The URL can be used to link to this page

3a. TH 101 Realignment, Comp Plan Text Amendment CITYOF 3a_, CHANHASSEN z 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 Y' (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager irk FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Plan -r DATE: August 18, 1988 SUBJ: TH 101 Realignment PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ' The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment as presented by staff except to identify the ' north leg option as the primary preferred route for TH 101 and identifying the proposed plan as a secondary option in the event that the north leg option is not approved by MnDOT. The motion passed by a 4 to 2 vote with Wildermuth and Headla opposing. ' ANALYSIS The attached staff report was presented to the Planning Commission. The report provides the background and objectives for the Year 2005 Transportation and Land Use Study which origi- nally recommended the realignment of TH 101 across TH 5 . In order for the city to complete the necessary plans for MnDOT review, the following items must occur: 1 1 . Amendment to Transportation of the Comprehensive Plan. 2 . Adoption of the official map (state statutes require that before an official map is adopted that it is consistent with the major thoroughfare plan of the city) . ' 3 . Completion of the engineering feasibility study identifying financial implications, construction and traffic design and other issues. 4 . Submission of plans to MnDOT by January 1 , 1989. Attachment #1 in the attached report proposes new language to ' amend the Comprehensive Plan to refer to the recommendation presented in the Year 2005 Land Use and Transportation Study. E. I I Mr. Don Ashworth August 18 , 1988 Page 2 The Planning Commission felt that the language should be amended to also include reference to the north leg option which would have TH 101 cross the Apple Valley Red-E-Mix site to TH 5 and then use TH 5 as TH 101 to the existing Great Plains Boulevard intersection. ALTERNATIVES In making the motion regarding this item, the Planning Commission also expressed their desire to have the city review other alter- natives beyond the north leg and south leg options . The Planning Commission was concerned about the impacts to the residential neigh- borhood that the south leg option posed, but recognized the short- comings of the north leg option by using TH 5 for TH 101 traffic volumes for such a short distance. Therefore, city staff in con- junction with its consultants have developed other alternatives which are presented in this memo. Staff and consultant have also presented these options to MnDOT to gain their preliminary reaction. Because of the number of options and the number of implications resulting from each option, staff will summarize each option and discuss each option in more detail at Monday' s meeting. ' It is important to note that the alternatives proposed satisfy only the geometric requirements of a trunk highway or major roadway alignment. The Market Boulevard option has not been evaluated from a traffic standpoint. But it does appear that because of the longer distance and spacing as compared to the north leg option, the Market Boulevard option is more workable. TH 5 WIDENING Also discussed with MnDOT was the City Council' s concern regarding i the timing of the widening to keep accelerated TH 5 on schedule. MnDOT indicated that if a second left turn lane needs to be provided within the TH 5 right-of-way that they could incorporate the turn lane into its design process without major revisions to the TH 5 plans. Staff is therefore cautiously optomistic that a selection of an alternative which incorporates the use of TH 5 as a leg of TH 101 would not delay that schedule (MnDOT does not prefer the north leg option because of the short spacing distance between TH 101 and Great Plains Boulevard) . RECOMMENDATION Given the presentation of other alternatives and given that other issues need to be addressed with these new alternatives, staff is not pressing the Council for a decision on Monday. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Council table this item. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Additional alternatives prepared by staff. 1 2 . Planning Commission minutes dated August 3 , 1988 . 3 . Staff report dated August 3 , 1988 . I/ 1 , , II . CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 3, 1988 IIChairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m . . I MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, James Wildermuth and David Headla IMEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli _ STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner ; Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. I City Planner; Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer and Fred Hoisington, City' s Consultant I PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO IDENTIFY THE REALIGNMENT OF TH 101 ACROSS TH 5, CITY 1 OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present: IName Address Mark Senn 7800 Park Drive Rome Roos 1450 Park Court I( Don T. Smith 8012 Erie Mike Wittrock 8022 Dakota Avenue I Drew & Melanie Wright 320 Sinnen Circle Gene Heikkinen 301 Sinnen Circle Greg Gmiterko 8121 Hidden Court Grace Johnson 3143 Marsh Drive I Jack Atkins 220 West 78th Street Gary Disch 8170 Marsh Drive Bill Streepy 321 Sinnen Circle 1 Elizabeth Kersch 271 Hidden Lane Jeff & Holly Peters 8120 Hidden Court Bruce & Cindy Marengo 8150 Marsh Drive Sharon Loeckler 8028 Erie Avenue II Tom Lehmann 330 Sinnen Circle Larry Guthrie 520 3500 West 80th, Bloomington Jim Lewis 8133 Dakota Lane I Jan Coey Taco Shop Janine Ringdahl 8032 Erie Avenue Bill Davis Minnetonka I Ivan C. Johnson Jeffery Cook 7910 Dakota Drive 1800 Meritor Tower Gene Borg 90 Lake Drive East Ulrico Sacchet 8071 Hidden Circle 111 Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . r Planning Commission Meeting August 3 , 1988 - Page 2 I Dacy: Staff would like to present our report in the following manner . I 'd I like to have Fred Hoisington, the City' s consultant regarding the Year 2005 Transportation Study make a presentation first to overview the project for the Commission and then I 'd like to follow that up with staff ' s recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. Fred Hoisington : Mr . Chairman , members of the Planning Commission, it' s been quite a long time since we were here and discussing the broaden study area . A little longer ago than we really hoped the interval would be . We hoped we would be back much sooner. I know you've had a chance to review that, re-review that again and I 'm not going to go over it in detail . The good folks who are behind me here have heard it twice already so I know they aren' t interested in hearing me run through the whole presentation again. But let me tell you a little bit about, first of all the objectives of this plan amendment and TH 101 as we saw it in the broaden study area were really three. One, to provide some continuity in the way of a north/south roadway, major roadway through the City of Chanhassen and I as it turns out, TH 101 is probably the only option that the City has to provide that kind of continuity all the way from north towards the south. To provide the acceptable levels of service on TH 5 primarily at the intersections where we have continued to struggled throughout the course of the studies that we've done with trying to get the level of service down to the point where traffic could move in the year 2005. When we look at it today, we know of some traffic problems along TH 5 but it ' s a little II 1. hard to visualize what it will be like in year 2005 when we have at least twice and in some cases 3 or 4 times as much traffic as we' re experiencing today. Another thing that we spent long hours on because the broaden study area was done in conjunction with the downtown area, or kind of spun out of the downtown studies , had to do with the separation of traffic . Separating through traffic from downtown traffic. Not wanting those who don ' t have to go downtown , to be forced to go there. So those are really kind of the broad objectives that this prorposal for a new alignment of TH 101 our intent to keep. In looking through the broaden study area , remember that we had kind of a "S" curve sort of configuration for this , II or for TH 101 at TH 5, and that proposal is no longer valid. We hope you had a chance to look at this one. This is almost, I think this is a third or fourth generation alternative now in that it is geometrically configured in a manner that takes or goes more through the center of the Kerr property in the south leg but leaves the north leg basically intact as it was originally proposed. Originally we had hoped that we could use a portion of Lake Drive East as part of the TH 101 alignment. We know you've got some concerns about that and the alignment existed but this is II a very difficult stretch to engineer . In part because of some of the things that the neighbors have told us or expressed concerns over , we have continued to look at alternatives and I ' ll tell you a little bit about those later. But this is the alternative that presently is before you or is a more detailed version of what' s before you tonight in the way of a planned amendment. Just before we met with the neighbors the last time we were able to , we received some information from our traffic engineers , Jim Benshoof and Associates , having to do with the through movements that need to be accomodated on TH 101. Just summarily what Jim indicated was that II there would be about 1, 200 to 1, 230 vehicles approaching that intersection from the north and south during the peak hour of the day, which is the I 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' August 3 , 1988 - Page 3 C ' p.m. peak. Of those , 800 would go through the intersection. Of those , 565 originate outside the study area, outside Chanhassen for the most part, past all the way through and go out the other side of the study ' area. We ' re talking about a fairly appreciable number in the year 2005 of people needing to pass through the study area and of course that' s in part what the function of this street is intended to accomodate. On the first ' we received another report from Jim, we have been trying to get these piecemeal as best we could, that dealt with what we term the north leg option as an alternative to this approach to dealing with TH 101 and TH 5. ' What that north leg option does is uses the north leg and then use this TH 5 to the west and then Great Plains or present TH 101 south. So what it does is puts all, in year 2005, all 800 of those folks that want to go through that intersection, on TH 5 and forces it to take both TH 5 and TH ' 101 traffic for that stretch. What Jim has surprisingly concluded , surprising to me because I didn' t think we had even a ghost of a chance of that working in this case, was that from a pure traffic standpoint, it' s conceivable that we could engineer something that will allow that north leg option to work. Here' s what it would take. It would take two left turn lanes from the east bound movement on TH 5 to the south bound movement on Great Plains and two left turn movements on east bound TH 5 to north bound TH 101. It would call for the elimination of the right turn lanes at this intersection. The free right turns because we couldn' t afford to have people weaving across in that relatively short distance , 1, 000 or so feet. I wish we could say right now that that would work and that we could get approval from MnDot for that kind of approach . MnDot ' s indications have been historically that they would not be interested or ' would not entertain that kind of proposal . However , we will continue to explore that with them because we think it is warranted that we continue to look at that alternative and to look at others . I guess all I want to do is tell you that it ' s not as clear cut because it does take a complete ' lane from this intersection down through Great Plains in order to accomodate it and there are some serious questions associated with that that only MnDot can. . . We know there' s a lot of opposition to this ' proposal from the folks who live further to the south. This is not an easy decision and we certainly don ' t envy you having to make it or do we envy the Council having to make the decision . ' Erhart: Fred , can I ask you a question? On this north route you ' re still proposing to move the intersection that you 've shown. Essentially to move the intersection where the proposed . . . to use TH 5 as designated TH 101? ' Fred Hoisington: That 's correct. The intersection would stay where it was or it is . ' Erhart: Is today? Fred Hoisington: Where it is right here now, shown here, in the yellow. ' The north leg option would do that and then run the traffic down TH 5. Now don ' t get me wrong , I 'm not proposing that . I 'm just saying that we' re still continuing to explore that because we haven' t exhausted it but all indications are that we may not get it . Planning Commission Meeting August 3 , 1988 - Page 4 , C Erhart : Excuse me, then you said you would eliminate the right-in/right- I out intersection on Dakota? Fred Hoisington: No, that would stay. What we 'd be eliminating Tim, would be the south leg. If we could do that , we would take the entire south leg off. Oh, excuse me, you see the free right turns , those would not be able to stay if we used TH 5 as TH 101. ' Erhart : Where you don' t have to stop? Fred Hoisington: Exactly becase we can not afford to have those folks making those free right turns into that huge volume of traffic on TH 5. You'd have to weave across that lane of traffic if they' re able to make free right turns . We just don' t think that' s possible to do that. Excuse I me, that ' s what we were talking about. Resident : Could you show that on the map? , Fred Hoisington: What we' re talking about are these turns here. These free right turns here and any down here. Especially this one because what II it amounts to is those vehicles would have to weave into that volume of traffic , cross through it and then continue and make a left turn further to the west. Again, we' re continuing to study what we will call the north leg option and if it' s approved by MnDot and it will probably take a good two months, we probably won ' t have an answer until November in that regard but if that proves to be a viable option in this case , we can always revert to that we believe and therefore do not have to build the south leg . In the meantime, we feel that we need to continue to the process . We need to continue it as it' s currently proposed or there are some serious possibilities here that I have difficulty with. You may not have so much difficult with. We understand , we realize that the possibilities tonight are for you to approve, to table, to deny, although I would suppose that denial might be a little bit difficult but if it were to be tabled , you would run the risk, a couple of serious risks . One , as you know, TH 5 is being accelerated for construction start 1989 , completion 1991 and that would run out to CR 17 . If we were to go to the north leg option and have to add an entire lane, that segment would have to be completely redesigned . It' s already in the course of being designed and everything in transition back to the east and the west of that would have to be redesigned as well to widened that so we could accomodate that additional lane. If that happens, we lose two years . We will not be on the accelerated schedule for TH 5 and they will probably break it at about the city' s limits . Maybe 184th. Very close to 184th we think. The second risk I guess that you run is that we have a development proposed II that you also have on your agenda tonight , for the Kerr property which, I won ' t say we' ve been threatened but obviously there ' s some concern with the delays that have occurred here. If that delay is further without any real foundation, of course you risk a suit in that case . I don ' t mean to make that sound too strongly but there are some risks that you have to run and would have to run if we did not get approval from the Planning Commission and Council . I don ' t want to make this too easy either. It is II a tough decision to make but we did want you to know what the ramifications of that happen to be. It may well warrant delay to allow 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 3 , 1988 - Page 5 for further studying . We just simply are suggesting that the outcome of that could be pretty negative as far as TH 5 is concerned and as far as the Kraemer property is concerned . With that , I , Mr . Chairman would just ' simply turn back to Barbara and then would answer questions later . Dacy: Based on that, the application that the Commission is considering ' is looking at a few pages in the City's existing transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. As the Plan is written right now, it makes the general reference to the study that was done in 1981 regarding the five ' alternatives regarding TH 101. What the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will entail is merely adding language describing the proposed project . I 'm just showing this not necessarily for everybody to read at this time but to show you that what staff is proposing to the ' Comprehensive Plan is a written description based on the analysis that was done in the Year 2005 Land Use and Transportation Study. It summarizes the objectives of the realignment and the results that were identified in ' that study. The amendment would also include a general conceptual realignment of TH 101. Again , the Comprehensive Plan is a planning document showing proposed corridors and general alignments of streets . ' The exact design such that you see on the easel over there will be refined during the construction feasibility study process. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as proposed in the staff report subject to holding a public I hearing at the Planning Commission and the City Council level on the addition analysis regarding the north leg option is completed. In other words , to restate what Mr . Hoisington just reviewed for the Commission , we ' believe that the process regarding the Plan Amendment and the official map should continue so that we reserve, so to speak, an alternate option but reserving the opportunity to go back and re-evaluate the north leg when we get a response from the Minnesota Department of Transportation . ' Conrad: For clarification, by proceeding with the mapping and the Comprehensive Plan , I 'm sure the people who are here are real concerned ' with, when you do that that ' s like casting something in concrete. You' re saying that the process is to hold another public hearing when all the data is in. Dacy: Regarding the north leg option. Conrad: Right. And at that time, what commitments have we made? We have reserved , we have mapped it, we have amended the Comprehensive Plan to really position it where the current proposal is. Not the north leg , let ' s call it the south leg or whatever . What commitment do we have at that time, does the City have to follow through? Dacy: We have merely identified in our plan that this proposed corridor that the City is evaluating and conducting a feasibility study on. The ' official map merely identifies the center line and the extent of the right-of-way limits such that it puts the property owners on notice where the official map goes through. That the City is looking at constructing a road through that area . 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 3 , 1988 - Page 6 Conrad : At that point mapping can be changed if the north leg is decided I at that point? Dacy: That ' s correct. Conrad : This is a public hearing . That ' s why we have you here tonight . Again, we have petitions in our packet which we have read. We have most of the notices that people have sent to City Hall that are in our packets. I We probably have history on the project for the last 10, not 10 years but since we' ve been playing with TH 101. We' ve read through that. We' re interested in your comments and we'd like to give you the opportunity to I speak to us at this point in time so with that , as I said before, if you have a comment that you think is real pertinent to the issue, we'd appreciate your comments . I 'm not going to force you to come up to the microphone but I would like you to stand up, state your name and your address and make your comments . Who wants to be first. Uli Sacchet: My name is Uli Sacchet, I live at Hidden Circle, 8071. Let I me introduce myself a little further . I moved into the area about a year ago. I built a house there in an area that I considered very desireable. Very ideal to have a family home. I have two little children. One a baby, the other one 2 1/2 years old. I chose this area because I felt it was a good place to raise a family. I was a little dampen when I got my first tax estimate for the property coming through but I guess that' s a fact that we have the highest property taxes in this area here in Chanhassen. However , when I was faced with the proposal that you ' re currently considering , I felt like stabbed in the back. It ' s a very special neighborhood. It' s amazing that within a few months of living there, the neighbors have found a tremendous cohesiveness . Not last , because every house has at least one, if not several children. Small children . Some of them, the ladies are still pregnant. I 've never seen a I place that had such a big population of really small children. And as such, talking to the neighbors , we decided that this is totally unacceptable to us. I 'm here as the spokesperson officially of 70 people I that signed the petition and in addition to it a sheet that says I can represent them as a spokesperson so I 'm not just talking for myself but I did take the time to introduce me personally because I know that just about everybody of those 70 people that signed their name onto that sheet I is in the same situation . Chose that place to have a healthy, serene place for their family and their little children. Now, obviously as you can see , there is a relatively low level concern here to basically route a street through our backyard that is supposed to be 3 or 4 lanes , carrying 15, 000 to 20, 000 vehicles per day. Adding a second freeway inbetween where our development is and where we are. Not to mention that there was absolutely no indication at the time that when we chose this area to live that there would be such a thing in the works and I can guarantee you that a lot of us would not have built there . We have made a commitment to this City. We trying to make this city our home and for our children and we' re basically stabbed in the back with the project . It' s , as I said , not acceptable to us for relatively close concern. The threat of safety that it poses to our children . Being cut off from the City plus all the ' environmental elements . The pollution. The noise. Because that ' s considerable. Right now we' re shielded from TH 5 by a hill . That hill I Planning Commission Meeting IIAugust 3 , 1988 - Page 7 C 1 would be basically cut down and not only cut down to TH 5 but would be a crossing. And not only a crossing for that we hear TH 5 but a crossing that would let an equal amount of traffic come north/south that is I currently going east/west on TH 5. This is to me a very heavy concern and let me add a few further aspects though I don' t want to take too much of your time because I 'm sure some other people want to talk too but talking I for 70 people I believe I can take a little time. It ' s going to basically destroy the desireability of our neighborhood. It' s going to decrease the value of our properties as such. Already one house at least that I know I of has gone on the market because of this proposal and undoubtedly there will be more. My basic question is , is this the way the City of Chanhassen welcomes a whole community, a whole segment of their community after they come believing that it' s the place they chose and all of a I sudden they realize they' re next to a freeway. I 'm very glad that Fred Hoisington is seriously considering using TH 5 as an alternative because I really even have questions about the project overall . The improvements of I through traffic. on the intersections is only marginly improved by this whole proposal . As a matter of fact, the main intersection that we' re dealing with, the intersection of TH 5 and TH 101 is only improving from II an E level to a D/E level . Is this not even a whole step improvement? Is that worth the cost? Millions? It ' s going to be several millions of dollars. Probably 3-4. If I understood Fred Hoisington correctly, it costs roughly a million just to do the building itself. It ' s going to be at least 2 to 3 million to get the right-of-way and I understand that some of these people have to be actually placed somewhere else which will be an additional cost. One of the things that was also in the proposal is that I intersections are too close together the way it is right now. If you look at this drawing, I 'm not that familiar with Bloomington but I know about it and I 've heard a lot of people, it ' s like going through Bloomington. There' s one intersection after another . It' s not really improving it much I and the main points of foundation for the whole proposal , the three points, the continuity north/south, the intersection improvement, I addressed that , and the downtown traffic situation. Are we really I responsible as a City to ram the north/south major traffic corridor through an area where it doesn ' t fit anymore? I 'm sorry, this doesn ' t really inspire me in confidence in the planning of the City. You don' t go I plan a major freeway after we have put in major developments for families . A freeway type road like this would be a 3 or 4 lane road. It seems to me something that should be planned a little further ahead. I do believe in all fairness that it' s too late to route that now through where this is I proposed because it ' s my understanding that you are representing the residents of the City and certainly the City Council is . I don' t know whether we have any City Council members here tonight . I sure wish they