Loading...
9. Highway 101 Corridor Mapping between Highway 5 & Lyman Blvd.On February 16,1994 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached Highway 101 Corridor Study. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft document and those in attendance either supported its recommendations or did not ' comment. As part of the formulation process, two neighborhood meetings were conducted on May 17 and November 17,1993. The issue of greatest concern has been the effect of the new roadway on adjacent residential properties. Generally, the preferred alternative (Alternative 3) and the alternative that was approved during the 1989 corridor study ' (Alternative 2) were acceptable to neighborhood residents. Alternative 3 was preferred by the landowners. The issue that is of greatest concern to us and to the Planning Commission, based on its February 16 discussion, is that related to wetland impacts. The preferred alternative will have a substantial impact on the wetland lying between Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake. Efforts will need to be made to mitigate the loss of the wetland. Other than building a bridge, there is no way to avoid a wetland impact with any but a do- nothing alternative. While Alternatives 1 and 4 have a somewhat lesser impact, the geometries ' of the roadway and the neighborhood will be compromised. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will address the mitigation question. ' Actions to be taken by the City Council include the selection of an alternativ -. preferably the recommended Alternativ �J), authorization of the completion of the EA AT 4nd official mapping of the roadway. ,� substantial part of the EAW has already been completed as part of the corridor study. The official mapping is necessary to protect the right -of- way from unwanted encroachments. It will also assist Mission Hills and c, her owners to define their boundaries. Once officially mapped, the City can explore the availability 1 of RALF funding for properties within the corridor that may be subject to imminent development or evidence hardship. CHANHAS \93-21 \AANENSON.MEM Land Use /Environmental 9 Planning/Design ' 7300 Metro Boulevard /Suite 525 ! Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835 -9960 0 Fax: (6 -3160 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ,� • : •. ►V� •� M13 aa� ' Arbon by City Administrator MEMORANDUM rmde ✓ Du) A Date: March 4, 1994 Re! 1 From: Fred Hoisington Sete Sd -, rimer to Ce^- rniss iort Date Sllhnt !!Ed 16 Colf[ILJt To: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner ' City of Chanhassen Subject: Highway 101 Corridor Study Addendum On February 16,1994 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached Highway 101 Corridor Study. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft document and those in attendance either supported its recommendations or did not ' comment. As part of the formulation process, two neighborhood meetings were conducted on May 17 and November 17,1993. The issue of greatest concern has been the effect of the new roadway on adjacent residential properties. Generally, the preferred alternative (Alternative 3) and the alternative that was approved during the 1989 corridor study ' (Alternative 2) were acceptable to neighborhood residents. Alternative 3 was preferred by the landowners. The issue that is of greatest concern to us and to the Planning Commission, based on its February 16 discussion, is that related to wetland impacts. The preferred alternative will have a substantial impact on the wetland lying between Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake. Efforts will need to be made to mitigate the loss of the wetland. Other than building a bridge, there is no way to avoid a wetland impact with any but a do- nothing alternative. While Alternatives 1 and 4 have a somewhat lesser impact, the geometries ' of the roadway and the neighborhood will be compromised. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will address the mitigation question. ' Actions to be taken by the City Council include the selection of an alternativ -. preferably the recommended Alternativ �J), authorization of the completion of the EA AT 4nd official mapping of the roadway. ,� substantial part of the EAW has already been completed as part of the corridor study. The official mapping is necessary to protect the right -of- way from unwanted encroachments. It will also assist Mission Hills and c, her owners to define their boundaries. Once officially mapped, the City can explore the availability 1 of RALF funding for properties within the corridor that may be subject to imminent development or evidence hardship. CHANHAS \93-21 \AANENSON.MEM Land Use /Environmental 9 Planning/Design ' 7300 Metro Boulevard /Suite 525 ! Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 ' (612) 835 -9960 0 Fax: (6 -3160 City of Chanhassen Highway 101 Corridor Study Addendum DRAFT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Febrx- °dry 1994 H IC �� ' 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................. ............................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ...... ............................... 2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED ........ ............................... 3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES .................................... 7 DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS ........ ............................... 14 LAND USE PLAN ................. ............................... 19 TRAFFIC AND ACCESS ............ ............................... 21 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ................ ....................... 22 i1 I � J i 7 I 1 I INTRODUCTION In September 1989, the City of Chanhassen, with assistance from Hoisington Koegler Group, completed a plan for the Highway 101/5 corridor which evaluated a variety of Highway 101 alignment alternatives and established a corridor land use plan which was incorporated with the City's comprehensive plan. At the time of the original 1989 study, the interchange configuration dictated an alignment which afforded very difficult roadway connections to Chanhassen Hills while creating unusable or very difficult to use remnants of land lying between the existing and proposed Highway 101 alignments. During the ensuing four years, a number of factors have changed, which warrant additional study of the corridor. Due to the delay in the programming of Trunk Highway 212, a great deal more flexibility is afforded in the design of the 212 interchange which allows for correction of the original deficiencies. Restudy was also warranted by the passage of the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990 which requires the mitigation of wetland losses and set in motion a new era of wetland sensitivity. A third factor influencing the need to restudy the corridor was the potential existence of cultural resources particularly in close proximity to Lake Susan. The current corridor study included a tree inventory, wetland delineation and a cultural resources analysis. The study scope extends from Great Plains Boulevard on the north to Lyman Boulevard on the south. Its purpose is to evaluate a variety of alternative alignments for Highway 101, to develop a revised land use plan and to develop a funding strategy for what is currently a temporary state trunk highway. The study included a detailed analysis of the natural environment; the development and evaluation of four additional roadway alternatives; the establishment of roadway geometrics, grading limits and right -of -way needs; the preparation of roadway cross sections, the development of buffering concepts to protect the neighborhood to the west of existing Highway 101 and the formulation of a revised land use plan. The process included two neighborhood meetings on May 17 and November 17, 1993. This report represents the culmination of the recent study and is intended to be appended to the September 1989 Corridor Study. CHANHA5\93- 21 \HWY 101.RP'f Page 1 d STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM �+ Based on a traffic study completed in August of 1986, Highway 101 between Highways ' 5 and 212 is projected to carry between 11,000 and 15,000 vehicles per average day in year 2005. A volume of that magnitude requires four moving lanes plus turn lanes and well spaced accesses to m inimiz e side friction which can interfere with the efficient flow ' of traffic. The timing of the construction of new Highway 101 is intended to correlate with the construction of Highway 212. However, due to the delay of Highway 212, combined with considerable area growth, a temporary solution may be needed. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will build the Highway 212 /101 interchange in ' conjunction with the Highway 212 project. MnDOT's project extends to just north of West 86th Street, leaving approximately one -half mile of new roadway construction to connect with Market Boulevard and Highway 5. Originally programmed for , construction in 1995/6, Highway 212 is now scheduled for letting in November of year 2000. At the earliest, Highway 212 will be under construction in year 2001 given the current status of highway funding. Any alignment for future 101 which does not correlate with the existing alignment will need to be formally established and officially mapped to protect it from future development encroachments. Absent this course of action, the most expedient way to deal with Highway 101 will be to simply widen the ' existing roadway to four lanes. Unfortunately, Highway 101 is classified as a temporary state trunk highway and as ' such, it has no improvement funding source. MnDOT wants to turn Highway 101 over to Carver County. Because of this jurisdictional conundrum, the City has elected to take the initiative in defining the future alignment for Highway 101 to ensure that its own , interests are best served. This may also require a sharing of the cost of construction between the City of Chanhassen, Carver County and MnDOT. ' J J 1 CHANHM \93- 21 \HWY 301.RPr Page 2 1 - 1 .� ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED The 1989 Highway 5/101 preliminary alignment study evaluated four major alternatives ranging from use of the existing Highway 101 alignment to one which moved the roadway a considerable distance to the east. Alternative 1 which represented the least ' departure from the existing alignment was selected as the preferred alternative. The 1993 evaluation involved four alternatives including the use of the existing Highway 101 alignment and three variations of preferred Alternative 1. The following is a description of each of the alternatives evaluated as part of this most recent study. Alternative 1 This alternative consists of the continuation of use of the existing Highway 101 except for its relocation to connect to Highway 212. This alignment would entail a 100 -120 foot ' right -of -way to accommodate four contiguous lanes. All right -of -way expansion would occur on the east side of the already existing 66 foot Highway 101 right -of -way. This alternative would entail only limited extraordinary cuts and fills though it would encroach on the front yards of the two existing homes lying easterly of Highway 101. Due to the existence of numerous curb cuts, this alternative represents the least efficient way to handle the projected future traffic volumes. ' Alternative 2 ' This represents the 1989 approved alignment with a slight modification at the south end to reflect the reconfigured interchange. Due to rather extreme topography, this alternative would require approximately 200 feet of right -of -way which would ' accommodate a four lane divided roadway having a 25 foot median and a 100 foot dimension from back -of -curb to back -of -curb. Alternative 2 has a substantial wetland impact and embodies significant vegetation loss. It leaves a strip of nearly unusable ' land between it and the existing Highway 101 alignment but leaves the two existing houses on the east side of existing Highway 101 intact. This alignment traverses an area that is known to have a variety of cultural resources including Indian and more recent ' antiquities. The quality of resources appears to be minimal, representing more of a junkyard character. ' Alternative 3 This alternative represents a slight westerly shift in the 1989 approved alignment of Highway 101. It would require 200 feet of right -of -way to accommodate a four lane divided roadway which could easily carry the volume of traffic projected. This alignment, too, has larger cuts and fills and a significant wetland impact that would require mitigation plus significant tree loss. It traverses the area known to include ' cultural resources. Its slightly expanded right -of -way provides the surest buffering for homes abutting Lake Susan. It makes near total use of the land between the proposed and existing alignments. �. CHANHAS \93- 21 \HWY- 1O1.RPT Page 3 1 Alternative 4 Alternative 4 represents the use of a portion of the temporary alignment extending southerly from Market Boulevard. It would have 120 -150 feet of right -of -way to minimize wetland impacts. It would embody a roadway four lanes wide but having no median. It too traverses an area that causes significant tree loss and disruption of known cultural resources. As does Alternative 3, it takes the two homes lying easterly of Highway 101. 1 Li F-j 11 P n C;- ',9321 \HWY- 101.RPT Page 4 1 ,. _ Figure 1 - - _ ; ' Q J 'b - Alternative Alignments -' f Study Area Boundary 0 700 400 1 � _ Lake Susan p / I � + 1 :•�- .,� %�+�- .fit =—'_ . �'" :\ /' ,\ ` _ ►�" i• \\\`� .� ^ ~: Study Area i o -9 1� ` / 'O ` �-...� ; `— �� --�`�r / te e — `y \ ' I y J` � i �• \ v V,I i, I CITY OF CHANHASSEN Alig nment Al ��>+ --�' L - - - - -- - = '----- - - - - -- UPDATE FOR - - = =� =_ - - - -_ - __--- - - - - -- HIGHWAYS 101 PR 5 EL MNAR ALIGN - AND LAND USE STUDY 11okingl Koc>;Icr Group Inc. MCI ®© 1'el(•,C 5 Figure 2 Alternative Alignments' \ I ,.S •'• \ `L study Area Boundary Lake Susan :••.v. ���: -•'� 1, _ It ,l - -• -. _. _ \ 111\ ~.. l (� `iy`, \ Y' Study Area � r� - 7 : •— ) , ` (\�' i � :c Boundary---V\ IX �^� 1 ;,- � .•• � �/ o , --'^i_ -,� %rte � ': n., `-' � �-+% / \�`\ CITY OF CHANHASSEN Alignment Alternatives , UPDATE FOR ` HIGHWAYS 10115 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT • AND LAND USE STUDY ZEEE- `\ Hoisington Koegler Croup Inc. 1a pa6 -� EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES At the first neighborhood meeting conducted on May 17,1993 the four alternatives were presented for comment by land owners and neighbors. A partial evaluation of the alternatives was presented and input was taken as to neighbor acceptance and landowner preference. At that time a list of criteria was presented and subsequently ' modified considering neighborhood participant input. The evaluation criteria utilized is included in Table 1. Each alternative was scored based on its impacts on cultural resources, wetlands, vegetation, neighborhood compatibility, extraordinary development ' cost, traffic conflicts and carrying capacity, impact on trail linkages, neighbor acceptance and landowner preference. Table 2 represents the rationale used in scoring the alternatives. Table 3 represents the scoring summary. Based on an objective evaluation of the alternatives, Alternative 3, which is the westerl shift of the approved alignment, scored highest. It can be termed the preferred ' alternative. If, on the other hand, Alternative 3 is approved as the preferred alternative, the City will either have to mitigate the loss of the wetland it traverses or suspend the roadway on a causeway to allow for limited coexistence. If weights were imputed to each criterion, the outcome could change. The present evaluation assumes that all criteria are of equal importance. U 1 CHANHAS \9321 \HWY_101.RPT Page 7 1 Table 1 SCORING OF TH 101 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES 5 = NO ADVERSE IMPACTS (Traffic, Values, Noise, Visual) 3 = MINIMAL IMPACTS /ABILITY TO MITIGATE ' 1 = POTENTIAL MAJOR IMPACTS /LOWER VALUE HOMES/ LIMITED BUFFERING CAPABILITY EXTRAORDINARY DEVELOPMENT-COSTS 5 = NO EXTRAORDINARY COSTS 3 = MODEST EXTRAORDINARY COSTS , 1 = EXTRAORDINARY COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO GRADING TRAFFIC CONFLICTS AND CARRYING CAPACITY 5 = NO CONFLICTS , 3 = MANAGEABLE CONFLICTS 1 = MULTIPLE CONFLICTS EFFECTING CARRYING CAPACITY , IMPACT 5 = CLEAR SEPARATION OF MODES /SAFE CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS 5 = NO RESOURCES IMPACTED 3 = LIMITED RESOURCES IMPACTED ' 1 = SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES IMPACTED WETLAND IMPACTS ' 5 = NO DISRUPTION 3 1 = MINIMAL DISRUPTION = MAJOR LOSS /REPLACEMENT ' VEGETATION IMPACTS 5 = NO LOSS OF SIGNIFICANT TREES 3 = MINIMAL LOSS OF SIGNIFICANT TREES 1 = MAJOR LOSS OF SIGNIFICANT TREES COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD /BUFFERING CAPABILITY ' 5 = NO ADVERSE IMPACTS (Traffic, Values, Noise, Visual) 3 = MINIMAL IMPACTS /ABILITY TO MITIGATE ' 1 = POTENTIAL MAJOR IMPACTS /LOWER VALUE HOMES/ LIMITED BUFFERING CAPABILITY EXTRAORDINARY DEVELOPMENT-COSTS 5 = NO EXTRAORDINARY COSTS 3 = MODEST EXTRAORDINARY COSTS , 1 = EXTRAORDINARY COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO GRADING TRAFFIC CONFLICTS AND CARRYING CAPACITY 5 = NO CONFLICTS , 3 = MANAGEABLE CONFLICTS 1 = MULTIPLE CONFLICTS EFFECTING CARRYING CAPACITY , IMPACT 5 = CLEAR SEPARATION OF MODES /SAFE 3 = MINIIVIAL CONFLICTS 1 = SERIOUS CONFLICTS NEIGHBOR ACCEPTANCE 5 = PREFERRED ALIGNMENT BY MAJORIi°'- - :•,. 3 1 = ACCEPTABLE ALIGNMENT BY MAJORi1 ' . = UNACCEPTABLE ALIGNMENT BY MAJORITY ' i ANDOWNER 5 PREFERENCE = PREFERRED ' 3 = ACCEPTABLE 1 = UNACCEPTABLE CHANHAS \9321 \HWY_ 01.RPT Page 8 171 • Table 2 HIGHWAY 101 CORRIDOR EVALUATION RATIONALE FOR SCORING ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA RATIONALE CULTURAL RESOURCES Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 all would traverse the area where archaeological artifacts have been found (see Attachment 4). WETLAND IMPACTS Alternatives 2 and 3 will alter the entire ' wetland while 1 and 4 will impact only the western edge (see Attachment 5). ' VEGETATION IMPACTS Significant trees lost* Alternative 1 ...................... 