The URL can be used to link to this page

12-12-90 Agenda and PacketINTERVIEW PI..ANNING COUIIIISS ION CANI 7: O0 P.U. Cathy Piha Huffnan Joseph c. Scott l,lark Senn Gary O t Neillvfalter Thompson AGENDA CHANHASSEN PIANNING COUI{ISSION WEDNESDAY, DECEI.{BER 12, 1990, 7:30 P.U. CITANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRTVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zoning Ordinance ADendment to amend Section 20-29 (d), concerning appeals fron decisions of the Board of Adj ustrnents on variances. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MTNUTES CTTY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOTNG ITEMS AD},IINI STRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSTON 2. Update on Flood Plain Ordinance. 3. Eden Prairie PIan Amendnent. 4. Rural Area Development - 2l acre nininum lot size. ANOURN}IENT 7:10 P.lil. 7 ..20 P ,tr. 7:30 P.M. 7:40 P.t{. 7:50 P.M. File CITY OF CH[NIIISSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE. PO. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. F4X (612) 937-5739 1' ' r'. .,- -'/ .b4-/-' }.TEMORANDIJ}.{ TO: FRO}I: DATE: SU&T: f, Planning Conmission Sharnin AI-Jaff, Planner I Decenber 3, 1990 Zoning Ordinance Amendment toAppeal fron Decisions of the Appeals Amend Section 2o-29 (d), Board of Adjustments and Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allorrs anybody who is aggrieved bythe approval of a variance to appeat the decision of the Board oiAdjustnrents and Appeals to the Ci.ty Council by filing an appealwith the Zoning Adninistrator within 10 days after the date oi tfreBoard decision. The applicant would then have to appear in frontof the city Council. This procedure lrould cause i delay of onemonth. ff the time period to appeal decision of the B6ard waschanged from 10 days to 4 days, the delay for the applicant lrouldonly be two weeks as staff hrould be abLe to schedule -the hearing onthe fo11owing city Council agenda. The existing 10 day peiioarequirenent is not established under state statutes U-ut - is arequirement of the Zoning Ordinance. I{e believe the 4 day $raitsti11 .provides anple opportunity for appealing Board decisitns.Planning staff has discussed this ilsue wittr the Board ofAdjustrnents and Appeals and the Board was very receptive of thisamendrnent. RECOMMENDATION Staff is reconmending that sectionthe appeal tine period fron 10Attachnent #3. 20-29 (d) be anendeddays to 4 days as to change sho$/n on l- 2 3 ATTACHMENTS Memo fron Don Ashworth dated Novenber 1,current ordinance. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. 1990. ,r-3_-??'- /?-.tL'-?.o.- CII[NH[ESEI'I MEMORANDUM TO: Pad Krauss, Phnning Dlrector FROM: Don Ashworth, CltY Manager DATE: No/ember 1, 1990 SUBJ: Ten Day Appeal Period, Board ot Adiusiments and Appeals pursuant to my discussion with you and Jo Ann, I have contacted Roger Knutson regarding the Board of Review appeal tim e frame/process. Our discussion.€ /eald thal an apdicant apdying in late September would not'have, through the public hearing/ advertlsement requirement process, had that application considered until the November 19th Board meeting date. Whh the appeal procsss currendy equalling ten working days, the applicant would be delayed to December 3rd. lt the protest were received on December 3rd, su-ch would be'given to lGren for publication. ln this instance, submlt{ing such on December gth lor publication on Oecembe|l4th would be of no avafl as Oecember 10th would have already occurred. iccordingly, lGren would instead submit for publication on January 4th, publish January gth, for considerition on January 14th - all of which producing a signltlcant delay for an applicant who had originally sfand the process in late September (a 3 mor h wait not considering improbaue winter construction for his new add'ition). My guess ii that the applicant would rather have waited the 3-4 hours on November 1gth to know that he could or could not build his addition. The ten day requirement is not estauished under state statute, but is solely encompassed in our local ordinance. hoger suggested changing such to four days as every appeal that we have ever had has always come on the night thatlhe item is considered by the Board. The four day allowance would mean that Karen woutd know Oy FrirJay wnether to puuish ln the fdlowing week's edition of the Mllager. This would mean that the appticant couid be heard by the City Council within two weeks of being heard by the Board. Roger is also suggesting that the Board cf Adiusfment items not be shoivn on the City Council agenda on the evening hJird Uy tne goard of Miustments ard Appeals, btrt ody be shown on Council agendas after the appeat-has been received. A draft ordinance amendmenl addresslng those issues ls being prepared and witi be tonrvarded to your office as soon as possible. I will assume that you will b€ Presenting this lo both the Board and Council as a plannlng itsm CITY OF 690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739 r i Ir rtI ,,,.-I ,-_-ZONING 120!29 (2) To hear rcquesta for variancea 6roo the pnovieions of the c.hapter. (Ord. No. EO, Art. m, I 1, 12-15€6) &ate law reference-Board of a{iustmeat sad apFals, M.S. ! a62.3S4, subd 2. 8ec. lXt 29. Varlarcer gcaerrtly url ryjedc. (D E@rW. Upon t.he fili.g 6f al eppeal o epplication fo yarielce, the zoaiag atDiais" t?tor rhrll set a time and pldce fc a heariag befce tte bocrd da4iuctneats aad appeals ou auch appeal or application, which heariag ehall be held witlia thity (80) ilays after the Gli.g of aaid appeal or application. At the heariag t.he board ahall hear euch peraoas as riah to be heard, either ia persoa or by attaraey c ageal Notice ofsuch beariag lhalt be railed aot less ahrn t21 (!Q) t6yc before the alate of heariag to tle pereoa wbo filed the appeal o .Dplicatioa for variance, an4 ia the care d an application fc varirace, to each owuer dprqerty rituated wholly ot partially *ithia five hunrbsd 600) feet of ttre property to rhic.h the reriauce applicatioa relate.s. The raraeg and !ddre80€3 d suctr orDcrs rhall be &teraiued by the . aoniag administrator frou records provided by the applicaat. \c) D*bbtu of the furd. lte board rhcU be eaporelld to decide qpeale ead graat variaaces oaly wheu the decisioa d tle board ie \r a "'.'nirr.ous vote. A aimple rqprity vote or split vote by t'he boord shall eerve oaly as a recorureuilatiou to the city council, rho ehall theu male the 6nal deteraiaation oa the appeal 6 yarisDce request si+Lin thitty (90) &y8 after receipt d tle board'a ection The board rhall act upou ell tpealr aad variaace rcque61s within fifteea (16) ilays after the date of the clae d the reeuired herdog. Qt Appeat fmm dccbbtu of M. Aay peraou qgriev.d by ery decieioa dthe boaril,' iacluiling the applicant c eay pere! orrilg pmpgty or teeirring rithia 6ve hundred (800) feet of the property to whietr a variancc rpplication lelatea, uay appeal ane,h decirioa to tre city couacil by filiry an appeal rith thc zoaiag rilhirirh.atorr' silfij tea (10) &yr tftrr the dEt€ of the bosrt'a ileisiou- rbe proccdure guycrailg eppesb to the board rhelt abo govera appeala to the city ouacil. (e) @utuil a(,b'^ By D{icity Ttte, t}r city couacil any rcvoe, elEro c nodifr, *holly or partly, the decirion appealed frora tLc board, end to'het cod ttre city couDcil Bhrll have all the po*cra of tbe board. Ihe coucil rhall decide all rpperle ritlia tlirty (90) .t yt aftcr the ilate of tbe rcquircd heeriDg tLE@- $) Aa;bn wialrclut decbbn If ao ilecisioa L Eeotoitt d by tbe board to t.he city couacil dr}in sirtJr (60) days froa tic ilate ea rppeel c vlrisDce rrqueet ir 6led rith thc Duirg 3rlrrinittsator, $s coolcil uay tele ection oa the rcqu6t, i! rccordaace ritl the roccdur,ea goveraing the board, rithout firrther araitiag tbe boalil'a deciriou- (OraI. No. E0, An. IIL ! 1(&1-(D{O, O), r2lffi) &ate lew rcfereaoe-Appeale aad adiuchcats, U.S. ! a62.85?, rubll 6. 1169 _( (d Fornf'fee Appealg a.ud applicatious for variencea lhall bc 6led sith tLe zoaing ailminigtrstor oa preacribed foros. A fee, as eetablished by the city council, $all be paid upon the frliag of an applicetion. lhe board of a{iustoents aud appeals uay waive tLe applicatioa fee ia unusurl cirsumstEDces. ( CAMPBELL, KNUTSON,& FUCHS, P.A. Attomeys at Law Novenber 2, l99O *FCFIUED NCii 0 5 1990 Ltir vr vnAIIFIASSEN (6t21 456.9539 Fax (612\ 456.9542 Thomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutvrn Thomas M. Scott Gary G. Fuchs James R Valsron Elliott B Knetsch Crregory D. Lewis &nnis J. Unger /-^)5/ - Atl--t--t [,tt- -- A l{r. Don Ashworth Chanhassen City Ha1I 590 Coulter Drive, Box 147 chanhassen, Hinnesota 55317 tt <.,^." --J' ^ ,/ J;tc,-trt.;'s. RE Variances -Appeal frorn Decisions of Board Dear Don: Enclosed please find ordinance amending the city code concerning appeal fron decisions of the Board on variances. very truly yours, LL soN , scoTT Roger N. I(nutson RNK: srn Enclosure cc: Paul Krauss Yankee Square Office III . Suite 202 . 3460 \Uashington Drire . Eagan, MN 55122 CITY OF CITANIIAS SEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COI'NTIES, XINT{ESOTA III ORDININCE I.}iENDIIIG CEAPTER 2 O OP rEE CEANEASSEX CrAy OODE, lrEE EONTXG oRDININCE, COIICERIIIXG YTAIIIICES The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: SectioD 1.Section 20-29 (d,) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read: (d) App€al Fron DecigioDs of Boaral. A City Council nember, the applicant, or any person owning property orresiding Lrithin five hundred (500) feet of the property torrhich a variance application relates, nay appeal suchdecision to the City council by filing an appeal with the Zoning Adninistrator within four (4) days after the date ofthe Boardrs decision. Soction 2. This ordinance shall be effective inrnediate 1y upon its passage and pubtication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this _ day of , l9-. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/I{anager Donald J. Chrniel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 19-. ) 11/02/90 oRDINANCE NO. _ CHAh}IASSEN PI-AI*{II{G COIfi ISSI(}I REGU-AR }GETING M)lrElGER 2A, 1990 Vice Chairman Erhart called the m€€ting to order at 7:4O p.m. . Tim Erhart, Brian Batz I i;lEltBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Annette EIlson, and Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENT: PauI Kreuss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner and Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner 1 itEltBERS ABSENT: Jim l.lildermuth and Ladd Conrad R'ALIC }EARING: CONDITIONAL I,,SE PERIIIT AIIEIIIDI.IENT AIIEITDING T}E FEITICE I.EIGHT FRO}I THE APPROVED 8 FEET TO 15 FEET IT{ TTE REAR AIIO SID€ YARDS OT{ PROPERTY ZOT{ED IOP AND LOCATED AT 7851 PARK DRIVE. LAKES}ORE EOT'IP}IENT. STEVE I.IILLETTE. Sharmin AI-Jaff pres€nted the staff report on lhis item. Vice ChairmanErhart called the public hearing to ord€r. St€ve Hillette: Yes, I'd like to sp6ak on my behalf. I also have somethings I'd like to show you. I don't knot what our problem is uith thestaff but I've taken photographs uith scales and I'm kind of ticked off atthe report. To say the least and I'II pass those around. That is a tapemeasure. That is with my arm protected, I feet in the air. I can touch an8 foot hish ceilins. I cannot touch a 9 foot hish ceiling. That's thehighest stack of docks in the entire yard. Thls is the panoramic view ofthe entire yard. I do not stack things over 8 feet. Okay? I'd also liketo show you what it looks like from the highway side. I'm shooting intothe sun so I didn't get a real good picture but if I go back down to an Ifoot hish fence, because of the 22 fooL difference in elevation, you willIook deadly into this off of TH 5. You're going to see aII my docksstacked up and I don't t.hink that it would look very nice. So I went to 15feet. As far as the way the fence looks, the definition between a fenceand a waII. I know we can 90 as hieh as we Hant with Halls. tt€ can put building heights at whatever we hrant to. .My building's 22 feeL. I don'tthink that the height should be the deterrent. If iL's not properly constructed... This is also the side from the road going by. This is fromthe building down below. This is the entrance area in front of thebuilding where it enters. This is the corner as you drive auay and theseare the two road sites from down on the industrial park road. First of aIIthe staff report is totally lrong. I do not and have not stacked materialsover I fee! high. If you ask your staff they will tell you because Italked to them about it tonight. They will tell you that they did not meesure the sLacks. They just eyeballed it. I mean we did a lhorough Job.Lle're making a recommendation to disapprove it with the thorough job of.-. |.ly product is at 8 feet hish. From the ground up. The difference is the 22 feet. I think uhen we originally went through this back in 1984, Ithink we had no idea of the difference in elevation and nobody thoughtabout it from the highway. I do feel thst it should be totall.y screened. Idon't feel that it r,rould look good if I brought it drop it back dob,n to 8feet and stack my product to 8 feet high. I wiII do that if you trould likebut you will see everything Lhat's in my yard including when you get up towithin 20 feet of the front part of the fence looking in from the back sideyou can see a pair of sneakers Bitting on the ground because you can see Planning November Commission24, t99O - Heet i ns Page 2 the ground very clearly if we went back down to I feet. Okav? I have planted trees around there. There had been a couPle Iost along the road end that I do intend to rePlace. I'm the largest dock and boat lift dealer in the entire nation. I've got a nice looking Place. I want to keep it looking nice. tlhen the Pine trees grow uP, you will not even notice the fence because they'II totally screen iL. You'II see along the whole edge of the fence with the exception of the backside where I lost a couPle, that -aS Soon as those pine trees grow uP it will cover Lhe fence. As far as the acsthetics of the fence, the onlv thing that I find not eye aPPealing at this point is Lhe fact that there,s some new lumber and some old lumber in -there. I talked to city sLaff. The building insPector, Ron. Asked him if I should paint the fence or if he thought I should let it go natural because sometimes natural doesn't stick out as much as if you Paint something. He said Iet it go natural so part of it's natural. And as soon - as the new cedar catches uP to the natural look and gets back to all blend, I don't think it wiII be a bad looking Piece' The other thing is when the pine trees come uP, that's going to cover it. As far as the differences in the boards, r^le did go a board on board in a certain section of it. Because of the height of it, we hrent to 6 x 6 or I x I Posts in there now so it's not going to blow down again but we also Put some board on board just to let some wind flow through the fence because uhen vou erect a fence that LaII, there could be a possibilitv of the wind noL getting through. They are brace back. It's a very sound fence. It's not going to blow down again. tle do Plan on maintaining it and I just don't iee anything b,rong with it. I've gotten a lot of compliments on the fence because it Iooks so nice because it's all cedar. People say wot'r. You built that all out of cedar. That's really nice- It's a nice Iookins -fence because they can't believe that we sPent the money to do thaL. I'd sure like to be able to u,ork it ouL and be able to do mv business in town and I'm in the industrial Park because that's where you PeoPIe wanted me. yins. I'm trying to keeP evervthing covered Iike we talked about- BiIl Boyt's things ulhen the City Council aPProved it' and it never to the Minutes. I thousht it did but if vou ask BilI or anvbodv that ere, they uere saying well the heisht of a commercial fence is not ggest issue. TotalIy screening the Product is the biggest issue. I everal other things that if it does not get aPProved, that I mean very, very obvious things that haPPened or that are going on within the city. tle've got stuff sittins outside that thev didn't even bother trving to screen. I'm putting forth an effort and I can't understand that we're going to have a big issue over this. Do you have any questions? Emmings: can I ask a question? ErharL: Sure. Emmings: Thc fence is the height it is for u,hat reason? Steve tlillette: Oue to Lhe 22 foot difference in the elevation of our highway. You sit in a car you're uP another 2 or 3 feet than you're looking right dou,n into my storage yard which is at 22 feet louer than the highway is. Emmings: okay, so you built it at that height to acreen urhat's in the yard? I'm tr One ofgot in was !h the bi have s Planning Commission November 2A, L99O - l.leet i ng Page 3 Steve l^,illette: To totally screen whaL's in the yard. Emmings: An), other reason that it's that height? Steve t,lillette: No. t just feel that it should be blocked off so thatpeople can't see it. I mean a 8 foot high fence is fine by me but you'regoing to be able to see in my yard and so it's a Catch 22. You say okay,fully screen everything but then build an 8 foot high fence with a 22 fooLdifference in elevation. Nobody caughL it aII th€ uay through the urhole Planning Commission thing Iast time or through the City Council thing Iasttime and nour I'm stuck. I can't 9o and brins 22 feet of earLh in becauseI'd have to reise my building too and that's impossible. Emmings: Right. Thank you. Erhart: Is there any other comment from the publ ic? tho public hcaring. All voted in, Emmines noved, EIlBon sccondcd to closefavor and the notion carried- The publ ic hcar l ngl xa8 cloacd- ErharL: t|hy don't we just open it up to any commi.ssioner's comments orquestions. l.re won't necessarily go in order. Emmings: I'v€ got some. He's just explained to us why he thinks it's agood idea to have it at 15 feet and I'd like to get some staff reaction tothat, Do you think that a 15 foot high fence does a bett€r job ofscreening from the highway of his yard? tlc obviously, when we looked atthe site plan we wanted screening of that yard. tlhat's your response orreaction to that? Krausa: tlell a couple things. TH 5 is, you know there is a visibilityfactor from there but it's also quit€ a distance away. It's not as thoughthe hiehway runs right adjacent to his fence line. In Iooking at it at anangle past another site, it's kind of down in a vallc)2. tle'd prefer to have this concealed. You know the elevation of TH 5 hasn't changed.I mean TH 5 is where it's been for quite some time so this should come as no surprise. I think the magnitude of what's out there comes as a surprise and you know had, and I can't put words in people's mouths uho revieuedthis thing 2 oy 3 ycars ago but I think if I were in their shoes, had we been aware of the magnitude of Hhat's being proposed there, we would havegone about this differently. I don't view a 15 foot hish L,ood fence as theappropriate way to screen something of that size. If it was really going to be that visible and it uras really going to be that bie of an issue, you might have looked at extending the masonry ualI or doing something else or even question whether or not that's a valid use. I mean the yard seems to be bigger than the building is. tle do have, there's no question we do have some other outdoor storage situations in the city that have causedproblems. Some are being acted upon nou. Some ar€ uaiLing until we get a new shopping center built and tenants are moving in there. We are takinsthe bull by the horns on that issue but r.rhat's different here is we have arelatively new project that was approved with specific conditions and alIof a sudden the ground rules changed and h,e never auLhorized that. Emmings: Have there been any complaints from any of his neighbors down in the business park or anybody in the business Park? Krauss: I'm not aware of any. This was basically found, you know we are now doing annual revieus of conditional use Permits. This was uncovered during the review. Emmings: I don't have anything else right now. Erhart: Steve, do you have a comment? St6ve lrillette: Yeah. ...talking about a review of the conditional usepermit... This is not an accurate rePort and you're not getting the facts. Because my fence blew douln...I talked !o Steve Kirchman and asked if I should get a building permit to rebuild the fence. ...rebuild the fence. It was on final approval of Lhe buildins Permit...not ali. on the annual review so don't say things that aren't fact. And I cannot understand where- you're coming from. I don't knou where a cement wall is going to look any different than a. Erhart; I don't think it makes any difference discovered this. on when, on how ue Erhart: Any other commissioners have any questions or comments? EIIson: There's never been a Precedence where we've had a higher Ievel on the fence before has there? I mean Jo Ann, you've probably been around Ionger. If the whole idea was to scre€n it, I mean I can't see that He could alurays screen from the highest Point. In this case it's TH 5 but if that was the main intent, have u,e ever done that before because thaL was the main intent previously. I mean has there ever been a Precedence trhere we said ueII screening's the most important thing so ue'II 9o against the standard I foot because that's basically the Premise that Ne're kind of deciding here. Olsen: I can't recall. It seoms like at one Point we...1O foot... Steve tliIletLe: Yeah, it was 10 or L2. had the neh, fence ordinancc that limited it to 8olsen: That was before wer{ithout getting a permit. Steve ]^Jillette: tlhen...originally aPProved it it was at 12 feet even though we had 8 fee! in the condition...I said should I totallv screen it and move it up a little bit so lre totallv screen. Erhart: PauI, let me help him there. Let me get that straight. tlhen we approved this conditional use, h,6 aPProved an 8 foot fence and now you're saying that the building insPector. Steve ].li I I ette: Ron, yeah. Planning Commission l.'leet i ng November 2A, 7990 - Page 4 steve t^lillette: It,s just all the facts aII the way through. I don't know- what a cement wall is going to do versus the wood wall. Planning Commission November 2A, 1990 - MeeL i ng Page 5 Erhart: Said to go ahead and build it at 12? Steve t,illette: tJhen I told him we u,ere buildins the project he said,it up high enough so you can screen it and also for the final approval had the building, or the Planning Commission staff plus the buildinsinspector on the final approval and it was at 12 feet at that time. Iraised it up 3 feet... Erhart: t^lho at staf f was with you at Put we that time? but to be honest I didn't measure itolsen: I was on the finalthen. The condition was I i nspect i on foot . . . Steve t,lillette: l"las it atrocious at that point Jo Ann? OIsen: No. Steve tlillette: It didn't look bad then? So if it didn't look bad at 12feet, uhen I raised it 3 feet..- Erhart: Brian, did you have something? Batzli: Yeah, I uas going to ask PauI something. Given the difference inelevation, can they put fence screen of this particular yard if he didn,t have things stacked so high? I mean when I Iooked at it, it looked to me,with the addition on there I can't really tell what I would have been ableto see uithout the top part on there but would an 8 foot fence really beeffective at screening anythi ng? Krruss: Probably not but arguably a 15 foot highmuch. tlell, that comes closer to it. You've got elevation from the highway. fence doasn'L doa 15 foot change tha tin BatzIi: Yeah. Krauss: From the storage yard. Batzli: But I guess, I kind of picture the applicant in a catch 22 here because no matter who utilizes this storage area, they're not 9oin9 to be able to screen it from this particular angle with an 8 foot high fence. Krauss: Probably true. Ahrens: Does the City really have a problem Hith the 8 foot high fence or with th€ inadequate screening or both? I m6an I heard Sharmin, Sharmin didn't you say earlier that perhaps a 15 foot fcnce would be acceptable if the scroening t,ras adequate? So if ue Ieft thc fence up, w€'re talking about the adequacy then of the screening which seems to be inadequate from the pictures that you provided. I realize you 've planted pine trees but the pine trees r.rill take 10 or 15 years to scre€n that kind of a fence. Ifthe screening was. . . BatzIi: Plant Russian OIives in the m€antime? Planning Novembe r commission28, 1990 - l.leet i ng Page 6 Krauss: l.lell I guess, I keeP coming back to the ground rules changed- I mean, we just went through the t'lcGlynn's aPProval where they had that huge blank waII and lold them to do someching uith that. t^le knew what He were dealins with. We asked them to resPond to it. Thev resPonded with a series of earth berms urith a lot of landscaping that broke uP the massing- It uras a solution that was accePtable to everybodv. You know 6 foot high trees are the minimum required by ordinance. You can Put a 15 foot high tree and ue don't penalize you by it. t,hen vou are trving to achieve screening, if you're trying to screen an 8 foo! high fence' a 6 foot high tree is just dandy. If you know ahead of time you're dealing with a 15 foot. hish structure, you might think differentlv of doing that - ['le now have the 15 fooL high structure- tle don't have the screening to match. Ahrens: I agree that the screening isn't adequate. I don't see Lhat part of this is screened or uiII be screened for a long time. And it Iook Iike the fence sections are of a different tvpe. It doesn't look it's aII the same fence at aII. any doesIike Steve tlillette: It's board on wind out where we took and PutstiII totally opaque. board on portions uhere a board on one side and ue're letting the board. . .but it 's Al-Jaff: At the same time it states that the fence mav not exceed 8 feet. Emmings: Rieht. I guess I'm having trouble with this. l.le did uanL screening and he's done that. In fact if he'd done what we required him to do he wouldn't have accomplished that. r also notice in our fence ordinance it says that we've got a maximum height of 8 feet on fences but you can 90 over that if you get a conditional use Permit so certainly our ordinance comtemplates sometimes using taller fences. I think the staff report, and r don't mean to be critical but vou knou from the tenor of the conversation between the staff and the aPPIicant here, and really the report kind of feels the same uay. There's some real unPleasantness here and r don't care how it started or anything else but it seems like vou folks have gotten crosswise ulith each other and I don't think I agree with' I think what we have to do is stoP and look at what we're trying to accomplish. It,s true lhat he violated the height limit of the ordinance. Steve tlillette: ...I planted 6 foot 6 trees when I Planted mv trees and that was according to ordinance. That's trhat thev requested. That's tlhats I've done. I've done everything. The only issue that I'm faced with right now is that I'm supposed to totally screen everything but I'm supPosed to do it with an I foot high fence and with l-he 22 foot that nobodv ever thought about, I didn't think abouL it or anything. If vou uant it at 8 feet. I'Il put it aL I feet. Ahrens: I'm not sure you can even adequately screen a 15 foot high fence. Emmings: I have a question here. I'm getting a littLe confused about, we've got a fence to screen the yard and then w6've got trees to screen the- fence so we've got but trhen I ]ook back at uhat ue did when we aPProved the site plan, the conditional use permit, it says aII items stored ln the outdoor storage area must be totally screened. l.lhat needs to be screened is Lhe items in the yard. Is that right? Okav. mean that people could stack things 40 feet high andallowed to just keep screening it as far as, I meanthinEs forever. He didn't have a permit to build the fence he build and my reaction uouldbe generally to that uould be to say cut lt down and geL back within theordinance. But the way this has come before us is he is applying for aconditional use permit to have the higher fence that exists. So I don't.think it's exactly fair to him to say we told you you should have an I foot fence and nou, you're asking for a 15 foot fence. I don't think that's a reason to deny it. Batzli: I agree and I also think we have to ]ook at, if there are special circumstances on this particular lot because of the heisht differential between the road, that may be I'm thinking more of kind of a variance reasons peculiar to that particular Iot but in this case, that may be a reason to look at conditional use to have the higher fence. I don't knou,if I particularly Iike this fence but if the intent is to screen objectsinside the yard, I think the only way you're going to accomplish it is togive them more height on iL. Emmings: And that clearly was the intent. l^lhen you read the condition itjust says aII items stored in the outdoor storage area must be totallyscreened. So that was the intent and it says no stored items shall project over the fence and that's going to happen. Ahrens: Does thatthat they would bepeople could stac k Emmings: No they can't because if they go over 8 feet r"rith their fence. They can't have the things stacked higher than the fence. Ellson: Right. But could you stack 2 feet is what she's saying with an 8foot fence? You could have your things stacked at 2 feet and have an Ifoot fence and would Lhat be screened, I don't knou, Ahrens: No, but what if they, what u,as approved was an I foot fence. They had things sLacked aL 12 f6et or 15 feet and they needed to screen that. Emmings: t,lell, how do we know that? tJe don't. Ahrens: l.lell because it's obvious by the fence that things are stacked upawfully close to the top of the fencc. Emmings: Oh, okay. The condition r.las that no stored items shall project over the fence. So and what he's in here now is doine is to ask us for apermit for a fence that's higher than anything that's stored in there butI guess the point to me is, I don't think the fence looks good in thepicturo. I do think it will look better when it Heathers and obviously when the trees grow and maybe he needs some mor6 trees- But it gets hard because the staff and the applicant aren't cooperaLing to find some kind ofa compromise and maybe that's what lre have to do. Ahrens: I guess I don't understand also wher€ the limits are on thesefence. I meen you know are people able to come in for a certain permit. cet approval for it and then just build a fence as high as they want andthen come in under a condiLional use permit and then. Planning Commission Meet i ng November 28, 1990 - Page 7 Planning November Commission24, 7990 -Meet i ng Page I Emmings: This is an amendment of his conditional use. He's asking to amend that element and yeah, he's doing it after the fact and that alwavs predisposes you to kind of use a knee jerk and say, you knou take it down and then come back and then we'll give vou Permission to put it uP and I don't want to do that. Ahrens: t^lell I agree. I mean that's ri.diculous reasoning but you know I think that I don't understand how we set limits in Preventing unsightlv fences in Chanhassen that are even higher to screen storage yards - Emmings: tlel I hopeful ly we didn't. you do a good job the first time around and mavbe Batzli: Ipictures, think for things. guess in this case I see your Point but in looking at the if this is Lhe typical way that he has things sLored' I don't the kind of business he's in that he has unreasonable piles of Ahrens: r.lel I I 'm not sayi ng him . I Lhe future, whaE are we going to do? how we're reasoning this out . li,e're m sayingI don 'tjust ki nd uhen things come any guidelines I up inguess in - that seeof. Emmings: Yeah. It's hard. EIIson: l.lhat keeps going through my mind is maybe we were wrong because we didn't notice the elevations. That there is no such thing as making it total.ly screened. I'm thinking if ue make the Precedence that things have -to be totally screened, ue could end up based on the highest level that any neighbor might be, for heaven's sakes ue'I] end up with you know,22 foot screens because there's somebody wlthin a bird's eye view Lhat's going to see it. And I don'L knou, that all along that highwav 5' I mean if anv area wanted to see that, that's Probablv the least harming to PeoPIe versus neighbors that don't like to see into things like that. I'm more concerned that ue were wrong in saying that everything has to be Lotally screened and- making the assumption that it's from aII angles. In general ' do the best you can with 8 feet is about uhat it came out as and so it aII can't be screened. I can Iive with that but I'm more concerned that if ue go totally screened, then we're going to be asking People !o screen for aII kinds of neighbors in the future and everythins like that and ue']I end uP with really high fences and building extra berms iust because of the topography. So f'a just as soon give uP on some of the seeing it from TH 5. I could live with that is what I'm saving. Erhart: Sharmin or PauI, is the fence strong enough? Did you see it today? Krauss:is over does . Erhart: The bui ldi ng 5 foot it has i nspectorsto qua I ify have told us that it is and when a fence under separate standards and apparenlly it Al-Jaff: okay. Js it going to stay vertical? IL's up to Code. It meets aII Code. Planni ng November Comm ission24, t990 - t.leet i ng Page 9 Erhart: Is there an Krauss: Yeah. requirements. Over actual Code a height it for a fence? has to meet wind loading and some other Erhart: Okay. did it not before? That it blew down. Krauss: I don't know. Steve tJillette: ].Je had a high wind storm that took off the air conditioner screens and everyLhlng else. It uas just a straight line wind that came through and just did a little path. l.le also had a lot of dock and boatIift damage out on the lake. It feII some trees...storm. Erhart: tJhat's going to keep this fence from starting over the years tostart leaning one way and the other? Steve t"Jillette: It's braced back. It's a good brace back and the insideof it is 5 x 6 in a lot of areas. Erhart: My concern about the fence is )zou know, Iet's assume it's strong enough for urind but fences tend over the years to get to Iook really tacky and if you think it looks bad now, which I guess I drive by it every day.I guess I don'L think it looks all that bad now but I guarantee you in 10years it's going to Iook like a pile of garbage and I guess I tend to agree. Erhart: tJith Joan is what you need here is a lot moreyears you Hon't see the fence at aII. It really won'tdifference if it's there or not. I also agree that we do we have ordinances that deal with use of fences for [.le have an ordinance that talks about a fence. Emmings: No, it's right here. Erhart: For the purpose of screening though? screening.Emmi ngs: Yeah. Fences for Erhart: t^lhat does it say? Emmings: Fences for screening or used for commercial or industrial storage purposes installed on property uses may have a maximum height of I feet. Erhart: Okay. Emmings: And then it goes on to talk about uhen they abut properties zonedfor residential uses and then it says the fence has to be 1OO? opaque. Andthen it says commercial or industrial. fences over 8 feet shall require aconditional use permit. It also says under an earlier point by the waythat every fence shall be maintained in such condition as to not become ahazard, eyesore or public or private nuisance. Ellson: Then your pine tree uiII be there. trees that in 10 make a 1ot of ought to, you know screening purposes? Erhart: Boy, I think we ought to look at that. Even in a commercial or industrial area, it would seem to me that uhen ue look at a mini-storage building and ue don't allour them to put uP wood fences around the storage area. They put masonary fences up. It t{ould seem to me a commercial- industrial area that if we're going to use fences for screening, we ought to define what's the better Iooking material is going forward but on this particular one I tend to agree that we should keep what we've got. I really think we ought to 9o in and uhat do you say the disLance between those trees now is what? Steve tlillette: t^le did. tle went up and down the hill and they're about 11- feet. At maturity they'lI reach 10 foot and there is a couPle of areas where ue skipped so i! wasn't solid aII the uav along because the idea of the trees was to break the fence uP and not to totally screen the fence because we were iust going to screen the drive with the fence and to be honest uith you Tim, I've got $35,OOO.OO into this fence... It's a lot of cedar and I'II do uhatever you want to make it look, I uant it to look nice too. I Nant to maintain it. I want to be in Chanhassen. I made that clear to evervbodv. r like tha communit)r. r like being here. r've sPent a lot of money on advertisinE over the years to be here. I've got a business. l"ly stuff is not stacked over I foot high in the fence. I've shown you that in the pictures. You're welcome to come over and visit. The front parL of the fence is not much over 8 feet going across Ehe drive area. Going across the back and down... Erhart: okay, I think we've got a PreLtv good idea. readily.Steve tJillette: And you will see in there verv I feet, it wiII be an eyesore. If you go douln to- Erhart: Yeah, the pictures teII tha storv real ueII. The other thing' I think we should put someLhing in here which restricts additional height on the fence. Now there's some ideas I've gotten. Some of the other, since ue've been essantially just going around here, is there some other recommendations so u,e can lead to some kind of motion? EIIson: I would think go down to the 8 feet until you've got a section that you can see into and it's from TH 5. I just