9a. West 78th St. Approve Plans & Specs & Authorize for Bids BC F
AN EN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937-1900;,+,,
TEroPr
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager \ - -
•
FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer (?
DATE: May 3, 1989 1;tt :'
SUBJ: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertising
for Bids for West 78th Street Detachment Project No. 87-2
The City Council at its August 22, 1988 meeting authorized the
preparation of plans and specifications for the subject project.
' The City Council has been provided with correspondence from Mr.
Charlie James and Mr. B. C. Burdick, the prominent property
owners affected by this project at the April 10 , 1989 City
' Council meeting. The controversial aspect of this project from
almost day one has been the question as to what to do with the
current connection of West 78th Street with Powers Boulevard.
' One of the main impetuses for this project has been to relocate
West 78th Street to the north to provide a better intersection
with County Road 17 and proper and safe stacking and transition
area for traffic leaving Highway 5 to go northbound on County
Road 17 . I have attached appropriate minutes and correspondence
surrounding this right-in, right-out/cul-de-sac issue and there-
fore will not reiterate it here.
Based on the information previously reviewed by the City Council
and the direction received at the August 22 , 1988 meeting, the
' plans and specifications have prepared and are available at
City Hall for review. I have included here sheets 10 and 12 of
the set which show the cul-de-sac sac between the James and Burdick
properties . The attached memorandum dated May 4 , 1989 from BRW
' summarizes the construction cost estimate for this project and
other appropriate details such as schedule.
' As noted, the project includes construction of portions of County
Road 17 . The plans have been coordinated with the Carver County
Engineer 's Office during preparation. Upon approval by the City
Council , a formal submittal will be made to Carver County for
' their approval . Carver County also controls the access onto
County Road 17 and appropriate permits will need to be obtained
for the new West 78th Street detachment connection.
, II
Don Ashworth
May 3, 1989
Page 2
I
It is therefore recommended that the plans and specifications for
the West 78th Street Detachment Project No. 87-2 be approved as
submitted and authorization be given to advertise for bids .
Attachments I
1 . Plan Sheets No. 10 and 12.
2. Memorandum from BRW dated May 4, 1989 .
3 . Memorandum from Carver County Engineer dated May 18 , 1988.
(right-in/right-out denial) .
4 . Carver County Resolution No. 20-88 .
5 . Letter from Charlie James dated March 30 , 1989 .
6 . Letter from B. C. Burdick dated May 5, 1988 .
7 . Letter from B. C. Burdick dated October 27 , 1988.
8. Letter from B. C. Burdick dated December 5 , 1988.
9 Letter from B. C. Burdick dated May 3 , 1989 .
10 . Letter to Carver County Public Works dated October 10 , 1988.
11 . Letter from Carver County Engineer dated August 6, 1987 .
12 . Letter from Carver County Engineer dated August 21, 1987 .
13 . July 28 , 1987 memorandum report from Benshoof and Associates .
cc: Roger Gustafson, County Engineer
Al Klingelhutz , County Commissioner
Gary Ehret, BRW
Charlie James , T. F. James Company
B. C. Burdick
I
I
I
I
1
I
I J I lno 7 PLANNING
,,,, _.] TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING
URBAN DESIGN
BRW INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS.MINNESOTA 55415 PHONE 612/370-0700 FAX 612/370-1378
II May 4, 1989 CITY OF r AIPP 3 rli
GREINifilo
City of Chanhassen
II690 Coulter Drive MAY 04 1�'
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I Attn: Cit Gary iWaren, PE ENGINEERING .
Y Engineer
RE: West 78th Street Detachment CP 87-2
Approval of Plans and Specifications
Dear Gary,
We have completed the plans and specifications for the above-referenced project.
The project design and details have been completed in accordance with
I Supplemental Report #1 dated July 1988, for the West 78th Detachment Project.
The plans and specifications for this project as submitted are for Phase I
construction, which represents improvements to Powers Boulevard from TH 5 to
approximately 2,300 LF north of TH 5, West 78th Street from Kerber Drive to
II
Powers Boulevard and the construction of a public cul-de-sac for old West 78th
Street.
1 The lack of consensus for the design and location of the cul-de-sac made it
difficult to determine a final design location. We have attempted to complete a
design which we feel is a reasonable compromise for all parties. However, we
II understand that the Council may receive additional input on this matter during
the May 8, 1989 Council meeting.
We have completed an Engineer' s Estimate of the cost of the improvements as
II represented in the plans and specifications, and offer a comparison against the
feasibility study below:
I Feasibility Study Estimate - $1,118,900.00
(from Page 9 of the Supplemental
Report dated July 1988)
IEngineer' s Estimate (5/4/89) - $1,232,000.00
The engineer' s estimate reflects an approximate cost increase of 10% over the
II feasibility study costs. Two significant reasons for the increase in our esti-
mate are:
I #1 We have seen a significant increase in the cost of bituminous in the
last few months due to the instability in the oil market.
I -\N AFFILIATE OF THE BENNETT RINGROSC `WOL SCE I i)JARVIS GARDNFR INC GROUP
I'VID J IiENNF I' ,1 t p� WNGRUJE ?I('1 IARD P`NOLSFELD PETER E JARVIS •\NILE N(i J(;J-I N I
J R 1■()",.1AS F('.,RRO!L GRAIL;A ANAL ND[•cN N•\,U 1 HuN 1
MARK!' •/E.NS\N •i d B "PCNAMARA •LC HARD D PILGRIM ;01E N BECKMANN ^ ,1^1ISJ;,, i..f ,_FE REYL ilE'JSUN .A.Pr!L LiLL\! .nl L. GRAHAM
IMINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST PETERSBURG
ATTAC I-NFN T 411c9N
-
II
Mr. Gary Warren
May 4, 1989
Page 2 1
#2 Because of the proposed development of the northerly portion of the i
West Village Heights subdivision, the Powers Boulevard grades and the
transition sections from four (4) lanes down to two lanes on Powers
Boulevard, our proposed construction has been extended from Station
11+50 to Station 26+00 an increase of about 1,450 LF.
We believe this extension of the roadway makes sense in order to provide access
to this property and recommend that the roadway be reconstructed as designed.
Although we have observed significant savings on recent bids from the engineer's
estimate, we have also seen a significant amount of bid activity. It is very
hard to predict the bid results, but we hope to see a 10% - 15% savings from
competitive bidding which would bring the estimated project costs to within the
amount of the feasibility study.
Construction of this project is dependent upon receipt of easements
(particularly the Ekankar property) which we understand you are currently nego-
tiating with the property owners. ,
We have submitted this project for review of permitting agencies including:
o Mn/DOT
o Carver County
o Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed
o PCA/MWCC
o Health Department
The schedule is obviously dependent upon receipt of permits. Assuming all per-
mits are received in a timely manner, the proposed project schedule is outlined
below:
Approve Plans & Specifications May 8, 1989
Advertise Project May 1989
Receive Bids June 9, 1989
Award Contract June 19, 1989
Begin Construction July 10, 1989
Complete Construction 1990
If we can offer further information on this matter, please let me know. ,
Sincerely,
BRW, C. '
410 A g
Gary A. Ehret, PE
Project Manager '
GAE/sk
1.4
Iari ``,"' j�l: A,t ,l CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE t/4‘
-- ; " 600 EAST 4TH STREET
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT _4� \ -‘ '� w. -/ CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318
I (612) 448-3435 .�� r,-„ Q'
�'NES°
II May 18, 1988 COUNTY OF CA VEIL CITY OF CHANHASSEN
HEM
PSI AY 2 0 1988
I To: Carver County Board of Commissioners /
From: Roger Gustafson, County Engineer 4■4/ ENGINEERING DEPT.
I Subject: Chanhassen Project 87-2
Powers Blvd/West 78th Street Detachment
I This memorandum is written in response to Mr. Jim Burdick's letter dated May
3, 1988, to the Carver County Board of Commissioners regarding the proposed
relocation of the CSAH 17 and 78th Street intersection in the City of Chanhas-
I sen. A number of claims have been made-by Mr. Burdick regarding this proposed
relocation and the conversion of existing West 78th Street to a right-
in/right-out access.
