The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6. County Road 18 Access to Southbridge Crossings hI CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator RB: County Road 18 Access to Southbridge Crossings DATE: November 23, 2005 INTRODUCTION: At its workshop meeting of November 29th, the City Council will hear a request from Steve Soltau regarding limited access from CSAH 18 to commercially-zoned property that he owns. This is platted as Southbridge Crossings East, and is located north of the Home Depot site. BACKGROUND: On November 15th, Mr. Soltau sent a letter (attached) to the Council requesting an opportunity to appear before Council to request its support for access to commercially- zoned property in Southbridge Crossings. In the letter, he notes that there have been delays which have put his ability to develop this property at risk. He is expected to present some background and an appeal to the Council for assistance in helping to move this towards a 2006 construction season start. Scott County has the approval authority for access to CSAH 18. One of the major factors in identifying implications of access in this area is the design of the CR 18/21 intersection. The draft EIS includes 3 options: 1) an interchange at the intersection of 18/21; 2) six thru lanes on CR 21, and 3) four thru lanes on CR 21. A decision on the design will not be made until the EIS is complete. In the meantime, a traffic study of the vicinity of CR 18/21 intersection is currently being performed by CH2M Hill, which involves County staff, City staff, and the developer. It is looking at a variety of alternatives: . If 18/21 is a grade-separated interchange, would the location of a "right in-right- out" access to the Southbridge Crossings property interfere with interchange ramps? It is very likely that this is not feasible. . Should that section of CR 18 be 6 lanes in width, would a right in/out access to the Soltau property cause dangerous "weaving" movements for drivers leaving Southbridge Crossings, and desiring to move to the lanes which lead to the river bridge. . Should that section of CR 18 be 4 lanes, what are the implications of right-in- right-out access at Hanson Boulevard? . Should there be an overpass connecting the west side of Southbridge Crossing to the east side? . With all of these options, to what degree will they relieve congestion at the 18/21 intersection? Would this improve operations to the degree that the less expensive 4-lane option could be built? This could lead to discussion on how a potential overpass would be financed. . If there is no regular direct access to the east side of CR 18, at minimum should there be a "buses only" access to a transit station on the property? The study was directed to be done, keeping in mind the impacts of access on adjacent business and land use. The preliminary results of the study are expected in early/mid December, with the full study by the end of the month or early January. As alluded to previously, in addition to the commercial development questions at that location, this location has been identified as a primary transit station site. No acquisition cost has been negotiated for that use. It is apparent that the existence of a transit park and ride on the site, which would initially bring about 400-500 cars to the site, would enhance the viability of site for commercial development. RECOMMENDATION: While I understand Mr. Soltau's frustration caused by the delay of an answer to his request for access, it seems premature for the Council to take a position on access until those results are made known, given that the results are due shortly. It should also be noted that a couple of the ingress/egress options would have required a feasibility study to have been performed by the City, so time and money has been saved by waiting for the County's study. ACTION REQUIRED: The Council should hear the presentation by Mr. Soltau, and give staff direction as to any desired follow up. lMallltc~AJ-d/ Mark McNeill City Administrator MM/js .u.._. . ... ......._._._........H..._ (;, 11II--:- ~~ .