4a. Hwy 101 Realignment, Recommendation for Approval Fred Hoisington 47Law'
t- • P '
Hoisington Group Inc.
diction nY City Admiiiittysikw
Endorte _....
Nodifie
Land Use Consultants
Date....... ...,
Date Submitted to ComMittitiO0
MEMORANDUM
' .."-."--
; --------", Datd Submitted to Coij 2anc
,
,.
,.. ,
'H. ....L.10........31.4.z.S , ,
, ..
To: Donald Ashworth, City Manager '
From Fred Hoisington, Don Ringrose, Howard Preston & Gary Warren -.„--; •„::i..,,, li:4,1,..,i, ,1„,,,
,•
_
Subject: Trunk Highway 101 Alternatives Evaluation
' , Date: 10-21-88 , , , , ; ,., ,:' ■,.,,:;.A,I.iil';',,,i'd
.;;;;, ..!, ; ,. " ,' ,,,:', ',. , ,: „. 1, „ . • .. 3, . , ..,, i,
'i .,•-it ..1':1,1,11,v,i1,..;,,,,,,,,:,
•, ; ■,,. ' . ,. -
,
This is the second round of evaluation of the several alternative
• ' , rfe.'0,.::', .
alignments for TH 101 through the City of Chanhassen. The first
evaluation narrowed the number of 'alternatives from seven to two The , -— ",-C,:'''. 1:•.,
alternatives remaining, which are the subject of this evaluation, are 2 and
2A.
Enclosed with this memorandum are ,,„a description of the alternatives and
the costs associated with each, the list of evaluation criteria and an
assessment of the degree to which each alternative satisfies or fails to
.. ,
satisfy the criteria. For the sake of this evaluation, it will also include the
original Alternative 2 which includes no improvements south Hwy 5. This
alternative will now be termed 2B. New Alternative 2 utilizes an
alignment approximating Great Plains Boulevard south of Hwy 5 and, for
the sake of an apples-to-apples comparison, includes costs for
, improvements to the south Ward property line. Alternative 2A, on the
other hand, is the same as the original Alternative 2A previously
evaluated by the City Council. Its costs also account for total future
, ,, - :• improvements to the south Ward property line.
.1:;.!,11.,,:,;.:.!!•,,,_
The reason we are using future costs as a criterion is to make an honest ..- "!!';,:;!1;'''i.,;:' !.;'.,:'',H.'''lli.ti,;1•4
ii,.4.,tql.h-,:11.-1;',•'''''
comparison of the alternatives regarding total future City exposure. A
Vil,;i4..':' litigimate cost comparison cannot be made between Alternative 2A, which
- •;',..! ;.; i, !.',L.!,; ,;...;!:,1;,,:
essentially builds a new south leg, and old Alternative'2 (now 2B) Which ''' :: ' ' -.! i , ,•';''' '
.r"•.:,;i::;''Jr. , deferred those south leg costs to a future time.
The availability of TIF will also be a critical factor in the decision making
' I .•
1.,;:!-;■:,;,y1:!,;:I:- process. We do not believe Hennepin County will support Alternative ,2B .,
where there appears to be little local committment of dollars and where
. „ the tax increments from Hennepin County are used to finance the bulk of
, project costs. . ,..
. .
7300 Metro Blvd. . t ,, ' •
Suite 525
. ,
Edina, MN 55435 ..
•
(612)835-9960
'• - :0,,--.,- ,,,,, 1■'.I.T4 Os* •,.-•-.1
-•''' t " l•-• " ' •- -r•-:%fr:rri'''1••-•'"
• . ' .', i ii;' 4,'::;,!•-:
' ' ,!. ------ !•• ..1-'.A.,,f':,, ,";
. t . S
MnDOT, of course, prefers Alternative 2A because of the additional
separation between Dakota Avenue and Market Boulevard. Retaining the
old alignment of Great Plains Boulevard south of Hwy 5 does not meet
acceptable engineering design standards. •
The only businesses that are at all impacted by the alternatives is Q
Superette which would lose the relatively large stream of TH 101 traffic
.. under the 2A scenario. This type of traffic diversion does not represent a ,
severance of access or expose the City to have to compensate for loss of
traffic. ,
Regarding property owner preferences, the Wards have indicated, in
writing, that they prefer Alternative 2A. Rosemount Inc. has indicated a
preference for Alternative 2 but we feel that either would be acceptable
t
•
o these two most affected property owners.
