Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Admin section
1 ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION Memo from Fred Hoisington dated December 4, 1990. Letter from Bill Frenzel dated December 3, 1990. Letter from Lake Restoration dated November 28, 1990. Letter from Roger Knutson re: Moon Valley Aggregate dated November 21, 1990. Two Articles from the Minnesota Enterprise Magazine, Winter, 1990. ' Letter to Carl Ohrn dated December 3, 1990. Future City Council Engineering Items. Letter from APWA dated December 3, 1990. Letter from Earl Renneke dated October 29, 1990. Letter to Jodie Arndt dated November 8, 1990. Articles from Mpls. Star and Tribune dated November 15, 1990. Memo from Scott Harr dated November 14, 1990. ' Letter to William Loebi dated November 21, 1990. Letter from Bergerson-Caswell dated November 9, 1990. Letter to David Holub dated November 21, 1990. 1 Letter to Wanda Biteler dated November 21, 1990. Construction Progress Chart - Highway 5 Improvements. ' Letter to Ken Felger dated November 19, 1990. Sample letter sent to residents concerned about the "Truth-in- Taxation" Notices and copies of all letters received from citizens. Article from Minnesota Asphalt Pavement Association dated November 2, 1990. Memo from Tom Chaffee dated December 5, 1990. ' HRA Accounts Payable. y/ PD ( O , O ©P¢ I f 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 u - - e • i)ov .TI _ LAND USE CONSULTANTS V F k l .�.� /^::� .!e.E,F SSE t � ti Hoisington Group Inc. .. � • MEMO Ll t o i 72171 l D) � DEC 0 5 1990 To: Gary Warren, City Engineer ENGINEERN DEPT. ,1 From: Fred Hoisington, Planning Consultant Subject: Telephone Discussion with Peggy Reilly on 12-4-90 Re: Highway 5 Access Waiver . i Date: 12-4-90 . After talking to you, 3oAnn, Don Hagen and Herb Mason I caned Peggy Reilly to tell her that Chanhassen Holding Company has no lever to negotiate with the City to eliminate the wetland on their property lying I east of McDonalds. I explained that the City is not going to change the wetlands ordinance and that it will not make an exception for the Chanhassen Holding Company in that regard. I indicated that she could .4, either sign the agreement allowing MnDOT access by the prescribed deadline or it could hold the project up and delay the construction of Highway 5 for as much as a year. I did not threaten her with taking the right-of-way as part of the platting iprocess, though I did make an inquiry about the sale of the property to the Company intending to build an auto emissions inspection facility -on the site. Peggy explained that that sale is not going to occur because they want to purchase only a small part of the site. She Went so far as to suggest that C .. the City ought to buy it for a park or that it might best be sold to Southern Bell. I explained that it would not be acquired by the City for a park and ±� that Southern Bell is in the process of selling portions of its land further to the east not buying additional.land. My conclusion from all of this is that 1 the plat which is currently in process may either be dead- or delayed for a long time. We cannot expect to' get the MnDOT right-of-way through 1 dedication given the current status of the-sale-of-the-property. I reiterated that the Chanhassen Holding Company has two choices, either i to sign the waiver or hold up the project but that there would be no bargaining with the City over the wetland. She indicated that she would (- need some time to think about signing and I asked if she would get back to me with her answer in the near future? She said she would talk it over with the partnership and get me an answer in the next couple of weeks. She seemed to be saying that she wants to take all the time available to make a decision but will respond before the December 31 deadline. 7300 Metro Blvd.•Suite 525•Minneapolis,MN 55435•(612)835.9960 r I MINNESOTA OFFICE: BILL DISTRICT, N L 8120 PENN AVENUE SOUTH THIRD C1____,MINNESOTA BLOOMINGTON,MN 55431-1326 WASHINGTON OFFICE: 812-881-4600 5026 LONGWORTN BUILDING 202-225-2871 4Congreto of tlje tiniteb 'tateg ouge of ate reSentatibeg �albington, AK 20515-2303 REEVED I December 3, 1990 C E I; 0 5 1990 I Mr. Thomas Chaffee CIl 1 vi vnr,�rnHSSE(� 690 Colter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 • IDear Mr. Chaffee: I Thank you for contacting my office to express your opposition to the elimination of state income tax deductibility as a way to reduce the federal deficit. Please excuse my tardy reply. II I supported the continued deductibility of state and local income taxes from federal tax. In spite of my objections, there was a provision which limited itemized deductions, such as state income IItax, in the 1991 Budget Reconciliation Bill. This deficit reduction package disallows three percent of itemized deductions for taxpayers earning more than $100,000. II Taxpayers are, however, guaranteed at least 80 percent of the value of their total deductions. IThe benefit of your counsel is much appreciated. II. Yours very truly, IA C114e• I Bill Frenzel Member of Congress IBF:sjp I I I I I -7 LAKE RESTORATION, INC. Professional Lake Lake Weed Control I I I• rOvE:i.r.)P1 23 . 1.)90 A I tachea is a recap of the eurasian water milfoil inapec112.n and f.-eatment program for the City of Chanhassen. This seai ,_hing for and treating early infestations 1 ii h: Jr PreSEFVC ' ecreatonal used of these lakes. treatment on Lake Riley is a ster in the r c;ht he : Lion c LaK1 iley should be inspecte: nElt , er On ri,ent 71enerallv control '0'6 to xf the eurasi .; ,4atei unJ. . on one occa.,,ion in o\ er 20 eradicatior t,-eatmr.hf _ E.ucessfui in controllinq 100s'6 of the ihfr— tatl _.h 'cu ; o! letting us serve VOL and please Jet me row we serv_;ce in the future. War e ?ar _ I I I I I IKev_ i! r Es 4, • 620 Hamel Road Hamel, Minnesota 55340 (612) 478-9421 1 I .001mit.„4:,0 • „ ? fft- 4 n LAKE RESTORATION, INC. -- - — --- - -----— IIProfessional Lake Weed Control II IIEURAS IAN WAITRMII-FcIL PROGRAM / CITY PF _POANHAN - in*Ppqtlyprt: Ipatp: August o Anne No Eurasian present II August 6 August 7 Lotw. Lucy No Eurasian present No Eurasian present August 8 , 9 Rile ' No Eurasian present August 7 Sus- ) No Eurasian present ISeptember 17, 18, 19 Rile; Located 1 .26 acres September 20 Anne ' No Eurasian present ilt II September 20 Sus. September 24 cs us., No Eurasian present — ! Lucy No Eurasian present September 24 , 25 Lotu . No Eurasian present IITreatment; , ' October 2 Ri1 y Treated 1 . 2o acre I II II II I , II II II II620 Hamel Road hamel, Minnesota 55340 (612)478-9421 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. c_G ra<g_ Attorneys at Law /✓�c.�' Thomas . Campbell J P Roger N. Knutson (612)456-9539 Thomas M. Scott I Gary G. Fuchs Fax(612)456-9542 James R. Walston Elliott B. Knetsch Gregory D. Lewis Dennis J. Unger November 21, 1990 I Mr. Paul L. Morrison Senior Claims Examiner National Casualty Company F.O. Box 4120 Scottsdale, Arizona 85261-4120 RE: Claim No. : 146810-109 Insured: City of Chanhassen Policy No. : P00120328 Claimant: Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. Dear Mr. Morrison: Pursuant to your letter dated November 12, 1990, this will confirm that the City of Chanhassen is declining coverage in the above matter. I Very truly yours, PBELL, 6 TSON, SCOTT , &tj P.A. BY• �� Roger N. Knutson RNK:srn , cc: Don Ashworth r RECEIVED NOV 26 1990 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Yankee Square Office III • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122 ' II N A T I O N A L C A S U A L T Y C O M P A N Y 1 PROPERTY/CASUALTY DIVISION Claims Department 8370 E.Via De Ventura I Scottsdale,Arizona 85258 Reply to: Telephone Post Office Box 4120 602-948-0505 Scottsdale,AZ 85261-4120 FAX 602-483-6752 II November 12, 1990 Mr. Roger N. Knutson II Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs Yankee Square Office III, Suite 202 3460 Washington Drive Eagan, MN 55122 IRE: Claim No. : 146810-109 Insured: City of Chanhassen Policy No. : PO0120328 IClaimant: Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. Dear Mr. Knutson: . IIThank you for your October 29, 1990 letter. • I note that your statement that "the City is declining your offer to defend." I By this statement do you mean to say that the City is declining coverage for this occurrence? If this is the case, please confirm this. If the City is not declining coverage, then we must insist on exercising our obligation under the policy to defend the City, and insist that Mr. Marshall continue his IIparticipation in the defense. Please clarify this issue for us as soon as possible. IIVery truly yours, IPaul L. Morrison ALA2-. Sr. Claims Examiner I _c: Joe Marshall Marshall & Associates 9501 Lexington Avenue, North IISt. Paul, MN 55014-1655 PM/af IP11/2482 II . - - I IIHome Office • Southfield,Michigan 1 / cl r-, S.e•4.T - MINNESOTA VENTURES I /---,,-,,,,,,, :i✓rce S• 7�'•. eTar�t+.1'� ' to i NTO.v /( 7 > I The hotel industry has been rewarded with the increase in local film production. I "In 1990, we have 4,500 days of room occupancy that have been booked Minnesota: Coming Soon by the film industry,"said Martin Heh- man,general manager,Marquette Hotel, I to a Theater Near You Minneapolis."Thatisa quarter ofamil- lion dollars in revenue earned by this 281-room hotel." , Public and private sector joint partici- innesota'sfilm and video industry pared with the other 49 states, whose pation extends to the board's work with can boast about the production of film commissions are completely funded all the state departments,many chamber six feature films made in the state by legislative appropriations on an aver- of commerce offices and the highway this year. age of$274,000 annually,the Minne- patrol. "This is the highest number of feature sota Film Board has to work harder. "We really depend on state re- films ever made in one year,"said Shan- "Minnesota's desirability goes sources,"said Randy Adamsick,execu- non Smith of the Minnesota Film Board. beyond location sites,"said Kelly Pratt, ya The Minnesota Film Board,one ele- director of production,Minnesota Film 1 ment responsible for Minnesota's height- Board."Sometimes this is the only lure ened filmmaking reputation,is the state's other states have to offer compared with point of contact for filmmakers from our broad choice of quality in-state pro- Z across the country.The board provides duction companies." information about Minnesota to lure Equipment houses,studios and rental i feature filmmakers to the state.National office space, audio-visual and artists' 1 publicity placed by the board through services,editors and writers,transporta- the New York Times and the Holly- tion companies, film laboratories and , ' wood Reporter has raised national design,crew and set services are just a = !t awareness of Minnesota's film industry. few of the businesses and occupations _ --.17,L Music star and savvy businessman that serve the film industry. — .....:1:4-t. - —__— Prince has done much to energize the The Minnesota Film Board is deli- Twin Cities' image as a location for cated to making Minnesota one of the - serious production work.His$10 mil- nation's top five production markets for , �..-' l.,: lion multimedia studio in Chanhassen, film and television production.The goal ;� =• --. _��/--`— r:• Paisley Park Enterprises, has drawn is being accomplished /"�!J, , % _ many stars and would-be stars to Minnesota is the fourth largest com- . -11 0 i - Minnesota. mercial and corporate film/video pro- ` ; Prince's holdings include studios, duction market in the country after Los -,- films,radio and video record produc- Angeles, New York and Chicago. ,‘; tions,Paisley Park Films,PRN Produc- Among its recent string of feature film - - ' <,qL y.L tions Inc.and Controversy Music. successes shot in the Twin Cities and ,, -',:` Because of boosts like these, film Victoria are two made-for-television pro- `. t`‘-'1.„. industry-related jobs have increased ductions featuring big-name stars Mar- '; - h s-1 Full-time positions created between sha Mason in"Drop Dead Fred"and tive director of the Minnesota Film '� 1983 and 1988 in film, video and Olympia Dukakis in"Lucky Day." Board. "Access to these resources is a Prince's Paisley Park recording reached 940,freelance work As of October,the board had 50 stu- sign to the film company that we can multimedia study in I proliferated and more than 800 Minne- dios actively considering Minnesota as a deliver services. One film company n A sota companies work in the industry site for film projects.The expenditures wanted to see three Minnesota sites in a today, according to a 1989 economic made by these out-of-state film comps- three-state,two-day trip.The highway impact study published by the Minima- nies to live,eat,move,phone,hire and patrol allowed us to use,on short notice, polis Office of Film, Video and work here added $15 million to the a helicopter for a four-hour swing Recording. state's economy and$900,000 in direct through Northfield,Rochester and Min- Industry growth and its influence on tax revenues. neapolis. We couldn't have done that I auxiliary businesses has been enhanced without state help." by public and private partnerships.The Minnesota Film Board raises private Edit. funds to match its annual three-to-one legislative allocation of$170,000.Com- misommomommoomoomm MINNESOTA FN7ERPRISE•WlifflR 90/1 1 I 1 ALei / , : ,._ -.. _ • ' i C - 1°4 : :-.' / ,,,,,, 0 -164:011' .,4 w )/1 it;A— _ - - P f P 0 P P ., _ I Persistence Pays , ..n __1 ,, ,, ,:.: , ,.. ..... ..Zit(14 I Off for Big Stone � =p-- ''"J !1 . r ..... �./% .- t ig Stone Inc.,a Chaska-headquar- : ; „ fn��,� M i tered independent food processor, :�;;„;; ";{ made a commitment to sell its ”"...UT" ADEN =_ canned vegetables to the world market- �". s OM place eight years ago. But it took Big • .. r - ;��: • ,"° I I Stone more than a year of research, I! ( �f; ��� ,, : thought,lead follow-up,letter writing to 4 �' : E S e k r - 06'146. 'r i potential clients and persistence before it ., -- ` _ ' --,— got its first client—in Japan. " �a aei r CALIF Rhi+ -'�. It takes careful consideration before .":,� gal *9 tn ��R�� I 1' GARIXh �`V DGE -- '4 ' IF rtmn x Ca y� a business commits to exporting to the ,�.� international market," said Walter s, IHobbs, Big Stone's vice president_nL, GOLDEN SWEET CORE _ - �, sales and marketing. If any company x'�.:. a I E ot executives think this is something that , can be begun and accomplished in a '�'�"`�"` - " ' matter of months,they are mistaken." "' Today Big Stone's markets in Europe, BE Stone Inc.,creator the Pacific Rim and the Middle East 25,000 square-foot warehouse, and plants. Last year, Big Stone became a ofa continuous canning account for 10 percent of its total sales, Hobbs considers it among the most effi- wholly owned subsidiary of Dean Foods operation,sold between ', representing g operations in the nation. Co.,Franklin Park,Ill. -�lion as and c resentin 1.5 million to 2 million dent tannin million car of cases of canned foods.Sweet corn is the "Big Stone is professional and pro- "The company is a significant benefit and frozen food biggest seller for this primarily private vides very good quality,"said Richard to Arlington because of plant expansions products tbds year. label canned vegetables business. Big Macy, export manager for Mitsubishi and more jobs,"said Charles Pettipiece, Foreign markets Stone sold between 30 million and 35 Foods Inc. in San Diego, a wholly Arlington's economic development represented 10 percent million cases of canned and frozen food owned subsidiary of Mitsubishi Corp. director."We have worked together on of the companys sales I products this year. "But particularly,it is dedicated to the road improvement that has eased resi- The Minnesota Trade Office had a export business as part of its overall dential traffic and a new well and water hand in introducing Big Stone to the rest marketing program." line that have increased plant product ' of the world through its export educa- Founded in 1902,Big Stone histori- tion and provided the city with a secon- tion programs and agricultural trade cally has been a haven for creativity.In dary well." representative.The U.S.Department of its early decades, the company devel- Big Stone's projected sales for 1990- Commerce's reports and statistics on oped the parent hybrid seed corn cross 1991 are$50 million in private retail I exporting also were a help to Big Stone. for all golden sweet corn produced and export markets. "Our trading partner in Japan used to today.In 1929,Big Stone invented the fly over to see us,"Hobbs said."On one mechanical corn cutter that made com- EdR of his trips he told us it was time to meet mercial canning of whole kernel corn Ithe customer. We flew to Japan." possible;and helped develop the mod- Importers will do their homework to em corn husker,the flotation washer(a find out about an exporter's reputation, machine that cleans corn in a water bath IHobbs added. Businesspeople network before it is processed,inspected and put abroad just as they do in the United into the can) and the dosing machine States,he said.Word gets around about (the machine that seals the end of the can a company's product quality and its abil- to the body).Big Stone was the first to I ity to deliver. design and use a continuous canning Big Stone committed itself to a $1 operation. million capital improvement investment Big Stone serves its customers from Ito rebuild and re-equip its processing nine nationwide distribution centers, plants in Bloomer,Wis.,and Arlington, and the company employs 200 full-time Minn.The Arlington plant just added a and 300 to 500 seasonal workers at its IMiNNESOTA ENTERPRISE•RIMER w/23 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ki11171"1/4* 690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 553. 17 (612)937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 December 3, 1990 1 Mr. Carl Ohrn Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East 5th Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Carl: Unfortunately, due to prior commitments, I was unable to attend any of the public meetings on the proposed Council Policies for Rural Service Areas. Working with our local association of southwestern communities, John Boland has presented you with some documentation that in part covers the position of the City of Chanhassen. However, I believe it would be valuable for me to convey to you directly our reactions to the proposed policy changes. My comments follow the outline of proposed changes presented in Table 6 of your report. Preservation of Agriculture The City of Chanhassen does not have any major issues with ag preservation, however, we believe that the Ag Preserve Policy should reflect the location of parcels in transition areas where these occur. For example, the City of Chanhassen still retains a fair amount of agricultural land in the southern part of our city. Much of this land is leased while being held for development and we have only approximately 3 to 4 active farmers working the community. Some of the acreage in this area is listed as ag preserves. However, in our community this area is surrounded on four sides by urbanized development and in all probability this will ultimately be converted to urban uses. As you are probably aware by now, the City of Chanhassen is working on a complete redraft of our Comprehensive Plan that will expand the MUSA line by ' approximately 2,600 acres since we are virtually out of developable land within the MUSA at the present time. I I 11 Mr. Carl Ohrn December 3, 1990 Page 2 ' Lot .Size ' Under the 1986 Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement, the City of Chanhassen was required to adopt 1 per 10 acre density zoning, improve regulations for on site sewers and was also required to adopt 211 acre minimum lot sizes. It came as quite a surprise when ' you indicated to me in a meeting in Chanhassen two months ago that the Council had deleted the 21 acre lot size standard approximately at the same time as the City of Chanhassen was required to adhere ' to it. The City of Chanhassen has had considerable problems stemming from the 21/2 acre minimum. We in no way object to the 1 per 10 acre density in the rural area, but the 21/2 acre lot size minimum has create a series of rural subdivisions that make it ' extraordinarily difficult to transition these areas to urban development. They become virtual black holes where it is almost impossible to extend city utilities since it is difficult to assess costs back to properties that have just spent considerable sums of money on installing private utilities. We are, therefore, gratified to read that no minimum lot size is being proposed and ' that performance standards based on on-site disposal are being shown in place of establishing a minimum. I would anticipate that the City of Chanhassen will be coming back to the Metro Council shortly with the goal of revising that portion of the Lake Ann ' Interceptor Agreement that stipulated 211 acre minimums for our community. We would anticipate trying to promote further clustering of such development that is allowed to take place within the 1 per 10 acre guideline in our transition area. On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems ' As I noted earlier, Chanhassen has adopted and has been enforcing for the last 3 years current standards for development of on-site utilities. Your proposed guidelines would require communities to "certify" compliance prior to approving local plan amendments. I would clarification as to what this certification entails since we would like to minimize the need for expanded administrative procedures or bureaucracy. Another possibly more important issue of on-site sewage disposal systems is that in transition areas such as those found in Chanhassen, it may be more reasonable to consider the use of a community based private ' disposal system using a common drainfield and other facilities. We believe that if these facilities are designed and maintained appropriately, that they provide a better opportunity for maintenance at a higher standard and facilitate inspection when this is required. We also believe that most importantly these sorts of systems would lend themselves to conversion to city public sanitary sewer at such time as these are available. We would ask that you consider looking into standards that may be applied for such systems and make this option available. I I I Mr. Carl Ohrn December 3, 1990 Page 3 Transition Areas We are gratified that the Metro Council is considering the 11 adoption of a Transition Area Policy. We believe that the undeveloped portions of Chanhassen represent an ideal area for this designation. Our undeveloped areas are surrounded by urbanization on all four sides and is currently served by or will be bisected by four lane highways. We are concerned, however, that while the concept of transition areas has been proposed that there are no specific guidelines for them. In particular, we note concerns that we have had along with other units of government in this area regarding Council policies relative to highway improvements through what we believe will be termed the transition area. Concerns raised by the Metro Council regarding extensions of Highway 5 and construction of Highway 212 through the transition area, in spite of the fact that we are planning for these to be developed and the fact that there is ample demand for the roadways, brings these issues to the forefront. We also note that our mass transit has been hampered by an inability to site a park and ride facility at the intersection of Highways 5 and 41. This area is currently located outside of the MUSA although we are proposing that this be brought into the MUSA line. Metro Council policy currently prohibits the expenditure of funds for transit improvements outside the MUSA line, in spite of the fact that Highways 5 and 41 are highly traveled and would be an ideal spot to intercept trips coming from Chaska, Waconia and points west. We would appreciate the opportunity to interact with you and your staff further regarding the transition areas, should an opportunity arise. Density/Clustering As noted earlier, the City of Chanhassen has already adopted the 1 per 10 acre density guidelines and has no problems in continuing enforcement of them. We believe that this policy is of great use in protecting the transition areas from premature development. However, the proposed ways in which density is to be calculated are unwieldy and I believe inappropriate for transition areas and for areas such as those found around Chanhassen. Options A and B would require the analysis to include substantial tracts of property that are in all likelihood not owned by the person applying for a subdivision. In Chanhassen, the agricultural property has generally been subdivided into considerably smaller tracts then are found further out in the rural areas. In essence, the proposal you have offered constitutes a de facto transfer of development rights whereby the City would, by approving a subdivision for Landowner A, thereby precluding Landowner B who happens to be within the 160 acre or 640 acre tract from any development without any knowledge on their part. I believe this is - inherently unfair and should be avoided. Again, we do not oppose the densities that you are proposing, in fact the reverse is true. I 11 Mr. Carl Ohrn December 3, 1990 Page 4 ' We are merely concerned with the methods you are proposing for computing them. We would like to be able to continue with policies ' that have already been developed and in use since 1987. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revised policies. We look forward to working with you on this and ' related matters. We will be in contact with you and your staff shortly regarding the release of the conditions from the 1986 Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement relative to minimum lot area ' requirements. Sincerely, Paul K. auss, AICP ' Director of Planning PK:v ' cc: Planning Commission City Council 1 1 i 1 . 1 1 1 1 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS ENGINEERING January 14, 1991 1 - Approve Contract Amendment No. 3 for CH Suites Hotel Improvement Project No. 89-25 - Approve Contract Amendment No. 3 for North Side Parking Lot Project No. 87-17 11 January 28, 1991 I - Approve West 78th Street Detachment Landscaping Plan, Authorize Advertising for Bids - Improvement Project No. 87-2 - Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications for 1991 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program ' - Receive Pavement Management Needs Report - Request MnDOT to Consider Construction of Auxiliary Turn Lanes on TH 101 at Pleasant View Road and Cheyenne Trail February 11, 1991 , - Trunk Highway 5 Improvements fran County Road 17 to Trunk Highway 41: 1 1. Approve Joint Powers Agreement for Preparation of Construction Documents 2. Approve Engineering Services Contract with Barton-Aschman February 25, 1991 - Approve Amended Development Contract for Market Square - Approve Plans and Specifications for Construction of Well No. 6 and Related Watermains and Appurtenances; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project No. 91-1 - Approve Plans and Specifications for South Leg TH 101 Improvement Project No. 90-20; Authorize Advertising for Bids March 11, 1991 1 March 25, 1991 - Approve Plans and Specifications for 1991 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program; Authorize Advertising for Bids - Award of Bids for Construction of Well No. 6, Project No. 91-1 - Award of Bids for West 78th Street Detachment Project No. 87-2 , - Approve Preliminary Plans for TH 5 from TH 41 to CSAH 17; Layout No. 1B, S.P. 1002-88035 (5=121) 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS ENGINEERING Page 2 1 Future Agenda Items - Adopt Assessment Roll for Audubon Road South Project No. 89-18 - Adopt Assessment Roll for Frontier Trail Project No. 89-10 - Adopt Assessment Roll for Country Hospitality Suites Project No. 89-25 ' - Award of Bids; 1991 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program (5/28/91) - Approve Contract Amendment No. 1 for 1990 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Improvement Project No. 90-2 (4/8/91) ' - Accept Utilities in Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition - Award of Bids; South Leg TH 101 Improvement Project No. 90-20 (6/24/91) - Consider Feasibility Study for Extension of Dell Road from Lake Drive East South to Eden Prairie City Limits, Project No. 90-7 (Joint with Eden Prairie) - Approve Plans and Specifications for County Road 17 Upgrade South of TH 5 Improvement Project No. 90-4; Authorize Advertising for Bids (1/92) - Award of Bids; County Road 17 Upgrade South of TH 5 Improvement Project No. 90-4 (Spring/1992) - Approve Plans and Specifications for North Leg TH 101 Improvement Project No. 88-22B; Authorize Advertising for Bids (1/92) - Award of Bids; North Leg TH 101 Improvement Project No. 88-22B (4/27/92) CONSULTANTS PLEASE NOTE: Reports are due in Engineering no later than 10 days prior to the City Council meeting date, i.e. Friday. Copies to: City Hall Department Heads Kim Meuwissen, Eng. Secretary Karen Engelhardt, Office Manager City Council Administrative Packet Gary Ehret, BRW Bill Engelhardt, Englehardt & Associates I I I `"Q American Public Works Association I '''' 14114 pr /11k " 1 P MINNESOTA CHAPTER ce tom) ' MINNESOTA CHAPTER APWA _-�I 1990 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE STEVE GATLIN LEGISLATIVE ALERT 6) President 2660 Civic Center Drive By Tom Drake II Roseville MN 55113 Y (612)490-2200 TOM DRAKE 1 Vice President CityHau The Transportation Study Board (TSB) is in the Red Wing. MN 55066 process of drafting their final recommendations (612)388-6734 or 227-6220 regarding Municipal State Aid Funding and Allocation. GARY WARREN As of this writing, it appears that 50% of the Secretary allocation will continue to be based on o Ch Coulter Drive an annual adjustment population P Chanhassen. MN 55317 3ustment by a method yet to be I (612) 937-1900 determined. The remaining 50% would shift from the MIKE EASTLING current needs distribution to lane mileage multiplied Treasurer by some magical construction cost index (CCI) . 