2 2005 MUSA Area Improvements
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Administration
Pllone 952.227.1100
Fax 952.2271110
Building Inspections
Phone. 952.227.1180
Fax 952.2271190
Engineering
Pholìe 952227.1160
Fax 952.2271170
Finance
PhOlle 952.2271140
Fax 9522271110
Park & Recreation
Phone. 952.2271120
Fax 952227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone 952.2271400
Fax 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone 952227.1130
Fax 95222711 to
Public Works
1591 Park Road
PhOlle 952.227.1300
Fax 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone 952227.1125
Fax 952227 1110
Web Site
WWWCI chanhassenmnus
;L
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM:
Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works-r. O.
"~'vf .
September 8, 2004 V 1\'1
DATE:
SUBJ:
Public Hearing for the 2005 MUSA Area Improvements
Project No. 04-05
BACKGROUND (Four-Fifths Vote Required)
On August 23, 2004, the City Council received the feasibility study and report for the
2005 MUSA Improvements and called a public hearing for September 13, 2004. The
2005 MUSA Improvements include street and utility improvements within the 2005
MUSA (see attached Project Location Map).
The feasibility study and report was initiated in a proactive effort to provide for the
planned extension of roadway and utility infrastructure to the 2005 MUSA. Staff is
proposing that the City lead the planning and design of these infrastructure improvements
rather than each property owner/developer being responsible for the extension of the
required infrastructure for their individual developments. This will allow for better
planning and a more comprehensive approach to the extension of the necessary roadway
and utility infrastructure.
The executive summary from the feasibility report is attached detailing the improvements
included as a part of the project. Complete copies of the feasibility study and repOlt are
available for the Council's review in the Engineering department.
A portion of the project costs are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property
owners in the project area. A copy of the assessment roll for the project is attached
detailing the estimated assessments to the individual property owners. All of the property
owners proposed to be assessed for the improvements have received notice of the public
hearing, and a notice of public hearing was published in the Chanhassen Villager on
September 2 and September 9,2004.
Staff is recommending the following assessment procedures:
· All assessments, with the exception of the Dorsey & Dorsey propelty assessments
and the arterial/collector assessments, be made pending at this time.
· The schedule for the adoption of the final assessment roll( s) and the assessment
hearing(s) will be dependent upon the schedule for the implementation of the various
improvements.
· The payment of all assessments be deferred until the time of development of each
property.
The City of Chanhassen · A growing commurìity Wltlì clealllakes
ami
Todd Gerhardt
September 8, 2004
Page 2
· The arterial and collector roadway assessments be included as a part of future
development agreements, and not be made pending at this time.
· The Dorsey & Dorsey property is currently in an agricultural preserve district and
cannot be assessed until the agricultural preserve district designation is removed. It
is proposed that this property pay hook up and connection fees equivalent to the
proposed assessments to the property. These charges will be incurred at the time of
the removal of the agricultural preserve district and the subsequent development of
the property.
· Property owners would be responsible for interest charges accrued between the time
the assessments are levied and the time that they are paid.
· No interest charges will be accrued for the sanitary sewer improvements for the 2010
MUSA until such time that the remainder of the improvements required to make this
trunk sanitary sewer system functional are completed.
The City Council previously received an executive summary and assessment roll from the
feasibility study and report as part of the background information for the August 23, 2004
City Council meeting. A subsequent revision was made to the executive summary and
assessment roll prior to the completion of the final feasibility study and report. This
revision included the addition of Parcel #9 (John Klingelhutz) as a benefiting property for
some of the improvements. The attached executive summary and assessment roll include
this revision.
City staff and the consultant have conducted two neighborhood meetings to present the
feasibility study information to the area property owners and to receive their input. The
meetings were held on May 26, 2004 and June 29,2004. The City Council has been
previously provided with a summary detailing the questions/issues raised at the May 26th
neighborhood meeting and City staff s response to each question/issue. City staff has
also received the attached comment letter from Rick Dorsey, one of the property owners
in the project area.
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff requests that the City Council conduct a public hearing for the 2005 MUSA
Improvements, Project No. 04-05. Staff will request ordering the public improvements
when the property owners and developers are ready to move forward.