IIMr. Burdick has claimed that JoAnn Olsen, Assistant Chanhassen City Planner,
and I met with him in my office a year or more ago to discuss West 78th
Street. I have discussed this claim with Ms. Olsen and neither of us has been
I able to document this meeting being held. I had planned to meet with Ms. Ol-
sen on October 7, 1986, to discuss West 78th Street, but the death of my dad
and his subsequent funeral on October 8, 1986, resulted in Ms. Olsen and me
I not meeting as scheduled. Based on searches through my calendar diary, my
memory, and the highway department files, I am unable to document or recall a
meeting with Mr. Burdick and Ms. Olsen in my office.
I As I remember, the first time I met Mr. Burdick was at a November 5, 1986,
meeting at the Chanhassen City Hall . Bill Weckman and I attended this meeting
to discuss with Mr. Burdick, Mr. James, MnDOT and the City a number of alter-
II natives for existing West 78th Street. I received on May 13, 1988, from Ms.
Olsen a copy of a memorandum dated November 5, 1986, from her to the Chanhas-
sen Planning Commission in which the November 5th meeting is referenced. The
I possible interpretation of the contents of this memorandum is of much concern
to me. I am confident an immediate clarification of Ms. Olsen's memo would
have been issued if I had received a copy of her correspondence soon after the
November 5th meeting.
IIKnowing of my immediate and continuing concerns regarding the proposed right-
in/right-out access, I can assure you that all parties did not agree to the
I construction of this access on November 5th. In fact, my repeated comments on
November 5th regarding traffic flow and safety resulted in an understanding
that the City of Chanhassen would retain professional traffic engineers to
I study the right-in/right-out concept. To initiate this study, it was under-
stood that the concept of a right-in/right-out access would have to be
presented to the City Planning Commission and the City Council for discussion
I
IAffirmative Action;Equal Opportunity Employer
ATTA A-MCAT 4.' 3
-
{- 1
1
Memo to Carver County Board of Commissioners
May 18, 1988
Page 2
1
and consideration. It was never my understanding that a decision to construct
or not construct the right-in/right-out access was being made by staff of 1
MnDOT or Carver County on November 5th. The decision made was to approve a
concept for further study and consideration rather than have Carver County
staff continue to raise traffic flow and safety concerns without the benefit
of a factual data base. It was my understanding on November 5th that the
decision to approve or disapprove a proposal to actually construct a right-
in/right-out access at existing West 78th Street was being deferred for an un-
specified period of time. 1
I have questioned Bill Weckman to see if my impressions and my understandings
of the November 5th meeting are consistent with his. I have, also, asked Mr.
Weckman if he does remember me emphasizing my concerns about traffic flow and
safety. I, also, stressed to Mr. Weckman that his answers to my questions
were not to be influenced by his position in the county highway department;
his answers were to be given as if he was testifying in a court of law. Mr.
Weckman's responses to my questions support the understandings I have
presented in this memorandum regarding the November 5th meeting.
Subsequent to the November 5th Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting, the
City Council on November 17th considered Rezoning Request #86-2 by the T.F.
James Company. The Planning Commission recommendations of November 5th
regarding the right-in/right-out access were incorporated into the approval of
the rezoning request by the City Council on November 17th. This action was
brought to my attention by Mr. Burdick in his claim of May 3rd that the
Chanhassen City Council had approved the right-in/right-out access. This was
confirmed by JoAnn Olsen when I received from her on May 13, 1988 a copy of a
portion of the transcript from the November 17th Chanhassen City Council meet-
ing. The action of the City Council reflects the recommendation of the Plan-
ping Commission about which I have previously discussed my concern, my lack of
knowledge that the Planning Commission had taken such action, and my under-
standings of the November 5th meeting at Chanhassen.
Sometime after the November 5th meeting, the City of Chanhassen retained Ben-
shoof and Associates, Inc. to analyze the proposed right-in/right-out access
on CSAH 17. Their analysis is in memorandum form dated July 28, 1987, to Bar-
bara Dacy, Chanhassen City Planner. This memorandum was incorporated into the
feasibility study for Chanhassen Project 87-2 prepared by BRW, Inc. Based on
the language and implications of that study, a request was made by me on be-
half of Carver County to address the "need" for the right-in/right-out access
in the feasibility study. This request along with a number of other concerns
raised by the feasibility study were presented to the Carver County Board on
August 18, 1987. As a result. of that Board meeting a letter dated August 21 ,
1987, was sent by me to Gary Warren, Chanhassen City Engineer stating that
Carver County may not permit anything more than the proposed relocation of the
CSAH 17 and West 78th Street intersection. This would result in no right-
in/right-out
access at existing West 78th Street.
I
' Memo to Carver County Board of Commissioners
May 18, 1988
Page 3
•
I
In February of 1988, the City of Chanhassen considered the plat for West
lage Heights, 2nd Addition. As part of this consideration, the City of
Chanhassen had BRW, Inc. review the final plat. In BRW, Inc. 's letter of
review dated February 11 , 1988, to Gary Warren, driveway entrances were ad-
dressed. In that February 11th letter the following statements are made:
"Driveway access to Powers Boulevard is not recommended. Sight dis-
tances, traffic speed, etc. , merit specific concern on Powers Boulevard,
' and driveway access is not recommended".
On March 28, 1988, Gary Warren wrote a letter to me in which the following re-
quest was made:
' "Since the county has the controras to whether this connection will be
allowed or not onto County Road 17, the City of Chanhassen hereby for-
mally requests that this issue be taken to the Carver County Board of
Commissioners for action to either permit or deny this connection".
In Mr. Warren's letter "this connection" is described to be "the private
entrance" to Powers Boulevard. In response to this request, resolution 20-88
was made a part of the April 12, 1988, agenda of the County Board. The city
was aware of this schedule, but no other parties were notified of this item
being on the agenda since the request was specifically from the City of
' Chanhassen. Carver County denied the request for the right-in/right-out
private access by adopting resolution 20-88.
I. Burdick's letter of May 3rd and the subsequent compiling of information
about this right-in/right-out access does, once again, illustrate the tremen-
dous challenge of fully understanding and communicating concepts, views,
opinions, and actions among the parties and agencies involved in land develop-
' ment affecting numerous public and private interests. This memorandum has
been written with the intent of clarifying to the Carver County Board my
perspective of this issue as it developed as well as communicating to you in-
formation about several other documents and actions not in the county's files
prior to May 13th. Having reviewed the more complete file, I continue to
resist the concept of the right-in/right-out access along CSAH 17 based on the
identified and potential traffic flow and safety concerns included in the com-
ments of the professional traffic consultants that have been retained by the
City of Chanhassen to review this issue.
' Please contact me at your convenience if you wish to discuss the contents of
this memorandum in more detail .
' RG/cr
cc: Dick Stolz, County Administrator
' Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
JoAnn Olsen, Chanhassen Assistant City Planner
Gary Warren, Chanhassen City Engineert/
•
M `-; ', — 4 — _ = THI_I 1 4 = iici
BOARD COUNTY MMiS 1 S , 1
ESA OF � �� ��.��b ��P�.
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Page 1 cf 2 I
DATE RESOL TI'ON 1�R%t
lrO. JrL' :, .. K_ Lrirl ^1�yT VC D1,L IV BY co :i.1 ro.1u TY�.