' RECOMMENDATIONS • .
' While the Feasibility Study Team prefers Alternative 2A for a variety of
reasons, there is essentially very little difference between new
Alternative 2 and the original Alternative 2A. They are approximately '
equal in cost though 2A does represent a more efficient roadway system
and includes less duplication. Both are about equally able to be funded
with TIF dollars. We do not believe that the original Alternative 2 (now
2B) would meet Hennepin County's criteria thereby allowing it to support
the extension of the Economic Development District. We believe the south
leg will be essential to obtain the use of TIF dollars to fund the project.
i ;" "'''.: The Feasibility ,
y Study Team strongly recommends 2 or 2A. The Council • '' '' `''``
should not adopt, and will not likely get financing for, Alternative 2B with .
' the idea that the south leg may evolve later. If 2 is the alternative
' selected, at least a portion of the south leg must be built during the initial
construction phase and the right-of-way set aside for the entire roadway
to the south Ward property line. :-
ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION AND COSTS
ALTERNATIVE 2B (Original 2). This is the original Alternative 2
which includes improvements to the north leg only and leaves the
future south leg undecided as to timing and location. It is an
alternative in transition to either 2 or 2A. Costs assume that future
south leg improvements could be avoided.
Project cost: $2,780,000.
ALTERNATIVE 2 (New). This alternative utilizes something
approximating the present alignment of Great Plains Boulevard for
the south leg of TH 101. Costs are based on the south leg eventually
being improved to four lanes to the south Ward property line. While
it may not be built to this standard immediately, the entire right-of-
way should be acquired as part of the initial project.
Total future project cost: $4,270,000.
ALTERNTIVE 2A. This is the same as the original Alternative 2A
with Market Boulevard serving as the south leg of TH 101. Costs are
based on the Market Boulevard south leg eventually being improved
to four lanes to the south Ward property line. It, too, would not have
to be built entirely in Phase I.
Total future project costs: $4,150,000.
Costs assume that all right-of-way will be purchased.
TRUNK HIGHWAY 101
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. Future Costs (Total Project Cost including north and south legs).
+ Less than average project cost.
- Cost exceeds average project cost.
2. Financing (Availability of TIF, Hennepin County support for Economic
Development District extension).
+ Hennepin County will likely support extension of Economic
Development District based on benefits to Hennepin County and
Eden Prairie or a new district will be created.
- TIF will not be available.
3. MnDOT/Carver County Preferences.
+ Prefer Alternative.
- Do not prefer Alternative.
4. Roadway Geometries (to south Ward line).
+ Meets acceptable engineering standards.
- Does not meet standards.
5. Impact on Existing Businesses (Relocation of traffic whether or not
there is compensible damage).
+ No major change in volumes on existing streets.
- Alternative relocates traffic away from existing businesses
(does not sever access).
6. Immediate Property Owner Acceptance (as related to development
plans for Rosemount Inc. and Ward).
+ Acceptable to both Ward and Rosemount.
- Unacceptable to one or both.
Preferable alternative is Hennepin County Economic Development District
extension because dollar amount is known. A new district rates a "+" but
carries far greater risk and probably requires general obligation levies to
support project.
TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
CRITERIA 2 2A 2B
1. Future Costs - - +
2. Financing + + -
3. MnDOT/Carver Co Preference - + -
4. Roadway Geometries + + -
5. Existing Business Impacts + - +
6. Property Owner Acceptance + + +
JAMES L ER P LHRFF LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. FRANCIS PEAT
ROBERT HOFMAN
JACK F DALY / FRANCI S E.GIBERSON
D.KENNETH LINDGREN
MICHAEL T.McKIM
ANDREW W.DANIELSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES R.WEAVER
HERMAN L.TALLE
WENDELL R.ANDERSON WILLIAM S.BRANDY
GERALD H.FRIEDELL
ROBERT B.WHITLOCK VINCENT G.ELLA
TRACY R.EICHHORN-HICKS
ALLAN E.MULLIGAN 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER ANDREW J MITCHELL
ROBERT J.HENNESSEY
JAMES C.ERICKSON JOHN A.COTTER K
EDWARD J.DRISCOLL 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET BEATRICE A.ROTHWEILER
JAMES P.MILEY PAUL B.PLV NKETT
GENE N.FULLER BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 AMY DARR GRADY
DAVID C.SELLE RG REN ALAN L.KILDOW
RICHARD J.KEENAN TELEPHONE 16121 835-3800 TELEPHONE 16121 338-6610 KATHLEEN M.PICOTTE NEW MAN
JOHN D. J. EE R CATHERINE BARN ETT WILSONN
ROBERT E.BOYLE TELECOPIER 1612)835-5102 TELECOPIER 1612)338-1002 JEFFREY C.ANDERSON
FRANK I.HARVEY DANIEL L.BOWLES
RICHARD A.FORSCHLER TODD M. J.McM VICH
CHARLES S.MODELL TIMOTHY J. cMANUS
CHRISTOPHER A DIETZEN NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE JILL I.FRIEDERS
JOHN R.BEATTIE GREGORY E.KORSTAD
LINDA H.FISHER 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE,SUITE 250 CRAIG A.PETERSON
THOMAS P STOLTMAN LISA A.GRAY
STEVEN G.LEVIN COON RAPIDS,MINNESOTA 55433 TROY A. H.WEAVER
FORREST D.NOWLIN THOMAS H.WEAVER
MICHAEL C.JACKMAN TELEPHONE 16121 786-7117 SHANNON K.McCAMBRIDGE
JOHN E.DIEHL MICHAEL S.COHEN
JON 5.SWIERZEWSKI TELECOPIER 16121786-6711 GARGARY A.A V N CLEVE
THOMAS J.FLYNN ,VAN EVE
JAMES P.QUINN MICHAEL B.BRAMAN
TODD I.FREEMAN JOSEPH W.DICKER
STEPHEN B.SOLOMON JACQUELINE F DIETZ
PETER K.BECK GAYLEN L.KNACK
JEROME H.KAHNKE RODNEY D.IVES
SHERRILL OMAN KURETICH Reply to Bloomington JULIE A.WRASE
GERALD L.BECK CHRISTOPHER J.HARRISTHAL
JOHN B. BECK IST RONALD M.STARK,JR.
DAYLE NOLAN SHARON L.BRENNA
B.HUMPHREY,JR.
MARIKAY CA NAGA LITZAU
THOMAS
October 14 , 1988 OF COUNSEL
JOSEPH GITIS
JOHN A.MCHUGH
RICHARD A.NORDBYE
Mr . Fred Hoisington »ALSO ADMITTED IN
HOI S I NGTON GROUP, INC. WISCONSIN
7300 Metro Boulevard
Suite 525
Edina, MN 55435
Dear Fred:
We have been asked by the Ward family to advise them as to road
configuration and future development of their family property
( approximately 77 acres) ( the Property) in Chanhassen. The Property is
bordered on the north by Highway No. 5 and bisected by existing Highway
No. 101.
You have furnished us several background reports, studies and
alternatives that relate to the realignment of Highway 101 , and the
extension of Lake Drive.
We' ve made a preliminary review of the alternatives as they relate to
possible future development of the Property. From such preliminary
analysis, the preferred future development of the Property is as a
"planned development mixed use ." The concept would include a) mixed
residential on the easterly side, b) office , office showroom and/or mixed
residential in the southwest area bordering Lake Susan, and c)
approximately 30 acres of retail/commercial bordering Highway No. 5 .
Pursuant to this development concept we have advised the Ward family
that:
1) the alignment of relocated Highway 101 as an extension of Market
Boulevard is the preferred alternative ;
2 ) an alternative to the straight east/west location of Lake Drive
through the Property would be preferred if further transportation
studies support such a concept.
