional transportation system. One aspect of the plan looked at non-motorized traffic and addressed the issues of pathways and trails. It is important that the City's Transportation Plan be set up correctly so that other systems can fit into it. The following steps were used to develop the new Transportation Plan: 1) The existing Monticello Transportation Plan was used as a base; 2) The City's updated Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Land Use Plan of Big Lake, were considered; 3) Updated traffic counts were taken; 4) Needs and improvements were identified; 5) Identifying funding sources and 6) Preparation of the updated plan. As noted earlier a big issue in Monticello is to lessen traffic on TH 25. Funding will be a very important aspect in how this will be accomplished. 2 Council Minutes: November 19, 2008 With the economic times being what they are and the high demand for limited funds, the City will need to be ready to be first in line when funds are made available to be distributed at the state or federal level. Chuck Rickart talked about the structure of the plan: 1) Analyze existing conditions; 2) Future road uses; 3)Non-motorized traffic; 4) Transit; 5) Aviation and goods movement; (the aviation portion is unlikely to be in the plan as it doesn't affect Monticello very much); and 6) Funding. Interchange and overpass options were discussed. The Fallon Avenue overpass was identified in the previous Transportation Plan and would provide local traffic relief. It was noted that as a condition of approving the CSAH 18 interchange the FHWA required that the Fallon Avenue overpass be constructed prior to looking at any additional interchanges. Various sites along I-94, west of TH 25, have been looked at as possible interchange locations. The area between County Road 39 and Orchard Road could have 1 to 2 interchanges. Locations for interchanges will depend on spacing, need and development. Needs will be dependent on local and regional development. Depending on where the new interchange is located up to 6,000 vehicles would be diverted off of TH 25 at I-94. However, it was emphasized that without another river crossing the Fallon Avenue overpass or another interchange will not improve traffic on TH 25 north of Broadway. River crossing options were discussed. 1) Widen TH 25 and utilize aone-way pair. This would provide additional capacity on TH 25 but there would be significant right of way issues, especially in the area of Broadway. It would require the reconstruction of the TH 25 bridge at I-94, as well as a new river crossing bridge at Cedar Street. It was noted that the one-way pair would create two high volume roads, rather than one as currently exists, which would be a greater barrier for vehicles trying to cross TH 25. 2) Orchard Road extension would connect Broadway with Sherburne County Road 11. This would take about 7,000 vehicles off of the TH 25 river bridge by 2030 if an interchange was constructed near Orchard Road on I-94. As such this would provide some regional benefit. 3) Washington Street extension would connect Broadway with Sherburne CSAH 14. This crossing has the best traffic impact on TH 25 and it would divert 16,000 cars off of TH 25 by 2030. There would be no direct connection to I-94. This would provide alternative access and relief for local traffic between Monticello and Big Lake and would connect Monticello to the greatest future growth area in Big Lake as identified in their Land Use Plan. 4) CSAH 18 extension would connect CSAH 18 with Sherburne CSAH 14 in Big Lake and would divert up to 10,000 vehicles off of TH 25 by 2030. With the existing I-94 interchange at CSAH 18 it would provide regional benefit. Other significant parts of the roadway system will be considered in the new Transportation Plan including the construction/extension of such collector roadways as School Boulevard; 7th Street, Chelsea Road, 85th Street, the North Frontage Road connecting 95th Street to East Broadway, and various north/south and east/west minor collector streets. Chuck Rickart noted the pedestrian and bike plan is primarily a local plan but also includes connections to Wright County's trail system. This is something that is looked at in more detail in the Natural Resources Inventory which the City is currently developing. The Plan will also address transit systems, including River Rider service options. They looked at the possibility of connecting to the NorthStar commuter rail in Big Lake and a possible Council Minutes: November 19, 2008 connection to the Maple Grove Transit Station. River Rider has stated they do not presently have the funding to provide this type of service. Funding and financing is a major consideration for the proposed improvements and would primarily consist of cooperative agreements with Mn/DOT and the County. Projects with regional impact carry greater weight in funding such as working with the I-94 Coalition and the Big Lake/Big Lake Township Joint Transportation Committee. There is a possibility that some kind of federal funding stimulus package might be available at some point so it is important that the City has plans in place to identify an immediate need for the funding. Finally, assessments could help defray some of the cost of the improvements. Chuck Rickart outlined the next steps. It is hoped to have a draft plan ready by the end of November. Public input will be received both at this meeting and at a Planning Commission meeting to be held sometime in January. The draft plan will then likely go to the Council in January. Between now and when the Council adopts the Transportation Plan there will be ongoing input from governmental and regulatory agencies. 