The URL can be used to link to this page

5. Preliminary Plans for Hwy 212 Official Mapping CITY 0 F _ CHANHASSEN ‘,„ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 µ (612) 937-1900 Action by City Adminismat Endorsed V MEMORANDUM Atcditiee TO: Don Ashworth , City Manager 1 ra tii mr^d !C. C;"^ FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer fla Submired to t,,,wtcij ' DATE: July 19 , 1989 �_z -- SUBJ: Approve Preliminary Plan for Trunk Highway 212 Official Mapping; Layout No. 4, S.P. 1017-07 1 File No. PW067C The official mapping of the Trunk Highway 212 corridor through 1 Chanhassen moves closer to completion. In February of this year, the City received a revised layout, Layout No. 4 , which reflected the City ' s input on a number of items from the earlier public information meetings . As noted in the attachments, the City has 1 held three public meetings on this matter, namely January 29 , March 26 and June 23 of 1987 . The City then approved the "Concept Layout 3A" with the addition of the proposed Trunk 1 Highway 101 interchange on June 29 , 1987 . Since that time, the City has approved a revised alignment for Trunk Highway 101 interchange and as such MnDOT has provided a new "Flap" to reflect the City ' s preference on this alignment. The preliminary layout map covers one entire wall in the Engineering Department and is available there for review. Once ' the City has approved the preliminary layout, MnDOT will finalize the "official map" based on the construction limits shown on the preliminary plans. The "official map" will then be transmitted 1 to the City for adoption in accordance with our official mapping ordinance which will require a public hearing. It is therefore recommended that the City approve preliminary 1 Layout No. 4 , S.P. 1017-07 ( 212 = 051 ) for the proposed Trunk Highwayh 212 corridor ( staff approval dated 1-9-89 ) including the Trunk Highway 101 revised alignment flap. 1 Attachments 1 1 . Planning report dated May 29 , 1987 . 2 . July 6 , 1987 letter to MnDOT. 3 . February 1, 1989 letter from MnDOT. 4 . Resolution . 5 . Preliminary Layout No. 4 (available in Engineering Department) . i I i 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN N , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM E .lcrsec_� �r1r�`id'1- —---• TO: Planning Commission DCte Zut,t7trtt to c . .. - FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner DATE: May 29, 1987 0�� '°''""` `' ` 1 SUBJ: Review Conceptual Alignment of the T.H. 212 Corridor Purpose 1 The purpose of the Commission' s review is to receive public com- ments on the proposed alignment through Chanhassen and to make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not the pro- posed alignment is appropriate. Several factors important in the Commission' s decision are summarized in this memorandum. In some cases, detailed plans or more information will be presented at the meeting. Please note that Eden Prairie and Chaska have completed their review process. 1 The proposed TH 212 project extends from I-494, through Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska to Colgone where it will connect with existing Highway 212. Process Since notification by MnDOT to begin the conceptual alignment 1 review process (Attachment #1) , two informal meetings were held with property owners directly and indirectly affected by the corridor (January 29th and March 26th) . Comments received during those two meetings have prompted staff to work with MnDOT in revising the conceptual alignment to show different frontage road connections or new alignments of intersecting roadways. After Planning Commission action, the matter will be reviewed by the City Council. Once the Council approves the alignment, MnDOT then conducts the centerline survey of the alignment and prepares the official map showing general construction limits and prelimi- nary elevations. At this point the City Council must conduct another public hearing based on the official map prepared by MnDOT. If City Council action at the public hearing is to approve the map, the alignment has been established as defined in Minnesota Statutes 462 .359 . 1 1 ■ ' Planning Commission May 29 , 1987 Page 2 What Is An Official Map? ' The official map is a statutory authorized means in which munici- palities can reserve existing and proposed right-of-ways for major streets and highways as well as existing and proposed ' public lands and facilities . The purpose of the map is to pre- vent the conversion of the land to non-public uses and to allow property owners to adjust building plans before significant investments occur (Attachment #2) . ' Is There Need For T.H. 212? TH 212 is a needed highway improvement for the following reasons: 1 . The southwest metropolitan area provides an important link to out-state Minnesota because it is within a major ' farm to market route. TH 212 will provide a direct link for truck traffic characteristic of farm to market trips. ' 2 . The population and employment projections for the south- west area are growing rapidly placing pressure on the ' transportation system in the area. TH 212 will relieve existing road systems, namely TH 169 and TH 5 , by pro- viding an alternative corridor for flow through traffic. ' 3 . Because of the increasing use of the existing roadway system, accident reports are increasing. Therefore, because TH 212 will provide another route for flow ' through traffic, congestion will be relieved in that local vs . flow through trips will be separated. The recent Transportation Study conducted by Benshoof and Associates, estimated that Highway 5 , even with TH 212 , will be approximately 30 ,000 to 40,000 ADT. At this level, Highway 5 would require an improvement of six to eight lanes. This level ' of improvement may be difficult to construct given location of existing land uses and right of way constraints. Thus a need exists for an alternate corridor. ' Fred Hoisington will be present to further explain the need for the highway (Attachment #3 ) . Alignment History • Of the originally considered nine alignments affecting all com- munities , five have been eliminated by the 1980 scoping report ( included in your background packet) . Attachment #5 depicts all original alignments . Those indicated by a solid line are the ' routes which have to be studied by the required Environmental Impact Statement. Planning Commission I May 29, 1987 Page 3 1 The two alignments affecting Chanhassen are commonly referred to as the North Lake Riley Route and the South Lake Riley Route. Prior to the 1980 scoping report, a Citizens Advisory Committee was established. Candy Takkunen and Dick Vogel, Chanhassen' s representatives, will hopefully be present to offer their perspective of the process . Chanhassen, through the advisory committee process, identified the North Lake Riley Route as the preferred alignment. A city staff member at that time, Mark Koegler, will also be present to provide background on the Citizen Advisory Committee process (minutes were included in your background packets) . He will also describe the review which took place in preparation of the current Comprehensive Plan (Attachment #6) . Two major reasons for the selection of the North Lake Riley Route were as follows: ' 1 . The route would provide better access to the downtown area and the industrial park via the proposed interchange at CR 17 . , 2 . It would not sever the existing West 96th Street neigh- borhood which voiced opposition of the South Lake Riley Route. As Koegler will relate, alignment evaluations at that time resulted from an analysis of the pros and cons of each route. The results of the recent transportation study also reinforce the necessity to have an alternate corridor to provide relief to TH , 5 . The south route cannot meet this objective. Secondarily, an interchange at TH 101 along the north route will improve access to Chanhassen and reduce turn movements at the proposed TH 5 and Dell Road (West 184th Street) intersection. Also, please note that the north alignment is not located within existing or proposed subdivisions that would require relocation of future homes. The Commission should recognize however, that potential impacts to wetlands, Rice Marsh Lake, and Lake Riley will need to be eva- luated in the Environmental Impact Statement. Wetlands will also be affected along the south route (Gagne, Vogel, and Hansen properties) . Environmental Impact Statement The city is currently in the process of entering into a joint powers agreement with Eden Prairie, Chaska, Hennepin County, Carver County, Metropolitan Council and MnDOT to jointly fund the Environmental Impact Statement. The City Council has authorized I I Planning Commission IMay 29 , 1987 Page 4 the expenditure of no more than $30,000 over the next three year period to provide Chanhassen's share of the completion of the EIS. The Commission should expect to receive comments from property owners on both alignments. It is expected that there will be a request that the city not officially map a corridor and wait for ' the results of the Environmental Impact Statement. Although not recommended, the city could make that determination. Advantages to mapping the corridor now are as follows: 1 . Prevent development within corridor which would cause greater social impacts in the future (relocation and eli- mination of neighborhoods) . 2 . Establishes centerline survey, peliminary elevations and construction limits. This preliminary data will be use- ful for development occurring adjacent to the corridor. Given the activity likely to occur (from Sever Peterson' s ' land to the Eide parcel) , the information will help to better plan for the highway in terms of buffering and relationship of the land use to the highway. 3 . The construction timetable for this type of project requires at least eight years of planning and design. If for some reason MnDOT cannot construct the highway, a corridor is at least reserved for a traffic improvement. Developers, cities, and counties may have to assume the cost. 4 . The official map also enables cities to use a "revolving fund" of money from the Metropolitan Council to purchase property if it is subject to imminent development (Attachment #8) . The disadvantage that has been cited by homeowners near the ' alignments is that it will influence the recommended alignment of the EIS. The official map is only a statement of the communities ' preferred alignment. It does not imply a decision as to environ- mental issues. Land Use Considerations 11 The informal hearing process generated concerns about the types of land uses that would occur around the TH 101 and TH 212 interchange. Other concerns were expressed regarding land uses along the remaining portion of the corridor. Because the urban service area line runs along Lyman Boulevard, the alignment southwest of Lyman Boulevard exists within the rural service area. That area is now zoned A-2 , Agricultural Planning Commission May 29, 1987 Page 5 Estate and should remain as such. However, the TH 101 and 212 ' interchange are within the urban service area. Realignment of TH 101 and existence of the interchange will pose pressures for land uses that are not currently provided for on the current zoning map. Attachment #9 contains an existing land use map and contains two proposed alternatives. Alternative #1 represents a land use pat- tern which does not contain commercial around the interchange. Instead, it proposes a variety of medium to high density residen- tial development to buffer the interchange from existing single family uses. Alternative #2 proposes commercial land use at the southwest corner of TH 101 and TH 212 but limits it at that point. The neighborhood around the interchange is primarily con- cerned with the pressure for commercial development along TH 101 to TH 5 . Because of the impacts that commercial uses would impose, it is not recommended that the Commission consider those land uses. No action is required on these land use alternatives, however, this forum could be used as a starting point for discussion on future land uses in the area. If the official map is approved by the Council as proposed, it is not recommended that a specific land use pattern be generated along the official map, rather it is recommended that the update of the Comprehensive Plan discuss general guidelines for land uses that would be located in the area. The Proposed Alignment The North Lake Riley Route would contain an interchange at TH 101 including realignment of TH 101, an interchange at the exten- sion of County Road 17, and a new connection to Pioneer Trail and Bluff Creek Drive. Attachment #10 shows the MnDOT proposal (a larger scale map will be presented at the meeting) . Attachment #11 reflects changes generated from the informal hearing process . The changed alignment eliminates the need for frontage roads west of the CR 17 interchange and provides for better continuity of Pioneer Trail. Also, the Lake Susan neigh- borhood requested further study to shift TH 101 to the east in order that traffic would not be heading directly into their neighborhood. MnDOT is continuing to study both of these align- ments in more detail; however, these general alignment guidelines are sufficient for this concept review stage. II RECOMMENDED ACTION Because of the need for the TH 212 corridor and because the northerly alignment provides more advantages to creation of a proper transportation system serving Chanhassen, it is recom- mended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the northerly alignment as depicted in Attachment #11. ■ 1 Planning Commission May 29 , 1987 Page 6 1 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the northerly alignment of the TH 212 corridor as depicted in Attachment #11 identified as the Revised Conceptual Alignment dated June, 1987. STAFF UPDATE ' Fred Hoisington and Mark Koegler were not asked to attend tonight' s meeting. The verbatim minutes contain their comments as referenced earlier in this report. Evan Green, the project manager from MnDOT, will be present to answer questions. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ' It is recommended that the City Council approve the northerly alignment of the TH 212 corridor as depicted in Attachment #11 identified as the Revised Conceptual Alignment dated June, 1987, ' as recommended by the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS • ' 1 . Letter from MnDOT dated January 28 , 1987 . 2 . Copy of state statutes regarding the official map. 3 . Data regarding existing and forecasted population and employment figures , traffic volumes , traffic forecasts , and accident reports . 4 . Planning Commission minutes on Comprehensive Plan dated October 1, 1980 and October 15 , 1980 . 5 . TH 212 Alternatives dated October, 1985 . 6 . Excerpt from Comprehensive Plan. 7 . Construction time table. 8 . Revolving Fund information. 9 . Existing and proposed land use alternatives at the TH 101 and TH 212 interchange. ' 10. Proposed conceptual alignment. 11. Revised conceptual alignment. 12 . City Council resolution establishing the official map process dated February 23 , 1987 . 13 . Citizen comments. 14. Letter from Steve Alderson dated June 3 , 1987. 15 . Planning Commission minutes dated June 3 , 1987 . 1 a,,\NNES°P: do Minnesota if a Department of Transportation District 5 AkR 2055 No. Lilac Drive ''op TO Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 (612) Si12; RI January 28, 1987 593-8403 Mr. Gary Warren, City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: S.P. 1017-06 & 07 (T.H. 212) From CSAH 17 to W. Hennepin County Line In City of Chanhassen, Carver County Concept Layout 3A Dear Mr. Warren: Transmitted herewith for review and approval is a preliminary plan for 1 the above referenced project. What we are asking for from the city is approval of this conceptual layout so that a centerline alignment can be established and we can proceed with development of the "Official Map." ' As you know, the city has been working with our staff during the devel- opment of these plans and the Chanhassen "Year 2005 Land Use and Trans- portation Study." Based on input from that study, the city recoamended that an interchange be added at T.H. 101. We have attached an overlay to the layout which indicates an interchange design that would fit the area. The proposed interchange is designed as a folded diamond to the east so as to maximize the spacing between the proposed ramps at future CSAH 17. The additional overlay on the proposed layout shows a revised alignment moved slightly northeast of proposed T.H. 101. This alignment revision is in response to Eden Prairie' s desire to move the proposed alignment as close as possible to the proposed Mitchell Lake Park just east of future Dell Road. If you have- any questions in regard to this project, please contact our project manager, Evan Green. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, / � / ' G' // l "'T�' W. M. Crawford, JP.E. ' District Engineer , Attachment: RECL:'i z0 JAN 2 8 i?87 ; ' CITY le .,iiAi'HASSEN An Equal Opportunity Employer "llik CO ' I] 1 . 462.352 HOUSING, REDEVEL PM NT, PLANNING, ZONING 7752 7753 , Subd. 5. "Comprehe ;ive municipal plan" means a compilation of policy statements, goals, standar s, nd maps for guiding the physical, social and Sul economic development, bo ' rivate and public, of the municipality and its -- filing of environs and may include, but is not limited to, the following: statements of ments s policies, goals, standards, a land use plan, a community facilities plan, a transpor- and Sul tation plan, and recommendations for plan execution. A comprehensive plan ut 1 represents the planning agency's recommendations for the future development of section the community. Slit Subd. 6. "Land use plan" means a compilation of policy statements, goals, lions wt standards, and maps, and action programs for guiding the future development of thereof private and public property. The term includes a plan designating types of uses hensive vision c maps for the entire municipality as well as a specialized plan showing specific areas or specific types of land uses, such as residential, commercial, industrial, public or maps. i semi-public uses or any combination of such uses. Sub Subd. 7. "Transportation plan" means a compilation of policy statements, pality 01 goals, standards, maps and action programs for guiding the future development of obligatic the various modes of transportation of the municipality and its environs such as In accor streets and highways, mass transit, railroads, air transportation, trucking and water ble Subd transportation, and includes a major thoroughfare plan. review a • Subd. 8. "Community facilities plan" means a compilation of policy state- without ments, goals, standards, maps and action programs for guiding the future develop- parcels t ment of the public or semi-public facilities of the municipality such as recreational, drainage I educational and cultural facilities. Hist Subd. 9. "Capital improvement program" means an itemized program set- I53: 19 ting forth the schedule and details of specific contemplated public improvements by fiscal year, together with their estimated cost, the justification for each 462353 improvement, the impact that such improvements will have on the current Sub operating expense of the municipality, and such other information on capital sive mur Ili .i improvements as may be pertinent. ment of 7,�462 Subd. 10. "Offici j an" means a map adopted in accordance with section municip: .359 which may show existing and proposed future streets, roads, and highways accordar of the municipality and county, the area needed for widening of existing streets. Sub II , roads, and highways of the municipality and county, and existing and future municip: county state aid highways and state trunk highway rights-of- way. An official illustrate map may also show the location of existing and future public land and facilitie. i publicize i.- within the municipality. In counties in the metropolitan area as defined in section ; ute repo 473.121, official maps may for a period of up to five years designate the i - scope of 4:1 1, boundaries of areas reserved for purposes of soil conservation, water supply I Sub R.I•l conservation, flood control and surface water drainage and removal uuludin`` moneys t V'. i ,1 appropriate regulations protecting such areas against encroachment by buildin.. y • f�1 .1 other physical structures or facilities. , planning planning i Subd. 11. "Governing body" in the case of cities means the coun,il 1,‘ • governme i 4.. , whatever name known, and in the case of a town, means the town hoard planning -.. Subd. 12. "Subdivision" means the separation of an area, parcel, or tract of Sub, -:. i land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, lots, or long-term leasehold interests where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the costs Inc creation of streets, roads, or alleys, for residential, commercial, industrial, or other t for an ar I ' . ' ! 1 use or any combination thereof, except those separations: control control (a) Where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or ordinanc ! larger in size and 500 feet in width for residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial uses; Hist 46 (b) Creating cemetery lots; 2.354 (c) Resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line h∎ the relocation of a common boundary. Sub ry' Hance cr i.: . i 74Th4ct #16. I . OIN - - - I r 7763 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING 462359 the issuance of building permits to any parcels so divided, pending compliance with subdivision regulations. . Subd. 10. Limitations. Nothing in this section shall he construed to require • ' a municipality to regulate subdivisions or to regulate all subdivisions which it is . authorized to regulate by this section. _ History: 1965 c 670 s 8; 1971 c 842 s 1; 1973 c 67 s 1; 1973 c 176 s 1; 1975 c 98 s 1; 1976 c 181 s 2; 1978 c 786 s 16,17; 1980 c 560 s 6; 1980 c 566 s 25-33; 1981 c 85 s 7; 1982 c 415 s 2; 1982 c 507 s 23 . 4623585 JOINT PLANNING BOARD. Upon request of a home rule charter or statutory city council or county or ``, town board by resolution presented to the county auditor of the county of the affected territory a board shall be established to exercise planning and land use control authority in the unincorporated area within two miles of the corporate "— limits of a city. The board shall have members in a number determined by the 2. - city, county, and town. Each governmental unit shall have an equal number of X members. The members shall be appointed from the governing bodies of the city, }" county, and town. Upon request of more than one county or town board with respect to the unincorporated area within two miles of the corporate limits of a single city, the parties may create one board rather than a separate board for each county or town, with equal membership from each affected governmental unit. The board shall serve as the governing body and board of appeals and adjustments for purposes of sections 462.351 to 462.364 within the two-mile area. The board . "' shall have all of the powers contained in sections 462.351 to 462.364 and shall have authority to adopt and enforce the uniform fire code promulgated pursuant to section 299F.011. The city shall provide staff for the preparation and administra- • ` tion of land use controls unless otherwise agreed by the governmental units. If a municipality extends the application of its subdivision regulations to unincorporat- ed terntory located within two miles of its limits pursuant to section 462.358, subdivision la, before the creation of a joint board, the subdivision regulations • which the municipality has extended shall apply until the joint board adopts ; i subdivision regulations. ;. History: 1982 c 507 s 24f • (462.359 PROCEDURE FOR PLAN EFFECTUATION; OFFICIAL MAPS. vil< Z. - Subdivision 1. Statement of purpose. Land that is needed for future street purposes and as sites for other necessary public facilities and services is frequently - diverted to non-public uses which could have been located on other lands without hardship or inconvenience to the owners. When this happens, public uses of land may be denied or may be obtained later only at prohibitive cost or at the expense of dislocating the owners and occupants of the land. Identification on an official map of land needed for future public uses permits both the public and private property owners to adjust their building plans equitably and conveniently before investments are made which will make such adjustments difficult to accomplish. Subd. 2. Adoption. After the planning agency has adopted a major thor- oughfare plan and a community facilities plan, it may, for the purpose of carrying out the policies of the major thoroughfare plan and community facilities plan, prepare and recommend to the governing body a proposed official map covering the entire municipality or any portion thereof. The governing body may,.after `' �w holding a_public hearing, adopt, and amend the official map_by ordinatice..A notice of the time,,,place.and_purpose_.of the hearing shall_,be._published itt.ihe official newspaper of ,the municipality at least ten,days prior to the date of- heanng. The official map or maps shall be prepared in sufficient detail to permit . t . . • ^'i?Z :.