HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.D.1. First Avenue-CR 101 Discussion
J 3. D ./.
CITY OF SHAKO PEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: First Avenue-CR 101 Discussion
DATE: May 4, 2010
Comment:
Introduction:
At the meeting of May 4t\ the City Council will be asked to discuss options for First
A venue/1 0 1 improvements that have been proposed by Scott County.
Background:
Attached is a memorandum dated April2ih from Public Works Director Bruce Loney,
asking Council to consider endorsing general concepts for the design of First Avenue
Corridor. Also included is information from Matt Lehman, containing the results of a
meeting which he held with some twenty-five corridor property owners on April 22nd.
It is our recommendation that Council provide direction as to which ofthe broad design
concepts previously proposed that it prefers:
Option i-Five lane undivided with no median; or
Option 2-Four lanes, with a center median and turn lanes at certain intersections.
Once that direction is given, county/city staff and the consultant would be directed to
make contacts with individual property owners so as to provide more information as to
property accesses, and any rights-of-way that might be affected.
Action Required:
Council should discuss, and provide direction as to which design concept is preferred.
t'lll9~
Mark McNeill
City Administrator
MM:cn
CITY OF SHAKO PEE
Memorandum
TO: Mayor & City Council, Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Discussion on CR 101 Project
DATE: April 27, 2010
INTRODUCTION:
On April 27, 2010 the City Council has scheduled a workshop to discuss various Public Works
items. One of these items is the C.R. 101 Project, in which the Council is being asked to provide
direction on moving this project forward.
BACKGROUND:
City staff and County staff have met on March 29,2010 to discuss the C.R. 101 Project, and in
particular the attached C.R. 101 talking points, to see where the common ground or consensus
could be in moving this project forward. Staff has assembled these talking points in a way that
would involve Council discussion and direction in moving forward. Staff will make a brief
presentation on the nine talking points for consideration on the C.R. 101 project at the Apri127,
2010 Workshop.
County staff will also be available at this meeting to answer any questions and provide input on
the County's position in regard to the talking points. At this current time, and from the last
presentation from the County's consultant on the project, is to move forward with a 5-1ane with
no median design or a 4-lane with a median with turn lanes at certain intersections. Another
alternative being considered is to do a mill and overlay of CR 10 1 now and use the rest of
MNDOT turnback funds for right of way acquisition for the ultimate design of the corridor.
AL TERNATIVES:
1. Discuss the various talking points associated with the C.R. 101 project and provide staff
with input and/or direction for the C.R. 101 project.
2. Table for additional information before providing any direction on this project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend Alternative No. 1 ~ ~
_U{
ruce Loney . .
Public Works Director
ENGR/2009.PROlECTS/C.R lOllAPRJL.27.WORKSHOP
~.
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Memorandum
TO: Mitch Rasmussen, Scott County Highway Engineer
FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director - City of Shakopee
SUBJECT: C.R. 101 Talking Points
DATE: Apri119,2010
The following items are for consideration and associated with the C.R. 101
Reconstruction Project, from Spencer Street to Marschall Road.
1. The City would be in support of a 5-1ane road design with access closures as can
be accommodated through the process of one on one meetings between the
County consultant and County/City staff with the business/property owners.
2. A median could be placed in the future upon meeting performance standards such
as traffic volume and/or accident rate increases for the corridor and under a letter
of understanding.
3. The cost of the future median can be discussed as a negotiating item in a Letter of
Understanding between the City and the County for this corridor.
4. The City, in a Letter of Understanding, would cOl1sider improving the supporting
local street road network in this area to facilitate traffic versus using C.R. 101.
5. The City would support removal of accesses on C.R. 101 upon future
redevelopment of parcels on the corridor similar to previous removal of four
accesses via the CUP process.
6. The City and the Gounty would agree upon working towards a long term solution,
which would involve. monitoring and planning of the corridor area and working
with the City's Economic Development Advisory Committee and the City
Council.
7. The City and the County should agree to consider a plan for relocation of the
signal at its current location near Sommerville Street and 1 st A venue to Spencer
Street and 1 st A venue and how that can be accomplished.
8. A snow removal plan for the CR 101 corridor needs to be agreed upon between
the City and the County.
9. The County and City would work together on improving the river crossing of
C.R. 101 with Mn/DOT and other appropriate agencies.
This concludes my list of talking points for consideration and that were discussed at a
March 29,2010 joint staff meeting. ~o~
Public Works Director
ENGR/20IO.PROJECTS/20IO-COUNCllJCOST-PARTICIP ATION.I\R-CROSSING
. -.--- ,..---..