4. Question and Answer Session. Following the formal presentation the meeting was opened up for questions. Brian Stumpf commented on the 7th Street extension. He felt that this was something that needs to be constructed on the north side of I-94. If they do move forward with 7th Street the City may have some issues with the intersection of Walnut and 7th Street. Brian Stumpf asked if some low-cost modifications could be made to Broadway to allow traffic to flow better. The problem is mainly from Broadway across the river. Brian Stumpf said no matter what improvements are made you can't save significant time because crossing the river takes the same amount of time. Only another river crossing will have significant impact on the flow of traffic on TH 25. He did not feel that the City's park and ride lot was in the most favorable location in the community. Tom Perrault noted that the City did not approve participation in the I-94 Coalition. He questioned if any study had been made on the affect the NorthStar rail would have. Chuck Rickart said they did take that into consideration as best they could. Tom Perrault asked if as a result of TH 101 being redone did Monticello pick up any of that traffic. Chuck Rickart said he didn't have any information on where the traffic from the TH 101 work was diverted to. Chuck Rickart said the traffic counts that were done were similar so he didn't think the TH 101 project had much impact on Monticello traffic. Clint Herbst did not feel the one-way pair should be looked at as an option. He felt they should look at a river crossing on the east side of Monticello somewhere between Otsego and Monticello rather than river crossings just within the city. Chuck Rickart said he believes that Otsego was looking at a river crossing. Terry Humbert from Mn/DOT said the DNR required them to do a study of the cumulative impacts of river crossings. He felt there was a good chance for a river crossing in this area. Terry Humbert said the only river crossing Mn/DOT is involved in is the one by Clearwater. Terry Humbert said a crossing in the Monticello area would be for local traffic primarily and therefore it would require a local funding effort. Clint Herbst said the traffic crossing the river at Clearwater is nothing like 4 Council Minutes: November 19, 2008 the volume of traffic in this area. Terry Humbert said in looking at Clearwater they considered the growth in the St. Cloud area and the traffic to Brainerd. Terry Humbert stated much of the traffic on TH 25 either starts or ends in Monticello and Big Lake. Brian Stumpf said he didn't understand why the eastbound Broadway ramp could not be used. Terry Humbert said at some point I-94 will be widened to six lanes and additional ponding area will be needed. Terry Humbert said when the City went through the process of getting the interchange they had to come to an agreement as to where the access point would be. Mn/DOT likes to minimize the number of access points on the freeways. Mn/DOT weighs the need of local access with the need to keep the freeway traffic moving freely. Brian Stumpf said he disagrees that Mn/DOT is trying to limit access to the freeway since it shows in the Transportation Plan that they are willing to accept two interchanges west of TH 25. Terry Humbert stated Mn/DOT tries to keep access points to a minimum but if traffic and development justify the need for additional access points, Mn/DOT does try to work with the communities to provide that access. Susie Wojchouski asked if the Fallon Avenue overpass is the most important one and if there are any other overpasses planned for the west end of town. Chuck Rickart said they looked at that but did not see the benefit of any overpasses west of TH 25. Susie Wojchouski noted that the media indicated that the cost of the St. Cloud bridge that was replaced was about $253,000,000 and she wondered how local development could be expected to fund bridge costs if that was what it cost. Terry Humbert said the St. Cloud bridge cost about $20,000,000 but that the 35W bridge was about $253,000,000. Wayne Mayer asked about the placement of the proposed river crossing west of Monticello. Terry Humbert said it was the area chosen in the Corridor Study. Terry Humbert said most traffic crossing the river is local traffic from the Big Lake/Big Lake Township/Monticello area. He felt the majority of people going up north would cross at Clearwater. Wayne Mayer disagreed that it is local traffic that is clogging this crossing. Terry Humbert said between Clearwater and Becker traffic flow is light and that the flow picks up again at Becker. There is also a lot of traffic between St. Cloud and Clearwater. Susie Wojchouski said since the Corridor Study had been done 10 to 12 years ago there has been a significant increase in the population of the Big Lake/Big Lake Township/Monticello area. Terry Humbert said the project was based on 2040 projections and that took into consideration the Big Lake/Monticello area being pretty much fully developed. Dan Lemm commented that years ago they built the roads first and the towns grew up around them. After development occurs it is a headache to try to clear up traffic problems. He also felt that the traffic should be re-routed around town. Jeff O'Neill asked what are the alternatives for the planned crossing. He wondered if there was a population threshold where a second river crossing will be needed. Bruce Westby said he believes the existing capacity of the TH 25 bridge is 43,000 ADT. Right now the ADT is at 30,000 and in 2030 they anticipate it would reach capacity. Chuck Rickart said the bridge would be included in the transportation plan. Terry Humbert said a bridge would have more capacity as there are no intersections or signals on the bridge. He said it is the intersections at the ends that restrict the capacity of the bridge. Chuck Rickart said they