*.---.7.!,;':tom..: ac •3 1 .'j•,.i.. �' �. :tom .r �, 44;::e4 i" • 1 I 462.359 HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING 7764 Ithe establishment of the future acquisition lines on the ground. In unplatted areas a minimum of a centerline survey shall have been made prior to the preparation of the final draft of the official map. The accuracy of the future acquisition lines I i shown on the official map shall be attested to by a registered land surveyor. After adoption, a copy of the official map. or sections thereof with a copy of the adopting ordinance attached shall be filed with the county recorder as provided in ' sections 462.351 to 462.364. ' Subd. 3. Effect. After an official map has been adopted and filed, the . ! ► issuance of building permits by the municipality shall be subject to the provisions is of this section. Whenever any street or highway is widened or improved or any I1,1 new street is opened, or interests in lands for other public purposes are acquired by j;iii-i 1 the municipality, it is not required in such proceedings to pay for any building or 1; structure placed without a permit or in violation of conditions of a permit within "W}= the limits of the mapped street or outside of any building line that may have been t?....,:_i Iestablished upon the existing street or within any area thus identified for public 'lil` purposes. The adoption of an official map does not give the municipality any _k'' right, title, or interest in areas identified for public purposes thereon, but the t adoption of the map does authorize the municipality to acquire such interests I +' ;_: without paying compensation for buildings or structures erected in such areas without a permit or in violation of the conditions of a permit. ''`•. Subd. 4. Appeals. If a permit for a building in such location is denied, the ;,>- board of appeals and adjustments shall have the power, upon appeal filed with it • ?: by the owner of the land, to grant a permit for building in such location in any case in which the board finds, upon the evidence and the arguments presented to :,.,;. it, (a) that the entire property of the appellant of which such area identified for public purposes forms a part cannot yield a reasonable return to the owner unless such a permit is granted, and (b) that balancing the interest of the municipality in ' I preserving the integrity of the official map and of the comprehensive municipal :1 P g o Y P P P plan and the interest of the owner of the property in the use of his property and in ' s the benefits of ownership, the grant of such permit is required by considerations of . _i f justice and equity. In addition to the notice of hearing required by section .•:. `•'''!':.l 462.354. subdivision 2, a notice shall be published in the official newspaper once at .;.."1:. least ten days before the day of the hearing. If the board of appeals and i,, adjustments authorizes the issuance of a permit the governing body or other board `:;ray . or commission having jurisdiction shall have six months from the date of the " _; 4i'.. *. decision of the board to institute proceedings to acquire such land or interest a':. . i=,..! il therein, and if no such proceedings are started within that time. the officer • =' i.,_rt j responsible for issuing building permits shall issue the permit if the application n .• ' : ' ' � , otherwise conforms to local ordinances. The board shall specify the exact .. 1,f,,.:4 1 location, ground area height and other details as to the extent and character of the _ . building for which the permit is granted. ..''I'4' • History: 1965 c 670 s 9; 1976 c 181 s 2 •,it i; +a `' 1 4623595 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. It ;'t l •I Subdivision 1. Authority. The governing body may by ordinance designate • : �• gib :. ` ;1;• i; certain types of developments, including planned unit developments. and certain '1,•••" '•••';;11t , I, land development activities as conditional uses under zoning regulations. Condi- tional uses may be approved by the governing body or other designated authority • ,l tl by a showing by the applicant that the standards and criteria stated in the ,': .. �. _ .,: :�..i�� ., ordinance will be satisfied. The standards and criteria shall include both general ,',,,.,I: 1' I requirements for all conditional uses, and insofar as practicable, requirements • specific to each designated conditional use. '; -"•:i;, Subd. 2. Public hearings. Public hearings on the ranting of conditional use l!'• permits shall be held in the manner provided in section 462.357. subdivision 3. �itiT` . A. • - II i ■ FIGURE 1 ■ POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT - 1980 & 2005 TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 CORRIDOR I 1980 2005 % INCREASE , Population 46 , 297 90 , 070 95% Employment 20, 030 62 , 000 209% Source: TH 212 Traffic Forecasts , BRW, July 1985 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVEC APR 2 ) I CHANHASSEN PLONK OE 4-7Maffiff 071- • ■ ■ ' FIGURE 2 ' EXISTING & FORECASTED POPULATION & EMPLOYMENT SELECTED CITIES WITHIN TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 CORRIDOR POPULATION EMPLOYMENT 1986 2005 % INCREASE 1986 2005 % INCREASE 1 Chanhassen 8, 000 10 , 000 2 , 700 4 , 700 Eden Prairie 26 , 247 50 ,000 25 , 000 45 , 000 Chaska 9 , 582 11 , 220 4 , 980 7 , 250 TOTALS 43, 829 71 , 220 62% 32 , 680 56 , 950 74% ' Source: TH 212 Traffic Forecasts , BRW, July 1985 • I 1 i 1 II• I 1 FIGURE 3 I EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - HIGHWAYS 169/212 & 5 - 1984 II (PRE CANTERBURY DOWNS) HIGHWAY 169/212 * I West of Chaska 9, 200 East of Chaska 10, 800 II West of Hwy 101 11 , 500 East of Hwy 101 20, 000 West of I-494 31 , 600 I HIGHWAY 5 West of TH 41 10 , 100 II East of TH 41 10, 700 West of TH 101 16 , 600 II East of TH 101 14, 100 West of 1-494 33 , 200 * All two lane roadway except from I-494 to I Prairie Center Drive and vicinity of Hennepin Technical Center and Flying Cloud Landfill II II II 1 II II II 1 II1 FIGURE 4 I The following is a summary of accidents on the trunk highway Isystem in the southwest corridor from 1980 to 1985 : Accident History IYear - 169 212 5 Total I 1980 Fat ( 1) 1 0 0 1 # (2) 133 127 184 444 Sev (3) 5 . 5 6 .0 4.8 II1981 Fat 3 1 2 6 # 137 113 164 414 Sev 6 . 4 5 . 3 4 . 4 1 1982 Fat 1 1 2 4 # 82 112 185 379 ISev 3 . 5 6 .0 4 . 2 1983 Fat 3 2 2 7 # 139 109 226 474 ISev 5 . 4 4 . 2 2 .0 1984 Fat 4 1 1 6 I # 159 138 252 549 Sev 6 . 4 1 . 9 1 .0 I 1985 Fat 1 2 1 4 # 189 110 256 555 Sev 6 . 1 4 . 1 4 . 9 ( 1 ) Fat = Fatalities ( 2) # = Total Accidents I (3) Sev = Severity (a severity factor approaching 6 . 0 is considered serious ) I II II I II II FIGURE 5 II TRAFFIC FORECASTS I 1984 2005 2005 2005 No Build Build 212 Max Growth I HIGHWAY 169/212 West of Chaska 9 , 200 19 , 400 9 , 800 10 , 500 I East of Chaska 10, 800 24 , 800 9 , 000 9, 700 West of Hwy 101 11 , 500 32 , 600 17 ,000 19 , 400 East of Hwy 101 20, 000 35 , 400 19 , 600 22, 100 II West of I-494 31 , 600 41 , 200 25 ,000 29 , 700 HIGHWAY 5 II West of TH 41 10 , 100 21 , 600 18 , 600 20 , 600 II East of TH 41 10 , 700 27 , 000 21 , 800 24 , 100 West of TH 101 16 , 600 34 , 600 27 , 600 31 ,000 East of TH 101 14, 100 33 , 400 28, 600 31 , 500 West of I-494 33 , 200 54 , 600 71 , 200 85 , 500 I II 1 I II II I I/ II ■ Minutes of the 10-1-80 Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 111 housing should be incorporated within future large residential ' development proposals. He felt the financial commitment Chan- hassen could feasibly make toward subsidized housing construc- tion was a key point and should be evaluated. tChairman Horn felt a good location for subsidized elerly housing was near the downtown business core which was not proposed for redevelopment. In repsonse to the ' Planning Commission, Mr. Koegler explained the family and elderly percentage breakdown for subsidized units was determined by HUD and, in most cases , could not be ' exceeded. Discussion followed on the numerical housing goals for Chanhassen, and possible funding programs the City could implement to meet its housing goals. Mr. Johnson felt a general approach to implementation would be best, whereby they would not designate numerical goals for particular programs and 1 housing types. It was felt the industrial park was a prime determiner of housing needs for the community. In the discussion of subsidized housing1Mr.oKoegleroindicated tthe pintent nof ' the policy was to ensure similar review practices for both subsidized and market-rate housing developoments so that subsidized housing units would not be placed in "inferior" locations ' due to inconvenient locations of services . The Commission wished to eliminate a reference to "inferior" location and felt it was adequate to just ensure similar review practices ' would occur for both market-rate and subsidized housing develop- ments in the housing practices. For the policy on alternative housing in the city, Mr. Johnson felt it should be noted we will encourage alternative housing but -specific types should not be included. The Commission wished to include the issue that the City of Chanhassen has traditionally been predominantly a single-family community but will consider, as the need arises , alternative housing. Discussion closed. Discussion, Transportation Plan: Mr. indicated the oconstruction eoft Highway s169-212owouldnn He ir prior to 1990 due to lack of available construction funds; this would result in increased traffic on State Highways 5 and 41 . He said he had asked the Metropolitan Council to ifTht-itinfENTA- • Minutes of the 10-1-80 Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 do computer runs on volume analysis without the construction of Highway 212 for the period of 1980 through 1990. In their traffic projections, the Metrpolitan Council had assumed Highways 169-212 would be constructed and this showed lower traffic volumes for Highways 5 and 41 . The traffic projectsions were accomplished through the definition of Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) , which is a geographic modeling by which the estimates can be made. Mr. Koegler noted that bus transit was currently limited to two routes in Chanhassen, the Commission felt this was inadequate for the City' s needs. The plan showed a proposal for additional buses on existing routes and route expansion. Discussion occurred on the designation of the Highway 1 169-212 corridor. Mr. Koegler explained existing transportation systems and deficiencies within them. The Commission generally felt a temporary controlled intersection should be placed at the entry to the Industrial Park. Mr. J. Thompson felt the entry from the Minnewashta area unto Highway 7 should be more controlled. Discussion occurred on whether the policy should be to pave streets in the undeveloped areas of the { community. Mr. Koegler displayed a graphic delineating a draft major street plan which incorporated the old transportation plan of 1972 and recent changes with the city' s transportation systems. The plan included major arterials, intermediate arterials , and collector streets. Chairman Horn felt something should be done to help deter the curvature problem of Highway • 101 . Mr. Johnson was concerned about Highway 5 ' s adaptability to the future increased traffic flow. Following further discussion II of Highway 5 and its construction, the Commission felt it would be best to connect Highway 101 to Dell Road just north of Highway 5 and to bring Highway 101 down to Highway 5 south. ' The Commission asked Mr. Koegler to express this concept to the City of -Eden Prairie for their reaction and response. Discussion occurred on Bluff Creek Drive and possible connection to Highway 17 . The Commission felt this action should be deferred at this time. Discussion closed. Adjournment: I Mr. Hamilton moved to adjourn the October 1 , 1980 , Planning Commission. Mr. W. Thompson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned . 1 ■ II Minutes of the 10-15-80 PC Meeting ' Page 5 Mr. J . Thompson: He felt it was a suitable use of the land and the date of the subdivision was at such a time whereby the property owner may not have been aware of the ordinance restrictions placed on it by Ordinance No. 45. Mr. Partridge: He felt that it would be best to restructure Ordinance No . 45 prior to the granting of variances such as ' the subject request. Chairman Horn: He felt the same as Mr. Partridge with it being best to wait on approving variances such as this until ' the Ordinance No . 45 has been reviewed . He also indicated that as an advisory body they must act objectively. I3 . Comprehensive Plan - Community Facilities Discussion : Mr. Koegler explained the Community Facilities Section ' was primarily concerned with public facilities and support systems . He commented on existing and proposed municipal buildings , fire services , schools , and the library issue . ' He indicated the facilities with the exception of the proposed municipal buildings would be adequate until 1990 . It was anticipated that further expansion of the municipal offices ' would be required in approximately 1985 . The Commission generally agreed with the contents of the Community Facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan . No motion was necessary. 4 . Comprehensive Plan - Housing Discussion : ■ Ms . Rust reviewed the numerical housing goals for both subsidized and modest cost housing. She explained possible methods for implementing these housing goals which included various federal and state funding programs , local practices which included the provision of alternative housing types and density transfers which allowed a greater density of housing in some locations . ' Ms . Rust also discussed housing quality and how local review procedures and government funding programs can come ' into play to ensure it is provided . The Commission generally agreed with the Housing Section discussed . No motion was necessary. ■ 5 . Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Discussion : Mr. Koegler recalled from preliminary discussions of the Transportation Section of the plan that that section was primarily tailored for the time-frame of 1990 to 2000 . • ■ ■ 1 • II Minutes of the 10-15-80 PC Meeting Page 6 ' Discussion occurred on the area including Highway 101 north of Highway 5 and Dell Road with Mr. Koegler saying the City of Eden Prairie did not wish to connect Highway 101 with Dell Road . He then further explained Eden Prairie ' s plan for Highway 5. The Commission was concerned about the traffic situation which could potentially occur on Highways 5 and 101 . Mr. Koegler discussed the situation involving Highways 169-212, Highway 41 , Bluff Creek Drive and its connection to Pioneer Trail , and the plans for other arterial and collector roads within the city. Discussion occurred on seaplane operations and what ' the City policy should be regarding them. Discussion closed with no motion necessary. 6 . Adjournment : Mr . Partridge moved to adjourn the 10-1-80 Planning , Commission meeting. Mr. J . Thompson seconded the motion . All voted aye . Motion carried . Meeting adjourned at 10 : 30 p.m. II 1 1 C , 11 ___41111111arni....11111111 INN 111111 OM MI Mil OM IIIIII 1111111 II. IIIIIII MN ME 1111111 . ',.... ., Iir _.... -. ... „-, :RA% - ' ... - '. %Su[cu�. -� ..... ... •` ' - • 1 •n�%• 1..�L\L. '!�-1 "' eau ♦ t,•C CN•wN•SS[w Icc� + 3 ; :' Oi r11 t1•� n[TOeu :l ,L 1 401 •v+[ioe,• —_ .. /mil '♦ / �' rsrt��r •. ` _ �•- ;i ! ! j ((( s I . • J m — 1:;-... _,--, an _ a a $ o` I) Cw•3•• « .nou gum I L NT ueA 1....„.. Ath . 'VIM/•CLOUD Ili I /I� aw•wr [oew n•+e¢ ■ �� I Al: . 4---{ ...wi i LIJIC 3 ■..".• N •3 r` —�_J•'' •...N[NNC Iiw / <r l• .,,,,,,s0/4, �t`Ot -- • '• , - I ;. ,��/ 3Na.orc[ SCOTT co°qt wt. - nut 13 -I _ /./. y�.I -: - -';0 - I k „ ...,,,,%,,,,,, ireitaisr.:- 4 I �_ ,�, a�, , .�," a 33[.3 � ��•=`:os�■�� SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR L. -- 1 1• " o !; d -� ■■stins11.■■ ALTERNATIVES •l ■■ 0,0 SOl1 iiiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT . I ,�.•• .111't,� �- --_S� T.H. 212 a , f /, �� y s1. OCTOBER, 1985 aTOF YP'N4 ta. I I L.- SCALE ' ♦r GOLDEN VALLEY DISTRICT 1 .4' rs.,0/./ C ��__ ` 0 4000 8000 c ♦ y,yyt ` �� ALTERNATIVES RECOMMENDED so—A FOR FURTHER STUDY /-- ( 4 STUDY COPY FOR INFORMATION ONLY ALTERNATIVES NOT { ♦.�.o* RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER ••[ • 0 fr.-1' STUDY e fr -, y m • �\ w39 t;., t�• 'YileiY4k►A6.1tif WI>tL196++•r•r vaw•.s.•.. .. 1 N4u. - t-20 II - Transit , Bus service to Chanhassen is presently provided by the Metropolitan II Transit Commission (MTC) in the form of both local and express routes . The express route , 53J , consists of two round trips daily o which provide service to downtown Minneapolis . provided on route 67 which connects Chanhassen to Minnetonka , Shore- II wood , and other points north . Service trips on weekdays with one additional tripsontMondaysi and Thursdays . Identified stops are located at West 78th Street and 101 , West 78th II Street and Laredo Drive , and at a shelter located outside the American Legion Club at 101 and 5. Because the ridership of routes 53J and tively low, the Metropolitan Transit Commissionlhas ynot formulated any future plans which would provide additional routes or service i to Chanhassen . As the community continues to II escalate , the grow and energy costs public ' s awareness of and demand for transit service will increase . Therefore , the City of Chanhassen recommends that the MTC plan for expanded future service . II In analyzing Chanhassen ' s future transit needs , two areas of improve- ment seem feasible : expanded express service and the coordinated usage of park and ride sites . Additional express service will be II i necessary due to added residential growth and the continued number of employment o opportunities outside of the community. The area surrounding Lake Susan should be considered as a priority for ex- panded service since significant residential growth is anticipated there prior to 1990 . Park and ride sites should be used to compliment express transit service . At the present time , the stop at the Chanhassen American Legion Club serves as a park and ride site . This facility effect- ively serves the eastern ' west side of town , no such facility exists. Thereforre , the City should actively work with the MTC in providing an appropriate y ' Consideration should be given to the former Chanhassen public works II site at the corner of West 82nd Street and Highway 41 for such a use. The accompanying Transit Service map depicts Chanhassen ' s existing I and proposed 1990- service. if Trunk Highway 169-212 II For the past 20 years , the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has been working toward the construction of T . H . 169-2 ' The route , as generally proposed , begins east of Norwood in Carver County and/ terminates at Interstate 494 in Eden Prairie . The tion of the roadway designated as Highway 169 crosses the Minnesota II por- River in Shakopee and heads north generally along the Chanhassen- Chaska border. In southern Chanhassen , 169 joins 212 and the 4 AtWJT61 II 1 t-23 C combined roadway traverses Chanhassen and Eden Prairie to its terminus . . • • At the present time , planning and environmental studies for T . H. 169-212 have terminated due to a lack of available construction Ifunds . The postponement of the construction of the road will have a negative impact on the City of Chanhassen according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation , without the construction of 169-212 , Chanhassen can expect higher traffic volumes on exist- , ing 212 as well as on State Highways 5 and 41 . Additionally , the Metropolitan Council as part of its regional transportation • planning has always promoted the construction of 169-212 as a I means of satisfying regional transit needs and of alleviating traffic on 5. Without construction prior to 1990 and unless • I improvements on existing T. H. 5 occur, the City of Chanhassen as well as Eden Prairie can anticipate further congestion and the likely failure of 5 as a minor arterial . I As the previous discussion should indicate , the City of Chanhassen . positively supports the construction of T. H . 169-212 . As a result of the projects review by a citizens committee , the Planning Com- mission , and the City Council , Chanhassen officially prefers what II is generally referred to as the North Lake Riley route. The City has consistently indicated , however , that other routes may be feasible and that they should be considered if they contribute to the timely completion of the project. T. H. 169-212 is consistent with local plans , the plans of adjacent municipalities , the Metropolitan Council , and the State of Minnesota . I Because of this , the City will continue to pursue the eventual construction of T. H . 169-212 . • I Chanhassen ' s 1990 Transportation System map as well as the ner- alized 1990 Land Use map depict the construction of T. H . 169-212 along the northern alignment . The southern route , commonly re- ' ferred to as System D , is shown as a possible alternative . Devel - . opment occurring in the vicinity of either of these routes should be cognizant of the fact that the City supports the development of T . H . 169-212 as a principal arterial and that such an action will lead to increased traffic along the selected corridor. ISystem Deficiencies The function of a transportation plan is to not only accommodate future needs but also to analyze existing problems and to pose ' I appropriate solutions . Frequently , existing problems are closely related to future needs . As a result , a specific action in a given I area can remedy existing deficiences while at the same time provide for future needs . In examining Chanhassen ' s existing transportation system , two eral problems become apparent. First , the s qua- 11 north-south access but is deficient in east-westmroutes . Indthe1te northeastern part of the City , Highway 5 is 3 . 5 miles from Highway . I t-30 I 1 f�4 .s�.::` w.. --,1 ir - �'` , 1 r1 " ff ..,... 4Aa f- _.e..- z.:,. iw\... - 1 , „3--1 ` �= cam.. I IWM re ®® p I it I i e i, . ,. „. I II ,..,0 : 0 , „ 1 I ` w _ 0. _r_—i_e—l__,T_:7i _____...,L,:, 1; _w:,-r-.