7. Review an Affirmation of Alignment for No Hwy 5 7
C ITYOF
1
04:1j ilv: 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
I TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
1 DATE: February 25, 1993
I SUBJ: Review an Affirmation of Alignment Alternatives for the North Highway 5 Access
Boulevard
I As the Planning Commission is probably aware, work is continuing on developing the Highway
5 Corridor Plan. One aspect of this plan deals with coordination with MnDOT on the design of
Highway 5 main line improvements as well as coordination between the city and MnDOT on the
I construction of the north access boulevard, referred to as "Arboretum Boulevard" in the enclosed
materials. In conjunction with the Hwy. 5 development program, the city has gained MnDOT's
support not only for Hwy. 5, but also participation in the right -of -way acquisition and
1 construction costs on portions of Arboretum Boulevard. MnDOT is utilizing the new federal
transportation bill in part to justify support for the city's efforts in constructing this roadway.
This roadway will also ultimately have a beneficial impact on Hwy. 5 since it is designed to
1 intercept local trips from throughout the northern half of our community.
For this local /state funding and design effort to proceed, it is important that the Hwy. 5 and
I Arboretum Boulevard programs track together. The city is funding drafting of the Environmental
Assessment document that is required to obtain state and federal funding for Arboretum
1 Boulevard. The City Council views this as an investment that will secure a considerably larger
amount of state and federal funds as a part of cost sharing for the roadway itself.
I Arboretum Boulevard Background
The idea for what is now being called Arboretum Boulevard goes back to the city's 1990
I Comprehensive Plan. It contains a description of access boulevards to be located on either side
of Hwy. 5. The one located south of Hwy. 5 is somewhat discontinuous due to existing
development patterns. The one located north of Hwy. 5, which is now being referred to as
I Arboretum Boulevard, has the potential of extending from Hwy. 41 over to Hwy. 101, east of
the Chanhassen CBD. At the time the comprehensive plan was developed, it was believed that
this road would be important to manage traffic issues.
1
Neil PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Planning Commission
February 25, 1993
Page 2
' The idea of parallel frontage roads or access boulevards was given great emphasis by the plan
developed for the City by Bill Morrish and his staff. Bill viewed these roads, particularly the
northern route with its continuity, as an extension of the main street of Chanhassen. In part, this
' stems from its connection to West 78th Street in the Chanhassen CBD, but also because of its
continuity throughout the community. Their report described these routes as high amenity
boulevards that could be used to orient development. The goal was to avoid having development
oriented to the main line highway which is what has been normal practice in most communities.
The typical pattern having a 300 foot wide corridor for a 4 -lane highway, an 80 foot wide
corridor on either side of the highway for frontage roads, and potentially up to an additional 200
to 300 feet of black top beyond for parking lots, is what has yielded the bleak urban vision of
University Avenue in Fridley. Rather the report conceptualized focusing development on these
routes directly. These routes also offer a means for residents to utilize a much more user friendly
facility to get from their homes to community parks, schools, centers of employment and
shopping opportunities.
' As these early plans were developed, staff began working in earnest with MnDOT to secure their
cooperation and support their ultimate construction. MnDOT agreed to help fund only the
northern route. Their decision is based upon the fact that only the northern route offers full
' continuity across the community. Additionally, MnDOT had already proposed building short
segments of a frontage road in this general vicinity to serve properties whose sole access would
otherwise be directly to Hwy. 5. As time went on, staff worked with MnDOT to develop a joint
approach towards coordinating the construction of this roadway along with Hwy. 5. MnDOT
support was conditioned upon the City of Chanhassen's undertaking the completion of the
Environmental Assessment document that is required to secure the use of federal funds. The City
Council authorized this expenditure and gave firm guidelines to staff and the Highway 5 Task
Force that it was imperative that the Hwy. 5 project itself not be delayed because of this effort.
Additionally, MnDOT established the ground rule that their participation was linked to the
coordination of the construction of Arboretum Boulevard with Hwy. 5.