6700 Portlana Ave. So. I Richfield. MN 55423 The impact of the CCI is as much as 62% between (612)869-7521 adjoining suburbs and as much as 65% between outstate GREG KNUTSEN cities less than 45 miles apart. This impact is even Past President further distorted by an assumption by the TSB staff II 7305 Oxford Street Y P Y St. Louis Park MN 55426 that 15 million dollars in additional funds will be (612)924.2563 added to the M.S.A. pot. This increase is factored JOHN FLORA into the spreadsheet analysis prior to comparison to 111 Delegate the 1990 allocations giving the impression that most 6431 University Ave NE cities will benefit from the new system. It is Fridley.MN 55432 unlikely that State Legislature will increase M.S.A. I (612)571-3450 funding by 18.4% at the same time that they deal with LARRY ANDERSON a billion dollar shortfall. Director 4629 Dakota Street E Prior Lake MN 55372 While I agree that a more timely adjustment needs to (612)447-4230 occur in the population data, I strongly disagree ROD PLETAN with throwing out a needs system that has served the Director state remarkably well for over 30 years. I am G20 Transoortation Bldg. further concerned that the Transportation Study Board P Ireland Blvd. St. Paul. MN 55155 is willin g to endorse sweeping changes in the (612)297-3590 allocation of Municipal State Aid Funds based on I DICK SOBIECH faulty assumptions simply because they are neatly Director packaged in a single spreadsheet. 2500 American Bank Bldg. St. Paul. MN 55101-1893 1 (612)292-4400 WEB �,lll !il I DEC 031990 �, �� I ORIF;P DEPT. I • M i - - i M - ME • NM S MI • - - I - r . • INDEPENDENT ABYIBN OF TRANSPORTATION STUDY BOARD ALTERNATIVE ALLOCATION FORMULA FOR NSA FUNDING SELECTED CITIES BY TON DRIER, CITY ENGINEER-RED WING 11/29/91 0 MUNICIPALITY I POPULATION POPULATION LAME MILES LANE MILKS TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL BASE BASE INDEXED INDEXED BASK BASE INDEXED INDEXED I SHARE SHARE SHARE SHARE BASS BASE INDEXED INDEXED 1991 CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHARGE S 1 1 1 D $96,517,117$81,517,107$96,511,101$81,517,117$96,517,101$81,511,117$96,517,117$81,511,117 ACTUAL $96,511,101$81,517,111$96,517,117$81,517,117 CHANGE CHANCE CHANGE CHANGE E ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION ALLOCATION $96,511,101$81,511,117$96,517,117$81,517,117 I ALBERT LEA 1.47 $328,553 $277,492 $438,515 $371,356 $167,158 $647,847 $811,103 $685,301 $634,534 $132,521 $13,313 $176,869 $50,767 20.9 2.11 27.9 8.1 AUSTIN 1.23 $488,384 $338,159 $592,311 $581,258 $992,695 $838,417 $941,283 $794,996 $856,835 $135,860 3-18,418 $84,448 $-61,839 15.9 -2.15 9.9 -7.2 FARIMAULT 1.26 $293,736 $248,086 $454,174 $384,096 $148,518 $632,182 $123,305 $610,894 $581,171 $167,336 $51,808 $142,131 $29,721 28.8 8.78 24.5 5.1 MORTHFIELD 1.26 $252,813 $213,523 $249,316 $218,569 $502,129 $424,192 $413,156 $399,537 $419,186 $83,043 $5,106 $53,971 $-19,549 19.8 1.19 12.9 -4.7 • OWATOMNA 1.44 $342,531 $289,296 $121,898 $356,330 $764,128 $645,626 $792,149 $669,839 $583,947 $180,481 $61,679 $208,202 $85,192 31.9 11.56 35.7 14.6 RED HMG 1.20 $259,820 $219,441 $392,343 $331,368 $652,163 $550,808 $609,198 $514,514 $698,232 $-46,069 3-141,424 $-89,112 3-183,718 -6.6 -21.11 -12.8 -26.3 ROCHESTER 1.99 $1,167,119 $985,725 $1,071,555 $985,122 $2,238,664 31,891,741 $2,751,080 $2,323,521 $1,788,131 $151,533 $112,616 $962,949 $535,396 25.2 5.14 53.9 29.9 IlY WIMONA 1.28 $451,214 $388,237 $492,395 $415,871 $942,599 $796,187 $908,881 $161,872 $712,081 $231,518 $84,126 $188,799 $18,791 32.4 11.80 26.5 6.9 Ali DULUTH 1.28 $1,493,158 $1,261,102 $1,909,141 $1,612,357 83,402,205 $2,873,459 $3,282,391 $2,712,270 $3,683,133 3-284,928 3-809,674 $-408,736 $-918,863 -7.6 -21.98 -10.9 -24.7 MINNEAPOLIS 1.79 $6,408,587 $5,412,610 $5,128,186 $4,331,211$11,536,773 $9,143,811$12,997,191 $11,977,176 $11,629,981 $-93,217 3-1,886,171 $1,367,111 3-652,814 -.8 -16.22 11.8 -5.6 ST. PAUL 1.81 $4,774,920 $1,132,836 $3,956,308 $3,341,447 $8,131,228 $1,374,283 $9,951,935 $8,405,276 $9,590,773 $-859,545 3-2,216,491 $361,162 3-1,185,491 -9.1 -23.11 3.8 -12.4 BURNSVILLE 1.81 $841,915 $710,226 $998,551 $843,362 $1,839,165 $1,553,588 $2,218,118 $1,864,940 $1,261,191 $519,275 $293,398 $947,918 $614,750 y 46.1 23.28 _ 15.2 - .CHAIHASSEI 1.13 $166,231 $140,397 $138,112 $116,563 $314,243 $256,961 $268,632 $226,883 $292,189 $12,054 $-35,229 3-23,551 $-65,316 ft 4.1 -12.16 -8.1 1.6"---'"' . FRIDLEY 1.03 $528,393 $446,274 $1,081,778 $912,811 $1,609,111 $1,359,185 $912,915 $171,136 $183,242 $825,929 $575,813 $129,673 3-12,216 105.5 73.52 16.6 -1.6 GOLDEN VALLEY 1.18 $383,915 $324,380 $511,215 $423,371 $885,251 $141,611 $813,341 $686,937 $864,693 $20,557 $-111,022 3-51,352 $-171,756 2.4 -13.53 -5.9 -21.6 PRIOR LAKE 1.12 $192,645 $162,715 $136,588 $115,360 $329,233 $218,066 $287,343 $242,686 $309,569 $19,664 $-31,503 8-22,226 $-66,883 6.4 -11.18 -7.2 -21.6 O RICHFIELD 1.15 $662,113 $559,212 $651,268 $519,218 $1,312,381 $1,188,421 $1,121,354 $941,181 $1,013,536 $298,815 $94,884 $107,818 $-66,455 29.5 9.36 10.6 -6.6 ROSEVILLE 1.21 $626,539 $529,167 $430,981 $364,801 $1,057,524 $893,168 $953,615 $805,411 $1,866,698 $-9,178 $-113,531 3-113,183 3-261,287 -.9 -16.27 -10.6 -24.5 SAVAGE 1.12 $148,615 $125,518 $131,301 $110,895 $219,916 $236,413 $246,527 $218,214 $298,211 $-18,298 $-61,811 $-51,681 3-91,801 -6.1 -21.72 -17.3 -30.2 ST LOUIS PARE 1.59 $787,114 $664,186 $541,818 $457,663 $1,328,992 $1,122,451 $1,374,664 $1,161,124 $999,588 $329,404 $122,862 $375,116 $161,436 33.1 12.29 37.5 16.2 0 • • s�.r� } II + r --` '°"° TRANSPORTATION STUDY BOARD ,o,« -.. :-- Tom L. Johnson, Executive Director(612)296-7932 I "''• -� Mary Beth Davidson, Administrative Assistant ==`=' G-24 State Capitol, St. Paul, MN 55155 Executive Committee I Sen. Keith Langseth Chair, Glyndon November 26, 1990 1 Rep. Henry Kalis Vice-Chair, Walters Kerry Van Fleet Secretary, Fridley Transportation Study Board I A G E N D A Legislative Members 1 Sen. Clarence Purfeerst Monday, December 3, 1990 Faribault Room 107, State Capitol Sen.Marilyn Lantry St. Paul I Sen. Lyle Mehrkens Redwing 10: 00 a .m. Call to Order Rep.Jim Rice Minneapolis • Approval of Minutes I Rep. Bernie Lieder Crookston Rep. Sidney Pauly • Items by Board Members Eden Prairie 10 : 30 a .m. • Freeway Management - Dick Stehr, Mn/DOT I Public Members 11 : 30 a .m. • Revised Preliminary Findings on Safety Warren Affeldt Initiatives I Fosston - Dimler Amendment Paul Bailey Minneapolis — Safety belt law Fred Corrigan — Radar detectors i Prior Lake Jack Fitzsimmons Waseca Bernie Montero 12 : 00 Lunch I St. Paul Gladys Johnson Duluth Bill Koniarski 1 : 00 p.m. • Draft of Final Report — Discussion and I Belle Plaine Adoption Sherm Liimatainen BruceCloquet 4: 00 p.m. Adjourn Columbia Heights I Abe Rosenthal St.Paul Robert shall Schlagel Pheene Zak I. Little Falls I I Printed on recycled paper I II EARL W. RENNEKE Senator 35th District 1 Rural Route 2 LeSueur,Minnesota 56058 Phone:(612)237-2613 117 State Office Building Phone:(612)296-4125 Senate Counties:Parts of Carver, ' McLeod&Sibley State of Minnesota October 29, 1990 Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 ' Dear Paul: Just a note to thank you for the information you sent on 1 Chanhassen's Surface Water Utility Program. It is a most interesting report and I thank you again for sending ' it to me. Keep up the good work. ' Sincerely, it' ' EARL W. RENNEKE State Senator 1 RECEIVEEi OCT 2 0 1990 ' CITY ur COMMITTEES•Agriculture•Local and Urban Government•Finance,Division of Health and Human Services& I State Departments•Government Operations•Rules and Administration MC COMMISSIONS•Minnesota Future Resources,Pensions and Retirement 9O Gc. f,.,ett .Ny� CITY of 1 7 cHANHAssEN ;; •kf ;' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612).937-5739 November 8 , 1990 1 Dr . Jodie Arndt 1 Chanhassen Veterinary Clinic • 440 West 79th Street. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Dr . Arndt . I would hope that the fact that you and I have had few opportunities to speak over the past year indicates that our animal control program is moving along smoothly. I know that Deb and Bob certainly feel that it is going well , as do the representatives from the cities that we provide animal control services for . For this , we greatly thank you . I am in the process of drafting the contracts for 1991 animal • control services . We anticipate continuing to provide animal control services for our neighboring cities . As I formulate the 1991 agreement , I did want to take this opportunity to check with you and see how things were going on your end. At your convenience, would you please give me call so that we can chat about how our personnel are working with your clinic, as well as any suggestions you have either now, or for future animal control efforts on our part? Also, I have included a provision in the 1991 contract that the clinic may again request separate impound contracts with each city. Do you know if this will again be the case? 1 I look forward to hearing from you. Again, thank you for your continuing cooperation. Sine e Y, I Scott Harr Acting Public Safety Director ' SH: cd cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager I Bob Zydowsky, Community Service Officer Animal Control Contract Cities A44 Apt, . L.4. I BLOOMINGTON ..-.. _._. � City considering Hennepin's softening tax base I _ - 1 fee on 2 utilities could affect entire metro area •• The Bloomington City Council is considering imposing a 2 percent kily Steve praadt . - • - that the tax base might not Y•iae at all franchise fee on the city's two (~Staff'Writer this near. Indeed, preliminary esti- main utilities. comes are that in Minneapolis the tax ct in County's tax base is show- base could shrink 2 percent. The city would tax Minnegasco :�g :i6ns of stagnating, a develop- - and Northern States Power to ; anent that could oust taxpayers both That spells trouble for taxpayers lase I offset a S 1.5 million budget short- t�•mside and outside the county cause when growth in property value fall. The fee would net the city slows or stops,and taxes continue to $1.6 million annually. Minnegas- The county's fait base—the overall rise, -it means higher tax rates for co and NSP representatives said market value of taxable property— property owners.That's because the that if the measure passed, the ?••rose just #A percent last dear, the larger the tax base,the more the tax I : cost would be passed on to srnaJlest inarase in at least 10 yeah burden can k dividai among tax- Bloomington customers. • : Moreover, Assessor Donald Monk ins warned annoy commissioners Property tax continued on page 18A 4. i Utility rate increases would affect 1- _ business and residential users. - a I,, , - '�� I Opponents of the plan—includ- ing the two utilities—say the tax is regressive, hitting people with lower incomes the hardest. w__--,_- -__ .................. . - . .,- „ ....----....- I A public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for 8:30 p.m. Mon- - day. , Iuir. . Thursday/November 15/1990/Star Tribune. . Property tax Continued tram page IA . . -Generally,a hefty increase in proper- value.In Eden Prairie,a market vat ty tax base dampens the impact of a ue increase of 7 percent for 1989 ha 111 • payers The tax bast incruases when H tax increase on homeowners.For ex- evaporated into a"real flat"outlool property is developed or its value $60 Hennepin this yeyear. about ample, rop e, Hennepin County raised the this year,said Assessor Steve Sinell property tax by 13 percent in 1989 I But with fienn ' when available property wealth was in Bloomington,market values have The County Board is expected today But ty growth epin County's proper- up 8.3 percent. That increased prop- held even at S4.4 billion, said Lyle T raise County 1Bo1 k shrinking faster than other erty value helped limit the county's Olson,director of administrative ser- y by 11 percent, counties,it's possible that those other voss tax increase on a $100,000 vices. "We're probably looking at a but the overall market value of prop- counties will get less tax aid than home to.7 of 1 percent in Minneapo- couple flat years here,"he said. The city has only increased by 4.4 per- they would have if Hennepin Coun- -lie and 4.8 percent in suburbs. city will I .ant ty's growth continued to be robust.u st tY gain hundreds of millions of The tax-shifting can be important to In Hennepin ll o of property he but the "It's kind of a new and different counties such as Anoka,where about rise more owlly in County,inn market than v�ueowill not help finished,general taxes world," Monk said. "We're used to 10 percent of the tax base comes the rest of the county. In 1989, the until after it is used to retire costs the seeing big growth out there." from Hennepin County._ city values grew 2.7 percent con- city incurred in fostering the . pared with 5.2 percent in the sub- The slowdown is occurring across the According to figures obtained urbs.Monk said suburban communi- Assessors have lowered values for .seven-county metropolitan area —Wednesday from counties,the slow- ties could show no growth in market some commercial properties,such as _inky because there is less construc- down is general across the region. value for this year when final calcula- office buildings, in response to softness in hous- Ramsey County's tax-base growth dons are finished. New construction reflect lower come I ' •demand and an overbuilt cora- k11 from 4.4 percent in 1989 to an in the suburbs sank to about 5700 •to property owners. income {�! al real estate market estimated 3.7 percent this year. million for 1989,compared with S1.1 .° ennepin Countl, which accounts Washington County sustained an billion two years earlier,be said. Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Mt 52 n percent of the slowdown, from 11.5 -. Spartz said be thinks it could take region's proper- percent growth in 1989 to an admit- Minneapolis Assessor pavid Bernier -three years for commercial real estate I itj wealth,had slower growth in mar- ed 4.4 percent this year. In Dakota said an oversupply 6f downtown to adjust sufficiently to overbuilt irdt value than all but Ramsey Coun- County, market value rose 9.5 per- space means lower market values for conditions and resume growth. ' `which it tied This has implica- cent in 1989 but 9 percent this year. some properties. Although calcula- tions for taxpayers in neighboring Anoka's increase this year was about lions are still I �,uinties because Hennepin County -S percent _ being made, he said That could on double-digit a county increases ses �fDvides money to others under the - ��-��have been told to�• bad to rely on double-digit increases wen-county money to o ere under r the Property � city tax base to shrink about in the property levy to keep up with *4 plan. This fiscal disparities law Pelt'depend on an individual off c- �eruxnt increased demand for social services. Tres communities to share �o�`depend on a number of fay. _ part of tors,including levies ofgovernment, Even suburbs that have exploded Staff writers Jim Walsh and Jim ,1 the growth in their commercial-in- amount of new construction, and with growth in recent years are re- Adams contributed to this article. duttrial tax base. Under,the kw,' whether property is reassessed. - porting slower increases in market 4L SI- - c c A/o " CITYOF � 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1 FROM: Scott Harr , Acting Public Safety Director S DATE: November 14 , 1990 SUBJ: Emergency Management Planning This memo is to update you on progress that has been made in the area of emergency management issues . Pursuant to our discussion, I have been exploring areas pertaining to emergency issues that need to be dealt with immediately, as well as those that need to be addressed for the future. 1 Dale Gregory and I have begun to address the immediate concern of developing an immediate plan should a crisis occur. This includes defining responsibilities surrounding the activation of the emergency operating center, including who will be summoned & what . their roles will be. We are in the final stages of developing a current format setting forth assigning roles and responsibilities for such 'an event . We will be providing you with this as we conclude our initial organ- ization of the plan for your input . Other more long range planning includes developing joint training and coordination efforts of all agencies that would be joining forces to assist in such an operation; looking at long range planning & needs ; etc. Just a note to keep you updated. SGoTI Co.v$: 74F1 cc: Dale Gregory, Fire Chief e1- �ro9 .,a� at °A.& % 4 i Ai`a�.aly 'Garr 1 c.„A_ A.^ pr.9 rctt Y'" 44r Xi" o.rt. 1 Cc- tai{ C C . C 1TY QF C HANHAssEN �•,, ;'; w<< °' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 ' MEMORANDUM • TO: Don Chmiel , Mayor City Councilmembers ' Public Safety Commission on ,Ashworth, City Manager 71( FROM: Scott Harr , Acting Public Safety Director DATE: November 14 , 1990 ' SUB.I : Notification of Public Safety Issues & Emergency Management Planning Following are two issues that I would like to bring to your attention : ' 1 . Occasionally situations arise within the City that I will want to bring to your attention. For instance, fatali - ties involving a resident , unusual or significant ' catastrophic occurrences , etc. , which I believe you as public officials should be made aware of ASAP. ' In such circumstances , I will be sending out memos to inform you. Always feel free to contact me for addi- tional information. ' 2 . Fire Chief Dale Gregory and I are in the process of developing both current emergency management plans & long range emergency management planning. An area that we are working on is how to effectively activate our Emergency Operating Center in the event of a catastrophe. Those people that will be advised, those that will be asked to ' respond to the center , responsibilities, etc. , are all issues that we are addressing. You will be kept apprised of these developments . Any input you wish to provide is ' welcome. r CITYOF CHANHASSEN 11 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA 55317 f' (612)937-1900 • FAX (612)937-5739 1 November 21 , 1990 Mr. William Loebl 7197 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Dear Mr . Loebl : We appreciate your questions and concerns regarding the ' recent water and sewer rate increase proposal . Yes, we are concerned , not only about the financial needs of our utility operation, but also about the continued depletion of our precious clean water supply. Enclosed you will find a flyer entitled "Water Use Habits", which we have recently ordered and will be sending to all of our residents. I thought you might like one of these now. Thank you again for your attention and concern. ' Sincerely, --- -- Thomas L. Chaffee Data Processing Coordinator TLC/ko - enc cc: Administrative Section 12/10/90 , 1 r I I WATER USE HABITS Typical Usage Good,Water-Saving Habits I Showering -20-40 gallons $pillions(wit down, (5 gallons per minute) soap up,rinse 05) . M. I N N E S OTA Tab Bathing 36 gallons(ium 10-12 gallons(low.4eveq � I =W Toilet Flushing •gallons _ 0-•5 gallons displacement u halt-flush device) oters Division Teeth Brushing 2 gallons(boost running) 1 pint(wet brush,rinse briefly) Iland Washing 2 gallons(faucet running) 1 gallon(61 basin,rinse briefly) ot3'ARn/ENf or w us.m. RESOURCES Shaving 3•5 gallons(faucet running) 1 gallon(fill basin,lino briaity) DIVISION of WATERS Dish Washing 20 gallons(faucet running) 5 gallons(wash,rinse in pans Of sink) I ONR BUILDING. SOO LAFAYEtTE ROAD ST.PAUL. IAN 55155-4032 Automatic Dishwasher 15 gallons(hull cycle) DO ONLY FULL LOADS 612-296-4800 Washing Machine 40-60 gallons(lull cycle) 0-O ONLY FULL LOADS I Outdoor Watering 5-10 gallons per minute Be sensible,seek local lawn/garden expert advice (Extension Service) I I 1 i Ig W ii t 1I 1 - 11 I VI 1 jijifl ! iJz1I11 a jiII t I ; 110 fij 0 i Iiiiismils Hfl ;jIJt 1 iIli y_i , i I 21 I 0 8io is!! di ii !iil III t- l': III il 811111 911 Ili a— c112 .114:4iiiilii is"- iii PI ; silt wifitill ill 12i III 1 : tli 1 1 11 Igillit Iii 1 . g LLI s 3 a 5 r 12 1+ S I �- Iihhiiruhij!ii! zf , ii• •• • • • • • • • • O • • • • • • • I . I ., c, . Pw ak il k BERGERSON = CASWELL INC. , • I e Commercial • Municipal • Residential 1`(� �� P �o Submersible do 71trbine Pumps C' Ito c I Environmental Drillers v�1 : -" 1 Lamk, Well Drillers i�� Well Drilling,Abandonment& Repair Since 1948 Cernfied p,,,np l, k,s i‘vi/ RECEIVE' R � NOV Y 5 1990 I November 9, 1990 S CITY OF cyANHr;:;:;kiv Mr. Jerry Boucher 0�p CITY OF CHANHASSEN Del - elk') 1I, P.O. Box 147 O, II Chanhassen, MN 55317 914m1) p, RE: Well Pump #2 - Your Purchase Order #18852 t'° lefrtd /0il Gentlemen: 1/4 L"1 Bergerson-Caswell appreciates the opportunity to assist with the above II referenced project. We propose the following: I - Labor and equipment to remove and inspect your pump unit $1,400.00 II We will transport the entire pump unit to our shop, clean for inspection and lay out for inspection. You will be invited to the repair inspection at your convenience. We II will advise necessary repairs only and the cost. With you approval repairs will be complete and the pump unit reinstalled. - Labor and equipment to reinstall and test $1,400.00 Bergerson-Caswell recommends video inspecting this well prior to any I decision making concerning pump repairs. This will help to establish an accurate record of the actual condition of the well casing and II borehole. - Video inspection including VCR copy and written report $ 700.00 I As discussed by phone today, we have scheduled the removal of your II pump unit for Monday, November 19, 1990. The video inspection will be completed on Tuesday, November 20, 1990. . II 5115 Industrial St.,Maple Plain,MN 55359 (612)479-3121 Far 479-2183 1 • 1 I . Mr. Jerry Bousher Page 2 November 9, 1990 ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN To obtain the best possible picture, we will have to run water down the well over night. this can be satisfactorily completed with a garden hose at an estimated ten (10) gallons per minute. ' If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us. ' Sincerely, BERGERSON-CASWELL, INC. 907 a. Danny Nubbe ' 'CWD/PI DN:nlr cc: qa\data\chan.gdn • 1 I • CITYOF I.11 1 i 0 to r4 I CHANHASSEN 1 nkr‘-- I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA 55317 .' (612) 937-1900• FAX (612) 937-5739 1 . 1 November 21, 1990 I Chanhassen Snowmobile Club Attn: Mr. David Holub 1 6670 Mohawk Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Holub: 1 On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I would like to thank the 1 Chanhassen Snowmobile Club for their support of the Oktoberfest Celebration in Chanhassen. 'The Snowmobile Club's generous contribution of $64.00 exemplifies your commitment to remain an outstanding service organization within our community. It is very 1 admirable for the Snowmobile Club to step forward taking an active role in providing services through your involvement in special events. I am confident that the Chanhassen Snowmobile Club will 1 continue to prove their value in our community in the future. Again, thank you for helping make the 1990 Oktoberfest in Chanhassen a success. I Sincerely, k-27.- /•_...- ,...." ' . Donald J.`'Chmiel , Mayor . -....-- ayor -`"- DJC:k ; _ _ 1 1 I I I I - _ CITYOF il ... f iliii 11 1314 ,_Ilt! 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHA$SEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 II Nt 1 November 21, 1990 II Chanhassen Jaycees I Attn: Ms. Wanda Biteler 910 Penamint Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Dear Ms. Biteler: F I II On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I would like to thank the Chanhassen Jaycees for their support of the Oktoberfest Celebration in Chanhassen. The Jaycees' „generous contribution of $120.00 exemplifies your commitment to remain an outstanding service I organization within our community. It is very admirable for the Jaycees to step forward taking an active role in providing services through your involvement in special events. I am confident that I the Chanhassen Jaycees will continue to prove their value in our community in the future. II Again, thank you for helping make the 1990 Oktoberfest in Chanhassen a success. Sincerely, ,J,'/ , Donald J. Chmiel ,. '< Mayor u IIDJC:k I II I 1 . CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS CHARY- !"/ `: se-749A REPORTS CONTROL SYMBOL 111. S :•iis ,(CSAH 4 te CARICR eo- e.! ec M04.... Pic.: /Z(q 4c) I.0001013000 a.300 110 3.Co IIACI euc nno,. e.1ws.e1.a.0S AM.OV• WI LUGtND r Shafer Contracting Co. Inc. 1002-58 and 2701-7i (T.R.5) Concrete Roadway, Bituminous BARB • s is J A Shoulders, Box Culvert, F.A.NOvM Ncomemeo Dan ><w.d.ad~au m dm.of NNn 1 i.COM•AQ►ae.Ni I.LOCAtION Watarmains Signal System And Meal p.epe. j 21188 on T.H. S in Carver and Hennepin Bridge No. 10010 I.A?/•OVta DAN CURVIS: �- _Countte0 .l.i.d.W/prem.-..... Aem.l pw0ns--.-,. awbPA/connAa NAME I•-aee w.. 13n10U1ne cat 9 1 90 11/1 12/1 , 7/1/111 5 1 7 1 9 1 1 1 .a mamma mar mamamra ne∎......sari wesinon mnwonno mew moon=Seri emomanno • _ Wain' _fin-n•∎ ra mom=■ ••■••IIIIIIINIIIIIIII n■=W m=•• ■=mar CLEAR II CRUD AMA -- • w + BUILDING REMOVAL ==........=.........laneenemi enenmm 1111=1=111=.aMMN==MINIM■NNINI=I=11=IMI Ni■mmi■ wee NINNIMMIMI REMOVALS I. SALVAGE • ACTUAL ___in mmmmee�n_�mmm eafi�l��__I m�_____■•• miner eememm_ enr neenmm1• e�ennneea m�-imnn•� 01101•1=110113110110•0M Se • EXCAVATION =ems-_ m_"�� s�mmr ie∎1 ran IMMUNE inner s■.••1 ; n•mana� mnmmean menus nmmmmm>•mn��e�nm�3 n�nnrsma�� 11■11 0110■101 BORROW mmme �i .nniinl imael aeeleee�■���m� arm ri iean emu i∎nn.,rm■moor •mnn•ma=mem=nmeenm en.■mnmnnam nmonnen mmmeeenie eememr en■limm anwomm.mmmmer nmmmnani enmemnon neam•m mmn313011•1•r_ eremm.mmamml30 eee•e.—aee mre.m 71 AGGREGATE mammal∎■N IIIIIIII•ei 011111■m'Nnen Innonim em•mia m■me�m grim men...s rem mmmeeeen•mnnemoo mmenmn 31001••••••1 • s>_ mmmmmml.mmm••n•■•••; a mmmmm•■• .mi•1•••■■••••••• CONCRETE PAVEMENT -Dino. em•mm�emmmee�enmm•� eeee�mm mmann�r•a��mmm�em• of�'r AMA m 1.11•■l mmmemm■•mmmmm= eeeemmme ee III•••■a mMIMI=.mmaaeINIM ems IMININIIME mme■n mmmmmIIIM■IN mmm eeNI M mm∎•=ININ■�m�e� aim m.m•mmm ee�mmn BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT _..."1_ —_ NM IIIIIIII 1.1 NG—._ .". ., e mnneeen emeame n r...... - mmnmmmen mmeemmen...... .e.. BOX CULVERT Beer_mmme lem miner mee.e.• enn enn se mm•mnm eeemmm.emm•mm•meee.ee■a eeeee•...IME ACIPAl m■Mm•amnn�■III■••11�— .e■N m■ar� am—mmm■ammrm=■ M • • SEWER. —m,�,m�� ���sir■���awm�mn���ari mem ��aalmeee�meeemm���m ee00000 ■ie• 000 MN,i1∎011■■ mmMmrMMelm0i001∎•∎em •4m=emm•mm i WATER MAIN ACHY eeee_mmmnee/m■ mmmmeeo 01■ =MEW= m■11111=m11041100.10 en• • nm■ m■mem�e memmm�mmmm�m 00■1 new 10e1M104M 011011011140011 01110101104140 ■ p CURB A GUTTER --�n=���a� n-- mnrna�.........m1� mm�Brain.....�m....a ermm�eene r.mmmmm.m.eeeeeeem ememe�e.o.m.==emee m.. ■•e011011 meml.eII memmmmml meramMINM meeeemmn mmmmeM mmmmmlMI e■memll mammmIl.nINNINIIIa IIIIIIINIMI mnnnN rearm—Bee eeeem M=11=1111=IMeINN ' mm••mmstss mmmmem meemmmm••■■•a■mm• NI •. rme�emm•me��.� WM. 013011■me`rain..�� mmn 'S•_ —_ J'.....• Amer SEED it SOD ��mm_mm.._gym__■■me r_��•eno� *am . nm�n•��� M Nr rim INNIm i•■••man A .. ••••■e•• BRIDGE rem_e_meeee_am_a�emir nnnm•nm i__�em•_i ron n�01■mom m�r� e mr_•mmonimmm mmm.mmi• ••••■••■mmmomm••••■••••■■Nomeeomi eemmmeme •••■•••••■■••••1•■•■•••■ ran InsiM nmmmmmm e■l ■ ■••••••■mmmm•mm rmnl 1en CITY OF CNANNASSEN ,�. — —� filfgafgagi A(7uM ===� ==ems==— M NOV 201990 , . , ACWAI ENCINEENINC DEPT. rr _m•eee._ " AMA —��m o Lm.meeeee•I.m eeeeeee..elm_e..∎m�em■e......m eeeeene�eemleeem • .N-n 2454 .m.m.e en •••••m•.la ........«...«.n..w.s. .w•••....•. . . J . ,.ii:A ... — — 1111111 — 111111 1111111 — NM 111111 111111 — 111111 111111 — 111.1 PIN — k4:11,4y,./-4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900• FAX (612) 937-5739 1 November 19, 1990 1 Mr. Ken Felger Right-of-way Agent Hennepin County Railroad Authority Southwest Street Level ' Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487-0016 ' Dear Mr. Felger: I am writing to you in reference -:to Lease File #90020 concerning the request of Gary Carlson, 3831 Church Road, Excelsior I/ (Chanhassen) , to utilize a portion of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority for personal use. It is our understanding that Mr. Carlson would intend to continue to use this area as pasture. The parcel in question is zoned Residential Single Family, however, Mr. Carlson's continued use as agricultural is permitted until such time as the property is developed. Therefore, the City of Chanhassen has no objections to Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority honoring Mr. Carlson's request. Sincerely, (/_E;( Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning PK:v • 1 r GE673 HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY Southwest Street Level Government Center,Minneapolis,MN.55487-0016 612/348-9260 Fax.612/348-9710 t wea/ RECEIVED NOV 151990 1 November 13, 1990 CITY ur .tHnr1ASSEN 1 Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed Lease on HCRRA Right of Way Dear Mr. Ashworth: 1 Mr. Gary Carlson of 3831 Church Road, Chanhassen, has requested permission to use part of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority's (HCRRA) right of way for personal use. This is not an uncommon request. Upon inspection of the property, we find its current use is for pasture for his horse(s) . It is evident this portion of our right of way in question has, for many years, been used for this purpose. HCRRA proposes leasing this part of our right of way to Mr. Carlson commencing December 1, 1990, at a nominal fee, as we do elsewhere. It is our custom to inform city officials of our lease proposals so that 1 they may comment as to their conformance with local zoning. Please note the subject lease premises resides in the city of Victoria, but would be leased to property in the city of Chanhassen. Generally we proceed with finalization of the lease unless negative comments are received from city officials within a reasonable amount of time. I will simultaneously contact city officials in Victoria as well. ' Attached you will find a sketch of the land in question. • Sinc rely, I Ken Fe ger Right of Way Agent cc: Lease File No. 90020 ;Mr. Paul Krauss, Planning Director Chanhassen BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Mark Andrew John E. Derus Tad Jude Jeff Spartz Randy Johnson John Keefe Sam S.Sivanich Chairman Vice Chairman Treasurer Secretary I 77. �......�sY S. ;� ' "fw1 .••ems. •i TM19 IS fin• �: . i • T,1!S .06e •ti !. . .•-j •I.• . • • - .. •' .17,.e;lc 4• - •I.; *4i f. r..• ..� 1 _ /2.•1 - • . .;cy 1 '� s'4. / •• "` ,�%•1, ' ROY W. W A S S O M ' a-�-, 1, ;; x ��� c to a _� _ i/ < i C.: t.; I / / . p g.� :.. • i a G I Z ••• / CS ,/÷-:..,.\ .,,, I G Or 6 51 —C�•Tr'NaY—• I 9 Q.SIy'�"q ' •L • F . e'er 6 t,,, 0 8 �� 8 1 . 