4 Recon Alter for Hwy 101
.II '
~"',.
.,:-.._1~
, ,
',- '
~MORANQUM:
,.; 0';"
,-.,-j-,--",.
. _ '~..-,~i\,:,~:,/:· :~.t,:_':' .' '
,,' 1'Œ·'
i~_ ',' "', .
SOOn A. Botéher; City M~ger: ,.
,
., - .
,Todd Gerhardt, Assi&tanfCity Manager ,
" ',.'," ""',,' ,
:I>ATE:
."t·'"
'SuB.1:
.-, ",', " ,'. -' ,
" "', Publi(j}learin~i~~ardiD~theReco~~ctionOfHigll\vay iOI
. ftom West 78, Streetto Pleasant VIeW Road' , "
Apnl 5, 2000 :' ' ,
.'. '
'"'A',·.'
.}(,
"
"'-,;H~:,
,,: :.,'
, '-','): ~ '
'-" :'8':~-'" ..::;:; ; ,
,', ,:, ',C" ..':;'i,. .,.' ,,~naêhedJs.à melp.orandumJròrriSRF,Consulting Groùp,Inc"that provides a ,
,'~ ."" '\i )çd#í're~ëÎ,ìSiV:è, statlliíÍêpòrt.fo{fu~rt¿o~h:uctiòn òffti~wåy 101betwéçn
,,: i 'iWë~~78~'SttèetaÌ1d PléilsiIrit V.i~w R~iÍd?Thisrepbrfgivèh complete review
',: "" "öftuilrllcti¡jÌj¡¡ takent<htàte in'k:ètviìfgCjrl'zeI1 input on the reconstruction of
, Hi~Wày J( ¡. ", . '.', ' ' ,
" . ,', ':,: ~ ';\':.~~rtJ~Ý'~ß\eèUÍlg ~ it PÍ1bÌiC~~n~ ~9 ~céi\ìe' firial ~iti:ten inPùHitld for the '
.. , ' 'éìfy~oìm:~iti¿maké ádëéisîöïiòn à c¡jiíc~þt to be used for tlídÍighway 101
Improvement Projçct;·' Staffwòùld request that the City Couricil open the public .
.. fí~3iihg ,With ~ presérltaû9n ftom the projeét Managem¢nt'l'eáni, ilienreèeive . .
': ci' IrtÌnit,CIoséihe.p:ublibn'èaHng,åIÍpflriaJÍy,'!iávea Cølincil . '
'di ~~sioÌÍ!d¢èisîoÌ1 oh the diffei'iirit conþépts. ' . . '. .
>,,'-
,;. ,-.
.. .
..' ATT'ACHMÈN'rS ·
Oi_"""d'
,-,,-,
.',--,> ',,"',:' ,-' <c.. .
1. SRF Réþort' .
:2,:; í!igli.~IÓl~èighborh~od1\1eetingMit1utes· .;
;3;:"W.omtatiõnaIMeefm 'Handoùt .... . . .
~7; ::4:~~.~~ê~eso,1~ti~ri,:. "
!, ,~ ' , ',: ,- ,-.
,- - -",",;
)C,;, ,-, ~ ';' ",~ "
é} , ;',;~'
".,;-,\-.,..+/'¿?,'.<;:,,~
-, ",
" '-;_' ~J,
.'.'.'
,',
-;:/",-,.<;,-,;<.--<::,-::;,-,,:,',"'-;,:-"< _:,: ;"'- ,', --'-' :"'--,-:
" g;\å'¡";¡~¡¡glií. oì p~bìichearing.dóc
I':;
,
. Cirv ofCh,mhmsrll. A {l1'oll'i11(' communÜv 111Íth rlff111 fnlm. (11u"if1' ,rchnnk It rhnrm;m1 df111'ntnllTll. thril1Ï11t1 hUÛl1ft.fð. /Inri hM,,;ifid Mm.!. 'A (1f('(1t ,,fltfl' In Ih". lI'nrk. n"J ,,{¡rv.
"
._-,'<'.'"
" ";,,i:','~,',i~,.,',:,¡',~.','"" C' 0 N S U L T IN GG',: ";R 0, U p" I' "'N" ;;/;,~..,'
'.,. " :: " ,', ,; , "'",.
. ,',,_":::~'.-\, ',' <'~'::, ~,?,,' f:' ~ '.,' ,,'. "--":,,_:.,;:.-'.-,." :,' .. ---: :,':. , ,:<, "':;,;:'~;'<'_',<:::::;;~,t~l';~~ii:':
. " , ' ' , Tiansþomtion . Civil· Structúral· Environmental· Planning. Tr,áffic . Landscape Architecture ~ Pat~¡¡;o .,
.:;, ,,' 'MEMQ:itANnÚM
.. .. .%_~, -_:,:.._:,,~~ "- ". , " ",' .. " -. " ." -,' - ..
. ' . ,i'i' 'TÒ: . ChanhBSsen City Còuricil .
\~~t~*,' :::-.'" ,
.: ';, .... ;;,:::$UBJECJ~'.'· ßIÞßWAYI01-::WEST78THSTRE~TTÖP¡;EASÄ)IITVmwRoAD
··""':.·;i;·:,,'+;~fÅ:rus:tllioRt': "". '.....,. ..; '., .' ..,. .
'''''',:
.. - . - ,',;', ,., '~','" , ',~"- - .. .. ';"-'
i "~_~; .:; (,_,....:__> i¡/'';t.' ,; "
j,,' ";~Ö~~!~N .'. ". ." ......;.. ..... '.. ., . ....
", '.:' t;&epin' cø,urity:aµ'd CÍlrVeÌ'CôÞrity~ ì~ coqpèÌl1ûoh,\witll,the Citjes of Cl1lú1hàssen'!UÌd
.'" " .'" '~~: ãi\~]i~¡nåbr 'ctesigñ pi<jces~ta'Ì'ècoMtniè.t Higl'¡,waf;'lÞLbeìWcenWesì7,8th .
. ':;sttêt!î:~Ï1d,t V~ew RoacfThe existÎj'ÍÌ'ôà,d~y ti/badlydeterl¡¡.fâied, needin air and baS .
. '.iiì'~d~~ti'affic cap¡¡city~ ÅS päito(tllaësig¡iprÓ6éss;"thecPÚl1ti~arid City :m. studied
, . ' . ,<, e~ístiW ~ð' future ti:àff¡c·vblumes, safety. pedestriari.andbicycle ~cèoîmtto~dätionsl dràinage, :
.,' ,.:, ,>·,ñ'I'{ì:li'rig,.ÍSSiÌ'eS, andItìànyótherconsidératioi1s.T.o assistilie' Courityimd c1ty~ståffs with the
. ' 'îichniW~~åeäí~'~dè¡)virbhin~ìi~ iss4es; íIèI1n~pin éóuntY contÍ'a'Ctéd with SRFCOlisÙlting
~;. "~~~~ . ,,', ." '... . .
<i'> ' , "~ " :':ì~t1ió~~ ", .", ..... '~: ,
.' lIig1í~y .101, loc;ated'aIong the eastern b¿rder'of chaníiåSserl, was identified as a minor àrterial
·r(,;id\Ýáy,.ìuieâ1'ly:1íS fu the. 1989 Èìuitèm Carver C~unty. Trl\tISpoitànOIì StUdy. arid 1991 .
. .C\j~~~sen -Coìnpreherisive Plan update; as well as in: the current Comprehéìì$jve Plans of
. ',' HeIíÍier'm iuuÌ.Carirer CO\!Ilties and Eden PrlÛrie arid Chal1h:i~sen..:ReceÍltly! Heimephl' County
. . ·àcët!þted. t1iêjurisdictiónaI ,traii$fer of HigbWaylQ lfioÍllllté; State, 'IÌ¡Ïd rei1lim«l:it CSAH 101
,':v.?~~g~~~::¿o~ì}: borind~: CårYeiC~~ ~: ~~;hi: ~é~~~.~iipµs f(¡r sometime with
, ?: ,MííJDOT:for the:trà1Ísfer .of its half ofthë ioadwìlÿ 't6Ca:tVer Countyf'\fut aS6fyetthiš transfer of
"',' ::':':1~~m~~ó~hi¿'~9tþ'ccurr¿tl;~P parn>f a trái1Sfèi'ofj1Ìfi~ìÏt¿íi¡)1l1ít.~~ihl>rity' àgtë$Jient ~t was ".
, .,: .... ,'ilot .~ptec:l·bYMíifDOT, a Jomt PewersAgreèIl1ent.between Caryer CQuntyand the City of
. Ch~nfí¡¡k~W-Is åþpr~ved in 1998. by thè City Council. . ' . .. ., . . .
.'~\Vaý 101. in Carver County· has mstpric:aIly.Dêen desigriated by MnlDOT as å temporary
~n'iIôkliig1iW¡l,y,As such, Qtliel' than l'outinèmaintenance; no funding apprQP¡jlltions for any .,
ììÌájp¡:I:Ó,lidWay itnproVenìents hâve. ·béenqiãdesmcç· the' road's· orlgþ1aI· c~~on. If a
,Cöúlítý'âciièptS jrlriSdicnonl1Í åí1thorlty for ~nstrúcti,on arid nìainte1J~l1cè of a Staté highway; thè .
ròad~~ÝÎ$ßigi,ble for Stàtè~Tn¡nk Highway' TUtÍlback funds. . These Ìtip1baek funds are
. administ.èn;a by MnlDOTiLndare' subjèct to State Aid rule.s. EHgible costsofreconstruètipn, in.
accordance \Vith tumback funding rUles, are defùiëd on à hàsis of ."restoration of funcUon'~ for
.~ _" - - - _./ )-,_" ,,' ,_~ _<-"_ ., " _, - " _':' ,_ - ': '_): ' - ", ,-:_ - ''c, ,',' : _ - " "_' ',: "_: '- " - _ '-" _ _" ," , _' _,' -' _ "" - -, _ '_ "\.' ,. '" ',' ,'_ _ -
·thë roadWaý. . M1}re -specifiéally, 'the reconstmcUoii 'of Highway lOiispropOsedtO' meet the
d~sign staìIdardsfôr a minor art.erlaI roadway tosafely accommodate both existing and projected
tIáffic voiùníes for the corridòr. . . . .
., One Car.lsonParkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447~4443
Tel~phone (612) 475~0010. Fax (612)475-2429. http:/ /www.srfconsulting,com
"", . '- -' -""
'a ,,--.'
,
.
. '.-' ,.
SRF No. O?727~(d
.>
An Equal Opportunity E1Iìplìiyer
Highway 101- Status Report
-2-
April 5, 2000
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The intent of the functional classification system for roadways is to define the hierarchy and
characteristics of roads that collect and distribute traffic in a given transport.ation system.
Consistent with Metropolitan Council guidelines, the City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive
Transport.ation functional classification system includes: I) principal arterials; 2) minor arterials;
3) major collector streets; 4) minor collector streets; and 5) local streets.
Principal arterials are the highest roadway classification and are considered part of the
metropolitan highway system. Roadways designated as principal arterials within the immediate
area of the City of Chanhassen are Trunk Highway 7 and Trunk Highway 212. Minor arterials
are roadways that are of regional importance because they relieve, expand or complement the
principal arterial system. To the extent possible, minor arterials are continuous and form a good
network over the entire city. Continuity and connectivity among the minor arterials and the
principal arteries allow the arterial ~etwork to provide important mobility functions throughout
the city.
In Chanhassen, the closest parallel minor arterial to Highway 101 is CSAH 17 (powers
Boulevard), located approximately one mile west of Highway 101. In Eden Prairie, the closest
parallel minor arterial is CSAH 4 (Eden Prairie Road), which is approximately one and three-
quarters miles east of Highway 101. The desirable spacing for "A" minor arterials is considered
to be one-half to one mile for fully developed areas. Since Chanhassen is anticipated to be fully
developed by the year 2020, other minor arterials should be designated to maintain mobility
through the City.
PREVIOUS AcrroNs
At a Work Session in November of 1998, the Project Management Team consisting of staff
representatives ftom Hennepin County, Carver County, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and SRF,
presented initial findings and conceptual layouts to the Chanhassen City Council. The Council
expressed a desire to see every possible option presented to the public along with the impacts and
ramifications of each option. As directed by the Council, these options were to range from an
overlay of the existing roadway to full construction of a five-lane roadway.
Subsequently, the Project Management Team received direction from both Chanhassen and Eden
Prairie City Councils to conduct a public open house for the project in each City. The format in
each City was an open house ftom 5:30 p.m. to 7;00 p.m., with a formal presentation and panel
discussion ftom 7:00 to 8:30 p.m.
Highway 101- Status Report
-
-3-
April 5, 2000
Those open houses were held on September 28, 1999 in the City of Charihassen, and on
September 29, 1999 in the City of Eden Prairie. Six concepts were presented at the open houses
, along with a comparison of each. A summary of the concepts and the comparison matrix are
included in the next section of this memorandum. In November of 1999, the Consultant
submitted to each of the agency staffs a record of those public meetings, including the material
presented as well as verbal and written comments received at or subsequent to those meetings.
In addition to the two open houses, Project Newsletters had been sent to all residents in the
corridor area (approximately 530 in Chanhassen and 870 in Eden Prairie), in October 1997,
February 1998 and July 1999. These newsletters provided background on the project and the
status of the design study as well as notification of the open house meetings.
In December of 1999, the Chanhassen City Council indicated to its staff a desire to be in a
position to make a decision on the concept to be used for the Highway 101 Improvement Project
by the end of March 2000. The Council had previously approved a public involvement process
for the project that included the open houses, neighborhood meetings, a community-wide open
house and a public hearing.
The Council further directed that Concepts 5 and 6 be eliminated ftom further discussion as these
concepts would have too great an impact along the corridor, as well as the excessive cost. In
response to Council direction, City staff arranged for six neighborhood meetings in January and
February 2000 as follows:
January 15, 2000
February 2, 2000
10:00 a.m. -12:00 noon
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
8:00 p.m. -10:00 p.rn.
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.rn.
8:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.
February 29,2000 6:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.
February 23, 2000
Kurvers Point Homeowners Association
Fox Hollow Neighborhood
Near Mountain & Chestnut Ridge Neighborhood
Colonial Grove Neighborhood
Lotus Lake Estates Neighborhood
Sunset View & South Lotus Lake Neighborhoods
The purpose of the neighborhood meetings was to try to answer specific questions regarding the
four remaining concepts being discussed and to find out what the major concerns were to the
residents.
Verbal and written comments were received at all of the meetings and summarized in a separate
'Meeting Summary for each neighborhood. Copies of those meeting summaries have been
provided to each Agency. An updated summary of the written comments received follows. (The
original summary was included in the Meeting Summary prepared by SRF Consulting Group,
Inc. in November 1999.)
Highway 101- Status Report
-4-
April 5, 2000
PART I.
TALLY
The following is a tally of the opinions expressed by the public in the written comment sheets
received to-date (March 30, 2000) regarding the six conceptuaIlayouts for the Highway 101.
Reconstruction. Each comment form was assigned one Concept preference, or no preference.
Concent
# of Comment Forms Indicatilll!: Preference
Conœpt "IA" (Neighborhood Proposal)
Concept 1 (Resurfacing) 17
Concept 2 (Two-Lane) 6
Conœpt 1 or 2 (Resurfacing or Two-lane) 17
Concept 3 (Three-Lane) 0
Concept 4 (Four-Lane Undivided) 2
Concepts 2, 3 or4 (Two-,Three- or Four-Lane Undivided) 0
Conœpt 5 (Five-Lane) 0
Concept 3 or 5 (Three-lane or Five-Lane) 2
Concept 6 (Four-Lane Divided) 2
Conœpts 3 - 6 (Three-Lane - Four-Lane Divided) 2
LRT (No LRT Concept was Developed) I
No Preference Stated 11
Total Received To Date 60
(prior to 11/18/99)
(After 11118/99)
8
2
I
1
o
o
2
o
o
o
o
o
5
19
PART II.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
The following is a summary of the issues/comments raised by the public in the written comment
forms. The items shown behind the "bullets" (0) are additional issues/comments raised since the
original summary was prepared in November 1998. Many of the subsequent comment forms
have re-iterated the issues/comments of previously received written comments.
-
Highway 101- Status report
-5-
April 5, 2000
NEED FOR PROJECT
- The project is not necessary/traffic levels do not warrant expansion.
Is the project necessary?
- The improvements are needed now.
- The communities adjacent to the roadway will be penalized and have to pay forlbe
inconvenienced by improvements that will benefit commuters who live further west.
Widening will create traffic (if you build it thçy will come).
- No need to widen this isolated segment of Highway 101 because adjacent segments to the
north and south are only two lane roads.
- The availability of state funding is the reason this is being considered, and it is not a valid
reason.
- Highway 101 is not an arteriallis functioning fine as a two-lane road, so it should not be
made to carry additional traffic/widened.
Impacts to quality ofIife outweigh need forlbenefits of expansion.
- Traffic forecasts/estimates are too high because presently drivers are using Highway 101 to
avoid construction on TH 5 and 1-494.
- The needs of the travelling public should be considered.
· Carver County has a financial incentive to expand Highway 101 to four lanes.
· Expand the Corridors of 494,394, Highway 5 and Highway 41.
SAFETY
- Speeds of vehicles on Highway 101 are too high now; reduce the speed limit.
What will the new speed limit be?
- Road is unsafe now.
How would the use of Dell Road as a short-cut be discouraged? (it is unsafe now).
Encourage use of other roads such as Dell Road.
Concern for present pedestrian safety.
