Minutes 11-03-03Richfield Transportation Committee
Minutes
November 3, 2003
Committee members in attendance: Steve Lindgren and Barb Kritzman (Co-chairs), Bob Shotwell, Lezlie Vermillion, Don Anderson, Gary Ness, Bill Kilian, Todd Nollenberger and Suzanne Sandahl.
Others in attendance: Gertrude Ulrich, Ernie Lindstrom, Ray and Judy Goebel, Richard Stembridge, Tim Carter of Richfield Bloomington Honda, Mary Nelson, Doremi Fulco, Robert Carlson,
Kim Carlson, Dan Casey, Larry Wozniczka, Bill Murphy, and Carol Swenson. 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 amended to include setting the date for a special meeting to discuss the 35W/ 62 Crosstown design, and then adopted.
Members of the committee received comments from Ken Meter asking that the minutes be corrected. The Committee then accepted the October 6, 2003 minutes as presented in a motion made
by Bill Kilian and seconded by Bob Shotwell.
Special Meeting for a Presentation on 35W/62 Crosstown Commons Design: A special Transportation Committee meeting was agreed to for the November 13, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. to hear a presentation
from MnDOT and its design consultant on the proposed design of 35W/62 Crosstown Commons Project.
Weighting of Evaluation Factors Tony Heppelmann reviewed the results of the weightings done by individual members of the committee given to each of the ten evaluation factors. The results
are attached to these minutes. The results of the exercise were not modified following committee discussion. Tony advised the committee to use the median as the approved weighting of
each factor. Todd Nollenberger pointed out that use of the average score more correctly represented the committee weighting. If the median were used, business impacts would have a
5 and local traffic concerns would have a 4, whereas the average scores for these two criteria were 4.3 and 4.4 respectively. After some discussion the Committee chose to use the average
score for weighting each evaluation factor in a motion made by Todd, seconded by Bill Kilian and passed.
MnDOT Review of Previous Alternatives Chris Roy reviewed for the committee the 18 alternatives that MnDOT had developed over the past two years to address the 76th Street ramp. Chris
explained each alternative and the reasons why the alternative was previously dismissed. In the case of the south loop through the Minnesota School of Business property, he explained
that the idea proposed by Humboldt Avenue residents had been modified to reduce the right of way impact on the Emerson Congregational United Church of Christ. By tightening the radius
of the loop ramp to 140 feet, MnDOT staff believed that it was possible to avoid the church property, The design could still be acceptable to MnDOT for a freeway entrance ramp provided
that the ramp is long enough to
allow vehicles to accelerate up to the freeway speeds. This was needed to safely merge ramp traffic by reducing the difference of speeds between ramp traffic and the traffic on the
freeway..
He also discussed one MnDOT alternative that is more recent. This alternative has a fly-over bridge that takes traffic from 76th Street to northbound I-35W from the west of 35W to the
east side.
Bob Shotwell Alternative and Larry Wozniczka Alternative Tony Heppelmann quickly reviewed these alternatives for the benefit of the committee.
Bob Shotwell’s proposal provided a bridge on 76th Street with Girard Avenue passing underneath. Girard Avenue would then turn east and eventually connect to 77th Street in the vicinity
of Emerson Avenue. Tony pointed out that this proposal really only applies to the tight diamond alternative and that there may be other options for providing full access for the Minnesota
School of Business. Tony also pointed out that many businesses are restricted to right-in and right-out access.
Larry Wozniczka’s proposal was similar to Alternative #6 of MnDOT’s eighteen original alternatives. His proposal showed the entrance ramp access to 35W on 77th Street at Emerson Avenue
extending through the Shops at Lyndale parking lot. The new intersection on 77th Street moves the traffic signal at the Meridian Crossings entrance to the southeast. The new intersection
would be signalized and become the new entrance for Meridian Crossings as well as the northbound entrance ramp to I-35W. Trucks could have direct access to and from the Shops at Lyndale
parking lot from the new Emerson Avenue, which would provide two-way traffic from 77th Street to Girard Avenue. His alternative would eliminate the need to acquire homes for a northbound
ramp placed north of 76th Street. Larry also proposed an exit ramp that came south of 76th Street and wrapped around the Galyan’s property to connect to Knox Avenue. He thought the
proposal would improve the spacing between signals on 76th Street and 77th Street to improve local traffic flow.
