Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout100608 City Council Work Session - SCALE Transportation Module 110/3/2008 • rd -_~ -~ -t - - yy ~~ a i P p. _v j ~~ ~R: ~ .?~ ~~ k.y3+~ .r t r ~~ X ,~'; ~'~-'th 4 t ,;, I ~t S ,~ " Y. - ~~.' r. "~° ar __ ~•. .. 5F' ~QQ~~ 'nor {'.3 py ~ S V_ H `3~. ~, 'ii 4 ~ Y ~ Yom, ) ~'[ . ~x i- ~ ~~- ~~ 1 t 1 ~ ~ -q ~ - - t ".. o-~`r~ _ _ _ ''-'rat y ~ ~ ~ ~ i ..- ~ - ~ rg - ~ .'44 ~..z _ _ ~ i it ~ ~ ,~ i ~ ` ~ i ~, a ' ~~ ~ - _ ~ -. _VK. v~~ ~ '~ r f ° ,~ -r ~ ~ :I~ a r . ,1 3.. h~ 7 _ S ~y ~ _ ~~ ~~`' x.~ ~° ~, ~~•: ~~~~ r~~ ~~~~ =`e ti ~s r.; ~ s: _ ~, -R'~~ _ ,fir ~ ~ S ~` S ,,,, ~~ L . 'T i^ _:~ t ~~' ~` ;t rs ter- ~ ~ ..,~ r y ~i .,-~~,--~ 7 •t ~ i _ -2~ # ~ r ~ ~ ,~ a ~ ~ ~ Yom` 5 ~ t ~ ~ji~ ~ ~ ~SCALE~ :.I r • ; ,; - ... ~ .: ~. .- . 4~ I • 10/3/2008 • • • ~ r ~ , 7 .' r ~ r ~e _ ~ ~ ~r `- ,~, .~- '~ ~.'`. -. cunw,~ .~ ` i:' , r 3.. ~ ~'`t. Shakopee Mde~rakanton ~~-~ k ~,-_ y,. ~ -'~- ,r~ ~ ;-, ~ ~' ~~ Sioux Community ~~;~~ _ Q ~ o ~ ~ ~, ~'~ "1-,t ~ t` ^^ ~ ~, F :Sr ~ ~ f • _ ~~t ~~ ~ r ~ is z 'L i ~ f ~ izf -' 9~r1 hH '4' - ` F~ =c '~--- ~ SC ,~ -- . _ ~ : ' ~_ t s - 3. ~x +.5 '~~ _ C r~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ti i ~ ~/~ ~~ lid EiI 1i1 li ~7~11~ r,P. F.r' ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ 2 10/3/2008 • • • ~- 6 { c'~ Y ~ ~ 1' ~ ~yy~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 rj ~`~ ~ ~ 3 r ~~' ~ r ' -~ _ _ ~. :, > _ ,'. -', '.- I ~'~ - -~-~.~~ .~ 3-'' s ~ ~ '~ ~ * ` 3 x _~ , ~ . y ~a-,,, i i4~ r ~= f x ~ ~ ~-- 4. r ' ~.~ ~§ ~ , ~ ~¢ ' :t Y- t '~ '~ti r t s .~ • ~° ~ ~ ~ ~ 5• • ~ ~ y~'l~ ~ J r ~h 1 3 ~s 1 ~ ~ ! , ~ s ,r _ i, y r - .. '~ + ~ .: S L ~ ~ `v r } ° ~~~ M _ 'x Y ~ y f S `-3je wE` ~ . fix. -r' 3' ... ~ i ~ ~ 3 . } t- ` L ~4 Y ,y~ ~r _ F'~ ~ -.. - : ~ {£ "".~; ry N Z ~S ". ~ ~ t! ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~1 _~_ .4. _' ~ a ~ 7 - ~ ~ ~ i t aQ _ ;~ _ Y.` Y { J41 3 10/3/2008 • 1~ J ~ ~'~` s'ue''` ''~- 'r `~~~k :y;Y`~' ~~;:»- ti;r ~y ' ~ ' *a-'Ff ~ ~ 7~ ~~. ` ~ rte- ~~ ~: ~ d, ,~ ,,,_ 4~ ,~ c-~i ~~ _ ~_.~ ~ ~ y -- r ,_ ~- ~ ~.,_ ~ ~~ _ .~ ~~ F. f~ ~ ~ ~~, ,~ ~'~ ~ . - - i ~ -'~' s r ,~ ~~ r '" ~ :, ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~*~ _ ~ _ ~ ~~'~ r~ .+fi,~t~1~ x. zcm ~ r~, ;~ ~>, o ~ arc..:; y} .-~. a ,~ i _`~ 1 H !~ ~ 1 9 L. _ ~~ , ,, -ter ++-' a 54 .~ ~' ~ k". ~ 1 < J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~,. -~ '7~ - ~ *c ~~~~.~,~- ~,,~~-F ~, - i ~,~ ~.. r - 1 s za fiTr. 'fir -,.a 7 _ ~ ~f;. _,~ ~ i , b s, vi ~ ~ ,' 3 ' ~'a<~ ~-~ r'~ ~ y ~ a , , ~,. ~ A ) _ ~ ~ 7 3.t ~~~~ -s 9 7 iJ ~ ~ ~ _a {~~ i` t i; ~'~ }~ ~'_~ .~ a~ .,. X3+15 _.. ~>~, r 't'+ .~ ;`~ i ~, s~/-!> _ i j:, ac ,_. ~ ~ t ~. '`E' ?~ P T. ~ `~'S~'k y f JLA~.t~. ^~ '~ t - 4 10/3/2008 • ~f i :.y `:# `h'i~ •! ~S s ;.1'h -- -~.~ ~ -~ y ~ ` ~ ~ }~ „"~ ` r 13 pl .`' ap't' .. rs ~~a w ~ , 4 ~ ~ z= s b ~ t~r ± s 1 ~ i ~.-;~ ~ -s-::~ T _ - .~ ~ ~ ,°' t' i ~-; r ' a -~ Y 3 ~ ~: rk, { ~ ~ 1 _ ~. ~ os ~~~~ i i 4 ~~ "'i - ~~ :y ~ - ~_.-,y, ~ psi:, fi~ i,..4 a ~14.4ra C t.w.:_eb4 #~ r r ~~ ~ - ~~ nay t ,. r,'r. _ i~ ~''~'~ ~" ~~. ar ~t'1'~K ° ~ ~ A i~ ~~ ~~ A .~~iw ~'d '+ '° ~ ~r f4 i; ~ ~~ ~~ ~® ~ ~ eti ~.. J'~h ~ ~rr~..y~ f -~~ ~~ ~. a w _ i 31x -2 ~' u ~ ,, ,~t~ r "+ ~ v r ~ "~E ,~ ~~ i'i^' 2. c •p~ ~~ `T ~r4C ~ K~~ ~ ~ _ v ~ ] ~ f ! } 2~Yr~ ~ - Y k J -i f r` '_~ ~ f ~ ~J 3 Y ~" r Yom' ~ .,fs: ._ '~. h. - ~~ i. a ~ T 1 r - ~ ~~ ~ -~` ~~ ~ 3 n .. r~ ~.,1- 5 10/3/2008 • • .. - , L . ~ (: 1:: ~~~ 7 - K i _ _ k r ..t t e YX ~. 6wAI yy M ~~~` r 7~ ~ ~ ~ `tT r~~. - Y .~ ~ ~ I .`, Y ~; Yt } 4~ - r I I I I '~~ ~ I; ~ 7 - ~ I .., _ k T ;f I ~~ ~, .. 4 - ~! i ''~- i x •• vaw~k ~` ~ t ~ ~ y~ ~ S" .y L 1~~ ~o~~ r.~i~ , ,~ - '~a ~~~ ~~rx~~x ~_ g Pk 1 0,, ,3 j a, ;~ ,5=' ~ ~.,_ as -' _ f } ~ ~ ~ _ ~ 3~ ~ f! l ~~ IJ~ a~i !~~' ~pG .T .I ~~ iil ~ / I ~ ~ ~ ~ ' C", t n . ~ ~ n' n r Y Yz t *~ G `_ $ ti k t ~. iy "~^~- r-, -y ~~ 5, ~~5~* ~,E~i.y3;%y,,: tt -F _ 4 i ` yi ,~~ ,~ V; ~~r ~ ~,_ ~ x 'a ~ '~ SCA L E~ - r'~ ~~ 5d Y._ 6 10/3/2008 • • • _ ., ~ . ;' ~ < ~~x< ~ ~ : r ~ y ~. : - ~.,.a a ` A ~, ~• ~s . 0 f ~ ~ `o .4 '$ j J ~ . ~ ~~ ~a ~ ~ .~ `a ~ ~ ' f ~x~rr~ ~,c c - .((Cj ~ SF - ~ r , r ~L i~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ - ~ ~F' _ s - .1 ?~ $ f i t - .- r -7wC- , z _ _ ~.,. ~ ys, ,,3 =a ~ ~ k~ 7 i ;f ~ ~ ~ - _ - - Y~- :. ~ 1 ~ i .~, r~~ ~d '~ ~ - ~ 1 l 1`~ `~ ~ '{ ~ ~'~ _ Y f k . ~w ^n x'Z` fY,. x.x^S r,.i F ~ X 7 ~' f' -+a 1 ar`~`y~ ~ r ~ t ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ , ..3, k i % .z , ~ a o ® ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ 1 t° 'SS ~~ - ~ ~, ~L-, ~ ~ . ~ ; x ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ e~ sti r . - ~ ~~ ~ ~ 3 i~ s, 7 ~~~ ,mil*' F ~~"" z~ ® ® _ I ~ ~ ' i ''d ';.: t '- s •, a~ +. n ~ *-~ i '~ - ,,z _ i w'~ ~ r - . _Y t: ~' K ~ Y ~ y ~i `~ RG 1{ `Z ( 3~ ~~ ..i ~' ~f F I ~ a, 7 10/3/2008 • • U r'~ .~ :~'~. ~, ~ ~ s,. _ ; - 9 - - ~ m ~ ® - ~ ~ ~' ` ~ ~ 4 ~ w t~~ - _ ~. ~i'~ F. ~f- 2 .yam 1 .S F ~ ® ~ 1 ~ ~ ~i ~'l f' ~ r ~~ '1 ~ ~ 7 _ ~ S ~ '~ ~ ,qT^ ~ ~ i ~ ~ +', , ~ t L' } Y J rl~.., ; 1 L ~ 1 F r - ~ '~ ~ ~t y~~~~ ° ~i_f .a 3:~ _ -.~ ~ ~ i '` 1 ~ ~ t, ~ s . ~:~' r. ~a;a _ _~_ _~._ .,s:: I ~T } ~ 2 :1 S ,~ '~..'~. ~.x4 4~_. _ _ ~'. ~ 4' ~ ~ e ~ A` ~~~ 1 _~ ~~~~~ t ~~ t` j ~ ` ,'t y ~. 6 ~k ~r. '} ~ i .. ~i S.. ~ F,_~ _'S~~ Y ~ .,,x4 .~~ _ ~r E > ~ ~ ~=~ ~ ~`;'' ~, a : s ~',n z . ' ;~ ~~ jS - . CALE_ 8 10/3/2008 • • C, - r „~ y ~i ~ yY , f. ~, ~ } ~ _ ~t, N a ;:~-~ ~-~ ~' a :7 .. -~ t ~ OKs 1'y.d'r rit ,~~~ 2 T4 ~~~ c .i~J1~- fi ~ c _ ~ .., _ f ., ~ - ] !t ~ k _~ '-._ ~. ~~ ~~ ~ ~_ ! - _ f- y - a; - _ _. - ~i a - ~'. ,_ .. _ a~~ ~ ~ _~ _r tl `', ~ t ~~ _ ~ ~" ~~ X .Y ~ ~ f 5,., h tax t r .L 'i1 j 3 p` 9 '~ ~ 7 +hS ~ r ~ ~ ~ j ~ , - ~- _ -.~3. ". s 4 Asir ~ i ' ~ ~; - - - t = r t ,_ ~f ti - ~ ip,~i5 93'' i~ti ~: ti -:,.~ y ti p r: ~i ti 1' _ :fir=~°£ ,,~., ~, i i : ~ ~- r ~} 4 a ~',: SCA~E~ 9 10/3/2008 Rural Residential ^ Accessible to work, school, shopping ^ Clustered development ^ Preserves open space ^More cost effective Infrastructure ^ Lowto medium density highway network adequate .~,- =~_ ~5-~~_ ~, SGALE • 10 10/3/2008 • • • - ' k + ~ 1 ~ ~ s 7~ R '~ ~ ,y~ ' - ~ ~`~ ~ m ~ ~ f')~ it Z t s ~ y 1 c+' - A ~ '~ 3 S ~ ~~ ~ .. . _ gg~~ ! ~ ~ 9 ~ F y ~ '4 :r .yi 1 R~; } 2 } E 5 LL _ y ;i [ i b r $- ~ ~ ' b ~ 9 r ly 1 ~ ~` f_~. N .~ i' ~i - ~~ J ~ .•' ~ ~ J 4 - ~. ~1! - ~'t y ~ L 4 eqt *i Er >~ .~, 'c', ~ •~ i ~~J+ ~~{.~ ® ® m ~~~ r , u _ ~}~ ~ r . _ ~ ~ c _ ~Yl~~l ~_~ ~~~~"' '_ 7 ilk •1' i .1 y`. _ ~ .. y~ , t -_ C i 'li I,. in'a ~ ,. .1 1 :3f t V i ~ • x ~~ t . ~ ~ r 6 _: fi :ice -.R 't}"~:.; Yt :._~ ~ V 'S. _ ~ .. y ~ ' t ~! ?__,. 1h.c-r C~ N ~ I~ ir` ~i 9s ~ .~ Y 3SCALE h^~ 11 10/3/2008 • High Density Residential ^ Access to work, school, shopping ^ Can be served by transit more cost effectively ^ Pedestrian and bike facilities ^ Collector and local roadways with connectivity to arterials ^ Higher density arterial highway network ~.~~ ~~ ~. _ __ ~_ ~~ SCALE 12 10/3/2008 r~ U ~ ~ y~r _~ ~-~ ., _ ~~~ .__ -- - 7 . ~~ • • ~:. ~,i F =z`~w ~ y a ~ I~ ~ t v i ~ r„i j.~ r ~ ~`~ ~ i k i ~i ~ ` Y ~~ ! I ~ I .`i. J f `.~~ ~ ~ R ~ f 'J"` `} ' ,~.r ~k ~ t - ~~ ~ " ~ ~ f ~ ~' `, , ~ , ? - ,~x._ ~,~ t t~,z ~ _ 7 ~~ y.f ~ ~ ~:.~ F .w .. ~ 4yiY„ d.~ Y ~ 1 S r ~ a _ 5.` ~ i ~. ~ 1~ 13 10/3/2008 ~J Sewered Commercial, Industrial, and Retail ^ Good access to arterial (not necessarily direct) ^ Capacity to support very high traffic volumes ^ Accessible to suppliers (trucks) ^ Visible from arterial r~~:~. scAtE 14 10/3/2008 • Commercial Recreation ^ Close Proximately to arterial (not necessarily direct e Capacity to support very high traffic volumes ^ Accessible to suppliers (trucks) ^ Visible from arterial ~rz' SCALE • 15 10/3/2008 U • 16 10/3/2008 • • • :* a,, ,;~~ A ® ~ ®A ~s ~~ .~ ~ „' -~ _ it .F,. ~' _ =~ ~ .: ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~{ ~a : ~±..~. ~' t. Y 4 k ~.c Y ~ v H^ jf~ ~ .r +Y rd ~-,~ k '~_ ~" ~i r t~ ~ "°E ~~. ~r• ~~ ~ -0: ~ 4 4L ~'~ ~ k 17 10/3/2008 • 1~ u • ~f} '~ K a ~ = r g ~ u a c t~ _ Y~ ~4 ~ 3 -5x ` a - ,~ ,~ ~.. ~ y a _li . ~~" _.~ T. r. dC F _ J '. 94~. - - ~v~.,.%f fie:-- ~'~'~' 'f°^^.Tl'"T.4"'^~1 _ ~ ~ ~ f-_ _ - - _F a .r ! ~ ~ ~~° ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' .~'; . ~ -- - 1-- x . ~~ x_ T 1 ,._ ~ ~ .~ ~ rh i^^~ ~ `t ! ~`f - 3 om}, 'Rr ~ d a ~ s $ i _ i rt ~ ~ ' l _ _ KL ~ ~ 4 i -3 2 ~~ -2 R F ~{' 9 ~~ f ~ F r ~ ~v ~ ~ ~ : ~ a~ °~r~ ~ ~ ~~ j J f ~ 1 3 tea:°' ~ - _ - S } ~ Y .~ f~.J --r _ .`ry t,ti.~. K -tE~T~~ATI\itERLA'['FQRA7t r _~ ~ I i .« 18 10/3/2008 • • ' ~ ~ 2 fi ~-~ ~ • ~ r - „f z ~- ~ ~~~' ~ r ~ ~.* 3 -~ ~ a ~ ~ ~°~ ~ S a ~ s ~ , " ~ ~ ~` ' ~'~ ~k ,, :_ @ Pj _ ~~ 7 ~~ ~-~ ~~ _~ ~ ° ~ ,'t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2007 Co i~ 12008 ''~~'`_ - '; ` - P~ mprehensive _ Comprehensiv f an ~ _ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _` ~ I - ~ ~ ~ ~ Preliminapdate- t i, ~ ~~ ~ ~'_ ,_~}e Plan UPtlate ~ ~~. *ix;` = , '- DOC~nDra iaep TORY oe r~, . ----yy.~ 1 ~ r.-~ r r s " ~ ; 4 ~ is c-a DAN r L r_ fy ti, ~ ,,,,,.9 Sion dewak '~d' 'Y*'~ - ' ~' ~ ~ D 0 ~tY c '~~ 't.~, ~ - - _ ~ri ~ a ~- ~-~ ~ 7 ~i ~ r.3 ~ , " ~ i ,, ~ ~ ,., CitYofghako~exNE,E, '°~7x.; x 1 _ ' COm ~ehe 2030 pee's ~ ~~ ~ ~ .,f~ ' r _ ~ e~~ n Comprehensiv ~, ~ ~- } ~ t Plan Update a `~ r l ~/y .r , _ r ~~~' & : .+... , 19 10/3/2008 • • • - ,r_~ t- - 3 ~ _ , ~ ~:: ,,~ ~ ~ ~ ¢i - - _ f ~ ~i.~ ~ ~ _~. -' c ~ - - ~.. r4 '~~ ~, Y ~ 2 '~LT" off": ~ " 6 ~ C~: a ~ d ' 11 .- .~'Cp~ PL:.. tt Coun f 2030 Cornprehe tY ;.~ ~ ~~~~~. ~~ ~r~}~ ~~ update ian ® ®~ ®~~~~ ~F, ~" s ~ ~~~~4 ~_„ ~;.~ ~~ Maki `~,s,,?;-~ r : r : '~`~ .yaT~"` n. ~ ~ n9 the !/sion a Rea/ity e a R E r b~ V X 1 1 ~ ~ .~ Y,1'£", .~~.. ~ Q. .. ~ - i ' i aL _ ~ ,~3 "7 ~ ~' ~~ '-*• ~ a+rs , ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~~'~ ' ~~ ~~1` - ~ -v~~'~~~ '~' _ ` { G9 7 f ~ ~ i ~ ~ - ~ y 1 .~ ~~~ . ~ 1~ P~enaretl 6v: Seori Covnh tom t .~'. .i ~' ~ J 4 ~ ~~ ~ i. ll ' IOp.~ h vny Gm'emment Cerrter~em Dihi en ff Av<nve y~esl F. ~; ~ct~ ; r j ~ 1; _ r _ ~: YI4 Yl oueaoee. MN SSJ)9 g y ~7 ~D j ~ ~ , ] r J ~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ 1 ;'- 5{ i ~ W<b• (95314968~f5 ~ . rr~ I f i^ << I k \ f ww,<aftery,m ut ~~3 MAMA i r• ~ a ~ ',t 4 ~w~ - - r T ': ~ 1 Z ~;. -. 'fir :R a Ai '' f?'i.'a Y tS1. : r~hr , 2 .: Y a £ ti+ y f/ 1 - ~ ~ k M' ~ . ,W - J 20 10/3/2008 • 11\ • .{ t.,~~°'~~a~ 3 ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 9 , ~, i . , ~ ?. -' - ' ~ o~ ~ `~ s. y~ r,~y ~~a n l ~ a i ! ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~~ ,.: [ `' t _-C' ~~ S vl~~ ~~~. ~ ~ ° ~~ ~'~ 1 S- / ' i ~ C l ~ ~P a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~~' y .T 7.53a 6.';t~1-CI a r r 3s']" ,, ~~ - /" T rt ~a~. rt ~'h p ~~~}h f ~i~9i a~~ ~E~ -'3~ f '- ~ d:. y: ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ('°,a ~ ) ~~ is ~?~ i +r~ ~ ® ~ ~ , , , ' s~ ~~ ; ~ ! f Y`` ~ ` ~ ~C - .... ~~ TM~ ~ ~\ f .., t :~ ~ ~ n ~. a. i i i7 , ~ ~ -- ' £~ .- _= ~ _rz r~ ~4y ~: ~k~ ~ .ern _:;;~ a .: a 1- ~ r ' ~ ~,~ } ~~ ~'w v![NHesotu Stateuu{e '^ ~_ - :; .- u-~ __ ~- -_ ~~ TraNSpavtatiaH P(~~ - `` -, Twin Cities Region a Transportation Polic Plan ~„z~ ~' Y .. k ~, ~ _ ~ f:' ~. ~. .,~ +R' ? ~ h ~ '. ti iti ~'. ., -r u,~i `.l i r 1Wnou14eCmm t`"> - .. 1K.~b3 ' _N ny ~ ' `~~~~ - ¢~ f ~ ~~ ~~- 1~a Qm~ 1 ~ -~ .rte- .-~.. ,~.~ 21 10/3/2008 ~~ <~, ~ _, }~ ~ti. • • ~~`~°€~nb Crowth in Scott Cwn(y; Challenge or Oppoiiunity'> .r An Ft'v ansponation Pro~ect~ ~ fSmu Countv'. d Programinin~ 5tr.1~.Yiec (nr 20.0 d U }'nnA ~ ~- z ~~ 1f..., tea` ~~~ ,~ i .r. i ~ ~_,~ c , ~h ~ _ ~ r ~ ~ ~ n ~A '~X ]~_!~~ Il~ X11 f~ -_ .!~ S y _ ~ j -" 1 .. .. Junc2IXl6 ti ~7~ i d~r~~~~ t ? I~j ,a r~94ii5 t ~.ee t sY ~ ' ~ ~ Y ~ ~sr' ~:e`, ;$,h raw _ ~ ~ r ~' v _' by a. `~"° ti J Y.3 a~ f' [~ ! - '~ I F 22 10/3/2008 • • • ~- r , } ,'i a 7.. .. -~. £~ ~ <<.,. ~~ ,, ~,~, s ~ y a s3.r,~ n~. f~- ~{I ~r+ , . ~'1 ~~ ~ ~~t'h ~~ r, y ~ ~ ~~ ti ~ ~~ ~ ~ aj ~ _ ~ ~ ~ r K ` t _ .,, ® ~r ' ~ s1 ',~'~ a _, ~. 1 ~~_r c,y . ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~. ? ( ,~ , r ~- ~' ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ }' ~ f• et-~S!' ~ ' ~ ~ Y: ~ ~ ~ e ~ _ i y ~~ ~ ~ y _~ 1 » 7~S ~~~f t 4x€ ~1 $~ ~~k t~ -r i` rT 't ~: ~ct r _ ® ® ® _ . ~~G~~~d~7 ~ '~ t ~~~~t°_ xiv ' r ~~ - ti c~~ .. ~Ak ~~ - _ y S ~ J'3~` a l a~ 4 a l - .,~5 i ~i,. ~. ~ly-s.l}' t i ~ 1 ~i!i ~~3s'9da f ~! ~ ~ i.~ ate` .Z~ ~_ '~~k1 ~: ra i C ~ .y tv' ~,- 3' \!~~ ~'l.i _`~.~.~e~ `~ "14~ ... ~. ~ S ~- ~~i r ,fie -•. ` y 1.'V F~ .~~, ,~ ~s i~ ~, ~ ,.~ ~ a ~ , ~~ , a~~ ~ ~ ~ s s!} -r ~ s C ,a , z r y' i l 3 ~ y-~_ ~'t a t ~ '~ a ~ ~. y ~ _ ~ . - ~ . : :d `~ ~ ~ fF ~ a' 23 10/3/2008 • • • .; ~~ ~1:a 3 ~' t ~~_ ~ ~~ =~ _S ~:. ~ { +: r ~;~ '~t _ ~; lend gr mi ciaccruum k ~ ~ ~A ~: Cef - B ~- ~,..~ ~,. -° l _,~ ~~;- ~.,. .,r ~~r~ _._... __. ~'~ ® 3 M ,~~ s .,, _... _ ~- -~ ~ - -~ -~ m T,, _~ ,, ~a~ ro..,~...>...,.,. - ~ t F 3 Q vu~ross a..,.o. - -. -. .~ ~~ °-- ~~ m.,..w. , g ~ r -w.': __ +m: ti 24 10/3/2008 f 1 • - Y- l~ _ i r ~' ~. _: _. - ~ ~ ~ s ~' L ~j T d ~ ~ ~ L~ ,~~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _,?_~_ ~._ _, . - ~ .rte. _ __ _ _ _ _ ~.rrZS~~' ~ ~ ~ t ~- -~., ~ , - "- ' ,. ® r ~~ ~ ~ - i ~.' ~ t __ . ,. ~. _~ _. ~_ e~ b ' ~ a ' ~ ~ r ~ fa ~ ~'~ ~~, ~ :' " ~~-rE~"~- ' ~ _ ,+' . ,~ I ~ ~~ ~~ ~ '~ r ~ .,k t - ~ ; : 9~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ q ~ a _ ,~ _ ; ~ ~ ~ ® `~ ° ~~ `~ ® h ~ ~ { 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A f"` ~ 1 j ~ ~ ~ -.~ ~. Z ~ ': ~ i . L ~ '~ ii x i y i i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i l,~ a 1 ~ ` " } t y ~ F i~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ k_- a z - .- _ ~ a - ,. z. r:``, ~>>"" yz .. . sir .,..~~ F T r~i ~' `' 25 10/3/2008 • 11\ ,1 u • -Y ,W ~~ ~~~~ ~: ;. + ~. " i 1 r ~ - ~ ~. -:: tyw ~ ~~ £ F E cr . ;. 3h ~ , Z d S ir '7 ' S 5 . ~ / .._[ ; i D ~ l _ . K .,~ r . ~ ~ ~_ .i~t _ - _ - ,.f,._..,;~ '-Fy _ ; ' ~ i ~ , _ r v 1 ii { ~.~ 7 ~ . ~ , ; ~ ~ ~ ~ 1; l ^ ~' ~ ~ _,< .,. .. ~ 1 4 1 Aa~~ i 1,'i ,_ _~,., ~~.. ' ' ~,._,. . . , ~ . - .. ~ ~' t ~r _ _ Y J ~ L ~ ~ t t , O ( ti_ J _ ~~ a _ c. _. _ n ~_ or _., a~ _~.,. _. J q I ~ ~ ~~ ~-~~~~ ~~ d ~, q4 ~~ ~ ti , ~'.+~ ~ ~ ~~ -,~ ~~ -, t l Y }' I y _ _ Y' r ;~ y ~ } r~ yy, ~ ; s ~ _ ,J~' ~ ~ ~ r~_. '4 "}~ ~ r: ~3 ~,~ ~~ ,, ~' r s'~ x: ~r Wy'. '- - ~. fL c ~t :_`d1 ;~ __ ~ . ~~ j ~~ v uA = ` ~}. ~~~~ _... K ~G)`~ Y H ~ ~. ^r :5:" .. _. _~. ,x . ..~...^ 26 10/3/2008 • • ~"";~ ~ ~" F s ;~ ti _ • ; ~ r , tea': _ ~ ' S?s' r r a - ~ A ~ ~ , ~ ~9 ~ ~ ~ rye ..~U ~ i,~f ~Y _ ~ r _ .Y ? € ~., ~~ i -;.. ~~ ~~~ ~ r ~ f 4'. r '~ f f ~ ~ ~f- ~~.,~ a~L zf x ~ L~. ~ icyy -, ~s~ r, ~ ~Y K3~ ~3, .' (~ 7- t ~ ~ y.F t.,r~ `3 - A - ~ t -£ .s r ;°y { ~ r~ ii- '~ _ t - .: ~~ ~~~ a ~ ~~ ~~ y~ ~ s t~g ~ `r ~l e r ~ P ia~ r~ {" ~ r,~~ x "any i .. ~r?~ j_ . osF" r; ~~;. a~ l ~ n. ~ -_t j 5~ ,yam .s r~ ~ . s Y r ~ ~ "" i. ~s t i ~ ! V 27 10/3/2008 • ~} 7~ j 0 ~~ 1 it S''^~y~: N vR 4~ 5 '~"t K ~'~ E `" t , J s x '' ay s a .r ~^ s ~w r~ - r 1 {j ~ ~ y y ` l ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ - - Flit l.. ~ ~ i ~ ~ r r Y ~~ _ ~°~ ~ ~~. ~t~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ 1 ,t.^'1}d"s iisL~ 2 ~S~ / O i~ ~ J~ J 1 ~. 1 J r ~4: a A ~.C Y'g': ~ 4~ . .~ ~ 's. _ IIzh ~~ ~ _ ~ ~ i.-_ ~ , _ C .. 3 r n ~ ~ :I! ~ 1 ! ~ y ~ ~ Y . ~~~~q ~ I '~E i ,1 - T,. r ~ _ J E ~ ,y j ~ r.'~ ~~ . ~ „ y ,3 r ~ a1 ~i1 ~6~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~, x ~ a ~... ~ ~ ~ ~F !.I ) ~.` - Printi al Arterial ,}e TM- ~ .~ f..; F j ~ Q { L _. L ~ ~ ~ {' Q it },'r ri1}n F t '~=~` ~ SCALE` 28 10/3/2008 • ».Y~ 7 1 .J .. ..- . r. .~ w. • ~~ ~r y?;i 1 '^' 1'~ - ~~ ~~ -(ti ~~ { ' Y £t1 ~~ti ~,I ~ ~n y' 2A 10/3/2008 • • • #f -~~~y ~J. ~..vt 4 ~ f- ~x s i~P~'6 c ,c r a } is ~ 3 1 fY3 4 ~ ' ?.. _ l: ~$ ~ ~ jS,S 1 h f ~. r~ w ~ ,. ~ . __ ~.._, i t ~ ~~ ~ ~.~ y ~ ~ i'.. ~ t r~ ~ 1 y~ 3~ _ ~ lTt~ f ~.1 ~ at '~ 4 ~~ s~ I k F` ~ ~t ~ z + _k ~ y I 1' ~ ~ ~ f ti k~4k~ ~'~'4 'D ' ~ ~f1 ~`s a... ~~7,i ~! ~~'" i~~ ~ 1 , .:f`~ '1i ~' ~ ~ rz' ~.:i;. ~ ©y ~ ' ~ ®y 3 - ~ -_ c E`f`.-•Y ~' t~ s r i ~- '~ +'t' ` },+ ;$, _ a.a~ ., ~_, , `art ~ ~ ~ y4raP,y r ; _ t" k ski 7 { ~,~ 'f .- - ~J~~ i ,. ~ = ~ Y; ~ ti..~ -F.p ~`~C`1' 1 ::~ ~.~}~ ~ t f ? ~ i -..~, r ~ J i~~ t ~ J ~ y'' ~ s : r ~ ~ 1 ~~~r ., i ~ ~ ,.~ ~' ° r ~ ~,, "`' r ~ it x.'~. ~ r ~ ff.'s, ' ~ i ~ ) F m ; ~}. ;~ - ` ~ ~~ - _ ~,,~~~,. ~ ~~ > '~' SCALE f s ~ - 30 10/3/2008 • • 31 10/3/2008 • TH 13/CR 17 Corr. Study (TH 282 intersection) - Prior Lake ^ Only continuous N-S corridor in Scott County ^ Land use at intersection guided for commercial / industrial ^ Study recommends supporting roadway network, including frontage roads and parallel routes F _~ ~~ ~€~._ ~~:~ --,e ~,~ ~rv W 1 ~.. .~. ~;; ,~}`ri_ y ~.:~ _ E~. -~ :, - _ _ -~~ ~.~~~- scALE C~ 32 10/3/2008 • • CSAH 5/Kittson Boulevard -Belle Plaine ^ Provided access to interchange, supported removal of access onto 169 ^ Supported minor arterial development, appropriate jurisdictional realignment ^ Memo of Understanding (MOU) developed, establishing clear roles and responsibilities ~~&:~_ .. _- -~- ~. ~ r- ~~ '~-. ~r ~ x p ~: ,"f{ice `i' _ ...~~-~~ _ _ ~~ e -,~~ t ~- .~ ~ ~ .. -- ~- _- -r+~' ~' '~ ~ ~~ ~ f ~~ ~ ,~. .~ ~ I, ~~ ~. . ,~ ` - ~:~ f ;_ - {~°~~ SGALE • 33 10/3/2008 • U.S.169 / TH 41 Frontage Rd - Louisville Township ^ Consistent w/ US 169 IRC Vision ^ Removed direct access to 169 ^ MOU identifying jurisdictions roles including Louisville Twp., Scott Co. ^ Public land swap with private land owner to compensate for frontage road dedication <~ ;' SCALE • 34 10/3/2008 • Prior Lake Aggregates -Savage ^ ^ Intersection of 44/27, land use change, mining company removed material, built to grade County/city provide final roadway, land use change, frontage road for local access, capacity supports future development ~. ~, ,~ ~~ .~.>.,. ,:, = - ~. ~.., - Y ~ ~ ~` k . yam.: ~ ~ r~~: ~-2_ SIB:,. ~~'"-_ ". ~ .~... '~}t ~ C: F ~' ~~_ _ ~ d ~'f'~. - c4 ~r, 'a .. ~= r ~ ~`_ti SCALE • 35 10/3/2008 • • ^ Eagle Creek Business Park -Savage ~,r -~ Strategic location adjacent to TH 13, w/in 1 mi. of Bloomington Ferry Bridge, 5 miles of 35W, and 20 minutes from MSP airport ^ Roadways designed at 9 ton capacity, good sight lines, width to facilitate truck access ^ Signalized access at 126tH St. facilitates exiting for fully loaded semi-trailers ~:. ~~ :. ~_ ~.4.~ ..?.,_ t .-. ar,, _~~, r;; t- L, ,~ -:. :~_ ~- ~, _ ~c u~c.~~- - t' ~-~ LJ C_,u caa .11 ~'~ 36 10/3/2008 • • • 37 10/3/2008 C Eastern Alignment (Alton Ave) /Scott CSAH 15 and Le Sueur CR 144 Alignment Study -New Prague ^ Collaborative study involving Scott County, New Prague, MnDOT, Helena Twp, and LeSueur County ^ Proposed realignment is continuous north/south arterial road that also preserves ROW ^ Study foresees "development driven" construction process, i.e. the road would be constructed as development occurs in the Township ^ MOU was executed between the project partners describing the roles of each party 38 10/3/2008 • Southeast Comprehensive Plan - Elko New Market • ^ Collaborative effort involving City of Elko, City of New Market and Scott County ^ "Ultimate Urban" boundary established for future 80,000 population including Rice County ^ Met Council support and Sanitary Sewer Interceptor ^ Background for merger of two cities ^ Defined future transportation network and land uses ^ Identified need for future 135/CSAH 86 interchange and mapped land use Southeast Sco Corn ~' County prehensive plan update ,Scott r ~~~ ~ APr1I.15. 2005 z, n eh ~~~==~: scALE 39 10/3/2008 • • • 5 . ~~. ~ ..~~ _ - - ~ ~ * ~ ' - $ • E ~y~ 4 2 4' ~ ~ d rt ,+`rt- r~ .~ ~ S ti ,2. y.. d Cb ® ~ ~ ~ _ ZF M ~ cth ~ f ~ _ '~ ti x ~<, „ ,. r ~, , , a - - ~ - - J a ~ ~ i ~J ~ ~ j ' long-Range Planning ~ ®® ~ 3 - ~ ~ ~,ra~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ -----°~~ ( °' i, ~ '~ ~}` f ,: ~ ~ -' ~ .~ , ~ INodal Planning, Corridor Planning ~ I '~ i c'tl: °- f t -- ~ ~ ~'~ m Ope-ationai Planning _-___-___ ,~ R a L 5sc .•._ ____ - ~~ ProjsctPlanning - 4 - ~~ ~fQfj~ F~ i~ ~ _ o;q ~~~e ~ ~~~ 'jam ,~ ~ ~~~ f sa .~-- _ ~.sa - -, ~z „~-i~1 t 9 Y~ n ! r ~{ ~ i r ~~ ~ ~ .. 13 0 ~ ~~a ~ ~ AP.~J ~ ICI i JK". ?pcr f~a~'. S> ~t~J ~e ~~ 1 i A °~ = i~~= ~ ~ SGALE 40 10/3/2008 • • 31~ r ~~ _ ;~ ~ ~ f ~, ~ ~~ I . , a ti~ ~- ~~~~ r - - "~' ~ ~ , *~ r ~ ~' i .- - ~ ~ ~ ~A 3 ~ i I s I. ~ ~ ,~ - r _ } ~E' ~~ yam(•~Yn y I 4 .. }'A ~+. ~ LY 4 x ~ ~ ~ ~4~F h r„~~ - a 1 ,K ~ , y S _ - -i +h ~. -i I l , ~ is ~Fw~ ~l j~''3 ~,~~'~t~ - ; ~ K'f , _ I - ~' ~} I~ - ~`1 'J ~~ 11~~i~~~ ~'~'~.ad r' Bar >~ ~ ~ f -~' -_ ~'v- ~ ~ it ~! ~ ~ ~ ";~T ~ t °!t Y - ~ tF~, 'elf cv ~ _.I _ V ~re~ I i C of ~ j.,` ~ j ~ F r _ 5 x-t Ow I ~ ~`~~.~ b ~'+` -.