Center-turn lane system proposed with Concept 3 would be too dangerous.
- Does safety factor of2.69 include the curve modification at Highway 101/62?
- Accidents will double with four-lane, the same as it is today.
· How can the speed limit on Highway 101 be reduced to 35 mph?
TRAILS/PATHS
- The trails/paths are needed nowlbuild trials now.
- The communities want ONLY trails with ONLY repaving.
- Trails would be less costly than Concepts 3 - 6.
- The proposed trails are not needed.
- Trails/paths are needed on both sides of the road.
The trail is only need on one side (does not specify which side).
- The trail is only needed on the east side.
Highway 101- Status Report
-6-
April 5, 2000
The trail is only needed on the west side.
The trail would only FIT on the west side.
Crosswalks are needed at designated intersections with the trails.
CONFIGURATION I DESIGN
Consider closing access to Highway 101 ftom Kristie Lane.
Consider closing access to Highway 101 ftom Duck Lake Trail.
The four-lane alternative will make accessing 101 ftom Fox Hollow via a left turn very
difficult.
Closing off Duck Lake Trail is NOT needed.
Consider re-design of Duck Lake Trail design, as the concept is bad.
Consider re-design to make the comer near 67602 Debbie Lane safer (sharp curve).
Consider a tunnel for pedestrianlbicycle trail to cross 101 near Twilight/KristieNalley View.
Add a No-Build or re-surface concept with signalized intersections.
Request for ''traffic calming" design elements.
Parking near twin-homes is limited, and would be made worse.
Install semaphores now or at time of improvement - no location specified.
Install a signal now or at time of improvement at Pleasant View.
Install a signal now or at time of improvement at Valley View.
2004 construction date seems unlikely.
Costs were confusing/skewed to make the two-lane concept as costly as the four-lane
concept
· Consider closing access to Highway 101 ftom Cheyenne Trail.
. Install three stop signs and study traffic patterns for three months.
· Dead-end South Shore Drive near the Highway 101 - 5 intersection.
· Shorten the raised median at Cheyenne Trail to allow full access to and from Cheyenne Trail.
PROPERTY VALUES
Concern for loss of property values.
Request for home to be acquired if road is widened.
Concern for loss of tax base when residents move because of the road.
Will homeowners be compensated for property value decreases?
CONCERN FOR PHYSICAL IMPACTS ON HOMES
Proximity
Road would be too close to homes.
Land is not available for widening.
Will Cities face liability if they build a road that does not meet setback requirements?
Highway 101 - Status Report
-7-
April 5, 2000
Noise
Too noisy now/additional noise will result ftom any of the Concepts except Concepts I or 2.
- A noise study showing noise impacts in decibels is needed.
- A noise study showing cost estimates that include noise abatement is needed.
Construction schedule should minimize noise impacts.
What types of sound barrier will be used?
Request for noise mitigation at their location/along road.
Request for noise barriers like what is on Town Line RoadfTH 62.
Visual ImDacts
Concern for visual impacts.
Request for screening like what was done on Town Line RoadITH 62.
Concepts 3 and higher will remove homes that now buffer us ftom Highway 101.
Vibrationffrucks
Construction would cause foundation damage.
Trucks closer to homes would cause more vibration.
Request for establishment of truck traffic restrictions / weight limits.
Light
Additional light will result ftom any of the Concepts except Concepts 1 or 2.
CONCERN FOR IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Buffer Vegetation
Concern for loss of (buffer) vegetation.
Will mature (buffer) vegetation be replaced?
WetlandslWildlife
Concern for loss of wetlands/wildlife.
Consider a tunnel to let wildlife cross the road near Purgatory Creek (turtles, waterfowl).
Stormwater Pond LocationslWater Oualitv
Concern for pond locations and impacts.
- A pond at this location would impact water quality of the lake.
The area where al101ding pond is shown would never be dry again.
Concern for high water table/water levels in Creek.
Concern for salt and sand in their driveway.
Highway 101 - Status Report
-8-
April 5, 2000
Improve water quality of Lotus Lake.
· Stormwater pond at Highway 101/Pleasant View needs to be dredged to its original depth.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Request to be able to vote on the design.
Request for neighborhood meetings.
Request to be notified of next meeting.
Concern that the opinions of the residents adjacent to 101 (minority) will drown out the
opinions/needs of the rest of the communities (majority).
Concern for divisiveness of project (resulting in lawsuits, delays, bitter disputes)1 project
waited too long.
Analyses were biased! not representative of the neighborhoods' desires/character.
County Boards and City Councils should expect strong opposition to expansion of 101.
The decision to build a four-lane has already been made.
· Frustrated by years of assurance that trail and roadway improvements are soon fort.hcoming,
. Disappointed with public presentations.
REQUEST TO RECEIVE SPECIFIC INFORMATION
on traffic volumes on 212,62 and 101.
on property value/compensation.
meeting summaries.
such as the layout of segment affecting their home; detailed plans; etc.
cross-section affecting their home.
on proposed stoplight on Pleasant View.
on origins/destinations of traffic on Highway 101.
· on property line locations and to have right-of-way/construction limits staked.
· date of presentation of neighborhood meeting findings to Council.
How long would construction last?
On March 21, 2000 the Eden Prairie City Council adopted a resolution requesting Carver and
Hennepin Counties to adopt and implement a schedule for upgrading Highway 101 based on
several criteria enumerated in the resolution.
Among the several criteria in the resolution, Number 5 states "that a simple overlay and minor
maintenance will not adequately address safety and design issues in the Corridor and therefore be
eliminated from consideration." And, Number 6 states "that even though it is unlikely a two-
lane roadway will adequately address the criteria above, key environmental impacts and specific
transportation needs be more fully developed for:
Highway 101- Status Report
-9-
April 5, 2000
· Concept Design 2 - two lanes with intersection and signal improvements and trails on both
sides
· Concept Design 3 - similar to Concept 2, but with a continuous center left-turn lane
· Concept Design 4 - four lane undivided with intersection and signal improvements and trails
on both sides."
<A copy of the full resolution has previously been provided to the Charihassen City Council.)
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
The following information is a summary of the material presented at the public open houses in
September 1999:
Existing Conditions and Project Criteria
· Traffic volumes have steadily increased in the Corridor ftom 4,200 vehicles per day in 1976
to over 13,000 vehicles per day in 1996, an average annual growth rate of 5.8 percent. The
projected traffic volume for the Corridor in Year 2020 is 21,000 vehicles per day, which is an
average annual growth rate of approximately 2 percent.
· Hennepin County and Carver County, as well as the Cities of Charihassen and Eden Prairie,
have designated Highway 101 as a minor arterial roadway in their respective comprehensive
transportation plans. The function of minor arterials in transportation systems is to provide
higher mobility and less direct access, carrying trips of two to six miles in length, and to
connect local collectors to other minor and principal arterial roads. Minor arterial roads are
generally spaced one-half to two miles apart, depending on topography and development
density. The north-south minor arterials that parallel Highway 101 are Powers Boulevard,
approximately one mile to the west, and County-State Aid Highway 4, located one and
three-quarters miles to the east.
· Existing pavement is severely deteriorated.
· Drainage is inadequate.
· Available sight distances do not meet current standards for 45 mph speeds.
· Carver County comprehends a regional trail along the Highway 101 Corridor.
· Signals are expected to be warranted in the near future at the intersections of Highway 101
and Valley View Road and Pleasant View Road.
· State-Aid rules for replacement of existing function require 12-foot inside lanes and 14-foot
lanes next to curbs and a structural design loading of 10 tons.
Highway 101- Status Report
- 10-
April 5, 2000
CONCEPTS STUDIED
The Project Management Team recognizes the need to provide an improved roadway facility that
can safely accommodate existing and future traffic demands, while trying to minimize adverse
impacts on the abutting residences along the Corridor. Some of the issues to be dealt with in this
complex Corridor include: '
· Narrow existing roadway
· Limited right-of-way
· Numerous existing homes and driveways
· Steep slopes
· Mature vegetation
· Existing sight-distance problems
· Wetlands
· Poor drainage
At the direction of the City Councils of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie, the Project Management
Team has been carefully considering conceptual designs ranging from an overlay (repaving) of
the existing roadway with the addition of a pedestrian/bicycle trail, to a four-lane divided
roadway with a median, turn lanes at intersecting streets and trailways on both sides. The
Conceptual Designs are as follows:
· Resurfacing Concept - No alteration of the existing roadway beyond routine maintenance
and reconstruction over the ne¡¡t 20 years. Includes a IO-foot wide trail on the west side of
the road and possible drainage improvements.
· Two-Lane Concept - Includes one through-lane in each direction with shoulders, left- and
right-turn lanes at cross streets, medians and turn lanes at signalized intersections. Includes a
10-foot wide trail on the west side of the road, and an eight-foot wide trail on the east side.
· Three-Lane Concept - Includes one through-lane in each direction with shoulders, a
continuous center-turn lane, medians and turn lanes at signalized intersections, a 10-foot
wide trail on the west side of the road and an eight-foot wide trail on the east side.
· Four-Lane Undivided Concept -Includes two through-lanes in each direction, medians and
turn lanes at the signalized intersections, a IO-foot wide trail on the west side of the road and
an eight-foot trail on the east side.
· Five-Lane Concept - Includes two through-lanes in each direction with a continuous center-
turn lane, medians at the signalized intersections, a IO-foot wide trail on the west side of the
road and an eight-foot wide trail on the east side.
· Four-Lane Divided Concept - The roadway would be shifted east or west within the
Corridor eliminating direct property access. Includes two through-lanes in each direction,
medians throughout the Corridor with turn lanes at cross streets, a 10-foot wide trail on the
west side of the road and an eight-foot wide trail on the east side.
Highway 101 - Status Report
-11-
April 5, 2000
In addition to the concepts presented by the Project Management Team, several of the residents
, in the Chanhassen neighborhoods abutting Highway 101 have presented a concept plan referred
to as Concept u1A" and described by them as foIlows:
· Do not alter the character of our neighborhoods with an expansive project that will create
more traffic, remove hundreds of trees, remove homes, increase speeds, etc.
· Keep the current road configuration.
· Repair the subsurface of the existing road and install a new surface.
· Install traffic signals at Pleasant View and Valley View to provide breaks in the traffic and
provide for safe .crossing points.
· Install, immediately, a minimum impact trail on the west side of Highway 101.
· Act with a sense of urgency. Repair of Highway 101 and the construction of the trail are
long overdue.
This concept in layout form is the same as Concept 1 except that the trail would meander more
than illustrated in the Concept 1 layout and might be narrower than the 10-foot width. The
estimated cost to construct this concept is $2.90 million compared to $1.71 million in Concept 1.
Right-of-way and easement costs would likely be less than in Concept 1 but is unknown at this
time. However, neither Concept 1 or Concept lA will fully meet the transportation needs of the
corridor.
IDPlbls
Attachments
, ~
~
',"
..
Q
Z
'"
~
¡¡
'"
..
'"
"
..
Ii:
w
u
z
o
u
.,~
2 Cd ~ i;' CD
_.- co ':> "D CD
E'i rñ>ü):!2
e3.:E§Õv;CI)
.. ~'ii~~=
""~->W
i...J~a:::II:C
cE~!~~
~'=iš~!
.-=",.'0 ~
u>.5';iI!!Ii¡i
jlD~&~C!C!
'!!!!!.- ¡;; 0 co
¡;;CI)CD..-
oCD_U
",0"
..
I-
...
W
U
Z
o
u
~ 2 ~ ~CD CD
«I!!cG3:::!2"D
C:.oc:_CI)ëij
CD CD 0 0_
~.:E13E='i
:;:fÅ~'5P~w
.. CD ~ a: c: II:
xá~.!~~
::=..J--e'-
1i1Ei·5t-~
U)~4;!i..,.:
CD t\I...u..Ü:
:i E ð!! 0 0
...J~Cñäiga:i
åI .0
-
I-
...
w
°
z
o
u
,..
I .g
11 iñ
o ,.
II: .,
DS::::
.,5 ~ c:
.Y! mO
,¡jð'!
~-I-
u _
~ "-
~ 0
:; Ó
II: ~
¡:
.2
1í.
1:
..
..
~
c
8
:2
8
oñ
c
~
.,
"
.5
8
o
Ñ
-
c
"
.,
...
::¡
.5
~i= g _t
u c _
!.t; N Æ
. a.. II
u :: "
_ E
u ~ .
:ëõ
">
~¡¡
\1
ë
...
-
!!:1:
"N
'" "
II
"II:
i r~
< E
~.=
~=
8~
.6 ~
2''E
~l;
" ~
"'{l
·
J!!
.."
"'"':
E-
.g ~
'ü '"
u !l
<"
" "
00
I! II:
" c
~jg
~5
~ "
o c
oj
c .
'a. N
~ ð
,,"-
'"
·
·
8
q
..,
-
"
"
E
~
Õ
>
;:
I!!
~
~
°
í!
"
~ æ
~ ! ~
_ «Ii o.!
1!~uiII:
~e~~~
o.~t;~~c:
z 5-.¡;-~.!.~
l1!:H'!!
¡l-w...'O
" 8{lE
.:E c .=
;¡¡ 11
"
<!
.~
~ "
.2 Ø-u
suð=
II: = 4Þ I!
ø'-"DI-
E e 'S; "
e I- e CD
~·5_~a.-¡
!fnsõ'ë'
II:1!Z...
:11-0,-
" 8 0
~ cu.
5
m
"
...
a:~
c_
" "
:E _
u ¡;¡
:i~
& ~
I! II:
,,-
~ ~
~II:
c "
" c
8j
c .
1S. N
" ~
f§af
"
'"
õ
z-g~
o .. ~
C .,,·ü 0
;'E 8.=
~ «I co e
~ '2 ° I-
ò°.$m
ziiiCl):!2i
~ 5 e M
CD -= ~'2"
>coQ.
~_z
~ * ;
;¡¡::;8
J!! ..
",!!
D:¡
;:
" "
"OJ!
"() ~
.. "
<>
ga,§
<æ
:g::i
",-
:Ë
" "
"'''
"'ü
- u
~
'"
'"
N
...
..
::i
..
1!
"
"
c
J!
U>
c
'"
'ii
"
Q
"
ë
J!!
..
;;;
;:
11
::0
U
I!!
<
!i
ti
~ CD ....g CD
"1J="O.gëi)~
~'5~"Eëð
:;;0,_0,,=
CI)~ái~:=w
i~-g=t5t5
t:CG-g=r=:
¥~.g~~~
.- as 1: .... .
.2:~ osG:¡i
';CDO";:C!C!
j::; ...~'"
..
Ii:
w
u
z
o
U
.
...
,..
~~~
-¡ õ~üj
5~"2.E~1ñ"
Ü I! Cd 0)3:
CD.g¡~ifc:~
(J) ~ ,9 CD 0 0
~cai£~ë
~ ~ f!!'~I-t-
U'),g~eG::1i
~-.sqO
cOcõ
tJ-
on
I-
...
W
U
Z
o
u
"
I-
0.
W
U
Z
o
°
.s
~
ci1
.2 N't:J
g:ææ
U) ,~ ~
"gU)o
~ 1Ø .~
:s ~ f!!
c .. "
~:Së
"" -
c::;
j
...
¡:
o
i.
1:
u
..
.!:
>-
" " "
3:~:2
õ_(I)
¡;~¡
_~3: w
'" c c
" ° 0
.c =_
~ I! ï!!
-- t- t-
1!réü:
SC?:o
æ~cõ
o
8
oñ
N
C
~
~
~
I!!
(!
8
oñ
N
2
...
~
"
...
I!!
(!
8
oñ
'"
c
..
.,
I-
..
..
"
-'
2'->:8 _J.;
- co 0 "ii
¡\ Q.: ..
Q. t '" (I)
..... .
u.. "
,!! E
u ::0
:Eõ
ø>
~¡¡
'G
ø
ë
...
-
o
o
o
.;
-
"
"
E
::0
Õ
>
;:
11
~
U
!N
"'C!
E-
~ ~
'ü ii
:H
&~
eII:
+ ""
+ .q
~õ
" "
° c
Uj
c
-a. ~
" ~
g.f
'"
"
...
II:ß
~Ñ
:2 II
8 "
~ få
..'"
I! E
+ ~.=
<=
~~
13.š
° c
.S ~
o.~
ø 0
EO.
"
:r:
J!!",
~ -
lI:oi
~ ~
" ¡;¡
'8 ~
< ~
8, II:
E "
...!.. (þ (þ
+ ~ ~
~'g
§ "
o "
° c
.5 ~
0..
~ ...
C ~
:£.f
..
~
"
"
>-
..
"
>-
ø
1ôJ
~i
ø "
...ü
'u :E
.. ø
<>
~-ª
<=
~::i
..-
- ..
.;:
:HJ
en 'u
- ..
5-
'"
..
N
...
¡;
::i
"
1!
~
...
c
J!
U>
c
..
ïi
Q
...
ë
!
~
;;;
-
c
11
~
U
I!!
<
:11
I
¡
I
'"
on
f-
a.
..
Uõ
ã-
u>..
..~I;
°xe
z"..
Q%~
æ~
£..
,.
8
õ
0;
..
::>
o
II:
o
"
Z
>1=
10-'
{¡Ii
ø:Z
f8
w..
a:ø:
a...
u
!
.. :! 1i J !!'
j.!I ]f~.. t. ~2!
- ~~
d¡~ 31 ! æ
8::; 15"'''' ..
~ n iJ! ! ~ = 'Iii ~
.. ! c oJ.!!~
Ii: .. x ~ .~ ~ ..