Attachment:
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Project Location Map
Feasibility Study Executive Summary
Preliminary Assessment Roll
Letter from Rick Dorsey
John Chadwick - Comments
c: Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer
Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn
g:\eng\public\04-0S\200S musacounci Ibackground9 _ 07 _ 04.doc
......~c·...,·-lir·__..~_~"'.'. '" ..;./."-:.";;0.....,,.-
-
I J '''' .~,
\ \~ I
4R 81JR[ ¡ 11M
\JIC" ~_ .\') wAY
KI\A2:..=(;..¥ LA
KE~,-v ~T
'Ý
SAN ¡ A
S T
@
:y!
~Af,>< ....:¡:
i_ YMAN
E
~ ~~_~l__~'~
~ ro!Z
:0 31-
clu
u
-t
:)
:)
"'J
J)'
...,
(f)
::J
0"'
::J
1:
0"'
:;:
D
:)
D
r:
>(
.JJ
I
n
:)
1:
f)
:)
:;;
/'
:J
D
1:
f)
1:
.JJ
-L
/'
f)
D
r:
>(
.JJ
/'
1:
f)
:)
:;;
I
n
:)
:)
"'J
/'
z:
.JJ
f)
f)
1:
r:
z:
1:
r:
.J
-L
:)
.J
/'
.J
i
<' rA
7'~V,,~\
~¡
'-j
. ;.=- (~\
~>\ · i~=
~. .~. (~~.~\\,",("ëR
"~'\ H>'
~) I "\ \.\ ~~~'-.
;/ , \\\ ///~..>"
,\r \>~. '-ý./I/' ....~~~~~
'-.~-/ '\.",~
..':~::._.. .Hazel tme L~~)-<g~\
.~-=:-'.:-...~.--~/~~~\ \
. <~=:::::3~~~-::;:::~........~/
/ '-/""V/-~~~~
" c~'I/ '---
=
~
~
LJ
24
?S
2S
?7
;")5
I.tIAYFiEL:J '~-
M!SSI2N c-<'- S :.;;:
'R1SCO CT
I..1!SS![\ ,.,iL N'ÙY V
3LACKBj~C :-
~·E:I\R:lI~r-.,': :-
MISS¡¡:;N >-,;,_ S ,,,t:.y
~CJNK= T
STON[ :~:-, 0( -.,
SiCN[ ,=~~-,< _ t~ '..;
S -]N[ C:~=:::...¿ ù
3LUFJk -?
SJ1\'\JYV!\I_- ::::;
\....-:;,
:JS
JG
31
32
:33
34
00
PROJECT
LOCATION
--
...¡ 96 th S-
,,'"
, ~..}0
L /¡;
HG""rS-~,
?\
Á\
c)
1
'"
z
" p
-
rj
/.J
l n...
"-.j ~--
/
P'='EER
"
--'
Hl'\õLt>. r-.;~;;¡Sf:~Y DR
>:
z
t
w
00
,/
~ CITY OF
~ CHAIHASSEI
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
2005 MUSA AREA EXPANSION
IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT 04-05
EXHIBIT 1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
7700 Market Blvd' PO Box 147 . Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
(952)-227-1100
(952)-227-1110 Fox
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
2005 MUSA AREA EXPANSION IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 04-05
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Feasibility Study and Report has been prepared for the 2005 MUSA Area Expansion
Improvements, City Project No. 04-05. The proposed project includes public
infrastructure improvements for the 2005 MUSA expansion area of Chanhassen.
The 2005 MUSA Expansion Area is generally bordered by the following roadways:
· Lyman Boulevard (CSAH 18) on the north
· Audubon Road (CSAH 15) on the west
· Pioneer Trail (CSAH 14) on the south
· Future Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) on the east
The proposed Mn/DOT TH 212 project runs through the southeastern portion of the
project area. Some of the improvements included as a part of this Feasibility Study will
be constructed as a part of the TH 212 project.
Infrastructure improvements included as a part of this Feasibility Study are as follows:
· Construction of various public roadway improvements
· Construction of trunk watermain improvements
· Construction of trunk sanitary sewer improvements
· Construction of trunk storm drainage improvements
The proposed improvements are detailed in Exhibits 2-5 in Appendix A of this report.