are at the point where they have to start planning for the improvements because they are almost at capacity. Council Minutes: November 19, 2008 Bob Viering said he knows a lot of people commute out of Monticello and are sitting in traffic for a long time. He would like to see the City be part of the I-94 Coalition. He commented on the City talking to Big Lake and Big Lake Township about the traffic and urged them to continue to do so as well as working with other entities to come up with a regional plan. He felt getting the river crossing and adding on to I-94 would take state and federal money and he felt the more entities involved in the proposal the better the chance of funding the improvements. Bill Seefeldt felt the majority of traffic on TH 25 are weekenders and commuters. He felt Option B in the corridor study made more sense than the Clearwater corridor because it would take some traffic off of TH 25. He also stated his belief that construction of the Fallon Avenue overpass would not help traffic enough to justify the cost. He asked about synchronization ofthe signals on TH 25. Chuck Rickart said the TH 25 signal systems are hard-wire interconnected. Now with the interchange on CSAH 18 there are different traffic patterns so the TH 25 signals might need some adjustments. Chuck Rickart said the Fallon Avenue overpass was different than the river crossings because of the magnitude of the cost compared to the benefit. Fallon Avenue would be a local connection only and would not provide regional benefit. Jim Sanford, Big Lake Township Chairman, stated they are working with the City on TH 25 traffic issues. He felt a river crossing between Big Lake and Becker would really help them. He felt it was the weekend traffic that plugs things up, especially on Fridays, so getting traffic off of TH 25 and onto Sherburne CR 11 in Clearwater needs to be done. He added since the funding is not there Mn/DOT is pushing the Clearwater crossing project off. Terry Humbert said because the project is far off in the future those types of projects were called off. John Chadwick felt it was a benefit in having the representatives from various agencies at this meeting. He stated there are advantages to the County Road 39 location for an interchange. 'The road is already built and only the ramps need to be added. It is close to major streets and the YMCA. Michael Kelly said he had discussed with Mn/DOT representatives what the state is responsible for as far as interchanges. He stated this meeting would have been more helpful if slides including street names were shown when they were referencing a specific street or site as he was relatively new to the community. He didn't like the County Road 391ocation for an interchange as it would be the only interchange where the traffic coming off the road would be dumping into a residential area. He felt the main issue was funding and since there is no state money for an interchange or river crossing funding would have to come from within the community where the interchange or river crossing is located. He did not favor the use of one-way pairs or the roundabouts. Terry Humbert explained that certain steps must be completed before consideration of an interchange location. This includes traffic models, a layout proposal and environmental documentation. Clint Herbst said the City has to find a spot for the interchange and then they can address who pays for it. With the CSAH 18 interchange it was mostly the benefitting property owners picking up the cost. Rick Traver, manager of the Monticello Country Club, said locating the interchange in the County Road 39 area would impact them greatly, possibly putting them out of business. He added the Country Club pays about $25,000 annually in taxes which would be lost to the 6 Council Minutes: November 19, 2008 City. He asked that the City keep the local businesses in mind when they look at where to locate an interchange. While he understood that those who had property to develop would favor the interchange being located in the County Road 39 area, the established businesses need to be considered. Tom Moores asked about a designated snowmobile trail through Monticello. He asked if there was anything that determined how the snowmobile trail is laid out. Bruce Westby said the Transportation Plan did not consider a snowmobile route through the City. Bruce Westby said the Transportation Plan is a planning document and is not updated annually so things like snowmobile trails that need to be revised annually shouldn't be included in the Plan. Chuck Rickart reminded everyone that the City is doing a Natural Resources Inventory and that might be a document where a snowmobile trail better fits. Tom Moores said the crossing at the river is more of a concern to him than the trail. Terry Humbert said a designated lane for a snowmobile crossing can't likely be added to an existing bridge but Mn/DOT may consider it as part of a new bridge construction project. Terry Humbert said they don't have a lot of money for new projects and the funding they have is primarily for maintenance. Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Highway Engineer, said it was a positive thing that the City was doing and the County is supportive of developing a Transportation Plan. Brian Stumpf asked Chuck Rickart where they should start with any of the short term fixes. Chuck Rickart said these improvements should be included in the Capital Improvement Program as the next step. 5. Open House. There being no further questions the meeting was closed and those in attendance were provided an opportunity to review various layouts relating to transportation and further discuss the Transportation Plan with Council members and staff. Formal meeting closed at 7:30 p.m. Recording Secretary 7