~ s ~,. _ ~ _ sYys+~ 1 `. ~ 'c- ~ c { ~ ;;,~ s ,` i; ~C 1':J ~ I I ~~.r I ~~ ~ Floc a3~ j~ ~_e _ r . ~- ~~~ -~ ~~ \) SCALE 41 10/3/2008 • • ,._J.,..r,^ .~. E ~ " ~~ lei X, + r, y k~{ ~ - ~ a .~ , ~ ~ <^ 1 ~ ~~ ~ i ~ F ~~ ~ 3 ~ 1 1 r ~ ~ ~ i ~ ` ~~ .9 ~ . ; ,>a s ~ - ~ - ' 5 _ _. 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~JjJ ' i J ~ r °'i : P.°1 S`A'Ao,S 6~A 6~mi. , A A ~ A~ ~ P ~ ~z ~ r. YJ ~':r •.~a p` ~. S T L 1 ~ P ~ r _, ~ } r e L _ ._ ~ Y 6 . -i~~ ~ ~ }i j ~ ~ ~... ~ ~ ~ L~- '~ 7 k i" - `~} .d y ~i t ~ ~~ 1 j y ~ ,+~~ _I r ~ ._ __ l ~. ~~ _~! g 4 P r '~ a =A ~ _Y ip~~~~~~ ~:. ~ '; 'I I f 31 ~ -f A~ X5 1 r} s ~. , fit, ~n~ Y 42 10/3/2008 • TH 282 / CSAH 9 • ^ High (and rapidly growing) traffic volume intersection ^ East/west minor arterial with a Minnesota River crossing ^ ^ ^ Proposed interchange with. TH 169 TH 282 provides all local access for majority of city's retail and commercial properties Challenge: Plan and implement strategies that balance transportation mobility with development need .:i. ~~ ~l liu--.. ~L _~~.r -- ~~x V ~ m~ y ~~~ ~~ ~- ~- ._ ~.. m . }:,,#,- ~'' SCALE 43 10/3/2008 • • LJ 44 10/3/2008 • TH 13 through Savage and Burnsville • C ^ Traffic volumes from 45,000 to 52,000 vehicles per day. ^ Numerous signalized intersections impede traffic flow ^ 3 intersections in the list of top 100 worst metro intersections for crashes. ^ Carries highest percentage of heavy truck traffic of any non-freeway/non IRC. ^ Truck traffic destined for grain terminal ports along the Minnesota River f -' s~ - ,. ~. .~_ , ~ .. , Y "~ SCALE 45 10/3/2008 • TH 13 / CSAH 42 Area Prior Lake and Savage r~ U ^ 2005 daily traffic volumes of 13,000-18,000 ^ Environmental constraints ^ Lack of supporting roads ^ Existing commercial development along roadside ^ Lower corridor speeds, numerous signalized intersections, lack of turn lanes r scALE n u 46 10/3/2008 • • ~~ ~~ ~ ~ t ti ~' ~ ~t ~~"'~'~~ 1 ~s3 ~ 1 7 \ `} ~i ~ 3 M `7v \ ~.:sk~f 1 ~ ~ ~ `.1 _ l i* • ~ ~ s ~ ~ 4 _ k w t ~ ~ 1 i 2 Y~ ;;~ ,.,,+.,,* a a ~ ~`i ~ ~ : j 4 * ~ 1 ~~ ~ Y Y ~ ' .+~' ~ t .. ~.,_ 47 10/3/2008 • • rc 3~1~~. ,~r~r ``~ ~~-! _ ~; , ..~.j h , s~ x r.._r. ~ ;.. ~, .. ~;;~~~,. .~-`';/I 48 10/3/2008 • C - i ~~~~~ ~ 8-;~ , , F t ~r ~~x 1 s y qr ~ r, ~ ~?y~ ,, r. r. wi ~ S , ,, a ® ~ °~ m ~ ~ ~~~ i y, ,~ ~. .~ ~4 ~ ~ ~ d~,: i^ _ ~ ,.. ._. .-.~. _. r. -" may:. .~ ~ ~` s ~, R ~' _ - - - ~ ~ i:. r s ~. ~ ~`~ - ~ r~, ~ ~. x. _ -. 4` .r x - ~. )'3 - ~~ ~ ~"°~~ ~ _ t€ JA~a~ ~ ~~ :~l~z ill-3 i . of v = ~ `~ k Y [ .. i~ . .~ _ _ _-. s't 4 y~, ~ ~ _ ''1~.. ~ 1 ~r:~~;r'~ ~~nr`~~^~n~.`~w, A+S~~ a~i,.~~,y~~~ I Jr,~ .r dA~~ ~:.1Fr;Y 4 nq _ ~~ ~ 1;.~ ~` e 7 ~_ ~ ~ ~~~ a, 9 c :~.~ '~' ~ ~ 7 s is cT ~" s ® w ~~ ,, ., a 77 I~~.ar~ ~ ,~,. ~,~,f -: a9 -~~~, ~ ~ a " ~. s h.. :.}g ~~ v ~ I l Z ~ I ~' W~ may,. ~ -~~ 8 ~< Fi ~~T.J a~~~ ~ ~~'±~-I ~ / i ~ .C ~ ~ 1} s~.T 'E.,, 9'c .~ ' ~- st a ~ ~ d s A 'eP 13 ~~ ~ °' _ ~ F , ~r 'F -.:,~ r „x ~. x ° ~ ~~ y,.,_' k„'~I _ . t~T "; ~, a 1 i ' ° _-_~~ a 1 d ~~., y Y i j ; '' ~ ~_~~ ~ e ~ 1 7 '^~ 'SZ ~ _i b~ ~` 3~~' ~ 4 ty Y YL ai ~f 1/ .:3 4 _.^~, v4+~ ~L z &95 .,, ~ ~. 3' } ^~,~ 4s to ~ l~ L w , i rH 49 10/3/2008 C _~~{ ~3 f 3 //55 C ~ 4' ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ i .7 3 6 ~:.F ~ Z k 4 ~~. Y ~ i. , ~ . 4 ~s ~ .. Ic ® ~ b w y:~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ #` :w 43 ~ .- 45~1 y~. ~., 3~ R ~ ~ .t .rt G x I. I _ t S~ .: J~'r ~ ~ r ~ 3 ' ~ ®i~i 1- 3 ~ = y ,~:, H ~ ~' ~ .,~ ~ - _ t -~' ~ i ~'~ ' xa - ~ '~3, ~ ~, f ~ ~,: r ~, - e ~ _ ~ ~ ~ 'no.' ' •-.~^•r _ _ - a;y S h.~ r ~ .~ "" -- 4 A ~ ~ ~ ay ` i.., f ^ ~ ~ G ~{ r ! 4 4 ~~. y ~ y_: ~ Y ~ f~ .. ~ ~i~ •s "lam ~ r . a,~.. . c~ i n c c ~ ~ y ui ~ ~ _j ~a,~ < ~rY 3 ti. Y F ' ` } „sl '3_ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i r ~ --' 4 ~ i I ~ t ~i !t 1 ' - ~ i ^Y, ~ . i }~Z ~n t J ~:. ; j a - J . ~ wit _r y ;~ ~ ~ i }~„ ~' -~ i ~~ ~r i k +'ti'-a' =aFff Yf'a`'"~ tl ~ y ~ ~ iZ~ T'~' 6 -z '~. ' ~ ~ I i ~ ~ 8 = - r ~ ~ Y ~ F. . er R - s ~~ r 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^~ y - yI i is ~ ~ T 1 } {. - "~:. - '~" l~- F ~ ' _ f _ 4 1 " " 4 ~ - i 1 ~ ;! ~~ f ~ { v . ~ ~ --•~ ~,~ . ~. , Ri . f k ~- .~°` r~- { ~ SCALE , . 50 10/3/2008 • • C Yom, z~ , - ~ 4 1L µ YK i ~ ~r ~~ '~ ~: -~ _ RRRg ~ '~.t~ '~~ ~ q~~ 6~~ ~ t ._ -,~'~ ~-„'. a ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. - y ~, ~ t ~i f ~ ~. 4L~ -- - ~ 1 ~ , ~ ~~.,, q ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ' I - ,, ~ - .:~ - = 1 D ; ~ ~ -r~ '" l __ ' ~~ ~ d. i Y 3 ~ ,,. 77 --__ h ~ ~ • ~ ~ •.3 ~~~~ ,a ~, ,.!~ .~ i, i x ~~ a ~ 3 _ ~~ - _ - ~ ck`` i -'ti ~ '..z _ ) ~`, t f_ ,~ .~, j~ ~~, ~~G' ~-~ h ~ >3a.T~ 4 r~. Zt ~ - r,4 ~f~rr~ hY~ :1~: ~ Y1 ~~` e S~d'i 3'~''S ~4 J "r ~ ' u'r;--i _ '~` : ~" ,+~ _ t .: .tub ~,k".? h 5j k~, . k ~ r'4t T ~ ~~ 'r - 4 f'~ y ' Tb'I+ ~'1' i '= ' y ~~ ~ 'Y5 vX ~t'}-r.~ ~ 2 ~~~ ~. ~ ~ Y , - - ~ =:~~- 51 10/3/2008 i• - ,-,, ,: ~G ~ x:' ® ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ' ,.~ ~ ~''r ~. ~ ~~ i % ~ > t ~ ~ <<t a 3 F ' ~ '' ~ ~I ® ®® _ ,~3 a ~ ~~ • z: ;x ':; z _ ~y:d~ r3 J.,~t _ a_"^ ,sue -'~ ~3 ~,„R ~. t~I 77a~'?~ ,~.=5 - ~ r ~ ~x ~:. -' t as ~' :. , ~ ovs .r~ tw d J} •r~ 3.,+ ~ ~ ,1 p_ ~ ~s 1 u . ~ ~ P I _ 'o ~f~~ ~f. ~,..~ 4 ..F ~ ~)J' C ~~ ~ ~k w. ,1 C'-. ~ ~, "°~ - - „~ ~, i t d` '~ ~ „n BLL'D ~~ ~ S? 7 ~, ~, l ~ "'•.+i- 3 M'~ V ~ ~ S ~ ~ n ~i l=_- .I 52 10/3/2008 ~~ L_~1 ~'F .~'.... y... ~{~, C 53 10/3/2008 • • • 54 10/3/2008 • " ~ ac's F - - - ~ k~; ~- ~ 1~ ;~ 0 ~ ~ ~.,~' `' : ~~ ~ Sp=a: ?i' z ~ t ` y-r ti ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~f~ ~1~~. ~tT3s7 tidy Land Use 2r~~3D ~c~cjty Laid Use t` • -~ `~ .~; .4 r ter ' ~• .`r_ 'vECa'TiY.tr'v=_~ ;, :~,~xr~ Fr?5=r~ffll~r, ~ _ _ _ _ ~r ~ r ~~rt~rdal ,~g*~;i>.~~J iran6._a _ ~`,. _YiV :r_f£Ily P,E:ltlEf~l'al ~ v :l1'~'C:3:>'1~452(al F.~S?PtE • ~ ti'~?J;~rn rfstl9 F.E~{yEft~l ~csfr~-~~"ratl4stfa - ikj~b?1161"R?6':~IItl31 PL-%ICL ls.~s r_~J~/~~, ~,., r ~.. r 33'kfi'I'•CEf ~~~'PUt1I _3fGb .. R~{."y R 6.(k?'Itl31 ~ V1~ - ~,' y.., t -' .~ l5 Ct r.731 - P.`J3. R=6'~_nB31 ~iT',a:-.'1 ~t3~?1 _. ~._ ~ ~ "~ ~C3 ~J~.? RJ,3 R=5'~Ch3nSl31 ~E£~ra~? ~ ; •~.4.[a ~[f?Ylil!IttV ~J!bal E~13f.#A;S! I -~. ..`;~ ~, ' - ----- - ~`~ roM ~~ ~ } ~ Y `' ~.y~" y ~' „~~ Neu%,>mv. .~a~,.~.wz~~<~, v.~w _ /' '_ s ~u~. _ tai - - ~ _ i _. ~• ~ ~ r i k ° ~ ~ ` ~ = ~ l - - j-? ~ , ~ ~~' ~ _ ~t~ ~ ~ ..r ~' ~~ '~~ ~' _ _ __. ~! k ~ ~+ ,~ Seott ~ Countywide Composite Land Use Map, __.. ~~~ ~ ~ ~; ~, - ....ALE _ - ~ - , 55 10/3/2008 • ~~ 1 _ "''s~ ' ~'` ~ ~ Y _ ~ O } i _ m' }~ "J ' _ x ~ ~ ~ i f "~ ,~ 3+y ~ ' ~ _ _ 2 ~ ' ~ , ® m "~ ~ ~ i a - ~ 7 ~ o ~~~ol ~+ ~ "' '~ r ry ~ z _- F3' q s ~ ~~ ~ ~ . a K~ . ~' ~ ~~ , Y ~ ~ ~ i ® ~ ~ ; G ' . i .,i - ~ _, -.. ~ ~. r k. t .: ,il; t ~ {t `" ~ J ~ -' 4 ti ®1 ~ ® ®f~ ~ ~ ~ I ' _ ~ y, ~ ~,_ 1 1. ~ _ c ~'~ a ~ ~? er ~ ~ Y. ~ ~1 ~ ~' _ i fi s '~`~ i 0~ ~ j~1 ® m ® ..y i ~ ,b ~ ~ r i 1~3. ~`~~ a ~ ~ ~'~ m m o i l `~ ~ °, 'x a -i ~J - x"' ~ r 7 . 1 ~:, ~t J~ ~~~ ' ~ i $ P ~ o c i13 1 , ~.a ~, ~ k ~ 4 ' 1 w r t 1 - ~ ~T 31 `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ 1 { _ L. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ I ~ ~~ . `~~ ~l ~t '~l a ~ t ICI 1 I ~, ~.,7 yl~` a . _ ~ °~ ' t ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ _ °~a ' i f J it , ~ t"?-.~~ -~~: ~. _ ~ ' 5 r " a 't'} ~. . r 1 JF~ ,~. ti t- ~ r ,. - _ P ? ,} rs~ ~ .~t 7 ~ (~~S 112 ~+2 if' ~ 2~~r ~~t~ _ h 1.,. ~' ~ ~~ ~ - ~ ~ r S ~~k e _ T i ~, ., l 1? i~ ~ ~I ~~ er 7 ~~ 9 ~~~ ~1 a {._ ~, ~ . ._ ~ r z= r ~ SCI~1 ~~.,- rt a ",ter , al 1 i ~a~~l ~ taf t~:~~1 w{o ~~~ai ~ +•~~~,~~$~' . ? _ ;v,: v 56 10/3/2008 U « .~ , :> ,:. __ ` ~~ ~r ~ : ; ° ~ Scatt Goun.~ Worker Ffows ~ , w _ ~ ~ ~ r><3 ~ Commutesfied ,x" ''~ •~ ~« ,. i - _ ~ ` l ~ r,~ Where Residents Work _ -~ .i ' -°---__ _ 4~ - `'~ Total Commuters ` ~ .,. ~ ~ h ~ ~ ,F ~___ ~ _ • .~. it-A~• ~.•' * ;. n£h'+/EPyy RAIr~E 4s'ASn4VO ro4 f ,-- _ - ~ 391-490 "-_.~ 'i; i _t 4 _ t F 6~~ ~~ i ~ - ~ ~ 491 - ~ f12 rT . ~t . ~ ~ ~: ~ '~ r ~ r ~ - ~ ~ r , h _ I f l~ .r ! • • ui ~ ~ + .. n .• ,t • , • _ i w . ~ ~i- ~f Y_>H-I F ~ 0 5 fo nxaw ~ _ ® ® .e H ` _ 1 ~ ,.:. { ; « ~ Laborshed ~ - „ Hero i ' } ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ,~• ~ !! ® ~ ~ "` ~ Where Workers Live Total Commuters ~' ~ 1 ; ~ ~ ~~(~~r~ ; - //~ .. ( • .~~ y r i ~ ® ~-tea a : 1- •.~ vnrrsw a.,d roro ~s sv j ~ •E t _. c ~ _ _- ? r. i71 - 250 •• i - • v' 7 - ~ - ~....." t } ~ ;` ~ ~-, ~ . do-: ~ , ~ ~ P { ~' ~_ ~ 1 7 `_ ~ _ ~ ~ CAAVER ~i. ~J ~ ` _ Y ~ ~ + • . `S ®. i ~ k ~ F c l S `1 L,~~..~ • AFOTA- ~ ~ . } ,y.a~ ~ _ scam 'a+ i r y _. ,~ 1V :~ ... ~ •' ~ ~ f ~~- .c.lcnSr'~+S aI E.. ~+Y+ [hoK 3n~unh.US.r}..a,.}J3.'~eaie0 ]L~]i`]-a,i CCi•,un, 1.1N C_EP. "+~ ~~ 57 10/3/2008 U • • -- ~ ~ kt# ~ y. _ R~ CS $Y ~j~ `.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ ~ s ^ ~ ~ _ - ' i , ' ~ ~~ ,..t -~'. s ~ t y ~~ ~ - ? ~ a 1 i 1 I ~ ~. y ~! ~. Z -r F - ] _.. '' ^'Ck'~v' 3'(. ~F . _ ~ r '~~ ~~ ~, 3 y4 ry`~ ti ` ~" t - kr ~ r' . x','a- 'fit I ~ .. w K ~ ~.g..;l © iA d ' ` Y l ~ ~ o a ~+ _ ... .. .... , n ,...... .. . -p. -J.,,~, ~ -.~ -_ J.Y a, -^ t _ rT ~T~'~ .ri.~ ~y' ~y 3~ ~ 3f ~ i ,. 4~ - fr .r ~ 1 ?v'+~ I '1-~iv~ 7 !:~ fit f~ -:f E -- ~ I a ~~~ ~ ~ 1 {~•5~_ y t * ~,1 -~7 fjar ~, .t- 4=_ ~r .t ~~, tk ;mss.. ~q. ;c < -;~ Yr. ~~ i Q y ' G•? { 3 ,9 ~a ~Q - "dlr.= ~z~ ~ 1 J ..~ ~3 °, J t~ i r; ~ Y' d 58 10/3/2008 • • • .. ~ t~ F ~ i ~j ~ t~ Y. .c ~, ~ m ~r ~~'r" ~ ~ ~ ~ -r ~ . A B G V! "~ ~ j 9~ ..~ ry .[ i- 6 1~y1 ~ t ~ ' '' B J !' ~ 7 ~ Yid -'. 1 --~ J ; ~_ ~~y = - -~~° z X5`4 i ~~ i * g ~' ~' :~ r. ..~ y x ~ ~ k ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~~ I~` -~ V F If ~_ 11 ® r ® ~t r`~`,'~~ ~ V! r7 ~~E f ~.y '° ~. ~h" j 7p`_. ,rte ~w.> ~x~~""~, y.4`„+~z.,`~ `n ~ ~`a ~ f1 r ~, • ~,x, -;~ ~ s ~ F~ s t" ~ ~ r w ~.~.~ rte' a ~ x 7 ~ r~ 4 _~ ; r 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~~ , ~~' i ~ B ~ ~ ~! ~ K ~ x,53 "1 x x ,'r _ err . ~ ~ ~ -.e ~` ' `~ J y~ ~ ' ' C $~ } " y ,, _ ti y Y~; ~~. t ~. ,~} ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~~ f h -~~ .w ~-. ~ ,~ L' ~ t~l psi;{' _ - _ _ ~. k: ,,: 59 10/3/2008 i• 7 'S , ~ y `i -z -~ ~ xa ~:~ ® ~ ~ n ~ a i ~~ 4 ''~'~-Fr` ~. _ _.. ..__,._ ~ ..__ ~ _._ ~ ~ _. _ y_ _ . ~....~ ,..:.~_ ~ ~ ~ - . 5~~~ .. ,... ___ _ _~_ . ,. .; • ~~ u `: au ^J .~' " ` t; `~ t~'~ . - ~ , ~;_ ~~ i } ~~~ ,~ . k: _ -~> ~ ;, ~;; ~~ - - ~ - E ~ ~ _ ``r _..,. ~ ar .,~ ,. '_ 'mom""""'9"r'.~..*_+~`~. :~~i~ r-~~_--.x.=~,~~,n'~~"~ i_1_. '?Y - i~- g .+s~ '~°~ ~~~ N~3~ y.i - _ _ „~.a. .tea. .~ ' r~~ ~r~~.~„~~ ~ ~ z~ ,.~ -__;i ."`~ _ 1 60 10/3/2008 i• • /, J1 u r~~ d ~ z ~,'4r r r~ ,„3 _~ ~' '~~„tr ~~ { { r ~ t: .= a hen r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~... E r~..~_~' _ ......_ _ _. _ _.. .. ..,. z~ ~t~.eys -~,rfi, i .~• _ ' ~ r - - - - 5 . - .... '' ~i. a. n .. _ ~ y~_ ~~~~ .~. 1 i ~~ r v ~ ~ i~s~',t w +at`~'~'~ i ~ .. _ _ . - .. ~ _ -` - r i' ~ ..+ ~_,t .5 ~ 1 j ' - a r ,~, ., f - - ~ ~ ~ ~ y , ~,. : ~- ~ ` - ~ -- y~=__.-- _- - - ~ ~. - -'_. ~ r~ 4 .~ t 61 10/3/2008 ~/ J • ``~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ e ~ ~ c Zf ~ ~' ~ ' ~ `h~r r _ ~- .~ r ~ A R r 3 7 ~ ® ~ x °.J a~ i 1 ~~~ ~ 1, j 1 _ 5 i ~ c 4 ~ ~ 1 _ i _~ ~ 7 s ~~ 6~jr~ 1 ti ~'i ~ J a ® ~ ~: a i ' ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i i ' d '- r~ ~~ e~rU ti r ~ C 4., 4 a ~~ . 4 J ~~~ ~ r .~,.Srd ~ - ' ~ ~ ~. ~. - _ ~1 -a .Ti ® ~ x ~, t`" ~ .~; ~ ~ ~' s"Y ; _ vi i ~ ~~ a 'S _ ' ti~ ~ _ ..C..~ F AA 3 ~ ~- ~,~ jy ~ T 4 ~ ~ ..: ~f ~St ~~~y i14 ?~ ~ J 1 ~ lr 2'~"' ~' ti ^ - `fit t _v -.y' 3 ~ fir E rj ~~r ' ~ t - d,~4 _ ~ i ~ ~ - i '2. 1 _ ~ ~~ 1 - :1.~~ - ~ SGALE ~. , ,~.~ { ~:` _ _ 62 10/3/2008 • - ' ~ r r '~i' ~ ~; 3i' ,e ~ ti ", f ,/~ ~~ L Q ~ ~.. n'c' a T,Sa _ ? ~.f 11 ~ 5w. C ~ a ~'j ,~ ~ ~-. - j~vr~ ~. 5, y iyT1 ~~r ~ TM x~w ~ ~ c3~ ~ ~ § n ~ `~if a 1A~ ~ ~~ I ,a ~ 1 9 3 e a~ .~ rT`a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ r ss~~~ _ ~ .. ~ A r ~ ;° F ~ .. ~ - n + ~.- .~~ .~ '~ c h ~~ ~ ,K7~ti ~ r. ~~ ~''~c"~7s''._~~ ~ t!o ' ~-i_? a- Sk;f.''~' a~6 %~. "~,~ +~ r ~, ,, . ~" +* fi, *Zt A 1 7~~ 3 1~ j ~ ' h -a' L .'aka ~,c, r ~.e. ` Jr 3r =c`: .1 L' ~4 ~. k , ,: ~ ,. ~' ~ '. n~ ~ r~, .k ' r r' W " r t ~ ~ q i _,rn~.,b 1 " t ~( i ~ ~ / ' _ ~ ' ~ ~ E ~^ m =4, 3 'w p mot.' ~S+ f' k 7~+ t' "' ~ ^;tg'~ r l $ c ~ 1 ~ ~~-~ 63 10/3/2008 • • • ~<+ K?:r=~ 'l .' ~ j;_ 4 `4 2.5 mi ~< 64 s _~~~ Wiz, ~. _ .~ ~ ,. 10/3/2008 • • !1 L 17'/ CF ~ODNINGTON. NN „~,~ : . {~~~~~~~ ~,ti ~~ ~ ~ ~; F ~_ ZQ i:}S _ _ `1: «3M!'R• HCI't!'i G M1I ' _ S t I ..- ..-- ~ - - ~- a =s ~~~ _ . ~ _ 3 k k.~, ~, t.,c~;gi..Z.,yl • 65 10/3/2008 • b- r~' _ ,,b ..9 ~.. . • Functional Classification {2007] Legend - B Minor Arterial ® AMinorArterial .-_-: Principal Arterial 0 mi 5 mi 10 mi ~~~~ ry ~ ~ _' „~`as` _ v _ oai g ~^? ~. ., ~_ ,«_. .. ,.v ~ .' ~' ~ _ _ `` ~ ' G -~ a~ ~= a _ ~:,, 7,;~ ~' ~ ,._ ~, ~, l s ~-s ~, .~. ~ - _ ~ 7, Z. ~ i A ~~~ ~~ ~ - .~' r J i,}, °~ rf ~ 1? ,~ ~ - ~ a. ~ tea ~`~ ,. .~ aw ~ ~<. 3; n~~ ~~ ~~ ;'.1" ~° ~'~ '~r, s s a¢es~ ~a.~s-eaas 3eoa-. ::, ».a¢>s~ _ ~ - -,.. _ .. __.. ~~- ~~--- ,~ ~p s sr !j _ ~ s y - - .... .. r . ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~~: ~- ,~„ _. _ _ ...~ ~ f- tar - _ Tr _ _ - _ - - ,~. 66 10/3/2008 • • i rte. f ~ a. i - 3.. ~-~ .1'Y~~ Y yw. Y. .~ ~ =r i ~ i ~ ® ~ 1 ~ 7 _ ''""'~ ' ~ - L: ~ :. ~,~: .~ - d c ~ _ ~ ~. - _ ~+ i r u., ~ •~& natal =' -- uu ~~ xrV,x~ ~- a - - uaNe O B ~ ~ -- - ~v~u ___ .. i ~ ~ .,: .~. ~ ,. f' ~ ~~ $ ~•. - i ~ L a: ~ v X v ^• _ ~~ _. y1_~p n ~- '- e.- LL _~ -_ ~ ~ - - "f :~ ~ - '.. ,, I .. r ,- i _ _ ~ i 1 .~_ ~ , 3 _ - -. - _y '.. ... i ~:... ~, n. I ~ - _,.., j -, ri g i ~~ .. _. _ .____ ._._L _. .. __ " ~~.'. '1 ~ _ "~ _ - ' - 67 10/3/2008 • • • ., >_., ~ ~ '~ s 4 ~~ ~1 ,~ , ~ ~ _ "} 4 _ k. ~ ~ c ~ yid ~ f_~ ~ 4'si n r { '. ~ 1. ® r t ~~ ~, ~ ~~ I ~~i a ~ ~~r'~ ~^.~ 6 4 3~ ~, ~ _ ~r b'4 :e. x '_ } _ F ~ ~~, r _- t ~~~ u ~ r a ~ ~~ ~i~ ~. ~, d y .-.® ® 7 ! ;3 ~ eye a ® ® qtly :.~ =i f -i _ 9 _ ~J j _ y r ~> ~, :dad~al`~re _ ~ a .~y a 3 V 7 r v ~ y qY v,.,q >x ter.. d .. ~t ~h ~ ~ X' f '~ , f a _ ar, ~ ® x H~ JI ~ w j'_~ a= 4 ~ ®+~ ® ~ ~ ~a~~ ~~~_~~ r ~ ~c~ ~~.1 3 q _. - t = ~ -.~ m _~ 4 F r C 4 > f ~. .:.3r ? ~ k 1 a ~ _,_ j~4f I 3, ~ t y a 1 L3 ~ ti/ v c ~~ ~~' Y . ~ ~ ~. l ~ c'y~~^ ~ L .> e 1<; afi Y" ". { - % ~ ~ -ass ~ ' Yz- ~^. ._* ~ ' ~~ ~ . ~. : ~ a >n ; : T, ~. ~'~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ,ti t ~ ~ C t 4. .:~,., ,-A~y 68 10/3/2008 • • • 69 10/3/2008 • • • 70 11 /24/2008 L • • 71 11 /24/2008 • • ~~ 11 /24/2008 • • 73 11 /24/2008 • C 74 11 /24/2008 • • • 75 11 /24/2008 • • 76 11 /24/2008 • • 77 11 /24/2008 • • 78 11 /24/2008 • • • 79 11 /24/2008 80 11 /24/2008 • 81 11 /24/2008 C7 • 82 11 /24/2008 • 83 11 /24/2008 • • • 84 11 /24/2008 • • • 85 11 /24/2008 • C7 • 86 11 /24/2008 • • 87 11 /24/2008 • • 88 11 /24/2008 • • • ~ . w,~r° Y ~: Future Right-of-Way Needs Legend ., f ~~E~- ~ _ , Canectdr (,zo re~t- ~ ,., -Arterial (150 Fcwti _.,,. ~i Principal Arterial (200 FeeFk r ~ ~ ~._. _ _.,t _ _ _ ~- _ ~ ~ _ ~` i _ I ._~ ~ L 9 + ~ "~ - - ',~ - i - i I t °~ Y-~ ~ ... .. ~~S i 89 11 /24/2008 • C 203G Gify Land Use ~eGfTD'sr vaster _ Ctietrf931 --' '?A;LEUa _,.. }rN~' iseeF7ei93i +.9cl~m tfEl1' P,eEl3er31 •143'1 {w95'j P~E~33!IG31 ~3Rfi'L'Gef x3.`2`~'3Cilv_3(':Y 13'II.'Y133 ~-. c 3 U5? !~ nor. miunisy ~~ ~~.r ~k ~ z "t F ~r*rr. :~.~ ,~ .~~ _ ... 2.-.3D ~oc nth Land Use __ ._.:rrt> a: ~5ibtc~ .. ~'., *8 ~ G3'lU313TiGtR rte..':. ~?fida'tILl ~~6G~SIaS?3 UU?l £lti^)f.bR JtV1Tt3rJ.1~~s 90 _;~.~ ~.~~ __ _. ~ _ . -. ., aim _..~ -_. _ 11 /24/2008 • 91 1 0.5 0 1 2 Miles 11, 2008 R:16691569050011cadIGISISmtt~ounryMap, mxd 11 /24/2008 • • • 93 'I Y W~.n'a. ~._.~ Legend y.. ~~ -- Current Functional Classification Principal Arterial - ® A Minor Expander A Minor Connector ~= Minor Collector _ J i ~^-L, Road System f ,~ ~~ Interstate Hwy _„_,~ ND 169 US Trunk Hwy " - State Trunk Hwy _ _ 1' r. -Fe. a~ -O- County State Aid Hwy ._..r_...,.Yl. 1..... County Rd Local Rd S~ County Boundary > s'-{ ~-~- Railway L ]Lakes ~~ -Waterways i__,~ City Boundaries !~ e (. r_\~~. r~, -_ ~ O `1 ,/ ~~ ~1 i; .\_ J- a -, _ ~ .. ~ J F ~z ,~ F ; , c- ~} ~~ ~ ~ ~JBloom ngto~ s~" ~ , -- ~_ se ~ ~, ~~' -- ~ - i,~_=, I TrittL '.I a C~ - ~; s vage~ y-r `~ >, I_ >~r~"eca~aa l to smn caiu.. --- _ 2] ~ \ , ~.._~ _I i (~ (~ i j I I 1 k ]j~ _ _ i" _ ~~ /T . ~--~' , ai I 8urns~ Ile <_ r~ x- -~ __~ fr `- ~ _~~~ _ . _ ~~ 1 c ; - Leak villes lJ t t ~'_ ~ If V ~- II(( Nana 1~ Scott Count PRIORITY 1 & PRIORI' PROJECT NEEDS Potential Project ROW Acquisition NeE Steams Sherburne Llsantf CM1 Sa go Moka Meeker Wagb~ Hennepin Washington aamsey MdeoO Carver ~ GdkOta 5'bl y ~__ Scott Niwllet Le SUeur WrR GaoChue B Blue Earth Waseca Steele DoCge Ma2n Fanbault Freeborn Mgver N WE S 1 0.5 0 1 Miles - January 11, 2008 page R:15691669060011cad1G ISBcottCounryMap-FilteredProletts. 11 /24/2008 • • 95 11 /24/2008 • • 96 11 /24/2008 • • 97 11 /24/2008 J • • 98 11 /24/2008 • • L 99 11 /24/2008 • • 100 11 /24/2008 • • • 101 11 /24/2008 • • 102 11 /24/2008 • • • 103 11 /24/2008 • L_J • 104 11 /24/2008 105 11 /24/2008 • • 106 11 /24/2008 • • 107 11 /24/2008 • • 108 11 /24/2008 • • • 109 11 /24/2008 U • 110 11 /24/2008 • • • 111 11 /24/2008 • • 112 11 /24/2008 • • • 113 11 /24/2008 • • 114 11 /24/2008 • • • 115 11 /24/2008 • r~ U • 116 11 /24/2008 • • • 117 11 /24/2008 • • 118 11 /24/2008 • • 119 11 /24/2008 • • 120 11 /24/2008 • • C 121 11 /24/2008 L • • 122 11 /24/2008 • • J 123 11 /24/2008 • • • 124 11 /24/2008 • • 125 11 /24/2008 • • 126 11 /24/2008 • • • 127 11 /24/2008 • J 128 11 /24/2008 • J • 129 11 /24/2008 • • 130 11 /24/2008 • • • 131 11 /24/2008 • • 132 11 /24/2008 • • 133 11 /24/2008 • • 134 11 /24/2008 • • 135 11 /24/2008 • • 136 11 /24/2008 • 137 11 /24/2008 • • 138 11 /24/2008 ~: • • 139 -;'; ~=~:. , ,F.~ _ k N, ~.. _ 4. ~ . ~`~k= ~~ tr "' ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~~- 169 ~ 1 T r a~_" r,~ ~ K ~ u ~ s K ~. M `y jA~ K h> ` ` ~,` ' ~ t ~ a 1 n ~ ;x - } ~ ,i f r;. 5, -~i, ~ 6 _,~ h .4,~, t _ _ ~ _ x~ ' U t e- ~ t <t , g Y ~ •~ ~ t ~ r '~ '~k- _ r ~ h f f '~ f t ' ~~ 1 4 ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ L '~ ~ 4` i i7 ~ yY ~ ~~' e f . rf7 'Y ~ o-# -~ 7 t t r _ ~r ~ '.'~ t ~; J` 1~~ H - ~ ~F- C ~ „7 Y~Y jib Z a ~ 5~ f', ~ ,''},;~ ~~ 1 ` f '" ~ .4 y4 ~„f ~ a .~~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ _ , ~ r ; t ~~Y~ ~ l r ~ ~ ~~ i a "{. ~ 1 ~ ; y F - t ~:~ , , r 1~' ~ ~ _ z , ~ , ,~,~~ F Transportation Planning Principles Driving the Work of the SCALE Transportation Task Force: "To focus on the mo vement of people and goods; rather than on the movement of automobiles, in transportation planning, and to maximize the efficient use of the transportation infrastructure by increasing the availability and use of appropriate public transit . , , " Minnesota Legislature Community Based Planning Act of 1997 (M.S. 4A.07) "You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by e vading it today, " Abraham Lincoln, circa1863 ~` Bonestroa SCALE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE -PRASE 2 REPORT Acknowledgements The authors of this report wish to thank all of the participants who contributed their time and insights to this project. SCALE TRAhtSPORTATIOf~t TASK FORCE (VfEMBER~ Richard Ames -Ames Construction Fred Corrigan -Bonestroo Mayor Jack Haugen -City of Prior Lake Bruce Malkerson -Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP Council Member Jason Ponsonby -City of Elko New Market Senator Claire Robling -Minnesota Senate District 35 Bill Rudnicki -Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Randy Sampson -Canterbury Park Commissioner Jon Ulrich -Scott County District 5 Ad Hoc Members: Dave Unmacht -Scott County Lezlie Vermillion -Scott County Dan McNamara -Scott County LOCAL OFFICIAL ADV{SORY GROUP Belle Plaines Savage: David Murphy -City Administrator Barry Stock -City Administrator Trisha Rosenfeld -Community Development Director Bryan Tucker -City Planner Joe Duncan -City Engineer John Powell -Public Works Director Elko New Market: Thomas Terry -City Administrator Rich Revring -City Engineer Jordan: Ed Shukle -City Administrator Joe Janish -City Planner Carol Caron -City Engineer New Prague: Jerry Bohnsack -City Administrator Renee Christianson -City Planner Prior Lake: Frank Boyles -City Administrator Steve Albrecht -Public Works Director Jane Kansier-Planning Director Shakopee: Mark McNeil -City Administrator Michael Leek -Community Development Director Bruce Loney -Public Works Director Scott County: David Unmacht -County Administrator Lezlie Vermillion -Public Works Director Michael Sobota -Community Dev. Director Mary Keen -Public Works Technician Mitch Rasmussen -County Engineer Craig Jenson -Public Works Planner Brad Davis -Community Development Planner Tracy Cervenka -County Administration ~` Bonestroo SCALE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE -PRASE 2 REPORT Table of Contents Key Findings and Recommendations .................................................................................................... 