The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are detailed below. These costs
include a 10% construction cost contingency and a 30% allowance for indirect costs.
Proposed Improvement
Roadway
1. East-West Collector Roadway $
2. East-West Collector Roadway Turn Lanes/Signal $
3. North Connector Roadway $
4. South Connector Roadway $
5. School Area Road $
6. Cul-de-Sac Turn Lanes on Powers Blvd. $
7. Cul-de-Sac/Bluff Creek Dr. Turn Lanes on Pioneer Tr. $
8. Lyman Blvd.lAudubon Rd. Intersection $
9. Lyman Blvd. Turn Lanes on Audubon Rd. $
10. Lyman Blvd. Turn Lanes at North Connector Roadway $
11. Audubon Rd. Turn Lanes at Lakeview Dr. $
12. Pioneer Tr. Turn Lanes at South Connector Roadway $
13. Lyman Blvd. Reconstruct. (Audubon Rd. to Powers Blvd.) $
14. Powers Blvd. Turn Lanes at East-West Collector Roadway $
Estimated Cost
4,930,000
906,000
--------
--------
--------
90,000
21,000
688,000
21,000
3,364,000
250,000
G: \ENG\PU BLIC\04-05\Exe¡;ut j wSun III IUry 090704.Ù¡ H:
Subtotal
Trunk Watermain
1. Powers Blvd. Watermain (Lyman Blvd. to Pioneer Tr.) $
2. Lyman Blvd. Watermain (West R.R. R/W to Powers Blvd.) $
3. Lyman Blvd. Watermain (Powers Blvd. to TH 101) $
4. Pioneer Tr. Watermain (West City Border to Powers Blvd.) $
5. Audubon Road Watermain (Lyman Blvd. to Pioneer Tr.) $
6. East-West CoIl. Watermain (Audubon Rd. to Powers Blvd.)$
Sub~t~ $
Trunk Sanitary Sewer
1. Subdistrict BC-3 Trunk Sanitary Sewer
2. Subdistrict BC-2 Trunk Sanitary Sewers
3. Subdistrict LB-1 Trunk Sanitary Sewer
Subtotal
Trunk Storm Drainage
1. Powers Blvd./Lyman Blvd. Pond
2. Powers Blvd./TH 212 Pond
3. Pioneer Trail/South Connector Ponds
Subtotal
$IO,270,000
499,000
1,008,000
333,000
429,000
700,000
328,000
3,297,000
$ 545,000
$ 716,000
$ 300,000
$ 1,561,000
$ 350,000
$ 300,000
$ 350,000
$ 1,000,000
Subtotal Project Costs
Right-of-WayÆasement Acquisition Costs
Total Project Cost
$16,128,000
$ 0
$16,128,000
The improvements are proposed to be financed through a combination of special
assessments to benefiting properties along with City and County funds. The following is
a summary of the estimated funding amounts from each of the proposed financing
sources:
Financing Source
Roadway
Special Assessments
State Aid
Arterial/Collector Road Assessment
Other City/County Funds
Subtotal
Trunk Watermain
Special Assessments
City Water Utility Funds
Subtotal
Trunk Sanitary Sewer
Special Assessments
City Sewer Utility Funds
Subtotal
Trunk Storm Drainage
Special Assessments
City Storm Water Utility Funds
Subtotal
Amount
$ 5,279,000
$ 1,627,000
$ 1,096,400
$ 2,267,600
$10,270,000
$ 2,248,000
$ 1,049,000
$ 3,297,000
$ 1,265,000
$ 296,000
$ 1,561,000
$ 966,500
$ 33,500
$ 1,000,000
11
G: \EN G\PU BIJC\04-05\Exe-.:ut iveS Un1!nary 090704.d()c
Financing Summary
Special Assessments
State Aid
City Water Utility Funds
City Sewer Utility Funds
City Storm Water Utility Funds
Arterial/Collector Road Assessment
Other City/County Funds
Total
$ 9,758,500
$ 1,627,000
$ 1,049,000
$ 296,000
$ 33,500
$ 1,096,400
$ 2,267,600
$16,128,000
The areas to be assessed for the various improvements are detailed in Exhibits 6-10 in
Appendix A of this report.
