Loading...
3 Update on TH 101 Trail CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 CiO' Cemer Drive PO Ba' 147 7I, a,l, asse,, i~fimmota 55317 Phone 952.937.1900 Ge, eral Fa' 952.9375539 3~gineMng Deparnnent Q52.93Z9152 Building Deparnnent F~ 952.934.2524 ~b Site l~'ll'lU. Cf. (Zt, lilhdlJFil, iHil. MEMORANDUM TO: Scott A. Botcher, City Manager FROM: DATE: Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Enginee~r~/79 March 26, 2001 SUBJ: Update on Highway 101 Status - City Project 97-12 Requested Council Action There is no requested Council Action for tonight's meeting. It is Staff's expectation that the March 26th, 2001 public meeting is to update the Council and public on the status of the Highway 101 discussions. Council has not communicated to Staff any policy position different from that already taken by the Council, that is, Option lA. Staff Report Background infonnation on the Trunk Highway 101 turnback was supplied on March 12, 2001. Copies of the March 12th information are available fi:om the. Engineering Department. The City has adopted Option IAi A copy of the Option IA reSolution is attached. This option does not meet the minimum standards for turnback funding. Under Mn/DOT guidelines for turnback funding, projects must meet State Aid Standards to qualify for turnback funding. A summary of the State Aid Standards that apply to TH 101 is attached. On March 16, 2001, Staff met with Hennepin County, Mn/DOT, the City of Eden Prairie, and Carver County to discuss the viability of renewed negotiations on the TH 101 turnback project. The following issues were raised at that meeting: The Comprehensive Plans for Hennepin County, Eden Prairie, Carver County, and Chanhassen all classify the road as an "A" Minor Arterial. The following information is fi:om the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: o The projected year 2020 daily volumes are at the upper limit or exceed the recommended guidelines for volumes carded by a collector. The roadway connects principal and other minor arterial routes thereby providing an important mobility function for the region. o The City of Chanhassen has historically limited direct access to TH 101 and will continue to do so. (City of Eden Prairie has not had a Scott Botcher March 26, 2001 Page 2 similar policy since many of the homes were in place before access became an issue.) Other "A" Minor Arterials in the City of Chanhassen are TH 5, TH 41, Hwy 169/212, TH 17 (Powers Blvd), TH 19 (Galpin Blvd), TH 17 (Audubon Road), and TH 18 (Lyman Blvd). The next available turnback funding for TH 101 is 2008. The funding that had been dedicated for TH 101 was reallocated to Dakota, Ramsey, and Washington Counties. This timeline may be somewhat flexible and may be available for acceleration in advance of the 2008 date. Mn/DOT would support use of federal funds for an 8' trail constructed in conjunction with a turnback project. A trail less than 8' in width would not qualify for federal funds. If a trail is built, federal funds may also be available for retaining walls and landscaping to mitigate impacts of the road improvements. All of the parties indicated they were willing to revisit the TH 101 tumback project if there is a good faith effort by all parties to resolve the issues. Mn/DOT, Helmepin County, City of Eden Prairie, and Carver County all stated a desire to exceed minimum standards in the design of any improvements and would not consider a design that does not meet the minimuln standards as an alternative solution. Attachments: 1. Postcard Notice of Meeting 2. Public Comments 3. Mn/DOT letter 4. Option lA Resolution 5. Eden Prairie Resolution 6. State-Aid Standards Summary 7. Denial letter for Co-op funding of Trail CC: Robert Brown, Mn/DOT Cyrus Knutson, Mn/DOT Gene Dietz, City of Eden Prairie Roger Gustufson, Carver County Jim Grube, Hennepin County Representative Tom Workman G:\ENG\P UBLIC\97-12',,sta ff report-3-26-01 .doc CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 City Center Dr. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen Resident Presort Standard US Postage Paid Chanhassen, MN Permit No. 14 NOTICE The Chanhassen City Council will meet to discuss a potential improvement project on Trunk Highway 101 from Trunk Highway 5 to Townline Road at: 7:00 pm, March 26, 2001 Council Chambers, Chanhassen City Hall Time available for Public Comment at the Meeting is limited; therefore, Concerned Parties are encouraged to submit written cormnents to the Council at: Highway 101 Improvement Project c/o City of Chanhassen, Engineering Dept. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 or by e-mail to tbur~ess~ci.chanhassen.mn.us Written comments must be received prior to 4 pm on Thursday, March 22, 2001. The meeting will be televised on Cable Channel 8. ,Burgess, Teresa From' Sent: To: Subject: Hooks [hooks@uswest.net] Sunday, March 18, 2001 1:41 PM tburgess@ci.chanhassen .mn .us Hwy. 101 Dear Mr. Burgess, We access Hwy. 101 from the west eff of Pteasantview Rd. This is to register our concern that improvements which may enhance traffic flew on 101 will also make it even more difficult and dangerous for those trying te access that stretch from side-streets especially during rush hours. Will plans for that stretch include stoplights? Thank you for continuing te make sure that safety is uppermest in your decisien-making. Brian Hooks 6311 Summit Circle Chanhassen ,Burgess, Teresa From: Sent: To: Subject: Kathy Berdahl [KathyB@mackenziemarketing.com] Wednesday, March 21,2001 3:34 PM 'tburgess@ci.chanhassen .mn .us' Highway 101 improvement To the Council, I just yesterday received a small note card stating that there will be a meeting to discuss "potential improvements "to Hwy. 101 next Monday. With this amount of notice, I have less than 48 hours to submit my comments, and have already made plans to attend a PTO event to write letters for the school board and a PTA meeting, all at 7:00 pm that night. It would be difficult to be at the Chanhassen City Council meeting as well. Hopefully this will be the last meeting to discuss "potential" improvements, and you will approve the plan to FIX THE ROAD once and for all. I have lived in Chanhassen in the North Lotus Lake area for eight years. The only way in or out of my home is via Hwy. 101. For eight years I have written letters, attended hearings and talked to MN Dot, Chanhassen Road Dept. and Eden Prairie Road Dept. to try to get this horrible road widened, resurfaced and repaired. Every year I am told," It's in the plan" I have had to replace two vehicles over the last eight years due to wheels falling off and axels breaking while trying to drive on that road. My children have cut lips and bruised heads from bumping in their car seats while I drive on that road. This road is not only dangerous it is a disgrace to this state. No other road in Minnesota gets the volume of use by cars and trucks and is in such a state of disrepair as this section of 101. And I am paying the highest property taxes in the state! I am tired of writing letters and fixing my car. Please, stop discussing and just fix the road! I am counting on you. Thank you, Kathy Berdahl Page 1 of 1 Burgess, Teresa From: Donald A. Leeder [donpegleeder@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 21,2001 9:13 PM To: tburgess@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Highway 101 Improvement project ToWHOM it may concern: There is no doubt of the in2nediate concern for improvement on Highway 101 from Hy 5 to the Townline Road. Whenwe soldin Minnetm~ka (which was just a block offHy 101) some 5 years ago and moved into our new townhome here in Chmthassen, we first realized there was very bad stretch of Hy 101 that we had'nt traveled on before ...... having been used the good condition of HY 101 betxveen Hy 7 and Mi~metonka Blvd, We supposed after our first trip over that stretch 5 years ago that surely new road construction would be programed the following year but nothing xvas done...After 5 years of further deteroration we are just now holding meetings concerning it's potential ilnprovement...WE NEED ACTION NOW to build a new Hy 101 between Hy 5 and the Townline Road Don Leeder 8390 Suffolk Drive Chanhassen, Mn 55317 3/22/01 Burgess, Teresa From: Sent: To: Subject: Reuben Kelzenberg [reubenkelzenberg@hotmail.com] Tuesday, March 20, 2001 5:32 PM tburgess@ci.chanhassen .mn .us Highway 101 Improvement Project Thank you for the postcard advising of the hearing scheduled for 03-26-01 ref the 101 project, and your solicitation of e-mail comments. Unfortunately, you did not list any questions about this project for which you wish to receive input, hence, I will have to guess what it is about this matter that you wish to receive comment on. 1) Do a trail now or wait until the general reconstruction occurs? I strongly feel doing a trail ahead of the general rebuild would be a terrible waste of money: do not build a trail now. When it is done, please do a trail only on one side. It was also a waste of money to do walks on both sides of Powers Blvd, south of Hiway 5. The street lighting there too, and on most recently rebuilt Chan roads, has also incorporated far more light poles than necessary. We don't need to read our newspapers wh~le walking these roads at night. Lighting intersections is quite enough or at least keep it to one side of the street. 