Loading...
1g App Min CC 4/10/00 ~ CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING APRIL 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Labatt, Councilwoman Jansen, Councilman Engel, and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Scott Botcher, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, and Dave Hempel APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the agenda amended as follows: The following consent agenda items l(a)(2), I(h) I(i), and I(m) were amended, and deleting item I (k). PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: . a. Powers Ridge Apartments, Powers Boulevard: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Approval of Development Contract/PUD Agreement as amended. 3) Approval of Plans & Specifications for Phase I, Project 00-04. c. Approve Traffic Control Sign Agreement No. 79738R between MnDot, the City ofChimhassen, and the City ofChaska, Project 97-IB-3. . . e. Approval of Revisions to the Strategic Plan. f. Approval of Findings of Fact, Boeckermann Wetland Alteration Permit. g. Approval of Bills. h. Approval of Minutes: · City Council Work Session Minutes dated March 27, 2000 . City Council Minutes dated March 27, 2000 as amended on page 8. Receive Commission Minutes: · Planning Commission Minutes dated March 15, 2000 · Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 28, 2000 i. Ballfield Advertising Signage Program, Chanhassen Athletic Association. j. Accept $2,500 Contribution from Tonka United Soccer Association. City Council Meeting - April I 0, 2000 I. Accept Petition for Utility and Street Improvements, Crestview Circle, Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Study. m. Acceptance of Library Needs Assessment, M S & R. n. Accept $2,000 Donation from Pillsbury for Safety Camp. All voted in favor and the motion carried nnanimously. D. APPROVAL OF JOINTS POWERS AGREEMENT WITII SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT. . Councilman Senn: I pulled this item because I would like to make the counter motion to it instead to move that we leave the Joint Powers Agreement as it exists now and continue representation as was set up under the original Joint Powers Agreement. Mayor Mancino: Okay, you've made the motion. Is there a second to the motion? Is there a second to the motion? Then is there another motion? Councilwoman Jansen: Move approval. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? . Councilman Engel: Second. Councilwoman Jausen moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the Joint Powèrs Agreement with Southwest Metro Trausit as presented. All voted in favor, except Counc.ilman Senn and Mayor Mancino who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of3 to 2. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR BUSINESS SUBSIDY. LOT 3. BLOCK 1. CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 8111 ADDmON. EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and City Council. Attached for City Council's review is a private redevelopment agreement between the City ofChanhassen, L38 and LLP. L38 and LLP will meet two of the three qualifications in increasing employment within the State, preserve and enhance the tax base of the City of Chanhassen. The estimated amount of incentives available total $51,270.06. That is the outstanding special assessments against this lot. Staff is recommending approval of the private redevelopment agreement Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any questions from Council members to staff at this point? Councilwoman Jansen: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay, seeing none, or hearing none, is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this? You're certainly welcome to come up, give your name and address. This is a public hearing. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to Council. Any comments from councilmembers? Otherwise may I have a motion and a second. 2 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Councilman Senn: I have one comment first that I want to make sure is in the record please. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: And that is that I want to make sure that this approval is contingent upon it staying within the four year sunset dates as established, as I believe were established under the original approval of the district. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. May I have a motion please and a second. Councilman Labatt: Move approval. Mayor Mancino: Okay, a second please. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approve the Private Redevelopment Agreement with L38, LLP and their reqnest for $51,270.06 in city assistance contingent upon it staying within the four year sunset date as established under the original approval ofthe district. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT. 851 WEST 78TH STREET. TARGET CORPORATION. Dave Hempel: Thank you Madam Mayor. Target Corporation is in the process of expanding their building and the current easements of record inhibit that process. The applicant is requesting the City vacate the existing drainage and utility easements and will replace them with the relocation of the utilities with the building expansion. It's a relatively straight forward action. We are recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions for staff from council members on this? Councilman Senn: Yeah one. David, when will we see the actual site plan of the remodeling or the addition or whatever? Dave Hempel: We have received drawings already. Behind me here is kind of a site plan showing the building location in relation to the existing parking lot. We also have drawings of the building profiles. Councilman Senn: But that will be coming through the process then? Dave Hempel: That is an administrative review process only and staff, it will be dealt with at the staff level. Scott Botcher: The Community Development Director is preparing a report for you. The drawings that we have are pretty basic at this point and it's my expectation that on the 24th she'll give you a full report on where they are in their process. So what we have right now are conceptual renderings basically to take the action that you are considering this evening. 3 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Councilman Senn: Okay because this is a PUD if I remember right, isn't it? Or not? Scott Botcher: I don't think so but I. Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, couldn't hear you. What did you say Mark? Todd Gerhardt: It is a PUD. However, they're making modifications of less than 10% of the site plan so it can be done administratively. Mayor Mancino: But Kate will still show it to us next week or on the 24th anyway. Scott Botcher: My expectation is that it's in two weeks. Mayor Mancino: Okay. May I have a motion please? Councilman Engel: Move approval. Mayor Mancino: And a second? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. Councilman Engel moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approve a resolution vacating portions of drainage and utility easements located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall grant to the City of Chanhassen a revised 35 foot wide drainage and utility easement over the proposed sanitary sewer and water lines. The proposed sanitary sewer main must be a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the drainage and utility easement. 2. The applicant shall provide to the City of Chanhassen the necessary security to guarantee installation of the sanitary sewer line, water line, manholes and fire hydrants. The security shall be in the amount of $25,000 and shall be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. 3. The fire hydrant located at the northwest comer of the building shall be kept after relocation of the water line. This hydrant may be relocated in the same general location. 4. The applicant shall provide the city with a revised legal description reducing the vacation area near the southwest comer of the building from the proposed 17 feet to 10 feet in width. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES FOR TRUNK mGHW A Y 101 FROM PLEASANT VIEW ROAD TO WEST 78TH STREET. PROJECT 97-12. Public Present: Name Address Angela Schlender 680 I Brule Circle 4 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Chuck Simon Dave Robinson Nancy Glancy Sandra Sedo Jim McIntire Mary Maurice Leon Narem Tom & Marcia Ries Sandy Gassman Terry & Sue Sender Lynn & Brian Thompson Virginia Hudson Frank & Myrna Kurvers Eric Lavanger Alfred Berry Nick Gassman Steve Bloom Bill Hille Jay P. Karlovich Jay Strohmaier Sue & Allen Applegate Paul & Lenore Dryke Joan Thatcher Sy & Sandra Resnik Don Constable Charles B. Hallau Mike & Pat Miller Cindy & Dan Russ Margie Swanson Kent Oliver Jim Lacey Bob Flynn Scott Fransen Kelly Czech & Denelle Flesner-Czech Chantha Rathana Greg Lindsley Dianne & Dean Whiting Jeffery A. Breckheimer Frank Mendez Kurt F ossey Bobi & Rick Murray Tim Love Colleen McCreight Jim Erny Deb Kind John & Nell Segner Debra & Daryl Kirt John Glatty Jane Luse 6801 Brule Circle 25 Pleasant View 7021 Cheyenne Trail 7644 South Shore Drive 7531 Erie Avenue 7644 South Shore Drive 20 Sandy Hook Road 6600 Sally Lane 6800 Brule Circle 20 Twin Maple Lane 41 Hill Street 7007 Sandy Hook Circle 7220 Kurvers Point Road 6790 Brule Circle 7023 Cheyenne Trail 6800 Brule Circle South 678 I Brule Circle 7131 Willow View Cove 1910 Whitetail Ridge Court 80 Sandy Hook Road 7360 Kurvers Point Road 105 Choctaw Circle 7024 Dakota A venue South 7370 Kurvers Point Road 7017 Cheyenne Trail 6770 Brule Circle 71 Choctaw Circle 679 I Brule Circle 131 Choctaw Circle 6540 Gray Fox Curve 121 Choctaw Circle 40 Hill Street 151 Choctaw Circle 7000 Sandy Hook Circle 7004 Sandy Hook Circle 75 10 Chanhassen Road 5 I Hill Street 81 Castle Ridge Court 7361 Kurvers Point Road 7381 Kurvers Point Road 15 Choctaw Circle 7010 Sandy Hook Circle 6561 Foxtail Court 7008 Sandy Hook Circle 2351 Lukewood 30 Hill Street 50 Hill Street 21 Basswood Circle 6979 Pima Lane 5 City Council Meeting - April I 0, 2000 Paul Weatherby Scott Wolter Brian Corey Steve & Monica Posnick Gary & Lisa Stewart Ed & Peggy Bennett Bob Mortenson Dan Shoemaker Greg Fletcher Steve Donen Mike Wegler Lois Anderson Jeff Grover Paul Golden Gerald Bell Rich Vemes Mel Kurvers Karen Hoffner Tim & Diane Robyn N. Moschet Carol & Harvey Parker Gregory & Lori McMillan Herb & Betsy LePlatt Mitzi Shimp Liza Bloom Gordie Thompson Douglass I. Wolf Dort LeBran Tom Peterson Tom Kelly Jeff & Lena Otolski Mark S. Christensen Carey Bohn Steve Mestitz Michael Manning Sandy & Craig Carbon Laurie Burfeind Alan Lem Suzanne & Shannon Senn Barbara J. Vemes Brenda Vatland Ruth Shoemaker C. S. Teresa Burgess Terese Krulik Lezlie & Mark Greene James R. Carlson Chas. D. Betts 135 Choctaw Circle 6850 Chanhassen Road 6805 Brule Circle 7010 Dakota Avenue 51 Choctaw Circle 7017 Sandy Hook Circle 7371 Kurvers Point Road 7380 Kurvers Point Road 7616 South Shore Drive 7636 South Shore Drive 6630 Mohawk Drive 145 Choctaw Circle 60 Twin Maple Lane 6780 Brule Circle 21 Twin Maple Lane 83 Castle Ridge Court 7240 Kurvers Point Road 150 Choctaw Circle 7450 Chanhassen Road 7006 Cheyenne Trail 7480 Chanhassen Road 30 Basswood Circle 7012 Cheyenne Trail 155 Choctaw Circle 6781 Brule Circle 7003 Sandy Hook Circle 141 Fox Hollow Drive 7628 South Shore Drive 7020 Sandy Hook Circle 100 Choctaw Circle 7660 South Shore Drive 7019 Cheyenne Trail 160 Choctaw Circle 7200 Willow View Cove 99 Castle Ridge Court 7271 Kurvers Point Road 7150 Willow View Cove 91 Choctaw Circle 7160 Willow View Cove 83 Castle Ridge Court 7290 Kurvers Point Road 7380 Kurvers Point Road 194 I Crestview Circle 14260 Embry Path, Apple Valley 6509 Gray Fox Curve 7614 South Shore Drive 7020 Dakota Circle 633 I Oxbow Bend 6 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Staff report please. If you want to explain what's going to go on tonight, appreciate it. Todd Gerhardt: Sure, Mayor and Council. What I'd like to do is just give a brief introduction and then. Mayor Mancino: Can everybody hear Todd? Audience: No. Councilman Senn: I guess not. Todd Gerhardt: What I'd like to do tonight is give a brief introduction ofthe process that we've used and then open it up for judicial review by Carver County and Hennepin County. And then have SRF give a brief overview of the alternatives and then open it up for public comment and then have City Council close the public hearing and discuss it amongst themselves on which alternative they feel is appropriate. So at this time the introduction consists of in 1997 Hennepin County and Carver County in cooperation with the City of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie began a preliminary design process to reconstruct Highway 101 between West 78th Street and Pleasant View Road. The existing roadway is badly deteriorated and need repair and has inadequate traffic capacity. As a part of the design the County and City staffs studied existing and future traffic volumes, safety, pedestrian and bicycle accommodations, drainage, funding issues and many other considerations. To assist the County and City staff with the technical design and environmental issues, Hennepin County contracted with SRF Consulting Group Inc. At this time I would introduce Jim Grube and Roger Gustafson to give the judicial authority review. Jim Grube: Madam Mayor, can you hear me okay? Okay. Mayor, members of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for having us here this evening to discuss with you the proposed examination of Highway 101 from essentially Town Line Road to 78th Street, which is in both Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. In terms ofthe information available to you this evening, when you came in then; was a packet of information on the back table and much of the conversation that will ensue will be following the information provided in that packet. My name is Jim Grube. I work with Hennepin County. I'm the Director of the Hennepin County Transportation Department. Roger Gustafson, the Carver County Engineer to my right. Tim Phenow from SRF Consulting Group is my left. Tim will be making the presentation on behalfofSRF. With us also are some other members ofSRF Consulting Group. Farrell Robinson and David Juliff. A third member sitting up in the front is Project Engineer with Hennepin County, he's my associate, Craig Tweinow. If! could give a bit of background in terms of jurisdictional authority, just to give you some focus or framework in the long term past, near term past and the future. If you will, Highway 101 has been a trunk highway or a state highway for a number of decades and if you look in your packet it's called a temporary highway. I'm not so sure when the designation occurred but I believe it was decades ago. In the late 1980's, in 1988 to be exact, Hennepin County entered into an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the jurisdictional exchange of a number of roads in Hennepin County. Some going to Hennepin County. Some going to the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The genesis of that agreement was the Crosstown Highway, then our County Road 62. Now Trunk Highway 62 from 494 east in towards Minneapolis. And what was then our County Road 18, which is now Trunk Highway 169 from the north county limits down to 494 in Eden Prairie and Bloomington. We exchanged those roadways with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and in return received a number of roadways that the Minnesota Department of Transportation considered to be minor roadways on their system. 1988. At that time 101 from Highway 12 in Wayzata up to 94 in Rogers was turned back to Hennepin County. In the early 1990's the Metropolitan Council met with many city engineers and county engineers and came up with functional classification for the roadways across the metropolitan area. The functional classification that exists 7 city Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 today. Generally freeways, expressways, major arterials, minor arterials, collectors, residential streets. I think you've heard some of those terms mentioned before in other venues. This was in the early 90's. And in the early 90's when the functional classification was accepted by the Metropolitan Council, cities and counties across the metropolitan area were asked to examine their comprehensive plans and have their local street or highway systems come into conformance with that series ofterms or that vernacular of functional classification. So what happened was that, in the early 90's the functional classification of 101, we'll say from Town Line Road down to Highway 5,just since that's the subject of this evening's meeting, was formerly designated as a minor arterial and recognized as a minor arterial in the system for purposes of consistency. Roger and I will both be talking about functional classification a little bit later but just to give you some background in terms of historical aspects. Now minor arterial roadways in the eyes of the Minnesota Department of Transportation are what they consider to be their lesser important roadways in their system. They would prefer to deal with the freeways first and some of the expressways secondarily and major arterials. An example of a major arterial would be Highway 7 as it's in Minnetonka area and Highway 12 as it's in Wayzata area. And the idea of minor arterials was minor to their system and for years, regardless of their title, they had been examined as lesser important roadways and had not received much care in terms of significant expenditures for capital improvements. As a result of the early 90's action, and the formalized acceptance of 101 as a minor arterial, both in terms of cities and counties, and the recognition that 101 is a lesser road on the Minnesota Department of Highway system, Hennepin County engaged in an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the exchange of the jurisdiction of it's half, the east half, of 101. Essentially in Eden Prairie. This was a package that was put together in 1997 and included the Tumback if you will, or the jurisdictional transfer of 18 south of 494, which is now Trunk Highway 169, and it also included, and of course that went to the State from the County. And the County in return received I 0 I from actually Highway 12 down through Eden Prairie, and Washington Avenue in the University of Minnesota West Bank. So what happened was in 1997 we completed a deal with the Minnesota Department of Transportation that had begun in 1988 and then became a little bit more recognized as the exchange of major road 18 for a minor road 122, which is Washington Avenue in the West Bank, and 101. That's what brought us up to date in terms of the jurisdiction of let's call it the east half of the road for the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie corridor. Now I'd like to let you, I'd like to ask Roger if he could give his perspective on how things are going presently with Carver. Roger Gustafson: Thank you Jim. As the State of Minnesota was discussing tumbacks with Hennepin County, and I should add Scott County because Scott and Hennepin had worked on the replacement of the bridge on 18 over the Minnesota River. They approached Carver County in the early to mid 90's as well. And what happened in Carver County was that, what ensued were some discussions with Chanhassen and the State and basically Memorandums of Understanding on how to proceed with considering a Turnback of 101 and Carver County were executed. One of those was between the County and the City of Chanhassen in '96, and a second one was executed in 1997 between the County and the State. Prior to that time and as of today, all of 101 in Carver County remains under the jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota. What happened is in 1998 after several years of discussion and negotiation, Carver County thought an agreement with the State to transfer jurisdiction to the County had been reached. The Caunty- State agreement had two basic parts. One, to transfer jurisdiction of 101 to the County and a second part that provided for the ongoing maintenance of the highway until actual improvements were made to the corridor. Carver County has been, and continues to be very concerned about the ongoing maintenance cost of the 10 I corridor all across Chanhassen until such time as major investments are made in the improvement of the roadway. Related to that County-State agreement were two other agreements. One was between the County and Chanhassen as far as trying to reach a clear understanding of how the transfer and improvement of the road would proceed. And the other one was with Hennepin County relative to the segment north of Trunk Highway 5 as far as ongoing maintenance of that corridor 8 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 after it was transferred to Carver County, our part of it. Basically that agreement would have provided for Hennepin County to do the routine maintenance of the corridor down to Trunk Highway 5 with reimbursement from Carver County to Hennepin County for that service. The County-Chanhassen agreement that was part of that four agreement package was approved by the City as is noted in your handout in 1998. And the County authorized the signing of all