The following is a proposed schedule for the implementation of the improvements.
Feasibility Study Accepted, Call Public Hearing
Public Hearing
August 23, 2004
September 13, 2004
Plans and specifications for the various improvements included as a part of this report
will be ordered and approved as necessary to meet the needs of pending development in
the project area. It is anticipated that a majority of the improvements will be constructed
between 2004 and 2009.
Based upon the analysis completed as a part of this report, the proposed 2005 MUSA
Area Expansion Improvements, City Project No. 04-05 are feasible, necessary and cost
effective and would benefit the properties in the project area and the City of Chanhassen.
111
G: \EN G\PU BLIC\04-05\ExccmivcSulnmary 090704. J( H;
,
;; ;¡ ;; ;; ¡; ¡:; ;; " õ . . , . " . " " - .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ § ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'i
g ~ g ~ ~ ~ 8 ª ~ 8 8
§ § [ § ì 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ co oj W
~ E 3 0 ~ ~
í , , · § *
[ t ¡ [ .8 s ~ [
;; S " f ~ ~
0 ~ 0 ,
0 ~ · [
· J J
~ .- ,
d
. - ô ~ - ô 8 N ~ o " ~~tô ô~~
D .0 u,c, õ :J: õ o. 00 ~d .~ ~ 00 ~ô íd:;;it::õ~ ô~õ "0
ª ~§ ~ ª " ª "ª" '0 '8 "§ §" , 8 ª" 11 ¡ 8"~ 1'8" ª~ª" 8" § ,,~
P 11 8 8 ¿ _ 8 r_>
~ i
¡; ~ ~ ;; ~ ~ - ~ >
¡¡; ~ , ~ - · · ~ - " ~ w - - . ~ ~
¡; ¡; · . ¡: ¡; . ¡; · ¡: ¡: ¡: ¡; "
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8 0 0 8 0 8 8 8 8 0
~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ · E ~ ¡¡; ~ ã i! ~ ~ ~ ~ [
8 8 8 ~ 8 8 ~ 0 ~:;; 8 ~ ¡;; 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 0 8 8 0
· "
~ ~ · . · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ,
· rn ~ - - ~ ~ ~ >
0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ i~ ~ i! 8 :: ~ 8 ~ I
~ ¡¡; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~
~ ~ ~ " n ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ iG n iG iG iG ~ "
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 g 8 8 8 8 8 8 g ~
8 8 8 8 8 ,
~ ;; ~ ~~ ¡: ~ ~3 ~ ¡; - >
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ w_ §~ [
moO ~¡;;"O F ~3 11~
8 8 8 8 8 -- w- ,,-
~ ~ ~ . ;; ~ ~
§ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 !
8
t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t "
, ~ ~ ~ ~ , , ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~ , , ~
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ~ >
i
!
~ · ¡; - ~ ~ > ~
w_ 3
, 0 0 - 0 0 ¡¡ ~'" ~ - ¡; ~ ;¡ ~ !
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 g 8 0 8 0 8
iG iG iG iG iG iG iG iG iG iG iG "
~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ¡
~ . E ~ ~ ¡; § >
0 0 0 - 0 0 · · ~:;; ¡¡; 8 11 is I [
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 0 8
!
~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ i2 ~ i2 i2 i2 i2 i2 ~ ~ i2 i2 " ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8 8
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;g ;g ~ ;g ;g ;g ;g ;g ~ ~ >
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ¡
w ;¡
"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
'8 >
8 0 0 a 0 - 0 8 0 a I
;g ~
0 0 0 :;; ~
~
........",...."'.... -
~i~~§§~~
88888888
"U"13'"tI"tI"II""U
<11011...."''''....
......,..,............
:þþ:þ»þ)oþ)lo
<> " n " '" " n "
........................
...."'III"''''....
."
:II
~
;:
z
>
:II
-<
>
'"
'"
m
'"
'"
"
m
Z
-;
:II
o
¡::
M
~
"
c:
'"
>
o~Q
~~~
-a~~
~~fi
~~~
~õ:I:
gz>
6~~
",."m
:Ilz
o
<
m
"
m
z
¡¡¡
I".