think from a Precedence standpoint, there's probably going to be more than one situation where you can't possibly total.Iy screen. I'm thinking of that shopping center. That time when people were trying to m€asure from their decks. They didn't Hant to see the roof of the shopping center and they were trying !o build berms so that people uho were on their decks couldn't see and I iust think that's going above and beyond totally screening. There are times when you can't do ii at aII and 8 feet is somethins that we've got in the ordinance and I Planning Commission Heeting November 2A, 7990 - Page 10 Steve t,illette: They're about, well they're Planted as close together as they can to let them grow because when the landscaPers Put them in they said this is how far aPart they have to be. If vou Put them in closer togeLher or.. .tangle together and look Iike that so this is uhere the landscapers said that they should be. Erhart: They don't look that close to me and also, I guess what I was going to suggest to alternate them in a zig zag Pattern. PIanni n9 November Commission 2A, 1990 - Meet i ng Page 11 think it's easy to follow and I don'tprobably not even keep it xhere it is thi nkrd it 's ago the problem so8 feet and I would Ieave it. Erhart: okay. Brian, what's your rocommendation? Batzli: Hy recommendation is to give him a conditional use for his 15 fence based again on the differences in elevation that he's trying to with and that's assuming that tre trant it to be screened and that's important to us. I mean that's the underlying hypothesis here is that want it to be screened. foot dea I ure Ellson: Totally. I mean because some of it is I think. Erhart: Joan, do you have a recommendation? Ahrens: tlell, I guess I'm not sure that it looks any better to have a 15foot high fence that is not particularly great looking than to have something showing from above the fence. To have the I foot high fence and then to have somethings behind it that you can see. I mean I don't thinkthat that looks any worse and I think it probably woul.d look better to have an I foot high fence than to have some, be able to ses what's behind that. However, I am not enthusiastic about the idea of making him cut the fence down either. I'm more enthusiastic about having some screening for the fence but I also, I'm waffling. But I also don't see in the ordinance where ue have any reguirements to have screening for a fence. I mean that seems redundant to me. I like the idea but I don't know if we can requirethat. Anyway, I suppose you don't have any idea of what I just said. Erhart: No. Steve tlillette: Joan? I'm uill.ing to work with you within reason. I meanI'm not, I just want to get...get on uith my life because this is just... If it takes a couple extra trees, I'11 put in a couple of trees. That's noproblem at aIl. Emmings: I'm not concerned about setting a precedent here because I think this is always done a case by case basis so I'm not worried about every oneof these is different enough so I'm not concerned about thaL. I essentially agree with Brian that hre should let him do this. I think it would be a good thing and maybe even a condition that he maybe do a little more screening right up against the fence. ilaybe some high bush cranberries or something Iike that that uould just break up that expanse until those trees get big. Something that could live in shade after those trees are big. ttould help in the short term. But I don't knou. I guess I'd like to see them do a little more landscaping. Erhart: okay, iust to repeat. I think I'd like to leave the fence left. Make sure it uas solid and to have the applicant work with staff to improve the landscaping. I think Lhat's also uhat you said Steve so with that, if there's not any more comments or questions, I'd Iike to entertain a motion. Ahrens: How about some vines? Planni ng November Commission 24, L990 - Meet ing Page 12 Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit S88-17 to apProve a fence r.rith a maximum height of 15 feet being my understanding that it's onl.y 15 feet hish in certain areas. That's at it's hishest and ue would put one condition on that and that would be that the applicant work uith the staff to trv and get alittle screening perhaps up close to the fence or some how work out additions to the landscaPe PIan to break uP the fence a little more. Screen it a little bit. BatzIi: Second. Erhart: Any other discussion on the motion? Emmings: tlelt I guess in discussion I'd like to say, we're going against our sLaff's recommendation here and we don't do that very often. And I don't like to do it. And I guess I don't like the fact that vou didn't comply with the original conditions of your Permit and that should be said too here. Ahrens: Are u,e providing enough direction for staff Steve Nhen u,e say? Emmings: No, it's real vague but I think that now that Lhe staff knotts where we're coming from and if the City Council agrees hrith us, I'm sure they'Il be able to uork it out between them. Ahrens: But you said just to provide a little bit of screening for that fsnce . Emmings: Yeah, I knoh,. Ahrens: I mean that's not what ue re'ally want is it? hle want a lot of screening for Lhat fence. Emmings: I , don't. Ahrens3 You don 't? Emmings: No. Ahrens: I want more than a little bit. Emminge: I think that staff knows hot* to do that better than I do but my idea would be to put some clumps of bushes along the fence so that it just made it Iook a little better but maybe in conments after r.re vote on this, maybe we should aII say nhat we've got in mind. Our ideas and Iet the City Council see what they think- Erhart: Are you inlerested in trying to amend Lhe motion? Ahrens: No - ErharE: Any other discussion? 1 Planning Commission Heeting November 2A, l99O - Page 13 Emmings moved, Batzli second€d that the Planning Commission recommendapproval to amend Conditional Use Perait I8A-17 to approve a fence rith a naximum height of 15 feet at it'6 hiehest point xith the follosingcondition: The applicant shall rork rith the staff to get a little ;orc screeningup close to thc fence or sonc horr rork out additions to thc landscapeplan to break up the fencc a little rore- All voted in favor Gxcept Ellaon rho o{rposcd and thc motion carricd rith avote of 4 to 1- Erhart: Annette's opposed. Anybody would tant to make some comments? Ofcourse He'II start wiLh you Annette. Ellson: I just think that it's easy enough to 9o urith just the I foot and keep it the way it was originally passed. Erhart: Yeah. I r.rould like to add too that I'd like to see perhaps morescreening Lhan uras communicated in the motion. I think uith the heishL ofthe thing and the time that it's going to take to screen it with the treesthat are there, I realIy think that a bit little more creativity ough! tobe put into this thing and some investment to make it visually betterfaster. So I uould agree with Joan's initial commenL, Do you have any mor e? Ahrens: No. Erhart: okay. Anything else Brian? Batzli: No. I agree with uhat you jusL said. I think he does have aIarge investment and it wouldn't hurt to break up the fence with morescreening than perhaps a Iittle bit. Ahrens: Do you want them back? Steve t,li I lette: No , you can keep them . PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE A},IENDHENT TO AI{END SECTTON 18-57. STREETS. TO REFLECT EUERENT CITY STANOAROS FOR RIGHT-OF-I.JAY LIIDTHS, ORIVELIAYS. ETC. ANO }IOOIFY THE URBAN SERVICE AREA REFERENCES. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Erhart called thepublic hearing to order. Batzli moved, Ahrens scconded to close thc public hearing. All voted infavor and the motion carried. Thc public hcaring ras closed- Erhart: A]right. Thank you. Let's see, that r.rill go before the CityCouncil on December 1Oth. Thanks for the photographs. PIanning November Commission 2A, 1990 - Mee! i ng Page 14 Erhart: Is there any discussion by any of the commissioners on the proposed amendment change? Batzli: She stole your thunder. Erhart: one of Lhe things that I think that I'd like you just to think about and it's not a big thing but by doing this essentially you're increasing the effect of minimum Io! size in the city of chanhassen to 15,5oo feeL. !.that you're doing is you're taking, by increasing the road width by 5 feet on either side, you take an average Io! of 1oo feet, that's 5 time 1OO, that's 5OO feet so t^,hat you're doing is you're decreasing the density of our city. olsen: That isn't changing though. It's just the right-of-way. The actual width will be... Erhart: Right-of-way gets excluded from the Iand area that's develoPable- Krauss: If you've got 10 acres of effectively as Jo Ann pointed out'past year anyway. Iand, you're right. . .but been doing it this way for the gr oss we 've Erhart: road. Batzl i : pave the BatzIi:the staff se nse? Ahrens: a calculator?Emm i ngs :have toYou Yeah, use ByI do.3 f/22. I certainly have no problem with the a proponent of open spaces and assuming they're not going to 10 feet, I like this.Being extra Emmings: tlel] yeah, you original]y wanted 90 feet. BatzIi: That's right. Just big green boulevards. Erhart: I guess if I was getting more open space, I'd rather have it clumped in a park that somebody could use it I suppose. . .spending any time on it. Is there any other discussion on it? If not, does somebody L,ant to- make a mot ion? f move that the Planningreport to amend Section Commission adopt a motion 18-57 set forth therein.set forth inthat made You sound like a Iawyer. Is there a second?Erhart: asIf Ahrens: The }ast sentence of (n) in the, where it says the construction of-private streets are prohibited. It should be an is. Erhart: I mean you did it and h,e never thought about it. I'm just pointing ou! to aII the oLher commissioners that effectively are you reducing the density of your urban area here by 5OO divided by 15,ooO. PIanning November Commission 2A, L990 - Heet i ng Page 15 EI Ison: Second . Eatzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Ordinance Amendmcnt to amend Section 18-5Xb) and (n) xith the changc in itom (n) changing the sord 'ars' to 'is'- Allvoted in favor and the notion carried unanimously- APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Erhart: Anything on theto bring up? Is there a turo meetings here. Anybody? Any old business anybody wants approve the |.,li nr.rtes? I guess we've got Mi nutes? motion to Emmings: We've gotten recent direction that we don't have to do thisanymore. If there are no changes, that they're simply approved as writLen.tle ask for changes and if there aren't any, we just. Erhart: creat. I'm glad I've been updated. Erhart: city Council Update. tle'vethat. I think Paul wanLs Lo discussthi ng . gotten a nice report from Paul ona little bit about the comp plan Krauss: Let me touch on a couple things if I may Mr. Chairman. ...The downtoun traffic...did a preliminary report for the City Council at thelast meeting. tle're still in the process of doing some more datacollection and models but they were retained through the HRA late lastspring, or initially when Ne thought Target was a serious proposal but to examine the dountourn street system and see if it's really going to carry thyough the future and what sort of design standards we needed. Theirpreliminary indications are, well they're a Iittle bit startling when you deal with what we have there now. They're telling us that in allprobability we're going to need a four lane section on 78th Streetcertainly west of Harket Blvd. out to CR 17 and that is going to be designed that Hay. In fact the reali.gnment. . .being designed for that.They're also indicating that it's probable in the long run ue'll probably need 4 Ianes up to Great Plains Blvd. uhich...configuraLion over there.It's not something we have to run out and do tomorrow and there are goingto be proposals for turn lanes and signalization eL 2 or 3 intersectionswill be needed at some point in the future but they're telling us that inthe long run that that's probably going to occur. So that uas apreliminary report to the City Council and there's a lot more detail thatI'm not going to touch on now but we would be coming back to the HRAcertainly and I believe we could also give a report to the Planning Commission as to how.that's developing. I think some of you might have been involved in some of the consideration of downtoh,n street systems sowe'Il keep you posted as to Stragar -Roscoe 's progress but there is going to Batzli: oh, r.lith the one change, 'are' to 'is'. Vice Chairman Erhart noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated Octobey 24, 1990 and November 7 , L990 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Planning November Commission 2A, 7990 - Meet i ng Page 16 be, I believe a joint HRA/city Council meoting on this Probably in January or February at the latest with the final report. Erhart: How do you visualize making the existing downtown into 4 lanes? Emmings: Yeah, Krauss: I don 'thave the benefit Er hart : str eet? Krauss: xhat 's knop.of. caused the crunch? You know I came into this quite late so I don't Emmings: tJe're not trying to fix fault here. Krauss: I don't know if the road design greu, out of thinking that really didn 't catch up to where dourntown Chanhassen was goi ng or not . l'ly ownperception is that the ring road system was develoPed when Chanhassen Dinner Theater was downtown Chanhassen. It's easy for me and it's not fair really for me to come in here in 1990 and say well, I can tell you that doh,ntor.,n Chanhassen has moved 3 blocks to the west and it's a different traffic situation. It's clear to me now lhat that probably haPpened. But again, I don't have 2o-2O hindsieht and all that, that's not a fair question reall), you know because I don't knou what decisions were made or r.,hy. tlho was the consultant that did all of the designing of that tlas that BRt,l? I beIieve it r^,as BRtl. Are they doing any urork for the City now?Erhart: Krauss: That's real tough. I mean everybody's aware that r.le have constraining right-of-way. There's realIy not very much to give. There's - some design flexibility. You can cut down the median a little bit. The Ianes that uJe have there are 16 foot wide to begin with. They're oversized Ianes. They're not quite, I mean they're actually r.lide enough for l car ' -if you pul] over, for another car to pass. It's not wide enough for a truck to go around or anyLhing else. If you shave the median or boulevard area in some places you pick uP several feet. You can get 20 foot uide Ianes. If you eliminate the boulevards, you can get vour full 24 fooL Iane. There's some flexibility there but clearly from the design standpoint it's been a major imPact. In the more immediate term though we're probably looking at the need for some turn lanes to be cut in and they were talking about signals I believe at Laredo, Harket and Great Plains ultimately. The Council's been graPpling with how to, I'm sureyou're all aware Lhat it's getting very tough to turn, make turns across -traffic on 78th Street. The Council's been looking at trying to get 4 Hav stops up in the short lerm but iL's really going to come down to signal ization . Emmings: Is there just more traffic? I mean why didn't we foresee this do you think? Krauss: l.lhy didn 't we? PIanni ns November Commission 24, t990 - Meet i ng Page 77 Krauss: Very little. They project management wor k. for replacing and removing a lot of the do some and payErhart: Do they go back inplantings and stuff? Erhart: Is that complete now? Krauss: It's my understanding that it is. In fact some of the people onthe City Council got complaints or concerns at Great Plains where 78thStreet was blocked several weeks ago and they were tearing up an existingproject. That t^tas not being paid for by the City. That was remedial workthat the contractor was made to do. In alL fairness to those who made thedecisions before, Iook at the rapidity at Bhich the ciLy's perception onthe comprehensive plan changed. I mean 2 yeays ago you were working onthat comprehensive plan. ReaIIy ue had more land to develop and people in Timberwood were somewhat comfortable and you know, thinking that thingswouldn't come out that oay for 10 or 15 years. You know, the changes werein the urorks but it really took until 1989-1990 for people to catch up tothat reality and adjust to it. I suspect a Iittle bit of t.he same thing happened in the downtown street system. You know, we now have the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study and that's showing some extraordinarilyhigh traffic Ievels that they didn't anticipate when they completed the work for the TH 5 improvements. tle're going back in there, Gary tJarren isworking r^,ith MnDot on the common section of TH 1O1 and TH 5 telling themthat we've got forecasts that say that there should be 55,OOo trips a dayout there. If what we think is going to happen, happens in Chanhassen, tJaconia, Chaska, whatever else. Victoria. Out ulest. 55,OOO trips a day is more than TH 7 is carrying in spots. So the magnitude of the changes. EIIson: Right. They did the best they could with the information thatsthey had. Krauss: But anyway, we'II be keeping you posted. Batzli: I have trouble ulth it because I know u,hen they were talking aboutputting in the first phase of the Professional Building. The Planning Commission asked if there ulas enough room to put a second lane in and ule were assured that it was no problem. t"le thought of it, You know,everything's under control and to come out a year and a half later sayingweII geez, it might not fit. That doesn't make much sense. Krauss: t^lell Lhere is room to put a second Iane in but what gives is themedian... Like I say, we'II keep you posted. Oh, by the Nay, I shouldadd...the City Council members and respective Council members here tonightjust heard but Gary l.larren has submitted his resignation. He's accepted aposition wiLh the MeLropolitan Airport Commission so we'II be Iosing Garyprobably by the end of the year. Erhart: Hor^, long has Gary been brith us? 4 years. He's really seen the City through some extraordinaryI Lhink his position in the engineering department quite weII.. . Kr auss : groHth. Krauss: Yeah. Planning November Commission 2a,, 1990 - Meet i ng Page 18 he's going to be sorely missed. The next item was the Troendle Addition. The same residents who spoke at the Planning Commission meeting were at the City Council meeting and raised the similar issues. Again, they weren't opposing Troendle Addition as such but they uere seekins to have the connection of Nez Perce taken through to Pleasant View rather than terminating short term and waiting for the Or.rens ProPerty to develop. In a somewhat interesting development, Mr. Oh,ens wasn't Present but there was an- attorney representing Mr. Beddor who apparently has been in contact ulith Art owens and has explained that the ProPerty's in bankruptcv. He is not able to seII Iand for right-of-uray right now but he mav be a tlilling' if the city were to condemn it, that that may be a satisfactory resuLt. Based on the direction of the Council, the item was continued. [.le've contacted our attorney to basically investigate if we can condemn the land that's in bankruplcy and we found that ure can. But more imPortantly is that we're moving towards selting up a meeting with our staff with the engineer and the designer of the Troendle Addition, Hr. Beddor's attornev and hoPefuIIv Mr. owens and whoever else he wants to rePresent him, to go for the City's -goal which appears at this Point to be to get the road completed if possible at this point in time. So right now we're investigating the potential of completing the road with the Troendle Addition which from a traffic standpoint would be great if we can achieve that. Emmings: But taking it out to Pleasant View? Krauss: Taking it out to Pleasant VietJ at Peaceful Lane uhere it is. the endEmmings: Oh, okay, And then would you undertake those changes to of Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View at the same time? Krauss: Risht. The whole thins uould be rebuilt. The remaining questions of acquisition and questions of cost and how to distribute the cost and who urill pick it up and when, we hoPe to come back to the City council wiLh this on December 1oth. IL doesn't look Iike we're going to be able to get aII the parties involved in one room aL one time by that Point but ue're working towards that goal and I'Il let vpu know on that as ulell. Batzli: They're going to leave Lhe barn where it is? Krauss 3 tJeIl, there was there was some desire on no vote on it. no action taken on that. I guess the Council's part Lo do that but it seemed that there simply was Batzli: Because we had made some, I think Steve made the proPosal. It was an earlier of him leaving the property or some other thing and at thaLpoint they'd get rid of it? so that's in there right noN in front of the Counci I? Krauss: Yeah. t^,e did carry that forward. I mean we carried forward our reservations of how ue administ€r something Iike that but we did carry that foruard. And as I recall, that seemed to be the direction the council was going. There was going to be something recorded against the title. I'II skip some of the other stuff so ra,e can get to the interviews. There's actually two Ieft I wanted to touch on. I discussed the comPrehensive PIan and what schedule that was taking up...and r^rhat they've done is establish PIanni ng November Comm iss io n24, 1990 - Heet i ng Page 19 January 7th as a special meeting for them Lo consider. It r.lill be theirinitial consideration of the comprehensive plan. Nor^l it may in fact take more than one meeting. l.le don't know that yet but I'd like for you all toput that on your calendar and I'II get out notice for those who aren'there. IL's really by nature of you reviewed the plan and passed it on tothe City Council. fn my opinion, you should present it to the City Counci I . Emmings: The Council expects us to remember what we did for that ]ong t ime? a Emmings: I don't knou if that's reasonable. Krauss: But you know, I can respond in terms of technical questions and what not. You may be asked questions as to what your thought processes Nere on a given piece of property or brhatover but I think that that dialogue between the PIanning Commission and Council at that point in timeis important so I'd ask you to put that down on your calendar and hopefullyit's the Iast special meeting we'lI ever have to have on Lhe comprehensiveplan. Along those Iines, I had two conversations with individuals Irelated in here. The first uas t^rith a group of brokers and attorneys concerning the property in front of Timberwood. You may recall, I saidthis on several occasions that if somebody came up urith a plan that Ididn't think the city could refuse, whether it was residential orindustrial or uhatever, thaL I urould feel it encumban! upon me to bring itbefore you and the City Council and get your opinion. The individuals f met h,ith believe they have such a plan. Now I'm not frankly convinced aLthis point that that's the case but my idea for a plan that might seIIitself here is, well for those of you who are familiar with Lhe American Express campus in Chaska, if somebody were to say I can take 137 acres.It's going to be prime, Class A office. Here's my plan. I'1I do it as aPUo. I think it's encumbant upon us to consider something Iike that. Atthis point in time the individuals are talking about...as I understood trith approximately 25O new jobs which raised a little bit of a red fLag in my mind because that's not a urhole lot of jobs for the ratio of square f ootage. t^le've got many more people out, ulell look at Rosemount. l.le'vegot 1,2O0 people packed up in the same space. You know they've only talked about these things and I offered them the opportunity to bring back a review and at your next meeting if they so desired or they're going to, the opportunity to make a presentation to the City Council. I indicated that at this point I'm rather relunctant to consider, I mean change the plan inmidstream. I mean we've got a lot of commitments to a lot of individuals and homeowners and residents and I'm very concerned that ure not. Ellson; Look like we turn on a dime? Krauss: Risht, without inviting them back in to comment again but they, Idon't know if they're going to pursue it or not at this point. I }eft it up to them to get back to me and they haven't. The second one to consideris one thaL I had heard earlier. Rod crams called me before our public hearing and indicated to me that he's not opposed to, remember we changedhis property to residential from industrial . He's not opposed to the Krauss: Hopeful ly . P Iann i ng November Commission 28, 1990 - Meet i ng Page 20 residential designation but he feels that when we use a dividing line as his north property Iine, that that was inaPProPriate because there is a pipeline that bisects the property with a 1oo foot wide swath that you can't build on. Pipelines are difficult to build residential around. It's- kind of a natural separation and vou can do some Planting probablv which wiII be a dividing point. tlhen I spoke to Rod I indicated that I didn't find, that seemed reasonable since we were still achieving our goal of providing a residential buffer to the Sunridge and Audubon Road. He Has supposed to have his attorney make a Presentation to you at the public hearing and apparently his attorney couldn't come or he never made it They may go before the city Council again and bring this issue uP again to be considered. My ouln oPinion on lhat is I don't have a Problem with it because I think it's consistent with the guidelines that we established. This Iine is just in a more definitive place that we Feren't ablare existed-- Emmings: l.lhich way would it move it? South? Krauss: The line would move to the south. Emmings: How far from where we had it? Krauss: tlell I don't know exactly. I would have a maP readv for the Citv Council and I'I1 copy you one and maybe I can do it at the next meeting. tJhat I'm curious about is which side, now that I think about it, which side- of the existing home does that faII on? Emminss: And ulhere does it 9o on both ends because it sounds like it's heading right into a residential area. Krauss: WeII it does in fact. The subdivision across the street is built around it. There's a larse swath of that subdivision that's not used because of that. Eirmings: oh, okay. I don't remember it in there. Last thing was the Eastern carver County Transportation Study. Erhart: Before you move on to that, you're not asking us to review these things before this goes to Council? Krauss: I just Nant to make vou ah,are of it. Erhart: okay. Are you looking for any inPut from the commission at this time on their reaction to these? Krauss: I certainly would, I mean I'd encourage that if you'd have any initial responses and we can take it further. l.le still have a month before this gets Lo the Council Erhart: Okay, does anybody have anything on the first one? Anv inPut? Batzli: I'd be interested in seeing what they have to ProPose but I don't -know what it is yet. Pl.anning November Commission 24, t990 - t"leet i ng Pase 21 Erhart; For my comments on that one. I would absolutely oppose that becaues what happens, the way we have it noul h,e have zoned it residential .That means if somebody wants to come into that 137 acre parcel , they haveto come in with a site plan that we really control to the tee because they have to convince the City Council to change comp plan and zoning for thatparticular piece. So that's a trade. tle've got something to offer inorder to control what goes in that area. If r.re put that in the comp plan as industrial/commercial today, then aII anybody has !o come in with isalmost any plan that wiII meet our ordinance for a commer c i a l,z i ndustr i a I .I think ule ought to be adamant at this point since there's so much public concern for that 137 acres, that we maintain as strict control as we can. And the second one I agree with )zou PauI. I think moving the line to anatural, an existing barrier makes good sense. If you have another commentthat's f ine. Krauss: On the Timberh,ood area issue, they haven't sold me that Lhequality is there...thought it through. They also told me that while they'dtake doun a signficant percentage of the acreage, they're not taking downthe whole 137 acres which again is another red flag because the only wayI perceive this ever happening is if somebody packages the r.rhole thing up.I don't believe they're in a position to do that- Erhart: Okay, what about the meeting on the lOth then Paul? Krauss: Oh, the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The County Engineer is setting up a meeting for Planning Commissioners, interestedpeople, City Council people. Unfortunately they set it on December lOth and we have a regular Council meeting. This meeting is to have theconsultant present and those people who worked on Lhe plan, including theengineer, cary tlarren and myself and other staff peopl.e, to respond toquestions and give out information. t^le think this study's a very importantone. te're going to be taking it to the I'letro Council. As you're aware, we incorporated it in our comprehensive plan. t,le also don't uant thisstudy to just sit there in static. ].le think that this is a good work...andthere's other things u,e'd like to tackle. tle'd like to get this modelupdated. The Metro Council...study on why people go where and where theygo Hhen they want to and thaL's 9oin9 to factor into Lhe regional model . l.Je'd like to rerun our, it's a process b,e b,ant to keep going. Since we have conflict with that night, tre're probably going to hire the consultantto come in and brief the City Council and yourselves again sometime in January when we find a good date to do that and u,e would have Roger Gustafson, their County Engineer present as welI. So !,e'11 be following up on Lhat with you. If anybody can manage Lo get to that meeting though onthe 1Oth, I probably can't but if somebody could be there, it would be very . , . Erhart: Okay. Ongoing items. tle didn't get a handout today on the listin our packet on ongoing items. Krauss: l^,le I L , I could say it 's promisi n9 actuaL ly because af termeeting Jo Ann and I took that one out and we divied up the itemsactually get them done. .. the so I ast we can PIanni ns November Commission 28, t990 - Heet i n9 Page 22 Erhart: One of was absen! that Iot size issue. the thi ngsI think we that I noticed have to put on on the Iast one that there Uas to Iook at I sau, thatthe rura I Krauss: Erhart: Krauss: Erhart: t^le've got It 's not You mean Yeah. that as a work item. an ongoing i Lem? with the rural study that the Met Council is doing? Krauss: Yeah, I have that. I'll make sure that it gets done. Erhart: Yeah, I don't think it was on there. I think tle added it aL one time and then it wasn't on the last one. I think again if I can speak for aII of the commissioners, I think ue've spent the last year uorking so much- on the comp plan, I think there's somewhat a level of frustration that we've had a Iong list that nothing gets, you knour very little got done this Iast year on it and I think we're al] anxious to get back on that and see if we can get on some of these tasks nour that hopefully ure've got Lhe comp - plan behind us because I think there's some real imPortant r.lor k that needs to be done regarding planning and ordinances ther€. Batzli: The only thing I'd Iike to add is I think staff did a nice iob on the comprehensive plan and lhat was a lot of work for probably double the size staff ue have so I don't think our eomment should be viewed as a reflection that h,e don't think you were busy. Erhart: Okay, anything else? Krauss: There was one fninor Ahrens: 25 feeL. Is there any administrative approvals? one that I described for a wooden fence. Erhart: The first item on the public hearing we discussed uhat I interpretted was a concern about the ordinance regarding screening. used for screening. Is that an issue that conc€rns anybody tha! He to be looking at? or are you prepared to let the next one come in? Fe nces ought Krauss: No, no. This on6 was 8 foot and I made them cut it down to 5. It's the trash enclosure for Country Hospitality Suites. It turned out to be in a much more visible location than had been approved because of water - mains that were put in without the knowledge of the landscaper. He put it basically in the front yard of the hotel on Market Blvd. which r.rill become a very busy street. t^le wanted to make sure that i! uas pretty obscured so -we had them cut it down from 8 feet to 6 feet and they're going to be residing it in the same maLerial that the hotel's sided with. Hopefully iLwilI blend with that background and aLso landscaped around it. Emmings; I think it's very hard to do it across the board. I think what we learned from this one is you've got to be real sensitive to them when they come in the first time because lf you don't do it right the first time, you really are creating a problem. Planning November Comm iss ion 28, !990 - Heet i ng Page 23 Batz]i: I think in some .instancescan't screen it total Iy . the topography will just mean that you Emmings: It has in the past. Lle've already had those. You try to screenthe top of this United Hailing you know. tlhen you're up above it. tte've had several of those where we just said it wasn't possible. And thenAnnette's example of that shopping center uhere the person brought the developer out onto their deck and said, see I can see the top. I meanyou're just going to have insEances like that. Emmings: That's right. Olsen: You have to limit heisht of trhat's bein9 stored too. reasonable.ElIson: Right you have to Emmings: Or maybe we wind up on some of those, maybe we wind up telling them it's going to have to be inside. Their storage is going Lo have to beinside. l^lhatever but it's going to be a case by case deal . Krauss: l.{ar ket Square though is a good case in point because there you have full knowledge that you have a back r.lall that is probably 25 feet high and that they wanted to use for signage and the Lrade off was fine. Youcan put your signage there but you're going to put the same architecturaltreatment on the back with roof lines that you have on the front becausethat's basically, for the rest of everybody going by on TH 5, that's thefront of the buildins. There was also the storage area back behind the hardware store that was required to have a 5 foot high or 6 foot hish masonary r.rall matching the buildins exterior and then the parking Iot backthere has a berm urith landscaping on it so that from the off siteperspective, you can see the building wall and the signage and the roofelevations but you can't see all the stuff in the back which is the trucks unloading and snowmobiles and whatever else is back there Emmings: That's probably the best way and somebody, was it Tim or somebody mentioned that connection with this first item we discussed and I thoughtthat was a good idea. If ue had caught this one early on, maybe to have him just put a wing waII out you knoul to screen that stuff would have blended right in from a distance. You r.rouldn't have seen a thing. Erhart: okay, the next item. Is there any other open discussion? Thenext item is the recommending candidates for, I guess ure do have an openposition now on the Planning Commission so Paul, do you rlant to explain that? Krauss: You might as weLl close your. Planning Commission meeting and then we can go on to the inLerviews. the be there's no other business, does someone want to make athe meet i ng? Erhart: Okay, if motion to adjour n Olsen: You have the same thing with Market Square from TH 5 south. Planning Commission Mee! i ng November 28,, 1990 - Page 24 Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting- AII voted in favor and the motion carried - The regular Planning Commission meeting was adiourned at 8:55 P.m.. The Planning Commissioners then interviewed candidates for the oPen Position on the Planning Commission. Submitted by PauI Krauss Planning D i r ector Prepared by Nann Opheim oot- t CITY OF CH[NH[EEEN 690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O, BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739 r-/. -bpfr}'18}TORANDlJlll TO: FROM: DATE: SURT: Planning commission Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner (nO Decenber 5, 1990 update of Flood Plain ordinance l>- b-7 0 On October 13, 1989, Planning and Engineering staff net with CeitStrauss and Judy Boudreau fron the DNR to discuss flood plain management in the City of Chahhassen. The neeting rras conducted by the DNR on behalf of the Federal Energency Management Agency (FEMA)in consideration of Chanhassenrs continued participation in theNational Flood Insurance PrograD (NFIP). Chanhassen's Flood PlainOrdinance is non-conpliant due to 1985 changes to federalreguirernents of the NFIP. The representatives fron the DNRprovided staff with a copy of a nodeL ordinance that they recommendthe city adopt since it is conpliant with all state and federalflood plain regulations. The city has the right to anend theexisting ordinance, but this would have to be reviewed by the DNRto ensure that there are no omissions. State regulations allohrs 6 months for the city to anend the flood plain ordinance and federalregulations only a11ow 90 days for anendments to non-conpl iantordinances. The deadline for the ordi.nance occurred on January 10,1990. The ordinance must be anended to avoid any possiblesanctions irnposed by FEUA. State law also requires that the proposed local ordinance be reviewed and approved by the DNR 30 days prior to adoption. Although a year 1ate, staff has provided an anendment to the floodplain ordinance whLch includes sone of the nore significant changesfelt to be necessary by the DNR. The najor changes of the amendment are as fol lows: The definition of rrbasenent! rras expanded to include all belowgrade areas enclosed on aII four sides. Provisions were incl.uded to regulate the placement of traveltrailers and traveL vehicles. 