SHAKOPEE DOWNTOWN
PARTNERSHIP
P.O. Box 6 Shakopee, MN 55379
Apri116.2010
Mayor John Schmidt and
City Council Members
City of Shakopee
129 S Holmes Street
Shakopee,MN 55379
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
County Highway 101 is a multifunctional transportation corridor serving as a gateway to local business,
residential and recreational userS. It is understood that traffic will continue to grow and there will be a
need to upgrade the current roadway. It is the Shakopee Downtown partnership's goal to maintain or
enhance local mobility and accessibility in order to promote business activity. The following two options
are being proposed:
Alternative Approach # 1:
- 5-lane undivided roadway with private driveway removal
- Removal of up to 25 private driveways (of 41 total)
- Mid-term installation of median to mitigate safety and capacity limitations
- Mid to Long-term relocation of traffic signal at 1st Avenue Downtown to Spencer Street
- Mamtains all movements into downtown
- Recognize Spencer Street as major collector
- Change would occur when necessary and traffic conditions justify
Alternative Approach # 2:
- 4-1ane divided roadway with less private driveway removal
- Median opening at Spencer Street, Market Street and Naumkeag Street
- Removal of9 private driveways (of 41 total)
- Mid to Long-term relocation of traffic signal at 1st Avenue Downtown to Spencer Str-eet
Given the above options, the Shakopee Downtown Partnership Board respectfully supports Alternative
Approach # 1 without the median. The board believes this alternative would be in the best interest of the
businesses located on County Highway 101 as well as the consumer who will be drivmg on this roadway.
Thank you for considering our position. If there are any questions regarding this matter, please contact
us at 952/846-7347.
Kind J-egards, i '
-Hif~4V
:kailileen Klehr J
President
Shakopee Downtown Partnership
- _n ___ _______~______. ---------- -~ --- ---~ ---------- ~-~ -~ ----
,..~
J
LAYOUT LEGEND
c::=::=J BITUMINOUS ROADWAY IDRIVEWAY
c::=::=J SHOULDERS (PAVED)
- -- c::=::=J RAISED CONC. MEDIAN, CURB & GUTTER
c=::::::J CONCRETE WALK (DRIVEWAY "
c::=::=J LANDSCAPED AREA .'
c::=::=J SITE MODIFICATIONS
8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL
- EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
--- PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
- PROPOSED SIDEWALK EASEMENT
~
r -
"-.: .. ~...
- .
c . '
01 .
'l
IS)
IS)
J ,
C
D
.;:;
D-
o
/'
U
C
0
.;:;
D-
O
/'
IS)
N
N
-q-
IS)
/'
0
C
~
D
U
/'
'"
01 -
C
.;:; ~ -~iP'-~.
"
"
E w ~.
/' . .
Lfl
co :~4~f.J3t!~,j~~' 51 ·
IS)
IS)
N ....,~ ~~.. . ....
-q- I 0; .iti;~::-fF-i _J8~
f-
/'
~ 0
-" u
., u
. If)
- /'
E ..
-" I . gJ'
~..... ...
. ..~- .- ,....... ..
~ --
...... I
. '. ~ . . ~ " .. .... ;.,..,,. . 1'; .. . . .' .. iii '" .,. . .. :- I
D>L: _ "_ P-", .. " . .. ... .. " ..' _. ,oil
<.- D-
U ... .. I
., "-
~ IS)
D- .. I
'N
<.- Lfl
-U .. I
"- N
I
IS) ~ ElC:>L TC:>N 8- f'vo1 E r"-.l K . INC. ~ ~ SHEE T [
Q 0 50 100 ml.3 " .,/ .......' 4-Lone D,v,ded Alter-notlve
N ~--- I r~- 1 I
- "- CONSUL TING ENGINEERS 80 SURVEYORS IS cott CSAH 101 CORRIDOR STUDY
1 ~ mo OF I
SCALE FEET MANKATO. MN F .AJRMONT. MN SLEEPY EYE. MN WflLMAR, MN SHAKOPEE
o "- BURNSVllLE. MN CHASKA, MN RAMSEY, MN AMES, JA 4
.-' -q- APRIL. 2010
r
~--'---- ,-----. -----~_.._--"~._--------~ --~ ~----'-----~'-'-'-'-'------~'--~- ~_._-~~-~-, - ------------- ~----~- ----._- -~----~.------,- -~~----~-_.._._-----~-~,-_._--,.~ ---~------ ---~ - --
------'---------------.--
- - --- ---"- --- -,- - -
~~ ~~7')j"l" ~ ..~ ~ ~~:{l :::1'
'1':0."'" ''''^,:" r iC: .. '
D' ~~~' ~d;
p . ~ " "'~\.
,,, '!t{i '1)1';' 'l !f>',
. , ~ " 1... ';.J7;~;p ;;
c=:::J BITUMINOUS ROADWAY JDRIVEWAY ~ ~;" ']'>t!J:i!ff:".
