The URL can be used to link to this page

6a & b. TH 101 Realignment , .2, CITY OF 6....2/A i- 8 \ „ . \IN CHANUASSEN . , • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 '� `= _ (612) 937-1900 n , , .•s.k+ MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager k ' <-----kr------- _______ FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner l DATE: September 23 , 1988 SUBJ: TH 101 Realignment, Land Use Plan Amendment and Official Map Request BACKGROUND At the August 22 , 1988, meeting, the City Council left the public hearing open for the land use plan amendment and official map items for the realignment of TH 101 across the New American Homes commercial site. At the September 12, 1988 , meeting, the Council considered additional alternatives prepared by staff and con- sultant to realign TH 101 . At that meeting the Council was asked to identify weights to assign to the various criteria that were discussed. The consultants will be present at Monday' s meeting to review the results of the tabulations of the criteria scores and the weights applied to each criteria. Attached is the memorandum from Fred Hoisington which summarizes the conclusion of the initial scoring of alternatives, cost estimates of alter- natives, traffic analysis, a summary of the meeting with MnDOT, and the projected ADT for each alternative. CITY COUNCIL ACTION Should the Council endorse an option which does not incorporate the "south leg" option across the shopping center site, it is recommended that the City Council deny the plan amendment request as originally presented. Because of the drastic change in the alignments , either a new application should be processed or the new option should be discussed in the upcoming comprehensive plan amendment process which will be conducted by the Planning Commission in the upcoming winter months . Should the Council choose an alternative which traverses the commercial shopping center site owned by New American Homes , it is recommended that the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to identify the TH 101 realignment across said property to intersect Lake Drive East. After this action is taken, the next motion would be to adopt the official map matching the realignment approved in the text amendment application. If an option is Mr. Don Ashworth September 23 , 1988 Page 2 endorsed by the Council other than the originally considered south leg option, the Council may also take action on the next item on the agenda regarding the site plan review request for the shopping center. In any case, a motion needs to be made to close the public hearing and then a motion either approving or denying the plan text amendment and official map. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Memo from Fred Hoisington dated September 22 , 1988, including cost estimates and scoring sheets . 2 . Letter from a Chanhassen Estates Residence Association dated August 24 , 1988. 3 . Letter from Blue Circle Investment Company dated September 15 , 1988 . 4 . Letter from Jeff Cook, McDonald' s Attorney, dated September 14, 1988 . 5 . Letter from Uli Sacchet dated September 23 , 1988 . 6 . Letter from Philip Schloss dated September 22 , 1988 . 7 . City Council minutes dated August 22 , 1988 . Hoisington Group Inc. Land Use Consultants MEMO To : Donald Ashworth , City Manager From: Fred Hoisington , Consultant Subject : Trunk Highway 101 Alternatives Evaluation Date: 9-22-88 • ' ,: ',,Enclosed for your review are the Benshoof and Associates Alternatives Traffic Evaluation and Level of Service Analysis , a Project Cost Assessment by BRW, the method used to score alternatives and the Scoring Matrix that establishes the results of the evaluation . As you can see , we have eliminated Alternatives 1 (Existing System) , 5 (Original North Leg Option) and 7 (the Modified Market Boulevard Alternative) . With Alternative 1 , the entire system breaks down . MnDOT will not accept Alternatives 5 or 7 . An Alternative 2a has been added which we believe is an improvement over Alternative 2 in terms of level of service at key Hwy 5 intersections . We reviewed all but Alternative 2a with the Planning Commission on September 21 and they expressed unanimous support for Alternative 6. Since I received weighting of the Criteria from only one Councilperson before having to complete this report , I took the , , :.:Liberty, as originally suggested , to interpret the Council ' s ,`:,�i':��q; ),intent and weight the Criteria myself to serve as a starting point for our September 26 discussion . As you will see , I have given no weight to Schedule Adherence because all alternatives score the same on that criterion ; all are capable of meeting the accelerated ' MnDOT schedule for Hwy 5 . ',',We 'can make adjustments at the September 26 meeting to better reflect the Council ' s weightings. 1•� 7300 Metro Blvd. ; .;i ,•c�.ts(s�•`v �' Suite 525 .�r Edina,MN 55435 (612)835-9960 :.1,;iis,r• .. ..: - k- - ,r _ _._r x_ 44:{k,, �; *,,', •. • :J SKr!!' ' f.r i.r.v:I Y _ 'y:'itT ,�'i, . ,. _.. ..ti-N`•Alj d:'i:.4,..,c•rvn+•.eAil's^' V PLANNING I Si. - i-.• TRANSPORTATION NEEIN ARCHITECTURE BENNETT, RINGROSE, V LSFELD, JARVIS, GARDNER, INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700 9-23-88 TH 101 COST ESTIMATE Alternate Estimated Project Cost (For Chanhassen) 1 - Mn/DOT Proposal $0 2 - Dakota Ave. $2,780,000 2A - Dakota Ave. + Market Blvd. $3,378,000 3 - Chanhassen Proposal $3,151,000 4 - Chanhassen Prop. Mod. $4,468,000 5 - North Leg Option NA 6 - Market Blvd. $1,967,000 7 - Market Blvd. + Hidden Ct Connection $2,774,000 DAVID J.BENNETT DONALD W.RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E.JARVIS LAWRENCE J GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A AMUNDSEN DONALD E.HUNT MARK G SWENSON JOHN B.McNAMARA RICHARD D-PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE,SUITE 119/EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55344/(612)944-7590 September 21 1988 88-34-28 REFER TO FILE. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Howard Preston, 8RW Inc. FROM: Mitch Wonson RE: Traffic Forecasts for T.H. 101 Alternatives in the City of Chanhassen Consistent with our work plan for the analysis of alternative alignments for T.H. 101 in Chanhassen, we have prepared year 2005 P.M. Peak Hour forecasts for five selected alternatives. The forecasts represent an update of our forecasts prepared in 1986 and consist of three separate traffic components: . External traffic traveling through the City. . Traffic from areas of the City outside the prime study area for this project. . Traffic associated with uses in the prime study area, which is located generally on either side of T.H. 5 from Dell Rd. to County 17. Traffic associated with these uses was revised from our 1986 study based upon updated land use information obtained from City staff. An updated traffic assignment computer model was developed to account for the alternative routes which would occur under the selected alternatives for T.H. 101 . We have prepared forecasts for Alternatives 2,3,4,6 and 7. For each of these alternatives, a graphic is attached that presents the following information: . Estimated daily volumes on selected segments of the roadway system, which can be utilized to analyze general traffic patterns and impacts at selected locations. . Preliminary levels of service at intersections along T.H. 5 for the year 2005 PM Peak Hour. HIGHWAY 101 ALTERNATIVES SCORING 9-21-88 1 . 101 Continuity: 4 - Continuous traffic flow uninterrupted by right-angle turns . 2 - Right-angle turns but no shared section with Hwy 5 . 0 - Right-angle turns with shared section with Hwy 5 . 2 . Levels of Service at Key Intersections/Traffic Flow: 4 - Alternative provides a level of service not worse than D at all TH 5 intersections in 2005 . 2 - Level of Service E at one or more Hwy 5 intersections . 0 - Serious breakdowns system-wide in 2005 . 3 . Separation of Through from Downtown Traffic : 4 - Provides a clear separation . 2 - Limited separation . 0 - No separation . 4 . Downtown Accessibility : 4 - Alternative provides easy and understandable access to downtown from north and south . 2 - Potential exists for some circuity. 0 - Alternative provides for confusing ingress/egress to downtown . 5 . Other Business Property Accessibility (upon protect completion ) : 4 - No business/property access reduced . 2 - Some diminution of business/property accessibility . 0 - Significant reduction in existing business/property accessibility . 6 . Residential Accessibility : 4 - Provides same or better accessibility to downtown and highway system. 2 - Acceptable increase in circuity . 0 - Substantially reduces access . 7 . Pedestrian Safety/Accessibility : 4 - Provides for improved level of walking access and safety to downtown , downtown area parks and schools and neighborhood shopping . 2 - Provides for same level . 0 - Decrease in accessibility and safety . 8 . Impacts on Remaining Residences : 4 - Lake Drive East traffic volumes/noise consistent with present collector function , 101 traffic no closer to neighborhood . 2 - Increases traffic volumes and noise due to closer neighborhood proximity . 0 - Exceeds traffic volumes and function of present Lake Drive East collector classification . 9 . Project Cost/Fiscal Responsibility (TH 101 and ancillary improvements only) : 4 - Less than the mean project cost . 2 - Within one standard deviation of the mean project cost . 0 - Cost exceeds mean by more than one standard deviation . 10 . Ability to Meet Accelerated Hwy 5, Schedule : 4 - Alternative will cause no delay in 1989 construction start . 2 - Outcome uncertain or will likely cause minor delay . 0 - Will delay 1989 construction start . 1 11 . Natural Environmental Impacts (primarily wetlands) : 4 - Alternative will have little or no wetland impact . 2 - Mitigated impacts . O - Substantial impacts . 12 . Development Impacts : 4 - Requires little or no land acquisition and acquisition concurs with Comprehensive Plan . 2 - Acquisition required but alternative does not create unusable land remnants , require an inordinate amount of land acquisition or needlessly reduce developable land inventory . O - Alternative takes inordinate amount of land to satisfy TH 101 needs, needlessly reduces developable land inventory , results in loss of residences , takes uses that are consistent with Comprehensive Plan . 13 . Public Acceptance : 4 - Most parties endorse alternative . 2 - Some likely to support , others not . O - Almost no one endorses . iki STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 ALTERNATIVES SCORING ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA WEIGHT 2 2 2a 2a 3 3 4 4 6 6 Score Points Score Points Score Points Score Points Score Points 1. 101 Continuity 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 2. Levels of Service 10 2 20 4 40 4 40 4 40 4' 40 3. Traffic Separation 6 2 12 2 12 4 24 4 24 2 12 4. Downtown Access 8 4 32 4 32 2 16 0 0 4 32 5. Other Bus Access 3 4 12 4 12 2 6 0 0 2 6 6. Residential Access 4 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 7. Pedestrian Access 2 2 4 2 4 0 0 0 0 2 4 8. Residential Impacts 10 4 40 4 40 0 0 2 20 4 40 9. Project Costs 4 4 16 2 8 2 8 0 0 4 16 10. Schedule Adherence 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 11. Environment 4 4 16 2 8 4 16 4 16 2 8 12. Development Impacts 5 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 2 10 13. Public Acceptance 4 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 TOTAL 52 152 156 120 100y-- 168 HOISINGTON GROUP INC. September 23, 1988 Hoisington Group Inc. Land Use Consultants MEMO ' j,- 'To: Donald Ashworth , City Manager From: Fred Hoisington , Consultant Subject : Meeting with MnDOT on 9-22-88 , 'Date: 9-22-88 Present : Jim Povich Mike Christianson ;.:'< 'I °W, ,(,,;:' , Carl Hof f stead Evan Green ` ;; Don Ringrose ' Jim Benshoof , ' ';j ;il' ;;,; Mitch Wonson Gary Warren f_. ` : ,:Fred Hoisington "' I. We reviewed the seven alternatives with MnDOT explaining that Alternatives 1 and 5 have been eliminated from the analysis . We ' „.indicated that we would like a preliminary indication from MnDOT as to whether it will accept or reject any of the remaining five ; ':, alternatives . We explained that the City Council is becoming increasingly committed to Alternative 6 and that we did not wish ' ' '`,,to put the Council in the position of having approved Alternative ' 6 on September 26 only to have MnDOT reject it later . ' The MnDOT Staff asked which alternatives we felt the City could support and we indicated that Alternatives 2 , 6 and 7 seemed able 'to be supported by the City Council . The Staff then evaluated those three alternatives and expressed two concerns . The first ' concern involved the right-in and right-out on the north side of Dakota Avenue . The second concern was for the local leg or . connection to Lake Drive East as embodied in Alternative 7 . The • ;;H;MnDOT Staff indicated that they would likely not support . ,, ,; Alternative 7 but could support Alternatives 2 and 6 absent the +!T right-in , right-out on the north side of Dakota. ' ' There was some further discussion regarding an Alternative 2a which would utilize Alternative 2 but have a Market Boulevard ;, , �;;,;:,,;,„,;south leg for TH 101 . MnDOT indicated that it could also support t.,r.,;,;rl,4°8n Al 2a.r�'` i ternative 2a ' We ,then asked about the ability to adhere to schedule with , ■ ;;�,„,,,,,,,:.Alternatives 2 , 2a and 6 and there' appeared to be little or no ;:��, ;. difference as regards the accelerated Hwy 5 construction schedule. ;, ';.,The sooner an alternative is selected by the , City , the better off _ _ ' we will all be in meeting that accelerated schedule . Carl -•'"`',, ,Hoffstead explained that as soon as an alternative is selected , a - , T; #; preliminary plan should be prepared for approval by the MnDOT '-'' Central Office. Thereafter, plans and specs would be prepared and incorporated with MnDOT' s Hwy 5 plans as part of the bid package . ` `.``• k� 7300 Metro Blvd. _' { ,ti a .i; Suite 525 Edina,MN 55435 ; =- ^ -il =_•i'Fes. (612)835-9960 �.. ti.-(' '_S'S.4f ::, of tiz, J"..r, �:-r'•::Y.•..,.•_'m'W`F.ti S.t?:i"r ia•,.. +:I.v M1i ,.u- f ':r -'' - � -- „'. !+:•:w..4-,4ai-r{+•i -.sit mi.141 b'ti i. %1,% i.{..:4 4■/.44∎4.'y�ar-:-,,4 1"Rrel'gllkiiii�.' .iap 504 y • After the meeting , the City ' s Consultant Team discussed the merits of an Alternative 2a and decided to include it in the Scoring though it would have a somewhat higher cost than Alternative 2 to account for the Market Boulevard leg of Hwy 101 . ' One of the real advantages of 2a is that present Great Plains Boulevard could serve that function on an interim basis until such time as Market Boulevard could be constructed . We were tremendously pleased with MnDOT' s response to the alternatives presented and its willingness to express support for at least two of the alternatives that might also be favored by the City Council . While this does not represent a blank check endorsement for Alternatives 2 , 2a or 6 , it does represent a fairly strong commitment that all of those may be acceptable to MnDOT. _ y:M: :'a v ,.w...A'tg4''.r ...r.,..W a.... K•T - Chanhassen Estates Residents Association August 24, 1988 RE: Hwy 101, Hwy 5 and Lake Drive East C.E.R.A. has made certain proposals on the above mentioned roads because of our concerns for safety and the economic impact on local residents. 1. Reject the south leg plan of Hwy 101 realignment. 