- 7 ------'-- iti---f= 7441. c.... I. i %Laillilo ."ii T -61 - ,- '. . _ t1 1 — � — f f, fir/ . 7 I ' ' \ I \\�,1„1 „*\\1\\�I 111I,1,\1,�,111ttttlltltl�tltl CITY OF ,) i \\ i _ I CHANHASSEN 171------N\-1— 1-- , ' ' ,.- MINNESOTA p� ��\\ �•t � Proposed 1990 -2000 �� —' i posed 1990 2000 �� _i_4 i 1 I Functional Classification �`` - IlIIIIIIIIIIUI Principal Arterial . ._. j J o n■■■ Int:: 1: : t&1a1 edt Ar ! LI '. _ /�, 0 © ® Mi �'�� ' , I l ��—�\` ,, _ . � 0-.1i3 ��• Collector i, ;m ,.-----;` _ 73'0 4� o IAQ. i I 0 giuswgnoszczzesmasmortimmossiremsemminsImitimmiminumwensusexiammelswimis I I ' ■ • CONSTRUCTION TIMETABLE OFFICIAL MAP 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN 1988-1992 DESIGN 1993 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION 1992-1994 LETTING PHASE ONE 1994 ' CONSTRUCTION 1995 ' PHASE TWO 1 t e _ t.a.ie ji,:4 1 GUIDELINES TO ALLOCATE FUNDS ' FOR METROPOLITAN HIGHWAY RIGHTS OF WAY I June 1986 ' Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 Telephone: (612) 291-6359 Publication No. 561-86-041 1 II 11 II GUIDELINES TO ALLOCATE FUNDS ' FOR METROPOLITAN HIGHWAY RIGHTS OF WAY Revised And Amended: June, 1986 INTRODUCTION ' The Metropolitan Council is charged with planning for the orderly and development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. As part of that work, the ic Council plans for the direction transportation investments should take through the year 2000. The Council 's Transportation Policy Plan outlines a metropolitan highway system consisting of interstate highways and other major arterials. The interstate system is almost completed. Several other parts of ' the metropolitan highway system, especially in the developing areas, will not be built for several years. Many highways are not far enough in the planning process to enable the constructing agency to purchase right of way. In some ' instances, counties or municipalities have attempted to highway right of way from development by adopting an official cmap.prHowever, these local governments have not always had sufficient funds to acquire small parcels of land, which has sometimes forced them to grant building permits within a highway right of way. In 1982 the Minnesota Legislature acted to help counties and muncipalities ' acquire these parcels by adopting the Metropolitan Right-of-Way Reservation Act (Minn. Stat. Sec. 473. 167, Subd. 2) . The law authorized the Metropolitan Council to levy a regional property tax of up to 5/100ths of a mill to establish a revolving fund for advance acquisition of metropolitan highway rights of way threatened by imminent development. The funds are used by the Council to make loans to counties, towns and cities, to be repaid at a later date to purchase property within rights of way of state trunk highways or ' highways on the metropolitan system. Such loans accordingly are made without reference to the actual acquisition and construction schedules to be developed by the constructing agency. The first proceeds of the tax (about $1 million annually) were available in July 1983. Since then several cities have received loans to purchase land ' within the rights-of-way of two planned highways. An annual status report on the revolving fund is prepared for the Council by staff to assist the Council in determining a levy amount by October. ' In 1985 the Minnesota Legislature amended the Metropolitan Right-of-Way Reservation Act to allow the Council to use the revolving fund for loans to purchase "hardship" properties in a proposed State Highway project. These ' loans also can be used to pay for relocation costs. Although the law is fairly specific regarding eligibility and procedures, certain aspects require clarification. The Council proposes the guidelines below for distribution of these funds. Part A describes the procedures for advance acquisition loans to purchase land when development is imminent. These procedures have been modified slightly since the original guidelines were adopted in December 1983. Part B reflects the amended legislation and describes the procedures to use for hardship loans to purchase homestead properties. • PART A: Advance Acquisition Loans I . Eligibility Guidelines 1 . Any county, town or statutory or home rule city within (or partially within) the Seven-County Metropolitan Area is eligible to apply for a loan. The Minnesota Department of Transportation is not eligible. 2. Loans are for the purchase of property within a proposed right-of-way ' of a state trunk highway shown on an official map adopted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 394.361 or 462.359. Loans are also for the purchase of property within a proposed right-of-way of an interstate freeway or major arterial highway designated by the Metropolitan Council as a part of the metropolitan highway system plan and approved by the Council pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. 473. 167, Subd. 1 . 3. The Council shall make loans only to avert the imminent conversion or the granting of approvals that would allow the conversion of property to uses jeopardizing its availability for highway construction. 4. Loans will be made only for the purchase of property from a willing seller, not by condemnation. ' 5. Property to be acquired must have a marketable title and may not be park land or land which is either on or eligible for inclusion on a historic register. 6. Applications will be considered as they are received, not on a periodic funding cycle. ' II . Advance Acquisition Loan Application Procedures A. Preliminary Approval 1 . The applicant submits, for preliminary Council approval , an application including, as a minimum: a. Resolution of local jurisdiction authorizing loan application and purchase of property. ' b. Statement of need to acquire property, including evidence regarding imminent conversion. c. Amount of loan requested. d. A legal description of the property to be acquired, its acreage, II and a map showing the property in relation to the highway right-of- way. e. A statement of the applicant' s eligibility to incur this debt. 1 (Form available from the Council .) • I i 2. For land within state trunk highways, Council staff will forward the i application to Mn/DOT for advisory comments within 45 days. At this time, Mn/DOT will have the option to acquire the land itself. i 3. The Council , as part of #2, will request that Mn/DOT determine whether or to what extent the land lies within a proposed right-of-way. If MnDOT determines that any part lies outside the proposed right-of-way, MnDOT shall be requested to determine whether such part has economic I value. If MnDOT determines such part to be an uneconomic remnant, the entire parcel shall be eligible for purchase with a right-of-way acquisition loan. If MnDOT determines such part to be an economic i remnant, only such part as lies within the proposed right-of-way shall be eligible for purchase with a right-of-way acquisition loan. The Council shall accept Mn/DOT's determination regarding the economic value of excess property. 4. Within 75 days from original receipt of preliminary application, the Council must consider the application, including any Mn/DOT comments, ' and will either disapprove or give preliminary approval and authorize the applicant to proceed with the application process. iB. Final Approval 1 . After receiving preliminary approval , the applicant must obtain and submit to Mn/DOT an appraisal (two appraisals if purchase price is over i $100,000) made by an appraisor on the list of Qualified Appraisors Available for State Contracts. Mn/DOT will have 30 days to certify the appraisal . No offer can be made to the property owner until Mn/DOT icertifies the appraisal . 2. After Mn/DOT certifies the appraisal , the applicant may begin negotiations with the property owner . If the negotiated sale price is i above the appraised value of the property (i .e. , an administrative settlement) Mn/DOT must approve it. In cases where the property to be acquired is not within a state highway right-of-way, the appraisal ireview would be performed by the constructing agency. 3. The applicant submits the appraisal certification, purchase agreement, (administrative settlement, if required) , statement of cost, and draft i loan agreement to the Council as a final application. 4. The Council finally approves or disapproves the loan. If the loan is approved, a loan agreement for the purchase price of the property and the costs incurred by the applicant may be executed. iIII . Loan Agreement After the Council approves a loan application, Council legal staff will prepare a final loan agreement that will include at least the following points and any others the Council might specify as a condition of approval . 1 . Loans bear no interest. I i II t . 1 2. A private property owner may elect to receive the purchase price either in a lump sum or in not more than four annual installments without interest on the deferred installments. If the purchase agreement provides for II installment payments, the Council shall make the loan in installments corresponding to those in the purchase agreement. 3. Advance acquisition loans may not include relocation costs of persons or II property. Relocation will be provided in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 117.50 to 117.56. 4. The recipient of a loan shall convey the II y property for the construction of the highway to the constructing agency at the same price that the recipient paid for the property. II 5. In the event the loan recipient is also the highway constructor (such as for a county highway) the loan shall be repaid at a time prior to actual II construction. 6. Loan recipients shall submit an annual report by June 30 on the status of the loan. I 7. Upon notification by the Council that the plan to construct the highway has been abandoned or the anticipated location of the highway changed, the I recipient shall sell the property at a market value in accordance with the procedures required for disposition of property. 8. All net rents and other money received because of the recipient's ownership I of the property, and all net proceeds from the conveyance or sale of the property, shall be paid to the Council . 9. Every consideration should be given to renting and maintaining acquired II improvements (including buildings) in a manner compatible with the surrounding environment until full project acquisition. IIPART B: Hardship Loans I . What is "Hardship"? I On occasion, a homeowner must sell his home but is unable to do so only because the property lies within the right-of-way of a planned road. This II is known as a hardship situation. If certain factors are satisfied the Metropolitan Council may lend a community the funds to buy the homestead property before the property is acquired for highway construction. Hardship situations fall under one of the following two categories: II 1 . Health. I a. Advanced age, debilitating illness or injury, or other long-term handicap where present housing facilities are inappropriate or II cannot be maintained by the owner. II II 4 II • b. Other extraordinary conditions which pose a significant threat to ' the health, safety, or welfare of the owner-occupants or household member for whom they are responsible. 2. Financial . ' a. Litigation (probate) . ' b. Loss of employment and the need for distant relocation for other employment. ' c. Retirement and financial inablility to maintain current residence. d. Pending mortgage foreclosure. e. Job transfer to a distant site of employment. f. Any documented circumstance similar in impact to those stated above. II . Documenting Hardship ' Qualifications for hardship acquisitions must be fully Examples of acceptable documentation include, wherea documented. appropriate: 1 . A doctor's statement fully and clearly describing the medical reasons for which the patient should relocate. ' 2. A certificate from a real estate agent indicating the price for which the property was listed on the open market for at least 90 days. The agent must also certify that his good faith effort to sell the property was unsuccessful . 3. A financial statement explaining how financial difficulties ' constitute the basis for hardship. 4. A letter from employer affirming that the owner is to be transferred to a specified location, or similar documentation regarding loss of employment. 5. Court records and documents relating to any legal actions which provide support for the hardship basis. 6. Those portions of an income tax return supporting the hardship circumstance. The above cannot be construed as being all inclusive for every situation. ' Since it is conceivable that there will be times when the above documentation would not constitute appropriate or sufficient documentation, it would be acceptable to provide alternative data that will accomplish the required verification. • 1 1 III . Eligibility Requirements For a jurisdication (i .e., an "acquiring authority") to be eligible for a hardship loan, the property to be acquired must meet all of the following requirements: 1 . Be an owner occupied single family dwelling which may include the surrounding land of 10 or fewer acres. 2. Be located in any county, town or statutory or home rule city within ' the Seven-County Metropolitan area. 3. Be located within a proposed state trunk highway right-of-way. 4. The property may not include park land or land that is either on or eligible for inclusion on a historic register. 5. In addition, the owner and/or applicant must document that a hardship exists. IV. Hardship Loan Application Procedures A. Preliminary Approval ' 1 . The Acquiring Authority submits to the Metropolitan Council for preliminary approval : a. A statement that the five eligibility requirements are met. b. A written request from the property owner asking for hardship acquisition, setting forth the nature of the hardship. c. Documentation of inability to sell property at the fair market value as a result of highway project development. (Submit realtor' s certification that property has been on the market and unsold for 90 days) . d. A statement that federal or state participation is not available. e. A statement from the authority that relocation will be provided in accordance with Minn. Stat. 117.50 to 117.56. f. Mn/DOT statement that the acquisition will not influence the environmental assessment of the project, including the "no build" alternative. g. An estimate of the loan amount based on estimate of the fair II market value of the homestead property plus relocation costs and less salvage value. h. A legal description of the property to be acquired, its acreage, ' and a map showing the property in relation to the highway right-of- way. i . A statement of the applicant' s ability to incur this debt. (Form available from the Metropolitan Council) . • 6 i 1 j . Identificaiton of any known or obvious cleanup problems (such as hazardous waste) on the property. ' 2. The Council staff will forward the application to Mn/DOT for advisory comments within 45 days. At this time, Mn/DOT will have the option to acquire the property itself. 3. The Council , as part of #2, will request that MnDOT determine whether or to what extent the land lies within a proposed right-of-way. If ' Mn/DOT determines that any part lies outside the proposed right-of-way, Mn/DOT shall be requested to determine whether such part has economic value. If Mn/DOT determines such part to be an uneconomic remnant, the ' entire parcel shall be eligible for purchase with a right-of-way acquisition loan. If Mn/DOT determines such part to be an economic remnant, only such part as lies within the proposed right-of-way shall be eligible for purchase with a right-of-way acquisition loan. The ' Council shall accept Mn/DOT's determination regarding the economic value of excess property. 4. Within 75 days from original receipt of the preliminary application, the Council will consider the application, including any Mn/DOT comments, and will either disapprove or give preliminary approval and authorize further negotiations by the applicant. B. Final Approval ' I . After receiving preliminary approval , the applicant will obtain and submit to Mn/DOT an appraisal (two appraisals if purchase price is over $100,000) made by an appraisor on the list of Qualified Appraisors ' Available for State Contracts. Mn/DOT will have 30 days to certify the appraisal . No offer can be made to the property owner until Mn/DOT certifies the appraisal . ' 2. After Mn/DOT certifies the appraisal , the applicant may begin negotiations with the property owner. If the negotiated sale price is above the appraised value of the property (i .e. , an administrative settlement) Mn/DOT must approve it. 3. The applicant submits the appraisal certification, purchase agreement, (administrative settlement, if required) , statement of cost, and draft ' loan agreement to the Council as a final application. 4. The Council finally approves or disapproves the loan. If the loan is approved, a loan agreement for the purchase price of the property and the costs incurred by the applicant may be executed. ' V. Loan Agreement After the Council approves a loan application, Council legal staff will prepare a final loan agreement that will include at least the following points and any ' others the Council might specify as a condition of approval . 7 ......x,:a I 1 1 . Loans bear no interest. 2. A private property owner may elect to receive the purchase price either in a lump sum or in not more than four annual installments without interest on the deferred installments. If the purchase agreement provides for installment payments, the Council shall make the loan in installments correspondeing to those in the purchase agreement. 3. A real estate agent may not receive a commission or any other compensation ' from a property owner if the property is purchased with a hardship loan. 4. The recipient of a loan shall convey the property for the construction of the highway to the constructing agency at the same price that the recipient paid for the property. 5. Loan recipients shall submit an annual loan status report by June 30. 6. Upon notification by the Council that the plan to construct the highway has been abandoned or the anticipated location of the highway changed, the recipient shall sell the property at a market value in accordance with the procedures required for disposition of property. 7. All net rents and other money received because of the recipient's ownership of the property and all net proceeds from the conveyance or sale of the property, including relocation costs, shall be paid to the Council . 8. Every consideration should be given to renting and maintaining acquired improvements (including buildings) in a manner compatible with the surrounding environment until full project acquisition. II son DR. n : tuu ru" . i fit/ �� fir►' _ 1151, O LAM _ al 41- 7 •� Nagie b �!.1--------z; 111AKE r 114 = ' owiallara" 1%). - lie'llir._............_____,.'' TA-1------ --r■illigl■ mils! —, %toil( HIGHWAY �� /s IR �44:y „/f IIPL - 1 I - . ( E; Op tl,r144;4541L4 el q • is. ∎ ':; M°. x,,45` C AD ir1 1 Lit vipea slio( i frt. .3, p,,./),..vz,r t E OM lird, wItisix 7.6"/ D 12 /-- _■ ...-iir.-...-i-_-__ Patailiztia -------- - `'\ Y CIRCLE P/ �, S LD (' LAKE SUS, N );�I ® V '_/ ''.-z „� R/C E M.4.. ,,, z_ , orow..,........60,1001 z LD re ,_ MD 4 i.r' .I. I P/O 1- /II r4118PWr- LD ��' H D 12 i LAKE S •' �' vp/os f 441 .-...' A C.);". , 0 '0 01,Ir ti , e 0,,. ._.....ih, , w . il .. .. „ , - . • VA' s J alq b //( _....„-\ .) T .., , '.... '-'. ehl 1---f-T-Ci ING AND USE �4/■1 MUSH . `� N ROW .� ,�:. //;, ,,,,,,,,,,,,, P �, kt I =,oce1 LAKE -,...- 0 , ____.____=_:L_H' ��ir� °R• ®��i . "iii 111!!!=Inv -. - _ ohs c 31 LEL.W_------- 0 )J D • ��05 !/MO IAKE D 1 NN. J no ..'' .1' .".1.1- . IIIIIMP1.1 OP ..,-.44 Li. wen ilre., AN" pAC 1 F .�� MB NO:ar ��+�1l ITF HIGHWAY / ob��«i • "for •.`F,►� ►� 11= at :kV�I mil. .11'► ♦ t�s '.%- '7 -.),,,,,,„.......17/0S I -1 ,z liras "on*4,* . ,.. .. in Aram iv i.r 71.- 6- )------ _______.,,t, ...„ ,,,14,427.., 4'' ... D 12 �,, — pRCI[ �) -J LD —_ , _� i\ _ ___, ____::____ ___ ___:...__--4-..4...- te,MD 4 -� 1 ..- �— � r ICI 4419114,,L.IVP--11111w , • . 8 1!i ,♦4-)rrrrrrpil, - LD H...,,D 12 . iipliiiOND ..- Ew • .. - .— - .. - 1/4., ,, .zx _1111 ss% • HD " D : MI s _ 4,7 _ ,„. .... - 0 • 11.1 b, I ? • e 13: :t.. i...L__44 III ..ditL : � J.... ,, ,�, I . I LA D U '. E A : TERNATIVE�` = rair; • ,mil :r it Al •, USA . 41,412 '•1;', i = , ilii 1111111 N . ---,J, I a '.4\1,11:74111LIEgiliali ./. . I — ��-_ ■ En I 1� ■ IIIi1111111r ,c. In MO •.i LAM��'' �-/AM . • ' i , •• 0'j 5 �AKE ORI -P ,R R. 4..-..1 MK t• old_ N• ,d'' mu at., iff P • Ce `ATE �■ � INIK- w a, , illyr....- . HIGHWAY N /c lar •��«, 1........... _,. Z . Ida Iliac ,�� . .. ,' of ,,�,.•�y� tV%,� ,� n• 2064 Imo gigt ir P/OS r "1041""'ARO j '::: 1-11FrAla. rid; pit--- .(7 t D 12 —_-=--�� : R,M i 111W S LD (' LAKE SUSAN -- it fri, R1 C E Aix A ---iAssit• ! MD 4 II 1■44 nue, s MD 8 L D ►„list A�p42 © 4.Mit1r . L `LAKE S ---Q c ! 8 : IIt:I::LI , LD`,, , it- 0' n + p / 1 � HD 12 FP . . . 1H--•_ .1 Ss! : i i‘S'6..•%1S 1 ..;" D 04-\\,/.0,vo i vsfits ,.. s% . iiii, A air . r 7 ----Alk ., ._,. - itik - D : ii - r r \ L ' ND U TERNATIVE..... ova AI ,%%1V1USA : J '�1 ,` : ow J1 111 1 111 1111 �� ,t! •� N I ��r• ` %►w•.% ■ 1 MAP KEY A - Agricultural _ LD - Low Density MD 4 - Medium Density 4 units/acre MD 8 - Medium Density 8 units acre HD 12 - High Density 12 units/acre C - Commercial I - Industrial 1 OI - Office Institutional P/OS - Parks and Open Space I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i ■ Ifl ; ;E � NYI•W MID ,O 111 . • % .7.L•NY■Y •1 • ,^ • °°•" ‘VE i __ ii_ : ..,.1LopivIni ail 1 I\.\\‘‘.‘iiiit6,1 I , (p.1: 11111'1 11:, I',1!=_ 1 I 1 rf) . ": IFmet. 1 , , \ 1 I .0Ino i, .N I. ri•-.-- "0 -- _ 1 "_ __/,:.i2itir,:, It-,'• 4. ,.. . ,\ -‘,,, 1 iz, ,.‘ ,, '--,,,,. .., ... ■ ------ ,r.,-..- .4...1v.adi ■, . _---- _—__ Z - imouri vizat ■4.1111 , a ium MOM 7-* ok• Jai A aL:I.. Ima,\\* Mx:EI:E7tr-gr- ■•11-31 . 111 mirm mil NW , . ,4,7e3-7174-r-C' *1 mat-t 1 i 744"7,iff•=ma -74;Imam ---- - -.7•>- I ! JEW 0 iT : -.4c>Narfikill _ 'I ) - , Mr 011,47.-11 46, Ait - -;-- 1, timawn_.,-- i• 4___Ttall --..7 L.tialg ...Ari... 9 11, Aphk_ Ile lasp it.Tvi,A .,, , . _ . wir mi. -■z .,,w.. .,a,‘,- I 4 4;44 I I , tik - ot I a 4111‘ -11 F431 .414.-rn Q . -:‘,4 , mai >4 -1, mho wih,‘ '\4 Atilt aVe% " 1 -‘ - - ling I \ tAt \ --I--------,------- ip \T \ \\7 , A I ____ • , ,„. 0 I lI 1 . ill 1 i I I i ..7 I _• \, i s 8 s g a s s s s s a ? s 1 i II ) i 1 -0011i : At • 4 --000t !CR ----"n I I 1 — .4 --- 1-: a. ...—_—_,s0St -,, \ °ow 2 2 r,1 . . ...^'.2 i 15 li. .. .. 41 .14 I ,G r ii / °tut oott IL. tr. g 0 "0 2 a ,E til n -"Z es:5 05 k I ..0011C ...41 ge 1 < e g 1;1 I , IIIIWIti ivrwittil074k1 • Elf illi III 1 . I CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA IDATE: February 23 , 1987 RESOLUTION NO: 87-15 MOTION BY: Hamilton SECONDED BY: Horn IA RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE OFFICIAL MAP PROCESS FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 IWHEREAS, for almost thirty years various agencies of the State of Minnesota, Metropolitan Council, cities, counties and I special interest groups have discussed and planned the TH 212 corridor through the cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska to serve said cities and the southwest sector of the state; and IWHEREAS, throughout this time period Chanhassen has experienced significant residential, commercial and industrial Idevelopment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has participated in citizen and I technical advisory committee meetings regarding the TH 212 corridor; and WHEREAS, in certain areas of Chanhassen the increased I development is encroaching upon land area available for the TH 212 corridor; and I WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the need to accomplish the official mapping process in a timely manner. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the I City of Chanhassen hereby initiates the official map process to designate lands within the TH 212 corridor and to accomplish said process by September 1, 1987 . IPassed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 23rd day of February, 1987 . ATTEST: 1 6 G,...,_,.bb ,s (2,, �`Don Ashworth, Cit y Manager Thomas L. Ham lton,, Mayor 111 YES NO ABSENT Hamilton None Boyt Johnson y I Horn Geving A TMCWA4ST /A- • &4714ii 1 February 20, 1987 1739 Margaret St. Saint Paul , MN 55106 City Council 1 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Gentlemen; In reference to the proposed T.H. 212 alignment as presented in ' the public meeting of January 21 , my finacee, Patty Smith, and I feel the alignment should remain as presented. We own land in the Pioneer Hills development and feel the completion of T.H. 212 as proposed will provide the much needed access to the area and allow continuation of the growth Chanhassen has experienced to date. Please accept our support in this project. To keep apprised of the situation concerning development of T.N. 212 we "could appreciate continued notice of applicable public hearings and council meetings as was done for the January 21 meeting. Sincerely, (1 ,/ Kevin J. Ellsworth Patricia A. Smith II RECZTVED FEB 2 3 i987 1 CITY Ur CHANMA5EN • IFTMC"6477 l Y ' (7 ey/ficeze -s//w f--7 al/r1f-7 February 24, 1987 Ms. Barb Dacy City Planner ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 ' Dear Ms. Dacy: I am very concerned about the official proposed route for Highway 212. I ' would like the City to reconsider the South Lake Riley Route before making a decision. Even though the North Lake Riley Route would run approximately 700 feet from my property line, I have tried to be very objective in my view ' of why I- think the south route would be much more appealing. My view on this matter is as follows: ' 1. The North Lake Riley Route chops up the real estate of our city too much because of its diagonal run, and destroys the beauty for residential build-up. ' 2. I feel the property running parallel with the highway will become a target for commercial build-up. This is not at all appealing to the North Lake Route and could also hurt our downtown business community. I feel the South Route would restrict commercial build-up because of the residential placement now in that area, and the now present Highway 14. 3. The reason I feel commercial build-up will take place along the North Lake Riley Route is: the property which would run parallel with the highway would become unlikely sites for private dwelling use. As house lots, this property would be hard to use or dispose of. Thus, maintaining them as empty lots would be a hardship for the owner. Also, since most of ' the land in this area is agricultural right now, I feel the City would have no choice but to grant zoning variance requests for commercial, when development occurs. Because of this, I urge you to review the law and its quoted requirements for the granting or denial of a zoning variance. A variance request that falls within these quoted requirements can be court ordered if denied by the Variance Board. ' 4. I feel our business community in town will also be hurt because of loss of traffic on Highway 5 and loss of traffic from our own industrial park. I feel this would take place because of the close proximity of Highway 5 with the North Lake Riley Route. People will tend to travel Highway 212 instead of CITY OF CHAN HASSEh Highway 5. Less traffic, less business. The South Route RECEIVE would eliminate this problem. MAR CHANNI BEN PLANNING I • ■ Ms. Barb Dacy Page 2 February 24, 1987 Would you please consider my views when making your decision? The Minnesota ' Department of Transportation is still open to doing an Environmental Impact Study on the South Lake Riley Route. Sincerely, J nne L. Larson ■ 8590 Tigua Circle Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 , 934-3794 ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ II ■ ■ ■ ■ G4•s \'u`41 • 8501 Tigua Circle Chanhassen,- MN 55317 ' March 17, 1987 Mr. Tim Erhart 775 West 96th Street Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Mr. Erhart: I am a resident of Chanhassen, and I am writing to protest against our City' s acceptance of the North Lake Riley Route for ' the proposed T.H. 212. Permitting the highway to pass between Lake Riley and Rice Marsh Lake not only, very likely, could cause damaging silt to enter Lake Riley, a prime recreational lake, but also could seriously affect Rice Marsh Lake if the water level were inadvertently lowered. Rice Marsh lake is mostly only a few feet deep, and would turn into a muck hole, offensive to both the nose and the eye, if this occured. ' I spend a great deal of time studying bird life, and have located over 125 species of birds in the Rice Marsh Lake area in the last several years. Of these, 33 are migratory waterfowl or shorebird species. Rice Marsh Lake, having no public access or beach, sees ' only an occasional canoe or duck boat. It is an ideal stop over spot for migrating waterfowl, and, indeed, serves as such every year. The proximity of the anticipated traffic of the North Lake Riley Route to Rice Marsh Lake, not to mention the construc- tion, equipment noise and the potential of accidental drainage, could very possibly bring an end to this hidden - but ' environmentally valuable - use of this natural asset. Another point : a casual look at the North Lake Riley and the South Lake Riley Routes causes me to wonder which would be less ' expensive to build on. Following the right-of-way (on part of the South Route) , of a railroad line that may be abandoned in a few years - I 'm told - may make some sense! ' Sincerely yours, Z// ' A.W. (Mike) Mulligan AWM: sw ' fflAR 2 6 i:87 CITY OF CHANHASSEN • _.� _ - 1 (.G ki- - izait,.., k,- ....7 ., ,. . . 1 0, I . 4 ,.„.., f ... • .. .•._........ . .i. ...„-, , ,,,,, , , „!.-; , 6----:) 2-- ._,, ,.:,..) , ,, i /...,,-..7,_ .1- - I /eel* 14(„.. • F-e„, ,,,,.,c‘ , . I ,........, \,- ' -1 -7 V /'. .. .,-_,--.-.--4...: ../ --i..,.-#, .... .,. . ‘1 ( (' L., / s - - ... ,......- 4 ;-':.:/ `-- ',, : =..-''. .: - .„.....,,,' , 2(e.-,!.-' " .1...L) :_ ,1-APtif-s...... ,...—e..-,, 71; .... I/ .../ . •.0-* 1 / ,. „,,2 ,;,-,4-•.,1:-2 , . i -, _. i\'A ---7- --- (..,c.,-..‘, 1, ),_:,(Irt. i 1 t:..--i r'ts.: .... ----S-t --•....\ !f 'C... .. ___...........— .1 .---.1I .•„---- r i--W-/,'11 7w -- 4 ,7/,/v• P 1 ...,._, 2 , , ,., . „. ' .,...! / 71t,,v_....,:_e„.■ ::,;...:,-f, ...; i e.s ,:..) / ... , .... • .... ; .., 6, , ,.. , • _,: 1;i ,_ .• I • „ • . , .•-..__ - _ ._, .. ....... .. _ -----, ,' , ., r. .. ..... • , . . . - , ,., ..• , ••, ...... or ...... ,. . e/ 7 -, . . c-i-) ---, , ,..„-yL \.,f: :\ ,--. - • - - , •-. - •- i . • • _ ., — . - .. , . , . _, ..... ..- 4/ .• , N.... . - 1,...,,r• '-' • ....--- (1/ '.../ /• ... \ ) ..•-•... / . 1 • .•.•4 / ,••,.... •■•••• •• -. .■•••/ / •■■••' / \ ••••• ./' -..4 4 • /277.... .9 . /, . -1 ' "'.... ' .-• • ,i c'-• -.• . , /. /' . ... ..• ., ) , -.• I •. ' . .. ....../ ./.>:Th...1. l. •-■21,/..:•. ; ; •■••••••• ••• • /%..)-t; --) ..-/ !-•:■-' 4-i• ••/' . /'s t- / , 7 ” I ' .- .. .- •-1 • Ll ...i ...i-. ' 0 .. 7 _ _ _ , . . -. . • I • ... . •-.. — i :..-7,/,. , 7 , , .4.- - , •.f.---/ . -5*--,.. - ..k,,,,.„. -. ,,,,....,-, : . , . • - r o C R. 0-...C. ce-0,-,cr..re-'il. 7- 7 c-r'".5- c, g.7/ c--0 c-- -- 5-531 I.. .. . I I I I ..... V . ( / c _ 016 Ai 7 1 1 1 _ --- j i \;IK i• ._ '\ ' 1'..." • I ........____________—.... _ .. _ _ ._ . ... .._.... _• - I 'Z WA. ■■-&-4..._ -) _ ._________. 1 i 40 . 1 % 4 4 , .4,-, fit-fr::7,4 .1 ) A / )3/ •, ,., ,- -- .,__,;.2 ..---• ,_ I __._._ --'', _______C„2 "•-CLCL. -7,, - - II,.'i ;4-i-Ta c--) .._: .:)....._: eitio i.._ 1::>L4 ii_^,--)-3,-('a 730 Le.),_ 96 •-2-- S I rf,.:.7,..e.....- !.. 1 .t". ... / t , , / (..-7 /...;,- ... , .-..7 . -- , , , 7, I _ ____ ___._ Ii 11/..1_.e. IP 1 1./Oe Li z./.41-,_ 1---____ ____________________/ i c ..... . :______„_,.__,../.. __;.,...,_-__::, f..4___ ..,--...I c..).r_ ,..i._ ,, __ .---„.^-•-r-, —.... ----..a. s (0-1 , q......;—•■-r-N 1.-3 1/4-.,,_,.., ----f, ...1 i :\ --....-...■ ---4.-1: ..__ I --- ------ ---•-•:" Al...L.: C:. .-.. _ 1/I'1'-- .'' ...../ L/(1 . C-4 (-) • .-• • 1 ,-- : -- - -- . _ .. __-•-• a I r 1167 ) -I 'I • "?' / ' --• ! -- 0 I .,il r d./ t i -1- i//- .%'' ' f• I ../r, .,.• i _ . ... Z t,. , • , , . / I / ... E\.,, I . ..,I ,.. f! c,•,- , 1 4 • , . _ _._ 1 _tz,1.:. . .i_ _/...,_.(.'`„,.41 .. _ ,:. ,.. ,.., - ---- - _ • ._ I _. ._ , .- , ." -, . -- _. :_ ,-..-- . / io ' - /4-4-7---Z - 7 0'':' I •- ,7C(7 7 . 7 .. 7-"-, L , ,.. - ' ,... ... i -. ; .z . ... - -- :- . , _ _ _ , - - . - . : . . . . - . ......_ I _,_. . . .. ,;/;9 _ _ 4,ayz.lft* ---67(e' ,/f:_- ,--- / - _ '1- 260 / ).,4'24--X)6,7 6c1c.a X.4•-•efi&Ic(07c4--• I in, Mot) Z.)/rt.d...../ /3Z i..," C---44 1-"ii :4 4 .s C.A../ _ ..... I: 7,5-,-),,„„ea,, /4z w, ch,./.45-3-.5k I .. . , , I it:7-Z ,.- -!(_-,--/-_e__A_...-- /_;V/ -2-2;te 4 I I . . I - -4.- -- -- - ,...41.....444.1.1.■ • 0",�ia� 04 0 Metropolitan Council I s� 300 Metro Square Building I U I Seventh and Robert Streets r► �� t' St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6359 , '''rN CCrrC,^ June 3, 1987 ' 1 Barbara Dacy, City PLanner ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Dacy, I have conferred with Nacho Diaz, director of transportation regarding your ' question on the official map and the Highway 212 envirionmental impact study (EIS) . We will recommend to the council that we not participate in the EIS if the cities in the corridor fail to adopt the official map. In 1983 when we reported to the city councils on a strategy to develop a new Highway 212, the concept of official mapping was strongly supported by each city including Chanhassen. In addition, we understand that the official map will not compromise the EIS process. That is the advice we have from MnDot after they conferred with the Federal Highway Administration. As the responsible governmental unit, MnDot is in the best position to determine that question. If we can assist in this matter further please contact me or Nacho Diaz. Sincerely yours, Stephen R. Alderson SRA010 PHTRN3 1 1 An Equal Opportunity Employer 7 4rgi i P2(1"-- 41 ' CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 3, 1987 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 35 p.m. . ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, James Wildermuth and David Headla ' MEMBERS ABSENT: Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City ' Planner. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT OF THE TH 212 CORRIDOR. PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Address Karen Hasse 630 West 96th Street ' Carol Dunsmore 730 West 96th Street Kevin Finger 9151 Great Plains Blvd. Avlen Finger 9201 Great Plains Blvd . Jo Larson 8590 Tigua Circle ' Corrine Nagel 8550 Tigua Circle Kyle & Sandra Colvin 701 West 96th Street Ken Pung 620 West 96th Street ' Bob & Maggie Petersen Kevin Ellsworth 9250 Great Plains Blvd. 1739 Margaret , St. Paul Jim Curry 4817 Upper Terrace, Edina Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd . Mary Jane Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Kathy Miller 1200 Lyman Blvd . Larry Klein 9170 Great Plains Blvd. ' Steve Burke 340 Deerfoot Terrace Dennis & Polly Denton 1144 Cheery Lane, Columbia Heights James & Janet Brownell 1190 Homestead Way Richard Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail Karen Henrickson 9651 Flintlock Terrace Dixon Blosberg 530 Lyman Blvd . Karen Blosberg 530 Lyman Blvd . ' Mike Mulligan 8501 Tigua Circle Frank Fox 27990 Smithtown Road, Excelsior Sandra Prom Pioneer Hills ' Roy & Heidi Schwappach 5207 Black Friars Lane , Minnetonka (Owner Property at Tigua Circle) George & Patricia Dorsey 4609 Browndale Avenue, Edina ' Stevan S. Yasgar (Owner Property Lyman/CR 17) 5500 Thomas Avenue So . , Mpls . Craig Mertz 1100 First Bank Place West , Mpls. ' Evan R. Green (Representing Lake View Hills Apts . ) MnDot District 5 • , . I Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 2 Cheri Olson MnDot District 5 ' Fred Hoisington City of Chanhassen Councilman Geving , Councilman Johnson and Councilman Boyt were also present . I Barbara Dacy: I would like to review the purpose of tonight's meeting and review the process that will occur after tonight's meeting and then introduce the other people that will be following up my report with another presentation. The review process for the TH 212 concept alignment was initiated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation in their letter to us at the beginning of this year asking us to begin review of a conceptual alignment which is hung on the wall behind the Commissioners here. Upon reception of that letter, Staff initiated two meetings with homeowners directly and indirectly affected by the alignment and those were held on January 29th and March 26th I believe were the dates. We completed an initial step of identifying key issues of which were of concern by the neighborhood and followed up on some of those comments and will discuss that I later in the presentation. Tonight is a Planning Commission meeting conducting a public hearing for the opportunity for the homeowners to make comments and put it on the record regarding the proposed conceptual alignment of TH 212. As the Chairman stated earlier, after action tonight, the Planning Commission's minutes and so on will be forwarded on to the City Council who at that point will decide whether or not to approve the conceptual alignment. If they do approve the conceptual alignment, they will be authorizing MnDot to prepare the center line survey, construction limit and preliminary elevations on the TH 212 alignment. That is known as the official map. When MnDot completes preparing this official map, State Law requires another public hearing to be conducted by the governing body of I the municipality, which is the City Council. At that point they will take final action. To clarify maybe some people may or may not know, what is the definition of an official map. An official map is a statutory authorized means by which cities can reserve existing or proposed right-of-ways for major streets and highways as well as existing and proposed lands for public uses. The purpose of the map is to preserve the corridor so that that particular corridor is not converted to non-public uses. At this point I would like to introduce some of the agency representatives that are here tonight. From the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Project Manager Mr. Evan Green. Mr. Green's assistant, Ms. Olson. At this point I would like to introduce the two consultants who have been working with the city, not only on this topic but on related items. First Mr. Fred Hoisington who is the consultant for our traffic study in Chanhassen will present the reasons for the need for the TH 212 corridor. Then Mr. Mark Koegler who is the City's consultant on updating the Comprehensive Plan and who also was employed by Chanhassen during the time when the Citizen Advisory Committee _ process was occurring in Chanhassen. He will go through the history of the alignment review through Chanhassen and update the Commission as to the process that went into creating a Comprehensive Plan as it relates to this issue. So after Mr. Hoisington's and Mr. Koegler's presentations, Mr. Chairman I would like to follow-up with some final comments before opening it up to the public. • Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 3 IFred Hoisington: As a few of us in this room can attest, this has been one of the most frustrating projects many of us have or will ever experience. same goes probably for all of us in this room because of the continuing The I cloud that hangs over all our heads and yet we've seen very difficult matter to resolve. We were reading the last time, just before we met with the public in an informal session, we happened to read a newspaper article from 1955 that indicated that TH 212 was to be constructed in 1957. 30 y I the need for TH 212 was already known to exist and yet today it remains ago unbuilt. For the most part living with a 1950 street system, two lanes on TH 169, two lanes on TH 5, when in fact we need probably three or four times I that much laneage to accommodate for the year 2005 traffic. What I would like to do is go through and cover some of the growth factors, some of the things we see ahead and give you some impressions of the magnitude of growth Iwithin the corridor. The corridor extends from Young America on the west to Eden Prairie on the east and within that corridor there is a population of about 46,000 in 1980. Employment of 20,000 and by the year 2005, which was the forecast for the broadened study area study that we did for the City of I Chanhassen, we expect to see that population number double and the employment number triple, 200% increase in employment throughout the entire corridor. These forecasts were made by BRW in 1985 and they tend to be very Iconservative forecasts as far as we're concerned. I'm going to show you in just a minute why we think those are conservative. Nonetheless, there is going to be a substantial amount of new growth within the corridor over the Inext 20 or so years. To look at where a lot of that growth is occurring, certainly not all of it, but where a substantial amount of growth is occurring within the corridor. We look at the three primary cities there and while it needs to pass through Eden Prairie over this past few years to Iknow that it's population has something like quadrupled since 1970 and we expect to see it double again from 26,000 to 50,000 people by the year 2005. Chanhassen numbers, 8,000 approximatley in 1986 and these again are BRW's Iforecasts, 10,000 population in the year 2005 forecast. We are looking at substantially more growth. We did some of the traditional study and the input we made with the broadened study area shows forecasts higher than this so the numbers you're going to see will kind of bracket a low range of I traffic and a high range for traffic. You can see that Chaska is not forecast to grow very much either. Talking something less than 2,000 people over the next 20 years. With employment in both communities being fairly Isubstantial but Eden Prairie can almost double over the next 20 year period. Just in the three cities, we're talking about 62% increase in population during that period and a 74% increase in employment. What we've concluded Ifrom that is that not only is growth occurring within the corridor and especially within the communities, the major cities within the corridor, plus this part of the metropolitan community and this part of the state is really part of a larger community. It's a community that is growing not Ionly in terms of population employment but in terms of sheer traffic volumes which we all know are growing at a higher rate than the population itself is. What we're seeing more and more of here in this community is that Ipeople don't live and work here which means they have to come from someplace and in the case of Chanhassen, many of those people come from further west and they do use the trunk line system to get here. Many of the people who live here use that same trunk line system to go east and they work in Eden • • . 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 4 Prairie, Edina, Bloomington and Minneapolis. As Chanhassen is a very small I part of that, and even looking at the most conservative of forecasts, we're going to see substantial growth and that growth we believe is going to occur even if TH 212 is not built. One of the things the Metro Council has I conceeded, after a number of years, is the availability of streets and highways don't necessarily, of the lack of the availability of those, don't necessarily retard growth. At least population growth. After a while they II will have some effect on industrial/commercial growth. They certainly normally don't have any effect seriously depressing population growth so we've got a problem now and that problem is going to increase as time passes. All of the system through the City of Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and II further to the west, for the most part is two lanes wide and it is carrying volumes that range from 9,200 west of Chaska on TH 169 to as much as 33 , 000 on TH 5 immediately west of I-494. MnDot's rule of thumb for an offered limit for traffic on a two lane roadway is 7,500 vehicles per day and yet most of the system exists within this community and within the communities surrounding us is a two lane system designed, hardly designed, the system that was put into effect many, many years ago and was better able to handle 1950's traffic than 1980's traffic. Let's look a little bit at accidents as well. The southwest corridor is becoming quite well known for severe accidents. Accidents causing death to people who happen to- use that and that's becoming increasingly critical in the past year or two. Between 1980 and 1985 there were a total of 13 deaths on TH 169, primarily Eden Prairie. Since 1985 we know that there have been another 7, 8 or 9. Unfortunately, many of those happen to be in Anderson Lakes Parkway and TH 169 in Eden Prairie where you have some unusual things happening. Where you have some two lane, four lane, some real question as to what people ought to be doing there and that's understandable that you would that kind of problem. If you I look at the third thing, the SEV, the severity of accidents on that list, anything approaching 6 is considered very severe warranting some kind of solution and TH 169 has had that or approached that in 1980, 1981, 1983, II 1984 and 1985 and certainly since then. The funny thing about TH 5 is that, most of you folks know about that because you travel it all the time, is that TH 5's traffic is generally slow because of the big trucks and because I it's only two lanes wide and the trucks slow traffic down so there are a lot of accidents but there are not as many severe accidents on TH 5 as on the other. One of the things that the southwest corridor transportation coalition is trying to do is to try and get some improvements going within the corridor based on the need for safety improvements and we think that's probably the best chance we'll have of somehow getting the legislature to do something about providing the dollars necessary to solve these kinds of traffic problems in the metropolitan area. As you can see, those numbers are pretty small. These are the forecasts that came out of the broadened study area and what we've tried to do in this instance is to give you a high and low range. You will see that TH 5 running through the center of Chanhassen, has a range to the east of between 28,000 and 38,000 vehicles per day on TH 5 after the construction of TH 212. 30,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day just east of downtown and 20 , 000 to 26,000 per day west of downtown along TH 5. At the same time, TH 212, after it's constructed, will carry between 27,000 and 36,000 west of TH 101. 