Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 12, 1998 PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL- WORK SESSION JANUARY 12. 1998 MAINTENANCE CENTER CAFETERIA 5:30 P.M. 1. 5:30 - 6:45 P.M CSAH 42fTIMOTHY fRUTCERSfHARBOR ISSUE- COUNTY. SA V ACE. CITY. 2. 6:45 - 8:00 P.M. LAND SEARCH AND ACQUISITION OPTIONS a> community parks. Paul Hokeness b) Fire Station II. Frank Boyles 3. 8:00 - 9:15 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDINC AND THREATENED UTICA TION-Suesan Lea Pace (att. matrix> 4. 9:15 - 9:30 P.M. COUNCIL DECORUM i:\council\works\Ol1298.doc \ DISCUSSION OUTLINE CSAH 42 / Timothy / Rutgers / Harbor Prior Lake City Council Work Session January 12, 1998 I. Introduction of Participants II. The Question: What is the City of Prior Lake's position with regard to access issues along CSAH 42 from TH 13 to Boone Avenue, created by the commercial development of the northwest quadrant ofTH 13 and CSAH 42? To answer the question the City of Prior Lake should: A. Identify the remaining issues. B. Determine what additional data is needed to address the issue. C. Define the process needed for the Prior Lake City Council to provide a response. D, Establish a timeline for the process. III. Background A. Highway 13/CSAH 42 Intersection 1. Always anticipated as a major business/commerce intersection, 2. Three quadrants are in Savage and largely because of the lack of sewer and water services went undeveloped. 3. The 4th quadrant, in Prior Lake, was developed - years ago and consequently little consideration was given to transportation planning, in particular the impact of development in the other 3 quadrants. 4. Developer approached Savage in 1997 requesting development of NW quadrant ofCSAH 42/Highway 13 with a Rainbow Foods store. 5. The Rainbow Foods store is only the first phase of an ultimate 200,000 (+ or -) sq. ft. commercial development. 6. Commercial development requires access, affects roads and residents. 7. Affected roads and residents involve the following entities: - MnDOT - Scott County - Savage - Prior Lake 8. Because of the magnitude of the project and its impact, Savage required a Traffic Study be completed by their consultant to recommend appropriate access points. IV. The TH 13 / CSAH 42 Traffic Study A. Alternatives Reviewed I. Proposed development only, Timothy signalized. G:\GREG\MTG1798.DOC .." 2. Proposed development only, Rutgers signalized. 3. Full-build development, Timothy signalized, south access left turn at Rutgers. 4. Full-build development, Timothy signalized, south access left turn at Harbor. 5. Full-build development, Rutgers signalized, left turns at Timothy. B, Data Generated I. Existing p.m. peak hour traffic volumes. 2. Existing directional distribution during p.m. peak hour. 3. Projected p.m. peak hour traffic volumes for each alternative. 4. Signal warrant analysis shows warrants are met for the signal in each alternative in the year of opening. C. Major Conclusions I. Only one signalized intersection should be allowed between Boone Ave. and TH 13. 2. Signal at Timothy is feasible for short term. 3. Under projected traffic volumes, the distance between TH 13 and Timothy is insufficient to accomodate a signal. 4. Considering projected traffic volumes, the best location for the signal is Rutgers street. V. Current Status A, Savage approved preliminary plat for the proposed development, subject to Scott County approval of access to CSAH 42. B. Scott County staff supports the Rutgers intersection access. Savage staff appears to concur with some reservations. C. Savage and Scott County are requesting Prior Lake's position on a traffic signal at Rutgers so the process can proceed. D. If Prior Lake does not provide a response within a reasonable period of time the County can request appointment of a Dispute Resolution Board. (See attached copy of M.S. 162,02, Subd. 8 & 8a. VI. Meeting Objectives: A Identify the remaining issues. B. Determine what additional data is needed to address the issues. C, Defme the process needed for the Prior Lake City Council to provide a response. D. Establish a timeline for the process. G:\GREG\MTGI798.DOC 112 113 STATE-AID SYSI'EM 162.02 raet of the committee shall be county commissioners. The remaining members shall be county highway engineers, The committee expires as provided in section 15.059, subdivision 5. In the event that agreement cannot be reached on any rule