17 Alternative 2 ::::::::::::: : 74 Alternative 3 :::::::: 79 Alternative 4 ...................... 44 * Desirable species 6" or greater in size. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the greatest direct impact. Alternative 2 would leave a remnant of land that would attract lower value homes. ' EXTRAORDINARY DEV. COSTS Alternatives 2 and 3 would have about equal major cuts and fills while Alternative 4 would ' have a slightly lesser cost impact. TRAFFIC CONFLICTS Alternative 1 would have numerous driveway /turning conflicts, while access can be controlled with all other alternatives. IMPACT ON TRAIL LINKS Alternatives 1 and 4 do not fill the wetland and thus require at -grade rather than grade - separated crossings. NEIGHBOR ACCEPTANCE Based on the May 1993 neighborhood ghborhood meeting, it was concluded that the majority of residents could accept - Alternatives 2 or 3. LANDOWNER PREFERENCE All prefer Alternative C'] CHANHAS \93-21 \HWY_101.RPT Page 9 Table 3 IMPACT MATRIX SCORING ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS 5 WETLAND IMPACTS 3 VEGETATION IMPACTS 4 COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD/BUFFERING CAPABILITY 1 EXTRAORDINARY DEVELOPMENT COSTS 5 TRAFFIC CONFLICTS /CARRYING CAPACITY 1 IMPACT ON TRAIL LINKS 1 NEIGHBOR ACCEPTANCE 1 LANDOWNER PREFERENCE 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 3 1 1 5 1 TOTALS 22 21 5 = LEAST IMPACT 1 = MOST IMPACT ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS 1. EXISTING 101 ALIGNMENT 2. APPROVED ALIGNMENT (1989) TO REFLECT NEW INTERCHANGE 3. WESTERLY SHIFT OF APPROVED ALIGNMENT 4. USE OF EXISTING TEMPORARY ALIGNMENT 27 20 CHANfW \93- 21 \HWY_101.RFr Page 10 Figure 3 Natural Features � - J :: TLAND Study Area Boundary 200 400 SIGNIFICANT r ; VEGETATION Lake Susan ARCHEOLOGICAL FIND ' 93 -CR -1 o R Q4 ` i �,: S . - ^ rte •• %-+ -._ _ 11 r.. Y \ :•� - , �`'.;c. �,� > >••_- �u����- '. 'r r` / '�� �jf� �• `� u tr •,r b C y-` - ' - �_: ---�- ICI' ' �. /•' "'�. = _ � . �\. _� � �. " ��� l�l. \ ;i- 7�� ° Study Area Boundary I` CITY OF CMANHASSEN _ Natural Features .� , �- — -- - - - --- UPDATE FOR HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGM:°:NT - AND LAND USE STUDY Hu,smgtun 6uegler (soup Inc. m© ®8 Page 11 n Z � a 200 400 Figure 4 Natural Features V.."1": SIGNIFICANT VEGETATION Lake Susan ARCHEOLOGICAL FIND 93-CR-1 A 0 1_1 Study Area Boundary---#. L; _p 7- e L 1 CITY OF CMANHASSEN Natural Features UPDATE FOR HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT 7 AND LAND USE STUDY I' Hipisington Koettler Group Inc. ma an Page TLAND Study Area Boundary 4� :�` Z2 - 9r z; 1 CITY OF CMANHASSEN Natural Features UPDATE FOR HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT 7 AND LAND USE STUDY I' Hipisington Koettler Group Inc. ma an Page TLAND Study Area Boundary zl f�� r Figure 5 Preferred Alternative It _Study Area Boundary e .00 .00 APPDXINIATE GRADING LBMTS Lake Susan crss zi ' Q- f ` "T•Otli A8CE65 �`.•! /j —�\\ I \- (i.: 'rte': / �\ `+ �"1 j T. -, =-�� } � ,off- .J�._., _ � �� _� •• % -;\_ - .� ^ ---\�� ��-� cv Study Area — - `• . -- - / \ Boundary --+, � \ � F J � 4 ^" .�.� -_� j .��, -�: • +` i �� j /'�� � -. i• • ��� I I I 1 � r ` •"Sa � `,i - -� l ,�/ AGES$...\ \� CITY OF ZliANHASSEN U PROPOSED ALIGNMENT _ i f L UPDATE FOR -__ -.t� _ ______ —_ HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT AND LAND USE STUDY (ALTERNATIVE 3) ' � � �� .•IY.M1 IN. i Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. • Page 13 I DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS ,* Roadway Character. Alternative 3, the preferred alternative, is intended to be a four lane divided roadway which is designed as an urban section (with curb and gutter) but with a median ditch. It is intended to be suspended above the creek to allow for a grade separated pedestrian crossing and a reduction in the vertical alignment to 4% over a distance of approximately 800 feet. The remainder of the Alternative 3 alignment will have a center line grade of less than one percent (1 %) or one (1) foot of rise in 100. The horizontal alignment for Highway 101 is intended to accommodate a design speed of 49 miles per hour. This would suggest a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour. If the speed is intended to be increased to 45 miles per hour, a limited amount of super elevation or tilt will be required. The problem with using super elevation with an urban roadway section is the diminished effectiveness of costly curb and gutter on one side of the roadway. The construction grading limits extend beyond the proposed right -of -way in some areas due to extreme topography. Nonetheless, 100 feet of right -of -way, as measured from the center line of the median, is proposed for the east side of the roadway. This dimension can be diminished to as little as 90 feet in the vicinity of West 86th Street. An expanded right -of -way is proposed for the west side of the new highway extending all the way to 1 the westerly right -of -way line of existing Highway 101. This area is intended to be used for extensive landscaping and berming. n Landscaping. While the landsc concept embodied in the or ' Bermrng and p g p � 1989 corridor study is intended to remain intact, the landscaping and berming westerly of the preferred alignment is intended to be very intense. At Section A, (see Figure 6) r there will be a 75 foot distance between the old and new rights -of -way. A natural berm will be created by roadway excavation. This area can be further supplemented with earth materials and then landscaped to create a significant barrier for the residences on , Lake Susan. At Section B, the area between the rights -of -way shrinks to just 20 feet but the existing land form allows for the construction of an eight foot berm with landscaping as a supplement. Throughout this area, extraordinary berming and landscaping is proposed as a means to mitigate the potentially adverse environmental effects of the roadway on adjoining residential properties. At Section C, the new Highway 101 will be depressed creating a natural berm as a shield for the juxtaposed neighborhood. There is also a considerable horizontal separation between the houses on Lake Susan and the proposed roadway. The intent throughout this segment of roadway is to literally divorce the future roadway from the established neighborhood and return existing Highway 101 to ' local street status. u CHANHAS \93- 21 \HWY_1O1.RPT Page 14 m 0 Existing 081 R. Proposed 2f5' R.0 W. Residential LandlUse A I EtH1Mg Vegetation Dee L sarmm W eve m I ) I Plant"@ r Proposed Medlw� WM Wedh« Ple"Illm" I Grade --- - -- -- - /'— - - - - - - - - ExIstbg Grade SECTION A I b — ----------- x------------ - -- - -_--_ Reside IIM Land Use ExIstingsw_IL t Median Wall Vgldr000r I th R.O.W. ExIstIng Graft - w SECTION B c p gr fD tT Residential Land Uss, I Exist 66' R.O.W. FIT"Illed 240' R-9.W. . ..... 1111"WHINE. Few PIN V ,Exlstmg Graft ----------------------------------- - - - -- Proposed 'Gkr;"do C . SECTION C (BASED ON ILLUSTRATIVE LAND USE PLAN / ALTERNATIVE #3) 21 Figure 7 Trails and Sidewalks Q C'. •i i� _ _ '=e— Study Area Boundary o =oa .00 APPDXIMATE GRADING LIMITS ' Legend Lake Susan _ 1o' Multi -use Trait - - - - - -- 10' On- street Commuter Bike Lane ......••.. S' Sidewalk �'- .,� • t - C 1Z OUT 1 :!�\ aye t:. \ \. - lip - t �• ^ ACCESS `i_ \�— `: r• •� r '•• f —� - 4] • I �I I1 NUJ.':..., _ .� -� �. _ — .- ^/� \ '%• .SD`R _ - � ./�., _"� . y�l� , 'k. tea• �.. - _ ✓i �- ;F .•� _� /, � a � �;' \ \� Study Area - -� i ; �; .. _.,^ _.. _- ._ —•— �• < p �_ � j J I I CITY OF CHANHASSEN Ij TRAIL and SIDEWALK PLAN UPDATE FOR HIGHWAYS 101 /5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT _ \ z _ AND LAND USE STUDY j' tALTERNATIVE 3) Hoisingtun Koecler Group Inc. ®© no ���• Pace 16 Trails. The Trunk Highway 101 corridor through Chanhassen is proposed to include trails which focus on two primary. =user groupsa 1) Bicycle commuters 2) Recreational users on wheel or foot. With a new emphasis being placed on biking as a legitimate form of transportation and recreation, design standards need to keep pace with safety concerns and trail use. Studies have found that avid bike commuters and long - distance riders will more likely use a wide shoulder than a separated bike path which is interrupted by driveways, curb cuts and slower moving recreational users. Research has also indicated that commuters 1 are much more likely to adopt bicycle commuting habits if a facility is designed for that purpose. On the other end of the spectrum, recreational trail users find their activity much more enjoyable and safe if there is less concern about "getting in the way" of fast moving bikers. Trails along the Highway 101 corridor through Chanhassen are proposed to be separated and designed specifically for their users. The 10 foot wide shoulders on either