Loading...
8. Staff Response to Chaska's proposal for right of Way of Hwy 41 itt 1 4: CITYOF -- CHANHASSEN 1 i 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action b C' Y ttY Administrator I Endorser � �` u. 4 MEMORANDUM Moditie Rejecters I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date_ ate Submitted to Commtss ar FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Dote soblm to Covacj� I DATE: February 23, 1993 2 { I SUBJ: Staff Response to Inquiries Regarding Chaska's Proposal to Obtain Right -of -way for a Potential Realignment of Highway 41 I At your February 8, 1993, meeting, you heard a visitor presentation from William Meyer. Mr. Meyer owns a lot in the Hesse Farm subdivision in the southern part of the city. He alerted the City Council that Chaska was proposing to "officially map" a realigned right -of -way for State 1 Highway 41 adjacent to the Chanhassen border. Furthermore, the city was proposing to draw on a source of state funding to acquire a portion of the right -of -way to prevent it from being developed. Staff indicated that we had only been made aware of Chaska's action a few days 1 earlier. We were not notified by Chaska but rather alerted by a resident who saw the official notice in the Chaska paper. Staff was directed to research the matter and report back at an upcoming meeting. I BACKGROUND 1 After this issue was raised, staff had an opportunity to be briefed on the proposal by Chaska, MnDOT and Carver County staff. We have compiled the following information. 1 The idea of relocating Highway 41 has appeared to have been discussed over the past few decades. However, it should be stressed that there never has been a formal planning program, I environmental review or public hearing process that is normally associated with a major highway project. This seems to stem from the fact that although the relocation has been discussed, actual construction appears to be so far into the future that a serious design review effort has never been 1 conducted. Highway Purpose 1 Chaska has been concerned with the number of over the road trucks on Highway 41, which runs through their downtown. Highway 41 serves as one of the primary links between Highway 169, 1 southwestern Minnesota and the Twin Cities. They are seeking long term relief by creating a t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 Don Ashworth February 23, 1993 1 Page 2 new route and river crossing. As currently conceived, new Highway 41 would connect with new I Highway 212 and Highway 169 in Shakopee with an intersection with the new Shakopee by -pass. A major bridge crossing is anticipated by connecting the two bluffs over a large span. The only thing close to this design in the area is the Mendota Bridge. Furthermore, it was noted that there I may be a long term need for a new river crossing to accommodate the continued expansion of urbanization. The MnDOT Engineer used the analogy of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge, indicating that 20 years ago it was hard to see the need for that span. I Past Planning 1 While the possibility of realigning Highway 41 appears to have been discussed for many years, available documentation is more recent in nature. 1 • The highway route is in the Chaska Comprehensive Plan. • Consideration of the highway does not appear to have occurred in 1975, when the Hesse I Farm subdivision was approved by the city. This strikes staff as unusual since the original alignment ran through the western edge of the plat. However, an omission could I have occurred. • The existence of the alignment was clearly understood and considered in the planning for I new Hwy. 212. Its official map includes provisions for a highway to highway interchange between 212 and 41. A copy of the EIS technical report showing the highway on page 26 is attached. The city also appears to have had some knowledge of the TB 41/212 1 configuration at the time the Bluff Creek upgrading project was approved in 1992. • The issue of a new river crossing was discussed by the Metropolitan Council's I Transportation Advisory Board in a September, 1989, report entitled, "Major River Crossings Study" (attached). The report outlined the top 10 crossing needs in the metro area. The new Highway 41 crossing was rated 7 out of 10. It called for a study to occur I within 5 years to work with interested parties to identify a preferred design and project right -of -way. Need for the crossing was not anticipated to occur prior to 2010. No further studies have ever been taken. We are not aware if any staff was involved in the 1 study process. • The Eastern Carver County Transportation study also contains a reference to the highway. 1 The city participated in this planning effort with Carver County and other area communities in 1990. It was reviewed by the City Council at that time. I participated in that study. As I recall, I raised some concerns with the need for new Hwy. 41. I However, Chaska and Carver County felt strongly regarding retaining the corridor. Since it seemed very hypothetical to staff at the time, we did not push the issue. 1 1 Don Ashworth 1 February 23, 1993 1 Page 3 CHASKA'S CURRENT CONSIDERATIONS Chaska staff has indicated they regret not notifying Chanhassen or local residents. It was an oversight. Furthermore, they note that they had MnDOT redesign the right -of -way so that it is located entirely within Chaska. The original proposal would have split the right -of -way between the two cities. At this point in time, the only direct impact in Chanhassen not anticipated in the Hwy. 212 official mapping is to accommodate the ramp from northbound Hwy. 41 to eastbound Hwy. 212 which crosses Lot 10 in Hesse Farm. MnDOT staff indicated that plans could be further modified to reduce or eliminate this impact. Chaska staff believes that they were being sensitive to what they anticipated to be Chanhassen's 1 concerns. They note that MnDOT shifted the right -of -way west, out of Chanhassen, at their request. Further that the land they are proposing to acquire is currently proposed for a standard single family