HomeMy WebLinkAbout15.F.3. Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for CSAH 21 from CSAH 18 to CSAH 42
Js-.~3,
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
MEMORANDUM
CASELOG NO: Not Applicable
. TO: HonorableMayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
CSAH 21 from CSAH 18 to CSAH 42
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2006
INTRODUCTION:
Scott County has prepared and circulated the above-titled document for review and
comment. Comments on the DEIS are due in the Scott County Highway Department
offices by close of business on October 16,2006.
DISCUSSION:
Engineering, natural resources, and planning staff for the City have reviewed the DEIS,
and have prepared a letter with proposed comments for Council consideration. Members
ofthe City's Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) have expressed an interest in
having a full discussion ofthe DEIS, but the relatively short review and comment period
has not made it possible for the EAC to take this report up as an agenda item. Staff also
believes that there would be merit in the Council having a presentation on the DEIS from
Scott County and its consultant, SRF. In order to accommodate both of these interests,
staff suggests that the Council formally request a 30-dayextension of the review period.
A draft letter requesting the extension is attached for the Council's information.
In the event the County does not approve an extension, and because there will still be
some opportunity to further review the DEIS before the deadline for comments, staff is
asking that Council also allow some flexibility to add additional comments and modify
the form ofthe comment letter, so long as it doesn't change the basic substance ofthe
attached letter.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Offer and pass a motion a) directing the appropriate City officials to submit a request to
Scott County for a 30-day extension of the review period for the CSAH 21 DEIS, and b)
in the event that such extension is not granted, authorize the appropriate City officials to
submit the attached letter commenting on the DEIS for CSAH 21 as presented or with
. .. .
mmor reVISIOns.
H:\CC\2006\10-03\CSAH 21 DEIS COMMENT.doc 1
2. Offer and pass a motion a) directing the appropriate City officials to submit a request to
Scott County for a 30-day extension of the review period for the CSAH 21 DEIS, and b)
in the event that such extension is not granted, authorize the appropriate City officials to
submit the attached letter commenting on the DEIS for CSAH 21 as presented or with
significant revisions.
RELATIONSHIP TO VISIONING: This item relates to Goal D. Vibrant, resilient and
stable.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Offer and pass a motion a) directing the appropriate City officials to submit a request to
Scott County for a 30-day extension of the review period for theCSAH21 DEIS, and b) in
the event that such extension is not granted, authorize the appropriate City officials to
submit the attached letter commenting on the DEIS for CSAH 21 as presented or with minor
reVISIons.
~~
-, ~:" . ~
R. Michael Leek
Community Development Director
H:\CC\2006\10-03\CSAH 21 DEIS COMMENT. doc 2
~
SHAKOPEE
October 4, 2006
Mr. Mitchell Rasmussen
County Engineering, Scott County Public Works Department
600 Country Trail East
Jordan, MN 55352-9339
RE: Request for 30-day extension of review and comment period for the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for CSAH 21
Dear Mr. Rasmussen:
On behalf ofthe Shakopee City Council, I hereby request a 30-day extension ofthe review
and comment period for the DEIS. for CSAH 21. Because the construction of CSAH 21
from CSAH 18 to CSAH 42 will have substantial impacts on natural resources within the
City of Shako pee, we believe it is important that the City's Environmental Advisory
Committee (EAC) have an opportunity to review and discuss the DEIS. Unfortunately, the
relatively short review period for this document combined with the EAC's once a month
meeting schedule means that the EAC will not have had an opportunity to formally review
the DEIS.
Moreover, the construction of CSAH 21 has significant potential for impact on both current
and future development, as well as community cohesion in the eastern part of Shakopee. It
is thus desirable for the City Council to have a full discussion of these potential impacts. To
facilitate that discussion, in addition to requesting a 30-day extension, the Council invites
representatives ofthe County and its consultant for this project to meet with the Council to
present the report, and discuss issues affecting Shakopee before the City formalizes its
comments.
I look forward to hearing from you in the near future regarding the City's requested
extension of the review and comment period.
John J. Schmitt
Mayor
COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857
129 Holmes ~t6. Shakopee, Minnesota' 55379-1351 . 952-233-9300 . FAX 952-233-3801 . www.ci.shakopee.mn.us 1
DRAFT
~
SHAKOPEE
October 16, 2006
Mr. Mitchell Rasmussen
County Engineering, Scott County Public Works Department
600 Country Trail East
Jordan, MN 55352-9339
RE: City of Shakopee Comments Regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 21 from CSAH 18 to CSAH 42
Dear Mr. Rasmussen:
The City of Shakopee has the following comments regarding the above-titled document.
General Comments:
The City's review ofthe traffic analyses contained in the DEIS for both the "no build"
and "build" alternative leaves the City in doubt about the efficacy ofthe "build"
alternative in providing access and additional mobility for Shakopee residents, as well as
those in Prior Lake and townships to the south. In the past, the postulated benefit of
CSAH 21 to Shakopee related principally to the area known as Southbridge.
Southbridge, a residential project containing in excess of 800 residential units, currently
has only one access, and that is from CSAH 18. It was believed that the construction of
CSAH 21 would provide a desirable second access. However, that second access will be
completed in 2007 with the completion of a section of Pike Lake Road from CSAH 16 to
Southbridge Parkway, making CSAH 21 itself largely unnecessary for local access in
Shakopee.