¡31!ø:¡¡c § i - ,.2J5~
w .... 0 ~ .. ':i-¡@'
<> 5~1i=-~ ~ ø:
z ~ § :¡¡¡ .. .-
0 ;¡Fi.5~1- i t -<~
<> r'I~Hi~;iii ti ~~I-
- ::; <{:
!¡&~C!C! 1D "'- oJ ~'S
t. '"
~'EiñG)5!1I) - '" 3~
,-..0 ò1j õ
..0 z ~
~
u
5
~ ] >- 1D '" ~
¡i ~~œ t. 1D ~ r-ä.
. -31 ! E-
~:¡.g~j~ t. '" "a:
.. ., = I- 0 .Q
.. ,,::;§""'::I " 1! 0>
I- ... :;: m .6 ""-~
¡';f!.5!':=W '" .. '" '"
a. .. a: c: c: § g - ë ~ ~i""
W c i .!! CD 0 0 ~ ~ m ·
<> 0:= Oi
-º-Ic.c== a: - !! c
z ¥Ei:ë~~ ~ § '" '" '" .~
0 c<
<> .. ~ .. .. ~ "
(/)~~1!ïiii - ò ~ "'ml-
~~5~C!q 1D ¡;¡ ... ",31
t. - '" .¡ 6
æÜjmoco '" ""
åI .0..... ~ Õ "2(1)
Z
W
0
Z
'" Jõ
1D E 0>
! '" t. .. ¡;:
" '" !;
iiI 1! 1D '"
:!! ,. .. t. '" ~ 'Iii '"
- a: '" 5- ë I oJ.!!
01 $::= 1! '" c ~.!!
Ii: '" .. m ë ,¡¡ 0"
:ã-!c § " '8 E ... '"
au .!!.O ... '" · ",>
0 '" ::; " '" · c !!'
z ,:¡ð-e ;t - 0 a:
0 § ;0 ::; '" 3-
0 "'-l- N ~ m E
¡¡ - - ò .3 .~ ,:
"C ... 1D &
" 0 t. "
: 0 '" j¡
.,.
a: - ... 0 W
'" Z 0
z
ë ¡,¡ ~ : ¡,¡ j ¡;
0 I! 1; '"
"ß. c .9 I 0 '"
C Z u
1: .. 1; c .!ii u
¡¡ " .. 0 C
.. ! a. I 'D J
0 s c
" ..
(II ~
ë ~
.. Õ
E '"
.. 1i
>
:. >
1:
- a.
.,
;;
¡¡¡:
ë
..
E
!!
..
a.
õi
"
~
..
I-
a.
w
<>
z
o
<>
I .. 1i
(I). 0:2 CD {f
IU~i~ i ~
U)5'ø.>WCl) co
~el!=¡¡¡¡§:'â.~
:~~&¡~-2:;:':¡
Ú( )O"§,I-I- ~ ~
:q~ éiiii ìi ~
~:i ~g~ {f .....
.::¡ ;!:
10
Š
¡
z
II!
u
-6
m
a:
f ~8
,~ ~-
e .. ð
O.~1:
~Hu
:!! :¡ !!'~
ë! ..
;: ãi c:
~ ! i
.5 a:¡;:
Ii!
.
...
u
5
... 1D Q; I!
.. '" '" '" l-
i :=¡j 31 ... 1i ~ 0>
1! c
N'2Ô'j¡$U) .. t. <!I ·ë
c _ _ _
on .2~ca,&=== I 1! f ~
Ii: ¥o>"'.- W .. 'Iii
ëñca::cc 8 " ., ., ,go
w U) .0000 ... 0> 0> iñ + ~
0 ~tiM=~= '" :;: :;:
z g § 10 .!!
0 ~!e.EI-~ '" m
0 Lt)~~~tiii ., .. ~ c
- 3
1D ~ oJ
CD - CD 0 0 ..
:e ë ò . '" - ,,. ..
ð-co ... 0 .Õ!:
Ii: z '"
"
ü
,:¡
Õ
Jõ ~ U
0.5
., ... 1i ~ 0> ~I!
~ .. '" If '" ¡;:
:=".. 1i 1ii o .2~
ci _00:2 1! t. 1! ¡:g;g
ON1!0-(I) .. ., <!I
1:'- -"'-
... 7iš cø,c 1Þ:; ~ 1! 0> ... ...Jü,g2
I- CI)~ø.º'::W .. :;: .. ~ .eiëët:
a. ¡in.ãa:gg 8 " - ë .go
w ... ~ 4.. CD > ~ 1
'" .. iñ
0 'D1ii§~=- " + ~ ~3 '"
z 'S - I! ,- Ii 0 m :§ '"
0 .- II) f! C to- t! 8 0; ...J ._ CD
0 i! ~ ..:;; . ": .. ~ j E"-
.,; ~ :;, 0).2
::J~'EI!Ü:Ü: - . t-;:JJ:
~ N ~ e '"
~i-~~~ "! .. ~ ¡::g
- ~
"'- 'õ
... 0 f)I Z ~ ~ "ë
z ~.=
"
~
ë ¡,¡ f ¡; i ¡¡ ¡;
0 1! '" '" .
'" .9 õ ..
0. C C Z u
1: ~ ií c .!ii u
u .!! «
'" 0. ~ 'D ...
.. S c ;
0 " ..
'" '" ~ ~
¡¡ ..
> ·C
0
E S
!! ..
.. ~
a. II:
-
.,
;;
¡¡¡:
ë
..
E
..
>
..
a.
õi
"
ã.
~
I
.. ~ "f ~I~ all ~
Ii: ~ -1N .2 .2
;: ;:
.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ;;¡
0 :!! :¡¡ Ii: ~ r.! ~
z
8 3 Ñ N cô ui .,;
.. .. .. .. ..
..
0
N 0 , l' or 0 H ~
l- t! N1N .2. .2 'ª
o. .. = æ ~ :i
.. .. ~ ~ :¡ :¡
0 :!! .. .. ., N N '"
Z ., ., - ..
0 3 N Ñ cò cò ci .,;
0 .. .. .. .. .. ..
Ñ
i
~
r
"
æ
"
z ~
i ;
"
" !! ~~
u_ 0: "f ~ or 0
Ii: go 01" ~ ,g ,g. ,g .2
.. = ~ ~ :¡ ~. ~ ~
0 0 o 0 N '" ...
z ;¡j .. " ¡;; " ., ci
0 :'J ; ; - ~ ,...:
u .. .. .. ..
;!
¡¡
&!.
ë H . ! s . s (!. e . . .
.!! ~ . .; 3 ;; . 0 I~¡!I if
ã. 1-J: 0 0 0 ~ 0
" 0 " 0 " 0
" 1: 0 cO c c o .
0 .. c ¡¡ if ~ - 0 ~ ~ 0 - E
. '" . 0 ...0 0 ... "- 0 m.5 u u! f~
. jdl 0 E ... l> ~ ... ... l> 1) o.__c:
" . 0 :;)il:o
.9 Õ ~ 5 I Ii) c : i o c 2 ~~ni
d:I .D ::a . j ~ - - ..
.!! l> f 'S _§8~ eo. . ..
C :I U 15 ~!:
.- 0 0 " " . . 0
eO ~ >-~ - >- 0 1-'0 o:§wcu
0> .!ll>. - S ~1;; 0
. ~ :I: u:l: 0 ~.";'8~ :E
... e ~ s 0 ~ c._
~ õ.. Õ 0>
t= - - ~ .. ~ §~:t:!1L æ
{!. ~ ~ 0 0 8~õ~ .- "
0> .. j 0
õ æ æ ~ _....E:¡; ) .
j j .. ~ 0 ~t:.5P:l 0
~ ;¡; 0..0: 0
E . "i ~ 0;; ~ 1)
E 0 fI) fI)
~ ;¡; .. z 0 .5
z ii , 0.2
. u .'= .
... w fI) 0
s " 0
...
.. '" 0
E
ïi
w
I I
Ii
i
..
i
.. ., ~1~ or ~I~ c
~ ¡ji .2. .2 ~
i æ æ ;;
~ ~ ~ ~ H
0 Ii: Ii: " '" æ
z ! - '"
0 Ñ m cô cô .,;
0 .. .. .. .. ¡¡¡
~
..
., c 1~ ~I~ !~! c
I- ~ ~
o. .¡¡ ;;
w :¡: :i H
u :!! ;: " " '" ... ¡;
z '" - N '"
0 ,j : ~ cò ,..: '1.
0 ., .. .. ..
:!
>
~
%
"
'"
"
"
~
ü
¡¡;
Go
=>
o
'"
"
..
z
-5
"
..
z
o
"
:1iI..
..
..
Page 6
..
I-
o.
W
o
z
o
o
o
o
'ii
.¡¡
"
~
:~
~
:;;)
:!!
3
..
N1N
ë '9.:S t
.2 ~ z! 0
.@- 8' Go =ë
i! '" Ii 0
" " 0
11 w; .
S Õ c =
!! l> 2 'S
~ u ¡; .!!
:. ~
e
¡:
:ï
{!.
õ
!
E
~
z
JJ
.
E
ii
W
!1! il!
~ N f.Ó cò
.. wt ~ ~
¡ ~
8¡¡8
1:iÌ~ë
~"'l>~
!I U C It
¡¡ 11 :::II ..
w E 0.n
....:::Iu.....
»........ >-
c.!b'c
:r:.ü;:
'õêñ õ
1: 1:
0> .!!>
æ 0:
j
.
E
ii
W
..
;;
l!
D
,
..
s
.. ..
0"
o c
o ,
0,,-
1)'"
ii
o E
o ,
01-
- S
o .
~iñ
,
o
JJ
.
.§
..
W
iHlli:
s
.. ..
" 0
cO
, 0
... 0
l>1)
S.5
o ..
~ 15
l>0
.- 1::
01;
,
o
:ï
~
,
..
~ e ..
u.alJ.!!ç;
"a:J lit".!!
~~ 8 8 Ë
no_..e!
~'Bii~_
... 3! E u .!!
!iÆiš
CJ ~ .... 0 e
1: :! ~ ~ ::I
C .=I :r: ;! -:¡
g .. - 0 I&.
u-~¡e.::
_....,C'O.!!
~tl~~
uw_ ;:,
~ ~ en
0.2
()~
"
'"
~ .
of
U ..
i£
ê:ñ
o.-
- ~
~¡
1--
o
-
~
0>
iX
"
c
.
o
.g
u
g
..
c
o
"
c
~
"
¡;;
.,;
w
ci>
c
'D
c
8.
.,
;
§
"
o
.Ë
o
"
m
m
o
m
'S
"
"
õ
c
o
m
o
C
¿~
,g ~
.!!! .~
Š ti
.Ë È
)! ~
.. 8
8 _
ü i.~
m -
ë'~
c..
o ~
;; ;
'0 '0
~ ë
ëõ
§ ¡¡
.[ -¡
~ ~
z"
'P~oø 7
UIII
ðlj
&»
'a
.,:
1
g&
,;
I/),g
c .-
oU>
;;....
u I/)
~~
¡¡¡ c >;
.~ o!
c.=8
~caa:
.-- ..... :!'
'I"" =
o "co!!!
'I"" :!::~
>-3:-
;>-
"co!!!
0)"
._ CI)
::E:>
o
1
gJ
,;
.
1
"
R
iJE
1-
U
::-
..
~
~j
~
to
..
~
~~
!'
i! ø
::; c
~ .9
...
~
g~
::;
. ''\.f)~,.~' CL~" \.. ;I{."_,,.~."~
8 as"cI
11
~'!
;;
E ø
'=-.9
..,
.!IE
-£02
1;1 H,
ad:2
.9~
... D
UI~~
~ll
'a
0.':
I/)
C
o
~
u
CÞ
In
~
._ CÞ
Q,C
~j
.
-N
o
-
;-
.c
C)
.-
J:
~i1
~I
::J,
.
U~I~
~jl
-
OJ':
~
I/
c"C
o G)
=" ..
CJ .- C
G) .::: cu
(1)0 I/
-... cu
cui: .!!
.~ CU D..
Q..J - "C
~ · CU C
'-('1) CU
-"C ~
o C :>
- CU G)
>- .-
CUG) >
;=c >-
.cj .!!
0). -
:EN ~
;=
G)
:>
~
~J
!:!
~
n
2
~l~
If
j JI
,~
;~
u
¡¡¡
~1 ¡¡¡
. .
- '"
:x
I ....',-_.""
01 aSud
..
c
.3
M
¡¡¡
~'!
:!
~
g~
!:!
jj
j¡ E
ð~
-ë!..~
~:;;
~ Ii
.3E
MF
UIII
~ll
'S
81':
II)
C
o
:g
CI)
U)
ëã
(,) CI)
-C
CoftS
~..J
.
-('I)
o
-
>-
ftS
~
~
C)
:f
in
~
~.I
~
~.I
~
~
~ :.
:! ;§
I: !
.!'I
...
Page 11
-4õ
~ !
~ l!.!'I
"'e
:~ .a
Q..,
~.!I
~
UII~
C211
-
co
Iii
..
IIì
en
c
o
:g
G)
U)
¡¡;
U G)
.- C
Q.ca
~..J
I
'I'"'O;t
o
'I'"
:>.
;
.c
m
:ï:
JgJJ £
~H
,
, ~,'1,p~.,\·t~~I'
Z1 aged
e
o
~
~
-9
on
~
..
..
11
-0
~f ~ ~
~ N
t'! õ ~
:2 it ..9
...
\91;1
C2jj
-
co
'I ::;
u
.
Hì
II)
C
o
t;~
CD ftS
m-i-
-an
ftS_
(,)'t:S
.- CD
Q.'t:S
~'>
.-
~C
.....CD
>.C
C'CI C'CI
~-i-
.c~
C)
~
~J:
1-
)i
CONSULTING GROUP,
IN c.
Transportation. Civil· Structural· Environmental· Planning. Traffic. Landscape Architecture. Parking
MEETING SUMMARY
HIGHWAY 101 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
(KURVERS POINT NEIGHBORHOOD)
January 15, 2000
Location:
Chanhassen City Hall
Attendees:
Kurvers Point Neighborhood Association (26 homes represented)
Anita Benson, City of Chanhassen
Roger Gustafson, Carver County
David Juliff, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Tim Phenow, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
C:' "
'\"~S::N
--.-......
['::,
::. '.: ~.:ZPT.
Prom:
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Date:
January 28, 2000 (Revised February 9.2000)
Anita Benson began the meeting at 10:40 a.m. by introducing the Project Management
Team members in attendance and indicating that a number of documents were available
at the front of the room. She also stated that the Chanhassen City Council had eliminated
Concepts 5 and 6 from further discussion, and that no additional engineering had been
completed since the previous Public Open Houses in September. The purpose of the
meeting was not to select an alternative, but to answer specific questions regarding the
various concepts and to find out what the major concerns are to the residents.
Comments in italics were added from minutes taken by the Kurvers Point Homeowner's
Association representative.
The Homeowners Association representative indicated that there are five points that they
have collectively agreed to and want conveyed to the Charihassen City Council, and those
points are as follows:
· Maintain the current configuration (number ofIanes, etc.) of Highway 101
· Repair the roadway (not just an overlay if an overlay is not appropriate)
· Install signals at Valley View Road and Pleasantview Road
· Proceed immediately with minimum impact trail - minimum construction, no
additional right of way or easements, minimum tree and vegetation removal
· Proceed expeditiously - this is a high priority
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443
Telephone (612) 475-0010. Fax (612) 475-2429 . http:/ /www.srfconsuIting.com
Highway 101 Project/Kurvers Point
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
-2-
February 9,2000
Roger Gustafson noted that this corridor is currently planned as a regional trail corridor in
the Carver County Comprehensive Plan. The neighborhood representative indicated that
they do not want a regional trail; they stated that they wanted a minimal impact trail or
nothing at all. Mr. Juliff explained that in the four concepts being considered at this
point, the impact to the existing berm on the west side of Highway 101 in the vicinity of
the Kurvers Point neighborhood would be on the order of a three- to six-foot cut. This
means that the height of the berm would be reduced between three and six feet. He also
explained that where the cut would be six feet, the roadway profile is proposed to be
lowered by three feet. Therefore, the net effect would be a lowering of the berm (relative
to the roadway) of three feet in this area. In addition, with the use of retaining walls in
this area, it is likely that impacts to the berm could be reduced. However, the residents
indicated that they would prefer not to lose the vegetation on this berm and want the trail
constructed within the existing right of way where possible.
A resident expressed concern that the drawings did not show the current easements.
Concepts 2, 3 and 4 show a green line indicating construction limits that would move the
berm back and destroy all the existing vegetation from the swimming pool along the
entire length of the neighborhood. Residents felt this would destroy the rural character
and would not be acceptable.
There were a number of questions regarding the use of Tumback Funds for the project
and also the process of Tumback. Mr. Gustafson explained that currently Hennepin
County has entered in to an agreement with MNIDOT for maintenance of Highway 101,
while Carver County still has not done so. There are a number of reasons for this, one of
which is the cost of maintenance. Carver County has not been willing to accept all of
Highway 101 through Chanhassen due to the amount of additional money that Carver
County may have to spend on maintenance of the roadway in its present poor condition.
Mr. Gustafson also stated that Carver County is trying to negotiate with MNIDOT to
obtain a maintenance understanding about the roadway before tumback. This
disagreement on maintenance issues is a main reason that Carver County and MNIDOT
have not signed a Highway 101 tumback agreement. If the decision is made to overlay
the existing roadway, Carver County may decide not to accept the roadway and
maintenance would remain in MNIDOT's control. He noted that MNIDOT has not and
probably will not maintain the roadway to any higher level than exists today. In addition,
he noted that there are complications to constructing a trail within the existing corridor.