1 Project Background ..................................................................................................................................1 Key Task Force Findings ........................................................................................................................... 2 Task Force Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 3 I. Regional Corridor Management Planning Process ....................................................................... 3 II. Coalition and Corridors .............................................................................................................. 4 III. Transit ....................................................................................................................................... 6 IV. Project Funding .......................................................................................................................... 6 V. County Wide Transporation Improvement Program ..................................................................... 7 VI. Management/Staff Support to the SCALE Transportation Task Force ........................................... 7 I. Introduction/Project Goals ....................................................................................................... 8 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Needs ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Opportunities .......................................................................................................................................... 9 II. Needs -Sizing Up the Challenge ........................................................................................... 10 Priority 1 Needs ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Priority 2 Needs ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Priority 3 Needs ..................................................................................................................................... 11 III. Opportunities - Implementing a "Regional Corridor Management Plan" ............................. 14 A. Regional Corridor Management Planning Process in Scott County .................................................... 15 Twin Cities Metropolitan Council ..................................................................................................... 15 SCALE ............................................................................................................................................ 16 Scott County ................................................................................................................................... 17 Municipals and Township Governments .......................................................................................... 17 B. Strategies to Preserve and Acquire Key Corridors ..............................................................................18 Planning and Zoning Authority ........................................................................................................ 18 Developer Payments and Contributions ........................................................................................... 22 Developer Inducements and Other Agreements ............................................................................... 24 Acquisition ..................................................................................................................................... 25 Financing Tools for Corridor Preservation ........................................................................................ 26 Appendix A: Official Mapping ............................................................................................................ 32 Appendix B: Project List ..................................................................................................................... 36 MAPS Priority 1 and Priority 2 Project Needs .................................................................................................................. 12 All Project Needs ................................................................................................................................................. 13 SCACE Transportation Task Force ~ Project No • 569-07-105 DRAFT Phase 1 Report ~(}(~~~~~'()(~ SCALE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE -PHASE 2 REPORT Key Findings and Recommendations PROJECT K~lCK@It®Ut~[~ This report is the second in a series prepared for the Scott County Association for Leadership and Efficiency (SCALE) to identify the County`s regionally significant transportation infrastructure needs and to propose a Scott County Corridor Management Plan that will enable SCALE, Scott County, its municipalities and townships, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community and private sector partners located within the County to achieve their transportation vision for the year 2020 and beyond. This report builds on the findings and recommendations advanced in the initial ("Phase 1 ") report called "Managing Growth in Scott County: Challenge or Opportunity?" That report contained alist -generated from direct input from the County and its eight municipal governments - of approximately 80 critical transportation project needs that should be completed within the next 10 or 15 years (and some sooner than that) for the transportation network to be able to safely and efficiently handle the level of growth in population and economic development that is projected for the County. One of the principal recommendations of the Phase 1 report was the creation of a Transportation Task Force to advise SCALE on issues related to regional transportation needs. (See the "Acknowledgements" page for a list of Task Force members.) The Task Force was convened in early 2007 and immediately established the following mission, which also accurately expresses the fundamental purpose of this report: "To address the impact on rapid growth in the County, and identify the means and strategies to get ahead of the growth trends, particularly with respect to land acquisition and the County`s right-of-way needs." SCALE Transportation Task Force, February 23, 2007 The Task Force met nine times in 2007, and discussed a wide variety of issues related to identifying and implementing effective transportation and land use planning strategies in the face of the County's rapid population and economic growth. In general, the Task Force meeting agendas typically involved the following general broad topic areas: • Identification of specific regional and multi-modal transportation needs throughout Scott County; Identification of strategies to fund, manage, and preserve critical right-of-way; Discussion of procedural strategies to more effectively leverage resources of the federal, state and regional governments; and Discussion of strategies to enhance and optimize collaboration and cooperation among the County, local jurisdictions, and other stakeholders. The following discussion provides a summary of the work of the Task Force articulated in the form of key findings and recommendations. SCALE Transportation Task force Project No.• 569-07--105 DRAfT Phase 2 Report ~ Bonestroo Paqe 1 KEG' 1'k51C FARCE Ptf~Dtf~~~ The list below offers an overview of key SCALE Transportation Task Force findings. These are the critical factors that were considered in developing the list of recommendations following this section. 1. SCALE and its member organizations have successfully addressed challenges associated with rapid regional growth and development in the past, and they remain committed to working collaboratively, energetically, and creatively to solve future challenges. 2. A coordinated countywide transportation and land use planning effort will support long range regional objectives identified in the County and City 2030 Comprehensive Plans including preservation of green space, promoting economic development, and job creation along the County`s major transportation corridors. The County Comprehensive Plan identifies U.S. 169, I-35, TH 13, and TH 182 as corridors that should be emphasized as potential sites for new economic development that provides job opportunities for County residents. 3. The current regional transportation network is not adequate to handle present or future demands resulting from rapid growth in the region. For a wide variety of reasons, Scott County is and will continue to be a place where more and more people choose to live and work. Population will increase from 118,000 in 2006 to 221,000 in 2030. U.S. Census data indicates that the County ranks 11th nationally in terms of the percentage of its population commuting to work each day to a different county, and while long range plans envision increasing employment opportunities within the County, high levels of peak period commuter traffic will continue to be a significant challenge for County and municipal planners. 4. The fundamental objective in addressing the transportation needs of the region over the next 20 to 30 years and beyond must be focused on moving people, and not simply building more infrastructure. Providing additional transit options will be a critical component of achieving that vision. 5. Compared to both current regional transportation service policies and standards identified by Mn/DOT, and to historical development patterns vis-a-vis major transportation infrastructure such as river crossings and principal arterial roadways throughout much of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, there is an inadequate network of principal arterials, regional river crossings, and transit facilities in Scott County. The lack of these critical transportation facilities is costly for businesses and residents who pay for congestion in lost time, fuel, etc. 6. SCALE and its member organizations must continue to develop and strengthen partnerships with regional, state, and federal authorities in order to most effectively and affordably achieve its regional transportation vision. The Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council, in particular, should be key partners with SCALE in developing strategies that utilize our regional planning tools in a more efficient and comprehensive way. 7. Achieving the vision for a safe and effective regional transportation network will require immediate progress on specific unfunded project needs, as well as sustained progress on current opportunities as they arise to address longer term demands on the regional transportation network. First, critical project needs must be identified and action taken to secure the funding to deliver these projects on a timely basis. Second, recognizing the implications of rapid growth opportunities must be seized that ensure optimal management and preservation of critical transportation corridors. SCALETransportationTaskEoae Project N¢• 569-07-705 DRAFT Phase 1 Report ~onestroa Page Z 8. Better coordination between regional land use planning and transportation panning will reduce costs. The existing "disconnect" between land use planning and transportation planning on a regional level inhibits efficiency and increases costs significantly, including land acquisition, mitigation, and "externalities" such as environmental and social costs. Costs savings generated from a more coordinated, regionally focused process could be reinvested in projects that will improve the regional transportation network. 9. The focus of SCALE and its member organizations in the short run should be on addressing 21 high priority regional projects ("Priority 1 and 2 Needs") identified in this report. A comprehensive analysis incorporating the input of local public works and planning officials initiated in Phase 1 and concluded during this study period identified approximately 80 specific road, bridge, and transit projects throughout the County that should be programmed between now and 2030. This list was pared down to 21 projects on the current or future principal arterial system. 10. Multi-jurisdictional land use and corridor management planning initiatives focusing on regional priorities provide a clear public benefit. Effective implementation will generate economic benefits and generally enhance the quality of life of citizens and communities throughout the entire region. 11. To achieve the greatest return on taxpayer investments in transportation infrastructure, the application of additional tools will be necessary. A variety of strategic tools and funding sources are available and have been utilized in the past to manage and preserve critical regional transportation corridors. Unfortunately -and contrary to conventional wisdom -financing transportation corridor preservation and infrastructure construction entirely from contributions from new residential and commercial development falls far short of providing sufficient resources to address existing needs. This report identifies best practices from other areas of the country, as well as proposing entirely new strategies -some of which are more easily implemented, and others that will require the approval from metro, state, and federal authorities. TASK FORCE RECOMMEIVQATIONS The SCALE Transportation Task Force has developed the following list of 36 recommendations which should be addressed beginning in 2008. These recommendations are classified in the following six categories: I. Regional Corridor Management Planning Process II. Coalitions and Corridors III. Transit IV. Project Funding V. County Wide Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) VI. ManagementlStaff Support to the SCALE Transportation Task Force I. Regional Corridor Management Planning Process OVERVIEW The vast majority of the Task Force's time and energy was spent considering ways in which the County and its municipal partners could work in collaboration to secure right-of-way in the most cost efficient process possible. The fundamental belief that was shared universally by all Task Force members was that there is a great deal of potential benefit, economic and otherwise, to SCALE and its member organizations if a more efficient land planning and corridor preservation process was established, and that additional resources and tools must be made available which would promote corridor preservation and land acquisition for critical regional transportation corridors. SCALE Transportation Task force Project No: 569-07- 905 DRAFT Phase Z Report +~ ~Qf ~~$f rf~0 Page 3 The Task Force offers the following recommendations that would contribute to a more collaborative, and therefore more efficient and cost-effective corridor preservation process. RECONIIVIENDATION~ 1. Support and promote a coordinated countywide transportation and land use planning effort to achieve job creation objectives identified in the County's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, particularly along major transportation corridors, i.e., U.S. 169, I-35, TH 13, and TH 282. 2. Support efforts to engage the County and local units of government in a dialogue on corridor management and preservation "cost share" policies. 3. Support continued public dialogue to use local bonding authority for right-of-way acquisition. 4. Support efforts by SCALE to sponsor additional analysis on right-of-way acquisition and cost issues (i.e., consider impact of variables such as timing of acquisition, functional classification of roadway, ownership of property, etc.) 5. Support creation of a County "right-of-way acquisition fund" to preserve identified corridors, and identify financing alternatives to capitalize the fund. 6. Support development of official mapping strategy including review of existing authority and process. 7. Support development and implementation of a "training module" to be delivered during the spring of 2008 to all local stakeholders, including the County and all its local municipalities and townships that emphasizes the nature of transportation and land use planning as a shared responsibility that can benefit all stakeholders when it effectively addresses regional needs. 8. Support efforts to identify optimal right-of-way acquisition strategies for each of the priority projects requiring right-of-way preservation. 9. Support ongoing staff/consultant activities to implement a Scott County Regional Corridor Management Plan including development of amulti-jurisdictional process for preserving and acquiring key regional corridors through existing and new corridor management strategies. 10. Support creation of an additional staff position to coordinate and manage the Scott County Regional Corridor Management Planning process. 11. Support submittal of grant application for McKnight "Region and Communities" grant to work with public and private stakeholders to develop and implement amulti-jurisdictional comprehensive planning process that locates and preserves land in both conservation corridors and transportation corridors leading to more desirable development patterns and substantial cost savings. (The McKnight application would address elements of Recommendations 5 through 9.) Expected 2008 Outcomes: To be determined by the SCALE Transportation Task Force. II. Coalitions and Corridors OVERVIEW The SCALE Transportation Task Force has overseen the establishment and preliminary work of two newly created corridor coalitions: the TH 13 Ports of Savage Corridor Coalition and the Minnesota Regional River Crossing Coalition. In addition, the Task Force has identified additional high priority corridors and their related project needs and will undertake future activities aimed at securing funding and improving these corridors. sCALf Transportation Task force Project No: 569-07-105 ORAfT Phase 2 Report ~` ~On~51~r~}~ Paqe 4 PnEC®M MEIN D/#,TIOI~S A. TFI 13/Ports of Savage Coalition 12. Support efforts of the SCALE Transportation Task Force to develop evaluation criteria on various corridor projects which will be submitted to SCALE and the County Board. 13. Support the use of County wheelage tax revenues to finance bonding for the construction of the TH 13/ CR 101 Interchange. 14. Support Coalition efforts to secure additional state and federal funding to complete TH 13 improvements from TH 169 to I-35W. 15, Support contribution of up to $10,000 from SCALE for "start-up" costs of the Coalition, financed from existing budgeted funds. 16. Delegate the SCALE Transportation consultant to provide staff support to the Coalition. B. Regional Minnesota River Crossing Coalition 17. Support measures to accelerate construction date of regional Minnesota River crossing to 2015. 18, Support evaluation of benefits of developing a regional Minnesota River crossing as a joint Scott County/Carver County bridge project, to be led by County officials in partnership with state and regional agencies. 19. Support working in cooperation with Carver County to consider development of Minnesota River Crossing once final corridor alignment selection is complete. 20. Support efforts to investigate options for establishing a pilot public/private partnership or "3P" initiative (if initiated by local government) for design, construction, and operation of the Minnesota River Crossing and other major projects. The Task Force further supports efforts to secure funding for technical assistance and educational support to implement the 3P initiative, and funding for a limited pilot program. 21. Support contribution of up to $10,000 from SCALE for "start-up" costs of the Coalition, financed from existing budgeted funds. 22. Delegate the SCALE Transportation consultant to provide staff support to Coalition. C. TH 169 Corridor Improvements 23. Support efforts to program and fund construction of TH 169/1-494 Interchange in Bloomington, e.g., inclusion of the project in the state legislature's 2008 capital investment "bonding" bill and the Metropolitan Council's 5-year Transportation Improvement Program. 24. Support engineering study and implementation of traffic congestion mitigation projects on TH 169 between TH 41 and Old Shakopee Road in Bloomington, including construction of stacking lane at TH 169 east of County Road 83 and the construction of bus only shoulders where appropriate. D. Additional Regional Minnesota River Crossings 25. Support project feasibility (including financing options) and engineering study of additional crossings in Jordan, Shakopee, and Savage, including transit, High Occupancy Vehicle, MnPASS, and bike/pedestrian facility at existing rail crossing in Savage. Expected 2008 Outcomes: To be determined by the SCALE Transportation Task Force. SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07-105 ORAFTPhase 1 Report Bt?I1!