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY 8c LINDGREN, LTD.
Letter to Mr . Fred Hoisington
October 14 , 1988
Page 2
The alternative to a straight east/west Lake Drive would bend Lake Drive
further to the south, through the Property, so as to permit a contiguous
retail/commercial area of approximately 30 acres fronting on Highway 5
rather than bisecting such area into smaller , separated , "pocket"
parcels .
This alternative, based on land development principals , must however, be
coordinated with traffic and transportation principles.
From our brief examination of the land uses in Chanhassen it is our
initial observation that a larger retail/commercial parcel could attract
larger , major users. The smaller, bisected "pocket" parcels, resulting
from a straight east/west Lake Drive extension, would encourage
development similar to small strip retail/commercial and pads that are
familiar to Chanhassen. It seems that a number of these smaller
"pockets" already exist from factors beyond Chanhassen' s control such as
railroad tracks and major roadways .
We hope these observations are helpful to you as you and the City
deliberate the issues and arrive at a final recommendation. I look
forward to working with you and furnishing additional information that
may be helpful .
If you have any questions, please call .
Sincerely,
Robert L. Hoffman, for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd .
cc: Father Ward Family,
Attn: Mr . William Ward
4510 Bruce Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55424
Blue Circle Investment Company
6125 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 612/933-0409
October 19, 1988
Mr. Donald Ashworth Council Member Jay Johnson
City Manager 7496 Saratoga Drive
City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 55317
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mayor Tom Hamilton Council Member Bill Boyt
440 Chanview, Apt. 9 7204 Kiowa Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Council Member Dale Geving Mr. Fred Hoisington
7602 Huron c/o City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN 55317 P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Council Member Clark Horn
7608 Erie Avenue
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Highway 101 Realignment
Gentlemen:
We have attempted to communicate to you our position regarding the economic
harm which would be imposed upon us should the City Council decide to relocate trunk
Highway 101 from its current position which is adjacent to our property to the proposed
Market Boulevard intersection or any other location. We feel that you not only under-
stand our concern but that we have valid reasons for our concern. We thank you for
having taken the time to become familiar with the reason for our concern regarding
the possible realignment.
There is an issue which is of just as great a concern to us that we don't know
if you fully understand. That is the impact upon us and our property should the Council
adopt an official strategy to relocate trunk highway at some point in the future.
This possible future action would have the same impact upon our property as
the actual realignment of Highway 101 at this time. Just as we would never have
chosen our site as a location to make our investment without the representations and
recommendations which we received from the City Staff, it follows, very logically,
that other business would not choose to make an investment at a location knowing
that investment would be in jeopardy from the very first day if the City says that
in the future 101 will be moved and mandates such by current vote or action.
We recognize that we have no right to ask the Council to adopt a policy which
would prohibit future Councils from taking any specific action, such as the adoption
of Plan 2A at some future time, but neither do we think it reasonable to require them
to take future action at this time. Further, we would never consider being presumptuous
enough to even suggest such action.
OCT 201988
CITY OF CHANHASStry
October 19, 1988
Page 2
Even though the City may decide to locate and relocate roadways, we ask that
the Council implement Plan 2 and make no decision or recommendation regarding
the implementation of Plan 2A at this time.
This course of action would eliminate the immediate and devastating impact
upon us and our property which we have outlined in this and previous correspondence.
Please be aware that the City's right to relocate roadways does not in any manner
compromise the City's obligation to adequately and justly compensate us for damages
caused to us by the City exercising that right.
We stand ready to sit down with the City's representatives to fully examine ideas
and options which may lead to a course of action by the City which we could live with.
Very truly yours,
#7:----- c , / 2
Patrick B. Hal isey
Partner
PBH/dmm/48
•
Chauhassen inn
6121934.7373
MOTEL
531 West 79th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
October 24, 1988
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
From: Lawrence N. Zamor
Re: Realignment of Highway 101
Our preference concerning this matter would be to leave
Highway 101 as is .
Larry Za or
OCT 2,4.198B
CM.OE OHAREASS,EN