~ ~ ~., Ji",Ji:J_ 'f'i.>iJ/~' "- <-C";
c:===J SHOULDERS (PAVED) t,~ ~.: ~);.~ :-&t""'<<
~~' .. ~;'" """"2-
c=:::J RAISED CONC. MEDIAN, CURB & GUTTER ~i1Ii.'~':' 'V" .'. :l){$]
"'-"t~,.~. tt~ ~
C=:J CONCRETE WALK IDRIVEWAY ,'I.!;~~~:3....~"~, ':'. ..,
C==:J LANDSCAPED AREA '!t ... '
C==:J SITE MODJFICATlONS
8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
- . - PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
- PROPOSED SIDEWALK EASEMENT
I
1
I
1
I
c . ._.'" -_.-~ .".'.-'.
I -&' -13' _ _.. ~_' -.. --..J--
~ ~ --" p.....ll' 1''It'..... - _. _ '... I'::;;)
I os: . .. --- -
u .~
6 .- ..... ,,. ., =1.-.... -, 13' ...._ -. .__... - .. ~ - - , --
;; ......r 13"~~ __r.,' - ....
'Q.
o .""-....------... "',~ ...... _ -...._
/ ~
U
C
o
;;
0-
o
/
IS>
N _ .
N -
..,.
'"
/
U
C
:J
o
U
/ ,
1;, .A . .'.-
50 -.~..,..J.~ ~t"'V'~ ~::::~---_.-.:.....- .,
+' 11 ....I,. ....~ ~~
ID .~ l~' '..~
ID ~.. ..t' '-f._
E " \~ J
/ . '. ). 4r-.' . ;> \or..... "
\.D -~...' . ~ 'l:1.,.. ~ '....
~ -:~. {~~. . I · r.Ji~' ,., .
~ ~., ~ . , '.~r " ~ "
\- ~....... I!.i: "'~.... 'J
_ 8 . ~,l'.... " ~ ...;0 ,,~II~~A. I t,..
~~~.l~",,~,( ~.':.,., .~~.<i:'"'" .....I~___~&~~ ,~:J/~,"f.'I'
I E -:: . '., " ,,~~ .. ~ ,;: ti' ....... ,~, ., ~ ....
.D I ' ',. .,,, ' ' fi"'" . ~'"- -'" '" ' :Ii
'. , . .":"',' I ~ . ,....... ~', ' \ 11 ~
\ J.~" ,n~r-~~ ~~ _~ ,_ ~~-::.,~~--:.~~<~:- ._~y , _ I
,--....-. ~ -- --....- -~........ J -- , ~ ", 2ND~AVPE ~ I
I';" "', ~ ~.~ I ., ; C' ^';' .,', <F"" ,~," >0' . . ~ . . ; . ' ~ ~ _ . <Y _ . .: '7,,:. ,.... r ".': " . ~...,. """". , " . - ':fAr.. . . ~ . . I
i 01;;: _.:... .....~. ... ~~~"-~'~ _ :'_ "',. A'':''::'j' ..1".......:.:... ~:; :.~..r ,'" " a..
-I 0 CL .,'~~';,~ "i."" - ., ",..', , ~...:. , ".", ~ "k' ~ !:_..~. ;;''-'''.. n ,'''" .',,;.',.. ',,:t,' I
+' . . ~.. -, . a:.~ ~ .. . 0 '~.e: -." si: . -"-,, . ~'," , . '",
-0 . -. ~j:.'* . ~~.- ~ ~.~ .ca I
1 i ~~~\r:~i"~: > .: UI_ll~~",~.\l "'. u;,.,...J{~~~~~; u'== 1JJ I
~ ~ SC>L-TC>N & I'.,./IEN K.. INC. m172 ~' ,.~~. 4-Lene DIvIded Alte~netlve SHEET
~ I?) 51?) 100 ~ "\ /.-;'---" 2 I
i " I""'--\"'- I CONSUL TING ENGINEERS 8< SURVEYORS' ", CSAH 101 CORRIDOR STUDY OF
i :\: SCALE FEET MANKATa.MN "'RMONT,MN SLEEPY EYE,MN WILLMAR,MN mn SHAKOPE'E I Scott I
-'!.,:;: BURNSVILLE,MN CHASKA,MN RAMSEY,MN AMES,IA CJU APRIL. 2010 4
- --- --- - -- -- ----
~ --
LAYOUT LEGEND
C=:J BITUMINOUS ROADWAY IDRlVEWAY
C=:J SHOULDERS (PAVED)
C=:J RAISED CONC. MEDIAN, CURB & GUTTER
C=:J CONCRETE WALK IDRlVEWA Y
c:====J LANDSCAPED AREA
C=:J SITE MODIFICATIONS
8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
- . - PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
- PROPOSED SIDEWALK EASEMENT
.:;;,
""' .!. ~!.~ -
~< .
,
r.1
.i.1 .
4r J !