side of T.H. 101 can become designated one -way (with traffic) commuter bike lanes. These lanes will accommodate the serious bikers who are traveling at higher speeds with the intention of arriving at a destination. The lanes are also wide enough to allow use by autos as pull -over lanes. The commuter bike lanes can be striped and marked to inform bikers and autos that it is appropriate that they share a roadway. Intersections and turning lanes will require careful striping to accommodate safe bike travel. A separated trail on the west side of T.H. 101 will be a 10 foot two -way, multi-use trail intended for slower moving recreational users. The trail will provide a more leisurely experience by meandering somewhat through trees and over berms. There is a potential safety concern by combining recreational biking with pedestrian use but due to the commuter bike lanes accommodating the faster moving bike traffic, any potential hazard should be minimized. Bike and recreational lanes will be part of the new bridge over Highway 212 in the same configuration as the rest of the roadway. The recreational lane will be separated from the auto traffic by a Jersey barrier. Park and Ridelrransit Hub. Southwest Metro Transit Commission has identified a need for a Park and 7­ lot located at the intersection of Highways 212 and 101. Originally thought to be condary facility given its rather southerly location in the City, it may be evolving as a aahsit hub -which is intended to serve the residents of Chanhassen and Chaska. The pr Park and Ride lot is intended to be located in the southeast quadrant of the ' .terchange such that it would have direct access onto the eastbound entrance ramp c ' -lighway 212 to expedite the movement of buses through the Park and Ride lot. I CHANHAS \93- 21 \HY: , PT Page 17 The Park and Ride lot is intended to accommodate 300 or more cars. It will be officially mapped by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Since the Park and Ride lot will not be operable at least until Highway 212 is constructed, a temporary facility may be needed. A location north of the interchange may be appropriate for temporary purposes. CHANHA.S \9321 \HWY_101YTr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page IS LAND USE PLAN ' The land use plan departs only slightly from that developed in 1989. It includes a buffer zone between the existing and proposed Highway 101 alignments which area is to be heavily landscaped and bermed to separate the homes along the west side of Highway 101 from the future roadway alignment. The former plan proposed single - family residential in the void between alignments. The buffer extends southerly along Highway 101 encompassing the existing right -of -way which is intended to be landscaped to establish a screen or buffer yard between single- family and higher density residential areas. A second change is the inclusion of medium density residential north of the access to Chanhassen Hills on the west side of proposed Highway 101. The change in the alignment of Highway 101 has created a natural medium density residential area to serve as a buffer for the lower density single - family housing to the north and west. The area south of Highway 212 on either side of the proposed Trunk Highway 101 alignment is proposed for mixed use development including commercial, office and housing. This area is designated for mixed use primarily because development may need to await the construction of Highway 212. The uses that may occur post year 2000 are difficult to predict, however uses that might be anticipated include hotels and motels, standard restaurant (non fast food), banks and financial institutions (SIC 601 - 609), offices and clinics, garden supply stores (SIC 526), home furnishing, appliance and electronics stores (SIC 571 -573), health services (SIC 801 -811), amusement and recreation services (SIC 791 -799), business services (SIC 73) and multi- family housing. All development in this area is proposed to be by planned unit development. In the area lying northeasterly of the Highways 212 / 101 interchange, and desi ated for Y g Y 8n neighborhood convenience and highway service uses, uses intended to be accommodated include convenience stores with fuel pumps as an accessory use, drive - up establishments including restaurants and banks and other convenience uses that I generally service day - to-day needs of the surrounding neighborhood. I CHANHAS \93-21 \HWY_101.RPr Page 19 Figure 8 \� a \ - WERANB Land Use Plan - r' OFF - - SF `ice '�: • �_ . j�t _ - � ` -- - -- � - -- N �'' BICYCLE PATNWAYS j1� Study Area Boundary s.... VAS '`- 200 - 100 e W ETLAND Os Lake Susan /?" J l . ..� - '•�.,•. \ ,\ . _ BUFFER \ MD`y — � 1 — 9U4R .._ .. W : asura�r� �. .: �,o.. . • " 1z^�/py. ����a /���. /tom- 1!�� � �3 -ti " -' • /. .11`x/ MD Ole. C C G r, t_ � �'ry 7 � � P�Np ` WEZL,�►'W , ��_ - ✓- _ �":' : ':�, - . � � �. BUFFER" i - _ - ..`� •�•�`•�.�. o�' \_�.i" � ` ,y' l , �.=� ` ` . Study Area -- j r j E - � -•- -_•�-• -. -' . -. ._,_, ��' "..� - - �2' � a' Boundary L- v. HD CL - � ' � . � �� ;. •..--;` ate ___ _ ;� _ - ; , ;- \� \ - .•. _ � Q �� �_ � • � I �� � _ter -�.. _ - 'i�- .0 ILLUSTRATIVE p LAND U PLAN ` MX I $ CITY OF CHANHASSEN C /OFF 1 OFF (BASED ON ALTERNATE #3) WETLA PO ";HOUSING... HOUSING UPDATE FOR HIGHWA`` , 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMENT -+ AND LAND USE STUDY �'�--_ -- Huisinrlun Koe111er Group Inc. 10 313 on Pate 20 •� TRAFFIC AND ACCESS 1 1 1 fl A number of roadway improvements are proposed which depart from the original 1989 plan. Cul -de -sacs are proposed for the north end of existing Highway 101 and the connection of the Klingelhutz property to the old highway. In the vicinity of the Klingelhutz farm, the road is intended to be realigned to the east out of the existing right -of -way to allow for landscape buffering on the west side of this new roadway segment. The connection into Chanhassen Hills is also intended to be more direct linking the westbound exit ramp with Lake Susan Drive. Access is intended to be carefully limited throughout this segment of Highway 101 to street intersections only south of existing Great Plains Boulevard. Areas where exceptions will be considered include a right in /right out access on the east side of Highway 101 between the Trunk Highway 212 interchange and West 86th Street. South of the interchange, one principal access, whether or not it correlates with a public street, is intended to be allowed on each side of the highway. Other accesses to these properties are intended to be from Lyman Boulevard. PUBLIC UTILITIES Limited sanitary sewer and public water supply availability exists with the study area to accommodate immediate development south of Highway 212. For the larger area to continue to grow , it will require the construction of a new lift station south of 212 and a force main parallel to future Highway 101 to connect to the MWCC interceptor sewer lying north of Lake Susan. These improvements are proposed to be constructed in 1995 and should be timed to be built within the proposed Highway 101 right -of -way. Water service is also available in limited fashion within the corridor to serve immediately proposed developments. A future trunk watermain is proposed within the Highway 101 corridor which should be timed with the availability of the highway's future right -of -way. C ANHA.S \93- 21 \HWY-101= Page 21 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Official Mapping ' Because of the delay in the construction of Highway 212 and the rapid growth of the City of Chanhassen, it is imperative that the preferred alignment be officially mapped in accordance with Chapter 462.351 of the Minnesota Municipal Planning Act (see page 3 of the 1989 Corridor Study for procedures). Adoption of the official map may qualify the City to utilize RALF funds for the acquisition of needed right -of -way. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Needed An EAW will be needed before any funding can be authorized for highway improvements. Most of the study information needed to fulfill EAW requirements has already been completed as part of this Highway Corridor Study. Along with official mapping, the preparation for or completion of the EAW process is the next logical step in the project development time -line. Temporary Highway 101 Alignment Because of the delay in the construction of Trunk Highway 212 at least until after the turn of the century, it is probable that a great deal of additional growth will occur in the general vicinity which will exceed the carrying capacity of Trunk Highway 101, given its peculiar alignment and multiple access points. While it will be very difficult to build a temporary alignment that would correlate with the future alignment for Trunk Highway 101, due to the need to traverse a substantial wetland area south of Highway 212, it may become necessary to build Highway 101 in advance of Highway 212. In the event this occurs, a temporary alignment may need to be established which can carry the projected traffic but does not require expensive highway construction and a wetland intrusion. The plan, therefore, gives consideration to a temporary alignment which can be substantially used as part of future Highway 101. Financing Financing will necessarily be a cooperative effort for a variety of reasons. MnDOT wishes to disengage itself from the roadway and pass it on to the County as soon as possible. The County recognizes Highway 101 as an important arterial highway, the only one which extends from north to south in eastern Carver County, an one which might appropriately be under the County's jurisdiction. The City must '- . concerned about its citizenry and the potential impact of excessive traffic on the Lake Susan neighborhood. Finally, landowners need the highway since it will serve a limited local street function. They have an interest in defining and setting the right -of -w - _y aside so that it can be incorporated with future development plans for the corridor. All have a stake in participating in a project solution. Thus, a blended financing approach is recommended. CHANHAS \9321 \HWY_101.RPf Page 22 J Figure 9 ' °_ Temporary Alig nment ' �� es `•. ,-:� � CT� �b .. t - -�� �F�r`: �lY. -- • ems- � —T�� -ti �_�� �— • , �, t u` -- G Study Area Boundary i o toe .00 APPDXIMATE GRADING LIMITS Lake Susan p F_4T 11i T -O :. \ \ Z. C ❑ ,/� . \ A. _ _ AC / a � l\` /,_- yam— ,1 ' =• �•'' /�� `t � 1 1 P.T. �i Study Area -, 'vim -, \ /t �2 Boundary --�. .r,.•' M - I'. • -- �,_�•�. _. -it �, 7�c'�` ry Alignment 1 1 ._.,�� - e'e;� �- ." \G, / % -• \\ \�\ - i '.� r^ �•r'� / I d I • a ter, ` "_ I t _� I i S LESS ;1l' CITY OF CHANHASSEN TEMPORARY ALIGNMENT UPDATE FOR 7 HIGHWAYS 101/5 PRELIMNARY ALIGNMRNT -_ - �� - —' AND LAND USE STUDY \ C - ,.` - { (ALTERNATIVE 3) Huisingtun Koegler Group Inc. � a a Page 23 Setting aside the future right -of -way for Highways 212 and 101 may be imperative to construct a temporary connection of Highway 101 south to Lyman Boulevard. RALF funds should be considered as a funding source for land acquisition within this corridor. Landowner Dedication. Landowners, for the most part, have an interest in the relocation of the roadway and its compatibility with future corridor development. The new highway also serves a limited local street function for proximate developments. Thus, landowners should be required to dedicate land equivalent to satisfy the right -of -way needs for a local street (60 feet) north of 86th Street. The remainder should be acquired by the City. In the interest of insuring that utility construction can occur within the future right -of -way, all right -of -way acquisition should be completed no later than early 1995. In the event right -of -way cannot be acquired by that time, easements will need to be obtained to facilitate public utility construction. Inter -modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISMA). ISTEA is a source of funding for projects that are multi-modal in nature and can demonstrate balance in accommodating pedestrians and public transit, thus improving the efficiency of transportation within the corridor. This is a limited funding source that is about to undergo a third round of funding (April 1994). It may be 1995 or 1996 before CHANHAS \9321 \HWY- 1O11U7T Page 24 City to Protect Right -of -Way. If the City had elected not to play a lead role in the project on behalf of its citizens, the project might have entailed the simple widening of existing Highway 101 to four lanes to accommodate the projected traffic volumes (11,000- 15,000 vehicles per day in 2005). It voluntarily intervened to establish the alignment and carry out the official mapping. Its continuing role should be to continue to protect the right -of -way from encroachment and, as such, purchase properties where development is imminent or hardship warrants. Sources of financing may include RALF funds or tax increment financing (TIF). TIF will require the extension of the downtown redevelopment project area boundary to encompass the project. A relatively small amount of money can be expected from this source particularly because the highway project and its associated development will not create new tax increment. TIF should be viewed as a form of gap financing used primarily to insure that the right -of -way is protected. Another use of TIF might include the construction of roadway aesthetics (e.g., berming, landscaping and screening). Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Program (RALF). RALF is a revolving fund program whereby the Metropolitan Council provides loans to local municipalities to purchase lands within officially mapped state trunk highway rights -of -way. Money is loaned to municipalities with no interest charge and the City is responsible for the acquisition and holding of the property until such time as it is needed for highway construction. At that in time MnDOT will acquire the property from the City and the money generated this manner will go back into the revolving fund for future right -of -way acquisitions. RALF funds are generally used to relieve hardship or protect the right -of -way from imminent development. The Willis Klein property may qualify for acquisition utilizing RALF funds and, if at all possible, that acquisition should occur as early as 1994. There is some uncertainty as to whether RALF funds will apply to Highway 101 inasmuch as it is a temporary state trunk Highway. Setting aside the future right -of -way for Highways 212 and 101 may be imperative to construct a temporary connection of Highway 101 south to Lyman Boulevard. RALF funds should be considered as a funding source for land acquisition within this corridor. Landowner Dedication. Landowners, for the most part, have an interest in the relocation of the roadway and its compatibility with future corridor development. The new highway also serves a limited local street function for proximate developments. Thus, landowners should be required to dedicate land equivalent to satisfy the right -of -way needs for a local street (60 feet) north of 86th Street. The remainder should be acquired by the City. In the interest of insuring that utility construction can occur within the future right -of -way, all right -of -way acquisition should be completed no later than early 1995. In the event right -of -way cannot be acquired by that time, easements will need to be obtained to facilitate public utility construction. Inter -modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISMA). ISTEA is a source of funding for projects that are multi-modal in nature and can demonstrate balance in accommodating pedestrians and public transit, thus improving the efficiency of transportation within the corridor. This is a limited funding source that is about to undergo a third round of funding (April 1994). It may be 1995 or 1996 before CHANHAS \9321 \HWY- 1O11U7T Page 24 applications are again taken for enhancement projects. The funding is provided by the v Federal Highway Administration atd admuusf6red by MnDOT. Cooperative Agreement Funding. This, too, is a limited funding source which is used primarily to fund smaller projects in the range of $400,000 - 500,000. Money is provided by MnDOT for projects that are designed by the local unit of government. Right -of -way is also expected to be purchased by the local unit of government. One of the main objectives of this funding source is to correct safety problems. Given the unusual vertical and horizontal alignment of existing Highway 101, in conjunction with growing traffic volumes, this project may qualify for such funding. Turnback Funding. MnDOT is most interested in divesting itself of existing Highway 101 and would like Carver County to take it and maintain it as a county road. Generally, such roadways are improved by MnDOT before being turned over to the County and limited funding is available for such projects. Some portion of the segment of Highway 101 extending north from 86th Street should be funded by turnback dollars. County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Funding. Since State Trunk Highway 101 is such an important north -south roadway in eastern Carver County, it would seem appropriate that a certain portion of the highway project be funded by County State Aid Highway Funding. This would require that the County include it as part of its County State Aid Highway system. Once again, only limited funds might be available utilizing this mechanism for highway improvements. Any County State Aid Highway funding would necessarily be blended with tumback or cooperative agreement funding. Special Assessments (429). Limited special assessments may be necessary to provide a funding source for the City's share of storm drainage improvements and landscaping. While the majority of the cost should be borne by the project, some storm drainage may need to be constructed as a project element which also services private properties. The desire on the part of the City to heavily landscape the corridor may also exceed that which can be borne by the project. Special assessments may be an appropriate source of funding for extraordinary landscaping. 