Update to
Victoria Southwest Area AUAR
(2004)
for the
Victoria Southwest Area Master Plan
LGU:
City Victoria
1670 Stieger Lake Lane
Victoria MN 55386
Contact: Mr. Ben Landhauser, AICP
952-443-4210
July 27, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
Introduction
PAGE 2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Page 3
Page 3
Page 5
Page 5
Page 7
Purpose and Scope
Environmental Procedures
Incorporation By Reference
Project History
Project Description
Environmental Analysis
PAGE 7
2.1
2015 Environmental Analysis
Page 9
9.
Land Use
Page 9
Roads
Page 9
Sanitary Sewer
Page 9
Stormwater System
Page 10
Water
Page 11
10.
Cover Types
Page 12
11.
Fish, Wildlife and Ecology
Sensitive Resources
12.
Page 14
Physical Impacts on Water
Resources
Page 17
13.
Water Use
Page 20
14.
Water – Related Land Use
Management Districts
Page 23
15.
Water – Surface Use
Page 233
16.
Erosion and Sedimentation
Page 24
17.
Water Quality; Surface Runoff
Page 25
18.
Water Quality; Wastewater
Page 27
1|P age
TABLE OF CONTENTS [CONT.]
19.
Geologic Hazards & Soils
Conditions
20.
Page 30
Solid Wastes, Hazardous
Wates, Storage Tanks
Page 31
21.
Traffic
Page 21
22.
Vehicle - Related Air
Emissions
23.
Page 22
Stationary Source Air
Emissions
Page 37
24.
Dust, Odors, or Noise
Page 37
25.
Sensitive Resources in
Proximity to Site
Page 38
26.
Adverse Visual Impacts
Page 39
27.
Plan Compatibility
Page 40
28.
Impact on Infrastructure
and Public Services
Page 41
29.
Cumulative Impacts
Page 41
30.
Other Potential Environmental
31.
Impacts
Page 41
Summary of Issues
Page 41
A. Certification by the RGU
Page 41
B. Mitigation Plan
Page 42
2|P age
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This document serves as an update to the Victoria Southwest Area AUAR that was approved in
2004. The 2004 AUAR together with this Addendum serve as the environmental review and
updating for the Southwest Area within Victoria, Minnesota, per Minnesota State Statute.
Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota State Statute, the City of Victoria is the Local Government
Unit for the AUAR. The majority of the area subject to the AUAR has been developed in
accordance with the approved AUAR. This update outlines any changes since approval of the
AUAR and analyzes potential future impacts associated with development of remaining vacant
lands in the subject area as shown on Exhibit 1, Vacant Lands.
1.2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City’s preparation of the Update focuses on the potential
environmental impacts associated with any modifications that might cause a change in the
conclusions of the adopted 2004 AUAR, including changes in circumstances or new information
of substantial importance that would substantially change those conclusions.
Pursuant to Minnesota Administrative Rules Section 4410.4610, A local unit of government may
use the procedures of this part instead of the procedures of parts 4410.1100 to 4410.1700 and
4410.2100 to 4410.3000 to review anticipated residential, commercial, warehousing, and light
industrial development and associated infrastructure in a particular geographic area within its
jurisdiction, if the local unit has adopted a comprehensive plan that includes at least the elements
in items A to C. The procedures of this part may not be used to review any project meeting the
requirements for a mandatory EAW in part 4410.4300, subparts 2 to 13, 15 to 17, 18, item B or
C, or 24, or a mandatory EIS in part 4410.4400, subparts 2 to 10, 12, 13, or 25. The local unit of
government is the RGU for any review conducted under this part.
A.
A land use plan designating the existing and proposed location, intensity, and extent of
use of land and water for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and other public
and private purposes.
B.
A public facilities plan describing the character, location, timing, sequence, function, use,
and capacity of existing and future public facilities of the local governmental unit. The
public facilities plan must include at least the following parts:
(1) a transportation plan describing, designating, and scheduling the location, extent,
function, and capacity of existing and proposed local public and private transportation
facilities and services; and
(2) a sewage collection system policy plan describing, designating, and scheduling the
areas to be served by the public system, the existing and planned capacities of the
public system, and the standards and conditions under which the installation of private
sewage treatment systems will be permitted.
3|P age
C.
An implementation program describing public programs, fiscal devices, and other actions
to be undertaken to implement the comprehensive plan. The implementation plan must
include a description of official controls addressing the matters of zoning, subdivision, and
private sewage treatment systems, a schedule for the implementation of those controls,
and a capital improvements program for public facilities.
A local governmental unit that has an adopted comprehensive plan that lacks any of the elements
required by this subpart may qualify for the use of the procedures of this part upon a
demonstration to the EQB chair that the lacking element would have no substantial effect on the
purpose of or outcome of the environmental review and upon receiving authorization from the
EQB chair to use these procedures.
Subpart 7 states that to remain valid as a substitute form of review, the environmental analysis
document and the plan for mitigation must be revised if any of the circumstances in items A to H
apply.
A.
Five years have passed since the RGU adopted the original environmental analysis
document and plan for mitigation or the latest revision. This item does not apply if all
development within the area has been given final approval by the RGU.
B.
A comprehensive plan amendment is proposed that would allow an increase in
development over the levels assumed in the environmental analysis document.
C.
Total development within the area would exceed the maximum levels assumed in the
environmental analysis document.
D.
Development within any subarea delineated in the environmental analysis document
would exceed the maximum levels assumed for that subarea in the document.
E.
A substantial change is proposed in public facilities intended to service development in
the area that may result in increased adverse impacts on the environment.
F.
Development or construction of public facilities will occur on a schedule other than that
assumed in the environmental analysis document or plan for mitigation so as to
substantially increase the likelihood or magnitude of potential adverse environmental
impacts or to substantially postpone the implementation of identified mitigation measures.
G.
New information demonstrates that important assumptions or background conditions
used in the analysis presented in the environmental analysis document are substantially
in error and that environmental impacts have consequently been substantially
underestimated.
H.
The RGU determines that other substantial changes have occurred that may affect the
potential for, or magnitude of, adverse environmental impacts.
The environmental analysis document and plan for mitigation must be revised by preparing,
distributing, and reviewing revised documents in accordance with subpart 5, items D to H, except
that the documents must be distributed to all persons on the EAW distribution list under part
4410.1500. Persons not entitled to object to the documents under subpart 5, item D, may submit
4|P age
comments to the RGU suggesting changes in the documents.
Subp. 8 states that the EQB chair may ask the RGU to report on the status of actual development
within the area, and on the status of implementation of the plan for mitigation. Upon request, the
RGU shall report to the EQB chair within 30 days.
An Update is appropriate if the minor technical changes or modifications do not result in any new
significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
impacts.
A supplemental environmental analysis has been completed and is included in Section 2 of this
Update. The analysis includes updated findings regarding environmental impacts pertaining to
the AUAR area as compared with the original findings of the 2004 AUAR.
This update in being undertaken because five years has passed since the original adoption of the
AUAR. Only a small portion of land remains undeveloped as shown in Exhibit 1, Vacant Lands.
1.3
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The following plans and environmental documents were utilized during preparation of this AUAR
Update and are hereby incorporated by reference:





Victoria Southwest Area Master Plan, 2003
Victoria Southwest Area Master Plan AUAR, 2004
Victoria 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update, adopted February 8, 2010
Carver County 2010-2030 Roadway Systems Plan Appendix of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan, adopted April 27, 2010
Carver County 2014 Amendment to the Carver County 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Appendix TR:R-A: Carver County Roadway System Plan, Amended July 15, 2014
These documents are available at the City of Victoria Community Development Department, 1670
Stieger Lake Lane, Victoria, Minnesota.
1.4
PROJECT HISTORY
The original AUAR analyzed potential environmental impacts for four property owners within the
Southwest Master Plan Area: Lundgren Brothers, Hartman Communities, Enterprise Properties,
and Lyman Properties. Over a 5-10 year period, much of the property within the Plan area was
developed and built out. The remaining property sat vacant or significantly slowed production due
largely to the recession of 2008-2011, limitations on infrastructure extensions, and/or lack of
interest in development by landowners. Property owners of undeveloped lands include: Hartman
Communities, LLC; US Home Corp.; DM & RS LP & Minneapolis Jewish Federation; James and
Jane Hesse; Wilbert and Darlene Kelzer; Michael and Millie Simon; Beverly Simon, Vassar Living
Trust; Schmieg Farm Land, LLC. The largest portion of vacant land is now owned by Lennar.
Since development of the AUAR, U.S. Home Corporation (dba Lennar) acquired Lundgren
Brothers and with it also acquired its land assets, including the land within the Southwest Area. It
is the present wish of Lennar to complete the development of the land it owns within the Southwest
Area. The residential community with remaining undeveloped property owned by Lennar is locally
referred to as “Laketown.”
5|P age
The Victoria Southwest Area AUAR was prepared by the City of Victoria (City) in accordance with
Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410 in 2004. The City worked in collaboration with a team of four
property owners (mentioned above) to prepare the Southwest Area Master Plan for approximately
1,345.5 acres of land located immediately south and west of the City in Laketown Township (see
AUAR Figure 5-1). The AUAR area is generally bounded on the east by CSAH 11 and the City
limits; on the south by Marsh Lake Road; on the west by following CSAH 45 north to Tellers Road,
westerly ½ mile, then northerly to State Highway 5; and on the north by TH 5 and the City limits.
The City determined that an AUAR was the best method to integrate environmental review into
the Southwest Area Master Plan process for the future development of the area. The AUAR area
was subject to an orderly annexation agreement between the City and the Township, calling for
the entire area to be annexed by the City, which occurred on a phased basis. The annexation
agreement gave the City of Victoria planning authority for the AUAR area. Since approval of the
AUAR, all the area contemplated by the AUAR has been annexed into the City of Victoria.
The original AUAR included environmental review for two development scenarios. Scenario One
was consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City at that time. Scenario One land
uses included a single family residential development category at up to 4.9 units per acre, a single
family residential development category at 2.5 units per acre, park, open space and public/semipublic uses, including water tower, lift stations, and a water treatment facility (see AUAR Figures
6-6 and 13-2). A build-out of Scenario One would allow 2,416 new units on a net per-acre basis.
Scenario Two was consistent with known plans of some property owners within the AUAR area.