., ,,'a
I
I
c
: ~ -- - , . -,...~ ..'..:'" _ ,_ _.. _ " _ . '_ '-M-~';-= A - ..:' -- --'.f:'" - _ '-' ::g:._ -:'.' ',~::: ~
~ ~ ~
+'
i g-
, /'
U
I s
-'
\ !
N
I N
I ~
/'
I 0
c
"
o
u p
I r ____n__ "12 - ::J ,;:,;-
1 w .,.~ \ t
I w .......~-.-. -
~ , ~;..,:{
~ . ~ '"lr,' ~ it .-. --,"'-
N ~ . . J'.- ..,
; ~ " . ~ i- - r -, ·
.-0 -. , . )"-
-B l:5 '] b'" r.. ...... r
g ~ . ... '-- '! .. ....
.D :c . ." ..",,,, '. L:. .. ~,...
- . !i.!"l";" >-,;-...
-- ...-.::...... . . -~. -:..:>t!..'
~ Iliio.. 4.l .tr ~ '~_~:'
", ''':" 11-...... ~ ..... lo ~ ."'
I ' '.' '.JI t .: .. "I. f .II 4 ~ j tl Ii . 'ill .. .. <II ....
<< ... ... ..,. ..._. .tt #-,. ~ <II':J
I ~ 5: ~.tT~
\ .:; 1Sl^''''''''-':':'
, q- ~ . -?-~'~ ::t="
1 '-lfl ~.
-0 .. ~ >>_ '>\.. '
a. N .~. . -"
0. J .....,... I _ SHEET
~ ~ E3C>LTC>\'..1 c.:r I"v'1EI' r........ N<:=::. mm IJIIIIIIM!:~ -', ../........... 4-lane D,v,ded Alte.-natlve I
IS> 0 50 100 . \ i.;;.----. 3
, - ~ ~-_- I CONSUL TlNG ENGINEERS i!< SURVEYORS ,.., . CSAH 101 CORRIDOR STUDY OF
I i ~ SCALE FEET MANKATo.MN FAJRMQNT.MN SLEEPY EYE.MN WILLMAR.MN mlR1 SHAKOPEE / Scott 4 I
I .Q, :;: BURNSVILLE.MN CK'SKA.MN RAMSEY.MN AMES.IA s;:.JU '- i APRIL. 2010
\ I
- - -
-- --
~,--- -, -~---
'~
,f.~ '"
3;, "
<, .,'.
::o;-.~ .
-~
-
"
-'
-, ...... .
.i>. L,..",<
,!iilll..: L"
rll .j;:
I
I c
, 01
I "l J,",*o ......'" ...~..'
'"
<Sl
<Sl
U
C
0
.;:l
D-
o
..... LAYOUT LEGEND
u
c
0
.;:l c:==:=l BITUMINOUS ROADWAY IDRIVEWAY
0.
0
I ..... :c=:J SHOULDERS {PAVED}
<Sl
N c:==:J RAISED CONC. MEDIAN, CURB & GUTTER
i N
'"
<Sl -::--~.- c=:=:J CONCRETE WALK IDRIVEWAY
.....
\ 0 ~,,",' j !. c:==:=l LANDSCAPED AREA
c '.r.~S
:J .
I 0 c:==:=l SITE MODIFICATIONS ~ U
I u
..... ~"':;-:-~"''- i
'"
I 01 PO., "z 8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL
c ,
.;:l Work wit!l.prop ~Y_"
I Q) wner to, rec~nfJ , re EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY ~~--
Q) ,
E ,'...." I PROPOSED RlGWl'-OF-\'\'AY
..... -'-
r LD PROPOSED SIDEWALK EASEMENT
1 OJ .i -
<Sl
I <Sl }
N ~~ ~
I '"
>- :;t ,
.....
0 ~
i ~ u 1;!! ';
.D U a - .-.-
+; tJ) .....'~.- - -
~ ..... . ,
E ..
I .D I
I I
I
I I
i
I I
I 01:2: I
'- 0..
U I
+' tD SHEE1
~ N
I Q. .. -~., 4-Lane DIvided Alternative 4
'N I
'- LD
'D .. ~...-11 ~>S-tt CSAH 101 CORRlOOR STUDY OF I
I Q.N INC. mm
SC>L'TC>N & I"v1 E: N K , 4 I
. 50 100 ~ CONSUL TlNG ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS me SHAKOPEE / . CO, APRIL. 2010
I 0
CSl r-'ma-_~ , MANKATQ MN rAJRMONT, MN SLEEPY EYE. MN WIlLMAR. MN
I Q SCALE FEET BURNSVILLE. MN CHASKA, MN RAMSEY, MN A'.1ES.IA
I N
- "-
, N
C N _.~-- --
I -g,:; ~,- -~--~~
- ~-
- - --
L ~____ -- -,
~-~ --- ~---
-
- _.~ -------------- ~-- ------.._.- -'------ -- ---- ----- ~------~------~ -- ------- -"------- .--- ----- ------
#:.. .t-Y';\'~~/"",,_. "
1'" .