I hear this. I would be awfully disappointed to find out that through traffic interests under some extent , maybe business interest , come first in this city before the interest of the residents and their children. An interesting aspect, just to close my points here , I don ' t want to bore you I too long but the proposal calls for TH 101 to be classified as a major arterial . What is TH 101 now? It ' s an access road for people who live up If north and south to come to TH 5 basically to go into town. It ' s a collector . It ' s not a major arterial and to make a major arterial out of it, to encourage this incredible through traffic volume, what benefit does that really bring to the city? I don ' t see certainly any that it brings II 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 3 , 1988 - Page 8 I to me except a lot of dismay and probably a very good motivation to try to II get another house as soon as I can. I guess that ' s all I have to say, thank you. Don Smith : I 'm Don Smith, I 've lived here for 15 years . I 'm going to probably second his motion but I don't understand and I doubt seriously that you' re ever going to straighten out TH 101. It should have been straighten out 4 years ago but one of the questions that I have to ask is , is this being done in conjunction with the overall plans of the State to change TH 101 into a north/south highway? To me they should change this II to something further east and the main route for north and south is either going to be Powers , Kerbers, CR 17 or TH 41. Not the present snake bed we call TH 101 . I don ' t care how you cut the mustard , you' re trying to put in intersections where they don' t belong. You' re talking about traffic into 2005 , that' s only 15 years from now. You can ' t drive through TH 101 now unless you've got skis or a snowmobile. I 'd like to know at the time who ' s going to Jpe paying for all of this . The roads and Planning Commission certainly didn' t figure the width of the road when they did 76th Street . It' s too narrow now and I think all of this came together in my mind when you put TH 101 together and cut out where it should have been and put a courthouse that is now and completely eliminated TH 101 and that doesn' t make sense. They call it the Wizard of Oz plaza now and that' s exactly what it' s turning into . I can' t see how you ' re going to punch TH 101 through an existing neighborhood with residents in it where you could II use the railroad access , the farm buildings, the cemetary or the buildings that are very limited there now, go further east and punch it south so that it lines up straight so eventually 10 to 15 years from now when it might go to the racetrack or get past the railroad track at TH 212, then we' ve got something to talk about. But north and south on TH 101, where do we go? You don' t go anywhere. For two blocks you ' re out of Chanhassen so stop considering making this an accessway when it should be Powers , Kerber, CR 17 or TH 41. Not TH 101. It never will be. It' s not intended to be that way unless you rip it up now and make a 6 lane highway. That ' s all I have to say. Mike Wittrock : My name is Mike Wittrock and I live at 8022 Dakota Avenue. I wanted to inform the City that I ' ve been going around to our II neighborhood asking people what their feelings are to the proposed TH 101 which has that south leg on it and I ' ve only met one person who didn ' t sign my proposal . I 'm sure if I went around the community, everybody would sign this except for probably 1 or 2 people that I found out was real surprising . Pretty much I agree entirely with your comments . I also II think that this traffic that will generate on this Lake Drive, the way it is proposed , that all the westbound traffic going to McDonalds would have II to go on Lake Drive creating another busy street. All that traffic going back and forth, we don ' t have an adequate crosswalk there and I think that would be a hazard. I just wanted to mention that too. Larry Guthrie : Good evening council members , my name is Larry Guthrie. I 'm an attorney and I represent United Mortgage Corporation and Rottlund k.. Homes . The reason I 'm here is basically to show the support of United I Mortgage and Rottlund Homes who basically sold most , if not all of the houses to most of the people here . They support the residents 100% in 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 3, 1988 - Page 9 C 1 this in their efforts to change the plan . I support the statements that have been made prior to my speaking here. Specifically what ' s before the committee here is the proposal of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan ' and I 'd like to direct some comments specifically to that. Comprehensive Plan is the plan that ' s supposed to be guiding the City in it ' s development and that was in effect when United Mortgage started this development and it' s supposed to be a document that can be relied on by people, the developers as well as the homeowners . There was nothing about this proposal at that point in time and it ' s a major change that ' s ' affecting the lives of many people and that needs to be considered when changing the guiding plan to guide the city in the future. The change, if anything is to be made, I guess I would urge the Planning Commission to consider the north leg option that' s been proposed and eliminate the south leg. The reason is basically because psychologically and legally, once the Comprehensive Plan is changed and includes this south leg, it ' s going to be difficult, I feel , for MnDot to agree and approve that yes , we ' ll ' take the north leg option if you' ve already approved the south leg option . The Comprehensive Plan is going to be on the books . It ' s a matter that has metropolitan significance. It has to be approved by the Metropolitan Council and if you think you can just change the plan then back to eliminate the south leg, that' s not necessarily so. I would urge that you get legal counsel with respect to your ability to freely do that. I don' t think it' s quite accurate that you can say let ' s adopt a plan as it is because we can eliminate that south leg anytime we want. I don ' t think 1 that ' s true from a legal standpoint and I don ' t think it' s true from a psychological standpoint . I think it would be a much better message and ' much better support on the citizens of the community if you tell MnDot, look , the north leg option is the only way. If we can ' t get the north leg option than we' re not going to do anything at all . I think that ' s the message you should be sending to MnDot . I think for that reason you should not even consider taking the south leg option. Thank you. Jeff Peters : My name is Jeff Peters . My wife and I live at 8120 Hidden ' Court in the Brookhill development and the reason I came tonight is not only to support all the comments that have been made so far but also to voice some concerns that I had with regards to the proposed realignment of TH 101. A year and a half ago when my wife and I decided to purchase some property in this area, we did so because a similiar in a suburb in Minneapolis , namely Plymouth , decided to pull a similiar measure on the residents of Plymouth. It was a very unpopular decision. There were almost 1, 000 city residents at City Hall the night this proposal went up. We were members of that 6, 000 and the meeting lasted until 2: 00 a .m. at which time most of the people had left because most people do work in the ' morning. Nothing was ever resolved except for the fact that the City Council decided to ram this through the residents ' throats and we decided to move. We figured the old adage of not being able to fight City Hall is so true . The unfortunate part is that a few months after we moved , the City Council was defeated by the Mayor and the proposal was never adopted . We moved to Chanhassen because we felt it was a beautiful suburb to come If— to. It was a good place to raise our children and in general was the sort of community we were looking for . When we moved here I didn' t make the same mistake I made in Plymouth. I checked the zoning. I checked it very carefully. I ' ve been through this three times . I 'm holding in my hand a 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 3, 1988 - Page 10 ' document by the State of Minnesota showing any development on TH 5 which II concerned me at the time because they were proposing to, and still are, widened TH 5 extensively. This covers all bridge replacements , intersections modifications and major capacity improvements along TH 5 in II Chanhassen and Eden Prairie and nowhere in this report is there any mention of any improvement to TH 101 nor was there any mention of it when I checked with the City Planning Commission , at that time, anything like this. If there was, it was either well hidden or was intentionally left out of any comments . I feel like we were seduced into buying the property in this area knowing full well , this Council knowing full well , that this I was going to happen . Unfortunately it doesn ' t affect any of you because none of you live south of TH 5. You all live north of TH 5. What it' s going to do is it' s going to lower my property value. It' s going to make a dangerous road for any children present and heaven help you if any children ever get killed on that road . It' s just in general a very stupid thing to do. TH 101 can not be straighten out. How are they possibly going to straighten it out at Gray' s Bay? There' s no way they are ever going to allow that to come across Lake Minnetonka. I urge you to stop this proceeding . To stop further procedure on this modification. Adopt either the north leg or can the proposal all together. TH 101 is not a problem. It' s TH 5 that' s the problem. Thank you. Elizabeth Kersch: I have a question. Does the Council feel that they have enough information to make a decision tonight? ' Conrad : Maybe we' ll talk about that later on as we go around and you can hear the commission ' s comments . Elizabeth Kersch: Will a decision be made tonight? Conrad : We' re going to make some decision as to what we want to do, yes but remember my preface to this meeting. The City Council makes the final decision . We' re looking at certain criteria . They' re looking at other criteria. We' re going to pass along our recommendation tonight. It will I reach the City Council in two weeks and then they' ll make the final decision. Brad Johnson: I 'm Brad Johnson, I live at 7425 Frontier Trail . Today I think I represent the northern segment of the people who are concerned about TH 101 and the traffic and also the downtown business interest which we've been spending quite a bit of time at. I 'm very sympathetic to what the people to the south are concerned about as far as their traffic patterns are concerned. We also have a major problem on the north side in the area of St . Hubert ' s , Frontier Trail , Great Plains Blvd . and if the TH II 101 through traffic continues to go through that particular point, we too have the same problem with our children . We have a school there . We have a church there and therefore, I think we talk about the north leg , something has to happen on the north side because we are going to continue to have traffic problems in that area. I don' t know Fred if you 've done any studies as to what it needs on that corner but one of the problems we' re having right now is we don' t have the ability, with the State Highway going through there, to put any traffic control at the St . Hubert' s corner because the State is , I believe has said no to any stop Planning Commission Meeting ' August 3, 1988 - Page 11 C signs or anything like that at that particular corner . Is that true Fred? St. Hubert' s and Great Plains? Fred Hoisington: Are you talking where the stop signs were before? Brad Johnson: Yes . Fred Hoisington : That ' s what I understand . ' Brad Johnson: Because I understand the City has requested and they' ve been turned down by the State, therefore we just have a problem that will go on for some time in there. Those of us that have to go to work in that area are getting caught in stacking . If we are in fact going to have 500, ' 600, 700 more cars going through there at peak time, traffic will be backed all the way up to TH 5 right at that corner . I think that' s just a problem you folks in the south should be aware of is that the same problem ' does exist on the north. It' s a community problem, TH 101. It' s not just your problem. Ideally probably 5 years ago if this had all taken place it would have gone over so I think you should be concerned about that and I ' guess it' s kind of funny, I think you come to a couple of other meetings and everybody' s complaining on the north side about what' s happened already. In fact, this is probably the only solution that' s available is to get the traffic over to TH 5. The other problem that we do have is that in saying that TH 101 is not going to be a through carrier . I do a lot of work in downtown. Most people take the shortest distance between two points to get there. I always use TH 101 when I 'm going north. I ' do not use TH 5. It just short and it' s quicker to go that way even though once TH 5 is improved. I think a lot of people know that. We 've done some studies trying to figure out , because our job is to create retail traffic into the community from what we perceive to be the targeted market area which is over to Excelsior , TH 101 and those particular areas . The only road that' s practical for north/south traffic is TH 101 because there is no interchange in Excelsior at CR 17 currently to get into ' downtown Chanhassen. It' s another 3 miles past TH 101 to even get to that interchange. We' re blessed with two lakes we can ' t move. One is called Lotus Lake and one is called Christmas Lake. In real life they do divide ' and make impossible that north/south traffic movement. As TH 5 the corridor is improved, we are going to be blessed I guess with a lot more people moving out here who anticipate they' ll use TH 5 to work. Traffic will be coming over on TH 41. Traffic will be coming over on TH 5 and ' we' re just going to end up with more and more traffic coming from the north looking for routes to get through and TH 101 would be one of them. I don ' t think we can do much about that . The other thing we have to face ' with is that we are in a school district with Chaska. They do a lot of things in Chanhassen and during the winter , I live here , I probably spend at least 5 to 10 trips a day on TH 101 to go to Shakopee where our hockey ' arena is . You' ve just got a lot of traffic on TH 101 that' s just going to be there because it' s the only way as I understand. I understand that you were told last time that Dell Road would not be a through road and CR 17 If— has terrain problems as I understand it. Again, most of us , even if the road was there , would not go west to come all the way around and go south. It' s just not the way people do things. You can' t control it. I guess the message I 'm saying tonight is that we should probably, we' ve got to I Planning Commission Meeting August 3, 1988 - Page 12 ' admit we've got a problem and obviously this one situation where we just I have the north leg is one solution. I don ' t know what the rules are. We also have spent, the City $50 , 000 . 00. The communities have spent $250, 000. 00 trying to accelerate TH 5 to get it done. We ' re only 10 to 15 II years behind schedule as it is , to get that done and most of you take that to work and I think you'd like to have that completed just like myself. I guess my message is this evening , I 've been sitting through all these public hearings and I can hear you, what you say. I don' t think you ' re going to change TH 101. It ' s going to have traffic . It' s the only way to get to town from my analysis and I spend a lot of time at that. I think that you ' re going to have to do is encourage the Planning Commission and staff to look hard at the various solutions. I don' t know how you do that in the mapping process . There are probably a number of different corridors you can figure out still on the south side. I think we've all mainly addressed the north side historically because we didn' t have as many residents over there and so my comments are today, I think if we don ' t do anything , you' re going to have the same problem or greater on the II north side. I think you'd have as many people at the next meeting if they knew somebody was going to say you' re going to run 1, 000 more cars down Frontier Trail or in that area. You'd have the people here from the other side of the community. It' s just that people aren' t as aware of what exactly is all involved in this meeting so I think everbody is going to have to work on this and somehow within the time that we have, which is a year to try and figure out some type of solutions , that we can maximize. 1. Rather than be totally negative, we ' re not going to change TH 101. It ' s there. It' s something you just can' t change. I think we all have to work together on that and I don' t know how to do that exactly techically and still stay within some type of time table. I think you have to address the planning staff . Something will have to be done and this probably, as Fred has said , is the last chance we have. Never the last but one of the last . Thank you. I Jack Atkins : My name is Jack Atkins and I live at 220 West 78th Street, also on the north side there and I guess I 'd like to throw my support with I what they say that we shouldn ' t all back a plan that nobody believes in just because it's the most expeditious way to do it. I think we should have a plan we can all believe in that will really solve the problems rather than compound them. Melanie Wright : My name is Melanie Wright and I live at 320 Sinnen Circle. I think Mr. Hoisington, what you ' re concerned about is your MnDot money that you would get from MnDot to develop these streets . I think another concern would be the money that it ' s going to cost to develop the street going that way, the way he ' s got it planned . If it goes out to TH 5, you ' re not going to have to develop TH 5. It' s going to be developed so if you do route it on TH 5, it ' s going to cost the City a lot less money. I think that should be taken into consideration too . Uli Sacchet : There are three things that I think in all fairness have to be pointed out in order to make sound decisions. I wanted to just underline once more what he just said. I think an attitude of fear , the idea that this is the last chance to do this is solely a very, very bad foundation to make a wise decision. I haven ' t seen many wise decisions Planning Commission Meeting ' August 3, 1988 - Page 13 C ' based on fear . This thing about the risk we ' re taking in tabling this , I think that it ' s a much , much bigger risk that we take if we ' re going to be ' led to made a decision that is not founded on a complete set of information. If the information is not present and the research has not been completed sufficiently, you will not be able to make a sound decision and the risk of that is far greater than having to wait maybe two years ' for this stretch of road to be out there. The last point, it was interesting in the last informational meeting we had here, it was mentioned that the State really doesn ' t have an interest in TH 101. They ' would like to turn it over to Carver County. I think that' s in dire contradiction with this proposal of making it a major through traffic road. Thank you. ' Mike Wittrock: What I forgot to mention too is that, the way it ' s designed here, it has like a hairpin turn up on the top where it meets 78th Street and then they do the same type of turn onto TH 5 and it makes ' a real awkward type of intersection. I don ' t know why they would want to propose that . Then it was also mentioned about the stop light distances . Where that Lake Drive intersects with Great Plains Blvd . , in the future if ' you ever put a stop light there, it ' s probably too short a distance so you have those two problems too. Another problem that you have, we mentioned about this sound barrier . If you have a natural incline in the elevation above TH 5 there, you 'd eliminate any possibility of a walkway if you I removed the elevations there . That wasn ' t brought up. I guess that just about covers it. Larry Guthrie : I 'd just like to ask if the petition that ' s been talked about for the plans, are they a part of the public record here that' s going to be forwarded to the Council? ' Conrad: We've got it here. ' Headla moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . ' Conrad : Basically what we do now is we go through Planning Commission comments. Comments of the advisors of staff and maybe I ' ll start it off a little bit and preface our comments a bit . I think highway and TH 5 just ' is the number one problem that Chanhassen residents experience living in Chanhassen. Without a doubt . When you take a look at the surveys , everything else is fine compared to TH 5. I think that ' s number one. ' Obviously TH 101 , as we ' re looking at it today, has an impact . I think the other concern, the thing that we' re looking at as a Planning Commission is the concern of the entire City. Not only the neighborhood ' that gets impacted but also the other neighborhoods that will be in here as we take a look at whatever occurs in terms of highways and we find that you put the highway, as TH 212 comes through , that ' s going to have major IF— impact on some of the things that we ' re talking about here tonight . TH 212 is going to be a major corridor that ' s going to be linked up to Chanhassen . There are traffic implications and I 'm not sure if those have arisen as you' ve had your community meetings or not but I think those two 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 3, 1988 - Page 14 1 C things are of interest there . Of interest to the Planning Commission and I we pay attention to those things as we make our recommendation. Just wanted to give you that little brief introduction. Dave, what questions , ' comments do you have? Headla : Let me start out with a couple of comments . I really take issue with the gentlemen and the 70 people who say we stabbed them in the back, I we have low level interest . I think the City has acted with high integrity. We have a very capable staff that has played open the whole time. Where I live, my neighbors come in quite frequently to talk to the I staff. They don' t like what the staff tells them at times and I hear about it but the staff has always been very open with them and they say this is the way it is. This is the ordinance. I 've never known them to be any other way and I really find that hard . I think that' s just I terrible that anybody would say something about the staff on that or the City. Another comment , a plan we all believe in, I 've never seen a plan of any kind that everybody believes in. That just doesn' t happen and it I won ' t happen here. We can go an easier route but I don' t think that' s our job to go the easy route. I think we've got to make a good decision. Fred , on that north arm that you' re talking about. Is that similiar to I where Crosstown and 35 meets? Is there a similiarity there? Fred Hoisington : The commons? If there ' s a similiarity, one this would be somewhat diminished from that and that brings in. . .this would probably I 1. less the volume of traffic but nonetheless the similarities are . . .two highways of traffic on one roadway. . . Headla : The gentleman mentioned about many, many young people on the I southeast corner . In the future if we have a community center or whatever up here, how are these young people going to get across the highway either I route? Have we given that a lot of thought? Dacy: What we have told the folks at the informational meeting is that, as part of the feasibility study process , looking at the design of I whatever option is chosen, is that pedestrian access will be a major part of that analysis . We will have to address the pedestrian issue as well as the noise issue . I Headla : Is one way better than the other for this pedestrian access? To me that ' s, we' re going to have young people and they' re going to try to cross that road and either way, there ' s a high probability that one way I they' re going to do it compared to the other one. I think we've got to avoid that. Is there a better route than the other? Dacy: I agree with your statement on the importance. We can not give you II any type of analysis or recommendation on which option would be better than the other at this time. That will be included as a part of the Ifeasibility study. Headla : The noise generation , I think Brad had some good comments on it. The road, people are traveling up and down all along TH 101 and . . . I would I assume you will address that particularly in that area . Either a noise barrier or whatever . I guess unless there ' s reason to believe that north II i Planning Commission Meeting August 3, 1988 - Page 15 arm route is safer , I ' ve got to go with the present plan . It just makes , to me, makes more sense. It isn' t an easy decision but I think it' s the right decision and a lot of people are going to be hurt by it but I think that' s a good decision overall. Wildermuth : Fred , what would be the distance between the intersection that would cross TH 5, where TH 101, the north side would cross TH 5 and the current TH 101/TH 5 intersection in the north leg option? Fred Hoisington: Just about 1,000 feet. Wildermuth : Does MnDot consider that enough stacking distance? Fred Hoisington: That is going to be part of the problem with MnDot. That distance they consider rather short . What we have to try to demonstrate to them, if we really want to pursue hard that north leg arm option, that is no matter if the spacing is 1, 000 feet, you can still accomplish that. We think the numbers suggest that but we' re not sure MnDot philosophically, they don' t agree with this kind of proposal because they' ve had to live with the commons and some other areas where this happened so they have some real struggle with, 1,000 feet isn' t enough for that movement . Wildermuth : I can see where those two lights are close together and the section between full of traffic, emergency vehicles just