~I ~HAHOPf( November 15, 2005 CROSSINGS Mayor John Schmitt 1015 South Main Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: On June 17, 2005, I submitted correspondence to Public Works Director, Bruce Loney, requesting a petition for the completion of Hansen Avenue east of the existing location to a limited access point along CSAH 18. This petition has not come foward for consideration by the council because of the anticipated publication of the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for CSAH 21. I understood and accepted Mr. Loney's position. However, I recently learned that the EIS will not be released until a federal level review has been completed, due to recent activity concerning the potential trust status of portions of property within the realigned corridor for CSAH 21. Unfortunately, this additional delay puts several important projects at risk and unnecessarily delays consideration of the application for limited access along 18/future 21. Time is of the essence. The PUD and development approval process will take a minimum of four (4) months. This is after submission. Before submission, we must develop preliminary plans that basically require civil engtneering work that is almost a final work product. This will require 2-3 months. The bottom line is that f am nearing deadlines quickly that will allow for construction in 2006, delivery to tenants ahead of "blockout" periods and allow forthe opening of major additional retail development in the spring of 2007. If the City is unable to act on the petition at this time, I would like the City to either make, or fonnally suppoli a request for limited access on CSAH 18 and encourage the County Board to take action approving this improvement. The regional impact of this request should be considered in light of the multiple benefits brought to Shakopee and Scott County. Multiple traffic studies have been completed on various pieces of the land use, traffic movements and volumes in this area. The decision to provide enhancements in ingress and egress to this important commercial area has been bottled up in the congestion of too many studies and the uncertainty of CSAH 21 for too long. Improved economic development, jObs, tax base and the long tenn health of the established retail facilities are all factors that need to be taken into consideration to remove this important decision from the gridlock of further traffic analysis, further studies and additional delays. I have requested that this matter be considered at the work session on November 29th. tlaok fOlWard to your consideration of this issue. If you have any questions or would liKe to discuss this matter, please contact me at (952) 465~3939 or via cell (612) 21 O~6964. Sin,J;.ere1y, /' {' ,;:;}?___ ~ Ii d ?~ .' jk<- t~-m.___- .... \,.~....' . '... -. '""~'" . Steven D. Soltau Partner/Project Manager Shako pee Crossings limited Partnership cc: Mark McNeil Bruce Loney Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership.- 8170 Old Carriage Cour!: N., Suite 210 Shakopee, MN 55379 :" (952) 465.3939-' FAX (952) 465-3936 "~"'~---~'-"-"""" ....._.. --.. .' ...--.---.. ..-... ....-..._...._._~._, . ..... ..~ ._~ .. " .........--..... ....._-~_.,,-_... -' ..-.....-...-..... . ,. ..._.~-_.."._". ....,-.............. . ....-..... ........ ...... ~ ----~------ ~ .... ~~ ~....~ ~ ~~ ~~ .... '''~ ~....~ ~~ .... ~~ ~ - - - - - ~ - ---=-.::- - - -- ----- -----=- -=- .:::-- - - ~~ - :--- ------.::::::::: -=::::::::... .=--- --....~ ~ ~~ - ---- -- -- =-=--~=::::;: === = === -- - ---------- ---------------- ------------------ I .1 L' - --- 8 SITE PLAN. OPTION H 1" oz 200'-O~ I I Prepared for: Q' 200' 4QQ' 600 I Ilerebycertify that this pIon, specification, or Key Plan report . ~os prepared by me or under my direct superVIsion, and thQ,t I om 0 duly Ucensed A:cMect under the laws of the State f SOUTHBRIDGE PROJECT NUMBER, Mmnesota. 0 04-1016-01 ISSUED DATE: 11/07/2005 9?1 North :rhird Street, Suite 220 612-436-4030 Printed Nume: CROSSING SITE PLAN-OPTION G DRAWN BY: SS Signature: CHECKED BY: KA Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax 612-692-9960 Date; UCe(lse #: SHAKOPEE, MN SCALE: 1" = 200'-0" Al.OH xx Architectural Consortium, LLC 2005 SITE LOCATION N EB .~~ Transit Review SHAKOPEE HWY 18/21 Drawn By; Sheet: . 61K1111{QUflt UR~1Ill DflIOII Board for Scott TRANSIT STATION JLR 1 l6nDICflPl fllKlllltGUR! Checked By: County Shakopee, MN Suite 600 FJP/JL 250 Third Avenue North Communities LOCATION MAP Minneapolis. MN 55401 D f S I Q M Phone 612.339.6729 Date; 08.18.05 Fax 612.339.7433 ~\/ I ~~ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }------T---- I \ I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 0 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I , 00 I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I ) 1 -/1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 -, I I 1 ----, r---_ I ~ID I I 1 ~/!::J 1 ~,f 4>.1'1 \I'\' I~ .~/0 / [----=====:::::;;::====--- /5:i I I II --- ~/ll:f / I 1/ I I L.----___JL I~ / ------- ItS I I r-------1r-------1 I N f , " I 0 100' 200' 400' E9 ~ I .'