2. Propose to keep our "safe" intersection (Hwy 5 and Dakota Ave.) with its pedestrian crosswalk lights. If not we insist upon an alternate pedestrian crossing. Any alternative must be at least as safe as the existing crossing. We strongly feel that because of the anticipated increase in traffic due to the widening of Hwy 5, it will necessitate a pedestrian bridge at the junction of the new proposed Hwy 101 and Hwy 5 intersection. Also included would be a barrier wall along Hwy 5 at Dakota Ave. preventing anyone from crossing Hwy 5 at that point without the use of the bridge. C.E.R.A. feels that they paid for a safe crossing 9 years ago with the special assessment for the existing lights and that any alternative should not be assessed onto the local residents. With this compromise, we would endorse the Market Blvd. plan of Hwy 101 realignment. 3. If the closing of Dakota Ave. access from the east on Hwy 5 were to occur, east/west traffic on Lake Drive East would be greatly increased and traffic at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dakota Ave. would also increase substantially. C.E.R.A. insists that Lake Drive East be moved north before the opening of Rosemount or the opening of the left turn at 184th and Hwy 5 whichever occurs first. The above proposals were all UNANIMOUSLY approved at our annual meeting. CITY OF CHANHASSEN rgligM,P5710 S EP2 1988 ENGINEERING DEPT. Blue Circle Investment Company 6125 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 612/933-0409 CERTIFIED-RETURN RECEIPT September 15, 1988 Ms. Barbara Dacy City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Highway 101 Realignment Dear Ms. Dacy: After reviewing the Planning Commission meeting notes of August 3, 1988, the City Council Meeting notes of August 22, 1988, and attending the City Council meeting on September 12, 1988, we felt it was important to once again write you. We want you, the Mayor, the Council Members, and all other parties connected with the decision making process to be aware of our concerns and impress upon you the seriousness of the impact that your decision will have on our property. We therefore request again that you distribute copies of this letter to all those parties so that they will be aware of our thoughts and concerns while deliberating their decisions. During the August 22, 1988 Council Meeting, Councilman Horn in addressing the planning/development process in the City of Chanhassen states "We don't control private development. That happens. The only option we have when a developer comes in is we can say, well, we might be developing there someday. That's the only option we have when that planning comes in otherwise we have to let them go through with their process. We can tell them that you might be impacted at some point but we can't stop them. That's the type of process to go through." That's not the process we went through in planning our development and making our investment decision. We were given specific information regarding what was going to happen in the future. We were given specific recommendations on how to plan our development in order to accomodate those future events. We developed our plans and made our invest- ment decision acting in reliance upon very specific planning and recommendations. We implore the City and its consultants to give careful and deliberate consideration to the economic disaster which is outlined in our September 2nd letter to you and which we would have to deal with should you adopt a plan that is contrary to the planning and recommendation upon which we relied in making our investment decision. RECEIVED SEP 161988, CITY OF CHANFtASSEN Ms. Barbara Dacy September 15, 1988 — Page 2 We would like to address the frequent comment regarding Lake Drive East being a residential street. At the time we made our investment we were told, and acted in reliance upon what we were told, that Lake Drive East was to be a major frontage road paralleling Highway 5 and running from the east to the west borders of the City of Chanhassen. The purpose of this road was to help alleviate the traffic congestion on Highway 5 by giving the residents of Chanhassen and those people using the developments, both existing and future, south of Highway 5 an alternate route. In other words it was to be a high volume roadway not a residential street. Examination of the design/construction specifications for Lake Drive East will clearly show this to be fact. Part of the purchase price of our land went into paying for the costs associated with constructing Lake Drive East in a manner so that it was capable of being an important high volume frontage road. We feel we have every right to expect Lake Drive East to be just that. Lake Drive East was to extend westerly from the existing T.H. 101 to County 17 and serve as the sole access road for the undeveloped property south of Highway 5, west of T.H. 101, and east of County 17. On August 22, 1988, Fred Hoisington, the City's Consultant stated "another thing that's happened is that the Wards are beginning to show some interest in development of their property. One of the things that they've indicated is that they may wish to relocate at least modestly T.H. 101 so we look at that as an opportunity. Whether it produces something for us is questionable, but it certainly is an opportunity and of course Rosemount has announced that it has selected the City of Chanhassen for its new facility and since it's next to the Ward property it also opens an opportunity for some additional consideration of alternatives." Councilman Geving, at the same August 22nd meeting, supported Mr. Hoisington's thoughts. We feel that this thought process is totally wrong, detrimental to our property, shows unnecessary and harmful favoritism, and should be completely eliminated from the decision making process. Rosemount has already made their site selection and they made it without the benefit of relocating T.H. 101 to their property. If they made their site selection playing by the same ground rules which we relied upon they obviously decided that the established planned City road patterns, namely their access from Lake Drive, was adequate. Further, it was brought up at the September 12th Council Meeting that in order to accomplish the relocation of the southerly route of T.H. 101 to the Rosemount property you would have to go back and work with Rosemount. We can't understand why you would even begin to consider altering all past planning in such a fashion as to be totally devastating to our existing development in order to accommodate a new development, especially when that new development has announced its intention to go forward without the assistance you are contemplating giving them. Ms. Barbara Dacy September 15, 1988 — Page 3 The Wards may wish some relocation of T.H. 101 in order to develop their property, however we ask why is it that their wishes which, once again, would be totally devastating to our property, should be given any consideration when we were required to abide by the past City planning and staff recommendations even though they did not coincide with our wishes. At the August 22nd Council Meeting, Councilman Geving stated "I got calls over the weekend from business leaders in the community. They said, you're diverting traffic away from my business. I built a motel in town and I want that business traffic to flow past my facility and I agreed with him. We have gas stations and we have other facilities that want that business so we've got to look at it from their aspect as well. We've just spent several million dollars redeveloping our downtown. We want the traffic that flows our community to also stop and shop. So we must be concerned about the entry to the Chanhassen business district. Our motels, gas stations, food stores and so forth." Our September 2, 1988 letter to you expresses those same concerns and further outlines the devastating effect that some of the plans you are considering, if implemented, would have on us and our property. While we may not be a part of what you consider to be your downtown we are definitely a part of your business community and feel very strongly that we deserve the same consideration. It appears to us that the City's consultants and the City Council strongly favor the closing of the existing Dakota Avenue/Highway 5 intersection and the establishment of a new on-grade intersection just west of that existing intersection. The City's consultant, Mr. Hoisington, has stated that the primary reason for this preference is that it would cost more to acquire the property, an apartment building, needed to upgrade the existing 5/Dakota intersection than it would to acquire vacant cement business land in order to establish the new intersection. On August 22, Mayor Hamilton stated, "I said I don't care what you look at, I don't care if you have to tear down buildings or what you have to move but we ought to consider every possible alternative to putting a road in so we can solve this thing and do it properly." The plans numbered 1 and 2 which were presented to the Council on September 12th, if the 5/Dakota intersection were upgraded to meet Minn. DOT standards, would solve every problem or concern we have heard expressed. If adopted they would: 1. Address the concerns of the residents south of Highway 5. 2. Create the three major intersections which the City consultants feel are desirable. 3. Allow for the construction of Lake Drive in the manner in which we were promised. 4. Allow Highway 5 traffic to easily flow into the downtown utilizing the new roadway which you just spent considerable sums of money routing to the existing 5/101 intersection. 5. Leave the business properties at 5/Dakota unaffected, in fact probably enhanced. Ms. Barbara Dacy September 15, 1988 — Page 4 6. Leave the New American Homes commercial property unaffected. 7. Defer the cost of upgrading 101 south of 5 to a time when it will be needed. It is not needed at this time. 8. Allow for the establishment of a Market Place intersection which would have a connector to Lake Drive thereby giving the land south of 5 far better access to 5, your downtown, and the rest of the community than had ever been envisioned by any past planning that we had been apprised of. 9. Create a "merged" or "common" 5/101 section which is adequate to allow T.H. 101 traffic to flow onto 5 and exit back onto T.H. 101 safely. 10. Eliminate the need to and costs associated with disturbing wetlands which would be required if T.H. 101 were to be extended south from Highway 5 at the proposed Market Place intersection. The only criteria that we have heard of that this plan does not meet is that it creates right angle turns for T.H. 101. However, in light of Mr. Hoisington's statement that all plans which merge 5 and 101 create right angle turns and what seems to be a foregone conclusion that whatever plan is adopted 5 and 101 will be merged in some manner this negative should not even be considered as it will be present in whatever plan is adopted. When one considers the positives of this solution, especially when viewed in light of Mayor Hamilton's August 22nd directive to Mr. Hoisington, the cost of acquiring an apartment building versus the cost of acquiring cement plant land seems rather insignificant in relationship to the actual and probable City costs involved in upgrading a section of T.H. 101 which is not necessary at this time and the disruption of both existing business and undeveloped commercial land. Sincerely, /4", "1 /". Patrick B. Hallisey Partner PBH/dmm/54 WINTHROP & W E I N S T I N E SHERMAN WINTHROP ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW WILLIAM D.HITTLER ROBERT R.WEINSTINE PETER J.GLEEKEL RICHARD A.NOEL ROBERT S.SOSKIN ROGER D.GORDON 18UIJ CO WF_D TOWER JEFFREY w.COOK STEVEN C.TOUREK EDWARD J.DRENTTEL STEPHEN J.SNYDER DANIEL C.ADAMS HART KULLER 4.4.•} C EDAR S i REET JEFFREY R.ANSEL DAVID P PEARSON JEFFREY N.SAUNDERS THOMAS M.HART IV LAURIE A.KNOCKE DARRON C.KNUTSON SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 WILLIAM F MOHRMAN JOHN A.KNAPP LLOYD W.GROOMS STEPHEN B.YOUNG• KENNETH D.ZIGRI NO MICHELE D.VAILLANCOURT TELEPHONE 1612) 292-8110 JULIE K.WILLIAMSON OAVIO E.MORAN,JR. MARK T.JOHNSON DONALD J.BROWN BROOKS F.POLEY JON J.HOGANSON PATRICIA I.REDING SANDRA J.MARTIN JULIE L.SCHNELL GARY W.SCHOKMILLER MICHELE M.DANIELSON TODD B.URNESS SCOTT J.DONGOSKE •ADMITTED IN NEW YORK ONLY September 14, 1988 TELECOPY 16121292-9347 Mayor Tom Hamilton Council Member Jay Johnson 440 Chanview 7496 Saratoga Drive Apartment #9 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Council Member Bill Boyt Ms. Barb Dacy 7204 Kiowa Circle City Planner Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Council Member Dale Geving 7602 Huron Mr. Fred Hoisington Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 c/o City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Council Member Clark Horn Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 7608 Erie Avenue Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Proposed Improvements T.H. 5 and T.H. 101/McDonald's Corporation Dear Mayor Hamilton, Council Members, Ms. Dacy and Mr. Hoisington: We represent the McDonald's Corporation. We transmit this correspondence in response to the informational meeting held this summer between representatives of the City of Chanhassen and representatives of the McDonald's Corporation and pursuant to all which has taken place at the various city meetings thereafter. You will recall that we previously established the general consensus that the City of Chanhassen and McDonald's desire to work closely with one another regarding resolving the detrimental effect the City's highway improvement plans may have upon the McDonald's restaurant located at the intersection of T.H. 5 and Dakota Avenue in Chanhassen. The problem for McDonald's has been not knowing whether the T.H. 5 and Dakota intersection will be ultimately effected. Indeed, even as of today, we still do not know whether it will be effected. However, McDonald's previously agreed to transmit to you an example of a situation which has occurred in McDonald's history similar to the_ situation now in Chanhassen and reveal how that situation resolved itself. s i...'v...�i J SEP 15 1988" CITY or et LJAAIunc*rel September 14, 1988 Page 2 Two years ago in Tarpon Springs, Florida, certain road changes to U.S. Highway 19 in effect restricted access to the McDonald's restaurant in a fashion similar to that which is contemplated in Chanhassen. At that time an impact analysis was prepared by McDonald's Real Estate Marketing Department to determine what effect the road changes would have on that particular restaurant's sales. Set forth below is a quotation from the "findings" section of that report with confidential information deleted. It must be kept in mind this report was prepared over two years ago and the figures used are understated in terms of present value. FINDINGS: . . . In an average McDonald's U.S.A., the access and visability from the roadway to our lot can vary the store's sales volume potential by as much as a positive $345,000.00 to a negative $370,000.00 Most road changes are made for the safety and traffic flow convenience to the user. What may be overlooked or given secondary priority is the convenience of access to the establishments along which road changes are being made. For many establishments, a small decrease in the convenience of access will have little effect because their customers have predetermined their trip pattern with a stop at the establishment. For McDonald's and other quick-service restaurants, it is not always the case. A major study of quick-service restaurants have shown that both the basic decision to eat out and the selection of a specific restaurant are typically made on the spur of the moment. Considering all occasions, 60% of respondents said they selected the restaurant for their last fast service food occasion on the "spur of the moment." A spur of the moment decision selection is more prone to be lost when the ease of access decreases and travel time increases. 