7 % S 1 5C1 ! �o 9 ---- •— --- ---- --f- - —. - ------- 1 .-S4 A WEST / LESTER C. ANDERSON I I i0 LZ� � �OQ i 1 November 14, 1990 1- Dear 2" : ' The City of Chanhassen has received several letters, similar to yours, objecting to a tax increase in 1991. The city agrees with your position. The following notice appeared in the Villager on November 8, 1990. The city remains committed to the following position: 1 NOTICE This week, property owners will be mailed a "Truth-in-Taxation" form. The notice is required by a change in state statute. The form will show that potential tax increases may occur from the City (19.1% increase) , the County (16.7% increase) and the school (Chaska School District 19.1% increase or Minnetonka School District 11.0% increase) . The form is misleading as: o The City Council has not adopted the tax level shown. By contrast, the Council has stated that there will not be a tax increase in 1991; and o The amount shown in the form is the City's levy limit as set by the state. Any city publishing a tax less than the state maximum will have their taxes reduced to that lower level for all future years. However, in the past ten years the City has never taxed to the maximum level. The City will not tax to this maximum for 1991; and o The City's budget hearing dates have been set for December 10 and 18, 1990. As of this date, neither city staff nor the I 11 November 14, 1990 Page 2 1 City Council know what level of tax will be set for 1991. However, a preliminary budget has been drafted which reflects no 1 property tax increase. The points presented in this notice pertain ' solely to the City of Chanhassen, although we believe that they are also true for the county and school districts. Persons interested in additional information or who have additional 1 questions are encouraged to contact City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive, 937-1900. Some of the letters that we have received have been addressed to the city, county and school district. However, many of the letters have been addressed solely to the City Council. I cannot stress 1 enough the fact that the commitment being made is solely in regards to what the city has control over - the city's budget. The city does not establish the budget for the school districts or county. To ensure that your tax bill does not increase, you should seek a ' similar commitment letter from both the county and school. Currently, 21% of your tax bill goes to the city, 30% to Carver County, 46% to the school district, and 3% to special districts. ' Your letter will be submitted to the Mayor and City Council. Thank you again for expressing your concern. ' Sincerely, 1 Don Ashworth ' City Manager DA:k 1 1 1 1 1 I November 10, 1990 Carver County, School District 112 and City Council c/o City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed Property Tax Increase for 1991 Gentlemen: The proposed property tax increase for 1991 is preposterous, outrageous and demonstrative of a total lack of fiscal responsibility and restraint. Considering the increased taxes the federal government 1 has just imposed on us, the obvious fact that we are just beginning to enter a recessionary economy, and the ever rising cost of living, it's ludicrous to consider any local tax increase at this time. You must also be cognizant of the fact that the employers of many members of our community are already faced with diminished profits, actual losses and, in some cases, bankruptcy. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the majority of your constituency can anticipate wage increases sufficient to even maintain their current standard of living, much less support yet another tax increase. As individuals, we don't receive wage increases merely ' because we spend more than we make; similarly, our local government is going to have to live within its means as well. The size of the "public trough" has grown large enough; we're simply going to have to make do with the levels of government presently in place. As members of the electorate, we have entrusted the stewardship of our community to you. We've given you our support; in these troubled economic times, you should do no less for us. Respectfully, RECEIVED Mr. & Mrs. Gregg W. Bernhardt 111 3883 Forest Ridge Circle NOV 1. 3 1990 Chaska, MN 55318 Clh I 1 7leve.,...8eA, 9, /990 690 cerde. ti Z1 . I 5S"7 I /644; 94.*-704 4c-geePtavue..%d, i goty Gl.e_P etsG .uu.tcaa.ee . s .w.f..,-,..e+4-44, ---,2e7..- .6-Kt-Q ze I , -444 .off ,ger-k� fLar... . &i.dt . .0ta-t-ioxic.ceecd ,e1(;m4:r1..a.&:7 ' -lee-4J f G.w.,P F. istn. -cam.. Ye4A., I o-riez.e,,,,,e,"....tt.,ze.tet7I 14, frtreid.e4 I �uu�� ti .�v a, � Gar '. c{ I .�, ,� f Sri I , , , / // RECEIVED q(41-e,40-Le � �i , � �� I NOV 13 1990 / / • iCi17 yr t,ri..i.nMantlV 4 REC h I1P NOV 141990 i CID Ur c:hHrvrr��atte 3241 Dartmouth Drive K - Excelsior, MN 55331 rkI November 12, 1990 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 , Dear Sirs: Enough is Enough! When will our officials have the guts to reduce our taxes ' instead of constantly increasing them--for what? Life is not discernably better for the additional money we pay in taxes. Many of us are retired and live on a fixed income. Fixed means our wages do ' not go up and your additional tax burden takes bread off the table. It's a damn shame that some people who have lived in this community for many years and raised a family in the same home during this time now find that excessive property taxes may force them out of their family homes. It seems that astute management of the Public Treasury could prevent this constant increase in property tax levis. In addition, it appears that some formula could be devised to alleviate the burden on the older fixed-income folks. Please show some compassion and improved financial management. , Yours truly, ll:1.4r,-- `/its- Warren R. Hanson CC: Carver County Board , Courthouse Chaska, MN 55318 Superintendent, 276SD 261 School Ave. Excelsior, MN 55331 1 i 1 I 1 1 Contemporary Closets ' T . of Ng-m-(1(55E4) frtx ;Arco S POR /75/. 71/SE 4424‘ AAP c.lkyt72. iI N. �µr2, c.0S-15, 1 I RECEIVED , : ..r ,:t.t , �. 1 V..; 1 1990 ,1v,A...SS , 1 HIGHWAY 7 ■ 933-1200 ■ MINNETONKA I I November 12, 1990 1 Mayor of the City of Chanhassen 1 690 Coultier Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 , Dear Mayor: Your notice of "proposed property tax for 1991" came as a shocking 1 surprise. It seems to me that the proposed increases are out of all proportion with two aspects of reality. 1. Economies of size always obtain with an increase in clientele. With an estimated increase in the people you serve of 13.3%, we would estimate your basic increase in total expenditures should be only about 11.5%. This, of course, assumes that no superfluous new grandiose projects are started. 2. As a government unit, your inflationary increase should be at most 2.8%, i. e. the average annual increase for the last three years (including 1990 estimate) . Hence, we want to express our strong objection to your excessive proposed increase. May we suggest for your serious consideration: an inflationary increase of: 2.5% ' + a size-discounted population increase of: 11.5% for a Total increase of: 14.0% ,i.e. a total tax proposed of $3.12 Million (instead of $3.26 Million) . This increase would meet with our approval. ' Respectfully submitted, ICJ Florence K. & Paul A. Bailly -J Owners of Townhouse on Lake Minnewashta R.25.650020 4510 West Lakeridge Road Denver, Colorado 80219 FKB/PAB/nch.pab.734 I 1 11 I MARJORIE DU PUIS 101 Shasta Circle West Chanhassen , MN 55317 (612) 474 - 6999 November 23, 1990 City of Chanhassen 690 Coultier Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Dear Reader: I have received notification of the proposed property tax increase and I believe you to be out of touch with reality . On my cul-de sac of seven homes, three professional people are unemployed, through no fault of their own, and have been for many ' months. You can be assured these people are not looking for raises of 19.1%. People who fall in the middle between the rich and the poor have had it with people in all parts of government thinking they don ' t have to work with balanced budgets. The businesses of this country are not built on fantasy . Why is the government? Do you think we live to give more of our hard earned salary to the government who spends money like there is no end? It is not your job to spend time thinking of ways to spend money but to think of ways to work within your means like you do in your personal life. Your increased budgets should come only from population' increase. ' The government is the only group of people in the country who thinks money grows on trees. It' s time local government woke up and set a precedent. Operate like a business, within a strict ' budget. If you don ' t have the money to spend on a project then wait until you do. People will notice and appreciate your efforts. And maybe, if we are lucky , the big guys will notice, too. Wouldn ' t it be nice if the state and federal governments would quit spending, too? Sincerely , LNaAtit,t, "Pd-Ag-eLt. 61-ta Margie and Blaine DuPuis REV�:',7 ' NOV 2 8 1 ' CITY Ur I.,nr. i, Soo Line Railroad Company Soo Line Building Si Tax Department Box 530, Room 1604 Minneapolis, MN 55440 (612) 347-8306 w II November 26, 1990 I Chanhassen City 690 Coultier Drive IChanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Sir or Madam: Soo Line Railroad Company has received notice of 1991 II proposed property taxes for property located in the city of Chanhassen. This notice forecasts a property tax increase of 19.1% for taxes payable in 1991. Soo Line Railroad Company opposes increases of this mag- nitude. While we recognize a responsibility to pay for II government services in the city of Chanhassen, we believe that unrestrained budget increases with corresponding property increases will become a financial burden for property owners. I Soo Line supports a reduction in any proposed property tax increase through reduced local government spending. We would recommend limiting any increases to the general level of II inflation so that property taxes do not become burdensome to property owners. Yours truly, II ii '7Y/i4 I C. D. Morriss Manager Propee4ey Taxes /mbp287D I 1 RECEIVEr: NOV 2 8 1990 1 Cfl T lit %..1 __ I 11 • 292 Charles Dr. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 November 25,1990 To Chanhassen City 690 Coultier Dr. Chanhassen, Minn.55317 To Carver County Board Courthouse Chaskca,Minn. 553318 To: Sup'erintendent,276SD 261 School Ave. Excelli&n,Minn. 55331 We have received your letter informing us of the proposed increases in property taxes for 1991. While the change in population and in pupil units varies from 2.6jo to 13..3 0, the proposed increase varies ' from 11, to 19.1; over the year 1990. We fee& this is excessive and want to register our opposition. Through the years we have maintained our property at 3616 Red Cedar Point Dr.Excelsior,Minn.55331 and kept the amount of rent collected from it very reasonable. The services to this property have not been increased by the County or the township and we do not see the reasons to ask for more money. We will not be able to attend any of the meetings scheduled to hear the matter of increasing the property taxes, hut we are very much opposed to it. Sincere�2y, • / 1 :incr J: fr t4.01i ' Ed Seim and Livia P.Seim RE alv 1 ' N4 oV 2 9 199 C1TI V II 'O Minnesota Asphalt YOU I �� Pavement Association .��� �O� t 900 Long Lake Road.SUN 202.New Brighton,MN 55112 i Phone:612.636-4666 •far 612-636.4790 CC ADM i 1j Prr An Article by Kenneth G.Paulson,P.E. (November 2,1990) gig) /0 1 I ii 'IS THERE AN UP SIDE TO THE MID-EAST CRISIS? ! ; I: I guess you'd have to be a dyed in the wool optimist to find anything good in the Iraq-Kuwait situa- I don,but it should cause us to take a better look at recycling-almost everything-tin cans,glass bottles, ill newspapers-all the stuff that takes energy and resources to manufacture. I picked up some figures from another publication that are worth repeating.The United States recycles ;I 12 million tons of plastic,10 million tons of rubber and leather,and 10 million tons of glass each year. Now consider this-more than 100 million tons of asphalt pavement are removed from U.S. roads each I year. About 20 million tons of that are recycled back into hot mix asphalt and another part of it is uti- lized as road fill or base and some of it is dumped in landfills and demolition debris dumps. One hundred million tons-not a pound of it should be put in a landfill or demolition dump. It is all IN non-renewable resource and we have the knowledge and capability to reuse every last ounce of it. I hear some awful stories about various zoning ordinances and local officials causing people to remove stockpiles of asphalt and bury it.Usually it's because someone thinks the pile is unsightly.Perhaps once in a while someone mistakenly thinks it's a hazard to the environment.It's not!The MPCA views it as a recyclable material and it can be safely stored in a stockpile.The only restriction on storage of ,' highway asphalt is that it not be stored in wetlands or areas subject to flood-the same kind of restric- tion put on any kind of fill material, good clean earth gets the same restriction.This is not an MPCA restriction but rather a DNR and Corps of Engineers restriction.Check that if you wish by calling in Shelly Berman at MPCA (612)297-1779-she is an enforcement supervisor in the field of solid waste. Let's examine what it costs to get rid of this so-called eye sore. I ;1 PI It doesn't take a lot of road to yield a 20,000 ton stockpile of asphalt.Once in a pile,you're looking at approximately 1,000 tons of asphalt and 19,000 tons of stone or gravel.The mid-east thing has made ;' the asphalt worth$150/ton-that equates out to$150,000.The rock or gravel sure should be worth 1 $2/ton or$38,000.Now if someone comes along and tells you to put that eyesore in a demolition dump,I guess I'd be ready to fight-that's a$188,000 eyesore,to say nothing of the cost of moving it and dumping it. '' We see a checkerboard effect around the state of Minnesota right now in how this is handled in various Counties. I am assured by the MPCA that it's not because of their rules.It's probably a lot of different interpretations by a lot of different planning and zoning people.It is obvious to me that a little better line of communication is needed. ' Our Contractors could help too by making the salvage piles a bit more tidy and cared for.If their work- ers are disposing of other things,including left over lunch,they start to attract vermin and no one '• wants that around. This article is not my first contribution in the recycling effort,but it may be the first olive branch aimed at bringing the two factions together and halt forever the waste of a lot of valuable resources. • CITY T . CHANHASSEN _ - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX(612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM ' TO: All City Staff FROM: Tom Chaffee , Data Processing Coordinator DATE: December 5 , 1990 ' SUBJ : Water Conservation Brochure ' Attached is a "Water Use Card", which we have purchased to send to all Chanhassen residents . We obtained a good supply of these through cooperation with the Minnesota D.N.R . and have extras available should anyone wish to have some for handout material . ` Let 's all do our part in conserving our precious clean water supply. cc : Administrative Section 12-10-90 • I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I • I WATER USE HABITS CITY OF TYPICAL USAGE GOOD,WATER-SAVING HABITS I CHANH ■.y■���'■ Showering 20-40 gallons(5 gallons per minute) 5 gallons(wet down,soap up,rinse off) N Tub Bathing 36 gallons(full) 10-12 gallons(low level) Toilet Flushing 6 gallons 3-5 gallons(tank displacement or half-flush device) Teeth Brushing 2 gallons(faucet running) 1 pint(wet brush,rinse briefly) jHand Washing 2 gallons(faucet running) 1 gallon(fill basin,rinse briefly) Shaving 3-5 gallons(faucet running) 1 gallon(fill basin,rinse briefly) I Dish Washing 20 gallons(faucet running) 5 gallons(wash,rinse in pans or sink) . Automatic Dishwasher 15 gallons(full cycle) DO ONLY FULL LOADS NI •h I Washing Machine 40-60 gallons(full cyde) DO ONLY FULL LOADS Outdoor Watering 5-10 gallons per minute Be sensible,seek lawn/garden advice(Extension Service) ORPA RYEN7 OF NATURAL RESOURCES I I I WAYS TO SAVE WATER fUTDOORS Use buckets and tubs to wash your car or the • Be alert for leaky toilets or faucets and repair immediately. A slow dip ousy running hose. rather than a continu- wastes 15 to 20 gallons of water a day;a leaky toilet,hundreds of galbrs. • Water lawns and gardens only when needed and only during the early usually less lleesslexgpennsivetaandtconsider significantly on water used. morning or evening when evaporation is lower. small-capacity ty model. They're ' A garden hose will dispense Flush the toilet less often. In most cases,several uses can be made of sPense up to 600 gallons in two hours. A nozzle will the toilet for liquid wastes before flushing. act as a flow restrictor and reduce water use significantly, • Take shorter showers. Get wet,turn off the water,lather up,then turn on • Cutting grass at a two to three inch height instead of cropping the amount of water needed. ng it closely will the water to rinse. Showers require less water than tub bath, Every inch in the tub equals approximately five gallons. Sweep sidewalks and driveways instead of washing them with a hose. II Re-use as much water as possible. Up to five gallons a minute goes straight down the drain when taps are left running to shave or brush teeth. Turn on the taps• If lawn watering is scheduled,let youngsters play in the hose spray when needed. I .sprinkler in a grassy area instead of filling wading spray or 9 a g pool. N THE KITCHEN THE BATHROOM When washing dishes by hand,fill a basin or use a stopper in the sink for rinsing rather than running the faucet. • Use a displacement device(a water-filled plastic bottle or bag)in the toilet ' Automatic dishwashers use 12 to 25 gallons for each full cycle,so avoid 'tank to reduce the amount of water required to flush. using the'rinse only'cycle and washing small loads. Use the toilet only for its intended purpose,not for the disposal of trash. Avoid running the faucet for a glass of water. Put a bottle or pitcher of water in the refrigerator. I , I I - 1 1 1 1 1 1 11111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r CHANHASSEN H.R.A. A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 12-10-90 PAGE 1 CHECK * A M O U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P O S E 033420 20.00 MN HISTORICAL SOCIETY TRAVEL + TRAINING 1 20.00 NECESSARY EXPENDITURES SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING rr I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OM 1 MI 1 1 1 MI CHANHASSEN H.R.A. A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 12-10-90 PAGE 2 CHECK 41 A M O U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P O S E 042225 11.95 CAMDEN HOUSE BOOKS PROMOTIONAL EXPENSE 042226 808.22 HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. FEES, SERVICE 042227 1,945.25 HOLMES & GRAVEN FEES, SERVICE 042228 268.36 KILLMER ELECTRIC CO. ,INC REP. + MAINT. ,BLDG + GND 042229 329.72 MERLIN'S HARDWARE HANK PROMOTIONAL EXPENSE AND-REP. + MAINT. ,BLDG + GND 042230 630.00 PUBLICORP, INC. FEES, SERVICE 042231 27.30 ROAD RUNNER FEES, SERVICE 042232 8,945.62 STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH INC FEES, SERVICE 8 12,966.42 CHECKS WRITTEN TOTAL OF 9 CHECKS TOTAL 12,986.42 I 1 I II 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612)937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 December 7, 1990 ' Mr. John Rutford Referrals Coordinators Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East 5th Street ' St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 Dear Mr. Rutford: ' I have had an opportunity to review the major comprehensive plan amendment being requested by the City of Eden Prairie to incorporate 317 acres of land within the MUSA line. In my capacity ' as Director of Planning for the City of Chanhassen, I have prepared the following comments. Copies of my comments are being forwarded to Chris Enger, the Community Development Director for the City of Eden Prairie. In the interest of saving time, I am responding to ' the proposal prior to it being reviewed by my Planning Commission and City Council. Should they have additional concerns, these will be forwarded to you. ' OVERVIEW The City of Chanhassen does not wish to oppose valid and well conceived MUSA line expansions requested by any of our neighboring communities. We know first hand that growth in the southwestern suburban area in which we are located has far exceeded the ' expectations of the Metropolitan Council's Regional Model and that there are a number of communities, Chanhassen included, that will be undertaking comprehensive plan amendments to account for this growth and to allow our communities to continue to develop through the 1990's. As Mr. Enger and many of the staff people at the Metro Council are aware, Chanhassen is on verge of submitting a major comprehensive plan amendment of our own for approval. This plan I amendment has been approximately 2 years in the drafting and will result in the inclusion of approximately 2,600 acres of land into the MUSA system for the City of Chanhassen since we have virtually ' exhausted our supply of developable acreage and in no way conform to Council guidelines of having a ten year supply plus a five year overage. We have several concerns and questions regarding Eden Prairie's current request. If my memory is correct, this is the 1 Mr. John Rutford Metropolitan Council December 7, 1990 Page 2 I third MUSA line amendment or guide plan amendment undertaken by the City of Eden Prairie in the past 12 months. Metro Council files will indicate that the City of Chanhassen did not oppose the two previous requests either, although we did raise questions regarding Eden Prairie's proposal to locate a neighborhood shopping area immediately east of the Chanhassen's Central Business District. It is within this context that we are raising the questions described below. 1. Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study. , The City of Eden Prairie's rationale for expanding the MUSA rests largely on this study. It apparently is being used to update the city's comprehensive plan for those areas covered by the study. The plan was dated December, 1988. Since this effectively supplants the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan, my first question is whether or not the Southwestern Eden Prairie Phasing Study was adopted through the Metropolitan Land Planning Act process. I contacted City of Eden Prairie staff and found that the study was never formally reviewed. I am not certain whether this is consistent with your policies but, since the study appears to be reasonably well conceived, this may not represent a substantial issue. I might add that the City of Chanhassen has not only spent several years of time but has also expended considerable financial effort, staff time and the time of Planning Commissioners, City Council and residents to adopt a completely new Comprehensive Plan for the 1990's to support our community's MUSA line amendment. It was our belief that this was the appropriate mechanism to utilize since we were proposing a significant departure from our 1980 plan. There is a further question of the city's being able to justify inclusion of acreage that is clearly labeled as being beyond the year 2000 MUSA line in the plan. We fully understand how development realities over the past 5 to 10 years can exceed previous expectations since this clearly happened in the City of Chanhassen where we experienced 100% population growth and 300% employment growth essentially in the span of approximately 5 years. However, the Eden Prairie study is only two years old and we would have hoped it would have been more reflective of actual development trends than any 1980 development plan could be simply because of the time that has elapsed. 2. Sanitary Sewer. ' The Sanitary Sewer Plan contained in the Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study appears to be based on the premise that Eden Prairie is to be entirely self contained. The City of Chanhassen is not necessarily opposed to this, however, we would ask the Metro Council to resolve questions of service for southern I Mr. John Rutford Metropolitan Council December 7, 1990 • Page 3 Chanhassen. Southern Chanhassen was to be served by the originally proposed Bluff Creek Sanitary Sewer Line which now no longer appears to be a possibility. At the same time we are bracketed by Eden Prairie on the east which does not anticipate providing any service to southern Chanhassen and Chaska on the west which ' likewise does not propose to provide any service. We are not opposed to Eden Prairie's plan, but in this instance and on other related matters such as Chaska's guide plan amendments, we have ' repeatedly asked to have the long term issues of sewer service to southern Chanhassen explored before options are eliminated. As with earlier responses to Eden Prairie's plan requests, the City of Chanhassen is asking the Metro Council to confirm that the Lake ' Ann/Red Rock Interceptor will have adequate capacity to accommodate Chanhassen's growth in light of the current request. 3. Surface Water Drainage. The Eden Prairie Plan indicates the construction of two major discharges into Lake Riley or a creek flowing into Lake Riley. We do not necessarily oppose these measures but strongly believe that the impact of these discharges on water quality should be explored prior to their construction. The City of Chanhassen has recently adopted a Surface Water Utility Program. This is one of the actions we commited to undertaking our new Comprehensive Plan. The program is designed to comprehensively deal with issues of surface ' water management, wetland protection and water quality improvements. The plan has a heavy focus on water quality since we are sensitive to protecting the natural assets of our community. Lake Riley has been identified as a "lake under stress" by the Metro Council Hydrologist. We are further concerned that discharges from Lake Riley that ultimately wind up in the Minnesota River could have a bearing on the Minnesota River water quality which is currently being investigated by Metro Council. I represent the City of Chanhassen on the Technical Advisory Committee working on this problem and it is clear to me that 11 upstream water quality improvements are going to be required to meet the downstream goals. We would be willing and anxious to work with City of Eden Prairie Staff to cooperatively address this issue. 4. Traffic Study. The Southwestern Eden Prairie Phasing Study includes a traffic study prepared by Benshoof and Associates. We believe that this study was based on erroneously low trip estimates from communities located west of Eden Prairie. We strongly suspect that the modeling was based on the Metro Council's Regional Model which we know to be seriously out of date relative to development that is actually on the ground in our communities and to development' that I I 1 Mr. John Rutford I Metropolitan Council December 7, 1990 Page 4 we expect to occur in the next 10 years. With this problem in mind, the Cities of Chanhassen, Chaska, Waconia, Victoria and Carver and Carver County cooperatively developed the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. Modeling completed for this study indicates significantly higher volumes of traffic then indicated in the Benshoof study on east/west roads serving our communities. This does not necessarily mean that Eden Prairie should limit development nor do we believe that it implies our communities should be limited since roadway improvements are underway or contracted. However, we do believe that the new data should be taken into account by Eden Prairie and, on behalf of the communities that participated in the Eastern Carver County Study, we would be willing to work with Eden Prairie and Hennepin County to update their forecasts and would encourage them to do so. The following questions pertain to the answers on the application , sheet: 5. Item 2 B c indicates that there is no impact on existing trip generation from the current request. Unless I misunderstand the question, it is difficult to argue that the inclusion of over 300 acres of land into the MUSA line will not have any impact on area roads. Clearly, it will and while we believe that it can be accommodated, any impact should be assessed. 