.,' "'If: .
... f/tio
LAYOUT L.EGEND i~ -. " .
C==:J BITUMINOUS ROADWAY IDRIVEWAY
C==:J SHOULDERS (PAVED)
C==:J RAISED CONC. MEDIAN, CURB & GUTTER
C==:J CONCRETE WALK IDRIVEWAY
r::=:::::::=J LANDSCAPED AREA
C==:J SITE MODIFICATIONS
8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
-. - PROPOSED RIGHT.OF-WAY
- PROPOSED SIDEWALK EASEr.,ENT
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I ,
i . ..
j
i
I ~
I 6,
! "
'"
OS;
DO
C
o
I t
, 0
/'
.D
C
o
~ 1'~
Q 1"
J o! [ ~. ~~
tsl .'
N 1i _.--
N
~ .. .j
/' '
U .. I
[ ':
'I 8 ....,..:
! /' \....:
~ . ~ -.-..... -. ~ ..,... ..". ~ .- ~-..::.!._:::..:
C
* :,. ~ - 'ij)t~'
E ,~, CI.'.
/' ~ ~
~ :. Of,! ........ ,w.... ,f
~ ~ i.. ~ .. or '~~ ..3~~"~~4:~J,~.1V81 ~.~:
~ ,1 li j' ~ ~'~ ~'iil'~';"i~~:; 18i Jl "
:g 8 l (4 ~~~~I::; . f=Jlt- -
..: III ,-t;. "".. \._, ,..\.. -, :EB'J.
E -:. t'rei I. ~? _ a "'r~
...D ...c ~ -. +!:t f"~ __ , :J. Q -:p"~1'- ~_ ~
;.il. '. -, . t., · ...
,J'.. '. ~.+... ,.....'. \~__. ._ ~
, . \.., .,..~ _ .-., ,...... ~ I...icI:wo
1l;'-";\~:;- ~;prti>>-~.- -- \.~. . -0111:- -'- "!S' ,,- ...
..IItool::r .'~, II l~ - -... ,.. "J/' IL, _.. - _I,~'; Io.--"po I
_ ,','''. ..._ ....~_..... _' PO' _:,jo_... ... ')l
(J\ L: r ' 1: ~": ~~ .. c ~ ; . t~' ~ : · _ ~, ..' ~. ~ ~ : ~' t ~ ... · : t, ~ · ~ "," ", 1, ." CJI . !- . . OJ ....~ ~ ..... _ ...,. , J I
~ 0.. f .~.~ ~"l~l!'::', ~~~,.~~ t.i ~"": ~-:~'....-::;.1, :__~,.' ."- ~~~ .r'..;..... "'I -
- N . jt' ~ ..". ~." '- -.." ,.....~. .'" :..- -"'l~f r-..-
q. 7. -. . ~~-~Ji.--~.,.,.~liD~ca.~..cor.' "" ~.. ...~ - Qi.4. ~";::-"--~-~"'._. I
4-lfi ~'-~'--~"<~'" ' ~g ~.-~~...~~. . ... 'iJB~
"R N ,. ='- ......1 ", _. ~"lI. .~.. " - ~' . ..-~".' -. """!L." ....'.. + '-.'~'." ~ '~ -"l )'~,..
. .' "', : ".. . ': - (1-; ~. ~-tIf 'k-./l, . - I )
f:iI~., .'~' :'(!ll!~ l['LIll U,ll!1.l[.f:f.oe~ . ~I. 3'Ii h I
~ ~\ SC>LTC>N8-f'../lENK., INC. mm' ~. __ /~- 5-Lone Alternatlve 'SHEET I
N 0 50 100 WJJ3. \ ;;.----. I
~ ;;:; ~--- I CONSUL TlNG ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS . . If. CSAH 101 CORRIDOR STUDY OF
-jj ~ SCALE FEET MANKATO, MN FAJRMONT, MN SLEEPY EYE, MN WILLMAR,MN mn SHAKOPEE IS CO tt I
'-' .,. . BURNSVILLE, MN CHASKA, MN RAMSEY, MN AMES,IA ~ '- " ' APRIL. 2010 4 I
--'.'-~ ----
c::=:J BITUMINOUS ROADWAY IDRIVEWAY
c:==:::J SHOULDERS (PAVED)
c::=:J RAISED CONC. MEDIAN. CURB & GUTTER
c:==:::J CONCRETE WALK IDRIVEWAY
c:::==:=J LANDSCAPED AREA
c::=:J SITE MODIFICATIONS
8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
- - - PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
- PROPOSED SIDEWALK EASEMENT
I
\ t'
i
!
i
I
1
l
c .-..-.. .-"-...<-
CJl ,...". ..... PI M!I; I'-t ~ ~'1"_
~ .... ~_ ~ ~ ~ -~t1 - ~. t"~,..,. ~~ It1W ,-0 c :. +-
~ ......w;=... ~ II'~ (il ~ ........ ..... : j'::~ ........- -. _; ~... +- 1<:::)
g -+ - .....-.... : -+,... I ~ .... -, _ - ..-___ . _-. ......