66.7% of this store's customers will have some degree of additional travel time and inconvenience by the proposed road changes. The greater the inconvenience, lead time • visability and added travel time to the customers, the smaller frequency of visits or elimination of visits completely. September 14, 1988 Page 3 In the Tarpon Springs situation, McDonald's worked closely with the City and was able to come to a mutually satisfactory compromise with respect to resolving any potential disputes between McDonald's and the City. In Tarpon Springs, the City agreed to pay McDonald's Corporation $750,000.00 in order to make up for lost rents and royalties. In addition, the City agreed to pay the franchisee $400,000.00 in lost profits. Further, the City took the site by eminent domain and during the restaurant's relocation process drastically reduced the rent charged McDonald's to $1,000.00 per month until the restaurant was relocated. McDonald's Real Estate Marketing Department has determined that the Chanhassen restaurant will experience a loss of sales approximately 2/3 of that which the Tarpon Springs store experienced should construction of the proposed highway median at Dakota Avenue take place. Given the facts which arose out of the similar situation in Florida, the potential economic impact is significant. Moreover, Minnesota law appears to be straightforward in that a property owner is entitled to reasonable compensation for a constitutional taking by a public entity of his right of reasonable, suitable and convenient access to and from his property. Should the Dakota Avenue/Highway 5 intersection be altered, McDonald's desires a relatively cost free and reasonable relocation of its restaurant within Chanhassen. McDonald's is proud to be a citizen of Chanhassen and desires to continue its place as employer and taxpayer. McDonald's has been previously advised by city officials that its interests have been and are seriously taken into account during the analysis necessary to make a decision vis-a-vis the proposed realignment. We reiterate that should the City or its consultants require our assistance, we shall be happy to help. Very my yours, WIN HROP & WEINSTINE A Jeffrey W. Cook JWC/mky Ulrico Sacchet 8071 Hidden Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 937-2371 Sept. 23, 1988 Dear Members of the Chanhassen City Council, In anticipation of the City Council meeting of the coming Monday, I wish to bring some additional points regarding the realignment of T.H. 101 to your attention. And further, I would like to reiterate our continued support of the Market Blvd. option (BRW's alternative number six), and to express our objection to the new Hidden Court option (BRW's alternative number seven). There are some mixed feelings among the residents of Brookhill as well as of Chanhassen Estates about restricting the operation of the intersection of Dakota Ave. with T.H. 5. Many of us like to see its functionality fully maintained, which would require T.H. 101 to merge into T.H. 5 at this intersection. Others are concerned about the resulting possibility of T.H. 101 traffic using Lake Drive East as a through connection. Either way, the concern of safe pedestrian connections of our neighborhoods to the Downtown area remains to be addressed and solved. And connecting Lake Drive East to the Dell Road intersection with T.H. 5 will gain importance for access to the corporate sites in that area and should be completed along with the realignment of T.H. 101 in case of restricting the Dakota intersection. Apparently, you are establishing a rating scale based on Fred Hoisington's list of T.H. 101 realignment objectives and concerns in order to measure the desirability of the various realignment options. As spokesperson for the Brookhill residents, I would like to request that the way each of these objectives is weighed by the City Council is openly presented at the next Council meeting and made part of the public record. The Retail Shopping Mall proposed by American Homes has become entangled with the T.H. 101 realignment. I, as well as the neighbors I am in touch with, would like to urge you to accept and approve the proposed Shopping Mall. In closing I would like to thank you for the attention you gave to our concerns. Your pending decision will tell to what extent we were actually heard. Sine ly Ul i Sacchet • Philip Schloss 8040 Hidden Circle Chanhassen,MN 55317 937-1268 Sept.22, 1988 Dear City Councilmen,Mayor,and City Manager, It appears that the City is close to making a decision about the realignment of T.H. 101 and that there is a consensus in favor of the Market Street option which I feel should be approved. However, let me re-emphasize the opposition we, the residents of Brookhill, have expressed regarding any option that brings T.H. 101 onto Lake Drive East or in between T.H. 5 and Lake Drive East as well as to BRW's current option 7. The main reasons for my opposition,and the opposition of the other Brookhill and Chanhassen Estate residents to these options are: • Increased danger to our children • Increased noise in our neighborhood • Loss of tax revenue to the City because of the impact on McDonalds and Sinclair or possibly the cost to move them I feel the answer is to allow American Homes to develop their land. By allowing this to happen, the City would reap the benefit of increased tax revenue and also simplify the T.H. 101 decision process by eliminating the options that are objectionable to the residents of Brookhill and Chanhassen Estates. I prefer BRW's alternatives 2 and 6, the Dakota Ave. and Market Blvd. options. Actually, I feel that a combination of the two would be best, the Market Blvd. option for the realignment of T.H. 101 south of T.H. 5 and the Dakota Ave. option for the realignment of T.H. 101 north of T.H.5. This would: • meet the requests of the residents petition that was completed earlier this month • allow McDonalds and Sinclair to remain in business where they are • allow American Homes to develop their land • solve the traffic problem on 78th Street • not delay the planned widening of T.H.5 It has been brought up that the cost of the Dakota alternative as proposed in BRW's option 2 would be more costly than extending T.H. 101 through the cement plant onto T.H. 5. The question must also be asked if this includes the cost of having McDonalds and Sinclair go out of business because the protected left turn at the Dakota intersection would be taken away. Does the cost also include rejecting the Brookhill and Chanhassen Estates residents' public support of leaving the Dakota intersection functional as is? "Where there is a will, there is a way." I feel that the City Council should direct its consultants to find a way to design the Dakota intersection with T.H.5 to either avoid the Apartment buildings or accept this cost factor. After all it should be up to us if we want to shoulder this cost because we feel it is the best solution. Thank you for listening to and acting on our concerns. Sincerely, Philip Schloss City Council Meeting ir .ugust 22, 1988 Councilman Johnson: There's another alternative too, he can buy 7.4 feet of his neighbor's property. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve a 7.4 foot variance to the side yard setback for the construction of a 10' x 20' boat cover. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. A. PUBLIC HEARING: LYMAN LUMBER INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS. Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Mayor Hamilton: We have a public hearing to consider the issuance of one million dollars in industrial development revenue bonds for the Lyman Lumber expansion facility in Chanhassen. Is there anyone here who would wish to speak to this item? Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution #88-88: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the issuance of $1,000,000.00 in industrial development revenue bonds for Lyman Lumber's expansion facility in Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: TH 101 REALIGNMENT: V A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE TRANSPORTAION CHAPTER TO ' ° IDENTIFY THE REALIGNMENT OF TH 101. B. ADOPT OFFICIAL MAP, FIRST AND SECOND READING. C. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION. D. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER (HIDDEN VALLEY CENTER) , NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, JUST EAST OF Q-SUPERETTE, NEW AMERICAN HOMES CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address Jerry Schlenk 225 West 78th Street Stephen J. MacDonald 8017 Cheyenne Spur Missey Kersch 271 Hidden Lane Chuck Bye 271 Hidden Lane Scott & Kirsten Melencamp 8137 Dakota Lane Roger & Dorothy Downing 7200 Juniper Road (P.O. Box 651) Ulrico Sacchet 8071 Hidden Circle 14 � � City Council Meetiri- - August 22, 1988 Philip Schloss 8040 Hidden Circle Michael Wittrock 8022 Dakota Avenue Stephen Wigg 8023 Dakota Avenue Greg Gmiterko 8121 Hidden Court Jim Mady 7338 Frontier Trail Hugh Faulds 8136 Dakota Lane Karyn Knutson 8136 Dakota Lane Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Jack Atkins 220 West 78th Street Dean & Joan Summerfield 8140 Hidden Court Larry Guthrie 520 3500 West 80th, Bloomington Robert & Cindy Myers 8131 Dakota Lane Doug & Traci Lawman 8100 Hidden Court Jeff & Holly Peters 8120 Hidden Court Mary & Kay Eidem 8191 Hidden Court Debbie Weigel 8170 Hidden Court Bill Streepy 321 Sinnen Circle David Clapp 8091 Hidden Court Doug & Helen Chase 8181 Hidden Court Ryan Johnson 8143 Marsh Drive Gary Disch 8170 Marsh Drive Randy Imker 8163 Marsh Drive Kim Heikkinen 301 Sinnen Circle Bernard Edelineider P.O. Box 103, Chanhassen Rich Fears 3141 Hidden Court Howard Sharpe 8121 Dakota Lane Richard Donnay 8109 Dakota Lane Tom & Sue Lehmann 330 Sinnen Circle J.W. Cook 1800 Mentor Tower Gene Berg 90 Lake Drive East Mayor Hamilton: Just as a little background. I would like to just, I know everybody's here to comment on this item and that's good. I would ask that if there are representatives from a neighborhood or a street or something that can speak for a group of people, I would prefer to have you do that rather than everybody coming up and saying the same thing. I think we know what your concerns are. We received your letters. We've read the Planning Commission meeting Minutes so we're aware of your concerns. We would like to hear from you again however if there's anything new that you'd like to add but just to kind of consolidate the comments and to save a little bit of time, I'd appreciate if there are spokespeople, if you can come forward at that time. This is, I think a community problem. It's not just a neighborhood problem on one or the other side of the highway. It's a problem that this City has been trying to deal with for a number of years. I think there's been some comments made that were rather upsetting to me about the staff and about the process that this City has gone through and it's clear to me that some of the people making these comments don't understand the process that you need to go through to accomplish what's attempting to be done here. This process was started I guess in 1980 looking at realignment alternatives for TH 101. Many plans have been presented. There hasn't been any action taken on them because there was never a pressing issue or a need to do anything. At the present time we feel that there is a need to do something to come up with an alignment. Consequently, we've tried to gather additional information to try to help us make the best decision possible. What 15 4 ' City Council Meeting - gust 22, 1988 we're trying to do is to select a right-of-way so that should the road be built, we can tell MnDot where we would prefer, as a community, to have this road built. You have seen a couple of alternatives. We think there are some others. There's been a long process of a lot of people involved. It hasn't just been City staff or Council or Planning Commission. There have been several engineering firms involved in this whole process. It's not something that we've done without a lot of input from a lot of people who supposedly know something about highway development. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered yet. When the project would be done for one thing. The funding questions have not been answered so there are some questions that need to be resolved that we do not have the answers to. I wanted to pass on some of those things to you. Keep that in mind as you make your comments. I appreciate that and I would like to then call the public hearing to order. What I will do is take continents from anybody who would wish to make comments. We will not, unless I'm overruled, make a decision on this this evening. I think there is additional information that needs to be gathered and additional alternatives that need to be looked at so once your comments are made and it's a part of the public record, we will then go back and do additional research, take your comments into account and research the item some more and we'll have to discuss it some more. We'll have Council discussion tonight also. Don Ashworth: I think it would be helpful if we could, most of the people here heard the report as it went to the Planning Commission. A number of comments were made regarding alternatives and what type of progress that may be made regarding those alternatives and staff has spent significant time really trying to look into all aspects. I was hoping to spend a little bit of time just going through what has been done since the Planning Commission meeting. We do have Don Ringrose here from BRW to go through some of those. Fred Hoisington. Mayor Hamilton: That's a good idea. We can update you from what's happened since the Planning Commission time. Barbara Dacy: What I'd like to do is have Mr. Hoisington review the Planning Commission action and then he'll introduce Mr. Ringrose from BRW. Fred Hoisington: Your Honor and members of the City Council, what I'd like to do is introduce the feasibility study team first of all, all of whom you know. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps Fred you could tell us and let everybody know who you are and how long you've been involved in this project. Fred Hoisington: Fred Hoisington and I am a land planning consultant and I have been involved in the City of Chanhassen for about the last 3 1/2 years. We first became involved with our efforts to resolve-some of the redevelopment concerns in downtown Chanhassen and then later became involved with what we call the broadened study area which dealt with answering a lot of the questions of access that were not answered, really were posed by the downtown project. What we came up with in the broadened study area study, were recommendations that dealt with access to the major trunkline systems through the City of Chanhassen. We dealt to a great extent with TH 101, TH 5 and future, heaven forbid, TH 212. So that's kind of been our involvement with you. In this case, we are coordinating the feasibility study team on behalf of the City of Chanhassen. (� The folks we have involved in this process, BRW, Don Ringrose who is ahead of the feasibility study for BRW has been in this process for really quite some 16 City Council Meetity - August 22, 1988 period of time. Howard Preston, who is also with BRW, is their in-house project manager for this particular project and who has a great familiarity with MnDot. He used to work there which makes him a real resource for us. Jim Benshoof who is the lead traffic engineer in this case, who is the one that is charged with evaluating the alternatives you'll be seeing here in a short time. The purpose of this meeting has really changed since the last time you were here. When you were here on the 3rd of August to meet with the Planning Commission, and I guess those things happen. One of the things that we determined was that we could not provide the Council with the information that we felt was needed in order to move ahead with a decision on this critical issue this evening. We were originally looking for an approval from the Council. We did ask approval from the Planning Commission and now we're not sure we want you to approve what we thought we wanted you to approve only 3 weeks ago. What we're looking for tonight is input. We're looking for that from both the Council and from members of the audience. This decision is too critical, too much involved to make a decision fast and that's a bit contrary to what I told you in the past but sometimes things do change a little bit. So let me tell you what kind of schedule that we would like to have this move along on. Tonight we'd like to review alternatives. September 12th, we'd like to come back and at least give you a staff report of where we are with the collection of additional information and additional analysis. Then on September 26th we would like to be able to come back to you with a recommendation. We may come back with the same recommendation we came to the Planning Commission with. All I can tell you at this point is that I'm cautiously more optimistic about the possibility that there may be one or two other alternatives than I was 3 weeks ago. Now to reiterate the objectives of the study, we have to define, as we think, as part of this process, a place for TH 101 to go. We're afraid if we don't define that fairly soon, we'll lose some options. The window of opportunity is going to close and we simply won't be able to deal with this critical issue in the near term. One of the things that we think we important is that TH 101 have continuity through the City of Chanhassen. It is the only road through this community that has any chance of having of providing continuity north to south. A lot of the trips that will use and do use TH 101 today, originate outside the study area and pass completely through the study area. Now one could argue that the alternatives we're showing tonight don't really represent continuity. In my judgment, I think they do. Another thing that we're going to be extremely concerned about and it has to be an objective because MnDot has made it an objective and that is, that the level of service at the major intersections along TH 5, the level of service at those intersections be sufficient to accomodate traffic well. The third one is that we separate traffic through from downtown traffic. A fourth is that we develop geometrically sound design. In other words, we can't create accident prone highway designs as a part of this process. One of the things that we're continually and the audience here will recognize is fiscal responsibility. It's very difficult to simply use or take any of the alternatives.and implement them no matter the cost. Some of the costs, the costs will be substantially higher for some of these alternatives than perhaps others. The risks that I talked to the Planning Commission about haven't gone away and there are two of them. One of the risks is that there is a shopping center in the way of the south leg of the proposed alternative. What that could mean is if that leg is closed, that alternative is closed for all intensive purposes. If that shopping center is built. The second risk is a delay in the construction of TH 5 which is now on an accelerated schedule. One of the things we've learned since we last met with the Planning Commission was that we would not require additional right-of-way should we adopt the north leg 17 • `')Ei.ty Council Meeting igust 22, 1988 ; option. The common leg between TH 101 and TH 5 from the due north leg to Great Plains Blvd. . That has been accomodated and so we're somewhat less concerned that there will be a delay for that purpose. What we will try to do and what we're trying at this point is to make sure we stay on schedule with that and still satisfy the needs of the City of Chanhassen in the process. The reason we changed course is complex. As you know, the Planning Commission approved an alternative which was really two alternatives. The preferred alternative was the north leg option. While the Planning Commission approved of an alternatives, the last comment made by the Commission, I think it was it's Chairman, there has to be an alternative that will work here. What the Planning Commission did not want to do was foreclose forever the possibility that we would be able to build TH 101 and I think what they were telling you and telling this community was that if we can do it on the north leg option, fine but if we can't, we want to make sure that at least it can be built. A second choice was of course, to use the south leg. So we thought about that for a while and we decided as hard or as many alternatives that have been considered in the past, we should still continue to evaluate more and we have done that. Another thing that's happened is that the Wards are beginning to show some interest in development of their property. One of the things that they've indicated is that they may wish to relocate at least modestly TH 101 so we look at that as an opportunity. Whether it produces something for us is questionable but it certainly is an opportunity and of course Rosemount has announced that it has selected the City of Chanhassen for it's new facility and since it's next to the Ward property, it also opens an opportunity for some additional consideration of alternatives. Now, we did meet with MnDot in the intervening periods since the Planning Commission met. Essentially, what we're saying or what my feelings personally are about this process is that we can be cautiously more optimistic than we were before. Especially about whether one of the other alternatives can be accomodated. I am optimistic but not as much so that we can do it on the accelerated TH 5 schedule. Now the neighbors raised some good questions as well. Questions that can not be put aside and questions that we have indicated must be answered as part of this feasibility study process. One of those is noise and the noise impacts on the subdivisions to the south. Pedestrian access to downtown and Q-Superette. Traffic on Lake Drive East. In other words, given the different scenarios, which of them would have the most detrimental effect traffic wise on Lake Drive East. Whether the T intersection at Great Plains Blvd., as proposed, would work. How easy it would be for residents to get onto Lake Drive East and whether there would be sufficient gaps created with the signalization so they could get onto that roadway. One of the questions or concerns raised also had to do with the relatively minor level of service improvements that would have existed with the proposal at Great Plains Blvd. and the new north leg or the proposed intersection of TH 101. Finally, the neighbors also asked for a request for the consideration of other alternatives. We have, as a team, feasibility study team, looked at those alternatives and not only the ones that we're going to show you this evening but at a multitude of others, many of which do not work from a geometric standpoint and ones we're showing you tonight are ones that we think do work geometrically. So what we'd like to do is present those and then simply ask you to remember that these have not been tested for their traffic carrying capabilities and that we can not suggest to you this evening, but we will by the 26th of September, that they will in fact work. So with that, what I'd like Don Ri.ngrose to do is to make a brief presentation of the four alternatives than we'd like to take input and get some ideas. If you have any other suggestions, we'd love to hear them and we'd love to hear others from the neighbors as well. 18 City. Council Meet.--- August 22, 1988 -� Councilman Horn: I have one question. Were any eliminated because of cost? Fred Hoisington: The only one that has been eliminated because of cost has been the bridging alternative that would bridge the railroad, TH 5 and so forth which is about 10 times the cost of an at grade cost. Don Ringrose: The last week has been, as Fred indicated, as rather hectic one for the people that are involved with this and also as Fred indicated, while we've developed some ideas, we want to present them here to you, bear in mind this was all accomplished in about the last week and it has not had the opportunity of being thoroughly tested from an engineering and traffic standpoint. At the same time, we aren't about to present to you or discuss with the public anything that kind of at our gut level we don't feel makes sense or that wouldn't presumably pass reasonable tests of engineering principles. We have this evening four alternatives and the Council has received reductions of these that you've had an opportunity to look at. For the neighborhood and the citizens, I appreciate this is the first opportunity to become familiar with these. I'll go through them briefly and then entertaining questions that you have. The first one which is presented is essentially referred to as the current proposal. That is basic design that City Staff, ourselves and MnDot started out with about 6 to 8 weeks ago when this whole process started. It consists of the relocation of TH 101 easterly of existing Great Plains, crossing over and then swinging south onto Lake Drive and that is the portion which was discussed through the Planning Commission and the neighborhood meetings that were held prior to the Planning Commission. On the drawing, we've shown an extension of that illustrating how that would continue west and then turn to the south and connecting to existing TH 101. One of the issues which was not discussed at length because we didn't feel it was particularly of concern for the neighborhood, was how this linkage would occur. MnDot had made it clear to us early on that the T intersection, that would be Lake Drive and then a T intersection to existing TH 101 would be unsatisfactory in terms of the TH 101 function. So this drawing represents the original proposal expanded to include the linkage to TH 101. Then we also have, in light of the Ward property casual discussions I think is the best way to describe those, and the more specific proposals for Rosemount, expanded our scope of thinking in the sense that the horizons that we can look at here to see how this new activity and new interest would relate to this existing problem entering this one time, and probably not the only time to assure where haste might have made waste in it because I think as we've expanded the horizons our thinking here, we have generated some additional alternatives that have genuine merit. What we then have shown on the same drawing, the extension of Lake Drive, the proposal for a Market Blvd. connection and the connection on into the basic center of downtown Chanhassen's commercial district. We think that as the advantage of tying this emerging job center to the existing retail commercial district of the City. This as I indicated is the original proposal. This is also the proposal which the neighbors were very concerned about. Primarily, as I understand it, because the proximity of relocated TH 101 to the homes along the northerly side of the subdivision and the noise and the issues that they had raised and Fred touched on. Then taking into account primarily the citizen's or the neighborhood issues, we said is there something we can do to address those in terms of a design in terms of some relocation. With respect to the original plan, we can talk about noise berms, noise walls, and some of those issues but I think you were looking for something more fundamental in terms of an alternative location. 19 City Council Meeting ( ugust 22, 1938 In some cases we have to stretch our mind a little bit even to stretch our imagination from an engineering standpoint to come up with these but we felt even though I can't support some of them from an engineering standpoint and we don't have a drawing to talk about, it's difficult to have a discussion. I think this represents one that falls into that category. Essentially the same northerly leg but moving the new TH 101 to the north, essentially halfway between Lake Drive and existing TH 5 swinging to the west and then to the south. The objective here is trying to put some space between the new road and the existing homes. That's the only real change. The complication of that is it, in some respects, from an engineering and from a fiscal standpoint, almost has to be considered, I'd say silly. When you look at it from, we have three roads all running east/west in a corridor of about 400 to 500 feet. There's tremendous cost involved in duplication of facilities. There's substantial cost involved in acquisition of properties to make this happen and while we can certainly draw the line so it would work geometrically and would function, it doesn't have a lot of common sense to it. The rest of the westerly portion is the same. The third alternative is what is referred to as the north leg. This is what the Planning Commission identified as their preference if it could be accomplished. Prior to the Planning Commission's consideration, we had Jim Benshoof, the traffic consultant that's been doing all the work for the City, did some analysis on this north leg alternative. I want to be sure you understand the function here because I'm not convinced the drawing illustrates it as it should. The intention here for the TH 101 through traffic is to move on the existing alignment up to TH 5, then east or west on TH 5 and the north on what we call the north leg. So southbound is to this location, a right hand turn, a left hand turn and so forth. It is not intended that TH 101 traffic would in any fashion go like that. Whether or not this would even be permitted, in terms of the close spacing, etc. by MnDot is questionable. It is shown on the drawing as something that we'd like to consider. While the intersections, this intersection and this intersection, can accomodate the turning movements. Physically the southbound or northbound. In particular, the left turn movements that would occur here and here, that is by the introduction of a double left turn lane at this location and this location, the predicted left turn movements can be accomodated through the intersection. The issue that surfaces with this design is not the turn movement but the weaving movement. That is, for example, in the design volumes there's 800 vehicles in the peak hour that will come south, turn onto existing TH 5, want to move over two lanes and make the left hand turn to go south in a distance of about, it's less than 1,000 feet. When we presented this to MnDot at our meeting last week the answer which they gave us was the answer which I think we would have predicted that no, it can not work in