Highway 5 Task Force Actions
The analysis of potential alignments has been reviewed by the task force on several occasions.
1 Preliminary alignments were developed by Chanhassen staff and our consultants from Barton
Aschman, Inc. The alignments were based upon several factors including consistency with the
city's comprehensive plan and Morrish studies, an analysis of existing and proposed land uses,
environmental constraints and opportunities, including wetlands, topography, significant
vegetation, and upon traffic engineering criteria. Two routes were developed which are basicly
in the northern and southern alignments. The southern route closely approximates a typical
frontage road in location, while the northern route offers the opportunity for having development
occur along both sides of the street. The Highway 5 Task Force determined that in terms of
design characteristics, the roadway was to use a narrow 32' paved, two -lane roadway. The street
' is to be equipped with a grade separated 10' trail. Its alignment is curvilinear and generally
1
1
Planning Commission I
February 25, 1993 1
Page 3
follows the terrain of the land to minimize environmental impact and maximize the views that
would occur along its route. It is anticipated that there would be an extensive landscaping packet
1
along with the roadway.
• t
e.T.
L i i 1,4.0.W. . I ,r.� j tt-e r-rr. ( 4- -cr •_ •.K 4r i i , w- 27—re Q-
.e-tr Ito w,
I
1
The Hwy. 5 Task Force attempted to refine these alternatives on two occasions. Although there
are essentially two routes, the total number of alternatives is complicated by the fact that there I
are two cross -over points located on either side of Galpin Boulevard in the vicinity of Bluff
Creek. Thus, there are actually a fairly significant number of alignments that could result. The
Hwy. 5 Task Force had some rather lengthy and arduous discussions on attempting to eliminate I
some of the alternatives and thereby facilitated the completion of the Environmental Assessment
document. What we ultimately found was that they were unable to restrict the number of
alternatives at this time since the full analysis of the ultimate land uses and urban design issues
of the corridor has not yet been completed.
Due to the need to keep the completion of the Environmental Assessment document on track,
I
staff took several actions. With the concurrence of the Mayor, we asked the consultants to keep
in all of the alternatives at this time. Thus, it is anticipated that all the variations of the north
and south routes with the cross -over points will be studied in the EA. It is anticipated that by
time the EA is completed later this spring, the Hwy. 5 Task Force will have sufficient
information to make recommendations as to a firm alignment.
Planning Commission Action
To keep this project on track, it is important that the city undertake an official review of the
II
potential alignments for Arboretum Boulevard. After undertaking this review, the City Council
will be able to formally act to initiate the Environmental Assessment process. To keep this
process on track, it is important that this item be brought not only to the Planning Commission
for a public information meeting, but also to the City Council and have formal action completed
by the end of March.
I
1
1
1
Planning Commission
1 February 25, 1993
Page 4
The Planning Commission is being asked to review alternatives. You are also holding an
' informational meeting where you can receive additional testimony. The roadway concepts have
already received significant comment from property owners who are directly affected. If the
' alternatives under study are considered to be inappropriate by you, you do have the ability to
eliminate various segments of the two alignments. If however, you are comfortable with the
proposals as currently drafted, we are asking that you affirm them and forward them to the City
1 Council for their action. Please keep in mind that along with the Hwy. 5 Task Force, the
Planning Commission and City Council will have the opportunity to make final decisions on the
ultimate right -of -way.
1 RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm the draft alternatives for analysis in the
Environmental Assessment document.
MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Obtaining the state's agreement that Arboretum Boulevard should
be built using state /federal dollars will likely be seen as one of the most major accomplishments
' of the city during the 1990s. Costs proposed as a part of the project include acquisition, road
construction, trail and landscaping costs, right -of -way acquisition, and partial payment for the two
bridges proposed to accomplish pedestrian movement adjacent to the new elementary school - -a
' total cost estimated of over $5 million. The decisions to include this project with the Highway
5 upgrade did not occur overnight or in a vacuum. No less than 20 agencies had the power to
kill it, and no less than 50 meetings occurred over the past two years to ensure that all groups
1 were oaring in the same direction. Key players included our engineer /planning staff, Mayor and
City Council, HRA, Bonnie Featherstone, Bill Morrish, Bill Crawford/Evan Green, Southwest
Coalition, Barton - Aschman, etc. The importance of keeping these groups together is elevated by
the recognition of the importance of the road for local traffic /pedestrian transportation, including
the recognition that the project could not likely be built solely with local dollars. Only the
westerly one -third of the project is likely to be upheld as a "public improvement project" where
1 costs are deemed to "benefit" abutting properties.
To date, MnDOT continues to support either of the alternatives coming out of our citizen task
force, but we are also nearing a tumbling of the pyramid. Specifically, the further north that the
frontage road moves, the less foundation exists for the original project, i.e. decongestion of
Highway 5 by removing local traffic, inclusion of pedestrian movement within the Highway 5
corridor, softening typical highway construction, and reducing the number of entries /exits from
mainline movement.
1 What's the bottom line? We need to continue to keep MnDOT as a decision maker in the final
selection process.
1
1
BARTON- ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
111 T -D Ave South Sete 350 • to nneapo s (vi nneso'a 55401 USA • 1612) 332 -042 • Fax (612) 332- 6180
1
MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth
Paul Krauss
Kate Aanenson
Charles Folch 1
COPIES TO: John Mullan
Barry Warner
111
Dave Warzala
James Unruh
FROM: Deborah Porter V
DATE: February 17, 1993 1
SUBJECT: Arboretum Boulevard Alternatives
1
In our last correspondence dated February 3, 1993, we requested concurrence by the
city staff on the currently proposed alternatives and cross -over options for study in the
Environmental Assessment (EA) (see enclosed graphics). This memorandum and
attached information sheet address the purpose and schedule of the EA document and
critical path of major tasks prior to the programmed construction letting date of
February 1996 for both the TH 5 mainline and Arboretum Boulevard projects.
As also stated in our February 3 letter, if it is determined that the cross -over options
should be added to the Alternative 1 and 2 corridors for study in the EA, it will be
necessary to modify the scope of work and compensation to incorporate these changes.
Based on a review of the preliminary engineering and environmental analyses outlined
in Tasks 1.1 through 1.4.25 in our original scope of work, we estimate that the
incorporation of the cross -over options in the EA would cost approximately $14,770
including labor and expenses. This work would include preliminary layouts, cost
analyses, environmental impact and mitigation analyses, and response to agency and
public comment on the possible cross -over alignments.
It is MnDOTs understanding that the Arboretum Boulevard project will be 111
incorporated into the 11 5 Design Project which is programmed for February 1996
construction. A review of the critical path timeline prior to that date indicates the need
for completing environmental review and most of the final design work on the
preferred alternative by the end of 1993 in order to begin right -of -way acquisition in
early 1994. Right -of -way acquisition for a project of this scope typically requires a two -
year period prior to construction, which is programmed for early 1996. Therefor Eii EiVED
t-EF ` 1993
) PARSONS c _
JTRANSPORTATION GROUP t
y CrtY - 0F Ci- ANHASS
1
1
I February 17, 1993
Page 2
1
the Arboretum Boulevard project is to remain on track with the TH 5 mainline project,
I it is necessary to make a final selection of the alternatives for study in the EA by the
March 22 City Council meeting to adhere to this schedule.
I The attached project overview has been prepared to inform those involved in the
project and the public as to the intent of the EA process, potential funding sources, and
anticipated schedule of activities related to the Arboretum Boulevard project.
I Please contact me if you have questions about this process or necessary actions by the
city prior to initiation of these activities.