It was decided that Scenario 2 would be the proposed Southwest Area Master Plan concept land
use plan (the preferred alternative), which included a low density residential category at 2-3 units
per acre, a low density residential category at 3-4 units per acre, and public/semi-public uses such
as a school, public works/fire station facility, water tower, lift stations and water treatment facility,
church and park and open space (see AUAR Figures 6-6 and 13-2). A build-out of the Scenario
Two concept plan would allow 1,238 – 1,805 units on a net per-acre basis.
No significant environmental impacts were anticipated from the development of the AUAR area.
The City adopted the necessary plans and regulations to guide development of the AUAR area
and to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential environmental impacts. The major issue identified
in this Draft AUAR was traffic, which was noted as a system wide issue throughout Carver County.
Carver County’s Transportation Plan identified the entire length of Trunk Highway (TH) 5 from
Waconia easterly to TH 41 as a Trunk Highway with “Capacity Needs.” To help mitigate impacts
to TH 5, it was concluded that intersections of TH 5/CSAH 13 and TH 5/CSAH 11 would need to
be upgraded to maintain acceptable peak hour operations.
Since 2004, the City completed an update to its Comprehensive Plan which incorporated
significant findings of the AUAR. Additionally, much of the anticipated land uses have been
constructed, and the City has kept record on development within the area since that time,
continuously reviewing the concept plan during each stage of construction.
A summary of potential impacts and mitigation strategies were included in Table B of the original
AUAR. As part of this AUAR update, a project description of the remaining undeveloped area
within the Southwest AUAR Master plan will be described herein, and a cumulative analysis of
the original Mitigation Plan will be conducted to determine which portions of the area are still
subject to the original mitigation.
The Mitigation Plan has been refined to reflect development that has been completed since 2004
6|P age
within the AUAR Area and will serve to become an action plan to ensure that the City avoids,
minimizes, or mitigates significant environmental impacts to the AUAR area is the remainder of
the area is built out. For simplification purposes, the update includes summary information from
the original AUAR under each heading with updated information following each section.
1.5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Currently, Lennar Corporation is proposing to construct 198 single family residential homes and
104 townhomes within the remainder of its Laketown Community over three phases. Refer to
Exhibit 2, Laketown Sketch Plat. Lennar has been gradually building out the area since 2004, with
the 1st through 8th additions of Laketown. This portion of Laketown has been sitting vacant
because water and sewer infrastructure was not yet available to serve the property. Water and
sewer is now extended to the westernmost boundary of the property; therefore the remaining
property is now able to develop.
Lennar proposes to plat the southerly 43 lots of Phase 1 during 2015. It is anticipated that these
lots will require wetland disturbance approvals from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,
Crossing Permits from the Minnesota DNR, and approvals from the Army Corps of Engineers and
The Minnesota State Board of Water and Soils Reclamation (BWSR) primarily for the extension
of Martingale Lane to the west. This roadway is shown in the City’s Comprehensive plan as a
future planned improvement and will be constructed with the Laketown 9th addition final plat
improvements. The road traverses a DNR wetland, and as such, coordination with all applicable
agencies is necessary and has been taking place since Lennar began processing the 9th addition
in early 2015. It should be noted that the proposed development plan for the completion of
Laketown reduces wetland impacts in excess of 5.0 acres as compared to the 2004 plan.
Additionally, to mitigate for the proposed wetland impacts, Lennar is working on a partnership with
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed (MCWD) that would involve restoring a portion of Six-Mile
Creek. This option is being considered rather than purchasing wetland credits because there is
the potential to improve a degraded water resource that is on-site within the local watershed and
adjoining the project area. Regulatory agencies support this approach and final details of the
partnership are being finalized between Lennar and MCWD. In the event that a mutual agreement
cannot be reached, Lennar would purchase credits from an eligible wetland bank, as is typical
industry practice.
It is the intent of Lennar to finally complete this portion of the Laketown community in substantial
conformance with the Southwest Area Master Plan and AUAR that was approved in 2004.
No additional concepts have been provided for any other remaining undeveloped parcels. If the
landowners consider development, the potential projects will be reviewed for conformance with
the Master Plan and AUAR.
7|P age
2.0
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The discussion below provides updated discussions and analysis for the Master Plan Area, with
portions specifically tailored towards the remaining undeveloped properties. As the remaining
areas are finally developed, aside from various required City permits, applicable permits will have
to be obtained from other governmental agencies, as summarized below.
Right-of-Way Excavations and Obstructions




Carver County, Utility Installation(s)
Carver County, Street or Driveway Access(s)
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Utility Installation
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Right-of-Way Permit
Watermain Extensions

Minnesota Department of Health
Sanitary Sewer Extensions


Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
Stormwater Management, Erosion and Sediment Control, Floodplain Alternation,
Waterbody Crossings, Shoreline and Stream bank


Minnehaha Creek Watershed District or Carver County Water Management Organization
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, General NPDES Stormwater Permit
Wetland Protection




Minnehaha Creek Watershed District or Carver County Water Management Organization
Board of Water and Soil Resources, WCA
Army Corps of Engineers
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Construction Dewatering

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
AUAR Table 8-1 summarized similar permit requirements at the time the original AUAR was
completed.
8|P age
2.1
2015 Environmental Analysis
The discussion below illustrates updates to items discussed in the AUAR beginning with Item 9,
Land Use. For this purpose, the numbering below starts at #9 so it will track with the previous
AUAR when the update is reviewed with the original document.
9. Land Use
A land use discussion was provided in items 6 and 10 of the 2004 AUAR. The AUAR concluded
that buildout of the master plan area could result in potential adverse environmental impacts to
the local transportation, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and water systems. Additional infrastructure
improvements needed included a trail system, neighborhood parks, and telephone, electric, and
natural gas lines. The following discussions were presented for each major system:
ROADS
The roadway network in the Township and City consisted of gravel roads and paved roads (TH
5, Guernsey Avenue, Victoria Drive and Marsh Lake Road) along the AUAR perimeter and
through the central portion (Church Lake Boulevard). Roadway improvements would be
necessary to serve future growth and development.
To serve the access needs of the development, the transportation network within the site included
collector roadways to facilitate efficient internal site movement. On the perimeter of the site,
County and local roadways were anticipated to be upgraded (some from present gravel status) to
meet the traffic demands. In the wider, external transportation network, intersection signalization
would be needed at CSAH 18/CSAH 11 and at CSAH 18/CSAH 13 to accommodate development
traffic. TH 5 was projected in County transportation planning studies to be congested by the year
2010. It was found that geometric improvements and signal phasing changes would be necessary
at TH 5/CSAH 11 and TH 5/CSAH 13 to accommodate future traffic volumes at these
intersections.
2015 Roads Update: The roadway system needs were incorporated into the City’s 2030
Comprehensive Plan and Carver County’s Comprehensive Plan including an Amendment to the
Road System Plan adopted July 15, 2014. The plans continue to recognize area growth as shown
in the AUAR.
SANITARY SEWER
Once approved by the MCES, the 2002 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan would be used to
plan the orderly expansion of wastewater collection facilities. The plan delineates the location
and describes the future wastewater facilities needed to serve future growth areas. The 2002
Draft Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan provides for future trunk sewers west of Wassermann
Lake, and along Marsh Lake Road, CSAH 11, CSAH 43, and the railroad corridor. A new trunk
sanitary sewer line was installed in conjunction with the Watermark development, located east of
Carl Krey Lake. The new trunk facility extension could easily be extended to accommodate the
sanitary sewer system requirements for the year 2020. The AUAR concluded that there was
adequate capacity in the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) interceptor for the
9|P age
level of development proposed under both Scenarios. The Metropolitan Council approved the
2002 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan in October 2002.
Wastewater generated with the AUAR area would be collected in proposed gravity sewer lines
and drained to central locations within the development. Since there are were no existing gravity
sewer lines with sufficient depth to serve the development, it was determined that one or more lift
stations and forcemains would be required for the discharge of wastewater north into the City’s
sewer system.
Under Scenario One, the estimated maximum potential wastewater generation is 71 million
gallons per day (mgd) from residential units. The estimated maximum potential wastewater
generation under Scenario Two is 0.51 mgd.
2015 Sanitary Sewer Update: The sanitary sewer system needs identified through the AUAR
were incorporated into the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update adopted in 2010.
Infrastructure needed to provide wastewater collection has been constructed as part of
development since 2005.
STORMWATER SYSTEM
Existing surface water runoff drains into existing water bodies and infiltrates into the soil. Post
development runoff from a majority of the site was to be routed through the proposed wet
sedimentation ponding system to be designed to reduce peak runoff rates and meet all the
requirements of the City, the and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), and Carver
County. The final design of ponding areas and the water quality of stormwater discharging from
the development will meet the MCWD and Carver County Watershed Management Organization
(CCWMO) guidelines for removal of sediment, phosphorus, and other nutrients from stormwater
runoff before discharging into wetlands.
Wet sedimentation ponds were incorporated into the overall plan to collect water prior to entering
the lakes and open water within the AUAR area. The City worked with MCWD to include BMPs
into the site development plans. The City, in reviewing developments within the subarea, when
approached with best management practices for stormwater management, will work with
developments to incorporate BMPs into development. The City, in the future, will look into
development best management standards for use in future subdivisions.
2015 Stormwater Update: The City of Victoria continues to work closely with MCWD and
CCWMO to ensure that proposed projects comply with applicable rules. Since approval of the
AUAR, MCWD and CCWMO have updated their respective rules for stormwater management
which involve more stringent management guidelines than were contemplated within the AUAR.
The updated stormwater management rules include enhanced buffer requirements, volume
control standards and increased water quality protection. The City worked closely with MCWD
during development of revised rules. The MPCA NPDES permit requirements are also more
stringent. Any additional development in the AUAR area will be subject to current rules and
applicable standards.
10 | P a g e
WATER
Development under both Scenarios was to be served by the City of Victoria municipal water
supply system. The City of Victoria operated Wells Two and Three. Well One was inactive at
that time. Wells Two and Three have a combined well pumping capacity of 2,500 gpm or 3.6
mgd, assuming Well One remains out of service. The water supply system also included one
new 500,000 gallon elevated steel water storage tank; one existing 100,000 gallon storage tank;
an emergency connection to the City of Shorewood Water System; and a system of trunk and
lateral water mains ranging in size from 6 to 16 inches. To support growth, it was determined that
new water supply facilities and infrastructure would need to be constructed to handle additional
capacity.