2) Build 101 as a two or four lane roadway? I could live with either option. I am tired of the residents along 101 complaining about building too much road there though. Afterall, this has been-a state hiway, and will remain a collector street, who's purpose it is to move vehicles rapidly and efficiently between Hiways 5, 62, and 7. It is not there to provide a walking lane for baby strollers. This has been its purpose for many decades, and no one living in that area can say they did not know this road was scheduled for upgrading, for at least the last 20-plus years that I have lived in Chan. So, I prefer a four laner, however, I could live with a two lane design if it were similar to how Cty Rd 17 was redone, south of Cty Rd 18. Thanks, Reuben Kelzenberg Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Page 1 of 1 Burgess, Teresa From: Dave Blanski [daveblanski@qwest.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 8:30 PM To: tburgess@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Highway 101 improvement project. Hello, I am a 60 year old, Iongtime Chanhassen resident who lives on Hwy 101. Today as a resident was attempting to turn into his driveway, several cars were forced to stop on the roadway, l was rear ended and the woman who struck me totaled her car. Fortunately no one including her 2 year old were seriously injured. This bumpy, narrow, and hilly peice of road needs upgrading to modern 4 lane standards. This is a safety issue and the residents wishes should carry very little weight in the decision. The whole county uses this road and it should be made as safe as possible. How could anyone who purchased property along this busy highway not have realized that the road would need upgrading at some future time. Don't compromise fix it right. By the way, I'm losing property to the 212 interchange so I do know how it feels. David Blanski 3/21/01 Page 1 of 1 From: Sent: To: Cc: Burgess, Teresa Burgess, Teresa Monday, March 19, 2001 9:14 AM 'Dave Happe'; Burgess, Teresa Burgess, Teresa Subject: RE: Highway 101 Improvement project Dear Mr. Happe, Thank you for your comments regarding Hwy 101. Your comments will be included in the Staff Report sent to Council Members for Monday evening. The meeting is open to the Public and will also be televised live on Cable Channel 8. Sincerely, Teresa J. Burgess, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Chanhassen Phone: 952-937-1900 Ext. 156 Fax: 952-937-9152 E-mail: tburgess@ci, chanhassen.mn.us ..... Original Message ..... From: Dave Happe [mailto:happe@ispchanneI.com] Sent: IVlonday, Harch 19, 2001 8:48 AM To: tburgess@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: tburgess@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; Ijansen@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; slabatt@ci.chanhasSen.mn.us; cpeterson @cl. chan hassen, m n. us; bayotte@ci.cha n hassen, m n. us; m kros ki n@ci.cha n hassen, m n. us Subject: Highway 101 Improvement project - Hi Theresa... Lisa and I are in support of the Council moving forxvard on the 101 improvement project. Road maintenance and construction are a primary responsibility of local government .... this road is inadequate for existing traffic and needs to be revamped. With the addition of Pultejust down highway 5 from 101, we could have several hundred more cars utilizing this 101 corridor access to Chan within the next year .... and I suspect a traffic study would show that 101 cmmot handle this increased traffic in it's current condition. Your guys work on 101 will not only make that a better and safer road, but will also could ease future congestion along highway 5 from Eden Prairie to Chan. Thanks and keep smiling! Dave and Lisa Happe 3/19/01 Page 1 of 1 Burgess, Teresa From: jkolbow [jkolbow@netzero.net] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 1:37 PM To: tburgess@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Highway 101 Project Dear Ns. Burgess, My husband and I are writing in regard to March 26th meeting about the proposed improvements on Highway 101. T am unsure if the meeting will address the actual road improvements or just the trail, however I would like to comment on the project as a whole. We believe Highway :!_01 needs to be improved beyond option lA because of safety and increased usage of the road. It also seems clear that the other entities involved are not satisfied with option lA and taking a serious look at the other options is the only way a compromise can be reached. Personally we believe the three lane option would be a good compromise but we feel our elected council members, the counties and the professional engineers involved are able to make the best decision overall. We could not support building a trail in the interim as the "Citizens for Highway 101" suggest doing. We do not believe the road is safe enough to have people biking and walking next to it and State of Minnesota is not willing to support the construction with financing. With safety and finances in mind, the best approach would be to upgrade the road and build the trail together. We realize this "Citizens for Highway 101" group has been extremely vocal regarding the lA option but we believe the city needs to move past it. Please work with the other entities, plan the trail and the road upgrade together and agree on a plan. We need to move on this issue and begin construction before something tragic happens on this road. Sincerely, Rick and Julie Kolbow 7015 Sandy Hook Circle 3/19/01 Burgess, Teresa From: Sent: To: Subject: andrew.leith@co.hennepin .mn .us Monday, March 19, 2001 12:00 PM tburgess@ci.chanhassen .mn .us TH 101 Dear Ms Burgess: I would like to comment on potential improvements to TH 101. I live on Gray Fox Curve off of Fox Hollow. At the Fox Hollow neighborhood meeting held at the Rec Center last year to discuss the original plans for 101, a number of residents expressed concern that there was no north bound left turn lane into Fox Hollow. That meeting was also notable for the fact that one most vocal attendees was not even from Fox Hollow, but was concerned about potential effects on the residents of Kurvers Point Rd where 101 is wider and safer than it is in front of our neighborhood. North bound left turn lanes into the neighborhoods north of Sandy Hook Rd must be a priority. Because of the limited visibility and high traffic on 101, making left turns into our neighborhoods is dangerous and becoming more so. A couple of years ago my wife was rear-ended while trying to turn left into Fox Hollow. Our next door neighbor also was nearly hit that same year trying to make the left turn, although in that case-the other persons ~ car finished up in the ditch. These are not isolated incidents, there have been numerous accidents at Fox Hollow and at Pleasant View, and hardly a week passes without a near miss. At the neighborhood meeting last year we were told by MNDOT that in its present configuration 101 is not safe at a speed of 45mph because of the poor lines of sight, but the speed limit is set at 45 mph because that is the speed most people are driving at. It is clear that in its present configuration the road is not safe. It would be irresponsible to place a bike path along the side of the road in its present condition, it would be dangerous for the cyclists. The first priority must be to fix the lines of sight and put in some left turn lanes to make 101 safe for residents on the west side of the road. Thank you for your consideration. Andy Leith 6503 Gray Fox Curve home phone 952 937-0022 bus. phone 612 348-8993 fax 612 348-8532 Page 1 of 1 Burgess, Teresa From: Chanfjpri@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 8:12 AM To: tburgess@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Improvements Trunk Highway 101 The suggested changes to be made are: t. Completely rebuild road with a new base and all concrete, 2. Have it remain as a two lane highway but have appropriate right and left and lanes at intersections. 3. Install traffic signals at Pleasant View and at Valley View Roads. 4. Install a trail on the West side of highway 101 in the Chanhassen area. Most of highway 101 that goes through residential areas are two lanes and are more than two lanes going through a commercial areas. Note that in Minnetonka at 101 and Cross-town going north is two lanes until you get to the commercial area then it is four lanes and then when you are past Cub Foods just north of Highway 7 it reverts back to a two lane road with some left and right hand turn lanes. Fred Prinz 408 Santa Fe Circle Chanhassen 3/22/01 March 19, 2001 Mayor Jansen, Honorable Council Members, Staff of the City of Chanhassen: I want to thank you for taking time to solicit and accept input on Highway 101 and the 101 trail issues. I know that this is a difficult issue for all of the staff and council, as well as the citizens who live along 101. Let me say first of all, that I am in favor of a safe, slow two-lane highway with a trail and traffic lights at Valley View and Pleasant View. Many call this plan 1-A. Of all of the plans submitted, this is still the best. I have heard from some that this stand is against progress. We need to stand aside to allow for more traffic because of development in the western side of the city and county. We can use state money to "fix" the problem, freeing Chanhassen's money to address other issues. Well I can tell you we have lived with progress. The traffic has increased mightily in the 14 years we have lived here', and eventhough that may not be our ideal, it's reality. Our city and surrounding area have changed, some for the better, some not. But forcing a wider right of way into such a narrow corridor as 101 is not the answer. The corridor was never designed for anything but a two-lane highway. All six proposals put forward by Hennepin County are too aggressive, too destructive, too self-serving, and all take easements for a minimum of four lanes. I'm not against progress; I'm against unrestricted, unreasonable progress. Twenty-five