The reasons this alternative was previously eliminated was because of poor spacing and conflicts between the access for the Meridian Crossings office building and the intersection of
the ramp and 76th Street; because of the tight radius at the entrance to the ramp and because of the circuitous nature of the access (difficult to find). This access is also inconsistent
with MnDOT and Metro Council policies on interstate access which requires interstate access to be from at least a minor arterial and not from local roads or private property. The committee
asked questions of both Bob and Larry to clarify how the proposals would work.
Selection of Alternatives for Further Evaluation The Committee then was asked to choose alternatives to rank using the ten evaluation factors. The committee supported the No Ramps at
76th Street alternative, and five of the 18 alternatives presented by MnDOT including the half of a single-point diamond alternative (identified as Alternative #9 of the MnDOT optional
designs.) The alternatives selected by the Committee included:
No Ramps at 76th Street (No MnDOT number for this alternative)
76th Street Ramps as Shown in I-494 Final EIS (Alternative #1)
South Loop Through the Minnesota School of Business(Alternative #3)
Fly Over Bridge(New Alternative – No MnDOT number)
Move Entrance Ramp Closer to 76th Street Bridge (Alternative #8)
One-Half of Single-Point Diamond Bridge (Alternative #9)
The Committee directed staff that all the alternatives should be considered with the original I-35W alignment and with the alignment of the I-35W mainlines shifted to the west. This
will allow the committee to evaluate if additional homes on the east side of the freeway can be saved in each alternative by shifting the alignment to the west towards Donaldson Park.
The committee also requested that each alternative be analyzed with HOV bypass lanes and without HOV bypass lanes.
These alternatives will now be the subject of in-depth evaluation. Tony Heppelmann thought that technical information on the six alternatives could be presented to the committee in three
or, possibly, two meetings.
Public Comments Ernie Lindstrom asked that the committee listen to the engineers about producing a good design that will last for years. He reminded the committee that the Mayor, City
Council and City Manager had already stated that no homes should be taken for the 76th Street ramp. He believed by moving 35W to the west, even if it took part of Donaldson Park property,
would be better than taking homes.
Larry Wozniczka asked that his proposal be included in the evaluation process. His proposal could be modified to provide a right-in, right-out access for Meridian Crossings. The exiting
traffic from Meridian Crossings could be accommodated by having their traffic exit onto Girard Avenue. The exiting traffic then could turn left (or south) to a four-way stop at the
new ramp. The traffic could either enter 35W or go east to 77th Street on the new Emerson Avenue. He did say that the proposal needed some refinements. The proposal increases spacing
between signals on 76th and 77th Streets.
Tim Carter of Richfield Bloomington Honda spoke. He just learned of the study and wanted to share his thoughts. He understood the importance of protecting homes but asked the committee
to look at the total impact of closing the ramps to 35W. He thought closing the ramps would be bad for business.
Special Meeting on 35W/62 Crosstown Design The committee was asked to set a special meeting on November 13, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at the Richfield City Hall. MnDOT and SRF, its consultant
on 35W/62 Crosstown Commons, would give a presentation to the committee and other people interested. The committee agreed to hear the presentation on November 13 at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda for the Next Meeting- The committee will review technical information gathered on the six alternatives selected tonight. Staff is to provide examples of 3-D graphics to see if
the committee would benefit from having 3-D drawings prepared for some of the alternatives. The cost of this work was estimated at $5,000.
The next regular Committee meeting will be on Thursday, December 4, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at Richfield City Hall.
Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Attachments (Ken Meter’s e-mail comments and the results of the weightings of the ten evaluation factors by the Transportation Committee)
Ken Meter's Comments on October 6, 2003 meeting minutes, dated October 29, 2003:
Dear Steve and Barb:
I will be unable to make the November 3 meeting of the Transportation Committee due to professional commitments that take me out of town.
