Full Text
Miller Creek Road Right‐of‐Way Design Summary June 3, 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- History 1996 – County determined Miller Cr Rd was approaching traffic capacity, was in a state of disrepair, and needed to be rebuilt. 1997 – County established Transportation Mitigation Fund and prepared design plans for a 3‐lane and improvements to the Wye Intersection. The Project was not constructed due to an inability to negotiate the purchase of additional right‐of‐way. 1999 – City annexed Miller Cr Rd right‐of‐way. 2000‐2006 – Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Preferred Alternative was to widen Miller Cr Rd to 5‐lanes. 2006 – City adopted Res. No. 7038 which supports a three lane improvement on Miller Creek Rd. ---PAGE BREAK--- History Feb 2007 WGM Group prepared independent traffic study and began preliminary design for a 3‐lane road. August 2007 Neighborhood meeting held at Linda Vista Golf Course with individual landowner meeting scheduled by appt. January 2008 City and County entered into an interlocal agreement for Miller Creek Road Improvements to construct a 3‐lane roadway with a roundabout at the Wye. February 2008 WGM Group began final design. April 2008 Public informational meeting held at Linda Vista Golf Course – introduced design team (WGM Group and DJ&A), presentation on preliminary design and right‐of‐way process. August 2008 Petitioned Road R/W brought to our attention by the County Surveyors office. ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing Conditions ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing Conditions ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Analysis Projected future development 2,169 units Approximately half of these units have been approved 31,000 vehicles/day on Miller Cr Rd at full build‐ out ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Analysis Conclusions 3‐lane will function well under existing traffic volumes and for the immediate future. 3‐lane will approach capacity as area reaches full build‐out. Additional concerns with Briggs and US 93 intersections. If no secondary access is constructed, a 4 or 5‐lane facility will be needed in the future. A 4‐lane facility will function well if access on the east side is limited. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3‐Lane Design Overview ---PAGE BREAK--- 3‐Lane Typical Section ---PAGE BREAK--- Boulevard Sidewalks Both ITE and APA recommend detached sidewalks, where feasible. Benefits: ¾ additional safety buffer ¾ snow storage ¾ reduced runoff (impervious surface) ¾ reduced heat (shade trees & vegetation) ¾ space for landscaping, signs, light poles, mailboxes, utilities, bus pullouts, etc ¾ better ADA ramps ¾ improved walking environment ---PAGE BREAK--- Boulevard Sidewalks Stephens Avenue Attached Sidewalks ---PAGE BREAK--- Boulevard Sidewalks Stephens Avenue Detached Sidewalks ---PAGE BREAK--- Boulevard Sidewalks 39th Street Attached Sidewalks ---PAGE BREAK--- Boulevard Sidewalks 39th Street Detached Sidewalks ---PAGE BREAK--- Boulevard Sidewalks Other Examples ---PAGE BREAK--- Boulevard Sidewalks Other Examples ---PAGE BREAK--- 3‐Lane Typical Section Minimum Right‐of‐way width = 72’ plus slope & utility easements Overall width of construction > 115’ in some areas Design approach is to widen to east ---PAGE BREAK--- Design Constraints Connection to Existing Roads Existing Homes & Structures Irrigation Facilities Mature Trees Utilities Driveways Personal Property Grades & Topography ---PAGE BREAK--- Design Constraints Connection to existing roadway Existing Homes & Structures ---PAGE BREAK--- Design Constraints Irrigation Facilities, Personal Property, Mature Trees, Driveways ---PAGE BREAK--- Design Constraints Existing Homes & Structures, Driveways, Personal Property, Utilities ---PAGE BREAK--- Design Constraints Mature Trees, Personal Property, Irrigation Facilities, Grades & Topo ---PAGE BREAK--- Vacation Request 1896 Petitioned Road R/W described approximately 30’ of additional r/w on the west side Landowners petitioned City and County to vacate City/County obligation to consider public benefit City recommended preservation of r/w for future 4‐lane ¾ Widen to west using available r/w ¾ Set right‐of‐way 2' behind sidewalk to minimize impacts ¾ Future acquisition of slope easements or retaining walls would be required ¾ Driveway grades may be an issue ¾ Uncertainty for landowners County requested consideration of a reduced 4‐lane design ---PAGE BREAK--- Recommended Approach Preserve r/w for future widening to 4‐lanes (if/when needed) Meet minimum city arterial standards (STD‐205) Provide boulevard sidewalks (where feasible) Minimize impacts to property owners Minimize redesign of 3‐lane Construct sidewalks and slopes to accommodate future widening within the 3‐lane road prism Vacate r/w to 2' behind sidewalk, retaining easements for slopes Reset fences and clear encroachments ---PAGE BREAK--- 4‐Lane Typical Section Missoula City Standard Drawing STD‐205 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4‐Lane Typical Section ---PAGE BREAK--- 4‐Lane Design Overview ---PAGE BREAK--- 4‐Lane Design Overview ---PAGE BREAK--- 4‐Lane Design Overview ---PAGE BREAK--- 4‐Lane Design Overview ---PAGE BREAK--- 4‐Lane Design Overview ---PAGE BREAK--- Comparative Examples ---PAGE BREAK--- Advantages & Disadvantages Shifts roadway to east side to the extent feasible Requires 5’ additional R/W on west side Affects some landowners that were not previously affected by 3‐ lane construction Resolves all encroachment and title issues Landowners must grant a slope easement prior to vacation of r/w Minimizes future reconstruction costs and impacts Minimizes redesign of current 3‐lane project Meets the minimum City standards for arterial street Meets the City & County’s need to preserve future options to provide additional capacity