The URL can be used to link to this page

CR 91-196 Preliminary Design Plans _ _ _ _ __ � T Y O ' p � , , ti 5 August 27, 1991 � p K �N Council Report: 91-196 � PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS - SOUTHWEST LRT CORRIDOR Proposed Action. Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution No. 91-110 approving a portion of the Southwest LRT �reliminary desiqn plans and disapproving a portion of the plans and identifyinq specific required amendments. As a result of this motion, the City Council will be taking formal action, as required by law, on approving/disapproving that portion of the preliminary LRT design plans for the Southwest Corridor located in the City of Hopkins. overview. On January 8, 1991, the City of Hopkins conducted a public hearing on the preliminary design plan for the Southwest LRT Corridor. As a part of the public hearing process, Edco expressed concerns regarding the LRT station � proposed to be located on property which it owns on 2nd Street N.E. (Dick's Towing site). In addition to the questions raised regarding the 2nd Street station, staff also had concerns regarding traffic implications relating to the proposed LRT station at T.H. 169 and Co Rd 3. Recently, HCRRA staff submitted an LRT station plan to the City of Hopkins as an alternative to the LRT station on 2nd Street N.E. This alternative , LRT station is proposed to be located on the west side of Blake Road, about a block south of 2nd Street N. E. City staff has met with HCRRA staff and has expressed reservations regarding the location of the station on this site. The HCRRA has indicated that they are not in a position to take additional time to study other alternative sites. Due to staff concerns with the proposed station location at T.H. 169 and . the alternate station location along Blake Road, staff is recommending approval of a portion of the preliminary design plans, and the disapproval of a portion of the preliminary design plans. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed station location along Blake Road and the preliminary design plans in general and provided the comments which are attached to this report. Also attached are the resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission which formally outline their comments. Primary Issues to Consider. o What level of detail is involved in the preliminary design plans? o What are the sites and locations of the two stations? o What are staff's primary concerns as related to the preliminary design plans? o What action must the City take on the preliminary design plans? supportinq Documents. o Analysis of issues o Corridor map �� o Planning Commission comments and Resolution No. 91-18 ; o esolution 91-110 o ter from Arby's Thomas K. Harme ng, Community Development Director Analysis of Issues. � Based on the recommended action, the City Council has the following issues to consider: o What level of detail is involved in the preliminary design plans? The preliminary design plans include the completion of design activities to approximately a ten percent level. Preliminary design, as defined in the 1989 State LRT Legislation, includes: - The general definition of the horizontal and vertical alignment of the track - Station platform locations and ancillary station faciiities - The yard and shop facilities - The general limits of construction - The relationship of the LRT system to the street system - Preliminary internodal coordination plans - A conceptual operating plan of the proposed LRT system - Preliminary ridership projections • - Preliminary cost estimates � - Funding for final design, construction and operation - Discussion regarding impTementation