6. EDSR 05-11-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~PPE~IDIX Hoisington Koegler Cn•oup lnc. ~~ ~~ Meeting Date: March 25, 2009, 2:00 - 3:30 p.m., Elk River City Hall Client: City of Elk River, Mirulesota Project: Elk River Focused Area Study (FAST) Purpose: MNDOT Review of potential interchange location for FAST Study Present: Craig Robinson, Jim Povich MN/DOT; Bryan Harjes, HKGi; Jeremy Barnhart & 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 FAST. The following are the summan~ of comments from the meeting. Comments related to the future interchange: • Location of a fuhre interchange should be located 1 mile south from the centerline of the Highway 1 Ol and Highways 10/169 interchange. Additionally, the fiu-ther north the interchange would like increase the complexity of construction for the l O l and 10/169 interchange. In general, the further the interchange is located from. the 101 & 10/1.69 interchange there is a strong likelihood the project costs would decrease due to less acquisition costs and design 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 16~`F' Avenue. • The city should build a case for a future interchange though: o Further study - geometries /environmental review o Acquisition of necessary properties or needed right-of-way o Working toward controlled access pouits at 171st and 166'x' Avenues only, while closing all other access points through the con•idor • The cost of an interchange «-ould be split beriveen MNDOT and the city 50°io-50%. However, the percentage breakdown for the interchange cost could reach 85% MNDOT and I S% City if the city meets certain perforniance review checklist items. For example, if the interchange is located on an undetperfonning Inter Regional Con-idor (IRCj there is a 10% cost savings for the City. Also, MNDOT currently has no funding for even the 50% portion of the interchange. • MhTDOT provided information on the Greater Minnesota Interchange Solicitation Progn-am which has an allotment of 40 million dollars for infrastructure improvements for out-state Minnesota. However, only 10 million is the maximum award for a single project. MNDOT provided the checklist for project submittals with evahiation categories ranging from economic development; safety and congestion relief The submittal packet has a due date of June 12`'', 2009 with a general start time 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 171st 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 terns, MNDOT showed some reluctance for an additional signal at 165`x' Avenue. however would consider a proposal for a signal at 166"' Avenue that included access closures to ei~hailce safety measures through the corridor. $0 97'i$C.CNE'fll.l@~ocu~edr;rec~~7udy