The main complication is that MNIDOT still owns the westerly portion of the Highway
101 corridor, and that MNIDOT has the ability to deny a request to construct such a trail
within their right of way. It was suggested by a resident that the maintenance costs would
be lower for a two lane roadway than for another "494". It was also suggested that the
roadway be left in the current configuration, but to improve the base/structure of the
roadway.
Frustration was expressed by residents that we paid development fees for a trail, and
paid increased taxes for a trail referendum, and still we are disconnected from the city of
Chanhassen. The trail is not simply a recreational issue, but is vital to the safety of our
residents.
Highway 101 ProjectlKurvers Point
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
-3-
February 9, 2000
There was also concern regarding the Eden Prairie Director of Public Works' statement at
previous meetings that Dell Road would not be used as an arterial, and that the City of
Clanhassen had not taken the same position for Highway 101. Some residents in
attendance stated that the City Council and City Officials will be held accountable for
their actions on this project, and that the role of the City Council and Ms. Benson is to
give the people what they want. Residents expressed the overwhelming sentiment of the
people attending last fall's Open House was for a two lane road. City officials should get
the message loud and clear that the taxpayers do not want our tax money spent on a
project that negatively impacts our property values and quality of living.
Ms. Benson noted that one of her primary roles as City Engineer is to help ensure the
safety of the public and to make recommendations to the City Council based on
engineering judgement. She went on to explain that Dell Road is classified as a collector
in the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan, while Highway 101 is designated a minor
arterial in the Comprehensive Transportation Plans for Chanhassen, Carver County,
Hennepin County and Eden Prairie. Within the term "minor arterial", there are different
design standards and ways to design the roadway to slow down traffic and make the road
safer without turning it into a commuter expressway.
A comment was made by a resident that Highway 101 in Minnetonka and Wayzata is also
classified as a minor arterial and that those segments are only two-lane sections.
Therefore, the resident concluded, Highway 101 in ChanhassenÆden Prairie should be a
two-lane roadway. The new 101 bridge in Wayzata is being built as a two lane bridge,
and the sharp s-curve is remaining. Minnetonka improved Hwy 101 between Hwy 62 and
Hwy 7 this year by repaving a two lane roadway, adding a trail and a stoplight.
Residents questioned that even though their traffic count was higher than our stretch of
road, these improvements were made without widening those roadways. Residents felt
that these communities listened to their constituents who did not want a change in the
current configuration of the road, and Chanhassen should give its residenfs the same
support.
Ms. Benson indicated that she would like to understand what issues are important to the
,neighborhood regarding any reconstruction of Highway 101. The concerns of the
neighborhood were increased noise, increased traffic, loss of berms and landscaping,
potential increases in speed on the roadwaý, the safety of the users of the roadway as well
as a desire to create a safe connection for pedestrians and bicyclists, negative changes to
the neighborhoods due to the character of the roadway, negative impacts to property
values and taxes. The residents of this area would like to have the character of their
neighborhood preserved.
A number of questions were raised towards the end of the meeting regarding the process
for Highway 10 I, whether money was available to construct a trail in 2000, and what the
next steps should be. Mr. Senn indicated that funds are not in the current budget to
construct a trail in the year 2000, but it is in the 2001-2002 budget. He indicáted that this
could be changed to construct a trail in 2000, but another concern is the ability to use
Highway 101 Project/Kurvers Point
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
-4-
February 9, 2000
MNIDOT right of way to construct a trail. He also stated that the reason that funding for
this trail was not in the 2000 budget was because the Council did not want to give a false
impression that the trail would be constructed in 2000. As for the process, Ms. Benson
noted that the Chanhassen City Council had instructed her to proceed as quickly as
possible with the neighborhood meetings to facilitate a Council decision on a preferred
concept in March.· However, she stated this is unlikely given th¡¡t many of the
neighborhood meetings are not scheduled until the end of February, as well as the need
for additional Open HouseslPublic Meetings. She said that June was probably a more
realistic goal. Other comments by residents included that it was not necessary to design
the roadway to "projected traffic" as these are only guesses, tiot reality; with the idea that
"if you build it, they will come," and you will create more traffiè by widening the road,
not necessarily making the existing road safer, the fiscal issue regarding maintenance of
the roadway is not important to the neighborhood, but the character of the roadway is
important; (the neighborhood disagrees that the statement was made by residents that
the fiscal issue was not important) it was expressed that the road should not be built to a
higher level than necessary simply because turnback funds exist, and we as taxpayers
were willing to pay for improvements as needed in the future; the neighborhood is asking
the engineers to support their view; residents chose to live in our neighborhood, and are
telling you "We don ~ want this. We don ~ need this. Support our views in your
engineering recommendations," responses to the questions from the neighborhood
meetings were skewed. In addition, Mr. Senn stated that he has not heard from a single
person that wants more than a two-lane roadway that does not change the existing
character of the roadway.
In closing, the neighborhood representatives stated that they do not want to continue this
process any longer - they already know the issues and do not want to spend any
additional time studying the corridor. The request is to give them what they want as
conveyed at the beginning of the meeting by the five points:
· Maintain the current configuration (number of lanes, etc.) of Highway 101
· Repair the roadway (not just an overlay ifan overlay is not appropriate)
· Install signals at Valley View Road and Pleasantview Road
· Proceed immediately with minimum impact trail - minimum construction, no
additional right of way or easements, minimum tree and vegetation removal
· Proceed expeditiously - this is a high priority
The above represents SRF Consulting Group's interpretation of the Highway 101
ReconstructionlKurvers Point Neighborhood Meeting held on January 15,2000.
DJ/sk
cc: Jim Grube, Hennepin County
Gene Dietz, City of Eden Prairie
·
Bc
ONSULTING
GROUP,
IN C_
Transportation. Civil- Structural- Environmental- Planning - Traffic - Landscape Architecture - Parking
MEETING SUMMARY
HIGHWAY 101 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
(Near Mountain Neighborhood)
February 2, 2000
8:00 p.rn. to 10:00 p.rn.
Location:
Chanhassen Community Center
Attendees:
Anita Benson, City of Chanhassen
Roger Gustafson, Carver County
David Juliff, SRF Consulting Group. Inc.
Tim Phenow, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
(Resident attendees on attached sign-in list)
From;
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Date:
February 18,2000
Anita Benson began the meeting at 8: 10 p.m. by introducing the Project Management
Team members in attendance and indicating that a number of documents were available
at the back of the room. She also stated that the Chanhassen City Council had eliminated
Concepts 5 and 6 from further discussion, and that no additional engineering had been
completed on the current concepts since the previous Public Open Houses in September.
The purpose of the meeting was not to select an alternative, but to answer specific
questions regarding the various concepts and to find out what the major concerns are to
the residents. The following is a summary of the meeting. Text in italics represents
responses from Project Management Team in attendance.
· Resident at 83 Castle Ridge Court indicated that she understands the desire to use
Turn-back funds for the project, but it appears to her that she will lose the berm
between her home and the road. This is unacceptable to her. Ms. Benson noted that
as part of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, retaining walls and other
options will be explored to minimize the impacts to properties throughout the
corridor.
· Another resident who lives near the inteJsection of Town Line Road and Vinehill
Road expressed concern over the noise from heavy vehicles. It is difficult to sleep
during the summer with the windows open. It was explained that based on the noise
monitoring that was done, the current noise levels exceed the State Standards for
noise during the nighttime hours. Landscaping, benns, fencing and other options will
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443
Telephone (612) 475-0010 . Fax (612) 475-2429 . http:/ /www.srfconsulting.com
Highway 101 ProjectlNear Mountain
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
-2-
February 18,2000
be explored for noise mitigation during the environmental documentation. Noise
levels will be modeled once a concept is selected. It was explained that as traffic
volumes increase and if the roadway is moved closer to the existing homes. an
increase in the noise levels can be expected. Based on similar projects and the
projected traffic volumes. it is anticipated that noise levels will increase on the order
of J to 3 decibels.
· What happens to the homes on the south end of the project? This is an extremely
difficult location. It is expected that high retaining walls and a frontage road will be
necessary to maintain access for the majority of these residents.
· What happens next? How do we get to a fmal plan? Why not use Dell Road as the
Town line Road extension? Concepts 5 and 6 have been eliminated from further
discussion by the Chanhassen City Council based 011 comments from the public and
the impacts of those concepts. Neighborhood meetings are being held in Chan~assen
through the end of February, and additional Open Houses are expected later this
spring. All comments will be submitted to Council for review, and finally a Public
Hearing will be held with the preferred concept.
· How does the funding fit in to the picture? Mr. Gustafson explained that Concept J is
not popular with the County as it does not address the structural deficiency of the
roadway, nor does it address the inadequacies of the sight distances, clear zones, and
drainage. The one-time turn-back funds may be able to be used for a Concept J
construction project, but both Counties would need to agree to accept the roadway in
that condition. On the day that the County accepted the roadway, the roadway would
in essence be obsolete. The County is in the business of moving traffic - the question
is what is the minimum roadway condition that the County would be willing to
accept? Mr. Gustafson explained that he may be willing to accept something between
Concept 2 and Concept 4. The residents want something between Concept 1 and
Concept 2 - do something about the structural adequacy of the roadway and add turn
lanes.
· There is concern over changing the character of the community. Highway 101 is
simply an extension of Town line Road, and that is not what we want. We do not
want to encourage the use of Highway 101. listen to what we want. "Build it and
they will come". There were three residents in attendance that indicated they did not
agree with the previous comments. They are concerned about their safety. The traffic
is already on this roadway - we need signals at the intersection of Pleasantview and
Highway 101. Ms. Benson explained that the intersection does not meet the warrants
required for the installation of the signal at this time. It is expected that this
intersection would meet warrants in the next 5 years. She also stated that there are
many intersections in the metropolitan area which meet warrants but do not have
funding available for their installation.
· Two Chestnut Ridge residents indicated that they consider themselves to be
Chanhassen residents, yet feel disconnected from the City. They would like the
roadway to be constructed to a standard that makes sense. A two-lane rural roadway
is unacceptable - it is not the "future" of Chanhassen. The money is available to
build it now, and City residents will be stuck with the bill to reconstruct in the future
Highway 101 Project/Near Mountain
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
-3-
February 18,2000
if it is not done properly now. The roadway needs to be an urban 3-lane or 4-lane
roadway.
· What is the width of the trail shown on the layouts? 10 feet wide on the west side,
and 8 feet wide on the east side. The reason that the trail shown on the west side is
because the Carver County comprehensive plan indicates that this is a regional trail
corridor. In other meetings, it has been expressed by many residents that this corridor
should not be considered for a regional traiL
· A resident questioned the need for a trail nort.h of Pleasantview. Could you cross at
Pleasantview into Eden Prairie instead? Trail on the outside of the curve seems
unsafe. Would also like to have the neighborhoods along Highway 101 connected
with a trail, with an adequate separation between the tr8i1 and the roadway. 'What is
the separation between the curb and the trail on Town Line Road? Do not know the
distance between trail and curb on Town Line Road, but it does vary somewhat.
· Is the road substandard because of the vertical curves, or is it because of the speeds
that people drive? If the roadway is widened and flattened, the speeds will only
increase. We don't need a four-lane roadway - we need a traffic signal at
Pleasantview Road. We don't want to live on a freeway. The concepts presented are
unacceptable to the residents. We want something between Concept 1 and Concept 2.
· Could Highway 101 be posted with weight restrictions? Roadway is posted with
weight restrictions during the spring. However, it may take a change in the law as
Highway 101 is currently a Trunk Highway and is expected to become a County State
Aid Highway. We don't know if this (restricting traffic on a trunk highway or state
aid highway) has ever been done before.
· Could the trail be eliminated on one side of the roadway and shift the roadway to the
east to minimize impacts to the west? Is the trail connected to anything? The trail
would connect to downtown Chanhassen and the regional trail over Highway 5. It
should also be noted that on Concept 1 and Concept 2 the trail is shown separated
further from the roadway to accommodate potential future expansion of the roadway.
Kurver's Point Neighborhood recommends a minimum impact trail of approximately
4 feet in width.
· The Kurver's Point residents reiterated their demands to: repair the surface and
subsurface, maintain the same roadway configuration, install the signals at Valley
View Road and Pleasantview Raod, install a minimum impact trail, act immediately,
and do not alter the character of the neighborhood.
· Is Eden Prairie still interested in closing Pleasantview Road between Dell Road and
Highway 10 I? We do not know.
· Residents requested Council Members and Mayor be at future neighborhood meetings
and at Open Houses, and Want notification of when the information would be
presented to Council. Ms. Benson noted that Council had previously declined to
attend previous neighborhood meetings. but expects that Council will be at Open
Houses.
· A left-turn lane into Fox Hollow and traffic signals are critical to this project.
· Three residents requested that roadway should be at least 3 lanes, and would also be
agreeable to four lanes.
\
Highway 101 ProjectINear Mountain
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
-4-
February 18,2000
· Has anyone been out to see if there is an example of what you like, to say that this is
what we want? No, we are not engineer's so we don't know what we need. We want
a safer road, but bigger is not better. A larger roadway will attract "induced growth".
· Why wasn't Dell Road constructed as a four lane roadway? Who funded the
construction of Dell Road? Were State Aid funds used for that construction?
Couldn't we close Eden Prairie's access to Highway 101 and force traffic down Dell
Road? We don't know who funded the construction of Dell Road. The decision to
construct Dell Road as a two-lane road was made by the City of Eden Prairie based
on their comprehensive transportation plan. This plan is based on a hierarchy of
roadway functional classification. Closing access to Highway 101 from Eden Prairie
would be difficult since the access points to the east half of the roadway lie within
Eden Prairie.
· Will people be compensated for damage to property? We are concerned about our
inability to sell our home. Some of us have children we need to send to college and
our home is our largest investment. Who will pay? Who will do the appraisal? I
want to be compensated for giving up something for the good of Chanhassen.
Appraisals will be prepared by people who are knowledgeable of property values and
who routinely do appraisals. If there is property value loss. homeowners will be
compensated for it. Thefundingfor this compensation will likely come from the tum-
backfunds.
· Can you take a preferred alternate to Council to which the majority can agree? We
need to have direction from the City Council.
The above represents SRF Consulting Group's interpretation of the Highway 101
ReconstructionlNear Mountain Neighborhood Meeting held on February 2, 2000.
DJ/sk
cc: Jim Grube, Hennepin County
Gene Dietz, City of Eden Prairie
·
ATTENDANCE SHEET
Highway 101 Reconstruction
78th Street to Pleasant View Road
Neighborhood Meeting
Date:. ~ ~~-'Ofv.--...
Location: l2e'£.~
~
Address:
D.\:;(l.r Po'
4. 7o~
CI1.-r-".! .
c:: tt ¡.. ~ .
C I.-~
Cß. o.K\ .
10
~,_ ~Et..=>e,¡rll(..
6J.cl
~:2.o
~l
ð\ CW~'ï~o'Í Î4,':)4 CC\.A.M
ß~ OL)'W\PIC" C.I~
(-:;> 3,ôo rV~ ""'T^'" 6( wI
9(:) O~CI~Ji(' Cic:...
Co f>.='-l! \2 \ '=>c..1L. <:':T.
C-u r 'i e.
5
\·rec.; ~
7. CA~OL M C.~I^LÞ
11. 'ßl>.U-.,j .::ïìUV\.s.~
9. íh\ , \ L, CA..Å Ù l.Jý
c....\AI.J
C- h 0-("\ ho....$S cr
11. '--tE>:rp,c;ek'ru.1 i '<
c.h.A.-.
\\
17-
18.
19.
:20,
CONSULTING GROUP,
IN c.
Transportation. Civil. Structural· Environmental· Planning· Traffic· Landscape Architecture' Parking
MEETING SUMMARY
HIGHWAY 101 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
(Fox Hollow Neighborhood)
February 2, 2000
6:00 p.rn. to 8:00 p.rn.
Location:
Chanhassen Community Center
Attendees:
Anita Benson, City of Chanhassen
Roger Gustafson, Carver County
David Juliff, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Tim Phenow, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
(Resident attendees on attached sign-in list)
From:
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Date:
February 16, 2000
Anita Benson began the meeting at 6 p.m. by introducing the Project Management Team
members in attendance and indicated that several handouts were available near the door.
She noted that the minutes of the meeting would be presented to the City Councils to
assist in their decision. She a1so stated that the Chanhassen City Council had eliminated
Concepts 5 and 6 from further discussion, and that no additional engineering had been
completed on the current concepts since the previous Public Open Houses in September.
The purpose of the meeting was not to select an altemative, but to answer specific
questions regarding the various concepts and to find out what the major concerns are to
the residents. The following is a summary of the meeting. Text in italic represents
responses from Project Management Team in attendance.
· Fox Hollow residents do not feel that the concepts under consideration represent the
desires of the community. The residents want: minimum impact trail, retain the
current surface configuration, improve the roadway structure, install signals at Valley
View Road and Pleasantview Road, proceed expeditiously.