subdivision which Hesse Farm residents may find objectionable. These homes would normally be platted up to their property lines. Under Chaska's proposal, this land would sit as vacant green space for a long period of time and possibly forever if the highway is never built. Lastly, they note that if they don't protect the alignment and the highway as needed in the future, then MnDOT would likely take the path of least resistance. They believe that since the development density in Hesse Farm is lower than development in Chaska, MnDOT would route the road through Hesse Farm to save acquisition funds. SUMMARY AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION The potential of relocating Hwy. 41 has clearly been under consideration by other agencies and Chaska for many years. In spite of this, I would argue that the re- routing has never been exposed to the bright light of serious public input or environmental review. Nor has it been included in MnDOT's 20 year plan and there is no groundswell of public support such as that which was required to get Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 212 to be scheduled after years of hard effort. 1 I have serious reservations as to whether this highway will ever be justified. The Bloomington Ferry and Shakopee Bridges are currently being rebuilt and improved, which resolves near term 1 capacity issues. Both the extension of Hwy. 212 west of Chaska and the Shakopee by -pass will serve to induce traffic to take routes around rather than through Chaska. When Chaska's concerns are taken out of the equation, we have a road alignment that is based upon the continued and extensive spread of urbanization to the west. While I do not doubt that this will occur, I believe there is ample data to indicate the rate of growth will slow. Furthermore, as urbanization in the south and west sectors of the metro moves further out from the central business districts and I -494 strip, other portions of the metro area become more 111 attractive to development. In summary, I believe that a persuasive case has not been made for its need. 1 1 1 1 Don Ashworth February 23, 1993 1 Page 4 Secondly, if there is ultimately a need, is this the right place for a crossing? The answer remains 1 unclear. We do know that the proposed alignment will cause extensive damage to the Minnesota River Bluff line, Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and an extremely rare and sensitive wetland complex found around Assumption Creek. The idea of a bluff to bluff bridge is also 1 phenomenally expensive. Based upon this information, staff believes that the highway alignment proposal is premature and I probably ill conceived. At the same time, we are unsure as to what action we can recommend at this time. There is no study underway for us to participate in and raise concerns. No I construction is being proposed at any time in the foreseeable future. Chaska is requesting funding through the Metropolitan Council. There is no mechanism for I Chanhassen to intervene in this funding decision. Furthermore, the Chaska request is only for a small portion of the ultimate right -of -way. While I understand the concerns this action is raising, it is far from completing the process. Staff has two recommendations for the City I Council to consider. Based upon the foregoing, we are recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution in opposition to the potential realignment of Hwy. 41. This would put other agencies and the public on notice from this day on that it is not supported by the city and serve 1 to guide future actions should the need arise. The second recommendation is somewhat more basic. We are recommending that you request I MnDOT redraft their maps to take the proposed access ramp out of the area not contained in the Hwy. 212 official map. Thus, if this issue does resurface in the future, at least there will be some common understanding of the route. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • M A J 0 R R I V E R CROSSINGS STUDY ; R E P O R T 1 9 8 9 • e p t e m b e r 1 9 8 9 1 • • • iY[ } . r • f r .'.f fr 1 Transportation Advisory Board 1 F II , / ///1: ' IF I II _ ___ .f_.. ar .i _= ._._e.7 _n _re area _.no..1.2 _' :e :e :' II res'1_ts of that analysis, it may be appropriate to reserve right-of-4ay to allow implementation at a future date. I -e reconstruction of :'H 169 is consistent with the Council's highest prior'ty of maintaining the regional highway system. Estimated cost is $6 million. ?6, STILLWAT=R ' The Environmental Impact Study (EIS) that is now in process should be completed. Cnce the preferred alternative is selected, if it is a build 11 alternative, Xn /DCT, Wi s /DCT and county and city governments should ...,roc `_ca ether to protect the right -of -way and develop a funding scheme, t`e total costs are significant, ranging from $46.4 to $53.2 million. (Si..nesota's I s would be half tis amount.) Minnesota's approach roadways wold cost -.15.4 million, depending upon the corridor selected. 7H . 1, HASTINGS 1 N..'=A studies should te initiated to provide added capacity at this river - cross after the year 2000. Cost estimates have not been prepared for this - ;W , BURNSVILL_ 1 .re =_S, which is in process, should be completed and the selected alternative .___e-ented. This pro;;ect shou follow the completion of the initial phase of _ --.. 15 - 1 construction. Increasing the capacity of this bridge by add= .. :ghigh II ^ ^Ancy vehicle (HOV) lanes is on the Council's priority list of highway ` ? improvement projects. The estimated cost ranges from $8 to $20 II TH 4 1 , CHASKA the immediate need for this bridge is lessened due to the improvements under way and recommended for this stretch of river. Due to the impacts in downtown Chaska and the construction of TH 169 Shakopee bypass, at some time a new bridge located between TH 41 and TH 169 connecting new TH 212 and the TH 169 11 Shakopee Bypass is recommended. Working in cooperation, Mn /DOT, the :`.etropolitan Council, counties and cities should undertake within five years the needed studies to identify the preferred design and location and then II proceed to protect the right -of -way so that new development does not preclude construction in the future. At that time a decision should be made to determine if the bridge should be either a two -lane expressway or a four -lane freeway. The need for this improvement is not anticipated prior to 2010. Cost II estimates have not been prepared for this bridge. TH 55, MENDOTA 1 II This bridge should be rehabilitated in accordance with the Mn /DOT Highway :mcrovement Program, which calls for work to begin in 1991. The reconstruction of this bridge is consistent with the Council's highest priority of maintaining II the regional highway system. The estimated cost is $12 millicn. 