the commissioner's determination shall be [mal. The rules shall be printed and copies thereof shall be forwarded to the county auditors and the county engineers of the several counties. Subd, 3. Rules have force of law. The rules shall have the force and effect of law upon compliance with the provisions of sections 14.05 to 14.28. Subd. 3a. Variances from rules and engineering standards. The commissioner may grant variances from the rules and from the engineering standards developed pursuant to sec- tion 162,021 or 162.07, subdivision 2. A political subdivision in which a county state-aid highway is located or is proposed to be located may submit a written request to the commis- sioner for a variance for that highway. The commissioner shall publish notice of the request in the state register and give notice to all persons known to the commissioner to have an inter- est in the matter. The commissioner may grant or deny the variance within 30 days of provid- ing notice of the request. If a written objection to the request is received within 20 days of providing notice, the variance shall be granted or denied only after a contested case hearing has been held on the request. If no timely objection is received and the variance is denied without hearing, the political subdivision may request, within 30 days of receiving notice of dernaI, and shall be granted a contested case hearing. For purposes of this subdivision, "polit- ical subdivision" includes (1) an agency of a political subdivision which has jurisdiction over parks, and (2) a regional park authority. Subd. 4. Location and establishment; commissioner's review. The county boards of the several counties shall by resolution and subject to the concurrence of the commissioner locate and establish a system of county state-aid highways in accordance with the rules made and promulgated by the commissioner. It shall be the duty of the commissioner to review each system considering the availability of funds and the desirability of each system in rela- tion to an integrated and coordinated system of highways. After review the commissioner shall by written order approve each system or any part thereof which in the commissioner's judgment is feasible and desirable. A certified copy of the order shall be ftled with the county auditor and the county engineer. Subd. 5. Acquisition of land necessary. The several county boards shall have power to acquire by purchase, gift, or condemnation in accordance with the provisions of chapter 117, and acts supplemental thereto, lands and properties necessary for the establishment, location, relocation, construction, reconstruction, improvement, and maintenance of the county state- aid highway system or as in section 163.12, subdivisions 1 to 10 inclusive. Subd, 6. System to include certain roads. The system shall include all roads and exten- sions thereof which were designated on June 30, 1957, as state-aid roads, and which were on June 30, 1957, under the jurisdiction of the counties, and shall include all roads which were designated on June 30, 1957, as state-aid parkways; provided, that with the consent and ap- proval of the commissioner, any roads made a part of the county state-aid highway system by the provision of this subdivision may be abandoned, changed, or revoked by the county board having jurisdiction over such roads. Subd, 7. Establishment in new location or over established roads. The county board of any county may establish and locate any county state-aid highway on new location where there is no existing road, or it may establish and locate the highway upon or over any estab- lished road or street or a specified portion thereof within its limits. Except as provided in sub- division 8a, no county state-aid highway shall be established or located within the corporate limits of any city without the approval of the governing body of the city, except that when a county state=-aid highway is relocated the approval of the plans by the governing body shall be deemed to be a transfer of the previous location of the highway to the jurisdiction of the city. The approval shall be in the manner and form required by the commissioner. Subd. 8, Approval by city. Exce t as r ' ision 8a no ortion of the \/1 coun ate-aid hi wa system 1D t e co rate limits of an 't ~ al f'J constructed, reconstructe or 1m roved nor the ade thereo ch ..E!ova 0 t e pans by the governing body of such city and the appro~~~all be in th~...Q1anneI.