couldn ' t get through. Fred Hoisington : Let me just qualify a little bit more, if there were two intersections there, the one that is being proposed plus the one that exists there today, that 1, 000 foot spacing is also not at all ideal between those two intersections . In any event, we have spacing problems that can only be dealt with through good engineering and geometrics in making traffic flow. There is no ideal spacing . We' re never going to find any ideal spacing up and down this road to do that so I don ' t want to suggest to you that the 1, 000 feet won' t work because of the spacing of the north leg but it will with the other . That spacing is too short in any case. iI Wildermuth : I wish I could see a win-win proposal in this situation. There doesn' t appear that there is one. Based on the different alternatives that we have seen and looked at , I think the proposal that ' s being put forward now tonight is probably the best one to carry us into the future . Ellson : I 'm afraid I like the proposal and I 'm sorry to say that to the people. I know I would be just like you and I would be here fighting it tooth and nail . I think we ' re not making it a major thoroughway. I think it already is turning into a major thoroughway and it ' s already having problems and I couldn' t have a clean conscience and say well , we ' re just going to tell people not to use it anymore. It ' s just not going to be I improved . I can ' t see that that ' s realistic to expect people to go down to TH 41 or even CR 17 or something like that . I think a spacing problem that you ' re concerned with would also be a safety problem compounded if we I i Planning Commission Meeting August 3 , 1988 - Page 18 C as well as those people in the south going from TH 101 to TH 5 and back south and not put so much emphasis on the continuity. I find it hard to believe that even in the next 15 years that a majority of the traffic is going to come up TH 101 or going down is going through town. A majority of the traffic has to be going in and out of town. Now you've got some figures there Fred that indicates that currently, they' re projecting that half the traffic would go through. How do you determine that? Fred Hoisington: What they've done is to look at the socioeconomic characteristics of the City in the year 2005 so they know about what the population estimates or what estimates are at that point. They also know what the percentage of the through traffic is today and know that the total sheer volume will go from 48% goes through of the total volume and that that will reduce to 43% in the future. Just simply by using the information that exists today Tim. BRW transportation studies have been done. . . Erhart: Do they put pneumatic sensors on the roads to determine the II traffic court? Fred Hoisington: No , most of the traffic counts have been done by MnDot. � I Yes , some of it has been. . . Erhart : How do they know a car coming down TH 101 from the north ends up II . going south, the same car ends up going south on TH 101 5 minutes later? Through traffic , how do we know a car is going through TH 101? Fred Hoisington: All the way through town? Erhart : Yes . Fred Hoisington: They know that from the information provided as far as the base information from MnDot and from BRW. Studies that have been done in the past , they know now based on the counting and all the studies of I what people are doing now and they' re forecasting in the future and saying that in addition to the growth in the City of Chanhassen , there will also be a growth in that volume and those people will continue to do that . Erhart : I guess I question that data because I feel what we really need to do here is to improve the accesses onto TH 5 particularly with TH 212 and TH 5 being improved . I think that' s where you' re going to get the emphasis. Again, one of the things I look at, again I haven ' t done a study on this thing or anything but somehow have we evaluated using West 98th Street option at all? I won' t even ask for a response but somehow in I going through that today, walking through that area , somehow it ' s in that 1,000 or 1, 500 foot corridor there' s got to be some other options to get through there is continuity is even required to the extent that I think we' re talking about. In summary, I guess I 'd prefer to look at some other alternative. I think we have to make a change. I think the north route on using TH 5 is preferable to using Lake Drive East because I think if we %, do I think it makes you question our whole comprehensive plan and the planning process . Lastly, I guess if it comes down to that is the only thing we can do, than I think you really have to take care to answer and I r Planning Commission Meeting August 3, 1988 - Page 19 Ispend some of the money that these taxpayers are spending on making some major changes in Lake Drive East to make it compatible. The most compatible with the problem they have including taking into consideration ' the noise, environmental issues and how do the children now get over there to the Q store and into the recreation areas and so forth. I just think we' re talking about, if we have to use that road, we' re talking about more than simply putting up a couple of signs saying this is TH 101. I think we have to do some major , major , major things if we' re forced to do that. It' s coming down to , what do we do here tonight . Fred , could you repeat 1 to me again, I apologize to ask you this, but why, with the situation with TH 5, why do we have to make a decision tonight on the mapping and comp plan alteration? ' Fred Hoisington : Tim, there are a multitude of things that have to occur actually between now and January when the design of this has to be done and in MnDot ' s hands . What they intend to do is if we can stay on this ' course for the design that has to be done by our consultant' s, the City' s consultants , and then hand this package to MnDot in January to simply include it, they would have to review the plans but they could approve it with their package and admit the whole package. The key thing is that if we miss that time, then we miss being able to have this included. Erhart : And that time is what, January? Fred Hoisington: January, right. Now, if we go to the north leg , we have a completely different problem because the City has no control over ' the design of that leg. MnDot is doing itself through it' s own consultants and they are much slower than we are. If they have to make that adjustment, they will take, where it would take our consultants maybe 3 months to get the whole job done, it will take MnDot a year to get the ' whole thing done so that alternative should continue to be explored and I think we may come back, could come back at a later date and say listen , we' re going to lose 2 years but it' s worth doing to get the north leg ' option. In the meantime, the process has to go on . We just can ' t figure out another way to do that if we don ' t get this completed and approved . ' Erhart: If we go back and say we want the north leg option , and they' re already redesigning TH 5 anyway, don' t you think they would incorporate that with the design? Fred Hoisington : Yes , I think if we can convince them that that option is a viable one and if they can buy into that, then they will do that but they will not do that on this schedule. They' ll do that on a schedule 1 that will go with begin in 1991 and completion in 1993. In order Tim, to let the project and I think it ' s June of 1989 , they have to have those plans completed in January of 1989 and they can not get this stretch done by January of 1989 if we change it . It' s just a fact of life that they can not. . . Erhart : But you ' re saying , if we want to give them our idea of where this intersection is going to be today and they' re going to start doing their drawings , or when this goes to Council , they' re going to . . .based on the proposed location. I I Planning Commission Meeting August 3, 1988 - Page 20 1 Fred Hoisington: They' re already doing drawings as if we were going to do I one of two things . Either leave the intersection kind of the way it is or , if we can move fast enough to get this done and get it into their bid package, then they will accomodate this into this proposal . . . ' Erhart : And if our proposal is the north option. . . Fred Hoisington: The proposal is the one we' re talking about tonight which includes the south leg. Erhart : How is it that the north option is so significantly different 1 than this? We' re basically putting the intersection in the same place. Fred Hoisington : That stretch between the north leg and Great Plains ' Blvd. , the TH 5 stretch would have to have a center lane added to it in order to be able to accomodate that traffic flow and volume to get the second left turn lane incorporated. Their consultants are Barton Ashman consultants and not ours which are BRW. In order to make that change it takes them about 3 or 4 times as long as it takes us to do the one we' re talking about so Tim, they can not do the north leg option and get it into ' this construction package. What they will do is , they' ll forego it and it simply won' t get done if we do it here or they' ll cut it off at 184th and they will do everything in Eden Prairie in the first construction phase and shut everything down for 2 years and go west into Chanhassen. It just II can ' t be done. If we had control over everything to do the whole thing, than it would be possible but there are so many things that are associated with that, they can not adjust fast enough. Erhart: Okay, so then what are we talking about doing with the north option? Fred Hoisington: What we will continue to do with the north option is to study it and see if it' s a viable option if we can get through MnDot. If MnDot says yes , we' ll come back to you and say okay, now you can make your choice. Which of these two options are you going to pursue and if you choose the north leg, just understand that it ' s not going to be built until 1991 through 1993 . Ellson : Nor will the widening of TH 5? Fred Hoisington: That' s what I 'm saying. The widening of TH 5 will not occur until 1991 to 1993 in Chanhassen . Erhart: Okay, those are my comments . Conrad : I don ' t have a whole lot of new comments and I ' ll make mine brief. I think everytime a neighborhood has something new in it there ' s concern because it ' s a surprise . The concern for safety and well being and property values are understood. I think we' re concerned with that . I ' ll stop and ask a question . Is there any benefit, other than routing traffic to Chanhassen in having this additional road put through? Is there any other benefit other than getting traffic through Chanhassen? I Planning Commission Meeting ' August 3 , 1988 - Page 21 Fred Hoisington : Oh absolutely. You mean to g y create a separation between what amounts to through traffic and downtown destine traffic? Conrad : Yes . That' s what I said. Is there any other benefit other than that one? Other than eliminating some of the traffic going to downtown? Fred Hoisington: I think so Ladd . In any community that plans , it tries to provide some streets with a degree of continuity so that the traffic ' that you want to put on those streets doesn ' t have to use residential streets or streets of lesser classification. We' re having difficulty doing that in Chanhassen because the streets are not a great pattern necessarily and they wind around so it' s not real easy to move from let' s ' say, off from a major street that' s over capacity to one that is purely residential. In order to handle through traffic through the community and to handle the traffic of the people that are sitting in this room right ' now who aren ' t necessarily going all the way through the City, whether they' re going from one sector of the city to another sector of the city, they have to have a way to get there so this not only serves people that are going some distance but people who live here and in addition it separates traffic according to functions so that people can get to the places where they want to go and are not forced to go places they don' t have to go and that' s always been one of our major contentions that TH 101 111: doing that. Forcing people downtown that don ' t need or want to be there and that' s putting an overload on downtown and it' s causing a lot of people inconvenience who need to get places that can' t do so , by going ' down . . . forced to go downtown. I think there are a lot of good reasons why a city does a plan and tries to establish a network that serves all traffic according to destination and function and this is just one piece of that puzzle . We don' t have any other options . CR 17 kind of does it but it doesn' t do what TH 101 can do . Conrad : TH 101 is a pretty lousy road and nobody wants it . Fred Hoisington: Exactly. ' Conrad : We' re going to put in probably the best stretch of TH 101 in our community that' s on the whole road from up on TH 55 or whatever . I think if I saw some real benefits to the overall TH 101 strategy but no government body wants it. I really have a problem with TH 101. I 'm not concerned about this through traffic as much as I am as to it ' s benefit for Chanhassen. We' ve dealt with it so many times and we' ve really never come up with a very good solution because there aren ' t many good solutions. That' s the risk we' re going to take tonight that we' re going to look for some solution and it' s not there . I ' ve been around it long enough to know that we haven' t come up with good ways to solve the traffic problem on TH 101. Yet again , I don ' t want to make Chanhassen the stellar ' TH 101 owner when it' s of very little benefit to the community and I really do mean that. I don ' t know that there ' s a whole lot of benefit r here. We do have to solve the downtown problem of traffic. We do . If- There ' s absolutely no doubt about it . When you ' re not here in this chamber, we' re hearing other residents talk to us about the really bad Planning Commission Meeting August 3, 1988 - Page 22 ' C traffic problems. Dangerous today. Dangerous today. You can ' t get out on West 78th Street. You sit and wait. You've got to run. You got to get out . It' s a real problem. We, as a community, have to solve that problem. It may come back to your neighborhood, with the land in it, solving that but I think there may be some other alternatives and I would hope we can explore those. There' s got to be a better alternative. There' s just got to be. We have new TH 212 coming in . We' re saying TH I 101 is going to be our access to downtown Chanhassen from TH 212. Because TH 101 now is playing a more major role in downtown Chanhassen and Chanhassen access, I 'm wondering how this all comes into play. How the curved TH 101, maybe it' s not the beautiful , it is really a pretty road . It slows people down. It' s just gorgeous going through the wetlands. I 'm not sure that I want to change it yet on the other hand , we have TH 212 going through our community. It' s going to be there and people are going I to want to use it. It ' s going to be a better access for most of you than TH 5. We' re going to have to get there and we' re going to have to get you off and we' re going to have to get you to your homes . I 'd like to see some kind of plan that shows us if there' s any possibility of making TH 101 work from TH 212. I 'm also interested in how CR 17 ties in because it is a north/south. How does that interrelate with maybe that new access that we have planned for the western portion of downtown coming off of TH 5? There's a right-in/right-out access . I don't know. There's some loose ends here and I don' t know that I know enough information yet to make some final decisions yet. We' ve got to move. As I said before, the I number one problem in Chanhassen is TH 5 and I tell you, we' ve had so many lobbying efforts and so much, we have to move and make sure that we' re not holding things up. Now if we do , it' s going to be by our own decision. If we do decide that there' s a better solution, I want to make sure it' s Chanhassen ' s decision to delay TH 5 access to the community, not MnDot. I want that to be ours and the community can have some kind of say on that. Basically, I like the north option but I do want an option. I will go to II the south option if we can' t make the north option work. I want to make sure what we do tonight iS give that north option decent chance of having a good look at. I don' t want to solve all of the county' s and the state' s II problems going north and south . I want to solve Chanhassen ' s with that option on that north and I think I want to send a signal and Barbara you' ve got to help us on that , or if the Planning Commission agrees, I think we've got to send a signal that we' re equally interested in both options at this point in time . I need legal advice or I need somebody' s advice to tell us how we have that option to go either way and if it comes back and it says the north option is possible, it ' s going to delay things II for 2 years, well I think that' s a Chanhassen decision that we' ve got to make and that will be an interesting one . Then we can weigh things appropriately. If I were to draft or make a motion tonight, I guess it would be something that would approve what we see in front of us in terms of the comprehensive plan text amendment but I would like staff to be drafting in the interim. I don' t want to word it , we can' t word things but I would like to have staff draft some language that by the time it gets to City Council , that that north option is woven into that possibility and that those are two equal possibilities at this point in time. Those are my comments . With that aside, is there anything else? Planning Commission Meeting August 3, 1988 - Page 23 C ' Headla : Yes , let me ask, Fred when you were involved with this , what type of consideration did you give TH 212? The new route of TH 212. ' Fred Hoisington: TH 212 was considered as part of the transportation model when it was done. Headla : I 'm saying , you still felt that this was the best alternative? Fred Hoisington: I hate to even keep saying this but it is the only alternative. Headla : You had a good point there and I just wanted to make sure they did look at it. Wildermuth : Fred , did you look at the option of following the railroad tracks? Picking it up on the current proposal instead of making the cross ' at TH 5 along the tracks down to Great Plains Blvd . and maintaining the TH 101 and TH 5 intersection where it currently is? ' Fred Hoisington: Are you saying come down in this fashion and then doing what? Wildermuth: Tying into Great Plains . Fred Hoisington: Somewhere in here? Wildermuth : Yes . Something like that . You'd end up taking the Hanus building and probably that car wash if you came south of the tracks . Fred Hoisington: A couple of problems with this. If we bring this road ' down parallel to the tracks , then we have to take a real goodwick turn in order to get it across the tracks at least this angle. That is extremely difficult to do . He ' s talking about bringing it down in this fashion and ' then coming across in some manner or form like this and then tying in right through here . The geometrics of what you have to do here makes it almost impossible. You'd end up with maybe a 10 or 15 degree curve for a ' speed of very low speed . Wildermuth : Why a curve? Why not just a right angle? A stop light there. ' Fred Hoisington : You mean just come up like this and then come down in this manner? Wildermuth : Tie right into Great Plains . Erhart: North or south of the railroad tracks . ' Fred Hoisington : Well , we did not consider that as an option. Erhart: He ' s saying the same thing I did. Look at East 79th Street, extending that and making that TH 101 as an option . Planning Commission Meeting August 3, 1988 - Page 24 Fred Hoisington : In this manner? That can ' t be done . Erhart: For what reason? ' Fred Hoisington : Again , you have to get across these railroad tracks and if you had to get back, . . . in this fashion, it simply couldn' t be done. II I won ' t say you absolutely couldn 't put a right turn but then of course, then we' re bringing back into downtown or what amounts to. . . Wildermuth : At the edge of downtown you 've solved all the problems of going through the neighborhoods on the north side and the school . Fred Hoisington: There are geometric problems with that . There are questions of whether we really solve any problems at all with respect to relieving pressures on downtown. It' s very much a forced situation to do that. Let' s face it, you can do anything. It' s only a matter of whether II you do something that produces the desired results . Wildermuth: Right, for the long term. Fred Hoisington : And I 'd have to say that that , y probably, for a lot of reasons would not achieve the objectives . Jeff Peters : I just have a comment . I understand consultants . I work with consultants everyday in my business and one thing I know about consultants , there are a lot of them and they all have different opinions II based on their own biases . Is there any reason we can ' t look at another consultant to give us a second opinion on this? I don' t feel we have an objective company here? Conrad : I suppose that ' s possible. Mr. Hoisington has worked with the City. I 'm real confident when he tells us something, I 'm real confident in what he says . It is an option as you suggest . We could hire somebody II else but he' s really not trying to do something that' s anti-city. He' s worked with us many times . He' s trying to find the best workable solution and I think there may be another approach. There may be something that he has overlooked but I guess want to support what . . . II Jeff Peters: I wholeheartedly agree with you but there is one thing that I have found is that there is never only one solution. There are always alternatives. I think it' s important that we find something here that is a compromise between the neighborhood concern and the City' s concern both on the north and the south side of TH 5. ' Conrad : I think we ' re all looking for that same solution and we' ll pay attention to your comments . Emmings : Can I ask a question? In your comments you said something about wanting to identify these alternatives as equal alternatives and I guess I 'm thinking more along the lines of saying here are two alternatives . ' The City feels that the north leg should be the primary alternative. Planning Commission Meeting August 3, 1988 - Page 25 IIdentify it as a primary rather than an equal alternative. Is there some reason you don' t want to do that? Wildermuth : I can ' t support that . Emmings : I 'm talking to Ladd. Conrad : I possibly could support that as long as I 've got the flexibility to solve the problem if the north leg doesn' t work. You've got to solve the problem so as long as I 'm not locked out and the City Council ' s not locked out from solving the problem. Erhart: What are your plans , if we do the south leg, what are the plans for Lake Drive East? Are you going to widened it past where these homes are? Put up a barrier? ' Fred Hoisington : What they do is they come down from about 4 lanes crossing TH 5 with turn lanes and all and so forth down to 2 lane intersection in the short term. ' Erhart: So you' re just going to leave it the way it is over by. . . Fred Hoisington: No, I suspect there would be improvements all the way over to Great Plains Blvd . but because that intersection also has to be I( part of this study, the feasibility study will tell us that and I don' t know yet , exactly what that amounts to . But we would have 2 lanes ' probably as you come to Great Plains Blvd . . Dacy: Lake Drive East , as a collector on the transportation plan , as you ' re aware we' ve done a feasibility studies for Lake Drive East on the ' west side going through the business park and that has been identified as a two lane road section. ' Conrad : Have we ever looked into moving the TH 101 intersection further west? Where the Holiday station is and moving that in there. Is there another way to go south on TH 101 further west? ' Fred Hoisington: Ladd, we are considering something of that nature that would deal with the Market Blvd . intersection . Because we have to deal with that whole Market Blvd. thing in light of some of the things that are ' being considered right now, all I will say is yes , I will continue to consider a lot of things here. We don' t look at this process as being closed at this point. We look at it as a dynamic one that has to go on and that it is continuing to change. What we' re trying to do is not foreclose options too soon also so we can deal with this in the shorter term. If we didn' t have to deal with TH 5 at the accelerated schedule that it ' s on , we wouldn ' t even be here at this point in time in doing what ' we' re trying to do. If— Conrad : Is there a motion? 1 . . 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 3, 1988 - Page 26 ' Headla : No one else picked up on the safety aspect. Any particular reason? When I hear about all these young people over there and the way we've got these roads going , to me that ' s got to be one of the central criteria we should be looking at. , Emmings : Isn ' t the traffic though Dave going to be there . It ' s either going to be TH 101 up here or it 's going to be on TH 101 over here. It is II a problem and I think what Tim said did address that. He said if we' re going to run this road down, we' ve got all these neighbors that have just moved in down there and now they've got to cross a busier TH 5 because it' s bigger and a busier TH 101 because it' s bigger . We can' t be satisfied with putting up signs like he said . I think he hit it right on the head . We' re going to have to look at that as part of the feasibility study and if we need pedestrian bridges or whatever to get people safely across , we' re going to have to put the money into it but I don ' t think that what we' re doing here is going to affect that that much. Headla : I think it can in the recommendation that we put forward . Conrad: I think we can do that when we have a route. A specific plan. I think if we ran it south, we can recommend buffering. We can recommend sound barriers . We can build stuff there but I personally haven' t gotten into that detail yet because I don' t know where it' s going but I think underpasses, walkways underneath the new TH 101. If it happened to go I south, I think we could consider that but we still have the TH 5 problem. We still have that gorilla sitting there and I don't know how to solve that. It would be nice if we could get people under and over or whatever , TH 5. It'd be nice but . . . Headla : I don ' t want to let this thing go by. If one is better than the other, I think we should be looking, I think there should be a criteria for a decision . That traveling criteria should be another one . I don' t know if you people take 62 to get to 35. That ' s deadly. 