1 ) iL-(o-10 Flood Pfain ordinance DeceDber 5, 1990 Page 2 ,l changes rrere made in the application of wet orfloodproofing techniques for accessory structuressubstantial inprovement to priuary structures. dry and 4 Changes hrere nade requiring replacement nanufactured homes to be properly elevated and anchored. changes were made to incorporate specific enforcernent procedures for dealing with ordinance violations. Froln the neeting nith city staff and DNR, it becane apparent thatthe city does not have the forEs and procedures for recording, inspecting and certifying elevations of the lowest floor permittedstructures. The DNR provided sample forrns vrhich can be used intheir entirety or in part as needed. The forms are useful in that once the proper flood protection elevation has been determined for a particular site, tbat elevation can be specified on the buildingpernit. After the structure is built, the as-buiLt eLevation should be certified in accordance with the cityts ordinance beforea certificate of occupancy has been issued. This system forcertifying elevations of the lorrest floor of pennitted structureswill be implenented by the Building Departnent. It was aLso determined that there is an existing flood boundary located in the chanhassen Lakes sth Addition development adjacentto Riley creek. As a result, there is a possibility of fill in thevicinity of Park Place which has encroached in the floodway which would have nornally reguired a conditional use pemit in accordancewith Section 4.2 of the Cityrs Flood Plain l.Ianagement ordinance. Before allowing any further developroent in the vicinity, the city rnust analyze the fill inpact to detennine hrhether this portion ofthe fLoodlray can be fifled without increasing potential flood damages or stages. If such can be deternined, the city nay requesta letter of nap revision ( LoMR) fron FEMA. The city can reguest assistance frotD the watershed District Engineer and from the DNRfor guidance. Staff is neeting witb Judy Boudreau fron the DNR toinitiate the process to detennine whether there has been an increase in potential flood danages and to initiate a revised map'. The proposed revisions are in bo]d. Staff is confortable that the proposed amendments do not significantly change our enforcement ofthe ordinance other than stronger requirements for buiJ.ding permitapplications. staff rrill advertise for the public hearing inJanuary, but thought it best to bring it first to the Planning Conmission in an open discussion fonoat. 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AI{ENDING ARTICIJ II, ADITTINISTRATION AND ENFORCEIIIENT Sec. 18.39. Preliminary PIat. Add the following under (f): (8) Review Criteria. No land shall be subdivided which isunsuitable for the reason of flooding, j,nadequate drainage, water supply or sewage treatment facilities.All Iots within the flood plain districts sha1l containa building site at or above the Regrulatory FloodProtection Elevation. All subdivisions shal1 have waterand sewage treatnent facilities that conply with theprovisions of this ordinance have road access both thesubdivision and to the individual building sites no lowerthan triro feet belo!, the Reg"ulatory Flood protection Elevation. For all subdivisions in the flood p1ain, the Floodway and Flood Fringe boundarj.es, the Regulatoryflood Protection Elevation and the required elevation ofall access roads shall be clearly labeled on all requiredsubdivision drawings and platting documents. Sec. 18-40. Same - Data Required. changed information: and add the following under (4) supplenentary Change existing (1) to (n) and add the following: (1) Establish 100 year elevation, Floodway and Flood FringeDistrict boundaries and regulatory flood protectionelevation for the subdivision site. Sec. 19-81. Discharges. Add the follolring: On-site sewage treatment and water supply systems. Wherepublic utilities are not provided: 1) on-site r.rater supply systems must be designed to mininize or eliminate infiltrationof flood waters into the systeus; and 2) New or replacenenton-site seqrage treatnent systems must be designed to ninimizeor eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharged from the systems into flood hraters and they shallnot be subj ect to irnpairnent or contamination during times offlooding. Any selrage treatment system designed in accordancewith the Staters current statewide standards for on-site 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COt'NTf ES, MINNESOTA sewage treatment systems shall be deterrnined to be in compliance with this section. Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Add the following: Basenent - neans any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade (below ground fevel) on all, four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground level. Conditional Use - means a specific tlrpe of structure or land use listed in the official, control that nay be alfowed butonly after an i.n-depth review procedure and with appropriate conditions or restrictions as provided in the official zoningcontrols or building codes and upon a finding that: (1)certain conditions as detailed in the zoning ordinance existand (2) the structure and/or land use conform to the comprehensive Land use plan if one exists and are cornpatiblewith the existing neighborhood. EquaL Degree of Encroachment - a nethod of deternininglocation of floodway boundaries so that flood plain landsboth sides of a strean are capable of conveyingproportionate share of flood flows. the on a Flood - a tenporary increase in the flow or stage of a streamor in the stage of a wetLand or lake that results in theinundation of nonnally dry areas. Flood Frequency - the frequency for which it is expected thata specific flood stage or discharge may be egualled or exceeded. Flood-Proofing - a conbination of structurat provisions, changes, or adjustrnents to properties and structures subjectto flooding, prinarily for the reduction or elimination offlood daBages. Principal Use or Structure - neans all uses or structures thatare not accessory uses or structures. Obstruction - any dam, rrall, wharf, enbankment, levee, dike,pi1e, abutnent, projection, excavation, channel modification,culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpite, refuse, fil1,structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into anychannel, qratercourse, or regulatory flood plain which rnayirnpede, retard, or change the direction of thL ftow of water,either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carriedby such water. 2 Reach - a hydraulic engineering tern to describe alongitudinal segment of a stream or river influenced by anatural or man-nade obstruction. In an urban area, the segrnent of a strean or river between two consecutive bridge crossings would most typically constitute a reach. structure - anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground or on-site utilities, including, but not Iinited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages,cabins, manufactured hones, travel trailers,/vehicles not neeting the exenption criteria specified in Section 9.31 ofthe ordinance and other sinilar itens. Variance - means a modification of a specific pernitted developnent standard required in an official control includingthis ordinance to allow an alternative development standardnot stated as acceptable in the official control, but only asapplied to a particular property for the purpose ofalleviating a hardship, practical difficulty or unique circumstance as defined and elaborated upon in a connunitytS respective planning and zoning enabling legislation. 20-27. Revocation, rnodification, etc., of permits, authorizations, etc. (a) when an ordinance violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the Zoning Adrninistrator, the Zoning Adrninistrator shall inrnediately investigate thesituation and docuDent the nature and extent of theviolation of the official control. As soon as is reasonably possible, this information uilL be submittedto the appropriate Department of Natural Resourcesr and FederaL Emergency ManageDent Agency Regional Office alongwith the Communityrs plan of action to correct theviolation to the degree possible. (b) The Zoning Administrator sha1l notify the suspected partyof the requirenents of this ordinance and all otherofficial controls and the nature and extent of the suspected vioLation of these controls. If the structure and/or use is under construction or deveLopnent, the Zoning Administrator nay order the construction or developnent inroediately halted until a proper perrnit orapproval is granted by the conmunity. If theconstruction or development is already completed, thenthe Zoning Adninistrator nay either (1) issue an orderidentifying the corrective actions that must be nadewithin a specified time period to bring the use orstructure into conpliance with the official controls, or(2) notify the responsible party to apply .for anafter-the-fact perrnit/development approval within aspecified period of tine not to exceed 30-days. Sec . 3 (c) If the responsibLe party does not appropriately respondto the Zoning Adninistrator r ithin the specified period of tine, each additional day that lapses shall constitutean additionaL violation of this Ordinance and shaLl beprosecuted accordingly. The Zoning Administrator shallalso upon the Iapse of the specified response periodnotify the landowner to restore the land to the condition which existed prior to the violation of this Ordinance. Sec. 20-29. Variances generally and appeals. (b) Add to paragraph: The Board shalI subDit by nail to the cornmissioner of NaturaL Resources a copy of the application for proposedVariances sufficiently in advance so tbat the Cornmissioner uill receive at least ten days notice of the hearing. (c) Add to paragraph: A copy of all decisions granting Variances sha1l beforwarded by nail to the Conmj.ssioner of NaturaL Resources within ten (10) days of such action. (S) Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The ZoningAdninistrator shall notify the applicant for a variancethat: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct astructure below the base flood 1eve1 will result in increased preniun rates for flood insurance up to anounts as high as $25 for Sloo of j.nsurance coverage and 2) Suchconstruction below the 100-year or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notificationshall be naintained sith a record of alL varianceactions. A coDmunity shaIl naintain a record of allvariance actions, including justification for theirissuance, and report such variances issued in its annualor bi-annual report subnitted to the Adninistrator of theNational Flood Insurance Program. sec. 20-44. Planning cornmission action. Add to paragraph: If the action involves floodplain property,a notice of the decision will be uailed to the Departnent ofNatural Resources. Add Section 20-46. Floodplain. The flood plain designation on the Official Zoning Map shallnot be removed frorn flood plain areas unless it can be shown thatthe designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation of the regional flood and is contiguous to 4 l-ands outside the flood plain. Special exceptions to this rule naybe pernitted by the connissioner of Natural Resources if hedetemines that, through other neasures, lands are adequatelyprotected for the intended use. AlI anendments to this Ordinance, including amendments to theOfficial Zoning Uap, must be subnitted to and approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption. Changes inthe official Zoning llap nust meet the Federal Energency Irlanagenent Aqencyrs ( FEITIA) Technical Conditions and Criteria and nust receiveprior FEIIA approvaL before adoption. The Conmissioner of Natural Resources nust be given lo-days written notice of all hearings toconsider an arnendment to this Ordinance and said notice shall-include a draft of the ordinance anendment or technical study under cons ideration. Sec. 20-55. Generally. Add to paragraph: No Variance shaIl have the effect ofallowing in any district uses prohibited in that district, perrnita Iolrer degree of flood protection than the Regulatory FloodProtectj-on Elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those reguired by State 1aw. Sec. 20-71. Nonconforning buildings and uses. Add to paragraph: Any alteration or addition to anonconforning structure or nonconforning use which would result inincreasing the flood damage potential of that structure or useshall be protected to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation in accordance rrith any of the elevation on filL or flood proofing techniques . Sec. 20-73. Discontinuance. Add to paragraph: If any nonconforning use is discontinuedfor 12 consecutive nonths, any future use of the building prenisesshal1 conforn to this ordinance. The assessor shall notify the Zoning Administrator in writing of instances of nonconforning useswhich have been discontinued for a period of 12 nonths. Sec. 20-74. Alterations. Add the following paragraph: (c) In the flood plain the cost of any structural alterationsor additions to any nonconforroing structure over the lifeof the structure shall not exceed 50 percent of themarket value of the structure unless the conditions ofthis Section are satisfied. The cost of all structuralal.terations and additions constructed since the adoptionof the Conmunityts initial flood plain controls nust be 5 calculated into todayrs current cost which rrill includeall costs such as construction materials and a reasonablecost placed on all nanpower or labor. If the currentcost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the current market valueof the structure, then the structure must meet the standards of Article v, Division 3 and 4, for new structures depending upon uhether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe, respectively. sec. 20-91. Building Pernits. Amend as follows: (a) No person sha1l erect, construct, a1ter, enlarge, repair, nove or renove, any building or structure or part thereof, aud prJ.or to tbe placeneDt of fill, excavatioDof Eaterials o! the storage of naterl.als or equipueatsithin the floodplaiu rrithout first securing a buildingpernit. Add the fo],Iowing to (b): state and Federal Pernits. Prior to granting a Pemit or processing an application for a Conditional Use Pernit or Variance, the Zonlng Administrator shall determine thatthe applicant has obtained all necessary State and Federal Pernits. Add the following: (d) Certification. The applicant shall be required to subnitcertification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor thatthe finished fill and building elevations hrere acconplished in conpliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Flood-proofing rneasures shall be certified bya registered professional engineer or registeredarchitect. Record of First Floor Elevation. The Zoning Adninistrator sha1l naintain a record of the elevation ofthe loirest floor (including basenent) of aLl newstructures and alterations or additions to existingstructures in the flood pIain. The Zoning AdninistratorshalI also maintain a record of the elevation to which structures or and alterations additions to structures are flood-proofed. 6 sec. 20-231. Application, public hearinq, notice and procedure. Add the following to the paragraph: The city shall subnit by nail to the Conmissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed Conditional Usesufficiently in advance so that the Coumissioner will receive atleast ten days notice of the hearing. sec. 20-233. Conditions inposable on petmits. Add the following to (a): (7) l,lodification of waste treatment and water supplyfacil ities - (8) Linitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation. (9) Inposition of operational controls, sureties, and deedrestrictions. sec. 20-325. Purpose. change the last line in the paraqraph to read as follosrs: It. This district is created and applied in accordancewith Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103 F OO1-155. 7 The GeneraL FLood Plain District includes the entire floodplain and does not differentiate between those areas which are floodway and those areas nhich are flood fringe. Because of this,the city sha11 detemine whether the proposed use is in the floodway or flood fringe using procedures established in division3 of this article and therefore rrhether it is allowed orprohibited. Pernitted uses shalf include those uses as perroitted bysection 20-366. l{anufactured hon6s aDdl travel tral.lers/vehicles ara prohibit€d in the geDeral flood plaiD district. sec. 20-349. Publ,ic util ities. A1). public utilities and faciLities such as gas, electrical ,sewer and water supply systens to be Located in a flood plain sha11be flood-proofed in accordance with the state building code or elevated above the reg'ulatory flood protection eLevation. RaiLroad tracks, road and bridges to be Located within the Floodway District shaII comply with SectioD 20-355 aDal 20-376. Elevation to the regiulatory flood protection elevation shal1 beprovided where failure or interruption of these transportationfacilities uould result in danger to the public safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of thearea. Minor or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed ata lower elevation where failure or interruption of transportation'serv.ices lsoul,d not endanger the public safety. Sec. 2O-351. Conditional use pernits. (a) A conditional use pernit issued by the city council inconforrnity with the provisions of this chapter shall be securedprior to the erection, addition or aLteration of any building,structure or landi prior to the change of a nonconforrning use; andprior to the placenent of fill or excavation or Dateriats withinthe flood plan. (b) 5.21 upoD receipt of a! applicatl.oa for a condlitioaal UsePemit for a us€ ritLir the ceDeral Flooal Plaitr District, tbe 1 DIVISION 2. GENERAL FI'OD PI,AIN DfSTRICT Sec. 2O-346. Scope. This.divislon applies to the ceneral Flood Plain District. sec. 20-347. Territorial applicability. Section 20-348. Pernitted uses. Sec. 20-350. Public transportation facilities. applicalt sball be rsquiredl to furuish sucb of tbe followiDginformatiou as is aleemed r6c6Esary by the clty for theileter:niaatlon of tha Regulatory Flooal Protectioa Elevatior aDdshetber th€ ploposed use is rlthla thc Floodsay or trlood rringeDistrict. (1) I tlTrlcat t/alley cross-section shorl.ng the chatrnelof the atraaD, elevatl.on of latral areas aajoiniag eacheide of the chaDrel, cross-sectioaal areas to be occupied by ths propoaed dev€lopDeDt, aad hlgh yater infornation. l2t PIaD (surface vler) BhoyiDg elevatious or coDtoursof tha grouadi pertl.neat structure, fiIl, or storageelevationsi aize, locatioD, alal apatial arraDgenent ofall proposed aDal exletlag atructures oD the site;Iocatl.on ard el€vatiols ol streetsi photographs shoriDgeristiag lard uses aDd vag€tatioa upstre'nr and dornstream i aud soil tfEre. (3) Profil€ 3horiag the slope of the botton of the cbaDnel or floy liue of tbe str6a! for at l€ast 5OO feetiD either direction froE tbe proposed developnent. (c, specificatioDs for buildiug coD3tructioa aDd nateri.Is,flood-proofing, filllag, dlealgLDg, gradliag, chll.r€t iuprovenent,stolage of Daterials, rater suplrIy and sanl,tary facill.ties. Sec. 20-352. Certificate of zoning compliance. It shall be unlarrful to use, occupy or perrnit the use oroccupancy of any building until a certificate of zoning complianceshall have been issued by the city stating that the use of thebuilding of land conforns to the requirenents of this chapter. Section 20-353. Construction and use to be as provided inapplications, pLans, perroits, and certificate ofzoning conpliance. Conditional use perrnits or certificates of zoning conplianceissued on the basis of approved plans and applications shallauthorize only the use, arranltenent and construction set forth insuch approved plans and applications and no other use, arrangementor construction shal1 be pernitted. Any use, arrangement orconstruction at variance with that authorized shal1 be deemedviolation of this articLe. The applicant sha11 subnitcertification by a registered land surveyor that the finished fi1land building elevations Lrere conpleted in cornpliance with theprovisj.ons of this chapter. Flood proofing neasures sha1I becertified by a registered professional engineer or registeredarchitect. Tbe registered prof.ssioual aagiaeer or registeredarcbitect sball evaluat€ tbe proposed proJect ia relatioa to floodheights and velocities, the eeriousaess of flood drtnag€ to tbe use, 2 the adequacy of tbo plaDs for protectl.oD, a[al otber techDicalDatters. Based upon th6 techDical ovaluatioD of tbs desigaated eaglueer or exp€rt, the cit, shall detemlDe tbs Bpecific flood hazard at tbo site aDal ovaluate the sultablllty of the proposed useia rslatioD to tb6 flooal hazard. DMSION 3. FIpODWAY DISTRISI (FW) sec. 20-366. PerDitted uses. The following uses have a 1ow flood darnage potential , Do iacrease in floodt elevation and do not obstruct fLood fIows. These uses shall be pernitted uithin the Floodway District to the extentthat they are not prohibited by any other ordinance or rratersheddistrict regulations and provided they do not require structures,fi1I, or storage.of naterials or equipnent. In addition, no usewithin a floodway district shall be pernitted to adversely affect the capacity of the channel"s or floodlrays or any tributary to the mainstrearo or of any drainage ditch, or any other drainage facilityor system: (1) Agricultural uses such as general farning, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truckfarning, forestry, sod farning and wild crop harvesting. (2') Industrial-commercial uses such as loading areas, parking areas and airport landing strips. (3) Private and public recreational uses such as golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges,picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swi'ntning areas, parks, wildlife and nature preserves, gane farns, fish hatcheries, shooting preserves, target ranlres, trap and skeet ranges, hunting and fishing areas, and single or rnultiple purpose recreational traifs. (4) Residential irses such as larrns, gardens, parking areas and play areas. (51 l{aDufactured ho[es, travel trallersr/vabicles areproblblted la the floodvay alistrict. 3 Sec. 20-354-20-365. Reserved. sec. 20-367. Conditional uses. The following open space uses reguire accessory structures orfill or storage of naterials or equipnent. These uses nay bepernitted in the Floodway oistrict only after the issuance of aconditional use perrnit as provided in 20-351: (1) 111 Uses. No structure (telporary o! peruaDetrt), fill(hcl.uding ttll for toadE aaal levees) I deposit,ob3tnrctiotr, 8totag€ of lateriala or eguipueat, or otber usos Day bo alloyad as a conditloDal Use that riII cause aay Lncreaso La the stage of tho loo-year or regioualflood or cauBe aD Lacreaae ln flood danag€a Ltr the reachor rsacbsa affocted. (2) Structures accessory to open space uses, provided: a b Accessory structures shall not be designed human habltation.Accessory structures, if pernitted, shall constructed and placed on the building site soto offer the nininum obstruction to the flowflood lraters i 'provided: for be as of c. 1. Whenever possible, structures shall beconstructed with the longitudinal axispara1le1 to the direction of flood flowi and 2. so far as practicable, structures shall beplaced approxirnately on the same flood flowLines as those of adjoining structures. AcceEsory structur€s shall be elevated on fill oratructurally dry flood proofed in accordance siththe FP-l or FP-2 llood prooflag classifications inthe 8tat6 BuildiDg Code. As a! alternative, anaccessory atructure Day be flood proofed to tbeFP-3 or FP-l flood proofiDg classification iu theatate Building code providedt tbe rccessorystructur€ coastitut€s a niaimal iDvestDeDt, doesDot excoed 500 sguare feet Ln size, anil for a detached guage, tba detached garage nugt be usealso1ely for parkiDg of vehicles and linited storage.All flood proofed accessory structureE nust neetthe folloving additional staDdards, as appropriate: 1 l[he atructure Dust b€ adequately archored topreveDt flotatioD, aollapse or lateralnoveneDt of the Btructure aDd shall be deaLgned to equalLze hydrostatic flood forcesoa e:tarior rrllsi alil 2.Any DechaDlcal aDd utilLty equipnent in astructure Bust be elevatedl to or above theRegulatoly tr1ood ProtectioD ElevatioD orploperly flood proofedl. 4 (3) PLacenent of FiII, provided: Any fill deposited in the floodr.ray sha1l be no norethan the nini.nun necessary for use. cenerally,fill shall be liuited to that needed to grade or landscape for that use and shall not iri any way obstruct the flow of flood rraters. Spoil frorn dredging or sand and gravel operationsshall not be deposited in the floodway unless a loDg-tem site developueat PIaa is subultted vbichiacludes aD erosioa,/setlineatatiou prevention el6n6Dt to tbe pfan. FilI shaI1 be protected fron erosion by vegetative cover, nulcbiag, tiprap or otber accaPtable Dethod. (4) Storage of materials and equipnent; provided: a b c a b potentially injurious to hunan, animal or plant life is prohibited. Storage of other materials or equip:nent nay be allowed if readily reroovable from the area withinthe tine available after a flood warning and ia accorataDce yitb a pla! rpproved by the governing body. (5) I-€vees, dikes, and fLoodwalls shall not be constructedwith the linits of the floodway district. otherstructural works for flood control such as darns and channel enlargernents that will change the course, currentor cross-section of a public Irater sha1I be subject to the provisions of Dlinnesota Statutes chapter 105.connunlty ride structural yorks for flood coDtrol intended to renove areas fron tbe rogulatory floodt plain shall Dot b6 a11or6d ia the floodray. The storage or processing of naterials that are,tirne of flooding, flamnable, explosive, District . in or secs. 20-368-20-375. Reserrred. Drwsrol{ 4. FrroD ERTNGE DrsrRrer (rF) Sec. 20-375. Scope. this division applies to the Flood Fringe (fF) sec. 20-377. Pernitted uses; (a) The following uses shall be perroitted within the floodFringe District to the extent that they are not 5 prohibited by any other ordinance and watershed districtregulation: (1) Any use penoitted in section 20-366. (2) Structures accessory to a perrnitted use. (3) Residences and other structures eonstructed on fillso that the basenent floor or first f1oor, if thereis no basenent, is at or above the regulatory ftoodprotection elevation. The fished fill elevationshall be no lower than oDs (1, foot beLoh, theregulatory flood protection elevation and sha1l extend at such elevation at least fifteen (15) feet beyond the linits of any structure or buildingerected thereon. FiIl shall be compacted and theslopes shall be protected by riprap or vegetative covering. (b) No use shalL be pernitted which rrill adversely affect thecapacity of the channels or floodlrays of any tributary tothe main strean, or of any drainage ditch or any other drainage facility or systen. (c) llanufactured boEes aad travel trailers/vehiclesprohibit€dt ia the Flood FriDge District.are Uses that are not permitted or prohibited uses are pernittedonly upon the issuance of a conditional use pernit subj ect to thefollowing conditions: Sec. 20-377.1 Conditional uses. (1) Residences. Where existing streets, utilities and smallIot sizes preclude the use of fiII, other methods ofelevating the first floor (including basernents) above theregulatory flood protection elevation nay be authorized,provided that the residence is flood-proofed in accordance rrith the Uniforn Building Code as adopted and amended by the city. Altertrativ€ elevatioD Dethods othertLaD the uae of fill nay be utilized to elevate astructurers lorest floor rbove the Regulatory FloodProtectioD Elevatl.oD. llhese altertrative metbods nayiaclude the u3e of Btilts, piliDgs, parallel yaIls, etc.,or above-grad€, eaclosed areas such as crarl spaces ortucx unde! garages. The bas€ or floor of atr elclosedarea sbaIl be coasidered above-graale aDA not astructuret I basemeDt or lorest floor Lf: 1) the eiclosedlarea is .bove-graate oD at least ole sl.ala of thestructurei 2) is dealgned to interDally floodt aad iscoastructed rith flooal resistaat naterialsi aDd 3) isused sole1y for parting of vehicles, buildiDg access or 6 storage. The abov€-Doted alterDative elevation nethodEare subj ect to tbe folloring additional staDdards s a.Design and Certl.ficatioa - fbe Btructurets design aDA as-built coadltioD rust be certifi€at by aragl.sterad professioaal eDgiDeer o! architect asbeiag in cou[rliaBce ylth th6 gereral desigaBt"rdards of tbe State BuildiDg Code ard,specifically, tbat all slectrical, heating,veDtilatioD, pluobiag arrd air cotrditioDing equipDetrt atrd other serr ice facillties nust be ator above the R6gulatory Flood ProtectioD Elevationor be dlesigled to preveDt flood yater flom enteriugor accumulating ritLiD these conpoDeDts during titoes of f looaliDg. b.Apecific EtaDdards for Above-grade, Etclosed lreas- lDov6-grade, fully eDclosed areas such aE crawl apaces or tuck unaler garages Dust be desigDed toLrternally flood rDd tbe design p1aDs nuststipulate: 2.lhat the eaclosed area ril]' be deEigred offloodl resistaat naterials in accordaDce withthe rP-3 o! FP-t classificatious Ln the StateBuildiag code aDd shall be used solely forbuildiag access, parkitg of vehicles orstorage. (2) Residential basenents. Residential basenents below theflood protection elevation nay be authorized if they areflood-proofed to FP-1 cLassification in accordance withthe Uniforn Building Code as adopted and amended by thecity. Resideatial basenetrt coastructiol shall rot bealloyed belbw the regul.tory flooA protectiol elevatioa. (3) Nonresidential structures. connercial, manufacturing andindustrial structures shall ordinarily be elevated onfill so that their first floor (including basernent) is above the regrulatory flood protection elevation but nay 7 1. The niainun area of opeaLngs iD the sallsrhere Latertral flooalilg is to be used as aflood proofiag technique. Iben openings areplaceal itr a structurers walls to provide for€ntry of flooal uaters to egualize pressures, tho botton of aII opeaiaga shall be uo highertha! oDe-foot above grade. Opealngs Eay be equipped rith gcreeDs, louv6rs, valves, orotbe! coverings or devices provldeA that theyparnit tbe autonatlc entry aad exLt of flooat waters. in special circunstances be dry flood-proofed in accordance with the state building code. Structures thatare not elevated to above the regulatory flood protectionelevation sha1l be dry flood-proofed to FP-l or FP-2classification as defined by the Uniforn Building Code as adopted and amended by the city and this shaLl requireuaklng the atructure ratertight yith the yallE aubstaDtially iDperD€able to th6 passage of rater andlritb structural conpoDeEts havilg the capability oftesistiDg hydrostatic aral hydroaynanic loads aDdl theeff€cts of buoyaDsy. Structures flood proofeil to theFP-3 or 3P'l classificatioa aball aot be pe:mitted. Structures flood-proofed to FP-3 or fP-4 classification sha1l not be pernitted. Tbe cunulative placeneDt of fillrhere at ary oDe tine ia sxcess of oDe-thousandl (lrOOO) cubic yards of fill is located oD the parcel shall beallowable orly as a CoDAitioDaI Use, uDless said fill isspecifically iDtended to olevate a structure in accordaDce yith sectioD 5.21 of this ordinance. Tbestorage of aDy uaterials or eguipueut sbaIl be elevatedl on fill to the Reg'ulatory Slooal Protectior ElevatioD. ({) As aD alterlative to elevation oD fi1l, accessorystructures that colstitute a niainal lavestnent atrA that Ao trot exceedl 500 aquare feet for tbe outside dinensionat groulrd leveI nay be iaternally flood proofed in accordaDc€ sith Sectlor 20-35? (1). (5) FiIl shall be properly conpacteal aad tbe slopes sball beprop€rly plotectedl by the use of riprap, vegetative coveror other acceptable Eethod. The Federal EBergency llaDageneDt AgeDcy (AE[A) Las establisbed criteria forrenoviug tbe special flood hazard area desigDatior forcertai! structures propsrly elevateal on fill above tbe100-year flooal elevatioa - FEIIAI s requirenentsiacorporate speciflc fill conpactiou and siale slopeprotection strnalarals for uulti-structure or nulti-lotdev€lopEeuts. Tbese ataDdarala shoulal be iDvestigatedprior to the iaitiation of site preparation if a cbaDgeof special flood hazalal ar6a desigaation will be requeateal. Sec. 20-378. Residential uses. Residences that do not have vehicular access at or above anelevation not Dore than two (2) feet belo!,, the regulatory floodprotection elevation shall not be pernitted unless granted avariance. In granting a variance the city shalI specifylirnitations on the period of use or occupancy of the residence. Ifa variance to tbis reguirenent is graDted, the Board of AdjustneDtnust specify linitations oD the periodl of use or occupatrcy of thestructure for tines of floodtiag .Ddl otlly after det€raiDiDg that 8 sec. 20-379. Conmercial uses. Accessory land uses, such as yards, railroad tracks andparking Lots nay be at elevations lower than the regulatory floodprotection elevation. Horrever, a pernit for sueh facilities to be used by the employees or the general public sha11 not be granted inthe absence of a flood varning system that provides adeguate timefor evacuation if the area nould inundate to a depth greater thantwo (2) feet or be subj ect to flood velocities greater than four(4) feet per second upon occurrence of the regional flood. Sec. 20-380. llanufacturing and industrial uses. Measures shaIl be taken to nininize interference with nornalplant operations especially along streams having protracted flooddurations. Certain accessory land uses such as yards and parkinglots may be at lower elevations subj ect to requirements set forthabove. In considering pernit applications, due consideration shal1be given to needs of an industry rrho business reguires that it belocated in flood plain areas. 9 adlequate flood yaraiDg tiD€ 'hd loca1 flood €nergercy respoDse Procedlures exist. Sec. 20-381-20-400. Reserved. STATE OF h0h0trs@1rA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES oNR tNFoFMAnoN 500 TIFAYETTE ROAD . ST. PAUL, MTNNESOTA . 55155.40_ (612) 29661 57 NoveDber 3, 1989 {T@7,-6ffi!\ .tF The llonorable Ton HaDiltonllayor, City of Chanhassen 590 Coulter Dr. Chanhassen, Ir{N 55317 RECE'YEO Noy 3 0 1990 CI)Y UT CHANHASSEN Dear l{ayor HaEilton: NATTONAL FLOD INSIRAI{CE PROGRAI, COil}{tNIIy ASsEssuENT vIsIT Thank you for the tlne that. paul Nrauss, aIoAnn Olaen, Dave Henpeland sharnin A1-Jeff sFent wlth ceil strius3 and irudy aouaieiu onoctober 13, 1989 to discuse flood plaln DanageDent in the city ofchanhassen. The raeeting vas condulted by oui ataff on behalf ofthe Federal EDergency.lranage,ent Agency irnrel tn consiaei;ai";-of your county, s continued partlcipation -ln tire fational fiooaInsurance PrograD (!Iffp). During the courae of the neeting, several topics uere discussed,three of uhich require forlow-up' action uy tire clty as a"="ii.u"abelov: Your Floodplain ordlnance is non-coupllant duc to 1986changes to federal requirenents of tire t{FIp. A copy of thenodel ordinanc€ uaa provided to lila. O1sen and Ur. kiauss fortheir uee. we Etronily - r€colDend that you adopt this rnoaei - since It ls conartlani tirh atr etata ani teaerii ii;"d;i;i;regulatl.one. If the clty pref€rs to aDend tfre exfstini-----ordinance ue rould have to- reviev it !or. close1y to b6 surethere are no onleeions. Area HydroloslBt ceil strauss ii -- avallable to aseiat the clty tn-thls frocass. Althoughstate regulationa al1ow 6 nonthe to anend your ordinaice,federal regulatlone only allow 90 day8 for- anendnents tonon-coupliant ordinances. Itrls deadllnc vill occur on irlnu?ry 10, 1990. It.is Buggested that you atteapt to Deetthe federal deadllne in order to avold any poselbie sanc-tions laposed by FB,IA. Becaus€ gtatc lau- aiao requires thata proposed local ordinanc€ be revleuad and approveh 30 daysprior_to.adoptlon, pleaae send any drafts beii.rg coneiaeiti-for adoptlon to lrl3. Straua3 by DeEeubcr 11, 1969. AN EOUAL OPPORIUNITY EMPLOYER Uayor ToD Hauilton Page 2 Second, frou our discussion, it becane apparent that thecity does not have the for s and procedure3 for recording, lnspecting and certifying elevatlons of the loueat fLoor ofperBitted structures. Drring the Beetl.nE ue provided sanpleforns which can be used ln thelr entlrety or in part, asneeded. They are helpful in that, once the proper floodprotectlon elevation has been detemined for a particularsite, that elevation can be specified on the buildingpelrit. After the atructure is built, the aa-builtelevation should be certlfled tn accordanca rith your ordinance before a certificate of occupancy or zoning conpliance ls issued. Please have thls aystet!, or oneeinilar to it, lDplenented by January 10, 1990. Final1y, se discovered that City Staff did not reference the Flood Boundary and Floodray Hap (FBFW) for the Chanlakes sthAddition developDent adj acent Riley Creek. The resultantfill in the viclnlty of Park Place (see attached sketch) has encroached in the floodway, and a condltlonal use pernit should have been required Ln accordance ulth section 4.2 ofyour Flood Plaln l{anagenent ordinance (No. 68). Further,your standarde for Floodray Conditlonal Uees (Section 4.32)state that nany fill deposited in the floodray sha11 be no nore than the ninlnun anount necessary to conduct aConditional Use listed ln Section 4.2. te.g. open spaceuses, gravel extraction, railroad and storage yards,etc.l.i. The DaJor difftculties are that the fiU inpact is unknoun, and that, according to your ordlnance, thisparticular section of fill nay onl.y be developed asindicated above. A nechanisD exlate to renedy thls sltuation. FroD ourobsenration, ths area fllled does not appear to be necessaryfor conveyance of the loo-year flood dltcharge. Inaddition, thc Rlley-Purgatory-Bluff Cre€lc tfaterahed Districtapparently dlcl not feel that tbe flUlng ra8 detriDental toother developlent ln the vlclnity. Before allouing anyfurther industrial, connercial or office developnent of thissite, houever, lt is eesential to analyze the fill inpacts.ff, ar suapected, thls portlon of the flooaluay can be fill,edulthout increaeing potentlal flood dalag€B or atages, theClty yould then r€quest a I€tter of l,Iap Revision ( IO]IR) fron FEI,IA. tfe recoDDend that the Clty requert agsistance fromthe satershed dletrlct engineer ln thlr procosa. DNR isavailable for guidance aB uell. In that the developer,sintent ls to develop thla eite ln th€ near future, ue recoDroend that the City start this proc.s8 lDDeaiately, witha subDittal to FE!iA by Febnrary 2, 1990. (Enclosed gith theStaff copy of thls letter is a publicatlon by FEI{A shich is a gruide for requestlng nap anendnents. ) I'layor Ton HaDilton Page 3 we are confident that the flooduay fill ras an unintendedexclusion in the Cityrs nornal revieu process, and are ullLing toassist ln reeorving i,he lssue. rn addition, 6eciusi youi--tartindicated an interest, ue are including rith thelr copy of thisletter, info::natlon about a zoning softrare package d-veloped andcurrently belng tested by DNR. Eralning for use of the eo-ftwareviII be incorporated into the Shoreland training sessi.ons in thenear future. In closing, ue are pleased that the Clty staff is anxious toresolve the floodway fill issue, and that the City in general isconcerned about floodplain DanageDent iasues and ordinanceiDplenentation. Should you have any questions relating toroutine floodplain Eanagenent they Bhould be directed €o us. CeilStrauss at (612) _296-7523. If you or your staff have anyquestions regarding this assessDent please contact Judy -Boudreau at (612) 296-9224. Sincerely, Gibson, SupenrisorFloodpl,ain ![anageDent ProgranE* ?aul,*tt * JG/JB cc: ?erry Reuss-BhiDan, FE:ttACeil Strauss, Area Hydrologist John Linc stine, Regional HydrologistPaul Krauss, Planning Director (u/ encloEures) JoAnn Olsen, Sr. Planner iier:' FEitl r- rui.:r- niry *II b. expected to adopt a ne\r that no ncw 0ood insurance studhs willmandate changes to ordimncc or antnd tu g,irtioq ordi- be done u ltinnesota. or, furdd a; -, - ,.. ; ...