years ago there wasn't much out here in Chanhassen. City Council could easily have done whatever they wanted to do with the 101 corridor. They built homes and neighborhoods here, folks! The taxes these homes have paid, have been the base of growth and expansion for the city of Chanhassen. You taxed us heavily. We are among the highest taxed areas in the State. Now, we are asking for something in return. We are asking for a safe, sane 101; managed, safe traffic; and a trail as soon as possible. We are asking you to think of this concept; the western end of 62 as it exists now, continuing to be a feeder for 101 north, Dell road south, Townline and Pleasant View roads as well as 101 south. We are happy to deal with the traffic levels on that two-lane Highway 101. IfHennepin County needs a four-lane outlet for 62, why don't they take that four-lane concept north on 101 into there own county as well as south? They can run it at least to Highway 7, but why not all the way to Rogers to the north and to Shakopee in the south? Yet, why did they just complete a two-lane bridge over Grey's Bay instead of a four-lane bridge? And what about four lanes down Dell road also? It's all in Hennepin County and it also goes to Highway 5. Why does Chanhassen need to be Hennepin's stooge? We all moved to Chanhassen because it wasn't Hennepin, it was better! On the issue of the trail, everyone agrees there should be a trail along 101. That issue carried by a vote of 5-0 in October, including the votes of Mayor Jansen and Council member Labatt. In a recent city council meeting and subsequent articles in the Chanhassen Villager, the sums of $1.3 million and $75,000 have been bantered about. First let's talk about the $1.3 million construction costs figure. How could the trail jump from $800,000, the amount budgeted, to $1.3 million in just 5 months? Was the old staff that incompetent? Was City Council fooling itself?. If the trail had been built when it was first proposed, what would the cost have been? Maybe $100,000, maybe $200,000? Who do we blame for that cost difference? If we wait, what will happen to construction costs? Certainly they will not go down! Most importantly, what is the value of one life possibly lost or tragically altered due to inaction on this issue? It was also stated that the 400+ homes in the area have only contributed $75,000 toward the trail construction, a small percentage of the actual cost. Since we have no idea from where that figure came, it is hard t° argue. But using that same logic, should citizens with no.children be forced to pay taxes for the school system? Should we as citizens be taxed for projects we don't use? We have a pedestrian bridge over Highway 5, where did the money come to pay for that project? Certainly not just from the citizens directly benefiting from it. (I would be interested in a count on how many people actually use that bridge, and your cost analysis on it.) We as citizens pay taxes into a pool to make our city, county, state and country better places to live. Why are you changing that concept now? That is just petty politics and an effort to get the rest of the taxpayer sentiment against the trail. In conclusion, I hope you find some logic in these points. I pray to God that your decisions be made with insight, understanding and the interest of your citizens and neighbors as a priority, not Hennepin County and state turn- back money. Thank you. Charles B. Hallau 115 Choctaw Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Cpcldked~aol.com 952.934.6382 Burgess, Teresa From: Sent: To: Subject: CFrankwitz@aol.com Wednesday, March 21,2001 9:10 PM tburgess@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; Mayor@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; Slabatt@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; Cpeterson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; Mkroskin@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Highway 101 Improvement Project March 21, 2001 Mayor Jansen, Council Members, Staff of the City of Chanhassen: We write to you today in concern over the recent change in the Highway t01 project. My husband and I were fortunate to have the opportunity to buy a home in the Chanhassen area just last summer. What started as a dream, quickly turned into reality. We hadn't even thought of Chanhassen as a prospective community to join. We were searching for an opportunity to move into a suburban community close to the cities that still felt "small town" Much to our surprise the Internet led us directly to a home in Chanhassen that had charm and appeal. 'What appealed to us most , were the quiet, wooded, untampered surroundings in the neighborhood just off Highway 101. We were thrilled to hear when we moved in that a trail and traffic lights had been approved. What more could we ask for! A chance to take walks with our 22-month-old son throughout the nearby neighborhoods, to the park, and to visit friends off Pleasantview. I understand that we now stand to lose all of that to make way for a CHOSEN few that think it in our best interest to put in a larger, faster, and louder highway. We don't want it! We spent the past 3 years living in St. Louis Park just off Cedar Lake Road. consider Cedar Lake to be substantially busier than Highway 101. Yet, one hardly notices, because there are controlled intersections with lights, posted speed limits of 35 miles an hour and a sidewalk on one side. I realize this is a roadway, not a highway. However, isn't that the charm of Highway 1017 The fact that it still feels rural ...We want a safe, slow two-lane highway with a trail and traffic lights. We already know your answer, it's a money issue. Why wasn't it a money issue under the old administration? We were able to get it done before, why not now? We hoped to make Chanhassen the community where we raised our family and built our lives for years to come. If a large four-lane highway is approved, we may have a real estate sign in our front yard again. Let's try to preserve 1 the charm and appeal of our community. Regards, Colleen and Steve Frankwitz 6770 Brule Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Cfrankwitz@aol.com ,Burgess, Teresa From: Sent: To: Subject: Susan Dreves-Libson [slibson@mpls.k12.mn.us] Wednesday, March 21,2001 10:29 PM tburgess@ci.chanhassen .mn .us Highway 101 Improvement Project Card ~rsusan dreves-libson I am writing to express my disappointment ahd frustration regarding progress on the bike trail for Highway 101 along with the minimal improvements endorsed by our last administration and seemingly abandoned by our present city council. I realize I represent but a small voice however I am hopeful that it will be heard above the din of talk about widening 101 and delaying the long awaited trail construction. I moved in to our neighborhood about 13 years ago and thought that it would be no time before a simple bike trail would be built so my children and neighbors would be able to enjoy the simple pleasure of being able to ride their bike safely outside of the confines of our two block long neighborhood. My children have grown now and have moved on. It is too late for them. I fear for the many other young people that are faced with and often make the decision to venture out onto 101. I have a question? Has anyone on the council ever tried to bike or walk along 1017 I doubt that. I invite you to try it. I think your position would change quickly if you do. I was at the last council meeting and watched as the amenities were discussed for the Arboretum project. The council was quite willing to encourage parkland, aesthetics, walkways etc. to make sure the new residents of this development were provided a decent quality of life experience. Why is this not important for the many long-standing residents that live along the 101 corridor? Why is our safety_not a concern? Why must we wait 3-5 more years before any possible solution? Must someone from our area be seriously injured or killed before something is done? I have heard all the arguments about waiting until there is agreement on widening 101 to provide a connector between Highway 5 and Crosstown. I believe this to be an ill conceived idea and a terrible waste of our tax dollars. I have been studying the proposed Highway 212 corridor and have learned that on August 20, 1993 the Federal Highway Administration went on record approving 212 as the preferred method of moving people and goods from the growing southwest,.metro area into the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Vast sums of money including 56.4 million dollars in construction contracts have already been let to make this happen. Much of this construction is already completed. 