2005 and we go through here . In 2005 I 'm going to be 75 and I 'm going to go whizzing through here with all this traffic merging? Erhart : The count, the through traffic count was 800 cars a day? Fred Hoisington: The traffic approaching on both approaches to the intersection where it wants to go through the intersection, in other words, straight through going south. Erhart : Was what? 800? Fred Hoisington: No , excuse me Tim. That ' s the peak hour number . ' Erhart: Oh, 800 per hour . Emmings: At the peak hour . (— Dacy: Between 4 : 30 and 5: 30. 1 . Planning Commission Meeting August 3 , 1988 - Page 27 C ' Erhart : There are going to be how many car? Fred Hoisington: 800. ' Emmings : I 'm going to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment #88-5 as presented in ' Attachment #1 with a change that would identify the north leg option as the primary preferred route for TH 101 and identifying the proposed plan as a secondary option in the event that the north leg option is not ' approved by MnDot. Erhart : I ' ll second that. t Conrad : Fred , in that language, does that hurt us in any way? In terms of your being able to . . . Fred Hoisington: That ' s a good approach . As I look at it, both of these have a possibility of being viable options . Excuse me if I said there is only one option. There isn ' t but I think that' s a good approach to dealing with this whole question. As long as we can designate, get on the ' Comprehensive Plan and do the official mapping and so forth , then we' re satisfied. Ellson: I just had a question , if that north option were granted , we I_ would then again go to the public and let the rest of Chanhassen help us decide if we want to put off TH 5 for 2 more years? Is that the way we' re ' seeing it? Fred Hoisington : No . If you decide on the north option, that would cause the option but project, TH 5 in Chanhassen is put off for 2 years . There ' will be no choice there . As long as the City understands that , that ' s it' s decision to make. ' Headla : Say that again . Fred Hoisington : If it becomes the north leg option is the one that MnDot approves and that' s the one that then becomes implemented. Then you will delay the Chanhassen stretch of TH 5 for 2 years . Emmings: But TH 5 will be widened up to the Chanhassen border? Fred Hoisington : Probably up to 184th . Somewhere in the neighborhood of 184th. tConrad : Versus where? Fred Hoisington : Versus all the way through to CR 17 I think. ' Larry Guthrie: If the people who are planning TH 5 will accept our 1- consultant ' s plan for the cross intersection, why won ' t they accept our consultant' s plan for the north leg option? Planning Commission Meeting August 3 , 1988 - Page 28 ' Conrad : They just might . They just might . It' s not precluded that they I won' t. What is precluded is that if they accept the north option, you don' t have TH 5 coming to Chanhassen for 2 years . Larry Guthrie: I 'm saying, back to something he said, the reason for the delay for 2 years was that the consultant' s who planned the TH 5 intersection would take probably a year to incorporate this extra lane in. I Why couldn ' t our consultants do that plan and turn it over to them upon being accepted? The same as they do for across the intersection. Fred Hoisington : It' s a different situation for this reason. When we ' re dealing with TH 101 we' re dealing with different alignments. It is a State trunk highway alignment but at least it' s not part of only MnDot design at that point in time. They will not relinquish that to our consultants . Their consultants will do that on their . . . all the additional right-of-way as a part of that. Barton Ashman will need 2 years to . . . Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment #88-5 as presented in Attachment #1 with a change that would identify the north leg option as the primary preferred route for TH 101 and identifying the proposed plan as a secondary option in the event that the north leg option is not approved by MnDot. All voted in favor except Wildermuth and Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Conrad: The reason for opposition Jim? Wildermuth : I don' t think the north leg is viable. I think there have to I be other solutions other than the south leg or the current proposal . I don' t think it makes any sense, I think it ' s poor planning to look at routing minor arterial traffic for 1, 000 feet of a very busy state highway. Headla : I think the north route is very poor planning in a long range term. . . .come 2005 we' ll have the south route and . . .decision. Conrad : Okay, this item goes to City Council on August 22nd . I thank you all for showing up tonight. in PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF OFFICIAL MAP FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF TH 101 ACROSS TH I 5, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Public Present : Name Address Mark Senn 7800 Park Drive Rome Roos 1450 Park Court 1 • C. DATE: Aug. 3 , 1988 CITY O F C.C. DATE: Aug. 22 , 1988 \LL _ CHANHASSEN CASE NO: 88-5 LUP ---\-'- Prepared by: Dacy/v II il STAFF REPORT li , I PROPOSAL: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Amend the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to Identify the Realignment of TH 101 Across TH 5 If4ttc:i City Administrator a r_i,dnr d ✓ IU LOCATION; „`cad`„d I APPLICANT: City of Chanhassen � � QDst^ ��: 7 tA.J 1 I. PRESENT ZONING: IACREAGE: DENSITY: IADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- I S- Q E- 1 tbc . W- in Iw WATER AND SEWER: I..- I (f) PHYSICAL CHARAC. : • I2000 LAND USE PLAN: 17 11 Comprehensive Plan Amendment August 3 , 1988 Page 2 BACKGROUND ' The Year 2005 Transportation and Land Use Study was authorized by the HRA at the conclusion of the downtown community and developer forums in the summer and fall of 1985 . The purpose of the study was to develop a land use and circulation plan that provides for linkages between the downtown and the remainder of the community as well as to evaluate the impacts of proposed TH 212 on the transportation system. The report was reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council between August and November of 1986 . At that time, the study was fowarded to our consultant on the update of the Comprehensive Plan (Mark Koegler) and the city began work on updating its Transportation, Land Use, Housing and other chapters . It was originally anticipated that the realignment of TH 101 would be discussed during the public hearing process for the Comprehensive Plan. Not anticipated in this process was the acce- lerated widening of TH 5 . The construction let date has been moved from the fall of 1991 to the fall of 1989. Construction would be completed in 1991 rather than 1993 . 1 MnDOT staff alerted the city that if the widening of TH 5 is to proceed as proposed, all intersection issues would need to be resolved and construction drawings submitted by January 1, 1989 . Given the necessity to officially resolve whether or not TH 101 should be realigned across TH 5 , city staff initiated this appli- cation so that a decision can be formalized by the city. PROPOSAL 1 The proposed application to amend the Comprehensive Plan is to only identify the realignment of TH 101 across TH 5 . Not pro- posed at this time is the change of functional classification of TH 101 or the other necessary issues identified in the traffic study. In order for the city to complete the necessary plans for MnDOT review, the following progression must occur: ' 1 . Amendment to Transportation Chapter of the Comp Plan. 2 . Adoption of Official Map ( state statutes require that before I an official map is adopted that it is consistent with the "major thoroughfare plan" of the city) . 3 . Completion of the engineering feasibility study identifying financial implications , construction and traffic design and other issues . I 4 . Submission of plans to MnDOT. I I IT Comprehensive Plan Amendment August 3 , 1988 Page 3 The plan amendment and official map applications have been so pre- pared that they are specific only to this particular project so that the city can continue with the above outlined process in a timely manner. ANALYSIS Existing Text The current comprehensive plan text refers to the TH 101 realign- ment study conducted by the city in 1981. That study identified five alternatives analyzing the Dakota Avenue and TH 101 inter- ( section. Although some of these alternatives may have improved the Dakota Avenue intersection, the overriding concern of creating a continuous north/south route for TH 101 traffic was not addressed. In other words, traffic on TH 101 north of TH 5 would have to use TH 5 to go south on TH 101. This would add additional trips to TH 5 and exacerbate the capacity problems already occurring on TH 5 . Proposed Text The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan text includes deleting the paragraph pertaining to STH 101 on page t-36 and deleting pages t-37 through t-43 . The proposed language is taken from the proposed text of the transportation chapter. It references the Year 2005 Study and identifies the objectives of the realignment. To summarize, these are: 1 . Continuity for TH 101 for flow through north/south traffic through the community. 2 . Adequate levels of service along TH 5 . 3 . Elimination of traffic congestion in the downtown area. The realignment would require the closure of the Dakota Avenue intersection such that access to properties on the south side of TH 5 would be served by a right-in/right-out only. No access is proposed to the north side of TH 5 at Dakota Avenue. The city' s traffic and engineering consultant' s are currently evaluating whether or not a right-in only or a right-in/right-out would be accepted by MnDOT. Neighborhood Meetings Three informational meetings were conducted with property owners affected by the proposed realignment. Two were conducted on July 5 , 1988 , with the commercial property owners and the residential homeowners. On July 27 , 1988 , a follow up meeting to the two meetings on July 5th was conducted. Major concerns resulting T.H. 5/T.H. 101 Intersection (Realignment) - The Year 2005 Transportation and Land Use Study was authorized by the HRA at the conclusion of the downtown community and developer forums in the summer and fall of 1985 . The purpose of the study was to develop a land use and circulation plan that provides for linkages between the downtown and the remainder of the community as well as to eva- luate the impacts of proposed TH 212 on the transportation system. The transportation plan advocates the creation of a new intersec- tion on TH 5to modify the function of two existing intersections . The new intersection would relocate north bound 101 traffic away from the existing intersection and it would remove the intersection at Dakota Avenue in its present form. The conceptual alignment of the T.H. 5/T.H. 101 intersection is shown on the next page. The realignment of T.H. 101 provides three distinct benefits. It preserves an adequate level of service at the intersection of T.H. 5 and T.H. 101. Secondly, it improves the north-south continuity of T.H. 101. Finally, it alleviates the impacts of through traffic on T.H. 101 on the downtown area. I ' Also indicated are the PM peak hour forecasts for the three new intersections in this area. It is expected that the Lake Drive East/T.H. 101 intersection will operate at a level of service A, the West 78th Street/T.H. 101 intersection at a level of service C and T.H. 5/T.H. 101 will operate at a level of service D/E. Key elements of the conceptual layout of this new intersection include the following: A four way intersection at West 78th Street with the railroad tracks traversing the intersection at an angle. This layout pro- vides a desired connection to 78th Street east of T.H. 101 ( avoiding circuitous routings and use of T.H. 5 for local trips to/from the industrial area to the east) . This angled railroad crossing, while not typical, does occur at other locations in the state and is conceptually acceptable to the Minnesota Department of Transportation. A full right turn lane with a protected island on the east approach of T.H. 5 is not included in order to avoid potential weaving and stacking problems between T.H. 5 and West 78th Street. Right in/out only access is proposed at Dakota Avenue. Full movement access is infeasible due to the spacing between this location and the new intersection. Reasonably straight approaches to the key intersections with 78th Street and T.H. 5 . The proposed new intersection exists at the present time only in concept form. Additional refinement of the design involving MnDOT staff will be necessary to ensure efective, safe traffic operation. 240 1 C 1 I , I LY 7, �3 —7400 -��Lr ct �� um J ffli4 kiln! � a o o o co co I , '1 4112 beV 4Ptillit III I '" o triizcnt,e dog 1 � 0 __ IN© urn am w - .° . Elam m h •11/2 `�,imiy I -' NC 111M1 NMI Mir 61111 a Imo or 1 "03 illii MU LIZ 11111 1111111 e-- _, um OR. ®��u ~ 11: I�� ', W. 7=TH ST 3 MI 11111111t 11111 , I X0.7, A ,oRIV: 3 . 10.1,,,v, Fr, ; s 0.,.gtovjg. IW. a OW sc = �` w�f, NO E HIGHWAY ��. ?' de Li: �� ' � —h �-- .—. :,j ,, ■ 00 00 1 r A 41161■444:11 2"F , a 00-.....-w. ow*:I r4,.... :► p — 8200 ■ 11.17440 ri : I R L - ,� 6300 CI RCLE I f )of k, E I Conceptual Realignment of T.H. 101 1 1 1 . ... _ . C I 1 to 1 ...om W. 78th St. l;) I 2a I .4-- 7 Level Of Service = C 284 —i )e----75 7 --0. i 14 — —x It V'0fN I N N Q I O 2 F I - I tONu9 4O O N •.•Q'N I T.H. 5 II -4,--1739 ILevel Of Service = D/E 147 —1( )e----67 1513 -- 0 ---NNA 1 t r/ ...WO er CO I NI I f • No Scale I CITY OF CHANHASSEN i .; I CHANHASSEN YEAR 2005 YEAR 2005 P.M. PEAK HOUR BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD. LAND USE AND FORECASTS ON PREFERRED HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. TRANSPORTATION STUDY ROADWAY SYSTEM AT T.H. BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5/T.H. 101 (NEW INTER- ' SECTION) II ' L t-36 k IGalpin Boulevard (C . S .A . H . 117 : In ) the future, Galpin Boulevard will serve primarily as a Chanhassen collector, carrying traffic I out of the northern neighborhoods into the downtown area or onto Highway 5 . ' I Lake Lucy Road : Prior to 1990 , Lake Lucy Road should be upgraded to adequately perform as a collector street for development in the northern section of the City . The major I streets plan depicts Lake Lucy Road as being extended westward between Galpin Boulevard and S . T. H. 41 . This extension would serve both residential development in the area and the Lake Minnewashta Regional Park which is presently being acquired . IDowntown Area : The major streets plan depicts a CBD circulation system which is consistent with the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment I Plan . This plan calls for the removal of existing 78th Street and the construction of a ring road around the commercial area . S .T . H . 101 : Trunk Highway 101 has been classified by MnDOT as �1 I , a temporary state highway which essentially means that only ■ surface maintenance will be carried out and no other state funded improvements will occur. North df Highway 5, 101 is shown as being extended directly to the south to help alleviate unnecessary traffic congestion in the CBD area . South of 5 , I proposed improvements include the straightening of the curves on the east side of Lake Susan , the eastern realignment of 101 I north of Lyman Boulevard , and the combination of 101 and Bluff Creek Drive into a common access onto Highway 212 . IDell Road : The proposed alignment of Dell Road is on the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie line in the portion of Chanhassen which lies within Hennepin County. The Dell Road alignment which I is shown in the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan will carry traffic from Eden Prairie ' s northern residential neighborhoods I northward to the Crosstown extension and southbound to Valley View and Highway 5. Dell Road is important to Chanhassen as a I collector because the north and south Highway 5 frontage roads have been designed and constructed in such a manner as to allow a future connection to Dell Road . Because of the importance of this I route to both cities , Chanhassen and Eden Prairie should coordinate all future developments and road improvements in the Dell Road area . IOther Routes : The major streets plan shows other collector streets which are all continuations of their present status . As development proposals are reviewed in land areas adjacent to I these routes , the City should strive to uphold access limitations and other design parameters which are essential if collectors are to handle traffic volumes effeciently. I 1 #4-a-7 - 47 47 t-37 . ' Local Streets I The major streets plan does not attempt to i major P p project alignments of ' local streets since they are responsive to specific development j proposals and are based upon detailed natural resource information which is not generally available as part of a comprehensive ' planning effort. As future development proposals are reviewed , they should be examined to determine if their circulation patterns are effective on both a project and community wide basis . Design Standards such as grade limitations , surface widths and II spacing should be enforced . Creg,47-11 • % .\, rontage Roads Since T . H. 5 serves as the principal access into the City of Chanhassen , it is logical that future development will occur along the route. Because of this and the City ' s expressed desire to II keep 5 functioning effectively, it will be necessary to continue to construct frontage roads to serve adjacent development . At the present time , frontage roads exist on the north and south II sides of 5 , east of Dakota Avenue . This system serves the indus- trial development on the north side and the commercial and I industrial uses on the south . Both of these routes terminate in cul -de- sac arrangements and will ultimately be extended to proposed Dell Road . The extension of the southern frontage road can be easily accommo- dated since the land is presently vacant. On the north , however, design problems exist . The Chanhassen Center was an existing II structure when the frontage road system was constructed . Because of this , the alignment of the roadway was p aced south of the existing building creating an inadequate s king distance at the intersection of West 78th Street and T . H . Additionally , the II City is interested in rerouting T. H . 101 so that it can connect with T. H. 5 without requiring traffic to enter the CBD area . In order to examine the possibility of accomplishing these two goals , I the City authorized a conce p t plan study. That study proposed five options . The City is reviewing each of the proposed options and in the I future , may elect to modify the intersection area in accordance with one of the plans providing that it can be demonstrated that such work is financially feasible . ; I In addition to the frontage roads previously discussed , the City should install a frontage road extending west from Dakota Avenue to � II new County Road 17 . This route would handle traffic from the Chanhassen Estates neighborhood , future residential development in the area , and from the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park located west II of 101 . r II II 1 % . t-38 I. \ ......_________ - , . I. . .. ■ ‘44• ■• Il li I \%\ • MO % \ i C . _ .... II Ili . . _ . a P - . . Or ° . . 4 . • , 1 ;! \ \ . 0 CD 4•No ' , i 1 \ s‘ \ . i . CU .-- \\ \ \ • , • ' C 1 • \_\ \ s, % ,. . ...\ \ • Lim I I \ \ % 1' . mina i .Th-----,.`; g , am= 1 ,\„ \, ‘., \ • 1. , CU I • 1 , \ .. i , \ .-- ., e"\ ■ ..,-•""s•I \ \ \ \ • ,,,, sc./ \ -- I \ I \--__ I--I— — -; \ \ \ / , , , i \ ..• t 1 , r - 1 ' I I •. • i al \ ` % 1 \ t \ .-,--I-- ,-- -7 - I t i II , i i , / <"sN.> \ .... / ' " '‘° • \'C ' ' . % \.\\,, I i j ..•-• ' -: ,% . i I : ___. .. , i \ , . , , - # . , I ,O..),•-1 N sl,,, • ... * -•-* 1 \ , i ____ i , .' -- --* '. ■ H._ .... / /...„. \ :), ■ . ". '' . •s% \ \ \ i , • •lOsita —__... I , . \ \s 1 • i \ \ 1 ■ n 1 -.."-44 I -\ l , \ i I I .. •, O. ,El__ ._ . , - ' - --- — 0 173 , ; \' '\ \\ \‘‘ Ns\' \ x•--—-i -a. a II., - - . • •,s, I i' ' ..711 _ 13— - :3 —--.' — --' \ ■ cj, u fizr .. ., N. \ ./: , .. ; ... ; . CU - ' - --...-- if . , SP_ • • i - - \ . I ! I i D - , - - ' -- —-cl \ •' I ...u.11:1.....zr \ i 1 0 1 0 , .-_ __,/ \ \ • I 1 ' 0' ■ 0 ... ET:1 1 02 I ; •‘ '.7: - r''--i- - -' .•1 . ‘ , •\,7. . .... "-t .......:,...1..ik:4-1,..,....a: A •-.a_:am•••s..........itle.... •..1k.. MN , tt • . \ \ ' .I •• I \ \ C —I. -- \ . - I 1 a t 3 9' .Il \ ,,t , 8 a , \ % i, * f 0 91 \A , i (-- ;, , , . 1 , . \\ ‘ \ ; , 1 • • \` \\ I \ ‘ ‘ 1 • "Ill . \\ s % %. i I --- / \ A s \ • \it 0 13. I -•-•......,' A\, \ • - ia ..... .... \\ \. \\ • • \ s\-' \--., , • , \ ; ;- .... , v., -. \ ‘, \ ; ..,„. , -I—2—-- 4 • \ ., _ \ \ I i \ i , , \ \ ', , 1 -SI , , , \\ . \ -i r ...... . ILI 1 / , ‘ , _ ___ _ __._ ___ I ...1.1 i ' . - ■• L -/ A --..... --, ' ; f / /,/A t..„4;.,,, ,c : --, S \: . ) ‘"- •\ _ . / , ". . 1, \\ % \ \ 1.1\ I I I '•• •I i iI i• • I , s // / ./- N. ,)-"'••••0 ‘ \ \ \ \ k . \ ‘ I \ • A ..•••• ..". . N. \ % \ ‘ ', \\<.N■1 i '•------\.,\ / ' A 7..... ...... t . I I ...k'/3%--j-•\ _-••••••. ,\\,/,,„..„,....., ..;........., ..„„„ ...... ,...... _ --••• : 1 .... \ ‘, \ • 1 ..--- ‘ .., ..... - \ — -5. \ c\• ■ I -rs 14. t g i \ •A,, \ \ \ 0 1 - (ii. 11!•1-1-E7:57-iti; In/ ell:::\I i 1 ..JI • / %\\ I\ \ \\ \ • , \ i 1 . \ . \ \ 0 I‘ ,U -,-'`I,- • I \ , . i \ a . \ r'''\, ‘- — I . Qc3 ...,.. , \ .. I, „, „, - ___ ._ 1 , , , , . \\ -..c.„. N..... , ;---n-: in_ -_,:, To 4 ii ri 1 i;.•\‘ 1. \ '°■ . ' -, ''1:31 ; ■ ou 7r a ; --ir.- - \ , ,_._ . _,■...._V_.4 • \ \ I , \ ■'-' : r, —': Ci I th crf :. ! !-•No- -Ji- - -- 5 - -___ r. - _J .. • ', . ' I i 1 •c.- 2,-- ,\ \ \ 1 C=, O! ' \ s \ ( I_.— — _ _q ,_ ocrir __il \ • i \ • , \ 121 I , , 1 ---11 a--; • . 1-,5--0-. ,--0---1,----; L _ _ \ \ \ ----, ritItair 13-'-• ' .-\ \ \ \ ' C3 ;33 0 0 61 ' \ \ \ MIL lililUrust 1 , \ e) . I I i 81 "•-• 1 \ \ ,_....._.., i i, a t 1 b I \. \ --._J._.....d_____, i----: • I 0 Fli I.35,.• ' 1 \ k • \ .A l• \ \ \ 0 i . , . :1 la i ' ,_,....,:,.. , . , ;LI I , • 4 : i .. •• I- . . ParameeTh • ••- . . , , / C=1 • in 0 , 1 . . i 1 ,--a .1-1-...-7.7: .... 1 f7.`.......7: ;• Z , L. j ...••••S. ir.....ft•:.,11l.t. '.t• •. 1 7...•.4".".1....%.:.. , ' \ ;II_ . . I OCO 1 • I . 1 I • \ al 'S i 1 1 \ lit I i -- . I. t—4 0 t k \ 1/1\•%\ \ ig a) \ , \ , ; ; a a \ \ ( ; 0 • \ . • LIN i . 1 , . NC I , ■ +1.16 • \\11 I . I \ s:\ . 1 _ ". - ....) A.\ \ "\ Sot • i I . I , \ .... \ \ ,‘\ " ' ; • 14"1 i / \‘,.. •S‘, '----1—'-'i A'' \ i a -----,, , ‘ , \ ' ' Ca I , s • .,"\ • • I I , \ ( N, \ .\ i .-.2,1 ' \ \ .--"'" \ I ,..... / \ - 1 / s< \---1-1----4 \ • \ ', k i • - , :C / \ / , . \ • II i - 1 • a ' • \ • 1 „mlia t 'Di I I I I 0 1 • \ ' • . . MIMI / t _i • _i_ • I.t_ ___ ..„ _ _ _ _ __ - - 7., . - - - - - - - - 1 1 I 1 / / / n, --.._ / , - ••-• \ i i i 1 / 1 i / /c) \ ' '''\( ) \\ \\.\ ■ I I i / \ (.\ ■ , 1" 111 1 ..-..i....1- / " ` ... ..," ...-n .,.... 0 . s% N , „ , . „ , , , \ • ----■ / ' -, .- ---- -- . / „.• „. ...--- -- '■ _. _6( \ \ , , .___ ___.„. , ; , . , \ - ---i i--- -_ „ \ N • CI I \ ', I ' i \ \ 1:1—il I 1: —.1; i ii7 3 v I • \ \ , ' ■ , _. ‘-' . I- ( ' , - r • at . A . .\\ • . \ ■ -%, \ \''' \ I --- -- - - -- - - - 1. n , a \, , .. ._7:_a _. :_ _. N 0 -0- L'i ,i n '. --\ \ . \ N ; 0 'A; -;, iit" -' :-O.- ' ' Y't \\ -. ,...; i. _ , N ,.--4 ,th ; 0- -CI--,: . \ * \ I . , a , .1 , i 4 r. •-•-nas !' C3 ti- -1 -- itr , \ \S \ \ i ■ i \ , ',._.61__],_ _._ _, > L -._ -I- - --, \ \ .. \,\\ . I I 1 I- .: ,___”r __.., • \ 1-1 i ■ 7,t3- -- a I -Do 1--- r-- -''''. 1. ,„ \ \ '‘, \ \ rt.! I 1 -I ri-i I.7.-0• ii . I I \ I - - 1...._—_i 1... - I I C:3-"I.—05-C1-i ID -,..‘-1 I- .- — -.1 r--1 - - _. 'MI \ \ \ \MEL\ \ ' 4 ‘\t I :. F--.--J i . 0 , !05,I 1 I \ I. \ \ \ r "4% •,, • I; 1---..-‘, ... . t L._0._ • 1 I .s P . 1 \ .. r. i\•• I • • .. . . . ,. 1 . i i 1 r-rat I : :--‘•• - - ' - 1 t- r... . f- . 1 , ,. \ . - 1 • . . . 0 . ), t,---, . t L ''.P. $ L._.....:_._.-.......4_,....................... INE , ■it ,„t \ , --- 1 ± ,I ■ - - _ --' „ . : a : 3 0 I .. t 4 1 „‘ \ \ ■ iholl C. \ \ t , \\. • ..\ • \„ ‘ ‘ s A. I I 41.1.16: \ s\ --- , 1 \ \ \ 0 , 1 I .:---1---„, ,-\\ \ •• (Di , 0 — --,--.`< \ '• \ i 1 460 \ . . , 7. , \ ,:.• . • \ ',., ‘. \ s I C ' / < , , • , \ ./ .... -, \ ! Lon I -/ I 0I \ 'S r MN= WI - -- - - - - - . - _ A . .._ ... -.7/ \\ I i I • ' \4 ) ! ,, \ I■N .',c ,_-i , - ,' ' - ' I i _ _.I. ■_ • . ' - ' — % % \ . • • i' I • ai ! , _ ‘ , , , ., . .. _ ,. I i 0.,... _...... , , . , • ..-- • V '- C 3 . , . .., I 1) _--. - 0 a J ii_17:1:0; . , \ „.■ , ' --__ 1 CA 1 01 I ... _. _,_ _ c r, _a- 0 0 - , V: - — . __ . . o . \ . \\\ 'S. \ \ I N., 0 IC11:13.- -' an ; B f \ . •, 0 \ 1 ' ,' , . '• \P. g ;-b, -;r rICI- -. Co- -7- - --1 , , \ N „. , 7 DI - . ti -- • - -t3- \ , ‘ , , . • I I 0 , , • \ . 1 I • D --- .0 - -0 . . 1. \ \ . I . --- ri- : Di ., i ‘, t * , .c3---.---ci-c/- ;-a----1- - ---! r - -- -- -- -'• --C-'-'1. a 113-- -- ti- '.C2 C1'r1 -6 , i--_ , ,---—— —7L1-77 -. --,7,,, -—-- -L \‘ .---- tg; C:1 i ,9 ..t I , \ \ : 11 • I • - \ '%■-• ,03, , 1 1 ■ \\ \111 0 r 1 r-■ I i • i i ' ■ . ; 1 1-•- -. 1 1 • L ..__ j*_...._...., .......- . .-. • •• , . - _ • . r--1 1 n litj n ..,...3 1.........1..-41-;#,..2.,„.1. • ri i 1,77.-....,..\, . • -._._..• A.,, '■ 1 ■ ._ ,--.1 II, ' t-42 I a a ',‘ \ i 1 : 0 I , , . , \ \ . . 1 „ , . . .,. . Aims ...- . \ I ': I I. ) \\ 0 ° )I \ 5 \ 1:1 I . 5. f ' \ \ ,\ % i 1 ,..s' \ --." s I ' \ \ \ / ...''\i' 15- ,, \ \ 7. ..