$tl'f)Ey Page 5 III. Transit OVERVIEW Population growth, new economic development, and the expansion of the urban service area will all contribute significantly to greater travel demands on the road and bridge network. In order to sustain and enhance the quality of life in the region, alternative modes of travel must be available for commuters and others traveling within the County. New transit options, including both rail and bus service must be a component of the region`s transportation network to support these added future demands. RECOMMENDATIONS 26. Support collaborative efforts with the Metropolitan Council and neighboring jurisdictions to identify program efficiencies and promote additional funding sources for transit service that will achieve greater consistency and reliability for transit planners and providers. 27. Support regional planning authority for the development of new and expanded transit service in the southwest metro region, including: 1) evaluation of commuter rail along the Dan Patch corridor, 2) coordination of light rail transit and bus rapid transit along the U.S. 169 Corridor with Hennepin County consistent with the Southwest Corridor Study; and 3) development of bus rapid transit along the I-35 Corridor. 28. Support specific "transit advantages" where appropriate, including bus-only shoulder facilities on river crossings. 29. Support efforts to construct a new park-and-ride facility at TH 21 and TH 16. Expected 2008 Outcomes: To be determined by the SCALE Transportation Task Force. IV. Project Funding OVERVIEW Existing, traditional resources for corridor management and preservation such as developer contributions, state aid, and -most importantly -property taxes are simply not sufficient to finance the needs of a rapidly growing County such as Scott County. The following recommendation addresses the Task Force's intention of continuing to review and when appropriate, advocate for specific funding sources, both existing and those requiring new authority. RECOMMENDATIONS 30. Support efforts to persuade the Metropolitan Council's Transportation Advisory Board to consider an amendment to the 2030 Regional Development Framework that would more directly acknowledge and reward project proposals that preserve key transportation corridors. 31. Support SCALE's continued participation in monitoring and promoting additional funding opportunities. a. Federal (STP, CMAQ, TE) appropriations b. Federal SAFETEA-LU reauthorization c. State funding for regional corridors, and corridor management d. Mn/DOT and Met Council opportunities e. PublidPrivate Partnerships f. Innovative local funding Expected 2008 Outcomes: To be determined by the SCALE Transportation Task Force. SCALf Transportation Task force Project No: 569-07-105 DRAfT Phase 2 Report Bonestr0o Page 6 V. Countywide Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) QVERVIEVi~ The Task Force believes that ultimately, the County and its local units of government would benefit from producing a combined Transportation Improvement Program that would provide consistency from community to community in terms of the regional goals and project needs for all communities. The following recommendations are intended to promote the idea of enhancing the existing County TIP to a more formalized program that would be adopted by the County and all its jurisdictions. RECOMMENDATIONS 32. Support development and implementation of a countywide, multi-jurisdictional Transportation Improvement Program addressing local and regional transportation needs by 2010. 33. Support efforts to integrate the goal of amulti-jurisdictional countywide TIP into all work done on behalf of the SCALE Transportation Task Force. Expected 2008 Outcomes: To be determined by the SCALE Transportation Task Force. VI. Management/Staff Support to the SCALE Transportation Task Force QVERVIEW The SCALE Transportation Task Force was established in January of 2007 at the recommendation of the Phase 1 report "Managing Growth in Scott County: Challenge or Opportunity?". The findings and recommendations of the Task Force are the subject of this report. The following recommendations involve specific administrative functions that would be overseen by the Task Force in the upcoming year. RECOMMENDATIONS 34. Support continuing SCALE Transportation Task Force through 2008. 35, Support staff/consultant Support of TH 13/Ports of Savage Coalition and Regional River Crossing Coalition. 36. Support increased public forums and events displaying Task Force activities and recommendations, including media events, legislative and congressional forums, and other public events. Expected 2008 Outcomes: To be determined by the SCALE Transportation Task Force. SCALE Transportation Task force Project No.• 569-07- 905 DRAFT Phase? Report '+~ BQf1e5tCQ0 Page 7 SCALE TRAMSPORTATIOP~ TASK FORCE - PHASE T REPORT I. Introduction/Project Goals EAClC~itQUf~lD In 2005, the Scott County Association for Leadership and Efficiency (SCALE) undertook an ambitious initiative to identify key transportation corridor and project improvement needs that must be addressed if the County and its local government and private partners are to achieve the long-range, regional transportation vision for Scott County. The initial "Phase 1" 2006 report to SCALE -called "Managing Growth in Scott County.• Challenge or Opportunity?" listed approximately 80 key unfunded transportation project needs that were identified in a series of meetings with County and municipal officials. The list was established to identify the most important "To address the impact on rapid growth in the County, and identify the means and strategies to get ahead of the growth trends, particu/ar/y with respect to /and acquisition and the county's right- of-way needs. " and regionally significant projects that all municipal and County officials could agree represent the most critical project needs that must be addressed over the next 10 to 20 years if the county transportation network is to meet the travel demands of citizens and business in this growing county. The report also recommended the establishment of a SCALE Transportation Task Force responsible for making recommendations to the full SCALE membership to identify and undertake strategies intended to implement the most important regional projects. Achieving the County's Transportation Vision: "Needs" and "Opportunities" The SCALE Transportation Task Force understood from the outset that achieving the vision for an effective and safe regional transportation network articulated by SCALE and its member organizations would require progress on two fronts. The SCALE Transportation Task Force characterized these two fundamental objectives -which are the primary focus of this report - as "needs" (Section II of the report) and "opportunities" (Section III of the report). NEEDS Section II of this report identifies and describes the unfunded project needs which must continue to be a top priority of the County, its municipal and private partners, as well as partners at the federal, state, and regional levels of government who will be relied upon to contribute a share of the funding for many of these regionally significant projects. This section identifies and describes unfunded needs on two levels. First, the Task Force identified a handful of broad transportation project needs that could be fairly characterized as the most fundamental and deep- seated challenges for the countywide transportation network over the next 20 to 30 years. Section II begins with a discussion on these highest priority transportation infrastructure challenges (called "Priority 1 Needs), and progress that has been made to date: TH 13/Ports of Savage I-494/US 169 Interchange Traffic Congestion Minnesota River Regional River Crossing (Bloomington) U.S. 169/TH 101 Traffic Congestion ~ Countywide Transit System SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07- 905 DRAFT Phase 1 Report s~` BOne5f CUE} Page 8 Second, the Task Force has reviewed work that was initiated in the Phase 1 report involving identification of approximately 80 regionally significant projects identified by the Local Official Advisory Group. Identification of these secondary project needs are important because these projects will continue to be considered for programming (for both corridor preservation and construction) during implementation of the Regional Corridor Management Planning Process, described in Section III of this report. The Task Force fully recognizes the importance of these projects in the development of a safe and efficient regional transportation network, and is committed to focusing first on approximately 20 of the 80 projects identified in Phase 1. These 20 projects were identified as the highest priority projects among the original list of 80 projects based on feedback by the Local Official Advisory Group and an analysis of project significance. In the end, all of the 20 projects selected involve improvements to an existing or planned system of principal arterial highways. (These 20 projects are identified as "Priority 2 Needs" in this report.) The Task Force will continue efforts to promote land preservation and completion of these transportation infrastructure projects that SCALE and its members have identified as important in terms of providing safety, economic vitality, and livability of the County. QPPORTUNlTIE~ The main priority of the SCALE Transportation Task Force -and the primary subject of this report -addresses how best to respond to the current opportunities that will ultimately determine the type of transportation network that will be left as a legacy for future generations. Section III of the report focuses on those shorter term opportunities that will require action by SCALE, and its member organizations, including the County, its municipalities, townships, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, and key private partners. Fundamentally, these opportunities involve taking advantage of existing and new tools that will promote and enable local authorities to preserve critical transportation corridors, resulting in significant cost savings. Some of the opportunities identified in this section do not require changes in current planning processes, funding sources, or other factors, and so taking advantage of those opportunities means simply working smarter to take better advantages of those existing tools. On the other hand, this report also identifies a number of new opportunities that will require a change in the status quo as it relates to developing relations with federal, state, regional, and local partners; developing and implementing new and improved ways of doing business; or promoting new or expanded sources of funding. The discussion on opportunities in Section III focuses on three distinct areas, each a component of a process that is intended to equip SCALE and its member organizations with the tools to more proactively manage and preserve critical transportation corridors and to complete regionally significant transportation projects in a timely fashion. This section includes 1) a recommendation for amulti-jurisdictional Scott County Corridor Management planning process; 2) a review of strategies that can be used to manage and preserve transportation corridors, and 3) a review of existing and prospective funding sources to finance corridor management and preservation activities. SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07-105 ORAfT Phase 1 Report ~QneStr(~l~ Page 9 SCALE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE -PHASE 2 REPORT II. Needs -Sizing Up the Challenge In 2006, a series of meetings were conducted independently with administrators and public works officials from the County and each of the eight (now seven, with the merger of Elko New Market) municipal governments, a group referred to as the "Local Officials Advisory Group". (See the Acknowledgements page for a roster of group participants.) These meetings identified approximately 80 regionally significant project needs in the County. From these projects, three separate priority lists were generated: Priority 1 Needs, Priority 2 Needs, and Priority 3 Needs. These project lists are identified and described below: PRfOttli'1f t NEEDS From the list of the initial 80 projects identified in Phase 1, and based on additional input from the Local Officials Advisory Group, the SCALE Transportation Task Force identified a handful of broad project needs that represent the most critical and immediate impediments to the County's transportation network. The County and its local partners, along with partners in the private sector have been dedicating significant resources and energy to promote the needs of these projects for a number of years, long before the establishment of the SCALE and the SCALE Transportation Task Force. The Task Force supports continued emphasis of these initiatives including continued promotion of efforts to seek financial support for these costly projects from federal, state, and regional partners. A status report of these projects is provided below: TH 13/Ports of Savage -The TH 13/Ports of Savage corridor remains a top priority of SCALE and the county due to its significance as a multimodal corridor serving not only local travel, but as a critical corridor to the economy of the entire state and indeed the upper Midwest. This corridor has long been one of the most heavily traveled corridors among trucks in the state, and many of the key intersections along the corridor are moving higher on Mn/DOT`s list of the worst traffic intersections in terms of crash rates. One of the key recommendations contained in the Phase 1 report was to establish a corridor coalition for the TH 13/Ports of Savage corridor. That coalition was established early in 2007 and has been active in pursuing federal funding through the Metropolitan Council's regional solicitation of federal funding that is effective for the year 2011. Prior to establishment of the Coalition, the County and its local partners successfully secured federal funding for elements of the overall project, including construction of service roads in Savage. The Coalition, including the County and local partners are currently working to secure additional federal funding for interchanges and other improvements along the corridor. Regional Minnesota River Crossing -The Phase I report to SCALE also recommended the establishment of a coalition called the Regional River Crossing Corridor Coalition. This Coalition, which includes representation from both Scott and Carver County and municipal officials, has met three times to identify preliminary goals and objectives, but will probably not become fully operational until Mn/DOT selects the preferred alignment of the Minnesota River crossing, which is expected to occur sometime in early 2008. Once the alignment is selected, the Coalition will be better positioned to identify project needs and pursue state and federal funding. U.S. 169/TH 101 Traffic Congestion (from existing River Crossing at TH 41 to the north side of the Bloomington Ferry Bridge) -The US 169 and TH 101 corridors between the existing TH 41 Minnesota River crossing and the Bloomington Ferry bridge is one of the worst bottle necks in the metro area and is SCALE Transportation Task Force Project Na• 569-07-105 DRAFT Phase 2 Report r'~S` ~~I~Q$tr~b Page 10 currently at capacity during peak periods. The corridor is critical to traffic flow in the region because it serves three of the main tourist attractions in the metro area: Valley Fair, Mystic Lake Casino, and Canterbury Downs. Task Force members have identified potential low cost solutions to the traffic bottlenecks through this area and the Task Force has recommended that these solutions be considered during the coming year. o I-494/U.S. 169 Interchange Traffic Congestion (in Bloomington) -Ironically, one of the most critical challenges facing travelers moving in and out of Scott County involves a project in Hennepin County -the I-94/U.S. 169 interchange. (This project is perhaps the best example of how "regionalized" many of the most important and challenging transportation issues have become, and how solving these problems will require a regional solution.) This interchange project was initially programmed for construction in the Governor's 2003 Bond Allocation Program, but ultimately the project was deferred due to limited funds. The project needs to be moved back into the regional Transportation Improvement Program. Countywide Transit System (Dan Patch, Southwest Corridor, US 169 Express Commuter Bus service, I- 35W Bus Rapid Transit) - As indicated earlier, SCALE and its member organizations are committed to creating a transportation network that safely and efficiently moves people, not just automobiles. The focus of this entire effort is to put a system in place that provides modal options and allows citizens, visitors, and businesses to move through and around the County in a safe and efficient manner. Although many of the transit needs identified in this report represent projects that may not be completed for some time, it is instructive to know that one of the transit related projects identified in the Phase 1 report in the summer of 2006 has already been completed. The Park & Ride facility at U.S. 169 and CSAH 18 has been operational since the July of 2007 and is currently serving about 250 riders per day. PRIORITY ~ NEEDS After the 80 projects were identified in Phase 1, project consultants worked with the Local Officials Advisory Group and the SCALE Transportation Task Force to pare the list down to a more manageable number of projects. It was determined that it would not be reasonable to expect to immediately address all 80 identified project needs given the limited resources that are currently available, so the project consultants developed a prioritizing methodology that examined criteria such as existing functional classification and regional significance to identify those projects that merited a higher priority. Project consultants have maintained a database of all 80 projects, including the "scoring criteria" collected from the Local Official Advisory Group which the Task Force believes will also be useful in the future as a tool to be used to provide guidance on evaluating the relative merits of competing projects and to help identify optimal funding strategies for corridor preservation or project construction. In the end, the list of Priority 1 projects (identified and described above) and Priority 2 projects totals 20 projects in Scott County, and one project in Hennepin County. Projects that were selected as Priority 1 and Priority 2 projects all involve improvements or expansion of roadway or transit along existing or future principal arterials. This criteria was proposed and adopted by the Local Officials Advisory Group in a meeting conducted on October 24, 2007. Priority 1 and 2 projects are presented in the fold out map following this page. (The I-494/US 169 interchange project is not located in the county and is not shown on the project map.) PRIORITY 3 NEEDS Priority 3 needs are all of the remaining projects identified in the Phase 1 report, as well as additional projects identified in subsequent discussions with local officials and the SCALE Transportation Task Force. SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07-105 DRAFT Phase Z Report ,~ ~anE?~I~©(} Page 11 k ~ ~ v c c° ~,z o az a• U ~ G ~ :~ s = ~ _ ~. ~ 51~ is ,. =,a ~ € ~- zy ~ r ~ - 6 ~ I j ~, ~ y 6 O 1- o v Q ; ~, ~ I ~. (,1 1~~ a o ~ ~ 6 i t ~~ Y~ ', l ( ~, i ~ _ ~ L _ _ ~ ~r_ ''~ _ ~~ -~ r ~ ~ I I ~~ ~ -_ i f ~ ~ - ---{ ~l ~ - _ _ ~ ;° - ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~~,, J -f ~ ~ `~J ; I i 1 __ ~ _ - r ] ~ - ~~ ~ I~ t . ~ I,~~ t ~ ~ ~- e..~ ! ~ ~ r ~ ~~~ 1 ~ut; ~ ^--~~-~ -~~ ~i~~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ - ~~ rE ~~ ~ __ ~ ._1 ~ ~ - ' k - ;--~ _ _ - - - t. ,~ ,_ ~ U~ ~ 1 ~ ~_ _ j ~"~. ~~.. _ w ~ ~ ~ r-~ ~ ~ _ e ~ i ` t - I- -c, a I 1 ~ ~ - J ~4 ~ __ ~ ~ e ~ ~ Y -_ ( 1 [ ' ~ r", r~ a e -' w ; F `OU a---- `. ~a; ~ - . ;~ _I ~ _ ~~ _ ~ f c ~ 7~ ~. _ ~ o ~ ~. ~ ~ tea,- i ~ -~ -E ~,~ _ ~ ~ f ~ ~ - ~ _, ~ ® ~ ,~ ,~ ~- (Y~ dg ~ u. t ,- ,~ ~ a ~~ ~ ~~~ _ : " ~ ~ ~ ~ L _ H` ' ' ~ "o I ~~T ~ P. ~ __.. ` , . - ,~ ° ~ ~f ~ ~ ~ ~.. - ~ E- . ~l. _, .. _ a _ { 4 -- ~ - I ~ ~ ' ~ _ ~ ~~~_ , ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ - ~ ~~ ^. ~~ , s -. ~ ~~ ,r ~ ~ ~ a, 0 _ ~ ,_ _ ~ ,- --_ L- ~ ~ » _ `, _ ~ ~ ~ I ~~ ~ i ~ r--l ~~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ _ ,. ., ~ ~ ,_, ~ ~ , ~- -~ - ~ ~-~= ~ ~ r ~. (- --~ ~ ~- t_ ; , ~ ~ ~ ~- _ -- ®_ r i ~~ ~ 1 ~ J ~ ~ - , - = , F ~ ~ ,~ ~ y~ . - --- - ~ __ ,t ~ _~ `~ ~~ ~ ~ r { ~ t , ~ ~ ~ T 111"', l ~ ~ ~ , ~ ,; y ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ m _ = ( ~ 1 ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~a~ _~~ y ~ Y tp c~ = Y ~~ a .m o' O ~ OI ~ ~ ~,'~ ~ ~ ~l „~. _ ~ N \ ~~®~~~4~ ~~aia- r ~-- ~ ~ ~ .