method - Preliminary handicap access plans Several of the issues which have been identified by the Planning Commission and staff are issues which go beyond the scope of the preliminary design plans. These items, such as landscaping, buffering, etc. will be dealt with at later design stageso o �hat are the size and locations of the two stations? - T.H. 169 and County Road 3 Station - This station location represents a large park and ride facility. The proposed plans illustrate a station with 718 parking stalls. This site is located on the existing Millwork, Inc. and General Resources property. The access to the station is proposed at this time to be from 5th Avenue, 3rd St. S., and an additional access from the west off ramp of T.H. 169. The station is proposed to accommodate nine buses to drop off riders plus 14 spaces for car rider drop-offs. The location of this station is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a future location for an LRT station. • - Blake Road Station - This station, which is proposed as a replacement for the originally proposed 2nd Street station, is reduced in.size. The 2nd Street site had parking for 135 cars, while the new site will have no parking on site. Drop off space is available for three buses and 13 cars. There is also space for 20 bicycles. This station is intended to serve as an LRT _ _ _ _ _ stop for pedestrian traffic in the area, kiss and ride patrons, and patrons who use mass transit. The LRT station is proposed to � be located on the south side of the tracks. Access to the site is from Blake Road. This site is identified as "commercial" in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The original LRT station proposed on 2nd Street is identified in the.Comprehensive Plan as an appropriate spot� for an LRT station. , o What are staff's primary concerns as related to the preliminary desiqn plans? Staff's main concerns with the design plans pertain to traffic impacts at the Excelsior Blvd/T.H. 169 station, and the recently proposed station location along Blake Road, which has been proposed in place of the station previously proposed along 2nd Street N.E. (Edco site). What follows is a more detailed exp]:anation of the concerns which staff has regarding these two items: - Excelsior Blvd/T.H. 169 station - In general, staff does not have a concern with the proposed station location. However, sta£f did have concerns regarding traffic and design issues as related to this station and requested that Benshoof and Associates briefly review the design plans and identify and summarize the issues which should be kept in mind. Outlined below is a brief summary of the traffic concerns which have been identified: , o Traffic impacts at the 5th Avenue/Co. Rd. 3 intersection and need for improvements on 5th Avenue. o Traffic impacts at the intersection of 5th Avenue and 3rd Street. o Location of driveways relative to existing and future access on the south side of 3rd Street. o Adequacy of spacing of access from 3rd Street/5th Avenue intersection. o Traffic impacts at 3rd Street/Washington Avenue intersection. o Site distance at access on Washington Avenue. o Need for/desirability of a new railroad crossing. o Traffic impacts at east and west T.H. 169 ramps. o Possible redesign of park and ride lot to allow direct access from County Road 3 to Hennepin County property to the south. This involves a road extending through the park and ride site for access to the Hennepin County site. o Consideration regarding the implications of the potential redevelopment of the Hennepin Co. parcel. Other cnricerns relating to the station location involve storm � sewer needs as related to the large parking