Loading...
Minutes 09-04-03Richfield Transportation Committee Minutes September 4, 2003 Committee members in attendance: Barb Kritzman (Co-chair), Lezlie Vermillion, Bob Shotwell, Bob Elliott, Don Anderson, John Bjostad, Gary Ness, Bill Kilian, Scott Pawelko, and Suzanne Sandahl. Others in attendance: Gertrude Ulrich, Ken Meter, Ray and Judy Goebel, Larry Wozniczka. Richfield staff: Tom Foley and Mike Eastling. MnDOT staff: Alana Getty and Chris Roy. WSB staff: Tony Heppelmann. Barb Kritzman served as Chair for the meeting. The agenda was adopted after a topic was added under agenda item 3 giving Ken Meter an opportunity to speak on several issues of concern to the Humboldt/ Girard residents. The minutes of the August 4 meeting were accepted after Bill Kilian corrected the minutes to say that while the MnDOT freeway access guidelines would provide Richfield with 4 access points, he wanted it known that he didn’t think Richfield had to accept this. Some of the access points were for freeway to freeway access that did not benefit Richfield. Chris Roy explained that the discussion was intended to show how Richfield would be treated if it were a new suburb with little existing development. The Committee then accepted the minutes in a motion made by Bill Kilian and seconded by Bob Elliott. Critical Questions To Ask to Complete the Evaluation Matrix - Tony Heppelmann discussed with the Committee several questions that needed to be answered so that alternatives could be compared uniformly. The issues were: Should the 35W Mainlines Be Shifted West by Eliminating West Frontage Road for All Alternatives Being Considered? The Committee agreed to shift the mainlines to the west. This was done to reduce right of way impacts on homes to the east of I-35W. However, there was concern expressed that the west frontage road would be lost. A request for a traffic count on Humboldt Avenue just north of 76th Street was made. Loss of the frontage road would alter traffic patterns within the neighborhood to the west of I-35W. This would have to be evaluated. Should Alternatives Be Shown With and Without the HOV Bypass Lane? The Committee agreed to leave the HOV Bypass Lane in on all alternatives, although the length of the HOV lane should be shortened if at all possible. Discussion also was raised that the current design requires 24 feet of width for an HOV Bypass lane. MnDOT is considering a narrower design but MnDOT has not accepted it, yet. Is It Feasible to Maintain an Alternative Showing only the 76th Street Southbound Exit Ramp? The discussion centered on the difficulty people who are not familiar with the area would have trying to get back on I-35W going north. The Committee agreed that the exit only ramp alternative should be dropped from further consideration. The No Ramps at 76th Street alternative should still be considered because it has the potential to greatly reduce the right of way impact on Richfield. Should the Lyndale Avenue Access to 35W Northbound Be Separate from the 76th Street Ramp Evaluation? Mike Eastling explained the forecasted traffic volumes under the existing MnDOT design for the Lyndale Avenue interchange shows 900 vehicles in the peak hour getting on I-494 would have to weave across 600 vehicles wanting to get on the 35W northbound ramp. This volume of 1,500 vehicles in the peak hour is fairly high for MnDOT to allow the weave. If the 76th Street ramp were closed, the extra traffic diverted to the Lyndale entrance ramp to go north on I-35W would only aggravate a bad situation and prevent MnDOT from allowing access to northbound I-35W. For this reason the Committee agreed to separate the decision on the design of the Lyndale Avenue Bridge from the decision on the 76th Street ramp. Ken Meter did not agree with this position. Humboldt/Girard Neighborhood Concerns- Ken Meter presented to the Committee a proposal from the Humboldt/Girard Neighbors Concerned. Ken asked that the factors his neighbors proposed for the evaluation matrix be included before the scoring is done. Tony Heppelmann noted that some of the questions could be listed under factors already proposed as a way to measure how well each alternative meets the criterion. Alana Getty noted that some questions may lead to new factors being added. In the interest of giving people more time to evaluate the factors. City staff and Tony Heppelmann will revise the factors to include these new issues. Once this is done, the matrix can be sent by e-mail to Committee members and placed on the City’s Web site. Ken asked to see the revised matrix before it is sent to the Committee. The City’s goals from the Comprehensive Plan and the Visions 2020 Plan should be shown in some way to assist Committee members in assigning a score to each factor for its level of importance. The Committee thought that residents west of I-35W should be informed of possible impacts on them of several alternatives. City staff was asked to take steps to notify these residents. Agenda for the Next Meeting- The committee will select the factors for use in the evaluation matrix and then try to use a scoring system to rate their level of importance. The next Committee meeting will be on Monday, October 6, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.