~-_ ~ ~ S -~ ~ O ~ a c 6 Q ~ O ~p ~ ~ fi , "~1~ i€ -~ 3 S~ 1 f -.~- .~ 5 1 N 2, _ I ,1 r 7 ~ §$ (~ - ~ ~ -' I '- - - ~ _, J ~ ~ ~ a~ ,g f ~1 ` ~ S ~ . I ,q~,..~ , _ dd \~\L^ ~~ ~ ~ ~ e _ ~~ PJ i t i^~~ 9 g S II! .t '~ ~ ~ ~i 3e ' ~ f 1' s ~~~s ~ ~ ~~" e !Z ._ ~ t ~ s `~ ~ ' ~ as s t ~~ __ 1 1 ~~ ~ I L s 1 m ~ ~ ~ ~ -1 a _~ f ~ `` ~, ~ ® k ~ _ f~. ~ ~ f /c~ ~ ~j o. ~ ~~_ of $ +~ . ` 3' : f g ~ \ ~ . ar ~'. --~s,~, ~~~- f I ~ - ~~ - ~~ ~- z ,. ~ ~ ~~ A. s { ~ g ~~ ~ EY - - i - - ~ e _ ~ ~` ~ ~ a= : f I/ N ~. s ~ ^ ~ ' S 8 5 i a / ~ S Y e e I I - 1 i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ` A ? ~ _ ~~- ~ -ti _ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ° ( ' ~ ~- ' o Q U x ,- £~ s~ - p 1 `fi d ~ ~ ~ ~' 1 ~! ~ E ~ ii ~ F $ ~ ~8 _ P F g S - ' ~ ~ i g a ~ ~ _- - ~ ~~ . ~ ~ g p~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ - `~ ~~~ r - '1` QQ c-- -~ ~, ~ ~~ es `€~~ Ir'` I ,~- ~ - -~ .. : ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ =, _ 1, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~& ~ ~T-'~ ~~ 3 --~- ~ ~~- '~ .~ Y ..._-- ~ \\ I ~ ~ ~ 1 ~JI _. ,-,. ~ _\ ~ ~ _ . `'^, ~ of ...___.. I + l ,_ ~ ~ ~e~ ~ I r~~ G ~ __ - ~~ I ~ '71 tae I ¢ ~ , 0 ~ 1 ~ ' ' ~ ®. i j ''~ ~~ ~ _ g$'~a - ~"` ~ ~.-~__ _ _ __ ~L.1~ __.___ gh sl. ~ _ ~ ~ I - --- - rI- -- - ~1ti~ ~- ~ wr - a { ~ ~ ` ~'1 ~1 "~~ I ~ ~ F ~ q c I / ~ ~ l ~ t ~ ---~~ ' SF ~I 6// t5t5 ~ m - l J y ~ ~~ i J _. . _ _-, ~ { ~ -E. -~\ ~ €Fg 1 l ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~" ~ 1 ~g _ " ~ b ~ , 1 -, ~ ,~ _ l ~ ~ ~ g - -- -- ,: ~ ~r ~i ~ ~. ~,~_~ fi - ~ ~: ~. ' ~ - ,~ z~ ~ . ~~ , ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~l ~1 1 S } ' ,~ ~, ~ _ ~ ~.~ i _ ~ ~ I r~ ~ , I 1 ~ ~ < < ~ I ~ ~ ~. ~ _ I ---.~ - I J ~ ~; ~~ ~ _ t ~ ~ ~ t 1 1 ~ l 1 L h ~,l `~ 1 I ~ ~e J ' ` ~- - ~ ~ ~ Z ~„ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ h d a ~ ~ ° LL a °c c c o m N v m c c- c 3 y - 1 _ _ _ d m° Ik f l rn ^ ' o ~~ `C ~~ 0 p Q T C ~ (n U U O N ~'` J ~ v~ `~° 3 v \ _1 I a` a a a m~~ ~ r z~ SCALE TRAAl5POR7ATI0N TASK FORCE -PHASE 2 REPORT Opportunities - Implementing a "Regional Corridor f~anagement Plan" Now that key projects needs have been identified, the next step is to develop an implementation plan that will allow SCALE and its members and partners to actually implement them. That process -and the emphasis of this study -starts with identifying the steps necessary to preserve right-of-way. Our effectiveness in identifying and successfully implementing the corridor preservation strategies outlined in this section of the report will ultimately affect the safety of our highways, the amount of time we spend stuck in traffic, and the very shape and feel of our communities. Why is corridor preservation so critical? First, the rapid rate of population growth and development projected in Scott County over the next 20 years means that the demands on the transportation network will continue to grow. According to recent Census data, the County's population will increase from 118,000 people in 2006 to 221,000 people by the year 2030, an increase of nearly 90%! U.S. Census data Corridor Preservation means "the coordinated app/ication of various measures to obtain cvntro/ of or otherwise protect the right-of-.way for a planned transportation fac/ity, indicates that the County ranks 11`h nationally in terms of the percentage of its population that commutes to work each day to a different county, and while long range plans envision increasing employment opportunities within the County, high levels of peak period commuter traffic will continue to be a significant challenge for County and municipal planners. Second, that developable land available for public purposes -roads, bridges, transit facilities, and trails - will be increasingly scarce, so acquisition will be increasingly more expensive, crowding out resources available for project development. It is increasingly common for land acquisition to be the most costly element of project construction. Third, most public agencies have taken a conventional approach to right-of-way preservation focusing on traditional methods of land acquisition such as fee simple purchase or developer dedication through the platting process for local roadways. This "patchwork" method of preserving right-of-way addresses some limited local needs, but does not provide for a coordinated transportation network. And in some circumstances, inconsistencies between the state, regional, and local government transportation planning process can also restrict public flexibility in preserving needed right-of-way. There are, however, a variety of strategies, tools, and funding sources that are available to preserve right- of-way and mitigate hardship on property owners. This section identifies three methods that can be considered for implementation that would support the development of key transportation corridors throughout the County. The first subsection describes a proposed regional corridor management planning process in which continued collaboration and land preservation directed at improving the regional transportation system is emphasized. The second subsection identifies and describes a variety of corridor preservation "best practices", some of which can be immediately implemented, and others which will SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No.' 569-07--105 DRAFT Phase 1 Report ~` ~OCil5~CE1f) Page 14 require additional state or local authority. The third subsection identifies and discusses specific financing strategies -some existing and some new -that could be applied to raise revenue to finance corridor preservation in the County. FE. REGIOf~EEL ~ORRt~Ot~ R-tANACEI~tEf~T PLAhEt~ltt~tCs PROCESS tfi! SCOTT CdUNT~' Scott County and its municipal governments recognize the importance of developing land use and transportation plans that are consistent from community to community. The existence of SCALE is itself evidence of a commitment on the part of County and municipal governments to collaborate in the best interests of all the citizens of the County. What is lacking, however, is a systematic program for preserving right-of-way and managing access on regionally significant corridors that takes advantage of the full range of governmental powers and tools to their maximum advantage. In order to implement the strategies and funding sources to effectively preserve right-of-way (these best practices are discussed later in this section) a first priority is to establish a process in which all stakeholders are united in their efforts to identify and preserve the most critical transportation corridors for the good of the regional system. (It should be noted that SCALE is preparing an application to the McKnight Foundation Region and Communities Grant program to implement a more regionally focused, multi-jurisdictional transportation and land use planning process in Scott County.) There are several reasons for optimism: First, in meetings with local officials to identify and prioritize projects, many of the project needs discussed involved projects of regional significance. Second, as indicated earlier, SCALE and its member municipalities have already demonstrated that they fully understand the benefit of working together collaboratively and there is an existing culture within the County of successful collaboration. Third, while different municipalities and the County certainly have there own priorities, the different units of government are more united in their similarities than they are divided by their differences. As a result, there are a number of projects and transportation system objectives that are shared by all. These factors all lead to the conclusion that the cities and counties will all benefit if they continue to work together to develop and establish a countywide land planning and corridor preservation strategy. This process would encourage land planning that focuses on regional goals such as safety and congestion relief through countywide access management guidelines, expansion of public transit options, and renewed emphasis on "green" corridor preservation, conservation and staged development, Implementation of a more regionally focused planning process will require a commitment of all involved jurisdictions. The Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, the County, and municipal governments will all have a role to play in implementing this process, as discussed below. TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN COUNCIL The Metropolitan Council is authorized by state law to establish and oversee the implementation of planning and development guidelines. For transportation planning purposes, the Council's 2030 Regional Development Framework and 2030 Transportation Policy Plan are the primary documents articulating the regional transportation goals and objectives. The Council is striving to deve%p closer -vorking re/ationships with the fast yrowinq counties on growth-related issues /am veryinterested in an idea that emerged atour Regiona/ Po/icy Conference. The idea is for the Council to playa more active role as a "convener" of discussions on regional prob/ems that might not faU within the Council's traditiona/areas of responsibility. Council Ghair Peter Bell, August 2007 SCALE Transportation Task force Project No.• 569-07-105 ORAfTPhase2Report ~O(lfzstt•00 Page 15 A fundamental theme of the Council's development framework is that the fastest growing areas in the Twin Cities region must absorb higher density development along key transportation corridors in order to support the level of population growth and economic development that is projected. The SCALE Transportation Task Force concurs that higher density development served by adequate, multimodal transportation infrastructure most certainly is both desirable and critical, but that implementing such a system will require greater levels of participation from state and federal funding sources. The Task Force believes that given the extent of the growth that is projected throughout the County, the traditional means of funding transportation infrastructure (e.g., developer exactions, state aid, etc.) will contribute a diminishing share of funding necessary to provide the kind of regional transportation network envisioned in the Metropolitan Council's long range planning documents. The Metropolitan Council's statutory authority means that the Council can be a strong and effective advocate and promoter of SCALE`s efforts to coordinate right-of-way preservation efforts in the County. The Task Force recommends that SCALE and its member organizations engage the Metropolitan Council and seek an amendment to the 2030 Regional Development Framework that would more directly acknowledge and reward the preservation of key transportation corridors. Such an amendment would provide fast growing areas within the seven-county metro area with an acknowledgment that the protection of future roadway corridors is a matter of regional significance. SCALE SCALE, in its capacity as a broad policy oversight committee representing all stakeholders in the County, is best positioned to provide direction on how information should be shared and distributed among its member organizations. SCALE's primary responsibility is to work with its members to establish a workable transportation planning and land acquisition process that represents all local jurisdictions within the County and addresses the most pressing regional transportation needs. We recommend that the SCALE Transportation Task Force remain in place as an advisory panel to the full SCALE Committee. SCALE would work closely with its member organizations to initiate the more formalized. regional corridor management process. In the first year, establishment of the process will require the following tasks: 1. SCALE will communicate to all of its member organizations the purpose and public benefit associated with the regional corridor management planning process. SCALE will articulate clear goals to be achieved through the implementation of this process, the roles and responsibilities of all of the participants, and the timing of required actions. 2. SCALE should oversee the distribution of all of the necessary background information related to priority projects and acquisition strategies contained in this and other reports to each of its member local units of government. 3. SCALE should develop methods that provide guidance ensuring that all key information is consistently presented within each organization's respective plans. For example, all local plans should include a map of these corridors reflecting consistency in their functional classifications. 4. SCALE should develop and distribute materials on planning and designing designated priority corridor improvements, including information about access limitations and spacing guidelines. Also, the "full build" plan should include broad based rules on access, density of development, and functional capacity of roads. 5. SCALE should encourage and support its member organizations in their efforts to prepare local land use plans in a manner that compliments the transportation corridors and projects, including an emphasis on parks and trails (i.e., "green infrastructure"). Utilizing resources such as the Metropolitan Council's Minnesota Land Cover Classification System, Scott County's "Natural Resources Inventory SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07-705 DRAFTPhasel Report ` ~t1n~~t~~Q Page 76 and Assessment" and the County Parks and Open Space Plan, the planning process will promote appropriate alignment of transportation corridors that preserve the County`s park and trail amenities. &corr COUNTY Scott County will also play an important role in coordinating the development of local plans within the County. While the County role will likely include many additional responsibilities, we specifically recommend the following: 1. The County Transportation Plan should contain an implementation section that includes astep-by-step process for effectuating the regional corridor planning process. This section could include a variety of information, including a description of local technical assistance that would be available, potential funding source information, etc. 2. Whenever appropriate, the County should officially map all of the future roadway corridors. The map designates the corridor for preservation and is included in the local comprehensive plan. fVfUNiCIPAL AND TOYVNSHIP GOVERNMENTS In determining the validity of local regulatory actions involving land acquisition for transportation infrastructure improvements, courts will review whether the action is consistent with a local comprehensive plan. Therefore, it is essential that the regional corridor management planning process have a strong foundation in the local comprehensive plans. 1. Using the detailed map of priority project needs, each of the County's local governments should prepare and adopt local comprehensive plans, including Transportation plans that all acknowledge and map the same project corridor needs and identify each project with the same functional classification system designation. In addition, the plans should be consistent in their traffic projections and project broad implementation strategy (timelines). 2. Each of the local plans should include background information about the need for right-of-way preservation on key projects, and detailed information about the specific regional and state transportation projects that affect their jurisdiction. This information should be consistent in content and intent with all of the other jurisdictions and it should establish the public purposes to be achieved through the implementation of the program. 3. Each of the local city and township plans should also include both goals that support the broader, countywide program and identify their own local aspirations for the successful implementation of the program. They should include goals to match each of the potential implementation strategies that they intend to pursue. 4. Every one of the goals should be directly tied to one or more policies. These policies should establish how the goals will be accomplished, specific roles and responsibilities, programming and construction schedule, and funding plan. Of particular importance would be any flexible zoning techniques, such as a Planned Unit Development, density transfer, or similar tools that the local unit chooses to utilize. 5. The implementation chapters in each of the local plans should be essentially consistent with each other. It should describe the working relationship between the city, township, adjacent communities, and the County. Particular detail should be included to describe the actions that the city or township commits to taking when development, and/or subdivision requests threaten future roadway corridors, and/or transportation projects. 6. The local units should officially map local roadways that are essential to accomplish their local land use plans and support the County and regional roadway corridors. SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07-105 DRAfT Phase 1 Repoli ~ BQ11ESt1`OC1 Page 77 E. STEBATEGEES TQ PRE~E~t~E lftt~E1 AGQE~EFBE KE1~ COBF~IDO[~S A fundamental objective of this report is to provide SCALE and its member organizations with information on available tools to implement the Regional Corridor Management Planning process. Effective application of these tools and strategies will allow the County, municipalities, and townships in Scott County to preserve future transportation corridors and to facilitate their acquisition by means that are both constitutional and affordable. The strategies and tools identified below have been classified into three separate categories: Category 1: P/anninq and zoning authority- These strategies focus on preserving corridors and are intended to be pre-emptive, enabling the public jurisdiction to preserve right-of-way by limiting or prohibiting private development. Category 2: Deve/oiler payments and contributions-These strategies focus on methods of preserving corridors prior to construction of a specific development, and are intended to provide incentives to the developer to preserve right-of-way as a component of the project. Category 3: Acquisition- These strategies focus on specific methods of purchasing or otherwise acquiring right-of-way in which the owner mayor may not be a willing seller. PLANNING AND ZONING AUTHORITY The previous section recommended an integrated regional corridor management planning process involving the Metropolitan Council, SCALE, and Scott County and its municipalities and townships. Fundamentally, this process includes the following core functions: identifying and locating future, regionally significant transportation corridor right-of-way needs; • preparing and adopting coordinated plans at the County, city, and township level; official mapping of "appropriate" corridors. The proposed regional corridor management planning process is intended to provide the framework for a more systematic, proactive approach to corridor management and preservation grounded in local comprehensive plans and codes. Successful implementation of this process will result in alleviating the need to rely on many of the more complex and extreme corridor preservation strategies described below, saving the County and its local governments significant resources and identifying key corridor management opportunities. ENACT NEW OR EXPANDED LAND USE AND ZONING ORDINANCES Successfully implementing a local transportation plan, especially in rapidly growing communities, generally requires that the local government adopt ordinances designed to manage development within the planned transportation corridor. These ordinances are generally intended to prohibit or otherwise restrict development in the path of a planned transportation improvement, and/or to manage roadway access as development occurs. Provisions traditionally found in local zoning ordinances can include the following: (Some of these tools are also described separately as independent corridor management strategies.) SCALE Transportation Task force Project No: 569-07- 905 