80-90% of the right of way has already been purchased in the City of Chaska and Mn/DOT has started the process of acquiring parcels within the limits of TH41 and CSAH4. It is my belief that once this project is completed there will be little need for traffic to be shunted across 101 over to Crosstown. If 101 is widened many dollars will be wasted. Lets take the money that we save by not widening 101 and investing it into improving alternative transportation systems such as bike trails, bus systems, van pooling, carpooling, etc. These kinds of initiatives will reduce the need for wider land grabbing ribbons of asphalt through our communities. I may have missed the discussion but I heard nothing during the Arboretum Village proceedings regarding provisions for mass transit, subsidization or improvement of bus service or any kind of Travel Demand Management contributions by the developer. I would hope that public transportation would go hand in hand with affordable housing for this project. Is this the case? Ail these factors must be considered in an integrated way when planning a community. I am confident that our decisions as we move forward will reflect many of the thoughts I have put forward. Thanks for your consideration and please do the right thing quickly for those of us that have waited so patiently for so long. Neil H. Libson 140 Choctaw Circle Chanhassen~ MN. 55317 952-937-6958 ,Burgess, Teresa From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: BT31@aol.com Thursday, March 22, 2001 12:32 AM tburgess@ci .chanhassen .mn .us ch ibears9@hotm ail .com Highway 101 Written Comments March 21, 2001 Chanhassen City Council Members, via email to Teresa Burgess. Teresa Burgess, Chanhassen Public Works/City Engineer Re: Highway 101 Written Comments: Dear Ms. Burgess, Madame Mayor, and City Council Members: I am writing this letter to let you know how bitterly disappointed I am that we are evidently going to reopen considerations for additional lanes on Highway 101 between County Road 62 and State Highway 5. It frankly is unbelievable to me that this issue has been opened again. As many as three hundred Chanhassen residents spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours in neighborhood meetings, informational meetings, and City Council meetings in 1999 and in 2000. It is' clearly a matter of the public record that these residents overwhelmingly supported the citizen proposed Option IA. In a meeting with approximately 300 Chanhassen Residents in attendance, only Councilpersons LaBatt and Jansen, and three citizens, were opposed to this Option. I have lived on Highway 101 for the past 12.5 years. I can tell you, and MNDOT traffic studies in the 90's seem to support my opinion that traffic has not increased significantly. Let's remember that just a few short years ago MNDOT did a traffic study on 101 to determine that the traffic volume on this roadway did not even warrant the installation of stop signs at Valley View and Pleasant View Roads. It is amazing to think that MNDOT would waste another minute, or another dollar, considering a lane expansion to 101 when commuters on 494, 62, 35, and 212 refer to these roadways as parking lots, and justifiably so. It is even more amazing to think there might be City of Chanhassen Staff and Council Members who would consider such an unnecessary multimillion dollar project. Robert Brown, Division State Aid Engineer for MNDOT, stated the following in the October 12, 2000 Chanhassen Villager: -that had the road been 'turned back' funds would have been used to upgrade the road to its original condition and update it to address modern safety concerns, such as adding turn lanes. 1 -And, MN-DOT looks at Highway t01 as a lower priority route - compared to 494, 212, and 5 and the effort MNDOT is putting in on these routes, we're simply not looking at those kinds of efforts (redesign) on 101. -And, in terms of priority the road is low on the State's list. -And, he anticipated that the State would do a thin mill and overlay on the road in the next 2 to 3 years. (My comment: This alone is a would be a good improvement. Add a trail and this corridor would then be up to 'Chanhassen standards') -And, his guess is that in looking at the traffic volume and traffic data the State will not find Highway 101 to be a high priority to pay for. -And, MNDOT keeps a list of the top 30 intersections that need to be addressed and we work on those. I don't see any of the 101 intersections becoming part of the Top 30. Followed by, I don't see this high up on the pile of projects we are working on. Let's review some of what we learned over the past few years: This is the only section of Highway 101 that has been considered for lane expansion. No other sections of this highway are considered for lane expansion; and the newly constructed 'Gray's Bay Bridge' in Wayzata is only two lanes, virtually guaranteeing the citizens in Wayzata that there will be no lane expansion on 10t in the next 25 to 50 years, at least. The 1999 expansion proposals suggest that the SRF consultants felt that this 1.9 mile stretch of 101 needed to have the same, or even more capacity than 62. What sense does this make when at the termination of 62 traffic is diverted to 101 North, Dell Road, and Townline Road, before entering the 101 South Corridor. MNDOT stated publicly at one of the informational meetings that expanding 101 would not be a priority if the money were not available. How irresponsible is it to build something acknowledged as a low priority simply because millions in Minnesota Taxpayer dollars would be 'made available' to do it? How is it that we have funded and supported an expansive trail system throughout Chanhassen, yet the only way to accomplish this on the 101 North corridor is to tie it to a completely unnecessary road expansion? It should be concerning that our State, County, and City engineers all have made (questionable) claims that this is a dangerous road surface, yet months later nothing has been done to improve the road surface. Let us not forget the numbers of people that testified that before they built their homes in this corridor they talked to City and/or County and/or State engineers and were reassured that there were no expansion plans for this Highway. These Points and many more have been made over and over throughout the 2 past two years. We were confident that people were listening and were interested in doing the right thing. We hope and indeed we pray that this is still the case. We must be able to improve Highway 101 without unnecessary expansion, because we must preserve this beautiful Chanhassen roadway! I OFFER THESE COMMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD. Sincerely, Brian P. Thompson 41 Hill Street Burgess, Teresa From: Sent: To: Subject: richard .j. b o rotz@ exg ate.te k. com Saturday, March 17, 2001 5:53 PM tb u rg ess @ci.ch a n h as se n .mn .us HWY 101 improvement project I have lived in a neighborhood off highway 101 for about 2 years now, having moved from the Minneapolis lakes area where one could walk everywhere. While I didn't expect the amenities of paths around lakes in. Chanhassen, t also didn't expect to be trapped in a neighborhood with no safe way to leave our little cul-de-sac. I was told a walking path was to be put in soon to but then I learned from our neighbors that the Chanhassen city council has absolutely no credibility--apparently a path has been premised en highway 101 for decades. The idea that Chanhassen residents along highway 101, paying the highest property taxes in the state of Minnesota (Star Tribune, Nov 10,2000), can not have a path to leave their neighborhood is shortsighted at best and criminal at worst. I go up and down this horribly maintained road everyday and observe people, many times children, trying foolishly to walk, or worse, ride a bike along highway 101. In my opinion, it is just a matter of time before someone gets injured er killed. I made this argument last year and was told that the path would be put in this spring--now I understand the new Chanhassen Mayor Linda Jansen has broken this promise te make our highway safe for some political reason that must make sense te her. Hopefully she can explain her reasoning te the family and lawyers of the first person to get killed as the result of her decision. Furthermore, any council with a modicum of good planning sense should be able to "think out of the box" and realize how beautiful highway 101 could be with a walking path, maintaining most of its trees and views of wet lands yet allowing what other civilized communities have--a way for citizens to walk from one area to another. Another great benefit would be many people walking into Chanhassen along the path and patronizing the shops and stores of downtown Chanhassen. You don't always have to make super highways cutting through formerly peaceful neighborhoods, destroying property values and lowering life styles. When the improvements to Highway 5 is complete there should be little reason for the political expediency of widening highway 101. Whether er net the council does the right thing and makes highway 101 an 1 enhancement for the citizens of Chanhassen or an ugly four lane abomination, I demand a path be put in immediately! The money was set aside already, and the safety of families in Chanhassen should not be held ransom for political gain! regards, Richard Borotz Tektronix Account Manager (952)906-0130 richard.j.borotz@tek.com NorthEast Region Visit our web page at www.tektronix.com Burgess, Teresa From: Sent: To: Subject: Bvatland@aol.com Monday, March 19, 2001 4:58 PM cpeterson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; ljansen@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; mayor@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; mkroskin@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; rayotte@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; slabatt@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; tburgess@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; dcshoemaker@hotmail.com; fmendez@waterdistillersusa.com; laurieb@earthwatch.com; richvernes@earthlink.net Hwy 101 Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of the Kurvers Point neighborhood bordered by Hwy 101. Since I moved here nine years ago, I have attended numerous city meetings regarding a trail and proposed highway improvements. It has been a very discouraging process, and the lack of progress has been frustrating. Many people in my neighborhood feel very passionate about this issue, and hope we can have input into the planning process that will dramatically affect our quality of life. I urge you to carefully