-.. anO rorm reqUITed by the comnnSSlOner. d street cities. aid and : same which public omul- ith the )r mu- a road way is more, street. by the everal ission- hall be :mbers 162.02 STATE-AID SYSTEM 114 Subd, 8a, Dispute resolution board. If a ci has failed to a . . ent 0 a count state al w orate limits under subdivi i e coun board ma b resolution ISSlOlll::r 0 appoint a dispute resolution board consisting of one colin y engmeer, one Cl counc or one ci en e nd one re resen- lIve 0 e ea. e board snall review the pioflOsed change and make a recommendation to the commissioner. Notwithstanding any other law, the commis- sioner may approve the establishment, construction, reconstruction, or improvement of a county state-aid highway recommended by the board. Subd. 9. Commissioner's power. When it shall be made to appear to the commissioner that the county board of any county has refused to locate and establish a county state-aid highway which in the opinion of the commissioner is necessary to provide an integrated and coordinated highway system, the commissioner may, until the county state-aid highway is located and established, withhold from the county so much of the county's share of the county state-aid highway fund as the commissioner deems advisable. Subd, 10. Abandonment or revocation. County state-aid highways may be aban- doned, changed, or revoked by joint action of the county board and the commissioner, If a county state-aid highway is established or located within the limits of a city, it shall not be abandoned, changed, or revoked without the concurrence of the governing body of such city; provided, that any county state-aid highway established or located within a city may be abandoned, or revoked without concurrence if the city refuses or neglects for a period of one year after submittal to approve plans for the construction of such highway which plans con- form to the construction standards provided in the commissioner's rules. Subd. 11. Reverted trunk highways. The county state-aid highway system is hereby increased in extent by the addition thereto of the mileage of all trunk highways reverted or turned back to the jurisdiction of the counties pursuant to law on and after July 1, 1965. Subd, 12. Former municipal state-aid streets. Former municipal state-aid streets lo- cated in a city that previously received money from the municipal state-aid street fund but whose population fell below 5,000 under the 1980 or 1990 federal census must be included in the county state-aid highway system, subject to the approval of the governing bodies of the city and the county. An action taken by a county board approving the inclusion of a former municipal state-aid street in the county state-aid highway system must also include a reso1u: tion taking over the street as a county highway under section 163.11. The county state-aid highway system is increased in extent by the addition of the mileage of municipal state-aid streets reverting or turned over to the jurisdiction of the counties under this subdivision, History: 1959 c 500 art 3 s 2; 1967 c 320 s 1; 1969 c 63 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1976 c 2 s 172; 1979 c 167 s 2; 1980 c 509 s 53; 1982 c 424 s 130; 1984 c 465 s 1,2; 1985 c 248 s 70; 1986 c 444; 1988 c 629 s 38; 1991 c 233 s 58; 1991 c 298 art 4 s 5; 1995 c 233 art 2 s 56; 1996 c 455 art 7 s 1-3 162.~ATURAL PRESERVATION ROUTES. ./ Suo . ision 1. EstablisbmenL (a) The commissioner shall establish a natural preserva- tion routes ca ~ry within the county state-aid highway system. (b) Natural prese(Vation routes include those routes that possess particular scenic, envi- ronmental, or historical'characteristics, such as routes along lakes or through forests, wet- lands, or flood plains, that would be harmed by construction or reconstruction meeting the engineering standards under section 162.07 or the rules adopted under that section. (c) The commissioner shall adopt rules establishing minimum construction and recon- struction standards that address public safety and reflect the function, lower traffic volume, and slower speed on natural preservation routes. The rules may not est.ablish standards for natural preservation routes that are higher than the standards for national forest highways within national forests and state park access roads within state parks. Design standards speci- fying