ORAFTPhasel Report ` BOIIIStI'tIQ Page 98 Corridor Preservation Provisions e Restrictions on construction or other development in the right-of-way of a mapped transportation facility; • Criteria for right-of-way exactions, and procedure for deriving appropriate level of right-of-way dedication proportionate to the impact of the proposed development; e Allowing more flexible site design options (e.g., reducing setback requirements) that preserves right-of- way; Permitting temporary or transitional use of right-of-way through agreements with land owners for uses that can easily be removed or relocated when the land is required for the transportation facility; 6 Allowances for increasing development densities in order to preserve the right-of-way; Allowances for impact fee credits to developers who dedicate sufficient right-of-way; Procedures for notifying County, regional, or state authorities of development proposals that would threaten the viability of a future transportation corridor. Corridor Access Management Provisions Access spacing standards for each road by functional classification; E Requirements for joint and cross access, driveway consolidation, interparcel connections, and unified access and circulation plans; Driveway location and design policies and guidelines; Median (non-traversable and open) policies and guidelines; Guidelines on access management near freeway interchanges; • Traffic impact assessment requirements and procedures. ~_ _ _'~; From Poliey to Reaiity: Model Ordinanees for Sustainable ®evelopment (Minnesota Planning Environmental Quality Board -September 2000) Minnesota Statutes, Section 4A.07(3) directs Minnesota Planning (the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning) to prepare, in consultation with appropriate and affected parties, a model ordinance to guide sustainable development. This 300-page guide contains model ordinances relating to the following seven broad topic areas: 1. Citizen Participation 2. Growth Management 3. Managing Community Resources 4. Neighborhood Design 5. Infrastructure 6. Resource Efficient Buildings 7. Economic Development SCALf Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07-905 DRAFT Phase 2 Report + BQ{iCStC'Ob Page 99 Although there may be relevant model ordinances in any of the aforementioned topic areas, the specific model ordinances included under the "Growth Management" topic area would appear to have the most relevance to SCALE`s efforts relating to corridor management and preservation. Specific model ordinances contained in this section include the following: Urban growth boundary Transfer of development rights Agricultural and forest protection district e Orderly annexation agreement Conservation subdivision ~ General subdivision standards Purchase of development rights Web Link: http~//www gda state mn us/pdf/2000/egb/ModelOrdWhole pdf ENACT NEW LOCAL PLAT OR SITE PLAN REVIEW AUTHORITY Under broad planning and zoning authority, local units of government are authorized by law to plat new subdivisions, showing the location of lots, alleys, and streets. The platting process is also an important tool for right-of-way preservation because it allows the municipality to designate location and dimension of local access roads that are required to be constructed by the developer under the terms of a development agreement. ._;:. Dakota County Contiguous Plat Qrdinance (Dakota County Board of Commissioners -Amended August, 2006) During the 2004 Minnesota legislative session, city and county representatives developed a proposal for a plat review process which would have provided all counties with the authority to conduct a review of ingress and egress, drainage, safety, rights-of-way, integration, and impact on the countywide system prior to the city's statutory plat review process. Under current law, only Dakota County has that statutory authority. Web Link: http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/NR/rdonlyres/2BF7960A-F475-4CE2-8268- 1 A260868DB04/0/PlatOrdinance.pdf AUTHORIZE MORE RESTRICTIVE SETBACK REGULATIONS Setback regulations in land use or zoning ordinances restrict or prohibit new construction or improvements within a specified distance from the property line. Setback requirements have been found to be unconstitutional (i.e., "taking" without just compensation) if they are used solely for the purpose of preserving right-of-way for future expansion in order to avoid land acquisition costs. Setback requirements are more traditionally used to allow safety improvements, such as improving sightlines. SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-o7-1OS DRAFrPhase 2 Report ~ B01'1lStC00 Page ZD ''? ~$t Kanakee County, Illinois Corridor Preservation draft Concept Document (Kanakee County Planning E~epartment -July 2003) Kanakee County, Illinois is preserving transportation corridors through the use of setbacks regulations in its zoning code. The County developed a process to rank and classify county roads to determine what setbacks are needed and is implementing the regulations when a property owner applies for a building permit, subdivision development permit, or conditional use permit, or when an area is to be rezoned. Web Link: http://planning.k3county.net/ dfp /cor_pres.pdf IMPOSE RESTRICTIVE ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES Access Management is the planning, design, and implementation of land use and transportation strategies that manage the flow of traffic between the road and surrounding land. Appropriate spacing and design of public street intersections and private access to higher volume roadways such as the state trunk highway system or high volume local arterials is necessary to ensure the safety and mobility of the roadways while accommodating the access and accessibility needs of local communities. ~ ;. '°Appendix A: Access Category System and Spacing Guidelines" (Minnesota department of Transportation - 2002) This Mn/DOT report defines a system of access categories for the state trunk highways with associated guidelines for the spacing and design of public and private access. Adoption of these guidelines is intended to streamline decision making while promoting statewide consistency and best practices in the planning, design, and regulation of access to the Trunk Highway System. Mn/DOT personnel and consultants will reference these guidelines during the development of corridor plans, highway development, safety improvement projects, local development reviews (e.g., comprehensive plans, plats, and site plans), and access permit reviews. Web Link: http://www.oim.dot.state,mn.us/access/pdfs/MnDOTAccessGuidelines.pdf ISSUE CONDITIONAL USE/INTERIM USE PERMITS Conditional/Interim Use Permits allow landowners to obtain permits for low-intensity uses for a limited time. This method is most appropriate for areas where construction is several years away. This method allows the land to be used before construction begins, but in a low-cost manner that will be relatively easy to remove. Conditions defining low-intensity should be clear. The cooperation of the landowner must also be secured. Some compensation may be necessary if the land has not already been set aside for highway purposes. IDENTIFY ROW NEEDS IN ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS Through the orderly annexation process, cities and townships are better positioned to plan for future transportation corridor needs and identify potential funding sources. The orderly annexation agreement should identify future transportation right-of-way needs and restrict development in these areas. SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No.' 569-07- 905 DRAFT Phase 1 Report .~ ~0[>~~~~'d0 Page 19 DEVELOPMENT MORATORIA Development moratoria, established through a local law or ordinance, can be used to suspend property owner rights to obtain development approvals, granting a municipality time to address a problem, develop and adopt a plan, or create new rules for the area. A moratorium may be applied to a specific geographic area, such as a transportation corridor, or a specific type of permit or approval. This option should be considered carefully, and used only when absolutely necessary. If legally challenged, a municipality must be able demonstrate a specific and legitimate basis, as well as a reasonable time table, for the moratorium. REQUIRE AN ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) In general terms, an AUAR is similar to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in that its key purpose is to identify and assess the anticipated environmental effects from a specific future development, AUARs are sometimes required when the proposed development is planned for a very broad geographic area, and/or when the project has a multitude of components whose environmental impacts are cumulative and difficult to analyze independently of one another. The notion suggested here is that SCALE or the County could seek legislative authorization to require an AUAR for a very large geographic zone on future developments that could obstruct key transportation corridors. The AUAR would be required to include a detailed mitigation plan that would represent a commitment by the developer or property owner to prevent potentially significant adverse impacts from occurring because of the proposed development. After the AUAR and its mitigation plan are considered, the County or another public authority would be responsible for adopting the mitigation plan, which would legally bind the developer to develop the property in compliance with the mitigation plan. It is likely that Mn/DOT and the Metropolitan Council would be receptive to a proposal such as this, because it would provide a tool to enable those agencies to achieve objectives identified in their long range plans. ~-~1 . Recommended content and format for an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Document (f~iinnesota Environmental Quality Board -April 2005} This guidance has been prepared by the State Environmental Quality Board (EQB) staff to assist in the preparation of AUAR documents. It is based on provisions in Minnesota Rules (4410.3610, subp. 4) that "the content and format [of an AUAR document] must be similar to that of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), but must provide for a level of analysis comparable to that of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for impacts typical of urban residential, commercial warehousing, and light industrial development and associated infrastructure." Web Link: http://www.egb.state.mn.us/pdf/AUARFormatrev4-05.pdf DEVELOPER PAYMENTS AND cONTRIRUTIONS Most often, the tools discussed above under the "Planning and Zoning Authority" category are applied in cases in which a large tract of land is targeted for right-of-way preservation. In many cases, however, it is only practical, possible, or necessary to acquire a smaller land area. The following tools involve inducements and agreements made with property owners, and are typically utilized to acquire smaller tracts of land when exercising planning and zoning powers or when simple acquisition alone cannot achieve the desired results. SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No.' 569-07--105 DRAFT Phase Z Report , ~CjI"~~StC00~ Page ZZ EXACTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Exactions are any contribution by a developer to the County or local government in return for subdivision approval or any other land use approval or permit needed by the development. Exactions can be used to obtain land within the designated right-of-way for transportation infrastructure. Property exactions should be used only when there are clear and direct connections between the exaction and the government's interest, known as "nexus". If the developer does not receive a benefit equal to the value of the exaction, then the exaction can constitute a regulatory taking of the easement. Local government impact fees are one-time charges on new real estate development as compensation for the higher incremental cost of off-site capital improvements. As with on-site dedications, impact fees shift the infrastructure costs of new development back on land owners, builders, and/or the final property owner. Fees may be used for a variety of uses, and roadway design and construction costs are commonly included in deriving the amount of the fee. Although development impact fees are common in many cities around the country, they have not caught on with local governments in Minnesota. This may be attributable to the fact that Minnesota state law neither expressly allows nor prohibits their use, so local governments are uncertain as to their legal implications. ~. _ _. ;: \~~~/ Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF} from Riverside County in California (Western Riverside Council of Governments -Adopted March 6, 2006) Like Scott County, the Riverside, California regional transportation system needs to be expanded to accommodate anticipated future growth; current funds are inadequate to construct the regional system needed to avoid the unacceptable levels of traffic congestion and related adverse impacts. The TUMF Program has been implemented to provide significant additional funds from new development to make improvements to the system, complementing funds generated local transportation fee programs, and other funding sources. By establishing a fee on new development in the area, local agencies can generate revenues from developers who contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation system. Web Link: http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/Tac/March2006/TUMFAdminPlan.pdf `~,4 Spring Lake Infrastructure Fee nexus Study (City of Woodland, California -tune 2004) The City of Woodland, California implemented a Spring Lake Infrastructure Fee (SLIP) designed to fund backbone infrastructure and other public facilities required to serve new development planned in the Spring Lake Specific Plan (SLSP) area. The Fee Program allocates the costs to benefiting land uses. The Fee Program will be implemented through the City's adoption of an ordinance, a resolution, and a Nexus Study. Web Link: http://www.epsys.com/Client Site/12598SpringLake/12598final 6.29.04.pdf SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07-105 DRAfT Phase 2 Report ~OC1~StC00 Page 13 Model ®rdinance for Proportionate Fair-Share Mitigation of Development impacts on Transportation Corridors (State of Florida _ December 2005) In 2005, the Florida Legislature amended the state's growth management legislation, directing local governments to enact "concurrency management" ordinances that allow for proportionate share contributions from developers toward concurrency requirements. concurrency is a growth management concept intended to ensure that the necessary public facilities and services available are "concurrent" with the impacts of development. To carry out transportation concurrency, local governments must define what constitutes an adequate level of service and measure whether the service needs of a new development exceed existing capacity and any scheduled improvements in an adopted capital improvement program. If adequate capacity is not available, the local government cannot permit development unless certain conditions specified in law apply (e.g., developments with very minor impacts, "infill" or redevelopment projects). Web Link: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/gm/pfso/draft120105.pdf DEVELOPER INDUCEMENTS QND DTHER /~.GREEMENTS While an exaction suggests a required "contribution" on the part of a property owner, more flexible "inducements" can also be used effectively to preserve transportation corridors. Inducements can include tools such as tax abatement, transferable development rights and density transfers, and impact fee credits. Transferable development rights and density transfers can be used together or separately depending upon the situation. A transferable development right is agovernment-created right to develop land. A property owner who has land within aright-of-way may sell or relinquish rights to develop the land in exchange for monetary compensation or the ability to develop a separate piece of property at the same density outside of the corridor. A density transfer is very similar to a transferable development right in the sense that a property owner may agree to leave land vacant for highway purposes in exchange for clustering development to achieve a higher than normally allowed density of development on another appropriate property. This tool is helpful in removing development rights from a site to be preserved for future right-of-way by providing the developer an incentive that allows the same number of housing units or square footage of development. SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07-105 DRAETPhase 1 Report ~ BOrIQStI'UD Page 24 ~"` _ ~ ..r - `~f' `~ Scott County "Public Value Density Credits Program." This program provides flexibility in subdivision design (which may include density bonuses) in exchange for creating or dedicating public values that promote varied housing options, improve public infrastructure systems (roadways, parks, trails, drainageways), and/or encourage natural resource protection. In 1997, the Minnesota legislature passed enabling legislation to explicitly allow local units of government to develop and utilize transfer development rights programs. Specifically, chapters 394.25 and 462.357 of the Minnesota Statutes provide for the transfer of development rights for the purpose of preserving areas considered desirable by local zoning boards and the transfer of development rights from those areas to areas the governing body considers more appropriate for development. Chisago County Green Corridor Project The Green Corridor Project developed Minnesota's first formal Transfer of Development Rights program in Chisago County. Many other counties and cities in Minnesota have since adopted ordinances and put them into use. ~\% Whatcom County, Washington Code: Density Transfer Procedure (Ch. 20.88) The purpose of this chapter of Washington State law is to establish procedures for the transfer of development rights from one property to another. Where the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and an appropriate overlay zone or zoning map designation provide the option for Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs), the rights shall be transferred consistent with the requirements of state law. Web Link: http•//www.mrsc.org/mc/whatcom/whatco20/whatco2089.html ACQUISITION When the circumstances are right, the County and its municipal governments have been able to successfully advance acquisition and contain right-of-way acquisition costs. Advanced acquisition of properties located within an officially mapped corridor is utilized when the acquisition is determined to be in the public interest to protect the designated corridor from development (authorized under "eminent domain"), or when the mapped corridor designation creates an undue hardship on the property owner. Scott County and its municipal governments should continue to utilize these tools. FEE SIMPLE ACQUISITIONS One of the most commonly used methods of corridor preservation is simply to purchase or acquire key parcels of land along a corridor through eminent domain. By acquiring fee title to the property, the local government has complete control over the future use of the land. This option is preferable when the land can be acquired early in the process (long before actual development) when the land is still relatively cheap. SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07- 905 ORAfT Phase 2 Report ~Qil@5tCQf1 Page 15 EASEMENTS Easements (both temporary and permanent) are another method of acquisition and allow a property owner to retain most rights to the property in exchange for the loss of the use of a portion of the property on a temporary or permanent basis. Easements have an advantage over outright acquisition in that the property remains privately owned and so it remains on the tax rolls. Acquiring property through an easement is generally more cost effective when the property is not acquired in advance, but rather at the time that the new development seeks approval from the County or local government. Model Trail Easement Agreement Web Link: http://conserveland.org/model documents/TrailEase loza 06apr20.pdf ~~ ,~' Model Conservation Easement Web Link: http:l/conserveland.org/model documents/ModeICE06apr20.pdf PURCHASE OPTION OR RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL If it is not feasible to purchase property in fee title or to obtain an easement over the property, a purchase option is another available tool to control property within a future transportation corridor. An option to purchase, sometimes referred to as a right of first refusal, is a contract in which the right to purchase property is provided under specified conditions and within a certain timeframe. An option to purchase establishes purchase terms in advance of a County or local government needing title to the property for transportation use. In exchange for the option, the property owner receives consideration in an amount equal to a percentage of the purchase price for tying up the property. A key advantage in securing an option is that the unit of government can secure a purchase price for the property in a rising market without the upfront capital costs of acquisition. This leaves the property on the tax rolls and responsibility for the maintenance of the property with the property owner until it is ultimately purchased. FINANCING TOOLS FOR ~®RRIDOR PRESER4~ATION Existing resources are not sufficient to fund corridor preservation and acquisition in Scott County. The SCALE Transportation Task Force has concluded that establishment of a dedicated funding source for corridor preservation and acquisition is essential to avoid the adverse effects associated with continuously escalating land prices. Identifying new sources of revenue to capitalize a "Right-of-way Preservation Fund" is one means of helping the County preserve and acquire right-of-way for regionally significant transportation improvement projects in Scott County. NEW LOCAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION LOAN FUND SCALE should consider establishing its own countywide Right-of-Acquisition Loan Fund (RACE). The fund could be capitalized by a variety of sources (these are described in greater detail, below) and would offer loans and other types of financial assistance to acquire properties identified by SCALE and its member SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No.