Specific Comments:
Chapter 1:
0 At 1.2 ALTERNATIVES, the "Build Alternative" for that section ofCSAH 21
south of CSAH 16 is described as follows;
"An urban section with reduced design speed and alignment to avoid impacts to a
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) wetland."
By contrast, the alternatives for intersection design north of CSAH 16 seem to
describe a higher speed design for this section of roadway. The City of Shakopee
COMMUNITY PRIDE SINCE 1857
129 Holmes Street South. Shakopee, Minnesota. 55379-1351 .952-233-9300. FAX 952-233-3801 . www.ci.shakopee.mn.us 1
DRAFT
continues to question the efficacy of planning a higher speed section from CSAH
16 north in Shakopee, while a lower speed section is proposed south of CSAH 16.
The design requirements of such a higher speed section, and the increased noise
impacts from higher speeds are likely to have a negative impact on both existing
(Southbridge, Riverside Fields) and planned development (Riverside Bluffs,
Ridge Creek, Ridgeview Estates) in the area.
0 At 1.2 COSTS/FUNDING, the footnote to TABLE 1-1, COST ESTIMATES
FOR CSAH 21 EXTENSION, the footnote indicates a blended value for right-of-
way acquisition of about $105,000 per acre. Based on the City's knowledge and
recent experience with the potential acquisition of a park and ride site along the
CSAH 21 corridor, it is suggested that the blended rate may be inadequate, and
that the cost of right-of-way acquisition may be substantially higher.
0 1.5, POTENTIAL IMPACTS:
. On page 1-7, it is noted that with the installation of a traffic signal at the
CSAH 18/CSAH 16 intersection 2030 operations on a four-lane section
would improve to a level of service (LOS) of C or better. With this
information in hand, the City of Shakopee questions the need to consider
either the six-lane or interchange intersection alternatives for the
Southbridge Parkway/CSAH 18 intersection.
. At page 1-8, it is stated that;
"The project corridor is largely undeveloped and the proposed roadway
extension would not divide any existing neighborhoods. No impact to
community cohesion regarding existing or planned neighborhoods is
anticipated. "
This description incorrectly describes the level of development along the
corridor in Shakopee. Much ofthe corridor is bounded by existing
development in the form of Southbridge Crossings East, Southbridge
Crossings, Southbridge, and Riverside Fields. Additional residential plats
under development in this corridor include Riverside Bluffs and
Ridgeview Estates. Southbridge Fields is a neighborhood commercial plat
under development in the corridor. A new elementary school is under
construction south of CSAH 16 in this corridor.
In Shakopee, a community divided by county roadways more than any
other in the County, the construction ofCSAH 21 introduces yet one more
roadway that poses an obstacle to connections between present and future
neighborhoods and makes it difficult to achieve community cohesion in
the eastern part of the City of Shakopee. (Note: similar comments are
appropriate in response to 5.1.2.1 Communitv Cohsesion.
2
DRAFT
. At page 1-9, under "Land Use," the draft EIS posits that the six-lane and
four lane interchange alternatives would have "relatively minor impacts on
commercial land." The City believes that this significantly understates the
impacts in the following regards;
. The interchange alternative would wipe out a commercial lot on
which a TCF facility is currently proposed to be built in the near
future.
. The interchange alternative would result in the closure of
important right-in access to both SouthbridgeCrossings and
Southbridge Crossings East.
. At page 1-17, under Land UselRight of Way/Farmland/Indirect Impacts
the analysis provided is inadequate. In this letter, in the paragraphs above,
the City has set forth more specific descriptions of developments that
might be impacted, and the nature of the impacts to both residential and
commercial development within the City of Shakopee.
Chapter 2:
0 At 2.4.2, Travel Demand/Capacity, it is asserted that the travel forecast analysis
conducted "show that the proposed CSAH 21 would primarily serve the
communities of Shako pee, Prior Lake, and Spring Lake Township... ."
Especially if constructed with a six-lane or interchange design north of CSAH 16,
the City of Shakopee believes that 1) CSAH 21 would primarily serve Prior Lake,
Spring Lake Township, and areas south and not Shakopee; and 2) thatthe
proposed six-lane and interchange designs would negatively serve Shakopee by
further restricting access within Shakopee.
0 At 2.4.5, Transit Need, and elsewhere in the draft EIS, existing transit services
are inaccurately described. Specific inaccuracies are as follows;
. Scott County Transit provides dial a ride service, and express connection
to the MVT A transit hub at Bumsville. Scott County Transit does not
currently serve the Southwest transit hub in Eden Prairie.
. Regular route (Circulator) service in Shakopee is provided by Shakopee
Transit, which contracts with Scott County Transit to operate the service.
. Shakopee Transit will, beginning in 2007, be providing up to four express
buses to and from Downtown Minneapolis.
. Prior Lake's Laker Lines currently operates three buses to and from
Downtown Minneapolis.
Chapter 3:
0 3.1.1,1990 Scott County Transportation Study: County Road 18
Alternatives.
~ 3
DRAFT
. The description of the current state of Shako pee's development found at
page 3-2 in inadequate, and should be revised to include the information in
this letter regarding 1.5, POTENTIAL IMPACTS.
Chapter 4:
0 The description of transit services found at 4.2, TRANSIT SERVICES, should be
revised as described above in the comments to Chapter 2.
We look forward to the County's responses to the comments and concerns expressed.in
this letter.
Sincerely,
John J. Schmitt, Mayor
~ 4