the width of vehicle recovery areas on forest highways, forest and park roads, and on natural preservation routes must minimize harmful environmental impact. Subd: 2. Signs. Signs must be posted at entry points to and at regular intervals along natu61 preservation routes. Signs posted must conform to the commissioner'smanual of ,..,:::~ 115 ~ ~/ r unifom of a nat Su preserv with jw any tort to its de the star not prel tion, or Su way th, way sh: project tives. Sl as a nat diction nate a c the reql (b trict co county vlronm each p( VISory . the con may de H 162.03 162.03 TJ estab1i: the cou divisio proven H 162.04 162.04 " done b federal on ace< actuall the b~ more c tained protecl the COI consis: specifi count) within 'i1-3c; I STAFF AGENDA REPORT AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: 7A GREG ILKKA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 97 -XX RECOMMENDING SCOTT COUNTY DENY A REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 42 AND TIMOTHY A VENUE. DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1997 INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of Resolution 97 -XX which recommends Scott County deny a request for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 42 and Timothy Avenue, on the border of the cities of Prior Lake and Savage. See the enclosed location map. BACKGROUND: The city of Savage has received a development proposal for property located in the northwest quadrant of the CSAH 42 and TH 13 intersection, The proposal includes a Rainbow Foods store and miscellaneous smaller retail stores. The developer has represented that the only way the rI~\n::>lf'"Inrn~nt \^,ill \^,f'"Irk- ic:: tf'"l h~\Io ~ fIlII ~""""oc::c:: intorco,...ti"n -_._.-t"""._".... ...1. .._.." 1- ..._ ..........._ '"'" IY.. ......__..........,...., III"...........,"'-""V\.I'-J.. with a traffic signal located at Timothy Avenue, a short one- eighth of a mile west of the TH 13 intersection. The City of Savage commissioned a traffic study to determine the feasibility of locating a traffic signal at this location. The traffic study has now been completed and the Scott County Engineer has requested the City of Prior Lake provide comments and recommendations on the study. DISCUSSION: The traffic study evaluated five access alternatives, Two of these alternatives addressed the traffic conditions as a result of the initial (Rainbow Foods store only) development. These alternatives evaluated a signal at Timothy Avenue only or a signal at Rutgers Sreet only. Rutgers Street is the next intersection west of Timothy on CSAH 42. Three of the alternatives addressed full-build development when the entire area north and west of the CSAH 42/TH 13 162a~-E~ Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY' EMPLOYER intersection is developed. Two of these alternatives evaluated a signal at Timothy Avenue only, the difference being the location of left turn access to the residential area south of CSAH 42. The final full build alternative evaluated a signal at Rutgers Street only. Results of the traffic study indicate that under projected traffic conditions for the year 2020 the lack of spacing between Timothy Avenue and TH 13 will cause queuing conflicts. This means there is not enough space between Timothy and TH 13 to provide for the stacking distance required for vehicles lined up to make a left turn onto Timothy. The County has indicated that since the opening of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge, traffic growth has exceeded projections. Most likely the problems would be encountered long before the year 2020. This analysis does not factor in future development of the remaining quadrants at this intersection. Included is a copy of the study's conclusions (Council has previously received a copy of the full report). As indicated, considering projected traffic volumes, the best location for the signal is at Rutgers Street Although the conclusion discusses the possibility of a temporary signal at Timothy Avenue, later moved to Rutgers Street, it is staffs opinion this was a suggestion in deference to the developer and would be ill-advised. CSAH 42 is currently classified as a Principal Arterial with a"f""'\O~C'" s...v..".",;...",.. ,... .;,..,,...,,I i.....,...",... -~ --- h_l+ ---.;1- c__...... r'_. .