31,000 to 41,000 between TH 101 and the east city limits of Chanhassen and then in Eden Prairie between • 1 . . I 'Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 5 I35,000 and 47,000. One of the things we found in the study was that in spite of the building of TH 212, TH 5 will still carry a substantial amount I of traffic in the future and that was very frustrating for us because with the problem we already have with TH 5, it has such great traffic volumes that we can't get traffic across it and that's what we struggled throughout the broadened study area. If you can think of the lower end of those ranges I as being a much slower growth scenario including the construction of CR 18 and the bridge across the river. The higher range represents the forecast we made during the broadened study area and including or not including the CR 18 extension across the river. All the numbers I showed you before were I also pre-Canterbury Downs so you can see that the problem that we already have on that system has been compounded both by growth and by new improvements in the southwest corridor that generate large volumes of Itraffic. I'm concerned that TH 212 might once again be delayed. In the course of the process of reviewing, doing an EIS or updating the EIS and doing the official mapping process. I'm concerned that any debate, Icontinuing debate at this point in time which would delay the actions of the city, consistent with your sister cities, would have the tendency to delay that process and delay and perhaps curtail or stop any future construction of TH 212. Let me just say that if that happens, TH 5 will need at least Ifour additional lanes. TH 169 will also need at least four 'additional lanes and TH 169 can not accommodate four additional lanes in certain locations because of the river bottom. We have a very severe situation that will be Icompounded by trying to get people back and forth across TH 5 and TH 169 and not having sufficient green time to get across that highway in the future creating substantial congestion on both of those roadways. Another thing Ithat the Planning Commission needs to consider is that probably if TH 212 is not construction, even if it is not, you will still get a population growth here. We will begin to see a shift however away from commercial/industrial. We begin to see a shift in tax base more to the residential part of the Icommunity than trying to put more , as you have in the past , on the industrial/commercial tax base. With that Mr. Chairman, I will only say that the need is very great for TH 212 and whatever can be done to continue in that progress that we have made is extremely important right now. II Mark Koegler : My role this evening is to talk a little about the chronology of events that have occurred. As Fred indicated, this issue is one that's Inot new It started in 1950's. I think what we would like to focus on tonight is perhaps more recent events. We basically go back to about 1978- 1979 time period. In April of 1979 MnDot developed a series of alternatives for the alignment of TH 212, TH 169. Probably the Eden Prairie Center area down to the existing road alignment on the west side of the city of Chaska. In July of that year, 1979, there was a citizen advisory committee Iappointed to provide input to MnDot on the scoping report that was being prepared for the alignment. For any of you that are familiar specifically with what scoping reports are, essentially it's a document that begins to kind of narrow down the alternatives in documents prepared prior to the Idraft of the Environmental Impact Statement. Chanhassen was well represented on that committee as was literally every other community in the corridor. The City's representatives consisted of Councilman Dale Geving who is here this evening. Gordon Freeburg who at the time was on the . II Planning Commission Meeting 1 June 3 , 1987 - Page 6 Planning Commission. Richard Vogel and I saw Dick walk in earlier and Candy II Takkunen. I don't know if she's here or not. I attended a number of those meetings because at the time I was serving as the City's Planning Director. As a result of discussions that occurred at that level and focusing II specifically on various alignments and on the scoping report itself, the City of Chanhassen went on record in August of 1979 as favoring the north Lake Riley route. In January of 1980 the work of the Citizen's Committee I was essentially completed and the group was disbanded. In February of that same year, the scoping report was released. There was another map similar to this one that was contained within that document and the scoping report identified at that time, both the south alignment and the north alignment II and did state the city's preference for the northern route. I should also indicate that prior to the time that the Citizen's committee did disband, it did pass a resolution endorsing the recommendations contained within the il scoping report. As I think a number of the members that are in this room tonight can attest, the City was very actively involved from 1978 through 1981 with updating the City's Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan was required in the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and transportation certainly II was one of the components. The Plan was officially adopted by the City Council in April of 1982 and there were several references in the plan itself again to this issue, both verbally and in graphic form. There were a II couple of references, this is one in the text which you can see states as a result of the projects reviewed by the Citizens Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council, Chanhassen official prefers to what is II generally referred to as the North Lake Riley route. In addition to the references that were offered in the text, a numbef of the planned graphics were also consistent with that in showing the TH 212 alignment to the north being the preferred alignment and the alignment to the south as being an II alternate alignment as a part of the planning process. From 1979 to the present time, the City of Chanhassen as well as Fred indicated in the sister cities, primarily Chaska and Eden Prairie have annually adopted resolutions II in support of the TH 169/TH 212 construction. There has never really been any issue that everyone wants to see the road built. This is an example of one of the resolutions that was passed in 1984 encouraging the preparation II of the draft of the Environmental Impact Statement which at the time was the next step in the process. The City of Eden Prairie in their version of that same resolution went a little bit further. It showed a map of what they perceived as their preferred alignment through the City of Eden Prairie and II you will note that it does show the connection to Chanhassen being on the North Lake Riley side. More recently even yet there have been additional actions which really now factors for consideration as well and that is I specifically the City and the Planning Commission in particular has been involved with the review of a number of development proposals that have come to light in recent months , a number of those in the southern part of the community. In each case the actions that have occurred have been consistent with the Citizen's Advisory Committee recommendation with the Comprehensive Plan and with the 1980 Scoping Report in specifically looking at some of the development proposals that have come forward down in that area in granting II approval to those. The Halle piece, the Gagne property, the Pioneer Hills area, the existing 96th neighborhood sits right in here. The City has allowed those to continue forward. In the instances where the development I II ■ I • ' • I Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 7 Icame into contact with the north alignment, which was the preferred alignment in the Comprehensive Plan, action on that particular one I believe was delayed for perhaps a year and a half or so, hopefully until an Ialignment could be confirmed and there was a little better feeling for what the relationship between the roadway and the development actually would be. That is an important factor to note because once again, each action the City ' has taken since 1978 has followed a consistent pattern and that consistent pattern has really been to stress the fact that the northern alignment is still the preferred alignment as it has been as far as the City of Chanhassen goes and that's the policy the City has put forward. So that's Ijust a very brief overview of Some of the history, some of the context of how it's come to the point of time where we are tonight. I think with that, Barb's got a few more comments to offer and I would certainly be glad to Ientertain any questions you would have. Dacy: Mark referred to the two alignments as they run through Chanhassen Iand directly effect Chanhassen. What we see behind the Planning Commissioners is the map that was sent to us by MnDot to be considered. The line it's proposing is an interchange and realignment at TH 101 proceeding Isouthwesterly to an extension of CR 17 with an interchange there then southwest into Chaska. In this area, the proposal was that Bluff Creek would connect into Pioneer Trail and Pioneer Trail would cul-de-sac to the west of the Pioneer Hills subdivision. Then frontage roads or connection Iroads from the interchange would continue on west. Major comments that came out of the two informal hearings was that this option is really proposing a discontinuous route of Pioneer Trail and these frontage roads are basically 111 not necessary. It forces the turning movement to come west on Pioneer Trail I to go up to the interchange and west. The other comment that we had from the informal meetings was from the Lake Susan neighborhood. They were concerned about the intersection of TH 101 directly in front of their Ineighborhood and requested that we look at shifting the alignment a little bit to the east. What is being recommended for Commission and Council adoption is this conceptual alignment which shows a realignment of TH 101 to Ithe east all the way up to TH 5 and the old alignment of TH 101 would exist as a frontage road or pub-lic street to serve those properties. Then in this area, to address the discontinuity issue I was talking about before, is proposing Pioneer Trail to go west, construct a bridge and still have the Iconnection of Bluff Creek into Pioneer Trail. That eliminates the frontage roads that were originally proposed. To give the Planning Commission a feel for typical construction time table. If the official map is adopted this Iyear, the next step would be to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement and preliminary design. That typically takes three years. After that point the final design phase is conducted by MnDot then right away acquisition begins after that and that is estimated at a two year time frame than ' construction bids are awarded, etc., so you can see that the basic planning' period for a project of this size takes at least 8 to 10 years at minimum. This time table was based on some earlier projections before the legislation Iacted on allocation of transportation funds so I think we can adequately estimate that it's at least 10 years before construction could occur and everything depends on whether or not money is available from the State to construct the project. Finally, the Commission should be aware that Chaska Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 8 and Eden Prairie have completed their review of the conceptual alignment ' this year and have authorized MnDot to begin with the official map in their communities. So the Staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission consider and approve this revised alignment and make the recommendation to the City Council to authorize MnDot to prepare the official map based on this alignment. Conrad: Their recommendations were? Their mapping supported this 1 particular alignment in both of those cities. Tonight we're going to open it up for public comment and hear what you have to say about the location. I think there obviously is a traffic need. Transportation in the community II along with highways. There's development and one thing the Planning Commission looks at when you put a highway in, what occurs around that highway. I'm sure some of you are going to be interested in that and I'm II guessing you're going to talk about that. Barbara, could you relate to the group and myself how we should address those development issues? We will listen to people's comments tonight in terms of development and commercial encroachment, getting close to their housing. How would you like us to field those concerns and how do you see us, the Planning Commission, taking it forward and dealing with the Comprehensive Plan? Dacy: At the last informal meeting, the land use alternatives that are included in your packet were discussed at that meeting. I think maybe what I would suggest is that you go ahead and open the comments and if there are II questions about that I can address those at that time. I could give another presentation on the land use alternatives. I don't know what type of comments they want to address first. I'm merely suggesting that we kind of handle it as we go. If you like I can discuss the three alternatives . Conrad: No, that's okay. I was trying to give those that are here an idea, we're not going to make decisions about land use plans tonight and that's really not why we're here. We're here to decide where the highway goes if it goes someplace. If the Planning Commission recommends it goes someplace. After this meeting there is going to a process that we're going to follow to update Comprehensive Plan, decide what goes alongside this highway and I II guess what I'll have to say is that you'll probably hear some reaction from the Planning Commission and we'll take that forth and make sure that there are public hearings scheduled to review those particular elements that effect you in terms of what goes in the neighborhood. Again, sort of a map for the plan for the city for what we feel is appropriate next to the highway, wherever it goes. That's a lot of mumbo jumbo but I think it means II in my way of thinking that we' re going to talk about highway tonight. We want to hear your comments about development around it and we will incorporate that into some of our planning that we're going to take forward _ from tonight's meeting. With that aside, what I would like to do is open II this up for public comments . Jim Curry: I own property on the south and west shore of Lake Susan and it's nice to be here. Very well done I thought on the presentations. Just a couple of things that I wanted to add to what was said and that is that in your showing of the activities that have been done in accordance with 1 111 • Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 9 Ithis long time thinking of the north route, Chanhassen Hills last year of course was preliminary plat approved with that in mind and I don't have a thing to show here but you remember how we laid it out with the road in I mind. The buyers, of course, is building models. He's moved millions of yards of dirt and has no problem with TH 212 going on the north route. In fact being close to it he thinks is an advantage and I remember we spoke Iwith you and the Council about making the lots on the highway itself larger so there would be more backyard, that sort of thing so again, this was done keeping in mind the northern route preference which had been spoken of in the past. The other thing that you will be seeing very shortly, as a matter I of fact next week I think it is , between the west shore of Lake Susan and Audubon Road there's another PUD coming in that's, I think it's the largest one Tom Hamilton told me, in the history of the city. It's actually just I under 300 acres. 297 acres and according to down zoning, even from the Comprehensive Plan, it's about 800 more units. Just for you peoples information, there's about 126 units in the five phases of Chanhassen Hills. The first phase has been finally platted and like I say it's going up now. ' This other one, 800 more units so I really got a kick out of your figures Fred because there will be 1,000 units there from those two within not too long a time and that would probably make 3 , 000 people so when you speak of I2005, it sounds way out in the distant future we'll be far more than that with all the activity also going on in the north side. From my standpoint anyway, the important thing is that we've taken the north route into account Iin our planning and the approvals we've gotten and the buyers of the land and the lots have taken that into account and want it. They want to be that close so we don't have a problem with the north route, we want it and I just thought that was something that should be said . IJo Ann Larson: I live at 8590 Tigua Circle in Chanhassen. The first time I heard about this route was last year when MnDot was out scoping the area so II did a little investigating. I don't have argument that we need a new transportation system out in this area. My argument is, did the City in 1979 choose the best route for a preferred route for Chanhassen? In looking up information, I noticed in 1979 a Citizen's Advisory Committee was I appointed. On that committee were two people that lived rather close to the south route. No one on the Citizen's Advisory Committee lived anywhere in Ithe area of the north route. The other three people were far away from both routes. I'm wondering why the north route wasn't better represented on this Citizen's Advisory Cammittee where the issues could be looked at a little more fairly. I just have a concern that sometimes when developments are in Iyour neighborhood, you have a tendency to hear everything that's going to go on in your neighborhood and not listen so closely to the other g neighborhood. One of my concerns is Lake Riley. The north route could adversely affect the lake where the south route would not affect the lake at Iall. There are other concerns with wetland with the north route. Also concerns with fish migrating up to Rice Marsh Lake. I believe the fish would be able to get through in the Highway Department's hydraulic method Ifor building but a concern is with spills into the stream and spills and run-off running into Lake Riley. That's why I'm mentioning the fish because the fish can get through but if there is spilling in there, there could be a problem there. Right now I can't think of any of the other major issues. I I ' Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 10 guess the main thing is I think it's premature to officially map this route I right now when there is going to be an EIS done on the south route also. I feel that an Environmental Impact Study is done to determine the environmental impact of the community and to look at them and determine which route is best for the city. I feel if we officially map the north route right now and an environmental impact study is done on the south and it turns out that the Environmental Impact Study favors the south route, that building will have taken place along the north route which would encourage the north route if chosen later on. Also I feel if the north route is officially mapped right now, that building will be escalated on the south route because they would say that this isn't the route officially mapped. I'm talking about building occurring on the north route that could accommodate the highway like rezoning changes of commercial and so on before the highway is definitely a go. I'm not sure if this is what could happen but I would like to bring that up. Conrad : Is there anything we can respond to in terms of Jo Ann's comments in terms of the Citizen' s Advisory Committee Barbara? Dacy: I was not here when they were appointed but Mr. Vogel is here. Maybe he would like to respond to that as to the method of selection. I Dick Vogel : I think Mark asked me to be one of the people on the Advisory Commiteee. Is that right? Mark Koegler : I don ' t know. Dick Vogel : Anyway I was asked to be on and that's why I was on and at that I time, from what I remember of it, the development where Mr. Curry is now, I don' t know who owned it then but at that time the builder seemed to want to get that moving. I think it had been started, proposed to be started. Also, from the first time, we had a hook-up with highway 17 which was going to be a new highway at that time to TH 212 which I think was changed. But I was asked to be on the commitee, that ' s why I was on there. Conrad: And you obviously felt that the northern alignment at that preferable alignment . 