WrE .E.A= , Carver County 16 as thcr i "l under Minnesota Statute 160
to control access• to Count, ?.acs , and
', ERE,A , the City cf Chanhassen has proposed a relocation of the 1
7Sth Street entrance onto CS.H 17 ( Powers Blvd . ) from
its present location to a Ocint approximately 340 feet
north of its present location, and I
Wr;E7E.A ; , tie
p lan includes a pr o p o s e d " right in- right out"
p r i v a}e a c c ess a t t h e a 1 ( e t h n= 7 8 6h Street e n tran c e
onto CSAH 17 ( Powers E l vd . ) , and
'n'±=E?EAF , construction of the " r i7h, in-right cut" access and the
78th Street entrance as proposed would result in two
accesses on C Ah 17 within 550 feet of T .H . 5 , and
WHER A;= , the Carver County comprehensi.'e plan classifies CSAH 17 ,
as a minor arterial roadway , and the access standards
therein state that the desirable access control in-
cludes No access between Public Streets" , and
WHEREAS , considerate discussion has been held among Carver
County , the City of Chanhassen and the involved
developers concerning the private entrance , and
WHEREAS , the Benshoof & Associates , Inc . study of the " right
in-right out" access states "Negative traffic impacts
could occur if this drive were used as a ' short cut'
for traffic destined to the Downtown area" . The report
also lists measures to possibly alleviate the use of
the access as a short-cut. And •
1
1
1
4TTAC UMW T4-1-
M u-I . - -1 - - _4 T H IJ 1 4 : t, 1 F- - 1_1 _
I ,' Dui-\rui t.s t- %.. ' .,1 U i E ✓'.1171 i 711,Z CA'ti l 1 Ni=D-`i 0
k CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Page 2 o£ 2
*+,.m.`,. gv C,.:•.."._._ .CN. ' ::linztlut7 SEC=:._ F: COMMISSIONER 'Tracy � aGnson
II - _
i 1F ,,t� .,mow?.- 4:r�,1ur 11th , y O t71, }
W;-.E"-,;EA , f� ;. r' " � � J' V 1 .J 5 v from C!r�; C� T� q the
C'. ' s consu ! ta, .. On tht '.,S,�H 47 reconstruction , the
Co�1`-,...� i V,1 v E -I r,:,, r s Vra ee „Dr, Ye;�Yay entrances present
.� , _ en
II both a N'44.•C'-'�.''tf driving r;5 na��!'� , and �:'"• obstacle to the
normal flow tl.�rr traffic, For this reason the num-
ber and location of driveway entrances should be care-
fully cons ' cereo: . . , . . Ori vewa ; access to Powers
ccu' i evard ia n^_ a reCO mmendeP . Sig.!'—,t o i stances , traffic
speet , etc , merit specific concern on Powers Boulevard
IIant driveway access is not recommended" , and
W,_,« ,_ a t_rna :iv : plans snow a proposed puti .c cul-re-sac ac-
c a.ss ' nti _ !r
I the new ih Street cal gnme r' V to serve this
property , ant
tHP_R. ;L , tn.,- public c u I-`'.> f proposal would pr o Y 1 r e access v n
1 the prcp_rtie , and eliminate otentiai private access
prod i ems on CSAH 1 7 , and
I Y;HEREAS , the C i t F of Ch`nhassen has requested that the Carver
County board of Commissioners take the appropriate ac-
tion to either permit or deny the proposed private ac-
II cess.
NOW THE=ti. . BE IT RESOLVED that the Carver County board Com-
missioners of COm
missioners hereby denies the request for the " right
II in-rivht out private access on CSAH 17 ( Powers Blvd , )
located between T . H . 5 and the relocated 78th Street
entrance.
I
IYES ABSENT NO
Al Klingelhutz _
IITracy D. Swanson
James Hoes?
Harold Trende ' —_-
Earl F. Gnan
TATE OF MINNESOTA
OUNTY OF CARVES
I, Ric:lard J. Stolz, duly appointed and qualified County Administrator of the
liounty of Carver, Scale cf :Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the fore-
o_ng copy of this resolution with the original minutes of the proceedings of the Beard
of County Cc=issior.ers, Carver County, ninnesota, at its session held on the 12th
ay of A,^ '_1 , 19 €5 , now on file in the Administration office, and have
ound the same to be a true and correct copy thereof.
Dated rhff. • -_ d y o, 9 J '� //
<1,0
JAMES
1
March 30, 1989
1
Mr. Gary Warren
City Engineer
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 '
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT
Dear Mr. Warren:
I am in receipt of your letter dated March 21, 1989 regardinq the I
proposed service road cul-de-sac options.
Since I have a schedule conflict on April 10, that will take me out
of state, I am sending my comments by mail and ask that this letter
be made part of the official public record for the meeting on April
10, 1989.
I find myself in a perplexing situation with regard to this
proposed project. Mr. Burdick and I have previously agreed that:
1. The old West 78th Street would be vacated in i t-s entirety Mr•d
maintained as a private driveway entrance to our propertie .
2 . Because the blacktop is not centered on the property line, we
would cause the blacktop to be surveyed and would execute
cross-easements, and to compensate Mr. Burdick for the general
extend to which the blacktop is disproportionately located on
his property (after vacation) . I would give him free of
charge that portion of my property lying east of the
connection point of the private drive with new West 78th.
This piece of land is roughly triangular in shape (identified
as "Outlot" on my Site Plan) and would give Mr. Burdick
additional frontage cn West 78th.
This was our agreement up until the received
point at which I eiv_d
notice from the City that the City was undertaking the construction
of a public street to provide access for Mr. Burdick. The City I
TF James Company PO Box 24137 Minneapolis Minnesota 55424 (612)828-9000 1
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT 47- - o ( 11 M SIT 4*'5
i,! F11'r� /V 1
.44->
' JAMES
Mr. Gary Warren
1 March 30, 1989
Page 2
apparently feels compelled to provide alternate access to Mr.
Burdick. Meanwhile Mr. Burdick, according to a phone conversation
on March 29, is still fighting for a right-in, right-out from
Highway 17.
It is obvious that all parties to this project are not
communicating clearly.
In any event, should the City decide to proceed with this project,
I am concerned about the following issues:
1. Whether the street is centered on the section or the right-
of-way, in my opinion, depends on whether the City intends to
preserve the existing 70 ' easement. If not, if a new easement
of 60 ' or less is proposed, then I think the road should be
centered on the section line and the easement re-described.
If the City intends to retain the existing easement, as is,
then I think the road should be centered in the easement.
2 . Since the cul-de-sac will require a taking of my property in
any event, I would like to petition that the radius of the
cul-de-sac be reduced to 40 ' (80 ' circle) since nearly all
traffic will not be turning around in this circle, but
continuing on to Mr. Burdick's property or my property.
3 . Regardless of the feasibility of a smaller diameter circle,
I would ask that the road be extended 10 or 15 feet so that
the cul-de-sac would be centered on my driveway. This would
lessen the impact on my parking lot (see attached sketch) .
4. I note that the plans do not show how the connection will be
made to 78th Street and how this will impact my driveway
location.
The driveway was located on the assumption that it would be
' a private drive on vacated R.O.W. , not a public street
entrance. I am willing to work with the staff on the
geometrics of the connection and any land dedication that may
be required, but I believe the plat will have to be revised.
5. Who is paying for this? The primary beneficiary is Mr.
' Burdick. Will this work be assessed? I have never been
informed as to exactly how the costs will be covered.
1
11
•
JAMES 1
•
Mr. Gary Warren
March 30, 1989
Page 3
1
Gary, I hope that you will review this letter prior to the Council 1
Meeting and advise me of any solutions to the issues I have raised
so that a consensus can be reached on the 10th. I would like to
cooperate with you to get this matter resolved.
Sincerely,
G 1
CZarles Wm. James
Vice President _ 1
CWJ:bdh I
Enclosure
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
t .�.-_
� ► /
I -,:r 52 PARKING SPACES
(o �,�
957- 5v cl 5cx• �Iw F
tt-; -
cv m'°
I26'
�„� o w• r' \
N �jf
1 _ — —‹—_— — — — _7—/— —A IL, — _ i — —— — — —— .——(i_y—. — — — —
5" F— ___,..---�
GB X15 R. 1
195(, 15'R.
9. 'df� 95/2- 95�
u 1i
.1. .. • N 87•°- 41 , 43 W
370:00 1I
K V Li-
11.i
95 Q5/4 0•-• 95f5
1— V
i 7 0
LL
. 7 T
\.\ .
\<f
_, ,
i
IPO5ILE r0r L,A10v1- - 1?6.1 . t tRv ,sr,
II 20i
1
r pT
''j1 o NOKTLI
VIES T.FJAMES REALESTATE DEVELOPMEi tT CC'-1p;NY
P O. BOX 24137 MINNEAPOLIS, MILAN S' -: --;2- (6. ' ) 828-9000
,..._.._- ....-
.