· Residents want something done. When will the decision be made, and who is going
to make that decision? Will the process be delayed if parties cannot agree? Is there
some point when a decision is triggered? 171£ City Councils and the County Boards
will decide what direction the project takes. As for timing, because of four entities
involved in the project it is difficult to say how long it will be before a decision is
made. All the parties involved have to agree on what to do. It was noted that the
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443
Telephone (612) 475-0010 . Fax (612) 475-2429. htto: Ilwww,srfconsultine:,com
Highway 101 ProjectIFox Hollow
Neighborhood Meeting Snmmary
-2-
February 17,2000
funding for this project, if turn-back funds are to be used, can only be used one time.
Since the Counties will be maintaining the roadway following a tumback project, it is
their desire to .accept a facility in the best condition possible.
· What is the putpose of constructing Highway 101 as a four lane roadway? Is it just an
extension of the Crosstown? Highway 101 immediately north and south of this
segment are only two lanes. Why not make Dell Road the extension of Crosstown?
Also, why are trails shown on both sides of Highway 101 on the layouts? The trail on
the east side of Highway 101 is shown for the benefit of Eden Prairie - Eden Prairie
officials have not made a decision on whether or not to construct a trail.
· Anita, you may be a City employee and not an elected official, but everyone will be
held accountable for the results of this project, including City staff. Ms. Benson
stated that her role as City Engineer is to provide guidance to the City Council using
engineering judgement. The City Council makes policy decisions based on the
recommendations and desires of the residents and staff.
· A resident who lives near the intersection of Highway 101 and Pleasantview Road
expressed his concern over the loss of full access to Highway 101 - his access will
become a right in/right out if signal, turn lanes and medians are constructed. He also
stated that he believes the roadway structure needs to be improved. He went on to say
that the roadway should be a minimum of two lanes with curb and gutter. This would
eliminate the standing water and debris in the ditches adjacent to his property.
Currently the ditch area is not usable space to him 'anyway. He indicated that when
developments were constructed around him, he had to deal with the additional
sediment in the ditches and on his property because of the developments. The
roadway is unsafe in this location - he has seen a number of accidents and believes
that the roadway profile needs to be improved here. He would like to have the
Council talk with the people who live directly on Highway 101 as they are the ones
who will be directly impacted. He also questioned the logic of those afraid that traffic
will increase on the highway - the traffic is already there. Concept 2 is the minimum
that should be constructed.
· Why was Concept 1 presented as an option? Why does it not address the issue of the
poor roadway structure? The intent of Concept 1 is maintenance of the roadway only.
Any improvement beyond a simple resurfacing of the roadway would require the
roadway geometrics to meet the current State Aid standards (lane width, sight
distance, clear zones, etc.). It may be that the Department of Transportation would
allow a roadway to be constructed that does not meet the current standards since
Mn/DOT would no longer have jurisdiction over the roadway onCe the tumback
agreement is complete. However, the Counties would have to be willing to accept the
roadway in that condition as well as any additional liability associated with the
roadway.
· Is the entire roadway under the jurisdiction of Carver County? Who will get more say
on the outcome of the project? Mr. Gustafson indicated that Carver County currently
does not control any portion of Highway 101 along this segment. Hennepin County
has jurisdiction over the east half of the roadway and Mn/DOT has jurisdiction over
the west half. Each City Council and County Board listens to its constituents. Both
Highway 101 ProjectIFox Hollow
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
-3-
February 17, 2000
Carver County and Hennepin County will have to agree on a project and present the
plan for approval by the two City Councils.
. What kind of communication has occurred between the Cities and Counties? Since
both sides of the corridor are fairly well developed, from where is the additional
traffic coming? Why do we need such awide roadway? Staff from the counties and
cities have met periodically to discuss the corridor. Neighborhood meetings are
planned for all of the Chanhassen corridor residents, and Eden Prairie has offered to
hold neighborhood meetings for those residents that desire meetings. In response to
the second question, the area is growing rapidly and there is more traffic on all roads
in all directions (with the exception of the local neighborhood streets). The cities and
counties are trying to develop a good hierarchy of roads to carry this additional
traffic.
· The immediate area is developed. TH 5 should be expanded to a freeway and
Highway 101 should be left as a quaint neighborhood street.
· What is the current traffic volume? Approximately 13.000 vehicles per day.
· Why is the left turn lane into Fox Hollow striped out under Concept 2? Resident
would also like to have the connection made between Pleasantview and the park in
Fox Hollow so that traffic does not cut through Fox Hollow neighborhood. Also
concerned about safety ~ nearly rear-ended several times. Even though posted speed
limit is 45 mph, most drive the roadway at speeds above 45 mph. How is speed limit
determined? Mn/DOT does a speed study of the corridor and posts the roadway for
the speed that the majority of the public is driving. If you build a 4-lane roadway, the
speed will increase. Enforcement can control the speed.
· Improving the roadway will increase traffic, speeds and the number of accidents. The
vertical curves provide a natural traffic calming. Installation of traffic signals will
allow people to get in and out of their neighborhoods. Speak up and tell the engineers
what you want. People should be concerned about their lives and their family.
· A four lane roadway with curb and gutter will help to contain the accidents within the
roadway. A neighbor recounted his experience in another community in which over a
period of time the roadway was constructed from a two-lane roadway to a four-lane
roadway to" a five-lane facility. The resident noted that he recalled a dramatic
decrease in the number of accidents. Ms. Benson stated that the traffic projections for
this segment of the roadway show a need for a four-lane roadway within the 20 year
design life of the road.
· What is the availability of funds for this project? When will decisions be made? Mr.
Gustafson indicated that staff is currently working to reserve funds for this project.
Once those funds are allocated. they would need to be spent within a specific time
period. The City of Chanhassen wants to proceed with a decision as soon as
possible. Public meetings will likely cause the decision to be pushed to June or later,
unless the City Council changes the public involvement process.
· A resident indicated the desire to construct turn-lanes (left and right). Safety is the
most important factor, and same resident stated that they did not have a preference of
one concept over another.
· Have any of the concepts been developed further based on public comment to date?
At the direction of Councils. this has not been done.
Highway 101 ProjectIFox Hollow
Neighborhood Meeting Summary - 4 - February 17, 2000
· What is the traffic history for the corridor? 1990 - 10,000 ; 1994 - 11,500. Frank
Mendez requested the dates of the traffic counts. Those dates were not readily
available at the meeting. He also wanted to know whether the latest traffic counts
were taken on Highway 101 before or after the completion of Town Line Road.
· Residents stated that none of the concepts presented are acceptable. They reiterated a
desire for the reconstruction of the roadway in the existing configuration with
improvements to the subgrade of the roadway and construction of a "minimum impact
trail". Will we get signals at Valley View and Pleasantview regardless of the project
that is constructed? The intersection of Highway 101 and Pleasantview is extremely
dangerous - make construction of Highway 101 a priority. The neighborhoods cannot
wait any longer.
· MnlDOT is not maintaining the roadway. "Road-kill" is not regularly picked up.
What can residents do to help County ask MnlDOT to improve and maintain the
roadway. Send in comment cards, e-mails, correspondence.
· How long has the project been studied? What other meetings have occurred? The
first time that the concepts were presented to the public was last September. The
Council struggled with the decision to either go to the public with nothing or to
present the various concepts. The concepts are actually quite rough - a lot of the
detailed engineering has not occurred awaiting the decision to study one concept
further.
· What happened to the volumes, traffic accidents, and property values after
construction on Town Line Road? That Ž/lfonnation was not readily available at this
meeting.
· How do you acquire right of way? Is it on an individual basis? The acquisition of
right of way must occur according to State Law. ¡fnecessary, the government does
have the ability to condemn property. If you want to hold up the project, "don't sell."
· Why is this segment of Highway 101 being singled out for reconstruction? Nothing is
being planned in MinnetonkalWayzata. The Gray's Bay Bridge is being designed as a
two-lane facility. Wait on this segment until the adjacent areas reconstruct, and then
we will connect up to them.
The above represents SRF Consulting Group's interpretation of the Highway 101
ReconstructionIFox Hollow Neighborhood Meeting held on February 2, 2000.
DJ/sk
cc: Jim Grube, Hennepin County
Gene Dietz, City of Eden Prairie
ATTENDANCE SHEET
HIghway 101 Reconstruction
78th Street to Pleasant View Road
Neighborhood Meeting·
)ate: (b'$."2 200D ~~
.ocation: &.AN~ ~. ~
/Ole 1111.h1AJ
lame:
~ f(¿i."'~
~k ¡:;L L/
. .
.11',.... í~c~s
MI 1<[, J-'ff4' rave
¿X~1~
,--l>tt\L .gA \~
\
Address:
i~ ( fV)£ H.,lfÞ.-, Dv.
(;S-3 7 ~ 1-1 e.~1J~
b Lf () Q C],n n ["." s< f (\ /<,J
/(, è> Æ)( Hz.t.L- 0t..J J)Æ .
. -,....., z:- ~)
/ /1./ /o~· /.'
d\ F~ ~ ~
,t,;A-3ð ~ .:=oT\-ç¡\.¡J ~k '1>~
h \ ~<Q
t( () f1J}t
1/
b ~v';]. C-.e..7 r-;,.,.. fl..rve.
pu&4 .:sA-/\/"(' VI £: 4J .¡¿.~.
6"3il ôxh~h~ 1
6 ~ ( D OX:ß.ð,^-_W.)hJ\C\
CONSULTING GROUP,
IN C.
Transportation· Civil· Structural· Environmental' Planning. Traffic. Landscape Architecture. Parking
MEETING SUMMARY
HIGHWAY 101 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
(Lotus Lake Estates Neighborhood)
February 23, 2000
8:00 p.rn. to 10:00 p.rn.
Location: Chanhassen Community Center
Attendees: Anita Benson, City of Chanhassen
Roger Gustafson, Carver County
David Juliff, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Tim Phenow, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Roger Williams (Facilitator)
(Resident attendees on attached sign-in list)
From: SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Date: March 9, 2000
Roger Williams began the meeting at 8 p.m. by explaining that he is a non-biased meeting
facilitator contracted by the City of Chanhassen to conduct the meeting. He announced
the purpose of the meeting (to hear from the residents of the Lotus Lake neighborhood),
explained that he would call upon residents to speak one at a time, and introduced Anita
Benson. Ms. Benson introduced the Project Management Team members in attendance
and indicated that several handouts were available near the door. She noted that the
minutes of the meeting would be presented to the City Councils to assist in their decision.
She also stated that the Chanhassen City Council had eliminated Concepts 5 and 6 from
further discussion, and that no additional engineering had been completed on the current
concepts since the previous Public Open Houses in September. The purpose of the
meeting was not to select an alternative, but to answer specific questions regarding the
various concepts and to find out what the major concerns are to the residents. She also
went on to describe the "Concept lA fl which has been proposed by the Kurvers Point
Neighborhood representatives. This concept incorporates the following five points: 1)
Construct minimum impact trail. 2) Install traffic signals at Valleyview Road and
Pleasant View Road. 3) Reconstruct the roadway (no overlay). 4) Do not change the
configuration of the existing roadway. 5) Act with a sense of urgency. The following is
a summary of the meeting. Text in italics represents responses from Project Management
Team in attendance.
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443
Telephone (612) 475-0010 . Fax (612) 475-2429 . http:/ /www.srfconsuIting.com
Highway 101 ProjectlLotus Lake Estates
Neighborhood Meeting Summary - 2 -
\
March 9. 2000
· The neighborhood association has submitted a petition signed by all but 1 resident
stating they are not interested in any concept beyond Concept 1. This petition has
been presented to Councilman Senn.
· Why is the trail shown so far out ftom the existing roadway? This is for future
roadway construction if/when it is needed so that the trail is not destroyed.
· Why do the costs shown on the spreadsheet indicate a higher cost for the least
improvement? The total cost assumes that there is the need for a four lane roadway
LIt some time in the future.
· Is there any information available on what the impact would be on Highway 10 1
if/when Highway 5 is complete, and if Highway 212 is or is not constructed? Mr.
Gustafson explained that Hermepin County did prepare a traffic forecast for this
scenario, and the indication was that the traffic projections for Highway 101
remained esselltially the same, but drastic changes were seen on the east/west routes.
The current daily traffic on Highway 101 is approximately 13,000 vehicles per day
(counted in 1998) and is projected to be on the order of20,OOO to 22,000 vehicles per
day in 2020.
· Are the numbers false? If you build a four-lane, don't you make it more attractive to
use? Don't make Highway 101 a four-lane roadway - we don't want any more traffic.
The growth in traffic is not coming from this corridor - the growth is coming from
southwest of Highway 5.
· Where is the growth in this area? The growth in traffic in this area is largely coming
from new developments in Victoria, Chaska, and south and west Chanhassel1. The
more people that move in, the more traffic increases. Chanhassen is part of a
growing metropolitan area. There is hope that increases in transit will help to reduce
the growth in traffic. but it is doubtful that it will stop the traffic growth.
· What are the natural corridors? Why not Eden Prairie Road, or Highway 41? Why
was Highway 7 built as a two lane road with a bike lane? Mr. Gustafson replied that
Highway 7 likely does not have the capacity that it needs for future traffic.
· What is the impact to Highway 101 based on improvements to Highway 5? Do we
really know? Mn/DOT participated in the comprehensive plans for the communities
in this area, as did the Metropolitan CounciL All Trunk Highway designated
roadways and higher were modeled - the numbers from this model are shown in the
Comprehensive Plan for Carver County. This plan shows an increase in traffic on all
roads, with the most dramatic changes to the eastlwest corridors.
· Doesn't it make sense to wait until the u-arfic is there before you widen the roadway?
Does it make sense to wait until Highway 5 is complete before making this decision?
How do you take into account that people are using Highway 101 as an alternative to
Highway 5 during construction? Mr. Gustafson explained that roadways are typically
designed to carry the traffic that is expected 20 years in the future. Highway 5 is
expected to be constructed to a four-lane facility out to Highway 41 in the next 5
years. He stated that he thinks that Highway 101 could be reconstructed to
something between a two-lane roadway and a four-lane roadway that could be
acceptable to Carver County.
· What impact does the neighborhood have on the decision making process? Ms.
Benson noted that Carver and Hennepin Counties are the two agencies who will be
Highway 101 ProjectlLotus Lake Estates
Neighborhood Meeting Summary - 3 -
March 9, 2000
ultimately responsible for the roadway. The concept for the design has to be
approved by both City Councils. There may need to be some compromises made, or
the project could go away or it could go to an arbitration process.
· What is the Council's objective? What is the value of the neighborhoods' position?
The businesses in Chanhassen may be affected if the neighborhoods do not get what
they are asking for. Ms. Benson stated that the Council is aware of the neighborhood
concerns and isolation, and is listening to the neighborhood. The Council wants to
see a trail built.
· The people along Highway 101 have been ignored for a long time. This is a large tax
base for the City of Chanhassen. This is one of the areas which faciHtated the growth
in Chanhassen. If you make the roadway bigger, the projections will come true. That
is the key. When Highway 62 was built, traffic grew. It is what you make of it. Mr.
Gustafson explained how the Comprehensive Transportation Plans were prepared, as
well as the tenns such as functional classification, minor arterial, collector, etc. The
Comprehensive Plans were accepted by the City Councils, County Boards, and the
Metropolitan Council.
· Why didn't the City/County curve Highway 101 into Dell Road and make Dell Road
the extension for Highway 101? Dell Road is already there.
· What happens to the noise along this corridor? Will there be lighting on the corridor?
What about the truck traffic? What is the compensation for loss of property value?
The noise issue will be addressed ú! the EnvirolUnental Assessment Worksheet (EA W).
Additional lighting evaluation would be done during the final design phase. It is
likely that traffic signals would be warranted at Valley View and Pleasantview by the
time the project is constructed. The trucks cannot be prohibited from this roadway at
any time due to the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) designation for Highway 101.
As for compensation for property loss, this process is governed by state statute. This
process involves appraisal by qualified appraisers, initial offers, discussion and
negotiation. Ifno resolution can be agreed to, the property could go to
condemnation. No compensation would be made to properties not directly affected by
the construction.
· Why were the homes along Highway 101 constructed so close to the roadway if
everyone knew this was coming? Why do the residents have to pay the price for the
mistakes of others? You need to make your opinions known to the City Council. We
sincerely do care what you think and we want to hear your concerns.
· When do we get the opportunity to talk to the ones who are going to make the
decisions? You always have the opportunity to talk to Council- by phone, bye-mail,
by attendú!g the Council Meetings and Council work sessions. Ms. Benson noted that
a cOllUnunity-wide meeting is scheduled for March 22, 2000 and another corridor
meeting for the project on April 12, 2000. She also noted that the Public Hearing
process would likely begin at the Council meeting of April 24, 2000. In addition, the
Council will receive all minutes and commel!t cards from these meetings.
· Just build Concept 1 or Concept lA. If/When traffic dictates that we need a four-lane
facility, build it then. I am not convinced that we even need a four-lane roadway.
· Why are we reconstructing this roadway now? Mr. Gustafson explained the desire of
MJI/DOTto "tumback" Highway [01 to Hennepin and Carver County. The Counties
Highway 101 ProjectlLotus Lake Estates
Neighborhood Meeting Summary - 4-
\
March 9, 2000
need to determine what condition this roadway is given to them. When the State gives
this facility to the Counties, funding is available for improvement of the facility. If the
facility is not reconstructed/repaired at the time of turn-back, the funds are no longer
available and any future repairslimprovements to the facility are at the cost of the
current owner. In addition, any reconstruction of this facility will have to meet the
most current design standards.
· 'The community wants this to be a community/country road. Make it nicer, not bigger.
We need to construct the trail before a child is killed.
· Why would the County or the City want this road? Carver County has not accepted
this road yet. If something needs to be done to this road, though, it is unlikely that
MnlDOT will undertake that work as this facility is not high on their list of priorities.