- -.-..-:- natce to tecome _compliant with tlre techni:l uu.lysis wort *,ill be shhedr.'v!- avrr"Pr"r" new regulations. State law allows. a to emphasize re-sordi", ;t .";;ir;ordinances comrnunity six nonths to .rned ,ts changjs ;;edsting su:a*. bvJoeGibson,DNR lm;"Hfi'.:x#'#T ffi'ffi}##""; In Jub, f98S the Federal Emergerry y:19 P: zoning ordinance as rapidly thc pasL,tNoOL.tir*a.;.Tlr,,*-. Management fueryy_ and tle Minne- T_ !9.asiute to avoid possible federal moie commuoity assessmcnt yisits sota Departnent of Natural Resources sarEtions. (cAV's) ad mre esort-ild;6'; completed negotiatioos that will require _^1P9ut 3o counties and 4t'rc! ctr- -.t "" Gt .rry ffi,-* adstinistratiromost counties and cities in Mhrpsota r_enuy are in the process of adopting d"rue,r,es ui orrectcd.,,to reYise_OEir foodplah zoning ordi- 9:Tr' com.pliant.languag€. Many ari A conmn lsouem rhe Divisbn duarrces. These.changes are needed to sulPt reper.ling their old ordinances Waters has notca t ttc h}o. ; co;bring local 0oodplain zoning ordinarces entir€b and adopting tbe new oodel h -r,tr* t" ;r,14, th" as-buih devationsho compliance with cbanges in lederat ttsllace. oo struchrcs hlit h th. flffi-Tfi regulations whbh sere icuultv effec- Shg yr.st coramunities revise.and a. r"ry-dr*d gage o( whether ative in 1986. - upgrade their zoning ordinarrces e€dod: ;m;b-E .d;d5, dirif;t".r;. The negotiation process has resulted 5{-_r, ^1e encol5a8e any h.th,i .ih,"- it ;ffi"g. ffi-U* b Dred h tlEb the creation ofa Dew set of.,model tion to consider upgrading their CAV process, trr ouurtw i" *,rn0oodplain ordinances" for Minnesota. Pfplrin ordinances.at tte same tire. ,€qft ; '*bd dt*-tL;;;"i Fdo*. i, . list.of .najor changes ttrat This may help reduce h€2riag aDd d;; th.tth".tn,t* r"as hft to thchave been included in the ievised notice costs. Any comnnrnity i" tt t rmer a."d. --dd 0oodptah ordinancerr si0ration should contact DNR 6r FEMA - 6-th. -*"tb". U.S., FEMA hasl. The defnition of "basement" *.s &L get a .copy of the res Eodel be€n f;; to dace scveral coEmrai-expanded to inctude all berow s"d" :g::.t*:_t?qbt" to yo- tt* * p-u.6-6', arue to ccrtityare-as_endosed on all four siles. cofimuiity. one wa1 or aoother att ortinaocis or to-corrcct ordinance vb 33,r#::ar##$*iux;h'-',,l:"#1ihtrffiT*mr**"lg:,;*ruy5travel vehicles. NFIP) wiu be contacted dudag- tb achieved, thcse 'coornurities ril be3. changes were made in the appri- next three suspended fron tb NFIp, ?j:-n- of,-wet or dry floodproofing tich- As alwavs, vo,r DNR fuea Hydror- Iihr; tb.*-; oarv coryratcaniques for accessory su:rrcnrei and o9st or tbe Floodplain M3.usiment issues -reEGj 6- nooapr"io ,.*e*substantial improvement to primary Prognm staff in St. Paul will *-l"ppy ,"ri, il-ffiit}g ofEcials ErststrucEres. ' to provide assistarce ana acvte .ii k;6 t, .bd GIi;; mosr importart _--| - -ch-e". were rnadc recuiring gdol]_u ?r ar:odiDg your ordinatlce. o*5r -.roit"i, ?*.m" ,na .r*rePEcement manulactured homes !o be .r ou @n also call on tlese same people vatioa.properly elevated and anchored. II_.1 hr. questbns about yd 0,id r.-whea revbwine protct plans atd5. Changes were rnade o incorpo- insurance rate maps, statc or federal p"r.it-apprt"ti"iai, you must filstrate specift enlorcement orocedures laws and regulations or hterpreutions a;i"rrr#;-i;i-t#iroper flood pro-for-de-aling with ordinance vi'otations of your local ordinarc. tffi;i;;;; fL ue site. -,_9. ]rtot gr"."*u.4 changes.were Fr _ ! . 2. Wben ttre Uuitaing permit isalso Ecorporated to clarifv confusing ! loo{i insurance progfam is_suea, specfy -on-ih" pdi;h;ilangrage. iheLdresurtorthisprocessis..-^ emphasis changes in flT"S* ifrffi ffiJ f L'.iessentiallv at l"-r -o",iitii" i#J fSSS conflict, especially wben several sub-ordinances b the state ari now ry1 1989 will be ma*ed trr "New Begin- contractoE may bc hvolved iu thecompliant wrth fed€rar regu.raEons. This ,iid; i" G;-N;;; iior:d r,,sruzrrce prorcct. ff ;',.?iff'.ffffifi.1*'"'ffi: "ifiLffil was rerayed r r; *m,Y*.Tm, tm#:ule for revising local ordinarces ana star [y"Noffirt'fil"iiid,r,*.* ., certified h accordare with yor ordi-these revisions will occ.r over a three- our s.it"-u.i- "ooJiru6." .ii"ill nance .uerore-IffiE of ocorpat.yI-31 tiln" period.. FEMA agreea to trris Nort ii'tiie'iirirJ-crr*JJiirt" Federal or zonng compliarrce b issued.stratesy with the hope that a more E_mergen;y M;;;;;;-is;;'.;1: D"-di"-il-fiLr*rty.m,rathorouSh upgrade process will be (FElrf i il;i;;'-iii;;;; Hazards have very few pmbhms with the Federaraccomplished. Branch , alra;;.- rrr*g"-,iilifi"iJ#t Agency. tHow will B:_ o_rocess affect tocal uoiu iaJl;ii'tr,ti*.ror,governrnents? rf Disn oiirrrd-r.r,ua- munities ;-ih"-il;r8;;; ,f"rl"T; *::Jrr;:;: fj,,*r:"!:,r'r:iT i"rilules a communitv Assistance visit the .r..FIa t-'iil u"'i"ir"i"o to the l9g8, Minnesota Department of l(ao.(cAD in you' conmunitv, tre corunu- Regurar phase. I;.;;;;. means rat Resources, Division of waters. r , : : *- EFFECTS OF NON.PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGBAM o Flood insurance will no longer be evdleble. Residcnts will not be able to purchase a flood insurancc policy. This effect is inportant since matry privatc lenden are now requiring flood insurance for loans they seanre whcn the property in question is in an identified flood hazard area o Federal grants or loans for buildings or proJcc.ts are uaarrilable in identified flood hazard areas. This includes all federal agencie.s such as HUD, FERG the Small Busines Adminisration, EPAand othcrs that maybe applicable. o Federal disaster assistancr cannot be prwidcd in identificd flood he,ard areas. o Federal mortgage insurance will not be evdleble for propcrties in the identified flood hazard areas. This includes the FI{A, VA, Farmcrs Home and others . o Restrictions can be placed on conventional loans in oon-participating ommunities since lenders are required to: Notify buyen or lessees ihat a popeny is h a flootl ltood ota anl, Notily buyen or lessees thot prcperty in fld haCId oeas is rut eligible lor F&ml disaster rclief when a disaster is dedand o Actuarial rates for insuranc* will go into etrect regardless of whether or not a community participates in the program Without a local floodplain ordinance, insurance for unsafe and improper construction may be prohibitively expensive. This may create properties that are then unsaleable at a future date. This outcome would be triggered by a community's re-entry into the National Flood lnsurance Program at a later date. Some reasons a community may wish to re-enter the program are: I-arger shans of the bcal mongqe madet wittg FI{,a" VA or Fannen Homc for lmts ; Anew legislative body or the change in philasophies of a aisting My mal r@gnize the value of participating in the progran; The comrrurnity moy desire to qply for aledeml grot orlmt a ftunce laal pojeas; A major disaster moy triger tltc ftnotcial nud lor disasta asi:taw; an4 Changes in local political initiativa and plaforms. o The local governing body may be liable since not participatiag in the program: funics the ability of ix'citizens to pwchose fiud utd rcbted water donqe hswance; an4 Does not rcduce the risk of Efe andpoperty ta tldingwha authoritativesdailffic and technobgbal data exist n ossist conunwtitics in nouging tld ponc oeas. Up to the pn-sent time therc hove bean no cowt frnd@ or rulings &essingthir oryd of non-pattbipation Reprina can bc obtained fron your Area Hydrologist or by contadiry aay 0oodplaia 'n",'.ger"cat cefi at (612) 29&,18m. Minncsota Dcpartncnt of Naoral Rcsourccs-Divisim of Watcr& ApIq 1989. Ttis document partially prcpaed through fuading p,rovidcd bra The Federal Emergctrcy Maoageme Agency/Coonunity Assisalcc hogran _r : t ._ ::- j tl i 1, ;- CITY OF CH[NIIISSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739 DeceDber 7, l99O !tr. John RutfordReferrals Coordinators Itletropol itan Council I.{ears Park Centre 230 East 5th streetSt. Paul , lilN 55101-1634 Dear ur. Rutford: I have had an opportunity to review the najor conprehensive plan amendment being requested by the city of Eden Prairie toincorporate 317 acres of land within the UUSA line. In ny capacity as Director of Planning for the City of Chanhassen, I have preparedthe folLorring comEents. Copies of ny cornrnents are being forwardedto Chris Enger, the Conmunity Developnent Director for the City of Eden Prairie. In the interest of saving tine, I am responding tothe proposal prior to it being reviewed by Dy Planning Conmission and City Council . Should they have additional concerns, these wiLlbe forwarded to you. ovERvrEw The City of Chanhassen does not wish to oppose valid and well conceived IIIUSA line expansions requested by any of our neighboringcomrnunities. We know first hand that grovth in the southwestern suburban area in which ue are located has far exceeded theexpectations of the Metropolitan Councilts Regional litodel and thatthere are a number of comnunities, Chanhassen included, that wiII be undertaking conprehensive plan anendments to account for thisgrowth and to allow our conmunities to continue to develop throughthe 199ors. As Ur. Enger and llany of the staff people at the liletroCouncil are auare, Chanhassen is on verge of subEitting a najor comprehensive plan amendment of our orm for approval. This plan amendment has been approxiroately 2 years in the drafting and willresult in the inclusion of approxiroately 2r600 acres of land intothe MUSA system for the City of Chanhassen since we have virtually exhausted our supply of deveLopable acreage and ln no way confomto counci] guidelines of having a ten year supply plus a five yearoverage. we have several concerns and questions regarding EdenPrairiers current request. If ny DeDory is correct, this is the llr. John Rutford Metropolitan council Decenber 7, L99O Page 2 third uUsA line arnendnent or gruide plan amendment undertaken by theCity of Eden Prairie in the past 12 months. uetro council fileswiII indicate that the City of Chanhassen did not oppose the two previous requests either, although hre did raise questions regarding Eden Prairie's proposal to locate a neighborhood shopping areainnediately east of the Chanhassents Central Business District. Itis within this context that ue are raising the questions described below. 1 SoutbyesterD EdeD Prairie DsyslopDelt Pbaalag atualy. The city of Eden Prairiers rationale for exgranding the MUSA restsfargely on this study. It apparently is being used to update thecityrs courprehensive plan for those areas covered by the study.The plan lras dated Decenber, 1988. Since this effectively supplants the Eden Prairie Conprehensive Plan, Dy first question is whether or not the Southrrestern Eden Prairie Phasing Study was adopted through the Metropolitan Land Pfanning Act process. f contacted City of Eden Prairie staff and found that the study wasnever foraally 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 substantialissue. I night add tlrat the city of chanhassen has not only spent several years of tine but has also expended considerable financialeffort, staff tine and the tine of Planning Conmissioners, City CounciL and residents to adopt a conpleteLy new comprehensive Planfor the 1990rs to support our community I s MUSA line amendnent. It rras our belief that this was the appropriate mechanisn to utilize since we rrere proposing a significant departure frou our 1980 pl.an. There is a further question of the cityts being able to justify inclusion of acreage that is clearly labeled as being beyond theyear 2000 lrIUsA line in the pIan. We fuJ.ly understand hot develop:nent realities over the past 5 to 10 years can exceedprevious expectations since this clearly happened in the City of Chanhassen uhere ue experienced 100t populatlon growth and 300* enploynent grorth essentially in the span of approxinately 5 years. Hoi'rever, the Eden Prairie study Is onLy two years o1d and we hrould have hoped it would have been Dore refLective of actual developnenttrends than any 1980 developnent plan could be sinpJ.y because ofthe tine that has eLapsed. 2. aaDltary 8ev.r. The Sanitary Sewer Plan contained in the Southrrestern Eden Prairie Devel.opnent Phasing Study appears to be based on the preraise that Eden Pralrie is to be entirely 6e1f contained. The City of Chanhassen is not necessarily opposed to this, however, rre uould ask the lletro Council to resolve questions of service for southern l!r. John Rutford Metropolitan Council Decenber 7, l99O Page 3 l. Irafft.c 8tudy. Chanhassen. Southern Chanhassen iras to be served by the originallyproposed Bluff Creek Sanitary Serrer Llne uhich now no longerappears to be a possibility. At the saEe tiDe ire are bracketed by Eden Prairie on the east uhich does not anticipate providing anyEervice to aouthern Chanhassen and Chaska on the uest whichlikewise does not propose to provide any eervice. We are not opposed to Eden Prairiets p1an, but in thls instance and on otherrelated matters Euch as Chaskars guide plan anendments, we haverepeatedly asked to have the long terE issues of sewer service tosouthern Chanhassen explored before options are elininated. Aswith earlier responses to Eden Prairiers plan requests, the City of Chanhassen is asking the Uetro Councll to confirn that the Lake Ann/Red Rock Interceptor will have adequate capacity to acconmodate Chanhassenrs growth in light of the current request. 3. Surfacs rater Dral.Dage. Ihe Eden Prairie Plan indicates the construction of two roajordischarges into Lake Riley or a creek flowing into Lake Ri1ey. We do not necessarily oppose these neasures but strongly believe thatthe irnpact of these discharges on water quality should be exptoredprior to their construction. ?he City of Ctranhassen has re-entlyadopted a Surface l{ater Utility prograrD. This is one of theactions we conmited to undertaking our new Coroprehensive p1an. Theprogram ls designed to coraprehensivety deal lrith issues of surfacewater nanageDent, wetland protection and uater qualityinproveroents. The pLan has a heavy focus on uater quality since weare sensitive to protecting the naturaL assets of- our Community.Iake Riley has been identified as a trlake under stressrt by tlelretro Council ltydrologist. I{e are further concerned thatdischarges fron Lake Riley that ultirnately wind up in the l[innesotaRiver coui.d have a bearing on the llinnesota River water gualitywhich is currently being investigated by Metro Council. Irepresent the City of chanhassen on the Technical AdvisoryComnittee working on this problen and It is clear to ne thalupstrean water quality improvenents are going to be required to meet the downstream goals. We vould be wiJ.ling and anxious to workrith City of Eden Prairie Staff to cooperatively address thisissue. The Southlrestern Eden Pralrie Phaslng Study inctudes a trafficstudy prepared by Benshoof and Associ.ates. we believe that thisstudy was based on erroneously low trip estinates fron connunitieslocated rrest of Eden Pralrie. we strongly suspect that the rnode). ing was based on the Irtetro Councll ! s Regional lrIodel which weknow to be seriously out of date relative to developnent that isactually on the ground in our conrnunltLes and to developrnent that ur. John Rutford uetropol itan council December 7, l99O Page 4 we expect to occur in the next 10 years. with thls problen innind, the Cities of chanhassen, chaska, Waconia, Victoria and carver and ca:i\rer county cooperatively developed the Eastern carver county Transportation Study. ltodeLing conpleted for this study indicates significantly higher volumes of traffic ttren lndicated inthe Benshoof study on east/uest roads servinq our conmun j.ties. This does not necessarlly uean that Eden Prairie Ehould Limit devel.opnent nor do we believe that lt inplies our conmunities should be lfunited since roadway iuprovenents are underuay orcontracted. However, we do believe that the new data should betaken lnto account by Eden Prairie and, on behal.f of the conmunities that participated in the Eastern cariver county Study, ue Lrould be willing to work uith Eden Prairie and Hennepin countyto update thelr forecasts and tould encourage them to do so. lrhe folloriDg questioDs pertaiD to the aDarrels oD the aEplicatioD sheet: 5. rteE 2 B c indicates that there is no inpact on existing tripgeneration from the current request. Unless I misunderstandthe question, it is dlfficult to argue tbat the inclusion of over 3oo acres of land into the uusA line will not have any iurpact on area roads. Clearly, lt uiD and while ne believethat it can be acconnodated, any irnpact should be assessed. 5.Iter v c indicates that the plan aDendnent rrill not have any irnpact on uater guality. we hope that this is the case but wouLd ask that questions raised above relative to the large discharges into Lake RiJ.ey be researched. In the l{etro Council application for a uaJor courp plan anrendment, many of the questions refer to Attachnent A asproviding the ansrrers that are requested. Throughout our review of this Daterial, we have tried to ascertain what theintent of this reguest ls. Unlike the two previous reguests we have reviewed fron the City of Eden Prairie, there is noactual developnent proposal beLng reviewed that we are awareof for this area. We do not obJect to this and certainlybelieve it is appropriate for a conraunity to undertake what uebelieve Chanhassen is doing to plan for adequate gror,rth overthe next decade. However, uhat ue find curious is that EdenPrairie is naking a case that the lletro Council Regional lrlodelhas alLocated a certain amount of growth to their conrrnunityand that to acconmodate that growth they need the expanded UUSA line. The City of Chanhassen ls painfull.y arrare that thelletro Council Regional }{odel contains significant errors inthe southwestern suburban area. The Eost recent SysteDS Statement projects a year 2000 population of 10,OOO rrith 4,500jobs for the City of Chanhassen. In 1990, we have over 12,OOO 7 si Y, u Krauss, AfCPDirector of Planning PK:v I Chrls Enger, Clty of Eden Pralrie Ann Hurlbert, Director of Conprehensive PlanningPlanning Connissioncity council Hr. ilohn Rutford l,letropolitan council Decenber 7, 7,990 Page 5 population and 5rOOO jobs. Thus, we certainly rrould not makethe case that the Regional ltodel should drive developnent in chanhassen for if 1t uas to do so, ue rrould have to be nakingtravel arrangenents for substantial nuDbers of our residents and enpl.oynent opportunities to Deet the Dodelts goa1s. Thisis not Eden Prairiers fault, but I aD concerned that theRegional l{odel can allocate grovth into one conmunity andtherefore, provlde the ratlonale for continued expansion ofthe UUSA line shil.e in a neighboring connunity, virtuallyacross the Etreet, it forecasts a significant decline frondevelopnent that is on the ground today. We do not wish tostand in the uay of reasonable uell planned growth of any ofour neighboring conmunities and do not view ourselves to be inconpetition wtth then. During the 198ors, the City of Chanhassen greu at a substantial pace at the sane time therewere considerable developnent opportunities available inneighboring coununltles and indeed these conmunitiesthenselves experienced rapid growth rates. We are ful1ywilling to Let peoplers natural instincts on where to reside and work to take the wrong course but becone greatly concernedwith rrhat appearE to be micro-management of our futures by aforecasting nethodology that, in our instance anlmay, isclearly urong. SUI,IUARY I rrant to thank you for the opportunity of being abte to cotuoent onthe Eden Prairie Plan. I rrould be happy to respond to anyguestions that Day arise fron Iqetro Council 6taff and f an atsoforwarding a copy of these connents to the City of Eden prairie sottrat ue nay initlate a dialogue with theu on these lssues. Clty ol Eden Prairie City Offices Sincerely, L rutc oilL ,r"\ 7600 Executive Drive o Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 . Tel€phone (6121937-2262 November 23, 1990 City of Chanhassen 7610 kredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Sir or Madam: As a requirement of Metropolitan Council guidelines for MUSA line expansion rqpests, we are sending you a copy of our recent application. If you have any questions regarding this application, please call me. ,w!(;/rzr David Undahl Planner DL:ctk enclosure RECEIVED llov 2 6 l9e0 C|TY Of grulrruPsur & INFORMATION SUBMISSION FOR MAJOR COMPREHENSTVE PIJN AME{DMENTS This sumrnary uorbheet must bc filled out and submitted to thc Mctropolitan C-ouncil with ampy of cach proposed major comprehcnsivc plan amcndmenL A rnajoi comprehcnsivc plan amendment is defined as: 1. A complete revisioq update or rcwritc of an cxisting comprchensive plan in its intirery. L A major plan ranisioq updbte, ranrritc or rddition o a chaptcr or clement of an cxisting comprehensive plan. 3. An amcndmeat triggercd by a propccd dcrrclopment that rcquires ao Eavironmcntal Assessment worlshect (EAW) or Envimnmcnral Inpact StaGmcat (EIS), u actinea in Minnesota Rules 1989, Parrs 44I0.43@.44q), and is -inconsistcnt *ittr tti crlstnj comprchensirrc plan; or 4' A change (land tradc or addition) in the urban service area invotving 40 acrcs or more" .. Please be as speciFrc as poasille; attach_ additiooal cxplanatory matcrials if nccessary. I[ a staff'i report was prepared for the Planning commission oi city council, please attach it'as,rrcu. send plan anendments to: John Rutford, Referrals CoordinatorMetropolitan Councj.I, lIears park Centre230 E. Fifth St., St. paul, tIN 55101-1634 I. GENE&{L INFORMATION A Sponsoring govcrnmental unit rir v r)f Fdc n Pra i ri Name of local contact Address 7600 Ex Perygnecut l v e Drive Eden hri er ra rle, Telephone 937 -2262 Name of Preparer (if different from contact person)Drv{d Lindah ! Date of Preparation B.Name of Amendment DescriptionrSummary Eden Prairie MUSA E xPansaon See Attaclltne NEA C. Plcase attach thc following: l. z 3. Firrc copics of thc propccd ameodmcoL A city-widc map showing thc location of thc propccd changc. Thc current plan map(s) indicating rhc area(s) aifcct"4 if thc amcndmcnt triggers a map change. vi 4. What is the ofEcial local status of thc plan amendmcnt? appropriate.) (Check onc or more as x Acted upon by planning commission (if applicablc) on Septenber 24, L990 E --I APPro\rcd by goveming body, contingent upon Mctropolitan Council ranicw,October 16, 1990 _ Coosiderd but not approt cd, by gwcming body on Indicate what adjacent local gorrcramcatal uuis atrccrcd by the change havc been sent copies of the plan amendmcnt and the date(s) copies uare sent to thcm, Notitication of "tr8!*.di"sF1LE-tBp*Elf, y*cr'.Jigr's+rB'"818!g'#, Community discharges to morc ahan one mctropolitan interccptor. x NoNot Applicablc. _ Ycs Indicatc which interccptor will bc affccted by thc amcndmcnt and what will be thc nct chaogca in flows? amendments-DNR, Riley-Purgatory Watershed, MN/DOT, Hennepin County Dept. of Transp. , School District,City of Chanhassen, Eden Prairie Because of the comprehensive nature of most major ptan amendmentsr a summary checklist is attached to help ensure (hat thc amendment is complcte for Council revicw and lo dctcrmine whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the metropolitan sptems plans or other , chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Plcase indicatc whcther tht amendment affecs the following factors. where ir does,-the materials submirtcd must fully addrcss the issue(s). II. IMPA T ON REGIONAL SYSTEMS A Wastewater Treatment Change in ciEb year 20ff,f20t0 tlor projections. x No/Not Applicable. _ Yes. What will bc thc nct change? Horr urcre th6e celculated? I L v11 The propccd plao map(s) indicating area(s) affected, if rhe amendment triggen a map change. D. Other B.Transportation l. Relationship to Council policies rcgarding metropolitan highways. _,:x No/Noa fuplicable. Yes. Change in type and intensity of tand rscs at interchanges and othci locations within a quarter-milc of the metropolitan highway q6tem? * No/Not Applicable" Yes. 3. Impact ou existing trip gencration- x No/Not fuplicable. Yes- 4. No. C Aviation Impact on regional airspace. ) Capacity of road ncnvork to accommodatc planncd tand use(s) (including metropolitan intcrchanges). No/Not Aoolicable-T y.* seA' Attachment A 5. Impact on tra$it and parking stratcgies. * No/Not Applicable. Yes. Does-the proposed amendment contain any changc to the functional classification.of roadwap? (Thesc changes requiic Transportation Advisory Board (fAB) review.) 1 x_ NoNot Applicable" Ycs. 2 Impact on airpon scarch area x NoNot Appticablc- Yes vlll 6. x _ Yes, Dscnbe which roadnays. J Consistency with guidelines for land use compatibility with aircraft noisc. _l NoNot Applicable. Yes. 4. Consistency with the long-tcrm comprehcnsivc plan for an airport in the vicinity of the community or proposed derrclop'ment x_ NoNot Applicable. Yes. III. IMPAST ON METROPOL TAN DEVELOPMENT AND ITWESTMENT FRAMETYORK A l:nd Use 1. Describe the following, as appropriate: Size of affected area in acres 317 Existing land us€(s@mi Iy Residential Proposed land use(s s ame Number of residentiaLdwellin-s-unis and-trmes.involvedapprox].mately uuu acrclrtronal.'un].ts Proposed density 2.5 units Der acre Proposed:quare footage of commercial, industrial or public buildings Change in the cityl population, horschold or employment forccasts for 2000, or any additional local staging contained in the original plan. * NoA.[ot Applicabla see Attachment A Yes. C. Change in the urban scrvice area boundary of the community. a. b. c. d. e. I T-NoNot Applicable. Yes.see Attachment A D. C-hangc io the timing and staging of development within the urban scwice area. x_ NoNot fuplicabla Ycc see Attachment A 1x D.Rccrcation Open Spacc l. Impaa 9n cxistiag or futurc fcdcral, state or rcgional rccrcrtional facilitics. _L Xo^tot fuplicable- Yes- B. ry. IMPACT ON HOUSING A Impact on the supply and affordability of housiug q/pcs oeccssary ro scrve persons at dillerent stages in thc life cplc. B c. Impact on thc supply and atfordability of housing qp6 ne.6sary ro scrve p€rsons at varying incomc levels. ?- -r- NoNot Applicable. Yes. NoNot Applicable. Yes.see Attachment A Impact oa thc communityk numcrical objectiraes for tow- and moderatc-income,modestst market ratc, and middle- and upper-incomc bousing unir. x NoNot Applicable. ' /\ i: Yes. 1YATER RESOURCES A 'T-Yes. No. B. Will rhe wetland bc protected? x_ Ye.. Describe how.see Attachment A c Yes. No.see Attachment A D. Will the watcr body bc protectcd? x Yes. Describc how. No. Exolain whv not. Does the plan amendmcnt affect a Minncsota Department of Natural Rcsources or U.S. Arny Corps of Engineers protected wertand? If yes, describe q,pe of wetland affectcd and show location on a map. will the plan amendment resutt in runoff which affecs the quarity of any surface*zter body? If yes, identify which ones. x x v. see Attachment A _ No. Explain why noc see Attachment A VI. IMPLEMENTATIONPROGRAM A Change in zoning, suMivision, on-sire sewer ordinanccs or orher oflicial controls. -l NoNo, fuplicablc. Yes. tjp0037l 0a.18.90 xi The City of Eden Prairie is requesting that its Comprehensive Plan be amended to include an additional 317 acres !o its currcnt urban service area. The City initiated this request in order increase its u6an land supply to a level that wi[ accommodate iorecasted tand demand in faen Prairie. This request can be supported for the following rcasons: - 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 Development & Investment Framework policies on adequate urban land supply. Adoing 317 acres to the city's curent land supply will keep the total supply within ihe-council's forecasted demand. Attachment A I. GENERAL INFORMATION B. Description/SumnarT: 1990 2000 90-2000 Housing Units 13,000 17,500 4,500 COI]NCIL LAND DEIVTAND 199G2OOO Residential *l,900 (4,5@12.5 unitVacre) Commercial/Office Streets and Alleys 395 Parks 90 TOTAL 2,t75 COI,]NCIL LAND DEMAND VS. SUPPLY 1990 - 2000 Demand 2,875 5 year overage t,437 (.5 of90 - 2000 demand) Demand * Overage 4,3r2 Land Supply (April '90)3,837 DEMAND OVER STJPPLY 475 ACRES ' 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.i unit/acre. COUNCIL HOUSING UNIT FORECASTS 250 Industrial 300 Public 40 II. IMPACT ON REGIONAL SYSTEI\{S B. TRANSPORTATION rV. 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 projecb in Eden Prairie. These parcels are more conducive to large Planned Unit Developments, which allows developers more flexibiliry for providing a variety of housing t1pes. V. WATER RESOI,]RCES 4 c&D. 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 FOPI,JLATION/STAGING OF DEVEI,]OPMEI{T 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. Expanding the MUSA line in southwest Eden Prairie will not impact water quatity. All subsequent development proposals for this area will be subject to a complete review by the City of Eden Prairie, DNR, Army Core of Engineen, and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. The City is obligated to maintain or improve water quality in its lakes and water bodies. a !c .. -j':i.l 5 aaDnsYGn /-' o !t. Irn :i ta.t L\ l! r,] Tc ii".t I L -., ..l .L @ i'r ::: i 4 t,r zi. NORTH I I 3CT LE IILES 6 7 3l9 t 4t a 8 hn nasse IT AI II tt t0 o HENNEPIN COUNTY o r I r I t- I I - I I l- t- t- T l- T @ I llanaagh Ccsllty i I T! 6 I El lC -.-- IAND USE TIAP.r-tc.r-r{. flElta! ||o rlxra*Er.' - r...c no?ra attElralu! Et -oxrrur.rrrs n.r-bh,l.{-.EbLl .rr..{.q,r, bI lx - 'i L.r >-..- r-rb crEl,lau3ttarorea El o -o.- i-tqr.3ll.E l. -,- t-.F-r- l. --.-'E *--rh-t- E-----.r- @-.-.b--r-c.ra -.lr --ti - o --h,- b.4 !a/Yt-br,--- EAEr q{t'arnoa --.,r-F -'-- ,lo\ltt NF - r.- i-- r- -- r- -rrr.lIL-.-EG- CC-c-iG- 0 t GUTDE PLAN-CITY OF EDEN PRALR|E E i I-.! o ..r. a tlr, a '4_ I I <N -iTfiI-F- XPANSI A {, z_ ! (g uJ a \ ,s --..':- - li / EA \ /a at -z /.Flt t 't t- I I T T T I T t- r r r L t f,",:l3ffi."T{BFjs,u!1,,:f, Summary Report December 19gg Report prepared by: [liii|{FiXBB BEi o^,?,,, * "HANSEN THoBp pELLINEN .or-s6N, tNc. 829-0700 944-7590 20 December 1988 SubJ: SOUTHWESTEBN EDEN PRAIRIE DEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY PROJECT 52-139 BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, tNc. The Brauer Group, lnc. 61 16 Parnell Avenue Edina MN 55424 Donald G. Brauer Reg. No. 6120 Benshoof & Associates, lnc. 7901 Flying Cloud Drive Suite 1 19 Eden Prairie MN 55344 James A. Benshool Reg. No. 10161 HTPO, lnc. 7565 Olfice Ridge Circte Eden Prairie MN 5534, HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON,INC. rr-\ Steven L. Pellinen Reg. No. 15345 THE BBAUER GROUP, tNc. l),u.ta**S'k t t L t. L L L L 944-7533 Cily of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie MN 55344 d. Ladies and gentlemen: we appreciate the opportunity to submit our recommendations for development phasing in lhe southwestern area of Eden Prairie as authorized by the city in March ol this year. The work could not have been completed withoul the timely and appropriate preparation ol data and inlormation, review, critique and general support ol key city staif people during the period of our investigation and analysis. we are available at your request to make presentations, assist in the evaluation of development proposals and to prepare additional, more specilic plans or designs for elements ol the study proposals as maybe appropriate. Sincerely, L'titL We hereby certify that this report was prepared by us or under our direct supervision and thatwe are duly registered professional engineers under the laws of the State oi Minnesora. TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER LETTER LISTOF FIGURES ABSTRACT page 3 page 7 page I page 1 1 page 1 1 page 12 page 15 page t7 page 19 pagE 2l page 23 Page 25 Page 27 page 51 page 53 page 55 page 57 page 59 page 61 page 63 page 65 page 69 page 71 page 72 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Existing and programmed Conditions The Fu[ Devetopment ptan Basis The Development phasing Concept proposat D(ISTING ANO PROGRAMMED CONDITIONS Orientation Oevelopment phasing Area Existing and programmed Land Use Existing Topography and protected Weflands Existing and programmed Roadways Exisring and programmed Utitities Existing Drainage THE FULL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BASIS Sanitary Sewer System Water Main Syslem Orainage System Roadway System Overview Roadway Netwoft Tratfic Analysis Sub-zones Year 2005 Daity Volumes Analysis o, Need lor Dell Road tnterchange Recommended Functional Classi,ication;l Roadways THE DEVELOPMENT PHASING CONCEPT PR6POSAL Oevelopmenl Conslraints ard paramelers Recommended lmprovements lo perimeter Roadwavsuevebpment sub.areas phasing concept Sub.area 1 A phasing Recommendations Sub-area 1 B phasing Recommendations Sub-area 2AB phasing Recommendations Sub-area 2B phasing Recommerdations Sub-area 3 phasing Recommendations INFBASTRUCTURE FUNOING ALTERNATIVES & COSTS Funding Altematives Eslimated Costs Becommendalions APPENOIX A. TRAFFIC FORECASTING MEIHODOLOGY APPENDIX B. PHASING ANALYSIS OF PERIMETER ROAOWAYS APPENOIX C - COST ESTIMATES APPENDIX D. SANITARY. WATER & DRAINAGE METHOOOLOGY APPENOIX E. BIBLIOGRAPHY I r I I r r 1r r I- t: I r L- L- t- L page 31 page 33 page 35 page 37 page 39 page 41 page 43 page 45 page 47 LIST OF FIGURES EXISTING AND PFOGRAMMED CONDITIONS Figure I Frgure g Frgure 10 Figure I 1 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 page 14 page 16 page 18 Page 20 Page 22 gage 24 page 26 Page 30 page 32 page 34 page 36 page 38 page 40 pa9e 42 page 44 page 46 page 50 page 52 page 54 page 55 page 58 page 60 page 62 page 64 FULL DEVELOPM ENT CONDITIONS Sanitary Sewer System Waler Main System Orainage Syslem Roadway System Components Roadway Network Tratlic Study Sub-areas Year 2005 Daily Volumes Analysis ol Oelt Road/T.H. 212 lnterchange Recommended Functional Classilication DEVELOPM ENT PHASING CONCEPT Development Conslrainls & parameters Becommended lmprovements to perimeter Roadways Development Sub-areas Sub-area 1A Sub-area 1 B Sub-area 2AB Sub-area 2B Sutrarea 3 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 FigluIe 22 Figure 23 Figve 24 APPENOIXC Figure C-1 Ma,or Drainage lrprovements P.M. Peak Hour Traflic projections at T.H. S and C.S-A.H. 4 Potential Additional lmprovements at C.S.A.H. 4/T.H. s 1990 P.M. Peak Hour Tratric proiections at T.H. S/De Road Polenliat Temporary lmprovements at Dell Road/T.H. 5 P.M. Peak Hour Traflic proiections at C.S.A.H. I and Scenic Heiohrs RoadconceptPlan,orcounty4/ScenicHeightsRoad/T.H.21 APPENDIX A Figure A-l year 2OOS primary Study Area Tdp Distrihrfion APPENDIX B L 7 I Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 5 Figure 7 Orientation Development phasing Area Existing & Programmed Land Use Existing Topography Existing & Programmed Roacrways Existing & Programmed Utilities Existing Drainage Figure B-1 Figure 8.2 Figure B-3 Figure B-4 Figure B-5 FQure 8-6 ABSTRACT This study was authorized by.the city of Eden prairie in March, 19gg and approved toproceed by lormal proposal signed on March 19, 19gg. The inient of tne stlEy-was toprovide a lactual and practical basis lor the approval of development ptans in inesouthwestern area of the city, and to enable such approvals to be rendered in an orderlyand eflicient manner. The intent was not to unreasonably restrict, but ratrer ioaccommodate development in an orderly way by matching grofih with neededinlrastructure in a manner which does not acteterate or pus-n deveropment. To complete the study, investigation was made into existing and future capacities of tourmajor infrastructures: public roadways, sanitary sewer, water and drainage. The initialtask was to establish a lull developmenl plan lor the eniire study "r"" *iti "on..ptr"llayouts lor each infrastructure system. The lull development plin became the basis forsubsequent deve.lopment phasing analyses. Each system was tested lorconstraints onoeveropment ancr to determine which systems, if any, might impose limitations fordevelopment in a particular area. Finaily, conclusioni and recommendations were madeconcerning parameters which may be used reasonabty lo establish development patternsand priorities. The consultants lorming the study team incruded rhe Brauer Group, rnc., red by DonardBrauer,.responsibre for generar pioject coordination and oversight,'liaii-n witrr iuoric anoprivate interesls and review and presentation of study results; Benshool & Associates, tnc.,led by James Benshoot, responsible for analyses and recommendations related to tratficand roadways; and Hansen Thorp pellinen Olson, lnc., led by Steven pellinen, responsible lor analyses and recommendations related to sanitary sewer, warer anddrainage. systems, tor editing and production of reports and for prime consurtant The city sta{f liaison team inctuded carl Juilie, city Manager; Gene Dietz, Director orPublic works; chris Enger, Director or pranning;Aran ora'y, city engin;-i;Eoi-'i"ro.rt,Director ol Parks, Recreation and Naturar Res6urces; anosupp'ortirig starf. 