look at the minutes from the Open House meetings held last year. There was overwhelming support from the residents of Chanhassen to keep the roadway two lanes with safety improvements and a trail. I look to you as elected officials to be our voice in relaying this message to the other government bodies involved in the design process. The new bridge built on Hv~ 101 in Wayzata was built as only two lanes wide, although their daily traffic count was higher than this section in Chanhassen. Hv~ 10t north of Hwy 62 was recently repaved as a two lane road and a trail added. Please don't let MNDOT turn our Chanhassen section into a four-lane freeway extension of Hv~ 62. This is a beautiful wooded corridor that is very narrow with existing homes and wetlands. To force a four lane road to fit in this existing terrain would be very detrimental to those of us who live here. I will be attending the March 26th council meeting, and hope there will be time for residents to speak. If there is not enough time, I would suggest that an Open House or Neighborhood Meetings be held so residents have an opportunity to speak to the council about this very important issue. Before this process of negotiations with Eden Prairie, Hennepin County and MNDOT is opened again, it would be good for the citizens to talk to the new members of the council and our new engineer. If the current city council decides to take a different direction than supporting last year's OptionlA, there will be many disgruntled residents who deserve an explanation. 1 I welcome your replies on this issue. Sincerely, Brenda Vatland are folks Thursday ~eeting, giv- ~e visits, ask and neigh- also avail- eal time for discuss is- ,f the plan- ordinances to the city sals. So, by mblic hear- ~g commis- and issues riot to pro- ds is when examining :velopment dearer un- are review- :velopment esidents on Lrt or time- )lic hearing md the dif- ocesses, to :lng a more · and short- Hwy. 101 issue resolved , ,-As:a.proud member Of your n. ewly-n .amed '-.'Highway 101. group," I ~x411 gladly point out that the previous council did indeed answer the first sentence of your March 1't editorial: "the issue of what to do about the narrow, deteriorating section of highly traveled 101 North..." The previous council responded - appropriately- to the requests of a group of concerned citizens xvho were all going to be affected by the potential expansion of this road by voting in favor of Alternative lA. The coun- cil vote followed a public discussion with com- mentaU' by numerOus residents who live in the four subdMsions along 101. Many of these residents would have either had their homes taken, their propert! values severely dimin- ished, or ended up with their children's bed- rooms being less than a stone's throw from a four-lane thoroughfare The lA option included reworking the foundation of the road, resurfacing the pave- ment, and installing a trail alongside the high- wa}: What a panel of so-called "experts" had recommended was four-laning the highway because "traffic always increases." We, excuse me, the "Highway 101 group" pointed out numerous fallacies in their prognostication. One fallacy was that the}, xvere proposing four- laning but had no traffic signals such as traffic lights. Well dub, let's see - xve have enough traffic for a four lane highway but we don't have enough for traffic lights. The "experts" reply was that this was not a case of "if you build it they xxdll come." But the}' could not back up their statement when asked to "show us a four lane highway that has been built where people have not taken advantage of the in- creased speeds or ease it has given them." They could not and did not. The second point"the Highxvay 101 group" made was a simple case of "follow the mon- ey.'' MnDOT had effectively said to the previ- ous council that if you vote our way we will fund it. Well as luck would have it, the previ- · 6us ctuncil said there are options andalterna- tiveslh'ei:e that appear lo be more plausible and very' doable. So it should be no surprise that when the}, didn't vote Mn,DOT's wa}; the fund- lng was denied. The City of Eden Prairie publicly stated they would not four lane Dell Road; if a four lang was built it would .be 101. \v-q'hy? B~cause the residents living along Dell Road did not want a four-lane either. We, or rather "the Highway 101 group" asked the "experts" why we need- ed a four-land highway? In their infinite xvis- dom they gave their employer the answer they wanted - or needed; but as anyone 'knows, you can justify an~4ting if you start ~xdth a flawed concept, i.e., we must have a four-lane high- xva}: O-k%; why? Traffic always increases. Oka}; why? It always has. Huh? H. T. Love Amendment benefits hunting, fishing habitats This.past week, I introduced legislation in the Mfnnesota House of Representatives for an amendment to Minnesota's Constitution that would dedicate funding to enhance Min- nesota's fishing and hunting habitats, parks, trails and zones. Here in Minnesota, enjoying our natural resources is a way of life, bringing families to- gether and nurturing the passage of age-old traditions from one generation to the next. \Ve are fortunate to have a backyard full of diverse natural resources and recreational opportuni- ties. However, with these opportunities comes a tremendous responsibilits,, to manage and protect those resources. This constitutional amendment goes a long way towaz good on that commin'nent. The legisladon'I have proposee low the voters of Minnesota to dec :er or not to add an-~ehiim'en't to constitution wNch (vtuld de'cafe one percent of Minnesota's sales hancing our natural resources. would be divided among fish ar' projects, state parks and trails, me parks and trails, grant-M-aid trails, az sota's three zoos. This additional funding- an esdn million each year - would suppleme and future efforts and could not 1: supplant general fund appropriatio sure the integrity of the intent ant of the hw, a Heritage Enhanceme~ would be created to develop a bie~ plan. The 11-member committee, of two members of the Senate; twc of the House; six cidzens represen lng and fishing interests appointed ate and House; and one citizens nar governor would recommend project mg. While I support man}, of the decis by the Minnesota Department of sources and others who manage lands, I believe the involvement of zens, serving on the Heritage EO Council, must be a cridcal part of c to balance the need to protect our and proxdde recreational opportuni,. Whether you enjoy fishing on on nesota's 10,600 lakes, roasting mars x~dth your kids over a campfire at a hi'king or bi'king our linked net-,vor!~ pla34ng catch in the park, or spendln noon at the zoo, all Mirmesotans from this investment. I encourage y~ tact },our local legislators and let th LETTERS to page 12 Opponents of K-12 spending plan miss the fa ditor is Friday ren Pi/- 55317. hours news- By Christine Jax, Ph.D. Here's something to remember as the Ven- tufa administration's K-12 education budget makes its way through .the legislative process: Emotions fuel political debates, but govern- ment must function on facts. Last month, Education Minnesota joined a handful of education groups that have issued dire warnings about the effects Gox: Jesse Ven- tura's budget proposal could have on K-12 education. The teachers' union painted a &earv · , picture of financial woe for MSnnesota s school districts, but its forecast does not reflect the economic realim For starters, the Education ~tinnesota ~inal- .__~. · , -1 ~ , ...... }'ears. \X%en the fiscal }'ear 2001 revenues are adjusted to exclude one-time revenues and the calculations are done using revenue per stu- dent instead of total revenue, only 8 percent of M_innesota school districts xx411 see a net decrease, while 14 percent xv4ll see a funding increase of more than 4 percent. The union~ analysis describes trends in to- tal revenues, not revenues per student. Declin- ing enrollment must be taken into account in assessing flqe level of revenues provided to dis- 13 percent over the re,o-year period. when the one-dine revenues are in the base, the majoritT of these dis still receive an increase in revenue pc over the two years. This information should not be vi broadside on the union. \Ve share m and goals v,4th Education MSnnesot understand the union's role in the sphere. All we're tr}4ng to do is set t straight on the economic realities f state. K-12 education has done well ur Ventura. If his current budget prop acted, the state average general ar Burgess, Teresa From: Sent: To: Subject: Sstrohma@aol.com Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:59 AM tburgess@ci.chanhassen .mn .us Highway 101 Improvement project In advance of the city council meeting on Monday, March 26th, I am writing to express my strong feeling that that highway 101 should be repaired as soon as possible and left as a 2 lane highway. In other words, I support option iA. My family moved to a neighborhood along highway 101 two years ago. We would never have moved to our home in Chanhassen had we thought that 101 could become a 4 lane highway. Doubling the size of the highway will obviously result in the loss of many homes and a depreciation in the value of many others. There would be a profound negative impact on the look and feel of our area. Further, the increased traffic and pollution that would result from a highway going through the neighborhoods along 101 would greatly reduce our quality of life. While destroying the quiet feel of our neighborhoods, a four lane highway would only benefit those who choose to live further west and south and who use 101 for their long commutes. I cannot see how sacrificing the quality of life for those of us who live along 101 to facilitate the travel of those who have chosen to have long distance commutes can be justified. PLEASE, support option IA as the only reasonable, fair alternative for highway 101. Thank you, A Chanhassen Resident Burgess, Teresa From: Sent: To: Subject: Kelby Bailey [kelby@cutfill.com] Thursday, March 22, 2001 9:28 AM Chanhassen City Counci HWY 101 We will not be able to attend the council meeting on Thursday, March 26 at 7pm because we will be out of town. We would like to express our concerns regarding Hwy 101: 1. The speed of traffic currently is dangerous not only to drivers but to pedestrians. 