· Let MnlDOT keep the road and leave it as it is, then.
· Are the existing easements and right of way adequate to construct the trail? A
previous Feasibility Study indicated that some additional easements would be
necessary.
· What is Carver County waiting for? How long do we have to wait? Carver County is
evaluating the road. Does the roadwayfit the needs of the County? The County
wants to know what it is being asked to maintain before they accept the facility.
· You need to tell the City Council loudly and clearly what the residents want as a
neighborhood. The Kurver's Point Neighborhood five points were reiterated. Ms.
Benson assured them that the Council will certainly receive all meeting minutes and
comment forms, but that staff has an additional role to give the Council and County
Boards their professional opinion on these matters. Those opinions mayor may not
be in agreement with the desires of the neighborhood.
· What have been the reactions by other neighborhoods? Many of the residents on the
corridor are in favor of the neighborhood's Concept lA.
· Will Concept lA be given a full review and analysis as the other concepts? The
desire for additional analysis of Concept lA will need to be discussed with Eden
Prairie and Hennepin County officials.
· Can Concept lA be built for future expansion of the roadway? No - Concept lA is
intended to be built within the confines of the existing right of way and easements.
· When will the City Council receive the meeting minutes? Meeting minutes will be
given to the Council ar work sessions or in Council packets. Additional discussion
needs to occur on how the Council would like to have the minutes - all at once or as
they are completed.
· Were the Council members invited to these meetings or were they prohibited from
attending? Council was invited, but chose not to attend so that the meetings would be
more productive and not become politicaL Council will likely attend the corridor
open houses in March and ApriL
· How were Concepts 5 and 6 eliminated? Based on the meetings in September, the
Council felt that these two concepts were unacceptable.
· I believe that Concepts 5 and 6 were the most expensive. I don't believe that these
meetings are based on integrity. I don't beÌieve that residents are being listened to.
You can certainly call your Council representative with your opinion - you don't
lJeed to wait w¡til March or April meetings.
Highway 101 ProjectlLotus Lake Estates
Neighborhood Meeting SUlllIDJII)' - 5 -
March 9, 2000
· Is there precedence for a siuúlarproject like Highway 101? Any precedent where a
minimal impact project was done and then a larger project constructed later? Mr.
Gustafson explained that one of the difficulties with this project is the five agencies
that are involved. There is probably no precedent where this many agencies were
involved in a turn-back project.
· Have the business owners been contacted for their opinion? No, but a widened
roadway may not necessarily be beneficial to them, as it may create more of a
through route.
· I live at 6791 Brule Circle. I have a huge maple tree in my backyard that will likely
die if the tree roots are disturbed.
· I live at 6781 Brule Circle. I have the most trees in my backyard, and I am concerned
about the aesthetics if these trees are destroyed.
· I live at 6850 Chanhassen Road. I am not happy with the trail being shown through
the trees on my property.
· What are the exact details of the retaining walls shown on the layout? There are no
details for these walls at this time. These would be evaluated in the EA Wand more
detailed design.
· Do any here want to see Concept 1,2,3, or 4 constructed? (No hands)
· How many would like to see Concept 1A constructed? (17 - all Lotus Lake Residents
in attendance)
· We want the impacts of Concept lA evaluated similar to the comparisons made for
Concepts 1 through 4.
The above represents SRF Consulting Group's interpretation of the Highway 101
ReconstructionlLotus Lake Estates Neighborhood Meeting held on February 23, 2000.
DJ/sk
cc: Jim Grube, Hennepin County
Gene Dietz, City of Eden Prairie
\
ATTENDANCE SHEET
Highway 101 Reconstruction
78th Street to Pleasant View Road
Neighborhood Meeting
Date: '2.. z?' 00 I J. _ ;-~__
Location: (J,~ Vez-. ~ fAJTV5 U4t£ ~
1
77~cfáUJ~
2.
r!.. 4.Ú1.'I. .
8. L·,....L \2-.-.... 55
9. 91J W~~
10. rßIiv[ u:z t,A..II~
01~>J~ -=-1...-""""';
11. '-' ~
12. PA-T ,/I/t7LA-A/
13. OR.v/lIe LA-JVrrv
14. A/4"'- L a.""
, 'V/NL- Ò
\..,\~ \ ~c:;:ù\~ C-',ç.
/54 c~¡loc-'í'~ ¿'/~
I s~ r~)fc.<.;.r/Þ1/ vl:z.c..-Ic::...../
,
Gí'i?/ ~R\JL<::: <?\R(',t '(....
0"76(7 ð..-eaLe C'//f~L~
':31 CN Oc.rAv C(7.4e
~ I Liv:.~ -r &i..AI C: rc:..../ ~
cC C!A rc:..l.v-
" Je..
19.
20.
.
-
CONSULTING GROUP,
IN C_
.
Transportation - Civil- Structural· Environmental- Planning· Traffic· Landscape Architecture· Parking
MEETING SUMMARY
HIGHWAY 101 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
(Colonial Grove Neighborhood)
February 23, 2000
6:00 p.rn. to 8:00 p.rn.
Location:
ChaMassen Community Center
Attendees:
Anita Benson, City of Chanhassen
Roger Gustafson" Carver County
David Juliff, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Tim Phenow, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Roger Williams (Facilitator)
(Resident attendees on attached sign-in list)
From:
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Date:
March 9,2000
Roger Williams began the meeting at 6 p.m. by explaining that he is a non-biased meeting
facilitator contracted by the City of Chanhassen to conduct the meeting. He announced
the purpose of the meeting (to hear from the residents of the Colonial Grove
neighborhood), explained that he would call upon residents to speak one at a time, and
introduced Anita Benson. Ms. Benson introduced the Project Management Team began
the meeting at 6 p.m. by introducing the Project Management Team members in
attendance and indicated that a several documents were available at the door. She noted
that the minutes of the meeting would be presented to the City Councils to assist in their
decision. She also stated that the Chanhassen City Council had eliminated Concepts 5
and 6 from further discussion, and that no additional engineering had been completed on
the current concepts since the previous Public Open Houses in September. The purpose
of the meeting was not to select an alternative, but to answer specific questions regarding
the various concepts and to find out what the major concerns are to the residents. The
following is a summary of the meeting. Text in italic represents responses from Project
Management Team in attendance.
. Can planting and additional landscaping be included with a proposed project? Ms.
Benson responded that typically the landscaping would be installed within the
roadway right-of-way, but it is possible that additional landscaping could be added
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443
Telephone (612) 475-0010 . Fax (612) 475-2429 . http:/ /www.srfconsuItin~.com
Highway 101 Project/Colonial Grove
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
\
-2-
March 9,2000
,
on an individual case basis. The City Council has taken a proactive role in including
landscaping in other projects.
· If the large evergreens along the corridor are removed, can they be transplanted or can
they be replaced with trees of like size and species? Highway 101 ,is currently
shielded from our view by the large (20' to 30' tall) trees. It may be possible to
transplant these trees - however. there is a limit to the size of tree that can be
transplanted. If these trees cannot be transplanted. they would likely be replaced
with similar species trees. It is unlikely that the new trees would be any larger than a
15' to 20' tall tree. Some tree species and sizes simply do not do well when they are
transplanted. The landscaping plan could be tailored to the individual properties.
· A four-lane highway will attract more traffic. It will be difficult to access a widened
road. It will not be advantageous to the neighborhoods on this corridor. It will bring
more noise, congestion. and property devaluation. It will be more dangerous to cross
the roadway for pedestrians. The landscaping is just a cover-up for what is being
proposed. Mr. Gustafson explained the traffic studies that have been done for this
corridor by various agencies. Each of these studies indicate an iI/crease in traffic on
Highway /01. The current daily traffic on this segment of Highway 101 are at 13,000
vehicles, with a project daily traffic of 22.000 vehicles over the next 20 years. He
explained how the design of roadway facilities is for a 20 year facility life. He
understands the concern of the residents, but the traffic will continue to grow which
will put a larger strain on the existing facility and make it more and more difficult to
access Highway /01.
· This neighborhood is paying the price for urban sprawl to the west - those who are
choosing to live further from the metro area. Anything more than Concept lA is
unacceptable.
· What have other neighborhoods said? We don't want to build this road for others
who do not live along the corridor. The majority of the residents along the corridor
desire to have a Concept IA constructed. There have been some in attendance at the
meetings who have expressed a desire for Concepts 2, 3 and 4, but the majority of the
residenrs along the corridor have indicated their desire for a Concept IA.
· Has there been any discussion of how the medians shown on the layouts affect the
access to Highway 101 from Cheyenne Trail? I would like to see the access to
Highway 101 closed off from Cheyenne Trail. There is some concern that this could
limit police and other emergency vehicle access to the neiglzhorhood, but this could
be investigated further once a preferred concept is endorsed by the City Councils and
County Boards.
· Why is Highway 101 north of TH 62 only 2 lanes? It is expected that Hennepin
County will ultimately want to construct a this segment as a four lane facility as well.
· Highway 101 is an old Indian Trail- resurfacing the roadway will not last. Do any of
the Concepts include reconstructing the sub-base? The roadway was resurfaced a few
years ago, and it did not last. Roger explained the structural inadequacy of the
roadway, and how the improvement of this roadway is tied to the turnback of
Highway from Mn/DOT to the Counties. Concepts 2, 3 aJ/d 4 do include the
reconstruction of the sub-base, as does the neighborhoods' Concept lA.
Highway 101 Project/Colonial Grove
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
-3-
March 9, 2000
· Concept 1 or 1A is unacceptable. You can't expect to stop sprawl by limiting your
road network. You limit the need for additional roads by planning, taxes and zoning.
Traffic is not going to stop growing. We want the safest way to access Highway 101,
and this is done by adding the necessary turn lanes and signals. We will be back here
in 10 years after someone is killed. We don't want to have to come back and
readdress all of these issues again. We need to do this right the first time. I would
like to see a full access at Cheyenne TraiI- maybe stop the concrete median short and
stripe the remainder to allow full access here.
· I am against closing Cheyenne Trail at Highway 101. We need more than one access
point for this neighborhood.
· My property backs up to Highway 101. How can it be safer for my children with a
four lane roadway in my backyard? How can I sell my house with a four-lane freeway
in my backyard?
· I will have nothing left of my backyard to re-Iandscape if the roadway is widened.
The values of the homes in this area will decrease. Our real estate agent told us it
would not be possible to widen the roadway.
· At what point does the project take the entire property? Our home (7002) is very
close to any of the concepts, including Concept 1. Mr. Gustafson responded that
nothing is "accepted" at this time, including the trail. A 10' wide trail has been
shown on the west side of Highway 101 because the Carver County Comprehensive
Transportation Plan indicates this corridor as a regional trail corridor.
· How close can you get to a home before you purchase that property entirely? Mr.
Gustafson replied that there is 110 textbook answer to that. The decision is made
based on the appraised value of the property before and what the appraised value is
expected to be after the construction project. Appraisals will definitely need to be
done.
· Will an EIS need to be done? An Enviromnental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will
need to be done to determine if an EIS is necessary.
· Who will make the decision on this project? The City Councils (Chanhassen and
Eden Prairie) as well as the COWlty Boards (Carver and Hennepin) will make the
decision on how to proceed with this project.
· I would like to see the City/County purchase the properties if they are impacted by
this project. In addition, I would like to see an immediate property tax moratorium on
all homes along this corridor.
· What about the noise levels on the corridor? The noise was monitored at 4 to 6 sites
along this corridor approximately 1 year ago, alld those tests indicated that the noise
levels currently exceed the state nighttime noise standards.
· I live at 20 Sandy Hook Trail and my daughters bedroom is on the comer. I would
like to see additional landscaping.
· We need to deter urban sprawl. If you build a large facility, it will attract more traffic.
Our access/egress to Highway 101 ftom Cheyenne Trail will suffer because of the
increased traffic, as will our quality of life.
· Was the City Council asked to be here? How do we get our voices heard? The
Council declined to attend these meetings as they felt the meetings would be more
productive without them in attendance. All the meeting minutes will be distributed to
Highway 101 Project/Colonial Grove
Neighborhood Meeting Summary - 4 - March 9, 2000
the City Council. In addition, a community-wide meeting will be held March 22,
2000 as well as another open house for corridor residents on April 12, 2000.
Mailings to the corridor residents will announce the neighborhood open house
meeting. The Council expects that the Public Hearing Process will begin at the April
24, 2000 Council meeting.
· I am thrilled with the idea of a trail along this corridor. Also, many residents who
bought homes along this corridor bought 'them ftom people who were aware of the
project but neglected to disclose this information to the buyers.
· Nobody ''knew'' about this project, as the decision has not been made yet. The
Council will make the decision. This project does not have to happen.
· I am notin favor of any concept except Concept 1 with an improved sub-base.
· There is no traffic on Highway 101 during the day. It seems ridiculous to sacrifice
our quality of life for a four-lane roadway that only has traffic on it for a few hours
each day.
· I am not wilÌing to sell my land. I have been here for 20 years. I did not know
anything about this project until Frank Mendez came to us. We don't want to see
other people use Highway 101 as an alternative to Highway 5.
· When will a speed study be done? Will an attempt be made to keep people within a
reasonable speed? Could we expect to see a traffic officer prior to the speed study
being done? Mr. Gustafson explained in more detail how posted speeds are set. The
speeds are set based 011 the speed that 85% of the motorists are driving below. It has
been shown in recent studies that speeds are increasing on other corridors, but
enforcement of the speed limit does have an effect.
· Why are we worried about traffic levels on this stretch of Highway 101? I used to
live on Baker Road and the traffic was much worse. Why are we concentrating on
this little stretch of Highway 101? Traffic is congested in other areas of the metro,
too. The traffic will grow regardless of the roadway. Even though the immediate
neighborhoods are developed. the traffic continues to grow due to development in
other parts of the citylcounty. Highway /01 has been designated as a minor arterial
in both cities' and counties' comprehensive plans and is expected to carry this traffic.
· Will the traffic levels really increase as much as is projected? What about the
emission levels? We don't want to facilitate urban sprawl. We believe that this
project will decrease the value of our homes.
· The City of Chanhassen has been planning this trail for 4 or 5 years now. The road
needs to be fixed and we want a trail. We have had to drive down a bumpy road for
the last 8 years. The piece (of Highway 101) to the north is only two lanes. We want
the City Council to take the same stance that Eden Prairie took with Dell Road - we
want a two lane residential street. Widen other corridors instead, such as Highway
494 and Highway 5.
· Highway 101 intersects Dell Road. Dell Road is already built. Why can't Dell Road
be redesignated as Highway 101? We change roads all the time. Mr. Gustafson
explained lhat Dell Road is wider the jurisdiction of Eden Prairie. The Eden Prairie
Comprehensive Transportation plan designated Dell Road as a residential collector.
not a minor arterial. Chanhasselz and Carver County do not have any jurisdiction
over Eden Prairie.
\
Highway 101 Project/Colonial Grove
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
-5-
March 9, 2000
· Does half of the decision lie with Chanhassen and half lie with Eden Prairie then?
What happens if the two cities cannot agree? Mr. Gustafson explained the complex
relationship between the two cities. the two counties and Mn/DOT. All of the parties
will need to agree on a project.
· Has Eden Prairie had any neighborhood meetings? An Open House was held in Eden
Prairie last September and many of the same sentiments regarding the corridor were
expressed at that meeting. Individual neighborhood meetings have not been held in
Eden Prairie as to our knowledge no neighborhoods have requested them.
· It is too late for Highway 101. We need to find a corridor further west so that we can
spend our money more wisely.
· There was some discussion on the amount of traffic that uses Dell Road today.
Traffic will continue to grow on Dell Road until it reaches capacity. Then why will
ttaffic on Highway 101 continue to grow beyond its capacity? If you build it, they
will come. We need to talk about the safe capacity of the roadway - capacity is not a
set number but rather a range.
· Are there any concepts which do not have a trail associated with them? I am very
much in favor of a trail. Ms. Benson responded that a trail has been discussed along
this corridor for many years. The Council strongly supports the construction of a
trail along this corridor.
· At previous meetings, it was expressed that the existing road curvature is not rated for
45 mph speeds. I am disturbed by that fact. It has been disclosed that there is a
"negligent danger". Why is the speed limit set higher than is safe? What is going to
be done in the meantime for the roadway to be posted at a safe speed limit? Who can
I write to or who can I call to express my displeasure? My family is being placed in
danger every time they use the roadway. Mr. Gustafson replied that there are many
guidelines and standards which apply to roadway design: sight lines, vertical curves,
ete. We are trying to make improvements to many different corridors which have
deficiencies. Curvature is only one factor and does IlOt by itself dictate the speeds
which are observed on a given facility.
· The addition of the trail should reduce the speed. If we want our children to use the
trail we need to think of their safety.
· I have not seen a tremendous amount of increase in the traffic on Highway 101 over
the past 20 years. My second point is that Town Line Road carries much more traffic
today than it used to due to the expansion of that facility over the last few years.
· My home is adjacent to Highway 101. I have lived there for 8 years and did not know
about the project until about 1 year ago. The right of way should have been set aside
when the development was built 8 years ago. Look at how much traffic Highway 494
is expected to carry versus what is projected for Highway 101. Highway 494 is only a
4 lane facility. Mr. Gustafson pointed out that the reason that Highway 494 can
cnrry so //Iuch more traffic is because it is a divided facility and it has limited access
toiL
· I can feel the vibrations in my home now - it is only going to get worse with a four
lane fteeway. I do not want to see the roadway expanded.