-
C ; ' III
Principals In Minnesota's Fastest I
Growing Area I
Brian H. Burdick ,
B.C. "Jim" Burdick
426 Lake Street Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 (612) 474-5243
May 5, 1988 � ` 4=1
Sig k I too II
Mr. Gary Warren
Chanhassen City Engineer
City of Chanhassen Fi eu- 97 -Z. II
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
Re: The closing of the present 78th Street. I
Dear Gary,
I am writing to you because we have been missing each other with our phone
II
calls and I have new learned that you will be out of town for the rest of the
week.
I have read with great surprise the news stories that have appeared about the II
shutting off of the present 78th Street. This subject is of the greatest
importance to me.
Upon contacting Carver County, I have been told that the news stories are not
accurate. To be more exact, it was not Carver County's idea to shut off 78th II Street.
Carver County has made mention of a letter that they received from you
pertaining to this matter. At this time, I would like to request that you
II
send me a copy of this letter.
I would also like to request that you send me any other information your
office subbmitted to Carver County on this matter.
Needless to say, I am very surprised that I did not receive notification that
this matter was coming up inasmuch as, on several occasions, I have written to
the City of Chanhassen requesting that I be kept posted on any matters that
may significantly effect my property.
Cordially yours, II
\) . : ii,,,,,7
7, ,-1/ 1
B.0(' JIM" BURDICK
BCB/clm :/ II
tilAr 00 9 1988 I
"Success in business is purely a matter of luck. CITY OF CHANhA55t1V
If you don't believe us,just ask any of the losers."
A-TrA-U INMENT b
II ' - , CC 9#1V i.3 P4C/ 1/4fte
Principals In Minnesota's Fastest ,..�
1 Growing Area � ...
II ._-._�,—_Brian,.H..Burdick_-- --
_._
B.C. "Jim" Burdick
426 Lake Street Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 (612) 474-5243
IIOctober 27, 1988
IMr. Gary G. Warren, P.E.
City Engineer
II City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN. 55318
II Dear Gary,
I received your letter of October 10th written in accordance with the
IIChanhassen City Council meeting of_August 22, 1988.
In your second paragragh, you refer to the County Commissioners
II considering the issuing of a permit for a right-in/right-out. However, I
do not believe it is a question of issuing a permit. It is a question of
leaving an existing street "open" so that I might have access to my
property.
IIThe third paragraph of your letter reads in part "thereby acknowledging
the County's consistent position that the right-in/right-out connection
II to County Road 17 is denied". The County's position on this has not been
consistent. As I stated, Roger Gustafson, Carver County engineer, JcAnn
Olson, Assistant Chanhassen City Planner, and I reached an agreement
whereby there would be a right-turn-in/right-turn-out. Therefore, if the
II County is taking a negative position on this matter at the present time,
as the City of Chanhassen claims, we cannot say that their position has
been consistent.
_I When you receive a reply to your letter to Mr. Gustafson, please be so
kind as to send me a copy.
III sincerely thank you.
aT) 1:31 :.dm tsuW1.r
�( ?� �(:iil Cordially yours,
II OCT `' 1 i°`�3 ./
4 /
I .�v
I..ry„yr�x31• ..:1: 1 k?'jt” �" 13.C. "JIM' t.'llICK
BCB/clm
IP.S. Instead of going deeper into this matter at this time it might be
appropriate to wait until after the election and change of officials etc.
I40 tout_ ,ex dc ov
P7
4-rrAci-n��N r 7
Principals In Minnesota's Fastest J.:,.\ 'J dc ' '/ V, �N 17-4114
,f
Growing Area i p `
4i/w.
l ` ',9 ��
Brian H. Burdick I
B.C. "Jim" Burdick
426 Lake Street Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 (612) 474.5243
December 5, 1988 1
Mr. Gary Warren HAND DELIVERED DECEMBER 6, 1988
II
City Engineer
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
II
Dear Gary,
I am writing to you in reply to your recent letter pertaining to the proposed II
78th Street cul-de-sac. You had requested a reply by December 2nd, but
inasmuch as I was out of town until December 1st, I called and you graciously
gave me a couple of extra days. '- 1
In reply to your letter, as of today, Bill Engelhardt has sent to you a
drawing showing a cul-de-sac. He based his drawing on the four drawings you
II
had enclosed with your letter, adjusting it to be the best possible and
fairest arrangement.
However, I want to emphasize that this drawing and Bill Engelhardt's letter or II
this letter of mine does not in any way imply that I wish to have any
arrangement at this intersection except the one that I and the Chanhassen City
Council entered into, by a unanimous vote, a bit over a year ago; The right
II
turn in-right turn out.
Chanhassen will soon have a new mayor and two new members of the City
Council. As this right turn-in, right turn-out arrangement on the present II
78th Street vs the East 78th Street cul-de-sac arrangement involves a cost to
the city of at least several hundred thousand dollars compensation for lost
property value and still more for construction of this cul-de-sac, it should ,
be brought up before the largely new governing body. I strongly feel that
they should be told the whole story from start to finish in as brief a manner
as possible, and then be allowed to make a decision. I suggest we do this
II
soon after the new year.
It is not only my hope, but my prayer, that the largely new governing body
will not waste millions upon millions of dollars on such things as a very
narrow main street which cannot be navigated by firetrucks (For that matter
Volkswagens cannot even make a U-turn), a thickly forested main street which
will result in many blind intersections and numerous traffic accidents,
II
multimillion dollar ponding areas, when a pond was not necessary, plus
numerous other ill-conceived ideas brought forth by BRW.
CITY OF CilANHASSr;H I
1;J`
DEC 07 1988 II
•
"Success in business is purely a matter of luck. ENGINEERING DEPT.
If you don't believe us,just ask any of the losers." I
A-TTAl'J.4MGAITg •
' • it
t f
1
I
I could go on and on, but my only point is that I look to the future, the new
mayor and council, with great hope and respect. So let us let them make the
decision.
Thanking you for courtesies shown,_ I remain
Cordially yours,
B.C. "JIM" BURDICK
' BCB/clm
Please note: As to the cost of this cul-de-sac; Apparently the cost will be
borne by the general taxpayers as I surely cannot be assessed for something
that does not benefit me and I would expect Charlie James to feel the same way.
11
r
I
I
, 1
Principals In Minnesota's Fastest 3
I
Growing Area .
Ir I
Brian H. Burdick
B.C. "Jim" Burdick
426 Lake Street Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 (612) 474-5243
May 3, 1989 II
II-HAND DELIVERED ON 5/3/89-
Mr. Gary G. Warren
1
City Engineer
City of Chanhassen
II
690 Coulter Drive
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 --• 1
RE: West 78th Street Detachment Project No. 87-2
Dear Gary: 1
In reviewing the material for the Monday night meeting, I have cane
across an omission in the third paragraph of my letter to you dated ,
October 27, 1988.
At the meeting with Roger Gusterson, Carver County Chief Engineer and
II
JoAnn Olson, Chanhassen City Planner, the following individuals were also
present: Mr. Charlie James of James Refrigeration, an engineer from
Barton Ashworth representing our interests, Mr. William Engelhart,
Professional Engineer, and Chanhassen City Engineer at that time,
II
representing the city of Chanhassen.
Please see that copies of this letter are included in the packet that 1
goes to the mayor and the city council members prior to Monday night's
meeting.
Cordially you ,� 1
ice / / //- // /> i
L
!� - '/ �� I
B. C. /27±W/BURDICK
1
;iT Y tit uni SSE
I<<,flli 1;x:1
MAY 0 :3 1939 1
EliG1NEEa tIG DEPT
1
A-TTQ r i I-1,4 t.rr
P
.4
r
CITYt OF
HAETASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937-1900
October 10 , 1988
IICarver County Public Works
Attn: Mr. Roger Gustafson
County Engineer
I 600 East Fourth Street
Chaska , MN 55318
Re: West 78th Street Detachment Project
Right-In/Right-Out Connection
File No. 87-2
Dear Mr. Gustafson:
On August 22 , 1988 , the Chanhassen City Council held a public
1 hearing for Supplemental Report No. 1 for the West 78th Street
detachment project. A copy of that report has been previously
provided to you. As you will recall, Supplemental Report No. 1
' addresses the feasibility of constructing a public cul-de-sac
roadway between the James and Burdick property with no connection
to County Road 17 ( see map) .