• ,--- . , . , N‹ \ \ ,, \ . "C i / \ \s I \ \, t . .. I --'f I I 0 \ \ I I t i 0 .j a; \ ■ i ._, - -- --; — — -- — _L ,. 1%, 1111■1 -.---..los.q,ma am ser.ea=alorse.”....sala n•AV--- -.-.---- -2', . \ I - _ _ I t i / 1 /,., A ---__. i ■ I i I / . t• \ , \( \\k*, 1\1., _ _.. __ _._ _ __ _.:\, \ I, I I 1 I / / / . ., . .1, .\ i ,. • ..•,'.....* - --- 0 . ' 0 \ % , -, \, ,. ---- , rc— .• ..,' \• a! 1 , ... , . 1 , ,_ . , •• .•••••• \\ \% % .\ \ •••••• • ••••. .-•••... % 10 \ '• L--- , , ..-- -- --- :——I-7 / ./ . • IR ,--- .----- \ , \ -- 1 0 I i \ , 0 \ g /I 0 0: . cl A '. ., , t \ s, . . .., , \ , I . • * IS. \ .■ i % . \ , \ \ , • , ,..°.,■ , . _ 0, CI •• \ I _ _ _ ._ --•\ --- - - -- - - -, -- -- 1 0 . 1#„\s— --, , • \ \ \ , \ , ; 1 '5 , D ' _': : c=)i Is, ,, \ ' op ,- --0 '. t \ \ . \\I i 121 u 4::: ]-- --ti-o- : -E7 - -- -:. , • \ \ \ \ \ 53 -- ---,- - - r 37": , ■ 1 \ \ p \ l \, \ _mui»wad 1,...„ c I o ■ . cl, f?..! Li .1,5 , 1 1 . - -0- 0 1 . li .ii;1 , , \\7: I , __.- _ 0 - - -- I r r'1 •G I.° , • ; , 11\ 1 •••• • . • .o, - ---- ----7-1ino - - 5 ••••: ' r---1 4 n , . __ . _ _ __ 13 i ;: ,... -I. ,..7-1-4.)1Se 4.15.AY,.. --M I. CI::...•.?..). . •, • MI 17? BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS I 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE,SUITE 119/EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 553441(612)944-7590 II August 1 , 1988 REFER TO FILE: 88-34_28 II Mr. Fred Hoisington I Hoisington Group, Inc. 7300 Metro Boulevard Suite 525 I Edina, MN 55435 RE: T.H. 5/T.H. 101 in City of Chanhassen II This is to transmit the results we developed in response to the following question: What are the traffic implications if the south leg were eliminated at the new proposed T.H. II 5/T.H. 101 intersection? Figure 1 presents the year 2005 p.m. peak hour forecasts for the original plan and potential alternative scenario. Figure 2 indicates the traffic lane II configuration and level of service results for the two scenarios. As shown in Figure 2, the alternative scenario would involve I the following three major traffic changes: . Provision of double left turn lanes on T.H. 5 - from II the east at Great Plains Blvd. and from the west at the new, proposed T.H. 101 . . Elimination of free right turns on the south leg of I Great Plains Blvd. at T.H. 5 and on the north leg of the new, proposed T.H. 101 at T.H. 5. . Addition of a second through northbound lane on Great II Plains Blvd. south of T.H. 5. Let me know if you have any questions regarding these items. II Sincerely, I BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. ),\.A.‘‘mes A. Benshoof, President II II cc. Mr. Howard Preston Ms. Barbara Dacy I Enclosure dkl 0r3I JAB / / 02/d PRESENTLY PLANNED ROADWAY SYSTEM (PER REPORT DATED AUGUST 1986) 0 J co _z O W < tD O ONM 3S tOON w eL z � R N T.H. 5 i 1x- 219 K-154 , 5 . 4--1679 147—il 4-1739 1272—` g— 12 1513--) ic--67 72--a irIc aoo N + 00 `7 O ,....\ M WITH ELIMINATION OF SOUTH LEG AT NEW PROPOSED T.H. 5/T.H. 101 INTERSECTION 0 0 m N O H 2 omr- 3 LIa. Ncon z1-- u' N T.H. 5 11 4111 x— 219 Al � ; k-154 5 -4 4---I 638 530 4-_1806 1272 -, lc-481 1573—10. I Itil N �t CITY OF CHANHASSEN FIGURE 1 T.H. 5/T.H. 101 STUDY YEAR 2005 P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUME PROJECTIONS SpBENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS t 1 PRESENTLY PLANNED ROADWAY SYSTEM (PER REPORT DATED AUGUST 1986) T.H. 5/GREAT PLAINS BLVD. T.H. 5/NEW T.H. 101 FREE ) k— —FREE FREE 4 -- -A FREE.------4/ FREE ffrFREE 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE C/0 LEVEL OF SERVICE D/E 0 WITH ELIMINATION OF SOUTH LEG AT NEW PROPOSED T.H. 5/T.H. 101 INTERSECTION T.H. 5/GREAT PLAINS BLVD. T.H. 5/NEW T.H. 101 FREE -4 Ile II c FREE il Ulf K___ _ 4--- :::::t 4----- FREE ✓^� littr „. LEVEL OF SERVICE 0 LEVEL OF SERVICE D/E e igsr- N FIGURE 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN T.H. 5/T.H. 101 STUDY LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND YEAR 2005 LEVELS OF SERVICE $ BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES, INC. ♦ TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l Planning Commission Meeting November 5, 1986 - Page 34 I Dacy: Also in 82, I don't think it is a real burning issue right at this point but if I take this report to the Council with a copy of your Minutes, let's say this month or next month and have them incorporate it into the I Sign Ordinance which I think will be passed with the new Zoning Ordinance. We could eliminate a potential item on a future agenda. It is not that critical . I Conrad: By incorporating it into the Sign Ordinance for a public hearing. When would the public have a chance to react to it? Dacy: In December . Conrad: But they would have a chance. Okay, then don't schedule a public hearing but I think you should bring it back to us so we can vote on it. Erhart: Do you feel that you have direction on this number of signs per sign? IDacy: Yes, I have the direction that we should not require that and instead require a number per subdivision and a number per intersection. BROADENED STUDY AREA UPDATE - DOWNTOWN ROAD SYSTEM. Dacy: I put this into a little more understandable language. I did I ( Joof though. The one arrow on this one should have been pointing to Lack of Street Continuity. It is true in both cases but I had the arrow in the wrong direction. In any case and I have to apologize the third paragraph, that second sentence doesn't make sense. Your original comment, Mr. Chairman was should we ease the severity of the angle coming into downtown. The consultant came back and said, yes this could split to the north and this is a conceptual design that Staff felt really had to be looked at in detail . Conrad: What is going to be in that little triangle Barbara? There's not going to be a house right? Dacy: No . Here? IIConrad: Right here. Why don't we just slide a street going there because this way nothing can be here? IDacy: When you do that you are always looking at different trade-offs. If we move it to the north then you have to acquire one more. IConrad : I 'm adding a new road . Dacy: That ' s Schlenk ' s house. 11 Conrad : Oh there is a house there? ' I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 8 , 1986 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, James Wildermuth and David Headla. MEMBERS ABSENT Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT Barbara Dacy, City Planner, Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner, and Todd Gerhardt, Planning Intern APPROVAL OF MINUTES Erhart moved, seconded by Emmings , to approve the minutes of September 24, 1986 as amended by Ladd Conrad on page 1. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Siegel abstained. Review Response by Benshoof and Associates Regarding Broadened Study Area Dacy reviewed Benshoof' s response to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission requested staff to further clarify the access issues at the new TH 5 and TH 101 intersection with the consultant. The Commission felt that refinements could take place in the intersection to better accommodate traffic waiting to enter into Chanhassen. Review City Council Action on Proposed Zoning Ordinance Staff gave an overview of the City Council' s action taken on I ' their four day review of the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Staff and Commission also discussed Commissioner Erhart' s points on his proposed requirements within the rural area. The Commission directed staff to keep the Commission updated as to changes made I in the ordinance. Staff also reported the City Council' s action at the October 6 , I ' 1986 meeting regarding recent Planning Commission items . Review Request to Initiate Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Fences The Planning Commissioners in review of the regulations on fences have requested staff to review the following areas: I , C1 . Location of the fence on or near the lot line. :2-4ki I I CIT'Y' OF CHANHASSEN \ , , , . \ I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission and City Council 1 FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Plann r ' DATE: August 21, 1986 SUBJ: Broadened Study Area, Year 2005 Land Use and Transportation Plan Attached is the draft report which Fred Hoisington and Jim Benshoof will present to you Wednesday evening. This report 1 concludes a year long study of the important transportation issues affecting the downtown area including the effects of the TH 212 corridor. The following outlines the important events 1 leading up to the determination of the need for the study. 1 . Fall, 1984: The City Council posed the question of whether the HRA should continue in existence recognizing the minor activity which was occurring with the downtown redevelopment plan. The City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Authority met in October where it was determined that a 1 "fresh look" should be given to the downtown redevelopment plan. Consequently, Brauer and Associates was selected through joint action of the Council/HRA, as the firm to complete the re-evaluation process . Fred Hoisington was designated as the Downtown Redevelopment Project Coordinator to represent Brauer and Associates as the consultant for the HRA. 2 . January 15, March 14 and May 9, 1985 : Community forums ( two 1 public forums and one developer forum) were held to gain con- census on a concept plan for the downtown area. The forum process produced general concensus that Alternative Concept Plan No. 2 is the one that should be pursued by the HRA (see Attachment #1) . 3 . June, July, August, 1985 : Concept Plan II proposes the con- nection of a new north/south street west of the Bowling Center across the railroad tracks and intersecting into TH 5. As this and other transportation issues are very important to the success of the concept plan, the HRA determined that a traffic 1 � Planning Commission August 21, 1986 Page 2 study was necessary to provide the basis for future decsiions for street improvements as well as to work with MnDOT while design plans are being established for widening of TH 5 . The consultant had recommended that the traffic study go beyond the immediate downtown area and be "broadened" to the area between CR 17 and Eden Prairie. Further, the HRA determined that after completion of the Broadened Study Area, feasibility studies for the street improvements, stormwater management improvements and sewer and water improvements are necessary. These feasibility studies would have had to been undertaken despite the existence of redevelopment efforts. The City currently does not have a specific stormwater mana- gement plan and problems exist with existing utilities. Thus, the HRA authorized what was known as Phase II of the Downtown Redevelopment Proposal. To summarize, the objectives of the Broadened Study Area were established as: a. Develop a land use and circulation plan that provides for functional linkages between downtown and the community as a whole. ' b. Develop justification for and assume a proactive role in the pursuit of another Highway 5 access to downtown. c . Work with and acquire the concurrence of all agencies regarding Highway 5 accesses. d. Evaluate land uses in the general vicinity of downtown in 1 light of recent downtown plan revisions. 4 . October, 1985: In preparation of the initial work on the t broadened study area, the consultant determined the necessity to include TH 212 and evaluate its impacts on the study area. At a joint Planning Commission/City Council/HRA meeting, con- ' census between the bodies was reached that the effect of the TH 212 corridor should be studied. Therefore, on November 7, 1985 , the HRA authorized amending the contract for the broadened study area to include the TH 212 corridor. 5 . December 18, 1985: The consultant made a presentation to the Planning Commission regarding which land use alternative should be used as a basis for the transportation study. The Planning Commission, and subsequently the HRA, determined that Plan A should be used by the consultant. Plan A reflected the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and contained the recommendations of the Planning Commission for the proposed Zoning Ordinance. I 1 ' Planning Commission August 21, 1986 Page 3 1 6 . January - July, 1986: The consultant continued to work with ' MnDOT staff regarding the intersection onto TH 5, its impacts on other existing intersections in the immediate vicinity of downtown and investigated with MnDOT the possibility of an interchange at TH 212 and TH 101. On July 31, 1986 , the con- sultant presented initial findings of the study (See attach- ment #10) . The study is entitled "The Year 2005 Land Use and Transportation Plan" . Required Action and Future Process ' Action required by the Planning Commission and City Council is to give the consultant initial comments regarding the report before final adoption by the HRA. Further, this study will be ' distributed to MnDOT, Hennepin County, Eden Prairie and the Metropolitan Council staff for their comments. All of these com- ments will accompany the report to the HRA for their acceptance. At this point, the HRA will refer the plan back to the Planning Commission to include in the Comprehensive Plan updating process. Implementation of the plan would follow the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan ( see Attachment No. 2 ) . Attachments 1 . Concept Plan No. 2 - Brauer and Associates. 2 . Letter from Fred Hoisington dated August 11, 1986 . 3 . Letter from Fred Hoisington dated July 1, 1986 . 4 . Planning Commission minutes dated December 18, 1985 . ' 5 . HRA minutes dated May 30 , 1985 . 6 . HRA minutes dated July 11, 1985 . 7 . HRA minutes dated August 15, 1985 ' 8 . HRA minutes datedNovember 7, 1985 . 9 . HRA minutes dated December 19, 1985 . 10 . HRA minutes dated July 31, 1986 . 11. Year 2005 Land Use and Transportation Study. 1 CITYOF gr 1 ,,1 CHANHASSEN I , , i ,_. ,,..,„ il - ., . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission II egV- FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner 1 DATE: October 29, 1986 SUBJ: Broadened Study Area Response Comments 1 After review by the Planning Commission at the October 9 , 1986 II meeting, staff met with the consultant to review the additional concerns regarding the new intersection on TH 5 with TH 101. The Commission' s comments were to further clarify whether or not the II southbound entrance into the community on TH 101 could enter at an angle less severe as proposed in the conceptual layout ( see Attachment #1) . Secondly, the Commission requested additional information II regarding the possibility of West 78th Street intersecting TH 5 instead of the new intersection over the railroad tracks. 1 In response to the first comment, the consultant felt that the conceptual layout proposed in Figure 17 is indeed "conceptual" . 1 He felt that adjustment in the angle of TH 101 and possible shifting of the intersection to the north could occur to make a more desirable right turn movement into the downtown area. He stated that a four-way 90° geometric design should try to be II maintained. He stated that maintaining the existing alignment and pattern of southbound traffic on TH 101 to West 78th Street, plus a new north/south leg south of West 78th Street would create 1 the necessity for a T intersection. With no connection to the eastern segment of West 78th Street, he stated that there is a lack of street continuity. This leads to discussion of the 1 second comment. The consultant felt that having West 78th Street intersect into TH 5 would force local traffic onto TH 5 which already has a significant amount of flow thru volumes as well as preventing street continuity for West 78th Street. Further, II interruptions along TH 5 should not be permitted except at major intersections. He stated that local and flow thru traffic should be separated (see attached graphic) . 1 In summary, the new intersection along the railroad tracks as proposed in the conceptual layout of Figure 17 in the plan, can 1 --# 7 I IFT Planning Commission ' October 29 , 1986 Page 2 ' be refined and deserves further detailed study to promote the easiest right turn movement into the downtown area to encourage ' traffic to downtown. However, at the same time, street con- tinuity of West 78th Street should be maintained so that local trips do not have to shift onto TH 5 where capacity already poses a problem. ' Also attached for Commission information is a letter from the Family of Christ Lutheran Church regarding the impact of the sub- ' ject intersection onto their property adjacent to Chanhassen Estates . Staff agrees with the consultant that further detailed review and possible adjustment of the proposed layout can be achieved to address these concerns . In making these final deci- sions , however, staff agrees with the consultant that street con- tinuity and proper geometric design for traffic safety must be the criteria by which to evaluate the final design. ' Comments from the Planning Commission as well as the other agen- cies reviewing the document (Eden Prairie, Carver County, ' Hennepin County, MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council) , will be forwarded to the HRA at the December meeting. At that time, the HRA will refer the plan back to the Planning Commission for con- sideration of inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan update pro- cess . The timing of the HRA meeting coincides well with the proposed schedule for review of the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Commission wants to offer further comments, such would be appropriate at Wednesday' s meeting. MN M 110111 MI I MN I NM • MN 11.11 ME I IIIII M E ME Mill M Way be shifted to north I I f..' - , ::, 1',...11. 72.42.1‘ ( xozl :os jxo ihi_ ~O'; //'. ✓ i;' °°/ 'i ° ^ , 1 Ji I l 1 I ��j I io �•-�—o— • o l, 1,.71. .A ' z '•zoel'aol it o .'\'�•'' , ' - s� • 1 lll... I i L x^ f zzl i o � e.. o, . ,,.,lo I)/ ,�,�: I �` a' LL.t� I .e.a^I o/.o/ / o° / cwwuss[r� 1 f_ I � L^.=f ( -'u•� ' lO / ' orncE muv�ax II}; mzowu € 1 sr..,usur si i. f,L.,-.1, ''. -:=� to �' n-, o P .;=D o ,, r.I 1/ r; / q'� •'I' ° / �_ cv,E21 1 l.1 OVA.• ll^°c��1 I • .i ��dd8��... . ,�r■.°° ° 8° ? l h ' ° � 1, €b1 scnccr_ o e�� ;c f • °* r�-� ,;'. :, t h .,:` ' ' Q' i-1 ' ---.h /! /rs z �--+i 1 ;o.�i-�°°�, s-kT I :'%i:: I �. a a � f �St. =�=•s.a .. 9i I rol o.i 1 of ' :zz•.uc� y •, '.�. ":'c'`';: ,4+^/ ''. 18tr1� _ ' — _ • =u-78th St. ..allaar;w..: • 4 �!^1 y 1 1 ✓ aco .. / � "�•.""... loo 1 I•' ILw'"G11I or°mat o oa •d O .."•10.ow, i / A f("›...„,,,-,...:..,..-,--. ��' •""".•� ° 1 t �,�. • / •v:� i • ,K"°' �ti /� ape o quqa l ��• \` o may[ Im'^ >e °° i'�1 ■ �� 1p:.'.l d14.. ,.F .,..r/ /• s1F ,',: . of oil I 4.-11 o° o (I • I _ VIII G�..a. I Rli °° .. �y.. ii `� � % .S. SH j./ll I ' I I o I' / ` .�1 ,CAI ° �. pO .o ' ""v '�, '�6 �, `I ,,; f ..L. i Ii i? s\ i0t�il .% e 4....., Tr { us 1< f �'^--- 1��9�^_,8' ,�'"�r I OIESE1.I R 'I• o ° �-'L �' 1 `V� =�//f�I• r.- 2.---, - ' TZ.'�__ �� . � \� sco o\*O O;; ��3.� � .R., � LAKE 1. - �Ij v' r-;-- ,i. ki i 1•iT o `` .r ▪°�.•. : ",c o i,� _i _- --,--� ter'-r.-'-r-r.- -I a Sz•- a 3 - .1� I f � '' .., i o°r� . ',ic-� � 4.r I i /I( q { ac z•c ,• -- •�_� i '.I �auncol - j .'r' �` ` ) •�Gr®I o I °i�'� —'I 11J'3'I / FIGURE 17 " 1111'1; ,/,—1k,----..,-;7= '1--1;:' I CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT OF ' i " �'-' '� — .—L:�i �// I ,t,...41 NEW CONNECTION OF T.H. ''i s . : jl ,, 1 •ca traffic to TH 5 lol TO T.H. 5 �>/1�'-- -'^ / � (� �� i � r o .� i N I I ~ ,,,. :. ift ;'_.....4.4. % ° s �- interrupts turning mov @me I CHANHASSEN YEAR 2005• lik� ~ / LAND USE AND ' TRANSPORTATION STUDY l .. f e Jro - . ° L 6d' Z CITY OF CHANHASSEN ,� a ,q oq Lack'of street continuity x Iii oC ° ( 0.v o iir 1 v e • [! ° C P�� BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD. 1 06. HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. '° O 1 T.H. 101 �`' BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1a a! . \ +°° s, • -44- II MI - MI - NM = MN NM MI • NM MI I= MN IIIIIII =I MI (_ - _1, >o; -_ • 7-. - o— — •(---- " _.... ,.., ,,_:!; ,..p , , ,.., ,„,____,. . ' V` ° ` °�/ f I '�Io '! =�.• i I. 1 4t ;� 1• I ° 9 u° ..u. ..,—,.- .-- ! ,. c_. r -1l i wn • ,.oi= I I 'T b� o I ,--0 Jo--I / i✓ oD/ j[,u..ssEN 1 1 I I , i--��` 1 II ~-a . ' • „ , /�N� ' coma ...LT, ' LI`01 T� SC � L, -4. ° I I j �• •, ° %°°''''�,./• J - �j °°°p° ! /`' ;I p 1 I I j i' — I ro: I �0 ' I f 0. • �F �iz+I.:c l z LOaA O� °t _ '✓ ,_ , ��- �y-/ __,. i^ � o '/ -------- —N. 78th St.- o Ti - u SL_- t L I co I I I o o ` � f e° . r, ;.a �_ o L L fi fi':I rI \\1(,-, 74:...,. �a"j . 1I1 I; 1 _� LL ° \Y• � ,� _ . �' mil^I ,....--0-,-- y ^ 1 < o �f€ >�CC•` _�P 'I n f `t _ � ,.,fsf"°` o\ ^� °I \ V i��j �i s. _ ;x •' 00...c,. ..• .00--..,. --J -� LAKE DRIVE EAST - /!>`� L F,.- �!�' }gip?`/ I C FT- IGURE 17 .,� 1 '"� L �// ' I INA NEW CCONNECTION OOF OTFH, �I X/ -r I i 101 TO T.H. 5 I z 1 it I Oti'' • > I� Y „II/./// ,J1' l 1 %' W �/ -i;_I ,-J___ I ' W• I_ , CHANHASSEN YEAR 2005 I LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION STUDY L _ M• I 0 rn z iiLl ° o4 •° .. EI'- _•I • a `o�` 9 N CITY:FA::::::::NLTD.o 11 T.H. 101 EH BR)° 0 AVER 200' HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. —44— Scale BENSHOOF 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. 7 MI NM OM NM I NM I MN MI IIIIII IIIIIII MI = MN ME MI NM r. THEATRE (� ° I I j: 3 1 ' .i ' ,,- .,. .« ` - ,I - � 1 , ._ • IIII it �y �Ca i " 5 j I V Im\ 1 °.+fl • °° / ::....... .:-.:-.',-.0 .. ^ �i' _ 9"7"1.!‘-----1 s I,o. Ii _ zx! IJ i 11 ��I 1 I�!` r1 i'111%�i \ v 1 ---ice I : . 1 5 �'•■ —`; 1 s 'I .�• i ins I 1- , 1%. (,Q rte,—'1 I 1 r � 8 �ST l 1:::: / / • 1 1. G i ' k'44. I �_1 1 .�.-"�, � :- 1 x/791^-- / 'I.^ ° ° I ^-r��Imo^-- I' . tea%= I__� i t;c•�l°I � �_ i' _ `'. I ., ,'� _ ��_•G °/' \\ � 14____::'.1• 1--- —••1 I ?IT; /::�'/ .; \ i- ' %.--;',`",1: / a e, I-- �`�<�/�\ii ,,I \�� ; f— �` � I'Lam- "`►►►i � / Fr- , sc ,:„,..,':::)-://,' ,,1 �lEV‘ M;e \ -, ,1 �� E1 � / /� �% .i 'f, 2'• I Vi �/i r I .. a - Q / ,i , �::S I '�,o:a = w \ �V ° �` ° FIGURE 17A ____, _ �, ........- f Jro o -f� EPS CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT OF �� I O°R o ° 1 0 o T.H. 101 REALIGNMENT ------ 1 — - &; I C E INCLUDING INTERSECTION � ;% �\ '` :�`; � �P� \ OF GREAT PLAINS BLVD. �: \ °0 , / �PN�/ AND T.H. 101 �J y 1, F' 0 • ° ` .j I 1 °o itv, ' I y°Fy CHANHASSEN YEAR 2005 ' sc q' �`. +.— . i— e l` --T— p P. LAND USE AND • •e— — .,,,c.?