lot, as well.as future consideration for an existing sanitary sewer which runs through the site. � � - Blake Road Station - This station is located on the west side of Blake Road, approximately one block south of 2nd Street N.E., on the south side of the Soo Line tracks. This site is a fairly new retail space constructed in 1984. The development was financed with an industrial revenue bond sold by the City of Hopkinsa Although staff feels locating an LRT station in the vicinity of 2nd Street and Blake Road has merit, staff is concerned with this proposed station location from the following two perspectives: � o The proposed location would involve the elimination of a fairly new retail space located along Blake Road. It should be noted that this development was financed with an industrial revenue bond sold by the City of Hopkins. o As the Council is aware, staff has been working on a plan to take into consideration the upgrade of County Road 3 in this area. Staff would anticipate that sometime in the future, the properties located north of Courity Road 3 and west of Blake Road would be involved in an overall redevelopment . plan. As a result, it is staff's feeling that the proposed station location along Blake Road should not be identified at this time. Rather, it is staff's feeling that this future LRT station location should be considered in said redevelopment plans and incorporated, as appropr.iate, in an area which best meets the needs of the redevelopment of the area, as well as the needs of light rail transit. Put simply, staff is suggesting that we not identify a specific station location in this area until we know how this area will redevelop in the future. City staff was contacted by the owner of the Arby's property located directly to the south of ,the proposed station. The property owner indicated strong concerns regarding the traffic • implications as related to the LRT station and the operation of the Arby's restaurant. Attached is a letter from the restaurant owner expressing his concerns regarding the proposed LRT stati-on. Staff did send the owner of the retail facility a notice of the public hearing. In addition, HCRRA staff has attempted to make contact with the property owners to inform them of the LRT plans. o What action must the City take on the preliminary design plans? Upon reviewing state law and discussing this matter with Ken Stevens of the HCRRA, the City must approve or disapprove of the plans in a fashion which the Council is not normally accustomed. In this case, unless the City is in a position to approve the preliminary design plans without any conditions, it is necessary for the City Council to take action which would involve disapproving the plan, or portions of the plan, with the conditions clearly outlined which, if inet, would allow the City to approve the plans. Under this type of process, even though the City disapproves the plans subject to a number of conditions, the plans would not be required to be brought back to the Council until the next normally scheduled review period (30% design review). The resolution whicY� staff has prepared clearly outlines the portions of the plan which the City approves of, as well as the portion of the plan the City does not approve of, along with conditions which would allow the City to approve the plans. The City of St. Louis Park utilized this same �rocess. Alternatives. The City Council has the following alternatives to consider: 1. Approve the action as recommended by staff. 2. Adopt a resolution which provides full approval of the � preliminary design plans for the Southwest LRT Corridor. 