Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 07-24-2000 SpecialAgenda City of Plymouth Special City Council Meeting Monday, July 24, 2000 7:00 PM Council Chambers Call to Order 2. Discuss County Road 101 Expansion Project 3. Adjourn 7:00 p.m. Agenda Number: CITY OF PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: July 19, 2000 for the City Council Meeting of July 24, 2000 TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: COUNTY ROAD 101 IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 9005 BACKGROUND: The City Council has scheduled a study meeting on the County Road 101 Improvement Project for July 24, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is for the City Council to receive further updates from City and County staff on the project and also provide a forum for citizen input. A notice of this meeting was sent to area residents living within 750 feet of County Road 101 on July 10. On February 15, 2000 the City Council held a study meeting with the City and County staff for this project. At that time plans were approximately 75% complete and the County had addressed items contained within the City Council preliminary approval resolution of October 19, 1999. Attached are the following documents associated with that meeting: City Council minutes for the February 15 meeting (Page 7 - 15) Notes made by Hennepin County staff from the February 15 meeting Page 1.6 - 1.9) February 11 staff report to the City Council for this meeting. Attached to that staff report is a letter from Hennepin County addressing the items in the City Council preliminary approval resolution. Also attached is a copy of the preliminary approval resolution listing the 12 items to be addressed (Page 20 - 29). Plans for the County Road 101 Improvement Project are now approximately 95% complete. Between the City and County staff, we believe we have responded to or resolved the items to be addressed by the City Council. In summary, these major items were as follows: I: \pw\Engineering\PROJECTS\9005\Memos\CC_CR 101 _StdyMtg.doc SUBJECT: COUNTY ROAD 101 IMPROVEMENTS Page 2 The access to the commercial and future high density residential property on either side of County Road 101 immediately south of Highway 55. A frontage road plan has been developed after several meetings with the various property owners. We have agreement with the property owners on this access plan. There are still economic details to be resolved with each property owner. This plan provides adequate access for future land uses in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Bern -ling to provide screening to adjacent properties. Several meetings were held with residents of the Heather Run Addition, Fisher's Pond Addition, and the property owners along the west side between County Road 24 and Medina Road. Berming plans have been prepared by the County which they are prepared to implement upon the granting by the property owners the necessary encroachment onto private property to construct the berms. Landscaping — the City had a landscaping plan prepared for the entire length of the project. The purpose of this plan was to show preliminary landscaping to enhance the motorist's view when traveling along the roadway, the experience for the pedestrians on the trails, and to provide additional landscaping for the adjacent properties. Prior to preparation of this landscaping plan, both the City and County had committed to a landscaping budget of 1 % of the construction cost which would make a landscaping budget of approximately $100,000. The preliminary landscaping plan which was prepared had an estimated cost to implement of $175,000. The County has committed to increase their contribution for landscaping by $75,000, therefore, there is a commitment by the City and County for the total budget for the preliminary landscape plan. I believe it will be necessary for the City Council to also increase our contribution to the landscape budget. The preliminary landscape plan does not include any landscaping in the proposed median between County Road 24 and Medina Road. Also in discussion with property owners, there are areas because of the wetlands and existing ponds where berms cannot be constructed. I believe we will be recommending the construction of screening fences in these areas in order to provide a visual barrier to the roadway. As the project is developed, additional landscaping may also be necessary to enhance the project. Also, the City will be responsible for all design and inspection costs estimated at $35,000. It would be my recommendation that the City be prepared to increase the City's 1:\pw\Engineering\PROJECTS\9005\Menas\CC_CR I O I _StdyMtg. doc SUBJECT: COUNTY ROAD 101 IMPROVEMENTS Page 3 commitment by $75,000 in order that both the City and the County have the same commitment to the project. A landscaping issue which has not been resolved with the adjacent properties is along the Heather Run area. The Heather Run Homeowners Association has requested that the height of the existing berm be increased approximately four feet. In order to increase the height of the berm, it will require the removal of existing landscaping which the developer, homeowners or association have planted along the top of the berm. The association is requesting that additional planting be undertaken to replace some of the trees which will be removed. If the height of the berm is not increased as requested by the association, none of these trees will be removed. Median construction: A median is proposed for construction the entire length of the project. Because of the high traffic volumes at the County Road 24, Medina Road, and Highway 55 intersection, medians are mandatory in order to separate the traffic, prevent improper turns and provide protection for the necessary turn lanes. Also because of the many access points between Medina Road and Highway 55, a median is necessary to control the turning movements of traffic. There is an option on the median between the area northerly of County Road 24 and southerly of Medina Road on either side of the existing 34`h Avenue intersection. With the reconstruction of County Road 101, the 34`h Avenue intersection will be the only access point remaining between Medina Road and County Road 24. A median of adequate width is proposed to allow for landscaping. This would be a similar type median to that which has recently been constructed and landscaped on West Medicine Lake Drive or on Zachary Lane. The County has prepared alternate concepts for eliminating or reducing this median in the area of the 34`h Avenue intersection. No additional right-of-way is required to be acquired as a result of the construction of the median. There is currently adequate right-of-way this entire length for the median. The median provides an additional safety to the traffic on the roadway and also will be a great enhancement to the landscaping plan. The City has received very favorable comments on the landscape medians on West Medicine Lake Drive and Zachary Lane. No change is proposed in the landscaped median. 1: \pw\Engineering\PROJECTS\9005\Memos\CC_CR I O I _StdyMtg. doc SUBJECT: COUNTY ROAD 101 IMPROVEMENTS Page 4 Issues: After hearing comments from individual Councilmembers, City and County staff, I believe there are three main issues. These issues are as follows: Median at about 34''' Avenue: There are some alternatives for the proposed landscape median both north and south of 34''' Avenue. All concepts on eliminating or changing the median as proposed from a landscaped median would in the opinion of the County compromise safety unless access is changed to 34'1' Avenue. If access is changed to 34t" Avenue to completely close 34''' Avenue or make it a right- in/right-out, some of the safety concerns of the County might be offset by additional safety provided to the roadway by the elimination of access from 34''' Avenue. The preliminary plan approved by the City Council included this landscaped median. The direction from the City Council was to consider median width where it could have impact on existing trees along the corridor. The proposed median does not have any impact on any of the existing trees, and therefore, since there is adequate right - of --way already existing for the plan as proposed, that the County, in their opinion, has prepared the safest design taking into account existing conditions. Questions have been asked whether a four lane divided roadway offers additional safety over a four lane undivided roadway. Attached is a comparison (Page 37) prepared by the Hennepin County Department of Transportation Planning Division on. the entire County road system. In order that a comparison can be made, the accident rate is computed for number of accidents per 1,000,000 vehicles. The accident rate for an undivided roadway is 1.99 and the rate for a divided roadway is 0.96. This means that there is one more accident per million vehicles traveling the roadway. Another way to state this based upon the existing traffic volume on County Road 101 of about 10,000 vehicles per day is that the accident rate on undivided roadways compared to divided roadways is one accident per 50 days versus one accident per 100 days. For informational purposes, attached is a summary of accidents (:Page 38 - 39) on County Road 101 prepared by the Public Safety Department. There were 60 accidents in a one year period. Flashing Beacon: 1:\pw\Engineering\PROJECTS\9005\Memos\CC_CR 101 _StdyMtg.doe SUBJECT: COUNTY ROAD 101 IMPROVEMENTS Page 5 There has been a request for a flashing beacon at the Medina Road intersection to wane motorists of pedestrians or school children. In the County's analysis of this request, they cannot justify a flashing beacon as adding any safety for pedestrians at this intersection. It is their opinion that it will. actually detract from the owner's attention at the traffic signal which will be installed. Berming and Landscapin n As mentioned previously, there is still an issue adjacent to Heather Run. At the request of the Heather Run Homeowner's Association, the County has agreed to raise the height of the berm approximately four feet. By raising the berm, it does require removal of existing trees which are on homeowner's association property. The homeowner's association has requested that these trees be replaced as part of the project. At the present time, the preliminary landscaping plan does not provide for replacement of these trees. COST: Attached is a March 1.7, 2000 memorandum (Page 30 - 36) I prepared at the request of Councilmember Harstad comparing the cost of this project with another very similar County project in Plymouth.. The comparison is between the County Road 101 project and the County Road 9 project from :I-494 westerly to the City Center area. As indicated in that memorandum, when the County Road 9 project is adjusted for the construction cost index increase from 1996 to 2000, the construction cost estimates are very comparable. The cost on County Road 9 is 774 per foot and the estimated cost on County Road 101 is $730 per foot. This is only construction cost since right-of-way and other costs can vary greatly from project to project. This cost comparison was based upon the latest cost estimate available for the County Road 101 Improvements. We know the costs have increased because of additional landscaping, berining, retaining walls that have been added to address overall project concerns. Also, there is increased right-of-way costs because of the buy-out program for single family