1
dmv
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
ARBORETUM BOULEVARD I
PROJECT REVIEW
This information provides an o verview of the environmental review process, potential I
funding sources, and anticipated schedule of activities for the proposed Arboretum
Boulevard project. 1
The proposed project will function as an access boulevard to provide access to
developing areas of Chanhassen and to facilitate local trips in this area thereby reducing
1
the amount of local traffic on TH 5. The proposed design is a two -lane urban roadway
and adjacent bicycle /pedestrian trail that meets geometric standards and minimizes
environmental impacts. 1
Purpose and Scope of Environmental Assessment (EA)
I
Federal and state - funded transportation projects in Minnesota must follow environmental
review and public involvement procedures mandated by the Federal Highway I
Administration (FHWA) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MnDOT)
under the provisions of current regulations. A comprehensive review of the
socioeconomic and environmental impacts of two build alternatives and the no -build (do I
nothing) alternative will be contained in the EA document. Potential mitigation
measures for identified impacts will be included as well as addressing any concerns
expressed by regulatory agencies or the public. The EA document will be made I
available for public and agency review and comment at a public hearing during this study
process.
At the state and federal levels, the EA is conducted to provide sufficient information to 1
determine the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or that a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Negative Declaration (for an EIS) is appropriate.
1
Project Funding Sources 1
It is anticipated that a combination of federal, state ( MnDOT), and local (city) funding
will be available for construction of the proposed project. Right -of -way acquisition costs
are expected to be funded by the city and MnDOT contributions. Based on MnDOT's t
preliminary review of the proposed alternatives, and past commitments to purchasing
controlled access along TH 5, MnDOT has indicated their support in contributing to
right -of -way costs associated with those portions of the proposed access boulevard that 1
are adjacent to or very near the TH 5 mainline right -of -way limits. Further discussion
1
1
1
1
between the city and MnDOT is necessary to determine those parcels that may be
I included in such an agreement. MnDOT will also provide project overview and
sponsorship of the EA and design documents.
1 Critical Path Timeline
I The following schedule of major tasks and approvals needed for the proposed Arboretum
Boulevard project is based on the understanding that the project is incorporated into the
TH 5 Design Project which is programmed by MnDOT for a February 1996 construction
I bid letting. The critical elements and their time frames of this three -year schedule are
listed below. Construction activities are preceded by right -of -way acquisition which is
anticipated to begin in February 1994 (two years prior to construction). Environmental
I review, various permit applications, and the majority of final design work must be
completed for the preferred alternative prior to initiation of right -of -way activities.
Therefore, the environmental and preliminary engineering work for the proposed
I alternatives must be completed in 1993 to adhere to this schedule. It should be realized
that failure to meet this schedule could jeopardize the funding opportunities for the
Arboretum Boulevard project and possibly delay the TH 5 construction activities.
I Public Issuance of EA and Public Hearing; Review of August 1993
Preliminary Design
I EA /FONSI Determination; Preliminary Design August- November 1993
Review
I Permits Acquisition; Construction Limits December 1993 - February 1994
1 Right -of -Way Acquisition; Final Design Activities February 1994 - February 1996
I Construction Bid Letting February 1996
w been prepared to inform the City project overview has p p tY Staff and Council, and
I Planning Commission and TH 5 Task Force members.
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
CITY OF
Att CHANHASSEN
8 itt
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN,
MINNESOTA 55317
0 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
February 17, ] 993 1
Mr. Jim Andrews
Co- Chair, Highway 5 Task Force
131 Fox Ho11ovv. Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Jim: _ //
I appreciate the concerns you voiced in your February 8, 1993, letter regarding the progress or
lack of progress of the Task Force. After attending the last meeting, receiving your letter and
discussing the matter with staff, I can agree with many of the things you outlined.
Taking the road issue first, it is important that the Highway 5 upgrading program stay on 1
schedule and it is equall} important that the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the frontage
road tracks with it. Any delays could jeopardize its status with MnDOT and have a major impact
on the a. ailability of State and Federal funds. This last factor is extremely important since
MnDOT's agreement to fund a majority of the frontage road represents a major change in their
policies. Additionally, they have recently agreed to consider not only construction costs but also
right- of -v.a} acquisition as well.