- Transit Review SHAKOPEE HWY 18/21 Drawn By: Sheet: . fllKllllfOOOf UR~fln DtlI01l Board for Scott TRANSIT STATION FJP 2 lflnDKlWf flOOl[KllIl1f Checked By: County Shakooee, MN Suite 600 FJP/JO 250 Third Avenue North Communities AREA PLAN Minneapolis, MN 55401 D f S I (j n Phone 612.339.8729 Date: 08.18.05 Fax 612.339.7433 ~"''- '" '- " -,{ " ,)<. "")C~,,," ., "'"Y', \..... ,,,,,"/''''- '-"""",,,,)/ "," '",:"'"x<,~<,,-' ;'>;~" ' STORMWATER TREATMENT RAINGARDEN OR POND STORMWA TER TREATMENT RAINGARDEN OR POND rTTrTrrr-rn _ 0 50' 100' 200' ...... i 12 .- Transit Review SHAKOPEE HWY 18/21 Drawn By: Sheet: . ilXlllltGURf . URbfln D~Gn Board for Scott TRANSIT STATION FJP 3 1lll1DSCflDffllXlllltaURf Checked By: Suite 600 County Shakooee, MN FJP/JL . 250 Third Avenue North Communities SITE PLAN Minneapolis, MN 55401 D f S I G n Phone 612.339.8729 Date: 08.18.05 Fax 612.339.7433 Scott County Specialty Services CSAH 18 Access Study Work Scope Task 1.0 Data Gathering 1.1 The CONSULTANT will obtain and review existing information from Scott County, including: . Aerial coverage of study area . As-Builts of CSAH 18 . Existing (Daily and Peak Hour) volumes . Existing Travel Patterns . Forecast Traffic Volumes & Travel Patterns . Development Plans . Crash records Task 2.0 Concept Access Design 2.1 Task will include preparation of concept designs for providing access within the study area including at-grade and grade separated alternatives. Concepts will also include various control alternatives for the proposed access to CSAH 18 including STOP condition, yield or merge. The weaving segment between the proposed access and East TH 13 ramp will also be considered. 2.2 Concepts will also take into consideration potential adjustments to the supporting street system and a future transit station within the study area. Concepts will be developed in MicroStation on aerial basemapping. In all, three alternative concept designs will be developed. Task 3.0 Operations/Safety/Feasibility Review 3.1 Operational Analysis - Using a microscopic simulation model document traffic operations associated with existing traffic volumes/roadway geometry/traffic control. Calibrate the model to match observed travel speeds and queues in the study area. Future traffic operations will also be analyzed for the three concepts developed in Task 2.0 Concept Access Design. Included in the analysis will be results of the new access on weaving along CSAH 18 as it approaches TH 13 and TH 169, potential changes to operations at CSAH 18/CSAH 21 intersection, and operations on the 10cal street network. 3.2 Safety Analysis - Using safety information in MnDOT's Safety Fundamental Handbook, provide an estimate of the likely changes in crash frequency associated with the potential roadway alternatives and changes in access type and location. The safety implications of the new access on weaving on CSAH 18 will also be reviewed. 3.3 Feasibility / Cost Estimates - The operations and safety analyses will be compared to performance measures determined by the county. Concept level cost estimates will be prepared for the at-grade and grade separated alternatives and for any suggested street system modifications. 11/2312005 Task 4.0 Agency Coordination I Meetings Attend four meetings, including: 1. Meeting with Scott County-discuss concept design alternatives developed for the study area 2. Meeting with Scott County - discuss operational and safety analyses and feasibility review and cost estimates 3. Meeting with Scott County and MnDOT - discuss implications of each alternative on the TH 169 interchange 4. Meeting with Scott County staff for review of Draft Report 5. Presentation to Business Group/City of ShakopeejMnDOTj County Staff of study findings and recommendations Task 5.0 Document Production Documents and deliverables will include: . Concept Designs in MicroStation . Business Impact Technical Memorandum . Draft/Final Study Report . Power Point Summary Presentation Optional Task 6.0 Business Impact Review 4.1 A general business overview of the study area will be conducted. This will include documenting existing and planned land uses and providing an assessment as to whether the businesses would be categorized as destinations (not heavily dependant on direct access) or reliant on pass-by traffic (heavily dependant on direct access). 4.2 Up to five parcels (to be selected by Scott County) will be studied in detail, including documentation of Before vs. After travel routes, travel distance, and travel time. In addition, an opinion will be provided as to whether the After condition provides reasonably suitable and convenient access given the type of land use on each of the selected parcels. VERSION 11/23/2005