homes which both the City and County have approved. There will be additional right-of-way cost and construction cost for access at the northerly end of the project. Although no revised cost estimate has been made at this time, it is my opinion that the overall total project cost including construction, right-of-way, design., and inspection is approximately 57.000,000. To give the City Council. a point of reference, the cost to construct a standard residential city street in a new subdivision, including street, storm sewer, water and sewer, is approximately $300 per foot. This cost is for a two lane street. The latest inforination that 1 have seen on costs to construct freeways such as I-494 through Plymouth is now 1\pw\Engineering\PR0JECTS\9005\Memos\CC_CR 101 _StdyMtg. doc SUBJECT: COUNTY ROAD 101 IMPROVEMENTS Page 6 running about S2,000 per foot. The cost of this project is very comparable for the conditions. After receiving additional input from City and County staff and from citizens on this project, the County is looking for final comments to complete the construction plans. It is expected that the construction plan will be completed in early August and the County will be presenting these plans to the City Council for final approval and entering into the construction and cost sharing agreement. Currently the plans are to award the contract for the construction in late September. Many of the existing private utilities (electric, telephone, gas) must be moved for the roadway construction. By getting a road contractor on board in October, some of this work can be carried on through the winter months. One of the major facilities which must be relocated is a high pressure gas main. By getting these utilities moved before next spring, it is expected that construction on the roadway can get underway when spring weather permits, and the roadway will be reconstructed and opened to traffic before the end of the 2001 construction season. Landscaping and final surface restoration would be completed the following year. Finally there is one more attached document (Page 40 - 48). This is a portion of the construction plans for the improvement. Large scale drawings will be available at the July 24 meeting. Fred G. Moore, P.E. Director of Public Works attachments: Minutes from February 15 Meeting County Notes from February 15 Meeting February 11 Staff Report -with Attachments Portion of the Construction Plans Cost Memo County Accident Rate Co. Rd. 101 Accidents 1:\pw\Engineering\PROJECTS\9005\Memos\CC_CR101 _StdyMtg. doc Proposed Minutes Special Council Meeting February 15, 2000 A Special Meeting of the Plymouth City Council was called to order by Mayor Tierney at 5:43 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on February 15, 2000. COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Tierney, Councilmembers Black, Brown, Bildsoe, Johnson, Slavik, and Harstad (arrived at 6:23 p.m.). ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Assistant City Manager Ahrens, City Engineer Faulkner, Community Development Director Hurlburt, Parks and Recreation Director Blank, Public Works Director Moore, and City Clerk Paulson. Review of Countv Road 101 Plans Public Works Director Moore stated the purpose of this Special Meeting is to receive a presentation by Hennepin County on the County Road 101 project. He explained this project consists of reconstructing the roadway from Highway 55 to and including the County Road 24 intersection. It would be four -lane roadway with two signalized intersections, trailways and walkways on either side of the roadway, medians, and turn lanes. He stated the Council approved the preliminary layout in October 1999, and the Council established 12 conditions as part of the approval. He stated the County and City staffs have been addressing those conditions. The presentation this evening would provide an update on the project. Jim Grube, Transportation Director for Hennepin County, stated he has been in contact with representatives of the different neighborhoods, and he stressed it is not the intent of the County to convert this roadway similar to a Highway 169 roadway. Further, he stated the Council is a partner with the County and determines the designs of County roadways located within the City. The County's goal is to work in conjunction with the City on a long-term transportation issue for County Road 10L He explained the long-term plan for County Road 101 from Chanhassen to Rogers and also the County's discussion with Carver County for a four -lane roadway on their portion. Councilmember Johnson asked if the County anticipates rerouting the roadway through Peony Lane. Mr. Grube responded no, and that would only occur if there were a partnership between the cities of Plymouth, Maple Grove, and the County to do so. Proposed City Council Minutes Special Meeting of February 15, 2000 Page 2 of 8 Craig Twinem, County Project Manager, stated the preliminary layout consists of a four -lane roadway with center medians for left turn -lanes. He stated the width of the roadway is 74' that is identical to County Road 9 from Highway 55 to I-494. The County has addressed the Council's 12 conditions contained in the Resolution approving the preliminary plans. He stated they are continuing to address the berming issues with three homeowner associations. There are also a few issues that need to be resolved on the north end of the project. However, the County is very optimistic that they can resolve these issues. He stated the County would like to begin the right-of-way acquisitions as soon as possible so construction could begin in July. He stated the County has been working with MN/DOT on the speed of the roadway. He informed the Council due to the change in character of the roadway, the County is requesting MN/DOT to post the speed at 45 mph rather than 50 mph. Sue Mason, consultant with SEH, discussed the summary of Council issues that were included in the Resolution. She stated regarding condition No. 1 (The length of turn lanes continue to be reviewed and ifpossible, shortened during the final design process if not necessaryfor projected traffic volumes. This includes the necessity of the right turn lanes for both eastbound and westbound County the County restudied the traffic at County Road 24 and Highway 101), at the County Road 24 intersection, the westbound to northbound right turn lane was eliminated based on a reevaluation of the future traffic patterns and turning movements in this area. In addition, the plans have been revised so that the trails are now directly behind the curb in the right turn lane areas, which pulls the limits of construction in approximately five feet, thus minimizing impacts to adjacent properties. She stated they have also been meeting with the Fischer's Pond, Heather Run, and Queensland Lane neighborhoods to discuss the issue of berms which was contained in condition No. 2 Install berms where possible to mitigate impacts on adjacent properties if the adjacent property owners will grant the necessary construction access at no additional cost to the project). She stated alternative berm options have been presented to representatives of the neighborhoods, and construction limits would be staked in the near future to assist the residents in their decision. The County is committed to providing earthen berms where right-of-way allows or where private property is made available, as long as construction of the berm is acceptable to the adjacent property owners and other adverse impacts are not created. She stressed that if berms were to be considered, the County and City would require right of entry to those areas. Lastly, she stated they have adjusted the trail in order to minimize impacts to adjacent properties. She addressed Condition No. 3 (The project is to have a landscaping plan, including possible screening fences, prepare by the City after roadway construction is substantially completed. The County and City shall share equally in the implementation of the landscaping plan with a fj Proposed City Council Minutes Special Meeting of February 15, 2000 Page 3 of 8 maximum budget of 2 percent of construction costs. Adjacent property owners shall be involved in the plan preparation. Replacement trees shall be as large as possible). She stated the goal of the landscape amenities would be to enhance the experience of the roadway and trail users, to provide shade for those walking, jogging, rollerblading or biking on the trail, and to provide some visual screening for the adjacent residences. The City has developed a concept plan for the landscaping, and the plan would be redefined as the roadway construction nears completion. The City would administer the landscaping construction contract. She stated the total landscaping budget is $175,000, and the County would increase its share of the landscaping budget from $50,000 (or 1% of the construction estimate of $5 million) to a maximum of $125,000. Public Works Director Moore discussed condition No. 4 (The County shall continue to work with City staff in order that there is future connection for the frontage road shown as part of the City's Transportation Plan which extends westerly between Medina Road and Highway SS). He stated there is a need for a frontage road on Highway 55, and in order to accommodate access, the location of the median opening on County Road 101 has been shifted to the north to better accommodate the future frontage road on the west side of County Road 101, and to provide a more desirable location for the access to the commercial property on the east side of County Road 101 while minimizing impacts to the Glory of Christ Lutheran Church property. He discussed the access for the church property on County Road 101. Councilmember Bildsoe asked about the temporary accesses until the final frontage road is designed. Public Works Director Moore stated there would be different temporary accesses for Len Busch Roses and the commercial uses on the east side of County Road 101 and Highway 55 intersection, while the Glory of Christ Lutheran Church could probably retain their current access. Councilmember Bildsoe asked when the frontage roads would be constructed on Highway 55. Public Works Director Moore responded the frontage roads would be constructed with future redevelopment of the properties (also includes businesses on the west side of County Road 101). Mayor Tierney asked if the commercial property's access off Highway 55 is a right -in and a right -out. Public Works Director Moore stated it is both a right -in and a right -out access. However, the property owner may have to do some modifications to that access. The access is permitted, and it would only change on the basis of redevelopment of the property. Councilmember Johnson asked if it would be possible to maintain the right -in right -out access on Highway 55 for the commercial business which would alleviate the stacking of vehicles on 9 Proposed City Council Minutes Special Meeting of February 15, 2000 Page 4 of 8 County Road 101. Public Works Director Moore stated the right lane off of County Road 101 at Highway 55 conflicts with that. Councilmember Slavik expressed concern regarding U-turns that would need to be made at the intersection of Highway 55 and County Road 101 if an individual wished to travel south on County Road 101 especially as it relates to the commercial business at the intersection of County Road 101 and Highway 55. Public Works Director Moore stated the commercial driveway on County Road 101 is too close