7 1 1 TH 212 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 1 TECHNICAL REPORT _ 1 1 TRANSPORTATION CHARACTERISTICS 1 1 AUGUST 1989 • I Conclusions The CSAE 10 and old TH 212 interchanges meet the requirements of the Xetropolitan Council interchange qualifying criteria. The Old TH 212 ' interchange is not needed for capacity reasons but is warranted to maintain the integrity and safety of the mainline and the connecting roadway. VI. New TH 41 River Crossing At some point in the future a New TH 41 River Bridge may be constructed, east of the present TH 41 Bridge. This is an issue separate from the study of the need for, or the impacts of, New TH 212. However, there is a need to address New TH 41 such that nothing planned or constructed for TH 212 would preclude the future addition of New TH 41. If New TH 41 were built it would have an interchange with Old TH 212 and would continue north and terminate with a directional interchange (no local access) with New TH 212. Traffic forecasts were prepared for the year 2010 for this scenario of adding a New TH 41 River Bridge to the Build Alternatives of TH 212. For illustration purposes, the discussion focuses on addition of the New TH 41 River Bridge to Alternative 2. The general conclusions reached from these forecasts would hold for the other Build Alternatives also. Appendix B contains a description of the process utilized to prepare traffic forecasts for this addition to the Preferred Alternative. As noted in the Appendix, for this scenario, the assumptions utilized in the regional assignment process may overstate traffic volumes on TH 212 due to a lack of consideration of the impacts of congestion on route selection. With that caveat noted, Figure 9 is presented showing the year 2010 traffic assignment for Alternative 2 with the New TH 41 Bridge in place. Only volumes which change by 10 percent or more from the Alternative 2 are shown. Construction of the New TH 41 Bridge will change traffic patterns in two manners. First, the bridge will provide relief to the two immediately adjacent river bridges, Old I TH 41 and TH 101 /TH 169. This will decrease volumes on Old TH 41 and Old TH 212 through Chaska. By decreasing volumes on TH 169 /TH 101, some measure of relief will be provided to the traffic signals at Old TH 212 /TH 169 /TH 101. The second manner in which traffic will shift is a regional pattern. Approximately 10,500 trips with an origin or destination south of the Minnesota River will be diverted to the New TH 41 bridge rather than the CSAH 18 River Bridge. Through the TH 212 Study Area, these trips are oriented to the I -494 Regional inter- change. Although about 10,500 of these daily trips have been identi- fied, the volumes on TH 212 will increase by only about 7,000. This is due to congestion related effects which will divert some trips from TH 212 to other roadways. Figure 9 reflects this by illustrating increased volumes on TH 5 and Pioneer Trail. 1 -25- .• ' . 1 . . 1 .., : \i',.- '•:-;;:"..\----.-s-s.....,,T,..„...7„...---- - ---: ., ... -.: - ...;\ •.? - : „. -.:,. / -- . : , , • i ...r . ..."*.ir-*; ' ' -- • 1 ;_ 1. / 494 . - (35800 . / f." . ...'. 4-4 -1 • —. - . -.-• '..-- -1 ' .--- '', ' '..\\ :.,. '' A i . . " • • .1 , . ,- 7 ... i .----- — --; ,. -: "'/- ‘ ..1 • • .•, . , :: .. . . j„,_, / ,, Is ' .L.:!....,.._ ; .f,.. . .. .."':,.. ,..\.. ' . _... .1 ' z ' .."--.' , - - s - : -:- ..1 l. T . •:, / ' r- - ..,-, • i 1 , ,,-.3.- 'S.„ ---:•/ ,--- , • ,... _.,,::".' ..- _ ( 87900-D) _ ... .. .• -, .).-.;: -....... - I .-. . ./. 1 . . * , . c) . , . ) * 4 . ' 4' .. clo - ... 1 f_ ,. • , .... :.... ,..,,....._.:,.. . , ,.....„..,•,, 44'.14%.1°- • I ...,, 2 „.„... .:.: .. .„, ... _ , , 1 , i , . , .:„.„.. • _ ,.. _, .. . _ ,...__ .., ._... _ 1 ' . .. . • . , , . e. . \ ' , ..-• . ,. . : 0:1 .-... ..-...„ ..... . g • C4 ...... i I , z, ,i, 4 ../ ...: i .. " . ., 169! I 1. - i. I. < 1 ..,... , 4 4 i: 1 P ---.%***••••••••______,_ r c\.. \\...................... ..._ ... I I Is . li. 1 ..., ,... 1 .... „ .;., ,.., 12 I ti • ----- ------------- .---- ---------- -- la I a la V:i71--1 _.:.',' 2---- OF . . t • NEW r}-i 41 BRIDGE r • I 111 El N _ 0,:-. 2010 TRAFFIC VOLUMES . 1 _ a N AND I 1 t 11' 1 4 N A --. LEVEL OF SERVICE , f : ..--- • I I ' FIGURE 9 ... III 1%. . • I _.. i . .i if. 1.4 ... , :, .41, ,....„:„.".„,...,,, ,.... ir-__4•44:0c.N...- • .. etri • -;:', ... .. ' '. �... w ..0 _ r r _'L.l%�X::3 -. .Y +_ . t i . '44Z&? .a I I As discussed in Appendix B, regionally some of these trips may not shift to New TH 41 /New TH 212 due to this increased congestion just described. As such, the volumes on Figure 9 likely represent the high end estimate or "worst" case forecast for traffic volumes and service levels in the TH 212 Study Area with the New TH 41 Bridge in place. VII. Safety A. Accident Analysis The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) collects and publishes data on accident rates by different categories of roadway. This data was used to project accident rates along New TH 212 for the Build Alternatives. Between Cologne and Chaska Township in -place TH 212 will be upgraded from a rural two lane section to a four lane divided section. The Mn /DOT category which best fits this upgraded roadway is "Rural Expressway ". Between 1985 and 1987 (the most recently published data) the three year statewide accident rate for this type of