The City prepared a 2002 Water System Study that indicated the AUAR area would be served
with municipal water facilities in a phased manner from 2002 to 2020. The future water supply
system proposed within the AUAR area was anticipated to include a water treatment plant with a
1 million-gallon ground storage tank or clearwell, an elevated 1 million gallon storage tank (water
tower), two municipal water supply wells, and a series of trunk and lateral water mains.
Construction of the water supply system would be phased in accordance with the MCES approved
Water System Study, and individual development plans.
The quantity of water used was expected to be proportional to the amount of sanitary wastewater
produced, which is based on the assumption that consumption is approximately 110 percent of
wastewater generation. The estimated water demand under Scenario One was 0.78 million
gallons per day (mgd). The estimated water demand under Scenario Two is 0.57 million gallons
per day (mgd).
2015 Water Update: The water system needs identified through the AUAR were incorporated
into the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update adopted in 2010. Infrastructure needed to
provide drinking water to serve this area has been constructed in accordance with the updated
Comprehensive Plan.
2015 Overall Land Use Update: Land use contemplated by Scenario 2 was incorporated into
the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Infrastructure systems have been expanded and additional
infrastructure has been added as development within the Master Plan area has occurred. Each
development proposal has been reviewed and approved through the City, local watershed,
MPCA, and all other applicable governmental agencies. All development has occurred in
accordance with the City of Victoria Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Applicable
environmental and regulatory permits have been secured through appropriate Federal, State, and
local governmental agencies. The same would be true for the remainder of the buildout of the
remaining property. Through the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, the City has a
regulatory framework in place to ensure that the proposed development will not result in additional
substantial environmental impacts. No further analysis is required and impacts are anticipated to
be less than significant in this regard.
11 | P a g e
10. COVER TYPES
Table 10.3 of the AUAR concluded that the following impacts would occur during buildout of the
Southwest Area Master Plan and the AUAR offered the following Mitigation Summary:
Table 10-3
Land Cover Before and After Development
Before
After
Land Cover Map Unit
Development Development
(acres)
(acres)
Cultural and Disturbed Lands
715.1
799.5
Developed Area
45.9
745.1
Agricultural Field
500.0
12.2
Old Field
48.7
2.3
Old Field with Woody Plant
89.5
28.8
Succession
Disturbed Deciduous Woodland
31.1
11.1
Natural Communities - Uplands
122.5
66.7
Maple-Basswood Forest
41.0
27.8
Mesic Oak Forest
12.5
7.5
Oak Woodland-Brushland
62.1
28.4
Mesic Oak Savanna
6.9
3.0
Natural Communities – Wetlands 1,2
263.0
252.6
Shrub Swamp
5.2
5.2
Shrub Swamp-Cattail Marsh
23.9
23.9
Cattail Marsh-Shrub Swamp
23.5
23.5
Cattail Marsh
55.1
54.5
Cattail Marsh-Wet Meadow
37.7
37.7
Wet Meadow
89.7
79.9
Poor Fen
0.7
0.7
Lowland Hardwood Forest
27.2
27.2
Aquatic 2
226.7
226.7
Open Water
226.7
226.7
Not Assessed
18.2
0
TOTAL
1345.5
1345.5
Wetlands define the layout of development and were designated as the primary element in the
preserved areas within residential neighborhoods. It was concluded that design standards would
be developed which would include a natural edge around the wetlands and a stormwater
management system to minimize all direct urban runoff from entering the wetlands. The primary
effort in dealing with wetlands was determined to be avoidance. Carl Krey Lake and its associated
wetlands create a large habitat complex, which likely provided and still provides remote habitat
for more reclusive wildlife. As shown in AUAR Figures 6-6 and 10-3, this area was slated to
remain undeveloped, to be used as open space. Additionally, the Poor Fen identified on the site
represented a unique wetland. Figures 6-6 and 10-3 show that this and other wetlands were to
be preserved as part of the extensive open space system.
The AUAR concluded that there several instances where minimal wetland filling was required,
such as a proposed road location. In this instance, development was to only occur after
appropriate permitting and mitigation efforts had been completed. Project proposers were
12 | P a g e
required to follow the sequencing process of wetland avoidance, minimization, rectification, and
mitigation as outlined in the WCA if wetlands were to be altered. Wetland permit applications
would need to be prepared and submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies to obtain
authorization for wetland alterations under the WCA prior to project construction. Any required
wetland replacement would be designed to expand upon existing on-site wetlands. Historical
wetlands on the site, such as low-lying, drained agricultural land, could provide an opportunity to
meet portions of the wetland replacement requirements by restoring historic wetlands.
As described in AUAR Item 14, the development scenarios were and still are consistent with the
City’s Shoreland District regulations. To mitigate potential impacts to water bodies, buffering of
development from the water bodies would be incorporated into future site plans. To further
mitigate impacts to water bodies, the concept plan did not propose any new development along
the shoreline of Carl Krey and Wassermann Lakes. The shoreline areas were proposed to be
included in the trail and open space system, as shown on AUAR Figure 6-6. It is anticipated that
structures would be no closer than approximately 200 ft. from the ordinary high water level, which
exceeded existing ordinance requirements. An existing developed area along the northwestern
shoreline of Wassermann Lake was the only portion of the shoreline not proposed as part of the
open space system.
Higher Quality Natural Communities - Forests, Woodlands, and Savannas
Within the AUAR area, there were a number of higher quality woodlands (see AUAR Figure 101). Higher quality wooded ecosystems represented relatively rare natural communities. Impacts
to these areas would be avoided to the extent possible as the majority of the higher quality natural
communities are proposed for open space. The existing location and size of some of these natural
areas would enhance the open space system.
The land primarily controlled by Lundgren Brothers and Hartman Communities was found to have
significant woodland areas. It was concluded that a large portion of these areas would be
protected as open space to minimize impacts. Some wooded areas would be designated for low
density single family housing to preserve as much of this natural feature as possible. Higher
density housing types, being twinhomes and townhomes, would be placed on gentler, less
wooded areas to minimize grading and provide a less intrusive environmental impact.
The City had a Tree Preservation and Replacement Ordinance that will further mitigate impacts
to significant trees removed during development of the AUAR area. This ordinance applied to
both developers and individual homeowners. The ordinance contains specific tree replacement
plan requirements. The replacement trees could be planted in specific locations that could help
restore and expand natural communities.
Steep Slopes
Bluffs and the bluff impact areas would remain undeveloped as required by the City’s Shoreland
District Ordinance. Wooded slopes would be incorporated into open space where possible. Home
development would occur on some steep slopes in the form of walkout houses. Proposed
residential roads are designed to adjust to the slopes while collector roads follow more level areas.
The City’s Tree Preservation and Replacement Ordinance specifically encouraged that
replacement trees be planted on steep slopes.
13 | P a g e
2015 Update: The same methodologies are still in place regarding preservation of natural
resources in the AUAR area. Any development is subject to City ordinances and regulations
along with permits from MCWD, the Army Corps of Engineers, BWSR, and the DNR for utility
crossings.
City ordinances require wetlands and their buffers to be placed in Outlots and deeded to the City
for protection. Significant wooded areas have been preserved as well. Development which has
occurred to date has resulted in significant (Approximately 244 Acres) open space preservation
within the overall AUAR area. Over time, wetland buffer requirements have increased such that
additional area than contemplated by the original area will be deeded to the City for protection.
Steep slopes in the AUAR area have also been protected from development and deeded to the
City.
All actions included in the 2004 Mitigation Plan are being implemented at this time to minimize
impacts to the fullest extent practicable. No further analysis is required and impacts are
anticipated to be less than significant in this regard.
11. Fish and Wildlife
Table 11-1 from 2004 AUAR listed the following wildlife observations within the Master Plan area:
Land Cover Type
General Site
Maple-Basswood Forest
Oak Woodland/Forest
Old Field and Old Field
with
Woody Plant Succession
Shrub Swamp
Cattail Marsh
Open Water
Table 11.1
Site Wildlife Observations
Wildlife Observed
American Robin
American Kestrel
Blue Jay
Mourning Dove
American Goldfinch
Killdeer
Red-tailed Hawk
Gray squirrel
Unknown Buteo
Deer mouse
Yellow-shafted Flicker
Chipmunk
Turkey Vulture
Garter snake
American Crow
Eastern Wood-Peewee
Downy Woodpecker
White-breasted Nuthatch
Black-capped Chickadee
Great-crested Flycatcher
House Wren
Raccoon
Catbird
Empidonax flycatcher
Monarch/Viceroy butterfly
Unknown sparrow
Ring-necked Pheasant
Common Yellowthroat
Swamp Sparrow
Barn Swallow
Song Sparrow
Wood Duck (4)
Green-backed Heron
Ant (large mounds)
Great Blue Heron
Dragonflies (4 spp)
Deer
14 | P a g e
The AUAR concluded that most of these species represent animals that are tolerant of human
activity and disturbance in an agricultural and suburban setting, therefore no significant impacts
were anticipated. The Eastern Wood-Pewee was the most sensitive bird observed, tolerating
limited rural development, but disappearing from an area following intensive suburban
development. Song Sparrows, Swamp Sparrows and Barn Swallows are more tolerant of human
activity, but may leave an area that is intensively developed. The large hawks also disappear
from an area after old field habitat is eliminated. These observations were not conducted during
the breeding season of most birds and therefore other species that have greater sensitivity to
human activity may use the site.
A written request was made to the DNR’s Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program
regarding known occurrences of rare natural features on or near the site. The response letter,
found in AUAR Appendix D, identified five known occurrences of rare species or natural
communities within an approximate one-mile radius from the site, all of which are located off the
site. These occurrences included the Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator), Bald Eagle, Oak
Forest (Big Woods) Mesic Subtype, and Poor Fen. Thus it should be expected that Oak Forest,
Wet Meadow, Poor Fen, and other natural communities typical of the region could be found within
the AUAR area, though with condition ranked generally of B, C, or lower. In addition, the wideranging Trumpeter Swan and Bald Eagle could be expected in the vicinity of the AUAR area and
the DNR’s letter noted that they have been located within Carver Park Reserve.
Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS) mapping, which had been completed for Carver
County, did not identify any natural plant communities within the AUAR area, meaning the
condition rank of existing plant communities fell below a threshold of excellent or good. Two
areas of Oak Forest (Mesic Subtype), an area of Oak Forest (Dry Subtype), and a Wet Meadow
were identified approximately one-half mile south of the site, and two Tamarack Swamps were
identified approximately 0.8 miles northeast of the site.
MCBS “Sites of Biodiversity Significance”, and the DNR/Met Council’s “Regional Natural
Resource Assessment” mapping are presented in AUAR Figure 11-1. MCBS Sites of Biodiversity
Significance mapping identified the wetland complex east of Wassermann Lake as “MCBS site
below minimum biodiversity significance threshold.” Several off-site areas were also identified on
the Sites of Biodiversity Significance mapping. DNR/Met Council Regional Natural Resource
Assessment mapping identified Carl Krey Lake and its associated wetlands as an “outstanding”
regional natural resource area.
Federal-listed threatened and endangered species in Carver County included the threatened bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and endangered Higgin’s eye pearly-mussel (Lampsilis
higginsii). The typical habitat of the bald eagle is mature forest near water and the DNR has
indicated that the bald eagle occurs within Carver Park Reserve. Specific habitat of the Higgin’s
eye pearly-mussel in Carver County was not identified; however, this mussel is typically found in
large rivers, such as the Mississippi River. It was not anticipated that the development of the
AUAR area would affect these species.
The Mitigation Summary offered the following conclusions:
As shown on AUAR Figure 10-3, the majority of the “MCBS site below minimum biodiversity
significance threshold” and the “Regional Natural Resource Area” will be preserved as open
space to avoid potential impacts to these ecological resources. These two large open water and
wetland complexes would be further protected through buffers required by MCWD and the City’s
15 | P a g e
shoreland ordinance. As noted under Item 10, structures would be setback approximately 200
feet from the ordinary high water level of the open water bodies, which exceed existing ordinance
requirements. These aforementioned mitigation measures are further discussed under Items 10,
12, and 14.
As noted under AUAR Item 11.a., most of the wildlife observed within the AUAR area is tolerant
of human activity and disturbance in an agricultural and suburban setting. Some of the wildlife is
less tolerant of suburban development. According to the development overlay analysis presented
under Item 10, over 50% of upland natural communities and almost 100% of aquatic natural
communities would be preserved as open space to minimize impacts on existing wildlife. Overall,
approximately 50% of the AUAR area was proposed to remain open space. The following
potential impacts and mitigations were also included as part of the AUAR, as shown below.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
FISH, WILDLIFE, SENSITIVE RESOURCES
1. Development may convert portions of the
Maple-Basswood Forest, Mesic Oak Forest,
Oak Woodland-Brushland, and Mesic Oak
Savanna to suburban uses.
2. Development may impact wildlife species that
are less tolerant of suburban development.
3. Development may convert areas designated
as “Regional Natural Resource Areas” and
“Sites of Biodiversity Significance” to
suburban uses
PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGIES
1. Maintain the majority of higher quality MapleBasswood Forest, Mesic Oak Forest, Oak
Woodland-Brushland, Mesic Oak Savanna,
and aquatic resources to the extent practical
to maintain wildlife habitat.
2. Designate wooded areas lower density
housing and/or require individual lot grading
plans to preserve as much of this natural
feature as possible.
3. Place higher density housing types, being
twinhomes and townhomes, on gentler, less
wooded areas to minimize grading and
provide a less intrusive environmental impact.
4. Plant some of the replacement trees required
under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
in areas that restore and expand existing
natural plant communities.
5. Encourage developers to consider “Regional
Natural Resource Areas” and “Sites of
Biodiversity Significance,” when preparing
development plans.
6. Encourage developers to consider connecting
natural plant communities through greenway
corridors.
2015 Update: Much of the previous discussion still holds true for the site. However, because
much of the site has been built out, much of the information is no longer relevant and the current
project area was previously disturbed as well in the early 2000s. A bald Eagle’s nest has been
observed near the property owned by Lennar and the St. Paul office of U.S. Fish and Wildlife was
16 | P a g e
consulted. All proposed work will be outside of the controlled 330 foot buffer and USFWS
confirmed that planned construction is not likely to disturb the nesting eagle. A permit is not
recommended. All applicable Mitigation strategies will remain in effect during the buildout of the
remainder of the area. No further analysis is required and impacts are anticipated to be less than
significant in this regard.
12. PHYSICAL IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES
The 2004 AUAR discussed the existence of DNR protected waters and on-site wetlands that had
been delineated. An Unnamed DNR Wetland (10-201 W) was identified on the Lundgren Property.
Additional DNR wetlands included Carl Krey Lake and Wassermann Lake. These still exist in the
vicinity of the site today.
Wetland delineations conducted within the AUAR boundary were completed by Westwood
Professional Services, Inc. (WPS), Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER), and Peterson
Environmental Consulting, Inc. (PEC) in 2001, 2002 and 2003. As shown on AUAR Figure 12-1,
parcels for which wetland delineations had been completed included the Hartman, Lyman,
Lundgren, and Enterprise properties (see AUAR Figure 6-2 for property information). AUAR
Table 12.2 listed all delineated wetlands on the site.
The AUAR concluded that the Lundgren Property was/is located in portions of the SE¼ of Section
23, SW¼ of Section 24, W½ of Section 25, and N½ of Section 26, T116N, R24W, Laketown
Township, Carver County, Minnesota (AUAR Figure 6-2) and was delineated by SER. DNR
Public Wetland 10-201W and a portion of DNR Public Water 10-48P (Wassermann Lake) are
located within the AUAR boundary.
Svoboda Ecological Resources delineated and flagged twenty-six wetlands (Wetlands 15 through
41) during several site visits between May 16 and December 12, 2001. Wetlands 40 and 41 were
delineated in the Spring of 2002. Delineated wetlands encompassed approximately 3,355,698
square feet (77 acres). Wetland boundaries of Wetlands 15 through 39 were reviewed and
accepted by the MCWD during site visits in November 2001 and January 2002. The boundaries
of Wetlands 40 and 41 were revised and flagged in the field, but have not been surveyed or
reviewed by the MCWD. Delineated wetlands are depicted on AUAR Figure 12-1 and are
described in AUAR Table 12.2.
The Affected Water Resources discussion in the AUAR found that Individual projects within the
AUAR area that propose altering a jurisdictional wetland would be required to complete an
alternatives analysis and submit it with the Minnesota WCA Wetland Replacement Application.
Project proposers will be required to follow the sequencing process of wetland avoidance,
minimization, rectification, and mitigation as outlined in the WCA if wetlands are altered. Wetland
permit applications would need to be prepared and submitted to the appropriate regulatory
agencies to obtain authorization for wetland alterations under the WCA prior to project
construction.
The 2004 AUAR stipulated that under the WCA, a 2:1 wetland replacement was required to
compensate for wetland alteration including filling, draining, and excavation. At least half of the
replacement credit needs to be in the form of new wetland credit to satisfy WCA requirements.
Up to half of the wetland replacement may come from public value credit, which may be applied
17 | P a g e
toward the second half of the 2:1 replacement. Detailed wetland alteration and replacement plans
are not yet available for developments within the AUAR area. Wetland replacement would be
designed to expand upon existing on-site wetlands. The following potential impacts were identified
and mitigated for through the AUAR.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
PHYSICAL IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES
1.
Minimal filling of wetlands may occur, such as
proposed road locations.
PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGIES
1. Follow the sequencing process of wetland
avoidance, minimization, rectification, and
mitigation as outlined in the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA).
Development would occur only after
appropriate permitting and mitigation efforts.
2. If wetlands are altered, project proposers will
be required to follow the sequencing process
of wetland avoidance, minimization,
rectification, and mitigation as outlined in the
WCA. Wetland permit applications will need
to be prepared and submitted to the
appropriate regulatory agencies to obtain
authorization for wetland alterations under
the WCA prior to project construction.
Additionally, alterations within a wetland
identified on the DNR Protected Waters
Inventory map would require a DNR Public
Waters Work permit.
3. Per WCA requirements, a 2:1 wetland
replacement is required to compensate for
wetland alteration including filling, draining,
and excavation. Wetland replacement will be
designed to expand upon existing on-site
wetlands.
4. Establish design standards that include a
natural buffer zone around wetlands, public
water wetlands and replacements wetlands,
in accordance with MCWD Rule D.
5. Require project proposers to submit wetland
permit applications and replacement plans,
as appropriate, to the Minnesota Board of
Water and Soil Resources, MCWD, County
and the City of Victoria.
6. Enforce MCPA Best Management Practices
(BMP)
7. Require avoidance of any proposed physical
impacts (excavating, filling, etc.) to the poor
fen.
18 | P a g e
2015 Update: Much of the same wetland information, environmental policy and mitigation
strategies that were discussed in 2004 still holds true today; however, regulatory requirements
have become more stringent such as including increased wetland buffer requirements. Since
2004, a TMDL has been approved for Lake Wasserman. MCWD has identified the Six Mile Creek
area as a priority geography within MCWD. The City and MCWD have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding to identify opportunities for collaboration on matters such as
development with the subject area. The poor fen was categorized as a manage 3 wetland by the
MCWD classification. The wetland and required buffer was placed in an outlot and deeded to the
City for preservation.
For the Lennar parcel, updated wetland delineations have been completed by Kholhaug
Environmental Services. As a result of increased requirements, there has been a reduction in
proposed road connections to provide additional wetland protection. One major road connection
through across Six Mile Creek is unavoidable in order to provide for neighborhood safety for
access for emergency vehicles and public works functions. Lennar is working closely with MCWD,
DNR, the Army Corps of Engineers and BWSR to comply with all requirements due to proposed
wetland impacts. Lennar is working with MCWD to create a partnership that would feature
wetland restoration for an area of Six-Mile creek that is within the AUAR area that will be deeded
to the City through development. Should the partnership not be feasible, Lennar would purchase
credits from a certified wetland bank in the bank service area
Any remaining development is subject to increased requirements compared to what was
contemplated in the AUAR. All applicable Mitigation strategies would remain in effect during the
buildout of the remainder of the area. No further analysis is required and impacts are anticipated
to be less than significant in this regard.
13. WATER USE
Water Supply
The 2004 AUAR concluded that Development of the AUAR area would require the abandonment
of domestic water wells. There were no existing municipal wells located within the AUAR area.