' Mr. B. C. Burdick spoke at this hearing (minutes attached) . He
indicated that the County Commissioners were still considering
issuance of a permit for the right-in/right-out connection of
' West 78th Street to County Road 17 as proposed in the original
feasibility study approved by the City Council on August 3 , 1987 .
The City Council closed the public hearing and approved
Supplemental Report No. 1 , which includes the cul-de-sac; thereby
acknowledging the County' s consistent position that the right-in/
right-out connection to County Road 17 is denied.
The City is very interested in keeping the record clear on this
matter. If, as Mr. Burdick has stated, the County Commissioners
are in fact reconsidering their denial of the City' s earlier
request for the right-in/right-out connection, we would appre-
ciate being informed of this as this will have important impacts
to our plans and specifications which are currently being prepared.
..ATT, ME I'- ICS
( , II
Mr. Roger Gustafson 1
October 10 , 1988
Page 2
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, t
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
fta Atj
11
'ary G. Warren, P.E.
• ' - ngineer
GGW:ktm
Attachments
1. Map. --
2. August 22, 1988 City Council minutes.
cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Mr. B. C. Burdick
Mr. Charlie James
Mr. Gary Ehret , BRW
City Council Administrative Packet (10/24/88 )
I
1
11
I
1
1
a
INN NM IN MI an — — - an r N — IN MI OS I RN_ MN
I • i 1 di ; * s•
111 4
1 t..4.1..). .'.
-
'
Eiji .I ti il
•
1. • c •------■.\, 44. j
... ,.., , ., ....... , ...„
• ,„ v i I I •,`
t O 1 �. LOT 1
ro-—>>--c).--.>>— '',, . . \
I ' �/
1 I
w.
p BLOCK 2 I �`.
•
a',' �' JAMES vv •���. y
' PROPOSED STORM SEWER
cam' ` (BY OTHERS) `• Iry tiNs\
Yr 'I 1 1 ` .1
1
/ _ _ T`` �if C I•p •, .w �I Il1lu.4Ill a14. « , .<; ;:y..:F -- C h _ 57
• � PROPOSED �v E : � ;� ra r------ .,1.M'•;'" • _-- �∎, --- ``'
/ STORM S'NR• C r+il x s• i f S'' # i c------- v t
// /; `- ` \ - PROPOSED j--— — — — -- I
STORM SW R. PROPOSED 1•/ / R. 5' UTILITY EASEMENT
/ /� 8'P.V.C. 4 105' ROADWAY i i
/
F
SAN. SERV.—� EXISTING R.C.P '
, /// I TO BE REMOVED 8'D.I.P. WATER SERV.
' I ADDITIONAL REQUIRED 8: D.I.P. WATER SERV. •
lt/ / %1
1 RIGHT-OF-WAY • y
BURDICK ' • ,
t'�1 i`,1 LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 1
i. \'•.� • BLOCK 1
C
t
I
ti
f
City Council Meeting - ALyust 22, 1988
believe there is a benefit to this becaus I we have a real problem.en. This is not
11 just to connect TH 101 north to south. We've got a real problem. TH 101 as it
goes through the north side here, goes through a residential neighborhood.' It
goes past a grade school. It goes past a couple churches. It runs past Kenny's
which is where all of our kids go to hang out just like kids on your side go to
Superette. We have a present and real danger going on right now with TH 101 on II
the north side and we have to do something on that but to create a problem on
the south side by doing something to solve a problem on the north side doesn't
• make any sense either. That's why I favor the one I'm favoring now. I think
the business signage can be handled very easily as far as saying Chanhassen 11
businesses, take a right now and you can go to downtown but that's pretty
standard stuff. I just wanted to cover some of the public comment that was made
there. That's all I've got to say at this time.
II
Mayor Hamilton: I think you've received a few more questions Fred from the
public and from the Council. Especially Dakota Avenue. How is that going to be
impacted and some of the others so if you could gather the information on that II
and bring it back to us, I'd appreciate it. Anybody else have any comments?
Councilman Horn: Just a response to Jay. When we first started looking at the II
TH 101 alternatives, we weren't moving the property to the south because the
south wasn't built- up like it is. As a matter of fact, when that development
went in, we discussed this. It was discussed with the church when it went in
II
' and we've always talked with anybody who's developed in any area anywhere in
this area about the possibility of realigning TH 101 and what the possible
impacts might be. The church people have been debating for some time whether
I!
they want to continue with their project until we resolve this. It's not a
matter of planning. It's a matter of getting the public sector transportation
issue resolved in conjunction with the private development. We don't control
private development. That happens. The only option we have when a developer
II
comes in is we can say, well, we might be developing there someday. Go by that
property. That's the only option we have when that planning comes in otherwise
we have to let them go through with their process. We can tell them that you
II
might be impacted at some point but we can't stop them. That's the type of
process to go through. It might look like bad planning but it's the reality of
the fight between the public and private sector. When this whole thing started,
the situation was much different. In fact, many of the options that did look II
attractive at one point don't look that way anymore.
Mayor Hamilton: I would like to just thank everybody for your input. It's been 1
valuable to us and we appreciate your coming to the Planning Commission and to
the Council meeting to show your support for what's being done in the City.
Thank you.
------ II
PUBLIC HEARING:
WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY; SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT NO. 1. ---71,
kr
Public Present: II
Name Address
B.C. "Jim" Burdick 426 Lake Street, Excelsior
Brian H. Burdick 5205 Greenwood Circle
::
Jan Coey Taco Shop
32
II
. ...�.....t....K.rs.i.a,M t
City Council Meeting ( \ugust 22, 1988 q�;;
1 Michael J. Leonard 8016 Erie Avenue
I' Peter W. Fishcer AVR, Inc. , 6801 150th Street W.,
II 1 ' Apple Valley
Leo Gray AVR Inc.
IIGary Warren: To give you a quick overview. Cn July 25th of this year the
Council directed staff to call a public hearing for Supplemental Report DIo. 1
for our West 78th Street detachment feasibility study. Basically the purpose of
the report was to address the issue of the right-in/right-out connection to West
78th Street onto Powers Blvd. which was denied by the County. The supplemental
report specifically looks at the installation of the cul-de-sac, public roadway
cul-de-sac on the or close to the alignment of what was to be a private drive to
service the James and the Burdick property. We didn't have an assessment roll
in the report at that time and subsequently that has been prepared and sent to
the affected property owners. So what we have tonight here is to take public
I comment concerning the supplemental report that specifically addresses the
feasibility of construction of the cul-de-sac as a public roadway. Mr. Ehret is
also here. -
Mayor Hamilton: Did you have anything you wanted to add to that Gary?
Gary Ehret: I think I would add one thing and that is the original report was
I received and acted on by the Council a full year ago. Since no action,
construction commenced I think by Statute the report had to be brought back and
a new public hearing held so it's really kind of a two fold situation. To
II i review the new alternative with the cul-de-sac and also to once again hold the
; public hearing to allow us to commence with the project in whatever fashion we
- choose.
IMayor Hamilton: I'd like to at this point call the public hearing to order for
the West 78th Street detacrrnent feasibility study, Supplemental Report No. 1.
Is there anybody here from the public who wishes to make comment on this item?
Jim Burdick: We're going to file this with the assessment hearing or is this
the assessment hearing at this time?
IGary Warren: This is just a hearing on the public improvement project. The
assessment hearing would be, if the Council authorized this project to be
actually built.
IJim Burdick: I'm already on record as objecting to it.
IIMayor Hamilton: To what? The building of it?
Jim Burdick: Moving 7Sth Street because of the great harm it is to my property
Iso I'll just let it stand and I won' t take your time by going through it again.
Councilman Geeing: I wish our Attorney was here. I mean that sincerely because
this may come to court and I'd like to have our Attorney be present to hear your
Ir comment.
z
i
! Mayor Hamilton: Jim has objected formally in a letter.
II
II 33
.
ME
' ` H
City Council Meeting - �+
Lgust 22, 1938
II
Jim Burdick: That pertains just to the assessment.
Councilman Geving: We're not anywhere near the assessment. 11
Mayor Hamilton: We've got to figure out if we're going to do it first Jim and
then we'll worry about the assessment afterwards.
I
Councilman Boyt: I have a question for Mr. Burdick. Just so that I understand
clearly, i do understand that you're opposed to this but my understanding is
also that MnDot has said to us, you can't maintain your access to Kerber Blvd.
where it is. We have to move it. Is that your understanding?