facility was 1.1 accidents per million vehicle miles (AVM). This value will be used as the projected accident rate for , , Alternatives between Cologne and Chaska Township. From Chaska Township to I -494, New TH 212 will be constructed as a It freeway section under all Build Alternatives. The statewide accident rate for "All Freeways" between 1985 and 1987 was 1.3 accidents per MVM. This rate will be used as the projected accident rate on the freeway segment of New TH 212: For the No -Build Alternative the existing accident rates along TH 5, TH 212, and TH 169 may be used as an indication of future accident rates. Presently the accident rate along TH 5 between TH 41 and I -494 is 3.60 ACC /MVM, along TH 212 between Cologne and TH 169 the rate is 1.96 ACC /MVM, and along TH 212 between TH 169 and TH 494 the rate is 2.75 ACC /MVM. With no additional safety or capacity improvements these rates would be expected to trend higher in the year 2010 with the No -Build Alternative due to increased congestion and its effect on traffic operations. With safety or capacity improvements such as the widening of TH 5 this upward trend to accident rates may be lessened or reversed. For the purposes of this analysis, future accident rates along TH 212 and TH 5 under the No -Build Alternative will be set equal to existing accident rates for those facilities. The No -Build Alternative accident rates range from approximately two to three times the accident rates of the Build Alternatives. B. Violations of Federal Aid Highway Standards The proposed alignments and configurations for all of the TH 212 Build Alternatives will contain no violations of the Federal Aid Highway Standards. Existing violations along in -place TH 212, documented previously would remain under the No -Build Alternative. There are 32 violations along existing TH 212 between Cologne and I -494. -27- 1 William H. Meyer and Jennifer L. Hafkey Y ' Hesse Farm West, Lot # 11 Chanhassen, MN February 2, 1992 / 1 r-°° r City of Chanhassen U Hon. Mayor Don Chmiel and Council Persons c/o Don Ashworth, City Manager 690 Coulter Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Your Honors. ' We attended the City of Chaska, City Council Meeting held at 9:30 PM on Monday, February 1, 1992. We learned, to our surprise, that the City of Chaska Planning Department was recommending that the ' Council "officially' map" a new County Highway 41 ( "New 41 "). New 41 would proceed south from a new, unmapped intersection with Highway 212 and lead to a new river crossing. ' The New 41 corridor would be located within the City of Chaska until it encounters Chanhassen land at the Minnesota River "bottoms" area. Part of the interchange with 212 would be in Chanhassen. The road is planned as a four lane, free -way style affair. My concerns are these: 1 Lots 7, 9 and 11 of Hesse Farm West m Chanhassen would be TAKEN by the new, previously unmapped interchange ramp (north New 41 to east 212) under the Chaska plan. A home exists on Lot 9. 2. The highest and best use of other lots at Hesse Farm West (south of lot 11) might be changed ' because the corridor right -of -way would be placed directly against the City of Chanhassen boarder and, thus, said Lot's property lines. 3. A wet land would be taken which feeds the pond on "Out Lot A" ceded by Harold Hesse to the City of Chanhassen. 4. Certain rare and protected wet lands in the Minnesota River bottoms may become threatened. ' 5. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has complied with Chaska's request by mapping the proposed lane "center lines" for New 41. MNDOT says that Chanhassen has not participated in the mapping process. Furthermore, the proposal was not originated by MNDOT's. 6. Chaska implies there is a tie -in between the mapping of New 41 and the approved mapping of 212. I am not sure why they choose such language. The Chaska staff responding to public comments finally did admit that neither the New 41 corridor nor the proposed ramps are a part of the 212 mapping. MNDOT has confirmed the new design is not part of the 212 mapping. 7. Chaska's Planning Department admitted at their Council meeting that their mapping process had not involved the advice or consent of the City of Chanhassen. 8 Chaska will (assuming Council approval) immediately ask the Metro - Council for public funds to acquire property. Is it a good public policy to tie up public moneys in a right -of -way acquisition for a road not in MNDOT's year 2010 comprehensive plan? 9. No notice was given to the souls residing or owning property at Hesse Farm West. Discovery of the plan happened by a chance reading of the Chaska newspaper. 1 1 10. I will soon be applying to the City of Chanhassen for a building permit on Lot # 11. My ability to build or sell is now impaired without benefit of Due Process. ' 11. The forgoing implies certain feelings on the part of Chaska regarding the sovereignty of Chanhassen. 12. Time is short. The Chaska Council agreed with the public comments to postpone its decision. .only until its meeting on Monday, February 22, 1993. I request that you, the City Council Members of Chanhassen, take the following actions: 1. Direct the City Staff to contact MNDOT. The Staff would request a re -draft of the New 41 interchange. The new design should indicate no taking of land in the City of Chanhassen and place the New 41 corridor and all ramps entirely within the City of Chaska. MNDOT has indicated that such a design is feasible...but must be requested by Chanhassen. 2. Direct the Staff to hold conversations with Chaska to coordinate its legitimate interests with those of Chaska. 1 3. Require that an Environment Impact Statement be completed regarding: a. the impact of taking the wet land in Chaska that feeds the pond on Out Lot A of Hesse Farm West. The wet land drains eastward through a ravine on Lot 11 and into said pond. ' b. the impact of road chemicals, salt, lead and the like on the pond on Out Lot A. c the impact of the corridor on the wet lands and Fens at the Minnesota River bottoms 4 Require that Due Process be followed in the above matters. Chanhassen property owners must be kept informed of their rights and given notice of official proceedings always. 