6. Item V c indicates that the plan amendment will not have any impact on water quality. We hope that this is the case but would ask that questions raised above relative to the large discharges into Lake Riley be researched. I 7. In the Metro Council application for a major comp plan amendment, many of the questions refer to Attachment A as providing the answers that are requested. Throughout our review of this material, we have tried to ascertain what the intent of this request is. Unlike the two previous requests we have reviewed from the City of Eden Prairie, there is no actual development proposal being reviewed that we are aware of for this area. We do not object to this and certainly believe it is appropriate for a community to undertake what we believe Chanhassen is doing to plan for adequate growth over the next decade. However, what we find curious is that Eden Prairie is making a case that the Metro Council Regional Model has allocated a certain amount of growth to their community and that to accommodate that growth they need the expanded MUSA line. The City of Chanhassen is painfully aware that the Metro Council Regional Model contains significant errors in the southwestern suburban area. The most recent Systems Statement projects a year 2000 population of 10,000 with 4,500 jobs for the City of Chanhassen. In 1990, we have over 12,000 • I 11 Mr. John Rutford Metropolitan Council December 7, 1990 I Page 5 population and 6,000 jobs. Thus, we certainly would not make the case that the Regional Model should drive development in Chanhassen for if it was to do so, we would have to be making travel arrangements for substantial numbers of our residents and employment opportunities to meet the model 's goals. This ' is not Eden Prairie's fault, but I am concerned that the Regional Model can allocate growth into one community and therefore, provide the rationale for continued expansion of ' the MUSA line while in a neighboring community, virtually across the street, it forecasts a significant decline from development that is on the ground today. We do not wish to ' stand in the way of reasonable well planned growth of any of our neighboring communities and do not view ourselves to be in competition with them. During the 1980's, the City of Chanhassen grew at a substantial pace at the same time there were considerable development opportunities available in neighboring communities and • indeed these communities themselves experienced rapid growth rates. We are fully willing to let people's natural instincts on where to reside and work to take the wrong course but become greatly concerned with what appears to be micro-management of our futures by a ' forecasting methodology that, in our instance anyway, is clearly wrong. SUMMARY ' I want to thank you for the opportunity of being able to comment on the Eden Prairie Plan. I would be happy to respond to any questions that may arise from Metro Council Staff and I am also forwarding a copy of these comments to the City of Eden Prairie so that we may initiate a dialogue with them on these issues. ' Sin y, de ' aul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning PK:v cc: Chris Enger, City of Eden Prairie Ann Hurlbert, Director of Comprehensive Planning Planning Commission City Council r ___ . _, . __ , el p 1 City of Eden Prairie % \\ cie� City Offices = 41,-. ra Ina 7600 Executive Drive • Eden.Prairie, MN 55344-3677 • Telephone (612)937-2262 I I November 23, 1990 1 I City of Chanhassen 1 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Dear Sir or Madam: , As a requirement of Metropolitan Council guidelines for MUSA line expansion requests, we are sending you a copy of our recent application. I If you have any questions regarding this application, please call me. Sincerely, 1 L tailc(-- uloti , i David Lindahl C 4-- Planner I DL:ctk enclosure 1 I RECEIVED I NOV 2 6 19SU CITY.OF CHWirwsboch, I 1 * Recycled Paper I INFORMATION SUBMISSION FOR MAJOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS IThis summary worksheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metropolitan Council with a copy of each proposed major comprehensive plan amendment. A major comprehensive plan amendment is defined as: I 1. A complete revision, update or rewrite of an existing comprehensive plan in its entirety. I 2. A major plan revision, update, rewrite or addition to a chapter or element of an existing comprehensive plan. I 3. An amendment triggered by a proposed development that requires an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as defined in Minnesota Rules 1989, Parts 4410.4300-.4400, and is inconsistent with the existing Icomprehensive plan; or 4. A change (land trade or addition) in the urban service area involving 40 acres or more. 1 Please be as specific as possible; attach additional explanatory materials if necessary. If a staff ": report was prepared for the Planning Commission or City Council, please attach it as well. I Send plan amendments to: John Rutford, Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council, Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth St. , St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 I I. GENERAL INFORMATION IA. Sponsoring governmental unit City of FdPn Prairie Name of local contact person Chri s .Enger I Address 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Telephone 937-2262 Name of Preparer (if different from contact person) David Lindahl IDate of Preparation B. Name of Amendment Eden Prairie MUSA Expansion Description/Summary See Attachment A IC. Please attach the following: 1 1. Five copies of the proposed amendment. . 2. A city-wide map showing the location of the proposed change. 3. The current plan map(s) indicating the area(s) affected, if the amendment Itriggers a map change. I vi 1 -- - 4. The proposed plan ma (s) indicating area(s) affected, if the amendment triggers a map change. D. What is the official local status of the plan amendment? (Check one or more as appropriate.) Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on September 24, l9 9 0 I x Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review, October 16 , 1990 Considered, but not approved, by governing body on I • Other E. Indicate what adjacent local governmental units affected by the change have been sent copies of the plan amendment and the date(s) copies were sent to them. Notification of affected affeVed adjacent governmental units is required for major plan amendments. sent adjacent to: Army Corps or Engineers , DNR , Riley-Purgatory Watershed, MN/DOT, Hennepin County Dept. of Transp. , School District, City of Chanhassen, Eden Prairie School District 111 Because of the comprehensive nature of most major plan amendments, a summary checklist is attached to help ensure that the amendment is complete for Council review and to determine whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the metropolitan systems plans or other. chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Please indicate whether the amendment affects the following factors. Where it does,_the materials submitted must fully address the issue(s). . II. IMPACT ON REGIONAL SYSTEMS A. Wastewater Treatment I 1. Change in city's year 2000/2010 flow projections. x No/Not Applicable. Yes. What will be the net change? How were these calculated? I 2. Community discharges to more than one metropolitan interceptor. x No/Not Applicable. Yes. Indicate which interceptor will be affected by the amendment and what will be the net changes in flows? ' 1 vii I r • B. Transportation 1. Relationship to Council policies regarding metropolitan highways. x No/Not Applicable. ' Yes. 2. Change in type and intensity of land uses at interchanges and other ' locations within a quarter-mile of the metropolitan highway system? X No/Not Applicable. ' Yes. 3. Impact on existing trip generation. ' x. No/Not Applicable. Yes. ' 4. Capacity of road network to accommodate planned land use(s) (including metropolitan interchanges). ' No/Not Applicable. —37 yam. See Attachment A ' 5. Impact on transit and parking strategies. No/Not Applicable. Yes. 6. Does the proposed amendment contain any changes to the functional ' classification of roadways? (These changes require Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) review.) X No. Yes. Describe which roadways. ' C. Aviation 1. Impact on regional airspace. ' X No/Not Applicable. Yes. ' 2. Impact on airport search area. • ' x No/Not Applicable. Yes. ' viii 3. Consistency with guidelines for land use compatibility with aircraft noise. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. I 4. Consistency with the long-term comprehensive plan for an airport in the vicinity of the community or proposed development. 1 No/Not Applicable. Yes. i D. Recreation Open Space 1. Impact on existing or future federal, state or regional recreational facilities. , x No/Not Applicable. Yes. ' III. IMPACT ON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK A. Land Use 1. Describe the following, as appropriate: , a. Size of affected area in acres 317 b. Existing land use(s) low density — Single Family Residential I c. Proposed land use(s) same d. Number of r id tia dd elli u its and .involved approximately uu a itional snits e. Proposed density 2. 5 units per acre f. Proposed square footage of commercial, industrial or public buildings n/a 1 B. Change in the city's population, household or employment forecasts for 2000, or any additional local staging contained in the original plan. , x No/Not Applicable. see Attachment A Yes. ' C. Change in the urban service area boundary of the community. No/Not Applicable. ' Yes see Attachment A D. Change in the timing and staging of development within the urban service area. ' x see Attachment A No/Not Applicable. Yes. • 1 ix , 1 IIV. IMPACT ON HOUSING A. Impact on the supply and affordability of housing types necessary to serve Ipersons at different stages in the life cycle. . No/Not Applicable. "E-- Yes. see Attachment A • B. Impact on the supply and affordability of housing types necessary to serve Ipersons at varying income levels. No/Not Applicable. I -3r- Yes see Attachment A C. Impact on the community's numerical objectives for low- and moderate-income, Imodest-cost market rate, and middle- and upper-income housing units. x No/Not Applicable. I` I Yes. '.'-V. WATER RESOURCES IA. Does the plan amendment affect a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers protected wetland? If yes, describe type of Iwetland affected and show location on a map. Yes. I No. _ B. Will the wetland be protected? I • x see Attachment A Yes. Describe how. No. Explain why not. IC. Will the plan amendment result in runoff which affects the quality of any surface water body? If yes, identify which ones. I Yes. x No. see Attachment A ID. Will the water body be protected? I x Yes. Describe how, see Attachment A No. Explain why not. I I . • I x VI. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM I A Change in zoning, subdivision, on-site sewer ordinances or other official controls. No/Not Applicable. I Yes. kjp00371 , 04.18.90 • 1 1 1 .1 I 1 xi I I IAttachment A II. GENERAL INFORMATION IB. Description/Summary: The City of Eden Prairie is requesting that its Comprehensive Plan be amended to include an I additional 317 acres to its current urban service area. The City initiated this request in order increase its urban land supply to a level that will accommodate forecasted land demand in Eden Prairie. This request can be supported for the following reasons: I - The Metropolitan Council land demand forecasts exceed Eden Prairie's total urban land supply by 475 acres. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Metropolitan I Development & Investment Framework policies on adequate urban land supply. Adding 317 acres to the City's current land supply will keep the total supply within the Council's forecasted demand. 1 COUNCIL HOUSING UNIT FORECASTS 1990 2000 90-2000 IHousing Units 13,000 17,500 4,500 I COUNCIL LAND DEMAND 1990-2000 Residential *1,800 i (4,500/2.5 units/acre) Commercial/Office- 250 IIndustrial 300 Public 40 IStreets and Alleys - 395 Parks 90 ITOTAL 2,875 I * The balance of land available for development in southwest Eden Prairie is guided for low density residential development, with a maximum allowable density of 2.5 unit/acre. ICOUNCIL LAND DEMAND VS. SUPPLY 7 I 1990 - 2000 Demand 2,875 5 year overage 1,437 (.5 of 90 - 2000 demand) 1 Demand + Overage 4,312 I Land Supply (April '90) 3,837 DEMAND OVER SUPPLY 475 ACRES 1 II. IMPACT ON REGIONAL SYSTEMS B. TRANSPORTATION I • 4. Most of the land immediately west of future Dell Road is outside the current MUSA line. , Extending the current MUSA line will enable the City to finance the construction of Dell Road south of T.H. 5 through area wide assessments. Dell Road will be the only north & south collector in this section of Eden Prairie and will be critical in relieving congestion from CSAH 4, and in facilitating future traffic. , III. IMPACT ON MDIF B & D. CHANGE IN CITY POPULATION/STAGING OF DEVELOPMENT I Will not change the City's population or household projections for 2000. The City population & household projections do not consider MUSA constraints. The City's Southwest Area Development Phasing Study will continue to maintain orderly growth in southwest Eden Prairie. See page 55 of attached Southwest phasing. IV. IMPACT ON HOUSING ' • A & B. IMPACT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING Adding developable land with large parcels will allow the City to facilitate larger tract housing developments, which in the past have accounted for many starter home projects in Eden Prairie. These parcels are more conducive to large Planned Unit Developments, which allows developers more flexibility for providing a variety of housing types. V. WATER RESOURCES I C & D. Expanding the MUSA line in southwest Eden Prairie will not impact water quality. All subsequent development proposals for this area will be subject to a complete review by the City of Eden Prairie, DNR, Army Core of Engineers, and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff ' Creek Watershed District. The City is obligated to maintain or improve water quality in its lakes and water bodies. 1 I I . . • 3each-Nt./1 . - Levu/4 Lake-..,. ....: \.., : ; z ---.. 1 , 61 .I 1,. ' 11. Leto onoC (... •••••-•• - -•'••••:•.: '-' - : : *41 )134 ., St P.. . . ......-'7::•C..4 a .... . a ,,,.....--,-- .. 7..--.. ....II- i ‘ - • c 1 , "... ‘• A - Ibeephaveru•-•- •• .••• . ; ;RE s \ .; •' 1 3. .. .-... -;••••;::-. 1._mill..--:5-1"*"!.:- ' .. .. - / • L '': L‘ ---- / .... . : I -1- c - • .11..••••.- --i- on k . 1 lial* • •••••';'••••‘-..r . .1111°. ----"----Iglilli" 1 ,•: '' :' • • : . 0110.1111/ j 0 i 494 :,,,r5.7.'. ••••-•,• - t,i '•777 :1 1.• ....••••.„,..../ar j ; •••"tt essaas.1.2• " i , . .1-•••t•aay, •' i .• •• ; 6 ; el I i.n..sey 1 ' ''-.." • •d • • t• •• ."- : , , s - 1, .....-• • i .. 0.0,-• I t Gideon ,racii rerIwoo. .„.. . .:se ittal4,?• '. •• 1_!ill .1101:1,...: • .-•••••• 01111,.._■ gaC-1 on -... i••• . 1- '''. 1 1..1.tit, •• , MI n eto n lc a--,'1 cv.'-' 1--1-- --.. .--.1-1--1-- • a Ir.. • 11..1 ,,, -• s'...."..''.1\i .... 1 i . i : aka . , . . •,..t s 7.. Chrletniaa' ., iis 1 1 )ds ... . . ....ii-, t. " i• "LoTer; ..... • CE+ 0 , o• LO. 94■1.1..,lir • 4..... Leas :z. -.. • i .:\.•• .. : I t1-.:)1..., \,i .1.3..p...m.. it, . i • . . • ' CE0 1 .4 *am" 62 ..._ A-•--- ....... b„,e,.., ,.......,-....! . . it ,,,,6„.. \ , . 7 --1;•:::-.:-e. ji,:'-•';...ti•...',.;i1•••-•:;‘tt6..L..11Q1-„,::•,•V".„:„.1....773 .::•- til'''':.: - I Cul.- i • ;Park\r...C., ii o• • i :t.•• ti:. '•:! ':-.••• •• . •••••-• 1". •••■•••• --..tXt• •:0;..V:P..... '.-• . ,. . ..* .. ....• . .....:.. ., • s•,.. , -. •... ....• leo 7: ' 0) ... ?Vial ' '..••1.1:?...41,C) ''''' Pet 'Mk : .•. .... . .••: 1::: .•11" :CD %•••Eil t•••••+ Llit‘,11,0•• i ,a , -Nip.4„ -.: %Leen ,. i... .. 'c,,\• - - • • . ‘.. 1•1144 :., / k •."...• ,.....,.., ...„..,..... ...., _ . .• .. .. ••• ,....4...-_, •.: . 1, ,.: : 4.4 ....s-t. A.•.:• "..:',...,7-- -..:J`Z •'.:1?VI- . 't r7777 t. . ,,r ..... "..r.,: 4.,.:::,':.tr.,. •.:• 4..2 •-;•.-1, oo.o2 -.4.2-2. • ' I's. f ' ' I 7' T::•.-,11 ...A:I....7. Loaf •40. z•Si.;„....1...i.i: - 2...:.-r,..;• ..-..;•••iL A 11 -,..r !..2-•:•.%-.4.-; .- • .9• no: "'' i P.".1, ..-. 0 ....•,,_;;At ,3 :::7....:,•• " • n'T.. ...`-i-i,7••• 3 I "1!..""*.-11.,4' .A- ••"' . •,'.7 :-.21.i.11,--2 c• :•:41z:;::: .." -=•,-.,••••-tit''..i.,A.4-;':. :'-':;2:14:?:•-•::-Ar-••• t %Park : ; /1\"...410132 \. " . j.j.""' . .'' •....,• es) ... I s i - .••• • 11.... . 4.t■ ,.4,•-; . ... 11.tem ••.. 5 _ „,;„, ...77. L„,_,..c77: ..` i 3-Zi;----1-4:•:-T....,..,,,,.4.,,.....1„.....„;.,:, 1 6.,._Ev----.1 , _ .- •-■ . ma 4/. iii 0 . .„..,...t. ..„0.4.1....„. „...„.4:: r,-7 ••.. • -.. ..7,-,47, *.....•-• - - '-L. 7 •••• ';'.;::•? .. :-..'...- 7,....?T. ..!-LAZT.'.....7' ,.......-„.,j-tr. ....:7...., N.I.-.....; 41) .•-z,,, ....:..--...:ar.,..,-•":7,,•-•;.te 11.1e1C1141/ . t ! Eden Prairie 11, 169 ;.1 •4:4.111.0t1..\.....:,..:..r. ,firm.c.4 -"V \ "(Ey' .,-,'..'-'1' .:-'.7.-F. ';:r:.r."•%it- "'" :'-''',1:".1r.kl• / `1, 2 ..• II. ...u. L.2.CEir */ • C ,-,,....., ...... '1'.•....I - 1-1 •-,- .... •- -•I/•••SGZ.•.,. . • 9 t,LOC.64. • -.n..,i-. ' -.. •:',-- LL;.' -::,,..-...'"'-f• •,'.1 i *---,• :-'4.0.j.': .a. -1-.•••••••.:- • :::-.- e.- • -...--1. o.:-..i:•• 7.1,„:::.7f-t..,.,''''''... ,/'I: •' --'- • :4' L•90 ! .7...;::., ,, •:'.,M../_.H.o a.w.z eslt,i n:e.••,1: .r..;.•-.•".!.;:.:.:...:.:i.d• ?hV...I..a-l±iinnfh."n1a.t1;r.si'.lsi,.t.e$l.ir,:rf,;,t:• 7.:.:'.-''.," °.-...R.jleY 1-14,.A 1,.A D 1 ••••• a• . :• : t.I-.14 - - 6 1 1 . i Negalta o ey_ !;t ...., e . .Aio..... ...:7\.. .. i _- ._.... ' l .V.-4:s,r,..-• .-'-'4":,'. ;Pli..PY-. ./04:?....,:ef".-:.±;i ',"• . 0 :..1-4.-,:r•tir,. :ii'Viii. ...f.:45;"- -','-, ..‘-••.;64..:4'.i:-.: '' ''''".•17,:e4. / " ,:er...7 14:1X:7.. • • '-l*CDPk."" .\>,4%,.:4 2...efi%-;.-- ''• 7'1' .u.:,.. 11 2 .7. : 0 • ei.:••• .. : p. .. Etyma o• ' i .,4 ..., 7 .1.1-('-i-i!gf• 0 • c,„,,.., ..• .. I C•,..1 I<Itt.f.0.,.. '2 .kc:.!:tc-: .Ao...7-.• Z .. VW.. *rood 0 a e‘ • C., 2 ---....I._-_ 1..J;;-.•i•,,t.ir„...,!..:c,-,,, %4, •,..-.:.44,-, all...:- --z7i - . 212 • ,..--.../. ! - - '-irtIco i i /iit9411 1 •----ko's I i ...., : .. a ze.:J.:•. ..,ro•••las Lea* ., . :-.1,..::41:.'.'i, -::-J....-7 z, .•-17-1" -1 • -.1. I -......,, '-'- ‹.,....,....i 1,, *a 4L4'''‘). i " ii.. ?..-''''..'t.'■..,,.,.'24 I ..t.::::.\''-..-.1 " 't m...- ?'' "...Z.?' ..'.•• ....4.•••Mt ,i•.,--.4......,_ •.• • . : .4&....../ ....:::,,... .■14 (:,.... ..-?;.9...:7 we... - • '"\-■ ..- ' i• J.,*_•"\,:;•:,v••,,,,..:7. ......•,..., , . _ _....• ...... ;. .. -.. Jar...V4 Wolltle '. . 1...`.• %. X'/741/•:...si,../..`/.....,Fi.•:.: . ::1‘12.A." ....:'''''..'""`''''''1..".•' _ ....sr.!cr:9;:::••r.,.. .. •••••. °I 6 17771..".'. .. s'..-. 1k ....7'.:',7 • • -7.1•;,....,... •";031:.?•••',7.. ,.,1" , )____4...•;', :•••'s t■-•___,. .... .- :...,..7:... -: t*--......el-..•it,:•"-.• '71.•(, *.k.-1;*-;.*.4 r••ht;'‘...4‘ . ''''.%,-.WM, (1) • .1 7.... .")...4 W .:...;...1" ‘*•••••*- t Erig 1 7....i• tr•'`°;3■:7••• t,...-1-,:•'":- •-■-• •.....1'0.- ;4.y. - ..7.7k.ir_r,a_;;:1 t; ".. \ • ..,. 1. %111111. 0'.1)111-1 -1.'":•11‘..N..1 e • .. ith "7.... ....--L-.':41'%•`:4,1 ' •• '1-0•.Vm ..-,.r.,; _z..--;., tN2, 3, 2..-op.,' _/-e•re:.:•-,":-.-;:•:?4ejis, a.: .. . ••• ...-14!..i.`,.. t-,491.:;•4.,.."7-fil. .;;;':;'_:. ';;;;;;;;;'5,,,--;4;;:•71-:-.-.. .; 1 o 1 ,.T-• 1 i i ,,e7• - • .•:.....-tti: , i:struic,,,, A_Am.m......---- •-..•=sC.-7. ....V.::••••••::...ilit• , •,..,,,,:f .:.•....KV., CS,;,4,.. „. 4,..... "..,..., ..a, r--- -•"-:-.4 ::,":=4".": *--M11,„,.!!Shakb•ie. .;.:1:1•;U; 41:•.1'+':':%"=-L4i-1,'"i'0.•?,•:;"k•-4-ett:::"""y"•) ' ••••‘•' la frAx. F '77r-47, ;...-"-i--r"3/4 - ,71=1. •,,,•.- .....L., .•r.',a• f.'%':-i'.4 s...-:1:-W.S'::: :::: -„ 4.-1•1•••' ••••-r c-ts•.: .•• ., •••-• •A'Wt• 7s7t,tt: •. .,.. 1 71•••••••:-.„;:•-'.. .7.,.•..• • ,,-,-.1.•!. ......,z4e-,-1::•,..,P..212 • ,.,„. .-; -r1:::: :-Alg; )-7::&•*f. ,-.2 ::,..4N ••L-::---1:: tf,;;;.a) .§.CCO -." s •-).:W4/•':•!. -.i..;: u-.• :•.1 6 • :1:.",..:Y.,7,',!::.:=.:',.p,"•-•-• .1,!,1„-4.17,1 !r.,-.-; .?•••• Z:D":47•:-.' If- •_•••:--,.. ^•24.-'sy•i:. L. .... .... ,-e 0.2... • '...:• ...:: ..ki 1-1.0.;'.4.s.i.. •4 1: r• ''.*:hki • ' •r '' Tt " •• ' - , S. :- a•"! .. ••5 1...".„ -1. -. • • . • Eril IMIIILLIIIIIIIIOW t NORTH aull -In wmillim 0 1 SCA s H ir\••■ . 11111111111M 1------ E-.-.-___I . 1111111b1P. LE ■411.111111%.411% miLES W..) ..iessigma„bpra ennepin sglial••• ••••■ County Vlbilagl&I lerie Inellead1111111111111do. IIIMINUNION111111•11 - • 0 .... . . • HENNEPIN COUNTY I I la CITY OF IONNOTONPLA \\A _ _ ....... ---4-...41titl...1167,44(, ..s.k.'..714 CV . C131 41111111Friy a 1 , , ,, ult11111' re , , iv \ IL, ., ta \ -Nis. 461:01w4 N- . „. ..,. 4 ti - - :_,, ..l. 1 :..._ ‘11 P" --.z:"----,_. . . .... Ar- , ,-. , 1 e ., ,... .., stilla .--,4. i ... , ciii,4-.:. ,_ .._ .... . ,._. .. ..:. i Plib4, ffe,.14 Y71. 4,1 411;01 ---- .._ -. - --..„• n I- \ - sv,, —, ■ --1C1 at • c :zb.....,,--,_.„,r_..,......-c..-- - 1 . 4 f..-;, I .- . , p –* ._ 11111 ,---- , - - _ 4,0 - ,--.; ..,-.•",, .- mi• _ . -"'• ' •.,:_--5:=Ii t._,,,: ,_ -- \-..,--- i.,,::lir--17k, 4. • , ....•73,-,: -.,-: -_, .•-• _ i• d 410WP II: Ar- • „:''..--;;----;::-4 , _ .,..--'--'-_,_: : \''.1:- :— - 7.---v Ifil!ipijMil i Ab (" 411.• , „_. _., e- ig ,...-- . ' _,,,,- . ,...-'''-'______------- - ..-":.■ : I __. , .... _.. .. i 4 . . , . ..:-Ac. - :i:,...41 ,_: , .----Ti.- 1 .4D.,.. —,11 - AU - .•0!. 41 1kN1 ±01'... ••&-Sik ..__ :' ‘iS 4- _ ._.,____ ..-*:-''. ., . 1, •,'?... . .'4 ";;.... - r -i.;--- . , ... .- - - -- ,..,:. ...,.. _ )1= - ' I - i Ivo ‘ 1 .4c • a .0 '.-- . ' --''- --- - - kalr/t, 1114° •I - .-- -- -- / '- - - - NA 1 ,.. _._. ,._. ...,.„. __ . ......„_ _ _ _ ..... .._._,. . ,.. ... . ... _ - ...__,... _,. .._ _. . A f -:,*:-..- • -- --' _, _ , . allIllb ''..it el... -- - • , — 114 :€* :b---, „-,,-.---„... ::'-;•1;.- , -,-- .....- ,, : -- --.- . : ; .... --.-_ .,— LAND USE MAP I i - ...""'""....„„i%4%.4.,_ , .. ae.......,-ck,Com&10.411 +.11..„... .. RESIDENTIAL PUBUCNILIASI PUBLIC HO AND MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS I E3 —Law OmoNv 0-2.11[Welke Uella44•• un I" —Polies Opus IlpsostPwl/Plesdplolo Li NE..11•■••■IV Mien n Rm.Norma Deralty 2.11-16 Doak.1.1•16•1••■• MI • -■Mwmtewomwy RD-Is woymement Nam u RAir•■••-tainms F.u.O.N. 01••■••Wol 7•lk ammo! cssFaly Ilwriow/fOlt OHM GD.0~11Dirtelepnl Wollors • Rli-Nen swear/10-4110.Ohy Was lAore E - IOW ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS OFFICE/MUST/GAL/COMMERCIAL . sc -Worm compai. wow Oftrolole Mown NORTNIIIrl al 0 •••Offt. 0 ...Gond Filawelm•$1401011.0A. goat 11110.Anotlmis • M ...Numarm yam.Amorrowooftwil Nitom ....m. Ow Arteriole a:itME42. I NC.-simodwetem Cwwwrow CI sip ■sNorsor Gowes Moms MGM CC-carnme,cworaniM ......■ yam hy•Weepollso WINN 11.nla Yes IMMAAJ RC-meow coorwow GUIDE PLAN— CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE // ' • ' 1c ate _��..4 �....� Lam, �N i�•,/.f: `-.i �� j I —, . ___.ig*P4 la /Pr 'fit ' • / _ I , / Apr\ NNOIm9i = --?l' ` ,. ! i ;i0PA 'AY 4*thm% i " ■4■4N.4.IICIL °°""Wat? t . 1 • f i 1 __ • 4•11f `_°IIe i;. at %,4 41_ _ 1 _ . •. 1 rcy i of mmiumb r fie 9-. i —`,€ fir"'`„w '�, ALim.....o, avz,,,...10 —ill , f i ( )R : .1,1 A` :` ''ii I ' XPANSIO .!,6 �%,i ��i�itul / •-two Alii\ -- 6 ,/ 4 AN 3.1-a,Da. uLa ��'A NOP— r Z i._._ .Ctt I . , , ' _ 111 11111111 l'irmil 1-/Via• Ali 11;111111 N �i �0• � _ y�`�E � $ , .�. P Oder_Iy 1111i 4.11 %y i 11--3�iLQ '; 4 "►� , . ; .mil IAI 1111 • 1 _ _ • . . J .—.- E. • • + .— I C'''''4 J . . . { V,. % 1,,.,,,%.>.'.'-\-\ I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 r f � " 1 Southwestern Eden Pr• airie Development Phasing Study Summary Report December 1988 1 Report prepared by: THE BRAUER GROUP, INC. BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON, INC. 1 1 1 jThe Brauer Group, Inc. Benshoof & Associates, Inc. HTPO, Inc. 6116 Parnell Avenue 7901 Flying Cloud Drive 7565 Office Ridge Circle Edina MN 55424 Suite 119 Eden Prairie MN 5534 Eden Prairie MN 55344 944-7533 829-0700 1 944-7590 1 1 20 December 1988 I City of Eden Prairie I 7600 Executive Drive I Eden Prairie MN 55344 1 Subj: SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY I PROJECT 52-139 1 Ladies and gentlemen: I We appreciate the opportunity to submit our recommendations for development phasing in Ithe southwestern area of Eden Prairie as authorized by the City in March of this year. I The work could not have been completed without the timely and appropriate preparation of 1 data and information, review, critique and general support of key City staff people during the period of our investigation and analysis. tWe are available at your request to make presentations, assist in the evaluation of I development proposals and to prepare additional, more specific plans or designs for elements of the study proposals as may=be appropriate. I Sincerely, 1_ THE BRAUER GROUP, BENSHOOF &ASSOCIATES, HANSEN THORP PELLINENI INC. INC. OLSON, INC. [ 4417dV(67e(1/ 2C '? r$'k-1 i - ). n . ,nt.- .4.,-, L. ,3,:.L. L Donald G. Brauer James A. Benshoof Steven L. Pellinen 1 Reg. No. 6120 Reg. No. 10161 Reg. No. 15345 I_ We hereby certify that this report was prepared by us or under our direct supervision and that I we are duly registered professional engineers under the laws of the State of Minnesota. L 1 L I ` � I • 1 I TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER LETTER page 3 iiLIST OF FIGURES page 7 ABSTRACT page 9 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Existing and Programmed Conditions page 11 The Full Development Plan Basis page 11 The Development Phasing Concept Proposal page 12 EXISTING AND PROGRAMMED CONDITIONS Orientation page 15 Development Phasing Area . page 17 f Existing and Programmed Land Use page 19 Existing Topography and Protected Wetlands page 21 Existing and Programmed Roadways page 23 Existing and Programmed Utilities page 25 Existing Drainage page 27 ITHE FULL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BASIS I Sanitary Sewer System page 31 Water Main System page 33 Drainage System page 35 Roadway System Overview page 37 I Roadway Network page 39 I Traffic Analysis Sub-zones page 41 Year 2005 Daily Volumes page 43 Analysis of Need for Dell Road Interchange page 45 I Recommended Functional Classification of Roadways page 47 J THE DEVELOPMENT PHASING CONCEPT PROPOSAL Development Constraints and Parameters page 51 I Recommended Improvements to Perimeter Roadways page 53 Development Sub-areas Phasing Concept page 55 Sub-area 1A Phasing Recommendations page 57 I Sub-area 1B Phasing Recommendations page 59 Sub-area 2AB Phasing Recommendations page 61 Sub-area 2B Phasing Recommendations page 63 Sub-area 3 Phasing Recommendations page 65 _ I INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING ALTERNATIVES&COSTS Funding Alternatives page 69 I Estimated Costs page 71 Recommendations page 72 I APPENDIX A-TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY APPENDIX B-PHASING ANALYSIS OF PERIMETER ROADWAYS IAPPENDIX C-COST ESTIMATES APPENDIX D-SANITARY,WATER&DRAINAGE METHODOLOGY IAPPENDIX E-BIBLIOGRAPHY I I . I LIST OF FIGURES EXISTING AND PROGRAMMED CONDITIONS , t •1 Figure 1 Orientation page 14 Figure 2 Development Phasing Area page 16 Figure 3 Existing & Programmed Land Use page 18 ,. Figure 4 Existing Topography page 20 Figure 5 Existing&Programmed Roadways page 22 Figure 6 Existing& Programmed Utilities page 24 Figure 7 Existing Drainage page 26 IFULL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS Figure 8 Sanitary Sewer System page 30 I Figure 9 Water Main System page 32 I Figure 10 Figure 11 Drainage System page 34 I Roadway System Components page 36 Figure 12 Roadway Network page 38 I Figure 13 Figure 14 Traffic Study Sub-areas page 40 Year 2005 Daily Volumes page 42 I Figure 15 Analysis of Dell Road/T.H. 212 Interchange page 44 Figure 16 Recommended Functional Classification page 46 iDEVELOPMENT PHASING CONCEPT I Figure 17 Figure 18 Development Constraints& Parameters page 50 111 Recommended Improvements to Perimeter Roadways page 52 Figure 19 Development Sub-areas page 54 Figure 20 Sub-area 1 A page 55 I Figure 21 Sub-area 1B page 58 I Figure 22 Sub-area 2AB page 60 Figure 23 Sub-area 2B page 62 i Figure 24 Sub-area 3 page 64 1 APPENDIX A I L Figure A-1 Year 2005 Primary Study Area Trip Distribution APPENDIX B 1._ Figure B-1 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Projections at T.H.5 and C.S.A.H.4 Figure B-2 Potential Additional Improvements at C.S.A.H.4/T.H. 5 1._ Figure B-3 1990 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Projections at T.H.5/Dell Road Figure B-4 Potential Temporary Improvements at Dell Road/T.H.5 I Figure B-5 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Projections at C.S.A.H.4 and Scenic Heights Road LFigure B-6 Concept Plan for County 4/Scenic Heights Road/T.H.212 APPENDIX C ' LFigure C-1 Major Drainage Improvements L 1 • 1 III 7 • I I ABSTRACT ._ - : This study was authorized by the City of Eden Prairie in March, 1988 and approved to proceed by formal proposal signed on March 18, 1988. The intent of the study was to provide a factual and practical basis for the approval of development plans in the southwestern area of the City, and to enable such approvals to be rendered in an orderly and efficient manner. The intent was not to unreasonably restrict, but rather to accommodate development in an orderly way by matching growth with needed infrastructure in a manner which does not accelerate or push development. To complete the study, investigation was made into existing and future capacities of four major infrastructures: public roadways, sanitary sewer, water and drainage. The initial task was to establish a full development plan for the entire study area with conceptual layouts for each infrastructure system. The full development plan became the basis for subsequent development phasing analyses. Each system was tested for constraints on development and to determine which systems, if any, might impose limitations for development in a particular area. Finally, conclusions and recommendations were made concerning parameters which may be used reasonably to establish development patterns and priorities. ill The consultants forming the study team included The Brauer Group, Inc., led by Donald Brauer, responsible for general project coordination and oversight, liaison with public and private interests and review and presentation of study results; Benshoof & Associates, Inc., II led by James Benshoof, responsible for analyses and recommendations related to traffic and roadways; and Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson, Inc., led by Steven Pellinen, responsible for analyses and recommendations related to sanitary sewer, water and II! drainage systems, for editing and production of reports and for prime consultant relationship to the City. = The City staff liaison team included Carl Jullie, City Manager; Gene Dietz, Director of Public Works; Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Alan Gray, City Engineer; Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources; and supporting staff. P !I L . 111 9 I 1 ' SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Existing and Programmed Conditions The study area consists of nearly 3,600 acres of mostly undeveloped land in the southwestern quadrant of the City of Eden Prairie. Approximately 1300 acres of the study I area lies within the existing year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). Most of this land is programmed for low-density residential development, with a limited amount programmed for parks and other public or quasi-public open space and a very small I amount programmed for commercial development. One elementary school is current! under construction in the area. ry currently I• i Infrastructure systems (roadways, water distribution, sanitary sewer and drainage)Wage) range from nonexistent to well-developed, depending on the particular area. Generally, the [ infrastructure is characteristic of that found in rural areas adjacent to developing areas. A t basic perimeter roadway system is in place which will need to be upgraded and interconnected as development proceeds. The Red Rock Interceptor sewer is under I construction and will make sanitary sewer service available eventually to the entire study tt area. Trunk water mains are extended or planned to the edges of the study area in several locations. The drainage system mostly consists of natural drainage ways with a few I I culverts and storm sewers in scattered locations. A number of DNR-protected wetlands exist within the study area. The Chain of Lakes trunk storm sewer is in place in the northeastern part of the study area and can serve a portion of that area. I A significant upgrade is programmed for State Highway 5, adding lanes, channelization I and signals by December 1990 through the study area. The major programmed traffic 1 improvement for the study area is the U.S. Highway 212 freeway at an unspecified future date. IThe Full Development Plan Basis - I I. The major components for each infrastructure system were developed for the entire study 1 area. Using programmed land use assumptions and criteria, each infrastructure was given a reasonable conceptual design, including size, capacity and general location. 