Jim Burdick: No. No, that isn't correct at all. I think II
Chanhassen to shoulder the responsibility it's time for
It's not natoer shoulder ponsibilit with what they're doing in this area.
IICounty. It's not MnDot. It's the City of Chanhassen.
' Councilman Boyt: Since Carver County has denied it, which as I understand it
means we cannot keep existing West 78th Street open in it's present status. Is
II
that how you understand that resolution from Carver County?
Jim Burdick: Well, let's face the truth. Chanhassen went to Carver County and
encouraged this. I've talked to the Commissioners on an individual basis. II
Councilman Boyt: You're telling me that the City of Chanhassen went to the
Commission and said we don't want to have this access as it is now so deny the
ability to have a right-in/right-out?
Jim Burdick: That is correct. Now I'd like to go back a bit farther. One year
ago I attended a very well conducted meeting by Jo Ann Olsen who's here tonignt
with Roger Gustafson, the Carver County chief engineer. At that time a plan was
worked out providing for a right turn in, right turn out onto 78th Street. It
was here before the Council. The consensus of the Council's comments that night I
and most of you probably remember, it wasn't a perfect plan but it was the best
and my comments were, it wasn't good for me and there was some harm in it but I
was willing to accept it as a compromise. I accepted this right turn in, right
turn out. This Council and Mayor voted for it unanimously so as far as I'm
concerned, we made a contract. The drawing was present, we went over it
completely.
Mayor Hamilton: Whether we are for it, which we all voted in favor of it, I II
would still vote in favor of it, we don't control the accesses off of a county
road. That is controlled by the County. Not by us. We passed our
recommendation onto then that we wanted to have the right-in/right-out. They II
chose to not go along with that.
Jim Burdick: It is still open with the County.
II
Mayor Hamilton: They passed a resolution saying you can't do it as far as I'm
concerned. m
11
Jim Burdick: I appeared before then about a month ago and they're going to
schedule another meeting on it and they're still considering it.
34 ,
_ . .
II ",' ' • , ; City Council Meeting t---
August 22, 1983
•
IIMayor Hamilton: 6Ve11 good.
�� g I hope you can persuade them to change their minds.
Jim Burdick: And two of the counciLmembers
that Chanhassen wanted this. They understood oin th personally they andessennd
1
II wanted this to shut off. ezr minds that Chanhassen
Councilman Boyt: And now they understand differently, is that correct?
Jim Burdick: I most certainly...
Councilman Boyt: I'd be curious from the staff,
tried to create with the County Commission? what was the impression that we
I Don Ashworth:
I don't know if anybody attended the meeting.
Gary Warren: i sent them a letter requesting to get an answer from then on the
II connection because our feasibility, they're aware that our feasibility called
for right-in/right-out and we sent that to than because they had the access
permit control and the letter specifically asked them to put that on their
I agenda to give us the ruling. _
Councilman Boyt: Did we, when we sent the request, indicate that this was
Isomething that we really wanted? That we weren't just doing this to pass time.
Gary Warren: I guess we sent them a letter saying we would like your approval
i of this concept.
IICouncilman Boyt: I would like you to send a
letter
that says that the City Council voted unanimously support to send a support this and we wo letter
I appreciate their support. Would you do that? y uld
Gary Warren: I will certainly do that.
IIJim Burdick: Thank you for your generous consideration.
Councilman Horn: That was our intent all along.
I ; Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Bill?
II Councilman Boyt: No, I just think it's time that we buried the hachet and got
this thing going. We've got to know what you need and what we can give you to
get it done.
IIJim Burdick: I would much more enjoy cooperating than being in an adversal
position with anyone. With your legal counsel and others such as this
condemnation on Lots 8 and 9 that could have been handled much bettor with less
I money to the City. Not less money to me. I came out pretty good but for the
City and I'd much rather handle things that way.
I Councilman Ceving: Mr. Burdick would you stay there please. I think we all
agree with what Bill just said. That the City's position was that we were in
favor of the right-in/right-out. We are here tonight to discuss the public
L. hearing for the amendment of this detached feasibility study as a suplemental
I report. The reason that we're here to talk about this is because of the action
II 35
. 'f`City Council Meeting - �� I
g ,ust 22, 1988
a
,
of the Commissioners of Carver County and what is being II
aware, is the cul-de-sac in front of your h Prepsond, as you're well
ask you s Y Property. The reason that I want to
II
Y specifically for this, because you are probably the one who benefits the
most of the cul-de-sac onto what is now 78th Street rather than going all the
way through to CR 17 so my question to you right now, and this is very important
if we proceed, is whether or not we're going to be able to amiably acquire h
easements necessary for the cul-de-sac? It's a very important question that
I
asking you. That you will give us the dedication of theoright-of-way necessary
m
to make the cul-de-sac a possibilty. Can you answer that for me please?
Jim Burdick: No. I can't answer that at this time. I think I
the overall picture down there. I don't think I can just give y have yes go into
answer to that. J g you a yes or no
Councilman Geeing: Okay, it
II
without a lot of preliminary information sbut ftor make mthis thing feasiblehfor ou
II
as the principle landowner in that area which you're going to develop, it Y
doesn't make a lot of sense to us to have to buy the land from you for the
dedication of this roadway easement to make the cul-de-sac and then turn around
and assess you back for the cost of building that cul-de-sac. Do you
II
understand?
Jim Burdick: Yes, but of course I'm objecting to the assessment.
Councilman Geving: We're not at that point yet II.
Jim Burdick: No, but I will be when the time comes.
Councilman Geving: But you see the cost will be considerably less if you'll
agree with us to dedicate that land to us at a reasonable price so the
can proceed. We are making an assumption in this project project
acquire the land amiably and at a price that we can proceed hwith ethe project.
Now if that's not possible, this project could be considerably delayed and then
you are going to not benefit from this. We might want to think about that II
because that could be the key to this whole proposal in amending our feasibility
study to include the cul-de-sac.
Mayor Hamilton: Gary, do we need any easements from Mr. Burdick? II
Gary Warren: For the bubble of the cul-de-sac area we will.
Jim Burdick: ...this is my list here. That cul-u - I cul-de-sac. It's a left handed cul-de-sac but Iathink this re
plat that can be worked out with Mr. Gary Warren in a amicable relationship. II
Councilman Geving: So you're willing to work with us on that?
Jim Burdick: I'm willing to work with you on that a bit but as you know, as fa I
as developing down there, those lots, it's being held up b r
final plat has not been approved and signed so the City by
has the
holding us up for one year. II
Mayor Hamilton: I think you have some submittals that you haven' t made. I
don' t believe we're holding you up.
36 1
City Council :Meeting august 22, 1988
' Councilman Geving: I question your statement sir.
Jim Burdick: That's my feelings that it's been held up for one year of
4 development.
II
Councilman Johnson: Why is the cul-de-sac all on Mr. Burdick's property? Why
couldn't we have made it a James and Burdick cul-de-sac? That's the first thing
' that struck me too is why turn down only southward versus just being a regular
normal bubble or whatever?
II Gary Ehret: A couple of the reasons are that the James plat, as you're aware,
has been approved and there is, the site plan I believe has been fully approved
and construction is underway. Not changing the alignment would have a fairly
significant impact there. It certainly could be looked at. One of the things
' we looked at, one of the things that can be done is to slide that cul-de-sac a
little further south and put a normal cul-de-sac on it.
Councilman Johnson: Slide the whole road southwards.
'
Gary Ehret: Slide the whole road south. The reason it's shown as it is is
because again, it would affect Mr. Burdick more so I guess what we attempted to
show here is the least impact to both properties from an acquisition standpoint.
The location of the road, maybe another way of putting that is that the location
of the road grade is where currently both plats reflect right-of-way. Dedicated
right-of-way. We tried to stay within that as much as possible but certainly if
' there are some benefits or if Mr. Burdick feels a different alignment is
desirable, there's no reason a design like this, why we can't do that.
II ! Councilman Johnson: The next question is, if the County Board does reconsider
and we need to check to see if that is on their agenda. You say they are going
to reconsider it in September I guess but if they do reconsider it, does that
' mean supplement to the feasibility study is going to come out now to relook at,
which Supplement 2 would be just going back to the original feasibility study so
we'd be doing this over again some night in September or October.