their opinion and that they can't suggest that we should even pursue it. The solution, and we had talked about it ourselves in terms of the concept of the common section isn't totally invalid if there's sufficient space in which that weaving movement can occur but this isn't suffi.ci,ent space. For a while we were actually looking for alternatives to where we could move this back up and create space by moving it to the east. However, then we start looking at apartment buildings and all kinds of major issues on the north side so we're just moving one, we're creating one problem to solve another. But what surfaced out of the discussions of last week and it really was in the form of a brainstorming session in our office when the entire design came on Wednesday morning last week followed up by a meeting at MnDot Wednesday afternoon at which point all we had was tissue paper sketches of some of these things which we were presented but what surfaced out of that discussion is a fourth alternative which we think is substantially different but it begins to address more accurately or more 20 City Council Meeting - igust 22, 1988 believe there is a benefit to this because we have a real problem. This is not just to connect TH 101 north to south. We've got a real problem. TH 101 as it [- goes through the north side here, goes through a residential neighborhood. It goes past a grade school. It goes past a couple churches. It runs past Kenny's which is where all of our kids go to hang out just like kids on your side go to Superette. We have a present and real danger going on right now with TH 101 on the north side and we have to do something on that but to create a problem on the south side by doing something to solve a problem on the north side doesn't make any sense either. That's why I favor the one I'm favoring now. I think the business signage can be handled very easily as far as saying Chanhassen businesses, take a right now and you can go to downtown but that's pretty standard stuff. I just wanted to cover some of the public comment that was made there. That's all I've got to say at this time. Mayor Hamilton: I think you've received a few more questions Fred from the public and from the Council. Especially Dakota Avenue. How is that going to be impacted and some of the others so if you could gather the information on that and bring it back to us, I'd appreciate it. Anybody else have any comments? Councilman Horn: Just a response to Jay. When we first started looking at the TH 101 alternatives, we weren't moving the property to the south because the south wasn't built up like it is. As a matter of fact, when that development went in, we discussed this. It was discussed with the church when it went in and we've always talked with anybody who's developed in any area anywhere in this area about the possibility of realigning TH 101 and what the possible impacts might be. The church people have been debating for some time whether they want to continue with their project until we resolve this. It's not a matter of planning. It's a matter of getting the public sector transportation issue resolved in conjunction with the private development. We don't control private development. That happens. The only option we have when a developer comes in is we can say, well, we might be developing there someday. Go by that property. That's the only option we have when that planning comes in otherwise we have to let them go through with their process. We can tell them that you might be impacted at some point but we can't stop them. That's the type of process to go through. It might look like bad planning but it's the reality of the fight between the public and private sector. When this whole thing started, the situation was much different. In fact, many of the options that did look attractive at one point don't look that way anymore. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to just thank everybody for your input. It's been valuable to us and we appreciate your coming to the Planning Commission and to the Council meeting to show your support for what's being done in the City. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY; SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT NO. 1. Public Present: Name Address B.C. "Jim" Burdick 426 Lake Street, Excelsior Brian H. Burdick 5205 Greenwood Circle Jan Coey Taco Shop 32 City Council Meetiy - August 22, 1988 j' get TH 5 upgraded and expanded to 4 lanes out to Chanhassen and regardless of what's going to happen with our decision on TH 101, I certainly wouldn't want us I- 1 delaying that project. I don't want to see it falling short to 184th Street just because we did something here that promoted that delay. Whatever it takes, we want to see the committee, Hoisington and Don to proceed along those criteria that we move ahead with TH 5 and push it ahead just like we had planned all along and keep us informed so that we're aware that if our decision is to actually delay, let us know. Secondly, if there's anything that the City can do by bringing in our own architects or engineers or draftspeople to bring this up to speed, as was mentioned in some of the staff notes here, that's a great possibility. Let's proceed in that vein because we can't let TH 5 delay into the 1992-93 scenario. That's the direct I'd like to see the staff go. Councilman Johnson: I'd also like staff, I see Barb's not here right now but Jo Ann probably knows it just as well, tell us what the next steps are. There's a feasibility study yet to be done and things like this. How many more steps do we have going here? Mayor Hamilton: Fred, perhaps you could. Fred Hoisington: I think that Barbara laid that out In her memo Jay. Councilman Johnson: Well, they didn't read Barb's memo. Fred Hoisington: There will be a feasibility study. It would have to be completed and all the answers providing for us to proceed. If there is an ? alternative that we can settle on, then we can desi n.. .and to... Then it will be constructed so that's what we expect the of that effort Pe process to o be. Councilman Johnson: Okay, Market Blvd. option has quite a bit of streets involved. Quite a bit of roads involved. There's a mileage limit in our envirnomental assessment state laws and environmental quality law, I believe it's called. I think we need to take a look at that real soon and see if an Environmental Assessment Worksheet will have to be done so we can get that going too so we don't come up at the last minute on oh my goodness, we need an EAW for running these type things. This feasibility study is going to decide a lot of the questions that have been asked. Pedestrian crossing is one that I definitely want to see in that feasibility study because that is a problem that •this City has right now and if we can tie that in here, we can get that addressed as early as possible. This is a good time, a good excuse to throw that on the agenda. I think it's already in there but I want to make sure it's in there. Whether the feasibility of what the effect this will have on the businesses in that intersection, the Sinclair station and Mac and Don's there, I'm not 100% sure whether that belongs in there or whether that is a free enterprise's responsibility to do that but if that is economically can be added to it, that would be nice to have there too. I do not believe that this would, with movement of Rosemount in and a few other changes going in town, I don't think this will have a marked effect on those businesses. I think as we're growing, they're not going to see any decrease in business to our road. Especially when you throw in 500 to 700 new employees just down the road from them. Their lunch time is going to be even busier. Of course, the feasibility study will look at the noise also that people have talked about. I really enjoy listening to Uli. I've listened to him three times now. At the Planning Commission and earlier, I wish I could speak as eloquently as he does. I do 31 City Council Meeting August 22, 1988 Councilman Horn: That's right. The road capacity goes with the smallest bottleneck. Don Ringrose: That's MnDot's primary concern is that we don't diminish the service level on TH 5. Councilman Horn: That's my primary concern. Councilman Boyt: I've got a couple comments. Along with Jay, the two of us sat through the Planning Commission hearing and I guess a couple of comments. One is driving through Wayzata fairly frequently, TH 101 is about as fouled up as it can get when it goes down the main street of a part of Wayzata so our existing situation isn't uncommon but it's certainly not one I think we want to stay with. As I mentioned before, TH 5 shouldn't be delayed. My reaction to the Planning Commission earlier was that I thought they created the impression that this was a mere 2 year delay for TH 5. If we decide to do something that would delay TH 5's extension, it will not be built. Don't kid yourself to think the State is going to come back and give us money to extend it another couple of miles. They won't do it and so what we're deciding is do we want it to be 4 lanes out to CR 17 or don't we want it to be 4 lanes out to CR 17. Personally, I can tell you that the decision may be extremely difficult before we're done but that my vote will be to extend it. Then, as I mentioned earlier, Option 4 I think makes, it certainly makes sense to me from what I've heard. It sounds like it makes sense to a lot of people but I think we'd better be very careful to get Chan Estates reactions to this before we leap ahead. I think that Mr. Wigg made some good points, as Tom pointed out, and we probably need to hear from more people in that neighborhood so I think we' ll have the opportunity to (_ _ do that. My last point would be, I think that the neighborhood coming together here, certainly you're not done and you won't be done when we make our decision. I think it's very important that the neighborhood continue to take this to MnDot. TH 5 is going to change dramatically. You need to have input in that change process so if you want noise barriers, they know that. If you have other concerns with how TH 5 is built and extended, that they're aware of that so don't disban simply because the City of Chanhassen makes it's part of the decision. That's all I have. Councilman Geving: I just want to finish with a couple of comments and questions to Don on how the funding for this project, if it were to proceed, would or could be accomplished. The total realignment of TH 101 to Market or wherever we place. How would that happen Don? I don't believe there's any money for this. Don Ashworth: We had approached the legislature—this past year. In fact, our bill was included even in the ending session. It lost by 2 votes on the Senate side at 3:30 in the morning on the last day in session. The major stumbling block was contingent from Hennepin County. Some concerns there, staff is already starting to meet with legislative representatives. We've done that on a number of occasions. We're meeting again with them this Wednesday to insure that as we approach this next legislative session, that we will have worked out those problems. Councilman Geving: And then just one other comment and that has to do with the �7 whole issue of this realignment process and what impact it may have on the delay, potential delay for TH 5. I can tell you that we've worked for years to 30 City Council Meetir - August 22, 1983 C Councilman Johnson: I think we need to discuss it separately Tom. Councilman Geving: You can't do (d) . Councilman Boyt: I would move, when appropriate, that we table (d) for lack of information because we didn't receive the drawings. I think that's appropriate. Councilman Geving: I would second that motion and I think the New American Homes have to realize that we can't get last minute details on a very important subject on the night that we're going to be making the decision. Mayor Hamilton: We have a motion and a second to table item 3(d) for lack of information. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table action on the Site Plan Review for a 40,000 square foot shopping center (Hidden Valley Center) , New American Homes Corporation, for lack of information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: Pat, I guess I'd like to ask your opinion on that. We don't have sufficient information. Pat Farrell: I understand that. Are you tabling it for a time specific? Mayor Hamilton: We tabled it only because we have non-sufficient information so when sufficient information is available, we could consider it but it should also be tied with the realignment. Pat Farrell: You're within your authority to table it then. Councilman Horn: I had a question of either Fred or Don. What provision do you have planned to put along TH 5 between TH 101 to the north and Market? It appears to me that what you're doing in that particular section of the road is you need to create a highway that can handle both the traffic volumes of TH 101 and TH 5. Fred Hoisington: That's correct. Councilman Horn: So is that going to be 6 lane there? Otherwise you're going to have a bottleneck. Fred Hoisington: I'll answer that in a general sense. The traffic analysis will demonstrate what will be necessary there. We think it would involve two lanes in each direction and two left turn lanes so conceivably for a portion of that stretch, yes it could be 6 lanes wide. Councilman Horn: Otherwise it doesn't do much good to have four lanes beyond it to the west. Councilman Johnson: Create a bottleneck right there. 29 • City Council Meeting ( ugust 22, 1988 1r alternatives, whether or not some type of compromise as far as putting in the north leg, even if traffic isn't going to be using it into TH 5 but proceeding on that option. Having the north leg in place and then perhaps two years down the road, putting in the Market Blvd.. Thank you. Philip Schloss: My name is Philip Schloss and I live at 8040 Hidden Circle. My comments basically, I had a lot of them but Mr. Hoisington kind of took those all away by the fact that he came in with some other alternatives tonight and I'm glad to see that he did that as your Planning Commission, even they didn't like the present proposal as it stands. I want to urge you to reject any TH 101 proposal that does go south of TH 5 between Dakota and TH 101 because it seems to me that the impact is still the same as the original proposal. I had a discussion with Mr. Evan over the phone and according to him, Mr. Evan is the project manager of TH 5 on the widening. According to what he said, if you were to separate TH 101 as a project from TH 5, they would not delay the widening of TH 5 through Chanhassen. Now you may wonder what is this going to cost us? The cost means that the intersection then would fall totally on the City to do that. As I understand as it is now, that cost will be shared. However, with some of the other options, maybe that is the most cost effective to put the decision off rather than to go ahead with this without any clear understanding of totally what's involved as this has been rushed upon us. What I want to urge you, please don't be afraid to delay the widening of TH 5. As Mr. Conrad said, and he is the head of the Planning Commission, he said let it be the City of Chanhassen's decision, not MnDot's decision to delay TH 5. However, if you feel a decision must be made tonight, I urge you that I feel that the fourth alternative, in other words, it's the north leg option only with Market Street, I believe that's what we're going to call it, I urge you to support that one. I think that continuity of TH 101 or having a continuity of TH 101 is like finding irL a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Thank you very much. Mayor Hamilton: Are there any other comments? If there are no other comments, I would suggest to the Council that the public hearing be continued until such time as we have further information from BRW and from Fred Hoisington and if there is anybody in the public who would wish to either write or make comments to the City, you may do so. Send a letter to the City or contact myself or other councilmembers, you can still make public comment. I think we should hold the public hearing open until after the meeting of the 12th. Councilman Johnson: I move we continue the public hearing and stop receiving input tonight I guess. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we need to move with this. It will remain open until after the meeting of the 12th. People can still input through the City or through any of us individually. Actually, the four items are all tied together and the one gentleman commented, he wasn't sure if we were going to move on any of them. I don't think there's any intention to make any decisions on any of them tonight. They're all tied together and they all need to be decided together. At least for the present time. Barbara Dacy: Except for item (d) . . . Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we can do that either until we know what alignment we're going to have. 28 City Council Meetinc August 22, 1988 has been heard and very well so. I might just briefly address that obviously the option that is favored by most of you is certainly going to be the option that is going to be favored by the neighborhood that I'm speaking for. The benefit to the City and the residents in general is really the main issue that I would expect you to consider as the City Council. It was pretty striking in the Planning Commission meeting a couple of weeks ago that the only benefit that could really be mentioned to the original proposal was through traffic accomodation. Well, we have a head on collision here of through traffic interest and residents interest if the original proposal would be implemented. Obviously the original proposal is not a solution. To sacrifice the desirability of a whole neighborhood, the safety, compromise the safety, even sacrifice a shopping center, what impact does that do to the tax revenue base of your City? You can also look at it from that angle. After all money has a certain weight in this world. The costs of the right-of-ways of the construction. How does that all fit together with that TH 101 is not even clear in terms of who has jurisdiction. We're trying to build something that was not founded at the time the proposal was made. It's not even yet decided that TH 101 will have an off ramp at TH 212 highway and I would like to encourage you to continue on the track to accumulate information and build this up step by step because it's an important issue and it's not going to get a sound solution by rushing and jumping steps before they're matured and clear. Thank you for your attention. Larry Guthrie: My name is Larry Guthrie. I'm an Attorney and I represent United Mortgage Corporation and Rottlund Homes and I have a few comments. I too Y . applaud the efforts of the Council to consider alternatives and the efforts of BRW to come up with alterantives and to listen to the recommendations that were made by the Planning Commission and also support the market option. I'd like to make a comment with respect to some of the concerns made by Councilman Geving on the downtown traffic and perhaps suggest to BRW that when they talk to MnDot, that they see whether or not a business route alternative through downtown could be signed through the old TH 101 so people who want to go downtown who might be not familiar with Chanhassen, will know that there's a business route that they can still hook up with TH 101 by going down the Market Blvd. alternative. The second comment I have is with respect to the public hearing and the other items you're going to be addressing later tonight and some of the concerns that were expressed as to the timing of this and whether or not the window of opportunity will be closed. My comment is sort of two fold. Whether or not you intend to close the public hearing after all the comments are received tonight and then go on and consider the mall that is being proposed to go in because that may or may not exclude certain alternatives and I guess suggest to you that because all the recommendations aren't being made to you tonight, that it would be inappropriate to close the public hearing tonight. The public should have an opportunity to respond to the recommendations that are being made to the Council. That's the first comment. The second comment is whether or not BRW can comment, whether or not when they come back on the 26th, what proposals still are going to be viable at that point. At the Planning Commission we were sort of led to believe that there wasn't much time in doing anything until perhaps 2 years from now would be out of the question unless you acted immediately. So I think that needs to be presented before the public hearing is closed and secondly, or thirdly or fourthly, wherever I'm at, on all the alternatives, it seems like the north leg is the same and whether or not something could not be done, if there is a delay and the window of opportunity is being missed because you want to make a deliberate decision and make the right decision and consider all the 27 City Council Meeting \ugust 22, 1980 Uli Sacchet: Members of the City Council, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 8071 Hidden Circle. I came here tonight to fight for what I J think is my right and I'm relieved that isn't necessary, at least to the extent that it seemed necessary when I came here and I want to thank you members of the City Council for having taken our concerns seriously and listened to our concerns. However, I still want to address some other points because it seems that the prospect of the original proposal isn't totally out of the window. It's just a more balanced picture with additional and certainly far more desirable possibilities. As such, I still want to take this opportunity and address some of the main concerns that I have found at the neighborhood of the Brookhill development of the Hidden Valley area. We handed in petition signatures in two packages. Originally we handed in 92 signatures at the end of July, the 30th of July to the City Manager. We handed in another 62 signatures today which I don't know whether you've been informed of. You have, that's great. I personally have been entrusted by 70 of the residents to be the spokesperson in this issue to speak up against the realignment of TH 101 at Lake Drive East. I still want to make some of the points, some of the key points because as I said, the proposal isn't totally gone yet. It seems like we're addressing some problems. The main problem of the City is obviously traffic wise, TH 5. Then we have a secondary problem which is not necessarily just TH 101 in general as much as it is the intersection of TH 101 with 78th Street. Now it seems that the original proposal takes that problem away from the 78th Street intersection with TH 101. However, it doesn't really solve it in the sense that it's gone. In my view, that problem is just moved to the south side of TH 5 and the impact of the problem that is currently felt on the north side of TH 5 with that intersection of 78th Street and TH 101 would be off loaded onto the residents of the Brookhill development and Hidden Valley or Chanhassen Estates. That I do not consider a solution or solving a problem. Further, in terms of the through traffic need, of course it's an overall concern that we need to accomodate through traffic because traffic is rising. We know that. We've seen it. However, it's an envisioned need. It's based on assumptions. It's based on assumptions that things go on pretty much the way they've been going on. It's based on assumptions that 20 years from now we're going to continue riding the same kind of cars and putting up with the same kind of lights, which is likely. I'm not saying that's not going to be the case but it is an assumption. On the other hand, we, the residents of Brookhill and Hidden Valley, we live there now. That's not an assumption. That's not a plan or proposal. That's reality. We live here now and you Mr. Mayor, you made a remark that you were a little negatively touched, that's not the words you used, by some of the comments you got and I sincerely like to apologize if some of my continents upset you. I like to express myself with some spice. Now you can believe that I'm pretty motivated in this case because in my view, the safety of my children is at stake. The soundness of my investment I've made a year ago by building a house there and let's just look at that for a brief moment. How did that come about? The City made a commitment by zoning that area for single family homes. The City made a commitment by giving a permit to build that single family home there and then what happens? Then comes the individuals and make the biggest commitment of all. They make a mortgage that lasts 30 years and they want to live there and make it their home. I don't mean to blame your planning process or what you're doing but I do believe that it's justified to make this statement. In a previous issue you've discussed tonight, you were talking about a self created situation or what was it? This is a self created situation of the City and all we're doing is standing up for our rights. I thank you that you do consider us. Alternate plans are obviously necessary and 26 City Council Meeti - August 22, 1933 out parts of TH 101 that have been a mess for years. It seems to answer a lot of the questions that I've had and it resolves a lot of the issues that I've had so gee, this is really positive I think. I'm really pleased with what I've seen and although there's additional information that we need to get, Jay mentioned the problem with the pond. We have had, and I don't think that's much of a problem, we've had a development proposed for that site previously and we needed to do some things with the pond and I think we resolved them at that time and I see no reason why we can't resolve them again. That's a minor issue to take care of but I look forward to working with the feasibility study group. I'll certainly do all I can to help and I think we've got a workable solution. Those are the comments from the Councjlmembers. Now if there are individuals who would like to make comments for the public record, please come up to the microphone, state your name and address and give us your comments please. Who's going to be first? Stephen Wigg: I'm President of the Chanhassen Estates Residential Association. We know there's got to be chances that have to be made and several of you gentlemen said we have to consider some of the different alternatives and some of the problems pro and con, etc. . What is not drawn on this last proposal which everyone seemed to be leaning toward, is that intersection of Dakota Avenue. I've been there for 6 years. I came in right at the end of the controversy where the Estates spent thousands of dollars fighting McDonalds coming into that corner. Now there's a big difference between fighting someone coming in and having an empty building if that would be the situation from lack of traffic. For that matter, two empty buildings sitting at the entrance of our neighborhood. That's the first concern. There is nothing on here that shows. We took in, my understanding is, approximately 8 to 10 years ago, because of the danger of that intersection before there were stop lights there, the Association took and fought very strongly to get stop lights at that intersection for the safety of people crossing. I don' t see anything on here that says it's going to address any kind of pedestrian traffic getting across. This neighborhood is a 20 year old neighborhood. It's starting to turn over again. There are a lot more younger children that are growing up in this neighborhood so that concern is something that's got to be very much looked at. There have been things mentioned in the past about pedestrian cross over, etc. but is it feasible once you have these children, all these people are just starting to ride bikes, how far are they going to have to go to get across that highway and what's going to happen to those businesses that are on that corner? There isn't anything that shows an island. There's nothing sketched in there. Mayor Hamilton: I think your concern is genuine and Fred will take note of it and I think that's one of those issues that we'll need to respond to. Jack Atkins: My name is Jack Atkins, I live at 220 West 78th Street and I guess first of all I do like the Market Street proposal. I live on the north side here on West 78th Street and I do have some concerns about the north leg there. Mainly the railroad tracks after they cross the existing road there, they go behind Jerry Schlenk's property, they go below grade there maybe 10 to 12 feet and that train, a lot of people say there's only 1 or 2 trains but there are a lot of trains that come through there. If you live near there, you know that. So what you're essentially doing is you're going to have to take out that entire sound barrier for our neighborhood to put that new road in. I just want to make sure that that issue is addressed. Thanks. 