• 569-07--105 DRAFT Phase 1 Report Banest~oa Page 16 organizations. As loans are repaid to the fund, they would recapitalize the fund to finance another set of projects, in theory, creating a continually expanding pool of money for transportation corridor acquisition. ,_ ~< Stag of t~ashington has established a "City and County Advance Right-of-l~ilay Revolving Fund" This fund is administered by a board of directors representing local governments throughout the state. lri-eb Link: htt •>i //apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=47.26.330 LOCAL BONDING AUTHORITY Public transportation infrastructure is generally financed using a balance of "pay-as-you-go" financing and bond financing. Bond financing can be an effective tool to provide funding up front to acquire necessary right-of-way. It can also result in Hypothetical Bonding Scenario: Bond Proceeds and Annual Debt Service Needs O Bond Roceeds tAnnual Debt Service $1 200 - - , -- - $1 000 , $eoo $soo a ~ $400 _ ~~ $200 $ Y °,~ - Yrt Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Vr Vr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Vt Vr Yr Yr Yr Vr Yr Yr Vr Yr Yr Vr Vr Yr Yr Vr Vr Vr Yr Yr 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1] 17 4 t3 N 15 E i! H 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3t 32 33 34 construction cost savings by permitting work to begin and end earlier than otherwise possible, thereby reducing the inflationary costs associated with labor and construction materials. However, it must be understood that bond proceeds are not a new, ongoing source of revenue, Instead, bond proceeds represent an advance on future revenues that must be reimbursed, including interest. This means that as debt levels climb by issuing more bonds, additional current resources must be committed to repaying the loans, which leaves less resources available for existing and newly developing transportation needs. Bonestroo has created an automated model that allows the user to run any hypothetical bond program, assuming that the bonds are issued in a ten year time frame. (One hypothetical bonding scenario is illustrated in the diagram, above,) The purpose of the model is to derive an estimate, based on the amount and timing of the bond sale and the applicable interest rate, of the resulting debt service costs. The graphic shows an estimate of debt service on a $1 million per year, 10-year bond sale. WHEELAGE FEE Scott County recently enacted a $5.00 per vehicle wheelage fee that is paid when County residents renew their license plate tabs each year. Revenue projections indicate that the fee will generate about $370,000 of additional revenue for the County's roads and bridges per year. The County could consider a number of strategies involving the wheelage fee to improve identified transportation needs in the County, including increasing the fee, using revenues from the fee to issue bonds, and/or designating a portion of the revenues generated from the fee for corridor preservation. SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No.• 569-07- 905 DRAFT Phase Z Report ~. ~OCiES'~Ct?d Page 27 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Special assessments are a common means of generating local revenues in Minnesota cities within designated "special assessment districts" in which a specific benefit will result from an improvement. The taxation can be consistent across the district or vary based on the benefit received from the improvement. Property owners must not be required to pay more than they will receive in special benefits. Special assessments are not typically used to preserve right-of-way, because a specific benefit to local residents must be determined to be the effect of the improvement. It is difficult to demonstrate or quantify benefit resulting from preserving right-of-way. Counties typically have not used special assessments to finance roadway improvements on the County systems, in large part because improvements to those higher volume systems tend to provide benefits to users well beyond the area of the improvement. MINNESOTA AGGREGATE MATERIALS TAX Scott County is authorized to levy an aggregate materials tax. State law provides that proceeds from the tax must be dedicated to County road and bridge funds for the maintenance, and construction and reconstruction of roads, highways, and bridges. TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY SYSTEM PRESERVATION PILOT PROGRAM (TCSP) This federal program was enacted in SAFETEA-LU and provides funding for planning, developing, and implementing strategies to integrate transportation and community and system preservation plans and practices. The allocations are available for any project relating to transportation and system preservation. The federal share for eligible projects under this program is up to 80 percent. Federal funds from the TCSP program are intended to: Improve the efficiency of the transportation system; Reduce impacts of transportation on the environment; Reduce the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure; • Provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade; Examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development patterns which achieve the goals above. - The South Carolina Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program (SC TCSP) With funding from the TCSP grant program through the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), the program works with five Regional Councils of Government in South Carolina to develop and evaluate a pilot planning model that integrates the state's key infrastructure planning activities into one plan and process at the regional level. (This program has many parallels to the Regional Corridor Management Planning process described in Section III of this report.) SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07--105 DRAFT Phase 2 Report BUCiB$tCbt3 Page 28 The objective of the SC TCSP is to achieve consistency among state, regional, and local infrastructure planning efforts. Often, state planning is cona'ucted in relative isolation and with little coordination by different agencies with related responsibilities. These individual planning efforts are even further removed from regional and local infrastructure planning activities. This project will allow the selected Councils of Government to examine separate infrastructure areas of statewide interest and to develop a regional plan that links state and regional infrastructure and economic policies. TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEE Transportation Utility Fees (also referred to as road user fees or street utility fees) have become more popular in recent years as a means of funding local transportation system needs by treating streets as a public utility -much in the same way that a water utility or a street lighting utility functions - to be funded through user fees. Revenues generated are used for annual operating and maintenance or capital improvements. Local governments in Oregon seem to be ahead of the rest of the country in establishing transportation utility fees. These transportation utilities typically operate by first determining the annual amount of revenue they wish to collect, calculating the total number of trips to be assessed against the fee, and then allocating a fee per trip to each user. Other Transportation Utility Fee models allocate costs based on lot area, building area, and/or parking stalls. In Minnesota, the League of Minnesota Cities in partnership with the City Engineers Association of Minnesota (CEAM) and the Minnesota Public Works Association (MPWA), proposed a street utility fee in January, 2005. A bill was introduced in both the House and the Senate giving cities the authority to use trip generation rates to establish street utility fee programs for street reconstruction, maintenance, and facility upgrades such as traffic signals and turn lanes, but the bill was never enacted by the full legislature. BENErIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT A benefit assessment district is aquasi-municipal corporation and independent taxing district created for the sole purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding transportation improvements within the district. Benefit assessment districts are used to assess a defined constituency for benefits provided specifically to those residents, such as roads, water, parks, and recreational facilities. These districts levy properties in a manner such that the benefit is comparable to the assessment. (Benefit Assessment Districts have much in common with Special Assessment Districts -the primary distinction being that a Benefit Assessment District suggests that the district can be kept in place to finance operation and maintenance costs of an improvement and special assessment districts typically finance only the initial construction of an improvement.) ~_ ~~' Washington State Legislation on Benefit Assessment Districts Examples of benefit assessment districts can be found in many states, including California (See County of Riverside Road and Bridge Benefit Districts), and Washington State (See Puget Sound Regional Transportation Improvement Districts). These states have enacted enabling legislation allowing residents the option of assessing themselves to pay for transportation infrastructure. Web Link: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36 73 SCALE Transportation Task Force ~ Project No.~ 569-07-105 DRAFT Phase 1 Report .~ ~anestraa Page 29 LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX Local sales taxes are levies on the value of taxable purchases such as food, lodging, liquor, or entertainment. In Minnesota, only a few cities and one county have enacted a local sales tax (which requires special legislative approval), including the cities of Duluth, Minneapolis, Rochester, St. Cloud, Hermantown, Two Harbors, Mankato, New Ulm, Proctor, Winona and Cook County. Typically, a local levy referendum or council vote is required to authorize a local sales tax. Tax revenue can be used for road projects, but is often dedicated to other capital improvement projects. Local governments in Wisconsin can earmark up to a 1 percent sales tax for transportation projects. NEW STATE PLANNING GRANT INITIATIVE In Illinois, a new program called the Corridor Planning Grant Program was created to help local governments develop land use and infrastructure plans that promote the efficient use of transportation facilities. A similar initiative could be promoted here in Minnesota, one in which funding could be provided to support efforts to implement a bold, coordinated approach to balanced growth for communities throughout the state. The Illinois program promotes voluntary state/local partnerships and focuses on state programs that invest in existing communities. :' ~`~, "Illinois Tomorrow" Corridor Rlanning Grant Frogram In 2000, the State of Illinois enacted an initiative called "Illinois Tomorrow Corridor Planning Grant Program which provides funding for local governments to support planning activities that promote the integration of land use, transportation and infrastructure facility planning in transportation corridors in Illinois". "Illinois Tomorrow" is a comprehensive effort guided by the core principles of reducing traffic congestion, preserving open space, encouraging reinvestment and redevelopment, enhancing the quality of life, and encouraging local government partnership. The goals of the program are very consistent with the goals that have been articulated by SCALE and its member organizations, including: • To promote land use and transportation options to reduce the growth of traffic congestion; • To connect infrastructure and development decisions; • To promote balanced economic development to reduce infrastructure costs; • To promote intergovernmental cooperation; • To promote public-private partnerships and coalitions; • To promote collaboration among local governments, the development industry, labor and environmental organizations; • To minimize the cost to taxpayers for infrastructure and maximize the use of existing infrastructure. In Illinois, grants ranging from $20,000 to $200,000 have been provided for planning activities such as the following: • Creation of transit oriented/mixed use development plans to increase transportation options, AND improve walkability and enhance access to transit. • Development of intergovernmental agreements that provide for multi-jurisdictional planning of land use, zoning and developmental decisions. SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07-105 DRAFT Phase Z Report BOIlE5~C00 Page 30 Development ofpublic-private plans and agreements that provide for and encourage affordable housing for workers that is convenient to employment centers. Creation of multi-community corridor plans to develop efficient transportation facilities and land uses. l~l(eb Link: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/landuse/illinoiscs.htm SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07-105 DRAFT Phase 2 Report [~~r1eS~Cf ~Q Page 31 SCALE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE -DRAFT PHASE 2 REPORT Appendix A: Official Mapping Over the last year, probably the most technical issue that the Task Force addressed that involved how to structure and implement the Regional Corridor Management Planning Process was the subject of "official mapping". Official mapping is a component of the corridor preservation process that provides a window of opportunity for a public entity to acquire land for future corridor development. The concept is complex, in that Minnesota law lays out a variety of provisions governing who has authority to officially map, and what are the rules on official mapping in terms of balancing the rights of land owners with the public interest. This appendix provides baseline information on official mapping and is intended to provide a starting point for future analysis of the specific requirements and authorization granted by existing state law on official mapping. It provides answers to the most frequently asked questions and where relevant, it provides the citation in which the statutory language on the subject is found in Minnesota state law. 1. What is "official mapping"? Cities and counties are authorized by the State of Minnesota to prepare official maps identifying future improvements after the adoption of transportation and public facilities plans. An official map shows areas in the community where land is needed for future streets or road widening, or other public facilities such as parks. Official mapping notifies property owners and developers where future improvements are planned. Official mapping can be used to prevent or delay the construction of buildings or other private improvements on designated lands, saving the public expense of paying for buildings and improvements in designated corridors. By notifying property owners and developers of the location of future improvements, official mapping allows interested parties to plan accordingly. Several local jurisdictions within Minnesota have used official mapping to preserve land for future public improvements. Washington County has officially mapped portions of the Big Marine Regional Park. The City of Lakeville, in partnership with Mn/DOT, has officially mapped several interchanges along I-35W. 2. Do counties have the authority to officially map roadway corridors? What are the limits and requirements associated with this authority? Counties have official mapping authority, subject to statutory limitations and procedures: Minnesota Statute 394.25, Subd. 4, authorizes counties to adopt official maps, defined in MS 394.22 as maps "which may show existing county roads and county state-aid highways, proposed future county roads and highways, ...and future state trunk highway rights-of-way." A public hearing must be held on proposed official maps and amendments thereto. The official map is adopted and amended by ordinance by the board of county commissioners. (M.S. 394.361) SCALE Transportation Task force Project No: 569-07--705 DRAFT Phase 1 Report + I~Qne$tl•QE} Page 37 ~fT~li`EOf~[: IJf.5.~44.3E'I PLANNING. OEVELOPIdfENT. ZONING; OFFICIAL fJ[AP (COUNTY) KEY POINTS: • "Subd. 1. Future public uses." (This section provides the policy rationale for official mapping.) "Identification on official maps of land needed for future public uses permits both the public and private property owners to adjust their building plans equitably and conveniently before investments are made that will make adjustments difficult to accomplish." • "Subd. 3. Effect....The adoption of official maps does not give the county any right, title or interest in areas identified for public purposes thereon, but the adoption of a map does authorize the county to acquire these interests without paying compensation for buildings or structures erected in those areas without a permit or approval or in violation of the conditions of a permit or approval." CtTl~TlO[~: M.5.160.085 ROADS -GENERAL PROV[SfONS; RECORDING PROPOSED ACQUISITION FOR ROA®S KEY POINTS: • "Subd 1: Recording map or plat; certification. (a) In order to facilitate the acquisition of right-of-way required for highways, state and county road authorities may file for record in the office of the county recorder ... such orders or resolutions required by law in the form of maps or plats showing right-of- way by course distance, bearing and arc length, and other rights or interests in land to be acquired by as the road authority determines necessary." • "Subd 3: Description may refer to Map or plat. (a) Land acquisition by the road authority for highway purposes by instrument of conveyance or by eminent domain proceedings may refer to the map or plat and parcel number, together with delineation of the parcel, as the only manner of description necessary for the acquisition." CtTAT10t~: M.5.117.055 EMINENT DOMAIN; PETIT[ON AND NOTICE KEY POINTS: This provision provides details on the required elements of the notice to land owners required during the eminent domain process. C~TATtON: M.5.163.'f1 COUNTY HIGHWAYS; POWERS RELATING T8 HIGHWAYS KEY POINTS: • This provision deals with the authority of the county to acquire local roads and other issues related to the process of transferring ownership of roads. 