3. Continue matter for further information. � i _--' - -. _ __.. . _ _ _ __ —._ -- - --- _ p � -_- - - - -- _ -------- _ __ _ . ,�.- __._ ._ .... . _ 6 � � / � �.� .l��l1 �/.r�'�'�r�F��.� -.. � — �--- �� ------� JE -- �� ,i.�� - .,'�'� � ��'� �� , ----- — - ...— _____�_ _._._ ��;� � � - - - _ �� +� � /� � �!!� : -�,=_-`-�: - ---,�;-.-��'-..��---�� :E - - �� +� ; ,, �� .,� � 1� � r� ��. ��,� �►� E. �,...� � �� ' � e�e�1�� . � '� �� .� :o��;,�,r� � 1,�� 1..,�,.�/ � �� ■��o��■�� "e"� � 11� 6�� O��B�[�s�►...�s.ic � � � � � .�� . .�� r,�� s► , � 1� � , . � •,�.� -� ;�, �� .� B � � ��e��e�� ' �+ _�� ., ��i � �� 9��I��0�@��,� � � � � � � t �; .9 �1�� B / ��- �, � r��ll�l111111�� e � 1�1111[�11 � �� il�� i;1�li�iil/N ��lL� ' ► , � � ■ � . i o��E��o�o�E�8i1 11 irl�l�= . � � �� _ 1 � �l��,�'�,�� d� ,� �� f { Cil� ��, : � ... ,n�� 1��1�� '. ��' ��E �� itlti :��■..��s. '�► ►- �� e��e�� :; . -�-�;�, a.,�.� - b:�t .�lr �1 �� ►�� /��,�,� i' �� _ �1�;1MMi�9p�1�L1 I��i ° �11� �� 9��O�Q��l1� s s � • � ' ��'`%�i1� � ' ��e,l�►�C:1�A1��1 1 p �,��►� ��,. ��,.� �! ►I��a�a��e��,An� � � � 11�'�. , . � - �Q �.�� - , ti��A�� t� � 1 ��f��1��i�� _�.�► ..�-! / / i . �; � r �� 4 .�-- _ , ��,�I��' y�er A �Il�lt�11A�11�111�� °� � � � � A . t _. . �"' � .,�+�w i � �1�� iSB�11111��! �' `��' . �- _ � �;'- ! �� ' '�iii� � �'�,�li�l ��..■�. I�IilA�ll � �i�1 ___- t v-�-.► � s ��i�i�:_ � �� .�N�'��1'��I�Ia�1�i�f�i�" � 1��/1�� '' '`� ee�1��1�i�..1 � � � - � � �,�'` .�/��l�� !l11�t�e� _• �'1��1�, � �� i��i �oo�o��►��.�. - � � ,�,� �� . �, , r� � � , � . �� a� �� '�t�w��r� t�� i��Q�+ � � �. � �� ; , �, � .,� �.�, �� 1�l�� 1i��o� �tle��6BE�00e�E'9�►�./� - � ��e�eL� '�� ,'��'►t �� ,�� • �*� �1��'.s�l �1;s111f�S111 ; � �.� :��.��'�� ,'��i�� p��, �;'�� Q�I ��a'��i�lE! i�! IIA�I�i�QOEil� � : . - . . �� ■■ � � �� ,��5�� e��'�� l��s��e � �,, .�� '�� ; ��d�� . � r�a�i��t� -�� i�� ao��s�n�� _ � � d �� ,� � �� 1 , � ,, �� '��Il �E� IAlll�..•e�i 11��A�IId11�� , � �e i� �� , ,� � � ��c:�� s��t�� ` i�,, ► � ��II! i1�11111�111�111�1�� al�ll�l��'� �� a ��3 t�il!lilfA1f�11�R 1i�� '��AI��►,��1� � '� . . � �� ` ��* IIt111/1A��,�",' ��MII�l�__.,., . -� :. � �� ' �► �►� �� e�8� E��W�1�1111�111�/11��0 �� .�� ' �� :: ��0000��a000��w� . y v��$� ,� �► �� - ��' �: �� ,, .. �i��n��e�, r� , . _I,_ ��°�' � ��' � q l��,ffi�� llre■111s� 11l�111��11�111 111111 ,. .� �IQ�r � .� � :.� . .. • ' . . � � 1 / . LRT - s�em „ -� - . ,.� � " . . - - _.. . : .. _ _� , - . _ . , , ... . _;, _ :��.�, � , � . � ._ � - 300' SiDE PL.ATFORMS .-. - ._ ..._ .� --- � _._._.__ - � � . - ^ �. '� - - - BICYCLF � �- - - - 20 SPAC ' � � � " �'�� 3 BUSES � ; , - j � — --- --- . � ♦ / J Q' � DROP-C?FF & RtDE 13 SPAC�S � ;: i � � � \��\� � r � �� \ � . �- • � �, � �---�� .- : � � 1 � �i ' � � � . :, � � �� - � � �� % i . i � � � � ; - �. ' � � �� M oq� ARBY+S - . F.�.� ' RV� �� ' F � �� , , � � - , ` � 1 � � '� EXCELSIOR BLVD. . - � � � � -- _ _ _ , ; -- � - -- -- _� '� � _ � �� , -- _ __ I; - _ � - - - � _ _ -- , 2 � RM _ - ---�""'_.----%. � � 300' CEN7ER P�►TF ; '� j - �� I � � - _ RAMP - - _ ! ,: / i� Q � �-�- I [/�� I r H ..' - - 1 A � j �� I �� . - � _ ._6L- . / - I , � � . � . � _ - - I TRA I g gUSES � r � tFiAGK � ,�'�-- -- �� .�— -- _ __� DROP � RIDE � 14 SPACES � , � I I I I! I� I I I I I�L � I �`� J , r � � _ ', � _ � , i ` � � � � � PARK & RIDE � \ \ � � � � � � ' 718� PACES � I i ;' ; � � � � � �� , \ / � � � ` I � \ '/ i ' � �� . � � � C \ = i.' � �. ;�, , �� \ > �� 3A � ST / � � , � i ' Q I I S, �� p` 0 2 ;� / a BUSES g � , \ 0 \ � � �� , � �� DROP—OFF & RIDE 14 � � � ,' � � � � � \� ' PARK & RIDE 718 � - � i . , ;, ' � Excelsior Bivd. Station HCRRA SHEE7 11 i i Southwest Corridor ,,..:.. ;,:�,,,,,,,�� :........:...::::...: �:,,n,,.,:,. , � � H op k i n s , M i n n esota � C� � Light Rail Trans�t ? . ' `-o �oo• 'oo (� y'ii^i�i�'��=�+ �en� �r�l, � nr '',� 'n;.,,,,� :��I!