I write to pass along a few items I would like to see considered by the Committee in my absence.
1. Regarding the minutes for the October 6, 2003 meeting. I thought that in general these included a fairly good record of my comments that night, and I thank the recorder for this diligence.
However there are a couple of statements that do not reflect my sense of the meeting that I would like to see altered. I regret that I am somewhat chronically in the position of questioning
the minutes. To me, these minutes are an important record of what did happen and what did not happen. I only raise points that I think have some importance. As a former planning commissioner
for the city, and someone with over a half century of history with this community, I would hope the committee would appreciate the sincerity of my effort and grant me the right to have
my comments summarized more accurately.
First, I made a detailed and specific request at the beginning of my presentation that is not reflected in the record. My own script for the speech, which I was reading, states "I'd
like [the] minutes to state that this - the sixth committee meeting - is the first time our neighborhood has been invited to present the conclusions we drew after nearly three years
of work on this issue." This comment does not appear in the minutes, and it should as a matter of basic courtesy. This is an important point since the committee has made decisions to
eliminate certain options prior to hearing our neighborhood's position.
2. At the end of the first page of the minutes, the summary of my comments actually amplifies on my comments. Yes, there is plenty of access to I-35w north in the vicinity of our ramp.
Yet the thrust of my comments was that this is an unsafe place to build a ramp - and that the reason the proposed ramp is so long [and does so much damage to houses] is to separate
traffic from these four other entrance ramps. I request that the minutes read: "The neighborhood feels this is an unsafe place to have an entrance ramp."
3. Finally, it is my sense that the committee decided at the end of the previous meeting to invite each committee member to rank each of the potential evaluation criteria, rather than
simply the categories, as was requested in the mailing I received from the city earlier this week. The minutes should reflect this approach suggested by Barbara and myself. As I did
my rankings, I found that
under one category I had marked everything from "1" to "4" for different criteria. Any average that claims to express the importance of these as a group is bound to be misleading. My
suggestion [expanding upon my October comments] is that each committee member rank individual criteria separately, then take 10 criteria she/he feels is most important to making a decision
among alternatives, without concern for what general category each may fall under. These categories were useful for making our list of criteria more complete, but do not lend themselves
well to this kind of ranking. I would suggest the committee compare personal lists of top contenders and then work as a group to select a shorter list of most decisive criteria. This
would narrow the task in front of us.
My own personal list [and I emphasize this is only my personal list and is not a position of the steering committee of Humboldt/Girard Neighbors Concerned] follows.
Ken Meter's Top 15 criteria (ranked in order of importance)
1. Is proposed access to the freeway safe?
2. Will traffic be stalled on the freeway despite the proposed new lanes?
3. How many other entrance ramps (that provide access to the north on I-35 and to TH 62) are located within 1 mile of the proposed access ramp?
4. Does this proposal meet the terms of the City Council resolution of September 24, 2002 calling for the protection of all homes in the affected neighborhoods?
5. How will pedestrian and bicycle traffic be routed safely through this area?
6. Has this proposal been approved by the residents most affected, those living in the Humboldt/Girard/Fremont neighborhood south of Wood Lake and north of 77th Street?
7. Are these traffic loads acceptable to residents who will drive on these roads?
8. Is this a permanent solution for saving residential homes or is it likely that in future years this issue will surface again?
9. How will plan reduce the environmental impact of vehicle emissions from ramp and freeway traffic?
10. How will plan reduce the environmental impact of noise pollution from freeway traffic?
11. Is this proposal cost-effective?
12. List specific ways this plan reduces or limits auto traffic (on local residential streets) in Richfield?
13. What is the current & projected traffic load on freeways, residential & commercial streets?
14. How does this design impact the image of Richfield as a whole? Will this help augment the city's image as an "urban hometown" or will this present an overall image of concrete and
roads?
15. Does this proposal meet with the approval of 76th/77th Street businesses, and address concerns they may have?
Thanks for your consideration.
Ken Meter