1_ A conceptual roadway network with traffic , Y c forecasts was laid out. Upgrades are recommended for a number of key intersections, including State Hwy. 5/Co. Hw. 4; Hwy. 1.. I 5/Dell Road; Hwy 5/Heritage Road; and Co. Hwy. 4/Scenic Heights Road. Recommendations are made for a freeway interchange at the future Hwy. 212/Dell Road crossing. Major upgrading is recommended for County Highway 4. Functional I_ classifications (arterial, collector, etc.) were established for major roadways. I The conceptual sanitary sewer system is served almost entirely by the Red Rock LInterceptor sewer. Four main service areas have been identified which may require trunk 1 or sub-trunk classification. The remainder of the area can be served by lateral sewers. While gravity sewers can serve most of the study area, a total of four lift stations are [ recommended for ultimate development. Only one of the lift stations is needed to serve I areas within the MUSA. i 1 • . 11 I The conceptual water distribution system involves the extension and looping of trunk water -I mains currently extended to the perimeter of the study area. A number of smaller loops are recommended between the trunk mains. The size and capacity of the trunk mains appears to be adequate in most areas for low density residential service without looping of the trunk 1 .1 mains (looping of lateral mains is recommended). However, for adequate fire protection and continuance of service eventual looping is recommended. It is particularly recommended that the trunk main near the Cedar Ridge School be looped prior to the r 1 opening of the school in Fall 1989. The conceptual drainage system was developed from an analysis of sub-watersheds t I within the three major watersheds of the study area. Stormwater detention is recommended in a number of areas where protected wetlands or significant trees should be preserved or in areas where existing deep depressions can be readily used to I minimize pipe sizes. In areas where proposed pipe sizes are quite large, it is recommended that additional ponding studies be made at the time of development proposals to determine if pipe size reductions are feasible. Development in any area Ishould take into account the ultimate drainage patterns to and from that area. The Development Phasing Concept Proposal l IThe sequence, or phasing, that development within the MUSA might logically follow was studied carefully. The process of determining the most orderly and effective phasing for Idevelopment was complex. Briefly, it involved superimposing all of the individual infrastructure systems and determining key constraints or parameters for development. It was determined that the Development Phasing Area (study area within the MUSA) could Ibe divided into five sub-areas defined by those key constraints and parameters. Phasing for development in that part of the study area lying outside the MUSA was not specifically C addressed but was assumed to occur at some future time after the five sub-areas have Isubstantially developed. - The major constraints to development proved to be more geographical and sequential I q rather than incremental. That is, with a couple of exceptions, the capacities of the infrastructure trunk systems are large enough to allow extensions of great distances within l low-density residential areas. Thus, the phasing of development became a question of I defining areas within which the infrastructures had to develop from defined starting points L and given sequential needs. t IThe notable exceptions to geographical and sequential constraints occurred within the roadway and water distribution infrastructures. The intersection of County Highway 4 with L IState Highway 5 has a level of service poor enough to justify some limitations to • development until certain improvements are made. Also, in some areas development should be limited until roadways are looped to provide access from more than one li I direction. Likewise, trunk water mains should not be extended too far without looping in order to reduce the chance of loss of service, a particularly important consideration for fire protection. A specific recommendation is made to loop the trunk water main near the I Cedar Ridge School before it opens in 1989. In general, the point at which looping is required is a subjective decision, except in those cases where capacity becomes the limiting constraint. This will be more likely for lateral water mains than for trunk facilities. I L 1 U I t. � xt r s � � GI gI a1 R , ry � � EI � ° I l o � � NI L ' 0 L NI 1 94 I omiN - f MEDWA 1 H r D LE \cr.7,, . I- PLYMOUTH L__ GOLDEN Es . [ I 5 101 494 VALLEY . 55 I► .p ______ • - AL., T ..,____ .. . •...„.4„,.... 7 0 I 4 Ig3 , ,d I It ST. LOUIS l 0 1 0 r_. , LAKE��ST. E , PARK / d �� MIN EA�POLIS 1 ' IG - t4 I 1 MlNNE10N Q II l -`J � ' HOPK -� `� ---�--— . Q v I 35w 0 EDINA Ll g "..J_ DEVELOPMENT PHASING AREA ti g r.k �I EDEN I CHANHASSEN 4 PRAIRIE Of RI J! CHFIELD I• •♦•,•o♦••••• I 101 � +,����,•.o�o���� Q ■_--2> t Ell ii.;%.4 I.- kik __ I _- 49 4 hj -•__/".-?11,,./. 4.,�;�y00000���ooi����i.'��4�jo�o�o�� O� BLOOMINGTON 1._ 9 . II //1�,%%/% 2 g KM CHASKA In _in I ADDITIONAL FULL DEVELOPMENT STUDY AREA SHAKOPEE 07_,... • SAVAGE 1 BURNSVILLE k L _.. 1-, IRIENTATION I THE BRAUER GROUP, OC.,ININC. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE ) L BENSHOOP i ASSOC.,INC. FIGURE 1 HAOSEN7HORPPELLINEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY ISON.INC. DEC 198!! r I .. ORIENTATION - Figure 1 r Figure ! gure 1 delineates the entire study area, consisting of the Development Phasing Area and the Additional Full Development Study Area as they relate to surrounding communitites. The study area generally is bounded on the north by State Highway 5, on the west by the Eden Prairie-Chanhassen boundary, on the south by U.S. Highway 169 and on the east by County Highway 4 and Flying Cloud Airport. The Development Phasing Area is that part of the study area not yet fully developed 1 lying within the year 2000 MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Services Area) as established by the Metropolitan Council. The Additional Full Development Study Area is that part ( of the study area which lies outside of the current MUSA. • • 1 ( 1 1 1 1 L. 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 L 1 15 1 1 1 - o :1 P F 0 .1 . W W SKATE l�s HWV 1 NO. 3 --,,,1"---,___________ 1 /7 II 1 = , g-1 [ MITCHELL Y cirr e• .M..A.l - r° • OI ♦o . 0 ' `yP = QP. LAKE — [ SCENIC 1 HTS ROA• Cr RICE 1 MARSH f( LAKE 1 'N \ DEVELOPMENT J RED \1 PEAS PIG ROCK 1 f` EA 4 LAKE 7 t� (=1300 acres) I ¢ 1\ 4�F PIONEER a z 7)14/L p LAKE yo �'/ e. - W;;'••'•••.•I li RILEY VP ,E ��1. • COUNTY od0 z � r 1._ , ,,/,1 t., i - _ „ x .), . , __., , 8 \. 1 ADDITIONAL FU L �`, ° 1 i` VELOPIVI,E•�NT/ S. : ARE • si*o°____ (±2300 acres) SI L /i us. SCALE IN FEET Hwy�-"-N ' "—ice_ II NO. �__ _ 1 o` soo io 1E9 -- (DEVELOPMENT' L PHASING AREA THEBENSHOOF i ASSOC.,C..BRAUERGROU SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE (FIGURE 2 ) L I INC.IN HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON.INC. DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY 88-096 DEC 88 I 4 DEVELOPMENT PHASING AREA - Figure 2 Figure 2 shows the Development Phasing Area and the Additional Full Development r Study Area in enlarged detail with boundaries and major features identified. Note that the Development Phasing Area includes all land within the current year 2000 MUSA line. The Additional Full Development Study Area lies outside the current MUSA. Excluding lakes, the Development Phasing Area contains approximately 1300 acres 1 and the Additional Full Development Study Area contains approximately 2300 acres. • 1 1 1 1 1 1 { 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 •. 17 1 1 1 a i cc o o a al r o cc Ji 1W —, 1� STATE J,= HWV ) Np, 3 '�'Il 7% �1 MIXED USE �— i 1 o i�„�o, MITCHELL 3 //7----- Q ``'QO 1 1 LAKE F • SCENIC o Oq 7\ ( �.' HTS ROAO t��r���\ j r �� QPARK� I �� �`� �_�I RICE (,a:011 0 PARK i•' , kNl__ MARSH 0 u�Ac) �� I LAKE : o� i U n It1 m 0 4 U tbo°od°me • Qp1 • \\ C+%COMMERCIAL RED C I I • \ • ROCK I f ;' CEMETERY M LAKE • 1 I o Q�, I / HO SCOL-� 0 oe I \ <p / (a9 Ac) O � A � Q I U 0 o.o ° qi SFr �' ' ; Peed d PARK 0 W !q Fo OF 0 %� ATHLETIC C °°4Q /ys' PIONEERQ a FIELDS n \ 4 >:1 =� COMMERCIAL LAKE \'o S w _ e ? N• ........... FIRE STATION is Ac) ° ....777 jl .ice RILEY Ors AC) •a40 a�, •.�,��••• �s'/� �� I ' o% T cs \ / O = AIRPORT E._ Aii...K4:49.9 a...\ 40" 2 � / U I \s. < PARK 1 ....»/..: D ��e■ `. W% L• I `.GOLF COURSE ° ., , (280 AC) p 0 I ) \\ L�oaleo°a O I I -. auc=_.� I, SQP %p ®omm.M L ®� +��`\`/ 0 ,k. 111 I ® 0 PAR 0 uo Ac) D /, ,,,........... 1 L U.S.us. '� °oom�eo°°m �i LE IM 2:z. NwY NO 1 L o aoo�i000 i000 18a 1 1PROGRAMM LAND USE EDEN PRAIRIE FIGURE 3 ) L TNEBRAUER ,INC. SOUTHWESTERN EDE BENSHOOF i ASSOCGROUP.,I . I NC HANSENTHORPPELLINEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY OLSON.INC. • I ' EXISTING AND PROGRAMMED LAND USE - Figure 3 Figure 3 describes existing and programmed land uses within the study area. The double dashed straight lines define specific sites currently owned by the City or 1 c the School District. The areas identified by double dashed curved lines are proposed for future acquisition by the City or commercial developers but are not specifically defined sites. I The land uses identified here are those used for subsequent traffic and public utility and drainage analyses. A full development land use summary is presented below 1 rwhich quantifies areas and populations used in the study. Note that for purposes of population projections in the designated low density I I residential area, two different density assumptions have been used. A developed density of 2.14 housing units per acre has been assumed for the area north of County Highway 1, consistent with historic City development data. The terrain and existing 1 I land ownership patterns south of County Highway 1 indicate that a somewhat lower density assumption for this area would be more reasonable. A developed density of 1.50 units per acre has been used for this area. In all areas a maximum density of 2.5 1 units per acre has been assumed for local subdivisions. RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND LAND USE SUMMARY 1 Dwellings North of CSAH 1 South of CSAH 1 Total I 1 Existing (units) 282 98 380 Future (units) 3.010 2.007 5.017 r 111 ITotal Dwellings (units) 3,292 2,105 5,397 Land Use (Ultimate) 1 L Residential (acres) 1,575 1,463 3,038 . 1 Park (acres) L Office (acres) 167 70 231 Commercial (acres) 11 0 11 I L Industrial (acres) 20 0 20 Schools (acres) 29 0 29 Cemetery (acres) 4 0 4 ' Fire Station (acres) 4 0 4 Golf Course (acres) __Q 250 250 3,594 1 Total (acres) 1,811 1 783 3 L � , 1 I • 19 1 1 1 , _ 9 6 tc. va [\10 1 4.J I ....J , R__ , I — • 1--------____11 IL_ [ v I - . ,,, .:„---, . ,,.. ,-- ....\_, 4 - - - -- \ ••-'4., -- f) -' -'----., _ . 7 ) %,-'•-.->,'':2'-',Iat -.. •:A.:-..4,t,-.-1:),:--Jiai. , 6 rif' /, -?.-.- ,... .\ ,---.; k...1c4fill -•■••-, -..-‘)-1-•:::!•?* ... d z ,- „,' . __spy..Cw•oht•IISCW \____ ''\i i 7 (:73 [ ••••CI II-pr—i-Tjnori/lAtelit \'('.■ .N"--4144A..S `" Q Z C., r. ... ClIcitis . . &‘ °° - itP,•:,.."7' ).• t'.• M /.. I . I------:-:,....„2.......::_>, _, 2: . . , - .„.... -I• At•. 2 Q. ,' 0 / '---.. ° I ,1 -- ') o ''.ISIMILZ . U ..' ..,, ‘.- ji )Ll 11-1=_!_____ ,,!.. .!- - ,-.-,,a. - .____ \... y • SCENIC I I ' :..--‘'-?---,'7 ' ( 1 -. : 0---'s IZ4 -'-'•- 'CI 4 I 1 \- \:_rt' I &I.---j ' • -,Atr.,.-,--_,-, .. \ -. : •• NTS ROA. 41110. g - - _...._ N.1 [ I `• ,...-" , I I \ •., t . - , 1 . , .,,,,r;.-, :?...t.:,.. - _ .-''-'"• ., .-:.‘ I ! I , It , --. •1 :- , . \ s. 1■,, ____.) I -, ',t 7 ' ' 14.4 ., _.,...: - -- j .•-• ,,,.. ..., ,-- Q' - g I... , ,f tikHO,,, .-----) (..--.... - .7.„.• .-.__2 .9V- ,. 4,-_, .,. ,..777, , .,, ..NEER0 ,,,.. I 'tie--ice..41-A-wq._,_ , • •, _:.. *4_4:011,::,11`.4k. --- ''.4. ) ) 14( '' ri,la:4,11`41,1,4; i; :. / r 0 ,47,=(// --- 1-s ,__ _ ....... ,I., ........ it 11) it 13:12311t6".:4- °7--- ' • ft L'/''' ":- --i--r\11401 ''..._..., ,,,,*-.. ,i'zi_it.... ) -,, 1( , C.,---‹ 1.•: It ' ., 4\-, ---.. 0 • ,, * . .1./—* „■ ***** [ .:,•.€.ea,-. r .. .‘,.,_... ,,; _.......• ...... '\\'7.. :-. . ' /.1 . --- I , .4._.,...„ . T.v....,... . , r5graig2tret , •/ retf?:11k,.-• -:,.',41'..i.-u I .'\ ;A,,It&.'...--ttiP44-1: ' 5\ . 1, ‘,* . 0::, N'•'' - ) Q \\ . ,-,,..1 ... V...47 .**,: .'"---- P''' • '-'-',S\ • v IL—.,...• (r,Egial NO .. 16* _....) •-/--.1 <7 \ ( :-. .,..,..,.......„....„:,,..,,,:•. ....„,....., ,.k ,, , 4 '••i•' ,.______ z. ;s1,--At:.--vq,-.5,..,4,- • ,y,„.„-- - ,...... • :,,,,.e•„:;s:„,_ i:_____,... _ i. ,..."-----,n___, Ii?. ii.:)",- ..,. ...(CF:?,_ _____: -.L.z.,_,,,(..,--f ..:. iv--.17--- I • 4'7'1 de(4 •,' (\Q.-A t \_ 0 •■ 1- /if'-\\,.._.-, Th,,., 1,/,tAk Q--;)/ it _ •-■ , t, _- ,_;-.) -I,. . .1 \v_.-.> ,,,,,,, 7 -1- t.) I Fel)(,--'.,,3 \l '',- ,_4'--"-±,___ __c a 0 0 'rf,..,,.-:-,:y:;; .- (,-,,c_______ ,),, -i,/,‘„).4kh_.(k'44,1._- • ,,,!,(,. ;(,.t..(,.. t ,.. -A•*'-- -• ';'''.:1',1' _ . . / -t ° ° ° : .„.•_::::::. .2,::;...„.,,,* ,..,_,..._ ,, -- •-•.:-....: , (..,..„ _......: • P• -. ,.. n . P .--' S ° 0 . 1 /....1''i t‘,\•••• ....., .,....".....=..,,k...I... . .„ . '1 \i ,..., , op '- .7:' „;• i '''4'11. ''.. ''`'. '..'''` • .11-9"'''''- i .■i„._ ' , '1.0,- ,.., 0 ...„.....".. ..,____., _ • - - .: 7-.....-- • 's, , 1111111A,_1_10_ 0 „.-‘,., ‘....L...- . . . _ -- .„....Q. __,..„ i(„.........„. • I '‘...t.,----\-(---4 ,—.--_-_-,---- \....\ n. c- -. :\:„.=_-_-___. .., :„..„...„ ., _--..,•._,_________— is., , ,r,,- ,w,,, • PROTECTED \ ' L •1s a WATERS -, ,3 \._._,... s• .,,-. \:-..-.;::,._... _ .5-)--_-;1.2:1,k,, ...,I ....cfr.is-A ' ' - '-' •21 a'"-'-_-:,,, -kV i, -„7.--,.. , - .-I/_-_,-:, ( ... .- , 7.. ' PROTECTED WETLAND , :s - '. .: AVIA i. :1.;„I:.-7,-.. •4; 1,1:.4) ' •:-. -. No CONTOUR& L ._ , • .,.. . .,,,..:.•n,, ._ ,-..:_:- ,....— n . . .,.:.,...,: ..,... _ . , , milk: 4 , ELEVATION I ' - , ,,... .- . .._ ----:. , - - _ ... ■"■:la - u. --ii . ..._,._------ -- ....., . •I t ..'...t ,A• S C AL[ tt.......... .... • NO. L . ..0 tow am* . lee EXISTING I . THE ER GROUP, TOPOGRAPHY BRAU BEANNSsHOOF&ASSOC.,INC. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE ) FIGURE 4 L 1 M EN THORP PELLINEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY a= 0,9E8,1 OLSON IN --.1 1 ' EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY - Figure 4 I Figure 4 shows existing topography defined by 10-foot contour intervals. Note the extreme topographic variation in most of the area south of County Highway 1. Also shown are protected waters and wetlands as designated by the Minnesota Department of Natural uResources. The topographic information is taken from available existing records, including aerial surveys I and U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps. While these are assumed to be reasonably accurate, specific development planning will require more detailed surveys for most purposes. I I I I I I I I I 1 I f I L I L I L 1 1 1 21 I G A. W i OA i OI r ¢ W cSTATE �� HWY I NO. S • I /A I Il-_ MITCHELL * ./. 7 01 T...•`.71'.or tots•Ftu1c •• Oro.. D..___,I v `yP/,. ... 1 O i LAKE ,. — • SCENIC IHTS ROA C I RICE 1 MARSH `P/ �. I I LAKE i /!�' O • 212 T.H. S N__�f RED i 1 /'. D ROCK / LAKE 1 / 1 I i 4 T. Il 414 1, I / I' W 41-4, : / PIONEER a rc 1 — LAKE •:i, RILEY �o .`. • .o / GO0HTY HWY•••• ••••, P o°'� •���• > u� 3 I F I. y<,., / 4 I 1 O O I ` i \! P KEY to. \�� / POTENTIAL I \ .y4'i"'\"/ INTERCHANGE 1 I �-� POTENTIAL FULL ACCESS / INTERSECTION 1 ' I \\ U.S. 1 seuc_IN rj. Hwy NO. EXISTING & �� — 2000 16° PROGRAMMED ROADWAYS THE SENSRAUERGSSOC.,IN SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE it FIGURE 5 3 l BENSHOOF i ASSOC.,INC. HANSENTHORPPELLINEN OLSON INC. DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY ` I I i EXISTING AND PROGRAMMED ROADWAYS - Figure 5 Figure 5 identifies existing and programmed roadways in the study area. Programmed improvements shown here include the upgrade of State Highway 5 to four lanes and the preferred location for the proposed U.S. Highway 212 freeway. 1 Proposed full-access, at-grade intersections are shown as circles along State Highway 5. Proposed freeway interchanges for U.S. Highway 212 are shown as squares. g y 1 No specific improvements are programmed for County Highways 1 and 4 at this time near the intersection of County Highway 4 and State Highway 5. except 1 t 1 1 f 1 1 1 L :1 L 1 L • 1 L 1 F 1 23 1 1 o 1 . .. '..:1 f? I ui at ‘.... tr. 14 [ 11 . 0.t _ ._ _ .... ...................., s.1-5 ATE ._.._. WY NO. ....... ---c_----- -.=__. ----1 5 I .) ,.._., .. ,. .• z /, , , ., I 1 • • ::, ,•.....,s/t• I P :! S. ! I . MITCHELL ,,, • . :: , ). . ., / '. ' •.'' 11I•Frii;:,1.-.-7.--7..:-•4.I.1. ••••■•••••• .‘ • ■ 01' ,./ [ I • !I ... , ? ./ •.;' " )• P. 1•". ' / I 1 TN..., , • 1 r-.-- /.--... N. 1 , • I 0 [ ' IL A K E/.;. .........1..r......." ,,,.,,,..7.4 i • -. ' l'Z u /' SCENIC WHTS ROAD .......:‘',.7.5...........7,‘-1.1 I 1 ---.--. , RICE N . • 1 ; . • // •- .• ._. MARSH- - 1 , , LAKE : • IRV) a ROCK INTERCEPTOR ,,,,,, ■ ,./ N....... .........„...... •' .. ..- 1 •., • • . ... - . . I .. \ ,.. , I I ■ 1 . . .... • 7" ...NNN. ; • •..,. 4 . 1 \,........L LAKE . I I I 1 r • .. ■ . : : • .2 /••••" [ I - i : -o • //// I 1 ' -•IN ! ---:•4-fr t : i : . 1 , PIONEER cc i• / `......• l4.' , • 1 -._.••••. :. \:•:•. /4.1/ - - ... .... ....... Z ',,0 - I- W . .... 111 _ ....1': 1 9 .... 0 .. ..a.. ." .. •••• LAKE 0 • • ....... . .. ''. 1,.•",•'0. ILI ,....________________,•, , •...•:.... •,• , % .•:-....-... 10."'"'••• • :I; L tit ri. RILEY ..- // I.-: *,, .... ...;;;;■••,. . 0.014 ....'!"..._'...:.0:r' i':, couNri ... .- " ...,• -)=.'.. . .! ,,,.. ,.... :et z .,.. -- •,.. •,,, ,... .• I!X -...../ ......:::..' il .,, • •-, IV •• ).• •P- I ■ ' • i•• - . ,1 ' • • I,:. .• v• z = 1116.- •,• • '"/ ' '',. ,, ,• ...„ 0.. • • .-- . . . . '• `•:.,-,....,.-...-.:,;•,;: a ...... !, cc. w t . ,. • , •• ....\ • ..„ ., • .: • .. , . • ., , . ...:, I , isli ‘ ..s „.„...... : ... . , _....... •,.. ._. • , - .•:„.., :, ,• :, : • ...,,,,40 ,.. • ce . • KEY II. I I I , . _. . ,%..'' ., ., : •-.-.-WATERMAIN '-'-------•SANITARY SEWER '"•'-••— FORCE MAIN L , _ _ _. ._ V.S. 4 ,• ._::, ,.. I 1 , NO. =-1..........■••■ 169 EPROGRAMMED D : a see 1 000 "'doe . r I i THE BRAUER GROUP,INC. UTILITIES eENsHooF&ASSOC.,INC. [ P SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE )(FIGURE 6 ) L I HANSEN THORP PELLINEN DEVELOPMENT HASING STUDY = im OLSON ft.4C. 111 • 1 EXISTING AND PROGRAMMED UTILITIES - Figure 6 1 Figure 6 shows existing and programmed sanitary sewer and water main in and immediately adjacent to the study area. The Red Rock Interceptor sanitary sewer is currently under construction. The other local utilities are in place or under construction in developed areas. • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 i L : 1 1 I. 1 1 • L._ 1 1 25 i 1 - 6 o• vs o I I 2 r. . 1 ...1 I STATE 11. HWY 1 NO. ------11--J: ----"I■J : .140:10110- 1%/1111f -'1-- k \--,.,1_. r • --- ----- L....... ..._ IL _ _.., .., --.._...list, ...) / •\sk J-..utocs.,_,/-1 1,,Th 'N\ ' -' ' rj 1,C.11 e—.2 \s ' .. ./ 6 'Ci I C:.1 ( 1 LI. , ',.__J-•-•1 .1 s -:„ • s., _/ri ' -"-------Th'), (1,_JI, .,7.'-; -,,. G -- t ( MITCHELL r /,- ,., , 3 I- - ''t•• en:•.•'''''''nr" \_, 1,...,=;-\,/ \\;, o 0. v• . — .4.,.,••,„...urn..., •.. ...„. . _ 0 c-Nz"...,_ Q. ' .1.• . . I ,. , - ••\ • • --:',A ,37, ,, ,.....,-# ,...,, \it c-) : e 1:-...• c-, ----' z . . . • , ,...:., --....._ ,8,t, . o ... LAKE • IL___ -. _- '•-••'-i • SCENIC I- I .. :717",ii,-;„ :-/ .. :: -`, . , , / /ij77 FITS ROA. — O4111"C::7 Cri NQ I /----, 44111F 4' ,I , RIC ,, / -----, r- 1 I MARSH 2-‘ *i (-" 1------' , ..e. .,.,,_ : I o LAKE --- '-- - --- r\ . • / .-_,- . • 5) ...re„.. $11 ilia it. (..._ _ _,.....„ t _ , . / ,,NC ----' I\1 ,----- -__ ,,,,, ,..:_-.... ---- .41,,,;-.:-_--;. .--, ," RED I .... • • •\ ) \_,-.. -\.z- '' v7.-;t:''''7! ,..c. k j: -, c . '',.-TC'IN-%:-••\ (1-\\: i .,,ACKON W-.,... (■„..../ Li • ,er.\--.•:-.. MU ,-, • r- . ., ---•.... ). -.. (--K.. D ROCK ,..,J E.,,,v5.,_, ..-- 1, _ ' Iii;EP op .. - 7-"--=--,.„•-- p ., t ,, A/ se• -/ ,,(( •-•..-:--;--- ----(\----..\-\,,...5,-..._ \ I , .._,.. . 1.........--..<=,..- -/..71; (-; , . \ ,..: e e ,.---. _ / SCO (2d----(4-7 -:-.,--, •'- -.C.A,.. LAKE • ,• -\ \ ,t, ,i ' •:.•• ...._,•• - 'VA _3' c(--,j---;•- .`:\: _:,---7., -- I 1\-- ■ \‘'t.,Gq_.,• ;, ,.• ,. ,,,...„\,...___T-s-Y,f••,„: •••/j.: r-.).------'•--..„. .: -- •\ ,10 r I ''-)_ , .. (..! ,,:',i,--,' i 0 V-6-1"--,-1-... ,'() , . ' -4,- \ :4.1-, , :;:-.'\-J - 1)11,/-) , , 0. /i; • \) - I■k C\./ 0 . , ,,,,..„ • / ' ‘c,. \ 41,7_'■■ ). iii I a )''s L.- ''(4÷ '''. . --is ,, ■ .1/410h. • 7.(./ (*,'- 0 -..„ ■ - ' 4' - ik'j 1 .-- r. PIONEER 0 A. rj I I .•..o:Z LAKE ‘-.-V---p•-.0 sr:-.-.-.\..,.,'\--(---`:‘',--%-s-st`,./j.. ,-r.•;T-V_ k:...„_<.1_.,,_).1:s r.A, -c1 ,_,,,....),w•,a„ hNit,.I A :.. ...•••• RILEY [ ... ) rW. all----&-If •. v _>--ii----- _------T-_-_• / :, '4,, d [ 0 0 i 1 , - 'Tivt41,0/111.*;t , • c•us,....."----- '40° ...A.,;._ ;., ,c__, . ,oNrr.: .: ----.,.,, .., ,r r.,,,, ,, r• ..., ,7_,.,.\...., ..,;.....! I , ;a . . ... i •N •, 0. 4...."--..._,k ,. . e f-- \ - - - - .--- N s ■ --T... --•1, el 'Y'.. , '';'. V? c ! ,7 lei i--.._._ ---■ , /.11 •- ,• • '1\•".,.. a 'C' / .,; , •, , /, —;,- • / 0 -., -.: ----- . .., • ••••"... -” ....---.7%-, ; D 3 0 ''' .s.'''f • - '2 's,--../ . .;`-''• Pr 47!, . \..C ;, u ?,•,:---.' . ,..,...( .:_.-*...-„- -.., ,s‘.. s.;...::\.;',,,\\.:._7\,:---, 9,•• #, , z , - • ., . •....„, ....“ 2. ;,,t,„.,.-\•\. ..\ ". 11.', 1-,:)‘ s? --- -,' :7.->Ns %,.-`--....'..'• - \ •■••-:,:1(. ,...,.s.o...,.,,, ir D &--„..:,,,,,,-....:,,.;\*:,...,_\., .....;:::,/,e7„. .. - \-::-:'( (,•:.\"-----,:-.- .„ , , o .,, I ; 14-`° --\\1. 2- _--•\ ...0 \,...___,;-_--2..„._ • *C.. fe . _, , il.7'-:-,-.,' \■7,,•- 741---- 1 ±76---\ • 0\.. ,,' ' • . '-...:.\.,-.7.; •••/1 C13: .1._ • -,,; • k 0 ., 7 i\. - ...:-:- ',.. ' \ • -- -: •- •)„. - •\1 - ,s •. ( 0..7.--, • * . .. ,P-0401.11..?4.:,. 4014111' I L'. : s' kk'k112...,;• ,..e• 0 ,,_ _ KEY II . -, --:-,--,,;.--- _----' ' - ;"-- --'% - .-. 41j.(40-1--. L . *\ ;.•. ,1 0, is.s.z- - . .1021.1.44 I . _. • ..` 1 .,.-- iss,--=-■....,- \ -.---= "0`-''---st?;, ' - ---- '''-'•-"sal. . ' , .- ' • :A ." ■-_-•°6-=- , 7°.144 Y-' - 01144.,:-_,-/is s■• -1,n, /--) ' ' ■."),-,f'-'1Th'ij, 'c' ,... 1,...,f • /„... ' 8•164.• ., , I il. •. • ,,,i • .0 i• i i 4. , • 1 ' ./:-=-.':' ,' -A's• . - '•-•7'-; '-' cliAV A(::((.4„;-...*1,,„..''.. s. ,....71., .. .;,-, ,.. ..,, f n ..',,.....0 sen MAJOR WATERSHED •"••••••••• SUB-WATERSHED g-•-•-•• STORM SEWER ,---4 CULVERT 1 I . •.•• ' ' - - ., , -- _. . ._ ____„... -'mk\--- " '''':-',,,.1■ai■s44-i-olli ..._,. -,, \ 1, • i - •1,' .------- _ 1186" - ti• l ic..... III MT rimm.. ....■■■ 2 e• (DRAINAGE I 0 000 1000 2000 • DRAINAGE THE BRAUER GROUP,INC. .L BENSHOOF&ASSOC..INC. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE FIGURE 7 1 HANSEN NTHORP PELLINEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY = OLSO .INC. / I s • EXISTING DRAINAGE - Figure 7 Figure 7 identifies existing drainage areas and facilities. The study area includes portions of three major watersheds. The Chain of Lakes Watershed covers much of the northeasterly part of the study area. Most of the southern and western portions of the study area are within the Riley Creek Watershed. A relatively small part of the 1 most southerly portion of the study area lies within the Minnesota River Watershed. Each major watershed has been divided into sub-watersheds based on existing topography. 1 The sub-watersheds provide a basis for design of the full development drainage system. The Chain of Lakes trunk storm sewer system which provides water level control for Round, 1 Mitchell and Red Rock Lakes is already in place. Local storm drainage systems are in place east of Mitchell Lake, near Lake Riley and in subdivisions above Riley Creek. Scattered culverts exist throughout the study area. • • 1 1 1 1 i . 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 27 - 1 l- ir T H I E f I � L L I� E II� E 'IL 1I M li E N It T I P L L ,L N IL a I i s 4 s IL 11 L l� ,J i SERVICE z { AREA I ti TCHELG ••i:,� N•• I o a, RICE - // r MARSH #: iA t T .. LAKE • RED ':•∎ROCK:: •'4•TINTERCEPTOR ;/ yr,.}:rr:..:: :::•;•y;•; :t:v•i.•r+:fir: RED r 2,'' i ROCK-. i • :f �.t. LAKE '.. : 0.. :::. 4111:iii.. \----- . • • ,0 F� SERVICE �ti . ` i---�� S a.. AREA III r c @ F'� SERVICE CI e, AREA II, : Q, PIONEER '_ a L .s.••:•:•:_:•:•:•:s❖::YCr r ij O 12: ie•. ,. : V. .i 8 y . 4#'. LAY£ c {;• o • ••. r• N !1•. CO /j. Er. .. v i L.S. #r g 8 0 SERVICE i•' ss oo AREA I V '�4:1•:•:•:•:•:•:•:+:+:•:•:•:•:•;•:•:•:•:•:+*: 0 r 1 a,. �. LS.- KEY .. 9 •Il ::: ty „6 > L. L.S. S / ( 12" GRAVITY Y� SEWER FORCE MAIN h qr.%.. L.S. LIFT STATION • II �. �.h SERVICE AREA u.s.� s = BOUNDARY 4.•'• SCALE IN FEET �iWy ••• •:1••Y.; ••:•t�•t'• o soo 1000 2000 ••169 SANITARY •'• • • SEWER SYSTEM THE HRAUERGROMC. BENSHOOf 8 ASSOC..C..INC. IN SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE C FIGURE B NANSENTHORPPELLINEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY OLSON INC = DEG 1988 ° i SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM - Figure 8 Figure 8 shows the schematic layout of the fully developed sanitary sewer system. Except for a small area north of Mitchell Lake, the entire study area will be served by the Red Rock Interceptor sewer currently under construction. Four major service areas requiring sewers 12 to 24 inches in diameter as well as minor service areas connecting directly to the interceptor sewer have been identified. Some of the sewers in the major service areas may be designated as trunk sewers in the future. The design for the sanitary sewer system is generally consistent with criteria and service areas previously established for design of the interceptor sewer. An attempt has been made to maximize the area capable of gravity sewer service while minimizing the number and capacity of lift stations required. Four lift stations will be needed at various locations along the Riley Creek valley. • • • t' 31 I i W C A J N w • ST',IC = HWY NO . o / • z • I s,MITCHELL '' o Pp / ••• 7 I o /Rr FLAK£ v /' sceNlC .\40 ,, ' HIS ROAD 1 47 • MARSH'', // LAKE - _ iRED ROCK INTERCEPTOR // s I /i ` is RED N /, r - 8" /, ROCK," 8.r // // LAKE 1• '/ a . �--� I 4 14*..,.. •N // N w . l 44 •r- // S 12„ PIONEER a / :/ O /) _ TAA/L .� W LAKE yo // % . COW 7,e„ •. . �•• 4):-'0'•. : • RILEY ci ••.• •• •.• CO 8„ e 'a: ••• It . ,, v 2 F t ,/ z CO ; U $" I t / ° t S I W, eu 1 I ° O er G 8rr .... Orr ;,.:5.+ . au t 111 V 8" KEY 2•r WATERMAIN • U.S. . 411 .- ,r MWy 1. SCALE 111 FEET NO o��o 2000 IBS/ WATERMAIN • SYSTEM THE BENSHAUER ASSOC..INC. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE FIGURE 9 ) BEOLSOOF 8 ASSO INC. MANSENTHORPPELLINEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY OLSON INC. i 1 O WATER MAIN SYSTEM - Figure 9 • Figure 9 shows the schematic layout of the fully developed water main system. Or An attempt was made to be generally consistent with the recent) 9 Y recently updated master plan for the i City's water distribution system. A key criterion used in laying out the water main system was Ithe provision for looping essentially everywhere. This provides water service from two directions and allows better maintenance of water system pressure. If • 33 1 cc o C 1 L a r ii w J 1 I, w STATE l= HWY 1 NO. a •• i , 11_____- MITCHELL r ..cc l.:f1• 'Q. . 0,9 •' ..'..(7 Tr ��„t►tIr. :8 LAKE , i . i �— • SCENIC S 7 ' tttilt►t' M b HTS ROA• —�- .h U`t + 38 NWL �� a NWL 863 • .- =� t �� HWL 868 i MARSH _ II t l�LAK m 1 i �. 6AF •i. ,ti --- \ t� •• f' NWL 870 NWL 877 . � NWL.874 RED \o w t '• 6AF 1 ) ••41,/44 �j NWL 862 Z,1, • ,,.•"TS/LEY�• t ll .../ .,... HWL 864 ROCK tC. 1M. CR =• h, N 511 _ LAKE NWL 870 1 I �ry HWL 872 ::;,•: N t 5AF � 26AF ri«\ ' t% NWL 879 NWL 853 .." a HWL 880 �' 4 HWL 868 —O� lb p'<f Y �4, 17AF ~ U� O. <ii NWL WL 860 w O4, PIONEER a w [777 • w _ „ o 6 1� ,, •/ ,, 4. 'flat♦ W s iI t•y c Pr uh. ••�; LAKE , r'O. ..;I: , N RILEY R/LEY• COtlN" •I s •r z 6Af ♦ t • u; HWL 884 �,'s _(_\ NWL 13'6 J t♦♦,'e = • • 1 4AF WL 839 ,• /: X11 ,. /mot 8,/1 NWL 900 '� f1 •••..fis.�1`I • , ��11, F ti I 1` .;_� HWL 902 t '• I••\� r Z t/\ �� 15AF •i,„ 0 1" A ,~•NWF87 : ! ; NWL 8/4 ,��1� t.1 ��'• ,L 880¢ ,1.•: r••• I ■/ \ r SIMI III i ♦o' \\ 11 \\ OPO iii."11841111:4"-,,IP)7.t--' .. i. k se. KEY <'� 4144[►l► C_.J POND PIPE MW�ESOTq[ta J(�tt,�,.ltt►t•ltt; t�%. �/ gAF• STORAGE /*. / NWL NORMAL • \ WATER LEVEL �,t►I• \' HWL HIGH ''/ U.S. I. i WATER LEVEL . F.M. FORCEMAIN SCIIIE IM s _ MWY t 1 NO. o soo /000 '°°° 189 DRAINAGE SYSTEM THE BRAUER GROUP,INC. BENSHOGFaASSOC..INC. 1 SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE ji FIGURE 10 ' HANSEN THORP PELLiNEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING `SON 1"r STUDY �. I DEC 1988 DRAINAGE YSTEM - Figure S 10 irr Figure 10 shows the schematic layout of the fully developed drainage system. The system shown is generally consistent with the City's Comprehensive Drainage Plan and tY P g a d its updates. An attempt has been made to provide for stormwater detention in existing low Iareas where possible. Such detention areas will minimize the amount and size of storm sewer piping needed to serve the area. In certain cases protection of existing wetlands and trees was also a design factor. In areas where large storm sewers are indicated, additional stormwater detention areas may allow pipe size reductions. The feasibility of such detention should be investigated at the time ' of development planning. 35 .. tit_ ..., .:.‘ ' -71 1 — , • ..• t — e J s• v. --"1,2-• N! . eon L"pe� _• rte..1- ''' ; ;n` [✓ •.