-,--7:-- ° I 1'' i ce TRANSPORTATION STUDY ••— Ali c• g , l ° roe o ° .1 •� I_a IN/o° s m ` /<'?r%"' I1 '+ , 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN rte.:;;•••./(.. N 1 �O . -A o�,�000eoo�V ,�` `+ ¢ i ^ _ I BRAUER 8 ASSOCIATES LTD. %1 i 3�l,c------ d"i 0 200' HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. \ Scale / BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. II k CITYOF \\I CHANHASSEN ,\LL 4-' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission and City Council ' FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner DATE: October 2, 1986 ' SUBJ: Response by Benshoof and Associates Regarding the Broadened Study Area At the August 27, 1986 joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting, comments were discussed regarding the proposed Broadened Study Area plan. The two major concerns that were raised at the meeting were: 1 ) the design and nature of the T.H. 101 realign- ment may discourage motorists from entering downtown; and 2) the design of the new T.H. 101 and West 78th Street intersection ' poses concerns regarding intersection separation, stacking distance, manueverability and access. Staff directed the consultant to respond to these concerns ' recognizing that these very questions may be asked during the public hearing and review process of the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. Attached is Benshoof' s response, ' including another graphic of the T.H. 101 and West 78th Street intersection, indicating the Lake Drive East and T.H. 101 inter- section. Please remember that the timing of the realigning of ' T.H. 101 and the new intersection would be intended to occur simultaneously with the Dell Road (184th Street) and T.H. 5 intersection. Both of these improvements would be done in con- junction with the T.H. 5 improvement and timing of these improve- ments simultaneously would resolve some of the manueverability and access questions posed by the Commission and Council. ' No action is necessary; however, feel free to comment. Staff will be prepared to review the items listed in more detail in the attached memorandum. BD:v 1 1 i � 1 IR? BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS ' 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE,SUITE 1191 EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 553441(612)944-7590 I September 25, 1986 REFER TO FILE: 86-34-43 ' M E M O R A N D U M I TO: Don Ashworth, City R of Chanhassen A 7'7veG✓ I FROM: James A. Benshoor and Michael L. Wonson RE: Response to Comments Raised at Joint Planning ICommission and City Council Meeting on August 27, 1986, Regarding Draft Report for Chanhassen Land Use and Transportation Plan I PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to questions I raised by the Planning Commission and City Council on August 27, 1986 regarding the conceptual realignment of I T.H. 101 as shown on Figure 17 of our draft report for the Year 2005 Land Use and Transportation Study. In general , two principal issues were raised: • The design and nature of the realignment may discourage motorists on T.H. 101 from entering Downtown. • The design of the new T.H. 101/West 78th Street inter- I section raises potential concerns regarding such aspects as: separation, and resulting stacking distance, between T.H. 5 and West 78th Street; truck I maneuverability; awkward curves; needs for a slip ramp to west-bound T.H. 5 from West 78th Street; and ability to retain the existing West 78th Street alignment and I railroad crossing. CONCEPT CRITERIA AND CONSTRAINTS I Through the traffic analysis, five principal criteria evolved which governed the conceptual layout presented on Figure 17 in the draft report. I Traffic Capacity on T.N. 101 - Based upon the year 2005 traffic projections, a traffic assignment and analysis was I performed utilizing the existing roadway system. This analysis indicated that the current T.H. 101 alignment (through eastern Downtown via West 78th St. and Great Plains I At-"t?Ytzrttl.t.t i"i '"V I I i k I Mr. Don Ashworth -2- September 25, 1986 II Boulevard) would experience significant growth in traffic volumes resulting in congestion and other traffic difficult- ies (Figure 5 , Year 2005 Transportation and Land Use Study) . This congestion would result in disruption not only for through trips on T.H. 101 , but also for access to/from the I Downtown area. As such, it was concluded that through traffic on T.H. 101 needed to be accommodated via a new alignment in order to preserve viable access for Downtown businesses. Access to Industrial Area East of T.H. 101 - The industrial area east of T.H. 101 /Dakota Ave. and north of T.H. 5 is I projected to generate 2500 daily and 230 PM Peak Hour trips by year 2005. Upon full development, this area could generate up to 1200 PM Peak Hour trips. While the majority I of trips to/from this area will be oriented to the east, (where the intersection of Dell Rd./T.H. 5 will be a major signalized intersection) , access to/from the west is necessary to: allow easy access to goods and services provided in the Downtown area • avoid lengthy and circuitous routings via West 78th Street/Dell Rd./T.H. 5 for trips to/from the west - If I a direct connection to/from the west were not provided, motorists traveling between properties on 78th St. east of Dakota Ave. and the west on T.H. 5 would incur extra travel distances of up to 1 .5 miles. it Limited Additional Railroad Crossings - A general transpor- tation planning premise is to limit at grade railroad cross- ' ings for reasons of traffic safety, disruption in traffic flow, and acceptability to the railroads and the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation. The preferred roadway system indicates a new at grade railroad crossing connecting Main Street with T.H. 5 just west of existing West 79th St. (a grade separated crossing is infeasible) . To enhance the opportunity for approval of this new crossing, it would be I desirable to limit any significant changes or additions to other railroad crossings in the area. Acceptable Design Standards - In developing the conceptual 1 realignment of T.H. 101 and its intersection with West 78th Street, consistency with general roadway design criteria was a significant consideration. These include approximate 90 Idegree intersection angles, spacing between intersections on T.H. 5, design speed for roadway curvatures, reasonably straight intersection approaches, lane requirements based I upon forecasted turn movements, stacking requirements, and relationship to the frontage road system south of T.H. 5. if I Mr. Don Ashworth -5- September 25, 1986 • Slip ramp on West 78th St. to westbound T.H. 5 - T ' he idea of a slip ramp was expressed by one participant at the meeting on August 27th. In conjunction with this slip ramp, the proposed east approach of West 78th St. to T.H. 101 would be eliminated, removing access from the west on 78th St. and T.H. 5. While this idea is possible (provided the slip ramp and associated acceleration lane are located sufficiently distant from the T.H. 5/T.H. 101 intersection) , it is contrary to the criteria of providing viable access from the west on T.H. 5 and easy access to Downtown for the industrial area east of T.H. 101 . • Increasing separation on T.H. 101 between West 78th St. and T.H. 5 - This pertains to a possible alternative solution whereby West 78th St. would be shifted to the north, possibly to its existing alignment. This concept would increase the separation between T.H. 5 and West 78th St. and also would result in two, closely spaced railroad crossings (new T.H. 101 and West 78th St. ) . This concept, which offers some potential benefit in terms of increased separation between T.H. 5 and West 78th St. , could be implemented if two railroad crossings would be allowed at this location. The concept, however, has two significant weaknesses : - Additional land acquisition north of West 78th St. would be required in order to provide a reasonably straight approach for T.H. 101 north of the inter- section with West 78th St. - This concept would create three locations in which vehicle queuing could stack backwards to the railroad crossings (southbound T.H. 101 at T.H. 5, northbound T.H. 101 at West 78th St. , eastbound West 78th St. at T.H. 101 ) . In light of this situation, the proposed alignment with a common intersection of West 78th St./T.H. 101/railroad crossing is considered more safe from the standpoint of vehicle/train conflicts. I ' I i Ii I Mr. Don Ashworth -6- September 25, 1986 CONCLUSIONS The issues raised by the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the realignment of T.H. 101 are valid ' concerns. The traffic assignment and analysis based upon the City's projection of growth by the Year 2005 indicate the necessity to separate through traffic on T.H. 101 from traffic to Downtown, not only to accommodate through traffic ' on T.H. 101 , but also to preserve viable, uncongested access to Downtown. The conceptual realignment does make pro- visions for facilitating movement to Downtown from T.H. 101 ' to ensure effective uncongested access. The layout of the realignment is a uniquely difficult task in light of the significant constraints present, such as ' provision of viable access, minimizing land acquisition, current land use patterns, and roadway/safety design criteria. The conceptual layout shown on Figure 17 in the ' draft report is a result of the analysis of numerous alter- native layouts and represents a valid compromise among competing constraints. Each alternative, while creating ' greater consistency with one criterion, results in potentially greater conflicts with other criteria. For example, reducing the tight curvature on certain roadway sections requires greater land acquisition and potentially greater impacts on adjacent residential land uses. The conceptual layout presented represents a viable alignment, but indeed is only a concept at this time. In conjunction ' with a detailed engineering feasibility study, further analysis and more detailed design will be required to ensure that the ultimate design responds as best possible to all pertinent objectives and criteria. 4r BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS ' 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE,SUITE 119/EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55344/(612)944-7590 REFER TO FILE. 1 June 27, 1988 88-34-28 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Gary Warren, City of Chanhassen ' FROM: James A. Benshoof and Michael L. Wonson .97,1-‘4,1 RE: T.N. 101/T.H. 5 Traffic Analysis ' PURPOSE ' The purpose of this memorandum is to assist the City of Chanhassen and Minnesota Dept. of Transportation in developing a definitive roadway design for T.H. 101 in the vicinity of T.H. 5 and for the intersection of T.H. 101/T.H. 5 itself. The memorandum addresses three basic issues: . A summary of the analysis of alternative alignments for T.H. 101 in the vicinity of T.H. 5 . Year 2005 P.M. Peak Hour forecasts for two alternative roadway systems . The characteristics/composition of traffic on T.H. 101 These issues are principally addressed through summarizing salient aspects of the 1986 report: City of Chanhassen: Year 2005 Land Use and Transportation Plan, August 1986. ' Certain aspects of the alternative alignments were also discussed in T.H. 101 Realignment Study, May 1981 , prepared by Schoell & Madson Inc. ANALYSIS OF T.H. 101 ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES Four major alternative alignments for T.H. 101 in the vicinity of T.H. 5 have been identified: 1 ) T.H. 101 following the existing alignment through the eastern edge of Downtown Chanhassen on Great Plains Blvd. 2) T.H. 101 intersecting T.H. 5 at Dakota Ave. , with some reconstruction north of T.H. 5 to provide a more suitable north approach than currently exists. 1 C Mr. Gary Warren -2- June 27, 1988 3) T.H. 101 intersecting T.H. 5 east of Dakota Ave. ,9 ' accomplished by reconstructing T.H. 101 from its current "jog" north of T.H. 5 due south along the eastern edge of the existing apartment complex. ' 4) T.H. 101 realigned to intersect T.H. 5 west of Dakota Ave. as recommended in the 1986 report. Drawing from our previous analysis, the following summarizes the rationale for eliminating the first three alternatives: . T.H. 101 existing alignment - This alignment would result in congestion and queuing problems at T. H. 101/T.H. 5 (Figure 5 - 1986 report) , in penetration of the Downtown area by T.H. 101 through traffic, and in less than desirable continuity for T.H. 101 . T.H: 101 at Dakota Ave. - This alignment creates a variety of difficulties as summarized on Figure 7 of the 1986 report including congestion/queuing problems ' at the T.H. 101/T.H. 5 intersection, tight curvature on T.H. 101 , lack of continuity for T.H. 101 , and use of T.H. 5 for T.H. 101 through trips. ' . T.H. 101 east of Dakota Ave. - This alignment would result in a lack of continuity for T.H. 101 , use of T.H. 5 for T.H. 101 trips, impacts on residential properties in both Chanhassen and Eden Prairie, acquisition of property intended for stormwater drainage purposes, circuitous access for the Downtown ' area, and significant difficulties in providing an appropriate frontage road connection between T.H. 101 and Great Plains Blvd. ' Given the difficulties with the alternatives identified above, the recommended alignment is relocation of T.H. 101 west of Dakota Ave. Both the 1986 report and our memorandum ' of September 25, 1986 to Don Ashworth discuss the rationale and benefits of this alignment. Key benefits of this alignment include: ' . Continuity for T.H. 101 . Adequate levels of service along T.H. 5 ' Elimination of through traffic from the Downtown area ▪ Property acquisition (the cement plant) consistent with the City's redevelopment and land use objectives. - Mr. Gary Warren -3- Jun e 27, 1988 YEAR 2005 P.M. PEAK HOUR FORECASTS Figure 1 present the Year 2005 P.M. Peak Hour forecasts along T.H. 5 which were prepared as part of our 1986 analysis. Two alternative roadway system scenarios are represented: . Year 2005 planned roadway system without a T.H. 101/T.H. 212 interchange, without relocation of T.H. 101 west of Dakota Ave. , and without the T.H. 5/Market Blvd. intersection. . The Year 2005 preferred roadway system recommended in our 1986 report which includes the T.H. 101 ./T.H. 212 interchange, relocation of T.H. 101 west of Dakota Ave. , and the T.H. 5/Market Blvd. intersection. CHARACTERISTICS/COMPOSITION OF T.H. 101 TRAFFIC In preparing the 1986 recommendations concerning the ' preferred roadway system, functional classification, and jurisdiction of T.H. 101 , particular attention was paid to the characteristics and needs of traffic utilizing T.H. 101 . Three particular aspects of this analysis are germane to the current decision making process: . From a daily traffic standpoint, "through" traffic (traffic external to the Chanhassen and Eden Prairie portions of our 1986 study area) comprises approxi- mately 48% of the year 2005 volumes on T.H. 101 north of T.H. 5 and 437. of the year 2005 volumes on T.H. 101 south of T.H. 5. . During the Year 2005 P.M. Peak Hour, the forecasts indicate a significant volume crossing T.H. 5 on T.H. 101 (approximately 800 trips) . This volume represents approximately 65% of the total approach volumes on T.H. 101 during the P.M. Peak Hour. . Of the 800 vehicles crossing T.H. 5 on T.H. 101 during the Year 2005 P.M. Peak Hour, approximately 565 trips (over 70%) are external trips (trips "through" the 1986 study area) . r m zN ., vhf1D _\\ N ...,..,.. N • N M Ws b N i f ki1/4Nik..... [stir, 1f 391/ 377 -.-.0 !14/ l06 ��1298/1335' ��—1879/!715 154/126 141/ 137 ) i( 59/ 6t �- 64/ 56 741/775—"•— 0/ 4/1 1498,1388�� I 20/ 15�� f / �—2474/1739 411/ 240 Ps 0/ 113 J' 0/ 67 412 C, ON in 2195/1$13�� f ) n.om......„..........arti V 000 0/ 0 'Cr \\\ fm 1 L't. -. 1..//`• 66 gym° -.4. .1036/1626 m 0 o,-7s it......0/ 11 000 , o T.H. 5 1169/1087—. .- r` Ty ��a CO I 10 • L� OOO ■ 0 • Q1 .N I X .°.° Cl I J ) fL - 304,� 0 1948/1960 • 395/ 0� 26/ 0 • 1745/1693■•■• > 45/ 45 _ f <":71,5 In I OOm 4.Cli 4..1 �.. Cf 4) Q3 / 1 TNN Y D co 336/'219 U- m / .x•1682/1679 75/ 5 A 456/ 12 1073/1272...i- 21/ 72■ ! I �/ t / Does not include relocation of N m T.H. 101, construction of Market Blvd., -S�_. N N m 4 lb T or T.H. 101/T.H. 212 interchange. 0 1200' Does include relocation of �.) T.H. 101, construction of Market Blvd., Approximate Scale or T.H. 101/T.H. 212 interchange. XXX/XXX J ,CITY OF CHANHASSEN Figure 1 T.H. 5/T.H. 101 YEAR 2005 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TRAFFIC FORECASTS BENSHOOF&ASSOCIATES, INC. Z.°1P TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS Ulrico Sacchet I 8071 Hidden Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 August 15, 1988 I Dear Chanhassen City Council Member, Are Y ou ready to make a decision about the proposed T.H. 101 realignment by I next Monday? Do you have sufficient information to make a sound decision? I trust in your good judgment and am not trying to hold up progress, but I would I like to point out some additional aspects of concern not only to myself and my family but to the entire Brookhill neighborhood. I The interests of the proposed realignment of T.H. 101 at Lake Drive East clash head-on with those of the existing and growing Brookhill family neighborhood. I It is not my intent to criticize the planning processes of the City of Chanhassen, but I fail to understand why the realignment project was kept in the background basically unnoticed while a whole development of family homes was approved and to a large extent developed. Should not, whenever possible, highway considerations be resolved before residential developments are put in place? The transportation study on which the T.H. 101 realignment proposal is based, was in progress in 1985 and completed by mid 1986 when the Brookhill development was started. By now, unaware of the impending proposal, over I fifty families with at least as many, mostly small children have made this neighborhood their home. We have made a considerable commitment to this area, based on the commitment the City made when zoning these properties for single family homes and when approving the Brookhill development. Dear City Council Member, we live here now. We are no longer a proposal or a plan, but a physical reality, an existing, active group of Chanhassen residents. The prospect of a major North/South through traffic corridor being routed next I to our backyards makes me wonder. Are we all of a sudden in the wrong place? Practically in the way of a proposed Highway? Had half of our lots better been I zoned commercial? What happened to the previous commitment of the City? The proposed realignment of T.H. 101 at Lake Drive East seems to have some I merits in view of through traffic accommodation. However, what benefit does it bring to the City of Chanhassen? Is it sufficient to justify compromising the I safety, soundness, and desirability of a whole newly developed family neighborhood, as well as sacrificing a proposed shopping center? Is there any tangible benefit to the residents of Chanhassen and their children as a whole? Thank you for your attention. 'n el , (r I Ulrico Sacchet 8071 Hidden Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 937-2371 ' July 30, 1988 Dear Chanhassen City Council Member, I was dismayed to learn about the planned realignment of T.H. 101 at Lake Drive East. I believe that I am quite well informed about this project. I studied the Yenri S Land IJse sun/Tn s wrtsrtivn Study that was completed in August 1986 for the City of Chanhassen as well as the T.N. /O/ Re Izei,n ent Study dated May 1981. Further I attended both informational meetings held at City Hall where Barbara Dacy and Fred Hoisington presented some aspects of the project and attempted to address questions and concerns raised by the audience. The proposed realignment of T.H. 101 at Lake Drive East is totally unacceptable to me ' and the residents of Brookhill/Hidden Valley. As just about every neighbor I know, I had a family home built in this area in order to have a healthy environment for my children to grow up in and to enjoy the serenity of a more rural environment within comfortable reach of the Twin Cities. Of course it was obvious that the City of ' Chanhassen was booming with new developments and that T.H.5 would be improved. But nowhere was there any indication that Lake Drive East would potentially become a three or four lane highway with a traffic volume comparable to the current T.H. 5 load before our children have grown up. Already at least one house has gone on the market as a result of this proposal. And no doubt there will be more should this project be accepted. ' The desirability of the Brookhill properties is not only evidenced by the fast pace with which houses are built but also by the quality of people choosing this neighborhood. I and my family quickly got accustomed to treasure unusually warm ' relations with many neighbors and the incredible number of small children in this vicinity. Now it appears that the City of Chanhassen,for rather questionable reasons, is preparing to sacrifice the desirability of this neighborhood and to seriously impact the quality and safety of living here. Is this how the City of Chanhassen welcomes a neighborhood of newcomers? I am not inclined to think so, for it is my understanding that you, the members of the City Council, represent the local residents. I would expect you to ensure that the interests of residents are duly considered and that business and through traffic interests can not run rampant. I do question the need of connecting T.H. 101 to 212 in order to increase Downtown ' accessibility. And I particularly question the wisdom of making T.H. 101 a major North/South trough traffic corridor, especially since it appears that the Minnesota Department of Transportation would like Carver County to assume responsibility for T.H. 101. However, my main concern is the realignment of T.H. 101 at Lake Drive East. I do not see how the construction cost and the impact on local residents could be justified for only marginal projected improvements in T.H. 101 and 5 intersection operation. If heavy T.H. 101 traffic should be encouraged as the realignment ' proposal suggests, at least it could be kept from running through the backyards of our new family homes. After all this would be easy enough to accommodate by letting T.H. 101 coincide with T.H.5 for 1000 feet or so. Please take into consideration that your decision about the T.H. 101 realignment proposal will not just affect Chanhassen's through traffic volume and maybe its Downtown accessibility, but first of all hundreds of children and their parents who attempt to make this area their home. Si c ely�� Uli Sacchet r I _ __ _ _ _ •_;RAJ._ ) t 40 , Uct-U-c-1 ec-2-u-etaisa_A-1 --tkek"---111 susbcc-cd- Ct-Ji c 0.4 %-sr--1.A;so_ 0,A.d2 A.4.4„cal a.4/4- -4 •k/s-z--- _ a _ I 0t_ctin i c--v7-.5c__ k42_0--)L ci 60-tAi\- 1„..„..._ciL,„!...2f11 • L.) vy) 44, Jo/ airj ±449:31 o_c_4_,-4 0 11077,,.? 1 A" P(IA hi .0(CaL17 L,‘XA,U46jz.A_ C", 04 I: a440k. 4.A.1.4_,w 444.s (12-c.st-AA-4- I ' I I4&i 17-Ac,-4 j,07..9,-0 1-0 ,1-4-L52 0-1-10_,„.h.c . E4,1-ctr..-0 ki7.4. 4_,60-tilp_cd_ I . cA) 0--(4 1 _ _ .....111_ __ 4,\A-w-e ifin cj,4.42- 4 _ . 61- , :7e (>0 , o_t_,,...-.4 1-1.,_a_ ..413_e_tQZ 6L--. - ei-,4_, 4 ) 1 ei-jioi -44_,Q I ....______________ I10,...a0,44„ 0 -.°•(,...ie., 0,..,c.p. _ H-t-i-o p--,■ _010 42)0 CS ,• - I - - -___ , . I__ ---- _- - - _ - .. - 11_.. I -- --- --- - - __ . . ________ I __ 1 July 28, 1988 Tom Hamilton ' 440 Chanview #9 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' SUBJECT: TH101 Realignment I want to relay my severe opposition to the proposed TH101 realignment. Having attended both meetings Barbara Dacey arranged to listen to Mr. Hoisington speak, it is very obvious that this project is being rushed because of the i-I'_ghway 5 expansion. There are too many unanswered questions and a total lack of evaluation of impact upon the homeowners. All the presentations were toward accomodating traffic from the north getting to the south and traffic being allowed to go east and west. Each time we asked about safety for residents, noise, property devaluation, etc. - there were evasive answers or the reply was that it would be looked into. In summation, Mr.Hoisington himself agreed that his proposal was not the best and his reports prove that the problem only goes from an E level to a D/E level. In effect all this proposal does is switch a present problem --(from the north side of 101 to the south side) and it creates many new problems. Among them are: SAFETY: The Brookhill area is single family dwellings with a multitude of small children. Their only access to a commercial. area (present Q Superette) would be across a 4 lane state highway. - ACCESS TO DOWNTOWN: This proposal isolates the Brookhill area from downtown and makes it very difficult and inconvenient to attempt to get there. INABILITY TO EXIT MARSH DRIVE: Mr. Hoisington's study shows that there are presently 3200 cars per day on 101 south of Highway 5 and that will increase to 15-18,0(.,0 by the year 1005. Plans are to route Lake Drive onto 101 at the Q Superette. Due to the short distance from Marsh Drive west of 101 it will be very difficult for those of us exiting left out of Marsh Drive onto Lake to make a turn across 4 lanes of traffic. With the proposed addition of a stoplight and the added 15-18,000 cars per day we will be effectively land locked and must always turn right. In effect this directs us toward Eden Prairie to conduct our business and not toward Chanhassen. NOISE AND POLLUTION: This is a residential community where people have moved for its appeal. The addition of a 4 lane highway in our yards will have a very adverse effect on the quality of life and the value of our homes. II Page 2 LACK OF NOTIFICATION: Most of us have moved into this area quite recently and ' no mention was made of this plan. In fact all indications were and still are that this was an excellent residential community. Still in existence on the south side of 101 is a large sign stating "SHOPPING CENTER OPENING SOON". ' Instead of the shopping center are we to get a 4 lane highway? Doesn't this reek of deception? This proposal is too much, too fast without proper study. I haven't even ' touched on funding which still seems to be a question left very early unanswered at the meetings. All considerations have been given to the upcoming U.S. Open, and traffic by others through our city. I ask that you provide consideration ' for the homeowners of Chanhassen and reject this proposal. Another meeting is scheduled for 7 :30 P.M. August 3, 1988 and I would ask ' that you be there to find out the true feeling of the constituents. Regards, x i Bill ' treepy ' 321 Sinnen Circle 1 ' I Michael H. Wittrock 8022 Dakota Ave . ' Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 July 29 , 1988 ' Bill Boyt ' Jay Johnson Clark Horn Dale Geving Tom Hamilton To whom it may concern: Like many residents in the Chanhassen community I 'm in opposition to the proposed rerouting of 101 , especially to the south of Hwy. 5. I feel that this proposal would cause a safety hazard and an increase in noise for the residents and their children. I don ' t feel comfortable about decisions being made which will affect our community so much before an impact study could be done , and I have even more reservations about the proposal when even the designing engineer has admitt- ed to problems with the plan . Some of the reasons I object .to the proposal .are : 1 . The new 101 south of Hwy. 5 would be too close to a residential neighborhood , causing an increase in noise level and a hazard to pedestrians . 2. The proposal will create yet another busy road for the residents and their children to cross to get downtown , to parks , to trails , and to school . When moving to the com- munity the safety of my children and their ability to get around that community was very important in my decision to locate here . 3 . Because there would be no turn off of Hwy. 5 for west bound traffic to get to McDonalds , and Ivan ' s , that increased traffic would be carried by Lake Drive across Dakota Ave . , creating another hazard of broadside collisions and to pedest- rians . Even now without the increased traffic , many people have had near mishaps at this intersection . 1 1 4. Where proposed 101 would cross Hwy . 5 the hill to the south of Hwy . 5 would have to be lowered to accomodate the intersection . This would cause two problems . The first is that eliminates a natural noise barrier from traffic on Hwy . 5 , ' the second problem is it would eliminate a natural rise in elevation which would be the obvious location for a future ' pedestrian walkway over Hwy .5. If stairs were needed for this walkway , it would be prohibitive for bikes . 1 5 . The proposed 101 has two hairpin intersections built into it . Even the engineer mentioned this as being a problem. ' There has been accidents where 101 intersects with 78th St . because of the peculiarity of the intersection and yet a very similar intersection is planned south of Hwy . 5. 6 . There is also a potential problem of stoplight spac- ing on Hwy . 5 , and also where the proposed 101 inter .ects!with Plains Blvd . should stoplights be needed there in the future . The engineer had mentioned these problems in spacing and also ' that MINDOT would not "like" three sets of lights on Hwy . 5 , so we would have to remove Dakota Ave . lights and use the shorter spaced lights . This does not make sense to me to eliminate the lights on Dakota Ave. since Dakota would be equidistant from the proposed 101 as Plains Blvd . is to the proposed 101 . The speed limit would have to be lowered to prevent rear ending , so why not use the lights at Dakota Ave . to regulate traffic flow and save the intersection to provide better access into Chanhassen for the south residents? I feel many problems of rerouting 101 would be eliminated if 101 could share Hwy. 5 to Plains Blvd . Most communities ' both north and south have dealt with 101 successfully in this manner . For my family and for the residents living south of Hwy . 