.;:; ~.e.,.... , 1D: t i -+-.SJill' .~."... -+.? ,...... ................ .<.....
0-
o ''-r _..... - "'" '"
/' .-- --_._-'.
.D , -Cl.OSE---'- ~'~>-!---CLO~E---!:
if J r - - i . ,.1 '" : -- ~ ,. J-
3 ,> ~;~( ~ I. l *..' . L '#,,;.;;.... r~ 1,
0- ~ I - -- J I, I r.....' ,
o :, I I ... I t \:' ... I ~
./ .",. . I I ..J _I,;;n,~' I' ~
'" . 'I -' '~ I '. -,;;;..:.. I....
N . i":'--'~ '~~ 'l;r:""'.:i,
N .. ;.. 2""= ~ "" I ~ ''';''lJ I I
~ ,.,:. ~ I J r:D-1
",.. 1 ~~~!l.~ I ~(
./ .....1::- 1 ., '1":...... ~. l'~ I
~ "'"'::'.::n"f ~-.,.~ \... ,'_. . I
() ,IP -:r""7.J- '''''''-- 1,- - I
C 7'/,.....-.. ,.__.___-"'_.,:~.~-=h_.~-L."..., l:rr~l ~"~
t1....... 1..... -' - 1- '" - I I""';' {,.__"- .....J1
::J~ : 1 II .1
8 '0 . I I I r-n'!9lJ I
f . '1 ~.~=========i=========i=====~====~;.===.:... ~:. ==i=::
~ ~.. ' . i'~~ ri----:::.-~~'~--:~-a.~~ r-r.,;i~~' c,---~
::. ' ,. ... f ~ I I .,-,. . ~
~ ' 1 :3. ;' Jl _.. I ~" '"'
",' ., . 1"'1' ~.:l
N ' .,,-.~ " ;,; _ '". t ""' I
-:;; ~;.~.'~ f~;~''''' ~, - ~
.,/ -, J _ ~ . . - ... ~
i ::0 8 '~~ I 0 . ,.. -} ,
\ ~ J .'~ ~ ~,. ';. . .. ~ . ' .1 i ~ tll. ('l. .......""'1,, '_ ,.
.5 .E '~~ ;, ~ . .,t l ~ 1 ',"-," .:--'
-fl. .... ~ ,..<,.,.. ~ Ii". '" ~-- ''-" ,--'" ......,..- _ 1 ~
I "...D.-"'"'""'''''....''-''" '-'- -. _ ~ :-.~. _T --.12-"" V~
, -...- _ ~ 'MIl _ -........ __ -..............-ollCl~.... ---.-.. _ 1C't............ ~.~ _ .-,., --- .... ----o::t:.. ,..,....-- Il ~ ~ ' I
i .." _... .~ ~-~, ~;;; .,~: ,~; ~'-~ .'t,:,..: ...-,,-~-_._.,. ~ ,.. ....f :"II- :'lIi~"; ....;1: ""\.."" ~~_~ -~ .',. -",if,~' ~'l.,
I co' .... .. - . .. ..,. -... -... '. . ... .:!I.
:. ;;; :. - .t. '.. I h . " .. .. . ",. " ........ 6,. . .... .
:M'. !$ k-~
{J1::;: ...
I ]~
0-"'"
~ ii0. "
Q.N
I
1
I <:;: ~ SC:::::>LTC:::::>N 8- ['o../lENK., INC. m, ..m ~~ ~ /~.. 5-Lane Alter-natIve SHEET I
'" 0 50 [00 W;W . ,.~
~ ~ ~-...- I CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS . " . ~/SV .' . tt CSAH 101 CORRIDOR STUDY ~ I
.c ':::' SCALE FEET MANKATO.MN fAJRMONT,MN SLEEPY EYE,MN WILLMAR.MN m,R SHAKO PEE I'. CO '
.2, ..... BURNSVILLE, MN CHASKA, MN RAMSEY, MN AMES,IA I::JIlJiI APRIL. 2010 4 I
I
-~ -- --- ---- _ ..--,-- -- - -'~ -.- - ------ _.-~- - -. - -~ - ~-- - -
-- -- - - - --- -- - -- ----- ---'-'-'- --- __ _"_ __U_' ___ _ ----' ----~ --~.., -- -"- -'-- - --
~_ :~:c-
LAYOUT LEGEND
C:=::::J BITUMINOUS ROADWAY IDRIVEWAY
C:=::::J SHOULDERS (PAVED)
c=::=J RAISED CONC. MEDIAN, CURB & GUTTER
c=::=J CONCRETE WALK IDRlVEWAY
c::::=:=J LANDSCAPED AREA
C:=::::J SITE MODIFICATIONS
8 TRAFFIC SIGNAL
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
--- PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
- PROPOSED SIDEWALK EASEMENT
~:
, ~i~
,<
~ l~
',''1
'.t
(11
'\. ~r-
[ -~
m -..c," ,_. "", ~ .....