-•::F �-a.: / r.� - `� � _ f S \744.a 11, ...,'166 ,Zi '" II.' '■ . ; ,....i.j \ ‘,‘_‘„.---.7\71 ,711--,-, , . , . , i.: ,.i,. : . • ,. , , ,,,, ��i. ,4',., • V •� I i 5 T it 1 - -1-14"\N, \ ....-•••4; ozV % -..k.,- S' -.•• • g Vi• e. .- tr 7.t a l i u L �o w r ..-.•--L_„' I'1 ' \ ..is l � + if 1 �`1��\� a..• J i ,c,,,,,,,;\ ...:::::::::::::::...„\ ...„:„.?....:: N. _ ± .... • ..‘„>3.-. „:::,.:?:::::::*,:gm..;:* ..4::.::-.::i:.: -J,- -17,-,,,,i ,_,....... ...:.::::: .,,,„:., , ri,..., . i r. r" t 1 oue ar • L L 8 J .t fi • :•fk _ �w i ..\___,. 0._-i ..iff• LEGEND I ,I \ PRIMARY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AREA r, ::> ""`'i'i`" / SECONDARY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AREA I IL 0 4000' Approx lea t• Scale II ROADWAY • SYSTEM (COMPONENTS] THE BRAUER GROUP,INC. BEOLSON.ON.INC.8ASSOC.,INC. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE 'SURE Jn ) 1 HANSEN THORP PELLIHEN DEVELOPMENT P H A S I N O OLS STUDY Q will • I ROADWAY SYSTEM OVERVIEW - Figure 11 Figure 11 presents the traffic analysis areas and identifies the three principal components utilized in the traffic forecasting and analysis process. These components consist of the primary and secondary traffic analysis areas and the remaining contributing area outside the study area. A detailed discussion of the traffic forecasting methodology and assumptions is contained in Appendix A. (Note that for study purposes the traffic analysis areas are different than the Development Phasing Area and Additional Full Development Study Area shown in Figures 1 and 2. For example,the primary traffic analysis area includes the Development ' Phasing Area plus all other land north of County Highway 1, west of County Highway 4, south of State Highway 5 and east of the county line). The primary traffic analysis area is generally bounded by State Highway 5, County Highway 1, County Highway 4 and the western Eden Prairie boundary. The transportation analysis focused on the roadway needs within this area, and a computer model for traffic forecasting ' was developed for the principal roadways serving this primary analysis area. The secondary traffic analysis area lies south of County Highway 1. Many of the trips associated with this area, which has significant development potential, will utilize roadways within the primary analysis area. As such, traffic from this area needs to be considered to determine ultimate roadway needs in the primary analysis area. The remaining metropolitan area outside the primary and secondary traffic analysis areas will also contribute trips to the primary analysis area roadway system. These are in essence considered through trips. The traffic forecasts for these trips were adapted from previous traffic forecasts prepared for U.S. Highway 212 and for the City of Chanhassen. For the full development condition, the traffic analysis focused on resolving two principal issues. First was the need to identify the primary roadway system intended to serve southwestern Eden Prairie and to functionally classify these primary roadways. Second was the investigation of the need and desirability of an interchange at Dell Road and U.S. Highway 212 and, if needed, the conceptual configuration of the interchange. • 37 G. 0 o a r i J 1 . p IL to i; STATE ,A� HWY NO S �� —_Jl 7/ 1�--___ � O Q L Z ..c.+.o• MITCHELL Q.I . 13 N ••••CIT♦Of rot.,_11 •,•,[ •••.••. alliE/7• 1 • O S LAKE S NIC A• 1 R/CE s MARSH A LAKE 1 MN ) am Qi(6 P i RED \ \ ROCK i 1 • • i . �, LAKE.e. ,..1 1 Qle t... t O t ,s Y ( W •l9rF Arili a • PIONEER : Or••_+ Ao _ — rRA,C •LAKE ra c ••••t• mr • 4 : •�' .. O I i V • / • ttl [ 1 I \ O \\ I \1 POP I __ \ \ Qp�NG ,„y���� / �� I 5 ■ I \� t LEGEND 1 O EXISTING INTERSECTION LOCATION ��� ` �� CONCEPTUAL INTERSECTION LOCATION '' U.S. SCALE iN EEET kWY 1 NO. ■ ' CZir— �o soo woo ztwo 161�_ ROADWAY NETWORK I THE BRAUER GROUP, . SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE i F'G '2 BENSHOOF i.ASSOC.,OC.,IN INC. HANSEN THORP PELLINEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY = ea t OISON,INC. — I i ROADWAY NETWORK - Figure 12 Figure re 12 presents r g the principal roadway network utilized for the computer model and analysis of area roadway needs. As can be noted, certain intersection and roadway locations are generally fixed (for example, State Highway 5/Dell Road or Dell Road/County Highway 1). I Using these fixed locations, a primary roadway network was developed for this analysis area based upon such transportation planning principles as the provision of roadway continuity and appropriate spacing of major routes and intersections. The roadways shown inside the I primary analysis area are conceptual in nature;the intent is to show basic roadway linkages, not specific intersections or roadway alignments. II I t II • I t I L I 39 1 ' o a a �, 11 W J 1 _ '�o STATE 1= NWY ---j` -.NO. _ g -r.-.._-�-w i _ .,.E .► 'C 3 "_ 7 -_JL.-_ .!� .�,■I r\-�ti,E,f ,rte �, ` 4 MITCHELL I > 1 iln......,......... 11‘.. ......••", rr,..•••••■• •••• •• . 1 °. ../ .. 11 s 1 .� 2 /�/ I L ` LAKE - r °• ; ` —._._—- / ,------\N--,---___ _ S NIC /..........■■•...m. /"..r.:r-4„ Fi A, 88 lz I RICE II t if 6 �. 1 MARSH '; �� �,_ I LAKE - i' " II G�:,8A ,,,....E _ _ _ - -7 � � � ► ' 12///- ,i9 �� 15 RED II \ 1: 11 " / / / / I/ 14 r — —•�• ROCK I 10 t- .iç 13 %1 �/ 1 s .�,/ — "7'�e_ — , --� LAKE 1 1� �� ��i \ leer/21 ���I -'T- 1 _'c I1 22 / /� 1 II 11 r �i?� 11 * 1 /.�( 11 1118 I1 17 ∎ Q I I ( 23 I 1 �/%�1 �// Ii 20 I I II ILL_- -J W al r 1` l9�cc I �'��� , , 19 1 I p�ONEER— a . ,� 27 J V■ L .e I / `. ^ 3► TRAi� D r :: LAKE VI; 1/4: 26/ / / iEi 1 m �./:/ 41 // ,,/„.1r, :.: II • ..,. ek., 1 u1°. RILE r .? 25 E< 1�°�4 00 A •'•yam •• ti r / v .. ��111 sa �, .. , rl II �1 /I\��� I ii /.:/ IF ,,. . 1 00 /le -/<, 0, .. , i..It; ,..0.- ,,,, 0 --,, .. -:......- ,x .., B r \',, ,\ ' `\ I� \ 1 �,POpO It ��� _A / l/, SQ A I •I A I , II (.� 1 �-�_-- II \,,‘ %/ U.S. �� ✓7S�IE IN FEET HPOP ��� N R. O. ./ o 300 /o00 - =000 169 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUB-ZONES It. THE BENSHOUERGROOC.,IN. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE BENSMOOF 8 ASSOC.,INC. F I6URE 13 MANSENTNORPPEIIINEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING OLSON.INC. STUDY = 988 ii. 1 i TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUB-ZONES - Figure 13 Figure 13 presents the sub-zones into which the study area was divided for traffic forecasting purposes. These sub-zone delineations are necessary to allow accurate forecasting of turn r movements and daily volumes on various links of the roadway system. The boundaries of these sub-zones generally follow logical division lines such as U.S. Highway 212 or the MUSA line. Specific land use statistics (type and size) for each sub-zone were then s .determined based upon the land use plan and overall development statistics presented with Figure 3. ii • • 41 0 tc y o °a 37,000-39,000 . ¢ I (41,000-43,000) W �I G tu , l 57 ATE 112 HWY i�NO, s !;7"-----":::=7-11 4/ IL.._-___ - / ///j--1 \- 18,000-20,000 z'2,500-3,500 (18,000-20,000) \` 17,000-19,000 • (19,000-21,000), (2,500-3,000) U k1,17'[.r o•io[■•k.•[ r. S LAKE 1 S NIC 2,500-3 500 H R A �1 S 2,500-3,500 rrrr'"' IT--- D S (2,500-3,500) JRICE 17,500-19,500 . [ MARSH (13,500-15,000) 45,000-48,000 20,000-22,000 LAKE ��,�,� (34,000-37,000) (26,000-29,000) L TH 212 \ /D RED L-9,000-11,000 (\....15/C 1! \ N ! r"---- -- L.7,500-8,500 (14,500-16,500) \ 17,000-19,000 (12,500-14,500) ROCK ■ (13,500-15,500) • • Il. �1 1 ,-.10,500-12,500 2,500-3,500 LAKE iii P`(8,000-9,000) (2,500-3,500) II i P A •' 5,500-6,500 1 14,000-16,000 l'¢ Er c (5,500-6,500) 1,500-2,500 (17,500-19,500) 1-,,,- 1+ tqf� (1,500-2,500) �itac • PIONEER 1;a 9 /... 8,500-10,500 t D o (7,000-8,000)____ r z Rqi� I " LAKE 'o 8,000-10,000 W ; _�; 2 %��•; I 1 (11,500-13,500) „°,/ •''••..• =" •••.• : 6,500-8,500 ice'- / �i. RILEY gyp. •••.• \ it .6 ■e% ••� .`s*t.. (10,500-12,500) .� d FL i J :i COVNSY_ �.� '.1.0 o �: Z•YV --'� ;• 3 • / �• [ / 3,000-4,000 ra...01,47.0.2%.\ :if Z'l `t !' (4,000-5,000) I 1 'o \ o I ■ / i1 \\ 0 1 i \ ril .,. i\ \_ ? 1 I ..._.... ...e.,_-... �-1 \ SN tow\..-_ xx - Volumes with Dell Road Interchange (xx) - Volumes without Dell Road Interchan /'/ u.s. e�)\ SCAIE IN i . Hwy NO. 0 900 tow =p00 1Be YEAR 2005 DAILY VOLUMES THE INC. L FIGURE GU2E 14 SENSHO OF&AS SOC.,INC. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE HAOSEN THORP PELLINEN DEVELOPMENT P H A S I N G ISON INC. STUDY 1g • I YEAR 2005 DAILY VOLUMES - Figure 14 Figure 14 presents the year 2005 daily forecasts both with and without an interchange at Dell I Road and U.S. Highway 212. In reviewing the traffic forecasts it is important to note that uncle' either roadway system scenario (with or without the interchange), high traffic volumes are expected on the main area roadways. These high volumes result both from the large amount of development expected in the area and from the principal orientation of the majority of trips ! to and from the north and northeast given the regional location of the study area. Traffic forecasts consisted of year 2005 through traffic and full development of the primary and secondary traffic analysis areas. The traffic forecasting methodology consisted of several principal steps. First, the trip generation characteristics of the land uses for each sub-zone were calculated 1 based upon trip rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip distribution was calculated based upon the Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Department of Transportation regional traffic forecasts as well as the previously noted U.S. Highway 212 and Chanhassen forecasts. • ( Using these trip generation and trip distribution assumptions, the computer model was utilized to assign analysis area trips to the identified roadway network. These forecasts accounted for alternative and multiple routing choices (dependent upon access opportunities available for each subzone), internal trips (between two subzones) and intercepted trips. Finally, through trips from outside the analysis area were added to the analysis area forecasts 1 to determine traffic volumes which account for all trips using area roadways. • L _ L L L L MM1 43 • � cc W O r , 1 �� 37,000-39,000 1s If o I� E HWY• „ NO.- ,fl___ // I. o ,a 1 E 18,0 00-20,000 MITCHELL _ > • 17000-19, 000 / ii / . ..iul.r. r a tK. 1 I : O Interchange recommended as 1 = " • Full Dell movement interchanges - ..NIC folded diamond design lo- - at Oel l Roadl and at C.R. 4 ' .`�.. R.•. -" cated approximately one ` rpft3C--- -- �fl mile west of CR. 4 per 45,000-48,000 �� ��`\ MNDOT design standards. aill ' 20,moo RE 000 ° � • RED C�SZJ 17,000-19,000 • 9,000-11,000 ROCK _ 1 • I / LAKE_ l....l .0'.. ` L < o FY ` 5,500-6,500 14,000-,16,00`0 = W �q� ..... 8,500-10,500 ✓ a L F PIONEER 0. r , -----�;I iI11T11I 5 •TRA1� 0 LAKE r ,��1 ( o '••.. �� G 1 1 , W:• ,•.......... L •;1; _` 8,000-10.000 �•'•••. ui. RILEY P' • INN\ : I- 1 t �.iw.l4ih.�•Y•, .t _• 1 \ /• I oo 5 • V . ` ' N. o Legend: 1111111,,,,,,. �■ Collector lector �` m• \� IIIIIJI11III11 Minor Arterial 11111111111111 Major Arterial \ Qp�M6 r 5 \�- xx - Selected daily volumes on preferred roadway system '/ L r SCatt IN FEET kK'Y 1 - I- U.S. N0. I o—"100 1000 3000 169 — RECOMMEND • FUNCTIONAL LASSIF1CATI• L THE EBENSHO F&ASSOC.. N. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE it F16l�tE 16 , eENSHOOF d ASOC.,INC. HANSENTHORPPE�LINEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY OLSON INC. 88-036 °EC 88 1 ii_. . , RECOMMENDED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION - Figure 16 Figure 16 shows the Recommended Functional Classification for the preferred full development roadway system. The interchange at Dell Road and U.S. Highway 212 is identified. Functional classifications include the designation of Dell Road as a minor arterial roadway based on its function and traffic volumes, and the extension of Scenic Heights Road as a collector roadway. It is reiterated that ultimate specific roadway alignments and intersection locations are not depicted on this graphic. The figure is intended to demonstrate the primary roadway system which will be needed to adequately serve southwestern Eden Prairie. It depicts the key system elements such as roadway continuity and principal intersections and interchanges II which should guide the ultimate roadway and transportation system design. For example, Scenic Heights Road is shown as a continuous road through its intersections with County Highway 4 and Dell Road, the preferred alignment concept for a collector roadway of this type. Full development of the area will consist of both this primary roadway system and numerous local roadways which are not depicted on Figure 16. It is expected that the location, design ill and alignments of local roadways will be planned within the framework of the recommended primary roadway system and in accordance with normal transportation planning criteria. I III I a • p 47 I 1 T• " El D .1 E i E L , f pI I Ei N T ' P , H I SI NI G L 1:!L L P o i L P • L s i � 1 1 t cc I o 7. 4 © 4. I C STATE::::; 1tW1f Np ., •�. . :c enr of __ I I/IM7TCHELL I�>• /�' I 7 O I v 1 /AKE �' (1 ' ' , u / (� 2 w �� I SCENIC _ I I :R• ���l — x�_ HTS ROADIt\ V� 1 1 .1 ,„ PARK O ` `' /if ✓� C MARSH <f. // i ����' 3 LAKE ' .� :''i I �� 1 :: O P I •j:•'•'�'• —REO/,ROCK INTERCE��R /,,,�.�S�ti�,�`•�• 212 L 11 .»._.._ �,„ .•.. Q�_� FUTURE HWY NO .... _ �.w.-- ... .,::r....,.... \ .' ''.;::::<:V -lib' RED ���� I o ,:/ � •:`: y'` .,"-. : ROCK I II t ■�� I ��' '�� I) LAKE c \ 2AB I�j ' • I L_ ..:: >_ -, I C I Iit� SCHOOL �0 ^ Q\ ��R,`fr ^!q ( Ill fllr J P RK i ,........:::':......4.... :.; ' :➢K3NEER: :;:: c: ::..a4 c i o 1,::?:. 3 ow- LAKE o I o ' ✓' : :i: ;;.:;::'. fir:. r: ::;,.:o:: -•.•. i vti�+:;� I ..�•�.7 Wit. R/LEY 14,v, • i' ;;•,..\ rc\N‘V. .......\\._...._.N.e 0 I I 1 tr••■====• .:."'••••••• Q •`j�i \ CC \> L N. \ J t ■ O L\\ `\ (..,,J I i ....., P-0 \ , �� r NOTE; SEE FACING PAGE \ �'� \ e / FOR DESCRIPTION OF i CONSTRAINTS & I i PARAMETERS BY NUMBER. I t � � 1-----. --- -- -- U.S. �, y—_ t SC�L[ IM FFET kty" NO• 1 I y' o S 0 i000 Lobo 169 CONSTRAINTS / & PARAMETERS THE BRAUER GROUP,INC. I BENSHOOF& ASSOC.,INC. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE it F ' t7 ) L HANSEN THORP PELLINEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING OLSON.INC STUDY 1 , FDEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS & PARAMETERS - Figure 17 ' Figure 17 illustrates development phasing constraints and parameters for the study area, with circled numbers in the figure corresponding to the following numbered paragraphs. (Numbers I 1 in rectangles on Figure 17 identify sub-areas referenced below and outlined in dashed lines on the figure. See also Figure 19): I 1. Extension of trunk water main from the existing main on County Highway 4 north of the railroad, to the existing and programmed extension of the main on County Highway 1 near the airport, is prerequisite to any development in sub-area 1 B. I 2. No more than 100 lots each should be permitted in sub-areas 1A and 1B prior to completion of currently programmed improvements to the Hwy. 4/Hwy.•5 intersection. I I 3. Extension of water main along State Highway 5 and north on Dell Road to existing trunk main from water tower should be prerequisite to any development in sub-area 1 A west of I Mitchell Lake. • 4. Improvement of the Dell Road intersection with State Highway 5 should be prerequisite to I any grading and construction in that part of sub-area 1A west of Mitchell Lake. 5. Improvement of the Heritage Road intersection with State Highway 5 should be I I prerequisite to any development in that part of sub-area 1A north of Mitchell Lake. I 6. Construction of Scenic Heights Road west of County Highway 4 to the north-south road I through the Fairfield development and improvements to intersections on County Highway 4 are necessary after 100 lots are developed in sub-area 1 B. 7. No more than 250 lots should be permitted in sub-area 1A until a looped roadway connection is completed between County Highway 4 and State Highway 5. However, this connection may need to be deferred until Co. Hwy. 4 is upgraded if traffic analyses at the time I 1 indicate that the connection would cause significant negative impacts on Co. Hwy. 4. 1_ 8. Interim or permanent improvement to the intersection of County Highway 1 and Dell Road II should be made in conjunction with development of sub-area 3. 1_ 9. County Highway 4 will need to be upgraded to four lanes from Scenic Heights Road to I State Highway 5 by the end of 1991. 10. Interim or permanent improvements to intersections along County Highway 1 should be I made in conjunction with development in sub-area 2B. I_ 11. Extension of sanitary sewer from Red Rock Interceptor and installation of a lift station nea"! Riley Creek is prerequisite to development in most of sub-area 2B. I_ 12. County Highway 4 will need to be upgraded to four lanes from County Highway 1 to State I Highway 5 prior to development of approximately 1700 lots within the MUSA. 13. improvements 4/Hwy. 5 intersection (as shown in Appendix Figure , L. 13 Additional imrovements at the H 4 endix P ure 9 B-2) will be needed prior to development of approximately 1700 lots within the MUSA. These L improvements may not be required if Highway 212 is constructed before that time. I 51 I 0 M < i I aI r W II ,-- STATE iWY NO. S II Lir 1'�' II °z Presently planned upgrading Temporary Improvements MITCHELL will not adequately needed in conjunction 3 accommodate traffic volume s with initial development giC :'': 7 projections that include full I I to south. See Appendix ! development within MUSA. t LAKE o See Appendix for potential upgrading. Upgrading of T.H. 5 ° r to four lane divided �. RICE standard, as currrent ly t li E — MARSH 1 I anned. LAKE z I l Improvements needed Q in vicinity of Scenic ` II k Heights Rd. for RED ` intersection geometrics J (�� \ and traffic control. 1 • 1 , See Appendix . � .1 P� Upgrading needed to i P��';.' four lanes. 11 C I o : PIONEER a / i LAKE o c• ...•Ntk 1 • -r------- w e. .1: RILEY ••. N°• �.•'• [Iiiiiiiliji...� ... <., L .. coUtt•t., •, i II Y Y • . _3 Potential upgrading of •• ►•• ••• �•••• z L II intersection in conjunction _ 1(// o' C 0 with construction of Dell Rd. �� s 12.1121.11., \ [_ ` \k.. .,.,..: O u � e a I 1141 \ L - ` / \ 004 / 1 ' 1 RECOMMENUE ROADWAY u.s. i MPROVEMENT I ` lCAIF IM •[Ft Hwy ON j° 3Op 1000 No. gee PERIMETER i000 OF L............I THE BRACER GROUP,INC. _STt1DY AREA BENSHOOF i ASSOC.,INC. RN" "ORP 'NEN [ DSEOvt H P T -UDY I 1 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TO PERIMETER ROADWAYS - Figure 18 Figure 18 presents recommended improvements to roadways on the perimeter of the study area. The ability of these roadways to accommodate study area traffic significantly affects I development phasing, particularly in the near future. A detailed discussion of the analysis of the perimeter roadways is contained in Appendix B. The key perimeter roadways are State Highway 5 and County Highway 4. The analysis indicates that improvements will be necessary to both of these roadways in conjunction with development of the study area. The intersection of Highways 5 and 4 is proposed to be upgraded in 1989 and 1990, with the remaining segment west to Chanhassen currently scheduled for completion by 1991. There are currently no plans for upgrading County Highway 4 other than at the Highway 5 intersection. I Principal findings of the analysis concerning State Highway 5 include: - The intersection with County Highway 4 is currently operating at a level of service F. In order, 1 to avoid a noticeable worsening of traffic operations at this intersection, no more than eta 200 lots in the study area should be platted prior to the 1989/1990 improvements. , - The currently planned improvements at the County Highway 4 inter y g y intersection will not be sufficient to accommodate full development within the MUSA. Additional improvements will be, required when the area within the MUSA has about 1700 lots. - Temporary improvements at State Highway 5 and Dell Road will be required if initial 1 1 development occurs in this area prior to the scheduled upgrading. There would be no City cost participation in non-salvagable improvements. 1. Principal findings concerning County Highway 4 include: - Existing traffic volumes on County Highway 4 warrant upgrading the roadway to four lanes I and intersection improvements at Scenic Heights Road. - Initial upgrading on Highway 4 should include improvements from the new Scenic Heights I Road intersection north to State Highway 5, including provisions for intersection improvements and appropriate traffic control at both the new (west) and existing (east) legs of Scenic Height Road. The capital improvement program to be developed by the county in 1989 will address the timing of improvements between State Highway 5 and County Highway 1. L L 1 L53 1 • 1 i t 1 1 O 0 a . 4 s: o I I X11 w Il STATE H W y N0. S c,..OF ew• M/TCNELL � \\ s CI // ,_ ,---7?-741---- I tt PQs• :• . LAKE L> chi • ::•�..:'. , .;;.:......,; r C�= z_i SCENIC 11 r• �.�r I PARK ,� r--�' I`' 'I I ::•:iII'�:f::::�:••..• • -OCKIHTERCEPT'._111./.41.104 I RED f� I :• `. : : :' ::-.:;• \ ROCK 1) 4�. / ' t L AK cj II J It)/ :i:::'r:.5 .• G : SCHOOL 1 ^ \a 1../ ��—>lo )! : r---J:•: •�: ::::; .;' •::'..:i : ;:>:_•I :: r . : I PARK :•:••••••••••:..-i..•:•:•.: CO PION ER n) � ` $ r: t: rl '•••• ::e 1 5 F 1 4: J v /1.:::::::::::::i.:I:..1:i.:::1.:::::::.'....::::::i::::11 i 1z I I_ > .• izz:::.:::::::::::-:.:::.:-..::............,.. f3:' i„ .,-:::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. 1 :ii.::.:::.,.::::-:,:mi.i:::::::::::::::i. ,........::,-.,:... -.......:.:::::-..:7:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::„.:::::::::::::: ::::„... : •.: ,.. z WA....::::".:::,::::::::::.::::::::::'::::.::::::::::::::::I ,0 L ti :�D ij•: C :1: , .::,..:......:..... ..„..........:...........:......„.....:„....:.:::.g..1.:.::::::::w:4:,..z.:.:.:.:.:.:....::.::....:.:.:....:...c..:.:......:.:.:.:.:::....:.:....:.:.:..:.:.:.:.:::.::::tx.:.:.. :ii....:.:.:.:.:..:.:.:.:.:......:.:.:.:.:....:.:.::.:.....:.:.:.:......:.......:.:.:.....:.:....:.:.:.:..„.:.:.:.::::::::.:.:....: 1 :t. L •.Y• ::J t :•D 1•: • ..... ...... ..... :J 1::::::.::::.::::::::.::::::::-i:i:: ...:i.::::::::::::::-.....-::.::.:::::::-::::?::::::.::!.. L. ,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i:i:i..i:;:;:::::i.:::*:.:::::::.:ii:::::::iiiiii:.*-i:i::: : ::: ::::::::-...m.::::::::.::::::::::in:ma:....:::i:::.:ini :::::ii:.........:::::::::gn? L .�t I li :I. 1 I: ;.t.. i ': .:.:::' : .: :ly .. . ::::.::..::. .. ......:::::: L ....::>.lrx�r'iM FEEL Y �' •:••.•::::: ,r___7,57........ ,69 0 300 1000 0000 •EVELOPMENT SUB-AREAS THE BRAUER GROUP,INC. SOUTHWESTERN DEN PRAIRIE BENSHOOF i ASSOC..INC. FIGURE GURE 19 , HANSEN pEVELOP O MENT PHASING E OLSON INC STUDY � gal j 1 DEVELOPMENT SUB-AREAS - Figure 19 1 Figure 18 identifies the five major development sub-areas which were defined by the proposed full development infrastructure analyses for the Development Phasing Area. These sub-areas represent the general phasing or sequence that development will need to follow if iti F is to occur in the most orderly and effective manner. Note that only area within the MUSA is considered for phasing. Development outside the MUSA is assumed to occur after these initial phases. I ISub-areas 1A and 1B can develop first, independent of each other. Sub-area 2B can only after infrastructure systems in 1B are completed. Sub-area 2AB is dependent on 1 infrastructure systems in both 1A and 1B and becomes the connecting link between the two initially independent sub-areas. Finally, Sub-area 3 must wait for infrastructure systems in 2AB to be substantially completed. This area also requires a drainage infrastructure that is 1 I mostly outside the MUSA, an additional constraint on development. Note that since Sub-areas 2B and 3 are independent of each other, either could develop before the other. Sub-area 1A requires roadway and watermain extensions from the north, sanitary sewer I extensions from the south and drainage facilities from the ry 9 east. Such multidirectional extensions call for careful planning and coordination among the different developments which, ( may occur in this area. This area is also subject to intersection constraints along State I Highway 5, including the intersection at County Highway 4. This is one of two sub-areas for which a specific limit to initial development is recommended due to the nature of traffic ' Iconstraints, particularly at the intersection of County Highway 4 with State Highway 5. Sub-area 1B is the other sub-area for which a limit to initial development is recommended. 1 I This area is subject to intersection constraints along County Highway 4, including the intersection at State Highway 5. A unique aspect of this sub-area is the planned opening of the Cedar Ridge Elementary School in Fall 1989. This requires completion of infrastructure 1 L systems to the school by that time, with adjacent properties also then open to development. Sub-area 2AB requires the completion of the Cedar Ridge School loop road and completed 1 I_ roadway and water main loops between 1A and 1B before it can support development. Sanitary sewer extensions are needed from the Red Rock Interceptor and Sub-area 1 B. L Drainage facilities are complicated by the outlet extension required to the west outside the 1 MUSA. C Sub-area 2B requires water main from 1B before it can develop. Sanitary sewer is the major I constraint in this area since a lift station is required. A gravity sewer from near Red Rock Lake should be extended as far as possible into the sub-area,minimizing the pumping L requirements of the lift station. The lift station should be designed for'future capacity to the 1 south. LSub-area 3 needs sewer, water and roadway extensions from 2AB before it can develop. 1 Protected wetlands and storm sewer outlets to the west outside the MUSA complicate the drainage system for this area. I L • 1 1 55 1 L I Interim access improvements if access desired to full T.H. 5 upgrade • I Begin at c °i`- ` Future existing a 12" connection 16" main :re 0 J lcrior W J W; 5:ii►2$riHtidY':::::. .• Lo north ��x• •.:-:::: :;ii ; : : I t : � at ':::`:.`•. • /TCHELL :•.. ..�i::;: ::': ::::'M/TCHELL 8 Q 1"::: JNY%.. .1 ;: :• : : ::: Maximum 100 lots ..� : ' : ::: '::LAKE :it'ior to im rovement s `'t.. P ::.•:::•:•:•::•::::.:::....:.:•:::::.::.:::.:...:...` : : :>::'::: LAKE C. R. 4 and T. H. 5 t •' Maximum 250 lots :. .::::::;:-,0••••:•:•:.........;::::!:.......• prior to Dell Rd./ : ::'•r..•••••:.:.:.:...••••:::::::::j::.>:. ::::':: .::•:• : •; .•:)'���: Scenic Heights Rd. :•::•.::::* . .... :..i ..: I,r•. R£DROCK connection '':.--..^•': •`•::•: :.:;•. : :.:•::• ...:... AED ROCK L_i_•>•::::•'. . to i'.r;%•--•. ;y. —>- I ROADWAYS WATERMAIN l i_ ' Future at u extension ° ° ` o north to End m o`II: r Begin g:• s: ::: :•::...:•::... a I lift station Inv 881.5 r existing w- 2 :;..:::::•:: ::;::::•:::'•:..:S3At :Nw.r.: •.:;:::NO `::::::S j \W Inv 870.3 ui • __ter' ., 11 1: •ti w X :s f' _86 .0•IF ::. .. .............. utore•:: ::`::::::5•.• ' M/TCHELL :;:..►•.j ::: .;•.::. n:`•::: : :' ::: ::::::; ,r::;.. :' .«:• M/TCHELL C 7211 •�i∎ki...r;.. "•:•:•> II -:-1:•:::;:::::::.:::::......:: ::: ; :. LAKE • �t:,:..•. •:: :....,.;::: :.::: ••.. LAKE• �. ••:;: ..... .;.: :: Begin at Lake ponds ��::::::::• 1: :'•: InL. ±854.8 :.Nti:::::'•••::.;.:• 1 flow : •:::::::.....::::::.::::::..1'' �'' Pond is extension of " " ipe 1:::::.:':::::::::::::::2::::•:::::.:::::::.:'...-25-.: Mitchell Lake storage :::::::::::::: :::: ; ,,.:::: Interceptor may ite : RED ROCK ; ::' Inv ±848.5 reduction s : •• ,,, :++•.. ED ROCK :: POND lOAF •C`::- -::.::.`''..• r t NWL 870 Im ' 's HWL 874 114 DRAINAGE SANITARY SEWER (note: only critical inverts shown) 1 L L 1 SCALE Iw Feet Note: System locations are shown in concept only. ° iO0 1000 = Actual locations will be determined at time of SUB—AREA• •development planning or feasibility study. IA , N I lENSNOOFTHE BRAVER iASSOC.,GROUPIINCC.. SOUTHWESTERN t FIGURE 20 MANSENTHORGVELLIHEN [ DEVELOPMENT PHASING EDEN PRAIRIE OLSON INC. STUDY o C I rSUMMARY OF PHASING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUB-AREA 1A I 1 ROADWAYS WATER MAIN Initial Development Initial Development . •access via Dell Road south of Hwy. 5 -trunk water main must be extended on north side of Hwy.5 -access improvements at Dell Road/Hwy. 5 require MnDOT from Heritage Road west to Dell Road 1 approval and include a left turn lane from east with no Dell -southerly extensions must be jacked under Hwy. 5 and Road connection to Lake Drive in Chanhassen extended south to points of development -no grading or construction until access upgrading of Hwy. 5/Dell Road or construction of fullturn lanes&signals Future Development I -maximum of 100 lots prior to Hwy. 5/Hwy.4 intersection -design to be determined by needs for looping or pressure upgrade determinations -Heritage Road/Hwy.5 upgrade to provide left turn lane from -extend trunk main north to water tower when needed to balance City-wide distribution system east if access desired prior to planned permanent upgrade I Future Development -lateral water mains should be looped or based on pressure determinations -need to construct Dell Road to Scenic Heights Road when any I one of the following conditions is met: -right-of-way/funding is available -maximum 250 DU west of Mitchell Lake are developed III-majority of right-of-way available •no further arterial roadway improvements required to allow full I development within MUSA DRAINAGE r C SANITARY SEWER Initial Development Jnitial Development -most of area drains to Mitchell Lake, requiring one or both of -begin 15"sewer at Red Rock Interceptor near west edge, the following: Miller Park -construction of major drainage systems • -extend sewer north to Hwy.5 along route determined by beginning at Mitchell Lake,with appropriate development I water quality control measures -sewer must be deep enough at Hwy.5 to continue construction of upstream stormwater detention gravity extension northward ponds to reduce size of downstream facilities -laterals may branch from new main or interceptor •pond indicated on southern end of sub-area is an extension of -area north of Mitchell Lake to be served from east 1 Mitchell Lake storage due to low existing elevation -this pond is not required for storage and may be Future Development modified or eliminated at time of Hwy.212 -service must start at interceptor and progress northward construction -jack trunk sewer under Hwy.5 and extend north to lift st r Future Development -facility design in any area must take into account the entire I L contributing watershed -future extensions west should include watershed area within Chanhassen L I L . 