The 2004 AUAR determined that the City of Victoria operated Wells Two and Three. Well One
was inactive. Wells Two and Three had a combined well pumping capacity of 2,500 gpm or 3.6
mgd, assuming Well One would remain out of service. The water supply system also included
one new 500,000 gallon elevated steel water storage tank; one old 100,000 gallon storage tank;
an emergency connection to the City of Shorewood Water System; and a system of trunk and
lateral water mains ranging in size from 6 to 16 inches. The City did not have a water treatment
plant; the municipal water supply was treated by chemical additions to the wellhead. Chemical
additions included disinfection by chlorine, fluoridation, and polyphosphates as a sequestration
agent to control iron and manganese.
No water mains had been extended into the AUAR area prior to development. The nearest water
mains were located in the Deer Run development, which is located northeast of Wassermann
Lake, and the Watermark development located east of Carl Krey Lake. The AUAR concluded that
Development within the AUAR area under both Scenarios would require connection to the City of
Victoria water supply system and would not involve the installation of individual domestic wells.
19 | P a g e
The City’s existing water supply system would need to be expanded to accommodate
development of the AUAR area under each development Scenario.
The City’s projected water demand for the year 2020, including the AUAR area, was also
estimated at 1.850 mgd, which is based on 125 gallons per day per person, assuming a population
of 14,800. Water demand within the AUAR area is expected to be proportional to the amount of
sanitary wastewater produced. Water demand estimates for the two Scenarios were based on
the assumption that consumption is approximately 110 percent of wastewater generation.
Groundwater & Dewatering
Regarding groundwater resources, the AUAR indicated that water levels within the local aquifer
appeared to be stable. State and regional agencies responsible for managing water resource
supplies indicated that areas experiencing rapid development, over time, could experience a drop
in groundwater levels. While this had not been experienced in Victoria, it was recommended that
water levels would need to be monitored on a regular basis.
The AUAR concluded that potentially one or more temporary Minnesota DNR Water Appropriation
Permits could be necessary to conduct construction dewatering. Dewatering may be necessary
during construction to install sanitary sewer, municipal water, and storm sewer in some areas.
Contractors would carry out these activities on a case-by-case basis at the minimum duration and
quantity necessary to construct utility service for the affected sites. The quantity and duration of
construction dewatering was not known at the time, but dewatering activities would be temporary
and short term. Groundwater appropriated for construction dewatering purposes would be
discharged into temporary or permanent ponds located within the AUAR area.
The AUAR concluded that a temporary DNR Water Appropriation Permit would be required if
construction dewatering and pumping from development exceeds 10,000 gallons per day or
1,000,000 gallons per year. These thresholds would trigger the need for a DNR Water
Appropriation Permit. It was not anticipated that construction dewatering or pumping would be
extensive or continue long enough to impact domestic or municipal wells.
Future Public Water Supply System
The 2004 AUAR concluded that Development of the AUAR are would require additional water
supply infrastructure to mitigate impacts to the City’s existing system. Development of the future
water supply infrastructure would have to be designed in accordance with the recommendations
set forth in the City’s Water system study and potential future upgrades to infrastructure within
the AUAR area would include:




One Water Treatment Plant (WTP No. 2) with a 1 million gallon ground storage tank or
clearwell;
One elevated 1 million gallon storage tank (water tower);
Two municipal water supply wells (Wells 5 and 6) drilled in the Jordan sandstone aquifer;
and
A series of trunk and lateral water mains (Figure 13-2).
Construction of the water supply system would be phased in accordance with the MCES approved
Water System Study, and individual development plans would need to assure orderly and
economic provision of infrastructure planned to serve the development.
20 | P a g e
Installation of municipal water supply wells would be constructed in accordance with Minnesota
Department of Health regulations (Minnesota Well Code) to ensure the water supply system
meets federal and state public drinking water standards. The City would have to follow the
Minnesota Department of Health’s wellhead protection planning process, which involves:



Delineating the wellhead protection area and drinking water supply management area;
Assessing the vulnerability of the well; and
Creation of a Wellhead Protection Plan including goals, objectives, plan of action,
evaluation program, and contingency plan.
The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) also required the City to submit a preliminary
wellhead protection area delineation and assessment of land uses of the proposed new well with
their construction plan for approval. The City was to coordinate with the MDH to ensure that a
new water supply system meets all applicable regulations.
The AUAR included proposed Mitigation strategies for water resources with regard to water
supply and water resource protection, listed in the table below.
21 | P a g e
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
WATER USE
PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGIES
1.
Development within the AUAR area will impact the
City’s existing water supply system. Additional well
and storage capacity are needed.
1.
Monitor water usage and do not permit new
development to proceed if it exceeds the
capacity of the water supply system.
2.
Abandoned private wells may impact groundwater.
2.
3.
Municipal wells may impact groundwater levels.
Construct a water tower, two wells, a water
treatment plant, and a series of trunk and
lateral water mains to serve development in
the AUAR area.
3.
Ensure that the development of the future
water supply infrastructure will be designed in
accordance with the adopted Water Supply
Plan and Comprehensive Plan that have been
approved by applicable governmental entities.
4.
Construct and install water supply wells in
accordance with Minnesota Department of
Health regulations (Minnesota Well Code) to
ensure the water supply system meets federal
and state public drinking water standards.
5.
Continue to follow the Minnesota Department
of Health’s wellhead protection planning
process, which involves delineating the
wellhead protection area and drinking water
supply management area; Assessing the
vulnerability of the well; and Creation of a
Wellhead Protection Plan including goals,
objectives, plan of action, evaluation program,
and contingency plan.
6.
Continue to follow the Emergency and
Conservation Plan.
7.
Require abandoned private wells to be sealed
in accordance with Minnesota Department of
Health regulations.
2015 Update: Additional analysis was completed as part of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan
which determined that Well No. 6 and Water Treatment Plant 2 should be constructed south of
Marsh Lake Road beyond the study limits of the AUAR as shown on the attached Future Water
System Map (Exhibit 15). Water Treatment Plant No.1 with ground storage and Well No. 4 were
constructed in 2005.
A new 750,000 gallon underground storage reservoir is under construction within the study area.
Well No. 5 is programmed for 2016 in a location to be determined. Trunk water lines have been
extended throughout the area as development occurred and are available to serve remaining
parcels. The water system is adequate to serve the remaining undeveloped land in the study area.
All existing wells that were located in the Master Plan area property or identified during
construction have been sealed and abandoned in compliance with Minnesota Department of
22 | P a g e
Health regulations. Any dewatering that was done during build out of the area would be done in
accordance with all applicable State and local protocols.
All other applicable Mitigation strategies would remain in effect during the buildout of the
remainder of the area. No further analysis is required and impacts are anticipated to be less than
significant in this regard.
14. WATER – RELATED LAND USE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS
The 2004 AUAR discussed the City of Victoria Shoreland District and the 100-year floodplain. The
2004 Master Plan area consisted of properties within both of these areas, as shown in AUAR
Figure 14-1.
Presently, the City’s basic Shoreland District Regulations are summarized and implemented
through Section 30, Article VII of the Victoria City Code. Additionally, Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) mapping identified the 100-year floodplain around Wasserman
Lake and into several of its adjacent wetlands.
2015 Update: Proposed projects within the Shoreland District are reviewed by the City and the
DNR for conformance with requirements. No further analysis is required.
15. WATER SURFACE USE
The discussion in the 2004 AUAR evaluated the potential for additional watercraft on Wasserman
Lake and Carl Krey Lake as a result of developing the AUAR Area. The 2004 AUAR concluded
that given the location, lack of upland (dry) access, and dense wetland vegetation surrounding
Carl Krey Lake, impacts from watercraft are not anticipated due to the lakes inaccessible nature.
Furthermore, City watercraft regulations stipulate that “No person shall operate any watercraft or
motorboat propelled by machinery or motors, except that electric trolling motors shall be
permitted, upon the following lakes: Tamarack Lake, Church Lake, Kelzer’s Pond, and Carl Krey
Lake.”
Wassermann Lake is designated as a “Recreational Development” lake in the Shoreland
Ordinance. Recreational Lakes typically accommodate moderate levels of recreational use. An
existing boat ramp to Wassermann Lake provides recreational access, and limited shoreline
development exists around the lake’s perimeter. Wassermann Lake is currently subject to City
Watercraft limits and, therefore, regulated by the City of Victoria City Code Section 28-33. The
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is also responsible for placing restrictions on
watercraft operation on the lake. No restrictions on motorized watercraft usage or speed limits
currently exist besides general rules regarding safe watercraft operation on all Minnesota bodies
of water.
23 | P a g e
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
WATER SURFACE USE
PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGIES
1.
1.
The potential exists for additional watercraft on
Wassermann Lake and Carl Krey Lake as a result of
the development.
Apply Section 28-33 of its watercraft
regulations, which states that “(n)o person shall
operate any watercraft or motorboat propelled
by machinery or motors, except that electric
trolling motors shall be permitted, upon the
following lakes: Tamarack Lake, Church Lake,
Kelzer’s Pond, and Carl Krey Lake.” These
regulations do not apply to Wassermann Lake,
which is designated as a Recreational
Development Lake.
2015 Update: Annexation is complete. No further analysis required.
16. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
The 2004 AUAR concluded that the Southwest Master Plan area had steep slopes and Highly
Erodable Land (HEL). Any slopes of at least 12% (and greater) were deemed as steep slopes.
Soil types and slopes were listed in AUAR Table 16-1.
With grading and earthwork proposed, the AUAR took into account the grading of the site. The
analysis concluded that grading would likely be conducted in phases beginning in 2004 in the
northernmost portion of the AUAR area and immediately south of the Deer Run development.
Construction would then follow with development of the central and southeastern portions with
full build out anticipated by the year 2020. Earthmoving for development would include grading
for streets, utilities, buildings, residential lots, and other urban amenities throughout the
developable portions of the site. The AUAR analysis required all project proponents to submit a
SWPPP and adhere to all applicable BMPs and Erosion and Sediment Control Practices
mandated by the MPCA.
In addition to implementing BMPs and Erosion control, it was concluded that final stabilization of
the site would have to be achieved by establishing perennial vegetative cover, or other equivalent
means, to prevent soil failure under erosive conditions. For residential construction, final
stabilization would be achieved when the residence was transferred to the homeowner.
Requirements of the MCWD would also need to be adhered to.