9 at time was Dick Vogel : I think where the most people are is where you would want the road the easiest to get on if you're going to take traffic off TH 5. That's my feeling. They're saying, I think the MnDot people when they were out II before said that even if TH 212 is built and TH 5 is upgraded, TH 5 is still going to keep a little more traffic than TH 212 does but I think we will find that if there is a way they can get to TH 212 and this to TH 5, they will do it and I would expect they will have a TH 101 interchange to do II that. If TH 101 is going to be realigned. Dacy: In addition to that, some of the other primary reasons for the north alignment was at that time, the intersections of CR 17, it was felt that the north alignment would provide better access to the Industrial Park and the downtown area and also the north alignment traverses through property and 1 I . I Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 11 IIdoes not sever any existing neighborhoods in the south alignment. The West 96th Street would be impacted by that particular alignment. The Eide House is within the alignment. IDick Vogel : I think that ' s the only house it touches . Dacy: Right and finally as Mr. Hoisington has stated, the transportation I studies that have been conducted have supported the need to provide a reliever to TH 5. I Conrad: The EIS will be run strictly on the route that we collect, is that right? Dacy: No, what the EIS will address is that the Scoping Report originally I considered nine alignments and the conclusion of the Scoping Report stated that the following alignment should be studied. Those alignments are Iindicated by the solid black line. Mitchell Lake residential and System B alternative in Eden Prairie, North Lake Riley, South of Lake Riley in Chanhassen and then on out into Chaska. The EIS would study all those routes. The intent of the official map is not to force the alignment onto I any one route. The intent is merely to state a preference for the community's preferred alignment. The Scoping Report did identify potential impacts along the north alignment between Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley. Mrs. Larson is correct. They stated fish migration as one example. I However, as some of you may recall on the Gagne subdivision came in and Mr. Vogel will be coming in with a plat fairly quickly here , there is a Class A wetland in the southern part of Lake Riley or I should say the land that Iabuts the southern part of Lake Riley drains into that wetland and then eventually out into the lake. People from the Lake Riley homeowners association were concerned about the impacts from the septic systems and so Ion so there is no question. The Environmental Impact Statement is going to have to evaluate a number of issues on each corridor. Some corridors provide more advantages than others envirnomentally. Other corridors provide more advantages for traffic system and so on but again, the basic Ineed is that we need to preserve some type of corridor and state an official alignment. Also, in order to even conduct the Environmental Impact Statement, agencies such as the Metropolitan Council and MnDot are saying Ithat no longer are budget monies available to fund the EIS strictly out of MnDot. In this case, communities have and are in negotiation with a powers agreement to fund the Environmental Impact Statement. We're 3oint Iestimating the total cost is going to be approximately $320,000.00 over the next three year period. The three communities and the two counties have authorized expenditure of $30,000.00 over the next three years. Metropolitan Council has indicated that they would participate with I $50,000.00 and then MnDot with $120,000,00. If the official ma adopted, I do have a letter from the Metropolitan Council that says they will not authorize their expenditure. In order to get the project Iwe need to have the EIS completed and in order to get the EIS completed,�gwe have to have a joint effort from all jurisdictions. I ■ Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 12 Conrad : Jo Ann , the last comment I can remember that you made or one of , them, related to commercial development and what's going to happen to land around there, north, south whatever. I eluded a little bit to that before we opened it up to public hearing. I think obviously a highway is going to I stimulate something. There's going to be demand for development. It would be our intent to review those land use issues appropriately, as quickly as we can, that would make sense. I think that's real important to do and I don't know that we can come to grips tonight with those land uses but it's something that the Planning Commission would forward on and review and hopefully you stay in touch with those issues. There will be public hearings and time to comment on how that land is really used. What I think you're seeing though with Mr. Curry around and a whole lot of other residential, there is a lot of residential development occurring down there and there's also a major downtown that's being planned and commercial growth I planned for right downtown Chanhassen so I think there's a general feeling that commercial development should be in downtown Chanhassen and as you can see realistically, there's a lot of residential growth along that corridor whether there's a highway there or not. That might tell you how we're going I to plan things in the future. That doesn't mean that's the way it's going to be but it might tell you the leanings of the City Council or the leanings of the Planning Commission. I wanted to respond to some of your comments because sometimes we forget as we get into the public hearing a little bit more. Craig Mertz : I'm here as Attorney for the lake owners of the Lakeview Hills Apartment complex. On the map behind you the complex is located right between the two lakes. The Lakeview Hills property is bounded on the north by Rice Marsh Lake and on the south by Lake Riley and the east boundary, the property is the Eden Prairie line. There is approximately 177 apartments units. It extends from shoreline to shoreline. Approximately 177 units of multiple family on the property right now. The proposed alignment creates two problems for the owners of the complex. First it has an effect on the owner's development plans for the property and second they believe that it has an effect on the existing residential units out on the property going at those one at a time. As to the development plans for the property, the I alignment of the highway in this whole selection process creates a dilemma for the owner of such a property. We've been shown a rather extended time frame from today's meeting to when construction might actually start. The dilemma for people like my clients is what do you do in the meantime? Do you assume that it's going to go through or do you carry out your long term plans that you always had to develop the property? The owners asked me to advise the City that if we get to the point that we think it's economically prudent to pursue a development plan on this property, we're going to do so and file necessary applications to try to get city approval for such a development of the residue of the property notwithstanding the fact that I 3 to 4 years after that the City may be seeking to buy that very same property. The second problem that I want to go back to is the effect on the residue of the existing residential units. The owners view the alignment as 11 being an attack on their marketing plan. Right now in a nutshell , the marketing plan is that these are apartments that we're offering to folks who want country living, wide open spaces, etc. and the location of this highway II 1 . ' Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 13 ' adjacent to the complex is obviously going to destroy that particular marketing complex and we feel that we're going to go from a high amenity type of marketing presentation that we can show to potential renters to a ' buiding that's going to be essentially a highway buffer. Conrad : Craig, how close is the nearest unit to the highway? ' Craig Mertz: I think somebody could reach out their bedroom window and touch the cars. It's going, from the looks of the map, it appears that the center line of the corridor is approximately half-way between the north edge I of the northerly building and the south edge of the open water of the lake. It effectively destroys the development potential of the property. I Dacy: The scale of the map there is about one inch equals 200 feet so we could be taking anywhere between 300 and 500 feet. Jo Ann Larson: I would also like the Planning Commission to know I talked ' to the EPA, PCA and the Environmental Quality Board of Minnesota and neither of them like to see cities officially map a route before the EIS is done. They also stated the same reason that an Environmental Impact Study is to I determine the environmental impact of the corridor and that the corridor could change after the Environmental Impact Study is done. Right now they stated all that we have is Environmental Impact statements and a study looks I greater into these problems. I also brought up a problem with Barb. She was going to check into it. I was talking with the PCA. I wanted to know how badly this would affect the lake and a gentleman at the PCA said, isn't Lake Riley one of the lakes up for a grant and I said yes , I believe it is. IThe gentleman at the PCA, they were concerned about the effects of the run- off into the lake and issuing a grant with the taxpayers money if they are going to have this problem. I mentioned that to Barb and I think she was ' going to check into it but that ' s what I was told when I called . Dacy: Yes , I did follow up with Mr. Mark Tom i zak with the PCA and Mr. Cliff Anderson. First of all regarding the Lake Riley chain of lakes grant. It's Ia program approximating about $500,000.00. It has been authorized from an environmental protection agency to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The monies have been awarded to Chanhassen and Eden Prairie subject to Iexecution of how exactly those funds are to be distributed. The Lake Riley chain of lakes program addresses not only Lake Riley but Rice Marsh Lake, Lake Susan, Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. As you all are aware, those lakes Ieventually reach into Lake Riley and the service area encompasses a good one-third to one-half of our urban service area. They confirmed that the TH 212 construction project would not adversely impact that grant program. In fact, some of those monies have to be matched by the City, Watershed ' District and the DNR. The grant is aimed at what I would call two types of programs. One to address point source pollution and one to address non- point source pollution. An example would be our downtown redevelopment Iproject we're installing a storm sewer system that does not exist today. We're installing a sedimentation pond that will hold back a volume of the run-off that is now going down into Rice Marsh Lake and into Lake Riley. Those type of improvement programs, even a Fertilizer Ordinance program, • Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 14 those are all covered under the grant scope of activities and what needs to I be done at this time is that all affected agencies have to actually execute how monies are going to be spent. What programs are going to be implemented within the entire chain of lakes project. Yes, the TH 212 project as I said I before was identified in the scoping report. There are potential impacts from the highway onto Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley however to address her one concern , they did confirm that it would not effect whether or not that I grant would be effected. As to what she also mentioned as to that reference that the City's not officially map before the EIS, Mr. Tomizak is employed in the Water Quality Division. He was not directly involved with the scoping process. He is not aware of a history that has occurred on TH 212. II I spoke to Mr. Anderson who is the head of the agency, of PCA and he related to me that under the EQB rules, the Minnesota Department of Transportation is the responsible governmental unit. They are advising the cities to conduct an official map and they are the most likely ones to determine whether or not the official map is going to compromise the results of the EIS. As I stated earlier, we feel that is not the case. That we need to reserve the corridor. All alternatives will be studied and addressed. All II environmental impacts, traffic issues, relocation neighborhoods, acquisition costs, social impacts , economic impacts, etc. . Roy Schwappach: I recently purchased a lot on Tigua Circle and excuse my ignorance of the whole matter but this is my first meeting and my first knowledge of something like this happening. We thought we covered it I thoroughly. We purchased the lot for a quiet country setting and thought we covered any obstacles of this size. Apparently we were wrong. I would just like to go on record as saying I support Jo Ann's contention and concerns that nothing is done before a thorough EIS study. Also, that the cost of the alternatives of the second less charge. The costs associated behind all those. They may have been let out since the meetings in January and March but I would kind of like to see the costs associated with each alternative II and again, just the contention that a thorough study is done before anything is mapped out. Dacy: Let me address his first issue. After the Citizen Advisory Committee I process was completed and the scoping reports completed and so on, there should have been, under the ideal conditions, adopting an official map at that point and completing the EIS after that and so on, that would have been II the ideal condition. Unfortunately, because of the process the way it is, that was not conducted so I can understand the frustrations from the homeowners about now knowing about the project when they bought the lot. As II far as the cost of each alternative, I was showing the cost of the EIS but as far as what the North Lake Riley costs versus the South Lake Riley route. . . Evan Green: I'm the project manager for this project over at MnDot' and this ' project has been through a lot of environmental studies up to this point. is The Citizen's Advisory Committee that worked on this took into account a lot I of the environmental considerations such as lakes, wetlands, housing and things such as that. Out of that study came this document which we call the Scoping Report. Before that document or before that study was started there I ■ I . . I Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 15 Iwas also a corridor location study done and a draft EIS was started so there was a lot of information available to that study group on this particular I project. I think that they made an honest effort during their meetings to review all of that data. I know for a fact that they had many meetings where we provided them experts, Fish and Wildlife did, the DNR and they came out and reviewed these various alternatives with the Committee. After that I study was done, we produced what we call a scoping document to reduce the number of alternates that would have to be studied during the EIS process. And the North Lake Riley and South Lake Riley are still included in that I scoping process. Unfortunately, the project was dropped out of the planning program and we decided that we did not have the money or the time and effort and staff to complete an EIS and the EIS was dropped. In the meantime, the cities out here continued to grow day by day. I normally review the plats I at the office that abut the trunk highway system and we try to coordinate our future plans as much as we can with those of the proposed developments. That just keeps going on and on and on. Now, to wait another four years Ithere are not only going to be problems on this north route, significant problems if- you don't do something, but also the south route will have those same problems. There are on the south route several developments down there that have already occurred and people are living there too so I know it's Igoing to be a hard decision for you to determine if you should go ahead or not but we fully stand behind the City Staff's position that a route should be officially mapped and protected. That's the only way to preserve Isomething out here to do something in the future. Conrad : One of the comments I wanted you to react to was what are the costs of those two alternatives? Have they been specifically costed out? The Itwo different routes and were those in anybody's review in terms of the Citizen's Advisory Committee or is that strictly not a Chanhassen function at this time? IEvan Green: As far as the cost of the two different alternates, I don't have specific costs on them. They are fairly similar in length and design, Inumber of bridges. The main thing that would make the difference on. cost for a segement of highway would probably be the number of interchanges that we stuck in. An interchange could go anywhere from 5 million up to 10 million dollars to construct depending on what you build . IConrad : Funding for_ the highway comes from where? IEvan Green: From the road user. The person paying the gas taxes. You and I . Every time we drive. IBob Peterson: I live on TH 101 just south of the proposed TH 212. I guess I would like to just throw out a couple of things that I'm sure the, Planning Commission and MnDot obviously knows. I think my priorities in the whole thing would be that we use the old TH 169, TH 212 corridor and if the bluffs Iare in the way and the watershed 's in the way, I guess as citizens we all own it and there ought to be some way to work that out. I can see that that's not going to be done. Of course, the other way is to take the iinorthern corridor. Fine. Now the interchange on TH 101, and I think what I I 1 • Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 16 want to bring up is to make sure that everybody is a little bit aware of the ' dollars that are going to be involved to the city of Chanhassen. First of all you are running a 300 foot right-of-way for approximately five miles through the city of Chanhassen? Evan Green: I don' t know the measurement . Dacy: It's between 3 and 5. Bob Peterson: Without interchanges. We're talking roughly a .couple hundred acres of prime property in Chanhassen. You developers obviously know what II acres are selling for now. I see some choice acre lots going , with some limited improvements, $30,000.00 to $40,000.00 per acre and these up to the year 2005 or whever we are talking about this highway being done, these dollars are going to come off the tax rolls. They're not going to generate taxes to pay for things. Things like TH 101 being extended from the TH 212 up into the downtown area at a big cost to the city of Chanhassen I understand. Am I right? Is Chanhassen going to have to pick up some of the I costs of TH 101 to be brought up into the city to downtown? Dacy: That has not been decided yet. There has been no committment as to who is going to improve the highway. Bob Peterson: Okay, then the other thing would be, eventually the traffic II load at the intersection of TH 101, the exodus at that intersection from the Minneapolis people and all over, which is fine, exiting and going down to the race track is also going to make us one day take TH 101 all the way down to the river and expand that. That's going to be more loss of tax land to I the city of Chanhassen. It's probably going to be more expenses to us. My feeling, and it's a very selfish one and I assume most everybody that's here has some selfish reason for being here, is that I wouldn't really like to 11 see the interchange on TH 101. If TH 212 goes on the northern corridor, my personal feeling is fine, we'll move the traffic through the city of Chanhassen but the interchange on TH 101 concerns me as I'm sure it concerns the people at Lake Lucy. I look at down the road, the income. The extra expenses that the city of Chanhassen, and it's going to be the taxpayers that's going to end up paying for all these improvements and I just hope the Planning Commission understands some of these things and maybe looks down II the road that far and sees really where we're going. Friday Chanhassen is going to let the downtown award go and I believe that's coming out of the TIF's money and I believe that's future tax income money. That's about 3 million dollars and in the same token we're talking about wiping other income lands off of the tax rolls. It concerns me because I intend to stay in Chanhassen for a long time. It's a beautiful community. I'm new here and I really like it and I just wanted to throw that in for some kind of II comment. Conrad: Do we ever pay attention to money on the Planning Commission 1 Barbara? I 1 ■ I . , Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 17 IDacy: Let me say that for example, as to the downtown issue, that has been a primary concern of the Planning Commission. Yes, tax increment funds are being used for a portion of that. The remainder of that is being assessed. I The tax increment district is proposed to be ended by the mid 90's. The development that's within that district that is existing now and will be generated because of the tax increment program will come back on line and I start paying into and start sharing the overall burden. The value though that the City is getting is marketedly improved downtown area. The other issues as to who pays, acreage lost and the right-of-way improvements and so I on, that's a typical situation as far as typical highway improvements that any community has to address. - They have to provide roads to handle the traffic that other areas of the community are generating traffic. As Mr. I Green eluded to, we're all paying gas taxes, we're paying excise taxes on your cars and so on. It's part of the process that has occurred up to this point. There are a lot of unanswered questions as yet about the jurisdiction of TH 101. However, that's the best I can respond to his questions at this time. IConrad: Very seldom do we as the Planning Commission get involved in economic matters. IDacy: Yes , that 's true. I Conrad: We do look at issues in terms of the public health, safety and welfare and I'm not sure welfare, how broad that scope is but I guess generally, and I'm not sure if I'm taking the Planning Commission out of this issue, typically it's City Council when there are economic decisions, I they incorporate those factors because they have to look at budget. We, as the Planning Commission are looking at some philosophic things and we have the liberty of not worrying about the cost. It's not the fact that we don't Iworry about it because we are all citizens and sooner or later sombody is going to pay for it but generally my interpretation of what the Planning Commission does is not to review financial matters. We'll pass forward Ithose comments . They are public record right now but I don ' t know that we can deal with cost matters. They are certainly issues that the City Council will have to address . IEvan Green: Could I say just one thing about the cost of the land. As you know as time goes on-, land only increases in value so that makes it all the more imparative to define this corridor and define the limits and then to Ireserve it for something you know you're going to need. Whether we build that there or not and you do develop your city, you are going to need some sort of transportation facilities regardless. If the land isn't Ithat's when the real problems come. There are buildings there. provided, people to move. Costs associated with that sometimes reach the valueeofre land . That ' s how important it is to get this thing resolved . IKevin Finger: I live down on Great Plains Blvd. I talked to you guys s a couple years ago. I own my own business and it's a small business y gentlemen, if I were you and I had all the facts that you have in front of III You by MnDot and by the Staff , I would throw my arms up and say how can I II Planning Commission Meeting ' June 3, 1987 - Page 18 make a decision? You've got major items that are out there that you just ' have no idea about. It's not well, we're leaning one way or the other. You just have no idea. We are looking at a major part of this plan, as I understand, is taking TH 101 up to downtown Chanhassen. Who is going to pay ' for it? If Chanhassen has to pay for it, to me that's a whole other issue because I don't think, I've got a daughter in school and I see how the school is. It's not going to be long and Chanhassen is going to be building II schools. I know we don't deal with economic issues here but going on, another item, we've got the EIS issue. We don't know where we're sitting on that. Do we go north or south? At the last Chamber of Commerce meeting we had an individual from the DNR come in. We are probably going to have one II of the nicest fishing lakes in the Metropolitan area within 3 or 4 years, Lake Riley. They are going to kill off all the fish and they are going to restock it with prime, good fish. Now, I hate to see that ruined and you can bet if it goes to the north it's going to ruin it. Now I don't know. Somebody said there are wetlands to the south and maybe they drain into Lake Riley and maybe that does the same thing, I don't know, but that's a major item that nobody has answered. How can we make a decision tonight and say we're going to block off all this land and we're going to throw all of our eggs in this basket and hope and pray every night before bedtime and everything else and hope that everything goes right because if one thing goes wrong, we throw it out the window. Look at how long they had to wait on 18 and when will that ever be done, who knows? Other concerns that I've got is at the last Chamber meeting we also talked about TH 5. Let's be selfish, let's talk about Chanhassen. Forget about TH 212, let's get TH 5 developed. Get MnDot going on TH 5 because that's going to help us. That's going to help the economic downtown pay for that 3 million dollars that is going out of our funds. Let's do something that's going to be more directly II beneficial. TH 212 is not going to benefit Chanhassen no way. Anybody here who thinks that Chanhassen has a major benefit out of this, you are dreaming. The people are going from Little America to Eden Prairie Center back home. That's all they're going to do. Maybe they will come in and take TH 101 down to the race track. They aren't going to Chanhassen downtown. They aren't going to the Dinner Theater. They're going someplace II else. If they're going to Chanhassen, they'll take TH 5. Another concern, and I'm happy that you addressed it and I guess I want to emphasize, if we're stuck, which it sounds like everybody has said that since 1979, it's a real shock to me because when I bought my property two years ago, I got your long range plan and .you didn't have anything on there about TH 212, but anyway, if we're stuck with TH 212, I'm concerned about the industrial development along there. If I'm stuck with that road, I don't want to have II any industrial development along that at all. Residential only. Like you say, they can go to the Industrial Park or downtown. One quick point, Barb mentioned about the best