· I live at 7205 Cheyenne Trail. In the September meetings, I was told that Concept 1
and Concept 2 would not be likely due to the funding, and that Eden Prairie was
Bighway 101 Project/Colonial Grove
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
-6-
March 9, 2000
leaning towards Concept 4. Regardless of the chosen concept, my property will be
affected. Buy my house. When I bought my house I was told by City/Countylrealtor
that there would not be any expansion of Highway 101. Think about how the
concepts affect those whose property is adjacent to Highway 101.
· We need a show of hands on what the group favors. 20 of27 in attendance indicated
a preference for the "five poinJs of Concept lA ".
The above represents SRF Consulting Group's interpretation of the Highway 101
ReconstructionlFox Hollow Neighborhood Meeting held on February 2, 2000.
DJlsk
cc: Jim Grube, Hennepin County
Gene Dietz, City of Eden Prame
·
ATTENDANCE SHEET
Highway 101 Reconstruction
78th Street to Pleasant View Road
Neighborhood Meeting
Date: ~·2?'OD
Location: ÔI~~ "7~ 12r-:r_ ú=ù'n=:.Þ
COW/^, I'N./ G'f20VE. NG/6fff!>CJI!.IIooo
1IIame: Address:
J...Ù 1~ Ý c¡ í iÙ ,- f}- II V í) S ùnl 7 ò 07 511 tV Ì) 1 J<!-{) OK () ¡,r C h I'll)
2~ ~.(I'-)......C:,\... t ìori..' CJ...........¿:"''''~". ~L..,~
,
3. tir.. _ ~lL '70')..\ . e",~-.:._____~ e..~",>_ .
4. ~~\\\ (~~1¡ Oð-d\{ ~~'-C"ted, 7000 ·~d~,J::I"cKCV(,k.
5. IIEJ.1? ð:: J?é.ÎÇ.Y &p(.ur' Æ:J12 CH£ýElltJe T/Z.
~(J.Iti,l.4cf-~ rJ~ ~(Í)~~R.Jl d~
7.~ ~ß, JÚvSUfe-- /þtJb Cky~ '17ZL.
LKLchard ~ Naf1(;'1 He,e.r· -50 Sarri.\ Hoð/( Rd. Lhttl'\~
~~~:; in ~~;;: ~"~ U~ C~~~J<e¡1
- .3(, I k" It,· (9)-. Q. k. ,~
11..~J\1'~ ~~r P0 ::'Y-t.J""d~ 1-\æ,'('l2ot (lhf\r.o.~<:.,!!.(\
V4 ~.sq It D "7 D I c..\'\JL Il. VI V\.L y-~ Ch
13. D~ {"kr\-~..-- 73':) K-,--.. p{ ~
14, Ii'*~ &f'~ 7/'JQ:5 ~f(~nC' 0·
1 . ---- v'II\ '¡oJ 0 Ð otn! J-fvo*- Q(¡d¡<:>
é ~)~ ð/O ~~
1o()l.Q ~ ~
oo~.£ {!r:.
~
CONSULTING GROUP,
IN c.
Transportation - Civil- Structural- Environmental- Planning - Traffic· Landscape Architecture· Parking
MEETING SUMMARY
IllGHWAY 101 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
(Sunset View/South Lotus Lake)
February 29,2000
6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Location: Chanhassen Community Center
Attendees: Roger Williams, Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services
Anita Benson, City of Charihassen
Roger Gustafson, Carver County
Tim Phenow, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Carole Peter, SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
(Resident attendees on attached sign-in list)
From: SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Date: February 29, 2000
Roger Williams began the meeting at 6:15 p.m. by explaining that he is a non-biased meeting
facilitator contracted by the City of Chanhassen to conduct the meeting. He announced the
purpose of the meeting (to hear ftom the residents of the Sunset View and South Lotus Lake
neighborhoods), explained that he would call upon commentors to speak one at a time, and
introduced Anita Benson. Ms. Benson introduced the Project Management Team members in
attendance and indicated that several handouts were available near the doors, and stated that the
minutes of the meeting would be presented to the City Councils to assist in their decision. She
also stated that the Chanhassen City Council had eliminated Concepts 5 and 6 ftom further
discussion, and that no additional engineering had been completed on the current concepts since
the previous Public Open Houses in September. The purpose of the meeting was not to select an
alternative, but to receive feedback on the concepts and to find out what the major concerns are
to the residents. The following is a summary of the meeting. Text in italic represents responses
from Project Management Team in attendance.
. What is the history of Highway 101IDell Road? Highway 10J has been a state highway for a
Jong time. but several years ago discussion began with Mn/DOT concerning the jurisdiction
over the road Nurth ofChanhassen, it is being "turned back" to'the Hennepin County, and
to the south in Scott County, it is also being turned back. Carver County has been drawn
in/a tire discussion in the area of Chanhassen. The two Cities' and two Counties'
One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443
Telephone (612) 475-0010 . Fax (612) 475-2429 . http:/ /www.srfconsulting.com
mgbway 101 Project
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Sunset View/South Lotus Lake
-2-
February 29, 2000
Comprehe7lSive Pla71S have long (15 years) shown Highway 101 as a minor arterial. Dell
Road has also been designated as an arterial. The road classification hierarchy was
explained (principal arterial, arterial, collector, local). The counties fill the need for
jurisdiction over the roads "between" the local, residential streets (city streets) and the
major transportation routes (state trunk highways).
· What does the State Trunk Highway designation mean? The state (Mn/DOT) is the agency
with jurisdiction/resp07lSibility for the road. The situation on Highway 101 is unique
because the east side of the road (Eden Prairie side) is under county jurisdiction (Hennepin
County), and Mn/DOT has jurisdiction over the west half (Chanhassen side). Carver County
currently has no jurisdiction over the road, but has been drawn into the discussion because
of the potential fate of the road. Both Carver County and Hennepin County will have to
agree on a project and present the plan for approval by the two City Councils.
· What is the reason for the project/who will benefit ftom the project? The need for the project
stems from the growth in the Metro area and to the west. The growth of traffic on all roads
in the region increases as the metro area population grows (except on local residential
roads).
· Will Highway 101 become a 4-lane road nodh of the project area to Highway 12? Projected
traffic growth on Highway 101 over the next 20 years will exceed the threshold of 15,000
ADT, which triggers the need for 4 lanes.
· Why didn't the County extend Highway 101 on Dell Road, and "downgrade" Highway 101?
Why were other corridor improvements not planned instead of Highway 101? Why does 62
dead-end at Highway 101?
· What about 1-494 and 1115? Pla71S include expanding 1-494 to 6 lanes in the next 6-7 years,
and expanding TH 5 to 4 lanes in the future. TH 212 is assumed to be constructed.
· Can Concept 1 (rural resurfacing) meet the future traffic demand? If Concept 1 were
selected, wouldn't it need to be upgraded later anyway? Concept I would probably not meet
traffic demand, although detailed traffic analyses are needed for this and each Concept.
Concept I does not preclude construction of Concepts 2 or 3 in thejUture.
· Eden Prairie should consider widening Dell Road, as they are such a "giving" city. Eden
Prairie would have a diffièult tiine (politically) widening Dell Road, as Dell road is
designated a collector in the transportation plan.
· State, county and city officials have never indicated that Highway 101 would be expanded.
The Comprehe7lSive Pla71S that designate transportation systems andfunctional capacities of
roadways do not dictate the number of lanes of road, but designate the function of the road.
· If traffic signals were installed on Highway 101, the traffic would not increase as projected in
the studies; it would decrease because drivers would avoid the road. A four-lane road would
have added traffic; a four-lane road with signals would not have the same amount of traffic.
The trajjìc projections are based on the Met Council's growth predictions (households and
employment and other factors are included) and approved models. The projection is not
affected by any signalized intersections on Highway 101.
Highway 101 Project
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Sunset View/South Lotus Lake
-3-
February 29, 2000
· Widening the road would cause trucks to use Highway 101 instead of 1-494. Also,
Highway 101 was more heavily traveled when rn 5 was under construction. Are the traffic
projections based on these volumes, or volumes counted at another time?
. Who eHminated Concepts 5 and 6 ftom further consideration? The Chanhassen City Council
eliminated these two Concepts after the September Open Houses. These two were identified
as not desirable by the commentors, and the City Council received and acted on that input
(although these two are safer and all of the Concepts did receive some favorable comments).
The public input process will continue with a Community-wide Open house on March 22,
followed by a City Council Public Hearing meeting at a later date (April 10). (The April
l(}lh Public Hearing at City Council has been cancelled.) After these meetings
(opportunities for public input) the City Council will decide upon an alternative. To
~ccommodate all those who are likely to attend the Public Hearing, arrangements should be
made to hold the meeting in a larger room.
· Will the minutes of the Neighborhood Meeting be made available? They should be made
available and sent out to all residents in the corridor. The minutes of the first meeting are
completed. and the minutes of the rest of the meetings are being prepared.
· Explain how the noise levels on Highway 101 relate to the state guidelines. Also, the
elimination of vegetation resulting ftom the widening will increase noise. Monitoring of
noise levels was peiformed a year ago in anticipation of the preparation of the
environmental documentation. Modeling will be peiformed when the number of concepts has
been limited. The monitoring and limited modeling performed indicated that existing noise
levels exceed the nighttime standards. The modeling of future noise levels will account for
the removal of vegetation, and other conditions resultingfrom the project.
· Mature vegetation was removed ftom the area of TH 5 along both sides of Highway 101 in
the South Shore Area. Residents were told that the vegetation would be replaced, but it was
replaced only minimally and not maintained, resulting in the loss of 7-8 years of tree growth.
Is the City Council committed to replacing vegetation that would be taken with the Highway
101 project? Is the City going to make good on their earlier promise to replace vegetation
along the south end of Highway 101 near rn 5? Frustration was expressed because
commitments are not honored and sincerity of the Council was questioned because Council
members change. {Frustration with this issue was expressed several times at this meeting.
The City Council is committed to replacing vegetation, and will also follow through on
commitments made regarding this project.
· Surface water cannot be "shoved" across County lines, but the Concepts do not demonstrate
adequately how "each County's" surface water will be handled. More detailed surface water
handling studies are needed/requested before a decision can be made about the project. The
residents in the areas where water will be pondedlhandled (bottom of the lùll, south end of
the project) .are concerned about the actual pond locations and detrimental effects
(mosquitoes, water quality impacts, loss of property for ponds, etc.) For each Concept, a
general area has been identified where suiface water would be accommodated. but specific
ponds or treatment methods have not been designed. These issues will be examined more
Highway 101 Project
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Sunset View/South Lotus Lake
-4-
February 29, 2000
closely when the number of Concepts has been narrowed. In addition, all appropriate
WatershedIDNR/permitting agencies will review plans, designs and permit applications as
tire project warrants, to ensure compliance with NURP, WCA, etc.
· A resident offered the deck of her house as a study location for noise and other impacts.
· A 3-month traffic study was requested to determine the effects of 4-way stop signs on
Highway 101. It was suggested that 4-way stop signs at Kurver's Point, Valley View,
Christy Lane, and Pleasantville would slow traffic, and discourage the use of Highway 101
(decreasing traffic volumes). A study of this nature would have to be fointlyperformed by
MnlDOT and the County.
· What is the purpose (function) of Highway 101? Chanhassen, Carver County, Eden Prairie
and Hennepin County all identify the road as a minor arterial. Minor arterials serve higher
traffic volumes and have lower access, serving inter-community/regional trips.
· The increased capacity resulting ftom the project won't be needed, as the road passes through
fully developed areas. Increasing capacity would draw traffic ftom TH 7, and other
north/south routes, which contradicts the purpose of the road (which is to serve the residential
neighborhoods). Therefore the project is not needed.
· What is Concept lA? (The flier describing lA is attached to these minutes.) The six
bulletedlbold points were read:
Tile 1AjIier says:
"The only acceptable planfor Highway 101 is to:
· Not alter the cItaracter of our neirlflborllOods with an expansive project that will create
more traffic, remove hundreds of trees, remove Itomes, increase speeds, ete.
· Keep the current road confi1!uration
· Reoair dte subsurface of thè existing road and install a new surface
· Install traffic sirmals at Pleasant View and Valley View to provide breaks Í/t tlte traffic
and provide for safe crossing points
· Install immediatel" a minimum imoact trail on the ,vest side of Higltway 101
· Act widl a sense of url!encv. Repair of Highway 101 and the construction of tlte trail
are long overdue. "
· A request was made for a commitment ftom the City Council to the Highway 101 residents,
just as Eden Prairie's City Council made to the Dell Road residents. Frustration was
expressed for impacts to established 30-40 year old homes. The project is absurd and
disgraceful
· In the prevîous meetings, overwhelming support for Concept lA was expressed by the
residents and very few people supported any other Concept. Selecting Concept 1 now sets
the stage for completing Concept 4 later, which is a "set-up" for Concept 6. Concept IA and
the minimum impact trail would minimizes impact, and retain the charming neighborhood
character.
Highway 101 Project
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Sunset View/South Lotus Lake
-5-
February 29, 2000
· The project would not serve the residents, but rather would serve others who travel through
the area, adding truck traffic.
· Dell Road was once considered for widening (such as is being considered for Highway 101)
but Eden Prairie stopped that project.
· The message should be delivered to the decision-making power for this project (City
Council) that overwhelming support is expressed for lA, with Ìittle support for any other
Concepts. A vote of all present indicated unanimous support (23 of 23) for Concept lA.
The recommendation of this group to City Council is Concept lA.
· A vote of all present indicated unanimous support (23 of 23) of/recommendation for
performing a traffic study/noise level study of Highway 101 with stop signs at Valley
View Road, Pleasant View Road, and Christie Lane.
· A vote of all present indicated unanimous support (23 of 23) for the distribution of the
minutes from this meeting and the other ncighborhood meetings to all residents in the
corridor. .
· Residents at 7480 should be added to the mailing list, and the list should be checked for
accuracyfmclusion of all appropriate residents.
· What is the City Council's decision date? On March 22, an Open House will be held, and
sometime after that date, a decision will be made.
. What are the legal requirements the City must follow with respect to development of the
roadway/proceeding with the project? The City Council must approve a layout; that is why
the project has focused on narrowing the Concepts being considered. The next step is City
council approval of the Final Design. The City ordinances and standards (landscaping;
water management; water quality) would be implemented and other applicable easements
would be addressed the final design.
· Frustration was expressed over ordinances that seemingly differ in protection afforded
vegetation; Le., residents cannot clear vegetation to improve their view of lakes from their
homes, but vegetation along Highway 101 can be cut down.
· Concern was expressed for increased runoff ftom the increased impervious surface; impacts
such as ponding on land near homes by the boat ramps; mosquito breeding grounds; water
quality of the lake; pollutant loading; etc.
· What is the latest date that a decision would be made? Each City Council needs to decide on
a concept (Chanhassen's decision could be made in April or early May); then both County
Boards must agree on a concept. The time frame for that decision is not known, and because
a consensus decision is needed from 4 groups, the difficulty increases.
· Has Concept lA been presented to the City Councils? No; the intent was to complete the
neighborhood meetings, and provide the feedback to the Councils.
· Eden Prairie manipulated Dell Road so that it would not be widened. In September the Eden
Prairie City Engineer said Eden Prairie would only approve the 4-lane Concept, and
committed to not allowing Dell road to be used as a detour. Why are the Councils not
communicating with each other? Why hasn't everyone gotten together?? Staff members
Highway 101 Project
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Sunset View/South Lotus Lake
-6-
February 29, 2000
.from the counties and cities have met periodically to discuss the corridor. This phase of the
project is emphasizing the collection of input from residents.
· An arbitrator or mediator should be employed when the decision is being made. The State
has established through a law applicable to State-:fùnded roads, a method for dealing with
stalemates in decisions such as this. The process has never been used, so there is no case
history, over precedence.
· Would the tumback funds be lost if they were not used? If the road is "turned back," the
money would be available to the city/county for 15 years from the date of the turnback to
implement the project. The time can be extended
· Because the City Council can reject all of the Concepts, the residents need to urgently and
strongly voice their opinions to City Council. Property values will be arrested or decreased;
other impacts will result The City Council should be asked to construct a trail for the
conidor immediately.
· Why are 5 agencies involved? The centerline of Highway 101 separates Eden
Prairie/Hennepin County from Chanhassen/Carver County. The jurisdiction of Highway 101
is currently with Mn/DOT and Hennepin County. Carver County has NO jurisdiction over
the road currently. The jurisdiction is with Hennepin County on the east, and Mn/DOT on
the west To the north, the road is Hennepin County's; to the south, it is Scott County's. the
west part in Chanhassen is "owned" by the state. Carver County has not agreed to the
"terms" of the turnback with Mn/DOT.
· If Eden Prairie won't compromise (i.e., if Dell Road is not also widened), all entrances to
Highway 101 ftom Eden Prairie should be closed, forcing the use of Dell Road.
· What would be necessary to reclassify Highway 101 ftom a minor arterial to a collector?
Would a traffic study (stop signs at intersections) help in reclassification? The four agencies,
Mn/DOTand the, Metropolitan Council would all have to agree to the change.
· What is the likelihood of having stop signs placed on Highway 101? All traffic control
devices must comply with uniform standards, and the ultimate approval of the study would lie
with Mn/DOT.
· Will the environmental studies account for losses in property values? Property losses as a
result of full or partial takings must be examined (by law), and compensation made. There
are no compensations for indirect impacts (losses in property values).