2. Hwy 101 is extremely narrow making it critically more dangerous. 3. Lighting on Hv~ 101 is extremely poor at night adding to the danger. 4. Without sidewalks, pedestrians risk there lives walking on very narrow shoulders. We are strongly in favor of widening Hwy 101, reducing the speed of traffic, and adding sidewalks and additional lighting. This would allow safety of motorists and pedestrians. It would also allow children and adults to bike and walk to school, church, restaurants, and entertainment. Thank you for taking our thoughts into consideration. Sincerly, Kelby & Rayna Bailey 6580 Pleasant View Way Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-470-5003 Page 1 of 2 Burgess, Teresa From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dan Shoemaker [dcshoemaker@hotmail.com] Thursday, March 22, 2001 2:28 PM tburgess@ci.chanhassen .mn .us rayotte@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; Ijansen@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; mkroskin@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; slabatt@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; cpeterson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Highway 101 Improvement Project Members of the City Council: This message is in response to the notice regarding "a potential improvement project on Trunk Highway 101". While the notification was non-specific, we are responding on the assumption that the new council requires input on the views of the trail as well as opinions on last year's Highway 101 resolution. There is no safe way to travel Highway 101 between Highway 5 and Townline Road other than by motor vehicle. Children cannot safely pass between neighborhoods and residents are unable to access city amenities. Foot and bicycle traffic is very unsafe. Confining residents to these neighborhoods and perpetuating this hazard is unacceptable. This trail is part of Chanhassen's comprehensive plan, it has been promised for years, was supported by resolution last year and budgeted for construction this year. The challenges are obvious. Highway 101 jurisdiction is complicated. The engineering of the trail is challenging. Wetlands are affected. The cost appears to be high .... Etc., etc. These significant issues are acknowledged by residents, and most have shown flexibility in the type and placement of the trail. We expect the city council and staff to exert a good-faith effort to find resolution to the issues. We remain supportive of the "lA" proposal as the basis for Highway 101 improvement. As originally defined, this proposal consists of: A_~. Maintain the current Configuration (number of lanes, width) of Highway 101. B~ Repair the roadway. This includes subsurface and overlay work as required. C. Install traffic signals (lights) at Valley View Road and Pleasant View Road. D. Proceed immediately with a minimum impact trail. Minimum impact is defined as minimum construction, no additional right of way or easement, minimum tree and vegetation removal. E.~. Act with a sense of urgency. Repair of Highway 101 and the construction of a trail are long overdue. Other issues emerged through the course of the neighborhood meetings that require consideration (e.g. turn lanes at Fox Hollow, run-off containment). However, the essential request is to improve safety while: · Maintaining the vegetation along the road - we do not want to see the trees removed. · Keeping the berms in place - they provide privacy and serve to dampen the road noise. · Discouraging increased traffic loads and speeds. There is increased recognition that "induced traffic" will be a consequence of unnecessary roadway expansion. · Maintaining the quality of the area. There is no desire to make this road look like the Crosstown. The Highway 101 neighborhood meetings provided significant input regarding the desires of the community. This input should be used to create an engineering design for "lA" to be used as the basis of further discussion. The expectation is that a safe/workable design can be created from the "lA" framework. It has yet to be demonstrated otherwise. Efforts should be toward making "lA" viable rather than defaulting to other design proposals. Dan & Ruth Shoemaker 3/22/01 Page 2 of 2 Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://expJorer.msn.com 3/22/01 Safety and Highway 1 O1 As the time to give input to the City of Chanhassen Engineering Department and the City Council draws to a close, I would like to add my voice to those speaking up on the 101 issue. As a mother, I am concerned about safety. Highway 101 is an accident waiting to happen. With a posted speed of 45 miles per hour and no trail, the road is dangerous. At one time, when there were only cows in Chanhassen, that speed may have been acceptable and safe. That could be debated, as a number of serious accidents have occurred over its long history. Now, the population density along the 101 corridor is high and the traffic has increased. Something needs to be done. Mayor Jansen and Councilman Labatt have both stated their preference and support of a two-lane highway. That is encouraging and I agree, but I believe they favor wider easements and shoulders. In my opinion, what's needed for a safer road, are lower speeds, lights or stop signs, curbs and a trail. We need a way for our children and pedestrians to cross 101 safely, especially at Pleasant View and Valley View roads. Two days ago, .a rear-end accident took place on Highway 101. One car was trying to turn into a driveway; a driver behind was not paying attention. I'm not sure a shoulder would have helped. In fact,_here isa small shoulder now where that accident took place. I don't know if anything could have prevented that accident except a driver who was paying attention. A lower posted speed may have given the driver more-time to react. Lights or stOp signs at Pleasant View and Valley View may have helped control the traffic flow. It seems reasonable. Right now, motorists use the existing shoulders to zoom around vehicles that are turning left, narrowly missing them and creating dangerous situations. Dell road in Eden Prairie, which parallels 101, has posted speeds of 30 mph and curbs. Stop signs are placed every so often to manage speeds and traffic. On the Eden Prairie side of 101, on Pleasant View road, two stop signs were added to that short road a few years back, when too many drivers were using it as a shortcut. Those stop signs control traffic and help keep the children safe. It seems as if the Eden Prairie City Council and Engineering Department value the safety of its citizens. The point; the City of Chanhassen and the Engineering Dept. have really not done much to deal with the safety issues along Highway 101. Putting it off hasn't helped. I want a city government that is concerned about my family's safety and well being. I want a safe, reasonable 101. You don't need to take more land and easements. You need to make that road safer for the motorists who use it and thc citizens and children who live there. As one of the national radio talk-show hosts says, "Now go do the right thing!" Thank you, Paula W. Hallau 115 Choctaw Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-934-6382 Email cpcldked~aol.com MAR-22-2001 07: 30 STATE A I D Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 651 582 i368 P.02/05 March 21,2001 Teresa J. Burgess, PE Public Works DirectodCity Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive PO Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55137 Dear: Ms Teresa Burgess: As you requested, I am writing to state MNDOT's position regarding MN 101 from Hennepin CSAH 62---Townline Highway to MN 5. I will address MNDOT's long-range plans for MN101 and county turnback account funding eligibility for the highway and for trails. As a state highway, MN 101 does not compete well for MNDOT resources given the great demands of many other state highways of greater regional and statewide importance. In MNDOT's long,range plan MN 101 is a preservation route for the present to 2025. Essentially the state plans only to maintain the existing highway. MNDOT will respond to safety problems and maintenance needs. No improvements are currently anticipated. MNDOT's long-range plan proposes to transfer the mute to Carver and Hennepin counties. The highway's importance is that of a secondary highway for access and for connections to homes, to work, to community activities, and to businesses of the area. it is also critical for connecting Eden Prairie and Chanhassen, and neighboring communities to the larger highway network. It is under county jurisdiction that the highway is most likely to receive the attention it needs and deserves to fulfill its function. If transferred to the counties the mute is eligible for turnback account funds for maintenance and improvement. The account is a special one-time fund for former state highways transferred to a county. Once the account has funded a project, the status of the highway becomes that of any other state aid mute and is no longer eligible for