-...... ,'- vvC..:>..:> I-'avlll~ ~UIU<;:;IIII<;:;;;) VI Vlle-,IOII 1111Ie. v\."Ull vUUlllY;;) guidelines would allow one-quarter mile access spacing. CSAH 42 is also currently the subject of a Corridor Study to evaluate its functional classification and to try to provide recommendations to resolve the access vs. mobility conflicts that already exist, especially in Burnsville and Apple Valley. A signal at Rutgers Street would be consistent with the County's access spacing guidelines and with the efforts of the Corridor Study to balance the needs of access vs. mobility. The same cannot be said of a signal at Timothy Avenue. City staff has met with staff from the City of Savage and Scott County. Each agency agrees that the appropriate location for the traffic signal is Rutgers Street Savage's concern is whether this will kill the development or not. Scott County and Savage have agreed to propose they share costs with the developer to construct a temporary frontage T1M42.DOC road from Rutgers Street east towards the development within the north right-ot-way ot 42. It is unknown at this time whether the developer will go forward or not. ISSUES: As Council is aware, the residents along Timothy Avenue are adamantly opposed to a signal at Timothy and 42. Their reasons are multifold, but can probably be paraphrased as a great concern for the degradation of their quality of life due to increased traffic. A signal at Timothy would encourage traffic exiting the development and heading south on TH 13 to bypass the CSAH 42fTH 13 signal by going through the residential area down Timothy to Boudin and out to TH 13. A signal at Rutgers would not encourage this bypass because Rutgers is a circuitous route through the residential areas and does not provide a shortcut. The study suggested mitigating the bypass traffic impact by closing the Timothy/Commerce intersection so southbound traffic could not shortcut through Timothy. The residents are concerned about what this does to the access to their neighborhood, particularly as the plan for the CommercefTH 13 intersection currently exists. The current plan calls for a full access intersection for Commerce at TH 13 and for Boudin to become a right-in-right-out intersection, A more appropriate long term solution would be to construct both Commerce and Boudin as frontage roads that lead to a common signalized intersection. At that point in time Timothy Avenue could be closed at Commerce with less of an effect on access to the neighborhood. Business owners along Commerce in this area are concerned about access to their businesses. This issue was raised in 1996 when the City was involved in the TH 13 Corridor Study with MnDOT. MnDOT addressed the concerns for access from TH 13 by proposing to bring Commerce further south as a frontage road and provide a full access intersection with TH 13. Scott County addressed the concerns for access from CSAH 42 in a July 30, 1996 letter to the City (copy enclosed), The County indicated that the intersection of Timothy and CSAH 42 would not be altered to restrict access/egress from either direction until such time as conditions change that directly affect the safety of motorists at this intersection. Regardless of whatever decision the County makes with regard to access to this proposed development we would hold the County to this previous committment. TIM42.DOC ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATION: T1M42.DOC In accordance with City Council directive we have notified residents and business owners along Timothy, Natalie, Denese, Lois, Boudin, Rutgers, and Commerce that this issue would be on the City Council agenda on Monday December 1, 1997. Over 200 notices were sent out on November 24, 1997 indicating the place, date, and time for the Council meeting. We expect residents and business owners to be present for the discussion, In accordance with Scott County's policy on cost participation, funding for a traffic signal at Rutgers would be split between Scott County and the Cities of Prior Lake and Savage according to the number of legs of the intersection within the respective jurisdiction. The City of Prior Lake would be expected to fund one-fourth of the signal installation. If the traffic predictions prove correct, the City's share could be incorporated into the Capital Improvement Program, advance funded by Scott County, and paid to them in the programmed year. The owners of the Prior Lake County Market have notified the City of their concern about the City considering this traffic signal. The TH 13/Five Hawks traffic signal near their store has been programmed by the City for a number of years, but never constructed. It has never been constructed because a 1992 Signal Justification Report indicated that the existing conditions did not meet the warrants for a traffic signal, but if CSAH 23 were re-aligned to intersect at this same location warrants would be met. Scott County has not nrl"'\r,,',,=,rnrnorl +ho "Q ."Ii".,........o.,+ ",-1= f"C: ^ U ')') ;~+'"' +h,",;~ ~I,",~ '"'+ t'-'I\.J~IU.IIIIIIVU La.