· Frustration with the bureaucracy and slow progress was expressed. The elected officials do
not take on the responsibility, and the residents feel thçy are not being heard. Funding is an
issue that can be troublesome. All projects must be considered through the State budgeting
process.. It is necessary to begin the design process before programming for funding can be
initiated
· What is the decision point that must be reached before funds can be requested? The agencies
are interested in getting some design work done so that the project can get onto jùnding
consideration lists. The state's system allocates dollars to projects that are identified.
· Who is paying for the current work? Who is paying SRF? Hennepin County is paying for
the engineering work, and will request turnbackfundsfrom the state.
Highway 101 Project
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Sunset View/South Lotus Lake
-7-
February 29, 2000
· Because Chanhassen could be "overruled" if a stalemate were to develop, the untested
arbitration method could be implemented. Would it be useful to petition the City Councils?
How will the support for lA be demonstrated to the City Councils? The residents may wish
to petition the City council as a method to voice their opinions. The minutes from these
meetings will be provided to the City Councils.
· The mailing lists should be expanded to include neighborhoods further to the nodh and
across Lotus Lake.
· We were given a lot of reasons for widening Highway 101. Why is this section of
Highway 101 being singled out for expansion? The desire for a trail opened the current
discussionsfor a project on Highway 101.
· Is the accident rate presented on the handout for just the section of Highway 101 being
considered? What do the accident rates mean? Is the higher number indicative of worse
conditions? The accident rates on the table correspond to the rates within the segment of
Highway 101 being considered in this project. The higher the accident rate, the greater the
number of accidents on the segment represented.
· Could the utility poles east of Highway 101 (which are very close to the road) be eliminated
if underground utilities were used, as on the new section of TH 5? This issue has not been
resolved; the city is discussing this possibility with the utility companies.
· A vote of all present indicated unanimous support (23 of 23) for the elimination of the
utility poles by use of buried utilities along Highway 101 in conjunction with Concept
lA.
· Buses will travel routes into the adjacent residential neighborhood to collect elementary
students, but junior and senior high students must cross Highway 101 to reach bus stops. In
some areas very little walking area is available (7480 to Valley View Road); this is a safety
concern.
· How can the noise levels resulting ftom Concepts 1 through 3 be the same? Will the
vegetation that buffers the noise now be removed? Has the model accounted for tl1Ìs? Why
does the data show state standards as the comparison when these standards do not have to be
met? The noise impacts need to be clearly presented. Noise studies have not been
completed. Traffic must double, or distance between the receptor and the noise source cut in
half to achieve a three-decibel increase in sound, which is just perceptible. Noise levels
would not be perceptibly different for concepts 1-3 because traffic does not move
significantly closer. Modeling of specific locations for the Concepts has not been performed,
so the profiles of the Concepts have not been talœn into account. The State standards are
shown for comparison, and as a guide for interpreting the magnitude of the impacts.
· Will existing berms be removed? In some areas berms will need to be removed for
construction. Retaining walls can be used to minimize impacts on berms and vegetation.
· Will the sentiments of the residents ftom this meeting be presented to the City Council? The
City council will receive the minutes from all of the meetings. The Council will vote on
action to be talœn.
Higbway 101 Project
Neigbborhood Meeting Summary
Sunset ViewlSouth Lotus Lake
-8-
February 29, 2000
· What cñteria will City staff use in making a decision regarding their recommendation to the
City Council? The City Engineer and staff will make recommendations to the City Council
wing engineering judgement. The City Councû makes policy decisions based on the
recommendations received and desires of the residents and staff.
· How can extrapolated traffic volume forecasts be used and be believed? Adding grater
resistance to (traffic/electron) flow encourages use of a path with less resistance; Le., adding
stops signs on Highway 101 will "divert" traffic, and therefore, the traffic volumes would
decrease. and'the addition of more lanes would no longer be necessary. Traffic forecasts are
made using computer models that are accepted by the Metropolitan Council.
· Altemative methods of reducing travel demand should be considered instead of widening,
such as commuter rail
· When will the next meeting occur? A public hearing will be held on March 22, 2000.
The above represents SRF Consulting Group's interpretation of the
Highway 101 Reconstruction/Sunset View/South Lotus Lake Neighborhood Meeting held on
Febrwny 29, 2000.
CWPTsmf
Attachments
cc: Jim Grube, Hennepin County
Gene Dietz, City of Eden Prairie
ATTENDANCE SHEET
Highway 101 Reconstruction
78th Street to Pleasant View Road
Neighborhood Meeting
pate~ _fi::~iC-(JA-¡e.y '2'1. Zoo(3
location: rH-A/V#-i4~ç';>:I\J í2G.C- ('¡:::N-n=~
~ Address:
1_ Q~l1(' E=- ~ ~6J úJH"ï/J&- Si t/t71 sf,
:2. ~ha.vV.J. L "\ N\¡.) \It-.N'\'\r~() w ~ 1 ""f!:\ U Sf-
3 Ft1sD ~/.s(..hMJ'(~"- 7~/O 0111tvltn-sSC,v tPd_
~. S+..JVX OðY!.-lf' 7£3,(" s-ùvll-/).. S~ Û"
5. . 1 t bv.e ¿,r (¡;
~. ~ )) -l.-"\I- S~ Çjc
I ~ 40 '" Cf\-.\""I-( Ç' t-Ic'~
ì ") .. '3 ~<..-%-'" \--..c '" ~ ~.
J.. Q- kl" Sv _ '- îð-r- -
(y..Q
11.
10.
{íJ"3 ~
â f/ 'iLf:>o aUwh 'fSÞ.-
14.~ -r~t....'Z.V- iÇoo ~,^\I\S~ W
15. 4-l-Þ_r?-,.r6-{IA~ ~ Î+~D a'L{~lt~~^ iflp·
16. fi'\flltk ArlO J.fiZL/ G. (-/4~bJÇ í{ol!./ 'hõ, <;;\-\1~ f)re'- CI..JArl
17. Bl!.e..p\~e L (, 'It<' 7743 Sc."). bL'R-e PR. - (' f..-u1 .
18. :5 ~ '3..ul.o <:j- JJ.. ~ M (~ +¿,44 S,~ Jl... ~
1i[);r \- ~ß á C'f-ßJLc.Jr-- /6 ~ ~_ :£-/'-<3"'-- D f) . Qþ\{þ- -'
12,
20.
MAR-17-2DDD FRI 10:00 AM
FAX NO.
P. 02
.
j; He. M/~~eOerrpl'na9' tiO~hWay 101 ~construction
co= ennep ,¡ 78th Street to Pleasant View Road
Mnrch 2000
The purpose of this Open House meeting is to present the concepts that
are being considered for the potential reconstruction of Highway 101
between West 7861 Street and Pleasant View Road to the business
owners and citizens of Chanhassen. Numerous meetings have already
bcen held to present this same information and garner input from the
neighborhoods adjacent to the Highway 101 corridor in Chanhassen.
This meeting is an Open House format. No formal presentations will be
made nor will there be a formal question/answer period. Residents are
free to ask questions and offer comment~ to the staff on an individual
basis. No additional engineering has been completed since the
neighborhood open houses/meetings, and no new information wiII be
presented at tros time.
MAR~17-2000 FRI 10:00 AM
FAX NO.
P. 03
G IJÛ Mln~eOermtl·nagti02hwaY 101 Reconstruction
gf:ru~~ :-lenncpm 78th Street to Pleasant View Road
March 2000
QUESTIONS/COMMENTS
The Design Team welcomes your questions
and comments. There will not be a formal
question and answer period but staff is on
hand to try to answer any questions you may
have regarding this project. We also
encourage your written comments. Forms
for providing written comments are located
by the door. The forms may be dropped off
during the open house In the comment box
provided. or they may be mailed to tile
address on the back of the form.
BACKGROUND
Highway 101 in Carver County and Hennepin
County is in tile process of being turned back
to the Counties from the State 01 Minnesota.
As part of this jurisdictional transfer,funds
are made available to the Counties to improve
the roadway with respect to salely. capacity
and rideability.
Traffic volumes have steadiiy increased in the
corridor from 4,200 vehicles por day in 1976
to over 13,000 vehicles per day in 1996, an
average annual orowth rate 01 5.8 percent. .
The projected traffic voiume for the corridor
in year 2020 is 21,000 vehicles per day, an
average annual growth rate of approximatelY
2 percent.
Hennepin County and Carver County, as IVell
as the cities of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie,
have designated Highway 101 as a minor
arterial roadway in their respective compre-
hensive transportation plans. The function 01
minor arterials in transportation systems is to
provide higher mobility and less direct
access, carrying trips of two to six miles in
length. and to connect local collectors to
ftAR-17-2000 FRI 10:01 AM
FAX NO.
P. 04
other minor and principal arterial roads. Minor arterial roads are generally spaced one-half to two miles apart, depending
on topography and development density. TIle north-south minor arterials that parallel Highway 101 are Powers Boulevard.
approximately one mile to the west, and County-State Aid Highway 4, located one and three-quarters miles to the east.
CONCEPTS STUDIED
City and County staff and the consulting engineers have struggled with the need to provide an improved roadway facility
that can safely accommodate existing and future traffic demands, while trying to minimize adverse Impacts on the abutting
residences along the corridor. Some 01 the issues to be dealt with in this complex corridor include:
· Narrow existing roadway
· Limited right-of-way
· Numerous existing homes and driveways
· Steep slopes
· Mature vegetation
· Existing sight distance problems
· Wetlands
· Poor drainage
At the direction of the City Councils of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie, the Design Team (engineering staffs of the two Cities
and two Counties. and the engineering consultant) has been carefully considering conceptual designs ranging from an over-
Jay (repaving) of the existing roadway with the addition 01 a pedestrian/bicycle trail, to a four-lane divided roadway with a
median, turn lanes at intersecting streets and trailways on both sides. The Conceptual Designs are as follows:
· Resurfacing Concept (Concept 1) - No alteration of the existing roadway beyond routine maintenance and
reconstruction necessary over the next 20 years. Includes a 10-1 oot wide trail on the west side of the road and
possible drainage improvements.
· Two-Lane Concept (Concept 2)- Includes one through-lane in each direction with shoulders, left- and right-
turn lanes at cross streets, medians and turn lanes at signalized intersections. Inciudes a 1 a-foot wide trail on
the west side of the road, and an 8-foot wide trail on the east side.
· Three-Lone Concept (Concept 3) -Includes one through-lane in each direction with shoulders, a continuous
center-turn lane, medians and turn lanes at signalized intersections, a 10-foot wide trail on the west side of the
road and an 8-foot wide trail on the east side.
· Four.Lane Undivided Concept (ConcepI4) - Includes two through-lanes in each direction. medians and turn
lanes at the signalized intersections, a 10-loot wide trail on the west side of the road and an 8-foot trail on the
east side.
In addition to the four concepts listed above, the Chanhassen neighborhoods along the corridor have expressed a desire
for a "Concept 1a" which Is described In the attached flyer. This flyer was prepared by the neighborhoods along the corri-
dor. No engineering drawings are available at this time which show this concept.
MAR:17-2000 FRI 10:01 AM
FAX NO,
p, 05
.
]IIGHW A Y 101 PROJECT
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM
CITIZENS FOR A RESPONSffiLE 101
SOLUTION
Your ueighborhood, Colonial Grove, bas been invited to review plans and OptiOllS for Highway
101 aL the Cha.'1ha.~sen Recreation Center from 6·8 PM, Febnlary 23. 2000. This i.~ your
OpprJrtl1nity to provide input and co~ent.
Several neighborhoods, Kurvcr's Pc,int, Fox Hollow. and Near Mountain t}!\VC already had their
neighborhood meeting with the planners. 100% of the residents in' attendance from I<:urver's
Point 'l9.cl&1 but a few from the otht;!; neighborhoods saiiUurther review of the o!)tion,~ wa.~ :'lilt
ßquir~d bccause.1ge outions presented are unaccep.table. The options provided wi1l:
o Incccnsc traffic through the area (studies show that inc:rcased capacity jn\'itcs
inereaso:d traffic volume)
c 111creõlSe noise
c In::rea.~e speed on 101
1:1 Declease propcrty values
c Dimillish the overall character of the area and its neighborhoods
The residents stated that additional discussion cee:ardimr nnise, traffic. increas~L¡¡p,Ç_cd, and C!lher
issue:; wJiP9!.Qtless sivtln that the proposed options were unacccptable under any circumstances.
Rather than being forc,ed tCl chos~ from the proposed options. we stated Joud and clear the only
101 plan that is ¡¡cceptablc is a ¡¡Jan that would not alrer the fundamental character of our
neighhorhoods. The planners were instructed to take tbis plan back to all the policy makers
in vol ver!.
Tile only accep.tablc plan for lOlls to:
· Not 1,llel' the character of our neil!:hborhoods with an expansive projel:t that
\Viii CL'cate more traf(ic, remove hùndreds of trees, remove homes, increase speeds, etc.
· Keep the current road confirruration
· Repair lhe ~ubsurface of the existing road and install a new sUlface
· In~1I traffic sil!:nals at Pleasant View and Valley View to provide hrcaks in the lraffic
and provide for safe crossing points
· Instal! immeclialc1v a minimum impact trail on the west side of 10J.
· Ad with a sense ofure:encv. Repair of 101 and the construction of the trail are long
overdlH~.
wrm.R CONSIDERING ALL POINTS OF vmw, WE HAVE TRIED 'ro DESIGN AN AL'l'ElL'iA'1'IVr,:
100% OF THE PEOPLE XN THE AREA CAN SUPPORT. PLEASE UNITE UNDER TIlIS PLAN! IT IS
I1vU'ORTANT TO t1NDERSTAND AS CITIZENS WE ARE NOT RF-"TRICTED TO THE Or'TlONS
PRESENTED nv THE PI.ANNERS. FURImRMORE, A SINGLE RESJ'ONSl': FROM t'IlE
COMMUNITY SENDS A CLEAR ~tESSAGE TO THE POLICY MAKERS.
AllY queslior\s plcase can Mark Ser,n, one of your City Council who is most knowledgahle on
the 101 i.5sUCS (949-2272), Dan Shoemaker (949-9762) or Fra\1k Mendez (934-1200)
CfÎ ~ Id
;
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN CoUNTY, MINNESOTA
,RESOLUTION NO. 2000-58
RESOLUTION REQUESTING CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES
TO ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT A SCHEDULE FOR
UPGRADING m 101
WHEREAS, m '101, between, West 78th Street and CSAH. 62 is in desperate ~eed of
reconstruction and has an accident rate exceeding twice the average accident rate for similar
roadways in Hennepin County;
WHEREAS, m 101 is in a process of turn-back from MnDOT to the counties of Carver and
Hecnepin;
WHEREAS, Hecnepin County has completed a turn-back agreement with MnDOT for TH 101;
WHEREAS, Carver County is negotiating with MnDOT to complete an agreement for turn-back
ofTH 101;
WHEREAS, completed turn-back agreements will specify that MnDOT provide a unique
IeVeone source to restore the function of the roadway to current standards;
WHEREAS, the affected agencies of Carver County, Hecnepin County, Chanhassen and Eden
Prairie have been engaged in a process to develop conceptual design alternatives for improving
m 101;
WHEREAS, pubÌic meetings have been held in Eden Prairie and Chan¡'a~sen for the purpose of
soliciting input frOm affected residents in the corridor regarding six design concepts for
improvement to the roadway;
WHEREAS, consensus has not been reached on a preferred design concept for improvement to
theroadway;
WHEREAS, growth in the traffic service area tnõutaJ:y to the corridor is ever increasing, the
roadway pavement continues to deteriorate and safety is of paramount concern.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that, Hecnepin
County and Carver County as the recipient agencies to the turn-back ofTH 101, are implOred to
take a visionary leadership role in a proactive process to adopt and engage in a schedule to
improve TH 101 based on the following criteria:
1. That the priority design criteria be safety (including stopping sight distances, entering
sight distances, signals and intersection geometrics) to implement a solution that
reduces the accident rate on the roadway to one consistent with (or below)similar
, corridors in the metro area.
2. That pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities be provided in the corridor.
)
3. That the functional classification in the approved Transportation Plans of affected
agencies for m 101 and parallel routes be the basis for predicting future traffic
volumes and design criteria.
4. That expected growth in the service area and regional transportation needs be fully
. considered in the planniT1g and design process.
S. That a simple overlay and minor ma;ntensmce will not adequately address safety and
design issues in the conidor and therefore be ('!l;m;nateð from consideration.
6. That even though it is unlikely a two-lane roadway will adequately address the
criteria above, key environmental impacts and specific transportation needs be more
fully developed for:
· Concept Design 2 - two lanes with intersection and signal improvements and
trails on both sides
· Concept Design 3 - similar to Concept 2, but with a continuous center-left turn
lane
· Concept Design 4 - four, lane undivided. with . int~ection and signal
improvements and trails on both sides.
7. That details developed as indicated in 6. above, be the basis of additional public
meetings with a goal of narrowing the scope to one preferred design concept by
September, 2000.
8. That final environmental documentation necessazy to obtain layout approval be
developed by Januazy, 2001.
9. That after Step 8, a working committee with staff and citizens be established to meet
on a periodic basis to review final design details, review compliance with layout plan
approval and provide input on mitigation details with a goal of final design
completion by Januazy, 2002. .
10. That a Spring, 2002-construction start be scheduled.
11. That the entire process maintain rigorous attention to communication and a schedule
of public meetings to keep area residents fully informed of progress and decisions.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on March 21, 2000.
A'ITEST:
SEAL
~a.&:
A. Porta, City Clerk