to the intersection. Councilmember Slavik asked if it would be possible to purchase the commercial property located on the east side of the County Road 101 and Highway 55 intersection, as the road configuration would definitely have a negative impact on his business. Public Works Director Moore stated this property does not need to be purchased. Further, property owners have a right to access the roadway; however, they do not have the full right of access for traffic in both directions. Consultant Mason discussed condition No. 5 (Retaining Walls and/or tree walls shall be used where feasible to retain specimen trees). She stated as shown on the plan sheets, retaining walls have been added throughout the project to minimize property impacts and tree loss. Discussions are continuing with residents of the Fischer's Pond neighborhood to determine the feasibility of a retaining wall/berm to minimize tree loss in this area of the project. She highlighted condition No. 6 (Adequate water quality treatment for the added impervious surface shall be provided). She illustrated for the Council the proposed ponding areas. She stated because the roadway is being converted from a two-lane rural highway to a four -lane urban roadway, the amount of impervious highway surface in the corridor would double. The quality of direct runoff would not significantly change; however, the quantity of runoff would increase because of the increase in impervious surface. The increase in the volume of runoff and pollutants would be addressed and managed by use of new detention facilities and the expansion of existing ones. She stated the surface water runoff conveyed into the roadway would be accommodated by a storm sewer system and then discharged into storm water ponds prior to discharge into receiving bodies. Lastly, there would be native plantings around the proposed ponds. Chris Hiniker, consultant with SEH, discussed condition No. 7 (Environmental impacts and proposed mitigation that are addressed in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W9, including noise, shall be considered with the final design). He also discussed the purpose and process behind the EAW for Highway 101. He briefly summarized the EAW issues that addressed the wetlands, storm water runoff, and noise. He stated regarding the noise, a comparison of the "build" and "no build" scenarios predicts that construction of the project would result in noise level increases of less than 3 decibels at each modeled location which is l0 Proposed City Council Minutes Special Meeting of February 15, 2000 Page 5 of 8 considered barely perceptible. He stated the County is not proposing to include noise mitigation practices such as walls as part of the project. However, the County would provide earthen berms where right-of-way allows or where private property is made available, as long as the construction of the berm is acceptable to the adjacent property owners and other adverse impacts are not created. Consultant Mason highlighted condition No. 8 (During final design, if several specimen trees could be avoided by a slight alignment shift, this should be considered). She stated where the right-of-way begins to narrow to County Road 24, they have minimized the impacts as well as balancing the impacts to both sides of the properties. Consultant Mason stated regarding condition No. 9 (The County shall continue to work with City staff in order that additional access from County Road 101 might be provided for the commercial property at the southeast corner of the Highway 55 intersection), the County, City, and adjacent property owners would continue to work together to provide additional access to this property. Consultant Mason highlighted condition No. 10 (Advance flashing beacons to provide warning of the pedestrian crosswalk at Medina Road shall be considered). She stated a traffic signal with pedestrian phases would be installed at the intersection of County Road 101 and Medina Road. In addition, Greenwood Elementary has removed their access on County Road 101. Consultant Mason stated regarding condition No. 11 (There shall be a study session with the City Council to review the final plans before right-of-way acquisition is started and before approval offinal design), this meeting is being conducted this evening. Consultant Mason highlighted condition No. 12 (Consideration shall be given to reducing the width of the center median in areas where substantial trees or existing vegetation could be avoided). She stated consideration has been given to reducing the center median width, but compromising the design in this matter would have little to no effect on avoiding substantial trees or vegetation. The median width as proposed would provide an opportunity for planting materials, other than trees, if desired. She showed some proposed views of the roadway, and discussed the proposed medians. She stated the medians allow for the opportunity to separate traffic and provide more safety on the roadway. Mayor Tierney questioned the proposed curbcuts on Highway 101 at the County Road 24 intersection, and if there was a better solution for access to these properties. Public Works Director Moore stated the location of these curbcuts provides the only opportunity for access to these properties. Proposed City Council Minutes Special Meeting of February 15, 2000 Page 6 of 8 Mayor Tierney expressed her concern for those residents who desire to travel south on County Road 101. Because of the median on County Road 101, they would need to make a U-turn at the signal. Public Works Director Moore stated that is correct. Councilmember Harstad stated he has a concern as to the proposed cost of this project which is approximately $5.2 million to $6 million for only 1.5 miles of roadway. He asked how much would be assessed to the property owners. Public Works Director Moore stated the Council would need to consider whether there would be any assessments to the property owners. He stated generally those properties that have direct access to the roadway would be assessed according to the City's assessment policy. Jack Wenner, 18425 Highway 55, stated he originally opened the convenience store and liquor store at the east side of the Highway 55 and County Road 101 intersection. He stated with the proposed design of County Road 101, no one traveling from the east or west would have access to these businesses. In addition, if one were traveling north on County Road 101, access would also be difficult. He strongly opposes the proposed median on County Road 101 at that intersection. He stated by prohibiting access to those businesses, they might be forced to close. He also disagrees with staff in that there is not a right -in and right -out access on Highway 55 to the commercial businesses due to the curbcut. Currently, because of the angle of that road vehicles are barely able to make that turn. Elaine Johnson; Orchards of Plymouth Homeowners, 17930 39th Place North, stated she agrees with Mr. Wenner's comments, and she encouraged the Council to eliminate the median at County Road 101 and Highway 55. She questioned the need for the walkways, and she would encourage the Council to eliminate one if possible. She expressed her concern when the project was to commence and the duration of the project. Mike Melnychuk, 17915 30 Avenue North, stated he requested an extension to the EAW comment period, and it was granted. He stated he has discovered the EAW fails to consider a number of critical issues for land control. Specifically, the EAW doesn't take into consideration that the proposed project is not compatible with the Land Use Guide Plan. In addition, safety and traffic improvement needs are not established in the EAW. He stated regarding traffic plans and the projections of growth and traffic, this size of a project is not necessary. Lastly, he stated that evidently no wetland replacement plan is necessary; however, it appears that the project fits within the exemption because of the traffic lanes. Linda Vicary, 3225 Highway 101 North, requested there be flashing pedestrian lights at Medina Road near Greenwood Elementary even though it is not being recommended to do so. She doesn't believe the medians would decrease the number of accidents. In conclusion, her IZ Proposed City Council Minutes Special Meeting of February 15, 2000 Page 7 of 8 driveway access is on County Road 101, and she doesn't believe an assessment would be justified for her property. Len Busch, 4045 Highway 101, voiced his concern for semi -trailers being able to access his business. He stated there are approximately 30 semi -trailers that access his business every day, and they would need to make a U-turn to do so. In addition, he agrees that the median at the County Road 101 and Highway 5 intersection is unnecessary. Public Works Director Moore addressed the need for a walkway/trail for other users, in addition to bicyclists, to access the convenience store and businesses. He stated it is the general policy of the City that on the higher volume roadways, there is a walkway on both sides of the roadway. He indicated that the walkways on both side sides of the roadway would address pedestrians and bicyclists. He stressed the importance of the medians for safety concerns. He stated the traffic projections for this roadway are completely in accordance with the City's Land Use Guide Plan. County Project Engineer Twinem informed the Council that the comment period for the EAW closes on February 18. He stated they are confident that the EAW addresses the comprehensive transportation plans for both the City and the County. He reiterated that staff would be conducting at least one open house on this project, and they intend to continue meeting with the various neighborhood associations to discuss the berming issues. If the residents desire the construction of the berms, the County is committed to constructing the berms. He stated the citizens would be notified of the public open house(s). Lastly, he encouraged individuals to contact him directly on the EAW process. Councilmember Johnson asked Public Works Director Moore about the assessments for those eight properties that have been identified which the City may purchase. Public Works Director Moore stated if the City purchases those properties, the City would pay for those assessments. Melissa Holman, 17820 30'' Place, expressed her concern on the noise of this roadway, and she stated she differs with the noise assessment on the EAW. She stated there would not be the projected traffic volumes if the project doesn't continue. She stated she also opposes the medians. She agreed with Councilmember Harstad that this is a very expensive project for 1.5 miles of roadway. She voiced her displeasure in constructing a roadway that encourages U-turns because of the proposed medians. Lastly, she stated she feels the concerns of the Fischer's Pond neighborhood have not been totally addressed. 