►+i,;�1U11 {I .,y.,e"�'� "� . Y, � :W� � � .�:�.�� :�..,� � I � i � � , � � � � � � � �� , . _�_ - _..:.., :a�i:.nu:iFUiU��iu i t nbi l 3 1 1� ilimlik��zn:u , i . � :.:��. inui:��c�.Ti-: .: -..�.:.: .-, , � ::: .:.: . . ...... . . ...:..: -:.,._- i:, . -._ .� . , ,. . - -- --. . .. _ ... ._. .- . .: :. . � .. .-. ., „ � ._. - . _. . _ , .- . �.0 ,.,... . , � _ 7 .0 .. .i„n .� fE�Al+!{ f � a � 2ND ST. �I.E. = fi � � � I ,� �. �� 1 � . �. . ► ► � � PARK & RIDE 135 ACES � � � \\\\\\\\\ ��,� � 10 SPACES � � ' � � AT GRADE PETESTRIAN 4 BUSES CROSSING — � ..__ —_ � �� _ _ ' � RAMP RETAINING WALL _ 4 _, ` ' i � RAMP � .� _ _ � — — � _ r_ TRACKS � _ � `i 1 �` ` ` - - ` ` ' � � r.TRACKS - r-- --� _ - _ - _^--^---_^- - - - - — -- ---'-----�-_" - -----�_" � _,_ -- .�� _�_- _..._ .�_ 300' CENTER PLATFORM � QO• �� y ' � 1 BUSES � 1 DROP—OFF & RIDE 10 PARK & RIDE 135 � � � N. Blake Rd Station HCRRA SHEET y2 S outhwest Corridor � � ; — Hopkins Minnesota �' Light Rail Transit � ° �� 50� ��o� -�� rv NOVEAI6ER 1990 Preliminary Design Pians --�1t1�o�` � PLANNING COMMISSION NOTES Staff reviewed the background of LRT. Chuck Nadler appeared before the Commission. Mr. Nadler is the owner of Arby's. Mr. Nadler was concerned with the access to the site. He was not against the LRT station site, but wanted an access that was mutually acceptable to Arby's and the LRT station. Ken Stevens from the HCRRA reviewed the traffic patterns of the LRT site. Mr. Stevens pointed out that this is a preliminary design at a 10 percent design level. Mr. Stevens also explained why this site was selected. The Commission was concerned with the following with the proposed LRT station on Blake Road: o traf f ic o lack of parking on the LRT station site o access o bus traf f ic o lack of a left turn into the site The Commission unanimously approved Resolution RZ91-18 . providing comments on the proposed LRT station at 150-176 Blake Road. • • CITY OF HOPKIN5 Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. RZ91-18 COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING CONIlKISSION THE BLAKE ROAD STATION FOR THE SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT CORRIDOR WHEREAS, Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority desires to construct a light rail transit system to service the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the preliminary design plan calls for the tracks to run on the existing Soo Line right-of-way through Hopkins with two stations located in Hopkins at Blake Road and County Road 3/T.H. 169; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority held a public hearing regarding these design plans on December 13, 1990; and WHEREAS, each affected city must hold a public hearing to either approve or disapprove these plans; and • WHEREAS,. the City of Hopkins has been a strong supporter of light rail transit; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE50LVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Hopkins that the following items have been identified as issues which should be taken into consideration as part of the City Councils review of the preliminary design plan for the Blake Road station on the southwest LRT corridor: 1. That the location of the LRT station on Blake Road is a new retail area. 2. That bonds were issued for the construction of the building. 3. That other sites in the area will be redeveloped in the future. 