9 I t' t- t t SUMMARY OF CONCLUSTONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Existing and Programmed Conditions i The study area consists of nearry 3,600 acres of mostry undeveroped rand in thesouthwestern quadrant of the city ol Eden prairie. Rpilroximatelf r soo acies o, the studyarea lies within the exisrino year 2ooo Merropotitan Ur6an servic'es A;;rtu-sAi Most orthis land is programmed firiow-densiry *rii.;ti;i d"reropment, with a rimired amountprogrammed for parks and other pubric or quasi-pubric open space and a very smalamount programmed ror commerciar deveropment. one'erementary schoorii "rrrantty lnlrastructure systems (roadways, water distribution, sanitary sewer and drainage) rangelrom nonexistent to weil-deveroped, depending an thJ partici.,rar area. ceneraJiv, il.,"inlrastructure is characteristic o't ttrat toirno in furar arlis adjacent to devetopinj areas. n Hi"^f_"1ry._rroadway system is in ptace wtrLn wirineeo io be upgraded ind-rnrerconnectecl as development proceeds. The Red Bock lnlercepio-r sewer is underconslruction and will make sanitary sewer service available eventlally to tne eniii. .rroyarea. Trunk water mains are enended or ptanned to lhe edges oitn,j riuov #a in several 9::!g1.:_IE drainage sysrem mosrty consisls ot naturatdiainage *rvi riitn "1.*curvens and storm sewers in scattered locations. A number of Din_pr6tecteo wetlancsexist within the study area. The chain or Lakes rrunk srorm sewer is in prace in thenortheastern part ol the study area and can serve a portion ol that area. A significant upgrade is programmed lor state Highway 5, adding ranes, channelizarionand signals by December r990 through the studfarea. The majir program;eJ irarricimprovement for rhe studv area is thju.s . fign;,tiy azfreeway "t'an-rniieciried tururedate. The Full Development plan Basis The major componenls for each intrastructure system were developed lor the entire studyarea. Using programmed land use assumptions and criteria, each'infrastructuie was givena reasonable conceprual design, incruding size, capacity and general rocarion. - A conceptual roadway network with tratfic torecasts was raid out. Upgrades arerecommended ror a number of key intersections, incruding state xwyl stco. x*. a; Hurv. SP9EIi.lwy SrHerirase Roai;and Co. nrry. +TScenic Heishrs hoao.F{ecommendations are made for a freeway inrerchange at the fiture Hwy. 21?Dell Road :[.T]f 3;liXi:H::T:lX jt'"T""tTT.l,'".":",'"8,",.,#l*L:f,:]**ffi -' Tte_conceptuar sanitary sewer syslem is served armost entirery by the Red Rocklnlerceplor sewer. Four main service areas havsbeen ioentiti6o ivnicn'r"yillrir" trnxor sub-lrunk classification. The remainder ot tnoarea can be served by r"i6r"ri",n"r..while gravity sewers can se.rve most of the study arel, a totar of rour rifr stations arerecommended for ultimate development. only one ot the litt stations ii neeJeJ-to se.u"areas within the MUSA. t" L L L L L ll i The conceptual water distribution system invorves the extension and rooping of trunk watermains currently extended to.the perimeter or te itrov area. A number or sinailer roops arerecommended between rhe trunk mains. The size an'd capacity of the trunk mains appearslo be adequate in most areas for low density residentiat s6rvic6 wirhout looping ol rhe trunkmains (looping ol laterar mains is recommendedl. However, for adequate tire irorectionand continuance or serviceevenruar rooping is recommended. rt is particutaayrecommended that the trunk main near ihe-cedar Ridge schoor ue ioopeo lri'or ro tneopening of the school in Fall 1999. The.conceptual drainage system was deveroped rrom an anarysis of sub-watershedswithin the three. major watersheds or the stud'y "iJi. -storr*ater detenlion isrecommended in a number. ol areas where protected wetlands or significant trees shouldbe preserved or in areas where existing oeiptepieisions can be rdadiry *"Jiominimize pipe sizes. ln areas wnere ploposEd ;il;;i.", are quite targe, it isrecommended that additionar ponding studies be'made at lhe time ot iereiolrenr ryopg:gq to.derermine if pipe size reluctions are feasibre. o"rerofr.niin 5nyir."sh.uld take into account the urlimate drainage patters to and trom thar area. The Development phasing Concept proposat The,sequence,.or phasing, that development within the MUSA might rogicaily foflow was ::Tli^d^:"::lylll.^ J!:pl-o""t .of derenninins the most orderty ani ert-e-Jve,prrasins ror:^:]:]:li.il was comptex. .Brie{ty, it invotved superimposing ail ol rhe individuatrnrraslruqure sysrems and determiningtey constraints or paiameters tor development. ltwas determined that the oewrgnlelienising Arei isrudy area witnin tne rrrusA) courdbe divided into five sub-areasdefineo uy tn-sE rey cJnstraints and paramelers. phasing for development in thar oart ot the study arei rvind *trio" t,e MUSA was not specificailyaddressed but was assumed to occur dt sor"irt-rrr time atter the rive sub-areas havesubstantially developed. = The major constrainrs to deveropment proved ro be more geographicar and sequentiarralher than incrementar. That is, with d corpre.oierceptio-ns, irre capr"itr.. otln.infrastruclure trunk systems ate Iarge enouf,trlo "rroi, "rtan.ions of greal distances withinlow-density residential areas- Thus] ne ptriiing oi Jeretopmeniue"-"r"'ifr".rion ordefining areas wirhin which the inlrastructures tt'aJio o"ueiop rrom oJineJsiarting pointsand given sequential needs. T-he-notable exceptions to geo$aphical and sequential constraints occuned within theroadway and water distribution infrastructures. the interseaion ot county Highway 4 withState Highway 5 has a tevet of service p6r;;;;; io;ustiry some timitations rodevelopment untir certain improvements are madE. erdo, in'some ar"", i"r"ro-pr..rshould be limited untir roadways are rooped to pioriie access rrom more than onedirection. Likewise, trunk water mains shourd ioi oe Lxrenoed too tar wilhoui tooping inorder to reduce the chance of loss o_f service, . p"rti"Lr"rry importani cons'i-era-tion tor tireprotection- A specitic recommendation is made to toop tnL trunk water main near tnecedar Ridge Schoor berore.it.opens in r 9g9. tn gene;ar, the point at wnicn rooflg isrequired is a subjective decision, except in thosetases wheri capacity uecom5s tnelimiting constraint. This will be more liiely for lateraiwater mains lhan for trunk facitities. l2 I I t t t_ L l., tr L L L L L t E. xt- s T- I N- G- & P R,- o G- R A- H H- E D- c- o N- D IT- I o_ Hs- l I I t t t I I L t L L L L t t- I I I BL II{GTON 94 XE s?. ll MIN EAPq-IS R ICH LO BURNSVILLE \ rJ q lu l! HEOSIA DEVELOPMENT PHASING AREA CHAIIHASSEN -) CHASKA r M INNETON DEVEL S XAXOPEE GOLDEN VALLEY I til0 e / II $i * 2* L I t L l-,rI -t -l - I-L L L L L L L F1 OPMENT ST UDY AREA SAVAGE IL A I t2 q L-.PLYMOUTH ST LOUIS PARK 7 P AIRIE EDE N o ,x€BiluEB GaouP, txc. trs tHot PELII ITEN OL sot laNsxooF I ASSOC- [,tc.SOUTHWESTDEVELOPME PRAIRIE STUDYPNEBN E DEHTHAstNG @ RIENTATIO FIGURE T GN $ =zI I ADDITIONAL FULL -i-l EO INA OBIENTATION - Figure 1 Figure 1 delineates the entire study area, consisling ol the Development phasing Area and the Additional Full Development Sludy Area as they relate to surrounding communitites. The study area generally is bounded on the north by Slate Highway 5, on the wesl by lhe 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 lying within the year 2000 MUSA (Metropolitan Urban services Area) as-established by the Metropolitan council. The Additional Full Development sludy Area is lhat pan ol the study area which lies outside of the cunent MUSA. t- t t I I I t L L L L L L l5 I6 ,oo o t- t- t t NO.! S ST A1E lt ,HELL L KE I I I t t t L t, tr L L L L. L L // tsi ! I I I I€t 2 .iz i (\ FU LADDITIONA[, .n,. _ -lVELOPMENT A (r2ooo acres) u.s. scExrc LAKE IIARSH RICE LAKE REDDEVELOPITITENT PHAS G EA o o o DEI'ELOPMENI PHASING AREA FIGURE 2SOUTHWESTERNDEVELOPMEHT P ED HAS RAIRIE STUDYING ENPlttE tfiauEA GeouP, |ltc. lcNs|ooa I ^ssoc.. txc. h^xs:i lfonP PElttxEr{ otsori rRc r9llOE@ t6elto.f e I (c13oo ac re s) PlONEEA LAKE RILET I t Figure 2 shows the Development Phasing Area and the Additional Full Development study Area in enlarged detailwith boundaries and major teatures identified. Note that lhe Development Phasing Area includes all land within the current year 2OOO MUSA line. The Additional Full Development Study Area lies outside the current MUSA. Excluding lakes, the Development Phasing Area contains approximately 1300 acres and the Additional Full Development Study Area contains approximately 23OO acres. DEVELOPMENT PHASING AREA - Figure 2 I I L L L L t7 o o MIXED USE sl AIE ()\ PARK L-----' OMMEFCIAL SCHO OL to.!, BOAOI K -r'' h ARatcE ANSH LAKE e \ o CEMETEBY t. I 0 I I o MERCIAL P E I ob PAFK FIBE STATION e I 0 I 0 I ATHLETI FIELDS LAKE NILEY;!:0 dI iI \ AIRPORT (t$ I N .'!'-- 6jI) ' IlITCHELL LAKE z o o \GOLF COURSE \ I t EXISTING & PROGRAMMED LANO USE FIGURE 3 REO ROCt( LAKE THE 8FAt E8 cioup, tnc. oLSOri N c lEr.s8ooF I ISSOC- lNC.nlllst{ txoAl tEll|ltElt RAIRIE STUDYfrEETFTiBF'I""SOUTHWDEVELOP @ GT -r----j- . ro. roi - -.6L 80. C' t t t t t I t I I t t t L E L L L L L L o o t I I t I L sc€Nrc '\l I \,, I t- t T t t I Dwellinos Existing (unils) Future (units) Total Dweltings (units) Residential (acres) Park (acres) Oflice (acres) Commercial (acres) lndustrial (acres) Schools (acres) Cemetery (acres) Fire Station (acres) Goll Course (acres) Total (acres) North o, CSAH 1 Soulh of CSAH 1 Totat 282 3.010 : 3,292 1,575 167 1ll 20 1,811 2,105 380 5.017 5,397 98 2.O07 L L L L L L 29 4 4 1,463 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 2s0 3,038 237 1'll 20 29 4 4 2500 1,783 3,594 l9 EXISTING AND PROGBAMMED LAND USE - Figure 3 Figure 3 describes existing and programmed land uses within the study area. The double dashed straight lines de{ine specilic sites currently owned by the Citv orthe school District. The areas identilied by double dashed curved lines are projoseo lor.future.acquisition by the city or commercial developers but are not specificiiiy delined sites. The land uses identilied here are those used for subsequent tralfic and public utilityand drainage analyses. A full development tand use summary is presented belowwhich quantifies areas and populations used in the study. Nole. that for purposes of population projections in the designated low density residential area, lwo dilferent density asiumptions have be-en used. A developed d.ensity of.z.14 housing unils per acie has been assumed lor the area north oi counryHighway 1, consistent with historic city development data. The terrain and existing land ownership patterns south of county xignway 1 indicate that a somewhal lower density assumption tor this area would be mbre rLasonable. A developed density ol1.50 units per acre has been used lor this area. ln all areas a maximum density 'ol 2.5 units per acre has been assumed lor local subdivisions. RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND I.AND USE SUMMARY o o o sTATE {(/q llO.5 c o 3 0 a I 'o D t I 0 <ta 'I KEY I 'XE BR AUET GROUP, INC, lt lHoiP PE!LDI:No(s o IEX3HOOF I ASSOC- tilc-PRAIRIE STUDYP SOUT HW ES TERN E DENDEVELOPMENTHASING 3CEXtC RIC E AKE \0os e o ao.{cEi o D LAKE R/LET ' o r') o1 c o a c a o oo oo GT!l{!c EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY FIGUBE 4 0 .,C. llO, e o I T I T t t I I I t L L Irtr L L L L L L @ ir,tl?.o tiotEcrEDwETtAllD -a\ coaatoui r ELEVATIOiI I t- t- I t I I EXISTING TOPOGRAPHy - Figure 4 Figure 4 shows.existing topography defined by 1O-foot contour intervals. Note the extremetopographic variation in most ol the area south of county Highway 1. Also shown areprotected waters and wetlands as designated by the Mlnnesota Department of Natural Resources. The top_ographic information is taken from available existing records, including aeriat surveysand U.S.G.S. quadrangle maps. While lhese are assumed to be reasonably l""ur"t", speciticdevelopmenr planning wirr require more detaired surveys tor most prrposerl ---- t L L L t I 2l t t t I I I I I t t t I t o NO.tlAtEI e LUKE s nol RICE xo 212 t_H I !1 o I I -t LAKE EILET dI t KEY ?olEllTrAt ltrEicNAXGE torELtlALtutL Acccsslltt€isEcttox EXISTING & PROGRAMMED ROAOWAY8 z EXtC ITCHELL LATE l_.-) LA'(E ROC PEO PlO{EER o o (\ *-.-t qf''--'- I ) 2 I I I x€ SrAUEh Gtout. txc oLSOr aEr.sHoor t lssoc_ tftc.Nlislri tHoit PEL!ttCX SOUTHWESTERN EDDEVELOPMENT PHAS RAIRIESTUDY E H PIHG @ ffir -l-,r- . ... ,c.o - -'{io I xo. r69 tro L FIGURE 5 I t- t t t I t I EXISTING AND PROGRAMMED ROADWAyS _ Figure 5 Figuie 5 identifies existing and programmed roadways in the study area. programmedrmprovemenrs shown here incrude the_upgrade or Siate xign*ay 3 6lorir"-n"r;".o ,n.prefened location tor rhe proposeo u.s. higilay' iii'tr""*^y. Proposed fulr-access. ar-orade intersecrions are shown as circres arong state Highway 5.Proposed freeway interch-anges for U.S. Hi;h*;;ii; are shown as squares. No specific improvements are programmed for county.Highways 1 and 4 at this time exceptnear the intersection of County Highway a "nO St"t. frign-way 6. -. '- ' -' ."'- r/ I I L t L L L 23 o o STA.lE OF i^. oz ''' te ( // ./ KEY .. T'ITCHELL -Faa;,=:_.::-:=i..;; I I ,/ I AKEL o 5C€r,C Hrs noao7/ i.. RED ,//'RICE T LAKE -. // .9"-]:r-::l /t':,: o t.;./ ,, l. ' /' r -.-::-r' il POCK. ' .--... I LAKE ,/ / o i z ..?1!r, , PIONEIRII :': ;=ii1.,.: L'KE RILET oa '! z 'o rl: !t t__ L"' : :i ;o".'.:... -\.. i.-.,.. -iri..-'..- / -- E^Lttlir EEwEi --- torcc lltxii EXISTING & PROGRAMMEO UTILITIES FIGURE 6SOUTHWESTDEVELOPMERAIRIE STUDY ERN EDENT P}IASt NG NP'H€SnAUSR GEOuP. lxc. otsor irl c ItxsHOOa a Assoc.. ttc.BrisEn IhotP F€tllrtEt{Bla-o3a u-s. F:g.rr, 'lg!I_. roo Eo -- -r(iE ,'ro. 5 l t- t- t' I t I t t -a9 "i" I I I I : I I I I // : -l- L i ,,,..1. ',:r$iiti' I I i : NTE t{o. /r' t69 I EXISTING AND PROGRAMMED UTILITIES - Figure 6 l t t t I I I Figure 6 shows existing and programmed sanitary sewer and water main in and immediatety adjacent to the study area. The Red Rock lnterceptor sanitary sewer is currently under construction. The other local utilities are in place or under construction in developed areas. L t L L L L- L 25 I o6 t tl'rE lto.5 3 torr ,/, ntcE LAI(E a L- I aaRsH LAKE , RILEY II XEY tttt r^ror wAtEisrrEo\, tut-IArEt3xEDL- ttoin ttrEt - Gutvlit ..\-- i HE iAAUER GnOut. txc. oLS lfxsHooF I ASSOC. txc.sAXltx txoiP rE!!Di:N RAIR!ESTUDYDEVELOPMEENPSOUTHWESTERN EDNT PHAS ING oE9r9l@ EXISTING DNAINAGE FIGURE 7 \'"rsg ( ,TIITCHELL LAKE e LA'(E ROC frED o 1? a aa ) tr i)( j10 U I 6.'-. o t\ IO. l6 t- t t t I t I t t t t L E L L L L L SCEXTC { o o o t I I EXISTING DBATNAGE - Figure 7 Figure 7 identilies existing drainage areas and facilities. The study area includes portions of three major watersheds. The Chain of Lakes watershedcovers much ot the northeasterly part of the study area. Most ol the southern and westernportions ol the study area are wilhin the Biley Creek Watershed. A relatively small pan of lhemost southerly portion of the study area lies within the Minnesota River waGrshed. Each majorwatershed has been divided into sub-watersheds based on existing.topography. The sub-watersheds provide a basis for design ol the full development drainagi iystem. The Chain of Lakes trunk storm sewer system which provides water level control for Round,Mitchell and Red Rock Lakes.is already in place. Local storm drainage systemi are in place east ol Mitchell Lake. near Lake Riley and in subdivisions above Rite! cr.6er. scatteredculverts exist throughout the study area. L L L L tL 27 T H E F U L L D E Y E L o P 1'l E N T P L A ]t B A s I s I _T -t- -t -t -I -I _I -l -i t -t -L 1 1 1 1 1 ] I t l l_ l_ l J ,o.. a 9ERVICE AREA I If!LL +o: rE oi sc! x[: PIOI.:E€F 8 tn LAKE PICE FEO 2:/ ,/./ .o o RED ROCK I I LAKE ' , ao o E LA}.8 1 o'co L.S t1 RILEY I .(E 8 \ AREA IV ERVIa !r .o 8" L.S o 12" caevrrv - sEWEt --- toicE ra^rilLS. urr srerrox SERVICE ABEA BOUNDARY oLsor txE lnAuEB CtOuP. otc_ !€,rSHOOa I ASSOC_. tt.clllt3all rHont ttllrtiEra RAIR!ESTUDYE1*HriBF,$o'ES MEDEVELO P souTHw GTa!.o36 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM FIGURE A AREA III EBVICE SERVICE AREA II r69 us , t ttei.r \,I I.I cOurrll L.S. I I I . SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM - Figure 8 Figure I shows the schematic layout of the fuily developed sanitary sewer system. Except for a small area north ol Mitchell Lake, the entire study area will be served by the RedRock lnterceptor sewer currently under conslruction. Four miior service areas requiringsewers 12 to 24 ilches in diameler as well as minor service areas conneaint direitry tjtneinterceptor sewer have been identified. some ol lhe sewers in the major serii"" "r"", ,"ybe designated as trunk sewers in the future. \ The design for the sanitary.sewer syslem is generally consistent with criteria and service areaspreviously established for design otthe inlerieptor slwer. Rn attemprtrai ueen maoe to ry3imizg the area.capabre of gravity sewer service while mini;izing th. ;rrb", "nd capaciryof lift.stalions required. Four lift stations will be needed at various licationi along tne nileyCreek valley. I 1 I T T r r E f t t t t 31 I I I IGI IAIE \LAKE :.. /' scaorc REO ROCI(, 16',: I I I ] o I ,0 Go' . ."Y /. t iE I6r(\r LA'G . /,/ I L L L L E L I L L L , LAKE PILET o ' 2 o 12" KEY UAIEEI 9IONEER :::N :F .t co$N1 WATERMATN SYSTEM ot-soN /c IHE SeAUEA GAOUP, tNC. aErssooF I lSSOC.. trac H'rrasEN rHotP PatLlraEll SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PDEVELOPMENT PHASLIG'RAIRIESTUDY FIGURE O gla GT tlo ,69 III|CHELL . , . lrr.f \ '4. i : a I i : '.) : I I t. : : u.s- WATEB MAIN SYSTEM - Figure 9 Figure 9 shows lhe schematic layout of the fully developed water main system. An attempt was made to be generally consistent with the recently updated master ptan tor the f.iy:_:?1?l_di:tribution svsrem. A kev criterion used in taying out rhe *,"r"rrniin syslem wasrne provrsion lor looping essentially everywhere. This provides water service lrom twodirections and allows beter mainlenanc6 ol water system pressure. 33 -[ T T -t 1 -t -i 1 1 't 1 1 I I T I - oo sr AtE to Af H 07 NO_5 ,// 6 RICE I NARSH a. 1rr4 5rF 8Wt a80 t{wl 86tliwL a68 aoA (DLAKE lat llWL !70 xrtl. a?a I I I6AF ltwL 872 t ( LAKE RILEY // C,a > z o a i f' ! I .ttl .J :! I1 KEY ly roro '12" .t E aAf stonAGG Lwt taoFraa! SATCi !EVEI HWI HIGH WATEI LEVEL F.M. roeceuerx tlt|rltt, ),hh .,,,.IJ)i t I NITCHELL LAKE LA'<E RED a PIONEEF tvol 2 6AFrwl a6sxwL 16! ltwt E55 HWL EOO 'l11ll 'e2,*. o4788ao -a-r ttraaaa! 8 L EI9 hwl 68a ltvyl to2 zi{"o,.- a..rhtt I I t ISAF DRAINAGE SYSTEM tH€BAAU'F GFOIJP, INC or so{ EErasxooF t ^ssoc.. tNcx^risln raaotP PGIL|NEI{PRAIRIESTUDY os TU E cwH T B N E D E NvEDoLEEMPPHASilIG FIGURE 1OqrGT u.s. I Iro.L E N T scENrc c_--) t_ I -[ DRAINAGE SYSTEM - Figure 10 I t- Figure 10 shows the schematic layout ol the fully developed drainage system. The system shown is generally consistent with the City's Comprehensive Drainage plan and its updates. An attempt has been made to provide lor stormwater detention in existing low areas where possible. such detention areas will minimize the amount and size ol stoim sewer piping needed to serve the area. ln certain cases protection ol existing wetlands and trees was also a design factor. ln areas where large storm sewers are indicated, additional stormwater detention areas may allow pipe size reductions. The feasibility o, such detention should be investigated at the time ol development planning. I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 I 35 I -.i tl 1 ,{000, Apprort.!t. Sc! l. I I I J i-d- 4, r'^' !1, -r r=11 GEl' a t-a97 t- -fi l-\ t- l- 0 L r-ROADWAY SYSTEM COMPONEhIT t tBtRt I I ET'tU IHE ECAU€i GEOUP. ttc otsor lN c !€tsroor t Assoc., txc. ll^tas[ta tt{oRP ttlltraEra Uos EwHT S T E ilR E D E N P R IA IR EEDPLEVoMENPTHAsIilGsTUDY L I a tt6EN0 NSS\\\\ts\* pFrM^Ry rR^FFrc ANALysts AnEA S--ffi.*rtffi** sEcoND^Fy rRAFFrc ^N^Lysrs ARE^ Figure 11 presents the tralfic analysis areas and identilies the three principal components utiiized in ihe tra{fic lorecasting and analysis process' These componenls consist of the primary and secondary tralfic inalysis areas and the remaining contributing.area outside the study area. A detailed discussion of the tralfic lorecasting methodology and assumptions is contlined in Appendix A. (Note that for study purposes the trarlic analysis areas are dillerent than the Deveiopment Phasing Area and Additional Full Development Study Area shown in Figures 1 and 2. For example, the primary traf{ic analysis area includes the Developmenl Pliasing Area plus all other land north ol County Highway 1, west ol County Highway 4, south ol State Highway 5 and east ol the county line). The primary tralfic analysis area is generally bounded by State Highway 5, County Highway 1' County Highway 4 andihe westernEden Prairie boundary. The transportation analysis locused oi tfre ioadway needs within this area, and a computer model for traflic lorecasting was developed tor the principal roadways serving this primary analysis area. The secondary tralfic analysis area lies south of county Highway 1. Many ol lhe trips associated wiin this area, which has signilicant development potential, will utilize roadways within the primary analysis area. As such, lrat{ic 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 tralfic analysis areas will also contributL trips to the primary analysis area rgadway System. These are in essence considered throu6h fips. the trallic roiecasts lor these trips were adapted lrom previous tratlic lorecasts prepared lor U.S. Highway 212 and lor the City ol Chanhassen. Forthe full development condition, the tratfic analysis locused on resolving two principal ROADWAY SYSTEM OVERVIEW - Figure 11 ISSUES. i- r r T t t t t t t t First was the need to identify the primary roadway system intended to serve southwestern Eden Prairie and to lunctionally classify these primary roadways. Second was the investigation ol the need and desirability of an interchange at Dell Boad and U.S. Highway 212 and, il needed, the conceptual conliguration ol the interchange. 37 o AT€sr o Ciz 'a aao(, NO_5 z r-* RICEI uansH LAKE LAKE RILEY I L IH I 1 l : t It o LEGENO Q aror,*n *ra"aE6!or ..ocarrcfi ! "or"o-^a ,*rEnaEcrpr Loc^nol -\ TUos wH S TE E NR E D E N P R IA R EPoEMPHAsINGsTUDY IH€ EAAUEF GFOur. ttc. x s €N PE!LlNErlor50rlrc lcxsxoof I AsSOC.. |rc. tlc HITCHELL LAKE \ \ LAKE ROC RED PIONgEN I o o o I "ry-- ENcg ROADWAY NETWORK f t6lnt t2 -t9:!rjslr.g:-_. .oo r.6 - -roao u.s, I tlo ,6 i.-.-- i I i L I , t L :Ia I L I tt{oFP DEVEL NT e I I ( I -[ -t -t BOADWAY NEn ,ORK - Figure 12 Figure 't2 presents the principal roadway network utilized forthe compuler moCel and analysis of area roadway needs. As can be noted, certain intersection and roadway locations aregenerally lixed (for example, state Highway s/Dell Road or Dell Road/county Hignway t 1.Using these fixed locations, a primary roadway network was developed for this a-nalysis area based upon such transporlation planning. principles as the provision of roadway con-linuity and appropriate spacing of major routes and intersections. The roadways shown inside theprimary analysis area arc conceptual in nature; lhe intent is to show basic roadway linkages, not specific intersections or roadway alignments. I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 39 !!L..1 -5 Z SIAIE \\, o ./,,/..--JI - I z ] I --t-_-__- 'l 8B ntcE ! HARSH LAK€ s .E { ! t, L { J { : J J t J 1 -l I z o I I i) LAI(E oi 24 RILE Y I 11 10 \-r {t o Ig 29 t i;: I1 J 2 ' -oIJ I I I I I I 28 I I I I ( lt \ u.s. 69 LAXE I I I I 2 7 6I I t 12 ITCHELL 3r LAKE ROC L---- 1 6 I I I 15 22 23 I o I 25 ,/ 26 6 ac o ANALYS SUB-ZO N I TRAFFIC IHE gR^UEA GIOUP. tNC. HA Es THOFF PELtr'lEr,t o(soN 'NC aEXSHOOT I ^ssoc., tNc,RAIRIESTUDY s o U T E D E N PEvDEoLPASING oEc r 9a8 f r6tnE t) @ t-- I NO t{o. 7 l Ic, t \ A e 5 I II I 1_4 8A I I I I I NED 1 I I II I I I I I t I I I B II I lt tt ESTERNMENT PH HW ' Figore 13 presents the sub-zones into which the study area was divided for tral{ic lorecasting' purposes. These sub'zone delineations are necessary to allow accurate forecasting of turn - movemenls and daily volumes on various links of the ioadway system. The boundaries olthe.se-s_ub-zones generally lollow logical division lines such ai u.s. Highway 212 or theMUSA line. Specific rand use statisiics (type and size) for each sub-zine *.L rn.ndetermined based upon the land use plan and overall'development statistics fresenteo *itnFigure 3. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUB-ZONES - Figure 13 tll I 37,000-3 (4t,000-r. o o2 oc 9,000 3,000) F'CE ti 2rl \ LAKE LAXE EILEY s'l AtE *-- PO.5 ./r' Zz ,500-3 ,500.,,. (2!5OO-3 ,000 )r 7,000- l9.odo lrr,ooo-zr,ooolr o Nrc I uaisH 17 (13 ,500-19 ,500-15 ,500 ,000){26 ,500-3,500 ,500-3,500 ) 8,000- r 0,000 (r1,500-13,500) 20,000-22,000 000-29,000 ) L (1 9,000-'t I ,ooo 4 r500-16,500 ) R€O ROCt 7,000-19,000 ( 13,500-15! 500) 2 2 \-r I LAKE 1,500-2,500 ( l ! 500- 2,500 ) ,500-10,500 ,000-8,000 ) I rr,000-l 6,000 ( 17,500- 19,s00 ) L HOlrEEN g z(8 7 6 0 ,500-8,500 ,500- 12,500) iT-- ta a oo +.gL'."o ao. ro@ -joo I I I rx - Yotl,es rith 0ol I Ro.d lnlorchlng. (rx) - Volr.nes rithost Ocll Rord lnrsr I ( I u.s l6 I SOUTHWEST PRAIRIE STUDYDEVELOPMEP ERN E DENNTHASIHG LAXE U t5,000-48,000 (3tr,000-37,000) 2,500-3,500 ( 2,500-3,500 ) l8,000-20. ooo ( r 8,000-20, ooo ) ,/.r' r 0,500- t 2,5OO ( 8,000-9,000 ) (r 7,500-8,500 2 r 500-1tr.500 ) tr 'l et o r'5,500-6.500- ( 5,500-6,500 ,000-4,000 ,000-5,000 ) 1 4 o oG o @ YEAB 2OO5 DAILY VOLUMES F lcuRt r,t GI IXE BRAU€A l:xsxooF r GnouP.||{c. ASSOC. txc.xlras t IHOIP PELLINE OL SON rr{c I NO. -L T I 1 I I : I .? t C2 i I I L L I IIITCHELL ( I .I YEAR 2005 DAtLy VOLUMES - Figure 14 Figure 14 presents the vear-20o5 daily forecasts both with and without an interchange al DellRoad and u'S. Highway 212. .lnreviewing the i;"ti. iore"".t. it is important to note lhar undereither roadway sysrem scenario (with or;ithout the inrerchangey, hia'riiratfi" ,-orrr*. "r"expecled on the main area roadways. These high vorumes resJrt uitn trorn tne Lrge amountof development expected in the area and from tie principat orientation ot tne m-ajority ot trtpsto and from the ner-th and northeast given the regio'nat tt"ti". "iin"'.;;;;;i' Traflic forecasts consisted of year 2oo5 through tra{fic and full development ol the primary andse.condary tratfic anarysis areas. The traffic fdrecasting methodorogytonsiiGd oi severatprincipal steps. First, the trip generation charaderistics of the land uses for each sub-zone were calculatedbased upon trip rates pubrished by the rnstituts oirr*sportarion Engineers. Trip distribution was calculated based upon rhe Metropolitan council and MinnesotaDepartme_nt,of rransportation regionar tiaffc torecasid as weil as the previousry noted u.s.Highway 212 and Chanhassen lorecasts. using these trip generalion and trip distribution assumptions, lhe computer model was utitizedto.assign analysis area trips.to the identi,ied roadway network. These lorecasts accounted loralternative and multiple routin_g choices (dependent upon access opportunities available loreach subzone), internar trips (between two iuozonesiand intercepied trips. Finally, through trips lrom outside the anatysis area were added to the analysis area lorecaststo determine trarric vorumes which accouni tor a[ trips using area ,o"o*"vJ.- - -' 't T T T r r r tr tr t L L L L- L lt3 I Del I Rd./ T .H. 2t2 t nterchanEe c.R. 4 /T.H. 2t2 I nt e rchanE e Del I Rd./T.H.5 I nter s ect I on c.R. 1/T.H. 5 t nt er s ect I on Leve I of Serv I ce wlthth B/C NA E F B F H nnt F rl on tr c Improved Area Acces s Reduced Traffl c Vol umes Improved Traffl c Flow on R Scen I c Helghts Rcl . H. 5 on T. n r n n fT r No^ cap€c I ty prob I cms gt T. H. 2 lZlC.R. 4I nt e rchang e Lower Volumes on Oefl Rd. Hlgher Volumes on County/St€te Facl t ttlcs li€ Er^t,Ee 680ur, tNc. o(sox ttitsxooF a Assoc- txc. r.atstaa ttoir |aLUNEX PRAIRIE STUDYANDEVELOPMENT PH SING STERNSOUTHWE EDE GBat-o3a atatvsts ofotlt toJth 2r, .llticr.axG€ FIGURE I5 I ntersect I on Leve t of Serv I ce AnaIvsls L ocat I on L:": ! 9r Serv I ce w I thoutDel I Rd. I nteraha^ee B F t L L I I t . t_ IL L L L t_ I t I I 45 ANALYSIS OF NEED FOR DELL ROAD TNTERCHANGE - Figure 15 Figrire 'l5.pres9lF k".y aspecls of the anarysis to determine the need lor an interchange atD-elr.Boad and u.S. Highway 212. rhe Level of Service anarysis is a method ri..o to rate theefficiency of trarfic movement through an intersection from nioesrl !. F (*;;t). - As, can be noted from Figures .14 and 15, without the Dell Road lnterchange hiqherlra,ficvotumes and grealer traffic congeslion wourd occur on stare iighw;t#; fffiseo scenicHeights Road. Arso, with or withoul the interchange, Delr Road-norti ot ti.i.'ir-it *"v zr zwould carry similar volumes ol tratfic. B":99 !n.1!g analysis, it is recommended that an interchange be constructed at Deil Road ?!9 U.:S: Highway 212 primarily to improve study area access and reduce traffic votumes andpotential congestion on other roadways. Several major leatures of the interchange are recommended. The interchange should providelull access lo and from the east and weit. Fult access is needed in order to avoid confusion lomotorists, to conform with Metropolitan Council and Minnesota oepartmeniJiiansportationpolicies and to avoid having to construct lrontage roads between rierr noio ano itateHighway 101 in Chanhassen. T.h.e inle]'clqlse should be of the lolded diamond configuration wilh the ramps on the westside of Dell Fload. This con{iguration is needed to aroii weaving prouLr, i.t*.en the De1 l!"9,"nq countv Highwav 4 inrerchanges. Approximatety one irite +""i.g iloLro o.provided berween the interchanges ar dounty'iignwiy 4 ind Delt Roio in 6rdei to meetMetropolitan Council spacing criieria. tc o caled appror Imlely one rr lr lesl ol CR. a per li[roT design st.nd.rds. 17,000-19,000 t7,000-li, o s II5fl T I I I : -. E L u 20,000-22.000 REO ROC o 71 0 I LAXE LAK€ RIL EY ciz 'I - oIJ I L L L o o rc t7 ,000-t 9,000 / _ Ful I loyemnt inlerch.nges .t t)ett Ro.d .nd !t C.R. 4 HITCHELL l] 1 I E,000-20,000 45,000-10,000 5,500-6,500al \ jo 9,000-l I,000 Er500-r0,500 tl,ooo-p PIONEER o oc lcaend: ,iiiiiiiiiiiii il:: i:kn rr - Sclectcd drily volurc! mprafarred roadrry systr E,000- r 0,000 na I I RECOMME TIONAL CA oLSOrr I rc IHE ERAUEN 6iOUP. IIIC. EEXSHOOf t Assoc.. trc. NArasEr{ tHonP PELLTIiEI SOUTHWESTERDEVELOPMENT PRAIRIE STUDY NED P HAS ING EN ET f rq.Rt 16qr U I lro 69 xo. lnlorchanqe recoooended as folded dr.Dond desrgn lo- I i I L t I e =letr.il""a ..o rcoo- --06 t _t- RECONIMENDED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIF|CATION - Figure 16 Figure 16 shows the Recommended Functional classilication lor the preferred full development roadway system. The interchange at Dell Road and U.S. Highway 212 isidentified. Functional classilications include the designation of Dell Road is a minor arterial roadway based on its tunction and tralfic volumes, and the exlension of Scenic Heights Roadas a collector roadway. It is reiterated that ullimate specilic roadway alignmenls and intersection locations are not depicted on this graphic. The ligure is intended to demonstrale the primary roadway systemwhich will be needed to adequately serve southwestern Eden prairie. lt ddpicts the'ke! system elements such as roadway continuity and principal intersections and interchanges which should guide the ultimale roadway and transportation system design. For example, Scenic Heights Boad is shown as a coniinuous road through its interseaions with County Highway 4 and Dell Road, the preferred alignment concepi for a colleclor roadway ol thii type. Full developmenl ol the area will consist of both this primary roadway system and numerous local roadways which are not depicted on Figure 15. lt is expeaed t'traftne location, design and alignments ol local roadways will be planned within the iramework ol the recommendedprimary roadway system and in accordance with normal transportation planning criteria. I t I I 47 I l I I I l I I T- HE- D- E YE- Lo- Pir- Eil- T P H A s I H G c o N c E P T P R o P o s A L i t T T t t- t I L t L L L L L t_ NO, ::i,-J 1A 14IfCHELL LAX€ tl I I:**. \cscEllr l0Ao'il iJ it ir alcE I uAnsH LAXE LAXE RILEY II t l: :,: N l I I I t I t t h t t L L L it tt t-t 2B // dz 'I z o o Ivg--t REO ROCt( LAI(E2AB DE VELOPil,tE NT ONc TRs TSAIN AP RA METER Stxc Belru€i GnoL'P. trc orson llrsxoot a ltsoc- F{c- lrlilsEra l{ott tElLtitEl os Tu EwH TS NRE R A I R EEvDEoLMPENPTSTUDY FIGIJRE 17 8l-o!6 Gtr u.s rvlt=-lro. t6 t I I LOTEt SEE tACtxO PAOE FOR OESCRIPTTO}I OFcorittaaDa?s ItaBAyETEAS !Y tlurarER- 1B 3 lr 1l '1 I IsqNoot I I xiBF,ilc"I DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS & PABAMETEBS - Figure 17 t t t t. I I t L t t L L L L L L Figure 17 illuslrales development phasing conslraints and parameters lor the study area, with circled numbers in the ligure corresponding to the following numbered paragraphs. (Numbers in rectangles on Figure 17 identity sub-areas relerenced below and outlined in dashed lines on the ligure. See also Figure 19): 1. Extension of trunk water main from the existing main on county Highway 4 north o, 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 i B. 2. No more lhan 100 lots each should be permitted in sub-areas 1 A and 1 B prior to completion ol cunently programmed improvements to the Hwy. 4/Hwy.,5 interiection. 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 1A west ol Mitchell Lake. 4. lmprovement ol the Dell Road inlersection with State Highway 5 should be prerequisite to any grading and construction in that part ol sub-area 1A wesi of tviltchelt Lake. 5. lmprovement ot the Heritage Road intersection with state Highway 5 should beprerequisite to any development in that part of sub-area tA nortn ot Miichell Lake. 6. construction of Scenic Heights Road west of county Highway 4 to the north-south road through the Fairfield development and improvements to interieaions on county Highway 4 are necessary after 100 lots are developed in sub-area 1B. 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 6. Ho*erer, thisconnection may need to be deferred until Co. nwy. + is upgraded if traliic anatyses at the timeindicate that the conneclion would cause signilicant negaiiie impacts on co. ri*v. a. 8- lnterim or permanent improvement to the intersection ol County Highway 1 and Dell Roadshould be made in conjunction with development of sub-area 3. 9: . 9q.u1v Higtway 4 will.need to be upgraded to rour ranes rrom Scenic Heights Road toState Highway 5 by the end of 1991. 10. lnterim or permanent improvements lo inlerseclions along counly Highway I should bemade in conjunction with development in sub-area 28. 1 1.' Extension of sanitary sewer lrom Red Rock lnterceptor and installation of a tift station nearRiley Creek is prerequisite lo development in most of sub-area 28. 1_2. counly Highway 4 will need to be upgraded to four lanes lrom county Highway 1 lo stateHighway 5 prior to development of approximarely 'r7oo lots within the rr,lubn. - 13. Additional improvements at the Hwy. AlHIw.s interseclion (as shown in Appendix FigureB-2) will be needed Prior to development of approximately 1700 iots within the [iUsn. rrise -improvements may not be required it Highwai'212 is construcled belore that time. 5t asrAr€ o tro,5 oa ! nrc€ I HARSH LAI(E \ I A2 It I oI HONEEN o LAK€ ;': :6I ] z5o I rary lFroverontsrepo n 3.dsd a 0c unatnt o n T ht n t a o Pren t ot hsout A5ec p p€nd HITCHELL e accomodlt€ traff i c voluse projections th.l lnclude ful I dovelopoent rtthin fiUSA. Sae lppendix for pol€nti.l P cr s snt v !nnod !frJpg d n9 nol Y r.dihsr to ,our lrno dlyid€d Standard, as currron tlpgrao i ng ot .