5 I 'm asking you to please not approve the proposed 101 but ' to consider another option or do nothing until a more compre- hensive plan can be studied . Thank you. Sincerely , Michael H. Wittrock r 1. pro . hw 1 0 . tom. o`--� - - sue \0• wYQ. • bRd -c1 c & h born . Wiz_ w oua c J.LksL 648 , owe. © ► Lion, t vim ice.-\Dh. cbor a% k \3- 11\-L),A4-bir t Acre,t5 9)\)=)\z-g-Q-snr` -L"--4- y\ -Ht=1:i2A: v\-ke4' a 1 kA-A , \c .cL-ve- c r rr L c k csb ocJ2 )6}L)a.z_cKL-cg %„u-,LAA 04-) �� cam, t,D o-ff 1 . ,L/y\ Q.ty jwc_Q_ \D‘ � u-Nr1 U ' 4\o.LAt-N ..- 1\raLtte LC2-)1(-e-Q-- S a� 1 1 � 1 1 � 1 1 R .7-- ,241/7/r_i ,174 ;24 A )-7 7//;id I ,/ /2 ,4/, ‘"b et ) 6//7, /C2,4J/f 1 1 1 C 1 / o- ✓ Ai_tizi' f f I I 0.444 I (64 ca.61A.A..--b14_04, Lita41,1,41.4te,". dAvt2i_ 1 I '--L& rl- - L I� , yA-0-111-6-0e-e-al /o/—0 ai 9,+ �-&,:, , ' 0 , ,e gee, .- I c2,_,..de,e,a.(je.a4-e_c V-t ettvt- -"Liz-e-d,-(-4-sa-1-0-1 (_-r-t_ 51-et_. ._ Iyr-i-e-e4-‘17-zi lAtig-4-o-A-G, ; Lt_<"_, L a LZE � L c� D F C � iifl Q[ I 04, L.- git-e-4- t—st-v 524.k, L/1-c-61---a-eit-0-4:1-a `-71-4-14J eaMENII JUL 2 2 1988 I CITY OF CHANhASSEL'4 1 Milinri* 1 ..•llpA�'�:k rgift e. 944 ' cX !►4C /O/ duh. Le CO-e. 4-t c) i /d/ 1/11.4 ii S' X i cZ U 1 du-e- Le-- 0. i tAe d-tsz-o--x JO/ v/4 ),}..cl-t' /r-/-7 / / 5-?-4-,.-ed I ---- &Z; ) i I MOW. - r ir- . I Melanie P. Wright 320 Sinnen Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 July 20, 1988 I Barbara Dacy City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Barbara: I am very concerned about the plans for the realignment of TH 101. My family and I moved to the Midwest, from the West Coast so that we could enjoy what the Midwest has to offer. Among many things we felt that Minnesota would have more peace and quiet, a good place to raise our children. We rented for a year so we could get to know the Twin Cities Metro area, to find a desireable neighborhood. We finally decided on Chanhassen and Rottlund Homes. I feel if you realign TH 101 as you are proposing to do all that we were trying to avoid will be thrown in our faces. We will hear a lot more noise, endure a lot more dirt (dust from the road) and a threat to our childrens lives. Has an enviromental study been done on how it will affect our neighborhood, and our lives? Rottlund Homes didn't inform us about this proposal - if we had known we would not bought a house there. All that you leave us to do is fight. Right now businesses line the highway, keep it that way, don't put our homes in jeopardy. In the long run what really concerns me is that a busy highway will endanger our childrens lives. Please reconsider this action. Sincerely, Melanie P. Wright I J U L. 2 5 1988 CITY OF CHANhASSIJ I 1 Michael H. Wittrock 8022 Dakota Ave . Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 July 29, 1988 Bill Boyt Jay Johnson ' Clark Horn Dale Geving Tom Hamilton To whom it may concern: 1 Like many residents in the Chanhassen community I 'm in ' opposition to the proposed rerouting of 101 , especially to the south of Hwy. 5. I feel that this proposal would cause ' a safety hazard and an increase in noise for the residents and their children. I don 't feel comfortable about decisions ' being made which will affect our community so much before an impact study could be done , and I have even more reservations about the proposal when even the designing engineer has admitt- ed to problems with the plan. Some of the reasons I object .to the proposal__are : 1 1 . The new 101 south of Hwy. 5 would be too close to a residential neighborhood, causing an increase in noise level ' and a hazard to pedestrians . 2 . The proposal will create yet another busy road for ' the residents and their children to cross to get downtown , to parks , to trails , and to school . When moving to the com- munity the safety of my children and their ability to get around that community was very important in my decision to locate here . 3. Because there would be no turn off of Hwy. 5 for west bound traffic to get to McDonalds , and Ivan 's , that increased traffic would be carried by Lake Drive across Dakota Ave . , creating another hazard of broadside collisions and to pedest- rians . Even now without the increased traffic , many people have had near mishaps at this intersection. V L'i) AUG 01. 1988 CITY OF CHANHASSEN (7 47 4. Where proposed 101 would cross Hwy . 5 the hill to the south of Hwy . 5 would have to be lowered to accomodate the intersection . This would cause two problems . The first is that eliminates a natural noise barrier from traffic on Hwy . 5 , the second problem is it would eliminate a natural rise in 1 elevation which would be the obvious location for a future pedestrian walkway over Hwy .5. If stairs were needed for this walkway , it would be prohibitive for bikes . 5 . The proposed 101 has two hairpin intersections built into it . Even the engineer mentioned this as being a problem. There has been accidents where 101 intersects with 78th St . because of the peculiarity of the intersection and yet a very similar intersection is planned south of Hwy. 5. 6. There is also a potential problem of stoplight spac- ing on Hwy . 5 , and also where the proposed 101 intersectsLwith Plains Blvd . should stoplights be needed there in the future. ' The engineer had mentioned these problems in spacing and also that MINDOT would not "like" three sets of lights on Hwy . 5 , so we would have to remove Dakota Ave . lights and use the shorter spaced lights . This does not make sense to me to eliminate the lights on Dakota Ave . since Dakota would be equidistant from the proposed 101 as Plains Blvd . is to the proposed 101 . The speed limit would have to be lowered to 1 prevent rear ending , so why not use the lights at Dakota Ave . to regulate traffic flow and save the intersection to provide ' better access into Chanhassen for the south residents? I feel many pro))lems of rerouting 101 would be eliminated if 101 could share Hwy. 5 to Plains Blvd . Most communities both north and south have dealt with 101 successfully in this manner . For my family and for the residents living south of Hwy . 5 I 'm asking you to please not approve the proposed 101 but to consider another option or do nothing until a more compre- ' hensive plan can be studied . Thank you. 1 Sincerely , Michael H. Wittrock 1 II ( July 25, 1988 Ms. Barbara Dacy City Planner ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Dacy: ' I am writing you with regard to the proposed realignment of T.H. 101. Unfortunately, we were totally unaware of the plans to modify the existing road when we first purchased our property in Chanhassen almost two years ago. Had we known the current proposal was being studied at that time, we undoubtedly would not have ' chosen to locate in Chanhassen. If the tone of this letter seems slightly hostile I apologize in advance to you, however, you must understand that there are a number of things happening in Chanhassen that we do not approve of and this "realignment" is the one thorn worth fighting out. With as much property tax as most of the people in Brookhill pay ($3,200 annually) we are appalled at the extremely poor judgement in proposing the use of Lake Drive East as an extension of Highway 101 to carry an average load of ' 11,000 to 20,000 vehicles a day by year 2005. What kind of City Planner would locate a major arterial roadway within 30 feet of newly constructed upper income housing with many new families with children? I personally find the logic in this decision severly flawed. Why does the city feel a need to again reroute 101 through a residential neighborhood with projected traffic levels to exceed the currently overburdened Highway 5? The city of Chanhassen is in place to serve it's citizens and not provide easy ' thoroughfare for residents of other communities. The current placement of T.H. 101 is more than adequate and should not be altered. The real problem at hand is Highway 5. Once it is widened to four lanes the burden on 101 will decrease. ' As a side note, I would also like to mention that in recent conversations with many residents of Chanhassen, it has become clear that a closer examination of just how the city spends taxpayer's dollars is needed. I would caution the ' City Counsel and the City Planner's Office to make their decisions on issues such as this very carefully or the Democratic process will see to it that people will be elected that can. Sincerely, cieVay ffr y L. Peters Holly A. Peters 8120 Hidden Court ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 JUL 2 1988 1 i;iTY OF CHANhASS!.., I Ulrico Sacchet 8071 Hidden Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 937-2371 1 Don Ashworth, City Manager 1 Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 July 30, 1988 1 Dear Mr. Ashworth, Enclosed you'll find a petition against the Realignment of T.H. 101 at Lake Drive East. To date, this petition has been signed by 92 individuals and businesses who reside in Chanhassen and oppose the planned realignment because of the reasons listed in Failure Points of the Provosed Realignment of T.H. 10/ at Lake 1 Drive East. Also enclosed is the evidence that 70 of these individuals have granted me, Uli Sacchet, permission to be their spokesperson. Could you please pass this petition and information on to the Chanhassen Planning Commission and the City Council. I f I can be of any service to you or the members of the Planning Commission or the City Council, please call me at work 936-8558 or at home 937-2371. Sin erely, 1 > if 1 Ul i Sacchet 1 1 .1 1 r c I PETITION AGAINST T.H. 101 MERGING INTO LAKE DRIVE EAST I As resident of Chanhassen, I oppose the proposed realignment of T.H. 101 at Lake Drive East. I object to the proposed realignment because of the issues stated in Failure Points of the Pr000sedRealignment of T.H. 101 at 1 Lake Drive East. IName Address Date . ,04.PI. . .3.1/. Agel 41.Az- ‘lefrhoemApil-53-1/2 74//es- . 1*.t.-/'Ai-6.-t--: ..-P .-dolt Lizi:)e. ,. ........., *. 55-.3!-7. .112:1102 1 a / if -Al 4 . �4./. 55,317 7/ / I �� . ,3.// .,dden.%ne &,"�.fis:3`7 74/Igo 441( '. l/ ce ?I7 7a a 1 � •. -. . . . .�/ �. . . . ors:-,. �f. C.14Q4 515j0 2/2z I471 . . ais , . OP1.7 . • /??COA . 1C': .C...i) is . "3!? . i,' . . . . . . ( .A:r , d,�. . 3l7 -71 cy 1 v tf . M 5« 0 h ,,_ 55317 7/2z7 I ' 11, (0-3 . .4r . tvl istt Qv- a iA 553l 7 �/ 4 1 . 1 ,. rivaDrdoxi ►'') 7 7)---/c S I '6(/ 4 A Z Co ii cry 13k . S31:1- 7/Z2 9t Z_e/_I 0 9-Z..u 3 „, 0, 64 ix , c5-311- 7/298o � , I11111114*`_ . lei . . .///WieN .d...t1 5.-- 3/7 7,2‘,177; 1. I 1. .-S60 -.57 7 722 I I t. • r c 1 PETITION AGAINST T.H. 101 MERGING INTO LAKE DRIVE EAST I As resident of Chanhassen, I oppose the proposed realignment of T.H. 101 1 at Lake Drive East. I object to the proposed realignment because of the issues stated in Failure Points of the Pr000sedRealignment of T.H. 10/ at Lake Drive East 1 Name 7. i Address Date I ,- 7-7.<.e/%1/ 4,,_ _ 0.;?c) 1/-. /.o4c7e. . -7--c .2 ) -g- "thoL,' mL P, 0).(42,4c &sac) - , ' i,c_ (2t:it 1 . . Z.v2L_ . s.-Y.2/0/4 chi i',; -7,- ,71/- gr I 1)4 . � 1 I /1 ' - ! . 0 . (:)--?-1 1-it C • 2t ' 2`4 NOP ' 4 1 I v i__c,elt: S e 7/ -Y-C-Cede-,r7 a..6 7/1 2 ii-f- I "RiatAft 0,1 4' ad,,, gor/ xtacyze,„ et:„,e, 71,,, ,,frt, I r-- � ^ xh,� L/ iivW .��t � i ' rnll'f�1 �1� r�� ' � �rl �lr �I��/�iiVJi? . , is O:� . l; <� CVdi. �o u-.'�- . . S;t`',:' .21 1• /2 / 2Vl/ A . Z/ /d I 24:,,......, `XL./.4 ,G L'� / G<,c t% titer - ,;?G-IS' yam. ip y01i/�.rly &,Vi da a,e,Q /- 1.� -39 1 ,� eat /�,CL. :L- ,e 7/ Ak66."u4-t L'c - -ja"-- 1 1 I I I . I II . r r I PETITION AGAINST T.H. 101 MERGING INTO LAKE DRIVE EAST I As resident of Chanhassen, I oppose the proposed realignment of T.H. 101 at Lake Drive East. I object to the proposed realignment because of the issues stated in Failure Points of the Pr000sedRealignment of T.H. 101 at 1 Lake Drive East. 1 Name Address Date t i it.M .G4---- t C( 7-2 ( -U(0 � I . 7-.0:_e7,6e4a ,vd . . ,-, './ c.?• XQ,?.i.‘, ./64:c. . . .7/,.z.//cf.'(f. - ( . ,. . M. 1. tsic/t,, CY- 7/”/ Y. I(<it, (F/, / /�/o� CTi � 3-3? Ilk' � R101 l-4 0 -7I ZS l&8 . . . ) . . , 1 1-,�`% 1 8091. k-d, C -7/2,34 Y. . I , aolaj21*,9 g '') 41 i '6L'''74 2-,, -7173h g ,O8l4 t. 7ti- 'z.= S(9,4\ \-\ c\cied' Cour* —7/a31 ,s, ' ,1/( //O s- f 44 %A /; 1 ' ' - c f . . . . C- ).f- fl.). .v\\C} Z.c),-- t_o- --k(). . . . n 1 k I i i.„....,..„/ e . yl, - ‘_. gi/./ 0,e,4e, L,‘, 7/2.3/,cs- I af472-14;feiveo exi/ 4.464-ii a/ 7/.es,/if W ' - - / /7 4 4 4 . .c/ . . . . .7/ /% .. . .- . - `Ap . . . . .8. 2Q .7b'e/1 dl 7/z/ I //k444-1(11'. 7.,4e. ' q -6. (f t=iff- 4.,e_ 7/,? /(ib I 90 tic( &-ti:. st_. Ct,0 7/2 VA/. 1 :4-rp‹/A . of. . .5'/ o .1 0 0 e e, 7/ /r5) C 1 PETITION AGAINST T.H. 101 MERGING INTO LAKE DRIVE EAST 1 As resident of Chanhassen, I oppose the proposed realignment of T.H. 101 I at Lake Drive East. I object to the proposed realignment because of the issues stated in Failure Points of the Proposed Realignment of T.H. 101 at Lake Drive East. I Name Address Date 1 � J . GL��=�T 4 . iviz S' / Ava iG i- C d Li 7-2 - S/1 -3:41Es l La-6,n s x' I33 hAHt.p, Lt.1 1- i -t - gg 4ic M. 0A"a 11 etya c. e '7-a-L1--kr 1 3-4 wt e s 7 4o cos d' /3✓ P4-m07;9 1,A) ! -.,, ,.-d' .S 1 .,` ) ACapi 3735 0 Ofi-Jibk, LA,/ 7-024-�� 1 . . !.E.tr -. . ry=?=/2, . .� T 9. . 41�. -7. 1-Na . :-? - 7-H.--.5 -5'4-7 5`=!✓ iAJ�f r°"l3` 41y ev r <-u 7 2 Y 1 i c___-% ,.� 4 c'!.3`7 . - KPT4 4- -' . . . 7:2;i:-.- F' 1 4 ') ') (1 -2-- , ac■ , - 5-• f 1 -��6‘. ti>/(-)41 ; . v i( 4) 6,17. .�/ K(-m_ il-p-c Aj ,ti 3o/ u,.-._ C(A. ¢ 1/4-7 l c.A-avykti <-3aA,pe._ 1 21 DukA)+, LI 4-z51-6<6 I ()Q7-0-cu.oc-r-,--S-Z._ ,, 3/ --- 1 !:_-_,),4 k0i6t 1-1:1 , 9.)' " '‘ _1,12 F1c)-3 Z . i'Dif-- L-,u 7— 25-Y3 73S'‘',:i6',/, „,//2, 7 _ II leC-Vt.y-i^-.--V ,../,_,(1274y-\ �c� . Z.S . I /414 /, ' -74‹,,cieJL g36 pc./4_t-1--et, , ,,), -7/25/2-; i 0.,,i_.- %.i'4 $I y b D Q I=,vt% 7-915 - g S 1 IA i . ' ( f I PETITION AGAINST T.H. 101 MERGING INTO LAKE DRIVE EAST, I As resident of Chanhassen, I oppose the proposed realignment of T.H. 101 at Lake Drive East. I object to the proposed realignment because of the issues stated in Failure Points of the Pr000sedRealignment of T.H. 101 at 1 Lake Drive East. IName Address Date , :;:4€--.6---(...."...__. - ( i ,,e, R/ '/ 7k 74 e-s 1&4 C e7 4 d'a.‘( 1/ 6./ ' !di) 11:6, 0 . . . . . x.7.0. . c -A 1a,C/61( i / e„6 / //, �D�V :€„-e 7-_,?j--:-FP i ,V /Le: 6yrxmAziozi zols b,u.. 6/),1 7-,25-g /1 -- ,AL gJd via 2 -_ -,-fy .A `C,c?�-c;v( ?( 70 \-\ C 0'\ . -7.- 2 c. -8 1 - 1 ,..„ztL(_,A A.:::___;.-:_- .„..2.1 5/0/1, i_ ibbou c7-, 7— 2._7 — ". �fZLt z L ;a.--A ;)U - Y02-1 �Lp g.j Cl- —7-2:7 -a'v I & , ' 7.'..e-4- .��z. . .. . . . . Si SI /-7! /h c r 7----,z 2-�� 1 P&0 g p,6<,, e� S'/91 /Aliek 0_,- 7 -zz-egs/ i ak-' r ,i,,,,,_,/, e7 ),. - a,. t,,,7,,, zi, -7_2_ -) - c%,S.-- I ,27z_D if / 6-7 f-r--)D,_/ ,_:z:-. ......___.. 7_,27_ 7,- '�- ) . 7i�� .` . . . . . . . . r?-z: ?, !*?-t'.- (:c t-1 fliA- 7-- . ? &E. I 1 / 3�0 5 hoaA C1th -- 7 Z i0 I -31J2,)5L,,,,,, - o' -\ __sa ( 5/,,,,v ,?./, (-,,,/L-, 1.7A-7)F-ci 1 . ,2 1 PETITION AGAINST T.H. 101 MERGING INTO LAKE DRIVE EAST, I As resident of Chanhassen, I oppose the proposed realignment of T.H. 101 I at Lake Drive East. I object to the proposed realignment because of the issues stated in Failure Points of the Pr000sedRealignment of T.H. /O/ at Lake Drive East 1 Name r Address Date I .4' .44/ afi.`1apv.i/w 7/ 7f/. . ti 1 ' ' J'- X:-.--. -(0/ Obi t6 . 7/2.74? . . --7- . . . . . . .("P.471. '. : . . . L .. Lv- .. . . -.7/ Jr/iN\ fir,� Gym ()ice )i S`I (-v. -� V. Y, 9/? '""'er (2/t.„,4a:,&, ,..3:4i) ,//-&-?:(6/A-i--:,:?,,tx_, 7,41-1///4,7 . I f/ 7-30 U 6,0 L4)d' A4 6',Wzrai (?)-3 0 di c.{d'e' A_.4,' -7,6i si I ici-,(,/ Y a),,,..?" 3 71301 ` ivl X:�.L` G�2� . 3` '� .�.,cam k, 7 130 I I I I I I I . C C Failure Points of the Proposed Realignment of T.H. 101 at Lake Drive East r 1 ) Increased danger to children Children in family neighborhoods would be denied safe access to retail stores on Lake Drive East. Residents would be denied a safe recreational road. 2) Decrease of property value The value of existing single family dwellings would decrease as general desirability of the neighborhood would be impaired by increased vehicle noise and pollution. I 3) Minimal improvement of T.H. 5 intersection According to the Year 2OO5Land Use and Transportation ' 574v operation of the intersection of T.H. 101 and T.H. 5 would only change from service level "E" (Figure 4) to service level "DIE" (Figure 16). ' 4) Too many intersections too close to each other Closeness of proposed intersections would make crossing ' T.H. 5 in a North/South direction like crossing 494 in a North/South direction in Bloomington (see Figure 17). I 5) Chanhassen's -identity problem' I f T.H. 101 along The realignment of g Lake Drive East would not improve Chanhassen's "identity problem". 6) T.H. 101 funding and jurisdiction T.H. 101 usage should be discouraged at this time, since only minimal maintenance funds are available and ncra►►ca 1►►r1cr11rt1nn of T H 1(11 lc not rPSOlvP(1 T- - '1 1 1- r--------------------------------------1' 1 • I . (.1 1 i . ...4,7, 1 mu., . . W 79th St.' Ji I Level Of Service = B 118--' 1 ir425—� � 1 N) t ir N M ON O .-•M > I m Vf C T I A I d 4J A N L I I O •-I n M to M J II / N T.H. 5 336 <–•--1682 I ILevel Of Service = El 75— x--456 1073--1. 21-7,; 4, (1,, 1 Cco� N I co OO r� M L . Q 1 N 1 I-. I - I_ ‘ No Scale • i 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN FIGURE 4 1 LCHANHASSEN YEAR 2005 YEAR 2005 P.M. PEAK HOUR LAND USE AND FORECASTS ON PLANNED 1 BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD. TRANSPORTATION STUDY ROADWAY SYSTEM AT T.H. I HOIS.INGTON GROUP, INC. 5/GREAT PLAINS BLVD./_ BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. W 79TH ST. r I –22– C C IL • If If . II . W. 78th St. i) \----24 1 �7 Level Of Service = C` 284 �� x---75 Ii 14 —� __.) t r . C\•M N 1 N N C7 %O O Z 1 I t N C . O N •-•QN 1 J T.N. 5 ' I 1' �•-1139 Level Of Service = D/E 147 --1( -67 • 1 1513 ---r o rl, . t 1 . • N ' II I No Scale L • 1 �. FIGURE 16 ' I CITY OF CHANHASSEN • CHANHASSEN YEAR 2005 YEAR 2005 P.M. PEAK HOUR • LAND USE AND FORECASTS ON PREFERRED BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD. TRANSPORTATION STUDY ROADWAY SYSTEM AT T.H. HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. • 5/T.H. 101 (NEW INTER-_ . 1._ . , BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. ; SECTION)• , 1 -42- .• 11 i'/•/ 1 '{�1 1:1., ;•, ]Sr iT1.. to �,.,i. : i � ,0, ✓ :-- �� •� O Y V y°/ 1' • I I •I I F JI 1 �'o ,`4�I'I•„ I�°O1., Ii1,n L-i7 4: •to,l ali• ,�• ° r I I `� I 1 ��_. °.i I I T-v"V-1 „ `-'-"..� • I 91..a -o,.jam,- ,-' /// -off°°°/• �, 0.-A . I . ' �I I ' 1 I 1 I 1��; Imo_'I �..-1 !Di re a • 0 - /' „,- °b „..A or,cc m°.lu i / ■ I.,.. ... :i .� 1 i tP I ,�.'� I ,:e•'- `FI ,G^:.,11,o0 :.j,,' ' O/ •i___ -•,1---.-_ c. °p, 1 -•�--4��-St• ��_=L:�l i — I I ! °h� II I f �, a II,- 18th _ C- e _ °•—_G ..P III o: �( �� W. w _ T.,. ...:.,,^�"-W. 78th St.-•-•-�-- — _ r..�-- �, ..., 1 1.... 1,‘.....„,! ('� - - - -_-- ° -��'b ° o :'... / 1 .91 ..- ---��-?-f• ., -�� • /-- - /...�� ✓ IIC!':./0 • rl i I 1 �� f / 7 1 1. T i It, - y,--i I I I / I 3 i• ;<'‘ i 1 �� lei '_ � � 1 1�`'��' / /;1-, '":':.;. .. .. ....�`I�' yam\ ♦ Gu-1/".e�.+�� ,` —it •00000e • 1 't��79 ro ::: 'I I GAS •I : r ,,,.:•V /t51'.' "':i: >: .. 1,�— -►,... —� i B ` yf' . ''I• a°ti•o\ 1)1 jj�I1t •� I Y1 \,s �/ �}�/- n . .b; ' : ti - / i r °.' �A c_'"' • $7� .r�' •L LA, ��••O'Qy \tq�yp�•y z.c• % r. —J- i�'�'I', „w: _ , a •••.•-•,...•c°,r,,• ;: ;---• +c•• 1 1_. '', ••• I : .=sue _ ,' q. o c..1�- ...�/ may'' C• I I 1 • • •��, ,_� i� �j� / ,`�': r FIGURE 17 0 }r �•I •_ LjD• 1 1 J / �� 11 t� CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT OF °•_ri '',. j IN e �7.-"':`? I " 10441111 NEN CONNECTION OF T.H. f , -- �,. NW 101 TO T.H. 5 />' milt yn ) 0...• /.;:.'!,;;.' W CHANHASSEN YEAR 2005 `�/i- '� r_ I , LAND USE AND - r- - iti �" - !': TRANSPORTATION STUDY /,44, ....-4,60. ---... 1 ••• / /:-. • ■.` �`` 1 o I J� 1< �t F •;i t °��!: • oP\�6 �` c I CITY OF CHANHASSEN • re" `PHE BRAUER 8 ASSOCIATES LTD. 0 200' HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. •rs'.",,' ( T.H. 101 BENSHOOF 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. `C`" + - • Scale -44- A _ ..�:. k .e',w r :.. (IYCf1�11fhWdM,gNM+1 Yl.n..,. OM MO — — s — MN MI — r — — — MI — — — — OM 0-��11iu v/sl7ttU ZS.t3780030 this hearing is to consider the application da • Au•• 4 •4Vj1�' "Gdnug cal weaaes- Y, 8 3, 1988,at 7:30 p.m.in the t r Z Or 120 '35-7551290 25-8780040- of City of Chanhassen to amend Section Council Chambers in Chanhassen City 3 5130 10-904 and Section 20-615(6b),Acces- Hall,61'oulter Drive.The purpose of - ' "proposed assessment is on fits .ory Structures as follows: 1,2 ttiA this hc .g is to consider the application fit"`�3yblic inspection in the office of the Section 20-904, Accessory Stern- of SuperAmerica for a conditional use heavy Ciky'Engineer. The total project cost tures. permit to permit gas pumps on property V8 including legal, engineering, admini- (a) Detached Garages and Storage zoned BN, Neighborhood Business Dis- I tilt, stration and fiscal costs is $257,21352' Buildings. trict and located at the southwest corner redo The amount proposed for assessment is -1. No detached garages and storage of Hwy.7 and Hwy.41. run- $370200.00. Written-or oral objections buildings in any agricultural and rest- A plan showing the location of the will be considered at the meeting. No dential district shall be located in the proposal is available for public review at ranAac- appeal may be taken-as to the amount of required front or side yard. City Hall during regular business hours. any assessment adopted.unless aWRIT- 2. Detached garages and storage All interested TEN NOTICE signed by the affected buildings in the RSF and R-4 districts attend this public hearing� and express 2,695 property owner is filed with the City shall not exceed 1000 square feet in size their opinions with respect to this•pro- IIazer Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or and'shall not occupy more than 30%of posal. ntilt presented to the presiding officer at the the area of any rear yard.A rear yard is Jo Ann Olsen er , hearing. The Council may, upon such measured as the area between the rear Asst. City Planner 2,895 notice, consider any objection to the wall of the principal structure and the Phone: 937-1900 amount of a proposed individual assess- rear lot line. • (Published in the Carver County Herald up, ment at an adjourned meeting upon such P 3 Detached garages and storageursday,July 21, 1988; No. 2915) B, further notice to the affected property buildings ina the RSF and R-4 Districts 695 owners as it deems advisable. having an area up to and equal to 200 assts ' An owner may appeal an assessment square feet in size shall have a rear Iter ale W, 8995 V8, 8 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 8995 5 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE ick. PLAN AMENDMENT J `"WIN '� i CITY OF CHANHASSEN HASSEN i r.�.�f b viiiia r 04 ale NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that • Q'.,�1sw.art�•.y'� —�� tone the Chanhassen Planning Commission "•' ,�� s111•.!�;' .� dow, will hold a Public Hearing on Wednes- c• • g 0 1 day.August 3, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the :,....4�� l�� 1 ° ♦ ... $ 00 Council Chambers in Chanhassen City -�••� ..,�� it,,, ,,,,,. -Y [t��M� ty Hall,690 Coulter Drive.The purpose of • r - truer e �� t .. ',895 this hearing is to consider the application n 3s6?6necpt,t.=� �m: �:Q I i of the City of Chanhassen to amend the - 'mss ow ter:. —~; �4, Transportation Chapter of the Compre- r.��.,_•.:.., hensive Plan to identify the realignment -, •,"....MO emu ' & . tar_mow MO wr ewer of TH 101 across TH 5 as shown on the o it',V i�,fllii�um 1111u1 _ Ta- map included herein. 11�n� �r�,� a Ik, All interested persons are invited to ��A;�1 `-1111 util ��' TM It attend this public hearing and express ,:. 11llllb _ t- their opinions with respect to this pro- ��r'F110.100?- �� ..pare 1 1• 16 ►a / i it. Barbara Dacy �/ -��j -4 I- r 3 i. City Planner � � ` N. �lll%� Phone: 937-1900 rg„..•cf n��,�- Ll 5 (Published in the Carver.County Herald •w - • :....�Ly�� Thursday, July 21, 1988; No. 2916) HIGHwA' • .d ras.y"' —r ird i win,. ID It NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING t-�i�1� �7,7:1:7�� ' c0 o -ear PROPOSED OFFICIAL MAP �'��I/�� —woo 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN r Wit- �►*.• ; i..g I f NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that \ `��u Qf�18�.� , the Chanhassen Planning Commission P��r�� r�•w i'_ I — ezoo . will hold a Public ,Hearing on Wednes- - i ��,` 63�, f 185 day,August 3, 1988,at 7:30 p.m. in the V Council Chambers in Chanhassen City moo • Ha11,.690 Coulter Drive.The purpose of p«: � �\ this'hearing is.to consider the application f l of the City of Chanhassen to official map ,/III V • the realignment of TH 101 across TH 5 as I • shown on the map included herein. - All interested persons are invited to • attend this public hearing and express Conceptual Realignment of T.H. 101 their opinions with respect to this pro- posal. Barbara Dacy _ City Planner ' '.(Published in the CarverhCounty3Hera�ld 4 Thursday, July 21, 1988; No. 2917) (Published in the Carver County Herald on Thursday,July 21, 1988; No. 2918) C C. . 1 spokesperson ' I grant Ult Sacchet permission to act a s my p p erson with regards to the proposed realignment of T.H. 101 and Lake Drive East. I understand he I is against T.H. 101 merging with Lake Drive East. Name j Address Date I `11 ''.(-1A--Y•r*, aciati yo DC 44-d-a-c!-- � . 1 . . A.v4. Jj%.0 crS VO ./1 .-'-''. .Z.,e. . . 7-..ci2/ (U../. . I ft1-4 1 ., 4� gD4O 4, Sal.e—, C-,- 1 — 2-1— 5 , 1 n � f 1 ,�_� c t.e, v-7 i (s�� a_e,62._ 7/2-2-/S - I . -!t . &(t. . .teC &/Lth. . . ?/.2-3/P8 LiaLi>7(2J./ .//.LEttf.14/.1 (. r.g.1. V:16'. 'Titis-R L)i)-0 It V3127 . . . . . L: . . . . . . . .) I ,%:,-�A v;/,f626/ / ,_1_ 7/6% I . NO ,--g.,z,LL S-' 6 / ‘‘,/,/,,<::,6---) f 'A 7-;,'‘- rY 1 . #W.'1~/11r,// -5.,'-` 1//440,- a/71.1- 7-c-,2 --0-3' °-71014 /6,t -4_ - '7 7/ //,4, ,- 1 / L- r I I I I e i C f I grant Uli Sacchet permission to act as my spokesperson with regards to I the proposed realignment of T.H. 101 and Lake Drive East. I understand he is against T.H. 101 merging with Lake Drive East. IName Address Date . ii4e/ . 