13 Proposed City Council Minutes Special Meeting of February 15, 2000 Page 8 of 8 Charles McDonald, 17700 30th Place North, stated he agrees that this is too large of a project, and proposed medians are unnecessary. Beth Brill, 3410 Queensland Lane North, stated she didn't receive notice of this meeting until February 9, and she requested that in the future residents receive at least a two-week notice. John Rosendahl, 3335 Queensland Lane North, stated he agrees this project is very expensive. He stated the County is proposing a four -lane road due to the demand on this road from the traffic generated by the high school. He stated this would be a four -lane roadway to nowhere, and the funding has not been allocated to extend this type of roadway further. Due to time constraints, Mayor Tierney adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. as the Council was scheduled to conduct their Regular Meeting at 8:00 p.m. This discussion of County Road 101 was continued on the Regular Council Meeting agenda. Sandra R. Paulson, City Clerk Proposed Minutes Regular Council Meeting February 15, 2000 A Regular Meeting of the Plymouth City Council was called to order by Mayor Tierney at 8:20 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Center, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on February 15, 2000. COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Tierney, Councilmembers Brown, Black, Harstad, Bildsoe, Johnson, and Slavik. ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Assistant City Manager Ahrens, Public Safety Director Gerdes, Community Development Director Hurlburt, Finance Director Hahn, Public Works Director Moore, Parks and Recreation Director Blank, City Attorney Knutson, and City Clerk Paulson. Plymouth Forum No one was present to address the Council. Councilmember Johnson requested to suspend the rules for the purpose of continuing the discussion on County Road 101. Mayor Tierney stated she would grant that request only if there is a time limit as open houses would be conducted in the future on the proposed project, and the Council could certainly conduct another Special Meeting with the County if necessary. Motion was made by Councilmember Johnson, and seconded by Councilmember Harstad, to conduct another public meeting for the purpose of receiving public input for the County Road 101 project, with citizens and Hennepin County staff in attendance. No specific date was scheduled for this meeting, but Councilmember Bildsoe requested that the Special Meeting not be conducted the same evening as a Regular Council Meeting. Motion was made by Councilmember Johnson, and seconded by Councilmember Harstad, to amend the main motion to direct staff to provide residents with a two week notice of the Special Meeting. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. LS CITY OF PLYMOUTH COUNCIL WORKSESSION CSAH 101, COUNTY PROJECT 8911 FEBRUARY 15, 2000 Attendees: J. Grube G. Nowlan F. Moore S. Mason B. Polaezyk B. Byers D. Faulkner C. Hiniker C. Twinem NOTE: These are only highlights of the meeting. See the meeting transcript provided by the City. The meeting, which was televised on cable, was called to order at 5:45 PM. F. Moore gave an overview of the project. J. Grube gave an overview of the County's perspective on turning 101 into a TH 169. He discussed the statutes that pertain to the County and City going to arbitration. 5% or less chance that 101 would turn into a TH 169 in the foreseeable future. J. Johnson asked about the statute. T. Bildsoe asked how Jim envisions the 101 corridor. J. Johnson asked if 101 would be re-routed onto Peony Lane. J. Grube gave derivation starting at TH 5 and ending in Rogers. J. Grube introduced C. Twinem as the Senior Project Manager for Hennepin County. C. Twinem introduced the project staff, talked about the width of the roadway, speed limit, and the neighborhood meetings to discuss berming. S. Mason went over 12 points in the resolution, talking about right turn lane length reductions and the dropped WB to NB right turn lane. Fischer's Pond trail and berm — (County will stake both limits) Heather Run berming options — (County will stake both limits) Queensland Lane Neighborhood berming Yard drains may be necessary Right of entry from City and owners to construct berms will be necessary. Landscape plan review — the $100,000 budget has been increased to $175,000. F. Moore: North end at TH 55 items 4 and 9. High density on west side with frontage road. Commercial on east side. Discussed the intersection at the Church entrance. Mentioned the stacking distance requirement for left turn lanes. Reviewed what is necessary to install intersection at north end of church property. 14; T. Bildsoe: When would frontage road be installed? What is the access to the gas station? K. Slavik: How does the distance from TH 55 to frontage road intersection compare to TH 55 @ 24 to the shopping center entrance? F. Moore said this intersection would have a signal when the frontage road is constructed. Mayor Tierney asked about access off TH 55 to Conoco station. F. Moore explained the access to the Conoco station. The audience disagreed with F. Moore about the right -in off TH 55. Redevelopment would close the access. J. Johnson says we are encouraging a spaghetti junction. F. Moore said the weaving on TH 55 between the free right turn and the driveway access could be a problem. K. Slavik questioned the safety of a U-turn on CSAH 24 from NB to SB at TH 55. J. Johnson was concerned about crossing three lanes of traffic to make a U-turn. Also wanted to know who owns the property south of Conoco. Mayor Tierney asked if the entire triangle was commercial. B. Brown asked when access frontage road would be built? K. Slavik asked if it is possible to buy house 4120? F. Moore said the access from one direction is all that is necessary by law. S. Mason said they are looking at #5 retaining walls. She mentioned that specimen trees are mainly in the right of way. She showed where and stated why retaining walls are proposed. The profile and limits are continuously being modified. T. Bildsoe asked for pond/wetland explanation. J. Johnson asked if native plantings would be used. S. Mason said we could consider these plantings along wetlands. C. Hiniker explained the EAW process, preparation, publication, and comment period, record of decision. Summarized EAW issues i.e. wetlands, runoff, noise. Went over noise analysis. G. Black asked if the proposed berms were modeled. B. Brown asked what does the 2020 build/no build mean. FA X S. Mason: 8 alignment shift to save trees. 10 flashing beacons - mentioned the MUTCD does not recommend beacons. 12' center median width reduction. She explained that we looked at this. S. Mason explained the photo images. Mayor Tierney asked about median width J. Johnson asked if striping could be used. Do we do this on all our roads, is it new? K. Slavik asked who is paying for median landscaping. F. Moore discussed Northwest Boulevard design (they are dated). He reviewed the landscape plan budget. $175,000 does not include median landscaping. City pays about $20,000 for design and construction administration. He mentioned waiting to raise budget for project to be built. He also reviewed the right of way corridor development. Mayor Tierney opened the floor to audience questions: Mayor Tierney - 24 @ 101 intersection SE quad. Is concerned about driveway access. F. Moore responded that if an access were proposed, there would be an access. Also access would remain after sale of homes. S. Harstad - Was this a state highway? (1988) What is the county budget? Are the 8 homes included in the budget? Are the berms included in budget? What will the assessment be to the homeowners? He wants to eliminate trails off the plan, i.e. one trail. He thinks the project is over- built. The audience clapped. K. Slavik asked that ample time be provided for all people to speak. Mayor Tierney responded that Fred said 1 or 2 informational meetings are to follow? G. Black - She agrees with Slovik to allow additional discussion time for the residents. Jack Winter stated he has lived here for 34 years. He opened Tom Thumb in 1955 and says access is cut off. He sees no reason for the median and is concerned about loosing the business. Is asking for the council to put on his shoes. He is concerned about truck access off TH 55. Is asking for a median opening now and wait to see if accidents occur. Elaine Johnson - New homeowner in the Orchards. She agrees with Jack about taking out the median and questioned why the two walk ways. Median is of question; we are not TH 169. Construction start on June 1St, is that true? She is concerned about mud over the winter. IN Mike Malnychuk - 17915 34`h Avenue North. Mike said the county information isn't readily available for review. If the EAW fails, EIS is necessary. EQB needs to assess land use controls. EAW does consider land use plan. EQB says RGU needs to justify project. Traffic does not make sense. The project is of poor planning. Does the $6 mil include frontage roads? No. Now $7 mil. EAW does not provide cost effectiveness of 101 south of 24. Wetland exemption is not sound. Noise - the appendix B is missing from the EAW. He feels handicapped due to lack of time to analyze. Linda Vicary — 3225 Hwy 101. #10 flashing lights are needed for bike riders at Medina Road intersection. She compared to 6 @ 101 intersection. Medians at high school are not reducing accidents. Easements need to be out of the picture. Her home is going to be worthless. Len Bush is concerned about his truck and employee traffic. The building needs to be removed. F. Moore explained the need for 2 trails. - J. Johnson asked what the trail width is. F. Moore said the accidents have nothing to do with medians at the high school and the land use guide plan is being used. C. Twinem explained the road type and EAW closing comment period. He stated the impacts are low. J. Johnson asked for the County to deliver information in a timely manner. The assessments for the Vicary's, what about other properties, the 8 homes that may be purchased. . Melissa Holman — 17820 30`h Place North. Noise in EAW is deceiving. Doesn't meet federal standards. The project is an over -kill -- too expensive of roadway, safety of U-turns is a question. Charles McDonald - Project is over -built. His property is in Fischer's Pond. NB to EB right turn lane that is too long. Medians are not necessary. Beth Brill - More notice is necessary for meetings. Medians and noise impacts. Asked for everyday language for explanations. John Rosedal is concerned about $6 mil/l.3 miles, traffic demands, and a 4 -lane roadway to nowhere (TH 55 to 24). Grube's plan for N 101 instead of Peony Lane is not accurate. J. Johnson wants to be sure time is allotted. K. Slavik wants to continue at Council Meeting. At 8 p.m. the work session ended and after a short break the scheduled Council Meeting began. At 8:20 p.m. the Council moved to discontinue discussion on this topic and to give a two-week notice to another session. City and County staff will set the day. 4 19 DATE: February 11, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council through Dwight D. Johnson, City Manger y FROM: Fred G. Moore, P.E., Director of Public Works SUBJECT: COUNTY ROAD 101 IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 9005 The City Council has scheduled a study meeting on the County Road 101 Improvement project for February 15 at 5:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is for a presentation by Hennepin County and review of the plans for the project. On October 19, 1999, the City Council gave preliminary approval to the County Road 101 Improvement Project. That approval contained 12 items which were to be addressed during the final design process for the project. The construction plans are now approximately 75% complete and the County would like to review the plans with the City Council to ensure that the issues that the Council wanted addressed are being addressed correctly. Attached is a letter from Craig Twinem, the Senior Project Manager for this project. Also