5 The Council ought resolve to actively oppose all funding requests made to the Metro- Council by the City of Chaska, until: a. Chanhassen has completed its legitimate planning process and reviews. b. Chanhassen has assured itself that the rights of its' citizens have been honored in the process. 1 Thank you. Sincerely, 1 William H. Meyer 73 Rockwell 3660 Independence Ave So St. Louis Park, MN 55426 935 -7480 (h), 371 -4136 (w) cc: City of Chanhassen Planning Department, Paul Krauss ' Metropolitan Council, Ann Braedon Minnesota Department of Transportation, Evan Green Harold and Pat Hesse Hesse Farm West Homeowner's Association, President ...,.. -■•-■-•■•••-- f. .., 7/ :i XX <<, -- r J tu 'iQC I•1 a .4. P %v� 4 / _ l+ ` a -- a 161 a \ \ \ 4 , #\ � ■ at . a ` /.'O `\ � �� 000xn -� ; , \`— /I 000x7 r \ h i d • z _ =_= it = sue= =a= - -,„. _ = _== __ ° j'\ _ I , S *NZ Walks -- = " a — __ — = t .z" = = =_ =s = ; r / \N ` N3SSVHNtlHJ !0 A11J ' � - =�- / / ` tlMStlHJ ./O Al l3 r. �J �F3 _ - -"- ' =- `tea _ -- - --T- .r- s" \ \ `% $ ro r \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ` ` 4 /r r \ tl . „ .. „, .? , . l �. /' 1 \ \ / / \ 3 rj � b � , 3y / . iv \\,,, \ \• -A-6 1 'Y�1 / ,„\!-4-.7// / \ \` / I t4 it ' P / \ �� 1\ M j �Hj j'; A A 1 I 1� 4 k I o d al - 1 11 1 \\ 1 \ II 1 1 , I 1 • / j ' +I I �/ ui 1 1 J % \\ \\\‘ \ III / 1 /- ; / I' 1111 I;, 1/ I � \ II 1 � 1 I �' 1 • • all ME NM M- MN 011 11111 MIN aill MI MN Mt Eli Ell IMO INN Mill • - , ' . ' - EVAR� - --- l00� �' DTI/'• - - -- - � .y - - -- 'If AIM I �O t 1200-- ' .. I 14 -.. Al 3.00_____ , 1 . . . Ilk*/ " f I - _ i 1 ,._ 1 1 • k, w7 - 11-e- INIVAIKEtt,,,,;,,,AvOligi_ iL iii to .,__, 4 _ T - itt*,, ....______ u , .. ,, . 1., � %% bib. 1,--w 1p, 4. � . 0300 1) Ailiti, ..6 i 1 .�-- - libi‘ I MOO 7' 4 1 i / iit 0 0.Pr: 2 4.0 . ' v* -Do__ A„,, 440 4 . • I MOO ! / °- r oo. / - - -- , rozi I/ moo / , a .,., iiii I . ,...„ .z.0 / / � 4 � I1300 4. I , n /J - , - sCOTT X 1 ■ City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 MAPPING OF NEW HIGHWAY 41, BILL MEYER. HESSE FARM_ Bill Meyer: Thank you Mr. Mayor and City Council persons. My name is II Bill Meyer. I've owned a lot on Hesse Farm West, just on the west side of Bluff Creek, Lot 11 for, since the summer of 1985. We were surprised, I got a surprise call about 8 -10 days ago from Harold Hesse, who had on a chance reading 1 the Chaska newspaper, discovered that a week ago tonight Chaska was going to be officially mapping a new Highway 41 corridor which would proceed south from the currently mapped 212 and the right -of -way would be located directly against the I Chanhassen city border. Located in Chaska but against the Chanhassen city border. I was surprised because we had received no notice and knew nothing of this. It turns out in addition to the corridor being directly against the Chanhassen city property line, there will be a diagonal ramp connecting 212 with II the proposed 41. That ramp alarms us in that it involves a taking of property on the Hesse Farm West area, specifically Lots 7, 9, 10, and 11. I own 11. A number of issues in addition to the taking of land without notice or process are II alarming to us. I'm concerned whether the land south of us, which is also, contains housing. Single family housing. If single family housing will in fact be the highest and best use of that land in the future with a freeway style road II proposed by Chaska, abutting those properties. There's a pond on the Hesse Farm West which is fed by a wetland that would be consumed by this road. In addition to that, the road would presumably lead to a very expensive river crossing and at the south, the river encounter Chanhassen ground once more. There are some I pristine wetlands in that vicinity and some fens, I guess it has some environmental import. Of real concern to us is the fact that Chanhassen knew nothing about this. Perhaps that's why we didn't get any notice. It came out II at the Council meeting that in Chaska that there had not been coordination with the staff here in this city. And in essence they had asked MnDot to simply draw some lines in a corridor for them and MnDot had complied with that. This TH 41 is not in MnDot's 2010 plan, according to MnDot. It's not in the City of I Chanhassen 2005 plan, which some years ago Barb sent to me. And I think anybody buying a parcel of land over there would not have had an expectation that this sort of mapping would go on, or the potential that land would be taken from I them. A number of elements involved but I think you've got a long agenda and what I would recommend simply is that the City direct it's planning staff to coordinate with Chaska and make sure that the City knows what's going on there. 11 I would recommend that some sort of environmental impact statement be conducted before any official mapping be done. As I said, there are wetlands both in the river bottoms area that may be effected. There are also wetlands and a ravine drainage ponding system located in this city that would be effected. And I II think beyond that there's a basic question of whether this is an appropriate corridor for a farm to market traffic pattern that currently is of trouble in downtown Chaska, which Chaska is apparently seeking share. To share with the 1 city of Chanhassen and I'm not sure if those traffic studies or the general thought is to the need for a road in this location, or another location, is in fact recent thought. Needless to say, these questions come up because there has II not been a public process. There has not been notice or has not been comments. A lot of the work is apparently old work and work that was not mapped and somebody looking to buy a parcel of property over there would not have known about or had any cause to be suspicious about. So in essence we would like to I see the two cities coordinate their efforts with each other. We'd like to see the ability for some sort of public comments. Some sort of discussion about the appropriateness of the road and the location of the road. We'd like to see an 11 5 II I City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 environmental impact statement be conducted with regard to the effected ground. And until such time as those sorts of steps have been completed, Chaska parathetically is apparently going to seek RALF money from the Metro Council ' almost immediately on completing their mapping and we would encourage the city to not cooperate. To suggest that delay be the current mode until such time as the process has been allowed to take effect and work it's way through the ' system, which to this point has not been done, at least with respect to the residents of Chanhassen. So I thank you for your time and any questions? Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions? I did do a little checking on this and did find out that, that road has been in the picture for something like 25 years right now. Conceiveably with the 212 corridor and with this all really happening, it might take an awful long time before you may see another 20 years. But with that staff is in position to discuss with the City of Chaska, even though they didn't bring us into the discussions when they proposed this. It was all news to us until you brought it forward here. And we've had some discussions with that. Discussions will continue and I'm not sure whether the EIS or an EAW would be required with that proposal. But I'm sure that MnDot and the City of Chaska would go through that particular process as to what would be required to do in that corridor. So with that, I guess if there are no other ' questions, we do thank you for coming in and we will keep coordination with them. And if you'd like to, at some time get back to Paul Krauss, who is our planner. Paul could probably keep you updated. Bill Meyer: That'd be great and to the degree that notice can be provided to the homeowners there, that would also be appreciated. Thank you. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if I could add. The City Engineer and I met with the planners down in Chaska and MnOot and also with the Carver County Engineer this afternoon. We got a lot of background material on this. They apologized for their oversight in not notifying us or the neighbors. As you indicated Mr. Mayor, this is apparently something that's been lurking in the background for 20 or 25 years, and it probably will stay there for another 20 or 25 years, but it ' does raise some legitimate concerns. What we had anticipated doing is having representatives of the County, the City, and MnDot come before you at your, well it's either going to be 2 weeks or 4 weeks from tonight and at that point we can give you a lot more feedback. We're not at all sure what sort of ability we ' have to interact in the process right now. This is only a section of the right -of -way. They're using regional dollars through the Metro Council has set it aside so a developer doesn't build houses all over it. We may not have any latitude on that process now but we certainly will if anything progresses and there's any environmental studies to be done. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to have a Visitor Presentation? It always sort of pleases me to see that we finally have some faces in those chairs that we normally have. I know we have the moratorium of course discussion coming up, which is the next item. But it's a definite pleasure to see as many people here. Thank you for coming and showing your concern. 1 6 1 I LAW OFFICES LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD I PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION SIDNEY BARROWS BRADLEY GILLAN GREGG CAVANAGH LOREN A UNTERSEHER HAROLD D FIELD JR MICHAEL A NEKICH SUSAN M ROBINER ROBERT H TORGERSON RICHARD GUNN MARTHA C BRAND SUITE 23 0 0 MICHAEL R COHEN JOSHUA KANASSATEGA ALLEN I SAEK5 DAVID N. HAYNES BRADLEY J. GUNN )ANN M EICHLER SMITH I THOMAS D FEIN BERG Q SOUTH FIFTH STREET NANCY A WILTGEN CAROLYN CHALMERS I �j RUTH 9 0 NEILL MORRIS M $HERMAN JAMES V ROTH VIRGINIA B. CONE ANDREW 9 LEE I. DANIEL COLTON GEORGE REILLY RICHARD H. MARTIN MINNEAPOLIS, M 1 N N ESOTA 55402 MICHELLE A MILLER CHARLES N DAYTON ROBERT L DEM AY TIMOTHY R. MEYERSON NICOLE A ENGISCH DAVID 5 COX ANGELA M BOHMANN BLASE SHEPARD. JR_ DAVID D. ETZWILER STEPHEN R PFLAUM ROBERT P TRAVIS TELEPHONE (612) 335 - 1500 WILLIAM L. GREENE TAMMIE S PTACEK CHARLES A MAYS JAMES G BULLARD STEVEN L. BELTON JANE F GODFREY I LOWELL J NOTEBOOM JOSEPH M FINLEY FACSIMILE (612) 335 PETER M EACH MAN ERIC 5 GALATZ GEORGE 9 MCGUNNIGLE, JR. LAWRENCE J FIELD JOHN $ BRENNAN DWIGHT A CARSON RICHARD G PE PIN. JR DAVID W KELLEY CARRIE L HEMPEL ROSANNE JACUZZI F RED RIC T ROSENBLATT MARKS WEITZ MARC O. SIM PSON - BYRON E. STARNS DAVID L LILLEHAUG SHAUN C. MCELHATTON STEVEN 5 RUBIN ROBERT J HUBER JAMES J. BERTRAND GEORGE EL LEONARD ,872 19561 I JOHN H HERMAN DAVID KANTOR March 2 1993 MARK W DELEHANTY ARTHUR L. 5 STREET Ile, 156.1 STEVEN D. DERUYTER ANGELA M. CH RISTY PETER E SCHIFSKY BENEDICT DEINARD 11899 19691 JAMES R DORSET MARK A. LINDGREN LAWRENCE P SCHAEFER AMOS 5 DEINARD 11899 X9A51 KATHLEEN M. GRAHAM HENRY J SHEA III CAROLYN V WOL$NI STEPHEN J DAVIDSON LOWELL V $TORTZ STEVEN R. LINDEMANN STEPHEN R. LITMAN DOUGLAS 9 GREENSWAG WILLIAM H. KOCH SIDNEY LORBER EDWARD M MOERSFELDER ELLEN G SAMPSON RONALD J. SCHULTZ IRENE SCOTT I ROBERT LEWIS BARROWS ROSANNE NATHANSON STEVEN J RINDSIG DANIEL D FOTH RICHARD J WEGENER MICHAEL G TAYLOR )AMA M KRIZ DANIEL 5 SATORIUS DANIEL J MCIN ERNEY JR JOHN W GETSINGER WENDY C. SKJE RVEN Of CO UNSC• HUGH M MAYNARD THOMAS P SANDERS FREDERICK W MORRI5 ROBERT ZEGLOVITCH JOHN C KUEHN TIMOTHY WELCH WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER 1 (612) 335 -1631 1 Hon. Don Chmiel, Mayor Mr. Mike Mason, City Councilperson Mr. Richard Wing, City Councilperson I Ms. Colleen Dockendorf, City Councilperson Mr. Mark Senn, City Councilperson City of Chanhassen 1 6909 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Hesse Objection to City of Chaska Proposed I Ordinance 521 for Amendment to Proposed TH212 Official Map I Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: We represent Harold and Patricia Hesse (the "Hesses ") , who are the developers of the Hesse Farm Second Addition, in the City of I Chanhassen. The addition is located on the border with the City of Chaska just south of the proposed Highway 212 right -of -way. I I am enclosing for your information a copy of the City of Chaska proposed Ordinance 521 and a copy of a letter that I sent on behalf of the Hesses to the City of Chaska objecting to proposed I Ordinance 521 and indicating that we intend to oppose any efforts by the City of Chaska to obtain RALF funds for the acquisition of right -of -way for the future "Highway 41/169" corridor designated by the City of Chaska. ■ As you will see from reading the enclosed letter to the City of Chaska, we feel that the amendment to the Official Map proposed I by the City of Chaska, and the intent to obtain RALF funds for acquisition are very premature and are detrimental to the property interests of the Hesses and of those who have purchased lots in the I Hesse subdivision. 1 1 Mayor and City Council City of Chanhassen March 2, 1993 Page 2 1 On behalf of the Hesses, we request your support in objecting to the premature designation of future Highway 41/169 on the Minnesota Department of Transportation SP 1017 (TH212) Official Map and our opposition to the Metropolitan Council providing RALF funds for the acquisition of any area that may be added to the Official Map by the City of Chaska. 1 Proposed Ordinance 521 of the City of Chaska was scheduled for consideration at the City Council meeting on February 22, 1993. We understand that the consideration of that ordinance has been put over until March 15, 1993. We feel your opposition to the City of Chaska's proposed action is appropriate because it is detrimental to the interests of the citizens and property owners of your City. Thank you for any assistance you can give us. If you have any questions or desire to meet with us, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD 1 By .,,,t / , . °` 7 James R. Dorsey JRD /dj Enclosures 1 1 1 1 1 JRD \Hesse \Chanhass.Ltr 1 CITY OF CHASKA :..:.:. • CTION 1 . F EBRUARY 1, 1993 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 ' SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSED T.H. 212 OFFICIAL MAP ' Prepaied by: Kermit Crouch 11 The c : al map needs to be revised in vicinity of proposed HL :dertmar?: Heights Sixth Addition in order to meet lot size requirements. I :'::;OT has ' agreed to such revisions. In order t_ be eligible for RALF funds, the map needs to be expanued to include the complete interchange with proposed Hwy. 212 and the future Hwy. 41/169. The owner of the property, Builders Development_, Inc., desires to either develop the property or be compensat•: ;d for not developing. (See attached graphic exhibits.) C'_"'Y COUNCIL 2 .2TION RE.UES':ED Kot_or aocp__no Ordinance No. 521 amending the 0" a1 Map c_ proposed T.H. ' 2 i^ lo ty c'_ !:undertmark Heights Sixth Addition and at the future interchange c' H.iQnways 212 and 41/169 a",.. the 2 asxa /Chanhassen border. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ORDINANCE NO. 521 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL MAP 1 FOR RELOCATED TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 212 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHASKA DO ORDAIN: Section 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to amend the official map for relocated Trunk Highway No. 212 as same runs generally in a northeasterly and southwesterly direction through the City of Chaska. Section 2. Amendment of Official Map for Relocated Trunk Hi chwav No. 212. That the mats attached hereto as Exhibit A ar;c' made a part hereof are hereby designated as amendments to the Official Nap of Relocate° Trunk Hichway No. 212 as same as to be located 2: the City of Chaska, Carver County, Minnesota. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of passage, adoption and publi ca ion accord_ -c to law. ?ar and c d by the r • ^ f Ch sk .. � _e ...1e rt' }' Counc__ G the - .. :._ ... G hG, ?_..rescta this _st day of J February 1p93. February, 1 _...___ T. .. : :Ke, ay c: 1 Attest: Jacquelyn A. Iten, Deputy Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXHIBIT A 1 I'. .1 MN:.I L ■ . ■ . 9/ — et 17 4 •t:=c' . 1 . /. •• 1 . / ..: es \ , S . w . ' (1 • tri ( amot t j : . 11 . „...0.", / . .1 I V so% .. d . ,.,,,..• ,., i L...:....--- I ,?// .„-----f---. .., 5 ' tliet WNW. i No 40 4 \ % 1 ■ . I . /71 0 • _�� es � Hesse Farm a fs —:://, ■ 1 _.---- 4.1 ,.., t \ I ("5/1 ... v ~ PROPOSED Hwy 41!169 ,► , • w+w' Right of Way 1 \ • I o r' o 1 �' 4. \ • ‘ I 12 N i / _.. ,... AREA J 1 t.v y;(ZO N / .... v s r :. io //7 C ' 4 / S -CO - f 0 _ ,- 8 ®tie/ OvT� Ol I \ .4 j - ® / . ..) • Nundertrnsxk :SJXlhAddition Way 1 Fr _ / ••-....." .: V o � Right - A Ri of / .. . ' , t — / o \ .�\ 141 way 212 • P o ',. r � — , - -----"*.. e. t \ , is., ",° I . ) , I i 013'+ , S .', � s , oo N. w d J 1 N\‘ '.....s::: 1...\ e S `y L i i °` AREA 2 LAW OFFICES 1 LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION GREGG I SIDNEY BARROWS BRADLEY J GILLAN .1 CAVAMAGw LORCNA UNTCRS[H[R HAROLD D , 101.0 JR MICHAEL • N[KICS SUSAN 5 ROSINER ROBERT w TORGERSON RICHARD GVNN MARTHA( BRAND SUITE 23OO MIENAC1.R COH[N J055V ♦J KAN•SSATLGA •LLEN ■ SAEKS DAVID N HAYNES BRADLEY J G55N ./ANN 5 EI[N LCR 55Th THOMAS C PEINSERG CAROLYN CHALMERS 15 0 SOUTH FIFTH STREET NANCY • WILTGEN RUTH 5 0 MC1LL MORRIS M SHERM•N JAMES V ROTH VIRGINIAS CONE ANDREW • 1(1 GEORGE REILLY RICHARD H MARTIN MICHELLE A MILLER 1 DANIEL COLTON I N Rost RTL OtMAV MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TIMOTHYR MEY[Rf05 NICOLE• E.0505 C5*RLLSK DAYtO DAVID 5 COX ANGELA 5 BOHMANN SLAKE SHE► *RD. JR DAVID D ET2w■LER STEPHEN R ►PL•UM ROBERT 5 TNAVIS TELEPHONE (612) 335 - 1500 WILLIAM L G•L(NE TAMMIE S PUCE. CNARLLS • MAYS JAMES 0 BULLARD 5105(51. 101105 JAMCI GODFRC, LOWELL J 501(5005 JO5EPw 5 FINLEY FACSIMILE (612) 3351657 5[1(5 44 SACHMAN (MC H GALA', GEORGE P MCGUNNIGLC JR LAWRENCE J PIELD JOHNS SRLNNAN 051051 A CARSON RICHARD G 5( ►IN. JR DAVID w KELLEY CABBIE 1. 