1 I', 1 CHANHAS \93- 21 \HWY_ 01.RPT Page 25 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes and Diane Harberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Ledvina STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Fred Hoisington, Consultant for Highway 101 Realignment PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW AND SELECT ALIGNMENT OF HIGHWAY 101 FOR USE WHEN IT IS WIDENED IN THE FUTURE. APPROVAL OF THE "OFFICIAL MAPPING" OF THE SELECTED ALIGNMENT. THE SECTION OF HIGHWAY BEING EVALUATED STARTS AT HIGHWAYS AND RUNS SOUTH TO LYMAN BOULEVARD. Public Present: Name Address Al Kl in g elhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Fred Hoisington presented the report on this item. Scott: Any questions? M Mancino: Yes. I have a few questions. Fred, which alternative is the most expensive? Have you done pricing on 1, 2? Hoisington: Well we haven't really done Nancy pricing but I can tell you that the two alternatives, the one, 2 and 3. 1 Mancino: Are the most expensive? Hoisington: 4 would be the next. And of course the cheapest one would be the use of the existing alignment. [1, 1 t Mancino: And are 2 and 3 twice as much as 4? Hoisington: No. I wouldn't say they're twice as much as 4. 4 really takes a pretty good cut through the topography. There's going to be a lot of cut and fill associated with that but I would say it's twice as much or more than 1. Mancino: And between 2 and 3, do you have an idea which one is more costly? Hoisington: I would say Nancy that they're very close to the same. The difference would be that you're probably taking the two houses would make a difference but we're also leaving right -of -way on the other side of the road so it's kind of hard to say that it would be that, equal to the cost of those two houses. But very close to the same I would say. ■ Mancino: And another question Fred. When we, if we were to go in and do, let's see 2. We would go into the wetland area which has considerable impact and number 3 would also. Where would the mitigation of the wetland take place? Hoisington: That's a good question. Paul, have you given any consideration to where? Mancino: And is it 2 to P Krauss: Oh it's 2 to 1. It may even be higher than that given that, depending on how you... It would be easier to answer if MnDot was doing the planning. MnDot has the ability to... this virtually anywhere in the State—Now when we do projects in Chanhassen we have a desire to keep the mitigation within our communities since we want to keep the benefit within our community. We don't know where that would go. I mean you really have to find out exactly how much it is and then you actually have the obligation to buy up that area and do it. I think that there are going to be opportunities to do that. For example the Bluff Creek corridor where we want to establish expanded wetlands anyway. We're working with Diane Desotelle, our Water Resource Coordinator to establish ... so there will be places we can identify. Mancino: Okay. That's it. Scott: Any other? Conrad: Yeah. In terns of the wetland impact, other than sheer size, at this point in time Fred how can you tell us what it will do to the wetland? There's a lot of functions to the wetland. Will it, in terms of filtration and what have you, will that function be destroyed? Pf :^� Hoisington: Well Ladd there are a number of ways you can deal with wetlands. Paul and I have talked about the possibility of building a causeway. It's not inconceivable but would be very expensive to build a bridge. Remember, no matter what you do. Whatever you do with Highway 101, you're going to impact that wetland to a degree. It's only a matter of degree 2 r Planning Commission Meeting - February 16, 1994 1 and alternatives 1 and 4 both affect it. They don't affect it to the same degree as alternatives 2 and 3 do. The third alternative, other than a causeway or bridge would be to simply fill it. In which case there will be substantial damage to the wetland. There will be no wetland in that location and it will simply have to be moved elsewhere. Conrad: So the function of the wetland right now is what? Krauss: Well maybe I can touch on that. it's ... fairly good quality wetland. That whole wetland, the Rice Marsh Lake wetland suffers serious problems. There used to be a package, sewage treatment plan or small—plan back before the metro plans were established. And I also heard there was a, maybe Al can confirm that but a turkey farm or something... with the result being that the sediments at the bottom of the lake are very organic and basically—and it's been a problem for us that every time it rains, it washes that stuff out of Rice Marsh Lake and into Lake Riley. So it's a problem that needs to be addressed. We don't have all the answers to this Ladd and I think at this stage it's reasonable not to. When we designed... Minnewashta Parkway, we don't allow the ... and those are the things that can be done. I would say though, you've got to take the Rice Marsh Lake ecosystem in it's whole context. You can't just pull out of the western corner of it and work with that. Because otherwise those problems stay there. We're aware of it. It's probably something we can work out a cooperative project with the Watershed District, which was exhibited a number of years ago. Conrad: It's like I don't mind filling the wetland. I just mind it if it destroys a function that can never be replaced. So if it's habitat, we can create habitat some other place. That's not a big deal. But if it's a filtration that costs ... I hear what you're saying. It's sort of like saying we can solve the problem yet we're going to pick an alignment and one has a rating of, a system of less impact and one has more and it's really subjective. I don't mind the more impact except if it's putting this into a real bad situation and that's sort of like trust me and I'm not sure because we don't know yet. Krauss: Well one of the things State law requires, and Army Corps is this thing called sequencing. That we go through an alternatives analysis to see if it's possible to do this without impacting the wetland. And the conclusion is, no. It's not possible. There's only a narrow neck of land between the two water bodies. It's already occupied by the road. Yes you can decide to do nothing. I mean that's one of the alternatives we're obligated to look at. Or ' .iep the right -of -way right where it is right now, which would severely impact all the hom- .a the lake are'. -., guably come up, you know if you expand the road in place there, you M., z just as much Pasd surface area helping all that much more water into the Rice Marsh. Lake ecosystem. We still have to treat it. We don't know the answers to all that stuff right n w and I think it's a substantial design effort... I think it's really beyond the scope of what w intend to do right now. We approach this as a land use and transportation issue. 3 1 Planning Commission Meeting - February 16, 1994 We also approach it from the standpoint that there are people out there who's homes and lives are affected by this decision and this thing has been up in the air for a number of years and we thought that we owe them some resolution to that. Conrad: Fred, when you take down 79 trees, and again I don't mind taking down trees. What, unless it significantly changes the character. 79 as compared to what? When we take down some old trees, what are we left with out there? Have we destroyed a large percentage of the hardwoods? Have we destroyed a small percentage? What's the character that has been left as we put this road through? Alternative 3 road. Hoisington: Ladd...in the course of the former alingment, the alignment further to the north, I as you know the vegetation there was impacted but it was not nearly the quality that the vegetation is in this corridor. This will have a significant impact and I, there will be vegetation elected on the east side. I don't believe there will be anything left. There will be along the existing alignment of TH 101, some of the major oaks that are there will be left. Vegetation will frame the road on both sides. As far as the percentage of the total stand there, I'm not sure exactly what that percentage would break down to. All I can say it's a significant loss. I think you have to make the assumption, this assumption. And Paul eluded to this. That if the road is to be unproved, there's going to be a substantial impact. You can't avoid it. There's no way you can avoid it in this case. And if for example you were interested in going with alternative 4, which appears to have a relatively minor impact in comparison to alternatives 2 and 3, you also lose something in terms of the vertical alignment of the roadway. What we're able to do in this case is to maintain a 1, for the most part a 1% grade. There's a little stretch that's a little steeper than that but if you end up trying to put that all the way down as low as you can make it so you minimally impact the wetland, you end up with not the best vertical alignment for the road. I don't think there's any way you can avoid a significant impact there. I just don't know how it would be done. And even if we hadn't used, hadn't moved the road over already and tied in at this point, we'd still have to confront these very same problems. Harberts: I guess I just have comments. Fred kind of touched on it. That this is probably a project that the community, in terms of the values that we try to bring to commission on the environment. That 101 certainly is going to, is a road that's going to have a major, play a major role in the community, especially in the area of development and from my perspective, what I, Fred I think you did a very good job. You've certainly been working on this for a while but it's pr^'- - ply one where we really have to look at the role that this roadway will play in the community and in a sense bite the bullet with regards to 'some of the values that we're trying to bring to all of the developments. I guess I would just encourage this commission, as well as the City Council, to look at the alternative that's going to best serve the need of mobility in this community. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - February 16, 1994 Scott: Jeff. I Farmakes: I support 2. No further comments. I think the issue, if you want me to make some further comments under open discussion. Scott: Please. Farmakes: This is something that has to be done and as the staff representative here has said, there is no easy solution to this and the issue seems to me, if it has to be done and we're looking at what's the best way to do it. The way with the least amount of impact does not solve the issue of traffic, which is the reason we build highways because they're very expensive and if we build them, we should build them well. I think all of us have seen areas of the metro traffic system that break down in spots and are poorly designed and the reason for that is, not necessarily that they had the opportunity to design them well. There were extraneous, usually extraneous guidelines that they had to follow. Either politics or neighborhoods or so on. I think that the issue affords to me the maximum return on the least amount of damage and if there isn't a cost factor, the difference is wash between 2 and 3, I'd go with 2. Harberts: So your preference is number 2 based on if it's a wash of the complete cost? I Farmakes: It seems to me that the trees issue is a wash. The environment issue is a wash. It seems to me that between 2 and 3, it has less of an impact and again, if you throw everything up in the air, I see 2 I'd support over 3 but 3 would be a close second. I think it has to be done. Scott: Fred you were mentioning that by the year 2005 there's going to be 11,000 vehicles per day to 13,000. Hoisington: 15,000. Scott: To 15? Could you give us an example of a roadway, it sounds like it's about half of Highway 5. If you can give us an idea of the roadway here. Are we talking Powers? And then if you could tell us also, how much traffic does TH 101 have on it today? Hoisington: TH 101 as recentLyiaa; do you have, the current traffic? The traffic has been growing rather dramatically on Tit 101. When N* first started this study we were only like 2,500 vehicles per day just south of Highway 5. I'm going to guess now. That sounds reasonably that we probably have closer to 4, maybe 5 at this point. Of course we've dispersed that a little bit because we still have existing TH 101 which is the curly Q and we n I s IFI fl 1 1 t Planning Commission Meeting - February 16, 1994 also have Market Boulevard. So we're now dividing that up to a degree so it's kind of hard to say what the traffic is really there wanting to be in that corridor and once the old road is cut off, how much of it is actually over on the other one. As far as a comparable street as far as traffic volumes in the city, with 15,000, is there another one? Krauss: Well TH 101 north of TH 5 operates... Scott: Oh okay. And that is kind of 2 lanes, kind of 4 lanes. Mostly 2. Krauss: In that state. Scott: Okay. Also too from a speed limit standpoint, who decides the speed and then how does that work with who pays? Hoisington: Well MnDot has a great deal of control over your lives when it comes to setting speed limits but typically the way it's established, I think it's 80% of, David knows that. 80% of traffic should travel at less than the speed limit that you set because you're going to have a certain number of people that are going to travel in excess of that speed limit in any case. The problem is if you set it wrong. Let's say you set it at 40 and really it should be 50, then you've got a real problem in this case and I guess that decision will have to be made later and if it's determined that it's a 50 mph roadway, then there will have to be some super elevations. It won't change the alignment or anything Joe, it will just simply have a kilt to it. Scott: It will change the cost. Hoisington: It will change the cost. Well, the cost probably won't be that much different. I wouldn't say there would be that much cost difference. It's just a matter of tipping it so that people can stay on it. Scott: Okay. And then, let me think. Also from a waiting standpoint, and I can appreciate where you're coming from and having everything being equal. If the other commissioners want to do this, do you feel it'd be appropriate to talk a little bit about which of these items should be weighted more heavily than others, if any? Because I took at look at one, I was trying to determine, what would be at least in my mind the least important and I have to ask Fred a question about, when you talk about *' impact on the trail. I notice that the third alternative, I think if you took that particu s npact out or if you minimize it's weight, then the alternatives become within 1 or 2 pointh ..id it pretty much becomes a wash. So if you could please tell us a little bit about your thcughts on impact of the trail and is it a cost item? Is it a safety item? Is it both? r I Planning Commission Meeting - February 16, 1994 1 " Hoisington: It's a grade separation situation Joe. With alternatives 2 and 3 you actually can run the trail underneath the roadway. With alternatives 1 and 4, you will have at grade crossings. The whole idea was to minimally impact the wetland. Get the road down as low as you can get which means you can't pass a trail underneath it without putting a sump pump or whatever down there to accommodate it. So it really is a matter of grade separation. That's the whole difference in that. Now, I think that's pretty important and I would give that some weight but there are things, there are criteria in there that probably are not equal in importance to some of the others in this case and we haven't tried to suggest that one is or is not. In that case trails is grade separation, that's what the difference is. , Scott: Okay. Do any of the other commissioners want to discuss the weighting at all or just take it as is and go from there? Mancino: Let somebody else do it. Conrad: Joe it's impossible to figure out. P g Scott: Okay, good. I wanted to toss that out to see if anybody want to go with it. Any other comments or questions for city staff? Conrad: Just one. There is a median in alternative 2 and not in alternative 3. Hoisington: Both of them have medians. They're both almost identical roadways Ladd. 24 foot. Mancino: I have a quick question. On page 17 under trails. The last paragraph before the park and ride transit. It says that a recreational lane will be separated from the auto traffic by a jersey barrier. Hoisington: Yes. Mancino: What's that? Hoisington: Up here on Highway 5, the railroad bridge has a jersey barrier. But I think that one also has a fence above it. The reason it has a fence is because it's so tight to the traffic I� lane. I believe that's why there's a fence. This one we would not want r^: see a fence on top i of because we think it's ugly to begin with. But it'd be the same jersey V, Tier. Stands about 3 1/2, is it David, feet tall? And it's just one of those things to separate Nancy the traffic from the pedestrian. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - February 16, 1994 Mancino: So if I'm looking at Figure 6, Section B? Or Section C and I go to the right side of the page, where it says proposed 240 feet right -of -way. There is that 10 foot trail. Inbetween the 10 foot trail and the right -of -way is this jersey barrier? Hoisington: No. No. The jersey barrier we'll only have on the bridge. The Highway 212 bridge. That's the only place it will be. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Scott: Good. Any other comments? This is a public hearing so if anybody would either like to speak either for a particular alternative or against a particular alternative, please step forward and state your name and your address into the microphone and if you have any exhibits or anything, we'll try to help you position them so they can be picked up on the video. Al Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz. I live on 8600 Great Plains Blvd in Chanhassen. I guess it's just too bad that Highway 212 is being delayed as much because virtually all of this road would have been built by the State Highway Department because it's going to be a major road into the city of Chanhassen. A collector street. I'm not going to talk about what Fred mentioned before about the assessments. I think we can talk about that later. But I really think it's time that the landowners, and I'm one of them. Keith Barts was ready to sell his property in 1988. A lot of discussion on this road in '89. Where it was going to go. I've got four purchase agreements in my file at the office that were offers for Barts' property at that time and because of the fact the road alignment was never set, they all backed away from it. Today I've got another purchase agreement on Barts property and I guess in order to make the sale come through we're going to have to have a mapping of that road so that any developer that comes in actually will know where that road's going to go. It's been a problem. I know we've had 2 or 3 neighborhood meetings. A good share of the people at these meetings approved alternate 3. Number 3. I don't think any one of the alternatives, even though they're, put alternate 4 up there once more Fred. ...and to me I think alternate 4 would affect the wetland more than any one of the other alternates. It's closer to Rice Marsh Lake and there is more potential for any more wetland in there. Hoisington: This one you're talking about Al? Al Klingelhutz:. T t- x: ie that swung out the furthest. Hoisington: Oh, you're talking about alternative 2? Al Klingelhutz: Yes. Where the road is now is the least amount of wetland and I don't 8 I Planning Commission Meeting - February 16, 1994 t believe that if the road wasn't there, there would be much difference in the wetlands. That wetland was filled and the bridge was put through underneath the road at the time and it took away some of the wetland where the road is. You know but I would think, I sure hope that you come up with a final conclusion on it and I believe alternate 3 that you're recommending and the neighborhood seems to support it the most. There were 1 or 2 against it. I _ understand one fellow bought the house and one guy in one house just soon get out right now. And that's ... He's as old as I am. Probably not in quite as good a shape but he'd like to get out so. I didn't like the one where the spread was about 300 feet inbetween. You'd have a row of houses between two roads. In the business I'm in, I know what a problem it is to even sell a lot between two major roads and the type of houses you'll get in there would not benefit the neighbors who live on Lake Susan. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Let the record show that there is no one else. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ladd. Conrad: I said what I had to say. Scott: Okay. Any other comments? Can I have a motion please? I Harberts: I'm not making a motion yet but I would be inclined to go along with staff in the report in terms of alternative 3 as a preference. I would just like to have a little dialogue with the other members as to what. I know where Jeff stands or desires in terms of what was a close call. 2 or 3. Farmakes: 2 represents slightly less damage, is the extent of the difference. If there's not a price difference, I don't. It's negligible the difference. Just figure the less is more. Scott: And they both have about similar impact relative to the trees and so forth. Mancino: I think one was 79 and one was 74. Scott: Yeah, 74 or something like that. Farmakes: What I don't want to see happen is that we come up with an alternative that isn't going to work as a highway. 9 14 Planning Commission Meeting - February 16, 1994 Scott: That the highway's going to go from a scenic connection between Shakopee and Chanhassen and kind of a local traffic, to now where it's going to be draining toward 212 so. Especially heading south and going north so. I was kind of tossed between 2 and 3. I could support the staff's recommendation. Conrad: I can too. Mancino: I can too and I would say for 3, the reason being is, or the pros that Fred put in his report being that it was good buffering for the homes abutting Lake Susan and that there was total use of land between existing TH 101 and the proposed alternate 3. I think those were the strong points for me that were written in the report. Scott: Okay. Are we ready for a motion? Mancino: I move that we approve Alternate 3 alignment of Highway 101. Scott: Is there a second? Harberts: I'll second that. Scott: Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we adopt the staff recommendation. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend Alternate #3 for the official mapping of Highway 101 from Highway 5 running south to Lyman Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Harberts: Paul, are we looking at like a 3 or 4 year perhaps actual build time when funding can be found, at the earliest? Krauss: It's possibly less than that ... As Fred mentioned earlier, what I'm beginning to believe is going to happen, we may well need to build the temporary improvements to serve development in that area long before anybody is ready to do it. The issue of MnDot funding is a very tough one ... fallen another 2 or 3 hundred million dollars behind to committed projects. This is one that they haven't been committed to since 1933 so. Harberts: How did that Governor Carlson's State of the Address, I can never get it straight. When he somehow found $94 million for highway. How does that impact 212? 1 10 Planning Commission Meeting - February 16, 1994 1 Krauss: We're not sure. That was funding at the were reinstituting for projects that they g Y g had previous funded but cut. Harberts: But did that include 212? Krauss: My guess is that it might but typically what happens is you've got to figure on outstate getting 60 cents on every dollar. Harberts: I was just wondering. I hadn't had a chance to check out the numbers. Krauss: Well $30 million doesn't buy a heck of a lot when it comes to roads. Harberts: No it doesn't. Especially when it's is it the...familiar with that key funding, � Y Y Y , g that perhaps you're not ready to move ahead with this type of thing through the current solicitation. Krauss: Well we're not sure which category to put it first of all. I mean I see it as a wonderful program but ... is also underfunded. The feds approved it and they funded it at 80% of the level that they approved it at and people at MnDot are given actually less transportation money throwing—than before. Plus there's more handout for it because communities like Chanhassen can get it for pedestrian bridges, to Southwest Metro and other things. It all used to go to straight highway construction. Harberts: Well I'm just thinking with the, looking at the innermotal aspect of this is the trail, the park and ride. I would think that it would certainly be a top candidate. Krauss: Yeah but it unfortunately it is from a local standpoint and certainly desirable. But it's not a major highway in the regional system. Harberts: Oh I see. So it's one of those minor arterials type of things? Krauss: Yes. Harberts: What about with President Clinton's funding proposal, what was it, $400 million in capital funding. I think that came out in President Clinton's budget. Is that an opportunity that ISTEA might be funded at a higher percentage? Krauss: Diane I don't know but I've heard over the years, I'll believe it when I see it. Harberts: Okay, thanks. 11 I Planning Commission Meeting - February 16, 1994 Scott: We have a second public hearing tonight and due to the situation of notices, vis a vis the adjoining property holders, we will have a public hearing but we will continue the public hearing until our next Planning Commission meeting which will be on the 2nd of March. Also item number 3, Lotus Realty Services, we will have a public hearing but that public hearing will be continued until our next meeting. So there will be no motions or there will be no action taken on items number 2 and 3 of the agenda until the next meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CHANHASSEN KINGDOM HALL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 3.800 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH TO BE CONSTRUCTION ON AN 87.113 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL LOCATED ON LOT 1. BLOCK 1. CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CHICAGO. MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD AND WEST OF AUDUBON ROAD. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Harberts: Has Public Safety had a chance to look at this with regards to the circulation of cars in the parking area? Aanenson: Yes. Harberts: And they're okay with it? Aanenson: Yeah. The only issue that they raised was that the appropriate marking of...and they felt that was fine. Harberts: What about with regards to public safety. Aanenson: Turning radius of emergency vehicles? Harberts: Right. Aanenson: Yeah. Harberts: That works? Aanenson: Yep. Harberts: Okay. Was that in the report or it just wasn't... 12