of doing it would be to get the final map to MnDot and then to get the EIS done and then come to the Planning committee and II that stuff, if that's the best way of doing it, let's do it that way. Why, because Eden Prairie which has all the bucks around here which we all know about and Chaska has approved it, Chaska it doesn't matter to them, but why II since those two have approved it why do we have to hurry up and approve it and get into that pressure. Heck with it. It doesn't benefit us, it benefits them. I ■ I . I Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 19 IConrad: You make the assumptions that highways are definitely going to be bad and maybe that's an appropriate assumption but I think you also have control on how that highway goes in. I can recall, I'm not really I necessarily an advocate of highways but I can sure sight some examples of maybe some of the bridges that MnDot has put in over the Minnesota River that have been done with a great deal of sensitivity to the environment so it doesn't necessarily mean that it's doom and gloom when you put a highway I in. Dacy: I would like to clarify something if that's possible. Number one, I the Planning Commission is not- acting on it just because Eden Prairie and Chaska just approved their conceptual alignment. Again, this corridor affects all of Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden Prairie, Hennepin and Carver County. I All five jurisdictions have been involved in the process all at once. It's been a joint group effort to look at the problem. TH 5 is programmed to be improved to four lanes by 1992. As you heard Mr. Hoisington say, four lane TH 5 is not going to solve the overall growth projections of Chanhassen. IEven with TH 212, there will still be a significant amount of traffic on TH 5 that would technically call for the need of a 6 to 8 lane improvement. I Without TH 212 it's going to fail. Chanhassen can not be pulled out between the two communities and say that this is not going to benefit us. The three communities are served by these corridors and are growing at a pace that generates traffic that is going to affect the liveability of these I communities. We're talking about traffic safety. Mr. Hoisington referred to the number of accidents and so on. There is a clear need not only to upgrade TH 5 to four lanes but an even clearer need that we need an I alternative corridor to help relieve the traffic. As far as the land use issue, Mr. Finger here, you are well aware that you are located out of the urban service area and you're in the rural service area. Development in that district is limited to a 1 unit per 10 acre basis as authorized by the Inew Zoning Ordinance that was passed by the City in February of 1987. That district only permits development on that basis. As far as the long range plan, if you look at the Comprehensive Plan, there was a discussion on TH 212 in there. The discussion on TH 212 is within our Comprehensive Plan and I as shown by Mr. Koegler. IConrad: I thought it was a dotted line in there. Wasn't it a dotted line in the Comprehensive Plan? Mark Koegler : Two years ago it was. Both alignments have been on the plan since 1978, 1979 consistently in that configuration. I Dacy: This is a copy from the Plan map and th from the Comprehensive Plan in your p there is a copy of the exerpt Iy packet. Conrad: I just had the impression that I've always seen it. Forever and Iever and I 'm not sure what I ' ve been looking at but I thought it was there. Mike Mulligan: I also live on Tigua Circle, 8501. Mr. Finger if you can find a highway without any commercial development I would like to see it. I've been sitting here making some notes that I would like to go over. They 1 I - Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 20 are somewhat disjointed and not in any particular order. i bought my ' property four years ago and built a house three years ago. I would like to say that at that time neither I nor several of my neighbors who are sitting here were told about the prespective highway. I also attended the last two II meetings that Ms. Dacy mentioned and I brought that up then and was told the City just doesn't have any mechanism for informing people about that. When I appeared before this group with a construction model of the home and I request for a variance, I wasn't told about it then either. When we applied for a built permit we weren't told about it then either and I can't believe the statement that the City doesn't have a mechanism for contacting homeowners or property owners or home builders at least when they are at the II permit stage. I kind of feel like I've been had frankly and so do my neighbors. I'm being real selfish here. We didn't know and weren't told about this. I didn't find about it myself perhaps mostly through my own , ignorance until this last series of meetings was announced. We kind of trickle up here one by one giving our sort of unprofessional opinions kind of against the pros that seem to be lined up against us. The same fellas that were here at the last meeting or two to talk about how wonderful the north route is what our great need for moving the automobile is and I haven't heard anybody speak against that yet we continue to have to go through that part of the meeting before we get into this part of it which is II what most people are here for. Mr. Curry just happened to stop by give a ringing endorsement to the north route. Obviously, we're kind of bucking the whole program here. This is why I say I feel that I at least was kind II of had on this. I don't know whether I would have bought my lot or not had I known what was going on or I may not have paid that price for it and yes, I do realize that over the period of the 30 years that you've been involved in this thing, property prices do go up. The trend is up. As I say these notes are kind of disjointed. I can believe the statement that we don't have any economic consideration here. That seems to be some kind of fantasy land that we're operating a planning group without any consideration of cost. I'm not sure I heard you right but that's kind of the way it came across to me. Conrad: When I explained roles, there are different groups in government 1 that do different things. It's sort of like having a company, you've got a finance department here and a marketing department there. I just wanted to make that very clear that when you speak to us , we concentrate on certain 11 issues and we play certain roles based on how we're chartered. We have a charter and I wanted to make sure that those of you here were listening to that. That charter's not unique, it's pretty much a charter that all cities II have. Economics are certainly a factor. This is not the group that manages those economics. The City Council does that . Mike Mulligan: I'm sure that you're goals and the goals of the City Coucnil II theoretically are all the same and that is to construct a better and higher quality way of living in this city and as any organization that has a number of departments, your specific tasks may be different but your goals are the same. We have accumulated a petition of some four pages that I mentioned at the last meeting. Frankly I'm not sure what to do with it now that we have it but there a great number of people who aren't here. You don't have room II 1 ■ I . , , I Planning Commission Meeting " June 3, 1987 - Page 21 Ifor them to tell the truth, who are not in favor of the north route. What I would like to see and I'm not sure yet that we'll get that, is that the south route be given a fair shake on this. A consideration by the I environmental, whatever is going to occur and I'm not sure that's going to happen because it seems to me that the organization is in favor of the north route and I'm not sure that the system is going to allow for the south route I to have that chance. I'm familiar with the wetlands issue. i live on the western tip of Rice Marsh Lake. Have any of you been out on a canoe on Rice Marsh Lake? I doubt it. That is a wonderful habitat. It's a very shallow I lake. It's a beautiful spot that is going to be dramatically, drastically affected by the construction project regardless of all the silt that's going to run into Lake Riley which is a whole different issue which is downstream from it. You can't make that construction that close to Rice Marsh Lake I without damaging that habitat and that's a wetlands habitat too. I don't know the specific designation of it. That's a lake that is a wildlife area that has no people on it except people like myself and one or two of my I neighbors who have a canoe. There is no public access to it. It's well named. It's swamp or marsh all the way around. Marsh is a classier word but it's a swamp, a good share of it. It's getting a little swampier this spring without the rain but I kind of feel you're meeting to death on this. I You've got more stamina on this than maybe we do but I sure hope that somehow in all of this that this south route, despite the fact that it was recommended by a committee which had nobody living on the north route on I that committee. That's history. We can't do anything about it and I was kind of sneered at a couple of meetings ago when I brought that up. That we're above that type of consideration. Well, I'm not sure that I am. I don't who was on that committee by name because I didn' t live here then but I I understand politics and I understand needs and I understand a little bit of selfishness because I'm selfish too but I just hope the system allows for I a reasonable and fair consideration of the south route. Where you've got a right-of-way already. We don't know what the costs are but I've got a feeling it's going to cost less and you're going to make a pass through some present residential areas which are residential because you guys allowed it. II guess that ' s all I have to say. Conrad: You gave us about 10 issues to think about. One that rings real clear is communication. I think the City Council and Planning Commission Ialways we hear that concern. What's going on in Chanhassen and we talk about it quite a bit-. People that run for City Council run on tickets to communicate clearly and more of it. It still becomes a major issue. I'm Inot going to defend it. I think if you have concerns of communication you should somehow bring them forth. Whether it be with Staff. Whether it be with the Planning Commission some night. If you think there are appropriate Ithings that should be done. A lot of issues are based on cost and to be real frank with you, the publications that we list our meetings in .and the official announcements, when we come to issues like the Comprehensive Plan and we tell the community that we have a new Comprehensive Plan to review Iand these things are going in. Or when we have a new zoning ordinance that we've worked here as volunteers for years and nobody shows up, we wonder. That's the only issue I'm talking about. I'm sort of throwing it out there ii because it typically takes an event like this when it gets close to home to II 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' June 3, 1987 - Page 22 get the interest going and there are so many other issues happening in Chanhassen that we sure would like to hear input on better communication and the needs that you have. I think there's just nobody wanting to cut that out. We're just not sure exactly how to do it and how much to pay for it to II get it done. When we do pay for it, not many people show up. That's just a little bit of dialogue for those of you who are here and sensitive to something you didn't know was happening. We're always looking for ways to communicate better and more often. If there's a better way, we would like to do it. Other comments? Jo Ann Larson: I would like to make a recommendation for a way to preserve I the corridor is that anyone who comes in to get a building permit be told that this is a proposed corridor for the highway. If a developer fills in that corridor, he has a moral obligation to tell anyone who buys a home in that corridor that this is a proposed route for a highway. If he doesn't, he's opened a lawsuit. That's just one suggestion. Ken Pung: I live on West 96th Street and granted I haven't lived here as long as.—but I remember when I moved out here about 22 years ago and I think at the time I was the second or third person on 96th Street, but at the time I moved out there I was looking at investing in a golf course just II immediately to the south. Fortunately I didn't but one of the concerns I had was, at that time there was talk of this highway going in 22 years ago so one of the concerns I had was how that would affect not only myself but my proposed investment. I called the highway department right away and I was told that there were no decisions made where the highway was going and that was way out in the future yet, about 5 years down the road. That was in 1966. At that time there were some proposals thrown out and I think if my recollection is right, at that time the proposal was to pretty much follow north of Chaska High School and then pretty much follow CR 14 and then tie in with going on the south and then following the railroad right- of-way into the crosstown area. The comments were made that there was no information about the south corridor. I guess I can maybe add to that because I just sort of left it go out of my mind way back then because this thing kept being pushed out into the future. About in January when I received a letter if there was any interest in the south corridor so I guess I can add to the comment about correspondence or communications. That was the first official word that I had heard of a south corridor so there was a II gap of maybe 15 years from when I first looked at it until I got that notification. Just for your information . Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor II and motion carried . Erhart: Can you give us a little information if we used the north route, I what care would you take to protect Rice Marsh Lake? What kind of current procedures does the Department use to protect that kind of amenity? Evan Green: I can't explain exact procedures we might use but we do in fact okay highways near lakes and we do take extreme care providing sediment basins, ponding areas. Things that take into account possible spills. Our II I I 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 23 plans are subject to review by all the other governmental agencies just as anyone else developing some land. Our plans go through the PCA, the EPA, all federal agencies, the DNR and there are ways to take care of those ' things. We've done on other projects, in this particular case I guess I'm not qualified here to tell you exactly how it might be done. I do know it will be done. Whether we go on the north side or the south side, we would take those same considerations on the water quality. We normally have a water quality study with every project in determining what actions or mitigations we might take. Mainly your pondings, sedimentations, stuff like that. Creating additional wetlands. I don't think that's something that ' can't be overcome on either route. I think it would be a problem on both of the routes. I Erhart: One more thing, I might comment. I bought my property here six years ago. Somehow, i don't exactly how, I found out about the freeway so I was aware of it but I would think there was a period of time up until two I years ago, I'm not too sure anybody seriously thought this thing would ever go in. If you weren't aware of it is probably because nobody here believed it was a serious consideration. Then all of a sudden in the last year and a half, it seemed like this thing is breathing new life again. That might be I just my impression. Is that the way you sort of look at it too Dale? Councilman Geving : It sure is . IErhart: It did seem about the time you guys bought your property that this thing was kind of a dead issue. But on the other hand, right now with I getting the thing on the map, one of the reasons we're doing that is for any future purchases of property that these people will know what our long term plans are. I think that's one of the benefits for getting this thing passed and on the official map at this time. Regarding the whole thing here, I ' guess in my mind coming into the meeting tonight hasn't changed. I'm in favor of the north route. I think there are six major reasons we should favor it. It has the least effect on the existing neighborhoods. That Idoesn't mean that it doesn't effect any neighborhoods but there are more people currently in the south that it would effect. Not only that but we have already approved a number of subdivisions in the south that would have severe impact on that have already gone through. Maybe we got a little I ahead of ourselves but we already planned in some of the divisions on the north route with the- right-of-way going through there as in the Curry subdivision. I think the north route will better assist the people living Iin Chanhassen. Most of the people live north of TH 5 and there are an awful lot of people who use TH 5 to get into work. I think the freeway will be a great assistance for them getting back and forth to work. Whether or not it Ibrings business into the city or not, I think that's the overwhelming need because people who live in the city have ve to get in and out. We all, know TH 5 is really bad. I think recommending the north route is consistent with the recommendations the city has made all along and I can' t see any reason Ito contradict that. Lastly, for as many times as this thing has been postponed, if we don't go along with Chaska and Eden Prairie, if you want to look at it that way, I think we' re going along with something that makes Isense. If we don't go along with it, we're going to kill this project. The • Planning Commission Meeting ' June 3, 1987 - Page 24 adverse part of course is Rice Marsh Lake. It is a beautiful place. I've walked around it and am aware of it. I do believe, I think one of the things that the Cedar Avenue Bridge really brought to MnDot, it forced them to learn the skills of behaving in wetland areas and I do believe what they 11 learned there will apply to the Rice Marsh Lake and as long as I'm on here and I think everyone else would say that we're very concerned that every consideration is taken on that. , Emmings: I guess I similarly think that it's important to get this on an official map. I guess I'm persuaded about that but I think, I don't know anything about the environmental impact and nobody does for sure yet because II the Environmental Impact Study hasn't been done but I guess the comments from the public has caused me to think about whether or not I'm being honest here. I guess what I mean by that is are we really going to give due • consideration to an alternative to this route that's been laid out north of Lake Riley because if we're not then it's a charade and I don't think we ought to do that. I think we ought to say that we've chosen the north route and that's it. I've seen these situations before where this normally is II correct. It seems like everybody who spoke on behalf of the city or anybody else very obviously favored the northern alignment and if that's where we're at as a city, maybe we ought to acknowledge that rather than pretending that we're really looking at two things. Maybe we are so locked into the north route by the history and by our more recent actions. Just the Gagne property as an example, we just approved that subdivision and no one ever II brought up the south route that I recall. We didn't consider it yet when we did Chan Hills meaning the Curry property, we gave it a great deal of consideration. In fact we even tabled it once so it would be planned better and then they brought it back. It would seem to me that if we are going to I and I don't know if we should or not, but if we're going to give full consideration to the different alternative and that is the southern route, it seems to me is it possible to put them both on a map? If they are approximately the same difference as Mr. Green said and for that reason maybe the costs aren't vastly different, why could we put both routes on our official map until we get the rest of the information that we need to really make an informed decision? II Dacy: To answer your first question as to whether or not the study is going to be a charade or whether or not the south is going to get an adequate study, a consulting _firm will be hired by MnDot as the responsible governing unit to fulfill the requirements as stated by the Federal Highway Administration for Environmental Impact Statements. They are required to evaluate all the routes that are indicated on this solid line. Each route has to go through the same type of evaluation process to determine the recommended alternative. I think Mr. Green would want to speak to that but federal requirements are that each route has to be evaluated. I guess at II this point I don't think it's going to be a charade. The intent of the official map, as I stated before, is to preserve a corridor to prevent that corridor from being lost and to help work with those developments that may occur along it so we can better plan if in fact it is built. As to whether or not you officially map the south corridor, we have approved a number subdivisions within that corridor. As Mr. Koegler referred to earlier, ' 1 11 1 - ' I Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 25 Isince the Citizen Advisory process and the scoping report process, the City, at least on an informal basis, has been looking toward the north corridor as our preferred alignment. To officially map the lots that exist now, there I will be existing homes placed within the right-of-way. Potential lots created within the official map. I don't if anybody is here from the southern route or not but one of the advantages of the north route again is I that except for Eide home, it does not affect directly going through any existing neighborhoods. Emmings: What you just told me makes it sound more and more like we're II locked into the north route. -Both by the history and the position the city has taken in the past and all of the actions that have been taken based on the departments for the north route because that problem is going to I continue. As more and more developments come in, whether they are along the north route or south route, as we look at them. If they are along the north route we are going to take the location of the highway into effect. If they I are along what would be the south route, we're not going to take the highway into effect because it's not on the official map so we become kind of locked in deeper and deeper. That what makes we wonder if we really are looking seriously at the southerly route. IDacy: What I hear you saying is that you really want to reconsider the original action that was done by the Citizen Advisory Committee. IEmmings: No, not necessarily. I guess what I'm saying is, if we're already locked into the northerly route, if that still is the position of the City, let's just say so. Instead of saying we're still considering two I alternatives because I don't feel like we are considering two alternatives. I don ' t know if we are. I guess I don' t think we are. I think each of us has to ask himself, are we being honest when we say we're looking at the I alternatives because I don't get any sense that we're really looking at any alternatives . I Dacy: Again, there is a clear need for a corridor. If the EIS comes back and it does site the southerly alignment is appropriate and all jurisdictions effected are going to have to try to work together to try and achieve that alternative. Up until the Scoping Report point, there were a Inumber of studies done and so on and the