ItGary Warren: I guess the scenario that I would envision is that this really is
a stand alone portion of the project and I will follow up with Council direction
here with the County and express our desires again for the right-in/right-out
I and see if they are reconsidering it but if not, this portion then could be, the
public hearing process could be concluded on it and proceed.
' Councilman Johnson: We'd need a new public hearing again if it does reopen. ..
Gary Warren: What Gary was consenting was true is that the one year time has
lapsed on Mr. Burdick's study and so the hearing is really, right now is
addressing renewal of that original feasibility study.
Councilman Johnson: Since we haven' t had proper notification, I shouldn' t say
' proper but since this notification was only for these changes, not for the whole
project then, we could have included that tonight and say either option of the
feasibility study is approved because the old option was the last time. I don' t
II think we have a public notice problem.
37
i
all
City Council Meeting - Al. ast 22, 1988
Ehret: I
Gary et: In the case, this report does update all the costs for the balance
II of the project and the assessment roll has been updated for all properties.
I!Councilman Johnson: Both options?
Gary Ehret: The other option, this is really just an added option. The other I
option called for a private drive, right-in/right-out. No other items have been
changed so in effect the only thing that could occur tonight is the dropping of
the cul-de-sac as an option. The remainder of the report remains intact. In
other words, if we drop the cul-de-sac idea, the original report considered that
to be a private drive. Therefore, there were no public improvement costs
associated with it so the balance of the report as represent itself in No. 1
will still be intact. As far as I'm concerned, the one year period would have
II
been met again by approval of that portion of the project.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. I think I understand what you're saying then.
II
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was II
closed.
Resolution #88-89: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to accept I
Supplemental Report No. 1 for the West 78th Street Detachment Feasibility Study
and to authorize staff to prepare the plans and specifications. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Horn: Can you make that contingent upon what the County does? I
think if the County changes their mind...
1:
Mayor Hamilton: I think all we can do is encourage them to see it our way to
change it but it's up to Jim to go down there and talk to them. Do you want to
make that a part of your motion Jay?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. II
PUBLIC HEARING: ',`"nv.1* w
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING NOISE REGULATIONS.
Name Address I
Mary Decatur 6645 Horsesno` Curve
Ed Williams 7004 Dakota Avenue II
Leanne Harvieux 6603 Horseshoe Curve
Richard Potz 6991 Tecumseh Labe
Georgette Sosin 7400 Chanhassen Road II
Jim Hurd Lerman Lumber
Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, ,n nbers of the Council, you may remember that on July II
25th we brought this before you and at that time the decision was made to hold _a il
public hearing and consider some of the comments that were made by the Council. �.
I tried to address those concerns. The majority of than seemed to center around ,o
,
- A.I;r ;7
I4co� -Rs
I / .7% CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
\ S/�
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ' 600 EAST 4TH STREET
(612) 448.3435 r• CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318
S1."'WE S"
I COUNTY OF CALNEQ
II August 6, 1987
To: Gary Warren, Chanhassen City Engineer
IIFrom: Roger Gustafson, Carver County Engineer
IProject: Powers Blvd/West 78th Street Detachment (87-2)
Subject: Feasibility Study
' A copy of the feasibility study for Chanhassen City Project 87-2 was received
August 3rd. A first review of the study has been completed and a list of ini-
' tial comments follows:
1. The scope of the proposed improvements along CSAH 17 indicates a
I formal agreement between Carver County and the City of Chanhassen
to advance the project beyond the feasibility study is ap-
propriate. This agreement would be similar to previously written
understandings between the county and various municipalities in-
IIcluding Chanhassen for county highway construction projects.
2. The proposal to design and construct CSAH 17 (Powers Boulevard) to
I meet county state aid highway standards will be a requirement of
Carver County. The project will be assigned a S.A.P. number and
will be subject to the normal review process by the State Aid
IDivision of MnDOT. ,I
3. The proposed "right in - right out only" private driveway along
CSAH 17 at "old" West 78th Street continues to be reviewed by Car-
' ver County as the project is advanced. The county's concerns
about this driveway have been supported by Mr. Wonson and Mr.
Benshoof 's memorandum to Ms. Dacy dated July 28, 1987, which
II states "under the preliminary layout reviewed, significant poten-
tial exists for use of this access point as a short cut to the
downtown area " Alternatives to minimize this potential or
II elimination of the private driveway from the construction plans
are the two apparent choices to this undesirable traffic pattern.
Carver County expects a new layout for this area will be
developed.
I4. Carver County requests that the need for right turn lanes along
CSAH 17 within the limits of the proposed project be addressed in
IIthe feasibility study.
IANirmat:ue Action,Equal Opportunity Employer '
A1VA MST"
-
5. Interpretation of design standards for a minor arterial having es—
tablished speed limits greater than 40 mph indicates the proposed
"landscaping area" is inappropriate along CSAH 17. The MnDOT
"Road Design Manual" states that "the designer should not use the
clear zone------for introducing roadside hazards such as
trees". You may wish to review Section 4-6.0 of the road design
manual. Clear zone provisions for run—off—the—road vehicles must I
be given high priority.
6. The impact of the proposed landscaping on intersection sight dis-
tances
is a priority safety consideration. Providing stopped
vehicles with proper visibility to permit safe access to CSAH 17
is a high priority. Interpretation of the MnDOT road design
manual indicates the proposed intersection landscaping is inap—
propriate.
7. Separation of the CSAH 17_travel lanes and the proposed bike path
is encouraged to be as great a distance as possible. As detailed
plans are developed, increasing the proposed 15 foot separation
shown on the typical section for CSAH 17 will be given particular
attention by Carver County.
8. The "safe" placement of street lighting along CSAH 17 must be in-
corporated into the design of the project. Poles proposed to be
placed within the "clear zone" must meet appropriate safety stand-
ards. The location of poles outside the "clear zone" is
preferred. I
9. The understood concept for converting this portion of CSAH 17 from
a rural section to an urban section roadway is that the existing
road ditches will be eliminated. A parallel system of rural and
urban roadway drainage is not appropriate. The construction plans
for this project are expected to show existing road ditches being
"filled" to provide for direct surface run—off to the gutter line
along CSAH 17.
10. Carver County requests that any projected need for traffic signals
at the intersection of West 78th Street and CSAH 17 be discussed
in the feasibility study. If needed, provisions in this project
for facilitating the installation of signals are suggested.
As this project is advanced, additional comments will be forwarded to you.
These comments will be generated by other highway department staff reviewing
this feasibility study, by your responses to the initial comments contained in
this memorandum, and by added details as the project is advanced.
Please contact me at your convenience if you wish to discuss this initial
reply to the feasibility study for C.P. 87-2 in more detail.
RG/cr
1 . . i
i'-' '. .:,-
V CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT /% 600 EAST 4TH STREET
(612) 448-3435 CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318
August 21, 1987 �'N E S'
1 COUNTY OF CAQVEQ
Gary Warren
II Chanhassen City Engineer
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MIN 55317 �IGL
IIRe: Chanhassen Proj 87-2
Powers Blvd/West treet Detachment
II Dear Mr. Warren:
The Carver County Board of Commissioners discussed the feasibility study for the
I project of reference at its committee meeting on August 18, 1987. My memorandum
dated August 6, 1987, to your attention was reviewed in detail.
I The consensus of the County Board was that all comments contained in the August 6th
memorandtm>, were appropriate and should be pursued by the county highway department.
County Board discussion did focus on the proposed "right in-right out only" private
I driveway and on preservation of an adequate "clear zone" for road corridor safety.
Based on the discussion of the private driveway, the county may not permit anything
more than the proposed relocation of the CSAH 17 and West 78th Street. intersection.
I This would result in no driveway accesses along the east side of CSAH 17 between TH
5 and West 78th Street. Utilizing West 78th Street for all access to the property
immediately to the east of CSAH 17 between T.H. 5 and West 78th Street does seem ap-
propriate to Carver County. The potential negative impacts on safety and traffic
patterns identified in the feasibility study support this conclusion.