The table below lists the Mitigation Program pertaining to Erosion and Sedimentation that was
approved with the 2004 AUAR.
24 | P a g e
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
1.
Earthmoving for development will include grading
for streets, utilities, buildings, residential lots, and
other urban amenities throughout the developable
portions of the site. It is anticipated that potential
adverse erosion and sedimentation impacts will be
limited to short-term effects.
PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGIES
1. Require that pre-and post-development activities
minimize runoff and improve the quality of runoff
and provide erosion control through Best
Management Practices (BMPs), MCWD standards,
Carver County rules, and other techniques such as
the use of vegetation buffers, tree planting and
mulching, and outfall stabilization. Use of BMPs will
minimize potential adverse effects from
construction-related sediment and erosion on water
quality to the extent practical.
2. Ensure that a combined NPDES/SDS permit from
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), is
obtained prior to initiating earthwork within the
AUAR area. This permit requires that the MPCA’s
BMPs be used to control erosion and that all
erosion controls be inspected once every seven
days during active construction and within 24 hours
after a rainfall event greater than .5 inches in 24
hours.
3. Enforce the erosion and sediment control
regulations in all applicable ordinances.
4. Require project proposars to submit detailed
erosion and sediment control plans for review and
approval by the City prior to project construction.
The MCWD and Carver County will review plans
and approve plans prior to approval.
2015 Update: Development is subject to approval by the City. The City requires permits to be
received from MCWD and/or CCWMO and MPCA NPDES prior to initiation of construction of any
land disturbing activity. Current City, MCWD, CCWMO and NPDES standards are more stringent
than what was in place at the time of approval of AUAR. Each permit has specific requirements
for compliance in accordance with the 2004 Mitigation Strategies.
With the implementation of updated required BMPs, potential adverse effects from constructionrelated sediment and erosion on water quality will be minimized to the extent practical. It is
anticipated that potential adverse erosion and sedimentation impacts will be limited to short-term
effects. No further analysis is required and impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.
17. WATER QUALITY – SURFACE WATER RUNOFF
The 2004 AUAR summarized pre-development site runoff and post-development site runoff and
concluded that existing surface water runoff drains into existing water bodies and infiltrates into
the soil. Pre-development site runoff likely contains pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer residues
related to the presence of annually tilled agricultural fields. Runoff from agricultural land is never
pretreated prior to entering wetlands.
25 | P a g e
Post development runoff from a majority of the AUAR area would be routed through the proposed
wet sedimentation ponding system to be designed to reduce peak runoff rates and meet all the
requirements of the MCWD, the City, and the County. The final design of ponding areas and the
water quality of stormwater discharging from the development would have to meet the MCWD
and Carver County WMO guidelines for removal of sediment, phosphorus, and other nutrients
from stormwater runoff before discharging into wetlands. It should be noted that only a small
portion at the southeast corner of the AUAR area was located within the district boundaries of the
Carver County Watershed.
The AUAR concluded that the total peak rate of surface water runoff would increase after
development due to the addition of approximately 313 acres of impervious surface. The increase
in impervious surface was to be mitigated by construction of 19 new wet sedimentation ponds
designed to increase the total flood storage volume on the site and handle a 1-, 10-, and 100year storm event prior to discharging to the existing wetlands and natural drainage ways. The
rate control to be provided by the wet sedimentation ponds would not increase the 100-year HWL
(High Water Level) of Carl Krey and Wassermann Lakes. Characteristics of the 19 wet
sedimentation ponds were summarized in AUAR Table 17.1 shown on AUAR Figure 17-1.
The proposed location of the ponds shown on AUAR Figure 17-1 was largely based on the
existing topography and drainage ways. Regional ponding approaches were used to create the
conceptual locations where feasible. It was anticipated that as development proceeded and more
detailed construction plans were created, pond locations could be modified as long as the
watershed requirements are met.
The Mitigation Summary concluded that a stormwater management system would be designed
to increase the total flood storage volume on-site to handle frequent and some of the more
significant storm events prior to discharging to existing wetlands. Peak rates would not increase
from existing conditions for the 1, 10, and 100-year storm events. Developers within the AUAR
area would be required to work with the MCWD to provide on-site stormwater treatment in part
through alternative stormwater management techniques, rather than solely through stormwater
ponds that provide rate control and water quality treatment.
BMPs would be employed during construction to reduce erosion and sediment loading of
stormwater runoff. Inspection and maintenance of BMPs during construction would need to be
consistent with NPDES/SDS General Permit requirements, including site inspection after rainfall
events, perimeter sediment control maintenance, and sediment removal. MCWD Regulatory
Controls would also ensure that water quality requirements for runoff, including pollutant
reductions and on-site sedimentation, would be met during and after construction. Proposed
mitigation strategies are listed below.
26 | P a g e
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
WATER QUALITY – SURFACE W ATER RUNOFF
1.
2.
The quantity of surface water runoff will increase
during storm events as additional impervious
surface areas are added with the development of
the AUAR area.
PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGIES
1.
Require the construction of wet sedimentation
ponds to capture and treat stormwater runoff
generated from development in the AUAR area.
2.
Implement BMPs and MCWD and Carver County’s
stormwater requirements to reduce phosphorus
loading.
3.
Restrict the use of fertilizer containing phosphorous
as required by new legislation in the seven county
metropolitan area.
4.
Be open to having project proposers work with the
MCWD and the City to provide on-site stormwater
treatment in part through alternative stormwater
management techniques.
The development will increase the volume of
stormwater.
2015 Update: Much of the same procedures, protocols and mitigation strategies that were in
place in 2004 are still in place today. However, many have become more stringent including
addition of volume control standards and increased water quality protection requirements which
results in increased surface water protection.
Wassermann Lake is an impaired water with an approved TMDL. The TMDL for Wassermann
was approved by the US EPA in 2011. It defines the City’s wasteload allocation (WLA) for
discharging phosphorus into Wassermann and required reduction. The City has documented
through modeling a reduction of 77 lbs/year of phosphorus through construction of BMPs in the
area draining to Wassermann which exceeds the City’s required reduction. The City continues to
work closely with MCWD on efforts they are leading to further improve water quality of
Wassermann.
Any proposed development is subject to approval by the City of Victoria. The City seeks to have
project proposers meet with MCWD or CCWMO early in the development process to ensure
understanding of regulatory requirements and to identify any opportunities for enhanced
stormwater management. The City requires all permits to be received from MCWD and/or
CCWMO prior to initiation of construction. Projects must have an approved NPDES permit which
will include increased restrictions due impaired status of Wasserman.
No further analysis is required and impacts are anticipated to be less than significant in this regard.
18. WATER QUALITY – WASTEWATER
The 2004 AUAR concluded that only normal domestic wastewater production was expected to be
generated. The types of wastewater produced would be typical of residential and institutional
uses. No on-site industrial wastewater production or treatment was anticipated. Both the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services (MCES) had compiled and documented data that related wastewater flow generation to
population and land use. These generation rates (or SAC units) were used as the City’s basis for
27 | P a g e
estimating the wastewater design flows and peaking design conditions to determine the size and
capacity of the existing and future sewer system within the AUAR area.
The analysis for Scenario 2 (the preferred alternative) included single family, townhomes, and
twinhomes. These uses were found to equal one SAC unit per dwelling unit. The volume of
wastewater production for the church, and public works/fire station were estimated by assigning
one SAC unit per 2,400 square feet of total floor area; and the school was assigned one SAC unit
per 18 students, which is based on 30 sq. ft. per student or 15 gallons per student. The estimated
maximum potential daily wastewater production for the entire development under Scenario Two
was estimated at 514,572 gallons per day (gpd), as shown in AUAR Table 18-2.
Table 18-2. Wastewater Production Predicted Under Scenario Two
Proposed Use
Single family units
Townhome/Twinhome units
Institutional/Church
Institutional/School 1
Public Works/Fire Station
SAC Rate
1/Unit
1/Unit
1:2,400 s.f.
1/18
students
1:2,400 s.f.
Wastewater
1,113
692
60,000 s.f.
SAC
Unit
1,113
692
25
625
35
9,590
13
3,562
514,572
Units
30,000 s.f.
Total
(gallons/day)
304,962
189,608
6,850
The AUAR concluded that the City’s sewer system would need to be expanded to accommodate
development under either scenario. Anticipated infrastructure needs included the construction of
three lift stations, forcemains, two gravity trunk sewers, and lateral sewer pipes. All of the
wastewater generated from the AUAR area would ultimately be connected to MCES regional
Interceptors.
New developments would have to pay all costs for capital improvements to subdivisions. With
each development, the sanitary sewer collection system would be constructed as part of the
development improvements. No on-site waste treatment was proposed. Development under both
scenarios would be connected to the City of Victoria sanitary sewer system, which would
ultimately connect to four different MCES regional interceptors. The MCES interceptors would
then carry the wastewater to the Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) for treatment.
The Blue Lake WWTP is located in Shakopee and is the fourth largest plant in Minnesota. The
plant treats wastewater from approximately 28 communities, and was found to treat an average
of 26 million gallons of wastewater per day using advanced secondary with
chlorination/dechlorination techniques. The AUAR concluded that the plant had the capacity to
treat 38 million gallons of wastewater per day. Sludge produced at the plant would be dewatered,
dried, and palletized for use as fertilizer. Because of the discharge requirements placed on
wastewater treatment plants, and the type of wastewater generated from the AUAR area, it was
concluded that no adverse impacts to the Minnesota River from the proposed AUAR area would
occur.
The AUAR concluded that the necessary sewer infrastructure improvements would be
constructed with each individual project to tie into the overall master planned system. AUAR
Figure 18-1 depicts the various sewer areas that were determined based on existing topography
or capacity limitations or connection points. The AUAR was shown as subdivided into areas 1A,
28 | P a g e
2, 2A, and 3B. Future service areas 1A and 3B were located south of Deer Run and Highway 5,
respectively, and fell within the 2010 future trunk sewer boundary. Service areas 2 and 2A were
located in the central and southeastern portion of the AUAR area, and are within the 2015
boundary. Based on the sewer service areas, development would begin in the northernmost
portion of the AUAR area and immediately south of the Deer Run development. Construction
would then follow with development of the central and southeastern portions with full build out
anticipated by the year 2020.