We have been informed that the City Council must approve the frontage road alternatives being
studied in the EA by no later then mid -March at the latest if we are to keep on schedule. As a
result. I am having staff place the alternatives on the March 3, 1993, Planning Commission
agenda for public comment and planning on having it referred to the City Council for their
March 8, 1993, meeting. Input developed by the Task Force on this issue to date will be made
part of the record and the attendance of these meetings by any of your members is welcomed.
1 realize that you are also concerned with staff's action to have the consultants revise the
alternatives being studied after the last meeting. I think that if you look closely at the situation
you will find that staff has only acted to keep the door open on alternatives that were discussed
by your group and not to change any directives that were received. By keeping. this matter
moving forward, I believe that options are being preserved and more effective decisions can be
made later this spring as the study progresses.
1
L PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1
1
Mr. Jim Andrews
February 17, 1993
1 Page 2
As for the other concerns you outlined, I can agree that the Task Force needs to become more
1 focused. In part, this may reflect back on a lack of direction received from the City Council.
However I am sure that several past and present members of the Council believed that their
direction was contained in the study that was completed by Bill Moorish and his staff Last year.
1 I think that staff's approach of developing goals and policies is a good one and urge you to keep
working to move your group forward. The discussions that you undertake on these important
issues are vital if the City Council is to make educated decisions later on. I would also be happy
1 to discuss ways of improving the function of the Task Force with you in person.
S' re
-
onald J. C • el
1 Mayor
pc: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Paul Krauss, Planning Director
Gene Borg. Chair, Hwy. 5 Task Force
City Council
' Planning Commission
Highway 5 Task Force
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
February 8, 1993
•
Mayor Don Chmiel 111 City Of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 '
From: Jim Andrews
Co- Chairman Highway 5 Task Force '
Dear Mr. Mayor,
I am writing this letter because of personal concern about the lack of direction and progress
the Highway 5 Task force has been able to make. At our January meeting we were able to
make several motions which were passed. I received a letter form Paul Krause stating that
staff has decided that the Task Force decision were expanded to now again include all
various north route options. I have no personal preference as to what options we choose. '
My concern is that the Task Force is being directed by staff in the direction staff deems as
proper and correct. If staff needs to modify a Task Force motion then present these
modifications prior to passage of a motion or present their recommendations in the form of
reconsideration of a motion. If the intent of the City is to use staff planning and
recommendations than why not disband the Task Force and save the City money and the
members a lot of personal time. I would be the first to agree that the City planning staff
and the various consultants contracted by the City have far more expertise about this
complicated project. '
Secondly, Paul's letter stated that as a Task Force, we need to create a overall mission
statement. We have been meeting since last Fall with very little progress. If there is a need f
for a mission statement, that mission statement should come from City Council. We are not
an independent entity with freedom to choose our own direction. We are a Task Force
appointed by City Council. We have an assigned task to do. If we are unable to perform
our task, as its seems we are at this moment, then we should request the City Council to
either provide a more specific request for task completion or have the City Council disband
the Task Force. I am constantly frustrated by those among the group that feel we can not
make any even small decision without some grand unified consideration of all aspects of the
project at once. Perhaps the Council should prioritize specific areas, such as road design, 1
land use, building designs, landscaping, etc., and assign due dates. It is not possible to make
timely progress if we can not make small decisions and then begin to build. There is nothing
to say that as a group that we may not go back and reconsider a previous decision if we
r
1
v better, however a Task
discover a b r, more acceptable solution later. We are h Force with a
I deadline to meet and many businesses and residents waiting for the City to move forward.
I would appreciate your reaction to my concerns. I also do not wish to put any blameerryog
I anyone regarding my concerns. I believe we are are all struggling in our own way to reach
our goals. I think the problem is that we need a stricter task master( The Council), a more
specific task, and a better understanding of the roles we are all to play.
1
1 Sincerely,
1 Jim Andrews
7014 Sandy Hook Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1 937 -0516
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 .
1
1
1