these funds. The account is restricted by state statute and state aid rules to paying for restoration of the highway. The account may pay for restoration of the physical structure and for the restoration of its function. An equal opportunity employer MAR-22-28131 E}?: .38 STATE AID P. EI3/05 Teresa J, Burgess March 21,2001 page 2 State aid rules also provide standards for a highway based on function and traffic volumes. These standards have proven over time to be effective in providing safer highways and assuring that they provide the intended service. In the case of MN 101, reconstructing the route to replace it in kind as a two-lane highway will not meet standards based on existing traffic counts. Due to the number of entrances and street intersections, left turn provisions are a highly desirable safety feature. The conventional method of accommodating left turns is a left turn only lane at intersecting streets. However this method does not accommodate left turns at driveways. Another solution is a continuous center left turn lane. That provides one through lane in each direction and a continuous two-way center turn lane that provides for left turns at all streets and driveways, State aid standards do not require a four-lane section today, but do require considering forecasted traffic volumes for 20 years into the future when designing new and reconstructed highways. While a four-lane highway may not be needed today, any reconstruction alternative must consider future traffic volumes, In addition, I believe that other items should also be considered as a project is developed. State aid standards are minimums and as such will not necessarily address all issues. Each area has characteristics and circumstances such that consideration of function suggests that it may be desirable to exceed minimum standards, For example, I encourage consideration of refuge for school bus loading, mail delivery, and trash collection. Turnback account funds may pay for a reconstruction of MN101 provided it meets state aid standards and addresses basic traffic and safety issues. Since a three-lane design deals with existing conditions, the turnback account can pay for the full cost of a three- lane highway. The account cannot pay the full cost for a reconstruction to a four lane because today's traffic volumes do not meet the threshold of the state aid standard requiring four lanes, and therefore cannot be considered restoration since the need does not yet exist. To build a four-lane highway will require additional funding from other sources in the amount of the difference in cost of the two design types, The additional costs are eligible for county or municipal state aid funding. Eligibility for trail funding from the turnback account is also limited to existing trails. Since there is no trail today along MN101, turnback account funds cannot be used to STATE AID P.04/05 Teresa J, Burgess March 21,2001 page 3 build one. However, costs incidental to highway reconstruction may cover some trail costs. Grading costs for a trail incidental to grading for the highway may be covered by the turnback account. Right of way (existing or acquired) necessary for highway construction may be used by a trail without additional cost to the trail construction. Additional grading and right of way expenses and all costs of designing, paving and other expenses special to the trail cannot be paid for by the tumback account. I hope this clarifies MNDOT's position on these matters. Please let me know if you have further questions. Sincerely, . , Robert S. Brown, PE Metropolitan Division State Aid Engineer C: Gene Dietz, Eden Prairie Public Works Director Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer . Vern Genzlinger, Hennepin County Engineer James Grube, Hennepin County Transportation Department Director Julie A. Skallman, State Aid Engineer Richard A. Stehr, Division Engineer Cyrus Knutson, MNDOT MAR-22-2~el - 87:31 STATE RID P. bc: P, Loken WE SA T. O'Keefe WE L. Vermillion WE T, Worke CO MS 140 TI-ITOi CITY OF CHANI:tASSEN CARVER AND I-IE~P~ COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: Mav 8. 2000 RESOLUTION NO: 2000-35 MOTION BY: Senn SECONDED BY: Entel A RESOLUTION APPROVE~G A CONCEPT PLAIN FOR TI4'E RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY 101 FROM WEST 78TM STREET TO PLEASANT VIEW ROAD WHEREAS, Hennepin County has completed a mm-back agreement with MnDOT for Trunk Hi,way I 01 ("TH 101"); and WHEREAS, Carver County is negotiating with MnDOT to complete an agreement for mm-back of TH 101; and WHEREAS, Carver County, Hermepin County, the City of Chanhassen, and the City of Eden Prairie have been engaged in a process to develop conceptual design alternatives for improving TH 101; and WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen has conducted six neighborhood meetings and a public hearing to solicit input on the design of TH I 01. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Mirmesota: o The City approves the following concept for the reconstruction of TH 101 from West 78th Street to Pleasant View Road: · A two lane road with/n the existing right-of-way · Replacement of the roadway base and sub-base · Removing peaks and valleys · Resuffacing the road · Installing curb and gutter · Constructing storm sewer and ponding · Constructing on the back of the curb line a minimum impact 8 foot wide trail extending from 78th Street to Pleasant View Road · Constructing a northbound turn lane at Fox Hollow · Signalizing the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Valley View Road 2. That construction proceed expeditiously. That the entire process maintain rigorous attention to communication and a schedule of public meetings to keep area residents fully informed of progress and decisions. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 8th day of May, 2000. Scott A. Botcher, City Manager Nancy K. Mancino, Mayor YES Mancino Engel Senn NO ABSENT Jansen None Labatt CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Ordinances & Resolutions SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: Public Works Services Eugene A. Dietz ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Requesting Carver and Hennepin Counties to Adopt and Implement a Schedule for Upgrading TH 101 DATE: March 21, 2000 ITEM NO.' VIII B Requested Action Move to' Approve resolution requesting Carver and Hennepin Counties to adopt and implelnent a schedule for upgrading TH 101 Synopsis No consensus has been reached on a preferred design alternative for the upgrade of TH 101. This resolution prescribes a process to select an alternate and schedule the project for construction in 2002. Background Information Attached is a letter from Vern Genzlinger, Assistant County Administrator/County Engineer, requesting that the City of Eden Prairie go on record to support a four-lane undivided roadway for TH 101. Although that may xvell be the best option, it would tend to short-circuit the public process at a time when many of the environmental questions have not been fully addressed. The need to improve TH 101 is readily apparent. However, the process has been delayed due to an ongoing discussion of doing little more than making minor subgrade corrections, overlay and adding a regional trail corridor. The resolution urges the counties of Hennepin and Carver to take a leadership role in defining the long-term needs of the corridor and establish a process to bring the project to completion. The recommendation is that the list of alternatives for further enviromnental and design impacts be reduced from six concepts to three. This would leave a two, three and four-lane design for further environmental review and additional comparative analysis. An important feature of the resolution is that it requests a major emphasis on public participation and communication throughout the process. One of the elements to do this would be the formation of a working committee with staff and citizens that would review and participate in the final design after the layout plan has been approved. Attachments Letter fi'om Vern Genzlinger, Assistant County Administrator/County Engineer CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REQUESTING CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES TO ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT A SCHEDULE FOR UPGRADING TH 101 WHEREAS, TH 101, between West 78th Street and CSAH 62 is in desperate need of reconstruction and has an accident rate exceeding twice thc average accident rate for similar roadways in Hemaepin County; WHEREAS, TH 101 is in a process of turn-back from MnDOT to the counties of Carver and Hennepin; WHEREAS, Hcnnepin County has completed a turn-back agreement xvith MnDOT for TH 101; WHEREAS, Carver County is negotiating with M~ff)OT to complete an agreement for turn-back of TH 101; WHEREAS, completed turn-back agreements will specify that MnDOT provide a unique revenue source to rest°re the function of the roadway to current standards; WHEREAS, the affected agencies of Carver County, He~mepin County, Chm~assen and Eden Prairie have been engaged in a process to develop conceptual design alternatives for improving TH 101; WHEREAS, public meetings have been held in Eden Prairie and Chanhassen for the purpose of soliciting input from affected residents in the corridor regarding six design concepts for improvement to the roadway; WHEREAS, consensus has not been reached on a preferred desi~ concept for ilnprovement to the roadway; WHEREAS, growth in the traffic service area tributary to the corridor is ever increasing, the roadway pavement continues to deteriorate and safety is of paramount concern. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that, Hennepin County and Carver County as the recipient agencies to the turn-back of TH 101, are implored to take a visionary leadership role in a proactive process to adopt and engage in a schedule to improve TH 101 based on the following criteria: 1. That the priority design criteria be safety (including stopping sight distances, entering sight distances, sigmals and intersection geometrics) to implement a solution that reduces the accident rate on the roadway to one consistent with (or below) similar corridors in the metro area. 2. That pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities be provided in the corridor. 3. That the functional classification in the approved Transportation Plans of affected agencies for TH 101 and parallel routes be the basis for predicting future traffic volumes and design criteria. 4. That expected growth in the service area and regional transportation needs be fully considered in the planning and design process. 5. That a simple overlay and minor maintenance will not adequately address safety and design issues in the corridor and therefore be eliminated from consideration. 6. That even though it is unlikely a two-lane roadway will adequately address the criteria above, key environmental impacts and specific transportation needs be more fully developed for: · Concept Design 2 - two lanes with intersection and signal improvements and trails on both sides · Concept Design 3 - similar to Concept 2, but with a continuous center-left turn lane · Concept Design 4 - four lane undivided with intersection and signal improvements and trails on both sides. 7. That details developed as indicated in 6. above, be the basis of additional public meetings with a goal of narrowing the scope to one preferred design concept by September, 2000. 8. That final environmental documentation necessary to obtain layout approval be developed by January, 2001. 9. That after Step 8, a working committee with staff and citizens be established to meet on a periodic basis to review final design details, review compliance with layout plan approval and provide input on mitigation details with a goal of final design completion by January, 2002. 10. That a Spring, 2002-construction start be scheduled. 11. That the entire process maintain rigorous attention to communication and 'a schedule of public meetings to keep area residents fully informed of progress and decisions. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on March 21, 2000. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk State-Aid Standards Summary The State-Aid Standards are several volumes in length in addition to the standards included by reference. The intention of this summary is to give an overview of the more obvious standards that apply to the Highway 101 Turnback and not to address individual sections or specifics. Copies of the State-Aid Standards are available in the City Engineering Department. Vertical Alianment: The State-Aid Standards reference the AASHTO's "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" (generally refen'ed to as the "green book") for minimum lengths of vertical cur~es. There are two types of vertical curves, crest and sag. The minimum curve lengths are set based on design speed. Both types of curves can shorten sight lines so drivers do not have adequate sight distance for safe passing or adequate stopping sight distance to stop for an obstruction in the roadway, h~ extreme cases, vehicles can "bottom out" in sag curves and "launch" on crest curves, reminiscent of the "Dukes of Hazard" TV show from the 1980's. Horizontal Alianment: Horizontal alignment affects a number of things, however, the most obvious are drivability and sight distance. Just as vertical curves can obscure sight lines, horizontal curves can cause problems, specifically with obstructions outside the right ofxvay blocking the driver's view of the roadway. Also, anyone who has taken a curve too fast has experienced the loss of traction as the vehicle slides to the outside of the curve. Level of Service: Level of service is a rmzking of the congestion of a given roadway. Roads are given a letter ~ade A-F. A table showing the criteria for each of the grades is attached. State- Aid standards recommend a minimum design level of service of C for urban arterials (Hwy 101 is classified as a class "A" minor arterial). While traffic flows at or above 40 mph, Highway 101 does not have continuous passing sight distance. The City does not have peak hour volumes for this area (The highest number of vehicles during a consecutive 60 minute period); however, average am~ual daily traffic (AADT) for the section of roadway as measured in 1998 ranges from 8,000 at the southern end to 12,450 at the northern end of the con'idor. G:\ENG\2PUB LIC\97-12\staff report-3-26-01 att 6.doc ZO '56'0 aq al ,(la~l{l Ioloej moq ~lead '0'I pue L'0 uaaa~laq a~ueJ Ul suo!loasJalu{ le loloej pi?o-{ 'sUO{lOaSlalU! al saqoeold -de ua .dn-:~ueq snonu!luoD · ~oU alqelsu~ 'qdm g I jo ease u! lnq 'alqe!Jea o!jJml IIe4a^o age -la^V ',(lpedeo le samnloa ao!A~aS '/.'0 jo peal '.06'0 'xoldde iolaej moq ~lead 'SalOAO a Jam Jo oral sJ~o amos ql{~ aa{se^Ix^ omoo -aq Xem suo{l~aslalu{ le 'qdm gl o1 ~op spaads age;anV 'XHuede~ jo 06'0 queo~d ~e sam^lan au{~aS '~ou -un gu{qoeolddv 'uo{l:as JO sOU{l}qede~ xel al ~u~uu{~oH · I '0 'xoJdde suo!l:~as~alu! le ~oloeJ peo"I '08'0 Xlalem!xoJdde jo 0£'0 le sam^loA 'a[qeuosea:un lou si `(ela(I 'a^oqe Jo qdtu gZ le metua.t lnq 'slu!Ijuoo 4alu! pue Xelap uo!loasialu! al anp doJp spa^ds ile-la^o Sle!Zalz¥ ueqJcl-qnSpue ueqffl · qdm 0~ ueq} ssaI jo spa^ds ~tuueJadO 's.'~Hs!lalae -leqa amnlo^ ~mXie, ,(lap{ax ql{ax UO{l!pUo,'~ pglsa,~tlo> '~oU pa~lO~ ...... 'suo!l!p -uo.~ leap! ~apun qdm gl lnoqe jo paads :guumado ue le inoq lad a,uei ~ad sJe0 .taguassed 0081 Ia Xl!aede:~ jo %06 al dn same -lo^ le axou alqelsun ~u!q.'~eoldd¥ 'suo!l!p -uoa leap{ ~apun pa^ds guumado qdm gg e {e ~noq Jad aueI lad ssI -a!qa^ ~a~uassed 000I lo `(l!ueduu jo %0g p~aaxa lou U{~ Om^lOA 'SOla{qoa ~u{~olloJ ua a~uonU -m amos aaet[ [H~ Ola~qaA ~u~pa~ -a~d jo suoB>e qa~q~ le am^lOA · ease ~ou olqels jo · sl{m{l paads Xq pa~uanuu{ aq spaads agma~V 'XH~ude~ jo lua~ ~ad 0~ ~o moq ~a~uassed 009 -lOa 'suo]l{puov leap{ ;apu~ -1~ :o qd~ 09 paads [o::uoD ssaaaV o/~ ..... ~ .~-, ,, lai]uassed 000[ 1opun samnioA tldm Og umll SSOl spaads ~u!le .ladO 's,~Us!la~,'~eieq., alqe;,'~{pmd -un tIHax SXOLl palsa2uo,~ 'pa,~lO:l · suou{p -uoo leap{ .mpun inoti lad ~a~uassed 00LI ia ',~l!unl~oddo i~mssed snonu!luoa tll!,~ jo %~8 lc 'UO!l:~ai!p-O/~l 'saUm .ioA qdm .gl '×oJdde spaods -ladO 'axoU alqelsun ~u!t{ueoldd¥ · UO!lelado ol{-pu~-dols o$ qdtu Jeau tuolj aSuel spaads ~u!lmad0 · HoaUallloq mea~lsuAxop moIj dn-pa~taeq Sal,~!qa, ~oj e se sloe ~e~aa~ '~ou Paa~od 'meansdn dolaAap Allemmu lOU ap sdn-~eq ~uo} lnq 'sAuauallloq pue suo}l -o{~lsuoa u~{sop Xq pa~alam ~oU aUje~ 'suou~puoa ieap~ ~apun aueI qd, O00Z lnoqe ~o le sam^lo^ 'qdm gE'OE jo spa^ds ~uumado Ile4a*O '~oU alqelsu~ __ · au~ pappe qaea qd, 0081 :uou~a~P I 'sauel -g ~oj qd, 009~ pa~xa louu~ suou~puoa leap~ ~apun ~oU 'mm f ~ea~ '~Haedea jo ~06 ;e ~o8 aa~,~as T qdm O~ 'xo~dde spa^ds ~uumad0 'suo~l~puoa ~u!~u~q~ ol alq~ldaasns s! pu~ AHi~qe;su~ Satl~eo~dde uoumado · moU olqels jo a~ue: pa^ds · qd, 008 l aA~as plno~ uouaa~!p ^ua u! o~ a~oqe aueI ieumHppe q~ea suop -~puoa leap~ ~apu~ -:noq :ad ~a~uassed 000~ jo alto ~oU g ueq; a~om wu ~o .(H~edea jo %gL le uoBaa~!p ^ua u~ sauel-o~ ua ~oU aa~as pue qdm Og jo pa^ds ~uumad0 'ie~HU~ a~om ~u~ -mo~aq lnq 'alq~ls IUls uoBe~ado 'suou!puo3 leap! lapun -oaxl 'Jnotl !ad slc3 ~a§uassed 006 jo sam^loA 'a.'~uels!p -ssed snonu!luo.~ tH!ax ,(l!3ede.~ .1o %gt' q.~ea~ ,(em satunloA '~aq~!tt Ia qdm 0g jo spa^ds gu!iv, ladO aue'I-O~X.L · qda 00S I ue~ uo!laal!p ^ua u~ oa~l a^oqe auel leuo!l!ppe qae~I 'moq Sal~!qa^ la~uassed 000i~ ueql la -leal~ lou uo{lual!p ^ua u! sauel-Z ua am n[o^ aa{maS 'qdm ueql ~a;ea~ Jo {e paads ~u!leladO · ,~oU aiqels jo a~ue~ pa^ds l~q~!}l 'aUel qd^ 0001 jo ^mn -io^ s.aa~as aueI leUO!Hppe qoe3 · uo!~nal!p ^ua 'saugl-[ ua Inoq ~ad s~ev la;~uassed 00t~l jo am^ -Ia^ ;ao!^la$ 'ltdtLl 09 Ugtll lalP. a/g Ia le spa^ds 2u!leladO '.~xoU aa~l sXe~tl~!H ssa^ay pOllO.tluoD jo laaa~l . x~4NESo?~ Minnesota Department of Transportation - Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 651-582-1661 March 15,2001 Ms. Teresa J. Burgess Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Request for Cooperative Agreement Funding: TH 101 Trail - Pleasantview Road to West 78th Street Dear Ms. Burgess: I am writing to inform you of the decision reached by the FY 2002 Cooperative Agreement Selection Committee regarding the above referenced project. The Selection Committee considered over 30 candidates submitted for inclusion in the FY 2002 Program. Each of these candidate projects was prioritized through a process that examined benefits- (both trunk highway and local roadway) estimated project cost arid requested funding level. In most instances a project was discussed at least three times before a final determination was made. Due to the limitations in funding placed upon this program the Committee has decided against granting your request for funding. The Committee recommends re-evaluating the particulars of this project with the idea of resubmitting it again for inclusion in the FY 2003 Program. Submittals for that program are due November 5th 2001. If you have any questions concerning the selection process in general or this project specifically please contact me. Michael P. Kowski, P.E. Cooperative Agreement Engineer cc: Bob Brown, Mn/DOT-Metro State Aid Lezlie Vermillion, Mn/DOT Area Manager Project File An eqda[ opportunity employer