It was also concluded that The City of Victoria is one of several communities that use an
Undesignated MUSA in its Comprehensive Plan to accommodate future growth. The City benefits
by using the Undesignated MUSA method because it provides the City control and flexibility in
planning for and guiding future growth, and allows the City to respond to changes in housing
demand. This MUSA is not tied to a geographic boundary, but allows the MUSA to “float”
depending upon availability of local and regional services. The City chose to modify the floating
MUSA by establishing primary and secondary staging areas contiguous to the existing MUSA.
Development of the AUAR area was expected to be contiguous to the current MUSA and would
be timed as utility infrastructure is extended/upgraded and financed. The Mitigation Strategies for
water quality are shown in the table below.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
WATER QUALITY – W ASTEWATER
PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGIES
1. Development within the AUAR area will impact the
City’s existing sanitary sewer system. The sanitary
sewer system will need to be expanded.
1.
Monitor wastewater flows and do not permit
new development to proceed if it exceeds the
capacity of the wastewater system.
2.
Expand the existing sanitary sewer system,
including the construction of three lift stations,
forcemains, two gravity trunk sewers, and
lateral sewer pipes.
3.
Assess the sizing and alignment of the future
sewer system during plan submittals by
developers to ensure the sewer system is
designed to accommodate the demand.
4.
Work with MCES to assure adequate capacity
in the regional wastewater treatment system is
planned for the AUAR area.
5.
Require that existing ISTS comply with
Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and Carver
County ISTS ordinance 21F.
2015 Update: The proposed wastewater generated by the study area was incorporated into the
City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update which MCES used to determine needed capacity to
regional system. Met Council completed significant upgrades to the regional system from 2007
to 2012 in Victoria to accommodate growth in Victoria and nearby communities.
The Comprehensive Plan further refined the locations for proposed lift stations and trunk sewer
extensions in the area as shown on Trunk Sanitary Sewer System Plan (Exhibit 13). Lift station
29 | P a g e
15 and Lift station 18 have been constructed and the needed 27-inch diameter trunk sanitary
sewer line is being extended as development occurs.
Any existing Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS) must comply with County Regulations.
As trunk sewer was extended, provisions for future connection by existing landowners was
provided should existing ISTS systems become noncompliant.
No further analysis is required and impacts are anticipated to be less than significant in this regard.
19. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SOIL CONDITIONS
The AUAR identified 29 soil map units within the AUAR area. A standard soils map was provided
in AUAR Figure 16-1, and soil types were described in AUAR Table 16-1. According to the Soil
Survey, the most abundant soil type within the AUAR area is Lester-Kilkenny loam, with slopes
ranging from 6 to 40%. Lester soils consist of very deep, well drained soils that formed in
calcareous loamy glacial till on till plains and moraines. Lester soils have moderate permeability,
and runoff is medium to high. Kilkenny soils consist of very deep, moderately well drained soils
that formed in a mantle of clayey glacial till and underlying loamy glacial till on moraines. Kilkenny
soils have moderately slow permeability, and runoff is medium to very high.
The AUAR concluded that the potential for groundwater contamination was estimated to be low
to moderate based on the permeability of the dominant soil types found on the site. The sensitivity
of groundwater systems to pollution is indicated by the approximate time it takes water to infiltrate
the land surface until it is discharged or pumped from an aquifer. Although shallow groundwater
is highly susceptible to contamination, moderately permeable soils with finer textures will slow or
restrict the movement of water, which extends the time needed for chemicals to break down
before reaching the water table. Because development within the AUAR area would be typical of
residential and public/institutional land uses, no unusual wastes or chemicals were anticipated to
be spread or spilled onto the soils that would cause significant groundwater contamination.
Additionally, no leaking underground storage tank sites were identified within the AUAR area.
Property surveys show the Williams Brothers petroleum pipeline travels east-west through the
upper portion of the site, south of Highway 5. It should be noted this does not pertain to the Lennar
property.
The Phase I ESAs and site visit field notes by Westwood indicated that areas of dumping were
observed throughout the AUAR area. The materials that were identified include, but were not
limited to sheet metal, an empty above-ground storage tank, farming equipment, concrete, and
other building materials. Debris were located in the area of a former farmstead along with the
foundation of the farmstead. Some of items were tires, metal piping, electrical parts, and other
farming and construction debris.
The AUAR concluded that Findings from each of the existing Phase I ESAs and any future Phase
I ESAs within the AUAR would be addressed as appropriate prior to development pursuant to
federal, state, and local regulations. Soil and groundwater contamination, if any, would be
remediated pursuant to local and state regulations.
During development activities the materials dumped within the AUAR area would need to be
properly disposed of at an approved recycling and landfill facility or, if appropriate, the material be
30 | P a g e
observed for indications of hazardous materials, petroleum products, or asbestos during removal
or construction activities that may disturb the material.
The mitigation strategies for potential geological hazards and soil conditions are included in the
table below.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS AND SOIL CONDITIONS
1.
Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs),
unidentified drums, and dumps were found within
the AUAR area.
PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGIES
1.
Ensure that project proposers address, as
appropriate, findings from Phase I Environmental
Site Assessments (ESAs) must be addressed as
appropriate prior to development pursuant to local
and state regulations.
2.
Require that soil and groundwater contamination, if
any, will need to be remediated pursuant to
Minnesota law.
3.
Require proper disposal of the unknown contents of
the drums.
4.
Require that materials dumped within the AUAR
area be properly disposed of at an approved
recycling and landfill facility or, if appropriate, the
material be observed for indications of hazardous
materials, petroleum products, or asbestos during
removal or construction activities that may disturb
the material.
2015 Update: Many of the potential issues discussed in this section have either been addressed
with previous developments in the AUAR area. The Lundgren Property is now owned by Lennar
and soil conditions on-site have not changed. The land has been vacant since 2004. Discovering
contaminants or buried tanks is not anticipated. However, in the event that anything is unearthed
during site grading, it would be excavated, remediated, and/or disposed of in accordance with all
applicable Federal, State, and Local standards and regulations. No further analysis is required
and impacts are anticipated to be less than significant in this regard.
20. SOLID WASTES; HAZARDOUS WASTES; STORAGE TANKS
The 2004 AUAR used a solid waste generation rate of .907 tons per household to estimate solid
waste that would be generated by future development. It also concluded that the average amount
of municipal solid waste recycled per household was .247 tons, and municipal solid waste
generated per employee was .714 tons. The total quantity of municipal solid waste generated
and recycled under each scenario was calculated and shown in AUAR Table 20-1.
At that time, the City did not operate their own recycling program, but there were five private
haulers that provided recycling options to the community.
31 | P a g e
Residential
Scenario One
Scenario Two
NonResidential
Scenario One
Scenario Two
Table 20-1
Estimated Solid Waste Generation, Scenarios One and Two
Solid
Total Solid Waste
Total Amount
Recycled
Total HH
Waste
Generation
Recycled
(tons/HH)
(tons/HH)
Tons/HH/yr
Tons/HH/yr
2,416
.907
2,191.3
.247
596.7
1,238-1805
.907
1,179.1 – 1,637.1
.247
321.1 – 445.8
Total
Solid Waste
Total Solid Waste Generation
Employees
(tons/HH)
Tons/HH/yr
0
.714
0
120
.714
85.7
2015 Update: The bulk of the AUAR area has been built out in accordance with the Southwest
Area Master Plan. Solid waste disposal services and recycling services have been serving the
area through the development of the various communities. The same service providers would
serve the remainder of the study area to ensure that solid waste is disposed of in accordance with
state and local laws. No further analysis is required and impacts are anticipated to be less than
significant in this regard.
21. TRAFFIC
A Traffic Study was prepared by Westwood Professional Services for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2.
The Traffic Study concluded that full build-out of Scenario 2 (the preferred alternative) would result
in a total of 16,528 daily trips between the single family, townhome, elementary school, church,
and public works or fire station uses.
Traffic forecasts were computed for both Scenario One and Scenario Two for two timeframes:
2007 (before opening of new TH 212) and 2020 (full build-out of the AUAR Area). With the
projected traffic assignment volumes, intersection capacity analyses were conducted to assess
the impacts of AUAR area traffic on the surrounding external roadway system.
The AUAR concluded that maintaining mobility within the County is a stated goal of the Carver
County Transportation Plan. With the continued growth in Carver County population it will remain
difficult to address this growing mobility need.
The Carver County Transportation Plan, published in 1999, documented that at that time 28 miles
of main arterial routes within the County experienced peak hour congestion. The future modeling
conducted for the 1999 Plan further indicated that by 2020 the amount of peak hour congestion
would expand to 64 miles.
TH 5 from the west junction of CSAH 11 in Victoria east through Carver County was included in
the 28 miles of the existing congested roadways identified in the 1999 Plan. Since publication of
the Plan, TH 5 east of TH 41 was expanded to four lane status in 2000. However, west of TH 41
there was no project programmed to expand TH 5. The portion of TH 5 from the west junction of
CSAH 11 to TH 41 was identified in the County Transportation Plan as needing capacity
improvements by 2010 with or without the construction of new TH 212. Furthermore, the entire
length of TH 5 from Waconia easterly to TH 41 was shown as a Trunk Highway with "Capacity
Needs" on the Future Recommended System published by Carver County.
32 | P a g e
The following are the conclusions and mitigation strategies that were presented in the detailed
traffic analysis (Appendix F of the AUAR):
1. Presently one intersection in the project vicinity experiences significant peak period
delays. This occurs at the signalized intersection of TH 5 and CSAH 13 in the AM peak
hour. The high southbound to eastbound left turn cannot be adequately served with the
one lane available for turning traffic.
2. Previously published Carver County traffic studies and the Carver County Transportation
Plan document the fact that TH 5 west of TH 41 will be congested by the year 2010, even
with the implementation of new TH 212 through Carver County. The work conducted in
this AUAR study effort confirms those findings and increases the importance of all affected
agencies to work toward long term solutions for the growing transportation needs within
the County.
3. With traffic generated by Scenario One or Scenario Two, the two nearby intersections of
CSAH 11/CSAH 18 and CSAH 13/CSAH 18 will require signalization by 2007. With
signalization, both intersections will function well (Level of Service C or better in the peak
hours) through the year 2020.
4. The intersection of TH 5/CSAH 13 will need to be upgraded by the year 2007 in order to
maintain acceptable peak hour operations. The proposed modifications should include a
double left turn lane on the north leg (with protected signal phasing), a right turn lane
(preferably with a free right turn island) on the south leg and provision of two through lanes
east-west through the immediate intersections area (see Appendix F, Figure F-15). With
these improvements the intersection will operate at LOS C or better through the year 2020.