the agreements, the four agreements in December of'98 and subsequent to the County's authorization, the State informed the County that it would not be entering into the agreement. So the agreement as signed by the County was shredded by the State. Therefore the County-Chanhassen agreement, which was part of that package of four agreements, was never signed by the County. The County, Carver County and the State have continued to negotiate the Tumback of Highway 101 during the past year and general understandings currently are that separate agreements for segments of Highway 101 will be written. So we would be working with MnDot as appropriate to look at segments. One of those segments would be the portion of 101 north of Highway 5 and that is the first priority. We also have been working to, with the State to reach confirmation or assurance ofTurnback funding within the State program. That's been desired by the local units of government and I think a lot of credit for pressing forward to actually have a higher assurance of funding for any Tumback project in Chanhassen, the County or the metropolitan area is reflective of the process that we've been going forward with on 101 and the Chanhassen City Council. That has become not only a focus of Carver County and Hennepin County to get an actual Turnback funding program in place with the State of Minnesota, but it has also become an effort that is spread to be a metro area effort of all seven counties within the metropolitan area. And we are having success in moving forward with that and I think it's appropriate, since Hennepin County is the lead agency in this particular project for them, to talk about securing funding for this project and what that status is so I'll have Jim comment on that. Jim Grube: Thank you Roger. This particular aspect of the conversation is not captured in your notes. In the packets so if you're searching for them, it's newer information and it's not contained in your packets. I'd like to step back for just a moment and talk to you about the concept of jurisdictional transfer and the concept of Tumback. Those two concepts are interchanged as we talk 1ind so they're synonymous. Jurisdictional transfer equals Turnback. Now at the State level the vernacular is· Tumback funding, and just to very brief explanation of the concept ofTumback funding for you. The State as I mentioned earlier has identified a number of highways under it's authority that are minor highways and just don't fare well in competition for money at the State level. They go to a local jurisdiction like Hennepin County and we take the road over. It's a Turnback or a jurisdictional transfer, and then there is a sum of money that is set aside from, if you will, the gas tax money, that the state receives at the pump. Some of that money is set aside specifically to pay for the improvement of turn backs that are received either by the County, we'll say Hennepin County, or the City. We'll just say Chanhassen since we're here. So therefore that fund is opened up and made available to local government and there's somewhat ofa competition for that funding.. . from a city. Let's just say Chanhassen, for a project and get the plans in. It's kind of a first come, first serve basis. The State has recognized that in the metropolitan area that a number of highways have exchanged hands, both in terms of Hennepin County and Scott County and the other six counties in the metro area. Chisago being one of the metro counties. So now the issue is that Roger had mentioned we'd been talking through the State about the high demand to improve a number of roads and the lack of money, assurance that the money will be there when the plans get done. Your City Council has some trepidation and says well gee, what if we approve a plan. How can we guarantee any plan would be built? And that's a valid question that the City Council has asked many times over the months. What we have received from the Minnesota Department of Transportation is an assurance from the Minnesota Department of Transportation that it has reached agreement amongst it's offices in St. Paul over at the capital and it's district offices in Roseville, which are, that's the Seat of this district in which Roger and I work and you reside. It's called the Metropolitan District. That the money will be set aside for the 101 project over a three year period, 2002, 2003, and 2004. They've said that, 9 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 they've reached agreement between the State and the District offices for the fund availability. So in terms of what can be done, we have to figure out what can be done but in terms of the fund availability, I think that's finally good news. Finally good news. And so then what would be necessary would be to figure out how to present any type of project to the State in terms of what the various costs are and how to cash flow a project starting sometime in the near future with money coming in guaranteed 2002, 3, and 4. So that's a good guarantee that I'm happy to give tonight from, certainly from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. I might make note, since I do have the microphone, that Roger had mentioned that Hennepin County has been maintaining 101 from Town Line south to Highway 5. We in fact have been doing that since I believe November I ~ of actually 1996 when the first snow season started so you've seen us out plowing the roads, although we have orange trucks just like MnDot, it's been Hennepin County. To the extent that we can we've been patching the roads since the spring of 1997 and I'm sure you've seen our people out there as late as this fall trying to keep the road patched together as the negotiations have been moving forward between all the parties and trying to figure out what to do here. In terms of other information, in your packet this evening on your last page, actually the last two pages, the City of Eden Prairie has a resolution that was passed by their City Council and I'd invite you to read that. It is in terms of getting the parties to understand in some sense how the City of Eden Prairie would like to look at things. And I'll leave you to read that this evening and as you take the packet home for you. But in terms of Eden Prairie itself, although Tim Phenow will, from SRF will be presenting a summary of the neighborhood meetings that have happened in Chanhassen, the City of Eden Prairie has not had any neighborhood meetings yet in terms of discussions. They feel that they're watching this very closely in terms of how the City ofChanhassen is looking at the various options available. And you can see in their resolution how they would like to have some closer scrutiny of a couple of the options. So with that as background I'd like to ask Madam Mayor, if I could have Tim Phenow run through some of the various aspects of the rest ofthe packet of information that you have in front of you. Tim Phenow: Thank you Jim. I'd like to try to bring us up to date with where we've been the last 2 Y, years. As Todd mentioned, we began this process in 1997 with Hennepin County and Carver County staffs and the cities ofChanhassen and Eden Prairie's staffs to try to arrive at a design for 101 that would . meet the needs of all four agencies and the community. It was a difficult, it's been a difficult design process as we've had to, and I'm sure everyone knows, we've had to look at narrow, the existing narrow roadway. Limited right-of-way, numerous homes and driveways, steep slopes, mature vegetation, sight distance problems, wetlands, poor drainage, and through that process we developed several alternatives. We brought in 1998, actually late in 1998, we brought several of those concepts to the Chanhassen City Council and said here's what we're thinking. And the Chanhassen City Council said, rightly so, we'd like you to look at every possible option, whether it's really viable or not. We want to know what the ramifications are of everything, even from just a simple overlay and an addition of a trail through a full section, five lanes wide with divided medians. And we did that. We developed six concepts and at that time, late in '98 both city councils of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie directed us to take those concepts to the public through informational meetings. We held, it actually took us quite a while to get to those meetings because of the difficulty of the corridor but in September of 1999 we held a public open house in both communities and presented six alternatives and did a, what I'll call a subjective comparative analysis. It wasn't based on a lot of quantitative analysis but an opinion of what we felt were the differences between the six altematives. At the end of those meetings, or in December, the city of Chanhassen Council directed us, the project management team to eliminate concepts 5 and 6 as being much too great an impact on the corridor. Those concepts, as most of you may remember, were the concepts that provided for a five or a four lane divided section through the corridor. They also then directed us to take those four concepts to as many neighborhood meetings as the neighborhoods in Chanhassen would like, and we in fact, staff set up six different neighborhood meetings and we brought those four layouts, concepts to those individual meetings and reviewed them again. We had not done any 10 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 additional engineering work. We simply were looking for more direct input from the neighborhoods, and we got quite a bit of input. Quite a bit of, quite a number of questions. In your packet there's 4 or 5, 1,2, 3,4,5,5 pages of various comments which we heard both verbally and written. And we have provided all of those written comments to the Council and we provided meeting minutes of all of those neighborhood meetings and open houses to the Council for their review. I would like to just very briefly now go through again the concepts that are on the table. Most of you I'm sure have seen these and the layouts in larger form are on the bleachers. I'm going to put the typical sections up on the overhead, but with the tan wall they don't come out very clearly, but they are in your packet so you can follow along. Again I apologize that this is, these overheads are very difficult to read with the tan background. Please refer to your handout. The first concept is simply an overlay of the existing roadway. Nothing would propose to be changed. It would just be a resurfacing. The existing roadway is essentially a 24 foot wide, two lane, one lane in each direction, with right turn lanes at most of the street intersections. As a part of this option, and as shown on our layout, it does include the addition of a 10 foot wide trail along the west side of the corridor and some minor drainage improvements to go along with that at the direction of the Chanhassen City Council. The second concept presented is an improved concept that goes in and completely reconstructs the roadway and it's a two lane concept, but in anticipation of the volumes that are out there and are expected to be out there, this two lane proposal includes 8 foot shoulders on either side of a thru lane in each direction, plus right turn, separate right turn and left turn lanes at each of the street intersections. And also includes a trail on each side of the roadway. A trail both in Eden Prairie and in Chanhassen. I should point out that at the intersections of Valley View Road and Pleasant View Road you'll notice even on the two lane proposal that it widens out at those two intersections and there is a raised median in the center that provides a protected left turn lane at those two intersections that in the very near future would be signalized. The third concept is what we call the three lane concept which is really in effect a two lane. One thru lane in each direction with a center two way left turn lane and right turn lanes at all of the street intersections. And again, at the Valley View Road and Pleasant View Road would be a raised median for the protected left turn lane and future signals. The fourth concept is our four lane concept which is two thru lanes in each direction. It is again widened out at Pleasant View Road and Valley View Road for the future signalization but it doesn't provide separate right or left turn lanes at any of the street intersections. At the street intersections the outside lane acts as the right turn lane. Cars are able to proceed on the inside lane and on the opposite side the inside lane would provide the left turn lane. Cars can then pass on the right hand side. We heard a lot of comments, a lot of good comments, a lot of good input and we also, as I'm sure everyone knows, received a proposal if you will from the neighborhoods initiated I believe in the Kurvers Point neighborhood and I'd like to just point that out. It's on page 11 and their proposal had six points starting with not altering the character of the neighborhood. Keeping the existing road configuration, which in layout form if you will is similar or the same as concept I. But in their proposal it would be completely reconstructed. The sub-base would be removed and replaced and new pavement put in. Signals would be proposed at Pleasant View Road and Valley View Road. The proposal called for a minimum impact trail along the west side and my understanding in talking to the neighborhood is a narrower than 10 foot trail, and a trail that would weave in and out of trees and away from neighborhood, as much away from the neighborhood as possible. And their sixth point was to act with a sense of urgency. And with that I would turn it back to the Mayor to receive comments. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you Tim. Any questions from council members at this point to Roger, Jim or to Tim? I do just have a couple. Jim I want to make sure I understood what you said, and that is that when we started this process we were told that we were hoping funding would occur in 2004 and that MnDot was in the process, I think we learned this in December of '99, that MnDot was in the process of putting together a 5 year CIP for tumback projects. And also that there was some additional funding. So what you've told us tonight is that money has been set aside for this project in the years 11 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 2002, 2003, and 2004. Correct? And is that again, that's State. I mean who's all decided that? Is that a MnDot CIP or? Jim Grube: Yes. Mayor, members of the Council and ladies and gentlemen. The State makes the decision and the decision is agreed upon between the State office of State Aid that's in St. Paul, and the District Office in RosevilIe which deals both with State Aid, which is our local street system, and the highways. They have agreed that there is funding available to set aside in the years 2002, 3, and 4. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Tim, a question that I, excuse me. I don't know if everyone can hear. A question that I have for you and I just want a clarification that I read in the minutes. The question was asked, I know that I A, that particular configuration or that particular proposal from the neighborhood, it was very important it seemed there that everyone said that they wanted a signalization at Valley View Road and at Pleasant View Road. And they want it now. Now what I read in the minutes is that right now today, April, 2000 there is not the traffic volume to warrant signals at those two intersections. That maybe in the next 5 years there would be enough volume of traffic to warrant the intersections of the signalization but not as it stands today. Can you claritY that or Jim or Roger? I think Anita answered that in one of, or someone answered that in one of our minutes. So we'd kind of like to know, you know, if we were to go ahead and design and start building, could the signalization happen right now? And can you even answer that? Roger Gustafson: At this point we are considering the comments that are made about putting a signal in there as basically judgment. What would happen is if they're going to be looked at real seriously, is that we would do what's called a signal justification report that would go out and actually do more detailed counts. Collect more detailed information and see if any of the nine warrants that wouldjustitY a traffic signal are met as of today. And I don't believe, unless Hennepin County has been out there doing that type of analysis, that we have that information available. Mayor Mancino: Okay, so we're not sure today if it would warrant signalizations at those two intersections yet? Tim Phenow: Based on the traffic coùnts that were taken in 1998, we did not, the volumes did not meet the. The volumes did not meet the signal warrants. Jim Grube: And I might follow that up to say, Hennepin County has not conducted a study between the time the study was taken in '98 and today. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. I think I'll wait until I have a few more questions but I'll wait until the public hearing and people come forward. This is now open, unless there are any other questions. This is now open for a public hearing so anyone wishing to address the council, please come forward to the microphone. Give your name and your address and a couple ground rules please. And that is, we would like to give the opportunity for everyone, no matter which design you are for, to come up and say what you have to say to us so please no booing, no clapping, etc. Allow those, even if they have a different point of view than you, please allow them to come up and address the council. Secondly and lastly, if someone else has just stated exactly what you were going to say, we've heard it so know that we' are listening well. So first speaker, please come forward. Steve Bloom: I want to be first so I don't have to say it's already been said. Thank you for your attention. 12 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Can everyone hear? Steve Bloom: And I do accept applause by the way. We've been through the engineering studies and meetings in my neighborhood, which is Lotus Lake Estates. Mayor Mancino: Can you give name, address. Steve Bloom: Steve Bloom, 6781 Brule Circle, Lotus Lake Estates. I'm here as the President of Lotus Lake Estates Homeowners Association to have one voice and we have petitioned twice now every homeowner, that's 44 homes, only 7 of which are on 101, which we like to refer to as Chanhassen Road. We've been through the engineering studies and certainly have had many criticisms, and I'm not here to do that again. I'm here to represent our homeowners association as first homeowners, secondly parents, and thirdly voters. The proposallA which I'm assuming is already understood in terms of our position, I would only ask that, I asked the members of my homeowners association to support me when I'm finished by showing hands. But having had the conversations with them intimately over the last six months, my translation is not the issues that were presented by the engineers in the process, because we really don't understand them. What we understand is that as taxpayers we are funding trails throughout Chanhassen but don't have one ourselves to access for the 45 children, or 55 children excuse me, that live in our neighborhood right now. There's no access to the parks, which are fantastic. It's a safety issue though because the children will get there. There was one comment made that it would be unconscionable to build a trail without a shoulder, and I think it's unconscionable, we think it's unconscionable not to have a trail at all. So I A asks for the urgency of that trail. That has to be taken, that has to take place immediately. And there are no excuses. Even if it's a temporary trail until such time as we figure out what we're going to do. The consensus is there are so many issues around the four proposals that we won't get the trail and we need the trail. It is of urgency. And that is one of the major considerations or goals of the people in my neighborhood. We've seen trails without shoulders by the way on 62, which is a highway to 101 in Minnetonka. And it works. The second issue that I feel that I've heard from our neighborhood is that each of these proposals, even proposal I really it does take easements and when you take easements you're planning for future highway growth that is so expansive that it will invite trucks. And inviting trucks obviously invites danger and noise, not only for those that are near 101 but across the lake. Lotus Lake. Why are trucks an issue? Obviously safety is one. Nuisance. All the obvious reasons but the real important issue for us, and this is steeped in the city of Chanhassen being integrity based, that all the homeowners that live there today respect that Chanhassen Road is a country road. It's cool. You drive down it and you've got trees and you have growth and it's a neighborhood. Every proposal to us is a 62 extension. It will take easements. It will invite traffic. It will invite trucks from 62 down to the new warehouses on 5. All the homeowners in my neighborhood were told when they purchased their homes, or I should say were never exposed to anything like this at all. Including myself who the night before I bought my home was told by the City ofChanhassen that it would, it was described to me and I have the document that was nothing like this, so from an integrity based standpoint, we feel that we should stay within the representations that have been made over the years. At this point I would just like to have my neighborhood, Lotus Lake Estates, a show of hands if they do support IA. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Frank Mendez: Could we get a, excuse me. I've lost my voice in the last few days. Could we get a count on that please? Mayor Mancino: Sure. All the hands up and Frank, do you want to count them? \3 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Frank Mendez: ... we also had one in Eden Prairie and I was present at that one as well. At that meeting I had the same question. I asked Jim Grube, the second gentleman on the left, about the current volume of 101. The projected volume of 101. The accident rate of 101. What those figures would be between 62 and Highway 7. He told me at that point, he told us at that point that those figures were greater because I asked him if they were not the same or greater. And the need for any improvements on our corridor between 62 and 5. He said yes, they were greater. I then asked him between Highway 7 and Minnetonka Boulevard if the need for construction or widening that road was not as great, is not greater in that corridor and he said yes it was than our particular corridor. I then went on to Minnetonka Boulevard between Minnetonka and Wayzata Boulevard. Asked him the same questions. He then said yes, the demand in those areas was as great, if not greater. If all, my next question was, if all those areas need is equal to or greater than our need, why are you here and why are we discussing this in Chanhassen? The answer was because Chanhassen wants a trail. I relayed that information to the City Council. I went on and said, because Chanhassen wants a trail. And I had to ask him again. I said you mean we have reached this point of discussion, and this was in Eden Prairie by the way, and gathered here in Eden Prairie and Chanhassen have had these conversations which have not at all been comfortable for people. Nor would they want to discuss this particular issue, and I said we've done all these things Mr. Grube because Chanhassen wants a trail. The answer was a one word answer, yes. And it was a one word definitive answer. It was yes. I believe that was the truth, as ridiculous as it may sound, it really was. And that's because we have failed to move previously, several previous councils have failed to move on approving a trail for 10 I. And because we've been so worried about saving a few dollars at the expense of the homeowners who are there and who are losing quite a few dollars and putting their lives and family in jeopardy. Because we've done that we now all find ourselves here because we want a trail. It's time for us to have a trail. For the reasons that we didn't decide on having a trail in '93. We can now look at today in hindsight and see that we should have had it then. ~e could have already worked it out then. Yes there are carrots put in front of us and assurances of money coming but everyone knows that even those assurances can leave us. We need to have a trail now and look at hindsight is foresight. There's no reason why we should wait and I ask the City Council to approve 101 immediately and not make it contingent on anyone else's decision. It is owed to this neighborhood now. I'd also like to make another point. Some people have asked why IA. Well there are many reasons for a IA proposal by neighborhood, but let me just touch upon one of them because of the time. I'd like to pass this out to the City Council. That's a question that people have asked us, why. Why this IA and not any of the proposals that have been brought to the table? Well it's quite simple. If you take a look at what I presented to you, and then look back at all the others, this is just an example of a concept when concerning Kurvers Point, but all the other neighborhoods have exactly the same example. Look back even at the proposals that were dropped at 5 and 6. Basically what's happening here is that we have a trail, going back to the trail again, an opportunity for these other highway departments to put a trail way beyond the easement rights that they now have. If you take a look at Concept I on here, and look at where that path is, you'll see that in Concept 2 it's about in the same place. In Concept 3, it's in the same place. In Concept 4 it's in the same place. That's their opportunity to build a bigger and better road at their discretion because we've given them easement rights. We're looking at the road and they're looking at the trail. Remember it's the trail. They know the trail is close to our heart and they're using it. And as we look at the trail we fail to see that tomorrow or the next day it can be a 2, 3, 4, or 5 laner because they've already got the easements that they wanted. They're just fooling us. We're being fooled. I can't accept that. Another thing, when you take a look at this as well. You take a look at the diagrams of where the trees are and the shrubs, you also realize this. That this not only means that they're going to get the width of a wider road, but they're touching the berms. They're messing the 14 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 berms on all of their proposals. They're bringing the berms down 3 to 6 feet. Pretty much along the entire corridor. A difference or a drop of6 inches, by the way on any berm means all the trees, anything you may have planted are gone. So to get 3 to 6 feet and then later on they say well we'll drop it 6 feet. We're also going to drop the road 3 feet. We're seeing 6 feet of things that we hadn't seen before in here even as well. To destroy all that and make us think that we're going for a plan of IA and agreeing to a IA is beyond my comprehension on any of the proposals. Again this is why none of them are acceptable. Any of us who live on this highway can look up 101 and you need to visualize right now, there are absolutely no trees on either side of the road. Everything that you're used to coming home to and looking at, unwinding, relaxing with will be gone with any of their proposals. None of their proposals are acceptable. This is just one of the reasons why we can't accept or even consider any of their proposals and we have to come up with our, and we have come up with the I A. I'd like to make one other point here as well. I think numbers have been used as we've been here to basically justifY why we need a road or widening of the road for the greater good. Numbers are being used to come up with the projection of what traffic will be in the year 2020. 22,000 vehicles or 20,000 vehicles according to their figures. According to their figures which has been already questioned by many. But let's take a look at their figures. Excuse me, let me pass this to you. Remember, it is the figures that they had used to justifY their position and that's their power. Their figures. The projected volume in our corridors, right? That's what we've heard. Let's take a look at what I just handed to you. You'll see the first page. Highway 101 project, Colonial Grove neighborhood meeting. It's actually page 2 of that meeting's summary. If you take a look at the second bullet point, you'll see possibly a highlighted area on your's. It is on mine. It says for the year 2000, March 9, 2000 thatthe currenttraffic on this segment of 101 are at 13,000 vehicles with a projected daily traffic of 22,000 over the next 20 years. That's for the year 2000. These are their figures by the way. Next page. If you take a look at information which they have put out as well. For the year 1999, under current volume. This is in 1999. The current volumes that they have used is 13,000 for the year 1999. If you take a look at the next page, which is from the Highway] 0 I project Lotus Lake Estates neighborhood meeting. It's on their page 2. It's dated March 9, 2000. It says there on the fourth bullet point that the 13,000 vehicles were counted in the year 1998.· In 1998, so far we have 13,000 vehicles. ] 999 we have 13,000 vehicles. The year 2000 we have 13,000 vehicles. Next page. These are their reports by the way. Their figures, their numbers on everything I've given you. If you take a look at this and this is something that was given to the City Council and City Council, I've you go over these things and go over the numbers and study everything that's been given to you by these people. By these organizations or powers and principalities. It says 101 traffic history and forecasting, 78th Street to Town Line Road. In 1997, according to their own statistics and figures, their traffic count was between 12 and 13,000. These are their figures. Let's go on. If you take a look at the handout that it's probably in there, and that we first received at the Chanhassen meeting, at the first open house, this is what it looks like. It says information meeting, Highway 101 reconstruction 78th Street to Pleasant View Road. If you read down the paragraph, down the page that I'm giving you, to the paragraph under background, you'll see that in 1996 there was a projected vehicle count ofa little over ]3,000. There's the only place they say this by the way folks, over 13,000. Just over. That's in their own figures and statistics which we have to look at and it's the only thing we have to look at to make a rational decision. I think once you look at this, and you take a look and use their format, and use their formula, and use their style to come up with a projected figure, then I think the only wise, the conclusive decision you can come to is in the year 2020 we're going to have a projected traffic count of 13,000. Why are we here? There's so much that can be said but there are other people that say things as well. What I'd like to ask is, and our Kurvers Point Homeowners Association, by the way before I go on, what I'd like to ask is based on the fact that you have to take a look at information and make decisions based on the information that's given to you, and you shouldn't do anything else, then that they've had the opportunity to give it to you. You have to make a decision and I'm asking you to make it now today based on what they've given you. We need a pathway and don't worry about the traffic counts in the year 2020 because it's going to 15 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 be 13,000 cars according to their own statistical analysis and documents. I'd like to ask you also to vote unanimously as a council to support IA. Every one of you, and please feel free to speak to a multitude of different people here as to why. There are many reasons why. I'd also like to ask the people at Kurvers Points Homeowners Association here, because we have unanimously by the way at our homeowners association voted for concept I A. But I'd like for you to raise your hands, for all those who are in favor of Concept IA please raise your hands. Kurvers Point Homeowners Association. 24. Is there anyone here from Kurvers Point homeowners association that is not in agreement with I A ? We have one. So that's 25 and I. Thank you very much for your time. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Frank. Brian Thompson: My name is Brian Thompson and I live at 41 Hill Street in South Lotus Lake. I think I'd like to take the count first because iff get emotional I may forget to do that so. At our neighborhood meeting in February the residents of Sunset View in South Lotus Lake voted unanimously at 23 votes in favor of proposition IA. I'd like to ask all the people from those neighborhoods in favor of that concept to please raise your hands now. Tonight I count 18 in favor of IA. Are there any opposed? I count no opposed. I can't speak as eloquently or as courageously as Steve and Frank, but I can tell you that we want a safe and smooth Highway 101. I can tell you from personal experience, I live right on the curve as you go past the apartments. Two years ago I almost killed a person there. The person wasn't a child. It was an adult on a bike about 30 to 35 years old. Very fit and loaded with spandex. I think it might have been Mark. Mayor Mancino: Was he sweaty too? Brian Thompson: He was sweaty and I make that point because he was an experienced bike rider. Fortunately I'm an experienced driver when it comes to that curve because my house backs up to it. So when I take that curve I come into it at about 30 miles an hour and yet I had to slam on my brakes and actually swerve across the center line, and thank god there wasn't another car coming, becausè the person riding the bike had just apparently swerved 2 yards, 6 feet from where he was trying to hold that white line into the direct path of my car. Okay? So I'm very happy to have an opportunity to address the council tonight as somebody who's been fortunate enough by the grace of god to have avoided that catastrophe. The reason I bring that up is because delaying a trail only brings upon us an opportunity for that type of thing to happen. And why are we doing that? Because we're holding off for some mythical projection of a future traffic rate on a road that quite frankly right now during rush hour, if you go to the light at West 78th Street, you're not going to have to wait more than one light to get through it. I live 150 yards north of that light. I'm never impressed by the volume of traffic that is waiting to get into Chanhassen. Or waiting to get onto West 78th Street. We need a good road. The greatest liability to us right now is people who are using the road riding bikes and walking that can't do it safely. There's areas on that road where it cannot be done safely and one of them is right behind my house. Okay? And that absolutely has to be done with the greatest urgency. That's all I have. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Rick Murray: Good evening. Madam Mayor, I'm Rick Murray from 15 Choctaw Circle. It's kind of refreshing to be here as a citizen for a change. First of all I want to thank the gentleman that spoke before me because for the last 2] years I've both jogged and walked along 101. I want to thank him for not hitting me in the past. I want to thank my other neighbors as well. This morning as I was walking I was noticing the increased traffic that we have seen in the last 20 years over 10 I, but it occurred to me that I always scoot up 101 quickly so I can cut over to Dell Road because there's where there's an 16 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 adequate sidewalk or trail, and there is no traffic. I noticed in one of the propositions that was presented earlier that the question came up, why doesn't Dell become the extension of 101 since it is straight and does get down to Highway 7, but if they're looking for a regional minor arterial, why don't they use something that's already been built. In any case, I think I'm glad that we're here this evening because since 1978 we've been talking about a trail on Highway 101. At one point in time when I did that Lotus Lake Estates subdivision, and when I did the Fox Hollow subdivision, we had proposed easements across the wetlands up to the regional park that is just to the west of Fox Hollow. But that trail never got built. Never even got discussed again. Highway 101, State Highway 101 is kind of a joke. It's the road that nobody really wanted, at least not for the last 20 years. The sub base is absolutely horrid. The driving surface is almost as bad. It gets patched every year. Consequently we have to realign our cars on a regular basis. But Highway 101 needs some attention. I think what my neighbors are saying, who are the people that live up and down this road are saying tonight is that we definitely need a trail and we've definitely needed a trail for a long time. Thank you for listening to us. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Rick. Danny Hammett: My name is Danny Hammett. I live on 7506 Erie Avenue on Lotus Lake. I'd like to agree with everything that's been said. I think everyone's been very eloquent and the reason why I'm stepping up here is I recently moved from Eden Prairie two years ago to move my children from a yuppie home in the neighborhood to get out to the country style, lake living and I was one of the recipients of a program similar to this on the Highway 5 change and I can tell you all from experience that you should be very proud of yourselves for coming out here and standing up because if more people would have done this on 5, I think there would have been a little bit of a change as to the way the highway was routed. And I moved specifically to get away from that. To find myself now faced with this in Chanhassen is, it's appalling. I thought that's why I was moving to Chanhassen was to get into a small community and to have country roads and clean water and parks and trails for my children to enjoy. One thing that I don't think has been touched on at all is water quality issues that will be, repercussions of water quality. If we were to pursue any other program other than the Concept IA. There was an article recently in the Star Tribune, and some of my colleagues behind us in the neighborhood will touch on that but I think it's something that hasn't been discussed and the council needs to be aware of it. The road salt issues. The contaminants that will be flowing from Purgatory Creek into the lake is a very important issue and I think you need to be aware of that and pay close attention to it. Other than that, we're big all IA proponents. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Laurie Burfeind: My name is Laurie Burfeind. I live at 7150 Willow View Cove. That is also part of the Kurvers Point neighborhood, so you already are aware ofthe support of the neighborhood because Frank has gathered that. I do have one question for, I would request clarification. When this whole process began it seemed to me that the tumback funds were only available if certain criteria were met. Are you saying to us tonight, if you would please clarify for me, if I misunderstood, that these funds are available. They have been agreed upon regardless of the plan that's chosen? Mayor Mancino: Jim, do you want to address that please? Jim Grube: Mayor, that is not what 1 said. 1 said the funds were available but I did not say for any purpose. It's I think I A would probably not be considered eligible for State Aid funds. I7 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Laurie Burfeind: Okay. The other point that I would just reiterate, again everyone has said it so well. I don't think there's anything much I could add but I'm hopeful that you are really hearing that people along 101 need to go into Eden Prairie because they don't have that access into Chanhassen. We are crossing the road and we're using Eden Prairie trails. We have one young man who rides his bike down Valley View and around to get to his job at Festival. I think one day he might have been running late because we saw him biking on 101. That's just not what we want for our kids. We want our kids in their own community and we want them getting there safely and as you have heard it's been said for a long, long time. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Steve Donen: My name is Steve Donen and I live at 7636 South Shore Drive in Chanhassen. A couple things. Frank said 13,000 cars on the roadway. I guess I would say that if we probably put four lanes in, it'd be 26,000. I don't know about each one of you on the City Council but when I decide how I'm going to go somewhere, I usually pick the shortest, fastest route to get there. Correct? Mayor Mancino: Sometimes, it depends. Steve Donen: Unless you're in Chanhassen and you want to drive on a beautiful road of 101, correct? So I sit here and I think why would I, why would the safety of 101 become an issue? ...1 was out last summer and I don't know how many fish blew up against my shoreline from that lake. Mosquitoes I've talked about. My last one is I kind oflooked at Chanhassen, we're kind of a small, nice little community and I look at Big Brother Eden Prairie and I see thèm saying, we're able to, if we can get Chanhassen to suck up the traffic, Dell Road stays it's nice little traffic road for us remaining our community in town. So again I think we need to stand up and say guys, and gals, we don't want to be bullied by Eden Prairie. We want 101 to remain the way it is, and if you want more traffic, run it down Dell Road. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Bob Mortenson: I'm a little shorter. My name is Bob Mortenson and I live at 7371 Kurvers Point Road. I've been to every meeting that we've had on this 101 project and I'd like to say that when I started out a few years ago when it became up about the trail, I came to the council meeting and I said, I'm not really interested in the trail because it's going to go right through my back yard. And I said originally it's not the 90% of the people that use the trail that will be a problem, it's the 10% that will have their dogs, bikes, and kids in my back yard. Since that time, a couple years ago when I had that meeting, I've had a chance to go to all these neighborhood meetings. Talk to all my neighbors in the community around and I've come to find that I'm going to have to modify my stance and for the greater good of the community I'm going to have to let go of some of my property for the trail. I welcome that and I'll do that and give a piece of my property up for the people in the community for the greater good of all. But I'm not enthusiastic about doing it for a larger project that's going to cut down my berm, take all the trees out of my yard, and everything else. I didn't spend all that money on my home to have it trashed and my property values run down hill. I've shared a concern with many of my neighbors from the very beginning of this process. I don't know how many of you saw the article in the Chanhassen newspaper that Ms. Benson wrote. I was always very highly suspect of Ms. Benson and her motives and her slanting of this project from the very beginning and one needs only to look at that article to see just exactly where Ms. Benson was trying to lead the project. Now, I don't really think that that's appropriate to make that kind of commentary for someone that's supposed to be on the planning committee. They're supposed to be unbiased. They're supposed to look at things objectively and I never think that Anita did, but that's a process that's already been taken care of. To the people from the State of Minnesota, I would like to say 18 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 that it seems to me that sometimes the State of Minnesota sits there and seems to be insulated and says well, here's our plans and here's our parameters that we can deal with. Well, I guess I'd like to say to you that the people in this room are residents of the State of Minnesota. We are the State of Minnesota. And all these people in this room are telling you that they want a IA type of project. Now, as an employee of the State of Minnesota, please go back and see if you can figure out a way that you can build the project that wiII meet the needs of the residents of this community and the State of Minnesota. And that's what I'd like to say to the people from the State of Minnesota. Also for all the people in this room, most all of you have got your most recent property tax statements and I'd like to encourage each and every one of you to come out to that meeting because this road impacts every one of your property values for many, many hundreds offeet beyond 101. And for the city and the State of Minnesota to stand here and tell me that my property values have gone up once you clouded the value of my property is ludicrous. And I don't think I should stand for it. I don't think you should stand for it. I'd like to see every one of you turn out to that meeting. Every one of us to raise our hand and say, enough is enough. You're not getting any more money from me while this 101 project is clouded. You freeze all our taxes. That's it. We're not doing it. And I encourage you all to come. 1 hope you do. I wiII be there. And I'd like to see some other people stand up and say the same thing. With that I would like to close, I would also like to say that the City Council here is not the enemy. We've had a lot of interesting communication with many ofthe members here. It's been very good. It's been a two way communication. There's been give and take on either side. Our Mayor has taken an active role in the meetings. Mark has. Many of the other people have as well. Both in public and in communications by both phone and e-mail and I commend them. For that I'd like to say thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Tim Love: Hi, I'm Tim Love. I live at 7010 Sandy Hook Circle. I'm not a public speaker as you can tell. I'm not a paragraph kind of person either so I'm just going to raise bullet points with you and would ask you to consider what I'm asking you. Now I've attended one of the meetings already. The question that I asked was simple. I have not heard one single benefit that this is going to give the citizens of Chanhassen. Not one. Not one benefit. Now what I've heard tonight so far was simply this. I've heard that we have enough traffic that we're going to have a 4 lane highway, but we don't have enough traffic for a traffic signals and that's one thing that I've heard tonight. So I'm clear on that. Excuse me, I may be better than I thought I was. Mayor Mancino: Keep on going. Tim Love: Thank you. I would point out to you that if I had, if I bike right now to Chanhassen from my residence, I have to go through Eden Prairie. If I jog, I jog to Eden Prairie. What I heard this gentleman over here say amounts to governmental blackmail. In other words, if you vote to 4 lane this highway we'll give you the money. If you don't vote to 4 lane this highway, we won't give you the money and that's kind of what 1 heard. Now I hope I'm wrong. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Please keep the clapping down. Thank you. Tim Love: Next. You are aware that the Eden Prairie Mayor, I believe it was the Mayor, the City Council or whatever has said there's no way that this is going to happen. What I'd like to see this council do is do a resolution requesting Carver and Hennepin Counties to adopt and implement a schedule for upgrading Dell Road as opposed to 101. Next. Traffic is ever increasing. I heard that statement made many times. Traffic is ever increasing. That's a bogus concept. A bogus concept leads to bogus conclusions. So what is the real issue here. The real issue, paving. Is the real issue rebuilding 19 City Council Meeting - April I 0, 2000 or is it state influence for state mandated results? That's my question, and in five words or less we should be able to state exactly what the problem is. Five words or less, that's one of the reasons that I liked Ronald Regan as a President so much. He said give me the problem statement in five words or less. Is it the fact that the road needs to be repaved? Is it the fact that the road needs to be rebuilt? What is the issue here? The issue is not traffic. I think Frank spoke to that rather adequately. But that's not the issue. So what is the real issue? And then finally what I'd ask is, it goes back to one of the early comments. Where does the money come from for compensation? If you follow the money you'll find who's pushing this issue and it's as simple as that. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Barb Vemes: Barb Vemes, 83 Castle Ridge Court. This is the Near Mountain neighborhood. Indulge me and let me read this because I don't do too well off the top of my head. Currently 10 I is in poor driving condition. It is hard to maintain and in need of attention. The trail which has long been promised to neighborhoods on the west side of 10 I, south of Pleasant View needs to be put in as soon as possible. Even before road construction is decided on and finished. It could be some time before four governmental agencies, plus residents, come to a consensus design of 101 but children don't wait and these families have waited long enough. Traffic lights at Pleasant View Road and Valley View would go a long way towards reducing accidents and speed and provide breaks in traffic providing safe crossing points for bikers and pedestrians. That's the good news. The places where most of seem to agree. Now let me address the issues that affect my neighborhood. The neighbors of 101 directly. We want, number one. No vertical loss of our berm behind Castle Ridge Court. This berm is a visual barrier and a physical barrier for our children that contributes to their health and their safety and a barrier to some of the traffic noise. Number two. We support the concept of IA. We envision a more modem, safer and visually appealing roadway that does not have the characteristics of a freeway but looks and feels more like a parkway. A fitting together of function and aesthetics that does not stray too far from the concept of a country road with slight hills and bends, a reasonable speed given it's proximity to the homes and the trail. We do not want a four lane speedway with a straight sight line and no character. The trees and homes and wetlands along this corridor need to remain intact and minimally affected. Number three. No trail north of Pleasant View Road on the west side of 101. It's unnecessary. Our neighborhood is not cut off from the other direction as the other neighborhoods are and there will be no access to our neighborhood streets or homes. This also means there's less damage to the east side of the berm due to less easements taken from the property owners. Some random thoughts. So you all know that salt spray travels 60 feet outward from a heavily traveled roadway? Do you know that children living near a heavily traveled streets which per the study in Time Magazine of March 13 th this year was defined as 20,000 vehicles or more per day. Those children have a six fold increase risk of developing childhood cancers such as leukemia. Researchers believe this may be due to the benzenes and other carcinogens vehicles emit and children inhale. Please think twice before building a roadway that will risk our health and increase traffic counts per day. Yes, this is the same as build it and they will come concept that I adhere to. At this point also due to construction on Highway 5 I wonder if any traffic counts and/or projections are possibly flawed. In conclusion I personally want to say that I will try to be reasonable, fair and patient with this process and respect the same in retum. But please do not mistake my good naturedness with being a push over which my family can tell you I'm not. I have not always felt that everyone I've heard from has been completely up front and honest with me as to what the damages to my property and others would be with the different proposed concepts. I would like to be able to be more trusting. I would ask that the entities involved please be trustworthy. Thank you for your consideration of my thoughts. I don't know who's here from my neighborhood and I know people are busy and we aren't very organized, but don't take it, I mean don't take it as disinterest on our part. Thank you. 20 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Thank you Barb. Debra Kirt: My name is Debra Kirt and I live at 50 Hill Street. I was hoping someone else would clarify this for me so I didn't have to come up here. But I'm looking at the comparison of concepts for Highway 101 and I'm looking at, are the current state aid design standards met, and I'm directing this to the gentleman over there. Under concept I. No, they are not met. And under concept 2, it does not meet the requirements for today's traffic for the state aid and concept number 3 does not meet current state aid safety design standards. So to me that means that none of these plans qualify to receive the state aid. Is that correct? Mayor Mancino: Well, Jim do you want to answer that? I mean I'm assuming that MnDot has not made any final decision on whether they will turn back, give money for other concepts. Is that correct? Jim Grube: Mayor, members ofthe Council and ladies and gentlemen. In terms ofthe table that is in the packet, the issue of state aid eligibility is one which I guess in terms of resurfacing concept 1, it's conceivable that state aid funds could be used for reconditioning, as a reconditioning element. Just an overlay. In terms of meeting future state aid needs and future state aid conditions, it would not be eligible. So on a present day, but it would not meet future requirements. I think the same, once you get to Section, concept 2 it becomes even more cloudy in terms of eligibility meeting future needs it does not Mayor Mancino: Excuse me Jim for clarification. When I read through the minutes I certainly got the impression from reading them that it more or less also had to do with the counties. That Carver County and Hennepin County did not want to receive the highway back, Highway 101 back in a condition less than number 4 with the funding and the condition and less than number 4. That that was more of a county request. Jim Grube: Madam Mayor, members of the council. I'll answer for Hennepin County. I'll let Roger answer for Carver County. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Jim Grube: Certainly in terms of what Hennepin County would like to see, I think it would be honest to say that Hennepin County prefers concepts 3 or 4. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and that is prefers. Roger, do you want to weigh in please? Thank you. Roger Gustafson: As far as Carver County is concerned, we are interested in moving forward with a classification of the road as it exists. As far as concepts, I'll state the same thing as I did when we first had our open house. Is that I think Carver County is open to looking at the options as presented and potentially work and focus on what has been conveyed as far as travel patterns and so forth that are reflected by concepts 2 through 4. Debra Kirt: Thank you. I would just like to. Mayor Mancino: Does that help? 21 City Council Meeting - April I 0, 2000 Debra Kirt: That helps but I'm, I would like to say that I would hope that there's no deceit involved in that where they say concept 4 or 5 and 6, the state aid design standards are met. I think everyone gets my point. That we would be selling ourselves out for four lanes if we accept the money. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Dave Robinson: Hi. My name's Dave Robinson. I live on 25 Pleasant View Road and I guess, you know I've heard a lot of people talk about IA and I guess, I haven't heard anything about if it's even a possibility of getting that passed through. If it's just a pipe dream, you know it'd be nice if there was some comment about that. You know just relative to lA, if that was approved. If you guys did say that was okay, is there any money for it and how long would it take to get done? You know just in round numbers. And that other question I had answered already. I guess some other questions about plan 2. When I was looking at that, plan 2 all the way up there was this huge realignment of Duck Lake Trail where it connects with 101 and I just, if someone could comment on why that, they have to take out two houses to realign that road. You know just didn't make sense to me. Mayor Mancino: Tim, can you speak to that on Duck Lake Trail? Tim Phenow: On concepts 2, 3 and 4 we're proposing not only a reconfiguration of the surface but also a realignment of the vertical profile to fill in some of the sags and reduce the tops ofthe hills a little bit. And in so doing so near Duck Lake Trail, the grades do not work with the existing alignment of Duck Lake Trail. And so in order to make the grades work it needs to be realigned quite significantly, thus the loss of homes. Dave Robinson: Okay, yeah. And then the other question was, at all the intersections where there's supposed to be turn signals, there's those median strips and you know normally that would make sense but in a number of those places people can't get out of their driveways. They can only turn one direction. I'm just curious why those have to be there? Mayor Mancino: Tim, could you answer that? Tim Phenow: It's a safety issue to reduce the number of conflicts with the cueing that occurs with signalization. You don't want that conflicting traffic trying to oppose the cueing of that traffic at the signals. Dave Robinson: Good enough. That's it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Jim Tice: Hi, my name's Jim Tice. I live at 6400 Chanhassen Road which is at the corner of Pleasant View and 101. I've heard a lot about this IA. I haven't seen anything on paper yet. My background is some road construction. I've lived on 101 for quite a few years. Traffic volume has gone up. I would assume it's going to keep going up no matter what the numbers are and if they've been mistaken or whatever. I won't get into that but I do have a problem with I A is the fact that I'd like to see a minimum of concept 2. Everybody talks about water quality in the lakes. Well, if we don't make the so called mosquito ponds, where's it run? Right now it's running in the ditches and then it runs pretty much directly in. There is nothing for anything to settle out anywhere. I'd like to see curb and gutter on it and also for everybody that's concerned about safety up and down 101, how many people drive it in the afternoon when the mail truck or the garbage truck are out there? Have you ever had anybody come on, 22 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 head on on you halfway in your lane because they don't want to wait to go around the mail truck or the deal because we don't have wide enough shoulders to do it. I think concept 2 has 8 foot shoulders on so vehicles like that can get off to the side. I am concerned about, I'm one of the particular people that with signal lights I lose left in and left out on my property so I'm very concerned with that because talk about property value going down. I've got to believe that takes some out of it. Heard a lot about stop lights and slowing traffic down. I guess my interpretations of stop lights is for getting traffic movement. Not actually for slowing people down because I think we all have new enough cars that 45 mph, it doesn't even take you hardly a block and that's not standing on it, to get up to 45 mph these days. If you go on 62 the other way, it's 45 mph there and they have all kinds of stop lights and everybody's going 65 or 70. So I don't think we should look at stop lights as a deal, and I'm not saying that we don't need one at Pleasant View because I see them backed up on Pleasant View quite a ways, quite a few houses back from me. I think it's more of a movement issue so I hope people don't get it confused for slowing people down and deterring people going through because if they're set up right, normally it's going to move you through faster. And yeah, I guess my question was kind of answered on the turn back as I'm assuming that unless we go to a certain standard, we're not going to get as much tumback funds but my concern is that if we're going to take care of all of the other people, I think that we've got to make sure that we take care of the people along 101 too. We're talking about a lot of trees. I'm going to lose everything no matter what because everybody wants a signal at my intersection. But I think that we need shoulders on the road and I also think curb and gutter makes the road a lot safer too, even if we have the trails. We've talked about some trails along roads where we don't have a deal. I'm not opposed to having the trail up against a high back curb but at least you have the high back curb that if somebody isn't paying attention, they bump up against the curb and they don't just drive all the way over onto the trail. But I also would like to get rid of those crummy ditches that we have up and down Highway 101 that take care of everybody else's water going through our yards and Hennepin County comes along and pretty much digs them out and they're straight up and down banks and you can't reaIly maintain them anyway. So I'm for concept 2 or maybe over and, but we need some, we need shoulders on the road and 1 don't know. Maybe we need to look at some of the traffic count stuff, if that's right. I've seen a lot of emphasis on that but I can say that I live pretty close to the road and see a lot of traffic out there and I know it hasn't been the same since whenever it was quoted, 90 whatever to present date, that it has gone up. And it's going to keep going up I'm sure because it just is. More development is still going on in Chanhassen so I hope we address those issues so that we don't have to rip it up again in my lifetime while I'm still living here. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Jim. Sandy Carlson: Hi. My name's Sandy Carlson. I live at 7271 Kurvers Point Road. Nobody brought up so far what I would like to speak about and that is the width of the trail. In all these concepts the trail on our side is listed at 10 feet. I'm assuming that that's a 10 foot paved trail. I guess I'd like to ask the council what the width of the trail is on Powers and on Galpin? Mayor Mancino: 8. Sandy Carlson: 8? I don't even think it's that wide on Powers. It's the width of a crosswalk because I just drove down there on my way to get here tonight. That's what we're looking for. There aren't any other roadways around here that I know of that have a 10 foot trail. Minimum impact trail going around trees. I think even Mayor Mancino has been through that issue. She has beautiful trees along her property that were able to be saved because they were able to work the trail around them instead of cutting right through so she knows the value of trees on property. I guess I would just like to speak to the 23 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 consultant and aU the people that are doing these concept drawings. Let's try to go around our trees. Just give us a minimum impact trail. Thanks. Mayor Mancino: And yes, the trails are 8 feet aU over and they're mostly because of the plow blades are 8 feet. John GIatly: Hi. My name is John Glatly and I'm at 21 Basswood Circle which is in Kurvers Point development. A couple points I want to make. On Saturday my youngest daughter who is 5 years old, she came up to me and she goes daddy, let's go to the park. And I said well okay, let's hop in the car and she goes, no. I want to ride my bike and I said honey, there's no absolutely no way that we can ride your bike on 101. And that's pretty evident right there of what our situation is at Kurvers Point. I'm in agreement to IA with a few asterisks. I believe and agree with what Frank had to say this morning, or this afternoon. But I would like to suggest that we look at lowering the berm at the highest point. Or not the berm but the road which is right behind my house and I believe that that might be the highest point on 10 I. If we could lower that and increase our vision down the highway, I think that would help our safety issue quite a bit. ...from a safety standpoint I think it needs to be safety number one and then let's get the trail number two. And I agree with the other gentleman that just spoke a few minutes ago about curbs. I think we need curbs where it's appropriate. I don't know if we need curbs along the lower sections of the road but curbs would certainly protect my young children when they're riding on the trail. It would certainly give some aspect of safety in that situation. I think maintaining the integrity of the berms along 101 is the big issue. Just as an FYI, I took my tape measurer one Sunday morning and I went from the middle of the road to the two lane highway and the two lane highway was right smack dab in the middle of the berm. My back yard. And I thought weU, where's that four lane highway? And I went, risked my life again Sunday morning and went from the middle of the road to the four lane highway which was described in the plans and it was way the heck over my berm, which would completely the lower the berm. It would, I can imagine the impact that it would have on some of these houses that are right up against the highway. So I think safety is a number one issue and we need the trail so that my 5 year old daughter can get to the park. It's that simple. Thank you. . Mayor Mancino: Thank you John. Dan Russ: My name is Dan Russ. I live at 6791 Brule Circle. I'm part ofthe Lotus Lake neighborhood. First off I want to thank the Kurvers neighborhood for putting forward an option that we are discussing. I think that it is important to bring up the fact that we here are not engineers. We don't know how to design a road. That's not our job. Our job is to work in the community and support the community. We elect officials that will make decisions for us in our best interest and that's what we're hoping that you will do for us tonight. We currently have a beautiful Chanhassen Road that is a green way from Highway 5 to Crosstown. AU of the concepts that are on the wall, and nobody's brought this up yet. The only thing that I can speak to is the section of road that goes through our neighborhood and there's over 1,000 feet of retaining wall that will completely eliminate all the berms and add walls. I've asked since September of last year to see profiles on the road to understand where the road depth goes. How much of the road you're taking out or how much you're adding, and how high these retaining walls are that run the full length of my property and eliminate all my trees. And those questions haven't been answered. And again we're not engineers and we ask the questions. Sometimes we get the information. Sometimes we don't But I think what's important here this evening is to understand that the concepts presented, I, 2, 3, 4 and the two that have been eliminated are not acceptable to anybody. And I agree with the gentleman that was just up here that spoke against concept IA which is weU, we probably need ponds for retention to filter that water before it goes in. Nobody doubts that. We probably need curbs to keep our kids safe on those bike trails. That's something the engineers have to design. But in concepts 1,2, 3, and 24 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 4, you take all the property. You might as well do concept 4. If you're going to do I, you might as well do 4 because it's coming. Sooner or later it's coming and we might as well bite the bullet and do it. Nobody here wants that. They want a revised concept that makes sense and that's what we're here asking for. So I'm going to ask the council, and I don't know if there's anybody else that is going to publicly speak, but I'm going to put a challenge out to the council tonight. I'd like somebody up here in the council that represents us to put forward a motion this evening to support concept IA and to terminate those four options and to hire a new consulting firm and figure out a trail that works and a roadway that works that's acceptable to the city because these four concepts are not acceptable. And there is an acceptable solution. It needs to be worked on. We need an immediate bike trail so I'm asking someone from the council to put forward a motion tonight to work forward to put an immediate trail in place and work on a revised concept IA. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Chuck Hallau: Good evening. Thank you very much. My name is Chuck Hallau, 6770 Brule Circle and I want to thank all of you council members and the Mayor for taking so much time to listen to us and this evening but also accepting our e-maiIs and accepting our pleas and our telephone calls and walking around and talking to us and finding out our thoughts on this, because it is important to us. It changes our lives. One big problem that I see here is that a number of years ago our little road 101 was redesignated and I don't know, maybe you can help me on this. Was it a public forum like this that it was redesignated? Mayor Mancino: Roger, do you know? I'm sure it went through comprehensive plans that have public hearings. Roger Gustafson: Yes, that goes back to what Jim Grube was talking about in the early 90's when throughout the metropolitan area there was an initiative put forward to have all counties, all cities do their comprehensive plan updates. And at that time there was a, in Carver County formed an advisory committee, technical committee to work with everyone as a group and look at transportation, comprehensive plans. The technical committee had a number of representatives on it. Chanhassen engineer. Chanhassen planner were on those. That all came back to the communities. They had whatever they thought was appropriate. Mayor Mancino: There was public notification. Roger Gustafson: Updated their comprehensive plans in an orderly way. Chuck Hallau: There was public notification but really it was done without us and without us knowing that this was going on, and those little changes have impacted our lives. It's like the old smoke filled rooms behind doors getting officials ready to be elected. It's the same kind of thing. We're here now pleading. Things have gone on before us, before our input and now we're reacting to it. That's not the right time. We should have reacted, we should have been involved in that very early process. But be that as it may, I understand that Chanhassen is a growing community. I was told by Mayor Mancino recently that we want to have 30% business and 70% residential in Chanhassen, but my question is, at what price to us residents who've been there so long? We deserve a little better and as it has been said so eloquently, we don't want any ofthese. We also believe, as Dan Russ said, 101, or IA is a viable option but it was something that was brought out in defense. We don't like this and we put this thing out there. Please consider, please consider a study that does what needs to be done. Don't let this system say this is what has to happen. Work with us. We're willing to work with you. Yes we do need those curbs, but 25 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 we don't need four lanes all the way down. There are lots of turn in's right now. If a car's broken down, they can pull into there slowly. I also heard that on 62, the gentleman who is at Pleasant View and 10 I, he said well you get up to 45 like this. That four lane highway was promised to the residents to be 35 miles an hour. 35 miles an hour and it lasted for 6 weeks. We don't want to be led down the primrose path. Please work with us. We're your citizens. We support you but we need you. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Harvey Parker: I'm Harvey Parker. I live at 7480 Chanhassen Road. As I sat here listening to everybody speak this evening it finally occurred to me, and I don't know why it hasn't in previous meetings, but the safety issue that we hear so much about is not a vehicle safety issue but it's a pedestrian and walkway issue. I asked at the last meeting that I attended, I think I asked you Tim, when you gave us statistics on Highway 101 I said that's for 101. What are the statistics from the Crosstown to Highway 5 and that information wasn't available. And if that 2 Y:z miles, or whatever it is from the Crosstown to Highway 5 is such a safety issue, I'm sure that you folks would have jumped on that thing and gotten that information and made us aware of it. I don't think from a vehicular standpoint that that section of road is a safety problem. The safety problem is the necessity of putting the trails and pathways along the side. And I think that the IA concept addresses that issue nicely and as I say, the safety issue is not vehicular on that part of the road. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Rob Moschet: Madam Mayor, Honorable Councilmembers, my name is Rob Moschet. I live at 7006 Cheyenne Trail. I've been sitting back patiently. Everything that has been said about the concept IA I will support. One of the reasons that I'm in support of that concept over the others is because of something that hasn't been brought up before and that is the question of access for emergency vehicles if these medians are put in as shown in concepts 2 and above. If the medians are put in as shown. for the stop lights, the traffic control lights at Valley View at least, I will be prevented, people on Cheyenne Trail are prevented from a left in, left out. That means that emergency vehicles are prevented from getting into our neighborhood as well and that needs to be taken into account. Whatever concept is developed here, and again I'm in favor ofthe IA concept but whatever concept is developed here we can't have those long medians that restrict emergency vehicle access. Thanks. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. No more. Dave Robinson: No more. I thought you were going to make me sit down. I'm Dave Robinson again from 25 Pleasant View. I just want to say a couple more words. I guess in agreement with my neighbor Jim about the plan 2. I like the idea of plan 2 because it has the shoulders along the road which are a lot more safe from the standpoint of if a car breaks down or something. Someone has to get off the road they can instead of going in the ditch. And actually looking at the plans it's no, at the widest point Plan 2 is no more wider than plan I. Or Plan IA because of those huge culverts that you have to have so you know just a point of interest. I didn't know that. I was just looking at the plan so. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Alfred Berry: Hi there. I'm Alfred Berry, 7023 Cheyenne Trail. No one else from our subdivision came up on Colonial Grove's subdivision. I wanted to take a vote for IA from our subdivision since no one else asked for that. From Colonial. All for plan IA. 18. I mean 19. Anyone against it? FromColonial. 2. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. 26 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Winding down now, anyone else? This is it. We'll be closing the public hearing. Frank Mendez: Just one quick comment. On the other proposals that have been proposed by these other government agencies, what we're looking for is not an upgrade at the expense of downgrading the community. The entire community, not just the immediate area. And that's what we're looking at over here on everything that has been proposed by these other government, by these other agencies. What I A is looking at is upgrading the road and upgrading the community. IA and the working of IA can do that. It's a win/win situation for all. The other one is Ii loss. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. The public hearing is now closed so we'll be bringing this back to council to discuss. I'm assuming, it's a little harder because I can't look at every council member but I'm assuming that council members, there's a consensus with us all that everybody's ready to hone in on one design. I know that we just received from Eden Prairie their resolution looking at still concept 2, concept 3, concept 4. Would we as a council like to even narrow that down to one concept? Do council members feel comfortable with that? Councilman Senn? Councilwoman Jansen? Councilwoman Jansen: Not as it exists today. Mayor Mancino: Okay. But if we see one that we would like to start with as a base, do you feel comfortable honing that down to one concept? Councilwoman Jansen: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel? Councilman Engel: Yeah, I can see one I can throw out real easy. Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. Well who would like to start? Give some comments and kind offrame some of your issues. Each one of us can talk and then make a motion. And we can have some discussion around it if there are questions that we have for each other. Do you want to go ahead and start? Councilman Senn: What are going to do as a format? I mean do you want to do discussion or what? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Let's have discussion. Councilman Senn: Okay. Let's see here. I think the easiest way to frame this is to say that it's really time to try to culminate an ongoing process that's been going on almost 40 years. That's about the time I believe the State of Minnesota declared 101 a temporary state highway and ceased to do anything to do it other than minimum maintenance. For 10 years now, I mean I can say that I've been personally affected there and have been involved in very specific discussions over design and implementation of both the roadway and trail along 101. Chanhassen unfortunately never had an opportunity to comment or to affect the outcome of Hennepin County's decision to essentially do what was done with Dell Road and to essentially do what was done with 62. Even though those decisions I think would be fair to say have a high impact on the residents of our neighborhoods. No public notices were ever sent out to individual homeowners. No mailings. No notifications one way or another. Hennepin County's now had a plan essentially with it's completion of 62 to continue 62. And that plan is to basically give it a left hand turn and take it south to 5 as a four lane highway. That hasn't been anybody else's plan that I'm aware of in 27 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 the last 10 years. It's really time from out standpoint to rather than rely on plans which in any way, shape or form provide nothing but impact in a negative way to our residents, to shift now that we effectively have a voice in the process. You know I think it's been loud and clear many times over the last, I don't know, umpteen years but everybody's always known that any plans out here will effectively have a pretty substantial impact on the neighborhoods that are there because there simply isn't a lot of area between the existing road and the lake. It's basically a small land locked area. In my mind there's really only one responsible decision which is in the best interest of our citizens this time, which this is the first time in this entire process that we've had the opportunity to affectively weigh in on it. We've had numerous discussions on this over the last 10 years but there's always been this carrot kind of held out there that every time we got going on a trail discussion or some way to put a trail in, that somebody always came back and said, oh well don't do that because a couple of years from now we'll have the money to redo the road and put the trail in together so don't make a decision purely on a trail. My memory recollects, or ifmy memory is correct, I think we've swallowed that one three times now. At least since I've been around. The best decision which is in the best interest of our neighborhood takes into account maintaining the character of our neighborhoods. It fulfills the desires of I'm going to say 99% of the people who are in the neighborhoods adjacent to the 101 corridor. It provides for safety of our children. And finally installs a trail which has been paid for and promised over the last 20 years. The only responsible decision in my mind from all of this, and being affected by it, is an option I A. But let me be a little more specific about I A because the only criticism I've really ever heard of I A is it lacks detail. Yet everyone's refused to provide detail on IA as it relates to professional design. So let's just talk general parameters but let's get a little more specific than we have been. What I've heard from many, many people on is that they want to keep the current road configuration. Now that doesn't mean let's do I and just throw a surface on it. What I've heard everybody say is what they would like is they would like to maintain the current road configuration but they would like the substructure fixed. They'd like some of the humps taken out. They would like curb and gutter put in. They would like storm sewer put in. Okay. And then they would like a new surface installed over it. I've heard everybody basically say time and time again we need traffic signals, and we're not talking about really in that great of depth slowing down traffic or anything else because I haven't heard that being the big concem. The big concern is providing breaks in the traffic. Because let's face it, regardless of what we do, we still can't, unless you're going to put some officer out there 24 hours a day, you're not going to stop people from speeding and regardless of what we do, they're going to speed. The last element of that has been to, let's go ahead and let's install immediately a minimum impact trail along the west side, extending from 78th to Pleasant View. And by minimum impact everybody's been pretty definitive on that. Minimum impact. Now again, nobody's tried to play engineer. Nobody's tried to play designer, but I think the message has been clear, let's go back and design one which means when we can, let's put a curb and butt it up to the curb. Ifwe're going to affect tree stands, if we're going to negatively affect drainage. Ifwe're going to impact people's properties. You know if it can migrate off and not impactthings, then fine. Let's migrate it offa little bit if we can. But I haven't heard anybody say that that's a critical issue to them. The critical issue is minimum impact. The approach on this is going to get very, very convoluted. It's difficult enough to deal with govemment when one governmental entity's involved, let alone here where you've got five. And god help me, I'm part of it. The thing that I've heard loud and clear, again from 99% of the people out there, is it's time that the City ofChanhassen basically take a position and in that position make it clear that that position reflects a I A or something very similar to it which has been generally defined. And secondly, let's be realistic and know that in effect that since we're weighing in on that and saying that's going to be our position, that that's diametrically opposed to Hennepin Avenue's, or not Hennepin Avenue's. Hennepin County's opinion in terms of what that roadway should be. And in that it is diametrically opposed, let's be realistic and assume that who knows how long it's going to be before the real road issue is resolved. I think there's some things we can do there. I think there's some things we can do in getting our state representatives to weigh in and do some things for us 28 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Thank you. You'd better clap for each one of us then. But I do want to bring up to, with what Councilman Senn said, because I don't want anyone to get the false impression as far as going ahead and building a trail, and that is that the road right-of-way on the western side, which is in Chanhassen, is currently owned by MnDot. So just so everyone knows, we would have to go to MnDot and they would have to allow us to put a trail in. So the road right-of-way right now is not owned by the City ofChanhassen or the Carver County. It is owned by MnDot so Ijust wanted to make sure everyone knew that. there too. Evidently higher levels of government aren't all that interested in listening to the neighborhoods but maybe they will be to our elected representatives in which they work for. But more importantly from a city's perspective, let's get off our butts and let's get a trail in. We've asked for that trail I don't know how many times in the last 20 years. And the last big time this was an issue was 10 years ago and if we would have put in the temporary trail 10 years ago, the trail probably would have out, well probably would have had a long and useful life by now. And in that I don't see any real quick resolution to a divided position between Hennepin County and what I hope is Chanhassen's position, let's be realistic in get going and get something in as far as the trail goes and let's let the road issue evolve as we go along. But maybe as an impetus to help move it along, let's not forget that we're also a player in this too. Let's not forget that we have about $2.6 million offunds that have been set aside of which could be allocated to this project from the TIF district that includes it. And let's maybe use that as a basis and a leverage to maybe work towards the position we want for once, which is responsive to the people we represent rather than the fulfillment of some long term plans by other governmental entities which have chosen notto involve us in the process in the past. I think that's very important...form positions which follow the lines of what all our residents want. Let me just leave it at that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn: Thank you. Councilman Engel: Can you say arm twisting? Mayor Mancino: Well we've put in trails on MnDot Highway 7. We've done that as a city. We've done it on Powers Boulevard. We've done it on Galpin Boulevard, which are county roads too but you certainly do have to go and negotiate with them and have them say yes to your plans. Hold them harmless and lots of other things. Correct Roger? Okay. Roger Knutson: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen. Councilwoman Jansen: I actually have a couple questions if! could maybe start with my questions. In regards to concept 2, as I'm trying to look at concept I and concept 2 and figure out where the existing right-of-way lines are, I'm not clear as to whether, what we're showing in concept 2 is actually within the existing MnDot right-of-way or if we are looking at then expanding beyond what is currently considered MnDot right-of-way. Can somebody speak to, and of course looking on the Chanhassen side, I don't know that it's necessarily the same on the other side. Tim Phenow: The right-of-way along the corridor is actually variable. In some areas there is, if I could measure from central line in some areas there's 40 feet of right-of-way from center line. In some areas there's only 33 feet of right-of-way in some of the older sections and in a few rare instances there's 29 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 actually 50 feet of right-of-way from central line. Concept 2 falls within the existing right-of-way. The roadway would fall within the existing right-of-way but the trail and construction limits, the need to shape the slopes to construct the roadway, smooth out the profile a little bit is going to go outside of the existing rights-of-way in most areas. Councilwoman Jansen: In most areas you said? Tim Phenow: Yes. Even where there is wider right-of-way. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. So in those instances where I'm hearing that we would be affecting those berms, are the berms right now in the existing right-of-way but because of construction we're eliminating those as we're doing and pushing out into construction limits? Is that why we lose berms? Tim Phenow: I believe most of the berms are on private property. We certainly have not looked at that much detail to determine exactly where, how each and every berm is affected. Not every berm gets affected. Not every berm gets removed. And there are ways in which the berms can be protected. Steeper slopes. Retaining walls. We really haven't taken the planning to that level of detail. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. And maybe I'm getting ahead of myself when I'm thinking that if in fact we're impacting those berms as we're doing construction, conceivably we're then putting those berms back? Realizing that we then can't plant the vegetation that's been taken off but are we looking at once construction is complete, do berms then end up being replaced? Jim Grube: Councilwoman Jansen, if the room allows us to put those berms back in a higher or lower location, and replant, that would be something that we would certainly want to look at, yes. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Thank you on that. And then I was looking at the accident rate that's quoted along the roadway currently. At the 2.69 accidents per million vehicle miles. I'm assuming that came from an actual existing report that would possibly be able to give us the detail as to where those accidents were occurring along that corridor and what kind of accidents. I mean are we looking at rear ends as people are going left or right? \Or would we be able to actually see where those heavily conflict areas are along the corridor? From that report. Jim Grube: Yes, that's information that is gleaned from a larger report put together for this corridor and would show right angle accidents, side swipes, rear enders, all those different types of accidents at the various locations along the corridor. Councilwoman Jansen: So that information we could still gather and be presented as we're going through this? Jim Grube: Yes. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I didn't know iff had just missed that or not. From what I could tell, and I realize that the diagrams don't go to a great deal of difficulty yet, but the dimensions that are shown for concept 2, and the widths, is that with curb and gutter? Tim Phenow: Is the width with curb and gutter? It is, yes. Concepts 2, 3 and 4 all include curb and gutter on either side. 30 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I think those are all my questions. Thank you. Gosh, general comments. I guess let me start by saying that I certainly agree with studies that have been done that do show that if you increase the capacity of a roadway that you do in fact tend to attract vehicle traffic to that roadway. So I'm not in favor of adding the additional lanes to this facility. I can appreciate that we are trying to improve some of these safety issues. I can certainly appreciate the need for a trail in this corridor. I don't know that that's going to be as simple a task as we would like to think it's going to be. But heaven knows we will leap those hurdles as we've had to do with the trails that have gone into existing neighborhoods in other parts of the community. But there was a feasibility study that had been done back in '93 and when they commissioned that feasibility study it was requested that it be for a low impact, in fact if it could be temporary type of a trail in case this roadway were expanded. And I've heard comments that maybe it's not as low impact as we would like it to be, but of course in reading through it knowing that they commissioned it to be low impact, I was looking at some of the things that they were saying were going to be affected. And just in trying to figure out if you know doing a trail would be one of those quick fixes that we could do for the quick gratification in this area, I looked at some of the comments that had been made by councils that were presented this information. Both in '93 and in '98 and some of the things that they had to deal with were the costs to even do a temporary trail because that required, I don't want to say massive grading but if you look along the sides of the road there isn't, in a lot of areas, room to put a trail right next to the road. So there is that stepping out across the ditch and over into some of the berms. But we were talking $400,000 to $500,000 to put the trail in this corridor, and realizing that we need it and that it certainly would be worth the investment, all of those things were considered even then and then the looming possibility of having to do it 1wice. If you put it in and then go to do any construction on the road, do you lose the trail? And that was brought up numerous times and the comments that came back from staff and the consultant that did the feasibility study was that you would lose most of the trail. So only to say that I wish I had thought that it would end up being as easy an issue on putting this trail in as I would have liked to have seen it be. I think we're going to hit some significant issues even as we go to do that, but I certainly support it. And what we can do to get it accomplished. And I guess the other thing that, I'm not totally convinced that we would be doing the right thing if we didn't add the shoulder to this roadway, and I know I threw that question out to numerous of the neighbors and got back several comments on that and I do appreciate it. But when I look at 101, and believe me I drive the southern part of) 0 I numerous times every day so I'm familiar with how nice it is living on a more rural type country roadway and we've got probably the coolest curves down there if you've got a fast car. You're always hearing people zipping around those curves down there so I can appreciate what you're trying to maintain in your neighborhoods. But numerous times even in that area encountering either a disabled vehicle or our mail carriers, I really appreciated the one neighbor that mentioned the mail carriers because boy, you come around a comer and those poor folks actually stopped on the roadway trying to put mail in a box. I really feel for them. It's quite a surprise and also to come around the comer and see a school bus stopped and traffic trying to then stop behind that school bus in time. You know numerous events as you've got people driving too quickly and there's no place to go. You can't go right and you can't go left. If you don't have time to stop, that's why I'm curious to see what the accidents actually were. How many rear ends and what exactly has occurred. So I guess what I feel challenged on in looking at these concepts is wanting to maintain all of the things that you're saying we should be trying to maintain as far as the integrity of the neighborhoods. As much of the vegetation as we possibly can. But we still need to go from what is right now a very rural roadway Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Because all we have not added to date then would be the NURP ponds if you would, the storm water facilities to the diagrams? Tim Phenow: That's correct. We've just shown in general the approximate area that they would need to be, and that's in the lowest points of the road. 31 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 that is surrounded by urbanization and it seems like we at least have to take it to what would be a minimum of requirements that you know I heard people suggest Powers Boulevard would be acceptable or Pioneer Trail as it's configured in Chanhassen on the southern end of the community. And those are all a little bit wider and yes it's going to impact the ditches. We would have vegetation that would be affected and we would obviously then be replacing what we could, not that it makes up for old growth and developed trees. Mind you I'm real cognizant of the character along the sides of these roads but there would be that replacement of as well of the trees and evergreens and so forth as far as vegetation. But I guess tonight maybe as we're continuing to discuss this, iff can maybe hear more comment from other council members on the issue of the shoulder because I think I'm somewhere between IA and 2. 2 right now appears as if there are areas that are even out beyond what we may necessarily need to do. I falls maybe a little short. And maybe it's somewhere in between. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. I mean where I'd like to go tonight is if we're between IA or IAA is to give very specific direction of a design that we'd like to see come back. If it's not a lA, if it's not, welllA hasn't been done. So if it's not a I and it's not a 2, that we give Hennepin County direction as to what we'd like to see in a design and have them come back so that we can give comments on it. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Councilman Engel: What if you can't get consensus on the road, what about trail? I mean you wait forever? Mayor Mancino: No, we can go ahead and do the trail and we're going to discuss that. Councilman Engel: I'm going to try to keep comments to three or four things here. County Road 62, Grays Bay. That will come in here and the trail. First off with County Road 62. That's a four lane and it feeds four different roads. I think we're looking at this backwards. We've got not roads feeding into County 62 that we need to widen, but we've already got the capacity on the existing roadways to take off from County 62 what's coming there. You've got two lanes coming to the west that are spitting traffic south onto Dell, west on Town Line, north on 101 which is a two lane, and south on 101. So we're taking two lanes into four. I think there's plenty of capacity there. If you try and turn that around, I don't think it goes that way. We didn't build, the county, Hennepin County built the four lane for 62 and in my mind it terminates there and it becomes a feeder to four different roadways. And it stays that way. As Mark said, you've got five governing bodies trying to come to consensus on that roadway. I've watched this for 3 years and he's watched it for a lot more than that and there's neighbors that have lived here for 20 plus. You've got five governing bodies. We could likely get six governing opinions on what to do with the thing. So I have no confidence that that's going to happen anytime soon and that leads into my point about Grays Bay bridge. That's a two lane bridge I believe they're reconstructing it right now, is that true? The day you can get a four lane bridge pushed through on Grays Bay on Lake Minnetonka, through the heavy weights who live up there, then you can bring a four lane plan to me because I just don't think that's ever going to happen. Pigs will fly before that happens. It's not going to happen. And I don't see it being a four lane even up to 7. It's not. It's not a four lane south of 5 either. Which means it's an extension of 62 and I've already said I don't believe it works that way. The tails wagging the dog in that case. The trail. That's an immediate need for those residents. They've liv~d there. They've paid taxes. They've pushed, or if they didn't push they probably fought referendums because they saw this coming. They've paid for the parks and the trails in this community. They've got a downtown that they are effectively cut off from. And to continue to deny them that access because we're going to disagree about a road configuration, it just isn't right and I'm against that as much as I can be. And I've been on the council for 3 years. That's just, there's a couple of issues I've lost patience with. This is one of 32 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 them. And I've heard all the reasons for the delays in the past. How we're going to get the trail built. We're going to come to an agreement. I don't think we're ever going to come to a consensus on how to build this road. We just come at it from two different sets of goals and it's okay. That's why we have different governing bodies. We're probably going to disagree on this one. If we go ahead and build, and I believe we should do this, is start moving ahead and asking MnDot for permission to build that trail on that, maybe as early as tomorrow. By the time that thing wears out we might come to agreement on how to build this road. But I've waited long enough. If there's one thing I want to see happen before this four year term is up, it's for this issue to at least be resolved as to what to do with the trail. There's other ones but this is one of the thorny ones and I'm tired of seeing it happen and I'm sure people have lived there longer than I have, are tired of it as well so I think we either do a two lane, and I'm not saying IA is the greatest design of all time. But something like that. A minimum impact road. Maybe a turn lane. An 8 foot trail, not a 10 foot trail. Anything we can do to minimize the footprint is a good thing. So that's my consensus. If we can make a road design. Councilman Labatt: I've got a few questions for Jim and Roger. For Jim, and Roger both, any roads in the last 10 years been built without shoulders? Rebuilt? Reconstructed? In your knowledge. Roger Gustafson: You're going to get a variety of answers here. As far as rural roads in Carver County, we've always rebuilt those have had a wider shoulder on them or I think ifthere was a wide shoulder, replaced it in time. In an urban area if you're building like Powers Boulevard, and that has a divided roadway, there is no shoulder there because you have your two lanes in one direction. So it all is I guess variable from one project to the next. But it is desirable and standards and rules, our engineering guidelines take us that way that if you do have just a two lane roadway with a lot oftraffic on it, that you should seriously look at getting some sort of shoulder out along that roadway. So really the exceptions generally happen when you're talking about a rural roadway. In an urban setting on an arterial there is a minimum requirement of a narrow shoulder reaction distance to a curb line. Councilman Labatt: Okay. For Jim. Jim Grube: I'll just give you Hennepin County perspective. Councilman Labatt: Yeah, but as you respond to it I also want you to address County Road 15 west from Wayzata to Orono Orchard Road. That used to be a road similar to 101, two lane no shoulders and that was recently upgraded. Jim Grube: My county experience is limited to the last 5 years. The previous 20 I've been a city engineer across the metro and the state so I'm only going to speak over the last 5 years. That particular road is a 3 lane cross section and it does have 8 foot shoulders on it. And in terms of the 5 years that I've been involved with Hennepin County designs, we've put shoulders on all the rural roads that we've done and in terms of urban roads, we've had shoulders on those if there's curb and gutter, unless it was we'll say a four lane section. In that case I'd say the same as Roger. We don't have a real shoulder. It's called reaction distance off the face of the curb. Councilman Labatt: And Mark took away my question on the 101 bridge. So that is built for two lanes only or is it two for future growth to four? Or is it just strictly two? Jim Grube: That's two with shoulders. 33 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Councilman Labatt: With shoulders. Is the causeway north of the bridge, is that two lane with shoulders then too? Jim Grube: The project is essentially the bridge itself and then the causeway approximately 300 feet north. The length of a football field. And that will be two lanes with shoulders as it matches in. Councilman Labatt: Okay. I'm just trying to get comparatives for, in roads here. Roger, Galpin Boulevard south of 5 is county road, correct? Roger Gustafson: Correct. Councilman Labatt: And that was built to what specifications? Roger Gustafson: That's a 52 foot dimension curb to curb. From the outside lane in each direction is used as a shoulder and a right turn lane because of numerous access points along that roadway. I should add we, sort of on an aside but it's a situation we're trying to evaluate is we tried to keep that road at a minimum speed and follow guidelines for cars and so forth and even with doing that we do have some concerns about the sight line that's been created at the intersection with Bluff Creek School so, when we do talk about these hills and elevations and even with that wide shoulder so you can see a long ways from your driving lane, motorists are still feeling a little bit constricted as far as sight distance even with that . type of design standard being applied to that project. So we try to take into account as much as possible on these safety issues but those always become a give and take with their limitations of the corridor. Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then how about Powers Boulevard north of West 78th? Roger Gustafson: Okay, that's sort of in a transition area across the ravine there. Are you talking then further north where. Councilman Labatt: Further north up by Saddlebrook and. Roger Gustafson: That basically was overlay repaved last year and we did widen those shoulders from about a 4 foot paved shoulder to an 8 foot paved shoulder and the intersections widened out to accommodate a 12 foot turn lane wherever we could. Councilman Labatt: Okay. What's the traffic count in that road, do you know? Roger Gustafson: Well I have it in my file here if you want me to look while you go onto another question. Councilman Labatt: I was given a number around 7,000 a day north of West 78th. Roger Gustafson: I would expect that that's representative. Councilman Labatt: Okay. Mayor Mancino: All the way up to 7 or just in a certain area? 34 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Councilman Labatt: Is about 7,000. Okay. I think all my questions are answered. Now to get down to it Some of these were pretty easy to eliminate for me. I'll come right out and say 3 and 4 are not in my vision at all. And to get right down to it I'm looking at Option 2. And the big thing is with 2 is shoulders. I see in the after affects of the last 10 years of collisions because drivers don't have an avenue of escape. We've heard about pedestrian traffic, or pedestrian safety. We'll eliminate that by putting a trail and getting those people off, but there's still the people going up and down that road in their cars and semis and vans that, for whatever reason, accidents happen. So I think that if we want to talk about safety, we've got to talk about everybody's safety on that road and not just pedestrians but also vehicles. And by putting shoulders on there and leaving it with concept 2, I think that's a win/win for everybody. Councilman Labatt: It was 7,000 north of West 78th. The information was relayed was south of West 78th is considerably higher because of people turning into downtown. So the area north of West 78th, I don't know where the strip was put down. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, because I think if it was in Excelsior. Mayor Mancino: Okay. ... lanes at concept 2? Councilman Labatt: I know we talked about this when we talked about 41 and 7. And you know, medians you know are there for safety. And likewise they're there to restrict movement for left in and left out. For the gentleman who lives on Cheyenne that talked about emergency vehicles and access in his, I don't know. If at that point if you were, where I've seen where they've lowered the median for emergency vehicle crossings. But you do that and by god people are going to go there and do it to go home, to take the short cut so I don't know if you just leave them painted medians or striping or what. But no, the turn lanes are fine. I mean I drove home there today. I went up and had lunch with my kids at Burger King. They want to go there. They like their chicken nuggets better, but I came home 101. I live on the west end of Chanhassen so I came home 101 to get one last drive through there and I couldn't, I kept driving down there and saying there's absolutely no way I could see this thing being anything more than two lanes. There just is not the room. And as I came up to Pleasant View I looked at that and said to myself, you know you could put turn lanes in here. It would work. It's wide enough already coming down from the south. And then south of Pleasant View there's not a lot of trees. And then it can narrow back into two lanes with shoulders in each lane. And then getting back down to Valley View there's a turn lane, two drive lanes and a turn lane to the intersection so I'm not sure how many feet that is. What that equates to for how much more adding a turn lane is going to add to that intersection... 6 feet on each side then? Okay. What's it come down to, what's 6 feet? 1 don't know. If I'm a property owner, 6 feet means the world to me. You bet. But looking at pedestrian and vehicle safety, you know that's for the engineers to work over. So and then as you crest the hill near the guy who lives on 21 Basswood. Chop that hill down you know. As you look at all the resurfacing that's going on, 494 to Minnetonka when they just redid that whole concrete section. They took out all the hills in that area. And all the increased elevations because that's what slows traffic down. So you can have it both ways. The hills will slow you down but they also create a safety issue. But by lowering that grade there it's going to make for a more efficient safe drive. That's all I have. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Trying to pull this all together and go forward a little faster now. I'm going to actually try and pull comments that everyone has said and see if we can come together on a consensus on an alignment, or at least have a majority of us. I am not for concept 4 or concept 3 either. There are some things that I like in concept 2 and there are some things that I like in concept I and so I'm going to try and pull everything that has been said tonight and see if we can get some consensus on alA or I AA. And so if council members, if you want to ask me for a question as I start on this, please do. 35 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 And it would be great if somebody could kind of write it down as we talk for a motion. First of all I think I've heard every council member say that we are committed to the two lane concept. I mean two lanes. Not concept 2. But two lanes. Secondly, I've heard every one here tonight, council members and everyone who's come and spoken and signed a petition say that a trail is very, very, very important for safety, pedestrian safety. And they would like it now. Not later but now. I think we're all in agreement on that Number two about the trail. A low impact trail. And I can just tell you that I think the majority of trails in Chanhassen, those that we put 6 different trail segments from our last referendum were 8 feet wide and were paved. Thirdly what I heard is keeping the trail close to the road. And there are, with curb and gutter. So that the curb acts as kind of the safety mechanism for the trail. And it's certainly one that we, they use on the northern part of 101 when we put in the trail on Galpin north of Lake LucyRoad, we did that closer to the road and it has certainly worked out well in that area to save the trees. Thirdly what I also heard was stopping the trail at Pleasant View and not having it go north on Pleasant View on that west side. Number two, that the sub-base needs to be upgraded of the road. The peaks and valleys need to be leveled. A smooth road surface will help for better sight lines. There is a concern about water quality so include storm sewer and ponding. A parkway character, I think all of us talked to that. Keeping it two lane as a parkway character. And low impact to existing vegetation and berms. That whatever we can do to maintain the integrity of the existing berms. And last but not least, and I'm sure there will be some other things that council members want to add that I have maybe looked over, is shoulders. Now this is interesting. I live on Galpin and we have shoulders. They're about a couple feet wide and maybe 3 feet and I use shoulders to get my mail. My mail box is on the other side of the street than my driveway so I actually have to kind of veer over on the shoulder which is not paved, but which is gravel which is about 2 feet so that I can actually pick up my mãil. It seems to me as I drive on 101 that there are so many right lane turn off's at each street to most of the subdivisions in Chanhassen that if there was a problem, somebody could use that right lane for you know a vehicle that had problems, etc. I still have a little concern about people who are trying to get their mail though. I must admit on the southern portion of the road so something needs to be looked at for that. And there quite a few individual driveways and they do stop, you know they don't walk up a driveway in a winter storm to get their mail. I mean you like to get it in your car. So if we can look at that creatively, how to deal with that. Are there any other issues, concerns that you heard that we can pull together into a concept that is a little further than IA and not a 2? Councilwoman Jansen: I think you called off every one's points that I had written down and the only thought that I had maybe politically, and this isn't playing games on our residents. Realize I'm kind of reacting to the fact that we have these other parties we need to negotiate with but what if we were to term what we're trying to accomplish a 2A version. Mayor Mancino: Well let's get some feedback from council. Councilwoman Jansen: The only thought being that the other jurisdiction did approve and is looking at that 2 being a two lane versus the one being an overlay. So we're saying it's better than 1 but we're going less than 2. That's my only thought. Mayor Mancino: Okay, and that makes me bring up, thank you. And I'll react to that in a moment. I do want to bring up, I know that the minutes that I read, the Fox Hollow and if somebody's from that neighborhood, please let us know or let me know, but just a second. I did read in the minutes that the Fox Hollow people neighbors did want a left hand lane going north on 101. That to get into Fox Hollow that they did want a left hand lane there. Am I correct in that? Because that would widen that area whereas I think at Pleasant View and at Valley View the neighbors, all of you do not want a left hand turn lane so, Jim? 36 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Councilman Senn: Well I think let's try a motion and see if we can get this done. And I'm not going to call it any kind of concept. I'm just going to say the City's position is. The City's position is that it is adopting a concept incorporating a two lane road within the e¡{isting configuration of 101 which incorporates a fix of the substructure, a leveling of the peaks and valleys, and a resurfacing of the road. As well as, curb and gutter, storm sewers and ponding, and a minimum impact 8 foot trail from 78th to Pleasant View going off curb. And a northbound left turn lane at Fox Hollow. And just a commentary there. I think you could do northbound because if you did the other, you'd have a real problem because you'd impact the ponding and everything that's there already but northbound I don't believe would and stuff, but I think that incorporates everything, at least that I read and heard and liked that we've discussed. But I guess one thing I want to make very clear is that what I'm talking about is a concept essentially where you have a two lane road and you have right turn lanes and you have a trail which then starts on the other side of the curb and goes for 8 feet. Okay? And very similar concept that's been used elsewhere. I mean that is your, I don't know if you want to call it your raised shoulder or whatever you want to call it, but that's your minimum impact trail. It's your raised shoulder. It's everything. It's basically a minimum impact trail that follows the road along that entire segment. Jim: I was at that meeting and that...concemed about a left hand turn lane being there. Mayor Mancino: Into Fox Hollow. Jim: Again, I live close to there and there's quite a few rear end accidents there... Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Bob. Bob: The next two neighborhoods, Pleasant View and Valley View never mentioned anything about a left hand turn lane because they assumed stop lights, they are proposed. Mayor Mancino: No, I understand the left hand turn lanes are not at Pleasant View and Valley View but it was a request at Fox Hollow. So I would like to add that into this design. Now let's talk about what we call the design. Councilman Senn. Councilman Engel: I have a question. Councilman Senn: Yes. Councilman Engel: You had mentioned lights but, and I may mention, if we didn't, the reason we didn't have the curiosity of. Councilman Senn: That is my mistake. Lights at Pleasant View and Valley. Councilman Engel: Okay. And as a result, if they wouldn't do lights, for whatever reason, that they would have to be I think at least replaced by a left turn because was it not considered because we expected the light? Because if you didn't have a light, that seems like a pretty dangerous move. Councilman Senn: Well again Mark, this is our position. Councilman Engel: Okay. 37 city Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Councilman Senn: I hate to start getting into either or's. Councilman Engel: I'm with you. Councilman Senn: Okay, and the other part is, is part of our position can be, I mean if we're going to be contributing funds for things and that's an issue, I think you know that's someplace that that may get jnvolved or it may be a place we can impact it or whatever. Councilman Engel: Okay. Councilman Senn: But I mean for now I think we should keep our position kind of crisp. Councilman Engel: Lights at Pleasant View. Councilman Senn: Lights at Pleasant View and at Valley View. And basically that is the city's position and we'd like to direct our consultants to prepare a plan. Mayor Mancino: And an EA W. After we see the plan. After we see the plan. Councilman Senu: Oh, okay. Well I mean after the plan's done, yeah. I mean basically for now prepare a plan which we can then use as a take off, not only for our position but preparation of an EA Wand everything else that we need to do from that point on. And I'd like to end this motion right there. I have a secondary motion I'd like to make. Councilman Engel: Okay, I was wondering. Councilman Senn: But I'd like, I think we should keep them separate. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any discussion on the motion? Councilman Senn: Could I get a second first? Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Labatt: No, I'd like to. Councilman Senn: There's a motion on the floor. Councilman Engel: I think you second and then you amend? Councilman Senn: Before discussion you have to second a motion. Councilman Labatt: I just wanted clarification. Mayor Mancino: Oh, wanted clarification of the motion. Councilman Labatt: Does your plan not include any shoulders in it? It does not include an... 38 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Scott Botcher: I have a question. Councilman Senn: Steve, to be honest with you I did not address the issue of shoulders on the east side of the road one way or the other. I don't feel that that is our position. That position should be addressed by the City of Eden Prairie and Hennepin County, okay. As far as our side of the road I made it very clear, we will have a road. We will have a curb and gutter. We will have an 8 foot trail section which will be raised and will also double as the shoulder. Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second to the motion? Councilman Engel: I want to be clear on this. When you say that acts as a shoulder, what do you mean by that? Councilman Senn: Go look at Mancino's house. It's right out in front of there. Councilman Engel: Okay, I think I know what you mean. Councilman Senn: What more can I say? I mean everybody drives by her house. Councilman Engel: It's the bail out lane is what you're saying. Okay. Yeah, I can second that. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any discussion? Mayor Mancino: Okay, Scott. Scott Botcher: Tim, is it Tim? Jim? Tim? Roger I can handle. Just a quick question, and I want to ask this as directly as I can. And God I hate these chairs. They're terrible. It's tough. Do we as a city have any authority to direct you to do any work at all? As I understand it you're employed or retained by Hennepin County, and I guess I want to be very clear right now whether or not we have any authority to direct you and your firm to do the work that's contemplated in Mark's motion. Or are we supposed to, or if we want to go down the path of that motion do we then need to as an independent entity retain a firm to do that work for us? Any of you guys can answer it. Jim Grube: I think I'd probably be best in answering it. SRF is under contract with Hennepin County and you can't technically directthem what to do. You'd have to ask us to take a look at it. I think that's a proper courtesy to extend to Hennepin County. And I'm not prepared to say yes or no tonight. Let's just see how things work out and kind of step back and re-evaluate our position. I don't want to draw a line in the sand, nor do I want to back off and say, we'll do anything you want. I just want to see how things go tonight and just kind of take stock of it. Scott Botcher: Okay. I guess I wanted that clarification as a raised issue for you all. Councilman Senn: And that's a good clarification because in my motion I said and direct our consultants. And what I want to make clear is my meaning of directing our consultants means directing our consultants to prepare that. If Hennepin County would like to agree to undertake that through their consultant, that's fine with me. But if not, we direct and employ our consultants to prepare that plan. Scott Botcher: And that would be through our standard RFP process to retain somebody I assume? Yes? 39 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Did you second? Councilman Engel: I seconded. Mayor Mancino: You seconded the motion? Councilman Engel: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Discussion. Any questions? Councilwoman Jansen do you have? Councilwoman Jansen: No questions. My catching point is still on the shoulder unfortunately and that's not included. At least in the planning phase. I have a problem with that. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Ifthis motion passes or any other motion for that matter, do you want us to prepare, or staff to prepare it in a resolution format so it's more easily distributable than just Minutes? Mayor Mancino: Say that again Roger? Roger Knutson: If this motion passes, or any other motion passes, do you want us to prepare it in a resolution format for easy distribution to anyone who's interested? Mayor Mancino: Yes; Now, I have some clarification to Councilman Senn's motion and that is, he said our consultants and obviously we don't have a consulting firm working for the City on this directly. Are you saying Councilman Senn, and I'm assuming that we would first ask Hennepin County if they would do it. Secondly, if Mr. Grube graciously said no, we would enter and have estimates, feasibility estimates done on, from three different firms giving us bids for doing the design work and it would come back to City Council. Councilman Senn: Yes, I think that's what Ijust said. Mayor Mancino: For us to review. Okay, Ijust wanted to make sure that I understood that. Okay, so we have a motion and it has everybody's clarification on that. Again we would be asking Hennepin County to do that and if they said no then we would as a city get some estimates from three consulting firms to look at that design for us as a city. Councilman Labatt: Ijust want to make one more. I think that we're not being responsible if we do not provide adequate safety with a shoulder. Councilman Engel: I would like to hear Councilman Labatt and Jansen address shoulders with regards to what's up in your neighborhood and see if there's some consensus here that we could find a mid ground here. Because I'm not convinced we can't do that when it's not that much distance. If we're got 3 feet of gravel as part of it. Ijust don't think we've talked about that enough. Mayor Mancino: Well I can just tell you up in my area, and you know it's an older roadway on Galpin but on one side of it, on the west side there is no shoulder whatsoever because there's curb and then there's the trail. Which works very well safety wise for the people who are on the trail. The pedestrians who ride or walk. On the east side of the road there is no curb and gutter. It's a rural section. There on 40 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 the east side there is about 2 to 3 feet of gravel so if, you know again if you have to get your mail you can kind of pull over a little bit because we're at the top of a hill because we still have the peaks and valleys on Galpin. We don't have it leveled off like we're proposing that it be done because you know, you can't see very well, your sight lines aren't very good in the old section. But if it's leveled it might be easier, plus we have a lot of, there are a lot of turn lanes down here so. Councilman Labatt: No, I disagree because the people brought it up here tonight with the garbage trucks and the mail haulers. Those people with your road configuration, if a garbage truck is going southbound, I'm driving southbound, I still have to drive partially in the northbound lane to get around that guy iff don't wait for him. With your road design. Councilman Senn: Mayor, maybe part of my confusion is I'm using a bad example. And Steve to help you in relationship to what I'm trying to convey is that, okay like over in the Mayor's neighborhood for example we put in a trail system and because we put the trail system in and it was going to be adjacent to the road we added the curb effectively that wasn't there, etc. Okay? The best example I can do is point right to 62 which Hennepin County just built. 62 has a roadway. It has no shoulders. It has curb and gutter. Beyond that curb and gutter, in spots it may have a little you know thin...strip or whatever but then effectively it has a trail. Okay. And all I'm saying is effectively the same thing. We are kind of bastardizing the concept here and making it somewhat of an urban section which exists all over Minneapolis and all over the world which is a roadway without shoulders, but has curb and gutter and has effectively a trail or sidewalks or whatever you want to call them, coming off to the side for 8 feet. Now if you don't put one on the Eden Prairie side for example, a trail, then you're going to have a shoulder there. But the shoulder's still going to be impaired by the curb and gutter because there's no way to resolve that conflict. You know there really isn't, so I mean essentially if you're going to take the roadway water and stuff and deal with it and direct it into storm sewers and pondage and stuff, I don't know how you're going to resolve that without getting into you know again a big massive, wide type of deal. So I mean this does, this solution that effectively exists on 62 and a lot of other places. Councilman Senn: Have you ever noticed what they do in Minnetonka? Up on the north segment of 101 where the trail is directly, no, no. But where the trail directly abuts the road. Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Councilman Senn: Do you know what they do? Councilman Labatt: No. Councilman Senn: Do you know what the mailman does? Councilman Labatt: What does he do? Councilman Senn: He drives down the trail and puts the mail in the mailboxes. Councilman Labatt: I hope they're charging a user fee then to use that trail. Councilman Senn: Well. Councilman Labatt: Okay, well I'll tell you I don't want a garbage trucks and mail drivers driving down the trail, okay. 41 City Council Meeting - April I 0, 2000 Councilman Senn: We don't have garbage trucks that... Mayor Mancino: We do have pick-up trucks cleaning off our trails though. They are on it. Councilman Senn: And they drive down them. Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Just one comment Frank and then we're going to bring it back and vote on this. Frank Mendez: Thank you. I received a letter on shoulders from Linda Jansen as well basically saying the same, having the same concern as Linda and Steve. This was my response. Dear Councilperson Linda Jansen. Thank you for expressing your one concern with Concept A. Your concept is the lack of a shoulder. Linda. I believe that when shoulders fit they are appropriate and when they don't fit, they are not. There are many drawbacks to having a shoulder on this particular road. However, let me share two with you. One, a shoulder will encourage and result in constant passing on the right side. I'm talking about the wider shoulders now that I've heard these 8 foot shoulders which was the context of Linda's letter. A shoulder will encourage and result in constant passing on the right side thereby creating a greater danger to the users to unbridle speeds and split second maneuvering offensively and defensively, Steve they're going to go around that trash truck on the shoulder. Therefore, two. Therefore shoulders would continuously draw, continuously draw and direct those drivers or driver errors or inattentive drivers, etc to the pathways putting the users of the pathways and all drivers at greater risk. Please feel free to contact me if any further discussion is needed. I ended it with Linda, I would like to ask you and all your fellow city council members to unanimously support concept I A. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you for your perspective Frank. Okay. So we have a motion and. There was a comment from the audience. Mayor Mancino: Okay, excuse me. We have a motion and we have a second. Let's take a vote. Scott Botcher: Can I ask two question\? Just for the heck of it. I've been here 3 hours too. Councilman Engel: You've earned the right then. Scott Botcher: Devil's advocate question Mark, and not that I have a problem with it but I did want to understand the point. The point in doing plans and specifications for a Concept IA or whatever you want to call it, is a communicative tool, correct? To communicate to the other governing bodies what our position is? Because beyond that I'm not sure what it's purpose is frankly. I'm just looking at spending of taxpayers dollars to do it. Councilman Senn: ...in keeping with what the people want out there, and we're taking the position on so it will reinforce the position so they understand it and can view it and understand what it is. And secondly, it can be used as a communicative tool with the other levels of government because if we don't prepare it, nobody else is going to I don't think. Scott Botcher: I wanted to make sure I understand that correctly. 42 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Councilman Senn: So I mean you've got to, we can't keep talking out here about concepts I through 6 and something else that's nebulous and undefined and have everybody on the opposite on the side of the table keep pointing at the only ones on the wall as being I through 6. Scott Botcher: True. I just want to understand what you're seeking and then secondly, in terms of and I don't have the answer for this tonight and we don't frankly need the answer tonight, but I think as we move ahead we should consider whether or not we want to keep joined or separate the road design and the trail design because they are related but they can be somewhat different animals, and I don't know if you've given that any thought. There rDay be some benefits either way. Councilman Senn: That's part of my second motion that I was going to get to. I was going to leave it alone for the moment. Scott Botcher: I'll shut up. Mayor Mancino: Okay, we have a motion and we have a second. Councilman Senn moved, Conncilman Engel seconded that it is the City Council's position to adopt a concept incorporating a two lane road within the existing configuration of Highway 101 which incorporates a fix of the substructure, a leveling ofthe peaks and valleys, a resurfacing of the road, installing curb and gutter, storm sewers and ponding, a minimum impact 8 foot trail extending from 78th to Pleasant View going off curb, a northbound left turn lane at Fox Hollow, and stop lights at the intersections of Pleasant View Road and Valley View Road. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Jausen and Councilman Labatt who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Mancino: Mark, you talked about a second motion? Councilman Senn: Yes, I'd like to forward a second motion and the second motion is that with the completion of that plan, that the City allocate the funds and immediately proceed to construct the trail portion of the project. And ifno agreement can be reached during that timeframe with the other governmental areas. Councilman Engel: What time frame? Councilman Senn: The time frame of our plan being prepared and being communicated to the other governmental entities. Councilman Engel: Okay. Councilman Senn: That the City proceed to let contracts to install a temporary, maybe this is a bad word to use but 1 think it's the right word, aggregate trail adjacent to the roadway which will function as a temporary trail until such time as the road issue is resolved. And the theory in doing so, and this is commentary now and not motion. The theory in doing so is that to build what we've just talked about as a concept to approve is going to require that anyway. Now know full well in effect that there may be impacts too such as storm sewer, whatever, depending on the positioning or the location ofthat storm sewer, but I guess to honestly put the position where I think it should be is if this isn't resolved quickly, it's going to be resolved in a long time. And if it's going to be resolved in a long time I think we ought to take the same attitude that the City of Minnetonka has taken and simply get some form of trail in 43 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 knowing full well in effect that it may be a 5 year trail. It may be more. It may be a 3 year trail. It may be more. But at least you get the trail in to fill the need that has been there for a good many years. Mayor Mancino: So state your motion one more time? Allocate the funds to what? Councilman Senn: Okay, that the City allocate the funds to, oh I've got to go back further. I'm sorry, before you allocate the funds. Okay, that the City, a plan be prepared and then on the basis of the plan being prepared, that if at such time we cannot get approval from the other governmental entities involved to this concept, to this plan, that the City allocate the funds to install, and try to put this even more simply, a temporary trail adjacent to the existing roadway which will function as a temporary trail until such time as the road issue is resolved. I guess that even simplifies it more. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second to the motion? Councilman Engel: I'll second that. Councilman Senn: Scott I'm sorry, you. Scott Botcher: Nope, again I want to make sure I have clarification on this. So the motion then would authorize, because we, as I think you said, we will need them as we seek DOT permission, to do what we want to do with the trail, the developments of plans and specifications for the construction of a low impact trail. That's the beginning of your second motion. Councilman Senn: Yeah, inherent in anything we do we have to have DOT's permission. Scott Botcher: Correct. So my question is, in going back to your first motion, developing Option IA or whatever we're going to call it. How is Option IA going to reflect the trail when your second .motion is actually going to do the design for the trail? Councilman Senn: Okay, what I've tried to do and maybe not a very good job of it is, in a way keep them separate. The trail needs to be incorporated in the permanent solution which is effectively motion one. That's when you'd have a paved trail and curbing and all that sort of stuff, okay? What I'm trying to present is an alternative which we may be able to get authorization from MnDot to do, if there's going to be a long, ongoing discussion around the road, which is put in a temporary trail which would be not a paved trail but at least a temporary trail that would function you know basically extending from the existing roadway in the mean time. Scott Botcher: So we parallel track them, motion one and motion two, until such point as we figure out what happens with Motion one. If motion one goes then motion two doesn't have to happen? Councilman Senn: Correct. Scott Botcher: If motion one craps out, then we have motion two and we do our deal? Councilman Engel: It's already in the pike. Scott Botcher: Assuming DOT gives approval. Gotch ya. 44 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Yeah, so we go to MnDot right away but you can't go to MnDot right away without a plan for the trail. A final plan for the trail. Scott Botcher: I'm with you. Mayor Mancino: My only concern, because we've had a motion and a second, is because I understand that and I understand the urgency. My only concern at all is we certainly haven't talked about funding and where the funding's going to come from. So or do we know how much the trail is going to cost. So putting us out there to say well we will allocate the money for it. Councilman Senn: Is a separate action. That's how it was intended. I mean we can't do that tonight in my mind. That's where Scott has to come back to us, once we have, yes we have plans. We have costs. We know what a temporary trail costs. We know what a permanent, I'm trying to leave some confidence here in what our staff does. Essentially that they're going to come back. Bring us that information and we will react appropriately but we still have to take an action to appropriate those funds. That's separately, whether it be TIF, general fund or whatever. Mayor Mancino: So we are directing staff to investigate all the places where we could get funding for a trail? If we want to go ahead and do the trail in case the road doesn't go. Councilman Senn: Well that was inherent in the motion I thought. Scott Botcher. And you will still need to follow the construction, purchasing policies and procedures that are statutory and also codified. You know just so everyone understands. The motion's fine, and I've con finned with Roger. Obviously when you get to the point where you open the bids and it's however much money it is, 3 votes wins. 2 votes doesn't. Councilman Senn: Right. Scott Botcher: Okay. i ¡ ¡ ! i j i , ¡ i i ! j ¡ I I I , ! Councilman Senn: Can't change those parts of the process. Scott Botcher: No. Just so everyone knows that. Mayor Mancino: Want to make sure everybody knows. We'll go ahead with the trail but once the pricing comes in and everything else, we'll have to make that decision at that time. Councilwoman Jansen: I have a question. Where in this motion do we include the feasibility study then so that we would actually have that to review? I'm seeing completion of plan and then we're going to the allocation of funds. i , I i , ì 1 Ì i ! 1 i I , i Councilman Senn: There is no, well I guess ifthe question's back to me as the motion maker, there is no feasibility study. Feasibility studies have all been done and they're based on trails being far off the road. Effectively what we're talking about here is a plan to be prepared where the trail is adjacent to the road and then a temporary plan to be prepared for a temporary trail and in basically the same area on a temporary basis until such time as the roadway issue would be resolved. So there's not a feasibility issue involved. 45 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Mayor Mancino: Well we have to get a feasibility estimate as to how much the road would cost. That's what you're asking? Councilwoman Jansen: And the impacts of where it's going if, I mean there is no shoulder in some places so there is going to be grading. And even where they were suggesting in the old feasibility's report putting it next to the road, it was impacting some personal property that was built into the right-of- way so Ijust want to know when we're reviewing those issues and that then will need to go out, I would assume,.to the property owners along the trail. For them to review before we jump into allocating funds and approving construction. Mayor Mancino: And I think Scott, I think that's what you meant when you said that we would resort back to our regular process fees. Of getting a feasibility study for the trail and everything. Scott Botcher: Yes. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, so it'd be a separate feasibility then on the trail, if we go forward with the trail separately? Scott Botcher: But as I understand the motion, it's not a feasibility study. It's design of plans and specs, is that correct? Councilman Senn: Correct. Scott Botcher: That's what I thought the motion said. So if you. Councilman Senn: Preparation of plans and specifications. Scott Botcher: That's what I thought you said. Councilman Senn: That's what Motion one does. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, what I'm asking then, if it isn't in the feasibility study, do the plans and specs then give us what the impacts are to all of the personal properties or the private properties along the trail and then the cost involved? Is that where we're getting the plans and specs that currently that information's in the feasibility study? Councilman Senn: Maybe we're into semantics but to me that's still plans and specifications. Plans and specifications is the same thing either way. Scott Botcher: Weill think until you do the plans and specs, until you do the plans and specs, I'm not sure how you can really quantitY with any great detail the impacts on specific property owners. Just seems logical to me. And that's not a perfect answer but that just seems logical. Dave, am I close? Councilwoman Jansen: So just a different terminology as far as feasibility and the plans and specs? I always thought one proceeded the other. Scott Botcher: I've seen the feasibility study to be more like the library thing that we talked about earlier. A feasibility study often times serves to create a determination of need or what is feasible. Is the need there? And you can get into economic feasibility determinations and that sort of stuff. That's not 46 i I j ¡ ¡ i · I I I I J I I i I I I City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 generally what we're doing, as I understand the motion, that's not what Mr. Senn is asking. What he's saying is, do the plans and specs. Come up with the cost. From then, obviously we're going to have to have numerous neighborhood meetings because I personally think that this will be a somewhat difficult trail to put in given the topography and we're obviously going to have to have a lot of input from the neighbors because it's just the way the topography is. And I think the neighbors will be very, very cognizant of the impact on their individual properties from the development of the plans and specs. So it sounds like we're just crossing wires on semantics a little bit but that's how I understand it. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen: I'm assuming that because right now we're dealing without a shoulder, that the plans and specs would be for a trail without a shoulder. Correct? Mayor Mancino: And then we'll have to approve final plans and specs after it goes back and these are redone because of input from neighbors, which is what we did after the Park and Rec referendum went through. On each trail segment. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So does everybody understand the motion and the second? Scott Botcher: I think so. Councilwoman Jansen: Can I ask one more? Mayor Mancino: Ask one more question and then Mr. Botcher, if you'll clarify the motion one more time with Councilman Senn. 1 ì J i i · , I I · ¡ I I ¡ ! Mayor Mancino: With curb and gutter. Scott Botcher: Well here's, that's why I asked the question before. Motion one and motion two asked for two separate things and I guess you could, let me think about it here at 10:30 at night. Theoretically you could do motion to and say we're going to do a trail, a low impact trail, and by the way DOT we're going to slip the curb and gutter on your highway. I'm not sure, assuming that you get permission from DOT, that that enhances your case at all. And I'm just off the top here. My gut tells me it's simpler, cleaner if you say we're going to do the low impact trail and you have something like, I'm trying to think, do all parts of 101 through Minnetonka there north of Crosstown have a curb? They don't do they? Councilman Senn: No they don't. ¡ , j · j I ¡ , I ¡ · Scott Botcher: So that's, yeah that's really what I think... Councilman Senn: I'm just suggesting that from fiscal purposes. Why get into paving if it's a temporary trail, and at least from all the people I've talked to out in that area, they would be just as happy with an aggregate, you know a hard aggregate trail if it's not a paved trail, then basically it seems to me to be more fiscally prudent to do it that way if it's going to be a temporary trail. Minnetonka chose to pave their's. That's their decision. Even though it's a temporary trail. 47 City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Scott Botcher: My gut tells me, economics notwithstanding and given the fact that temporary could be as temporary as temporary Highway 101. That the constituents are going to want it to be paved. And probably have a right to have it be paved. I mean I just, I can't imagine pushing a stroller on a gravel trail. Councilman Engel: Maybe we address that. Scott Botcher: You can get, Option A, Option B. Councilman Engel: Well maybe we get the funding. Scott Botcher: Bottom line is I, in my head right now am not conceiving the second motion for the trai I plans and specs to include curbing for the highway. That was your question I think Linda. Councilman Senn: Hopefully the two can meld together and. Scott Botcher: They might, and I think you need to do your plans and specs separate and apart from each other so again if you're parallel tracking and one dies, then Option 2, Motion 2 isn't necessarily tied to some highway work included maybe in Option I. Does that make sense? Councilman Senn: I think you and I are understanding perfectly. Mayor Mancino: So staff needs to come back to us with funding sources and with trail design. Councilwoman Jansen: And if tonight we vote for the trail, we're not saying necessarily now we're countering wanting the shoulder? I don't want to vote against a trail. I want the trail badly but I'm countering what was just in the first motion if you follow me. Mayor Mancino: We'll be looking at designs and I don't think that Councilman Senn said no to shoulders if we couldn't parallel track them. So we'll have to look at the safety issues. There's no question. If the trail goes ahead and tlÌe road doesn't, we will have to look at safety issues. And how we can do it minimum impact. Councilman Engel: And I think at that time we can also consider whether or not it should be paved. I mean for now aggregate yes but I recall talking to Todd Hoffman about paving versus aggregate. I don't think there's that big a cost difference because all the labor's in laying the base and prepping and designing it. It may not be much of a difference. Scott Botcher: Your own end costs on the... Councilman Senn: Well I don't want to beat a dead horse. Anything other than 6 inches to 2 feet, which is what the current trail is we have to use is, is going to be more safe. Councilman Engel: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: And we can decide how far with the neighbors we want to go. We have a motion and we have a second. 48 i I I j I I i I i I I I I I , I ! ì ¡ i i i I ! City Council Meeting - April 10, 2000 Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded with the completion of the plans for Highway 101, that the City allocate the funds and immediately proceed to construct the trail portion of the project. If no agreement can be reached during that timeframe with the other governmental areas, that the City proceed to let contracts to install a temporary aggregate trail adjacent to the roadway which will function as a temporary trail until such time as the road issue is resolved. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 10:40 p.m. Submitted by Scott Botcher City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim i t i I J , I j i i ¡ I j I i ¡ I ! í ! I , . f -¡ 49