Preservation of a "clear zone" along CSAH 17 will necessitate element elimination or
II change in the landscaping, pathway and lighting plans for CSAH 17. These modifica-
tions appear appropriate based on the county's initial review of. those MnDOT design
standards and guidelines interpreted to be applicable to CSAH 17. A consensus of
II support for the highway department's "clear zone" concerns was given by the County
Board.
Your careful consideration of this letter and my memorandum of August 6th is
1 requested. Please contact me if you or others wish to discuss this project in more
detail.
' Sin _ •e_ , a /
i
o1, `I. sustafso , P.E.
IICounty Engineer
RMG/cam j r
Icc: .Al N1 ingelhutz, District 1 County Commissioner
C.E. Wetchselbaum, MnD(YT District 5 State Aid Engineer •
IA'hrmanue Ac non,Equal Opportunity Employer
AT-rp 4Motr -* I Z
am
{' APPENDIX Iii
1 r
4: f
727 BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC.
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS
' 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE,SUITE 19!EDF4, ifilu}tNNESOT 53441(612)944-7590
ri JUL 2 9 1987 ,
I
July 28, 1987 87-34-31
I
REFER TO FILE:
B.R.w.M E M O R A N D U M i II
-- -'--
II
i TO: Ms. Barbara Dacy, City of Chanhassen
II FROM: Michael L. Wonson and James A. Benshoofi
II
RE: Analysis of Proposed Right in/out Access on C. R. 17
3 II
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize our analysis II
and findings concerning the proposed right in/out only
I access on Co. Rd. 17 to be located south of realigned West
78th Street. As we understand it, this access will be
located on the existing West 78th Street right of way and is
proposed to serve as a private driveway providing access to
Ithe James Development retail center and the Burdick property II to the south of existing W. 78th Street.. This drive will
also connect to realigned W. 78th Street. Concerns have
been raised regarding traffic operations at this access ,
Iparticularly as they relate to its potential use as a short II
cut to the Downtown area. To assist in our analysis, we
have prepared PM peak hour forecasts of traffic using this
-. I access which is associated with the James and Burdick
II
properties , reviewed the preliminary layouts prepared by
BRW, Inc. for the W. 78th St. feasibility study, held
I
discussions with City and BRW staff, and reviewed the plan
II
in light of our traffic forecasts prepared for the year 2005
Land Use and Transportation Plan.
ANALYSIS I
Forecasts of development traffic using this access were
I . prepared based upon the approved plan for the James property
(20,000 sq. ft. convenience center with gas pumps) and II
either 20, 000 sq. ft. of strip retail or 100, 000 sq. ft. of
office development on the three western lots of the Burdick
property. The forecasts indicate a range in development
II
traffic of 80-125 right turns in and 30-50 right turns out
at the Co. Rd. 17 access point during the PM peak hour upon
_Al full development of the adjacent properties . It is expected II that in general , this development traffic can be effectively
accommodated by this access point without adverse effects on
ICo. Rd. 17. However, under the preliminary layout reviewed, II significant potential exists for use of this access point as
a short cut to the Downtown area for traffic proceeding
north on Co. Rd. 17 . from T. H. 5. II
A-r rI cuMrA14- ►3
In
Z
112
Ms . Barbara Dacy -2- July 28, 1987
II1 This significant potential exists for o four principal
;
reasons :
IThe route is shorter than using realigned W. 78th St.
. The access is located at existing W. 78th St. ; a route
which is currently familiar to area drivers .
. The preliminary design of the access ( large radii and
' a directional island) can give the impression of a
public roadway.
• Without an exclusive right turn lane on the south
I approach of the new W. 78th St. /Co. Rd. 17
intersection , vehicles could queue at this location
preventing "continuous" right turn movements. This
I qeuing would increase the desirability of the private
drive as a short cut to Downtown.
J
l Significant usage of the private drive to access the
Downtown area is not desirable for two principal reasons :
' I . potential negative traffic impacts on Co. Rd. 17
resulting from significant usage of the right in/out
access point.
I I . inappropriate usage of a private driveway by public
through traffic.
In order to reduce the potential for use of this access for
through traffic, we recommend the following items :
. construct the right in/out access as a "typical "
commercial driveway 24 feet wide with 45 foot radii .
The directional island should be eliminated, as the
proposed raised median on Co. Rd. 17 and associated one
way signage will eliminate left turns at this location.
. construct an exclusive right turn lane on the south
approach of Co. Rd. 17 to W. 78th St. This lane would
not require a right turn island, but could operate as a
right turn on red situation.
' . erect signage south of the right in/out access
directing motorists to Downtown via W. 78th St. For
example, this signage could indicate "Downtown/78th
' Street - Second Right" . The particular design of the
sign should be consistent with appropriate traffic
control standards .
I
i
C � II
ill ' * - i {
i
Ms . Barbara Dacy -3- July 28, 1987
Ill
With these recommendations, it is expected that the right I
in/out access on Co. Rd. 17 can operate effectively.
Further, it is appropriate to prohibit U turns (with
II
signage) on the south approach of the Co. Rd. 17/W. 78th St.
intersection until the left turn lane and west leg of W.
ill 78th St. is constructed. This signage will reduce the II potential for vehicles utilizing the right out only to
proceed south on Co. Rd. 17 through a U turn at the
intersection.Al II It would also be appropriate for the City to assess the
specific access needs which the private drive will meet.
11 IIDependent upon these needs, the drive could be modified to
further discourage through traffic. For example, if the
Burdick property develops as an integrated development with
internal access between lots , it may be possible to II eliminate the portion of the driveway between the two
currently approved driveways to the James Development or to
install speed bumps between these two driveways . II CONCLUSION
The right in/out access proposed on Co. Rd. 17 is expected II to effectively accommodate the traffic associated with the
development served by this private drive. However, negative
traffic impacts could occur if this drive were used as a
"short cut" for traffic destined to the Downtown area. In
II
order to discourage use of this access by through traffic
_ and allow effective traffic operations on Co. Rd. 17 , the
I following improvements are recommended to be constructed as
II
part of the W. 78th St . realignment:
-1 • construct an exclusive right turn lane on the south
approach of the Co. Rd. 17/new W. 78th St. II
intersection.
. design the right in/out access as a typical commercial
II
driveway, 24 feet wide with 45 feet radii and no
Li directional island.
• construct a raised median on Co. Rd. 17 to prohibit II
Lleft turns at this access .
Ili . erect signage directing northbound motorists on Co. Rd. II
ill 17 to Downtown via realigned W. 78th St.
. erect signage prohibiting U turns on the south approach
II
of the Co. Rd. 17/W. 78th St. intersection until the
left turn lane is constructed.
II
I:1
II
MB
Principals In Minnesota's Fastest �,Ay
Growing Area -
' Brian H. Burdick
B.C. "Jim" Burdick
426 Lake Street Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 (612) 474-5243
April 20, 1989
Mr. Gary G. Warren, P.E.
' City Engineer
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
' P. 0. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: West 78th Street Detachment Project No. 87-2
' Dear Mr. Warren:
' We are in receipt of your letter dated April 17, 1989 with the attached
copy of Sheet No. 12 for the realignment of West 78th Street and the
proposed cul-de-sac roadway.
' As you know, since Mr. B. C. (Jim) Burdick is in Europe at this time I am
corresponding to your letter here, and you may always contact me with any
questions or concerns. First, I would like to make certain that we are
' being absolutely clear concerning the second sentence, first paragraph of
your letter. As we stated in the past many times, we in no way
whatsoever regard the proposed cul-de-sac for access to our property as
' acceptable. Obviously, this proposed cul-de-sac makes it most
inconvenient for access to Lot No. 's 1, 2 and 3 of our property
consisting of roughly 6.4 acres of our parcel of land involved here.
' Of course, as indicated to you in previous correspondence, we are in
agreement to the proposed right turn in, right turn out private drive
access between Mr. James and us.
We will be in attendance at the City Council meeting of May 8, 1989 and
will be looking forward to reaching scan decisions regarding this matter
at that time.
Cordially yours,
' --BRS N H. BURDICK l� ���ER( L
BBB/mm APR N 1. 1989
cc: Mr. B. C. (Jim) Burdick
Mr. Phillip R. Krass ENGINEERING DEPT.
City Council Administrative Packet (4/24/89)
1
ms
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1