4. That the LRT station site should be located in an area to promote redevelopment surrounding the site. 5. That the location of the LRT station should be considered in any study of the County Road 3 corridor. � 6. That the Planning Commission approves an LRT station site in the Blake Road area, but does not approve of the proposed LRT station at 150-176 Blake Road. • 7. That the Planning Commission has traffic concerns with access off of Blake Road for an LRT station. An LRT station with access form 2nd Street N.E. has the potential for better traffic control. Adopted this 27th Day of August, 1991 Richard Pavelka, Chairman • � • CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 91-110 RESOLUTION APPROVING PORTION OF SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS AND DISAPPROVING PORTION OF PLANS AND IDENTIFYING SPECIFIC REQUIRED AMENDMENTS. WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins has been and continues to be a strong supporter of light rail transit, and; WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (the "HCRRA") has prepared preliminary design plans (the "Plans") for Light Rail Transit in the Southwest Corridor extending into Hopkins, andp WHEREAS, the HCRRA forwarded the Plans to the City of Hopkins on November 9, 1990, and; WHEREAS, the HCRRA has approved four time extensions for consideration of the Plans, first to March 27, then to May 27, then to August 27, and then to 1991, and; � WHEREAS, during the extension period the HCRRA proposed an alternative to the original station location on Second Street N.E. with said alternative station located on the west side of Blake Road just south of the Soo Line right of way, and; WHEREAS, the City Council forwarded the Plans to the Planning Commission for review and comments, and; WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing on the Plans on January 8, 1991, and on September 3, 1991; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hopkins., Minnesota, that the Plans are hereby approved, or disapproved, with specific amendments noted which would cause the City Council to withdraw its disapproval, as follows: � 1. Approve proposed alignment for the Southwest Light Rail Transit Corridor in the Soo Line right of way. 2. Approve the general profile plan. 3. Approve the proposed location of the Excelsior � Boulevard Station. 4. Disapprove the proposed design of the Excelsior Boulevard Station and note that the Plans should be amended, based upon future study, to reflect the following design issues: � o Traffic impacts at the intersection of 5th Ave. and Co. Rd. 3 and the need for improvements on 5th Avenue. o Traffic impacts at the intersection of 5th Avenue and Third Street. o Location of driveways relative to existing and future access on south side of Third Streete . o Adequacy of spacing of access from Third Street/5th Avenue intersection. o Traffic impacts at Third Street/Washington Avenue intersection. o Site distance at access on Washington Avenue. o Need for/desirability of a new railroad crossing. o Traffic at west and east T.H. 169 ramps. o Possible redesign of park and ride lot to allow direct access from County Road 3 to Hennepin County property to the south. This involves a road through the park and ride site for access to the Hennepin County site. o Consideration regarding the implications of the potential redevelopment of the Hennepin County parcel. � o Storm sewer needs. o Consideration for existing sanitary sewer which � runs through the site. 5. Approve in concept the location of an LRT station in the B1ake Road area. 6. Disapprove the location of the proposecl LRT station on the west side of Blake Road and note the following required amendment: A specific station location in this area should not be � identified at this time due to anticipated future redevelopment which will occur between C.R. 3 and 