1 + 57 1 L . 1 ... I -'•• .::::.•..•.• ' ' ••.'... .:.:A:r: Maximum 100 lots ••. ...../1-c: . Begin at ,460.' - existing!.........". Primary access :-. .,;•• v."/ in.entire sub-area 16" main .::::2"*"" 1 •.::.;:x•• •11..• ........:/...0.. / Future to Miller ark ?,:,•:... .1:1....,.. / prior to TH 5/ Co. ::-:.:.:•••::::: :::,•-•.../...•...•-• extension i .•::.:;::;...i:V*.*.:•-1.;4.1:::;/ Hwy. 4 upgrade 1RCEI5T FA.:::-.:'-...:Y:'.!:•.,,,;*';',..:k .: I ..4-•-•—•=7::"L":1"<i4.:77 "...'.... -:.444.4... ....s----e:/›..;-: ::;r:;::.:''.:-. / 7 to east :•:-..::.:•••:....2, ....„;.;_•,..-i=. .\6* enCEF:Tof.':•:'::•*:::'•*.••••••••:: :...";. ‘‘‘‘• 1114:11#101:tik.: .:•::•:..."... 1 [ % •• ::*:•:•'\.li::•.::;:;:;::.1:.;: ::./..::.::::::•:•:-••••• •••••:.-...**k I..- • :•:::-:-......:- • ::.:•• :•: •••••:. .-• R E D •• .:•:•:-:•:-::.-•.:-•-::.:.:-:.::•:.•i.o..k • .•:•:•::,.:-:•:•.•:...•:-,4::::- .::::i•:•■■,-;j• R E 12 I /1::::.:::..:...::...:v: :::i. .. •:::.::::::::::: .........n - ... Rock [ :•...:..;:;:ii.iiiiW..:::::::::;::. ROCKC\.. ::::::::::;:;:::: .:.:::::•:":. .4..-::.::.::::-::*:•:•::•::::-N." q •::::••••••:.:.:::::•::.-::::•::::...........„,„,.. ...... ........ , :::::::::•:........... . ::-..,... . ..,*"..e._. I ".±m.:••••::.:::•-•:-:•:•:•:•-•:-:.•:::::::::•::::: ..::.: -...,.•.... '4.6. "'See text •*:::::*::::•.. •:. •Plii•44..r-—, 1.i i.,;,(9•• •..:i:.:::•:i:i:::::::*:::::::::::* - , Future •••••!:// •'-'•-:•••••:::- ,'.*•.* ....01-•-.- 10 LAKE *::•:-:•::::for !further *•:icti. :'"•: ----..., looped .47:5.:7.:.../. .:::•:::::, .;.:.c ..-i------ i :00.4:et;c4r.n.rne.n dations-- ) 1 ., =. .....:•.:.::.:::1:::::;: .:Jr7:.<.;.:•::':-:••:: .g.-. ::....:::::ii-...:....:.4:::::..... 44-:,:.t.ce. •••••:.1.:.,:A1•:-:•:•-:•:•:1:•:•:.:14(git.• ..• ... extensions .-1::,::::..::.-•-,::..:.'..::..1.,11,,,,,-N. :.:.•4-;.,.. 7-*--- to west Ti•itil1:16E-::1.:;:: .::::::i:i::::::::i::'- ./ •-•:::•.:-. :-::•14.•s.q.-1•:••••••••.^..w....:•:**4-4"1.::)• ' •1/--- 1..:::::••:•:-:-::::- ft, `'S,,:i:f::::::•.:*0.4:a*.*--' '•• .. .,•-••-•.:.::•:•••••••:•••:-:•:::4:4• ••••••;;.:•;4:::.I.Lii•• 11:••••!. ..,t.'.7:::::::::-...::::C4'.. :;44:;•;:'.441::-, 1 _,..•-ii.,,::•.:.:::-:-..:::::::.::•:•-•.:-..:::::.:::.:::.7.....:.:.:.::ia.:. 1: ••....",‘••....:...........:-:-:...:.r! ...c.-:- I : . .:::::::.•::.:.* ::::::::.: I... :=.:::*::.::•.*..::.. ' -----"...,..„.;.,4i.*:. r-7 ...,.,,,...„ .........::::::.: :•:... ,, ,.........-- •*.:..:..., :71,4 .: .:•:.:.....:::::::::„..:.:•„:„...:.:.•".....: ii.... •"•,.... 12„ :..:.:.• .:::•.:.:: . . .. ..:•:„4::::12 u 1 11-1-14": ; 4011, . 4ka ....°.!! ,..■.:' . ... • 44fiinnect to I ROADWAYS ? ,.. •.!: ,.. . . •• ,.., WATER MAIN , 1 I ..-............ •••••:-:-•::•••.•:-::-:•. Connect to existing Existing :;:;:.i.::i:::::::*:::,.:-":.,• storm sewer Pond ;:i:;:i:i::;.::::1:Ly ...:::::::•::10.:4..,, . %. -.:-::y..,.'. .:*:':':•••:.■••4■1 *•'-:•'/:•lReroute existing Lift Station ':**:**•'::!■■7.1 :::7 ::e.," .:.:.:..::. :;::!.. .. ,./.:......::.,/ t,PgiNi.D86,GAF ; ff to interceptor' •/: i.:* v 1 + N■ ::::::.• • . •:::/....;,-:4;t1/ Interim portable pump ...70r.;:‘,.. .::::.::-.:•.::::::.:.:.:..: :.::•:::: \\. ..:..;, .-. :-k-.:-:::::. , . .7.7,...?....-4.. . . ..:Av station until need for ------ ....:••:;.: : •.•: .,./...,74/1:%. .• . -0ND OF fu gravity system 1 ••• RED . • ..;:;:;:s,::::?;:;::-::::::::."S.:- I.; 4,..4f.y,,,:. ...: .:, NWL 862 Future 36" connection.- . 841.2 :::.-1 - .:...;•::•::•..\::: --) f r `HWL 8641 7_ to Red Rock Lake to . -::::.:•.:::., .§L:. InV,\ ----\ ROCK [ kFuture .•-':::•. -- '7•-*,:'..s... .\.• ' be built if existing • :::::::::*-:744,,7.:.•: :-.,-±83\1k\i\.) • ,,---•-..:•:-...;.N.. .i. . extensions .■,.... ::•i:?:i;:*:•::::::.• 0 :•is:,. drainage swale is .ii;.:••.:: ::. .;:if::;:;::::..: •:- 1 '`..N.: ...:-:::::..i,::i.•i•- ..101:k. .. .. irliadequale.... c \._ ,...... .;,:„*„,,':':::.:•; NA:‘ : '::.••:44fi7:i.-- 360 0 * :•.•. • ••:::::::::::.:•:::::::::::?••••. *.::: 1. ■ . •••• LAKE •::.:1;:.t.::---la'..rt•-•7-o:. -:::•: .:Welt tti I i .;:-..::.:7Mi:K:.iiii:.iii:i:...ii..;..:$14.t%..:: •-::------' . I.• :::::. . ••••••.• 1 1 ii . .:•::::::1::;. .-.".--.-__,-. •::::::17A::: 1 \ Iiii:ip0i,::;f:;iiiii:;:i:;:•• ......:.;:;:;:;:ii;:i.':.;C•:: 1 7.... ". I 16" ,t\ ); 0-.•:??:!:11:'::::.• :::::::::::::::•.1:'4E 31.*%\v• r.,A ..:.:•:•:-:•:i.••••••::-:.:1:•:...:•,;;:;;;4::::::4 D 1 AZ--- i 1:?:;;;i::;.:94-■:-:::::: :::: .:.:.*i:it■•■:;:4::.:L•• .*- ' 1:44*-: .:*i.:::.:.:1:' —:.:1_::.:...:ii::::i: ...7 Futiure 1,4.:„.:i:i:::::14...1.1...*:*:•*:?:::Cfe!;L:"::•: •1:,;: • L i 1,11-::::-7 130-N D 26 ;•;•?-• *•i*;-:;.•,..til• ,.-.:.::::::::::::::::::•:-:-. -....,:-::::4::44.• ••:.:.---. :.--•••. t Future "fre, ::ii. NWL 853 :::::::::::::::•:::: -• 1::•:•:•:•:•:.:•:•:•:•:•:-:.:•:::::::•:.:::-:•:-:•:::.*:::::::*:::' •1-:•• I ex tension '..7::::: HWL 858 PION N.::.:::.::::'::-it• rr..7 0:: :•: ::: ,coft::::::: :.. ..:::: ii.1::.:..........,..,.., .. .:.:::...:-.... :-.• ii.:::::::::::„..,..„.._,........._,,,,64. ,••...:. , — . .. . .„ optional il-----.,.;----------1r i-•::::1•:*.;„......14„ : •-::-:-.'.1..4,.. C7 __:..„...----h rz-,,,......„:.. :::::•:.. .. ponds may '''''!•,...t.4 :illow pipe II Mreduction DRAINAGE ••••••!:!:,:i........ ....:.:4!.:. . •-:::::::::: , SANITARY SEWER ,L (note: only critical inverts shown) I ‘..11 I- lI ,,.._..... m- o SOO 1000 2000 Note: Syste locations are shown In concept only. Actual locations will be determined at time of development planning or feasibility study. [ SUB—AREA 1B L • aTEHNE:HR0,0uFERAGARsosuopc....NINcc.. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE ( FIGURE 21 I HANSEN THORP PELLINEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY =2 OlSoN.INC I I SUMMARY OF PHASING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUB-AREA 1B I F 1 ROADWAYS WATER MAIN Jnitial Development Initial Development 1 I -school with access to Co. Hwy. 1 -trunk water main must be extended south from the north side o -supplemental emergency.access for school through Miller Park adjacent development -southerly extension must take into account future Hwy 212 •residential areas with access to Co. Hwy.4 and/or Co. Hwy. 1 crossing and jacked extensions east under Co. Hwy. 4 to s e F -maximum of 100 lots until Hwy. 5/Co.Hwy.4 intersection is the west side of Red Rock Lake upgraded -a water main loop should be routed near the school site for maximum fire protection 1 Future Development •trunk main should be extended south to Co.Hwy 1 and -in conjunction with Phase 2 of Fairfield development,construct looped east to connect to planned trunk main extension from Scenic Heights Road west of Co. Hwy.4 and construct east, primarily to provide better fire protection to the school, north-south street to link Scenic Heights Road with Phase 1 I development in Fairfield Future Development -extend Scenic Heights Road west to provide access to Miller -design to be determined by needs for looping or pressure Park and develop this as major park access determinations I -construct north-south public roadway on west side of school -extend trunk main west along Co. Hwy. 1 ( site between Fairfield development and Co. Hwy. 1 when any of the following conditions is met: -extend trunk main east to connect with existing trunk main in Scenic Heights Road when needed to balance City-wide -improved access needed for school distribution system -access needed for Fairfield development -lateral water mains should be looped or based on pressur I -property west of school is ready to develop determinations I 1 DRAINAGE SANITARY SEWER 1.. Initial Development Jnitial Development -several detention ponds with associated outlets should be -serve school from east through planned developments constructed in the area,typically using existing low areas for -begin 12"sewer at Red Rock interceptor storage -extend 12"sewer south to northwest corner of school sit lc L •pond water levels and outlet sizes may need some route determined by development adjustment at time of development to account for existing • 12"sewer must be deep enough near school to continue ground water levels and/or tree preservation gravity extension westward 1._ -outlet for pond east of school should extend to east side of Co. .laterals may branch from new main or interceptor Hwy.4 to manhole serving as portable pump station -reroute flow at lift station north of Miller Park to provide gravy flow south to interceptor I Future Development 1... . -facility design in any area must take into account the entire Future Development contributing watershed -service must start at interceptor sewer -future extensions south and west may be reduced in size with the construction of additional ponds along the major drainage 1._ ways •storm sewer extension east to Red Rock Lake to occur when existing drainage swale proves inadequate or when adjacent I Lproperty is subdivided • 1 1 1 59 1 L t I MITCHELL MITCHELL ._ ,_ I LAKE LAKE . :I.'... : .• ROADWAYS .........*:-....... WATER MAIN ...... ••••••• ••• ,... :..... •: .:.........-...i>4. PA :- r .••• •:•.. •..••.. ontinuous alignment I referred for Scenic eights Road. .• :*-:::::::'.......:....*•::::-X:1 ..:::::: ..%. ...".:4:;: i- .•••...• •••••-••••.•••••... .,.,„..,.**4-iiii•jit0'7OR — — . 'X'..":::: ::::•::*::::•:.. ...z.,,.Phase IA — extension •:::::::.:-::.::.:....- . .... • 00 pED rk,;:,-!-....t.,,,-?-.-.-.^'"'''. . -lir, '1 — 1RED stitilk.E)3C1r:M , li I • ..:••••:..% : ''...'.••••••::::::::::..*:..'..,::;:;:;•.;::::.....:.::::i..*Ii.Ala %.....:::::....:::::::„..4.............-.........::::::a. ..............:-. 11.1pi,.:.......: L.___:_t=__7._ :.:•:.:.:.:•:.:•:.:.....::...-..: ..: •.: :. .../ 4.... I;7:4:.t..:••••::::::::::::3k.:::::0:a.::::.:::::S:::::.y:M.:....f.. [ V:::•::?•::::::;::. 1,............ ••••:* ..i.s,N ....; 0 dar Ridge School • .•-••:•::•::::::::•-•"!-*•:•.:...-:..::::-:•:-:•:-:.:::::•:-..• --.:•:::....... 1 ••••••••••":•*.***•'.'0•''''.-:.*. .. .................../ oad between C. 1 11IXtiVENIII:iiilliVWK&g: 1:•-••••:•:::.:.::::.ii"..4....,..-:•'...*::•:::::::.::. s I.. ....,-...*::...,0 . •.:..........:;..- .... and cenic Heights Road ••"" : iii.:**:::::.;.-::::.-:-.5:5:Ti lilt I •• • ••k' ' "-"'"' .''''.: to be completed prior to .-- .- ..-:•••••• railroad /1::::::::::::: •q.4// I .- • ...N.- - . . Maximum 50 lots ... • ::.:•:::::•..::::::::%"\\ prior to Scenic 41...r, f::■::::::::\\.:........ 1:::::::::::::::•:-:-...-. I/ Heights/Dell Rd. io. extensions • ;:::::::"::;:::.::::.-....:.: 1 k■10'..::•-7•:::::::.:*;:::......; connection '''....1.....:::: :::::•: . : ::::::::: Phase 1 B I extensions I - ::::?...:::::*:•:::::......-.::::: ... ..• .. ..•. %."''.".'.% .•...•- :-.:::::.f.::::::.::::.:I:;.•.:-:.. :i.....x.:...: -,.--...• %11‘\,,•e I...•• .•...•......... ...?:::•■•i." .i* ,■•■‘ 1 ............,:::.." - 0.. • ..:** IMITCHELL MITCHELL 11.._ I <--- LAKE......-...•.• - <c...., LAKE...;„ ... DRAINAGE ...:.........,,,,::::: ...............*.4r.::: SANITARY SEWER :•:•,z:::.: :: [ I Phase 1A I 1 .1.f:',. f.;.:::•••••.::•.-:.: :::::::......%:.................... I ••;.',..*:::-...1::.:::::1:1:::; Existing (note: only critical Inverts shown) iitgin at ''.:.::• ...... terceptor i •::'.:: v 1848.3 Pond I ........:..••••:•..-:•1•... .::: 0 Pond POND 16A>\ / :".1::::1:::::::: :::;:l.::;:;.:::. _ I Begin NWL 870 il,D AVGi.',:it. 04;;I''' ,,e, HWL 872 ' 10........:........:......................-.......7.4■76 ____;__- . .............-.........................."....:-....*::::::. ,dip, 1: : 60.9kINTImpgrpR ___4_, ,..... • -re- L at Creek ( ---1--'ti..,::::..•....-1 -:..*:::::::;31:-::::::::::::::::::::•:::: ,:. ;.,;,.........;:•://N i..:•:::•:::::•:::::::•:...1..1.-••::::'/•:%I.;:•:%::::::•::: :... /0. Phase 1B 21“ 1::::•::.....;.::.............. Optional ,,..,.i.,; • Ponds I Viiit 111111111114.'1.02.:•-.: :flow pip: :Ap• :. .'7.•'•1'.......•:::: WYE +I navil.9 t•-•:::::• No ••F.:::::::::::::::::::::::::X::. )I...... x. :0.I..................................: ......;... E T t\i'al ..........................7............... L \\ ......:••••'''''•:::•:::: size - - 41r. an ,% ....„ ' ''''''' ' ..1 4**.:.1.:: :::: irvo b 114.1\1_‘1\k‘Is 1 n.:09 .. '.:Iiiii::::::::::ii I ‘fr reductio " "4"":/..................: • •• •• "••• y Future ,, , ............,..:1:::.................;:. nd ...........••••••:•*" //di ‹a N` • 7. s .. •• .::::::::::::::::::::; ....:..:::.:......:\ L •........:...... . .................:.............: ,„ • \\..1--- ... ......., .....:: ...„„,, II rikoli ........ .. .‘ "" •". •• ....................... •••• ••• •• Optional Future --- ---- PhaSe 1 I 41 '.4:,■_:\.-...... .. 1,17.:.•*0.0.. Ponds may is............:;.• , ..................... allow pipe or,f0,;:. ..t.. size 4..r.....-- - reduction 2,/,.....;3.1-1 extensions \ a S. 8" .S, V111111111= 1:857.0 •,..;:l. .'iliilliiilill Inv./ i!!!i.iii.:.. r---- ex tensio •••• ; L ...• 7 I Sent IN FEET fl'nmo-1■T......01 • 000 1000 2000 : Note: System locations are shown in concept only. Actual locations will be determined at time of 4: I SUB-AREA 2AB L development planning or feasibility study. TME BRAUER GROUP.INC. I 1 BENSHOOF 1 ASSOC.,INC. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE j( FIGURE 22 ) HANSEN THORP PELLINEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY OLSON.INC. 88-036 DEC 1988 I I 1 SUMMARY OF PHASING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUB-AREA 2AB U 1 f ROADWAYS WATER MAIN I IInitial and Future Development Jnitial Development •no development prior to upgrading of Hwy.5/Co. Hwy.4 -extend looped mains through sub-area beginning at trunk 1 intersection main along Co. Hwy. 1 1 -need to improve and coordinate access locations on south side of Co.Hwy. 1 with access locations on north side Future Development • -design to be determined by needs for looping or pressure I determinations • -lateral water mains should be looped or based on pressure determinations 111 I I L I I I. DRAINAGE _ SANITARY SEWER I I_ Initial Development Initial Development -most drainage flows towards Riley Creek,requiring -begin 24"sewer at Red Rock Interceptor near Red Rock La appropriate water quality control measures to be in place prior •extend sewer south and west along route determined by to extensions north and west •steep slopes north of Riley Creek merit special development,jacking under Co.Hwy. 1 -sewer must be deep enough south of Co.Hwy. 1 to allow erosion control measures gravity extension southeastward out of MUSA :1 tFuture Development Future Development -facility design in any area must take into account the entire -a lift station must be constructed near Riley Creek to serve 1._ contributing watershed of this sub-area -lift station design should take into account future service area south of Riley Creek -service must start at interceptor sewer I I_ L I L 1 • 1 . 1 i 1 1 i 61 I I V \ L 4 0 AKE••\N L II 1 1 1 N `../ I \1...)4KEN s I ZENIN■---------1 2j..,,,V I . L–— " ... ... ss._____ 0 :::::::I.' '/ Phase 18 extension \E___D :A.:. A./ . __ ..t I gr.- %;-.;:.1. .".1:::: Potential C.R. 1 intersection_ w :::: ill., I improvements in conjunction with development .._. . II cc ii.i.i.:*: a. ::••::fr .:: ..... • " •...1....:::::,::::::::::::;;;;....•..•.•;::::.:3;#1.;,..:, _PARK .cc •::-.-... r 12 tallittins.111.92 0 1 - *-':' ::" XI` •:r:,.. ....-•........:.:.:.:.:.:-..--•'',44-4-041-4,. •• ......:•:••••:::::.•••::::::.••:: :2..„.•• . ..:7,...-:,:: ,tO .,-,011''IrS:•-•--0:5:7•:::::. . . ... \*•: :::::::::::::::;.:;::::::.:::.to....--.`fli'::.::;i';',.,i- .,-W I 1 1 r .....:**;'''11111-1.11:..*:11:1"-11111:::::11i......1...:::::::: •,„...:.::.4..,.......,:i.4..,. kW/".-.0''''.:::::**::.::::: ::::::::::: ::•iii ii:i?:.::.;::::::::;:iii:::*::::::::..:-::Z a i.:::::::::*:....::II' z ■^-1.:- /01.4,• '1'1111 iiiii111.:i1SliiiiIi111. :'":""...............::::: ::,:•!::::::::11111111.1 '1.-Ir". .1i: :.E111.11111::.:: ':::::illii111:::::::illii:. ■•:::::::::::11iiii. , x:77.77:..:.. 4,.,,...*., ...........:.......: II "I ••.•.••••:•:•:•:••••.*•••1).•••:•• : • - ' -7.•:::::::•:::•:•:•%:, I • 111...T1.1;i ••••• -•••• .... ...... ' '. ......•::: :•1111:11.•.:::::.:::::: •l'. •••l'..•...........,4. :::q.:1:1;1•:,1..' :. •••.1.!•!.......::;:;:::%'■;.:::::Vii;. ...:.•••...•...:::..: j11 ir-""..". ':I:'::l.:i::;:."111":1:::".1''1i'i'.:'.1'.':1111.:-•1•1•1•:'•1•1 11......4..... .1..i.:•.1.1.1.:.1.:.1:1.11.,:1.1.:.',••4.;.:1.i1l1Tl„11„11„t;:; . Future . •%A.11..• •••••4*4*. ..'.':::..*•::'.:..!....!": 01.•:•..:':.::**:.•.;...4.■•.;I 5.1 ..:i-:i y:•::....::..:-...:;.:.::.::.::::••:::.::::: :•.::::::: extension::iii:;:::....rkiSr.)-..ii.'::;•.::::.:.;::::::::,ifit-r. --•:::::.V........-. Future 11:1'..• .:':,...:75,iii-tii■ra•I'mc. . ( 1 :::1:::: . '..7.../;&-.i...........m.toVr`i• extension I :i6.,..1.•:.: iilte,.....i.z..,............................ •:::, . .:.... 1....:11:14::::•:::' •......-.4::ri. :;•:.:Li4.4- .. I I Ip::::.z.....:r.:: •'f• •••Mti ••::,..... ( I ( I Ls. l■ ROADWAYS . WATER MAIN I I f. :LAKEN 217r t 1131egiin atn ) LA KEN f !:: ' Interceptor I - 2Eu. .--___, L.,_— ...1::....:.. , GEM. Inv ±827.0 - 4 •:::1.:::.'A/ 0 0 - •••■•• ......____ c :::: '••••:.:" ...... ••:•:•::: \\ •...::::.. I PARK 10 . .----..-. a ..: ••;.:::::: ._ PARK 1:...•..1.1.4 ---- E :a•■•• PIONEER a. ...::::::.;•:•:•.: 4 :'N." ix .2. .1.0• II ...• -..........::' 1• • .**.••:•:::"*.i.,•••... PIONEER la 1.•:::•.••••■•••• r I_ •.. •""......-... .... ........ " • . .• • . •,:.•, .... I ..- 1• e: Pon ::.:.::...-::::...:.:...:-:..:.: ...0....z...:.:.::.:...... , 1 :::::..............:.:•:•::...:::: la.*:....::::::::::::::. :.'.....:::....:criteria m st...:::::1:;:::::::::::.::::.;:;:;:. .....z.:.:.............;............... 1i •• •-...-t-' l..... .-:::•...*:". i':'•:...'...../....'...tc.=•: —•........1.:41:* sli .:::: ::;:::::::::::':::::::•44: - :___.. • •...:•...........:..e......,......,... , t------ --7 int 111....,......... •- •••••• ,-..--). .._.• .......::::::•::::::::::::;0:::::.....:::::::::- - • 4: ::. '9!.4..4 41‘.:'. o.,.... ..........•be verifie .....................................................:4.1.:::::::::................................ .--• ...ie..: /.:••.'_,._,.-^. '...1.•/.:.:::::.:-::..................... .. Inv _8 .. .... ,..,1/4.;......... . 0.":...,-;:;.•..:::::::•:::::::::1::::•::::::'• ••• .• - ...- 18 a,?.........:**.tr.:....:: .• •••• • developed .-..,....................•1::•:.::::;:::•::::::: e 13.zo. -..•::........:.•.....:••• z .:*.'s......*::::::•::.:.. , .. . 1 I Future pond ........ .... '.•'. • ..... ••••:::::::::::::::. 0-,..(..‘.._ ;_,24 - .........conditions .....*:::::::::::::::::::::::. .....*:::.:::::::::::::::::::.::::;:.:.:.• ';'..; .. . ......................:....;:-.. . . Witt -.... .. • Inv I-831.6 1 it ..*:•4::••••••• ':'::: ::::..*::::::•:•:.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;*• d .::::::::::::....:•••• ..........• '..-•':::::::::::::':•'."..1*...17:7N.•11••••••''.......';:'.... ::;:;.? ........',...F .........• ...........................r!"... • • - ::::: .:....,‘ :•::::::::: ::::1:::::::::•:::.:1:?..';'::::::::::;.. .....::;f:41 :....-.';'?.: .POND 1S A F .......::ipt.:..:.‘c.. .tif.i........:=A Force-- ....;..............:.;/.. C .....:I:t..1.0 ‘0"-`!:'..f..tt....tj main /....1•.'.•':'' / NWL 808 ..::.. ,.........e.00.........;:•:;:::::::...:.....t........::...:-...'"• HWL 814 I. (Existing) ....(1:ef.i.........:Cfeek - \%•■•:" Future .'...f.:'...*Z' ';'...h..?'g. •:'7 le ...? . PD AF . .::::(4 ex tension ?..1;•.•:::::.• // i L • .................:... :4. . Future extensions -......... . . 1 HWL 839 (I. i40404.'2, Station k., ( ,. I hli DRAINAGE SANITARY SEWER L I (note: only critical inverts shown) L L III l_s,...•_ ..1/1,___,.._ • .00 1000 2000 Note: System locations are shown in concept only. Actual locations will be determined at time of I SUB;ABREA development planning or feasibility study. THE BRAUER GROUP,INC. BENSHOOF&ASSOC.,MG. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE FIGURE 23 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN D E C DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY =1 1988. OLSON.INC. 1 : I SUMMARY OF PHASING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUB-AREA 2B ' 1 ROADWAYS WATER MAIN I initial Development initial Development -area south of railroad can begin to develop when north-south -extend trunk mains through southern and western sides of road on west side of school is constructed between Fairfield sub-area Idevelopment and Co. Hwy. 1 •provide an east-west loop between trunk mains to facilitate area north of railroad can develop consistent with extensions of future internal loops Scenic Heights Road Future Development -design to be determined by needs for looping or pressure IFuture Development determinations -preferred concept is for Scenic Heights Road to be continuous -lateral water mains should be looped or based on pressur through its intersection with Dell Road,creating a four-way determinations intersection 1 -a maximum of 50 lots north of the railroad or a maximum dead-end extension of Scenic Heights Road of 1500 feet allowed prior to construction of the Scenic Heights Road/Dell Road connection f I I . I DRAINAGE SANITARY SEWER I Initial Development Initial Development l -most drainage flows towards sub-areas 1A and 1B, requiring -begin 21"sewer at Red Rock Interceptor near west edge 11 systems for these areas to be in place prior to extensions Miller Park I_ -detention ponds along these extensions may -extend sewer south and west along route determined by reduce downstream storm sewer requirements development,accounting for future Hwy.212 crossing •a controlled outlet should be provided for the DNR protected -sewer must be deep enough at western edge of sub-area wetland/pond indicated on the western side of the sub-area continue gravity extension westward and southward i -this outlet may be storm sewer,overland or a -laterals may branch from new main or interceptor combination thereof,extended west to Riley Creek -area south of railroad to be served by sewer from sub-are Future Development Future Development -facility design in any area must take into account the entire -service must start at interceptor or new sewer main contributing watershed ' L L 1 L 1 L , . • 1 1 L63 1 Phase 2 extension — Maintain appropriate access and roadway continuity in )::;::::::•: :;, conjunction with development ;.... .„.. ..„.... :,..,... :1•::::.::-:•:•::*•:::::::::.:•:..:-::::‘,/ 1:.: ...."7.:::::.*::*::::::::.:.:::%::::, r I :: ,,,...... ....::..:::.: .. .:„....:... :%: :: y-:: :: ::..•::.: ::.::::::::: Phase 2......... Ae...:::::: t1'::%::::::•+� 1:.,.............::::;*::::::::::::::::::::::::::• :•::::: extension C 4 . .:.,..., Future �+. '::::.':'::: ;: 4; Extensions ►:..*�::•::::`a4 i4�� C0u1TY +::: COUNTY l'. y,\;;. Ill Intersection improvements in conjunction with Dell Rd. construction• • I Phase 2 ROADWAYS WATER MAIN extension I21 " Phase 2 Pond Y Phase 2 extension I.• 'f I • Pond 5AF NWL 879 I•:. . HWL 880 – `�►::::::: '.f•:.•I ::''..•` :•:::':'::.' .:: POND 17AF • 6 `'': :'•::`+.•::: ::%::: �� �' • : : : Phase 2 Begin ; .::::::;: NWL 855 1 '2: ::.: •:•:>: •I-:•:::• :: : ••••••••••••••••••• ��:.,:•':::�%.�:::•�:::•:••. extension at Lake HWL 860 �: . 1 :%:• : `����/ :; /y W?' 1977.0 �� ...:::::::::: Lake // II ::.::: :f)': .''._+%• : ♦ ..•:::.. :::. 1:0: I Riley iiiit �W: ; ♦ :.. :: .. - :4;�:::.:;:,::, .. .: .�. � Alternate : *'�:::: : ;:�y;::::,:.:..' "yi? '1: .' :%4,� �' gravity sewer .; y: •••••• iew••`r� L Op oval Ponds _wort ::: r:fs::. couHrr •:w v+' C I may allow pipe '' POND 6AF �`°"� size reduction NWL 880 re-'`' : :::: HWL 884 �n • L I I DRAINAGE SANITARY SEWER L (note: only critical inverts shown) II 41 L I -�eA.c �N FEET Note: System locations are shown In concept onl _– — only. SUB-AREA o `00 /00° 2000 Actual locations will be determined at time of development planning or feasibility study. 3 II THE BENSHOUERGROOC..IN. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE FIGURE 24, BEHSHOOF t ASSOC INC. HANSEHTHORPPELLINEH DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY I DE OLSON.INC. 1980 1 I/- SUMMARY OF PHASING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUB-AREA 3 I ROADWAYS WATER MAIN I initial Develooment Initial Development 1 -locate initial development and orient its access via Dell Road at -extend trunk mains along south and west sides of sub- Co.Hwy. 1,east-west local road that extends east to school and/or Dell Road just south of Scenic Heights Road Future Development -design to be determined by needs for looping or pressure Future Develooment determinations -development can continue as appropriate roadway -lateral water mains should be looped or based on pres r Iextensions and connections are provided determinations 1 I I I r I. DRAINAGE ' SANITARY SEWER Initial Development Initial Development -most of area drains to Lake Riley, requiring one or both of the -south of railroad, extend sewer from east following: -north of railroad,extend sewers from north II I_ -construction of major drainage systems beginning at Lake Riley,with appropriate Future Development water quality control measures -service must start at new sewer mains extended to su construction of upstream stormwater detention ponds to reduce size of downstream facilities -controlled outlets should be provided for the DNR protected wetlands in this sub-area r 1 Future Development -the pond indicated on the east side of the sub-area is a very low-lying DNR protected wetland,requiring one of the 1 following: -a pumped outlet,perhaps portable -a very deep(approx.60 feet)storm sewer under r - Co. Hwy. 1 draining to the south and then east I through sub-area 2B -facility design in any area must take into account the entire contributing watershed I • I f s I i 65 I i * 1 N F i R A li S T R U C T U R E 1 F U N D 1 N G A L T E R N A T 1 1 V S ill .� 0 � S 1 T S INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING ALTERNATIVES & COSTS 1 The purpose of this section of the report is to discuss and evaluate the most practical and III feasible alternative mechanisms which might be considered for funding the area-wide • infrastructure elements in the Southwestern Eden Prairie Area. IIThe orderly and timely development of the Southwestern Area requires installation of substantial infrastructure which extends beyond the boundaries of individual development sites. The collector roadway system and storm drainage systems require off-site construction, I oversizing or provision for future additions which can be accomplished through modifying or 1 supplementing the procedures currently applied by the City. Alternative financing methods should be reviewed prior to making final decisions. I rFunding Alternatives There are five sources of funding which may be considered alone or in combination: property I I taxes, transfers or incentives, user charges, development fees and special assessments. 1 � PROPERTY TAXES ■ IThere are a variety of methods by which property taxes are levied and used. I I General, City-wide property taxes could be considered as a basis for financing any or all of the area-wide elements. The policy would, of course, apply to all similar improvements in other areas of the City. Upgrading streets and intersections, signalization, acquisition of 1 additional right-of-way, improvements or additions to drainage facilities, etc., are examples of is projects with area or City-wide benefit which have been funded by general tax revenues. II Since the budget for 1989 has been adopted, the only general fund revenues available for Ithis purpose in 1989 would be from reserves or surplus funds. A potential problem with using general property taxes as a source of funding for new area-wide improvements is the equity 1 and fairness issues it might raise with existing City residents and property owners who did not Ihave such funding available when their property developed. Special purpose City-wide property tax levies are simply gen I eral tax levies which have a specific purpose defined by the City Council. For instance, a special levy could be established for the specific purpose of constructing new and replacement drainage structures I I_ throughout the entire City. As with general tax funds, existing property owners may question whether this is equitable use of tax monies. I I A special purpose tax district could be established over the Southwestern Area as a basis for financing the area-wide drainage infrastructure improvements. Although it appears that this same mechanism could be used to finance street and other infrastructure improvements, it • has not been done in Minnesota to date. A distinct disadvantage of this method when _ applied to newly developing areas is that the greatest need for funds occurs at the time the total assessed value in the district is the least. There is also an inherent inequity imposed on NI the earlier residents within the district, who will pay more over time than residents who move into the area at a later date. I ( A tax increment financing district does not appear to be feasible or likely in the developing Southwestern Area, although it may be useful in other parts of the City. I L69 t TRANSFERS/INCENTIVES The City may choose to grant transfers of density, alternative land uses or provide other incentives which make it feasible for a developer to incur the additional costs of providing off-site, oversized or future facilities. However, this approach has not been City policy to date. Also, the development plan and policies for the Southwestern Area provide little opportunity i for transfers or alternative land uses which could in any way justify the additional costs of the area-wide facilities. As discussed in earlier sections of this report, an assumption has been made that on the average, the density within this area will be no greater than what is typical for the rest of the r City, which is 2.14 units per acre. To some extent, a type of density transfer will likely occur t whenever a development involves the dedication of public street rights-of-way. But due to wetlands, tree masses and other topographical constraints there doesn't appear to be any reason to expect this area to support greater density, although in isolated instances it may approach the maximum allowed density of 2.5 units per acre. Finally, roadway capacities within and around the Southwestern area will be such as to not warrant greater densities with increased traffic. USER CHARGES 1 User charges and surcharges are finding increasing application in many Minnesota communities. Such charges appear to be gaining favor in many states as a means of financing infrastructure. E The City currently imposes water and sanitary sewer user charges and has chosen to utilize a 1 surcharge mechanism to fund trunk system improvements. This approach can also be used to fund oversizing of water mains in particular areas. Several Minnesota cities have imposed user charges for stormwater management. Stormwater user charges based on drainage area size and surface runoff factors provide a reasonable basis for prorating user charges. However, since this approach has not been ` used in the City it may raise equity concerns. It may prove to be a more viable method in the L- future when the City is fully developed and needs to fund ongoing maintenance and improvements to existing systems. g g In Minnesota, road and street user charges are levied as fuel taxes and d vehicle sales and registration fees. These funds are shared with cities through a complex muncipal state aid L (MSA) system. Eden Prairie uses these MSA funds to construct and maintain a system of collector streets which can be applied to the collector streets in the Southwestern Area. While the City cannot tax fuel or license vehicles, it probably could require registration and charge fees for all vehicles operated by residents, employees and businesses which use City streets. These user funds could be applied to improvements outside of the MSA funded system. Apparently no Minnesota city has used this mechanism, but it is not uncommon in other states. This method also could raise concerns for equity since nonresidents also will use the streets. While not prohibited by law, this approach would likely meet with greater acceptance if and when enabling legislation is enacted. 