5(M ►LL ROSAS NE JACUZ2 550051C 1 ROS(N•LA(T MARK 5 WEIT2 MARL 0. fIM ►SON SYRON [ 5TA•NS DAVID L LILLEIAUG SHAUN C MCElSATTON 57(5(5 M 55115 ROBERT J SLIDER JAMES .1 S(5T5 *50 GEORGE 5 LEON *50' +612 556 JOHN N MERMAN DAVID ...TOR February 22, 1 9 9 3 MARK w DEL(sAMTY ARTHUR H STREE •5TT '96 STEVEN 0 D[RUYTER ANGELA M CHRIST, PETER E SCHIFSKY S(N[DICT OG•ARD 1999 -969 JAMES 5 DORSE, MARK A 1.1500505 LAWRENCE 5 SCH•EP[R AMOS S D(15A5 :1995 915 RATHL(E5 M GRAHAM HCNR J SHE• 111 CAROLYN V WOLSKI I 17(55(5 J 0 *VIDSON LOWELL 5 S7ORT2 STEVEN 5 LINDEMANN STEPHEN 5 LITMAN DOUGLAS 5 GREENSWAG WILLIAM H KOCH f105L, LORSER W EDARD M MO[RSFELDER ELLEN 0 SAMPSON RONALD./ SCN(LT2 IRENE SCOTS ROBERT 1E515 BARROWS ROSANNE NATHANSON STEVEN J 5150510 DANIEL D POTH RICHARD J WEGENER M■CHAtL 0 TAYLOR ./AMA M KR12 DANIEL M SATOR■US DANIEL J MCINERNES JR JOHN W GETSINGER WENDY 0 SILJERVCN 0' COVN{t. 550H 5 MAIN •RD THOMAS 5 SANDERS I P5EDERICK W 5055■$ RORER' 2EGLOVITCH JOHN C K1EHN t,M0tw' wELCH WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (612) 335 -1631 1 Hon. Robert P. Roepke, Mayor Ms. Florence Olson, City Councilperson II Mr. Robert Lindall, City Councilperson Mr. James Castleberry, City Councilperson Ms. Joyce Windschitl, City Councilperson I City of Chaska 1 City Hall Plaza Chaska, Minnesota 55318 -1962 Re: Objection to Proposed Ordinance 521 for II the Amendment to Proposed TH212 Official Map Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: 1 We represent Harold and Patricia Hesse (the "Messes "), who are II the developers of the Hesse Farm Second Addition, in the City of Chanhassen. The addition is located on the border with the City of Chaska just south of the proposed Highway 212 right -of -way. We are writing to you on behalf of the Hesses to object to 1 your proposed Ordinance No. 521 for an amendment to Minnesota Department of Transportation SP 1017 (TH212) Official Map adding II an area for an interchange between proposed Highway 212 and the "future Highway 41/169." In addition, we are writing you to put you on notice that we intend to oppose any efforts by you to obtain II RALF funds from the Metropolitan Council to acquire the area for "the proposed Highway 41/169 right -of- way." We object to your proposed amendment and your attempt to obtain RALF funds for the purchase of right -of -way for several reasons, but primarily because II your actions are very premature, and harmful to the interests of the Hesses. You were instructed by the Metropolitan Council to do a study 1 within five years to determine the appropriate route for Highway 1 1 1 Mayor and City Council City of Chaska February 22, 1993 1 Page 2 41. The staff at the Met Council tells us that no such study has been presented to the Met Council for its consideration, and presumably no such study has been done. Thus, you are proposing ' to designate a Highway 41/169 location on the State's Official Map and acquire the right -of -way therefor without having done the study you were instructed to do or without having presented it to the Met ' Council for its consideration. Second, the City has not fulfilled various statutory requirements. Your proposed Official Map is only an 8j" x 11" ' photocopy and does not show acquisition lines nor is it attested to by a registered surveyor as required by statute. Also, the area proposed to be added to the Official Map has not been the subject ' of an EIS study. The area proposed by you to be designated on the Official Map was not part of the EIS study for the 212 corridor. Further, there has been no EIS study for the extension of this 41/169 corridor south of 212 across the Minnesota River. The ' extension of the alignment for your proposed 41/169 Official Map designation would cross wetlands, river bluffs, and possible Indian burial grounds, without any study or EIS having been done for this 1 proposed alignment. Third, there are already two new bridges under construction ' or proposed for construction across the Minnesota River in the vicinity of your proposed 41/169 alignment. A new County Road 18 bridge is planned for construction to replace the old Bloomington Ferry Bridge, and a new Highway 169 bridge is being built into the City of Shakopee just a mile away. Highway 77 /Cedar has already been completed with several lanes crossing the Minnesota River. The existing Highway 41 bridge fulfills the capacity requirements ' at least past the year 2010. The need for a new Highway 41 corridor at your proposed location is speculative at best and arguably would be better located upriver to the west of Chaska. The new Highway 169 bridge is only a short distance from the extension of your proposed Highway 41 corridor. Finally, our client has invested a considerable amount of money in developing their property. They have done so upon the recommendations of the City of Chanhassen and without any warning that a new Highway 41 would be built adjacent to their development. Your proposal to change the Official Map to include a proposed future Highway 41/169 interchange will be very detrimental to the Hesses' sale of their lots, and the designation will damage and devalue their property, even though a determination of the 11 appropriate route for a new Highway 41/169 corridor will not be determined or needed, if at all, until at least the year 2010. o 1 Mayor and City Council 11 City of Chaska February 22, 1993 Page 3 And, we are aware of no other official governmental body having g selected your location for that highway. Accordingly, we respectfully ask you to not amend the Official Map to designate the proposed future Highway 41/169 interchange in accordance with your proposed Ordinance No. 521. If you do, we intend to oppose you vigorously in your attempt to obtain RALF funds from the Metropolitan Council to acquire the area prematurely designated by you on the Official Map. Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET AND DE ARD Be 'i f /' l� -awes R. Dorsey 1 JRD /dj / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 JRD \Ntsse \Clty.ltr 1