transportation study has also reinforced the fact -for an alternative to TH 5. Staff is really concerned that if there are any more delays in the project or any more reconsideration Ias evidence from the Metropolitan Council, we are just concerned that we may lose it all together. There have been a number of windows of opportunities here that have gone by. We have one to at least start looking at the process. The EIS needs to be funded. It needs to get completed to address some of the concerns that have come up tonight. Conrad: Can I take off on your point Steve? I think it's valid. We pick a Icorridor. I think there are a lot of reasons for picking the northerly corridor but let's say the EIS comes back and I think a lot of us are IIsensitive to the environment, let's say it's horrendous. During those, how long does it take to complete it , 3 or 4 years , so for 3 or 4 years we've Il Planning Commission Meeting ' June 3, 1987 - Page 26 kind of built in additional things. ' Wildermuth : We' re building additional reason to take the northerly route. Conrad: Yes, that's well worded. We are basically putting other things probably in that southerly alignment that will re-encourage us to do the northerly alignment because we've done all these things. I think that's how ' I would interpret Steve's comment at least from my perspective is that we really, after 3 or 4 years, there are going to be additional reason for not using that so we really don't have a second alternative. We really are putting the eggs in one basket. ' Dacy: I want you to think of, if there was a clear statement by the City preferring the northerly alternative as concluded in the Scoping Report, the II development that has occurred since then, because it was the preferred alignment we were able to work with Mr. Curry in reserving the corridor. Now the development on the southerly route, you read the Scoping Report and II so on and you read the Comprehensive Plan at that time, we would have no legal means outside of buying the corridor property within those plats to prevent them from developing. Another advantage to the official map, if there is a development eminent and the City can apply to the Metropolitan Council to obtain funds to acquire the right-of-way in order to preserve it but that's only to be used in cases where it's going to be clear that the corridor is jeopardized. Mike Mulligan: I'm not sure if it's proper to address you during discussion but another point I would like to make if I may, I'm not sure why you tell us we can't talk about economics when Barb is bringing up funding, you're not telling her that. Conrad: If you want to talk about economics, go ahead. I'll open that up. II I was just trying to let you know what we listen to so go ahead and talk about economics . Mike Mulligan: My understanding is that Eden Prairie and Chaska which is less important, could live with the southern route. Am I wrong in this Barb? Dacy: To the best of my knowledge, they have proceeded with their conceptual review alignment and have approved the northerly route. Chaska is less involved because it is the same touch down point into Chaska so it's I primarily Eden Prairie. Mike Mulligan: That is my understanding. I would like to mention also that those of us including the gentleman who spoke a few minutes ago, earlier • II this evening who just bought a lot on Tigua Circle, he has a restriction in his purchase agreement regarding a portion of his property as I do in mine and as the neighbor next to him does, part of our property is open to the public. Part of it we can't even cut a tree down off of because it's supposed to be some kind of park and I'm sorry I can't give the specific type of parkland. On my property that I paid for, I can't cut a tree down ■ 1 . . II ' Planning Commission Meeting June 3 , 1987 - Page 27 IIbecause that was supposed to be a parkland. The decision made by the City Council I assume at some earlier time when that land was platted. The person who developed the property, Jerry Hendrickson who just sold his home I a few weeks ago and moved out because of this, spoke at an earlier meeting. He said we developed that property because it was supposed to be a kind of wilderness retreat. That's a little grandious but kind of an area away from I the hussle and the bussle and they accepted that restriction from the City for the restriction of cutting the trees for instance, the public access onto my property, onto his property, onto the Hendrickson property. I Emmings: My position on this would be that if we are seriously considering the alternative of the southerly route, it ought to go on with the northern route on the official map if we can do that. I don't know if it can be done II but if we are going to do it, let's put it on there so that future developments that we look at that come along on the south would be as aware of the potential as developments that are going on in the north so we don't become locked into it. If we are not looking at an alternatives and I don't Ieven necessarily think we should. For myself, I prefer the northerly route and I guess based on the history that we had and the past action that we've taken, we ought to just acknowledge the fact that we've chosen the northern I route and recommend the northern route and just have it done with. Because if that's the facts, studying an alternative route just to study it is just a waste of money as far as I'm concerned. I think that for the downtown, II the northerly route is essential. We are already worried about the downtown, the potential for commercial development leaking out of downtown down to the highway and further away it is from downtown I think the more likely that is to happen. I think if we're ever going to have a city here, I we got to have the downtown and I think the closer this road is to the downtown the better so I favor the northerly alignment. I Dacy: Mr. Green, could you address the possibility of whether or not the southern route could be officially mapped? Evan Green: Your decision here is strictly the city's, it's not ours. IWhether or not you chose the northern or southern route, based on the input we had from the Scoping Report and all the agencies involved , we are required to study both of them. IEmmings : So it's just a question of whether we want it on our map or not. We can do that in other words if we want to? IEvan Green : The southern route? Emmings : Both. IEvan Green : I would recommend against both for the City. Emmings: Why? Evan Green:• Then you wind up holding open two corridors whether you are able to do that financially or not I don't know. There are funds available s ... ..%-.4........i, ■ Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 28 from the Met Council to provide the city an opportunity to purchase property II loans interest free and then we would buy them back from you but as the city's part of the input to the EIS process, you're still going to have to make a choice of the alternative you favor. Whether you make that now or later is up to your perogative. Emmings: If I can interpret what you're saying and tell me if I'm wrong, when we vote for a route on the official map, all we're really doing is 11 saying that we recognize there are alternative routes but this is the one that, at least based on the information we have now, that we prefer? Evan Green : That' s right . The City prefers. Emmings: And we're not necessarily locked into that forever but we have seen that actually you wind up being locked into it. Evan Green: Right. Erhart: Isn't it true Barb that once we get this thing on the map, if a developer comes in and wants to develop within that corridor that the city will buy that land? Is that what you're talking about the interest free , loan? Evan Green: The official map process provides an opportunity to buy the property from the owner if there is a hardship on the owner. We have several properties in Eden Prairie where people are strapped with a home, can't sell it because of the highway corridor that is supposedly going to be built someday running through their property and they are stuck. One fellow was transferred out of Eden Prairie to out east. He still owns his house and it's a real hardship on him. This provides a means to relieve that hardship. They were able to make application for a loan by that City or the County also can do that. Erhart: What happens to the apartment complex with all the amenities decides they want to build an additional apartment building in the corridor after we put it on the map? Evan Green : Then they would have to come to the City and if you gave them a II buiding permit to do_ that, or excuse me, we would assume that once it's officially mapped, you would not give them a building permit. If they added any buildings after it's officially mapped, they would not be compensated for any value added to the land such as that . Erhart: And we could also not provide a subdivision . . . Evan Green: Right, within those limits of the official map. Then 'one thin II the official map does also, it's filed with the County. It g y. goes on record and we' re able to see where it goes . , Siegel : I won't be redundant or I hope not too much but I wanted to point out to the residents that our concern as Planning Commissioners is the , ■ 1 I Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 29 Ioverall development of the City. That also includes it's economic survival so when we look at these plans and when we recommend a route for a corridor , we're looking at it as the necessary growth for this community to survive in Ithe metropolitan area and what is the best way to do so which is one of the reasons why we looked at TH 101 and an access route off of the corridor to I TH 101 to facilitate an expanded downtown area of Chanhassen. The further south we get with that corridor , the less impact it has as far as an access route for the economic growth for the downtown business district. As to considering, I think we already talked about considering the alternative ' route of the south, we have to leave that door open in case the Environmental Impact Statement comes through with some dire reason why we can not put a northerly route through. i can empathize very much with new residents who are not aware of a corridor but this is part of the reason why Iwe want to take some definite action right now is because of the lack of knowledge and communication that has existed in the community and the lack of action. That definitive action that would have probably alerted you to ' the facts that your properties or the properties that you anticipated buying at the time were in, not jeopardy but in consideration of being included in this route. That's why we've got to take some action that is going to make some economic and political and social impact for this area. I don't think I can add any more to that except to say that the longer we wait and like the man from the State Highway Department said, the higher the cost in terms of more people later on. If we cause any delay to this kind of action, ' years on down, we will have the same kinds of problems with people coming in like you who believe that you were not aware of the fact and we are faced with three times as many people with the same kinds of problems you Ianticipate facing now saying that they were not aware and the higher the cost for the land and all the other factors involved. Wildermuth: I certainly sympathize with the people who were not aware of I the pending possibility of a highway when they purchased their property. I am also convinced that the closer the central business district and industrial area is to a major highway the better off the community is going Ito be. The more prosperous that business district is going to be. I guess I see a couple things here that I really don't understand why in the original considerations, for example in 1979, there wasn't more thought IIgiven to the Chicago-Northwestern Railway right-of-way which I understand is II under some consideration for abandonment. That looks like it would be a very plausible opportunity and would probably result in minimal disruption Ito private property. That would very much parallel the southern route as it's drawn on the map once you get south of Lake Riley. Although I guess somewhere in the Chaska area there is an issue there that probably the Chaska people favored the northern. No where in the reports did I see very Imuch discussion on that . Dacy: Lake Riley is here and here's the TH 5 is up here. The residential, what they railroad d the tresidential referring TH I5 comes down and then the South Lake Riley route was proposed along the railroad and continuing on the north side of Pioneer Trail. That was the alternative that was studied during the Scoping process in 1980. . 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 30 Wildermuth: Why not bring it down even further? ' Dacy: Down to this point here? Wildermuth: Yes . Tthe right-of-way is already there. ' Dacy: You are getting into the Bluff Creek bluffs and the topographical II changes in here and the steep ravines plus the need to get over into Chaska and not fight the Hesse Farm and the topography that exists in the Hesse Farm area . Conrad: Wasn't there problems connecting to that railroad track in the first place? Not necessarily connecting but Eden Prairie had some problems with access there and I 'm not sure. . . Dacy: The major item that I'm aware of it just the School Road, that neighborhood and the issues regarding industry in the residential route. Mr. Hoisington, did you have anything to add on that? Conrad: Why not that corridor where the railroad track came down out of Eden Prairie? Do you recall if there was any particular reason why that never was one of the final alternative routes . Fred Hoisington: That still is one of the considerations. Dacy: Your question is about why it' s on the Scoping Report? Conrad: Yes. 1 Dacy: It was identified as an alternative corridor and the Scoping Report addressed each issue area of the wetlands, traffic, land use, etc., etc.. Mark do you have anything else? Mark Koegler: Not on the Eden Prairie segment. In addressing the concern of the Chanhassen segment, I don't know that the railroads were any more profitable 9 years ago than they are today. At that time there was no discussion of abandoning that rail line, at least as a factor of these negotiations. The only other observation that Barb touched upon is it's easier to put in a 100 foot railroad right-of-way than it is a 300 foot roadway right-of-way as part of the area of improving traffic concerns with the intersection of TH 101. That was not part of the original consideration. Wildermuth : I think it ought to be part of the MnDot study for the southern route. It seems that the impact, private property, Hesse Farm particularly 11 I guess . Headla : I believe the numbers show we definitely do need a highway. As far II as the environmental part, talking about Rice Marsh Lake, I can look at three things. I can look at TH 5 went straight through the south end of Lake Minnewashta. I think there's more wildlife there now than there ever 1 . . Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 31 ' has been. I've seen more birds. I see fox in there. I think of Wood Lake on 35W on the west side of Wood Lake. I think Wood Lake is very nice bird santuary. I see many, many different types of wild birds. In two weeks I'll be going out just taking Highway 12 straight west getting into South Dakota. There's one santuary there. I don't know how many acres, several hundred acres. It's a real pleasure to go through there. We slow down just to see how many birds we can see and it's all marsh on either side. I think the precautions that the highway departments have taken, I do not think it destroys and I think it gives us a better chance to enjoy so what's been set up, I think they can send development along Rice Marsh Lake ' and not detroy it. I just don't believe that will happen. I question why the northern route was chosen. Not based on the information I've heard tonight but I think the die is cast. I think the down side is so bad that ' if we try to turn it around. I think we ought to be up front and say we're going to go all out for the northern route and if it turns out we absolutely can't do the northern route than we'll open up something else. Let's just Ibe upfront and say go ahead . We' re going to go with the northern route. Conrad: Generally I'm not an advocate of highways, encourage development. Jim you must love to hear that. hIgwould rather wait I for pressure to make the highway necessary and that's because I moved out here quite a while ago and I really like the environment that we've got and yet, right now what I see is a whole bunch of need. I see that every morning and every evening. I'm also very much aware, my belief is that the I TH 5 improvements is not going to solve the problem so I have a posture that basically says there's a need for highway improvement and we have to have it. If TH 5 is not going to solve the - problem, we have to do something Ielse. I think the northerly alignment from what I can tell is the preferred alignment. It has been historically. It still makes sense to me that it's the right alignment. It's going to be of more benefit to Chanhassen. I Ithink TH 5 is still going to be the main benefit to Chanhassen. That's the road that I really want to see improved because that's the road that really is going to direct people into the commercial part of town. It's going to Idirect more people into the residential part of town but it's not alone enough and I think TH 212 has got to go in. The alignment on the north does more for Chanhassen than the one on the south. Does more for downtown. Does more for the industrial park and more for the residential community. IHas the least impact on existing neighborhoods and I think the history is there. I really like the design that I saw tonight. The tentative design. The accesses and I think it's very sensitive to the needs and has Iincorporated some things that the community has asked for. The down side I think is the environmental impact statement and I'm still real concerned about how that reads. That's why we're going through it. I think the die is cast however. I think over 10-20 years this is the corridor and if this Ione doesn't work, there may not be a TH 212 which that's the way it is. I think if the EIS looks bad, I would have to take a real good look at it myself and say, hey, it's not worth destroying what is in it's way. Yet, I Idon't see the need to preserve a southerly route right now. I don' t see the need to map a second route. I think our intention is to go the northerly route. I heard a lot of good comments from the public tonight and I'm still very sensitive to their concern with the environment and we'll watch that 1 • Ti Planning Commission Meeting June 3, 1987 - Page 32 II through the EIS. Obviously, the longer that EIS is out there, the more we II get locked into that route so I guess I'm not giving any promises, at least on my part, that we're going to change that route to a southerly location. That's where I'm at. I think what I would like now is a motion from the II Planning Commission. Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the northerly alignment of the TH 212 Corridor as depicted in II Attachment #11 identified as the Revised Conceptual Alignment dated June, 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor II and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 00 p.m. . Submitted by Barbara Dacy 1 City Planner Prepared by Nann Opheim II I 1 1 1 1 1 1 . II 1 1 1 1 1 • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 July 6 , 1987 1 1 Mr. Evan Green 2055 N. Lilac Drive MN Dept of Transportation 1 Golden Valley, MN 55422 Dear Mr. Green: This is to notify you that the City Council at their June 29 , 1987 meeting,; approvedi,the Nortn Lake Riley rout or thre_TH /12 concept:�,alignment,.,reviewiproces ° The" City Council has therefore 1 authorized your office to begin the necessary task to p,repare_an official„ map for adoption. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and Cheri 1 Olson for your diligent attendance at these public meetings, as well as your help and advice on this process . I look forward to working with you on this item in the future. Sincerel 1 B�ara Dacy BD:n 1 1 1 1 1 .404EsO4 Minnesota 1101,5 Department of Transportation District 5 43 2055 No. Lilac Drive -eoF Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 February 1 , 1989 (612)593- 8403 1 Gary Warren, P .E . City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P .O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' S .P. 1017-07 (TH 212 ) From W. Chanhassen Limits co E . Carver Co . Line Layout No. 4 City Approval Dear Mr. Warren, ' Transmitted herewith for review and approval are the preliminary plans for the above referenced project . These proposed plans are the result of many months of study and close coordination between the City of Chanhassen and Mn/DOT. ' As you may recall , The City held three publrig ireetinr_,_s 29,, Marc_ h__ ,2 4 and June,3 1 e7 ) on the proposed "Concept Layout" .} The City 'Council tlien approved "Concept Layout with„_ e..._addit;i.on of a proposed T.H. 101 interchange, at their June 29 1,98:7 meeting. This lyou•at is essentially the same except we have made the following additions : - Areas needed for ponding and or wetland replacement ' have been shown on the layout . - Approximate construction limits have been shown on the layout . - Improved connections to existing TH 101 in the Chanhassen Hills area have been added to the layout . - A frontage road was added loft of approx. Sta . 1030± and 1090- . This is needed to serve the existing farmstead. An Equat Opportunity Employer ' , Gary Warren, P . E . February 1 , 1989 Page 2 I will finalize Once the city_hasapproved the preliminary plans , _Mn/DOT the.._"_Official2MaPased3)n_the construction limits shown on the plans . The "Official be transmitt.e_d__To__..the for adoptiorj If you have any questions in regard to the plans or project; please contact Carl Hoffstedt, District Transportation Planning Engineer, or Evan Green, Project Manager. Thank you for your cooperation on the project . Sincerely, W.M. Crawford District Engineer cc : J. Povich C. Hoffstedt E . Green A. Poletz/J. Balluff E . Howe • K. Slater WMC:cs (E . R. Green) I 111 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ' CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: RESOLUTION NO: MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY LAYOUT NO. 4 ' S.P. 1017-07 ( 212=051 ) FOR THE PROPOSED TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 CORRIDOR, INCLUDING THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 REVISED ALIGNMENT FLAP ' WHEREAS , the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation has prepared a preliminary layout for the improvement of a part of Trunk Highway Number 051 renumbered as Trunk Highway 212 within the corporate limits of the City of Chanhassen, from west Chanhassen limits to east Carver/Hennepin County line and seeks the approval thereof; and WHEREAS, said preliminary layouts are on file in the office 1 of the Department of Transportation, Saint Paul , Minnesota , being marked, labeled and identified as Layout No. 4 , S.P. 1017-07 ( 212=051 ) construction of proposed Trunk Highway 212 on new loca- tion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said preliminary layouts for the improvement of said Trunk Highway within the corporate limits be and hereby are approved. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1989 . ATTEST: ' I Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel , Mayor 11 YES NO ABSENT Chmiel None None ' Boyt Johnson Workman Dimler