70 I DEVELOPMENT FEES I r Development fees are common in all Minnesota cities, and Eden Prairie has imposed and collected fees for park development and administration for many years. The addition of fees I for construction of area-wide infrastructure would be consistent and could be acceptable. However, there is no statutory provision which enables this for infrastructure improvements and again would likely meet with greater acceptance if such enabling legislation is passed. I This approach is under study in a number of Minnesota cities now and the situation may Ichange in the future. If development fees are used, criteria for measuring and testing the collection and application Iof the fees would need to be established. The use of development fees can also create a cash flow problem for the City during times of economic slow down, since such fees are collected at the time of building permit application. The City probably should not accept the Irisk of floating development costs that such a situation would create. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IThe special assessment mechanism is currently widely used in the City for every type of I primary infrastructure construction, but has had only limited use for area-wide assessments 1 for street improvements. However, it is the approach that will most likely provide an equitable distribution of costs. The laws and mechanisms for special assessments are already in place a is . also minimizes nd the method cash flow generally problems well since costs understood are by recovered both developers reasonably and close the City to the It time of development. The method can be used to fund major roadway and drainage improvements I as well as oversizing and extra depth costs associated with sanitary sewers and water mains. The main drawback to the special assessment approach is the time consuming procedures I required to establish district limits, provide notification and hold hearings, prepare feasibility studies and finally produce the construction documents. Estimated Costs Infrastructure improvement costs have been estimated for area-wide street and drainage :1 I_ facilities in the Southwestern Area north of County Highway 1. Note that these costs are based on a variety of assumptions which may be different at the time of actual development. These costs are included here in order to allow preliminary evaluation of the feasibility of I funding alternatives. See Appendix C for more detail. I • The two major streets identified for the Southwestern Area are Dell Road and Scenic Heights 1 LRoad. For purposes of cost estimates, it was assumed that all costs associated with bringing the streets to subgrade elevation will be part of site development costs for adjacent properties. The estimated construction costs include bituminous pavement and gravel base, concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer, signalization and turf establishment. • I 1 t 71 I 4 1 Dell Road was assumed to be a four lane divided roadway north of Scenic Heights Road and a four lane undivided roadway south of Scenic Heights Road. Scenic Heights Road was assumed to be a four lane undivided roadway from County Highway 4 to about one-half mile I west of Dell Road, and a 32-foot wide collector thereafter. For both streets, a comparative cost estimate was made for an equivalent length of street 32 feet wide built along the same alignments. This allows an estimate to be made for the costs which are considered I oversizing. Costs for other street items as well as for sanitary sewer and water main were not included since they would be the same for any street and would not affect the comparison. I Full development costs for Dell Road and Scenic Heights Road are estimated to be approximately $4,000,000. The same length of street built 32 feet wide would cost approximately $2,300,000. The cost to be assessed over the Southwestern Area as I described below under Recommendations will be approximately $2,000,000. In a similar manner the total cost for a number of area-wide drainage facilities was estimated. I I Generally included were large diameter pipes (greater than 24 inches), pond construction where no natural ponding areas exist and pumping facilities. A comparative estimate was then made for an equivalent total length of 24 inch diameter pipe, an arbitrary size regarded I . as reasonable to expect developers to fully finance. -Full development costs for all large drainage facilities north of County Highway 1 are I estimated to be approximately $3,500,000. The same length of 24 inch diameter pipe would cost approximately $1,800,000. The cost to be assessed over the Southwestern Area as described below under Recommendations will be approximately $1,700,000. IRecommendations 1 IThe special assessment method in combination with application of MSA funds appears to be the most reasonable approach for funding area-wide infrastructure improvements in the Southwestern Area of Eden Prairie. It is recommended that Dell Road and Scenic Heights IRoad be designated as MSA roadways. City staff has developed a formula for allocating costs which is presented here as a specific I recommendation. For major roadways developers will pay 50 percent of costs associated with normal roadway construction, defined as 32-foot wide streets and necessary storm L I sewers for street drainage. The remaining 50 percent of costs associated with normal t roadway construction plus 50 percent of costs associated with oversizing will be assessed over the Southwestern Area on an area basis. The final 50 percent of costs associated with 1 I oversizing will be paid by the City, possibly with MSA funds. For major drainage facilities developers will pay all costs associated with normal storm sewer I I construction, defined as storm sewers up to and including 24-inch diameter sewers. For larger facilities the portion of costs associated with oversizing beyond 24-inch diameter sewers will be assessed over the subwatershed area deriving benefit from the facilities. The I remaining costs (those associated with 24-inch sewer construction) will be paid by developers. I I 1 72 I 1 The area which will be assessed includes all of the study area north of County Cou ty Highway 1 except for the small area north of Mitchell Lake which presumably derives no benefit from the major infrastructure improvements. The total assessable area is approximately 1600 acres distributed roughly as follows: 240 acres in Sub-area 1A; 280 acres in Sub-area 1B; 290 acres in Sub-area 2AB; 180 acres in Sub-area 3; 610 acres west of the existing 2000 MUSA line. ( If these assessable areas are used together with the estimated costs for major street and drainage improvements identified above, a preliminary assessment rate in the neighborhood of $2,300 per acre can be anticipated ($3,700,000 assessable costs over 1600 acres). Approximately $1 ,250 per acre would be associated with street improvements and an average assessment of$1,050 per acre would be associated with drainage improvements. I (Note that drainage assessments in particular may vary widely depending on the particular subwatershed under consideration). It is emphasized that these estimates are preliminary approximations based on broad assumptions which may change as development actually occurs. More reliable figures will be determined at the feasibility study level which will establish more specific data on which to base assessments. It is not within the scope of this study to establish specific assessment rates which will apply to the Southwestern Area, but a recommended approach has been discussed briefly here. It will be important to establish a balanced assessment of the infrastructure improvements by phases so that these improvements serve rather than drive development. The improvements ' will be constructed in phases and should be assessed in such a way that each phase is paid for as it is built. Close coordination and participation among property owners will be I necessary to facilitate the process. This will be particularly important during future feasibility studies which will look at these infrastructure improvements in more specific terms. 1 t I I. 73 A P P E N D 1 X A Ell I APPENDIX A I ITRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION 1 Two sets t f traffic affic forecasts were prepared for this study: I I -Year 2005 forecasts which assumed full development of the primary and secondary traffic analysis areas as shown in Figure 11 and which were utilized to assess the full 1 Idevelopment roadway needs for the study area. -Various 1990 through 1995 forecasts which assessed development inside the existing I 2000 MUSA line only and which were utilized to develop the roadway phasing plan. l The basic methodology used to prepare both sets of forecasts was identical, with only such I I assumptions as amount of development and available road links being changed dependent upon the forecast scenario. Each set of forecasts accounted for both analysis area trips (trips with one or both trip ends within the primary analysis area) and through trips (trips . ' 1 utilizing roadways within the analysis area, but not beginning or ending there). The methodology and assumptions for the 2005 forecasts are discussed below, followed by a discussion of methodology for the phasing analysis forecasts. IMETHODOLOGY FOR YEAR 2005 FORECASTS T I Area rea Traffic Analysis Trips L Y pS A computerized traffic assignment modelwas utilized to forecast analysis area trips. A Cprincipal roadway network was defined as presented in Figure 12, with two sets of forecasts prepared utilizing this network. The only difference in the forecasts was inclusion or I elimination of the interchange at Dell Road and T.H. 212. - The primary analysis area was divided ded into 29 sub-zones as presented in Figure 13, and II specific full development land uses calculated for each sub-zone. Table A-1 presents the 1 land use statistics assumed for each sub-zone and includes some existing development in the northwest and northeast portions of the analysis area. Trips associated with these land II L uses were calculated based upon trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The trip generation of each sub-zone was modified to account for • multi-purpose, intercepted and internal analysis area trips. Table A-2 presents the trip 1... generation rates by land use and the adjustment factors. Trip distribution was estimated based upon forecasts prepared by the Minnesota I L Department of Transportation utilizing the "loaded tree" methodology. Figure A-1 presents the expected traffic analysis area trip distribution. Utilizing these network, trip generation and trip distribution assumptions ' L was utilized to assign analysis area traffic to the roadway system. This assignment ter model accounted for not only "minimum path" routes to/from the analysis area, but also multiple III Lroutes where more than one routing choice was feasible. The assignment yielded PM peak hour forecasts for all trips in and out of the analysis area. Daily volumes were estimated by adjusting the PM peak forecasts by a factor of ten. L A-1 t IThrough Trips t Trips through the primary analysis area consisted of two components: I I -Trips associated with the secondary analysis area lying generally south of Count Highway 1. County I -All other metropolitan area trips. • • Trip generation and distribution for the secondary analysis area were based on the same I assumptions used for the primary analysis area. These trips were manually g assi ned to the I primary roadway network for each 2005 scenario. [ Through trips other than those associated with the secondary analysis area were forecasted rY Y sled based upon forecasts previously prepared for the City of Chanhassen in the Year 2005 Land IUse and Transportation Plan, 1986. These previous forecasts included both the current primary and secondary analysis areas and the same primary roadway network. As such, a window was created in the previous forecasts which removed all trips associated with the Ianalysis areas. These remaining trips were manually reassigned to account for the scenario in which no interchange would be constructed at T.H. 212 and Dell Road. I Forecasts of the two through trip components w 9 p onents p were then added to the primary analysis area forecasts to obtain the year 2005 full development forecasts. • PHASING ANALYSIS FORECASTS [ As noted, a variety of forecasts were prepared to assist in the phasing analysis for 1.... ' development inside the existing MUSA line. Table A-3 presents the land use statistics for full development of the sub-zones within the l 1 MUSA. 1995 forecasts were prepared based upon these full development statistics, while forecasts for earlier years (1990 - 1993) were prepared based upon lesser amounts of I._ development. Trip distribution assumptions were essentially the same as the full 1 development condition. , The roadway network was modified dependent upon the forecast scenario to account for I likely roadway connections at the time. T.H. 212 was not included in any of the staging forecasts. The computer assignment model was utilized to generate the primary analysis L Iarea forecasts based upon these assumptions. Through traffic, which for the phasing analysis would generally utilize only the peripheral L I roadways (T.H. 5, C.R. 4, C.R. 1), was estimated based upon spring 1988 traffic counts adjusted by a 3.5% yearly growth factor. Traffic on the south leg of the Dell Road/T.H. 5 • intersection for the 1991+ forecasts was estimated based upon development expected north L Iof T.H. 5 in both Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. L• I A-2 L . L • I r 1 Table A-1 STATISTICS- YEAR 2005 FULL DEVELOPMENT LAND USE T Sub Zone Lane Use Size 1 1 Industrial (Chanhassen) . 300,000 sq. ft. 2 Low Density Residential (LDR) 340 units I F 3 LDR 65 units 4 Commercial (existing) 3,600 sq. ft. Office (existing) 20,000 sq. ft. 111 E 5 Multi-family Residential (existing) 26 units Single-family Residential (existing) 86 units Multi-family Residential (156 existing) 170 units I E 6 Park 97 acres 7 LDR 120 units 8a LDR 55 units I I8b LDR 220 units Park 15 acres 9 LDR • 200 units _I 10 LDR 385 units E 11 LDR 80 units 12 Commercial 61,000 sq. ft. I ILDR 55 units 13 LDR 105 units 14 LDR 115 units I I., 15 LDR 60 units 16 LDR 105 units 17 LDR - 35 units `` Park 15 acres 18 LDR 95 units I E. - - Commercial 26,000 sq. ft. 19 LDR 15 units School 850 students ' I IL • 20 LDR 125 units 21 LDR 90 units 22 LDR 130 units I C 23 LDR Park 220 units 35 acres 24 LDR 40 units I L 25 LDR LDR 90 units 26 95 units 27 LDR 170 units I L 28 LDR 140 units 29 LDR 210 units South Area I Sub-zone A LDR/Park 490 units/40 acres I LSub-zone B LDR/Park 560 units/25 acres Sub-zone C LDR/Park 705 units/30 acres I L . II ITable A-2 If . P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION RATES1 Percent Percent Gross Mufti- Internal P.M. Peak Rate Purpose ' Analysis Area Use In Oft Trios2 Trios2 Single Family Res./ Dwelling Unit .61 .36 3% 4% Multi Family Res./ II Dwelling Unit .66 .31 3% 4% Industrial/1000 sq. ft. .12 .91 IIOffice/1000 sq. ft. .43 2.74 I. Elem. School/Student .02 .02 _ 30% _ Park/Acre 1.375 .45 _ 10% Commercial/1000 sq. ft. 17,500 7.06 7.34 55% 50% 26,000 5.82 6.06 55% 50% 43,500 4.55 4.74 55% 50% 61,000 3.87 4.03 55% 50% 1 - Based upon Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1987. 2- Multi-purpose reduction applied to gross trips, prior to internal trip calculations. I I I I I I I [ 6 Q W o o 6 1Y r 1 ,3$,10$ �J 8$/7$ j . ` 125/13% , �_� I�I_ ATE HWY t NO. S 215/5% c -.- I ; _ / a or T• o MITCHELL 1 3 / re.of toad iw.u,�•• S fj I • 255/33% II* O 1 • I LAKE '__ NIC I/ -11 :7----4--- —• Aa o� RICE S � . ;I � MARSH LAKE : 75/10% I I I'TH212 \ S \ RED � t • �• 4$/5$ \. ROCK - , : • '. LAKE• r '0$/2$ I +." • I I lir fy. .:— tcl 1 !q ' ' PIONEER I F ,g • --.-::----------- ...,._ 119.4 4 0 1-li LAKE rQ fI o •�•�' ....• • ' ••• : • •4•••+Ii • N�' j`� •• �. RILEY ••. � C uN .•••' z > 1 7$/12$ I / ! 3,.......„.•,...,.., , s 1%,•,% : /; ) O f v 1 ..• ......< i ....../..: \ . a I LI 1 1$/1$ j , .` r ttt,:I AREA NORTH OF T.H.212 `�.\ ,,, •�'�\�/� AREA SOUTH OF T.H. 21 .... _LI i xx, °]!L I u.s. 1CJ,l[ IM FEE NO. I :000 tap YEAR 2005 PRIMARY[........ . — ANAL STIRIBUTION TRIP THE BRAUER GROUP,INC. BENSHOOP&ASSOC,INC. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE t FIGURE A-1 ' I HANSEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY OLSON.LSON,INC. = DEC T . Ir .. ' Table A-3 LAND USE STATISTICS - FULL DEVELOPMENT li . INSIDE EXISTING 2000 MUSA LINE Sub Zone Lane Use Size If - 1 Industrial (Chanhassen) 300,000 sq. ft. 2 Low Density Residential (LDR) 340 units If 3 LDR 65 units 4 Commercial (existing) 3,600 sq. ft. Office (existing) 20,000 sq. ft. lif . Multi-family Residential (existing) 26 units 5 Single-family Residential (existing) 86 units Multi-family Residential (156 existing) 170 units II 6 Park 97 acres 7 LDR 120 units 8a LDR 55 units 11 LDR 80 units 12 Commercial 61,000 sq. ft. LDR 55 units IIII 13 LDR 105 units 14 LDR 115 units 15 LDR 60 units 16 LDR 105 units 17 LDR 35 units Park 15 acres 18 LDR = 95 units Commercial 26,000 sq. ft. 19 LDR 15 units School 850 students 20 LDR 125 units I 21 LDR 90 units 22 LDR 130 units 26 LDR 95 units 27 LDR 170 units 28 LDR 140 units 29 LDR 210 units p P . P . I .. A P � E 1 oI f xi I 1 BI 1 1 1 ( 1 t 1 l 1 t 1 i 1 L 1 L 1 L 1 t � 1 f APPENDIX B I _ PHASING ANALYSIS OF PERIMETER ROADWAYS TThe phasing analysis of the perimeter roadways focused on the constraints which these roadways might have on phasing of development in the primary traffic analysis area. As discussed in Appendix A, a number of different forecasts accounting for a variety of alternative development scenarios were prepared. The two principal roadways which affect the ability of the study area to develop are T.H. 5 and County Highway 4. The following presents the key aspects of the analysis. 1 T.H. 5/C.R. 4 Intersection This intersection is scheduled to be upgraded by 1990. Figure B-1 presents selected traffic forecasts at this intersection, while Table B-1 presents key aspects of the levels of service analyses for these forecasts and other forecast scenarios. The principal findings of the analysis include: -The intersection currently operates at a level of service F. I -No more than 20 0 lots should be permitted in the study area prior to the 1990 upgrade in order to avoid a noticeable worsening of existing problems. -The currently planned improvements to the intersection will not adequately accommodate full development inside the existing 2000 MUSA. Once the study area has about 1700 lots within the MUSA, additional improvements will be required to maintain effective traffic flow. Figure B-2 presents concept improvements at the intersection which will allow a level of service D upon full development of the study area inside the MUSA. T.H. 5/Dell Road Intersection The intersection is currently lanned to b P be upgraded by 1991. The existing intersection is inadequate to accommodate development south of T.H. 5, west of Mitchell Lake. Figure B-3 presents forecasts for 1990 (prior to the currently planned improvements), assuming that 100 dwelling units are developed south of T.H. 5. If development is desired prior to the planned upgrade, improvements will be necessary at the T.H. 5/ Dell Road intersection. Figure B-4 presents two alternatives for providing access at Dell Road and accommodating projected 1990 traffic (Option 1 is the preferred alternative). Approval by MnDOT of plans for any upgrading prior to 1991 will be required. County Highway 4 County Highway 4 is currently a two lane roadway, with no improvements planned except at the T.H. 5 intersection. Existing traffic volumes indicate the need to upgrade C.R. 4 to four lanes and the need to improve the Scenic Heights Road intersection. Figure B-5 presents existing volumes at Scenic Heights Road as well as 1995 forecasts which assume full development inside the MUSA line. Figure B-6 presents a concept plan showing the ultimate roadway layout in this vicinity upon construction of T.H. 212. B-1 1 I r I i r • 0 •=, 0 , O• ■ b - N v. N ill - 47 N T - O i "ri ik 1 1.H. 5 1 '-315/ 290/ 310 ....--824/1240/1360 ir-185/ 380/ 520 I 89/ 160/ 170 638/1120/1310—N— I106/ 140/ 160 f 0 — co N ill N O Co p I I M n •Lo ... ` I 1_ NORTH 1 I COUNT ON APRIL 27. 1988 I SPRING 1993 I f.—.....SPRING 1995 I Lxx xx xx I IP.M. PEAK HOUR I TRAFFIC I ROJECTIONS AT T.H. 5 AND i� C.S.A.H. 4 THE BRAUER GROUP,INC. BENSNOOERASSOC.,INC. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE FIGURE B-1 I E NALSON IORPPELLINEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY I OLSONNC. 1 i _ PRESENTLY PLANNED INTERSECTION ----'2 gc:... \� 1�ljr vs.. T.H.5 4mac--- _...,. ''"'''''''...■., V 7(**"...'" gI\I ~ `I Z O U I` NOT TO POTENTIAL UPGRADED INTERSECTION SCALE D-// � e� T.H. S4..._— t-- 4--- Thc POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT 0 . AT • CSAH 4/T.H.5 THE BRAUER CROUP,INC. illBEN$►100RaA§$OC.,INC. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE JtFIGUREB2 ) "AN$ENTHORppEILINEN OL§ON INC DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY 1 I I I U I I I inomm.......m...nummennimmumemmenummmui\ T.H. 5 I '- NA 1 ..- 1230 I I ,— so 860 lo '.Th. I1.11.11 "m111111.1111.1.11311111111.11111101■NiS ') ( _ I I N 1 ..I J I NORTH A I I. Note: Volumes to/from Dell Road I south of T.H. 5 are premised Lon 100 occupied dwelling units. I I 1 I- L • 1 _ 1 • 1990 P.M. PEAK HOUR } TRAFFIC j PROJECTION AT _ T.H. R/ t DELL R0. Iv I THE BRAUER GROUP,INC. BENSHOOF I ASSOC.,INC. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE J( FlGUREB3 ) HANSEN THORP PELLINEN DEVELOPMENT P H A S 1 N °`S°" '"° O STUDY � � I I • OPTION 1 : LEFT TURN LANE I ——---- ' — T.H. 5 �...wt��_____t fc---' :1 50: 1 - - - - - - - - -- m //- ---1 � J 50: 1 15: 1 III 8 cr J J W D II NOTE: Dell Rd. should not be connected with Lake Drive E. (south frontage road west of Dell Rd. ) under Option 1. II 41 1 OPTION 2: RIGHT TURNS ONLY (Not recommended due to traffic NOT TO routing through Chanhassen) SCALE II 1! 1 i T.H. 5 i- 4-- .E-- 50: 1 ---A. 1 r 50:1 .._ ! az,:15:1 1 ...„ 0 • li_ Note: It is desirable for Dell Rd. to be connected with Lake Dr. E. (south frontage road west of Dell Rd.) under II Option 2. POTENTIAL TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENTS Note: MnDOT approval will be required for any temporary improvements. DELL TR D./ T.H. 5 THE BRAVER GROUP,INC. • BEHSHOOFiASSOC.,INC. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE FIGURE B-a HAOSENTHORPPELIINEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY 0 LSON INC 88-036 DEC 1988 . i 1 I M EXISTING SCENIC HEIGHTS M � II 186/240 1 267/580 II 1 . t I - � o VIN ti\1 ■ I 1 I_ N V I ,, I Ien 0 NEW SCENIC HEIGHTS Z I NA/255 I NA/ 85 1 in 1 . .- 0 I .- m 4 6 Z Z i I I_ - 1 iP.M. PEAK HOUR 6/22/88 /-1995 SPRING P.M.PEAK HOUR L A xx / xx • ' P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 1 L N NO SCALE PROJECTIONS AT C.S.A.H.AND AND SCENIC HEIGHTS ROAD THE BENSHO BRAUER F& ASSOC,INC.. SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE FIGURE 8-5 BENSHOOF i ASOC I I HANSENTHORPPEWNEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY DEC OLSON_INC. 88-016 i989 I 4. 1 4. ti UPGRADE WITHIN .:- . 4.I THREE YEARS■ 1- O ` I- I y • • CV Z. • ' t) J�EN/ • ,' ,///III TS ROg0 J111ItLl1<<0 _ ,�ti 1 . . . 1 Z T.H. 212 I a r I_ r a a I a AN ma SCENIC HEIGHTS ROAD P. 1 SCENIC HEIGHTS REALIGNMENT i UPGRADE WITHIN IN CONJUNCTION WITH T.H. ITHREE YEARS " 212 CONSTRUCTION L a a I - I ` ti Minim EXISTING N ms........! PROPOSED • I 0' 400' APPROX SCALE _ CONCEPT PLAN FOR COUNTY 4 / SCENIC ► HEIGHTS RD. / TH 212 f THE ENSHO BRAUER F& ASSOC.,INC., SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIRIE t sENSNOOF a asoc I FIGURE 8-6 NANSENTHORPPEILINEN DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY lia i OISON.INC. 88-096 i 1 I Estimated costs for Dell Road and Scenic Heights Road along same alignments, built at 32-foot width: F t em Quantity Unit Unit Price Amours r 1.5" 2341 Bit. Wear 6,300 Ton $25.00 $157,500 2" 2331 Bit. Binder 8,500 Ton 22.00 187,000 II 8" 3138 Cl. 5 Base 34,700 Ton 7.00 242,900 I Tack Coat 3,900 Gal 1.10 4,290 i B618 Curb & Gutter 46,200 LF 7.00 323,400 i Topsoil & Seed 11 Ac 2,000.00 22,000 1 Topsoil & Sod 10,300 SY 2.00 20,600 Storm Sewer 18,500 LF 35.00 647,500 1 Subgrade Prep. 82,000 SY 1.00 82.000 Subtotal $1,687,190 t 10% Miscellaneous & Contingencies 168,719 t Subtotal $1,855,909 25% Engineering & Administrative 463,977 1_ 32-ft Wide Streets TOTAL $2,319,886 il Cost per LF @ 23,100 LF= $100 { • • • C-2 I i 4 ' Estimated costs for major drainage improvements north of County Highway 1 (see Figure C-1 I next page). Pipe lengths are 30% longer than scaled from schematic layout shown in Figure C-1 to account for alignment differences. I Item, Quantity ILIA Unit Price Amount - 15" RCP 1,300 LF $30.00 $39,000 I 21" RCP 700 LF 40.00 28,000 27" RCP 1,200 LF 48.00 57,600 30" RCP 2,200 LF 54.00 118,800 I 33" RCP 2,700 LF 60.00 162,000 36" RCP 8,700 LF 66.00 574,200 42" RCP 500 LF 78.00 39,000 I 48" RCP 1,700 LF 90.00 153,000 54" RCP 1,400 LF 120.00 168,000 60" RCP 4,800 LF 140.00 672,000 1 66" RCP 1,200 LF 160.00 192,000 72" RCP 1,000 LF 180.00 180,000 t 8" DIP Force Main 1,300 LF 30.00 39,000 1 Pump Station 1 Ea 50,000.00 .50,000 Pond Excavation 10,000 CY 5.00 50.000 i Subtotal $2,522,600 10% Miscellaneous & Contingencies 252.260 Subtotal $2,774,860 25% Engineering & Administrative 693.715 • Fully Developed Drainage Facilities TOTAL $3,468,575 Comparative costs for entire system @ 24" RCP: L • 24" RCP in lieu of RCP above 27,400 LF 24" RCP in lieu of Force Main $45.00 $1,233,000 . 1,300 LF 45.00 58,500 24" RCP in lieu of Pond 1,000 LF 45.00 45.000 If Subtotal $1,336,500 L 10% Miscellaneous & Contingencies 133.650 Subtotal $1,470,150 I25% Engineering & Administrative 367.538 24-inch Diameter Storm Sewer TOTAL $1,837,688 il 11 L • C-3 BIBLIOGRAPHY ASCE SC & WPCF. Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers. ASCE-Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice-No. 37. 1969,1976. Barr Engineering Co. The Drainage Plan for Eden Prairie. Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN. 1970 and updates. Black & Veatch. Comprehensive Master Plan Report on Waterworks Improvements for Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Kansas City, MO. 1986. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. Reports and plans for the Red Rock Interceptor Sewer. St. Paul, MN. 1986-88. Brauer & Associates; Hoisington Group; Benshoof & Associates. Year 2005 Land Use and Transportation Study - City of Chanhassen. Eden Prairie, MN. 1986. BRW, Inc. T.H. 212 Traffic Forecasts. 1985. City of Eden Prairie. "Land Use Projections for Southwestern Eden Prairie Study Area." Communique with City staff. 1988. I Clark, John W.; Viessman, Warren; Hammer, Mark J. Water Supply and Pollution Control. 1971. Debo, Thomas N.; Elliot, Michael; Nelson, Arthur C. "County Begins D y to g t Develop an Impact Fee Program." Jour. Public Works. Nov. 1988. i Elizer, R. Marshall. "Private-Sector Participation in Transportation Improvements: Survey Results." ITE Jour. 58:46-51. Apr. 1988. Ferrari, Leilani. "Surface Water Fees Used to Reduce Urban Flooding." Jour. Public Works. Aug. 1987. Fischer, Vivienne C. "States Rescue Localities with Creative Financing." Am. City & County. Mar. 1988. Godfrey, K.A. "Passing the Public Works Buck." Civil Engineering/ASCE. 56:50-52. Sep. 1986. Great Lakes - Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers. Recommended Standards for Sewage Works. Albany, NY. 1978. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation - 4th Edition. 1987. Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Department of Transportation. "Regional Traffic Forecast Data." Several sources. E-1 [3ib:Iography (cont.) Minnesota Statute 444.16 - 21. Enabling legislation for establishing storm sewer improvement tax districts. 1 Niedowski, Raymond S.; Roache, William J.; Bonsignore, Ruth M.; Perreault, Robert A. "A Procedure for Allocating Road Improvement Costs to Private Developers." ITE Jour. 56:35-39. Dec. 1986. Snyder, Thomas P. and Stegman, Michael A. Paying for Growth: Using Development r Fees to Finance Infrastructure. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute. 1986. Toft, Graham S. "User-Pay Funding and Creative Capital Financing." Jour. Prof. Issues in Engineering. 111:39-47. Apr. 1985. Vaughan, Roger. "Infrastructure: Money and Methods." Civil Engineering/ASCE. I 54:62-66. Sep. 1984. Warren, Richard E. "Street Fares." Civil Engineering/ASCE. 56:50-53. Nov. 1986. 1 l L L L . C L L L L E-2 I L