By Mark W. Olson

The MnDOT report outlining the river crossing options is flawed, asserted Carver city officials at a work session Monday night.

Cindy Olness, Carver’s consulting city planner, addressed the C-2 and W-2 options with the Carver City Council. The W-2 option would cut through the eastern border of Carver.

Olness took many of MnDOT’s findings, in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), to task. “I don’t think they really analyzed the interchange and how it’s going to function,” she said, regarding local access to new Highway 41.

The report miscalculated Carver’s elevations; “missed all of our trails completely”; and didn’t account for right of way with local developments, Olness said.

“So what are we missing?” asked Councilor Mike Webb. Webb asked if Carver needed to take a “political stand” and noted Monday night’s protest. (See related story).

Webb also asked what he should tell people when they ask why MnDOT doesn’t have a proposal running between the C-2 and W-2 options, “to move it west of the (Athletic) ballpark and east of Carver.” Other officials noted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife property, including Chaska Lake, is in the way.

Unlike some local entities, such as the city of Chaska, Carver is not choosing a preferred route, instead commenting directly on the EIS.

“There’s never been a statement that you need to comment on anything relative to what your preferred option is,” said Carver’s City Administrator Jim Elmquist, after the meeting. “The DEIS is a document that has within it a number of statements of fact, and what they ask is during the comment period to make a statement as to what is factual and what is true,” Elmquist said.

Following the work session, the council voted 4-0 (with Mayor Jim Weygand absent) to send their comments to MnDOT.

Carver report asserts

* MnDOT’s report doesn’t provide evidence that the proposed interchange access ramps will provide sufficient traffic capacity.

* The report doesn’t identify impacts to Carver regarding local highway access and road networks.

* The comparisons and evaluations between W-2 and C-2 are “inconsistent.” The inconsistencies range from number and size of parcels to historic resource impact.

* The document “does not support the assumption that future growth will be compensate for lost residential and business development.”

* Analyses of items such as visual quality noise and cultural resources doesn’t allow for a “balanced comparison of alternatives.”

Source: City of Carver