~~~ ~
~ i ~
~~~
~ s¡ 1)
;~~
.g~~
i;~
~~ ¡
::t~g
[~ ~
ill
¡Z~~
~~~
¡~ ¡
Hi
~~~
~"~
2 ~ Æ
~d
ã~¡:
~~~
Hi
~~!
'"
H
~
i
¡;
~
~
.
ª
I
[
¡:
~
~
g
i
1
'-
]
¡
¡:
~
i
~
;
I
~ "
" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ,
~
I ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ! § ~ I ~ ~ z
~ 0 8 õ
00. ~i 0 I § ~i 0 8" þ
~ " ¡; ~
~. ~ ".
i'i~ 0;[
~~ ~~ ~ ¡ ~ w
¡: ~ ~ f
~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ¡
~ ! ¡ ~ §
~ ¡
Õ -~ ~ "
öê ~Ô m~ ~Ô - - ~ ~ ö~ì
" 0 0" 0-0
8 ì'§5 ì'§ §ì' 8' 8> 8 r 8 f'8~ § § ~:¡.;
or
i
þ
i
þ.
. 0 . ~ . 03
" w " N · ~
>
¡: 0 ¡: ~
. . . i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 8 8
~ ~ ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ þ
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I
~~
~ ~ ~ ~ · "
. . . fi
0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
~
>
'Ii >i
8 8 8 0 0 8 0 0 8 ¡ ¡
=-.=.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8 g g g g g g g g ~
8 8 8 8 ·
8 ~ 'Ii ~ ~ 'Ii 'Ii >
0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I
'Ii ~ 'Ii 'Ii 'Ii 'Ii 'Ii !
0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I
r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
S S S S S S " S s f
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 >
~ 'Ii ~ i I
" i§ 8 0 8 ~ 8 0 ~
8 8 8 8 a
~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~
·
~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
'Ii 'Ii 'Ii >
8 8 0 8 0 g 8 0 0 I ~"
! §
>,
i f
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8 ¡¡ 8 8 ·
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡;¡ >
3
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
. ~
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ·
>
¡
> I
~ ~ ~ I 3
0 8 8 8 0 0 0 8 0 ~
~ ~ ~ ~
8 8 8 8 0
~~~~~h~
88888888
""""""0
»)þÞ:Þ:Þ». >
*' iÞ iÞ ii1 ;;; ;¡;
."
'"
m
...
¡¡:
Z
:Þ
'"
-<
:Þ
'"
'"
m
'"
'"
;:
m
Z
-i
'"
~
'"
o
o
'"
;:
c:
'"
:Þ
()~Q
~~~
"'tI~~
"'."n
~~;:
5õ~
oz:Þ
'"-'"
6;:'"
",."m
",z
o
<
m
;:
m
Z
-i
'"
To: Paul Oehme
City of Chanhassen
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Re: 2005 MUSA Expansion Improvements
City Of Chanhassen Project No. 04-05
Comments to present to City Council
Dear Paul:
Be prepared, be flexible but be on standby with respect to installation of services until more guidelines and
plans are developed.
Land holders of the "Project Area" have been commendable land stewards over the years. Great efforts
have been made by them to keep the land in this area from being chopped up. Those efforts now provide
the City of Chanhassen a highly coveted opportunity to create a 'Signature Development' within its city
limits such as Centennial Lakes in Edina. Amenities which will draw the finest of development are in place
(parks, schoo]s, shopping, golf courses, lakes, and convenient highway access).
I commend the City for looking at this area as a "whole" as it is the first step in developing a Signature
Development. I believe the next step is to further develop the vision of the concept for the community and
develop general conceptual ideas of how the area might look when completed.
Example: Is the type of housing the same as other medium density tract developments but more tightly
packed to accommodate the transfer of density from wood and wet lands (10-12 units per buildable acre, 5-
7 overall)') Or should that density only be made available if the project is more vertical so within the
neighborhood it still feels open and not just on the edges. Should that development go even more vertical
beyond 3-4 story apartments and condos to include 6-10 story buildings leaving the feel of the
neighborhood even more open a la Centennial Lakes in Edina. Should design encourage a more pedestrian
friendly neighborhood with smaller roads through the development to discourage any cut through traffic. (
I favor a more vertical, pedestrian friendly neighborhood).