25 -City Council :'.eeting ( ugust 22, 1938 r and I know that I sat there for sometimes 3 or 4 minutes. That's a long time waiting for 15 or 20 cars to pass so we've got to do something about rerouting that traffic off our main street. My real comments are, let's not rush into this whole project without looking at all the old cards. Let's check the alternatives and bad decisions are generally made when you don't do a thorough and adequate job of planning. That's where I think we were a couple of weeks ago when I started to read some of the Planning Coimni.ssion notes and Minutes, I didn't think that we had done a thorough job, the kind of job that was presented to us tonight and I think we've come a long way in the last two weeks. Another thought, and it's just a thought, is that in this community, for the people who haven't lived here very long, you'll note that there's a lot of things that divide our community. Either it's a railroad track or it's a highway. It's TH 5 or it's TH 7. It's TH 101, CR 17, CR 117 and TH 41. All of those divide and segment our community into little pockets of people and this earlier proposal, the south leg proposal would have done exactly that to Brookhill, Chan Estates, Hidden Valley. All of those little pockets of our community that are new to us and had no idea about this project 2 years, 3 years ago when we proposed it, are now faced with this as a real possiblity. In my opinion, we're going to try to do everything we can to remove that and eliminate that as a problem for you. I think one of the things that I'd like to see, at least I do it in my own business, I'd like to see the pros and cons of every alternative. It's nice to be able to present them here and I think you did a very good job Don but I would really like to see a complete list of the pros and the cons for each of your alternatives when you get down to the final selection point so we can see them in bold print. Let us know what the real negatives are and where we're coming from in terms of the positives. The only other big question I have is, what are the benefits to the community of this TH 101? I've lived here 22 years and I've lived with TH 101 all that time. It has not impacted me a great deal but I have to be realistic and I know that change is taking place. i•:e have an opportunity, in my opinion, with Rosemount moving to Chanhassen, with a payroll in the neighborhood of 500 to 700 people and the traffic that that's going to bring to this area of Market Blvd., we have an opportunity to reroute that if we can get together with the Ward family. I think personally that alternative number, I'll call it the last one, the Market Blvd. proposal is the best from my standpoint. Thank you. Mayor Hamilton: This process, as I mentioned earlier, I began looking at alternatives for this in 1980 and it's been a frustrating process for me because I've never seen one that I liked or felt comfortable with and I wrestled with this darn thing and I just couldn't, I don't know, there was just something about it that always bothered me. I couldn't find one that I liked. I saw one tonight that I like. That's number 4. It seems to answer the questions and the concerns that we have and I'll be cautiously optimistic, as Don said, in saving that it's an alternative I think that I could really throw my support behind. It looks like it gives the City a lot of new opportunities and it solves some problems that have been existing. We were just talking before the meeting tonight about some other possibilities. I said I don't care what you look at, I don't care if you have to tear down buildings or what you have to move but we ought to consider every possible alternative to putting a road in so we can solve this thing and do it properly. I think we've got the solution. We can put in TH 5 if MnDot will buy it and go along with this and work with us on getting this done. It's a grand opportunity for the City to make Market Blvd. kind of the main thoroughfare into the downtown. It will certainly help our industrial park. It will be a big boom for them. It will help us straighten 24 . City Council Meeti - August 22, 1933 Councilman Horn: I can't make a decision until I have a lot of Questions answered. I'm not sure we want to do that at this point. To me there are too many unknowns to make a decision. I think though, looking at Option 2, even though Don has hinted that that's not a feasible alternative, appears to me to be the best solution. Councilman Geving: I think the Mayor said it best when he opened with the fact that we've got a lot of public input. We've had a chance to read so much information on this through the public hearing process and I think it's important for us to understand that when we review our packet, we're always looking for other alternatives and that was my first and foremost objective. I said to myself, why not force TH 101 as far to the west as we can get it. How about CR 117 or even TH 101 and Lyman. I drove down to Lyman from Mr. Klingelhutz' property. It's exactly 1/2 mile out of the way to get to CR 17 and another 1/2 mile once you get on the north end back to the American Legion. So then I got thinking about the possibility of Market Blvd.. This is long before I even looked at any of these maps and that seemed to make a lot of sense to me. I was happy tonight to see that as an alternative. My personal feeling is that this needs a lot more study. I personally need much more time. This is a kind of decision that's going to be with us for a long time. We don't rework TH 101 everyday. It's been there for years and years and years and it will have a great deal of impact upon the citizens of the City and I'm not in favor of trying to impact any number of citizens who moved into our community at all. I got calls over the weekend from business leaders in the community. They said, you're diverting traffic away from my business. I built a motel in town and I want that business traffic to flow past my facility and I agreed with him. We have gas stations and we have other facilities that want that business so we've got to look at it from their aspect as well. We've just spent several million dollars redeveloping our downtown. We want the traffic that flows our corm unity to also stop and shop. So we must be concerned about the entry to the Chanhassen business district. Our motels, gas stations, food stores and so forth. Then the question came to my mind, what if we do nothing? What if we did absolutely nothing and let TH 5 continue and proceed along? Maybe that's not a good idea because we'll have missed an opportunity and the opportunity is that we could have the State realign this at a time when it's beneficial to us. So with every negative there's a possibility of an opportunity. I think I look personally differently at this project today than I did in 1981 because I was here in 1981 and this was not a big deal. We knew it was going to happen sometime in the future but the future is now because TH 5 is going to happen. We've worked on it. We've put a lot of money into it from a Chanhassen community standpoint along with Eden Prarie, Chaska, Victoria, all the communities along the route and these people want to see TH 5 happen and it's going to happen. I'm not anxious at this time to start marketing the center line on our official transportation map just to get the project on the Comprehensive Plan. I'm not anxious to do that until we do a lot of study. Analyzing it and coming up with the the kind of alternatives that Don mentioned hopefully we've have on September 12th. Some of the other comments in terms of some of the objectives and that is to make sure that this is not a dangerous situation where we're going to have kids crossing highways to get to superettes or to get to schools. I read with interest the comments from Brad Johnson that we have the same kind of experiences on the north end of town. Any of you people that go to work in the morning know what you're talking about when you come down 78th Street and try to get onto TH 5. Just try to get onto TH 101 or what I call Main Street is a chore. I pull up in front of Kenny's every morning 23 `'`City Council Meeting Igust 22, 1988 3 Mayor Hamilton: What would you like? Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest Tom that it might help the public reaction if they had some idea of just a quick where our particular thoughts were initially. That might give them something to bounce off of. Mayor Hamilton: I guess if you want to give them yours, you're welcome to. If that's what you're saying to me. I'm interested in what they have to say and I think they have put a lot of time and energy into studying this and I realize that they've just seen a new concept this evening and perhaps it would be appropriate for than to make comment on that. I have more questions than I have just general comments. Councilman Boyt: I think one of the frustrations of having been in the position that they're in is that if they don't know where we're coming from, it's awfully hard for them to react. By the time they do know where we're coming from, the public hearing is closed. Mayor Hamilton: The process of a public hearing is to gather input from the public. To take that, to massage it and digest it and fit that into the plans that we're trying to accomplish. That's the the way the process works I guess. Councilman Johnson: Tom, I believe by providing the input, by giving our input to the public beforehand, it also may speed up some of the comments as they are trying to cover all bases and if we've already covered some bases, it may not cover it. Boy, it's getting confusing. Mayor Hamilton: Well, I'm saying if you want to make your comments known, 1. you're welcome to do so. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so in other words, what Bill suggested here, you're willing to do that? Mayor Hamilton: That's fine. Sure, go right ahead. You're first. Councilman Johnson: Okay. Of the options, I like the, we got these on Friday night so we had a little more time to look at them. I'm leaning most towards Market Blvd.. I had discussed a similar thing with staff and had been looking at it before. I'm glad to see your alignment. My main problems with it are in the affects on those ponds in there. We tend to look at our wetlands and our ponds very cautiously and this particular affect has a maximum affect on our ponds. However, in this case, this is one of those cases where this treehugger believes that it's best for the City maybe that we do put it right through this pond. I'm in the position of Market Blvd. over any of the other options at this time. • Councilman Boyt: I started out liking Option 2. I had two major concerns. One of the major concerns is that we not delay TH 5. I would say that's probably my primary concern and I think responsibility to the whole community but my next concern is that we not put this in anybody's backyard. So looking at the options, I would say that on first blush that Option 1 which put it into Lake Drive East and I think with the big concern of the neighborhood, would be the last option on my list and the first one would probably be the fourth option. 22 City Council Meeti - August 22, 1988 C appropriately all of these. It's not perfect but it addresses I think more people's concerns in a better way than most. It consists, in a sense it's a modification of what we refer to as the north leg or the last one I presented to you but it solves the defect of the north leg alternative by introducing additional space between the left hand turn movements. This alternative, TH 101 would come down and connect with TH 5 in the same location as in all the other alternatives. However, rather than turning south at existing TH 101 or Great Plains Blvd., the TH 101 through movements would continue west on TH 5 to Market Blvd. and then we would suggest that TH 101 would be relocated extending south to Market Blvd., which exists only to the railroad tracks today but is planned and platted to this location, continue south initially connecting up to existing TH 101 but planning to the future it's suggested that TH 101 would be relocated west of the homes along the lake in conjunction with TH 212 so ultimately it would come down and go in this fashion but on an interim basis it would come down and link to the existing. It might indeed came down and go like that. There's lots of different detailed alternatives. The concept is what's important. We think that this has all the advantages of all the alternatives with the one possible defect that you could argue that it doesn't have continuity for the north/south direction for TH 101. That is, now you come up here and you make a jog about 2,500 feet, almost a half mile and then continue north. That is the one negative. I think it provides access to an area that will require access in terms of emerging development within the city. It certainly addresses the issues that were raised by the neighborhood. It eliminates the problem and Fred indicated, I think he used the term cautious optimism, I think it's a fair statement. MnDot in our discussions with them, did not reject this categorically as they did the other alternative with the short linkage. I guess that essentially summarizes where we are today. As Fred indicated, we are in the process now with Benshoof of testing this out in terms of the traffic capacities required at the particular intersections. For example, we had moved major turning movements and concentrations of traffic from this location to this location. In terms of the overall city plan, long term, we felt this was the 100% corner and it could be that it's moving here because of these changes. So Jim is in the process of doing that analysis. We think that before your meeting 2 weeks from this evening, that we would have completed that analysis and also have gone back to MnDot one more time and be able to be a little more definitive about the ability to work and a little more definitive about MnDot's position. If that is positive, then it's my opinion, based on what our responsibility is in teLnus of this overall feasibility study that we can catch up in terms of lost time in terms of the City's responsibility. There's still an issue of whether the State can react to these changes and maintain their schedule. Again, we're optimistic and hopeful I guess. Mayor Hamilton: Thank you Don. Did Mr. Benshoof want to present anything or you're just in the process of working on the numbers? Does anybody else have anything that you want to present from the feasibility side? Don Ringrose: We're just repsonding to questions at this point. Mayor Hamilton: What I'd like to do is have anyone then from the public who would like to make comment and then after the public hearing is closed, we'll make comments and ask questions. Councilman Boyt: Can I ask for a little change possibly? 21 STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 ALTERNATIVES SCORING j ALTERNATIVES J CRITERIA FIGHT * 2 Q0 2a 'f 2 3 3 4 4 6 6 Score Points Score Points Score Points Score Points Score Points 1. 101 Continuity 1.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 7.76 4.00 7.76 0.00 0.00 2. Levels of Service 6.84 2.00 13.68 4.00 27.36 4.00 27.36 4.00 27.36 4.00 27.36 3. Traffic Separation 6.34 2.00 12.68 2.00 12.68 4.00 25.36 4.00 25.36 2.00 12.68 4. Downtown Access 5.79 4.00 23.16 4.00 23.16 2.00 11.58 0.00 0.00 4.00 23.16 5. Other Bus Access 3.17 4.00 12.68 4.00 12.68 2.00 6.34 0.00 0.00 2.00 6.34 6. Residential Access 3.94 4.00 15.76 4.00 15.76 2.00 7.88 0.00 0.00 2.00 7.88 7. Pedestrian Access 6.59 2.00 13.18 2.00 13.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 13.18 8. Residential Impacts 5.04 4.00 20. 16 4.00 20.16 0.00 0.00 2.00 10.08 4.00 20.16 9. Project Costs 2.70 4.00 10.80 2.00 5.40 2.00 5.40 0.00 0.00 4.00 10.80 10. Schedule Adherence 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 11. Environment 4.64 4.00 18.56 2.00 9.28 4.00 18.56 4.00 18.56 2.00 9.28 12. Development Impacts 2.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 4.04 0.00 0.00 2.00 4.04 13. Public Acceptance 2.99 4.00 11.96 4.00 11.96 0.00 0.00 2.00 5.98 2.00 5.98 TOTAL 52.00 152.62 151.62 114.28 95. 10 140.86 * Averaged City Council Weights HOISINGTON GROUP INC. September 26, 1988 4 e i i n , s l i y SI (`\ W 76TH ST ``" \ Q W z 5 _ I I, _ SOUTH S NO C7 lal 9 x /-,„ (' - ^� P O / I Q w r < W 77TH ST d N4' a\� J N E � G s c 4 e le Q I•�ir '�lois le r, - i� a J 2' `� CHAN VIEW L - ' `,0 ^f . P•\ n �� L ■ c .; . L= CHAN O 41EK, -. lQ - ° 5 " 2 ] ■ 6 • '.0' A,, /QpGF\C /• 1 WEST SCHNEI I- I I - ''C7.0] _ •°° • ,,• {, F CHAN VIEW ^ • of aol • 8Ty CENTER ST u- U CPUP •I rIV Z e T_ i 0 9qe-'I�F� F'p �, �P ancr C Li PARK 1 ;. P (�(I� —Z 2 s � ::, s� ( .,1 } 9UN,naC V-v0 ADT _ Ain 6 ��— CHADDA 4DDIT /...,." [ �,� !� LI z Din L 1- •. �`. .::.,y:::,...., P 5 1 J f D CSA —MWY-- NO _ � -� CSA HWY IW 7B•(H ST) NO ��"lb _ HWY N0. 101 F.'a.� ••••^•',;,.-- , V L 121 22 s„ f v -- '''/ 3 a CO'Mp • \. ,,. —-----..' ., �•• ;;:;: .. -— •• 500 ADT 'z s o . _ g 2 L'nAM1 6• ?Pik C:)CC \ON \ Q N.` P. O 0oM 1 OPG ; DES r �` k {190 1 S -\ v PICHA IVE ADT \� Y O \ O CIF � - r FT / Lf.m �KEE o5t PAULv B� - \ (.f.eee,^•!" 