32( gai -r.X4.4'.aP,y",✓. 30. . . . 7f2dg.e. . . . . (?4 .. /. 41144.-). .16.i G . e 4H-6 i, LJ .55`:?i7 7a/8& I . S--' / .■ , • / / . , / 4L, eizi/o,-4,,,5' ,V7 0 r/W I /1 z)-- .d/ ,f 94"? 4e/-n.e. . ate-, /`14/ 53/7 7/..2./ss� I Rb.p o-' G J .5r-2/7 *Or Az-e- Maneio /s b �'v( i at . C i - 573/7 7.- .2-- 881 1 ti . -)q- \ . .4 ./?O. .h./kh. 1 . L. / : . Cjl�. S^s 7 , --4- „s- oii f e/1 o , GZ.-, sT-s>/2 2/22/ I ictii6,1 r.MIlliir.9.D. . i.or4\ 2 c, doN 51;317 7f,2747 1 ',,n 1 _ . 7/40 n 1 44 g, .I (,3 . lClV sY] )Y, C-G�CIUI , cS 31 ri q/A ( -, - . .iii. '. . i\;. -.Klac's c2-. imaset\ 2ri okv4-\ . 3-5 1-) -7/D-') I Ala., . iiii . s. , . . .r. (f.)6.3 . tii„,,4, ,,S-T1- - 12)/Ifr .7___(✓ ` 7..=- .f it . b. 1 . . s 013-. 7/ 03 ' /' - gefeee„c44, .. . 5.,5/7. 7/ ' /g/' NI11- ' --, , - . ...fa . _ /. . 46a .1‘ht-orXite Er-}/> 2-dozW 1 I I . IA 1 regards t I I grant Utz Sacchet permission to act as my spokesperson wi th g ards o the proposed realignment of T.H. 101 and Lake Drive East. I understand he 1 is against T.H. 101 merging with Lake Drive East. Name Address Date 1 (Z<L,--112-i: //47‘/;?-c5 . . 'A/3 /. Aii/44) TX1 /I/ 7 I-- Xt7 _1,4m-zs &• L tS 5 i33 6,6,K01-16.. Lio, .1--1 ?E ■KaAtial 01 --7 e,a 7-a it 1 i pet 01 r• Lo(4-5 $ 35— D4/5"vieg Lev 7-.2 y-- 9E' Ar g 13.E faiseta Ljti `7'a Li-g _ i . . TT-4152.x? . .CQI- :56a_ . "/.3`� oy4, `--t' Z.,41 l ,2%— 53/ G. 1 u =� j �-- E) 3 7 DAKar p 7-,�5- yY Z 1 r 3 7- S- 1 1214qz). 79A)/26(ol-- 3do LA/1-(,/t\i ;v- 26 -67V . l-1..0 u- , 3 o i CA-A-1- exA, 7/.-___sl %— I c tie, s( 7, 1 --D wk b& " 2s _- 5 1 . . . . . .0.•-/, Pg.,-./ Da ka i-ci . ti/7 -2 a‘5.-(67S 7 q„,,,,4,.-, . . ! . . . . . r?3 6, J4, z., 7- 2_5--875, 1 I 4 . /?-- y1 . . ei, 4 ,b _1 1 0---, vL - 772z,/r-s Yde't- ' AO PaPA_ ).-,v‘ 7-.2 c4-s .S. I I I I 14 1 • 01 f I grant Uli Sacchet permission to act as my spokesperson with regards to I the proposed realignment of T.H. 101 and Lake Drive East. I understand he is against T.H. 101 merging with Lake Drive East. Name Address Date I 7`- - . . na (. . . . S // . he�/. �c{, 7 2/ 38 ecd, 26,5 Sqt (-(41),, could' Ilgy_E,rk .`--:'m : /• , s.'7. 7,i/.- :&W. -zi.- . . . . -,7/-0.1. . . . II I if-7_,,,/., ,,e.„--., FiL/#, cif 9 1,, C7L- 2/ ,/: . . . I 44,,U &I .1. . . / . (. . --/-7 . . S o 9 ) „ -, --)193-,?. . . . . .kQcx.% t. . . r . . ..0.∎. \--V∎actfr) Cloor k- la31 42, 2-}6,6t49 y-6) / i :Z4_, dt. %541 7 i I . . L a. .g .C 1 V. . J\ U ;J!- Ac: . 7. 0;3. zss IL3 1 ® - z 4 ,—vet Ul e9 ale--- . i,_ 77 3AY I . - Ab . . . . g(0 .,4 .g, . . .7/4AB. 1 r I irr, • - 67,., ,z 504q Eil:„2_ 04,Q- -7pcilgz I di / . - ,,r, /alit, C/ 1.1 Dthu, Ot- , ,u . d 1�o ?LJ«{ Cf-- 1/- 5-la I (3 �•- . 030 - . . . . ,p' I ,-4 cAo r‘fa g03© tom: cive �37.. i - J o` iAJ f 221 .ZU, aot 7/2 fr vf 1 spokesperson ok 1 grant Ulu Sacchet permission to act as my s p esp with regards to the proposed realignment of T.H. 101 and Lake Drive East. I understand he is against T.H. 101 merging with Lake Drive East. (1•11 me Address Date 1" - /-1 ,gc-)c)/..sa Z 1 .4 <'J/.. . . . . Vf e2.. �c1�j'/! . c?` . . . . . Ocitma gd_5'6;) /11(;(kG r 7/5e/PY s 3o �.; 7(jdd� 1 � „ i 1 - Ulrico Sacchet 1WAMAAA 8071 Hidden Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 937-2371 July 17, 1988 Dear Brookhill Neighbor, ' Our new family homes currently face the rather grim prospect of Lake Drive East becoming a heavily traveled North South Highway on the segment that borders our development. However, I believe that this could ' be averted through proper action on our part. Please take a moment to read this letter, it should be worth your attention. The information below was ' extracted from the study: CITY OF CHANHASSEN YEAR 2005 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN Prepared for: City of Chanhassen Housing and Redevelopment Authority Prepared by: Brauer&Associates,Hoisington Qroup,Benshoof&Associates ' This study is dated August 1986. Based on City growth and traffic forecasts for the year 2005 the study identified the following ' deficiencies in the existing and currently planned roadway system: 1 ) The planned connections of Chanhassen Downtown and ' the future four lane freeway 212 about a mile to the south was found to be indirect and inconvenient. ' Originally planned intersections with freeway 212 include one at County Highway 17 and another one at Dell Road. Highway 17 is about half a mile west of the ' current Downtown and will eventually even traverse it as the commercial zoning of the City indicates. Dell Road is planned to be about one mile east of Downtown Chanhassen on the border line to Eden Prairie. The initial construction phase of Freeway 212 through the ' southern portion of Chanhassen was projected for 1990-92. ' 2) Highway 101 was found to lack continuity and to be in a state of unclear classification. Furthermore it is not ' clear whether the County or the State has jurisdiction over 101. Jurisdiction and classification are related. Roads with significant through traffic are likely to be under State jurisdiction, roads with more local traffic ( - 1 under County jurisdiction. Classification and road continuity are related as well. Roads that are classified as major through traffic connections need continuity. For roads carrying primarily local traffic, however, continuity as such is not very important and may even be , undesirable if their local character is to be preserved. • 3) The three main intersections of Highway 5 were ' projected to operate close to or over capacity during - - rush hours by the year 2005. Significant congestion on ' Highway 5 was predicted to cause also congestion on major cross streets. This conclusion did consider . Highway 5 as a four lane Highway as it is to be widened - . in the upcoming years. In an attempt to solve the identified problems, the study proposed several additions and changes to the existing and currently planned roadway system as drawn up on figure 11 of the study, a copy of which is attached. These proposals mostly affect Highway 101: 1) An interchange of Highway 101 with the planned Freeway 212 to the south is proposed in addition to =those planned at Highway 17 and Dell Road. ' 2) The study proposes extensive improvements for Highway 101 and concludes that 101 should be designated a Minor Arterial (the same as Highway 5) and not a local roadway. In the scenario of the proposal, Highway 101 would become a major trough traffic connection between Freeway 212 to the south and Highway 7 and particularly the planned extension of Crosstown (Freeway 62) to the north. - 3) Significant modifications are proposed to several existing intersections, as well as some all together new Intersections of Highway 5. A new intersection for Highway "101 between the Dakota Avenue intersection and the Great Plains Blvd intersection is proposed in ' order to grant continuity of 101. Through this intersection, the northern portion of Highway 101 would connect to Lake Drive East which would become 101 as it passes our new Hidden Valley family home development until rejoining the current 101 trough the ' "T"-intersection between the Superette gas station and our home development. A preliminary design of the new intersection is shown on the attached copy of figure 17 nF 44./. r 4..,-4 who I • C While the need for additional Downtown access could be debated, it ' certainly is a forced issue to make 101 a major through traffic connection. The proposal envisions 101 with three or four lanes and forecasts it to carry an average load of 11,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day by the year ' 2005. Current load of Highway 5 is given as 1 1,000 to 18,000 vehicles per day. To encourage such heavy traffic and to route it practically through ' the backyard of newly built family homes with an unusually high population of children is hardly desirable and seems quite irresponsible. Besides that, the operation of Highway 5 intersections would be improved ' but slightly through the proposals implementation. ' Apparently, the proposal fails to consider the impact the envisioned scenario would have on the residents along Highway 101, in particular the residents of the Brookhill development. And it appears that this proposal ' was either forgotten or a well hidden secret during the initial phases of Brookhill development. However, we are here now! Will the City be able to ' ignore our existence in favor of a questionable need for "convenient" Downtown accessibility? Whom is Chanhassen trying to accommodate. its local residents and their children or through-traffic connections? ' According to a presentation given at Cit y Ha ll on July 5th, the study ' proposal is the "only" solution to the forecast of Chanhassen's traffic problems, though the study states repeatedly that additional analysis is necessary. In order for some aspects of the proposal's implementation to be included in the coming improvements of Highway 5, the City Council appears to be pressured to approve the proposal in August 1988. According ' to Barbara Dacy, Chanhassen's City Planner, the City Council plans an open hearing on the subject on July 27 at City Hall at 7:00 p.m. I would like to encourage as many of us as possible to show up there and to express our concerns, for I assume that you share at least to some extent my objections to the given prospect. An additional way to express opposition to the proposal is to write letters to the Chanhassen City Council that ' detail our concerns and objections. if there is sufficient opposition to the proposal, the City Council may be more inclined to realize how onesided the premises of the current proposal are and therefore not approve it but commission further analysis based on a wider set of premises that should include the wellbeing of residents as much as business interests and ' through traffic needs. ' Sincerely, (,)1_ aca,,s, L ' Uli Sacchet PS: Please feel free to contact me if you have any comments. 6- \ Lake Z► Pond � l ' • a j..:3:: .,• de,..e./..A t i `\t\I Fri r q� :" 7 �. ---��-=-- Previously lanned Roadwa • ' . 0e S‘' Op I1 Improvements That Remain y i 1 ° = 6+ew o% oil Valid o i ', •a ° ( .M Gh• „1 i. a I F red av `-p\ , , LIl a` i Additional Candidate _____pyad ' . 5 /G / ____� Roadway Improvements co G J \ c Y • Chan Ile* Interchange _ouno Or W. 70th St. Ii W t, : „� State i Highway•J . • C C ' \'� 0 ■ . Lake eitisi sJ •111 m 3. 0 1200' ' Apprpx. Scale •:' 1 ■ • t\W. 62nd Ill. ` :1 \•. �-.:� FIGURE 11 Lake Susan Rice Marsh Lake �`� 1 .�1 •AI,TERNAT IYE"ROADWAY ��— L •s.,\ SYSTEM I' o' ' am. �\• • ' 'I d I I i`'''r ` H. 212 .�►�""� ii ►ona�. ) co oa _ i ! s V�V I I CHANHASSEN YEAR 2005 V c° II LAND USE AND / . ' y �t'�''e. � 0; • ^ r I TRANSPORTATION STUDY O I ^or c New Interchange >v c I _ roodV ro �/ �ep°''a. 1Zr2 i CITY OF CHANHASSEN { i '.:1 1 8out•rard v (CR 161 l/ 1 Rtt• !r BRAUER d ASSOCIATES LTD. ....°" �. t teke U HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. I1E NSHOOF b ASSOCIATES, INC. —33— . " . " ' . .+-+s r.. .,•.. ..... . .. . r•Mr •. . .•.'.. c•. ......• — — MI MN MN NM MN 1 ! I — MI NM NM — NM MI N MI — —' 11 II o, J U 1 `''L.11 I.1 �. •I I 1 �`T ° b .9„...L1-;?. (/. / ' •�O -/ •CIUwJSSCM I I I 1 "'L:71,'" II. 1 �1 —C_I !' I Gjy� P o. •-1 / °d•• ' t 1 �II•i• 1 s....,ae.r:i - 1 I —z - �L. Y d !I-l�j'�I o I o u / �i� • 4. i ornc[�w..su � •u 1 I1 I aA.•• 1. 1 J • I I r^— __ t I I i,'' /` ! •o ° '!I i• • 1 eC' • I ��/ •o• • ! o 9 1 5 j.�v 1 1 ' o 1 ` iI v ':°'' O/' •imT�c 1 ��- 1 .• N. 78th St.-— -- . .. _ — M,.-•-' - ."'c,� 'Ili:. 1 I.w.n 1 (.j1c..:.0,,T ,,„ -C) •O ^ �b o ice Lco , �"-'�' . [ l� 1 v._., a w °°f+ 000LT s�.i.Zai� '/ s..0 �-��T�__ • • 1 I' 0 0 0 • • .f.\ ('� y •L ; i 2'-3•' • � WO. r .444.� e' '�• ..— ..r� ;II I Ia � . , s1 / /i •.:' S'� y./Jr��Y. I�oI�, 1 ' •,' ...7‘:' ;,.;••:7;<.,..5,---. / § 1 I • .... ,..,///44"Ssi '1-..; ,t T- . �'''" 'A' j 1" - I. •4•\ I •... ,!I i ly_ ° - 's�.�' x DRIVE AST 1 '.7.71"-- -;7;_ •E-I s',.I;it 1 : 1 .r. r . �•.. ooh!-• 1 r_/�� — osa•t r 1 s f '� •[ 1 I _S.,I './ - .,,,w. , ee c\•� M.^-- y�; �?_ 1 a /�I 'd a • s:c P.,-1 di:l am:--��/ // \- - IT' 7 FIGURE 17[---n .--=°---L, ] I..,.--;: ;.--;: �- �: j r v Cpt10EPTUA4 {AYpltf I, 57,11=='--t/ G �• Ii A I � ;; a �I • .,,,,,.... _��: �� I -.;,h::, CHANHASSEN YEAR 2005 -' 1 _ 111 T- LAND USE AND oal.,) -� �' —F- • 1 I"-- /'Y TRANSPORTATION STUDY Z 1 • °-•/— Py. CITY OF CHANHASSEN • NE d� BRAUER 8 ASSOCIATES LTD. i `P HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. - T.H. 101 \ rooEH D Scale 2001 BENSHOOF 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. -44- ..r•. 0{4 �f1�11 tiA1+11i1k(VdMspNsn+..[•4 1.,;. •• • Ulrico Sacchet 8071 Hidden Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 937-2371 July 30, 1988 Dear Chanhassen City Council Member, I was dismayed to learn about the planned realignment of T.H. 101 at Lake Drive East. ' I believe that I am quite well informed about this project. I studied the Year NJ Lead Use grad TraasDortauoa Study that was completed in August 1986 for the City of Chanhassen as well as the T.H. 10/ Realignment Study dated May 1981. Further I attended both informational meetings held at City Hall where Barbara Dacy and Fred Hoisington presented some aspects of the project and attempted to address questions and concerns raised by the audience. The proposed realignment of T.H. 101 at Lake Drive East is totally unacceptable to me and the residents of Brookhill/Hidden Valley. As just about every neighbor I know, I had a family home built in this area in order to have a healthy environment for my ' children to grow up in and to enjoy the serenity of a more rural environment within comfortable reach of the Twin Cities. Of course it was obvious that the City of Chanhassen was booming with new developments and that T.H.5 would be improved. But nowhere was there any indication that Lake Drive East would potentially become a three or four lane highway with a traffic volume comparable to the current T.H. 5 load before our children have grown up. Already at least one house has gone on the market as a result of this proposal. And no doubt there will be more should this project be accepted. The desirability of the Brookhill properties is not only evidenced by the fast pace with which houses are built but also by the quality of people choosing this neighborhood. I and my family quickly got accustomed to treasure unusually warm relations with many neighbors and the incredible number of small children in this vicinity. Now it appears that the City of Chanhassen,for rather questionable reasons, is preparing to sacrifice the desirability of this neighborhood and to seriously impact the quality and safety of living here. Is this how the City of Chanhassen welcomes a neighborhood of newcomers? I am not inclined to think so, for it is my understanding that you, the members of the City Council, represent the local residents. I would expect you to ensure that the interests of residents are duly considered and that business and through traffic interests can not run rampant. I do question the need of connecting T.H. 101 to 212 in order to increase Downtown accessibility. And I particularly question the wisdom of making T.H. 101 a major North/South trough traffic corridor, especially since it appears that the Minnesota Department of Transportation would like Carver County to assume responsibility for T.H. 101. However, my main concern is the realignment of T.H. 101 at Lake Drive East. I do not see how the construction cost and the impact on local residents could be justified for only marginal projected improvements in T.H. 101 and 5 intersection operation. If heavy T.H. 101 traffic should be encouraged as the realignment proposal suggests, at least it could be kept from running through the backyards of our new family homes. After all this would be easy enough to accommodate by letting T.H. 101 coincide with T.H.5 for 1000 feet or so. Please take into consideration that your decision about the T.H. 101 realignment ' proposal will not just affect Chanhassen's through traffic volume and maybe its Downtown accessibility, but first of all hundreds of children and their parents who attempt to make this area their home. Si er ly t Uli Sacchet � i I ■ \\ _J _-1 9 VII 6 B 6 2 I} !a 5 b IO 1 9 1 B T 6 > 0 9 8 `'�J�,// _` t VILLAGE Of CHANHASSEN ,' « ' 1 6 , I I I I5I I Ir - I l 't ��- �� F, k .` `' /}� ,MP''''' �Gi 1411 -III 2 a 'I.W 1 I e,° ;zc: FP _ ��b VIEW r.._. CHAN. VIEW I z I} a S I ��i�� cJ $4. 4apNk I,,Z,\C\ PI'' ' I I J < G ee mWE$T 4 I > %�..�d ■f R-�. .,..«. � o: . CHAN. VIEW - Jyy'•P 011x' ?PJ� Sao COI ' j8j1 SCHN I mouse It,sumo. �� 3 ; gitie:. «� I �F PO 1 s RACT c ° / CENTER ST '1 oa /�fx�Q T . '°,°,., ©� sr u 1 >, Y e T I W��9 F.� \1 \�pJV•6� Tanc, e L 3 } PARK 1 ©U (� I�� P� ka;« K cam( I I ( w �P��Q�PS pGO td I _ G we x,«/� .l•.eo : x ■ I t ea`V •5 , •x .«,o-S >• I I" �� - G N\`• °ofRA B.Sa BONGA90 v�Taa O • It �� y 9 L 2 3 5 O' CHADDA ADO1 ( a 1 y:1}:•__ - - --0k.---IIWY N . IG --- GSA I -- I (W-787M-ST-1—"o ,w ' `�I,,, ''' . 101 •:•:•:•; :Cr 4r'�}t - Y HWYr NO f6 HWY. ^ 5 _�� r;� O Of ST HUBERT ! ,��• . - -`, ' NE I° rjl / / . ;`V` 6 ec BUROD�ICK 3 a P ONTrER DEEOE UTLO' TTIA `�� I QO\�\ IE PICXA , f F. n. J • I :L : T CORr VE ._` °'I-, .Ia ,�!�.::{:$} _ z ° .c _ 2\vo ' z I CC $ ` PAS-_& PACIFIC RcW* I Nr �$.. ,u°.°,�t , ';oo' I ''% y:• � V � oaE m \ `— KEE. 5T ° i z 6 ,o, - CHICAOO• SPEES z} z xCHErENNE 0971_07 3_� ROAD • 2 3 AQR� \ - - 2 " r 1 s y'(t�5 / `� N - } �� 22 zl 'S 1 1\ W 20 91_ 'D t �1,� 'N ER DEVELOPMENT s� D o g ;i ��7 2 il a 2 a s\ \g / s II "/ I' t S 9 P � POST x0°°0 :f 5 - �- 5 li t2 z ARK 6 �u O -\ 2 .NE,l xt.Ra to. _ m } t 3 %FA° J •� - IC 1'1 F '4.-i a • Y III ,-- - t m. \ \ --`� J T\1 l -�J N, - —_ 1a _.� R• ,^ -� P ) Iy� 8 _ T��bZ 55/r�I��3 --� S___1_,___----------- " A L� .. 14'314 t—'JI I< __- i u w,. .• -• r�.•� ✓•�` .e_ _ e as i 9 ;Cr .a 4i • ` �'�l .RAH-�0•' C'TQ _ - . .C'11: H i• * Iz ' y Ic V 'To 16.32 1F IC �. ^/��^�� «y/n om _ Q HIDDEN VALLEY ©O ¢© N ,z %� •c •Y CA, 1 I G co - \ \ W ,i E4 .V 4AC ``Y - w•N, ....,, s.•ao --� ��/� i—�\ t�7 2ND ADDlT1ON ZVxR \'PNE U�" ~J ro\ O4�DTA 4vi,--I k F PAIN--tc a.•Lo. / ' .. .. \ - - ....n•r•.. I I\s Io®�® w_ �� \ I} a 5 9B �$ oR6° ES 1 II 1 097 LOT ^:. 1 ^ ;*$ ig1 v ' SS . Dz: MJ WARD �(, D'12°� CLA J„, s P ., PA RK �Rw tP�� I 9 x - siqr. . • 097 LOr 6 ` - PARK E ,/ },' ' I._.� , •� b T ..y EAyO P 4'� S ;..G SS U� l= ® a 9 IC TN B�SiNE I I ?' , it 1 p ��11��®il Is I} OOT /,TO ., .. 1 ' � M E� %LANE N 10+Row —� .n/I _} 1 •i%' I I �- i as* 51 y/ ' I 5 c 1: 13 'Z THI I ff �Q I o —¢-•-- IIII _ igoompriki e \ DurLOT RD c PARK I j .1 P1�” I , s R I -r f��®®IU`R� ss }5 Is , �O 1 1` `t t x ..,o �a tai _ADD. ��P55 �5$ i °S,.o..iu —.•o •''OflPKO(P � z J Y cc f9 ti 7 Dor�oT j 13,., �RD 1 0 I 10 °=7°b gR.f e° / [( 5 CHANHASSEN LAKES , I °.Ita,•5Te f Iii, o sp.: Q BUSINESS PARK • ! OUT LOT _�_ .— 1: y aRCUS�DEVE�I DBMENr,INC I �- �— � -_�`�\ I - -` _ •- - .4' CHANHASSEN LAKES ,j. 11 aS' BUSINESS PARK ,\ i- !\- OJ (v� �q - ;73/_-- - - O4 ,ate G - �' ! 3;911.,,e-, e:3•339%.• x,.. ° 7; LAKE SUSAN 40.-- % �- a MARIISH v o [ d �/ \\• p�0 RICE EpND„RED) JAMES A CW i” °i :`4S aA_ «iee.rr« . _..__ �- /,/ JA DOC nO Tp1 i „i1_ --/"'bi.t ° ru.,r« .,.x.eao, I / 4 / _ - /'AP 1 - E 767 °HILLS - _- y`'•" •f i�9 / ■ I LAKE SUSAN HILLS -\ /� \ ° ,t �LE 3 '°c .\ 4'0° / /1_r •,�' _ 200' � 9 STUDY ys �, I " g ':;p ft - `' T.H. 101 REALIGNMENT T ♦ /.,'Y `` ,�,�••.• —` t, " Ti..: I ,<✓ PLANNING • a / �': / .��% R PLANNING LEERING 5 9 2 -a a !"C"� CURRENT PROPOSAL I 1 ViE e, �, .L x FLIN4ELxU ARG HITECTUPE ��0 '' r ,•, 7 I SENNETT RINGROSE.WOLSFELD,JARVIS.GARDNER.INC. »° I ' '• I •G. -- i, -- --—ROAD ----- --- ------ _ RK`• THRESHER SWAPS 700 THIRD Si.S. MWNEAPOLIS,MN 65.15 p 8 19 88 - ; 1 I I y os 2 /•`�V = �� VILLAGE OF CHANHAS3EN G a v'n v w 9 TC .1[1 12 13 5 5 16 I T I ' 10 9 r 6 I Q 13 12__10=09 '•'g7�,.p ,+ \\ (L_` \FLOpO i 111111 2 - , ° ¢-S €1 I eR us,R204 ..n°.>, ^ CHANw E V/ W r�._„ CHAN. VIE ate` 1 I z I; e I5 �� o �/�, _G�P P`'T C PP•' u! •.ue I'1 I O P �� Gt P4l P 4 ._ - �� ' ./' ¢ CHAN VIEW ,y'� 0119 Qt. �` ,,,Co sWEST . 787.y SCHNEI <r "+ I — � ..lAa , �ms ■ $° w - 4�Pg s6. • Ir iA° f CENTER ST S 4 ,it=i-.,., : �ee..o "v HU :; ¢I 11a T I 1w mmilly/ N .1 I pi9i.,,6.? GRAFT a mama_/ 3 6:5 „� 1�,«�:r T x � A ZPS p 9 WT��°'a'• - .rK /R, T-w° >o r ARK ©u [ �' e• ' I a`I. I' S� I r2 3 < 5 W © C'�P�P Gt\�GPGO F`>t F B5 a0N4ARD �.,Li- S - z . CHADDA ADD' . rOe! '''I''''''CTfL'■� f l �� r'.v':_` - TRACT .>n D ri ._.-_ -G9.A, HWY I Y,"1j ; .,> a 101 '::4::i•.'' . s' E N0. iC C.S.A. \ _ HWY- --_-1-(W-7B'FT1-S71-�'° N0. r °, °,> .{S E HWY. �_ :+y'•'. E I 6x6)ai., �� CHURCH OF ST HUBERT . ``,OM T, e` ` - I 'R� 6UflD CK 3 d o I !!'::l I «.,, x _ %�,wH`^`:..';..°.,°° g � .�, ON 8 , 2 e+.6 Rbsa o'•v. A. . 'Al;L:: ::::::CHAN EN PL A2I P �\ OTER DEOENS OUTLOT� \ ENT CORP , '^O \ PCHA DRIVE 0 Ll ,Will I ZNQ I / •= a - EE S PAW-'g pACFFIp .rt �o. Xr/0" �,'• �, _ G - .,�� .e, a- ,. -Q I T Txo 1llll� '' 2 3 5 m ...e �_ '� OI yi'AAlK S rr,.... ° ••r•;: �,� z3 ._ xCHEYENNE ,.b •.....° z`? ' A - CFRCA� fj'tRE�S 1: ..,. 6 2 • 1 'DUTLOT>x.3 ROAD 6 2 ,' 1 \ \ ',P.' .. / w V ' iw L - 3 l _ - z zo GF '0 t "II''''''."---'------ `N ER MENT S O R :' ,7 a 'aI re s 3 u �, DEVELOP D 1 _ d e .«xAb _ 1e _ r6Y \� PARK �rA �'» 6T :> %^°1 9 G a 3 5= E .w 2 Q _ i �' -� �99� 2 "`FFF�� `T'srs. ,2•, 1 �<t/ I] eeeyyy I2 s - �`� 3 ��>ou _.r �. to ,i- - ( oh is h 8 \\ �� g a T o� 6 QC QI 13 S r ,MyHKX�,'Y.. y^y _ 12 R Q I:71'.i' / 15 ,>o...Ra�_gOAD, LI ar rr, y�'.k7 i _ __—_ °►,► ,,,r'r'5� 0•11Psd� `I"e rz - c - R \ 1°' ,s ' 1 "o C,7A c / � HIDDEN VALLEY �© '• \ rz Fs AA,,L, A' 2 _ Xi O 1C - - vw°. (Y'7ASS`•V 1.1661•91i•.,,.a. '3,.0A \_ :L /f 2ND ADDITION �P� �©xe:..~ .� 10 x•11 KOTq qV�/k 1aT 1 J / s ® E L JOUTLOT A •y,.: 1 Y4111KYi�W.h'.XK.w.�•:.\ > D`10° • LAKE • O 1 ® 1 _ y'�S.I, In ,5 q �µ�:',i-"•:. - 1 :',•I cptyi EN�of I: Y 1 D>5e $ �`w KES i i 11114.•7 Z ® 5 B �// %,~ , WTLOT `+�,tp�,' °es° 1 l 12 ®9 20 6 e _ 5 •, USN ... pOy roy; i 4 ��W '� 9 W :),, I 'OTr:o u e`S`S ..•!t"v s •I SSEN ° +v�'+,,v's Dz7° e� wARO �©®. Glp T 11 - a Y - ANNA ��_ ir3e ;I 3 ® V�= a p yW 6 — L n I I._ .........F \ Ytiy�/ • !�±'-�_ 'may �F. I ° - �� ,-;...r. ,4,:„9 IO 5 �V� P — - P ® P ® 4 ARK .` I 6.: G rF OUT LOi 9 PA" • (/// / J{i- ' u �_°o. a -� . 1I 4 u.0 / / I EMM / ® 12 C 9 Ty BUStNE i ¢ a= ® D oiT` �RQ I .3s ©M4 E48a SLANE II X04 \____.____ 1 ° CIRCA 5G __L____ - a F t :" ` s IT S !!_.°' SI 1 5— -� J_ I_,._ o i ° � I I ��6( r'2 \ t, T 4 P 1 w - P�' I � '1 zs' f I 2'• ��©®© S5 3 s c 15 '�� l iiOuTLOT e :H :K1 i J WARD I W R IDe2° Q J t �� I N Y.Cam- _� �r ARGUSDT/EVENT.INC. 1 - CHANHASSEN LAKES \ „ �. ;Fe BUSINESS PARK `\a � /// �.1 1• I a DDjLOT �� ,A,. LAKE y +`s I - I � ,_ as ETA ' SUSAN /` •,:`--- MARSH LA 1 1 I xg,:7>- �a`� ' � ��p(�O� p/VE NME N gRE01 if, AMES A CUII / e° b //9 � � / Zs r01 -6sz /I • LAKE�aIIaAN HILLS R _,2 _ '42 t I • \ F t.• p- *�{6 •,45'F,•' � 6 T_ '�9 200' 1 i ..3,• R ( T.H. 101 REALIGNMENT STUDY �v «w xNTE —I x` r•• `�f ��, ""1"P ORTATION • `1' a „ y z= F ' r: a °�° O MEERIIIO MOR�FIED CURRENT y II PLANNING i �) / ,uSi ,,// xE�[i,�D.N,io''xU _— _——�___� A8GNITECTURE I` t�O yB/X; 9ENHETT.RIHOROSE,MOLSF.LO,JARVIS.UAjiONGR,MG, PROPOSAL s-�s-ea r• JqS'//fs��11 f THRESHER SWARE 705 THIRD ET.6. YM{APOL16,. 66.16 f r1 - --r 18 -,>. , 17 v9I 1-1. -f R h I Q MI Q VILLAGE pPF CnANnASSEN G �•a:�v» S ' 2 3 5 5 6 T 10 9 8 T I6 Q�mI U 109 %,"79‘ ,,.:;::"'''' r�Jt. 0 +':o•.`•c••• 1 ° ,.. ,A.°ioi OP • m- •1 e. o . T B ,._ CHAN VIEWS (� =yF•a ap•�R y9 1 MYEST c 5.W �� v\\ I I z a s rP° _'\F E $ i Y 8 4 u+: I . BKMA sicmgn in,CHAN.szi Ew i �• I �� •'C CJ P� Pc T8T Y+ SCHN I �Q` nI �— ©m w: CHAN. IEW � .0 pJ'.BP „PPLt o• y S CENTER s ■ ' 1- p 3 sT i ubiw� ` ' ^..,, sT ::cf u. 1II , ! i:::S2>1 »r na »w U • �" ` w2 • ONGARO V- _ — _ s _ CHADDA ADDI tiSF 0. C.S.A. \ - I *WY- 1,a q»,. _ ( TH S7) "' NO- ,» s ,{B °o HWY. NO. 101 ? .:?b:{ , ..n • -F CHURCH OF ST HUBERT I R I•�� ,�`E`• \ e«sBURDICK 3 a o qP PV �,; _ 9,0�n!p"G' / t W TT7 C l D-�••.. ,a iiir jil ,,,q ` 8� Nt` g ,1 ICHA 2 a ,'__� A �. 'CH(CA�, EES S ' 23 -1 n xCNEYENA,E •t ROAD i 3 /r 2 5'�� G z , ouTLOr a In::o 1 B .1 { , $ 1v » 3 a< 22 z' vim-1.--• €a tO T ��/ :• ER DEVELOPMENT O JQ A2,a A U rk t_ < B o 1 Y w a O z 2 8 S 9 _ l 5 Q y B 1 q _. = . I \ ��_\ \9,FF PARK S 2 �I°D O ANgn cc S _ 17 EI \E�= IT """yw 12 . B �Y!_ F f IL T m. Y G » CN l :: ° .... �� a r 12 7-' y 0 I1r 9 to i Z,,47i/v i5 J 1• tPIC gNHgS - �- F, HIDDEN vA1.LEY �©8 a L. ia 1s SE-A' w,e. z �^O Ia .a `IV r ...,.,a. ,sanao 2ND ADIXTION øoc1ø1®o xeca.s,• p II A.Tq pl.. 1r 1 _1fl- ° ,ourLOr aw 40,,... z AyE B ^ ••,.,•;,; O°5° ;I D Z`` KO Is i fN " D°?eUs� •i •. ` 1 P zo _ ,z 7 B FI Q °tawT u bESS ,.aA>�- '� '1 $$EN pO't'o �;,, D_ ° _ '�� W� W ,'_ - __� J yo — nH+v� _._ CNANHA � ' -.'t N5» �© g b 3 �i I r _Y ` .. - • 1 / hY'E#* 1 . D 5 s 49 a T B o B FS z.lb— I E P T I N/ BUg�IV SS { y, Y1 ®�4 ®� .5 14 13 'Z q,0� • IR.—_L -r 1 '—. . \�� Y: 3• �M 7' CIRC'0 ©' ® ,LANE 11 T/�� —l_ Y_ ._---_— _—__� •I'{� `s. \ ` \J I Y BI I 5 13 O HIR I \ t` \ WTtpi L ARK i P�• I .`<,-,...- \\ L' R R A S is <zi E ADD. I�pcJs S D=g\i \ \D,BR �g..A » — ' •AkAKDTP s "''°1 qq ry�l. 4 DES - \ `4k- z `' 01, I' I 6051 SRO _z :. L 1 . MJ W. \ \ 34 • CHANHASSEN LAKES I s 88 P I, t 44/ .43. BUSINESS PARK ( O.\ r Jt9 A< !� o CO I pDTLD? P —_ / I I ARGUS ELOMENT,INC ` ----�—__-_—� 1 I d\y 1 eR� CHANHASSEN LAKES \.\ I a I i .,-___ ! a,� BUSINESS PARK �`\ ��'�l� /•.77:-.-IP t J// 1 Ix ;/P LAKE �1 :31°1�r 7Jd V N ��1 (�� a ' + �^'rBA'• .a H \�.. �` �`�. — 1 I I a'..' 401, 'Z'Q o I f. �� OAK SUSAN A % ;� I ^' »,»,,ioiTM V »°i 'f ��' B ' / \tAp$011 RICE (UNMEANDERED) • JAMS A Will j /i .u: 1`�/.,., wnc..eo / \\ Gx ero � in F" n \ �� i �" tie I I i I LAKE en SUSAN HILLS 5 ___ . ti4 F4 / n'w�iw, �� I I ,.I' __ f ,- is 46 •4.C'P .� c 1 200' • i'� ._ op s''` '� '`E T.H. 101 REALIGNMENT STUDY ~r �, , v .n°rq ., ,„ ,f • ' IS 9 ` ; 8 „VTq »// 8 • TPaNE5NF01NEERIN° MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL I - - - N n N 8-19-88 I 'uE[ �� 7 y -Ag CHITECTURf I w• y •a' I 8£NNEI T,g1NORD5E.MOLSFSLO.JAPVIG.OAPONE0.,INC. r__. ) _______—__--_./_ L_ _a;° / l _•.� __�� ROAD ----- —�-- A 1ME81ER SDUARE TOB TI5I10 6T.6. Y°NIBAPp{JS,MN B5•lq IN— vNg _ II ya ♦ i , \yam, - VILL AGE Oi CnANnA63EN 9_CO 6 8 v p S- 6-- ,�'12 a 15 5 6 l i I • 10 9 8 ] 6 l a ilii13 IZ==10=8 = Y •``•`\ °PD 2 ( •Q M1 °iIis B"Ba3 ��. fI a _Y/E� •_ :