attached is a copy of the latest plan layout. Mr. Twinem's letter lists what has been done to respond to each one of the issues in the City Council resolution. I am also attaching a copy of the City Council resolution, although the items are restated in the letter. The County has completed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the project and it has been out for public review and comment. The review period closed on February 9, but the County extended the period until February 18 for two residents of Plymouth. Attached is a letter from Hennepin County on the extension. Replies received at this time do not recommend the need for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). No action is being requested by the City Council at the study meeting, but input from the Council is requested if issues are not being addressed as listed in the City Council preliminary approval resolution. More detailed plans will be available at the meeting along with a preliminary landscaping plan for the project. attachments M ply_m\ntdiskl\pw\Engineering\PROJECTS\9005\Memos\cc 2_15.doc 1 Mr. Fred Moore, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 0 in CountyAnEqualOpporlunityEmployer CSAH 101 (FROM SOUTH OF CSAH 24 TO TH 55) COUNTY PROJECT NO. 8911 Dear Mr. Moore: February 11, 2000 The purpose of this letter is to provide an update on the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 101 project. At the October 19, 1999 Plymouth City Council meeting, a resolution was adopted which approved Preliminary Layout No. 2 and which authorized the County to proceed with the final design and to acquire all rights of way, permits and/or easements necessary for the proposed improvements. The resolution (No. 99-457) also included twelve issues to be addressed during the development of the detailed construction plans. The construction plans, which are approximately 75% complete, are being prepared in accordance with the approved preliminary layout. The proposed improvements include reconstructing CSAH 101 from south of CSAH 24 to TH 55 as a four -lane roadway with a center median and left and right turn lanes at intersections. The roadway is proposed to be urban" in character, including concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer systems. Trails are proposed on both sides of CSAH 101. New traffic signal systems are proposed at the intersections of CSAH 101/CSAH 24 and CSAH 101/Medina Road. The intersection of CSAH 101 and CSAH 24 is proposed to be constructed to its ultimate configuration so that further reconstruction will not be necessary in the future. The preliminary layout and final design have been developed based on the needs identified in the City and County Transportation Systems Plans, the City of Plymouth Park and Trail Plan, and the Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan, and based on the Minnesota Department of Transportation State Aid design standards. The Project Management Team PMT), which consists of representatives from the Hennepin County Transportation Department, the engineering consultant designing the project (SEH Inc.), and City of Plymouth staff, has met on a regular basis during the preliminary and final design processes to keep the project on schedule and to ensure that the needs of the City and County are incorporated into the construction plans. Transportation Department 1600 Prairie Drive Recycled Paper Medina, MN 55340-5421 Z 612) 745-7500 FAX: (612) 478-4000 TDD: (612) 852-6760 Mr. Fred Moore, P.E. Page 2 Since approval of the preliminary layout, the PMT has been in contact with various individuals and neighborhood groups to discuss project impacts, berming, and other issues. When the right of way acquisition process begins, the County's Real Estate Division will be in contact with the owners of properties where permanent and/or temporary easements are necessary. The project does not necessitate the total acquisition of any property; however, the County will continue to work with the City regarding the acquisition of the eight properties most impacted by the proposed improvements. The twelve issues included in the resolution approving the preliminary layout are itemized below (in bold), with a progress update/response following each item. The item number corresponds with the numbers shown on the attached plan sheets; for example, a number "1" is shown on the plan sheets in the areas where turn lanes were shortened during the final design process. ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN RESOLUTION NO. 99-457 1. That the length of turn lanes continue to be reviewed and ifpossible shortened during the final design process if not necessary for projected traffic volumes. This includes the necessity of the right turn lanes for both eastbound and westbound County Road 24 at County Road 101. All turn lane lengths have been evaluated during the final design process. Turn lanes must be long enough to provide for deceleration of vehicles approaching the intersection and to accommodate sufficient stacking of vehicles. The overall turn lane length consists of the full width of the turn lane and the taper, or transition length, necessary to develop the lane. The turn lanes have been shortened on the plans to minimize impacts to properties while still providing safe and efficient intersections. The right turn lanes at the non -signalized intersections have been shortened to the minimum length of 360 feet including taper). The maximum length of the right turn lanes shown in the approved preliminary layout was 480 feet. At the CSAH 24 intersection, the westbound to northbound right turn lane was eliminated based on a reevaluation of the future traffic patterns and turning movements in this area. Input from a resident of the Heather Run neighborhood was very useful in determining that the projected right turn volume will remain approximately the same as the existing volumes with the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 101/Medina Road. Input from a resident of the Heather Run neighborhood was very useful in determining that the projected right turn volumes will remain approximately the same as the existing volumes with the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 101 and Medina Road. The northbound CSAH 101 to eastbound CSAH 24 right turn lane was previously shortened by 60 feet by utilizing a sharper taper rate. The plans have been revised so that the trails are now directly behind the curb in the right turn lane areas, which pulls the limits of construction in approximately 5 feet, thus minimizing impacts to adjacent properties. 2 Z. Mr. Fred Moore, P.E. Page 3 2. Install berms where possible to mitigate impacts on adjacent properties if the adjacent property owners will grant the necessary construction access at no additional cost to the project. The Project Management Team has been working with the Fischer's Pond, Heather Run and Queensland Lane neighborhoods to help the residents determine whether or not they want berms. Alternative berm options have been presented to representatives of the neighborhoods, and construction limits will be staked in the near future to help the residents in their decision. The County is committed to providing earthen berms where right of way allows or where private property is made available, as long as construction of the berm is acceptable to the adjacent property owners and other adverse impacts are not created. 3. The project is to have a landscaping plan, including possible screening fences, prepared by the City after roadway construction is substantially completed. The County and City shall share equally in the implementation of the landscaping plan with a maximum budget of 2% of construction costs. Adjacent property owners shall be involved in the plan preparation. Replacement trees shall be as large as possible. The County and City are committed to developing a landscaping plan for the project corridor. The goal of the landscape amenities will be to enhance the experience of the roadway and trail users, to provide shade for those walking, jogging, rollerblading or biking on the trail, and to provide some visual screening for the adjacent residences. The City is taking the lead in developing the landscaping plan. A concept plan has recently been completed. The plan will be refined as the roadway construction nears completion. Adjacent property owners will be involved in the plan preparation. The landscaping project will be separate from the roadway project; plantings will occur after completion of the roadway construction. The City will administer the landscaping construction contract. The County will increase its share of the landscaping budget from $50,000 (or 1% of the construction estimate of $5.0 million) to a maximum of $125,000. With the City contributing 1%, the total budget for the landscaping plan is $175,000. Sizes of trees will be determined during the development of the plans, but typically coniferous trees will be 6 feet to 8 feet in height and deciduous trees will be of 2'/2 inch caliper. 4. The County shall continue to work with City staff in order that there is future connection for the frontage road shown as part of the City's Transportation Plan which extends westerly between Median Road and Highway 55. The County and the City have been working to ensure that the plan accommodates a future connection for the frontage road on the west side of CSAH 101 between Medina Road and TH 55. The median opening for the frontage road on the west side of CSAH 101 needs to be coordinated with the request that additional access is provided on the east side of CSAH 101 for the commercial property at the southeast corner of the TH 55 intersection (see Item No. 9). The location of the median opening shown in the attached 23 Mr. Fred Moore, P.E. Page 4 plan represents a revision from a previous alternative. The median opening has been shifted to the north to better accommodate the future frontage road on the west side of CSAH 101, and to provide a more desirable location for the access to the commercial property on the east side of CSAH 101 while minimizing impacts to the Glory of Christ Lutheran Church property. The County and the City will continue to work together with the affected property owners in this area of the project to resolve this issue. S. Retaining walls and/or tree walls shall be used where feasible to retain specimen trees. As shown in the attached plan sheets, retaining walls have been added throughout the project to minimize property impacts and tree loss. The Project Management Team is working with the residents of the Fischer's Pond neighborhood to determine the feasibility of a retaining wall/berm to minimize tree loss in this area of the project. 6. Adequate water quality treatment for the added impervious surface shall be provided. CSAH 101 is being converted from a two-lane rural highway to a four -lane urban roadway. This will approximately double the amount of impervious highway surface in the corridor. The quality of direct runoff will not significantly change; however, the quantity of runoff will increase because of the increase in impervious surface. The increase in the volume of runoff and pollutants will be addressed and managed by use of new detention facilities and the expansion of existing ones. Various pollutants are commonly encountered in roadway runoff generated during storm events. Some of the pollutants include soil, nutrients, de-icing salts, metals and oils. The surface water runoff conveyed into the roadway will be accommodated by a storm sewer system and then discharged into storm water ponds prior to discharge into receiving water bodies. Stormwater ponds will provide rate control as well as treatment, and will be designed according to National Urban Runoff Protection (NURP) standards. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required for this project. Erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices BMPs) will be followed in accordance with the NPDES permit, which includes an erosion control plan, as well as BMPs contained in Minnesota Department of Transportation's (Mn/DOT) standard specifications, details, and special provisions. Temporary and permanent erosion control features include timely revegetation of disturbed areas, hay bales, silt fence, flotation silt curtain, and sediment ponds. 7. Environmental impacts and proposed mitigation that are addressed in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA 99, including noise, shall be considered with the final design. In the EAW, a comparison of the "build" and "no -build" scenarios predicts that construction of the project will result in noise level increases of less than 3 dBA at each modeled location. According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency "Rules of Thumb" for perceived change in loudness, a 3 dBA increase in noise is considered barely perceptible". Z4 Mr. Fred Moore, P.E. Page 5 Hennepin County is not proposing to include noise mitigation practices such as walls as part of the project. The County will provide earthen berms where right-of-way allows or where private property is made available, as long as the construction of the berm is acceptable to the adjacent property owners and other adverse impacts are not created. Minnesota Statute 116.07, Subp. 2A, exempts County roadways, such as CSAH 101, from compliance to the State noise standards. Impacts to wetlands have been minimized to the extent practical through the design process. There are unavoidable impacts from filling six wetlands totaling approximately 0.25 acres of wetland habitat. Portions of two wetlands will be excavated to provide treatment of runoff from the roadway prior to discharge downstream and eventually into a nearby MDNR Protected Wetland. All filling impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act. All roadway runoff will be collected by catch basins in the roadway and routed to storm water quality detention ponds. 8. During final design if several specimen trees could be avoided by a slight alignment shift, this should be considered. The alignment as designed represents a balance of property impacts on both sides of the roadway. Slight changes in the alignment would not save any specimen trees located on private property. 9. The County shall continue to work with City staff in order that additional access from County Road 101 might be provided for the commercial property at the southeast corner of the Highway 55 intersection. As detailed in Item No. 4, the County, City, and adjacent property owners have been and will continue to work together to provide additional access to this property. 10. Advance flashing beacons to provide warning of the pedestrian crosswalk at Medina Road shall be considered. A traffic signal system with pedestrian phases will be installed at the intersection of CSAH 101 and Medina Road with the proposed project. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) discourages devices, such as flashing beacons, which detract from the traffic signal indications. It is the County's position that flashing beacons should not be installed at this location because they may distract from the effectiveness of the traffic signal. 11. There shall be a study session with the City Council to review the final plans before right-of-way acquisition is started and before approval offinal design. A study session with the City Council has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 15, 2000. The County has not yet begun the right of way acquisition process. Zs Mr. Fred Moore, P.E. Page 6 12. Consideration shall be given to reducing the width of the center median in areas where substantial trees or existing vegetation could be avoided. Consideration has been given to reducing the center median width, but compromising the design in this manner would have little to no effect on avoiding substantial trees or vegetation. The median width as proposed will provide an opportunity for planting materials, other than trees, if desired. The median width on CSAH 101 south of CSAH 24 was previously narrowed by approximately 4 feet. Another issue of importance to the residents along the corridor is the speed limit. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) determines traffic speed limits. The County has been working with Mn/DOT to lower the speed limit on facilities such as this segment of CSAH 101 from 50 MPH to 45 MPH. The County's rationale is that in urbanizing areas, where the character of the roadway is changing from a two-lane rural highway to a four - lane divided roadway with curb and gutter, a 45 MPH speed limit is more appropriate and is more consistent with similar facilities in the County roadway system. Adding medians and trails, along with landscaping the corridor, helps to emphasize the suburban character of the roadway and therefore a lower speed limit than a rural highway. The County is cautiously optimistic that Mn/DOT will agree with this approach and will allow the reduction in speed limit sometime in the future. The current schedule for the project is to begin construction in July 2000. The final construction plans and construction cooperative agreement must be approved by the City Council. It is anticipated that the plans and agreement will be ready for approval in April 2000. An Informational Open House will be conducted sometime before seeking City Council approval. If you have any questions, or if you require additional information, please feel free to call me at 612/745-7653. Sincerely, Craig M. Twinem, P.E. Senior Project Manager, Design CMT:mak 2C CSAH 101 (FROM 30TH AVENUE TO TH 55) COUNTY PROJECT NO. 8911 Right of entry from property owner necessary to construct berms will be provided at no cost. Trees may need to be removed in the berm area. No compensation will be made to the property owner for the removal of trees necessary to construct berms. The property owners can transplant trees to a location outside of the construction limits prior to the beginning of construction. Fences would need to be placed on private property. The right of way line and the top of the berm don't always match, which may be important because a fence at the top of the berm would provide more height for screening. A fence located lower than the top of the berm would not provide as much screening. Landscaping will be provided for the corridor under the separate landscape project, but the number of trees provided must fit within the budget. The residents should consider the amount of trees being removed to construct the berms in their decision on whether or not they want berming. The berm can be flexible in height (undulating), but needs to be consistent across properties. Drainage needs to be considered. Constructing a berm may require catch basins on private property to accommodate existing drainage. Z7 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 99-457 APPROVING PRELIMINARY LAYOUT COUNTY ROAD 101 HIGHWAY 55 TO COUNTY ROAD 24 CITY PROJECT NO. 9005 WHEREAS, Hennepin County has prepared and is presenting a preliminary layout Layout No. 2) County Project No. 8911 showing the proposed improvement of County Road 101 from Highway 55 to County Road 24; and WHEREAS, the City is desirous of the completion of County Road 101 improvements within the City of Plymouth and has the proposed project in the City's Capital Improvement Program for the year 2000; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA: That said layout (Layout No. 2) be in all things approved and that Hennepin County is hereby authorized by the City to proceed with final design and to acquire all rights-of-way, permits and/or easements required for said improvements in accordance with said layout with the following additions or issues to be addressed: 1. That the length of tum lanes continue to be reviewed and if possible shortened during the final design process if not necessary for projected traffic volumes. This includes the necessity of the right turn lanes for both eastbound and westbound County Road 24 at County Road 101. 2. Install berms where possible to mitigate impacts on adjacent properties if the adjacent property owners will grant the necessary construction access at no additional cost to the project. 3. The project is to have a landscaping plan, including possible screening fences, prepared by the City after roadway construction is substantially completed. The County and City shall share equally in the implementation of the landscaping plan with a maximum budget of 2% of construction costs. Adjacent property owners shall be involved in the plan preparation. Replacement trees shall be as large as possible. 4. The County shall continue to work with City staff in order that there is future connection for the frontage road shown as part of the City's Transportation Plan which extends westerly between Medina Road and Highway 55. D-+TEMPAPPPrel_..Jyam CR 101-J= M] 5. Retaining walls and/or tree walls shall be used where feasible to retain specimen trees. 6. Adequate water quality treatment for the added impervious surface shall be provided. 7. Environmental impacts and proposed mitigation that are addressed in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), including noise, shall be considered with the final design. 8. During final design if several specimen trees could be avoided by a slight alignment shift, this should be considered. 9. The County shall continue to work with City staff in order that additional access from County Road 101 might be provided for the commercial property at the southeast corner of the Highway 55 intersection. 10. Advance flashing beacons to provide warning of the pedestrian crosswalk at Medina Road shall be considered. 11. There shall be a study session with the City Council to review the final plans before right-of-way acquisition is started and before approval of final design. 12. Consideration shall be given to reducing the width of the center median in areas where substantial trees or existing vegetation could be avoided. FURTHER, that the City will not be using Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for any portion of its share of the project cost. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will adopt a "No Parking" resolution as part of the final plan approval for the roadway. Adopted by the City Council on October 19, 1999. D:'.TEMPAppPrel_Layout CR101AOC 7-1 DATE: March 17, 2000 TO: Councilmember Scott Harstad FROM: Fred G. Moore, P.E., Director of Public Works SUBJECT: COUNTY ROAD 101 IMPROVEMENTS COST COMPARISON COUNTY PROJECT NO. 8911 CITY PROJECT NO. 9005 By email message to Jim Grube, Director of Transportation for Hennepin County, you had requested some cost comparison information on the County Road 101 Improvement Project. You were stating that at the Council meeting it was discussed that the total project cost was approaching $6,000,000 or about $950 per foot of roadway. You were requesting that this be compared with a similar type project. The County and City Engineering staffs have worked to provide this information. A very comparable project was the improvement of County Road 9 from 494 westerly to just east of Plymouth Boulevard. The County Road 9 project was improving a two lane rural roadway to a four lane facility with medians and additional turn lanes at the necessary intersections. There were also two traffic signal systems involved the same for County Road 101. The County Road 9 project was constructed in 1996. In order that we can have a direct cost comparison, we have checked the Construction Cost Index for 1996 and for 2000. During this four year period of time the Construction Cost Index has risen by 11.3%. The County Road 9 project is 0.97 miles in length. After adjusting the 1996 costs by the increase in the Construction Cost Index, the construction cost for the County Road 9 project was $774 per foot. County Road 101 project is 1.35 miles in length. Based upon the current estimated construction cost, including landscaping, is $5,204,700. This is an estimated construction cost of $730 per foot. As can be seen, the estimated cost for the County Road 101 project is approximately $44 per foot less than the County Road 9 project. 1:\pw\Engineering\PROJECTS\9005\Mc=s\ I OI CostComparison_3_l7.doc 30 SUBJECT: COUNTY ROAD 101 IMPROVEMENTS COST COMPARISON Page 2 In your email you were requesting a breakdown or comparison between several items, i.e., retaining walls, landscaping, bike trails, access roads, storm sewers, right-of-way; this is very difficult and would be very time consuming to prepare. For this reason I have used construction costs only which includes all construction items whether they be asphalt, retaining walls, landscaping, storm sewer, etc. In order that you can see how cost estimates are prepared and payments are made to the contractor, I am attaching a copy of the latest cost estimate for the County Road 101 project. This cost estimation does not include the $175,000 estimated for landscaping which I have included in my previous cost comparison for the two projects. In December 1998, the County adopted their Capital Improvements Program which included the County Road 101 project. Contained within their Capital Improvement Program was the following cost estimate for this project: Construction 4,066,000 Right -of -Way 165,000 Engineering 550,000 Contingencies 244,000 Total Estimated Cost 5,025,000 Currently the estimated construction cost is approximately $1,000,000 greater than the amount included within the Capital Improvement Program. There are several reasons for this cost increase: The Capital Improvement Programs of the County do not include any work that is required on the City's water or sanitary sewer system. This cost is now included within the cost estimate. As a result of the initial meeting with the City Counciland the residents in the area, the County agreed to extend this project to snake the complete road improvement at the County Road 24 intersection. This requires the project to be extended approximately two blocks southerly and one block westerly than originally anticipated. Although there is no breakdown for this cost, it would be my opinion this is the major portion of the cost increase. The County agreed to do this so the property owners would only be impacted once with constriction, and not have a second impact when either County Road 101 or County Road 24 future improvements are undertaken. A final item I would like to mention is the cost of right-of-way. The cost for the necessary right-of-way on the County Road 9 project was $1,011,000. Although a more detailed cost estimate has not been prepared, their Capital Improvements Program only anticipated a right-of-way cost for the 101 project of $165,000. I believe this is low, but I 1:\pw\Engineering\PROJECTS\9005\Memos\ 101 CostComparison_3_l7.doc 31 SUBJECT: COUNTY ROAD 101 IMPROVEMENTS COST COMPARISON Page 3 would still expect it to be less than $500,000. This cost is the true reflection of the planning the City was able to do along the county road as development was approved. For this portion of County Road 9 a majority of the frontage was occupied with developments that had existed prior to Plymouth becoming a city. Although the $730 per foot roadway cost may appear shocking, it is a true reflection of the cost to construct this type of facility. The last numbers I have heard to construct a freeway type facility such as I-494, not including any right-of-way costs, is about $2,000 per foot. Please let me know if you would like to meet to discuss the cost in more detail. attachment cc: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager Mayor and City Councilmembers Jim Grube Director of Transportation HENNEPIN COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPT. 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340-5421 Craig Twinem SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Suite 150 One Carlson Parkway North Plymouth, MN 55447 I:\pw\Engineering\PROJECTS\9005\Memos\I01 CostComparison_3_1 Tdoc 37, V% H aa - O } F G F 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 818 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8$ 8 8 8$ 8 8 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 S S0000000000000000000000000000000000000Doc3y y X Q.e X O F X vFi O' X X _o o o< pp Q p p enr,' J (j O Fig$ $Ngo o ogg$gooas dsg$ s$spsg g$ goo H a w w w fIf eq w H H ty H N H N w w H N H v1N M H w H H H H H w W K a i } QQQ p 8Qp p 0 0$ 000 eo 8 $ $ $ 0 0$ 0 0 $$ O$ 8$ 8 8 $ O $ o g g $$ 8$ o 8 Q $$$ S2 $ v 5 $ O O O ` H. 000 p eon p ef C C O$ M 000 N j 25 r` ? r 25 c$$ 25 0 0 0 H H aFOF F F g g g g g gg og$ g g h$ g gpg S $ g$ g F Z O O $ G G O ,6 O O vi O N N O h 8O 0 0$ d b r 0 0Wi U N N H H H M H H H H M K f9 H N H H w Nw W N M w H N w w w M w H O w N K H K w H H H H S u<] r r E E E E E E E E E E E m w w wl<y c c c c c E 0 2 z i X X Ul i a O O N F C7 < Y i Z O I V V ae Z ua V ..1 v<i Z ZQmiZOjQ = O > W< O a U y I F d z h .S i C 3 0 < z o< z a C < < u<i < o u Z<< o m°>>> u i< O a m u m 3 a w Z> < E a O O m uI a Z [ Z U 3 u0i O'+ mo mY: a avu it<-za zz 0Q z Fro >x°d,3 m rd cF+ zF °vuU xFH uii xzu z ' <a 00 a < 'P w °-° u a d o Z N o a o z < X> °u z d v Z m 0 a d w O V V V a U% 3 a . w u m m U f O u m rn rn > u u <y. m; i < H' 3 p u] W>> W> w> m>> W W U U c Z>> ai ..l y m m > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Z < a t O uSS a - oG uJ C — > O a m m u1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , E Y ..t O< w m u, W m m u31 >> > tiy uW7 i uui11 iu1 i iu, btyy u.11 iW ciu.t1 i iW i 3 >. >> i u u a 3 F 03 a F 3 a a Ou U U V U a s oG `` a cG C a aG oG C a oG `` K h y 2 Ou i D H OF a H F F p z z ,, o osoo oaaaaooaaaaooaaa a a_oC _ _ __-_- F" I N N N N N r`J e• N N N I N N N N N N N N N r a 33 N a 1 w I O O S C C O O O O O O O C L X o } F h C C o 0 C C C o v°Oi g m oy o c X o o — VFPS S$ g S g S g g g S g S Sg g S g 8 S $ o nS S S g 8g 8Sp gp vi OaO O Q S S S g g S g g S $ S S S g S F y r `? g e ? r g g 25 S S$ S g on n g S g S S g oV1ONO r w w M N N—— — M K N K t+f b e1 y M^ p !: _. - 'V r -- O F{si i9 H w H Vf w w M H N w „y w w H K w w w M H w w H w H w M N w OF I I I 11 I I I I FI I I I I I I i I bl 1='-iel l 1dt1=1 rd 1=101 I=I•I-!-i l-I i-I: DW p p p $ S g g p g S p S S S g$ $$ g S g g g S SzOyUMHw IcIFINI -I,I I-J'"Tj EaIE12: IXIXIXIXIXI IXI=I='I=IXI=laaaaa JEJEJEJEJEJEJEJEJ IXI JEJTJ 1=1aalalalalwlmlala 3 0 zXXXw b i i O O O O O >>Q w O > U UuuuUUuU C > > > X w W w w w >z F O O O Z u a= a= a z $$$ S S S S$ ,¢ u < t W u u u V O U U U U U y Z Z Z Z Z Z Z V a' ,w, 6 ea R! Z Z Z .c Z C C C C C F V U V V C7 U V y w C V F3gzat/yN yy H w 3 x xQz0 t7 W LL] W W {t7 w p w Y ' C o o F < WWWO ' Q n h o z cocoa p a, z x 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 ] (tet xI oac1 [aa1 a1 Z zC1mxmmOVCCCCCCCCCCC3333333wFw a W w F XEEaoo x m< g g g °d °d °d °d °d w w W www w v v_ h e o x>> < y oOFyOOO^ U C w v1 to !n vl to N t/) W X w (FA O w g a a a a a= a a a a a a a °' W a$ z ° >> t- z W We`S w 3 3 3 Z O f° F < a a O a O dl W u.t z_ O> Z 0 >>>>>> u V u u U U a a a a a a a U F U O F a. F F w > F< Q >>>> Z a' U U U U U U U a' F > < O<<F> cc< y O ci V c7 c7 v C C Cd C ac C C C_ C C C C .. U a_ F C t- V c7 VV y Q. a a a a F O o C h h H y y H ? 2 2 _?El =2 2 2 2 2? e Z W O m E= U H Z hou'o a aapaaap< N5 5 o --oN -„o -o o S`_' 00 e onUFFFnrZS 0 2F n e v! !o r a U z U V g g w U< F' E Z W w Q Cn z w 0 0 0xIOOCOO c7 zTtwUw z i ! II 3y 0 U a a gasses 000s s ss 53 888ss$ss$8ss$$s8 G k1 V1 w f N w V w w w H a 0 U H 7 g g8888888$$ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 y X C X o r X y dX h '^ X X o O u $ 8 8$ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 o v$ ry o8 gwwwww5 8 8 f/j + w H H H N H N H M H H w H N M W N H H W wH W H W H fr9 0o 8 p p 8 p S $ 0 g N S $ 8 Sr•. 8? O O O 88 $ p O$ o S 8 0 8800$8 0 O 0? 8 ^ O pO aO O Q 8 O 8 pSp pSp pSp O O D CY aFOF F g8g8o 88$SBgg$g 8g $ 88 8$$ $o,g88$88ssgogg oo$ Z p yy S yOj vOi n S S O 8 O$ 8 N N N O O yN O N^ OO S vOi S Sp w> n tV N c E E E ,mi 'c E E E E V U V E c c F E E c U U CL. V :o:, N U U V U V c F E c c E E c cu<i u<i w - - - u < ? u<i E u<i u<i u<i u<i u<i - - - - - - a r r f N N N ad e a O x {Rye' r U. o@ pp z = a a i i roohs$ Z a F r c r _j o CC o X 0 z b < U^ °O N F w O Z < R O, o% K R R R U U V 9 Z_7 Z 0 e = O °' 3R R m m m n 2 ' xC z m m < z yW7 0 ccoKG L j o F o N F 0 0 0 0 0 Z D w G Z Z °. V F n0. C<; >' p n0. a3a„`` u1 u7 pLw > i h a o z =paa 33 ra3mQt<oo m w c w i U a X D D a w x Z V ui O O z ui O? Z Z Z ur C F ul x, ..7 w H O>>>> r ax >_i U w0 F 3 3, - v< a a p fY z < a F w w a< z < w° i w w ui x x w w wfizH , G r i < z 3 c a z a s< 0 0 0 3 3 z r 5- 3 r x< a z m r w w w 0 0 yy {ay7 w w w w w > > m <r Z < < < ,J vii F F- c V V 0 p V °b 0rG prp{{ .] [i.y. 7 U V F W. O F' F F n rn rn Z Wz Z Z h Z Z y y< 6 6 2 Z z Z Z Z y F iL OG w u u. K w tail H w x 3 3 3$ a<<<<,< w _w m m u Z g C w z Z CL. a a n < z z U - z z O> a v Q 0 0 0 0 '^ wo O O G O U H H F O O U a 0 a H ti fy O F 0 0$ 0 0$ ai V .. .. - 0 F F F F F Z h F F a x - U U F. U 0 w V J rn N m N c c c c c O N y O F E U U E " U w U << ? c= E c E c Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z H Z Z z p Z Z Z_ '' F F w w w o 0 0 0 o a o o a w g c o 8° o z a o m z z<< >< 8$ 8 8$ 8 8 8 8 U V U U U U pU U ... V V U pa p U pF p a u. p p pa p a p a o p p p p p p p p rGGaCaC 0.• Z O O L O D N vOi vOi O v D O N O O O O O O O .D O D O O BOJ O O O O D O O O z aaaaaLnia z tl 3S I IIr u$ g$ Q F •. r _ COO r 0 O N N 0 0 0 0 O O i C ". y Ja O w o 0 0 0 0 0 0r$ggC5C56 8 0 o c o o 88 88$88 gig$ a a ^ 0 0 0 0 w$ w w $ N p W L X O FKNd X R F En X C X e o S c < e 8 8$ 8 8 8 g g g 8 g s $ gg 8$ g g g$ ego O p s 8 rn N a } M K W H yj N v1 N H N N T VJ < N H N H H w N N N H H N MN 40 3 0 F p o X 0 0 G O 41 N CA 0O 8g g O$ 8 O 8 O O 8 g 8O g Q O O O N v P u O O g$ g O O g O 8$ s O m $ 8 8 8 8 N N N V)o6 co FO O O p W D F= p 25 25 g$ g F w www N N S S x S W i Z Z Z ^ F 000 ap_ Fuu uEv 1 F a 6 6 a C OF a H `n twWy WWW uWW1 Q. a j 0 a^ y o Z Z K a a a V Z } z D O O .. o W W a Qa ° a 0o Q Q x 's x poc t•, > > > •• W.t N F a a a aK v Cw7 O F U Z z O p Q Z Z Z u V 0 uVi U F Ou C m N h Q x o o u y s= u z z o > pw pw pw ppF : as ppg m " H y Ldj ON W QU a na. i i Z La o o 000 aoao n r m f N N VI N N rl N ZI Lam._ 36 O UL -13-2000 08:48 FROM HENNEPIN CO PUBLIC WORKS TO 95095510 P.02 I , I a a a °' b .. .•a e. z > . a .r o n a .•I I a I o I ' M nm m tionN H I ' 1 I MI 6 I r N n IA n r m fir N OI n n1 CJ ' m , e o2I Lm s( 1 I M N Q I • 01 , O17ONI.., N O , 60 Y m N r'1 O O N O O O1 r N oeorinu+ H v Iq In o e c. uu m '^ b a N o .