3. Do townships have the authority to adopt official maps? What are the limits and requirements associated with this authority? Municipalities also have official mapping authority, subject to statutory limitations and procedures. MS 462.359, Subd. 2 authorizes municipalities to adopt and amend official maps, after holding a public hearing. "Official map" is defined as that "which may show existing and proposed future streets, roads, highways and airports of the municipality and county, ...and existing and future county state aid highways and state trunk highway rights-of-way." SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07-105 DRAFT Phase 2 Report ~ BOC1QSt("00 Page 33 • Ctt°~4TfE~h[: h~.S. t&~.Qfi TOWN ROADS; POWERS REGARDING T04'--N ROADS KEY POINTS: • A town board may "establish, alter, or vacate a town road, ...and may acquire the right-of-way as may be necessary for the road by gift, purchase...." 4. Can cities and towns officially map future county roads? Cities and towns have the authority to officially map future county roads. (MS 462.352, Subd. 10) CITAT[f~f~: M.S.46Z.35~ HOUSING. REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING; PROCEDURE TO EFFECT PLAN: OFFICIAL MAPS (MUNICIPAL GOVT) KEY POINTS: • "Subd. 1. (Same rationale for official mapping as M.S.394.361.) • "Subd. 2. Adoption. After the planning agency has adopted a thoroughfare plan and community facilities plan, it may... prepare and recommend to the governing a proposed official map covering the entire municipality or a portion thereof." • "Subdivision 3 -Effect" (Virtually the same as county provision in MS 394.361) "The adoption of official maps does not give the municipality any right, title or interest in areas identified for public purposes thereon, but the adoption of a map does authorize the municipality to acquire these interests without paying compensation for buildings or structures erected in those areas without a permit or in violation of the conditions of a permit." 5. What are the financial implications associated with official mapping? When does the right-of-way for property -beyond the local street requirements -need to be purchased? Once an official map has been adopted by a county or municipality, the land identified therein as necessary for future street purposes will face limitations on its land use or zoning or building permits. This may have financial implications for the tax base of the locality. The governing body is under no time restriction as to the purchase of right-of-way associated with the planning of future roadway corridors, with one exception. According to MS 394.361, Subd. 4, regarding counties and MS 462.359, Subd. 4, regarding municipalities, if a land use or zoning or building permit is denied for land identified in an official map, the landowner may file an appeal with the board of appeal or board of adjustments. If certain conditions are met and the appeal is granted, the governing body has six months to begin acquiring the land. CtTATIQN: M.S.'163.'t2 COUNTY HIGHWAYS; ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES FOR ACQUISITION KEY POINTS: A county "may adopt the procedure hereinafter set forth for the acquisition of lands or properties needed for the acquisition or alteration of a county highway and county state aid highways." • Pass resolution identifying land needs • File petition with district court • Furnish land owners with ROW map • Court hears evidence on "finding of necessity" to take land SCALf Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07-105 DRAFT Phase 2 Report BOt'1!$tl`O(3 Page 34 If the taking is determined to be necessary, a hearing is conducted to determine monetary "damages" from taking County Board determines damages Awards filed Appeals are allowed, but cannot delay improvement 6. ~.re there other growth management tools that might protect future roadway corridors and forestall the need for official mapping? Growth management tools include zoning, land acquisition, and planning. Localities have the right to implement zoning ordinances which limit the use of land, including but not limited to: location, size and uses of buildings; and setback from existing roads and highways. CFTQT[~h[: M.S. 473.'f67 METROPOLITAf~ COVERf~NiENT; Ii1GHWAY PR0IECTS KEV Porr~rs: "Subd. 2. Loans for Acquisition. (a) The [Metropolitan] Council may make loans to counties, towns and ... cities within the metropolitan area for purchase of property within the right-of-way of a state trunk highway shown on an official map adopted pursuant to 394.361 or 462.359 or for the purchase of property within the proposed right-of-way of a principal or intermediate arterial highway designated by the council as part of the metropolitan highway system plan and approved by the council pursuant to section 473.166. The loans shall be made by the council, from the fund established pursuant to this subdivision, for purchases approved by the council. The loans shall bear no interest." The language identifies criteria used to evaluate the merit of a loan proposal, including: "to accelerate the acquisition of primarily undeveloped property when there is a reasonable probability that the property will increase in value before highway construction." "to avert imminent conversion of the granting of approvals which would allow the conversion of properties to uses which jeopardize its availability for highway construction." "to advance planning and environmental activities on the highest priority major metropolitan river crossing projects..." SCALE Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07- 905 DRAFT Phase Z Report r~, ' ~OC~Q$tl'O() Page 35 SCALE TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE -DRAFT PHASE 2 REPORT Appendix B: Project List SCALf Transportation Task Force Project No: 569-07-105 DRAFT Phase 1 Report ~ gonestroa Paqe 36 Regionally Significant Transportation Needs in Scott County: Project Worksheet Estimated Unfunded ROW Needs -Include Public and Non-public costs (beyond Project # Route Ownership Functional Class Description ident"rfied sources) Notes: Priorit 1 and Priority 2 Needs -Current and Future Principal Arterials -See Map Pa a 72 Construction and upgrade of realigned TH 13 This project was split into 5 distinct projects in which the County TH 13 / /Qentin Ave intersection and construction of is requesting federal funds. (SA,56, 5C, 5D, SE) This is "old" OOSA Quentin Ave Cit /State Principal Arterial fronta a road northeast of the intersection $750,000 project 21. Construct grade separated interchange at TH This project was split into 5 distinct projects in which the County 0058 TH 13 / CR 5 County /State Principal Arterial 13 / CR 5 $7,000,000 is requesting federal funds. (5A,5B, 5C, SD, 5E) his project was sp It into 5 Istlnct protects In which the ounty TH 13 / TH Construct at-grade interchange at TH 13liH is requesting federal funds. (5A,5B, 5C, 5D, 5E) This is "old" 005C 101 State Principal Arterial 101 $0 project 27. TH 13 / Chowen- Complete signalized intersection at Chowen / Glenhurst Glenhurst Ave and TH 13, including frontage This project was split into 5 distinct projects in which the County OOSD Ave Cit /State Principal Arterial road construction $1,500,000 is requesting federal funds. (5A,58, SC, 5D, 5E) omp e e slgna Ize m ersec Iona a o a TH 13 / Ave and TH 13, including frontage road This project was split into 5 distinct projects in which the County 005E Dakota Ave Principal Arterial construction $500,000 is requestin federal funds. (5A,58, 5C, 5D, SE) This project is included in the CSAH 17 / TH 101 Study. Also, Shakopee noted that the City and County have different plans for improvements to this location. County would like to preserve it for future principal arterial designation. City suggests that County and City should coordinate their plans. Shakopee A Minor Upgrade CSAH 17 from 17th Ave to CSAH42 indicated that the County has designated funding for this project 009A CSAH 17 County Connector Study and in TIP for 2012 for the year 2013. A Minor Improve CSAH 17 from TH 42 to CR 12 0096 CSAH 17 Connector (170th Street E.) Minnesota Proposed New River Crossing; no site Shakopee staff raised the point that a report by Barr River finalized; Interchange could get done before Engineering prepared a report indicating that the "NO Build" 010 Crossin State Principal Arterial bridge. (ROW Preservation) option will contribute to the de radationof the Fen. Interchange at TH 169 and CSAH 3 (Meridian St.); Interchange mapped but not on 10-yr US 169 / plan. Need additional ROW on north and Some of the ROW for this project has been acquired by the Met 013 CSAH 3 State Principal Arterial south sides. Council RALF fund Upgrade to 6 lanes (Segment 8) Glendale Rd. 018 CSAH 42 Coun Principal Arterial to CR 5 in Burnsville PROJECT COMPLETE TH 169 / ROW acquisition for TH 169/CSAH 59 019 CSAH 59 Count /State Principal Arterial interchan e US 169 / TH ROW acquisition for the TH 169lfH 282/CR9 020 282 Count /State Principal Arterial interchan e CSAH 86 / I- A Minor Improvements to CSAH 86, including new 025 35 Count /State Connector interchange at I-35 Improve Capacity from Louisiana Ave 030 CSAH 42 County Principal Arterial eastward to Scott Count Border 41 to haska rom 169 tot a county Existing TH A Minor border (1 mile); expand from 2 to 4 lane 035 41 State Expander divided Safet and con estion issues at 169 / 41 Intersection CR 64 / CR 66: Need for east-west arterial roadway connecting access to CSAH 25 river crossing and TH 169 (from CR 64 A Minor Interchange) and I-35. (Upgrade CSAH 8 to 4 043 CSAH 8 Count Connector lanes) Upgrade to 6 lanes from Louisiana Ave to 047 CSAH 42 Count Principal Arterial Boone Ave. Improve TH 13 from CSAH 23 to TH 13lfH A Minor 101 intersection through Prior Lake and 052 TH 13 State Expander Savage Possible turnback swappin with CSAH 17 TH 169 at Interchange at TH 169-MnDOT approved in 053 173rd St Cit /State Principal Arterial Corridor Stud . On Rice County border, better connection A Minor between TH 169 and TH 52 than TH 19 - 059 CSAH 86 Count Connector Stud Needed To be studied. TH 101/US Continuation of TH 101 / US 169 southbound 079 169 State Principal Arterial merge lane to CSAH 83 O30 TH 169 State Principal Arterial Interchange at County Road 69 and TH 169. 081 TH 169 State Principal Arterial Intechan eat Count Road 14 and TH 169 Improvements to CSAH 2, including new 082 CSAH 2 /I-35 State /County Principal Arterial i nterchange at I-35 Regionally Significant Transportation Needs in Scott County: Project Worksheet Estimated Unfunded ROW Needs -Include Public and Non-public costs (beyond Project # Route Ownership Functional Class Description identified sources) Notes: Priorit 3Pro'ect Needs - Future A Minor Arterials or Less -See Ma Pa a 13 Extension of CSAH 21 north from CSAH 42 to A Minor CSAH 18; Programmed in County Capital Scored by Scott, PL and SH; Scott and SH rated safety and 001 CSAH 21 Count Expander Improvement Plan (CIP) $800,000 congestion concerns hi her than PL. New alignment of CSAH 5. Turnback segment 002 CSAH 5 Cit /County Minor Collector of existing CSAH 5. Study needed 003 I-35 BRT Transit Provider Transit Bus Rapid Transit along I-35 Corridor Long haul TRB study Provide shoulder access to buses on TH 13 between CSAH 18 and Burnsville Station, 004 TH 13 Transit Provider Principal Arterial particularly eastbound TH 169 River crossing underutilized as a transit corridor Note: Provide bus shoulders No ROW or other land acquisition is necessary for this project. 006A TH 169 State Principal Arterial or LRT on Fer bride Only work required is to restripe the brid a deck. New "Bus Advantages Ramp" ramp from 0066 TH 169 Principal Arterial Stagecoach Road to TH 169 brid e. No ROW or other land acquisition is necessa for this project. New Alignment of a segment of CSAH 7 to 008 CSAH 7 County B Minor connect to CR 64. Local connector CR 89 Realign CR 89 (Redwing Ave) to be on same (Redwing alignment as Le Sueur CR 164 (141st Ave) at 011 Ave) Count Minor Collector TH 19 Safety improvement for TH 19 A Minor 012 CSAH 21 Count Expander Reconstruct from CSAH 82 to TH 13 A Minor Upgrade CSAH 27 to 4-lane north of CSAH 014 CSAH 27 County Connector 21 to CSAH 44 Southwest Light Rail 016 Transii Line Transit Provider Transit Continue to plan for new LRT line. NOT SCORED. LONG RANGE PROJECT. A Minor Improve roadway north of CSAH 16 to TH 13 017 CSAH 27 Count Expander (Savage Fen) A system of frontage and backage roads along the south side of US 169 between US 169 CSAH 3 (Meridian St.) and South St. and also 022 fronta a Cit /State Local Enterprise Dr. extension to CR 64. Shakopee suggested that the County staff should score the project, but that the issue is really with backup problems at the Y A Minor Upgrade from Minnesota River Bridge to 212 intersection, and that the TH 101 Corridor Study also is 023 CSAH 101 County Expander in Carver Count examinin this project. CSAH 101 from CSAH 69 to CSAH 17 (1 mile); expand to 41ane divided (portion in built A Minor up area of Shakopee); May require alternative Shakopee indicated that this project does not in fact have a high 024 CSAH 101 County Reliever route if ROW acquisition unsuccessful.) ROW need, and also that the project is under stud . I-35 /CSAH A Minor Interchange needed at CSAH 2; Also a safety 026 2 Count /State Connector issue with narrow bridge--study Re-align 250th St (CR 56) just west of CR 250th Street 91 to connect with CSAH 62 east of CR 91. (CR 56) / CR (To better utilize existing CSAH 62 overpass 02RA 62 Count Local of I-35. 250th Street (CR 56) / CR 0286 62 Local Upgrade to 4 lane from CR 23 to CR 27 Realign Scott CSAH 27 with Rice CSAH 3 (currently 1/6 mile offset at county border, A Minor CSAH 86) to achieve better N-S inter-county I ssue raised: could this project be incorporated into 029 CR 27 Count Connector connectivit . i mprovements on CSAH 86? Upgrade CSAH 16 between CSAH 18 and TH A Minor 13 N-S to 3lanes; intersection improvements 031 CSAH 16 Count Reliever at TH 13. Highest priority N-S corridor, including i ntersection at US 1691Note: This needs A Minor clarrfication as to intent--turnback of TH 13 032 CSAH 17 Count /State Connector corridor in Prior Lake to Count ? This project is included in the CSAH 17 / TH 101 Stud A Minor Upgrade from St. Francis Ave to CSAH 42 033 CSAH 17 County Connector ( Study, 2012) - I ncluded in project 9 E stimafetl Unfunded ROW N eeds -Include Public and Project # Route Ownership Functional Class N Description i on-public cos15 (beyond deniHietl sources) Notes: Regionally Significant Transportation Needs in Scott County: Project Worksheet Priorit 3 Pro ect Needs cont'd - Future A Minor Arterials or Less -See Ma Pa a 13 East-west major collector (given current and planned development on south side of the 034 New Alignment Cit /County Local City.) Aside from TH 169, no major collector or arterial roadway linking CSAH 3 with CSAH 5, southeast of TH 169. Local connector /supportive roads stem Connect 2 segments of 270th St, study of collector road connection to CSAH 46, and 036 270th Street Cit /County Local construct overpass at I-35 Local connector /supportive road system Realignment of CSAH 15 slightly eastward, connect to Alton Street, and ultimately connnect to Le Sueur CSAH 144 south of TH 037 CSAH 15 Count B Minor 19. Dan Patch Utilize Dan Patch rail line as an extension of 038 Rail Line Transit Provider Transit Southwest Corridor commuter rail. 039 Undetermine d Transit Provider Transit Support for LRT in County (EAST-WEST CORRIDOR) Study? NOT RATED -STUDY 040A CSAH 83 County A Minor Connector CSAH 83 from CSAH 16 to CSAH 42 (1.7 miles); expand from 2 to 41ane divided Ma be partial) funded b the Mdewakanton Sioux Communit 0408 CSAH 83 A Minor Connector CSAH 83 from CSAH 42 to CSAH 82 (1.0 miles); expand from 2 to 41ane divided Ma be partially funded b the Mdewakanton Sioux Communit 042 CSAH 18 Count A Minor Reliever Safety improvements needed along CSAH 18 near intersection of CSAH 16 PROJECT COMPLETE; NO ROW NEEDED: County has plan to restrict left hand turn lanes at this intersection. US 169 / County has identified this site for a future 044 CSAH 18 Transit Provider Transit major transit hub. PROJECT COMPLETE CR 66 terminates at TH 21. Extension of CR 045 CR 66 Count Minor Collector 66 east to CSAH 10 would provide an alternative to TH 282 for east west traffic. Connect CSAH 16 to TH 13 from current 046 CSAH 16 Count B Minor CSAH 16 /Lynn Rd intersection north and easterl to TH 13 Upgrade and extension of CSAH 91 / CR 91 CSAH 91 / N-S corridor; especially CR 91 between CSAH 86 and CSAH 2, and on to Webster 048 CR 91 County Major Collector (Rice Count ). Anew alignment of TH 21 north of the intersection with CSAH 11 would veer eastward (further from the city) and connect to US 169 near the new 173rd Street overpass 049 TH 21 State A Minor Connector of US 169. New alignment will alleviate downtown capacity constraints. Stud needed A new alignment of TH 282 west of Pueblo 050 TH 282 State A Minor Connector Ave, bearing north and crossing US 169 with anew overpass, south of 173rd St. STUDY Study needed 051 CSAH 16 Count A Minor Reliever CSAH 16 between CSAH 18 and CSAH 83 (3 miles); expand from 2 to 41ane divided the land to be acquired may be available by platting; there is an offer out to purchase the property. Project scored by Scott Count 054A CR 64 / CR 66 County Minor Collector Realignment of CR 64 (228th St) slightly southward just west of CR 59 to remove "jog". Result of CR 8 Study 0548 CR 64 / CR 66 Count Minor Collector Complete "missing" segment of CR 64 between CR 61 and CR 11. Result of CR 8 Stud CSAH 15 continuous alignmenUcorridors1udy 055 CSAH 15 Count B Minor to identify future alignment options to alleviate traffic demands on TH 21. STUDY NOT REVIEWED -TO BE STUDIED CSAH 59 (Delaware) originating north of Minnesota River on Carver CSAH 45/Scott CSAH 9 to access 056 and 185th St. Count B Minor i commercial area of TH 169/CSAH 59 nterchange Supportive road system. Corridor between CSAH 59 and CR 61, from 57 Senator Dr.- New alignment it /State ocal 195th Street on the north (including future overpass of TH 169 %z mile northeast of CSAH 59) and connecting to intersection of 230th Street and CR 61. 058 Valley View Rd City/State Local t Upgrade Valley View Rd. (gravel) as connector to CSAH 9 river crossing;connect o proposed US 169 interchange at 173rd St. Conduct Jordan by-pass study Regionally Significant Transportation Needs in Scott County: Project Worksheet Estimated Unfunded ROW Needs • Include Public and Non-public costs (beyond Project # Route Ownership Functional Class Description identrfied sources) Notes: Priorit 3 Project Needs cont'd - Future A Minor Arterials or Less -See Ma Pa a 13 A Minor Realign from TH 169 to CR 61, incorporating 060 CSAH 2 County Connector river crossing at Blakely (Count Road 5) TH 13 N-S at A Minor Currently no traffic control or access control at 061 150th Cit /State Expander 150th Street. CR 85 / CR Improve N-S continuity between CR 85 and 062 87 County Minor Collector CR 87, from CSAH 2 to CR 56 Improve continuity from CSAH 10 north to TH 063 CSAH 15 County B Minor 282 -Stud Needed This project is the same as project # 55 A Minor Remove access from Irving Ave next to I-35 064 CSAH 2 County Connector Interchan a (See Project 26 Stud ) 065 CR 68 County Major Collector New alignment from CSAH 23 to TH 13 CR70- 066 170th Street Count Minor Collector Realign from TH 169 to CSAH 17/CR 12 CR 75 - Trail connection from Hanrahan Lake, Murphy 067 adjacent Couniy N/A Lake, and Cleary Lake Trail project; not identified for ROW needs A Minor 068 CSAH 27 Count Connector Improve capacit CSAH 68 to CSAH 21 Extend 150th St east of CSAH 27 and southward to 154th Street. CSAH 74. (Improvement currently under study - 3 lane 069 150th St City/Count Local ROW sought.) Local connector: Supportive road system Improve continuity from TH 13 to points west - 070 CR 68 Count Major Collector Study Needed Stud Needed US 169 / 071 Creek La State Trails Pedestrian crossing facilit across US 169 County has established an interim county wide trail system and is the regional trail administrator in the county. It works with townships, cities, metro council, and the Three Rivers Park to construct trails along 072 Trails Count Trails count roads E-W Collector w/disconnect at CSAH 91. CR 073 CR 62 County Minor Collector. 56/250th St. eliminates 1/2 mi. jog. A Minor Limited capacity through downtown New 074 CSAH 2 Count Connector Market Extension of CR 53 to Stoppleman Blvd. via 075 CR 53 Minor Collector underpass or overpass, of US 169. CSAH 16 / An offer has been made to purchase the ROW on this site; Park and ride facility near intersection of Federal STP funding is a reasonable funding source for this 076 CSAH 21 Count Principal Arterial CSAH 16 and CSAH 21 project. CSAH Upgrade from 154th Street to westward to 077 27/CSAH 44 B Minor Prior Lake cit line. In TIP Not 078 determined HOV River Crossing in Savage