7��1 3 0 —T�vens NM / 6 ,. ,. Y t ' 04 \ �,_� CHICA00'pM `/\\� i- •";::,' _e/ Mak _ ;CHE^YEN--- /' ,:. I 0 3 R 2 i� 2 \� < •3 ROAD _ �r 2400 { 2 2 . --1 ___— ,. �� e h �';: �' ADT ;Q. 2Q ! � 2_ ^9F / Ia - U 'TeER DEVELOPMENT O /� w•"'HI: � s �•! ��p t. _ y PARK fADp { al �2 \.y♦Jam, ROAD. Q R AII. yq Ny .::,::.:•.::::::1 cFlc qs 6 '20000— ^.ry z 0 �l r�.,�sl � B ,_, I �..i"}.,� ADT t Vp��, zs 3 3 -'�Y . , y4kG t 4 E- e 31 P ! - �� E I,� ro z, �zb n~z —� 7(/q - _ -7 _ 1 � _ �S D�N 6 �� 2e 5Fti ,.. C BUS1N '_, DsSs �. \\ s-\. \�`s• ' /I 2 ; 'S �'�,` 30 20 6 IWI 1� h /� \ \ ,Y J // ': 36,3' \ 19 2 \ / -? �`SS / Nx4), stN tip •I�• 0.7• �./� 4 sv 1 \31`� o , Iz r s. I '� �" DRIVE C I ��< I Y n = 6 ,�Q� _ / LAKE /, A.y�I`zl I 'u i a3:`.n '_� �-- (� (� P /1 ARK --_Qese� y i� /ys t 9� « , `'tip _ TgrF I - US/NESS I \ •\'Y '�� I m` .c ` ap .e U /12 - , < ////JJJ q • /r Ty�RD I BUS'1• \\ ` \t 01 1 is 1 ' a �Pi N `,2 ?i, ,5O '1_,___- _- 5s aLANE '/ / QQ,r/O I Pp� -,.. r F THIRD P4RK P�. I \ ``� \\\ tl _z z6 zs 1,za z3 zz $% ,Qs3, \ 3 5 4 - qoo J�PSSEr� Ess D.9°'� `, \1\ ,, •.. _ 27 .DAKOTA E LqN 155 t, Out ►N ` I I 1 `,3\ °a Dr 05 1410 ALT. 2A— ) / 1 l 0 w4gMq••q•' 30 3i I 32% 33 / 35 \ / CHANHASSEN LAKES e•,ss=�3i3 , �� 26 � 1 /` 3• 'l 6J 4) BUSINESS PARK I , e z9 �( I / " I 1 I / / ��/ V / •�[ nPGUS DEVEIDPMEI,' ,M 1 �� , , CHANHASSEN LAKES I ��/1111, Z00' / BUSINESS PARK I/,h . 0 a / 3 (. AKE +(i 00vo1 y4/ W3 CO i II a 7 1 ,. .... • Mme/ • ; :_• E SAN ... T.H. 101 REALIGNMENT STUDY EZ I li o ` ' 6 5 'IIE„' ALT. \ . f r r el I 141 • ;A ::::i / \?7 'I { • a• Q PGK4 _ v' 9 o : __I Q'3 x 2 a - p,00` p` �' Q ! r �� w 77TH :. ,.:..., ST -/ \ ,_' / 2 J I tq o -rte .: _ y ,J N _. 2 -. J '}� CHAN VIEW _- a ` PSG„ .. •.‘,''- '9 4 1 • ,' = CHAN y�EW - - a ' .] \ ''\''A. 0. 1 l` - ! _ �--• .SFi ., �� 91':-G WEST r',_� C, @ 78TH SCHNEI I I 1 L-��Opp " 0 F, w CHAN VIEW yid oyp5 pP�� ao. .. CENTER ST ' { . - W :Y❑ I -_a — ate, �F.PO rat: "_ 1111111111;,,>, (°�� 1. . 9 p / a C`3 PARK L-- 7 - vG _ I' of w ❑■ 55�� \ \ '.2''''''... fI .a N? Pz' M'`- G ... S., e�[ I p 5� i .-__— f ° w aPNpP Pic., Mn CHADDA ADDIT Q ° r ❑ .�`0 CSA -M1VY— N� >-_ri c 1 of a` - --- 5,0,. .. _......TS NO NO f5. CSA HWY �, .. ---- =7c t6 - �- -?—HWY NO 101 `..:;::;;A.,gt::i'''':c± -.—', 21 000 ADT I - 3 a GNP f-, Lam ;; �i Y / `/ ..• D°J9;j I, 1700 ADT P P � oo\�\Q\ PICHA R;vE QEET • S:./.. P _ :� 5< .- ; r : r3OOOADT- . �.:; • „ z, 0 g, \vo t] I �C•-.RAILROADS - Y ,.'fA6� ■. %+. �' _ _ __ _-__- 2 { PAJI D^GPCIf _ �� .. 4D� I • r m W KEE ,S u O A^^ L co IC AGO.�� \ i•" . ,.0 1) ES �' ` =HErE::v-E-- ...t,�«' ROAD 2 3 ry�I Z i 1_ �w �� . I! (//- 4_ v v — FRONTIER c DEVELOPMENT .' 15 0 �, 6 I ,�7 2 a F 3 T� . ''AD� D=toe, J PARK P '. _....x ' 2 0 O z �:o e za.. " w:.,,...:.. f o ■ C — Q � oAc,CIC Hq lVHgs - 13000 ~ HIUUEN VAZ LEY ° 2 • a :3.� zNO ADaTION // P�� a sT PAW- _ � �• z �'° a °ADT try' 1. I I ' i* S ZS 122 —\� '4 `✓ SA 39 D'S°,` 5"--\ \� -___ _ `S I 1 // ,!�� ` ,6\00 ,6 ,^Z 2a~ 2 s f (� - NE �� o �`��, �. // y _ ,---PC+� 3o}zo 6 IWI -- I �, 'V SS / \_,y IS`EN �� O=7e -=;'-'w 44 ~ /D_12e =. �a �e 3° - 9 w , �� DRIVE C}�A V.. : �F\\�-- • '_'�' ,`..�� 1 6 °o —>•`.� „ __s S ;/ ,500 32 = 9 r jp LAKE Quo _�� D ADT °' °2 °3 .° _ 1 Fs ARK — :'. a Qo '' _ a o S p P - -,z>-4- ,,g, 4 I T�l((�D BUSINESS I It a QO / I - 1�} I _ 6 ..,Nry1 q CIRC�t % St ) `ANE Y�_- O,T Q •THIRD I P -- i,Psi 4 I F \ PQ FiK '� AV" 12: 1 z5 zs z° zJ zzJJm 3 , 1.QD(j 0P5504 455 I' 1 i 1 2� .°'pPKOTP C 54 55 3 ��\ ll „IC' ICE 1 P f '•-- QryF �I 02, USI ( p 1 4r { 11 °� 1�� D-7e 1 E:;� 1 30 3: R 35 ^ ' ° ,..q I [ )3 j6 O CHANHASSEN LAKES ' Gj 2 BUSINESS PARK 1 --1 I Fl i :o _ !J P /5�P CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK - ZOO' 7...------ E 1 ! . SUSAN :n :f T.H. 101 REALIGNMENT STUDY Iv 5 leW ALT. \ - t . , T.,::: S �c.`C' F o W 2 I a i I w N LpK z ; v y =O 1 / / , �I P00\c\O �C C`!1 1 4 Y Y - Q 3 _ --_-W 77TH ST \ ll`� - - - J Z I O `� ,HAN VIEW S ?.' n tJ I _ _ 2 cHar. IE"' �� a� I G,P Pe, iNI6ER ��—" r• HAN ,.. ~ CENST u Ems w •^ 3 PARK — ? L— I z I I�q l' s 0 11I W ;o ��. . _ ._r , _v 6000 ADT I G - ... I CHADDA AC:TIP,N I, _�� - - J 11 ,/_ ..." J -- No M$_ .� C S A '- hFW'1- NO +6--— C 5 A H W V :w >B'rH ST I NO _ —=— 16 - y H W Y NO 101_ :c:r ""::vY"`• " I 3500TO Y ;� Iflr 22,000 ADT � ��.. ..:.. \14° a �� " ::, / =1� ADT 3 al CV'P H,P�- �.r— i ` , F.. y✓ �..Y"'�f Po PICHA ` DRIVE -- L — $t0.E •••• °' t<I -2500 ADT U Qo� I .RPI�.ROPU z' f I•� )♦ •,' 2.\Q E a vPC.c O F; .N T cc r r - _ 1 - - �CRICP"O'— _ , .u,u..i w ©0 'y,C: ,. ;h4E Ag6)� 2 _1- 8 �� % %,i tV I(/ FF�ONT1ER • _ DEVELOPMENT - , • = I :} r� C-\‘11- , PARK rr ....• ` :: 1800 ADT, y= y - '\ 5,4v) ♦I' Sri,+ I • R P" V Cy =:.:..._ 2 qN J z PPC SEN _._.,_......:, _ _ TI U °P ___ S--------'''' • ` 14,000 ADT r.. o. ✓y �N so 46'6'4'4, _•I S�/�ESS �j \ \ S N O~� D.7°---0_ y�GRO-- .LBO / �} Qo a Ja �i--9- O M.DRIVE CH AFT -_ •`' __ 32 e I r /8000 AKE _ 410 1 ��,'/ - az q5 2,, 2 /� DRIVE —==�1„F_ %� ADT = 94, " . �� TFS PARK a p ., 4 I Ty BUSINESS 1 E -__ 49 P 400/i, i /�� 1 I':�i . „NNEN RC,-t 50 ss LAN;. 04f // PpE �4J T = v' 56 -�, a y' Q 5 I THIRp PARK 04 ADP I t e z, z< _ zz v �q 3 �O 55 ` U ADE, JA✓� eCS I G DAKOTP ' m CgNf r' J EJT Os Tt�RD D 7, I "§ G 4 - . O CHANHASSEN LAKES ..c jf 2P �f 3� 4. ik BUSINESS PARK Y I z9 /,... 9 CO . t 417GU5 DEVEtP,*nEn` .v .:./I . , CHANHASSEN LAKES 200 BUSINESS PARK 1 / I I - 'w _ OeZ�"OS _ , SAKE 'N ' ! 2 �P�� . ,, . , `Opp ? T.H.- 101 REALIGNMENT STUDY SUSAN ..•.K ,, , rte}. ALT -- N: ; 5 � �� 4 .. g' DEL e.,;:.---- '`....„_. SANTA e FE . ---.---- •-■ 6,9 \''''',' r i --- 2 /, , 8 - OUT,OT '' 1 ' 5 S.;, I ' 41. I PAR'OF ,,,4, , ‘ - ,,1 , 2 3 4 5 6 I I 2 (4.1 4 4 5 . 6 ■ -- LOT .6 /3/ / : - . .?'WIE. 6 •, ''',%,,,,,, -/ , .,._ ... 4' 1 I ' ■ 8 4 ,... ...,.s,,,,•,,.. ,_ \ \ ,Z '1 '1 ■ I 1 '/ I - (142 i e O.' 4 5 6 7 7 . 6 I 5 I 4 I 3 2 ' l't• :::"'''. 1,,;,:•;I.„, , ?: 1r,`,7°.1:" 111 iffirk 4:s, 4.''''' + - - i: , - 1 1 . co - 1-- t. ca ,0 w 76 TH ,....., , i7,,!I ._-.. ,z, • , I 5 ' 51111111k ' It-AWAIP'',841 c.,, I - I 1 5 I 5 ; . .„, Millill' i2 I 14 , 2 ,, 2 ^ ,,?..T. ; „., ,Zi _, - f • 1! 6'' WI'9 . t 1'7. NO.5.,CnT. DO:RICT NC „2 ■:,1"...'.; '.: I: •L>' ' 'o 1 ,,,,• , I 11511111 i 9 (),1 i I*1 '4 • ' .. ' , _ \ a- idi ,,t '\o‘4° '4' stk La . . .. ... I - , .,‘." .. .:r .../ -.J I 10 5 2 5 • 5 "" "" : 77TH w , OMNI! IX . I 2 3 4 5 6 7 " 1019 _s. lip„iiii e 9 1 , . 1 I 1 - ; vILL AGE OF CnANHASSEN - ', 1 [ .5 \ I 1 ' an As.P 35e f5,` 2 1 on ? '•,,,.^:.-t!IIIIiiilliii z_-',1,60-') . ...:-.'' '- P ' 4' I :VEST 7,8 ris, : 4 I-- . SCHNE1 A 4 • ,,i rE 0. . ,.4 : ..„L4 : CHAN minimilEW 107 '''' izi.; •----,,,....,- •cc'g' +0,Rnc.„ , . . S CENTER ST , 5 1 . , •.. ‘S> i I , - - •L',..T.1...,. ,n, ,,„,: „ >,• ,,. ,..,,,,,, ...,\ „ a... le PARK 1E Cl ; :5 23511 51 -::',i''' t:, '. ' -•--.s' .5- .-_________ I ________r-.--L_______.____.________ e. ? G Z vc....,/7 .•,... 2 2 ., ----'—C-/k -Ntee-----41a IC ----- € 511111- GHANA ADDI bi 1 ‘ :: -"1- ..■'1:1.“ /1- L__ • i ' .--TH- .... . . 61,2064 14 SORGAR13 . :1 i'■ a 31 ,' ,l'.:1 1111111rM„Vt% C' ,, '.. .' __,, ,i,i() ■ r.------i _ _,___ 4. _, - - ON 1.,, .‘ " • 1 Egr•t"' „./..., ...,,,.....„, .......:.::::::::„..............,..,...„:„:„....... 1 , 8 El BURDICK 'X A , •, < 3 a- 4\ ''' ' .„,.. . 7 ::: N\t ',2",„_.. 0 CHURCH OF ST HUBERT "Vi.15.' 47,-:' • - , s ( c,- gs.,-- 1 , ....... P'C'°( FRONTIER DEVE1EN1 C.'• . , 1. 'c\04 .. I y I 1 tev\ ... ,, '`.. 5 PICISA, p DRIVE : I \ i --1 ii-:=3 FRONTIER .D.E,y,E,L.CIPMENT CORP ' ir fr ....%,1•'''- ',- ,... . .. - :---N, ,,, ...,2......,6„00 ADT.,, : 1' , 2.51Acp , 2 ' a --a rr.,_...k,„r, ..r2 it,..],.., :..1:74`”t',---:',,-1',,,,w t . , N 1110111..— si.pAkik- ,E, 10 t_ort—J'AI I mi„..11 iss.. _ - 02 1."...,.:''■ ,. . . leo/ • .•.• 2 3 4 5 I /=> .co , ...: \_____ \ w...WW( Mg . C,"C S.L€ . ''''''''.'""` s',.,„.,0:,'?''...,,,:::::::,- .4/4. 2 --_ 5111 -1 I \-7-C7:-IETE/•- ',.- ir-----------',N ouT3LOT ROAD 2 i 3 ,/r -- 53-c" 5- __ I\. I 5 i , < - : E.,R.: —- ,...r'''':•:.;',. : ',:f:2--... w. i---., .G 5.0' . ' g . ' -1 7 .2 Z■ ' . I 6 I j 4 St '(..- . --- ---,, --Li DE VELOPMENT ..• ..,..::,..„:„.,...,..:::::....... . 4- II '..t.'\ i'h, 2 0 1 1 ------- .. , . ,,,. .3. `..• N..._ -.,9 -- - -------, D .. _r--_i.------- .____ 7 p A RK s 2 t140C‘ US,N4 CLAP 1: 28•001ADT 5 1'r 3 ,_ .. '8 e I 12 ' ig If.TT ••Z''''st':2 S://:./14 .. ! -------1--. ----- •,' ....':•:.:.:;:.;.......3.000 --------.-_,.., 3 . .4 . . .: -—- 2 - 11.i*N ---, ___-:_-_-- ---' r.„„„,,--'-:4;:,.,„„s;-:•.>----,i.-- VP ' 55.00"ADT 4;,-- -,' ' - ' i,Z1 9 't ,Z is/' , I -- _ I -, _---- ■ ... poo F IC.___r-______--- ,. .RoLROAD t '' '' ' CH4 A, "villIss .A1 ':-,:F,''' , n'1'....t',":74tr.:":• :.'7`.... ........ ...... -99...•••••,.....,. ..< - -•,.....,......., .....--.... ....„.. ...........•• .. ...• -------- 13. A '..... .... 6 0 0 0 < '. HID EN IIVAIiLEY C... \3 2 \ ,4 0 2 1 ,' ..Z: t' L. ---, 2 , , .t ....•.. „, 1 , ,s , za o ,c, . a t ADT fs, no ADDITION • , \ 0,..''' ,s z, ,3 4 1 <9:4ko74 ., ., • •11 •4.. ....-•-•-' --,,,,, N 9 2.\ ........ ..._ 0....* 3---,...;-:::.-- , T , -------------- VO‘/11:a LIII V°.' Se 6/, ','29 \ 2, lill ditC, i 20 Ill ...c4, 30 .••• Mile \3' -d2'■ v: 4434 ipp■ 3, , ,. E El G5 ./ ° 1 -----' :-1-...._____D.7.... .......,;' MOP T;, "1 32 \ i 's -! 4. AV,ill I • ' , — .. -. ••-- - , 0424-vB PARK . ''--- cHA N, ,,,,, LAX-E----- __Z.. -'--'1*- -------,---___________ ••■.;..- A Itzr,-1.4- .4::.::----,_--- ,......-.....,•701',., - ;,„-,a .....- - ...-- ;.--..--->".. ------- . la 42 43/..., \ ' ' Mil ' i.1 , imp 4 ....""'''.■1-__t---:------- (-(- ....i. '-■S - PARK IL ■ , ,- rd._1" FigliVir46, 110.1 I • , rbi ip?0 , • ,, 1 ' _ - - , 1 ' e Li' s i N Es s I 1.,'4, 1:4. 'ii:‘, •4,, ,K z ,_.____-, —. r I; : I i 11.4141,411 C 41)6, I --- I 11; 4/ I e. , • THIRD , PARK I, , r- Ir 1 Eti -,-- e-F,r— Oil. I •nn _ : ■ ■ . \'''''' • ..,,',,,.. \\ ..• , , , '' ' a la is 2D 2' ' 56 .7'1 2 P. vr 5,2 4 53 r5 • ,,--' . — . \D.6° 4 DD. I 55 , .1'?oot A g c V 40 fk Dt.9*V 2 '"■ Q 9 C 1€F - - I e , 1 itg 1 05 ISO 1 'a \ IA J W 41 \ \ \ \ ""....:° 14 ■ ' \ .. . , co CHANHASSEN LAKES ......,. 8 MI!WAIrlif _ : eV •A' BUSINESS PARK •4. i[i -`•\ I . • .', ,.. . ARGUS DEVELOPMENT INC L. .200 t.:"'...:.:7›....0. 0,01.0, '---."---...------...---77-...-- ! ._, '—......."'__,,........` . _ I,-. __,i-,-".- ----.--___.---_,__ ________.--..--- _____--,. -=---__,--,,,, -__. _ —- - ---,- --. -, ....,, ;:i I II:II 1 \ I Vii I 411 I • 1 . . . A CHANHASSEN LAKES .I- BUSINESS PARK I:t , s.,_.• -.e,, • I / ...> i ‹; ...; it:';. .1.'4' LAKE . . 0,44t f.•i ., '''' • . , VC o' . ' —,•-;1: . \ if .°04:- -.... i;,, ,,_ .,:„ ' f''' • '''''';'...., , .0, . <7 4t. 9..6 .; I :,......s .• „..„• . ......, .— • •, . .29 , ,_ • .,. _, . • . ..--.. I SUSAN T.H. 101 REALIGNMENT STUDY -- . .-:. ;:-- ,- .. :. .5 — 11117 ... .. ALT. 6 5 '--- ' _ ■ 6 . & . -, ---t ._ .. — e 0• DEL c.:,'........"--- N........ SANTA . 4c, - FE -------1 , , o.. ° 0 4 • .,,, ,t , ou.ro, . .. , 2 3 4 5 5 6,. T I 2..e...., 4;, 5 , 6 I ,3•• • .,•"!:;, N- '.i' 6 _. .;..5,, , ,, 2 , , .7ti, ... , , I . ' z , , r , • , ,, ‘,,,..- , , .sc, , 1 ,,,fr 9 F '.,";';,. :. ...,•-• - riff 5 *i JI-5,0,,,,,f.,i?f,, 76 ni 'ST 5 t.`.:,7%';,. .,' ' ''' 71 2 ' 'N.., • •4 ail/11,, .\4' . k, - I , --, \''6%:‘ I yr' ,,,,, ;4,, 1 . • :••=:!";_--;E.',.' :i ,..1::„. . -.-.- L I 0 • EU . ... ' 1. ,---,. : :7,: ,,,E) ' :,-3,,i:V32:i: 31. i'!!!.E :.1 3 . .'.! ' mi sc,u7H ,• 05 ,, ' PI 5 - X ' 3 1 3 IIIIPIIIIIIII . 2 t3 2 1.1 \ . AZ' i . 3 IND SCHOOL DISTENCT . N2 t2 iz 3 MEM 0 IO ! 3 .. ..!,..:?... ; .I.E ! ;E IN. i Z 3 IE 1 3 12' "..• F. r., 1 .4; i 0• _ 5 ‹) t - ' .. 1 - \C)14" Ael .34S I .. 1 .."'S'‘ w - .:1- .../ '' '' Man Fi 9 ' 'g " 51 C, :',7. s , •• „ : 10 5 . 5 1 IMINE EC _ E I . S ,e 0' \ -.I up-q 6 i_tr; ._ _ I , . , .. . ,,, vGE , rANHASSEN Ct la k‘ I 1 I I MEM --- I T 787.6, 2 I I 4 ... 4 Et x 5 ■ I' I SCHNEI 6 IQ -X-. e...j g 01. Eir F 2 CHAN _ . 8 .,_ s CHAN. VIEW [ a , 4 1 5 21111 mori9e1.... ............ Egg. 111111111141141 1 ..,... W.. a Zil-el CC . CHAN VIEW o ,.. ,.4 .• .. . •t".".c 4911TRACT C 3 CENTER ST i. 5 1 ', ns iFit:- CHU - Hz17.-IBI'I' ll111111111,/ \ ,,. c,i • ,... _,....- . . ., .., ,, , 1 .. .,,k, , I ________/-1_ 8 G • 4, s g k 1 , 1 •,. PARK I ci 1 2 2 1 1.1.1 . .5 ‘.;...`..'. 7 . - - .." CHADDA ADDIQ 111-"~"",All ' . ,e- ,• , -- ,T.,,,,T I. ' I I 1 iimer,„,,,,.„,, ..,,,,, ,....„ 4.7,...7, qi5,000 ADT I 2 3 A 3 , ..„,;;:::::44 -- ' ,.... .. • • -;,..,, ..:::„:::,.•. —C,-,,, H.wy NO t6 ---- C S A I HW•fr • (W-461,14-ST--.1--.° NO '. . '''.- "” ,i6 '. • .. = HWY No, IVO . _____ OM • 5,- mei " . .„„_.,,, J[W ..,e;;d I \ . _____- ,_ , TI wrl -::E ' ',__%. II•11 o 080t H or s-r HUBERT ':::•,;70.-I, A; .- • rill. 4 sl, , ".V.. , , I rji .04° 8 R C BORING, I 3 °- I ; • . 111; 4...."": '5 '''''.'"... --ii-4000/ c,:,,, ,_.;,..' ,..,.:::5,..:7....,:::!...., • , = , .,. I ' '‘‘' PPVCC\CII. , PICNA ' 4. DRIVE 5 5NONTIER PEAL, .3 3. ' I s a••", Illiall. , me•s s,• RIONTIER .DVE,LOPMENT CO. _ , C5 s • t.C, _,_ E •- '! ‘, a....;:....-•3 ,,,,s „.. 3W',. 5.3.Y.•`<;.!... s'EO.C.:C ..,.......• 4. l',4* .e..;.' :,°''. , •''' •.:!' - W l' ,,::7, 2111111111V. < , 1 CHAN NAvEN Rt.tat •1 ' ,6 A ..,_ , ..-::.:,:,, ...,..,rz:::,0 ...;P" • , '5.4. 20,• : • 21 2N, ' - . W-1.1-1 okooT TN° , 2 , 3 i cr . .co PARK K DEVELOPMENT ■tlf , 1110,,, 1,40 _III :yr:-::'.c4•:,,,x,:,,:,,,,,i, WO _ scHEYEN,.. 2 ,,. i : OUTLOT 3 i .. ROAD . , 3 / ' " 2 20 \I\e,'-‘ ',..I .. -_ ___. ..,, \ Ve. ,: ' •c:' ,It; ' 7cr, ,z,„:..../ gi 2 .5 . 6 6 S. 7 ,.2;ZI 2 '9 \ ''-9 3 " ' .• . .3 3'..----- ---1} , ' , I • ''':A':::::.'1',.:0 ''' ADT .1 K_ _..„, 5 iri 8 ° , . 8 , s ,---., t it, k 1 t. ''' .. . . . 2 0 I ','. ? ----- .____._ ',-----... D , . ? ,:.::„.:,,„.... 0c,_,,,,-------___ 1-<5.\ , 2 ‘II' I. 8 '':::....: '.. .1` '7'1.:" A I i 1_,___------ ------ -------- •.4,1AILROAt)' ___,-- , , - t - ." ::::.::,::::.,:.1:73::'':',:.:i:::.::.:,,.71° --- • tl at J VI -4 __ ------- --, .. ',5.• _ 4000-NDT , 00- 2 ., , 94.05\ 0,C.: I - ' . 0 9 4q5 4 49 / 8 iX 1 • 2 ,8•• 4: . -;.:,,,:iF- '*:: :::.:.: ::::::::!Miliiiiii6;•iz_______•-"..."... ..'''':1: ' - - ••''..:17:;::::.:'..:.-."''' : i ' 11. NHA . HIDDEN VALLEY r.-'`.,- - :r. ,4 ce '2 t , ^ISSE-Ai .,..,17.r...,"=5:48;.'..'r,,.c. ---- .-".. 1:.1.:1::Z.::::“4:'.......:''''':;; ------ 2ND ADDITION •IvE.---.1 k 8 - : -0.4.7.... ._ _...,....... • I 4115 G.,2, 1234 \ac 222' 2 ■ .9.-------------__ '4 '5 .,,,.' 4 D i' - ''.:- - - ■. 'KES 1 I 28,000 ADT • D:7°-- MI 10,\v''' '.35 sc:' ,' 2' mim5 - r _ 6 ,,,, 'I „ I ' ((> (.5 cfriAM"7" \ i''---- L-WK-E---_ ______.... -.. ..--------------,-_-__---____J ,1'., 4 lit. ..„..... ... ...."-...' 3 33 ■B SMIM 32 111 , '..7 ,- rr i * 01400 ''' ' . ......' . 0 IL ANE 1114:10!!I i' 4t,, , , 1" • PARK , - ----.4_______ - •-..,/1;1:% - ---- (- -------, I E i; IFIL, _, ... 1111* la ...., . , -(,.,, e ' 4,.. 4-, t, _Diss■ E_ ii'vzi,--4..—-- ,--) _., 3 , -L.," liftWiiikAlts, 41ijkilp _ • i _.,..; I . „ _ • ' _ , , " PARK .,.. o.9. ,s\ i.. BUS!NE '-:11 101111111s)tvAli4A,allill'Fc,9-11 __------- ,. ...00. Ty/RD ,. , ,,,...]..=.v.„,,,, io, - I , . pARk 1, . H P r"- I ..,,,. ,..... ,t111_ 4.f..—.-4■-■..---...,....... , N\ se 4 5 '4 -4 - i■ ;1 l';! relle 11 55 3 ••••• ,-- o ..-. . , Q 1 , qe oui,4,07. I 55v , 4t4C' OP 1 •,51. I eti ISO - . , \ 2 I '-•■• II_ 161111111 : , .219 CD CHANHASSEN LAKES \ 4. I / 4' / BUSINESS PARK L".".:".---.....:'--- o•-______ ,_____ _ ........, 1:4 , \ R i•\ n P . /■4'' CD 4./ / .. ARGUS OEVELO.ENT INC I ----• ---- ------- ---- - ----j•-'n, 1!::1 ..• ,, ' i , CHANHASSEN LAKES ,, IN I I a•F BUSINESS PARK ' •■`,c 4. 4 . / •'- rf /,'," :' - I , it c; i t r•tim-, __,.4v..,..1;:,,,. MR I & ,.,04,,,,, sZis 'Z' , E,2 >- \ I • lEi ,, ,,,. •- •1..,,i•°,/ . ,.. , . •:..• :?„'.M , •Z' _ ....,N. --:•----'' . , , Z - I . ... -7. SUSAN ::0'.■r! , lit,,, .VA•,. iir? .‘,1.17 . 1 T.H. 101 REALIGNMENT STUDY _.--.-- --RIIIIM .. ,E . 6 ALT. 1:'• • _, ', ,.,,,-,..f,-.:7:r.•:,.- 5 ■,4, ••■IONI• IN 7