2nd Street N.E., west of Blake Road. In the future the LRT Station location should be considered in said redevelopment plans and incorporated, as appropriate, in an area which best meets the needs of the redevelopment of the area, as well as the needs of light rail transit. Adopted by the City Council the 3rd day of September, 1991. Nelson W. Berg, Mayor ATTEST: � . James A. Genellie, City Clerk � � 1' 1 V'•JI �. I J 1 1 �. L•J f� [S 1' I'Y'�v (1 1�� C H�J J��•J �� i'u.l L.. J G.. � � � I �ranchi�e Associat��, Ir�c, 5354 Parkdale Drive Suite 104 Mi�neapolis, MN �5416 {612)546•3391 Fax�{6l2)546-8342 August 27, 1991 Thomas K. Harmening � Cvmmunity Development C?ir�ctor City of Hop kins 1010 1 �t 5treet South Hopkir�s, MN 5�34� RE: Impact of Preliminary Light Ra�f Transit aesign an the Rraperty a�nd Bt�Sir�esS loo�ted at 140 Blake Road Dear Mr. Harmening: . As I explained to yo�a #his mornin� when yau were kind enough ta meet with me ; � at City W�II, 1�wn re�l estate at 140 Blake Road and lease it to aur Qperating company, Franchi�e As�ociates, which does busir�ess the�e as Ar�y's. Last Tuesday afternoon, Au ust 20th, I received a calf from Mr. Jim punn from Henn�pin County Regfanal �ailroad A�tharity. He explained tQ me that ther� . wera praliminary plans to replace the exis#ing shoppin� center Iacated directly . ta �ur nvrth w(th a rai! transit station. I expressed sur�r�s� at tY�is because l had nat heard anything about it previously. He stated that he n�aded to meet with m� as soon as possible. Although I had meetir�gs I�o�uld nat reschedule set up Wednesday, Thursd�y and Friday of last week, an� h�d to b� aut af to�wn on business yesterday, ( agreed to me�t with him at our affic�s or� Wedn$sday, August 21 st at 2:QQ. - At t�at meeting Mr. Dunn w�� urt��le to att�nd, but he sent in inste$d Mr. ; I�enneth Stevens and Mr. Donald A. Lawrence. That was the first time I got � - view of t�e proposed plan, a copy of which they left with me. -0 {n our meeting tfiis mofning, you suggested that f sh�re my thoughts with yau ar� that plan !n writing prior to the ci#y making a dec�sior� an wh�thet ta d�signate this site as a transit station (ac�tit�n. Whether this (ocatian is tha prop�r ar�� f�r servicing the light rail system is far ; beyand my ex Therefore, I will nat affer my commeni an the wisdom af this partiaular location over others. How�ver, I can tell you that I am concerned : tf�at the prQ�osed �hang�s to the access to my p�rc�l wil) ur�dout�t�dly h�v� a ; � signific�nt negative lrnpact c�n my busines� and could possit�ly c�us� its demi�a. S�e�ifically, the p I�n cre�tes a median in front of our m�ir� er�t�'ar�ce �nd clasas a cros� ��cess drive w�y be#ween our lot and our r�ortherly r�ei�h�bor. The joint 1�I� � . . Licensee Arby's Roast Beef Resc�urants �� . , ...,�. ._ ,_ �. .. a . : -. , .,.. . ,., . ��:'�" : ` AUG 27 ' 91 S 5: 1 6 F RfaNCH I 5E : ASSOCS ' PAGE . 03 I � � effect af this significan# ingr��s �nd egr�ss restrictian, makes it almost c�ttafn that all patentiai Gu�tom�rs traveling narth on Bla�ke Raad wauld no long�r patranize our ast�blishmertt. They wo�id have to drive thr�u�h tl�� whc�i� one way d�velopment of thQ light rai! transit.statian site to enter aur �raperty in th� rear. Likawise to le�v� �nd cantir�ue nor�h, they would have to airale aur buildir�g, ��turn ta the bacic af aur lot and then exit aut �v�r the transit curb cut. I have attached four exhibit� detailing the �xisting and �raposed Ingress and �gress foc your inforr��tion. Because of shart natice, I was unable tv contact an independent traffic engfneer wha c�uld analyze the situation wi#h more ex�ertise an� detail th�r� I poss�ss. rhis indep�ndent