-0 - ,r- ., ~ ~'J.l - ~ . - .".... ."' .,; -' ...... . :..T'....-~........ -llf-. :;r. ..:t.' .,. .. :- .- .-~. ..........,..-:-,.,.- '--;;"1"'-:\
r-i " ., -
-. - . ,~......j-' loW - - l...;;l ~.~~"IJ
CSl . ]. - ~ ~ ",.... . ~,- ..-.- - .- . ~ ---~. - - ,.' -.;# , -, ',,~ ~.. . .~
CSl - 3~ ...... , 3r 1-- '- - - ,--. _. .. I , ,
, .....0- " - 3r $r
ro '.- '..... -... '-- --- ~---- - - . ~
[ - "'~. ......"... - -~. t...... - -
0 s:- -
.;:; ~...,t _ . - , ""T. ". .., ~ . - -1' ~ _.. . ,;.. .~
Q.
0
/
.0
[
0
.;:; 4
Q. ",.
0
/
~ .
N ..,~
N
'"
CSl
/
U
[
0
0
U
/
" "
m
c -~~
.;:; g~~
.
ill
E
/ f' ~I~
iD
oJ
c5l
~
N .
'"
"
/ J~ (3 ,,'
0
:Ii 0 ~ .'
., 0 -. ......~
..: J. .~
E .. .. - ~ ~'
.0 .!: ~ '_. f~_.~ -.: ..
-. .
- . . Vi
., .... ....~.~ "". ~ '.'
" .. ...... r .. .::~ JiI! ! :! :. ,. ~- - " .. 4"~ ,; J . Ai \;
...' ... . -
mz - _. ~
'0 Cl.
;>:; tfl
q.~
'- -
"0 ~
Q.N
!e! ~ E3C>L TClN 8- I'-v1 E N K. r INC. ml3 ~~ .- SHEET
CSl 0 50 100 "1 ...~ ....'. ..... 5-Lene Al ternatl ve
N ,':':"----. 3
- '- ~--- I CONSULT~G ENQNEERS & SURVEYORS IScott CSAH 101 CORRIDOR STUDY I
' N me OF
.E N SCALE FEET MANKATO. MN r AlRMONT. MN SLEEPY EYE. MN WILL MAR. MN SHAKOPEE
o '- BURNSV1LLE. MN CHASKA, MN RA'vlSEY. MN AMES,IA 4 I
..., '" . APRIL. 2010
- -- - --- --- -
..
!.l~.~
j\:.
..
'<
,..l
-.';
~-,.
C --
'" ~.~.
"1J ... """.~'-""" '~......."
" -
co
os: ' .
I en
c
0
;:;
I CL
0
/
I .D
C
0
1 ;:;
CL
0 LAYOUT LEGEND
/
I co
N c::=:=::J BITUMINOUS ROADWAY JDRIVEWAY
N
\ .,,-
CO
/ C==:J SHOULDERS IPAVED)
\ 0 .,:rm
C c::=:=::J RAISED CONC. MEDIAN, CURB & GUTTER
0
I 0 ~ CONCRETE WALK JDRIVEWAY
0
/
"
'" c=::=J LANDSCAPED AREA
I c :="i
;:; c::=:=::J SITE MODIFICATIONS
m
I m
E
/ 8 TRAFFIC SIGI'lAL
I If) , .
a) EXISTING RIGHT -OFWA Y
!Sl
!Sl .
N --- PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
.,,-
,., PROPOSED SIDEWALK EASEMENT
/ -
:;9 0
0
0
" .,.
- / -
E ..
.!l .r:
I u ~ , I ~ .
. 0
1
J
I "':;:
I '0 (L
I ,., - ~
- lSl
CL ..
"N
\ '-- If)
"D .. I
CLN SHEET
I SClL..TClN & r--../1 E N K , INC. ml3 ~~ "\ ./~.. 5-Lane AlternatIve 4
ff\ ,,:,:..-. . OF
I CO 0 50 100 CONSUL TING ENGINEERS 8< SURVEYORS /S . otl CSAH 101 CORRIDOR STUDY 4
cs; ~--- I SLEEPY EYE. MN WILL MAR, MN lBO SHAKOPEE C '. APRIL. 2010
N SCALE FEET MANKATQ, MN fAlRMONT, MN
I - "- eURNSVllLE. MN CHASKA, MN RAtJ,SE'l', MN MrlES,IA
~ ~ .