\"". 1\J-QII~:plJllC;;1I1. VI \""I'UT\.II L.....J IIllV lIlCII tJ1Q11 Ol this time. The distinction between these cases is that with the predicted traffic from the proposed development on the north side of 42, a signal on CSAH 42 at either Timothy or Rutgers will be warranted. The alternatives are as follows: 1. Approve Resolution 97 -XX recommending Scott County deny a request for a traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 42 and Timothy Avenue. 2. Deny the resolution for a specific reason. 3. Table this item for a specific reason. The recommendation is Alternative No, 1 J approving the resolution. ACTIO~ REQUIRED: T1M42.DOC Motion and second to approve the recommended alternative. RESOLUTION 97-XX RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING SCOTT COUNTY DENY A REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT CSAH 42 AND TIMOTHY AVENUE MOTION BY: SECOND BY WHEREAS, the City of Savage has received a development proposal that requests a traffic signal at the intersection of Timothy Avenue and CSAH 42, and WHEREAS, the City of Savage has had a traffic study conducted to evaluate the feasibility of a traffic signal at the intersection of Timothy Avenue and CSAH 42, and WHEREAS, the results of the traffic study show that the Rutgers Street and CSAH 42 intersection is more appropriate than the Timothy Avenue and CSAH 42 intersection, and WHEREAS, a traffic signal at the Rutgers Street and CSAH 42 intersection is consistent with Scott County access spacing guidelines and with the current efforts of the CSAH 42 Corridor Study while a traffic signal at Timothy Avenue and CSAH 42 is not. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, the City of Prior Lake hereby recommends to the Scott County Engineer and the Scott County Board of Commissioners that the request for a traffic signal at the Timothy Avenue and CSAH 42 intersection be denied. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the County should honor its committment to not alter to restrict the access/egress of the Timothy Avenue and CSAH 42 intersection from either direction until such time that conditions change that directly affect the safety of rnf'\tf'\ricts at this intorso.....trinn aC" n. ,+Iinnrl in it.... I.",,, ~(\ -1 ()(\a ),...#".. +" +h,... ("i-h, I II "''"'V I I","," "....11 IIn'-'l '-'-'UIVII, ..:l VUI.IIIICU III IL..;:) vUIY VV, IvvV Ic;;ll'Cl l.U lilt:; \JllY. Passed and adopted this 1st day of December, 1997 YES NO Andren Kedrowski Mader Robbins Schenck Andren Kedrowski Mader Robbins Schenck {Seal} Frank Boyles City Manager City of Prior Lake TIM42.DOC 'I' Tit". .Zlw -,. <;1>- 1/ T 1.3,"", 411(. @ n].u,., STJ wcCCt..L OR. JI15It II:!'. ~ I / "1:0 / ~ > I :. dl$ ~ i~ .......<:' '2,~'~ ,..,:. \;~y 0 A Mr:C.:Ja ~1ts. .. ,,,': )~r Da.n . P~d, ",~~~, I ~ ! I \\~'S':.I "t i~ ",. " ~~'I '''. - ... > > ... lZS,n! I ST. ",;. ~ (~ ~I' ~ gjl g ~: UU" ~1 I~Gr" $:. g ~ ~ ~ ~,.~ ~ .- ~ ...lIt ~ ~ 1 .....::,' '-...... Ii Irc\l ";...... . ~- ,. ::/~"" S: \-~OU OR \,0.0 >~~\~':G~'>~:~ ~".~ \)\!>,~) l'P OV\)...~. :'\ )~~ l~l.u S":' ....~ 7'\ :"~. ~...~ @ 7 'I ;-;; ~),; "'" ,"'I \J";o.:'....~\~~(~.;rL~~"."~ s ~ ~r: ~;z ~ ~.. ~ ~ ,'Znd ~ f ~.~? mrQ ST. y.: ~ ~: ~I ~ ~l ...~ L.A. C;;o- J ':.>~ ~{~l ~~T ",TI:>~~~ 2;,::: : ;,' . ~~ "~RJ ,,~~,. ,. 0 ~T. i ~ ~ I -I S ~,. ~(' (. ...1 \ OlJ(.,n"C I '-' J ~ n')~; \...,..~{" ,,~~ .,(" 'io'. ~I ~~ ~ ... \~, ~ I;:. roO ~ t~G tf' ...;.... t'~1'tr'\ ~ S. .~tf'\ 'Sf: 6 E: "'- ,~. ~ :~~,;1:;;:".I:l: I ~~ ~G~~f' ~.l~ ~~ J : ~i~\ ~II ~'I ~I~": ,= 'n."" S~~. ('-.J 13a?n ... ..... ~I~ 2 ~::q a~ ~ <l:=:'~ ( ~ - l ~ I, ~ ~~. 5 =~ <;. r.."" ,,;....... >1 > ~ ,-"",~1T'l ...1::>- ;:)~<i ....,cF-4l'- ..--: :~~~. ~C:R In. D9.,.')::'+ :5r'::'. (::\ ci ~ ~; ..... ~ Sr. ~ _. "fOOtN V,l,L:"~T Ol{.!