|t t v rnnod rproyaBnls nosded in vicinity of Scsnic lhights Rd. for int3rsec on geomtrics .nd tr.tflc confrol. Se! Appendix UP 9r!din9 natdod tq t intarsoction in conjunct I onrlth construcflon of 0oll Poteni i!l upgrlding of Rd.o o G o .4'-- I , , o !I ECOMMEND. R OADWAY MPROVEMENT ON PEFIMETEF OF STUDY AEEArxt8iUEOAornc_!a NSHOOF s os c txc s EN 'EL t NEoto5 PRAIRIE STUDY S O UTHW ESTER HE DENDEVELOPMENTPHASING oEcr9!t FIGURE T8 u.s. I llO. t t- t- t- t t I I I t t L l- tr L L L L L I I I e RED t IL tx I dovel LAI<E PI I adequate I )RILET I E.O36 I I I RECOMMENDED IMPBOVEMENTS TO PERIMETER ROADWAYS - FigUTE 18 Figure 18 presents recommended improvements to roadways on the perimeter of the studyarea.. The ability of these roadways to accommodate study area trattib signi,icantty alfectsdevelopment phasing, particularly in the near future. A deiailed discussio-n of theanalysis olthe perimeter roadways is contained in Appendix B. The key perimeter roadways are.Slate Highway s and county Highway 4. The analysisindicates rhat improvements wiil be neceslary io both of thesL ",io*"v"i. "onj,nction wilhdevelopment.o{ the study area. The intersection of Highways s anu + is propoi'eo to ueupgraded in 1989 and 'rgg0, with-the remaining segmint west to chanhassen currenily ::l:::i:q lo.r.::Tp-l:tig1.by 1se1 . There are iurrjntry no ptans for upsradins CountyHighway 4 other than at the Highway S intersection. Principal findings of the analysis concerning State Highway S include: Principal findings concerning County Highway 4 include: - Exisling traflic vorumes on county Hig.hway 4 warrant upgrading the roadway ro four ranesand intersection improvements at Scen-ic H6Ents n;0. ^'J:'t1,[:#$":x:l,llliltji,.1^iii!}]d?:*!,,ffif,Tjt[,["3Jj]i"?:]*'"Tt;"0?""J:[:,,,and appropriate traffic conlrorat ooin rn6 new lwestiano existing i";;ij 16;'scenic Heighrs-Boad' .The capital improvement program to be dev6topeo uv tre-dounii'in"isdi*irr addressthe timing ot improvemenrs betwieristare Hignwly s ino couniiiigi;,rr;yi.* L t_ t L L L L L 53 - The intersection wilh County Highway 4 is cunently operating at a level of service F. ln orderto avoid a noticeable worsening of traliic operations at inis intdrseaion, no more than 2oo lots _in the study area shourd be platted prior to the r sgglisso improvemenis. ^L,l:,:yI"n,tv planned improrements at the county Highway 4 intersection wiil not besullrcrenl lo accommodate lull development within the MUSA. Additional improvements will berequired when the area within the MLjSA has about 17OO lots. '.Temporary improvements at state Highway 5 ancl Dell Road will be required it initialdevelopment occurs in this area prior t6 tne icheorreo upgraoing. fneri wouil Le no citycost participation in non-salvagabte improvements. o '6 sr ArE NO.s ,7---*_- tx€SnAUEi 6ROup, ll{clll{sr.oot t lssoc., tNc. lllrasEr{ ThoiP tElltxEn ' o scEtrc TSF c d: 'a IJ ITCHELL AKE o c AB ( ---1 N I IL-__ Isorool I I -__-) LAKE ROC REO EVELOPMENT SUB-AREAS SOUTHWESTDEVELOPME RAIRTE STUDYG il PERH EDENTPHASIN FIGT,RE 19 8!.O13 GiloLSOlltNc u-s. t rao 6l { I l t t- t t I I I L L t L L L L 55 I DEVELOPMENT SUB-ABEAS - Figure 19 Figure 18 identifies the live.major development sub-areas which were detined by theproposed full development inrrastruclure analyses for the Development irraiffinrea. These -sub-areas represent the general phasing or sequence that developm"nt*ilr nrZo to follow il itis to occur in the most orderly and elfective manner. Note that oniy "r"" *itninlne rr,1usn isconsidered for phasing. Development outside the MUSA is assumed totcri atte, rnes"initial phases. sub'areas 't A and 1 B can deverop first, independent of each other. sub-area 28 can deverop-p_1ll:1::il]lr-:llyg1!'q sysrems.in 1B are compteteo. suu-irea zne i. d"p;;iJnr onlnlrastruqure systems in both 1A and 1B and becomes the connecting link between the twoinitially independent sub-areas. Finally, sub-area i must wait for infrisrrudure sysrems in2AB to be subsranriaily compreted. This area atso reqrirei a J^ii"g.-;;Jir-rJirre tnar ismo.stly outside the MUSA, an additional constraint on development. -llore m"tiin".sub-areas 28 and 3 are independent ol each ottrer, eitner cdur oeveofoerore the orher. sub'area 1A requires roadway and watermain extensions rrom the nonh, sanitary sewerextensions trom the south and drainage lacilities trom the east. such multidirectional -extensions.cali for careful planning anl coordination among the dirferent developments whichmay occur in this area. This area is also subject to interse&ion constraints along slaleHighway 5, including the intersection at county Highway 4. This is one ol two sib-areas ,or -which a specific limil to initial development is rlcoirmerided due to the nature of trafficconstraints, particularly at the intersection of county Highway e with state Highway 5. Sub-area 1B is the other sub-area for which a limit to initial development is recommended.This area is subjea to interseciion conslraints atonfcounty Highway 4, incruding theinlersection at state Highway 5.. A unique a.p""t oi nir sr'u-aria isind pran,eJopening orthe Cedar Ridge Elementary School in Fatt t gag. Tlris requires completion ot inlrastructuresystems lo the school by that time, with adjacent properties also then open to devetopment. sub-area 2AB requires the compretion o, the cedar Ridge school loop road and compretedroadway and water main roops between 1A and 1B befo-re ir can support deveropment.sanitary sewer extensions are needed trom the Red Rock lntercepior and sub-irea t g. Drainage facitities are compricated by the oriiei Lrr"nsion required to the west orGo.-tn,MUSA. N' rrrs wEsr rrr sub'area 28 requires water main lrom 1B before it can develop. sanitary sewer is the majorconstraint in this area since a litt station is required. A gravity iewer troni near Bed Bock LakFshould be extended as far as possibre into rnJ suu-aiei, minimizing the pumpinjrequirements of the litt station. The lift station shoub be designea ior tuiuie [ip-acity ro thesouth. sub'area 3 needs sewer, water and roadway extensions lrom 2AB belore it can deverop.Protected wetlands and storm sewer outlets to the west outside rne rr/lusa tomflicare tnedrainage system for lhis area. ln tcrtm access i,rlprovrmcnts if acccss desircdror to futl T.H. S upgrade o E o oo Begin at cxisting 16" main t t t t t I I I irii '.tlii .HIfCHELL Maxllnun l0O lotsrAK€ priot to lhproven.nts ( !tC. R. landT. H.3 ii: t TCHELL KEL t Bcgin.t cx ir tlnE8" nrrin a ( ROADWAYS Maximum 250 lotsprior to Dcll Rd, / Scenic Hcights Rd. connection a WATERMAIN iocx c l, o o o End lnv. !80r.5 Futurc axtan3lon north tollft st.tion ln !86 ,0 Begin !t.xlrting lnv:E70.3 o c e 5 Futur. -Option.lPondr Irt y allor -PIPG3lrr raductlon ,:.72" t I HITCHELL LAI<E HITCH€LL LAXE DRAINAGE (.gin ,, r-r. Pond lt rxtcnrlon of ,ritshcll Lrk. ttoraga ( Bcgln tt lntcrcrptor lnv tlt!.9 PONO IOAF NWL !'O HWL !'I i SANITARY SEWER (not.: only crltlcll lnvcrt5 shornt +::_5isr- SUB-AREA tA THE 6r^L'Eh GiOuP. tflc. c iErshoor I AS3OC- lrc- x^rascx txot, ,:!uxara SOUTHWESTERN EDEH PDEVELOPMENT PHASING RAIRIESTUDY FIGTFIE 20 !!{rc EI Notr:Syrtcm locations !rc ahorn in conc.pt only.Actual locations *ill bc d€terminrd ri trrac'ofdevrlopoent planning or fc.sibillty rtudy. \ I Futurc l2r' Conneetion to north t L L E L L L L L e . !8stt.8 I I I t- t t. t t t SUMMARY OF PHASING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUB.ABEA 1A ROAOWAYS lnitial Develooment - access via Oell Road south ol Hwy. 5 - acaess improvements at Oell Road/Hwy. 5 requke MnDOT approval and include a lett lum lane iiom east with no Oell Boad conneclion to Lake Orive in Chanhassen - no grading or construclion unlil access upgrading ol Hwy. S/Dell Road or construction ol lull'tum lanes & signals - marimum of 100 lots prior to Hwy. tHwy. 4 interseclion upgrade - Herilage Road/Hwy. 5 upgradE to provido lelt tum lane Irom eas| il access desired prior lo planned permanenl upgrads Future Oevelopment - need lo construcl Oell Road to Scenic Heights Boad when any one ol the lollowing conditions is met: - righl-ol-way/funding is available - maximum 250 DU west ol Mitchell Lakg are developed - majodty ol right-ol.way availablg - no lunher arterial roadway improvements required lo allow lull develoPment within MUSA DRAINAGE SANITARY SEWERt t I t L L L L L lnilial Oevelopment - mosl ol area drains to Mitchell Lake, requiring one or both of the lollowing: - conslruction of maior drainage systems beginning al Mitchelt Lake, wilh appropriate water quality control measurcs - construction ol upstream slormwaler d€tention ponds to reduce size ol downstream lacilities - pond indicaled on southern end ol suFarea is an s{ension o,Milchell Lake storage due lo low existing elevation - lhis pond is not required tor storage and may bs modilied or etiminated at time ot Hwy. 212 conslruclion Fulure Oeveloomenl - tacility design in any area musl taks into accounl the entire conlributing watershed.lulure extensions west shouk, include walarshed ar6a withinChanhasson lnitial Develooment - begin 15'sewer at Bed Rock lnterceptor nea.we$ edge -.Miller Park - extend sewer norlh to Hwy. S along route detormined by -development - sewer must be deep enough at Hwy. S lo continu8gravity extension nonhward - lalerals may branch lrom n6w main or irtgrceplor - area norlh ot Mitchell Lake to be seNed lrom east Fulure Develoomenl - service must stan at inlerceplor and progress northward-,Fcl( lrunk sewer under Hwy. S and ertend nortn to lilt sia...r 37 WATER MAIN lnilial Oevelopment - lrunk water main must bs extended on nonh side ol Hwv.5_ lrom Heritaga Road west to Oell Road - southerly. extensions must be iacked under Hwy. 5 antl extended south to points ol developmenl Future Oevelooment . design lo be delermined by needs ,or looping or pressure determinations - exlend trunk main north lo water lower wh6n neoded lo -balance City-wide distribution system - hteral waler mains should be looped or based on pressure determinations t, \ z t t t. t I t I t I t t L E L oNo F Maximutn 100 lots in antirc sub-arcaprior to TH 5, Co.Hwy. { upgradc PEO ROC LAI(€ ::-'-..- z. on a s 5 ru e ae F e to C ED RO r text LAI(E Exi: t in9 Pond lll Fu ex ROADWAYS t LAKE acct to Conncct to cxisting Storm 'cf,ar POND GAF NWL 867 HIYL 872 Inlerim ::ortable pump ttation until need for(ull gravity systcm Fulqre 35n connectioB-to Red Rock Lake to be built lf ex isting drainagc Swslc 13 inadequa 1.,'5 WATER MAIN rroute cxirti^g Lift Station to intcrccptor ( Frtu.. cx tentions 16' Gx tension Optional pqnds may tllow pip. tl te r!duction P o 26 IC NWL 853 Tll YVL 86? wL 864 \ DRAINAGE nEo ROCr(. lt,t I L L L SUB-AREA IB I n€ BTAUEI crOup, ttc. otsor E€r.siooa I ASSOC. tNC. |lAr.stra txom r€LLtNtta SOUTHWESTERN EDDEVELOPMENT PHAS RAIRIESTUDY E N PING FIGURE 21 @ ET Notc: Systrtrt lgcrtion3 .r! shosn In .oncrpt only.Actu.l localions rlll br dctcrmin.a ri tLnc'ofdcvClopmcnt pl.nning or tutibllity ttudy. Prirnary accr5l to 16" SANITARY SEWER (not. I only crltlol lnvcrta rhovrn) Future looped lt to west {r.2 SUMMARY OF PHASING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUB.AREA 1B WATER I4AINt t t I I ROAOWAYS hfiiaLDevelqlme[t - school with access lo Co. Hwy. I - aupplemental emergency access lor schoolthrough adlacent development' - rssid8nlial areas with acress lo Co. Hwy. 4 andor Co. Hwy. I - maximum ot 100 lots unlil Hwy. s/Co. Hwy. ,l interseclion is upgraded Fulure Develooment - ln coniunclion with Phase 2 ol Fairlield development, construcl Scenic Heights Boad west ol Co. Hwy. 4 and conslrucl norlh-south streel lo link Scenic Heighls Boad with Phase I dewlopment in Fairlield - ext€nd Scenic Haighls Boad wesl to provide access lo Miller Pafi and develop lhis as major park access - conslrud nonh-south public roadway on west side ol school site belween Fairlield development and Co. Hwy. 1 when any o, ths ,ollowing conditions is met: - improved access needed for school - access needed lor Fairlield development - properly west ol school is ready to develop lnitial neveloomenl - Irunk water marn must be extended south irom lhe nonh side o Miller Park - Southerly extension must lake inlo account luture Hwy 2'12 crossing and iacked exlensions east under Co- Hwy. 4 to s( . ,,e the west side ol Red Rock Lake - a water main loop shoulcl be routed nearlhe schoolsite lor- maximum rire protection - trunk main should be extended soulh lo Co. Hwy. I and looped east to connecl lo planned trunk main extension lrom 3asl. primarily to provido betlgr lire protsction to the school- Fulure Developmenl - design to be determined by needs lor looping or pressure determinations - e{end lrunk main west along Co. H\^/y. t - exlend lrunk main easl lo connecl wilh eristing trunk main in Scenic Heights Boad when needed lo balance Cily-wide -distribution system - lateralwaler mains should be looped ot based on Pressuft delerminations t L l. L L L L L IL DRAINAGE lnitial Development - 6evsral detention ponds with associated outlots should bo construcled in lh€ area, lypically using eristiflg low areas lor dorag6 - pond waler lovels and oullet sizgs may noed soms adiuslment al timo ot develoPment to account lor sxisting ground waler lovels and/or ites Pteservation . outbr lor pond easl ol school should Exle^d to east side ol co. Hwy. 4 to manhole serving as Potlable pumP station Fulure Develooment .lacility design in any arEa must taks into account tha entirs conlribuling watershed - luluro extensions south and wesl may be teduced in sizo with lhe construclion ol additional ponds along tho major dtainago ways - Etorm sewer Bxtension east lo Bed Rock Lake to ocqrr when eristing drainage swalo proves inadequats or when adiacent ptopsny is subdivided SANITARY SEWER hltialDevela.alneil - 69rve school lrom oasl throuEh plannod developments - begin 12'sewer al Red Rock lnterceptor . extend 12' sewgr soulh to nonhwesl corner ol school sit( l( route detErmined by development - 12' sewer must bs deep enough near school to conlinue_ gravily extension westward - laterals may branch ,rom new main or inlerceptor - rercuts llow al litl station nonh ol Miller Parkto provide grav, llow south to inlerceptor Erlrlrg-AevrlaeEJt . seNice musl starl al inlerceptor sewer 59 L I HITCHELL L HITCHELL LAXE EfiCHELL 6 t- t I t t I ROADWAYS lontlnuous rllgnlncnt lrcfcrred for SccnicHllghts Rord. ?t DRAINAGE WATER MAIN Phas. tA cxteniion rtt ar Rldgc Schoold bctwccn C. R.trnd Sslhic Heights R ord lt to be co'rtplctcd prior todevelopr'lcnt routh of ra ilroad 1l$ utur! SANITARY SEWER(notr: only criticrllnvcrtr rhgwn) egin.t tcrccplor iSrE Ph.s. lB rlont Phrre tat tcttt I I t t L L E L L ,/rE):.. .::::,;4:iIE L Ph!3c lA- Pond \ POND I6AF \ NWL 870 HWL 872 Exlrtlng Pond Bcoih (n trcc lrrvrrlr k 2llll illll ptional pondr ruy.llor pi PC r lrr rtduct FulurG Pond 5t" L L-- Notc: Sy3tcm loc. Aclual locat SUB.AREA 2AB oLsot trl tr'tE BA U€n GtOuP. tNC. lExsraoot I Assoc.. txc.xlx3cx txott F€LL| tEt{ s o U T H w E s T E E DRH E N P R A R I ELvEDMPoETNltPAsNIGsTUDY FIGUBE 22 ll{ta GH develop6161 O1"nn,n9 or fclribllity 3tudy. AIITCHELL I lnv. I I I I Cx ten! ions l,hxi,nun 50 lotsprior to ScenicHrights/Oe Rd. eonnection a Phasa I Ponds B Inv.! l5l.o rnry I'fi Futura axtsnrlonrr-s lirrrr.llor plp.rltr rcduction il l1s7. o I I I t. SUMMARY OF PHASING BECOMMENDATIONS FOB SUB-AREA 2AB WATER MAIN lnitial Develooment - extend looped mains through sub.area beginning at trunk main along Co. Hwy. 1 Fulure Develooment - design lo be determined by needs for looping or pressure determinations - lateral wator mains should be loopgd or Dased on pressuro dgterminations t t t- t L L L L DRAINAGE : lnitial Oevelooment - mo$ drainage llows towards Biley Creek, requidng :l?L??li:!s y"r"l.quatity controt measures ro be i; phcs prior ro erlensions norlh and west - sleep stopes nonh ol Ritey Creek merit special etoston control measures Fulure Develo6ment - lacility design in any area must take into accounl the entre contributing watershed lnilial Develooment - begin 24' sewer at BEd Rock lnterceptor near Bed Rock Lat. extend sewer south and wesl alonE roule determinod bvdevslopment, iacking under Co. Hiy. t ' . sewer must be deep enough south ol Co. Hwy. l loa ow -gravily extenslon southeastward oul ol MUSA Future Develooment . a.litl stalion mu$ be construcled neat Riley Ct€ek to selvo r )ol this sub-arga . lifl station design should tat6 into account luture ssrvics area south o, Riley Creok _ - servicg must starl at interceplor sewe, SANITARY SEWER 6l ROADWAYS lnilial and Fulure Oevelopmenl - no development prior lo upgrading ot Hwy. ,Co. Hwy. 4 interseclion - need lo imf,rove and coodinale access locations on south side ol Co. Hwy. I with access locations on north sid€ rr16\ €\ rc t- t- t- I I I r t I L L L E L L L L L L Phase lB cx lcnsion Potentl.l C.R. I intcrracllon lrnprovcrnants in @niunction -rith dcv.lophent 12n WL\\f p tlt Fulura Gxtension Futurc cxtcnsion il o WATER MAIN 8e9in.t lnt.rCcP ff\ lnv:82, LA |\ ) ( Pon criteria m t bc verific with rxisti dcvclopedFuturc pond .r conditionsl ( Exl.tlngl ie€ k POND I SAF NTYL EO8 HWL 8rq f tI I I 8 % Inv 983 t.6 +o POND 7AF NWL 836 HWL t3t Futurc cxtanslon Futurs exlcnsioni DRAINAGE SANITARY SEWER (not.r only crltlctl lnvarts shoinl SUB-AREA 2A otsor rE TllE IAAUm GrOuP, tnc aExsr{oot t Assoc- nrc. xatstra n{otr rlllt acN SOUTHWESTERN EDE}I PDEVELOPMENT PHASTNG RAIRIESTUDY RGURE 23 la{la aa occ Notc: Syslcrn locations ara thown in conccDt only.Acru!l toc.tion3 wifl bc dctlrtninca ii-rirc'ifdcvrlopmcnt pt.nning or fr.sibitity ,tudy: -' ( ROADWAYS PIONEEF errE\ ( I I 'lll\\\ -\E_ NONEEN Llft Station( N t 1 SUMMARY OF PHASING BECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUB.AREA 28 WATER MAIN t- T t I I I Fulure Develoomenl - prelerred concept is lor Scenic Heights Boad to be continuous through its interseclion with Dell Road, creating a ,our-way interseclion - a maximum ol 50 lols norlh ot the railroad or a marimum dead-end eiension ol Scenic Heights Road o, t 500 feet allowed prior to construction ol the Scenic Heights Boad/Dell Soad conneclion lnitial Develooment - atea soulh ol railroad can begin lo develop wher nonh.south toad on west side ot school is construcled between Fairlield development and Co. Hwy. I - area nonh ol Eilroad can develop @nsist€nt with exlgnsions ol Scenic Heighls Foad lnitial Developmenl - oxtend trunk mains through soulhern and western sid€s ol sub-area . provide an east-west loop between lrunk mains to lacititate lulurg intemal loops - Fulure Develoomenl - design to bs det€rmined by needs lor looping or prEssute delerminations - lateral water mains shouE bs looped or based on pressuri delerminalions lnitial Oeveloomenl - begin 21'sewsr at Red Fod( lnterceptor near west edge c Miller Park - extend sBwer south and west along rorrl! determined by developmenl, accounling lor luture H$ry. 212 crossing - sewer musl be deep enough al westem edge ol suFarea conlinue gravity axtonsion weslwa?d and southward - laterals may branch lrom new main or ir erceptor - ar6a south of raiload lo be seNed by sewer trom sub.arc I l Fulure Develooment - service must slart at interceplor or new sewer main ORAINAGE t lnitial Develooment - most drainage llows towards sub.areas 1A and ,l B, requidng Syslems lor lhese areas to be in place prior lo extensions - delention ponds along these extensions may reduce downstream storm sewor requircments . a controlled outlet shoutd be providBd lor the DNR protscred wetland/pond indicaled on the western side ot the sub-area - lhis oullet may be storm sewer, ovedand or a combination lhereol, ertended west to Hiley Creek Fulure Oevelooment - tacilily design in any area must take inlo account lhe entirs contribuling watershed t t L L L L L L 53 I BOAOWAYS SANITAFY SEWER I ,t Maintrin appropriatc .ccass and roadway continuity in coniunction tvith dev.loPment 4 Phasr 2 extensio^:-:-:- WATER MAIN d Phas! 2 axtGnrion t t t t t I I I t I L L E L L L L L !ta y rcrcr ROADWAYS DRAINAGE Futu Extc re n Pha3.2 cxtcn5lon / Phase 2 cxtension it Ph.se 2 qrtcnsion dPonII 1 III Fd L L Pon 5A 879 880 8 ekLa d no PQ Pon p ti ( Bca t N H a DNPO F1 5 0 -t 5 5 rnte a !977.0 SANITARY SEWER (notr: only crltiErl lnvartt rhown) Lrke Rllry I/./ o llr rl n ra o a cdut al lo 5 9r POND 6AF NWL !!0 HWL !8t v I t SUB-AHEA 3 ot-soH rlr txE 6R^uEF OeOUP, trc. lElsr{ooE I Assoc. rNc. r{lxscx lxoiP ?clltl.tx SOUTHWESTERN RAIRIE STUDYDEVELOPMENT PH ASING EDEN P F IGURE 24 8!-O16 D€Cttll Notc:Syrtcrr loc.tlona rrG ahorn ln conccpt only.Actu.l loc.tlont *itl b. dGtcrrnln.d ti tlmc'ofdcvelopmcnt phnnlng or ,c.sibility ttudy. lntcrsectlon lnprovemcnts ln coniunction wlth Ocll Rd. construction NWL HWL '.^ , I SUMMARY OF PHASING HECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUB.AREA 3 WATER MAINf t t I I t t t t t t t L t I ROADWAYS lnitial Develo^menl - locale initial developmenl and orient its access via Dell Road al Co. Hwy. l, east-west local road that extends east to school and/or Dell Road iust south ol Scenic Heights Road Fulure Oeveloomenl - developmenl can continue as appropriale roadway erlensions and conneclions are provided ORAINAGE lnitial Develoomenl - exlend lrunk mains along south and west sides ot sub. e SANITABY SEWER lnilial Development - mosl ol area drains to Lake Riley, requiring one or bolh of th€ lollowing: - construclion ol major drainage systems beginning at Lake Ritey, with ap-propriate water quality control msasures - construclion ol upstream stormwater delention ponds to reduce size ot downstream tacilities - conlrolled outlets should be provided lor the DNB proteded wetlands in this sub.area Future Develoomenl - the pond indicaled on the east side ol lhe sub-area is a very low-lying DNR protecled wetland, requiring one of thg tollowing: - a pumped outlet, perhags portable - a.very deep (approx. 60 lBet) storm s6wer under. Co. Hwy. I draining to the south and then east through sub-area 2B - tacility design in any area must laks into account lhE entir6 conlributing watershed I Fulure Oevelooment - design to be delermined by needs lor looping or plessFre delerminations - lateralwater mains should bs looped or based on pres-Jr. determinations lnilial Develooment - south ol railroad, extend sewe, lrom easr- nodh ol railroad, extend sewers rrom nonh Fulure Devetooment - sewice must slan al new sewer mains extended to su, : 65 I H F R, A s T P, u c T u R E F U H D I N G A L T E R, N A T I Y EI & c o s TI , I I T I T T T I t- t- t r r t- ,_ t: l: I i I t I I t I I INFBASTRUCTUBE FUNDING ALTEHNATIVES & COSTS The purpose of this section of lhe report is to discuss and evaluate the most praclical and leasible alternative mechanisms which might be considered lor funding the area-wide inrrastructure elements in the Southwestem Eden prairie Area. The orderly and timely development ol 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 ott-site construction, oversizing or provision lor future additions which can be accomplished through modifying or supplementing the procedures currently applied by the City. Alternative financing melhods should be reviewed prior to making linal decisions. Funding Alternatlves There are five sources of funding which may be considered alone or in combination: propeny laxes, transfers or incentives, user charges, development fees and special assessments. PROPEBry TAXES There are a variety of methods by which property taxes are levied and used. General, city-wide prope[y taxes could be considered as a basis tor tinancing any or all ollhe area-wide elements. The policy would, of course, apply to all similar impr6vements in other areas ol the city. Upgrading streets and intersection;, signalization, acquisition oladditional dght-of-way, improvements or additions to drainage iicitities, etc., are examples ofprojects with area.or city-wide benefit which have been lunJed by general tax revenues. Dlnce lne Dudget for 1989 has been adopted, the only general fund revenues available forthis purpose in 1 989 would be from reserves or surplu jfunds. A potentiat problem with usinggeneral property taxes as a source of lunding for new area-wide improvements is the equity :ld lairn?s.s issues it might raise with existing city residents ano property owners who did nornave such tunding available when their property developed. special purpose city-wide property tax levies are simply general tax levies which have aspecrtrc.purpose defined by the city council. For inslance, a special levy could beestablished for the specific purpose ol constructing new and replacement drainage structures ::1"^Y.sl..1ll" enrire ciry. As wirh generat tax tunds, existing properry owners riay quesrionwnerner this as equitable use of tax monies. A special purpose tax district could be established over the Southwestern Area as a basis forfinancing the area'wide drainage inlrastruclure improvemenls. Although it appeirs that thissame mechanism could be used to finance streel and other infrastruclire imp?ovements. ithas not been done in Minnesota to date. A distinct aisaovantage oitni. rn"if,'oi'*n.napplied to newly developing areas is that the greatest need lorjunds o""rrl "iit " time theIolal assessed value in the districl is the least. There is also an inherent inequity imposed onthe eartier residents wirhin the disrrict, who wifl pay more over time ih;;';il;;i. who moveinto the area al a later date. t t t L L t_ 69 ll:I*,:::l: .l jli"lgilS districr does nor appear ro be teasibte or likety in the devetopinsDournwestern Area, although it may be use{ul in other parts ol the City, TRANSFERSiINCENTIVES The c_ity may choose to grant.transfers of density, alternative land uses or provide otherincentives which make it feasible.lor a oevetopeiio incur the addilional costs ol providingofisile' oversized or luture facilities. .However, this approach has not ueen Ciiy ioticy to date.Also, the development plan and policies for the Southweslern Area provide lirtli bpportunitylor transfers or alternative land uses which could in any way justily the additional costs ot thearea-wide lacilities. As discussed in earlier sections olthis report, an assumption has been made that on the 1y.erag.e: the density wilhin this area will be no greater than wrrat is typicaitoi it ! ,"rt ot tn.City, which is.2.14 units per acre. To some extlnt, a type of density transfer will likely occurwhenever a development involves the dedication or pri6ric street ri(nis-ot-w"y."'eu or" towetlands, tree masses and orher topographicar conitraints tnere oiesni app6"rlo u" "nvreason lo expect this area to support greaterdensity, although in isotateol-nitances it mayapproach the maximum alloweddensity ol z,s unitjper acrei rinauv, roiowav capacitieswithin and around the Southwestern area will ue such as lo not warrant greaGr densities withincreased traflic. USER CHARGES Y_._:1"hql9.r and surcharges are finding increasing application in many Minnesotacommunities. such charoes appear to be gaining tiv6i in many states ai a means orfinancing inlrastructure. lle p]tv currently imposes water and sanitary sewer user charges and has chosen to utilize asurcharge mechanism to fund trunk system improvements. Thi-s approach can also be usedto lund oversizing of water mains in plrticular ir"ai. several Minnesota cities have imposed. user charges for stormwater management.s-tormwater.use.r charges based on orainate aiea"size ano surrace runor tiaois provide areasonable basis ror prorating user chargei. However, since this "pproacn r,"i nor beenused in the City il may raise equity conc6rns. tt may prove to be a more viable method in theI*f.rl.llle€irv. is rurv dever6ped ano needs id rind ongoing maintenancl'anormprovements to existing systems. ln Minnesota, road and street user charges are levied as luel taxes and vehicle sares andregislration fees. These runds are shar6d with ciries rhrough Jcorprei ,rn"ip"r state aid(MsA) system. Eden Prairie uses these MSA rundito construc{ and maintain a system ofcolleclor streets which can be applied to the collector streets in the Soumweiiein erea.while the city cannot tax luel oi license vehictes, it lrobably coutd r"qrir.'ri,lirtr"tion andcharge lees for a[ vehicres operared by residenti, emptoye6s and buiiness;i *t i"t, use c1ysrreers. These user funds courd oe apptieo to improvem6nrs outside ot the MSe tunoeosystem. Apparently no Minnesota city has used ihis mechanism, urt it is noi r-ncommon inother states. This method also could-raise concerns for equity .in"" nonrerio-"nts also willuse the streets. whire nor prohibited by raw, this approach rrorro rir<erimeeiwiii gr"",.,acceptance if and when enabling legislation is enaaed. 70 II DEVELOPMENT FEES Development fees are common in a[ Minnesota cities, and Eden prairie has imposed andcollected fees for park deveropment and administration for many y;r.. il; ;iltion of ,eesfor consrruction of area-wide inlrastructure woutJ ue consistent ano aorri oe "".apr"or".However, there is no sratutory provision which enabres this for infrisiructulJiiii.r"r"n,.and again wourd rikerv meet wiin greater acceprance if such enabring rlgiiiiri.;i, passed.This approach is undlr srudy in a-number oi rtiinn".ot" ciries now aio ine situation maychange in the ,uture. lf development fees are used, criteria lor measuring and testing the collection and apDlicationol the fees would need to be estabrished. The use-of deveroprient fees ""n "tro creaie acash flow problem for the city during times of economic srow down, since iucr, te"s arecollected at the time of buitding permit application. The city probably should not accept therisk ol floating development costs thal such a situation would creale. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS The special assessmenr mechanism is cunentry widery used in the city for every type orprimary infrastructure construction, but has nao onty timited use lor area-wide assessmenrslor street improvements. However, it is lhe approa.h tn"t *itt most likeiy proriJ.'"n equitabtedistribution ol costs. The laws a.nd mechanisms foripecial as."..renisire arreaov in place i:,L::"]l:9;1oe1e11rrv weil understood by both devetopers "noin. Cirv.-iilr.omrnrmrzes cash flow problems since costs are recovered reasonably close to rhe time oldevelopment. The method can be u.sed to fund major roadway anoorainige irnpror"r.ntsas well as oversizing and extra depth costs associa:ted with sinitary se*eii "nJ'*"ter mains. The main drawback to the special assessment approach is the time consuming proceduresrequired to establish district limits, provide notification and hold nearings, piepiie teasibititystudies and finally produce the construction documents. Estimated Costs lnfrasrrucrure improvement cosrs have.been estimated lor area-wide street and drarnagetacilities in the sourhweslern Area north of county Highway r. Nor. rn-.t ihJ.JJo.r, "r"based on a variety of assumplions which may uetitte-rent it the time ot actuaioevetopment.These cosls are included here in order-to alt6w preliminary evaluation or ttre ieaiioiriry orlunding alternatives. See Appendix C for more betail. The lwo major streels identified lor the southwestern Area are Dell Road and scenic HeightsRoad' For purposes of cost eslimates, it was assumeo tn"t "il "*ti "..#"r"-o *irn bringing _lhe streets lo subgrade erevation wiil be part of site deveropr.ri".rr.-r"-, "or"I"rtproperties' The estimated conslruction costs include bituminous pavement and gravel base,concrele curb and guuer, storm sewer, signalizalion and trrl;t"[ffi# I I I T t I I I I I t t t" t L L 7t Dell Road was assumed to be a lour lane divided roadway norlh o, Scenic Heighrs Boad anda lour lane undivided roadway sourh or scenic Heights Road. scenic Heighti Hoao wasassumed lo be a four lane.undivided roadway from-county Highway a ro about one-half milewest ol Dell Road, and a 32-loot wide collector thereatter.' Foi born greets, icomparativecost estimate was made for an.equivalent length of street 32 ,eet wic,e builr'aiong lhe samealignments. This ailows an estimare to be ma-de rorine "o.r. *ni"-n "r. -.oniii.r.o oversizing' cosls lor other street items as well as for sanitary sewer andwaiei main were notincluded since they wourd be the same tor any siieet and wourd not affea the comparison. Full development costs for Deil Road and scenic Heights Boad are estimated ro beapproximatery $4,000,000. The same rength or streei buin 32 reet wide *orro .o.tapproximarely $2,300,000. The cost to biassessed over rhe southwestern Area asdescribed berow under Flecommendations *iri ue approximatery $2pob,ood.- -' ln a similar manner the total cost for a number of area-wide drainage facifiries was estimaled.Generally incruded were rarge diamerer prpei tgi;te r rhan z4in"rior, pono "onstructionwhere no. narurar ponding aieas exisr "noiu-firnfiicirities. A;;;t;[tir;"-.-rrr"," *".then made for an equivarent tolar rength oiza i'ncn-oLmeter pipe, an arbitrary size regardedas reasonable to expect developers to fully {inance. -Full deveropment costs ror.air rlge_-dla]nage facirities north of county Highway 1 areeslimated lo be approximatery gd-soo,ooo] rtr" ."r* rengrh or 24 inch diameter pipe wourdcost approximately $r ,800,000. The cost to be asseised over the southwestern Area asdescribed below under Recommendations ,rifr G afiroximately 91,7OO,OOO. t t t t I I I I I I I T t t t t t Recommendatio ns The special assessment method in combination with application of MSA funds appears to bethe most reasonabre aooroach for funding ;;.;-*il; iiriastructure improvemenrl in tnesouthwestern Area of Eden prairie. rt isiecommenoed rhat Deil Road and s".ni" H.ignt.Road be designated as MSA roadways. cily staff has deveroped a lgryut3 for ailocating costs.which is presented here as a speciricre.commendarion. For major roadways deveroiers wil pay so derclni-oico-sii issoci"reowith normar roadway construction, o6fined "s5i-fooi *ioe streets and n"".=.-"i ,ro,sewers for street d.rainage.-The remaining 50 percent ot"os. "..o.ili"-Ji-ii#or."rroadway construction prus so percent ot c-osts Lssociated with orr"iring;iri'be'assessedover lhe southwestern Area on an area basis. The linal 50 percent ol cosls associated withoversizing witl be paid by the City, possibly with MSA funds. For major drainage tacililies developers will pay all costs associated with normal storm sewerconstruclion, defined as srorm sewers up to and including 24-inch di"il;;;;;rs. Forlarger racirities the portion of cosls associated with oversizing uevonJ iq-inc-h-diamerersewers wiil be assessed over rhe subwatershed area derivirig L;;;iir ;;;;;laciriries. Theremaining costs (rhose associated with 24-inch sewer constriction) wi, be ;;ilydevelopers. 72 I I I { t t t t L L L L The area which will be assessed includes all of the study area north of county Highrvay 1 except for the small area north ol Mitchell Lake which presumably derives no'ben-efit from the major infrastructure improvements. The lotal assessable area is approximately 1600 acres distributed roughly as follows: 240 acres in Sub-area 1A; 290 acres in sub-area 1 B; 290 acres in sub-area 2AB; 180 acres in sub-area 3;610 acres west of the existing 2oo0 MUSA line. lf these assessable areas are used togetherwith the estimated costs lor major street and drainage improvements idenli{ied above, a preliminary assessment rate in the neighborhood of $2,300 per acre can be anticipated ($3,7oo,ooo asiessable costs over 1600 acies). 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 improvemenls. (Note that drainage assessments in particular may vary widely dependlnj on me particular subwatershed under consideration). lt is emphasized inat tnese estimat6s are preliminary approximations based on broad assumptions which may change as development actuallioccurs. More reliable ligures will be determined at the leasibility study levei which wilt establish more specific data on which to base assessments. It is not wilhin the scope ol this study to establish specilic assessment rates which will apply tolhe southwestern Area, but a recommended approach has been discussed brielly here. it' will be important to establish a balanced assessment ol the infrastruclure improvements byphases so that these improvements serve rather lhan drive development. Tire improvements will be.constructed in phases and should be assessed in such a wiy that each phase is paid for as it is built. close coordination and participation among properiy owners wlll be L..j::"q Jq lacilitate the process. This will be particularty-iirpdnari'r during luture feasibitity studies which witl look at these infrastruclure improvemenis in more specifii terms. 73 ; I t T T T T I I I T I T t t t t t t t : A P P E N D I x A i t t t t- APPENDIX A TBAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION Two sets of tratfic forecasls were prepared for this study: -Year 2005 forecasts which assumed lull development of the primary and secondarytraflic analysis areas as shown in Figure 11 and which *"r" lrtirii"jro a-sIess tne tuttdevelopment roadway needs lor theltudy area. 'Y:l-ol:. !9?0.through 1995 lorecasts which assessed devetopment inside the exisring2000 MUSA rine onry and which were urirized to oeveojme ioaJway'lrrasing pran. ]f9 uas]9 methodology used lo prepare both sets of forecasts was identical, with onty suchassumptions as amounr of deveropment and avairabre roaa rnrs oeina';6'9; dependentupon the forecast scenario. Each set of lorecasts accounred lor botn-ana[sL area rrips(trps wirh one or borh rrip ends within the primary ilt;il;-r;;iiil'tiJrtr,iip, a,ip.utirizing roadways within the anarysis area, but n6t ueg'inning "ii"oi"g ih"i"i.'tn"methodology and assumotions loi the 2oo5 rorecasts are discussed berow, lo[owed by adiscussion of methodology lor the pt "ring-"n"lyii. iirecasts. METHODOLOGY FOB YEAR 2OO5 FORECASTS Traffic Analvsis Area Trios A computerized trafric assignment moder.was utirized to ,orecasr anarysis area trips. Aprincipal.roadway network was defined ". pi"."ni"o in rigur; rz, wiifi tro sers or rorecastsprepared utilizing this network. The only dirference in the iorecasis was incluslon orelimination ot the interchange at Deil nrjaO anO i.i. Zf Z. The p.rimary anarysis area-was divided into 29 sub-zones as presented in Figure 13, andspecific fuli deveropment rand uses catcutateo torea"r, sru-.