an�lysis cauld �Isa contain sugges�ed modificatit�ns t� the � rapa�ed plan whioh migh# a)leviate th� drastic nagative affact this plan will av� on our cu�torr�ers and our fong term ak�ifity to serve the citizens t�f Hapkirts £�t t�"IIS IOCc'�tlpll. Specificaliy, I would request tk�e City not apprave this sita without a conditian that H�nnepin �aur�ty work out an ingress and egress plan that wau{d be mutually benefici�l ta our parcel, Arby'� �ustom�rs and users of tha, proposed transit station, in the av�nt you decide thi� course of action is nat a�propriate, ! would at l�ast,�sk th� Gi#y Piannin� �ammission and Gounci! to delay approval of thi� �it� untd I ve h�d a chanc� to engage an indep�nden# traffic Gonsultant to � determin� the �xt�nt af the impact and what pr�p�s�d altera�tions in the plan � r�ight b� warkab{e solutions. Although I ur�derst�nd tf�is plan is anly a preliminary ar�e, I believed it important to react as quiGkly as I possibly coufd ta Iet all parties involved in the de�ign and dev�lopmer�t of this transit f�cility knaw that we have signi#ic�nt concerns, A1sa, p le��e understand we st�nd ready ta try ta reSOlve them cvoperativefy, i believe tackling tt�e probl�ms early on in the design phas� gives us th� k��st passibiiity for such a mutualfy satisfactary resuft. V�ry truly yours, � �� Charles E. Nadler President CEN:aw Enelasure c�: Kenneth E. St�v�r�s Director of l�ight Rail Tran$it � ; '}. ' �, ' � � 4 � � �� '"�� , � r `� � n � _ _ - � - - �.. .�F _ �_ _�.. � n. ....v. ..,�,n� �'x��-��.ba�ia��r�af�.�x..'r.. ,v_!=r� c�-s_ _ . .. ,-,. v .,_ . - _..r - - �. �.. �� «xui�Yw�;xmw.,..�b,�v�:T'�? �u. �� , � Allc"a 2 i ° 9 1 1 S: 1 F F RGNCH I�,E A�� Ci�� = PAC�E . 0� - S { . � • . ,. •�• � � � � �'` �„ 3 � S�� 1 � � J f � �- �� & Rti�E 3 ��AC�� .' � D�tC�P G � � �\ ` � - �\`� � ��. � �- � .� � `-� -:�. I ' `'-�•.. . I . � 4 � � ' ' � I . `/ � / � I � � � � � • . � r.. � ",,.. � . . ' r"�''Q�{E 1 '��..� - � � �. t�' ARk3Y'S � ��'�, � r <,�,� . � , - . ! - . sc�µ , ti � . _,. � No�tµ • . ., --�----_ _ _ _ �...._— -- -- -- ' �X't STt N� ��CES� Nqt�7'N�OuND I�Np � � . , .'�OUTl+ (� a� N i? $ E--A� K� t2 � A O ' • ' i - wa� _wi\�� III�IVI ..� I I�y ._ _ � � -- �.. � . -. . - _. _._ . _ _ . _ F ..-T _ .. AU� 27 '�1 15:17 FRRNCHI�E GS�OCS PAGE.�S i ., -,._.. � r``� .,4��-`` 3 �U �� " I ! � � f � . DR�P�C,��F & �tiD� � �PA�� \ � � . - � \�� `� ;-�. �` �. � �-� � �'� .. .�./ ► � � � � � �`-•. � ,�-�/ � � � . `� „�. .. � t � j / `� `� � • `�. �.�� , , . ' ' .. . � � _:�. �: � • , �, l�� A�B�1('',.��'' 1ti�' `�� . . , . . � � �. �� / , + • , � ` • ' Scxmf i .�, • . � , � _ .� . •• , � �xl�Tt r�� tz��s or��goun�� atip . . -�+r�� c� D U t�t Q �Y�r K�� R.af� p. t"""'_"`"""'"""� _ �-rt"�� AUG �7 '91 15:18 FRAh•iCHISE AS��Cc PGGE.�6 - "`�--.J ,. ' � �`�' -.,.,�'`� � E�USE�► � � ( � / . � l f��C7R-U�� & RI�►� 1 � SPA�ES `�`�`� ` i � . �-.� � �� \ �� .. � � ,--� � , G�'`'� �.,. -.� I � , . � �.. � � � ; � � i `",,,,�„� , � ! � / � ``�., �avT++ `�. ``„� ... . � _ , � - ,, t+:• �: . ` �. r�R� A�SY'� �� ' �'TE,/ hoRrµ �� _ , . � SouTN � � .� . �Q{�0'��D AGC�S�S �CDfL�i�at�Nt7. At��J '�4JTN �3 C�u N � f� t�f4 K � " i�O � t') . , ' • �• _ �-�� - - t � _ HUr � r ' 9 1 1 5: 1� F RHNCH 1 �E H'��V�v� i—'Ht�t . k� i �"'�•,,1 � �' �..,.�► �`'' � �US►�� " ,.—,.. � I ! . � / f l�FiC�P��►FF & Rl�� t � �P�l�E� ` \ � �� _ � \� \� ..�� `�-- -� ��- . � � -./ �1 � `� -�-�. 1 � -� 4 ., , . �. ,� ,�, . � � � � � � -.� �,�.,, � �``*�. ° `�,, ` � xaR7k � • SRt�rtµ o,� ,�1f�BY'� �'.�.� �� / �, � , �� .. - ----- __ �_.------- -,� , � �oAas�a E��2��5 t�a�+BbUN� F�t�D �J�U7�f3 QUND �L.AK� -{�OP� p. � �� '• j -- — — -- _:�: :� T t"a T H L P H �� E._ � r �: �t: ,