- ~j~ iT ~r ~q ~~ ~ ; w. 11~'n ST. 0 ~ ." .11'_ ill'>.,. ;:l~,. TOP DR.. 1217 lijiI rITS" "2'Z. All. IZC"" ST. "0. ( ) G / ~I ) / J PROJECT LOCATION ~ Oi'. ,~7/ ~ ~ si 1'50'" <T. *\ /1 +- CITY OF SAVAGE I' FIGURE rmIi PROJECT LOCATION 1 CmInII:bIg Gmap, lDG. TH 13 / CSAH 42 AREA TRAFFIC STUDY \. \. <~ ..' David Hutton, P.E. - 13- November 3, 1997 access limitation impacts. The spacing of access along a roadway impacts the minimum speed and mobility that may be attained. The functional classification of CSAH 42 is under review and may be downgraded from a Principal Arterial to an "A" Minor Arterial. If this change is made the access spacing becomes more lenient. Quarter mile spacing is recommended for full access intersections on County Highways, CONCLUSION The traffic analysis perfoI1I!ed for this study has shown that for the benefit of CSAH 42 traffic signal operations and traffic safety issues, only one signalized intersection should be allowed between Boone Avenue and TH 13, Considering traffic volumes projected through the year 2020, the best location for this signal is at Rutgers Street, In conjunction with the one signal at Rutgers Street, a partial access intersection at Timothy Avenue, as shown with Alternative 5, is feasible. During the interim, between now and sometime before the year 2020, the existing and site generated traffic can be handled with signalized access at Timothy Avenue and partial access at Rutgers Street as described in Alternatives 3 or 4. Thus Timothy Avenue could be constructed as a temporary signal and then moved to Rutgers Street as shown in Alternative 5 when traffic levels increase, This scenario is complicated by the fact that moving the signal wilr require a written agreement with specific guidelines for determining when the change will OCCllI:. The traffic queues generated by this configuration will build over time and eventually exceed the 660 foot spacing between the intersections, presenting a safety problem. Intersection spacing guidelines recommend 1/2 mile spacing for full-access intersections along a Principal Arterial. This guideline implies Boone Avenue and TH 13 would be the only signalized intersections allowed in the study area. The status of the Principal Arterial classification ror CSAH 42 is currently the subject of a multi-agency sponsored study and the classification of this roadway may change. In addition to traffic operations issues, consideration must also be given to the impact each alternative has on the residential and commercial areas in the City of Prior Lake south of CSAH 42. At this time the City of Prior Lake has not provided clear indication of a preferred alternative. EDM:bba SCOTT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS COURTHOUSE 109 428 HOLMES STREET SOUTH SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1382 (612) 496-8100 RALPH T. MALZ, DISTRICT 1 WILMA E. BEllM, DISTRICT 2 ART BANNERMAN, DISTRICT 3 DICK UNDERFERTH, DISTRICT 4 ED MACKIE, DISTRICT 5 Fax.: (612) 496-8180 Frailk Boyles Ciry Manager 16200 Eagle Creek Ave"I,,,. SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 l/lGF:S. OF~,Ce ~OfPR\OR~~ \D) ~IlG i 1996 ~ ~\~\\"f. July 30, 1996 Re: CSAH 42 @ Timothy Avenue TH 13 Plan Dear Frank: Thl<' i~ il~ responsE' to y,-:."r ietter 0f J~.dy 23. 1996 e~pre:.;sing the Citv'" cancer:! r::>r r!l.::.ir;~'11:'!;lg ill'! dCCeSS J.t ~he CSAH 4:::iT;rni::ihy .",-venue in~esC'ctioll. ) helVe di:;cu~spd ;nis cur.cerr: vvd, .,t.iff and rnv fellow comm;ss;on9:~:, It is our consensuc that under the present development and traffic concilic,r,s, the ir.tel~f'l.:':i;,; l ot Timothy Avenue ailc CSAH 42 vvou!d not be alierf:d TC restrict dccess/egress from elthp: :jirectlon. However, Scott Count\.' \I,.iii contii1ue to monitor this dred as !2:1d :Jse and traffic patten;.> chdnge. If future conditions arise ,n.;' endangers tr.C' :.dr,=ty of ,he motor;sts using this Intersection. Scott County will consider app.:opriate remedies to that ~itJQt;on. jl'"l summary, Scott (:)u,-.ty, based on eXl5ti:1g conditions ana pa5t expe~lence, I~ nm pia.nning io alter the present access;e Timothy Avenue. Should conditions change that directly affect (he safety of motorists at this intersPCTlon we will address appropnate remedies. Please do not hesitate to C~,ltact LIS if you need 3.ddit;onal information. .' ~:' . Dick Underfertr. County Commissicne:' c: Gary L. Cunnin6r.':I.~, County Administrator Bradley J. Larson, Associate Administrator - Public Works and Lands o U/j kf An Equal OpportunityfSafety A ware Employer