5.2. PCSR 05-12-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

P~~ IJoisington Koegler Group Inc. ~® ~~ Meeting Date: March 25, 2009, 2:00 - 3:30 p.m.,F.,Ik River City Hall Client: City of Elk River, Minnesota Project: Elk River Focused Area Study (FAST) Purpose: MN DOT Review of potential interchange location for FAST Study Present: Craig Robinson, Jim Povich MN/DOT; Bryan Harjes, HKGi; Jeremy Banlhart & Teny Maurer, City of Elk River. The meeting was held to review future interchange locations and gather input from MNDOT' representatives on general location, future timeframe and potential. funding sources for the future interchange. The meeting opened with an overview of the broader transportation and land use issues surrounding the Elk River FAS"T. The following are the summary of comments from the meeting. Comments related to the future interchange: • Location of a future interchange should be located 1 mile south from the centerline of the 1lighway L 01 and Highways 10/169 interchange. Additionally, the further north the interchange would like increase the complexity of construction for the 101 and 10/169 interchange. In general, the further the interchange is located from the 101 & 1.0/169 interchange there is a strong likelihood the project costs would decrease due to less acquisition costs and desilm complexity. • MNDOT had no preference to an interchange either 1 mile south of Highway 101 and Highways 10/169 interchange or further south near the location identified in the IRC around 165' Avenue. • The city should build a ease for a future interchange though: o Further study -geometries /environmental review o Acquisition of necessary properties or needed right-of-wav o Working toward controlled access points at 171st and 165`x' Avenues only, while closing all other access points through the corridor • The cost of an interchange would be split between MNDOT and the city 50%-50%. However, the percentage breakdown for the interchange cost could reach 85% MNDOT anal 15% City if the city meets certain perfornmance review checklist items. For example, if the interchange is located on an underperforming Inter Regional Corridor (IRC) there is a 10% cost savings for the City. Also, MNDOT currently has no funding for even the 50% portion of the interchange. • MNDOT provided information on the Greater Minnesota Interchange Solicitation Program which has an allotment of 40 million dollars for infrastnicture improvements for out-state Minnesota. However, only 10 nmillion is the maximum award for a single project. MNDOT provided the checklist for project submittals with evaluation categories ranging from economic development, safety and congestion relief. 'The submittal packet has a due date of June 12`'', 2009 with a general start tinme of 2013. Additional comments: • Ametro-district resurfacing project will take place in 2012. This project will include a mill and overlay of Highway 10/169 and will also included closure of median crossings except for 171'' Avenue and 165' Avenue. Right-in and. right-out access points would still remain as closure of these access points involves property- rights issues. • Near ternm, MNDOT showed some reluctance for an additional signal at I65''' Avenue. however would consider a proposal for a signal at 165"' Avenue that included. access closures to enha~mce safety measures through the corridor. 80 171St. C7VG i lU£' 3 ocused.4reu ~"ludy w ~ ~>; : ~ ~. .,=- ..» ~y1. ^~,, ~~t~ :.~:~:: ~.:... ~ ~s~~ v:~xrc~