15 "-
I ...., .,,-
I
I
TO: John Schmitt, Steve Clay, Pamela Punt, Patrick Heitzman
FROM: Matt Lehman
SUBJECT: 101 Project Information
DATE: May 4, 2010
Comment:
On April 22nd I had a meeting with a group of about 25 property owners from the 101 corridor to
find out what the concerns are, where common ground might be, and what solutions those in
attendance had. The discussions in my opinion where good. The consensus was clearly in favor
of a 5 lane in the existing right of way, no parking (emergency parking only), A lot of the
discussions were about the traffic study and how the new train info fit in. Seems the consensus
believes the new railroad info not in the study would block the south bound side street crossings,
Marshall, and a median would also limit traffic options caUSing serious traffic jams almost
instantly.
We didn't find other historic downtowns with medians except St. Peter which put it in 10 years
ago, took it out shortly after and now put back in. The current businesses in St. Peter are having
negative impacts. The group talked about the tax impacts of loss business accesses ie; State
sales taxes and possible loss of businesses if customer base dropped. They also hit on the loss
of city tax revenues if properties where acquired. The city/county taxpayer cost of recon of Bluff,
Second, and the side streets as secondary accesses using the median design coupled with right-
of-way purchase and impacts to existing businesses seems massive for a convenience of travel
compared to the impacts this would have on lives in a time when money is tight both government
and private business or people, consumer base is low and unemployment is high.
The group believes utilizing both 101 and 69 allowing traffic to have options to bypass or cut
through should be used. The group does think some accesses could be closed but because of
the complex nature of the area with multi-parcel businesses, shared drives, and the 51 % chapter
214.2006 eminent domain law which basically says if 51 % of access is taken the complete
property must be acquired. This would get real expensive for relocations, purchasing, loss going
concern and leave properties empty with maintenance cost and lost tax revenue on the taxpayers
.The best approach would be no closing or case by case closing once all the issues with each
access is known, some properties have signaled willingness to volunteer some accesses.
Other points brought up during the meeting included the lack of safety issues currently on 101,
the high volume of delivery trucks to many businesses and the traffic patterns they currently use,
and how a median would alter these current patterns and the negative impacts to other areas
using alternative truck delivery or consumer patterns, These issues were not addressed in the
study long term. The group thinks the future river crossing in roughly 20-30 years will create a
major roadway on both sides of Shakopee with 169 and 41 crossings and 101 across the river
and through town will be more local destination oriented? Again, I don't recall the study looking at
this one way or the other but I think 69 plays a major role in Shakopee's future from transportation
to industrial/commercial growth on the west end.
The group talked about the theme of the downtown 101 area and the visioning process where the
historic small town feeling, open riverfront, walkable areas and such and had a hard time
visioning a median basically blocking the existing city from the riverfront. I was surprised and
pleased this group thought this hard about the broad area and future of Shakopee. Some other
small issues came up like shared sewers and stuff but I basically said these are not really road
design issues but do need to be addressed in the engineering portion, I referred these to Bruce
Loney city engineer.
I have attached a point outline this group would liKe to address council on May 4th. My
understanding is 1 person representing the larger group would do a short 5 minute or less point
by point I think its 4 or 5 points and the others would basically state their name, and affirm their
agreements on this issue. I am outlining what I believe is the majority position of this group. This
group did have legal people at this meeting and it's my understanding that this group wishes to be
on record.
101 corridor coalition
Favor 5 lane with utilities and no access closures or closures on a
case by case basis (volunteered).
We oppose the median design for the following reasons.
We believe traffic study is flawed.
We believe signage on 101 entering Shakopee utilizing both 1st ave
and 69 to 169 best serves all needs and increases traffic capacity
with little cost and without negative impacts.
We feel the 101 corridor businesses are vital to the cities commercial
base.
We believe zoning consistent with the comprehensive plan promotes
the long term stability and investments in the area.
I 3. D.)# n~Gtrk
We ask you to please vote on this matter
tonight. There have been enough meetings and
it is time to move forward with a decision. We
believe the county is getting anxious and is
waiting for direction from the city and we do not
want to risk loosing the support of the county.
We support the option for a 5""lane road with a
middle turn lane and no median. We do realize
that some accesses may need to be closed and
we suggest that you send a letter to every
property owner that this ,may affect, stating
which access you propose to close. If the
property owner has" a concern with closing their
access, you could meet with the individual
owner one on one. We do not believe that
directing traffic out 69 to the West is in the best
interest of the businesses along East 1 st Ave
(101). We believe that it is vital to upgrade the
utilities at this time.' The city is seen working
several times a month. on the sewer. Maybe the
city should consider raising the speed limit for
trains coming thru town to open the intersections
quicker, especially the crossing on County Rd
17.
, ;f;"t flbff
5f/-vll
" '{/r-sslY'
6/ ')..-- .-
~u
RECEIVED
MAY 0 3 2010
CITY OF SHAKOPEE