Information has been gathered in the AUAR Study and is being gathered from residents of the area. Now
that information needs to be structured using the guidance the City can provide, (for example forcing
vertical growth to the desired degree by setting green space and maximum coverage requirements within the
buildable area as well as within the gross land area of individual projects, and what woodlands and/or
wetlands will be required to be preserved).
The information necessary to economically locate services within the developable area so as to not handicap
the potential of the undeveloped and unplanned areas do not yet exist. Improvements specific to the
developable area should be kept conceptual at this time and until more development plans close to the
current service connections come forward. A development distant from hookups for services should not
create an urgent need to develop adjacent properties prematurely nor should it handicap the other
undeveloped land by routing utilities through those neighboring land to get access to it. In addition roads
and services should not be planned into the project area (cross any properties) without the caveat that they
may be altered as other plans come forward.
To maximize the long term value to the City (i.e. maintain maximum tax base) I believe the diagonal road
across the project area should be designed to accommodate only residential traffic local to the development
and should be pedestrian friendly, narrow, and non-intimidaling. Any and all commercial development
should be designed into the developable area to directly egress to collectors on the edges of the project area
so as to maximize the quality of life for those who reside in the project area (the diagonal road should not
be the egress point to office or industrial property). Ultimately the tax value of the residential neighborhood
will be reduced if it is chopped up with another major road with traffic which could be redirected at the
design stage.
In summary:
I believe maximum t1exibility for all parts of the project area must be maintained.
I am not in favor of development leap frogging (ultimately increases the land cost and financial
burden for middle properties).
I favor more vertical development (over 3-4 stories so as to not appear to sprawl and provides
more open space).
I favor the diagonal road design be kept as t1exible as possible and not installed until more
development plans encompassing a greater portion of the area are approved.
I favor the diagonal road be non intimidating to cross (narrow, pedestrian friendly), the right of
way may be wider to accommodate center island and sidewalks but road itself be designed primarily as :2
lanes for only local neighborhood residential traffic not industrial or cut through traffic (if you build it
bigger they will come).
I favor the city maintaining higher residential densities but establishing guidelines as soon as
possible specifying greater open space within each development not just open around it, (maximum density
and density transfer only available if it is a more vertical development, so the development doesn't feel
crowded).
I favor any improvements to the collector roads around the project area planning to be enlarged as
a result of the need for access to the new HWY 312 to be shared equally with the whole community as
everyone will use and benefit from them.
Sincerely,
Rick Dorsey
Property owner on Lyman Blvd
952-831-7204 (phone)
Page 1 of 1
Oehme, Paul
From: Roosterjec@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 20043:37 PM
To: Oehme, Paul
Cc: SPeter1 005 @aol.com; vpbilotta@ msn.com
Subject: 2005 MUSA Expansion Improvements Project No. 04-05-===Peterson Jacques Farm
Paul,
This correspondence is a followup to our meeting of 7 September 2004 in your office.
We discussed the various assessment issues and the fact that there is a different rate for commercial than there is for residential.
We discussed the fact that a few parcels share the same comprehensive plan designation(s) and that some are labeled 'residential'
and some are labeled "commercial." The Peterson farm is designated as "commercial" on this report and it lies between two
"residential" parcels, those being on the East and the West. The Peterson farm also contains part of the Bluff Creek overlay lone.
It is my understanding after our conversation that this is not a land use planning document. The land will be assessed once the use
is determined, and such determination will be made in the usual and customary manner.
AS such I would ask (as we discussed) that you add to your report the notation that this is not a land use determination at this time.
The land use will be determined later.
Please bear in mind we do not object to the project, we want to be good neighbors, we just don't want to determine any land use at
this time.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Please add a footnote to your
John E. Chadwick
11430 Zion Circle
Bloomington, MN 55437
Office 952-853-2473
Fax 952-886-0492
9/7 /2004