+ O mO R pi r ! o o ri YC ' 9) I; Z A H K S - n I C e o 0 0 0 0 r a I z F 'Sa bPm I c n e m of o m ch a , U U i w m r N Ln 9% r [• N a : ^ : a N .I oe U I q aoH o w a r u`Oi a a n •+ a I O ni H U[ i en ma N 41 m N r 1-4nhn Z d a bA M DO > x I b7 q PI a N AN s I ' Ir b M n OI .4 O b ICI .1 L r [ O O H! I!1 N 7. a t C Q, A w IC) PI n .••1 O 0% M 1 H M h 1IL J I am 4 F m1w. vJ O a u' r b a e•I w eU I z W i .+ .fit .r+ ti ^•+ 'a Qo odC r`. IQ I .i h w C 96 m 7 H p O o n ON Ln A 1+11 H Nm h r+f r OIa I AI 14 n to m to m Ln 31 TOTAL P.02 ACCIDENTS - CO RD 101 - CO RD 24 TO HIGHWAY 5S January through December 31, 1998 January through December 31, 1999 January through July 11, 2000 LOCATION 4045 County Road 101 4130 Co Rd 101 4130 Co Rd 101 4130 Co Rd 101 4130 Co Rd 101 4130 Co Rd 101 Co Rd 101/34` Avenue Co Rd 101/391Avenue Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Medina Rd Co Rd 101/Medina Rd Co Rd 101/Medina Rd Co Rd 101/Medina Rd Co Rd 101/Medina Rd Co Rd 101/Medina Rd Co Rd 101/Medina Rd Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 ACCIDENT TYPE PI Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PI Accident PD Accident PD Accident PI Accident PD Accident PD Accident MV off roadway PI Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident MV Vs. Fixed Object PI Accident PD Accident PD Accident MV off Roadway PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PI Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident MV Overturned PI Accident PD Accident DATE 06/10/98 03/05/98 09/18/98 04/07/00 06/15/00 07/06/00 03/10/98 06/01/00 02/05/98 03/05/98 03/27/98 06/11/98 08/11/98 11/17/98 11/21/98 12/10/98 12/18/98 04/05/99 05/09/99 05/10/99 08/16/99 11/01/99 12/10/99 01/11/00 01/28/00 02/15/00 05/17/00 05/11/99 06/09/99 08/17/99 12/03/99 02/04/00 05/17/00 06/26/00 01/12/98 05/02/98 05/19/98 05/29/98 TIME 0725 2034 1610 1322 1149 1345 2018 0759 0652 1834 1232 0235 0133 1539 1112 1847 1728 0736 1214 0711 1745 1203 0525 0809 0744 1535 0908 0722 0834 0838 1012 1624 0739 1754 1725 2306 0705 0745 CASE # 98-19915 98-7322 98-34259 00-11252 00-19889 00-22998 98-7890 00-17851 98-4016 98-7314 98-9795 98-20123 98-28995 98-41806 98-41176 98-44643 98-45635 99-14619 99-15282 99-15374 99-30073 99-40178 99-44789 00-1139 00-3018 00-4904 00-15880 99-15498 99-19344 99-30152 99-43973 00-3771 00-15871 00-21557 98-1297 98-14488 98-16808 98-18157 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PI Accident 06/19/98 1335 98-21389 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 07/29/98 1128 98-27197 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 08/03/98 1552 98-27937 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 MV Vs. Deer 08/03/98 2144 98-27971 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 08/06/98 1658 98-28355 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 09/06/98 2045 98-32743 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 10/17/98 0830 98-37884 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 11/30/98 1719 98-43425 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 05/03/99 1735 99-14552 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 05/11/99 1510 99-15548 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 05/12/99 1526 99-15671 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 06/15/99 1725 99-20319 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 MV Vs. Deer 06/17/99 2230 99-20680 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 06/22/99 1800 99-21403 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 09/17/99 0838 99-34559 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 10/08/99 0654 99-37174 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 MV Vs. Deer 10/19/99 2234 99-38612 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 12/06/99 0747 99-44286 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 01/11/00 1350 00-1182 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 05/08/00 0824 00-14849 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 MV Vs. Fixed Object 05/31/00 1437 00-17731 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 06/25/00 1800 00-20441 31 No 41 L( 7— Si 60 Imo; tD -.1L1 .v ....fn N O r 0 "O O O O O w M .: M M M . M M M M M 24's6t w1IlotN iII I1 I t II ryp _ zos los tij.- 1 f16'90t I N o f1 t CL6'90C O1I0O III 6r`90f 1 I EE 1 1 t lot NO Ln Co E II gg gg I 1I W.t $ a ~ 1! Y Y i CLL'90t Y p7_ I m m EE to o \ 1 7 G I Or •90[ U+ O I I 1 iZ!'90C F11 Af'9ot Z y I fig 90E O V1U o.z• s I it'96t CL9.90C I 15'90[ 92'90[ m 1 1 fZ5'90C wm mO f Fo 1 i 60'LOL O PII 1 CZB'90C Q 1 I 1 LB•sOt ti a I a i wt*901 x E I I I O r6'sot I s I T I 1 ' i- LLZ'90F g I 1 9556( y At'LOt S a am II tld0 :11 \+ t21'90f qid1 S6 '.M iy' t CLO190C z gpII 1 I ee'wt f LO'90F Frr p 90"6t I t lafz tI1 60 lot li Zo : CLB'SOC 95•IOL IM. o z6'lot otet•sof I I to IfZt'SOL I \ I I 6l"r6t 9Z9 5Q r113 lAd 1 i 2, -sot r V I O00 LLL901 >I19 LAtl I I: CZ9'S0f I I : Wsoc II p 995 SO[ r 13P i ',' 165' SOt oIfr9nOf•. Yt5 at treat 699,901 o E E E 1.: o Qoom a Z L191S0C I p f51 90C 13 OAd 69'sot u 000 LZL Ot w vls OAJ .1 I C9('SOC W O o o I tI 29•wt 88nn N ggI F99'SOC W g WZ- 1 1 Wsot 96'50[+ In J m I I I noW bW b W oI. 1 1 to tot Q i O ©O O IB j 1 C90'90C NE E E oo'9ot a 0 ....0-. 0 ..... 0 0.:.. wassn nnien i.n M fV' O 0 u6o raarna•uvon•.isuoan.s rnRa...a OC9l'90C O O u. . L( 7— 43 O 0 O O 0 0 0... W N I. Y a 8 x is I': - il'oltbZ9'Olt T ft •tl It O i. I 059'OIC WJ. i6[+R '"LS 1 I 959'OL[ 13 dx 9 '1'B'N j I 9d9•i6f IL rLS dM I:: 1 .._ Cs'olt ss9•olc Lot N E I a y1 99.014 1 1 1 W :. 09'01[ O lo-C U ebs•o1C O" Lot I 1 89z o1C 1 1 1 I 1 so'tlt mD Oii1ozlOIC I 8 og I 1 9!'01,4 O O I a 296'60[ woa 1 n. E E o I\\ 1\ bB('60C Qu a m 11 II • 11 \I 06'604 Z O 1 11 11 60t 2 U 99Lli• 6at I 1- 1 i LZt•609 I 016 60f :13 : V• \ w ft•iot 1 j ooa •6ri:lt ris tae r \ ' it L96'Bot hg H II V wat Lo9.9oC i I 1 od W1 i g a it 1 Loo•BOt 6 Y Q 7rre;;JJJ I l9 wtg L9e•Loc II 11 i LSL' LOC j 1 I 619•(04 - 13 OAd. I 1' LL9'LOS i 000'SLt+1L VIS OAd' sot ti9'LU[ V a I db'Soi uS l C P W i 1 I 10itS'!Ot 20 W 5 Qi I b 11. 99'sdt u I I I 1 E E E E J I uaZ. 1 LfI 19 O 1 czb-Loc i w i 1 I ELC'!OF 1 I 1 69'4Ot o I I1Iim1i 41'90L e 9e mo I I r1 X96[ I W 1 1 Sze lot 1 W ' sa-got tu•Lot N3 I 2 t I Q I 1 0 I ( b•9dt vi u I 1 g I 1 tic Loc I;1 1 '.. ao is W c 43 yy i u - i m II 1 tri 1 _ 31Ir Y' I c at7 'Aq 1 Hl6£ Q IEtrls b 0 O O 0 .. 9l•IG i 1 ' 65c •-i iY f[•t1f I tc s I III' 65S'{lC I I I 609•nc I r I, unc I I lI Drat 601'l is I i 6t't It 609'!1[ I I It I't w f 11 659 • t l C 0 ttL I 606 ttT r96 It['..: i3 hd 1 I 9t lat 1 It al•iit too -alt szo•ztc Iro•z I - z dN I I o0t'Zt0+2I - r19 dH II 1 96'11( ICO'ZlC I E I 1 , L9'1Ktic 3 7IFJ iia I z 21. tic VC6'tlC JI ii I.. j 1I I u•ttt 9s6°i it 1 tc'IIt I _ 1 t6'trt 1 I 019'1![ Ser HLOY.j 11 1 S-IisGK.'llf H10b I 1 31 1 torn[ t t r0'lrt1Iocritc I 1 C6'0tf E- m 656'0[[ - 13 g 11 ; l50'ILf u u 000 9(16911 rL5 Jdd I v"i 1 1 or•otf ld H16C.) 9,J0 1 1 SC'01f i' o E E g n d w o 1 I 9 G'OiT Walt i 4 fiw I 1 6zr•o 1t a I I 00.O1t SOUCK - 13 Jed G 000.599[11 - r1S. Jed rr'60f 91Z'Olc tc of 1 I. tc'bac TtZ'01c I I ZG t'DI[ I1 0ccflit060 E E 1 6Z0'Otf yS x I I x wz ; 0 A. 0YY9'60C O O O -- O Pd1 -M M - M M M Ml M M b [ll d=CO 00/90/10 o'9ddf06avl e rannruo sw 0 W 0 0O y a e a Q J 0CLI z 0om r_ — v cr to a OilOil 4br q il MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DATE: July 18, 2000 TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager FROM: Craig C. Gerdes, Director of Public Safety SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ACCIDENT INFORMATION Attached is information on accidents on Co Rd 101 between Co Rd 24 and Highway 55 requested by Council Member Slavik for inclusion in the CIM. The information is presented in a format which shows each location first and all accidents there for the entire period and then goes on to the next location. This information was also sent to Engineering for their consideration with the other information they have compiled. ACCIDENTS - CO RD 101 - CO RD 24 TO HIGHWAY 5 January through December 31, 1998 January through December 31, 1999 January through July 11, 2000 LOCATION 4045 County Road 101 4130 Co Rd 101 4130 Co Rd 101 4130 Co Rd 101 4130 Co Rd 101. 4130 Co Rd 101 Co Rd 101/34 1h Avenue Co Rd 101/391hAvenue Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Co Rd 24 Co Rd 101/Medina Rd Co Rd 101/Medina Rd Co Rd 101/Medina Rd Co Rd 101/Medina Rd Co Rd 101/Medina Rd Co Rd 101/Medina Rd Co Rd 101/Medina Rd Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 ACCIDENT TYPE PI Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PI Accident PD Accident PD Accident PI Accident PD Accident PD Accident MV off roadway PI Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident MV Vs. Fixed Object PI Accident PD Accident PD Accident MV off Roadway PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PI Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident PD Accident MV Overturned PI Accident PD Accident DATE 06/10/98 03/05/98 09/18/98 04/07/00 06/15/00 07/06/00 03/10/98 06/01/00 02/05/98 03/05/98 03/27/98 06/11/98 08/11/98 11/17/98 11/21/98 12/10/98 12/18/98 04/05/99 05/09/99 05/10/99 08/16/99 11/01/99 12/10/99 01/11/00 01/28/00 02/15/00 05/17/00 05/11/99 06/09/99 08/17/99 12/03/99 02/04/00 05/17/00 06/26/00 01/12/98 05/02/98 05/19/98 05/29/98 TIME 0725 2034 1610 1322 1149 1345 2018 0759 0652 1834 1232 0235 0133 1539 1112 1847 1728 0736 1214 0711 1745 1203 0525 0809 0744 1535 0908 0722 0834 0838 1012 1624 0739 1754 1725 2306 0705 0745 CASE # 98-19915 98-7322 98-34259 00-11252 00-19889 00-22998 98-7890 00-17851 98-4016 98-7314 98-9795 98-20123 98-28995 98-41806 98-41176 98-44643 98-45635 99-14619 99-15282 99-15374 99-30073 99-40178 99-44789 00-1139 00-3018 00-4904 00-15880 99-15498 99-19344 99-30152 99-43973 00-3771 00-15871 00-21557 98-1297 98-14488 98-16808 98-18157 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PI Accident 06/19/98 1335 98-21389 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 07/29/98 1128 98-27197 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 08/03/98 1552 98-27937 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 MV Vs. Deer 08/03/98 2144 98-27971 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 08/06/98 1658 98-28355 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 09/06/98 2045 98-32743 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 10/17/98 0830 98-37884 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 11/30/98 1719 98-43425 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 05/03/99 1735 99-14552 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 05/11/99 1510 99-15548 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident • 05/12/99 1526 99-15671 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 06/15/99 1725 99-20319 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 MV Vs. Deer 06/17/99 2230 99-20680 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 06/22/99 1800 99-21403 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 09/17/99 0838 99-34559 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 10/08/99 0654 99-37174 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 MV Vs. Deer 10/19/99 2234 99-38612 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 12/06/99 0747 99-44286 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 01/11/00 1350 00-1182 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 05/08/00 0824 00-14849 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 MV Vs. Fixed Object 05/31/00 1437 00-17731 Hwy 55/Co Rd 101 PD Accident 06/25/00 1800 00-20441