-one.-i"urJn-i'piis"nts tr.,.land use starisrics assumed for each rrb-;;;; ;il;;crudes some existing deveropment inthe northwest and northeast porlions orine-ararysis area. Trips associated with lhese landuses were catcurared based upon trip generatiori iates puotistieo uy rna rnJtiiuie orTransporrarion Engineers. rn'e rrrp i,r;;;;ri;il;;h sub-zone was modiried ro accounr rormulti-purpose, intercepted-and intiiar """rv.i" "r.i-rrips. Tabre A-2 presenrs rhe tripgeneration rates by tand use and the "O;usi,*r-i"ior". Trip distribution was estimated l3s.ed upon torecasts prepared by the MinnesotaDepartment ot rransoorrafion ,tiri.rn! i[J;r"-"JJiii!.' methodorogy. Figure A_r presentsthe expected trattic anatysis "r"" trip'O'i.iriO;;;. " - Utilizing these network, rri?.g:1r_l1ig".1nq rip distribution assumprions the computer modetIlt-y.llir,q ro assign anaiysis area trarfic ro the roadway syslem. This assignmenraccounted for nor onry'minimum path" routes tolriom trl anarysis "rr", urr-rrro murtipreroutes where more than one routing ctroice wasieariorr. rr,e aiiigffi,iiyi;ild pM peakhour rorecasts ror ar rrios in and ou-t;iih;-";;i;;;1r"". o"iry riiil;'il;;;:rimared byadjusting the pM peak iorecasts UV a factor of tln. -' t t I t t t I I I t L L L A-t Through Trips Trips through the primary analysis area consisted of lwo components: 'Trips associated with the secondary anarysis area rying generaily south or countyHighway 1. - All other metropolitan area trips. Trip generation and distribution lor the secondary analysis area were based on the sameassumptions used for the primary analysis area.' Thesl ttps were manuairy assigneo to tneprimary roadway network for eaCh 20OB scenario. Through trips other than those associated with the secondary analysis area were ,orecastedbased upon forecasts previous.ry prep_areo ror rne o[-of chanhassen in the year 2oo5 LandU$e and Tr?nsoorration ptan, tbAO. 'these pr"riouiior"""sts included both the currenlprimary and secondary anarysis. areas ano tf,e-samJ frimaroao"iy net,"ori .-as sucn, awindow was created in the previous forecasls wtricn rlmoveo all trips associated wilh theanalysis areas. These remaining trips were ,"nriiryi""signed to account lor the scenarioin which no interchange would b-e cdnstru.ieo ai-ii. zlzand Dell Road. Forecasts of the two throuqh trip components were then added to the primary anarysis arealorecasts to obtain the yeai eoCj5 tutt ievetopment foi"""rtr. PHASING ANALYSIS FOBECASTS As noted, a variety or foreca.sts were prepaied to assist in the phasing anarysis fordevelopment inside the existing VUSh tiire. ]3u! n-3 presenls the land use stalistics lor full development of the sub-zones within lheMUSA. 1995 forecasts *ele-pfp?r_e-qOaseO upon inese full development statistics, whiteforecasrs for earrier years (19b0 ' 19931 were d"p"a based upon ies*i "rornr, ordevelopment. Trip distribution assumpiions were'essentiafly the same as rfie ruridevelopment condition. The roadway network was modifie.d depm.delt upon rhe forecast scenario lo accounr rorlikely roadway connections ar the time. r.H. zii'was not.incruded in any or the stagingforecasts. The computer assignment mooet wai urirleo tq g"nrrai" tnJplima-rfanarysisarea forecasls based upon these assumptions. Through traltic, which for theph.asing _anarysis_wourd ge.neraily utirize onry the peripheralroadways rr.H. s. c.R. 4, c.R- 1), was estimated basid upon spring rge'8ii"rii;"ornr.adjusted.by a 3.5% yearly groMh factor. rramc onitre south reg of the De[ Road/T.H. 5intersecrion ror the 1991 + forecasrs was estimated uaseo upon tev;i";;;;i 'e-ijecreo nonnol T.H. 5 in both Chanhassen and Eden prairie. A-2 t t t t t t t t t L t L L L L Sub Zone Lane Use lndustrial (Chanhassen) Low Density Residential (LDR) LDR Size 300,000 340 65 3,600 20,000 26 86 't70 97 120 55 220 't5 200 38s 80 61,000 55 105 115 60 105 35 15 95 26,000 15 850 125 90 130 220 35 40 90 95 170 140 210 490 560 705 sq. tt. units units sq.ft. sq. fi. units units units acres units unils units acres units units units sq.ft. units units units units units units acres units sq.fl. units students units units units units acres units units units units units units 1 2 3 4 5 Commercial (existing) Olfice (existing) Mulli-family Residential (existing) Single-famity Residentiai (existi-ng) Multi{amity Residentiat (t'S6 exisiing) Park LDR LDB LDR Park LDR LDR LDR Commercial LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR Park LDR Commercial LDR School LDR LDR LDR LDR Park LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR b 7 8a 8b 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 South Area LDF/Park LDRiPark LDF/Park units/40 acres units/25 acres units/30 acres Table A-1 LAND USE STATISTICS. YEAB 2OO5 FULL DEVELOPMENT o 't0 't1 12 Sub-zone A Sub-zone B Sub-zone C r Table A-2 P.M. PEAK HOUB TRIP GENERATION RATES1 lJse Single Family Res./ Dwelling Unit Multi Family Res./ Dwelling Unit lndustriaul000 sq. tt. Ofiice/1000 sq. ft. Elem. School/Student Park/Acre Commercial/1000 sq. ft. 17,500 26,000 43,500 61,000 Gross P.M. Peak RateJn- gld .61 .36 .bb .31 .12 .91 .43 2.74 .02 1.37s .45 Percent Mutti- Purpose lllps' 3% 550/" 55% 55"/o 5s% Percent lnternal Analysis Area IiE2 30% 10k 50% 50% 50/o 50% 02 7.06 5.82 4.55 3.87 7.34 6.06 4.74 4.03 1 - Based upon Trio Generation, lnstitute ol Transportation Engineers, 19g7. 2 - Multi-purpose reduction appried ro gross trips, prior lo internar trip carcurations. r I r 3r/r or It-Jl-> t o 0o oG o sr a'r€rao-5 12t/13t NI' xx/x i RtcE i ,taisH I I t rx 2rt \ LAKE <J 7llr 2t 01,/2r RILET o t t LAKE Z dil t I t t L z ABEA OnrH oF TJr 2l:l AREA EOUTH OF TJ{ 2I:l u.s. L @ 2sr/33$ a tTlITCHELL LAKE €, o oE o 1t/1t ,':! - - 8$/7t 21t/5t RED LAKE ROC E Tr1I Y€AR 2OO5 PNANALYSIS ARE IMARY A TRIP DISTRIBUTION txE aa^uE8 GEOUP, txc. OL soN tNc lEXSliooF I ASSOC- txc, HAtlSEN txont rElL$tEX PRATRIE STUDY SOUTHWESTEDEVELOPMENT PH ASINGEDENRN FIGURE A- I @ Gil r€lI.La .{. ra-iE. t ro. t e AOsEEF / ( I f 4r/5$ 1 rffii t Table A-3 LAND USE STATTSTICS. FULL DEVELOPMENT INSIDE EXISTING 2OOO MUSA LINE Lane Use SjZe {- t Sub Zone 1 2 3 4 lndustrial (Chanhassen) Low Density Residentiat (LDR) LDR Commercial (existing) Otlice (existing) Multi-family Flesidential (existing) Single{amity Besidentiai (existii!) Multi-lamily Residentiat (t'SO exisiing) Park LDR LDR LDR Commercial LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR LDR ParkLDR : Commercial LDR School LDR LDR LDR LDR LDB LDR LDR 300,000 340 65 3,600 20,000 26 86 170 97 120 55 80 61,000 55 105 115 60 105 35 15 95 26,000 15 850 125 90 130 95 170 140 210 sq.fi. units units sq. ft. sq. fi. units units units acres units units units sq.ft. unils units units unils units unils acres units sq.ft. units students units units units units units units units 5 6 7 8a 't1 12 13 '14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 26 27 28 29 A P P E Dt D I tA B I T T I I I I t I t t t t L L I L I I I I T APPENDIX B PHASING ANALYSIS OF PERIMETER HOADWAYS The.phasing anarysis of the perimeter roadways focused on the constraints vrhich theseroadways. mig-ht have on phasing of developmlnt in the primary trarfic anarysis'area. Rsdiscussed in Appendix A, a number or diffeient torecasti accounting ioi "-J"ri.rv oralternative deveropmenr scenarios were prepared. The two principal roadways which afrectthe abirity o, the srudy area to deverop aie r.H. i"na-cornty Highway 4. The foilowingpresents the key aspects of the analysis. This intersection is schedured tg.pei?qrlded by 1990. Figure B-1 presents serected tra,ficlorecasts at this intersection, whire Tadre B-ip*r*t; key aspects or the revers of serviceanarvses ror these forecasts and other forec"Ii i".."ii"ii ril;;i;p;r fiiiiiis"or rneanalysis include: -The intersection currently operates at a tevel ol service F. -No more than 2oo lots shourd be permitted in the study area priorto lhe 19goupgrade in order to avoid a noticeabre worsening ot "ii.ting irobr"r;.- -The currenay pranned improvements to the intersection wi, not adequateryaccommodate tu, deveropmenr inside tne existinjzooo rrrusn.-oi1""te studyarea has about 17oo rots wirhin rhe MUSA,;ddni-ona imfroverrni. *iii u.required to maintain eflective lraffic ,ow. Figure B-2 presents "on..oiimprovemenrs ar rhe inter.ection *nicn *iir-Iffi; H;i;;'.!-rJi".."J',ipon rrrrdevelopment of the study area inside the vUSn. ' ivv e sv 4 lt a The intersection is currentry-pranned to be upgraded by 19g1 . The existing intersection isinadequare ro accommodaie'devetopment,6iiil.,ri-*. s, west o,,aircn;iii;[. Figure B-3presents torecasts for 1g9o.,(priorro-the.currentty!ranneo improvemenrs), assuming that 1oodwelling units are deveroped south of r.H. s. ii i,i"irprenr is desired prior to the ptannedupgrade, improvemenrs wiil be necessary at thei.ir-. v oett Roao in[iil-r;;. iigure s_apresents two arrernatives ror providing access at oerr noao ano;;;;ffiffig projected J!;:"5i,HL:?[iJJi $fi B:l:ffi,'#]""ti'"t' npp"at uv unDoi oi or"nl io, inv County Hiqhway 4 county Highway 4 is currently a two.rane.roadway, with no improvements pranned except althe T.H. 5 intersecrion. Existing traffic vorumes i,ioicare.tne need to upgrade c.R. 4 to ,ourlanes and the need to improve ihe Scenic neijnis-hJr exisrins uorrrei at b-""ni" n"isnr, no"o "s *tii-"; ;33J'l:",:,"X'Sifi:e'j:ffji:;..r.deveropment inside the MUSA rine. rigure-8-6 presents a concept pran showing the urtimateroadway tayout in this vicinity upon con-struction'oii.i. Zrz B-t Thc principal lindiilgs of lhe analysis include: -c.R. 4 from new scenic Heighrs Road north to T.H. 5 must be upgraded lo fourlanes by December'r991 and include provision for intersection imirovemenrs atboth Scenic Heights Road intersections. 'The two Scenic Heights Road intersections are expecled to operate at a level ofservice D upon tull deveio_pment o, the study area inside the existing MUSA rine.while the rearignment ol Scenic Heights RoLd to the east of c.R. ais desirabre roprovide roadway continuity with the west leg and only one signalized intersection, the analysis indicates that the realignment dould waii until thE construction ol T.H.212. -c.R. 4 from new scenic Heights Road south to c.R. .l will need to be upgraded tolour lanes in orderto accommodate lull development inside the existing MUSA line. _f J J I J J .I l I I I + l- + J l I I B-2 l .t llrfil,1 rlrldddAd.lJJ-l .l 1{ TAELE 8-I ANALYSIS OT IH5/CR4 II{IERSECTIOTI 1990 Exlstlng SI{EP DEVELOPI,IENT Exlst lng Exlstlng Exlstlng and 100 unlts N 100 unlt3 5 Exlstlng and 100 unlts N 300 unlts S tll I ler Park Exlstlng and 100 unlts N 300 unlts S Xl I ler Park Exlstlng and "one ha lf" of itUSA YEAR t988 t 990 t 990 t990 t 993 ! 995 t 995 LAYOUT Exl st lng Exlstlng eil st tng lmroved based on current p lans lflproved current plans APPROACH VOLUHES 3tl l0 3545 378s 4030 4030 5035 5765 5765 AVG. DELAY 75. 0 .99.9 107.5 TOTAL 5TOP5LOS F F F vlc I .05 t. t3 l.15 t I ta EXCESS EXCESS FUEL C.O. COI.IHENTS Haxlmum des I rabl e development prlor to upgrade Addltlonal development requ I res further upgrade at THS/CR4 F D 37.6 .81 E 52.3 1.06 tmroved Ex I ct I ng and current ful Iplan deve lopnent of HUSA Addltlonal ExlrtlnE and lflprovements ful I deve I opoent of fiUSA F D 38. 4 a Severe l,rpacts - bet ond Ilmlts of analysls nethodo log l es .98 I II I t. f T t I I I I t t t. t IL L I.H. 5/l\ 3t5/ 290t 310 -E2111210/t]6Osst t6ot no J 6lE/l t20l u l0 -> ta5/ 300/ 520 106/ t10/ 160 A NORIH c0ur{I 0N APRtt 27. r 98E SPRllG t 99] sPRt[6 t 995 xx xx xx L I I P.M. PEAK HOUR TNAFFIC FOJECTION AT T.H. 5 ANO c.s.A.H. a 'HE anlgEF GAOuP. titc. otsor tNc lExsnooF a ^ssoc- txc. LANStll tHoRt PEIL|iiEI SOUTHWESTERNDEVELOPMENT PH G EDEN PR AIRIEAS IN STUDY FIGURE B-I @ ffir, \t/ =e3 ] I PRISEN I LY PLANNEO INTERSECTION 5HT \ ->-, I I 1 1 I T t T T I t i T Ir t t: \I +- <-€ -_ 5- \ POTENTIAL UPGRAOED TNTERSECTION \ NOT TO SCALE 5T. H.\ rF.a-.t-rt- MPFOVEMENT AT CSAH 4/T.H. ESTERN EDMENT PHAS RAIRIESTUDY SOUTHWDEVELOP ENP NG txE EnluE !EXSr,rOoa n GeouP. tric. a lssoc.. tirc. sEt lhort IEL LtnEr{ OL SoN c ! !-o!! FIGURE B-2 ffir POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL I I I t I I I I.H. 5 \_ r M <_ lzl0 ,0 850 + t0 Note: Votumes tolFrom Dell Roadsouttr oF T.H. S are premi sedon 100 occupied dwel ling units. \/ t I t t t 6q o , 1990 P.M. PEAK HOUB TRAFFIC PROJECTION AT T.H.5' DELL RD.tx€GIIJEF c.!fi sxo or I 3 soc..llrc.tl{lrs trolt rEt lrrEotsON F,$o'Et',IJ=tESTERN EDMENT PHASDEVELOPSOUTHW FIGUFE B-3 @ otq r 9!l I A I{ORTH I OPTION I: LEI'.T TURN LANE 1 1 ll \\ -iI 50: I <_ NOT TO SCALE + l5: I NOTE : <_<- l- T.H. 5 \5 :\ 50: I 1 \ r/rI -t 1 -I I T T oe JJLJo Dell Rd. should not be connected lrith Lake Orlve E.(south frontage roact west of Oe na.l-r"J". 6oiron t. OPTION 2: RIGHT TURNS ONLY ( Not. recomnended due to trafficrourr n9 through Chanhassen ) t +<- I-+ 50; I ti I \ I I 50: Il5: I t oa e.,c! I' tr tr t I L t: Note:It ls cleslrable for Dell Rd. to be connected r,lth Lake0r..8. (south frontage road rrest of Oell nO.l unO""Optlon 2. POTE N TIAL TE MPO RAR Y MPROVEMENT AT DELL RO./ T.H. 5 ttrG tl^uEn Giout. trrc or. sorr ltfrslrooF I lssoc.. txc. xlrasEx t!{oat ?tlttNEt{S o U T H w E s T E R N E D E H P R A I R I EEDPoLEVPTNEMHAsNGsTUDY FIGUBE B-4 @ Gil Note:MnDOT approval wil'l be required for any temporary improvements. {-)> i I t- T T t I I I I L t t t L t o L EX I5T INC SCENIC HEICHTS 186/ 240 261 1580 {- ro t g z IJ t - 1.$d1> 33 iiJI Y ./ NET SCENIC HE ICHTS NA/255 NA/ 85 I P.M. PEAI( HOUR t'22'88 IOO5 SPRING PJI. PEAK HOUR t L L L ,(,( / xx I A P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAF FIC PROJECTIONS AT C.S.A.H. 4 AND SCENIC HEIGHTS HOAD olsoit I PC IlrE 8i^uER GeouP. trc. ItisHooF t ASSOC- tr.C.xlisEri rSoRP PEt LtNEN SOUTHWESTERN EDEN PRAIHTEDEVELOPMENT PHASING STUDY FIGUFE B-5 @ oEc ! 9l! NO SCALE l_ -}-1 N i I J -l -I lrlI 5cr.lt, trrrrl)I ! at,lgIttt QoL0, -ltlltttt tt 1f 212 o' 400' APPROX SCALE A lll rtlt! I-N UPGRADE II ITH IN THREE YEARS UPGRAI)E X I IIII t{ THRTE YEARS SCEI{IC HE IGHTS RTAI,IGNNINI Iil CONJUNCTION XITH t. H. 212 C0i{STRUCT t0[ coco NCEPT PLAN FORUNTY . / SCENICHEIGHIS R o. t TH21 IXE 6A auEi c8ouP. ric. or-so !:xs|oot I lssoc.. titc. xAr.sEt tHoi, PEt ltft€x SOUTHWESTERN EDDEVELOPMENT PHAS EN PRAIRIEING STUDY FIGURE B-A @ GT -l -I 7 T T r E E - = I.H. SCENIC HE IGHTS ROA() i i L I EXtSTtNG PROPOSED c I t t t T I I I I I t t t t L L L L I L A F- P E ]tD. I tA -[ { { I -I { { Estimated costs for Dell Road and Scenic Heights Road along alignments schematically shown in this sludy, north of County Highway l. The following assumptions have been made: - Dell is 4 lane divided north ol scenic Hts, 4 lane undivided south ol scenic Hts - Scenic Hts is 4 lane undivided except for 32-foot wide collector from Riley Lake Road to half-way to Dell - interchange costs at luture Hwy 212 will be part of Hwy 212 costs - Dell Road costs begin al Lake Drive/Hwy 5 Service Boad - 7 channelized approaches lo interseclions - developers pay for grading to subgrade, providing a minimum B-value of 1O - 10 percent additional street length lo account tor alignment diflerences from schematic alignments shown APPENDIX C COST ESTIMATES Ouantity Unit Unit Price Amountllem 2" 2341 Bil. Wear 3" 2331 Bit. Binder 10" 3138 Cl.5 Base Tack Coat 8618 Curb & Gulter Topsoil & Seed Topsoil & Sod Storm Sewer Subgrade Prep. 5" Conc. lsland Signalizalion $25.00 22.OO 7.00 1 .'10 7.00 2,000.00 2.00 40.00 1.00 18.00 90,000.00 Ton Ton Ton Gal LF Ac SY LF SY SY Ea Fully Developed Streets TOTAL Cost per LF @ 23,100 LF = $2,904,980 290.498 $3,195,478 798.870 $3,994,348 $173 I, -I -L 1 I I-t- I-l- -r- a a a -- 15,000 22,500 80,900 6,800 59,400 12 13,200 18,500 : 147,000 1,000 1 $s7s,000 495,000 566,300 7,480 415,800 24,000 26,400 740,000 147,000 18,000 90.000 Subtotal 10% Miscellaneous & Contingencies Subtotal 25% Engineering & Administrative c-1 Estimated cosls {or Dell Road and scenic Heights Road along same alignments, built at 32-foot width: Ton Ton Ton Gal LF Ac SY LF SY L t. t L t L l t I I I I L : I II l l l_ l 1.5" 2341 Bit. Wear 2' 2331 Bit. Binder 8" 3138 Cl. 5 Base Tack Coat 8618 Curb & Gutter Topsoil & Seed Topsoil & Sod Storm Sewer Subgrade Prep. Ouanlitv Unit Unit Price Amount 5,300 8,500 34,700 3,900 46,200 11 10,300 18,500 82,000 $2s.00 22.OO 7.00 1.10 7.00 2,000.00 2.OO 35.00 1.00 $157,500 187,000 242,900 4,290 323,400 22,000 20,600 647,500 82.000 Subtotal 10% Miscellaneous & Contingencies Subtotal 25% Engineering & Administrative 32-ft Wide Streets TOTAL Cost per LF @ 23,100 LF = $1 ,687,190 168 719 $1.855.909 463.977 $2,319,886 $100 c-2 Item i I ' Estimated.co_sts lor major drainage improvemenls north o, county Highway 1 (see Figure c-1next page). Pipe lengths are 30% longer than scaled from schematiClayout sfrown in FigureC-l to account lor alignment ditlerences. Item Ouantity Unit Unit price Amount 15" RCP 21'RCP 27'RCP 30" RCP 33" RCP 36'RCP 42'RCP 48'RCP 54'RCP 60'RCP 66" RCP 72" RCP 8" DIP Force Main Pump Station Pond Excavation 1,300 700 1,200 2,200 2,700 8,700 500 1,700 1,400 4,800 1,200 1,000 1,300 1 10,000 LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF Ea CY $30.00 40.00 48.00 54.00 60.00 66.00 78.00 90.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 30.00 50,000.00 5.00 $3-o,000 28,000 57,600 118,800 162,000 574,200 39,000 153,000 168,000 672,000 192,000 180,000 39,000 50,000 50.000 Subtotal 10% Miscellaneous & Contingencies Subtotal 25% Engineering & Administrative 27,400 1,300 1,000 $2,522,600 252.260 $2,774,860 693.715 $1,233,000 58,500 45.000 Fully Developed Drainage Facilities TOTAL $3,468,575 Comparative costs for entire system @ 24. RCp: 24'BCP in lieu of RCp above 24' RCP in lieu of Force Main 24" RCP in lieu ot pond LF LF LF $r,335,500 133.650 $1,470,150 357.538 24-inch Diameter Storm SeweTTOTAL $1 ,837,688 Subtotal 't 0% Miscellaneous & Contingencies' Subtotal 25% Engineering & Administrative c-3 $4s.00 45.00 45.00 xo o rt E T , sl AtE !O AF a ts no I a t___ toaatlw! !!3nrt tc!RICE IARSH IJLAKE €t I L laa ,a.ai Itwt ar2 It _l 3lt tiwt ato /i da 'I 2 tSAr ?t 1,, I , I aaaaa rrrrr !alr.-clt at aa laat KEY (r.-r7 ro*o Lz, aAt ,I'E 3toi^GE TAIEi ITYEI ,alail* IE' L:VCL aoaccraria .tl ..Ji t I III ! N] I xu! F.M. ; scENrc LA'(E LAKE ROC 6 Et !x L a !tltxwL ass)tw! 060 NWL 900xwL co2 xwt ltollw! !ta ) !?ll!o ,'!!!-- aaalaaar,,,,,,,,,,,, .{€ !39 ( I IMPNOVEMENTS UAJOR DRAINAGE oL 50x Irc IHt at^l'a8 ciouP.ltc. lEnsxoot I AsSOC.. tXC.r,ilxstt{ tHoFP PELlrr€x STERN EENT PHADEN PRAIRIESING STUDYDEVELOPMSOUTHWE FtoueE C-t @ oEc +.ltrrr.'. 6 r.- _ r!i. u.s. NO.tc t- L HIfCHELL e xvr|- tro HWL ata REO L''CE HLEf A P P E N D I x D I I I I T r T r t t t t t t t L- L- L- : APPENDIX D sANtTABy, WATER & DRATNAGE METHODOLOGY The purpose and scope of this study were such that delailed design calculations were not necessary lor establishing schematic full developmont layouts lor the sanitary sewer, water main and drainage systems. However, preliminary calculations weie made for each syslem so that there would be reasonabte assurance that the systems would work as designed in concept. schematic design assumptions for each iystem are described in this appendix in order to assist lhe subsequent, more specilic iesign eflorts which will be needed as lhe infraslruciure systems develop. SANITARY SEWER The slarling point ror schematic design ol the fulty developed sanitary sewer system was the design reports and plans prepared for the REd Rock lnterceptor by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associales, lnc., and city ot Eden prairie stafl in t ggs'-aa. The Red Bock lnterceptor sewer traveises lhe study area and has been designed to carry nearly all anticipated wastewater lrom the area. the design of the interceptor includeci wastewater inflow assumptions for quantities and locations. These assumptions weregeneral ratherthan specilic and enough reserve capacity was designed foithe interceptor ro allow some changes in lhe assumed luaniities and 6cations. The schematic design for the lully developed sewer systems in this study have taken rnlo account the capacity and reserve capabilig ol the interceptor seweiand in all cases should function adequately in concert with the intercepior. The design elements and.assumptions lor lhe sewers in this study were generallyconsistent witfi those usedfor the design of the interceptor s€wer. -- D-r The overall wastewater flow into the interceptor from the southwestern Area wasestimated in.this.study to be 3.4 mgd (miilioh gaflons per day) areraje ,bw at i;i !!].e]ge1e1 This compares to 3.3 mgd aveiage ttow estimited byihe interceptor ctesign sludy. The reserve or unallocated capaCity ol the interceptor sewer in this areais approximarely 3.2 mgd at peak design flow ot s'G.z mgd, so ev'en if a conserriiirepeak faclor..oJ 3 is appried to rhe average frow difference in the two studies, the 0.3 mgdpeak flow dillerence is inconsequenliai I I Design criteria used in this study included: wastewater flow contributions by land use - 'r750 gauac-day commercial(average lows) isoo iaUac-da! rnOuitriai -' 1000 gaUac-day Low Density Residentiat 700 gauac-day School Esrimate d re nsrh of sewe rs ar 5o70.s rearer th":t?ffilT;t%!11i; E!,[fi 31"'Design flow velocity at minimum 2 fi7sec. Flows calculated using Manning formula, n = 0.012. Design llows calculated using feak faaors as re"omencled in. .Recommended Srandards ror Sewase [o*1,'by rhe crear r-ar<es -upieir,,tijliilrpiinir".Board ol State Sanitary Engineeis. WATER MAIN The starting point for schematic design or the tu[y deveroped water distribution sysrem )T-.-ll:^1.-"9^1ty compteled.Compref,ensive Masier Ctan iieporr on waren orts ' rmprovemenrs ror Eden prairie; Minnesota, prepared by Bla6k & veatch in rbgo. ecomprehensive frow network anarysis was beyond tha scope ot this study. However,the.schematic system design_canie anaryzei a.-n""".a"ry as trunk and raterar warermains are extended into the Southwestem Area. - -- The water.distribution syste.m for this study is generaily consisrent wirh the 19g6 MasterPlan, but there are a few differences whicfi "t 6riJu. i,ot.d. The rocation otltre ma;orwesrerry trunk roop in the Master pran rolows the eiisting r,airroio rijr,i-oi-*"v ir,i.ttraverses the area from northeast to southwest. ln iiris stuov, rhis ro'op nas u6en moreofarther west and shitted to a north-soutn ori"nt"tion, seneraily rolowing the future De[Road alignment. rt was thought that the rrtrr" erisi.ince or the rairroad right-or-way isuncertain and that better oveiail flow barance corro oe achieved bt ihra ;;r;. ' The.other diflerences incrude an increase in size from 12 inches ro 16 inches ,or thetrunk extension atong State^HQ.lry"y s, ano an upg;oe in rne frioriiy "r"gi.gi;rtn.trunk exrension arong counry Fighuiay'4, prirariiv-ore to tne stneorireJ-,ipei,i"l orthe Cedar Ridge School in t-Sgg. . ' -- It should also be nored that the 19g6 Master pran was prepared using popuration ' t "projections for the southweslern Area wnicn aplearo'be'somewharttft;;;iil".those used for this srudv. rt is not crear wr,etn5iG., ditt.r"n""" "i" ,iJ^iriir"ii, urrthis should be invesrioaied oetore tne moit *".t"irvir"r exlensions are developed.The Master Plan seeirs ro reave open the n"rJJoi'"ooirionat waterireaimenitJciriryupgrades. lf the popuration in the bouthwestem Area oevetops oiit.i*tivln".i,n"twas assumed forthe 1986 study, such upgrades may becomL htg[ipdiy. ' " Design criteria used in this study included: ' ,, .i, . . :,'. Residual pressure in exisling i6 inch main at Highway 5 & Heritage Road = gg 9s1.Residual pressure in existing r6 inch main at xiEnwai a & MirreiFa* -;t;; 'Desired minimum pressure-in-sysrem roi ioequii;ffi ,ffi;U oj'^ - "' ,;'' Average daily water use _- 1OO laUcapday. ---- .-"'. - , .Peak.hourly water use = 10 tm6s ardrag6 dailv flow.Population €stimared at 2.14 unirs/a"r" iitn g;eiionyunit. Flows calcutated using Hazen.Wiiliam. torrrfi, C= i}-ol"' D-2 r: ,,,: It t t t t t . 'i:'.,: .,t:;i,l l DR.AINAGE The starting poinl lor schematic design of the fulry deveroped drainage system was thecity's comprehensive Drainage plan-and waterstieoituoies and p.rans prepared byBarr Engineering company, beginning in 1970. parts of three ,fuo, *it.IJ.-o-.'"r,contained within the southwestern Area, with each of these divided inro nri"Ji-r,subwatersheds. Using the topographic. map prepared rrom existing records tor the southwestern Areaas a basis, the watersheds and subwatersheds wire delineated. r-r,ei" *ere ior"o tobe generally consisrenr with Barr's work. Known "rLting orainagaiaciliti;;;;identified and DNR protected wetlands were catal;g;;d. stormwater derention was provided for in a number of rocations, generalry consistentwirh rhe ciry's Drainage pran. For.rhe.most part, ttrese rocationi-aie e":rii,ij*iii"no.o1 dgep depressions which are naturafly suitbo tor tnis purpose. rn some ""iei,"significant rrees around row areas provided a natural crireriiioi eiiauri.t ing;;irr.slormwater ponding elevations. It should be nored that detenrion ponding in addition to what is shown in this study hasthe potentiatto signiricantrv reduie prop6s.o pipeiir""in;;;;;;r:';xc gr..\'r oeveropmenr proceeds in these areas consideration shourd be given to creating suchponding wherever possible. Design criteria used in this study included: subw.atershed design storms of 1oo year - 60 minure and 10 year - 30 minure criteria.Pipe llows were caliulated using Manning foirrfa" n = O.Of Z.Pond normal and high water revirs "siui"n.Juy'runott routing methods or cityDrainage plan criteria. D-3 A P P E N D I t,rl E T T T T 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 T T t t t t I iI t- t- t t m n Braue r & Associates; Hoisinglon Group; Benshool & Associates.Year 2005 Land UseTEden Prairie, MN. 1986. I I I t t t L L L L L L BRW, lnc. T.H. 21 2 Traffic Forecasls. 19g5. city of Eden Prairie. 'Land- use projections for Southwestern Eden prairie StudyArea." Communique with City staff. 1998. Clark, John W.; Viessman, Warren; Hammer, Mark J. Water Suoply and pollution Control. 1971. Debo, Thomas N.; Eiliot, Michaer; Nerson, Arrhur c. 'county Begins to Deverop anlmpact Fee Program." Jour. public Works. Nov. 19gg. Elizer, R. Marsharl. "private-s_ector participation in Transportation rmprovements:Survey Resutts." ITE Jour. 58:46-51. npi. rSaA. Ferrari, Leilani. "surface water Fees used to Reduce Urban Frooding.. Jour. pubricWorks. Aug. 1987. Fischer, Vivienne C. "states Rescue Localities wilh Creative Financing.. Am. City &County. Mar. 1989. Godlrey, K.A. 'Passino rhe pubric works Buck.' civir Engineering/ASCE. 56:50-52.Sep. 1986. Great Lakes - Up per Mississippi Biver Board ot State San itary Engineers. Albany, N Y. 1978. lnstitute ol Transportation Engineers. Trio Generalion _ 4rh Edilion.1987. Melropolitan council and Minnesola Department ol rransportation. ,Begional rrallicForecast Data.' Several sources. E-t BIBLlOGRAPHY ASCE &,WPCF. Design and Construction of Sanilary and Storm Sewers.ASCE-Manuals and Reports on e.gneering pEaGAo. SZ. 1 969,1 97A B.an Engineering co. The Drainage pran for Eden prairie. Minnesota. Minneaporis,MN. 1970 and updates. Black & Ye.atc-l comprehensive Master pran Reoort on waterworks lmprovemenrs forEden Prairie. Minnesota. Kansas CitV, t,tO. lEe6l Bonestroo' Bosene, Anderrik & Associates, rnc. Reports and prans forthe Red Rocklnterceptor Sewer. St. paul, MN. 1996-88. tlib;'egraphy (conl.) I t Minnesota statute 444.16 - 21. Enabling legistalion tor establishing storm sewerimprovement tax districts. t Niorctowski, Raymond S.; Roache, William J.; Bonsignore, Ruth M.; peneault, Rot *i#,;:j:l;ffiild Road rmprovemint Coriiio p,ivate Deveror"oi fiTf; t Snvder,ThomasP.andste.gmanllg-ilierf -@ tFees to Finance rnfrastructuie. washington, DEIIirban GndGstitr.rd 19861 ,t""-|l.,^9::L*,9:-_U-._""liyI_rnding-and Creative Capirat Financing.- Jour. prot. trssues tn Engineering. 11 1:39-47. Apr. 19g5. Y:.r^S^h::, Roger.^"tnfrastructure: Money and Methods., Civit EngineeringlASCE. I54:62-66. Sep. 1984. warren, Richard E. 'street Fares.' civir Engineering/ASOE. 56:50-53. Nov. 19g6. I I t L L t- tr L L L L L E-2 CITY OF EH[NH[ESEN 690 COULTEB DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739 !,TEMORANDI.]I,T TO: FROlit: DATE: SUB.] : Planning Coromission PauI Krauss, Planning Director DeceEber 5, 1990 Rural Area PolLcies/2\ Acre }lininum Lot Size As the Planning Conmission is probably at{are, the Metropolitan Council is considering policy changes concerning rural areas whichby definition are those areas located outside the UUSA 1ine. Inprevious packets I have presented copies of prelininary drafts ofnaterials presented by the l{etro Council on this issue. There area nunber of potential issues affecting Chanhassen directly fromthese policy changes. My written conments to the l,letro Council, onthese changes is attached to this neno. In addition to discussing these policies at the Planning Connissionmeeting, I nish to also discuss the rural area minimun 1ot size. As you are aware, the city has a reguirenent that niniruum Iot sizein the rural area be 2L acres. This requirernent was adopted by theCity as a result of the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement. Sone lrould argue that the agreement and conditions were inposed upon the cityby the Metropolitan Council . Staff has no argurnent with the ruralarea density of l unit per 10 acres horrever it is computed by the Metro Council . Fron my experience and fron data that was collectedduring the drafting of the Comprehensive PIan, it is clear that theCity nust take reasonabLe precautj.ons on preventing premature developnent in the ruraL areas. Prenature development of these areas leads to significant environmental problens as lrelI as nakingit difficult to expand the community and extend urban services whenit is necessary to do so. Our recent dealings with neighborhoods such as Tiruberwood or Sun Ridge Court bring these problems to nind. However, I, and f believe several Planning Commissioners, have feltthat the 2! acre minimun lot size reguirement is a problem. Two and one-haIf acre lots tend to gobble up large tracts of land tosupport relatively fel, households. It results in developmentpatterns such as Tinberwood that are difficult to provide servicesto if it becomes necessary to do so or to route services aroundsince assessing these properties nay be difficult, if notpolitically impossible. This is not to infer that somebody who Rural Area PoLicies Decenber 5, 1990 Page 2 desires to live on a 2\ acre lot should be prevented fron doing so,only that institutionalizing t}re 2\ acre minimum in the ordinanceis probably not an ideaL thing to do. However, since thisreguirenent was imposed upon us by the !.{etro Council, there has been relatively Little thought given to this standard. However, asI indicated to the Planning Conmission last nonth in a neeting with Metro council Staff, I was infomed that the Metro Council now supports a 1 acre nininum lot size in these areas although theystil1 uphold the 1 per 10 acre density ru1e. I was further inforrned, and am frankly sone*hat upset to find, that the Metro Council appears to have changed this standard fron 2* acres to 1acre at virtually the same tine they were requiring the City of Chanhassen to adhere to it in 1986. In any event, it is clear that we probably have flexibility to lower our nininum 1ot size if we choose to do so. f rrould like to throw this out for discussionpurposes. f believe it would be in the Cityrs best interest andprobably the property olrnerr s best interest in these areas to allowfor these smaller 1ot sizes. At the same time, the Metro Councilis insisting that cities adopt high standards of design and naintenance for on-site sewer systens and this is an understandable reguirernent since this is an environmental concern associated with these systems. The City of Chanhassen adopted these standards in 1986, thus, $re are probably in conforroance with any new policiesthat the Metro Council would be creating at the present tirne. we beLieve, however, that it night be useful to look into thepossibility of allowing l acre lots lrith a connunity based on-sitedisposal system rather than individual drainfields. If properlydesigned, the conmunity based systeu should have an irnprovedpotential for being better maintained, would facilitate inspectionby the city and ultinately wouLd facilitate the expansion of cityutilities to serve the area at such tine that this becomes necessary since it would simply be a natter of disconnecting thepipes frorn the cornnunity drainfield and connecting then into city l ines . Should the Planning Connission be interested in pursuing thismatter further, you should be aware that the 2\ acre standard isnot only in our ordinance, it is in the Iake Ann InterceptorAgreement. This is a contract that was entered into by the city and l,Ietro Council and is a contract that rrould have to be amendedif this standard is to be revised. I have requested the CityAttorney to draft a contract anendment and this is included in thepacket of naterials attached to this neno. staff is seeking yourdirection in these natters. CITY OF EH[NH[SSE!I 690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739 DeceDber 3, 1990 !Ir. carl ohrn Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East 5th streetSt. PauI , DtN 55101 Dear carl: Unfortunately, due to prior cornmitnents, I was unable to attend any of the public neetings on the proposed Council Policies for Rural Service Areas. working with our local assoclation of southwestern cornrnunities, alohn Boland has presented you with sorne docurnentationthat in part covers the position of the city of Chanhassen. However, I believe lt would be valuable fdr ue to convey to you directly our reactions to the proposed policy changes. uy connents foLlow the outline of proposed changes presented in Table 5 of your report . Preservation of Agriculture The city of Chanhassen does not have any uaior 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 stil1 retains a fair arnount of agricultural land ln the southern part of our city. Much of this land is leased rhlle being held for developnent and we have only approxinately 3 to 4 active farmers uorking the eonnunity. Sone of the acreage in this area is llsted as agpreserves. However, in our cornmunity this area Ls surrounded on iour sides by urbanized developnent and in all probability thiswill ultinately be converted to urban uses. As you are probably arrare by now, the city of Chanhassen ls vorking on a coDplete redraft of our Conprehensive Plan that uill expand the UUSA line by approximately 2r5oo acres since ue are virtually out of developable land within the uUsA at the present time. IrIr. Carl Ohrn December 3, 1990 Page 2 Lot Size Under the 1986 I,ake Ann Interceptor Agreenent, the city of chanhassen uas required to adopt 1 per 10 acre density zoning, inprove regiulations for on-site selrers and was also iequired to adopt 2l acre mininum 1ot sizes. It cane as quite a surprise when you indicated to me in a meeting in Chanhassen two nonths ago that the council had deleted the 2t acre 1ot size standard approxirnatelyat the sarne tine as the clty of chanhassen was required to adhereto it. The city of chanhassen has had considerable problens stenning fron the 21 acre ninirun. We in no uay object to the 1per 10 acre density in the rural area, but the 2l acre lot size ninirnun has create a series of rural subdivisions that rnake it extraordj.narily difficult to transition these areas to urban development. They becone virtual black holes where it is alnost iurpossible to extend city utilities since it is difficult to assess costs back to properties that have Just spent considerable suns of money on installing private utilities. I{e are, therefore,gratified to read that no nininum lot size is being proposed andthat perfornance standards based on on-site disposal are being sho$rn in place of establishing a nininun. f would anticipate thatthe City of chanhassen nilL be coning back to the Metro Councilshortly with the goal of revising that portlon of the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreenent that stipulated 2l acre rnininums for ourcommunity. we would anticipate trying to pronote further clustering of such developnent that is allowed to take place within the 1 per 10 acre gruideline in our transition area. on-site seuage Disposal systens As I noted earlier, Chanhassen has adopted and has been enforcing for the last 3 years current standards for developnent ofon-site utilities. Your proposed gruidelines would require conrounities to trcertifyrr cornpliance prior to approving 1oca1 plan anendnents. I would clariflcation as to what this certificationentails since we would like to uininize the need for expandedadrninistrative procedures or bureaucracy. Another possibly noreinportant issue of on-site aewage disposal systens is that intransi.tion areas such as those found Ln Chanhassen, it nay be nore reasonable to consider the use of a connunity based private disposal systen using a comnon drainfleld and other facilities. Webelieve that if these facillties are designed and naintainedappropriately, that they provide a better opportunity for naj.ntenance at a higher standard and facilitate inspection rrhenthis is required. I{e also believe that nost inportantly theseaorts of systems vould lend themselves to conversion to city publicsanitary sewer at such tine as these are avaiLable. We would askthat you consider looking into standards that may be applied for such systerns and make this option available. IUr. Carl Ohrn Decenber 3, 1990 Page 3 Transition Areas We are gratifiea that the Uetro Councif is considering theadoption of a Transltion Area Pollcy. We believe that the undeveloped portions of Chanhassen represent an ldea] area for thisdesignation. Our undeveloped areas are surrounded by urbanization on alL four sides and ls currentLy served by or will be bisected byfour lane highways. We are concerned, horrever, that while theconcept of transition areas has been proposed that there are nospecific Aruidelines for then. In particular, ue note concerns thatwe have had along wl.th other unlts of government in this arearegarding Council policies relative to highlray J.mprovenents throughIrhat we believe will be terned the transition area. Concernsraised by the lletro Council regarding extenslons of Highway 5 andconstruction of Highway 212 through the transition area, in spiteof the fact that ue are planning for these to be developed and thefact that there is ample demand for the roadways, brings theseissues to the forefront. We also note that our mass transit hasbeen hampered by an inability to site a park and ride facility atthe intersection of Highways 5 and 41. This area is currentlylocated outside of the MUSA although rre are proposing that this bebrought into the MUSA line. tltetro Council policy currentlyprohibits the expenditure of funds for transit improvements outsidethe lilUSA line, in spite of the fact that Highways S and 41 arehiglIy traveled and uould be an ideal spot to intercept tripsconing fron Chaska, Waconia and points rrest. Vte uould appreciatethe opportunity to interact with you and your staff furtherregarding the transition areas, shoul.d an opportunity arise. Dens itylClustering As noted earlj.er, the City of Chanhassen has already adoptedthe .1 per 10 acre density guidelines and has no problens incontinuing enforcenent of then. We bel.ieve that this policy is ofgreat use in protecting the transition areas fron prirnaturedevelopnent. Holrever, the proposed ways in which density is to becalculated are unwieldy and I believe inapproprlate for transitionareas and for areas auch as those found around Chanhassen. OptionsA and B would reguire the analysis to include Eubstantial tracts ofproperty that are ln aII likel.ihood not owned by the personapplying for a subdivision. In Chanhassen, the agriculturalproperty has generally been subdivided into considerably srnallertracts then are found further out ln the rural areas. In essence,the proposal you have offered constitutes a de facto transfer ofdeveloprnent rights rrhereby the City would, by approving asubdivision for Iandoyner A, thereby precl.uding f,anaowner B lrhohappens to be within the 150 acre or 640 acre tract fron anydevelopnent without any knowledge on their part. I believe this ilinherently- unfair and should be avoided. again, we do not opposethe densities that you are proposing, in fact the reverse is Liue. Sin 1y, PauI auss, AICP Director of Planning PX:v cc Planning CornnrissionCity Council I{r. Carl Ohrn Decenber 3, 1990 Page 4 we are merely concerned wlth the Eethods you are proposing for conputing thern. we would like to be able to contlnue with policiesthat have already been developed and in use since 1987. Again, thank you for the opportunity to conment on the proposed revised policles. we look forrard to uorking rith you on this and related Datters. l{e sill be in contact lrith you and your staff shortly regarding the reLease of the conditions fron the 1986 IakeAnn Interceptor Agreenent rel.ative to ulnluun lot area requirenents . Thomas.l. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scoa Cary G. Fuchs James R Valston Ellion B Knetsch Gregory D kwis Drmis J. Unger CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attornels at Law Novenber 30, 1990 (612) 456-9519 Far. (6121 456-9542 Mr. Paul Krauss Chanhassen City Ha11 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Uinnesota 55317 RNK: srn Enclosure Dear Paul: Pursuant to your request, enclosed please find proposedFirst AEendEent to Sewer Facility AgreeDent in the above matter. RE: Lake Ann Interceptor Asreement ery LL, TUCHS, ON SCOTT sonN RECEIVED DEC 041990 CITY OF OHANhASSEN Yankee Square Office III . Suite 202 . 3460 Washington Dri\re . Eagan, MN 55122 THIS AGREEIIENT, made and entered lnto by and between the IIETROPOLITAN cotNCIL (hereinafter rthe Councilrr), the UErROPOLITAN I{ASTE Co}flfRoL cotilfssloN (lrereinafter ithe Conmlssionr), and the CITy OF CIIANHASSEN (hereinafter ithe Cltyrr). WHEREAS, the Council, the Conmission, and the city have previously entered into a contract entitled nsewer Facility Agreementrr dated l,larch 19 , 1986 (hereinafter rtthe Contractr') i and WHEREAS, the parties desire to anend the Contract. Now, THEREFoRE, the parties hereto, in the joint and separate exercise of each of their pouers, and in consideration of the mutuaL covenants herein contained, hereby agree as follows: Section 6.1(A)3 of the contract is anended to read as follows: A provision applicable to any future subdivisions designatingrural service density standards of one residential unit perten (10) acres in general rural areas and one unit per forty(40) acres in agricultural rural areas subj ect to variances as nay be pernitted by Law. The parties recognize that thisprovision nay include elements to address unconstitutionaltakings, hardships, and unigue circumstances. The city agrees to adopt, after review and acceptance by thecouncil and prior to August 1, 1986, the above described comprehensive plan auendments. l{otwithstanding any otherprovisions of this Agreenent, no use of the facility as atrunk sewer shall be pernitted until the City has subnitted and the Council has accepted the above described plan anendments. IN wITNEss WHEREoF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day of , L9-. FIRAT il,IEITDI,IENE TO 8ETER ?ICILITT IGREEUENT Approved as to forn UETROPOLITAN COI'NCI L BY:Its Chairperson Approved as to forn Its Executive Director TTETROPOLITAN VIAS?E CONTROL COMI,IISSION BY:Its cha rperson AND AND BY: AND Its Chief Administrator CITY OF CHANHASSEN Donald J. Chniel, Uayor Don Ashworth, City }tanager -2- i^)SE}'ER TACILITY AGREENEITedd/ B' rP'e THIS AGREE|EIfI, aadc end cntcrcd lnto by .nd bctr.ccn thc ,iETRo?oL|TAN COullClL (hcr.in.ft.r "the Council,r)r thc AEfRoPoL lTAx YASTE CONTRoL ConllSS101{ (hcrcinrfter Ithe C{rilrionrr), lnd thc CITY OF CHAIHASSEX (hcr.in ft.r 'rthc Ci ty") . I{HEREAS. thG Council end Cqrnisrion, folloning rcvicr .nd .nalysi3' h.vc includ.d in the Cq ri3'3ion'3 1986-1990 o.vcloFlcnt Pro9r.t! pl.n3 for thr eonstruction of . grrvlty intGrcePtor lcHrr along thc LrkG.Ann - Rcd RocL Lakc routc as gcnerat ty dePictcd on Exhibit A lttachcd h!?ato atrd-oadc--+ taF{, - --- - hercof. to convcy :cmgc froo thc L.h. Vlrginia tift 3t.tion to thc Purg.tory Crcck intarccptor; .nd IJHEREAS, the dccirion to build the L.kc Ann intcrcaPtor uas ia Plrt br3cd on raprcscntations by the City thst if that Portion of th! intarc.ptor lying rithin thc boundaries of thc City.nd north of T.H.5 (hcrcinlftcr 'rthc fecility'r) yould 3ilrultancously 3erv! a3 e connirsion intcrceptor and a locrl trunk rarcr for th3 city, thc city rould Pry for. Portion of thc ProjGct 3art3 of thc t.cility wcr.nd.bove lt9 sAc ch.rgr cost contribution .nd th. city yould furthlr agrce to D.kG nec.saary aocnalncnts to lt3 cctPrchcn: ivc plen' carprchans ivc rcrer plrn and official Gontrolt to "nturc tha .voidancc of preoaturc grarth or urbani:ltion in tccordrnce uith Couocl I Pol icica; rnd . IJI{EREAS, thc Counctl' thc CcrElis3ion .nd thc City h.v. .gr.cd th't thc Flcility can be d.s i tnad and u3cd 3iEultaneou3ly e: I ca-!irsion interceptor s*er tnd a local trunk 3Gir.r for thc City; xol{, THEREFORE, thc P.rtics hcrGto' in the Joint end rcprretc exercirc of clch of thcir pwcr3, and in considcration of thc Eutu.l covenants hercin containcd, hcrcby lgrec 13 follorG: .l SESTION I. REC I TALS ) l.l) Council and Connrissioh - Pur3u.nt to fiinn. St.t. SGc. 473.U6' thc Counci I tras .dopt"d . CaPr.ltcllsivc Sarar Pol icy Plrn for thc col lCctlon. trcltlrcnti and disposel of 3e!gc in thc iatroPol ltan arGl. tlinn. Stat. Scc. l73.5ll .uthori2es thc Crrrrli33ion to rcqui?G, con3truct. cquiP. ..int.in .nd operlte !ll intcrceptors aftt tr.lEtcnt rork3 necdcd to iaplanrent thc Councilrs Ccrnprchcns i vc Sser Pol icy Pl!n. 1.2) Lrk. Ann lntlrccptor. Chanhtstrn Scorrcnt - ThG Council ahd --Cornirsion havc. cicte.rnined ttrat the tacility is necer3.ry for rnd th.ll bc constructed Pursuant to the Counci I rs Corprehensivc Sciar Pol icy Plan rnd the Ccnais:ionrs 1986-1990 Dcve I ogricnt Progrrr. This rprk i. to bG utrdertrhcn pursuant !o th. coflrri33iont3 Projcct ilo. 82-53. I.3) Citv Scncr - Thr City h.s pllnncd thc con3tructlon of r trunk 3a,Gr along th. genc l route'of thc t.cility. Thc City h.r d.tcmincd thrt thc Joint urc of a ringle rercr plpc to be con3tructad, orrncd, .and oPcrrted b), the Cmiesion lri ll 3.tisf y ccrttin rorer lcrvice nceds of thc City. ThG City agrcc3 that it xill conduct tll procecdings nGca3sary under lrv rnd ordinance 3o .3 to .uthori2c it to p.rticig.tc in thc cost of the con3truction of thcf.ci I i ty. l.l) Construction - ?he intcrccptor and trsnl r6rer ean ba con3tructed.t e riaglo pip. .nd thG dc.ign of thc F.cility .nd lts constru.ction c.n bcat bc undrrtlkcn b, thc Cqrtli33ion. sEcTt0ll 2. FtctL,TY COilSTRUgtt0X IID CAPACtTy .2.1) Flanr end So:eiflcatlonr - ?hc Cmlrrion hrs rct in d a canrulting rngincer to prcp.rG. pl.n3 .nd rpccificetion3 fo? thG con3tructlon of thcFrcility. ThC plan3 .nd spcclficrtion3 fo? thc tacllity 3h.l I laclu.l. .dequ.tc d.3 i g,rcd ceprc I ty to cn.blc th. Cityr3. u.G ot thc t.c,l ity t. .p.cifi.d la thislgr.tacnt for trunk 3crrcr psrpoass, rl r,Gl I er uI of th. Faclllty a3 aEmi$ion I ntsrceptor. ?hc Conlrrlon 3h.ll d.slgn thc Frcillty to prorrldc crpeci ty for 3aturatcd dcvcl oF.nt of thc l.ad rithln thG clty trlbutary to the Feci I i ty. Th I r cepec i ty :hrl I be dGtcrai ncd on or bcforG Eoi rt ion rpprov.lof thc pl.rtt end :pccificrtion3 for thd F.clllty. Sgcctfic.lly, th. t.cilityrh.ll, .t. linluE, bc d.3igncd rrlth 3.3 ellllon g. ort! gcr dry (.rllcD'r) pceh crp.cl ty tor gity trunk rocr urr. Thc Coii:ion:rgrcer to .l lar th. Clty torryrrie end cE nt on tlrc plrnr tnd ipeciflcetloa. tor thG Frcllfty ao aa toiarure thtt'edaqu.tc trunk rorGt e.p.cit, 13 provid.d. Iotni thrtridi ng enyo!h!r pro\rlalons of thia lgrCtrecnt, the CGl3slon rhrl t bG tol.ly nrponriblcfor approvl ng plens end spcclflcrtion3 tor thc Faclllty. Z-2, Contrrct Adninistrltion - Ercept .3 hrrri nrfter pro\rla.d, thct.Eility conslrsct i oo contract rhall bc .rclualvaly a6ini3t.r.d by th.gE6i33ion, rnd thc E+.ni$ion agr..3 to c.ua. th. con3tructlon p?oj.ct to b. cEEp I ctcd in lccard.nc. rith th. .l€ign plans rnd thG Gonfor-Dlng conrtructioncontr.c!. ?ht Cai:sioa rhrl I prwidc . r.r id.nt cag i occr to tsperai3r !h. Frfom.nca of thc Frk, lut th. City ?.y Inspcct thc a.tr?irlr to?, .rd @nrtructlon of, tic Facility rt any tiaGr and !.y r.qucst th. co.Di.3ion torequire thC contractor to perforE any D|rt of th. contract ln .cclrdancc yith its tcras, and to anforcc rny proniriofi of tia contrtct necas3try !c obtain ruch pcrforrence. ?hc Cai$ion ?.t in3 sola.uthorlty to rlataflln rtrGthGr contr.ctor pcrforE ncC i! coas i ltent rith tlrc tctE of thr csntrac:. " sEgTr0x 3. PROJECT FINANCIXC L 3.1) P?oicct Costs - ThG City.gr'Gcs to p.y thc Cmission th! 3l.Er of Four Hundrcd Eighty-irc Thourend 0oll."3 (51.82,000), logcthGr tith intcr.st .tthc r.!e of nine pcrclnt (93) pcr .nnlrt on thc out3t nding b.lrncr. as its 7( ahlre of thc coit of con3tructing thc tacility. lntcra3t 3h.l I bcgin to acc?ue a3 of the drtc thc Ccr lission alrards thc contract for construction of thaF.cility. Thit obl i9!tion rhrll be peid in tyenty-onc (21) in3t.llncnts pur3uant to thc dlbt scrvice schcdula att.chcd hercto as Exhibit B and incorporatrd hcrcin. Thc fir3t instrllnen! shsll be in tha uount of 5&3,380.00, pGprcscnting interGst .ccrucd to thG drte of such plyrEnt. Thc?.o!inihg plynents 3h.ll bG peid ln 20 alual in3t.llDcnts of 552,801.40 rnnually tor ty.nty (20) yaars. Thc City Dly pry thc out3t.nding princip.l blllncc !t.ny tiae. lf it doC3 30, it Hill p.y int.rcst on thc out.t.nd ingprinciprl btlanca pro rata fro{D thc prcviour imtal lDcnt alatc to date of 3uchp.)4nent. Thls obligation 3h.lI con3tltutc . ch.rgc prytbl. to the C ti3sion undcr tlinn. Strt. Sec. \73.521. 3.2) ln3tlt ln.nt oat.s - ThG fir3t in3t.llDcnt p!),acnt .h!l I ba duato thc gcltrlti33ion on thc d!t! onc ye.r follotring Cannission ar,lrd of thecohtrlct for construction of the tlcility. lll aub3cqucnt payn.ntl rhell bea.dr on or baforC thc .nnivcrrary datr of thc flr3t p!F!ent. Pryrcnts 3hEll br creditcd to thc rcduction of thc priDcip.l .Dount ln .ccord.nc. ylth Erhibit B. 3.4) Accclcration of P!).rtients - lf rny dGfrult i3 ladc in the p.)aent of lny instlllncnt, tha Co.nii3sion E y.t its option .nd upon thirty 6O) aeysy?ittcn noticc to th. City, clGct rnd dccl.re th.t thc GntlrG unp.id Drlncip.l.rount pry.blc by the tcrns of thl3 AgrlcaGnt 3h!ll bGeac imrcdirtely duc rnd payable, lnd 3uch d.bt nry thcrcupon bc col lectcd by ruit or othcr Lcgslprocaedings. Thc City shal I hevc thirty (30) drys frq! delivery of notice to curc thc dcfaul t. 3.9 Confcssion of Judoncnt - The City harcby .uthorizes lnd _cnpor.crsany lttorney at l.rr to appear for it in rny court of record in thc Stata of llinncsota on dGfault of payrDcnt of any iBt.lhDcnt du. pursulnt to thi3 Agrcsrcnt and thcreupon to ylivc l33uance and scrvicc of procc33, to confGs3j udgrDrnt .gain3t thc City .nd ln frvor of thc C@i3rion for thc principsl itaof thi3 obligltion, togcthcr yith intcre3tr cg3t3 of ruit and rcaronr-ble attorncyr3 fccs, end to rcle.sc lll errors rnd yeivc all right of appaal.Prior to entering r dcfault judgrnent, hancvlr, tha Crrlairsion 3h!ll glve th. City thirty (30) days .dv.ncG t.ritten notice of lt3 lntcntion to do 30. sEcrr0x l. or{xERsHtP alD usE l.l)ovxERs H IP OF THE FIC I L ITY -?he Ccrtni rr i on 3h.l I b! thc 3ol c orncrof the Flcility.nd shalt ba responsible for lts operationr lEintenrnc.. . rcpair, and rGcon3truction. The Coltlnission 3hal I opGr.tG and-.arintain thcFlcility in good, rrorking order. tnd thall preservc ahd Eaint.in that portionof the clpacity- of th! Facillty.3 dcsc?ibed hcrcin for u3G by thc glty .3 . n\ 3 ( 3.3) ConnGction Charoe - Thc City c!y, to the Gxtcnt el loycd by lrr,rstablish r connection ch.rg. in opder to providc aoncy for pafnant of all or !portion of itt nonetary obl igstions undcr this AgreclDGnt. taiture of thc City to institutc a conncction chrrge for rny pcason xhltsoGvcr 3hal I notrelicve it of thc obl igltion to !.kG plyDcnt3 undcr thir Agreclrent. trunk 3arrer. The Cdlligsion rhrll not bG rc3ponsiblc for con3tructioh, opcrltion, lrintcnance, rcpair or ?Ccon3truction of rny conncction to thGFecllity yhich i: not conrtruc!.d by th. C6t|iision .3 p.rt of Canrierion ProjGct 82-53. 'f., Citv u3c - The City rhill b:.uthorized to a.lc u3e of thc frcility.t . trunk 3Gt,!r for e ainioun of l.l HGD pcrk crp.city .t 3uch locrtionr rs!.y be.uthorizGd by thc C{lrl3sion .(which .utho?iz.tion .h.l I not bG unr..3on.bly vithhcld), con3l3t.nt rlth th. prwirionr of thc City'3 taprehcas ivc Plrn rnd Cmprehanrivc Scrcr Plrn. and thc dcrign.plrnr for thcFeclllty vh.n .rG.3 trlbutrry to thc F.cll lty trc brought ylthin thc Cltyta urb.n lcrvic. ercr. Thc Clty rhel I rpply for r eonncction perarl t for elldir.ct conncctlon3 to the F.ci l lty .nd 3h.l I corply yith thc Ccrmi$lonrr tCchnic.l tnd enginccrlng rcqu I rcrtcnt3 for 3uch connection. lll cort3 of tuch connlctibn! 3h.l I b. plid by thG Ctty. f., lndcnnlflcatlon - ?hG CIty .gr..r to lndaanlfy .nd hold h."!lcisth. g6!l3.ion. ltr eaployec., or rgcntr frcn and rgtin3t .ll claiD3, daa.gcs, lo3rGr rnd cr(pcn3c3 r including attorncyra f.et. attributrbl. to lny claiEsrrgrrding u8il+a{Cao of thc trunk tcire? Gapaci ty in th. tacltlty. P#r/ifr>\rr stcTr0x 5 Rt GHT-oF{AY ACqUtSlTt0x 5.1) Duticg o? Cltv - Thc City rhall ..ti.t thc C@t..lon ln .cqulrlngth. nc€cssa?y p?oprrty .cgui3ltlon3, rights of. .ntry rad other propGrty I ntcrG3t3 or pcra i tr n'-3dcd for con3truct i on of th! F.citlty .nd th.t portionof thc L.kc Ann lntcrccptor lying y,thin th! bounrl.r iGs of thc E,lty. Such.ssistancr shel I lnclude. . l. Corwcyanc! to thc C@ia3ion Hithout chargc, of ell orscnrn!3 ne, orncd or hcpciasttcr .cquircd by thc Clty along t.t!c final routc of !h.F.ciIlty .nd thc L.k. Ann lnterccpror. B.Corrvcranca to thc C€Git3ion, rithcut chargc, of any Gs3caant! I ocatcd on propcrty 6rncd by thc Cit, ylrich ar. dctrnintd ncccsstry by tJECcoi:rion for soastructlon of thc Facllity or !h. LrkG Ann I ntcrcaptor. Approv.l and lstiorlzrtlon for usc, yithour chrrgi. of pubt ic rightsof rly Hlthin thc City .long the fin.l rourc of th. t.cil ity rnd thcL.kc Ann lntrrccptor. c. D. Eoog:rttion yith the Ccnui:rion in ecouiring .r.G!.nts or othc"propcrty interGcts f rcra govcrlacntal 3ubd iviri ont, bu3i nes3 Gnti ti cs, .trd prlv.t. iadividuelr dctGnri ncd DrcGs3lry by thc C@irslon for construct ion of th. t.cility .nd thc L.kc Ann lntG?crptor. 5.a Publ ic Purpose ?hG City riipuletes .nd agrGc3 th.t construction ofth. F.cility i3 for. publ ic p0rporc .nd th.t .cqui3ition of propcrty thcrGforGir ncccssary .nd .uthorizcd by ler purruent to ,linncaote Stetutar 1981, Ch.ptc? I17. I r( sEcil0r 5 LAXD USE PLAIITING AIIO CO*TROL 6.1) cr;rth Control -- ln.ccordlncc t,ith the Couhci I'e llctropol itan Dcvcli oFent trrmlyork and .pplicablc pol icy plan3. thc City agr.c3 to u3e it3 bcst - afforts to prcvcnt thc prcalture urbani:ation of !r!!3 out3ide the ycrr 2OOO Itetropol itan Urban Service Are. Spccifical ly, thc City .9rGG3 th.t lt rh.ll do .nd pcrforra thc follorring on or bcforG Augurt I, It85: (A) Sulnit to the Council for rcvicn rn .doptcd c6prchcn3 ivc pl.n or 3uch conprchcnr ivc pl an arlcndnents ai nay be neccr$ry to capl y ul th thetollo{ing provision3 of thi3 AgrGcacnt. A$cnd,DCnts to thc Cityr3 Ccllprchcns ivc plrn 3hsll bG suboi ttcd to tha Counci I to? rcvis and .cceptlncc pur3ulnt to thc ,lctropol itrn Land Planning Act follaing lpprovll by thc Cityri planning cqrrission ahd aftcr con3idcrrtion but beforc final approval by thc Cityra govcrnlng body. Provi3ions of thc City's eonprehenrive plan yhich hlvc bccn prcviourly .doptcd by thc City and ecceptcd by thc Councll 3hall not bc aubject to Counci I reviev and ecceptancr hcrcunder cxcapt !s Ely bc nrclssary tg cnforcc the fol loHing thrce I isted provirions: a provision that the C i-ty rill not cxcccd thc Councilrr prelininary y.!r 2000 saicr flov .l location of 1.3 llED .nnu.l avrragr f Ie, or cuch final rcrer fl* allocation aa Dry rc3ult frqa rcvisionr to thc Councll's tlctropol ltrn DevcloPcnt Franawork; and a provirion applic.blc to ray futur. ruldivirionr dcaignrtingrural service dcnsity 3t.ndlrds of onc rcsidenti.l unlt pcr tcn (10) ecrcs in general rur.l .r..3 .nd onG unlt per forty (10) ecres ln lgricultural rurrl rrerl, both ylth ainiora lot 3lze. grGrter than 2.5 acrc3r subjcct to varlanca a3 lay bG pGrrl tted by lar. Thc plrtics recogni:c thst thi3 prwision r.y lnclutl. clE'rcnts to .ddres3 Lrncon3t I tuti ona l taLlng3r hard3hipi altd uniquc c i rclnstancc3. 7h. City aEr.eE to.doptr .ftrr rcvicn rnd .ccGptsncc by thc Counci I .nd prior to Auguit l, 1986 th! !5ove-dcssr i bcd ccngrehcns ivc plrn rrncndiants. Notxith3tlndin9 any othGr prorririons of thi3 Agrcc'tcnt. no u3c of thc F.cility at r trunk 3ar!r 3h!ll b! pcroitt.d unti I thc City has Bubaittcd rnd thc Council h.s rcclptcd the rbovc-dcrcr I bcd pl an .ancndDcnti. -) a 5 ( r provision designating ! yclr 20OO urben rcrvicc rrca conlaining no hore than 24I.0 lcres of v.c.nt dcv.loprblc land rhich includcspl.ttcd lots lnd undrvGl opcd portions of ccrt.in l.rgc indurtrill holding3, but docs not includ. lrkes, strems, or othar Hrterbodia3, Hctland3, floodplains, !r.a3 rith expored badrock, l.nds in Agriculturrl Prcrervcr, public or privst.ly amed p.rk, open spsc. .nd rccr.ational lrerg, or fecllitlc3 iacludi4 golf cour3as, atr.ets, higluay3 lnd other lrnd3 utcd for public utiliti.3. (B) Fol lering Couneil rcvic* lnd Coirsion approval, th. City 3h.l I .doPt a cqBprchcns i vc 3elrer plen consiltcnt Yith thc City'3 caPrGhcnsivc plen rs .oendGd Pur3u.nt to thi3 Agrccocnt .nd cont.ining rithin lt: Cl!r''' ., ,;'1i; a deicription of tdoptld on-rit. rerage dirporal ordinrnc. provislons con3istcnt rlth. applicable rcquircncnt3 3rt fo'rth in. the Councl lrs Ccnprchcnrivr Screr Pol icy Plln lncluding Pol icics 12 through lr7 rnd Procadur. l0: .nd 2. r policy' ordinrnce and a.l&ini.trativr Progrlt! to rcduc. rtorGr.tc? lnflor ln thr r.iGr aystc! Eonslrtcnt rlth tha Cornissionr r pol icics. (C) Trrnsoit . dcacription rnd enelyrlr of th. dlff.rlnc! bctw..n thcClty'r lend uie plrn .nd lt3 zoning ordinenc. provisionr wlth rG3pcct to I t.5t3 A(l through 3) ebove .nd . rclhod .pprovcd .nd adopt.d by thc City for rcconcillng th. aro yhlch lr acc.ptrbb tc th. Council,. lf dlffcrcnt f?cm one anothGr vith ?cspGct to land uirG typa3, dcn3itic3r lnd urbln rervice tllring .nd 3t!ging. Thc Clty turthcr .9r,.e3 thrt by ltey I, 1987, lt rhell tepea I or eppropriltcly rDsnd anyofficial control or fircal dcvic. thrt is in conflict vith I tGar A(l throsgh 3) above of its eaprchenrivc plrn. 6:2)lodification - lt lr undcr3tood thrt thc glty lry in thc futur., fol loring c6pl i.hcr yith thG prwisionr of 5.1. .!end lt. caprlh.ni lv. pl.n .tad/oc capr.hcns ivc r.irr pl.n incluClng thosc proviiioaa ralatlng to ltr urbrn and rurrl rcrvi ec ar.as .nd rrrcr fl* rllocrtlon, tubj cct to Council rppro\..I of caaprahcnr lvc plen .&en(bent3 purru.nt to ,{lnn..St!t. S.c. \73.856 end Scc. 473.175 rnd Coirrion approwel of eaprchcnr I vr lomr plen .asr.iaGnts psr3uant to ,llnn. Stat. Scc. \73.513. sEsTl0x 7 SAXCTIONS FOR BREACH OF COHTRATf, 7. r)rlllr t ions on Ci rs Ri o - lt is :rprGrly .gr!!d th.t in thc crrcnt th.t thc City c@its. E tGrial br..ch or violrtion of rny prwirion of this Agrrtrtrcnt, thc Cosnci I or Cmierion aay. fol loring foruel consi.lGrrtion during vlrich thr City rhrll bc givcn .n opportuni ty to ata!. its Fosition. dclay or Iialt thc Cityrt right to usc thc t.cllity for trunl rarcr purposer or takc such othGr rction a3 ney be eppropr l att, pro\ridcd, ho.a\re?, the Councl I or tqDi3rion rh.ll not di3conncct any conn.ction by th. City to thc t.cility for yhiBh a aonncction pertlt he: prcviourly bcen grantcd pur3u.nt to Scction [.2 of this Agrcc'lcnt. Prior to rny auch dclry or liaiution, thc City rhell bG given . rC.3on.5l e tiEc yhich 3h!ll not be lesr th.n ninety (90) Cayi .ft!r noticC in yrlting of the cl.lacd viol.tion. to.chicvG ccapl iencculth thc t!ra. of thii Agrr.ornt. Xothing hcrcin thell b. conslrucd to r.aovc or oodify thG lilbility of thc City under S.ction 3 of thlr AgrGrncnt. llotlri th3t.nd i ng the provirionr of thi3 Scctlon 7.1. tne gity shal I h.vc th.right to inilirt. :uch rction or .ctions th.t thc City:hrlt dcca epproprirtc rGque3ting r judieial d.tGrainrtion of Y{rcthcr . E tcri.l brer.h or violetionof any provirion of thii Ag?eG Gnt h!3 occurred rnd if 30, hlhcther thG dalay or € I iiitltion on thc city'3 right to u3G thc flcility for trunl 3cr.cr PurPo3G3 .3 irpo3ed by the council'or coirnission or .ny othcr lction t.kcn by thc cooncil or.Cqrrisrionisapproprirtc.ndGquit.blcund.rthccircErst.nccs. *.L3I",?'i;i#";ffH?I.'::.::,?;".li:i::fiTil."m iapacity for the City. r.negoti.t. the levcl of-cost 3h.ring Hith thc City' and/or itke such othcr action .s [r!y bG lPProPriltc Yith rr3PCct to tha dc3igh of the F.ci I i tY. ? (02) An ernendnant to th! City's Pre3ent colBprchln3 ivc plan lr neccssary under llinn. St.t. SGc. \73'856 to Gnsur! conforEity vith lEtroPol itln sYstsrl Pl!n3. (03)Th.GCity'tprcrentcqiPrGhcnsivGPl.nYithrc.pcct.tothClrttcrs :pecifird In Scction 6.t (f) ot this lgrcGocnt conrii tutdr r 3ubst.nti.l dcPrrturc uithin thc aeaning of Ainn' Stet' Sec' \73.175 frdr but not liDitcd to' thc rllocrtcd racr crpecl ty for tit. Ciiy l.i3tcd in thc Y.tsr Rcsourc'3 'Ln'gcosnt DGvCloFGnt Gui de end Pol i cy Xrobcrs E end 9 theruof ' (04) Any .E.ndtrcnt to th. Cityr3 eoaprehcnrivr Plln thlt do's not . cclnpty rith lhe Provisions of Scction 6 of this AgrGC'Dsnt ' I ikcrirc constitutcs ! 3ub3tlntial dePattura fro thc y'tcr Resources ,l.Blgc,tlcnt DcvG I oF|cnt Gu ide ri th i n thG DGln i ng of ,linn. St!t. Sec- &73.175. The partic. hereto hrvc ant.rGd thi3 lgrcstlcnt in GxP?a3t rclilnec on thc 'bove-statGd f.cts.nd thc P.l'tics shall bc GstoPPGd fra denying or contcsliag thc truth of 3.id fact!. lt l. .xPrcssly .grccd th.t :f thc city failr to Pcrforo itt.-a"rrt specificrt in Scction 5 of thi3 Agrcca.nt, thc counci I Ely obt'in r court ordcr'under ,linn. St.t. Scc- \73.175 rcquiring thc City to Pcrfom thosc iiiiin. rpccified in Sretion 6 of thii Agrcln''.nt. llo rction or in ction bv thc City purruant to lny ordcl' judgDcnt ot d.etc. of any court. govcrracnul or adainistretlvc lgency rtreti -conlt i ttlt! . v:olrtion on thG P'rt of th' clty of iii provirion of thli AgrcrlrGnt' Providcd thlt if thc glty Glnnot Ett.lts oUiigations Frrsuant to Scction 3 bcceuro of such ord'r, Ju'lg'Dcnt. or dccrcc' tn: iouncil and ccnaiS3ion rhall hrvc oo obligrtion to Providc trunl 3""r lervicc to thc City undcr thi3 Agre.acnt. 7.e) Eitvts Rciedics - lt i3 exprcssly .grcrd thlt ln-thc.rvcnt thlt the Counii I orffilElEn.vJ6tltGs .ny of thG provi3ions of thi3 .irGGrient. thc City nlyr in addition to eny other rcocdy !t lav' rsck rPccific Pcrforo'ncG of th is Agrrcoent. 7 7.3) Eslsgilut at I olC - To rsslrt in thc .nfo?c'lttcnt of Sectlon 6 of tnir'rlrcd-ent, tne plr tJ;; hcrcto .greG .nd 3tipul.tG to thc fol lding findings of ftct: (Ol) The Ciii frlr rcccived frqa th. Counci I 'n 'ncndnGnt to thc councllir llrtcr Resources 'tlnagcnent DavsloFncnt Guirle. The Guide is. DctroPol lt.n sy3tGat Plln xithin thG 'Glalng.ofi tihn'-Strt' '' ' Sec. [73.855 end Scc. \73.175. EoF, thc p!r!ir3 hcrcto have Gxecutld thi3 AgrcsDrnt on thc, 1986. t%II YtTlrESS UHER aav ot"/lla/)r)'- A roved !3 to forar [4 a(o.onlpson Leo3r Coun sel, M.W .c.c. ITETROPOLITAI{ COUN By:Itr: Cha i r3on, and f^ t3s Exceutive 0 ircctor ,iETROPOL ITAI{ YASTE COHTROL co,tilssI0[ BYs By: By: By: I t3: Cha and I t3: Ch i cf Arhi n irtra xHASSEI,l t3: ,Lyor, .trdhwl!s: City /Cl.tt 8 By:- CITY ( rr STATE OF 'IINNESOTA)) ss' COUNTY OF CARVER ) STATE OF 'T I NNESOTA)) ss. COUNTY OI RANSEY ) ed and 3no to bcforc nc on b, tglb by and ,layor and City ltanaglr, rcspcctivcly' of thc City of Chanhlss.n. t{otary P The forcEoing Scvrt tscility rGan!ntAI sign c Thc_ forcao i n! D. on l\k-r-Jv t 1,/ffL o ,/ t, lgrcgDlrlt wrs_signcd and 12 lcy 6- /?1t vx{ t ,*ct . rn to bcfor nd Chairperson 8nd Chief Adninistrator, r!3pcctiv.ly, of thc ,lctropo.l itan tastc C,ontro I Cofir i s3 ion. tarY I ic Scver Faci I i No STATE OF ItI X}IESOTA)) ss' COU]ITY OF RA'TSEY ) Thc Jorcaoing-Sewgr Fae i nc on //hr-A tC. ta/$L, a itv 9r en ya ,r.'.;'RY S. i}i3!i'l i ai3l.' .: zir:: i: -,...1:. ::"r'^ \?l.i iiL;.JN Cji:lTY : {ij:cn er:p:.'.t li,'ty 7, ira, n tg bcforc ,1.-..'1 \,, !nd a Cha irperson and Executivc Di rcctor, rcaplctivcly, of Actropo I iteh Couns i I otary Pub I i LOA2OA .-.---::\ \:s/ a-hztl tine c!/oolwrc NO',IAtY P'-SllC - tli:iiiota RAI,JiY COUNIY I \y .oitrni$ioa ErrrG' Nov. 29,1986 @ I(AFEN J. ENGEUIANDI,*,iARY'tJlto . Xl}lNtlbra CARVEh GOUN?Y|t, Eir*t qg5. Staat 9 L^,;, i- l EI rr t_J w oF ,rt TT 'o ll tJJFz -a -t1z IUY J I llJ 1? - (5 -alroII L..5lJ I I iri ,!a1 I , I ! I t.. II I = f t, i.i i\. t rr-t 'l,l I I I !i !+ o ! Ir't lrJ ,.. -':\ is I : I ), -i -\. :l I l-al.: i- I . .'ti' E .l r .l t rt (, J_- , tr i ti!:i -n II.! a' I r ( 5 43,380.00 43,380.00 12,532.07 4l,507.83 40,600.41 39,502.32 38,305.41 37,000.77 35,578.71 31 ,028.67?, ?20 1' 3A,497 .52 28,490.17 26,30?.t6 23,911 .23 2i ,3.17 .65 18,181.11 15,395.55 12,029.03 8,359 .52 1.?39.74 s6t 7,408.00 s 43,380.00 52,801 .40 52,801.40 52,801 .40 52,8Cl.40 52,801 .10 52,801.40 52,801 .40 52,801.10 52,801 .40 52,801.10 52,801 .40 52,801.40 52,801 .10 52,801.40 52,801 .40 52 ,8Ci.40 52,801.40 52,80i.40 52,801 .40 52.801.4C sl.,099,408.00 1. l. 2 4. I 6. 7. 8. o 10. 11.t2. 13. 14. 1q 16. 17. 18. 10 20.A. $9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 20 Princ ip 1e 2? 21 to ?8 0.00 ,421.40 ,269.33 ,193.57 ,200.99 ,299.08ao( oa ,800.63 ,?2?.69 ,772.73 ,46?.28 ,303.88 ,311.23 ,499.?1 ,884.17 31 ,483.75 31,3!7 -?-o 37 ,405 .84 40,772.37 44,441.88 48 .441 .56 s4 82,000.00 F Ll -r I DIBT SERVICE SCHEDU!-E 5482,000 20 years 9U S52,801.10 Interest .a,f-' EXHIB:T B b% 2 3 ONGOING ISSUES zoninq code Amendnents 1. Blending ordinance 2. Rezoning BF Dist. to A2 Sign ordinance (Iow priority) Amendments to }IUSA Boundary Adoption 12190 REVTSED DECET{BER 5, 1990 STATUS Recornrnended for approval by Pcon lO/24/9O - Adoption by CCL2/90 - FuI1 inplenentationspring, 1991 Staff directed to develop scenarios - low priority Scheduled Di scuss ionl Sta f fdirected to draft a potential new zoning district ordinance -rrinter, 1991 Inact ive Inactive Schedule futureWinter, 1991 agenda Ongoing - guPrs conpleted 3 4. Tree Ordinance - Uapping ofsignif icant vegetative areas 5 Rezoning 2l Acre Lots to RRDistrict Other Itens 1. Conputerize land use files,permits, conditions andexpiration dates on aparcel by parcel basis 2.Reappraisal on wetlandissues, ordinance and mapping in conjunctionwith stono water manageBent and water quality plan Definition of structures Shoreland ordinance 3 4 comprehensive Plan Issues 1. Conprehens ive Plan Update Future Use for Areas Outside the MUSA Boundary 1995 study Areas - work effortto begin after adoption of new conp Plan Staff processing a positionpaper to review rretlandordinance and enforcenent Budgeted noney for update 2year timefraDe or storn lraterutility fund Winter, 1991 spring, 1991 5 6 Flood Zone ordinance crading/uineral Extraction Review legislation and ordinance pertaining to group hones Variance ordinance and procedures 9. ordinance revision dealingwith lots accessed bYprivate driveways 1,0. ordinance revision dealingwith requirement to Postsigns of notice for developrnent 11. zoning ordinance Anendmentfor satellites on Recreational Beachlots 12. structures below oEWII must have a pernit. 13. Revision of ordinancespertaining to antenna torrers. 15. Rural Area Policies - ordinance changes stenningf fron revised l,letro council Policies 16. ordinance amendnent dealing with shops selling adult naterials. 14. zoning ordinance Amendment required by city Council regarding perfornance standards for parking Lot setbacks and requirement forbuffer yards in foP District. winter, 19 91 ordinance adopted Ilinter, 1991 Adopted by city Council Approved by cC on 3/26/90 Adopted - signs to be acquired PC Review on Nov. 7, 1990 PC Review on Nov. 7, !99o 7 winter, 199L - --'- tigt" 's,r " urr on' Stut.' ar d'F a Ec* b Drrbatlra Frdrcc olr rq1no6 Dootrbra h rtartan Ranrr. - . suburbs scramble to limit sex shofs lQties lke Ramsey shoc'ked to rearnthat sex seils in the suburbs, too,.-.!rn*iilr- ffilffiffiHcodcalhlt rrlas rrhilc i( drafts irr ordinancc. ' rr aouos oo*, praycr trcups rYt tllicrld rix drys 8 weel . _rsi& rhc rxoricnitd booksorc io Ranrcy rDd Drard for it to roalry. So fir rbcy h8vca't hed riv orc luct thu havc city oftciali rc rl,t nrbutcd yhen lbcv eslid,'.r;u{r !o or&r ir ro to rwri. ,6 lnrcy's pnrdicaraent has! ,vidcd a lcason for othcr i--5uten citicl whcrt officialstrvc Eldom thouSbr ro.block rh.rfiivrl of lcr{ricotod busincsscs ffi#FHffiruffi-*ru 'wc-ccneinlvJ1lrtr'r rrar ro bc ir r ffim,i]fJ$* #-#flffi*'ffiffiffi..,'ousrD6les. lrul r ta monthr rro ir a.lopl-cd atr ordhanc. rb:r ttrfrqs Frir[cy rnd grooklvn prrt ercthc di.sunce thal such hrsincssq - *onu[s;; ;rd1;;ii-"iJ'iirmusl bc from churchcs, rchoots, Ri;c"-E;-irft;il;il#.Xrr-dry€re ccorers sod r*idcarist' : - .io uu"irJil-l#ii'iiiifJ' Drvid Gro$, rn rsi$rDr MinncsDolis city rnorDcy xbo h8rrlprls.Dlrd Oe city in hiel chrtlsn&s !o it3 sci.orici'rca zonimoflli8lsog trys fhaf suburten 3ovcramcat havc bcra rtoirs in Dol frci[g Acls tsDsr. arri.Ilv affcr ctrotu fo rstdct thc' mfl?ilTiiff"o, -Tbcy cbGc ro tum rhcir hcedr radrrDoI! it ard aay ir carl bapDcD Sh'. conrilu.d oD Detc 68 5ll, r-r n-a. lls StOfg conrhrcd aon p3: tB bed - while it w8s happsdng,- hc said. 'To thinl lhar oaly thc 5ig citics would havc 6csc busincsscs is absolurcly naivc, wbcn r subsrrDtid, ,mounl of businGs for tbcsc pleccs was eeneretcd &om ruburten alrslomcrs " Criuns have gencrrlly uDhcld rhd righr ofciri6 to cDad such ordinanccq rs long rs sucb busines.scs rre givcn 'trasoniblc oppoflunity" ro locatc somestcrc in town. Bur Rams.y, tropulaton 13,ffi, it leaming the bard ray tbat oDce I city is caught virh ils ordiMDccs doryD, ' things csn 8ct out ofoontrol in r hurry. Officials there rrcre quitc surprilcd when a pizzs pador oa Hwy. t0, thc city's main dra& Dcxt to ! dayqll ccntcr and lcross from r churcb, rcopencd in April rs Oc Amuscmcal Crorer, r scx{riantd bootsorc rad peep show busi.Dcss. PickeE root up rheir posts in Aiont of the booksloE rnd thc Citv Oou.Dcil hurricdly .nadcd 8n cmci:cncy ordinance msking ir a misdcmcanor to run a scxorientcd busilcss in ro*'Il unril ofricials bed time to Dreparc a propcr ordinabcc. Stae Lv pcrmits montoriums on land uscs for up lo 2h )€a$ ife city is rllcrdy studylng zonlng plrDr Tbe cmrtcncy ordinancc did['t lsst long bowcver. Within a couplc ofrl ircels thc AmuscmcDl CcDlcr lrs bact in busilcss, rirr a fcdcrd iudrc rgrccd wiih thc boolnorc! orr-cr - thet cnforcilg th€ odiurlcc rpDcarEd to Yiolete lha First A-EerdncoL Tbe city irDcDdrd its ordi[scr to Eslrict .cr.oricDlcd bubcsscs fiom loclting wirhin 1,000 ftct ofcinif[ busincsscs end of incomntiuc imirutionr" and wiriia iso ftcr of Esidcntial lrEas Thc jud$ co.tod hc' llmporary irjuDaiou rgeinst thc crty, rayi[t sbclhoughl tbc ncw ordinrace would pess coDstitutiond munff. Now, it! uD to rD ADolr C.oulw distridjudgc o dccid. whcrbcr io ' gnnt thc city's rtqucsf to cdorre tDcoer ordinencc by rdcring rhc bootnoE lo moYc to aJsDinad leStoD. R$drI Tiguc, th( alomc, rElrrsetrring bootstort owarf, lrrrv HolEbcrg. hls esked Judrc Drnicl- I(rm[c],rr to dismirs rhc ca!., ayirg the bootsrorc rzs ora bcforc Ramscy caaacd its ordirene. Thc city is disputing rhc 6ecnine &tc rDd says that evc! if it did orn bcfore Oc ordinancc wrs rscd. Holnbcrg h8dtr't irvcstcd cDoush moncy in it by ttco ro prwcnt fLc city from cDforcing tbc ordinrncc. - While thc judge poodcrs rhc Ertrcr. Esidcas rrc still rilcd up rbout bcinr,uct with tbc bootstore, nlich is - doiry r thrivi4 busincss. Tbct busincss dso bccamc r political issucu ltrc rtccot mryoral clcctioD" A couplc of rtcls bcforc the clcctioa, Holmbcn put up sios l outsidc his boolstorc cndorsinr Mayor Grry R.cinenn. HohbEn xouldD't 3D.aI wirh a rcmncr- bir TUue s8i4 'l rhinl 0{olnbcri) owrs e gat dcal of his succcss to Mivor Reimana. Mayor Rcimann bas 6ccn bchind &c cffgns b closc hirn dow&stich has, in &ct, giv him &r morc ia rdvcnisig thm hc could possibly buy. lt's dom rondcrs for his hrincss." Jin Gilbcnsoo, r bsr oplcr wto rarrg. in.r RciDatrD, rool &c oDDortunity to blstrtet rhc bwD with campaigD brochurs thal iDclud€d s phorograph ofrhc boolstorc's rirn dong with a piaurc of e dgn cndorsiry Gilbcnsoo pur up by Ocdry€rc crDlcr Dc door, Tbcn somcbody rmeshcd oac of Holmbcrg's 3isDs, r Dortable lishtcd billboerd Holhbca rold poti; hc'd trrD a pictup truct Dcarty on thc ni8bt lbc YaDdalism occulld. Policr invcstigstcd eDd drermiocd rhtl $c licsasc platc aumbcr metbcd Rcimann'r, dthoutb rhc dcscriotios ofthc trucl resn't cvcn closc- - Thc casc hls b..n ttlinrcd b rhc Atrotr County Sberiffr DeDaflDcDr rvtich roul commcot Hoi,cvcr- Remscy Policc CLicf Uifc f,usoos rrid thar, !s fr.r $ bc is conccra'cd- . Rcimann is nor I ruspccl Suspca or not, 'I got rrcwe(" reid R?imaDq who losl by 900 votcs.{ Some piclcls dso fch victimizd I 8nct HolmbcB Passcd our flicfi ro his crrstomcm listiog their oarEs' SdCrBscs and ihon€ Dumbcrs. I Holmbcrs hims.lf had rcponcd a roashod wbdow end hang-up ealls ( s.r.ot pJ,..ar. ,...ivcd rouadl thc{loct haag-up cslls rrd .t t rcponedly had the tires on tbeir can' slashcd- Ooc pickct called 9l I whcn a dclivcry rruit pullcd up ald rticd lo hing hsr thfrc pizrs thrt shc lidn'r ordercd. A-u Apple Vellcy man uns rllcat d Sntcra likc many oucrr, bhDct lh bdotstorc oa ciry of6cids' ilrction.' Msry fccl lhat lhc city iiotdd hlYe ; &rcd s ycar !go, r,hstr r locat bar : runcd rcanring nu& ducir& . Said Minncapolis' Gro|s,'Do '!hey ' r[inl thcrc's e fuademeotal di.ffcrrDcs iD c,brnclcr bctr'tc[ : pcoplc who livc ir citica rod l,)oca : wbo livc in ttc ruburta? Tbrl rtrc opcrstiry on rhat aupgoriti,>r Thafr footish" : Mrry Jo Synrlrz, rhc e=lrir;*.rPt aiyr ahc iDoLrtd! ir to blue. fu, 'a,,. Heading towud ahome inNaples,Ft, Mye$? Rel ax XraueArda$.nnour.B dE kaftl !d gnuah Vills bilt dth tu K'A Edity ym\t horm hors$ ytrrf qplVib m bcad in hunain hte r xttast plmnd nidalid cmnudtJ cmwiiatly lootd numy barm l{rpclId lt xFt fdotmhrd bHridlolhs hchduc {?7. i Suneate Villas Almrrrdoda*fodiybnalEpbrd ElptrLpldtdIISlt JVL FlNra\* Ul(Es'====ff( ( Ba r ( ) )! ) ) ' J J ) , ) ) -) )):) -t ) I r .raol J -.,ao:l)) _t _, C' - oG a o rnd focd 3!00 ricr hc plcadd guilty to making !':-;i;; ,hurrc calls afur ooe protcsta had thc phone colopany tf3cc cr-lls madc to her phonc. Hc told policc he'd Sotlrn rhc numbcr ftom tbc bootstoE. hotcslcrs quit piclctiry thc rtotl il Juuc affcr HokrbcB lirolcd pest lbcm Yirh a bokilcrcd gun rlulg ovcr his shouldcr. Tbeir protcst now consisr of Oc &ily raycr vigit wbicb is orllsiz.d by mcmbcD of two cDurcbcs. Mcanwhitc, cnrdlmctrl i! dovn st rhe &r€rc crnLr ncxt door, lnd I 7: o: :, .- :