5. The intersection of TH 5/CSAH 11 will need to be upgraded by the year 2020 in order to
maintain acceptable peak hour operations. The proposed modifications should include
provision of two through lanes east-west through the immediate intersections area (see
Appendix F, Figure F-15). With these improvements the intersection will operate at LOS
D or better in the year 2020
6. Intersections to the south of the AUAR area will have the capacity to function well in the
future. These intersections should be periodically monitored as other growth occurs
outside of the AUAR area to determine when signal warrants may be met.
7. The gravel roads south and west of the AUAR area (e.g., Marsh Lake Road, Tellers Road)
will need to be upgraded to accommodate the developing nature of these roadways.
8. Carver County is currently undertaking a larger area-wide planning study to assess the
adequacy of through arterial routes in the county, particularly in the Victoria-Waconia area.
The trip generation and assignment data from the AUAR study effort should be
incorporated into the overall Carver County planning effort.
Mitigation Strategies for traffic and roadway improvements are shown in the table below.
33 | P a g e
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
TRAFFIC
1.
The existing and planned growth within the vicinity of
the AUAR area will cumulatively impact the
transportation system in Carver County.
2.
Presently one intersection in the project vicinity
experiences significant peak period delays. This
occurs at the signalized intersection of TH 5 and
CSAH 13 in the AM peak hour. The high southbound
to eastbound left turn cannot be adequately served
with the one lane available for turning traffic.
3.
The intersection of TH 5/CSAH 11 will be impacted
during peak hours by the year 2020.
4.
Previously published Carver County traffic studies
and the Carver County Transportation Plan
document the fact that TH 5 west of TH 41 will be
congested by the year 2010, even with the
implementation of new TH 212 through Carver
County.
PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGIES
1.
Work with Carver County and project proposers to
install signals at the intersections of CSAH 11/CSAH
13 and CSAH 13/CSAH 18 will require signalization
by 2007, or when appropriate signal warrants are
met.
2.
Work with Minnesota Department of Transportation,
Carver County and project proposers to upgrade the
intersections of TH 5/CSAH 11 and TH 5/CSAH 13
by 2020. The AUAR Traffic Analysis recommends
that the proposed CSAH 11 intersection
modifications should include provision of two
through lanes east-west through the immediate
intersection area. The AUAR Traffic Analysis
recommends that the proposed CSAH 13
modifications should include a double left turn lane
on the north leg (with protected phasing), a right turn
lane (preferably with a free right turn island) on the
south leg and provision of two through lanes eastwest through the immediate intersections area.
3.
The intersection of TH 5/CSAH 11 will need to be
upgraded by the year 2020 in order to maintain
acceptable peak hour operations. The proposed
modifications should include provision of two
through lanes east-west through the immediate
intersections area. With these improvements the
intersection will operate at LOS D or better in the
year 2020.
4.
Periodically monitor the intersections south of the
AUAR area as other grown occurs outside of the
AUAR area to determine when signal warrants may
be met.
5.
Upgrade the gravel roads south and west of the
AUAR area (e.g., Marsh Lake Road, Tellers Road)
to accommodate the developing nature of these
roadways.
6.
Incorporate the trip generation and assignment data
from the AUAR traffic study into the overall Carver
County transportation planning effort. Carver
County is currently undertaking a larger area-wide
planning study to assess the adequacy of through
arterial routes in the county, particularly in the
Victoria-Waconia area.
2015 Update: The information from the AUAR was used in development of the both the City’s
and County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The County adopted an amendment to the Roadway
Systems Plan in 2014. The plan identifies 2030 Future Capacity and Connectivity Improvements
for the County system within and around the study area.
Since the approval of the AUAR, TH 212 was completed and opened to traffic providing improved
mobility to the area. Improvements were also completed to TH 5 from TH 41 to CSAH 11 in 2012
and included upgrades at key intersections such as TH 5 and CSAH 13. A portion of Tellers Road
34 | P a g e
was upgraded from its gravel condition in the 2000s. Turn lanes were constructed as required by
Carver County on CSAH 43 and CSAH 11 in conjunction with development in the area. CSAH 10
was improved in 2010. CSAH 11 south of CSAH 10 to TH 212 was improved in 2011. The County
also added a traffic signal to the intersection of 10/11. Local collectors were constructed in
accordance with the AUAR. In 2015, Carver County in partnership with the City of Victoria will be
initiating preliminary design for the construction of a new County Road in the location of Marsh
Lake Road. Other intersections in the area are periodically monitored to determine if traffic control
changes are warranted.
A TH 5 Corridor Study was completed in 2008 and continues to identify that TH 5 is in need of
expansion to 4 lanes but there is currently no funding available to do so. It remains important for
agencies (City, County, Mn/DOT, Met Council, state/federal legislators) to work towards long term
solutions to meet long term needs. The City will continue to monitor upgrades to roadway
infrastructure as anticipated in Comprehensive Plans and Roadway plans. No further analysis is
required and impacts are anticipated to be less than significant in this regard.
22. VEHICLE RELATED AIR EMISSIONS
The 2004 AUAR concluded that Motor vehicle emissions are associated with vehicles traveling to
and from the AUAR area along access roadways and through critical intersections The most
critical pollutant associated with vehicular traffic in Minnesota is Carbon Monoxide (CO) for which
1-hour and 8-hour ambient air quality standards were established by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the MPCA.
A microscale analysis (predicting Carbon Monoxide concentrations adjacent to intersections) was
created for four at-grade intersections which carry a major portion of access traffic (AUAR Table
22-2). Two of the intersections analyzed for traffic were unsignalized and carried relatively small
volumes of traffic. All of the intersections were expected to be signalized by the 2020 traffic
projection year.
Table 22-2
Intersections Analyzed for Carbon Monoxide – PM Peak Hour Approach Volumes
Existing (2003)
Build (2020)
North/South
East/West
App Vol
LOS
App Vol
LOS
CR 11
TH 5
1952
C
3406
D
CR 13
TH 5
2220
C
3860
C
CR 11
CR 43
849
A
2302
B
CR 13
CR 43
554
A
1106
A
A dispersion model was used to estimate CO concentrations at receptor sites near these
intersections. Receptor sites are located closest to the intersection of TH 5 and CR 11 in
downtown Victoria. Two businesses are located north of TH 5 while two single family residences
are located south of TH 5. At the TH 5 and CR 13 intersection, single family residences are
located north of TH 5, with open fields south of TH 5. At the CR 43 intersections, receptor sites
(single family residences) are located well away from the intersections, with open fields north of
CR 43 at its intersection with CR 13.
The analysis of these data showed that, except for several outlier values, the maximum 1-hour
and 8-hour CO concentrations decayed uniformly with distance from the Minneapolis Central
35 | P a g e
Business District. Based upon these data, maximum 1-hour and 8-hour CO background
concentrations for Victoria were estimated as for 2002 as shown in Table 22-3. These were then
adjusted to the 2003 and 2020 projection years, assuming an average speed of 20 mph and
annual growth in VMT of 1.5% to the year 2020.
Table 22-3
CO Background Concentrations (ppm)
2002
2003
2020
Emissions
1.00
0.98
0.94
VMT growth
1.00
1.08
1.31
Combined
1.00
1.06
1.22
1-hour
0.75
0.79
0.92
8-hour
0.60
0.63
0.73
An emissions model for 2003 and 2020 was run with the vehicle mix developed by the MPCA for
the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area at that time to yield idle emissions during vehicle queuing and
free flow emissions, assuming an average approach speed of 25 mph. The model had also been
used to estimate downwind concentrations of carbon monoxide at receptor sites adjacent to each
critical intersection. 8-hour concentrations associated with each roadway were estimated using
a persistence factor of 0.70 applied to the PM peak hour emissions. The intersections along TH
5 were analyzed as signalized intersections for both the Existing and Build scenarios. Several
intersections along CR 43 were analyzed as unsignalized intersections for the 2003 Existing
scenario and as signalized intersections for the 2020 buildout scenario, as shown in the AUAR
tables below.
Table 22-4
Predicted Maximum 1-Hour CO Concentrations
Roadway
Background
TOTAL
Existing 2003 TH 5 at CR 13
NW – Residence
2.2
0.8
3.0
4.1
0.9
5.0
Build 2020 TH 5 at CR 11
SW – Residence
2004 MPCA STANDARD
30.0
Table 22-5
Predicted Maximum 8-Hour CO Concentrations
Roadway
Background
TOTAL
Existing 2003
TH 5 at CR 11
NW – Floyd’s Liquor
1.5
0.6
2.1
1.5
0.6
2.1
TH 5 at CR 13
NW – Residence
Build 2020
TH 5 at CR 11
36 | P a g e
SW – Residence
2004 MPCA STANDARD
2.9
0.7
3.6
9.0
Based upon the CO emission and dispersion analysis at these four intersections, it was concluded
that the predicted 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations would all be below the established ambient
air quality standards for Carbon Monoxide. Therefore, no significant adverse air quality impacts
are expected because of the development evaluated in this AUAR and no mitigation is proposed.
2015 Update: The final AUAR included a Vehicle Related Air Emissions analysis which concluded
the 1-hour and 8 –hour CO concentrations fall well below MPCA ambient air quality standards.
Each development project has been constructed in accordance with the 2004 Southwest Area
Master Plan. Substantial deviations from what was analyzed have not occurred during buildout.
The same would hold true for the remaining property. It will be developed in substantial
conformance with the Master Plan and the environmental analysis that was prepared to forecast
2020 air emissions projections. No further analysis is required.
23. STATIONARY SOURCE AIR EMISSIONS
This item was identified as not applicable in the AUAR. The remaining property will be developed
with residential home sites, as was approved in the original 2004 Southwest Area Master Plan.
No further analysis is required.
24. DUST, ODORS AND NOISE IMPACTS
The 2004 AUAR concluded that there would be some noise during construction. However, noise
associated with construction would be temporary and short term. The construction of the
development and all activities within the development once it has been complete would have to
comply with all City of Victoria ordinances regarding construction and noise.
2015 Update: The City currently regulates noise through Chapter 13, Article II of the City Code.
Section 13-25, Hourly Restriction on Certain Operation, addresses construction activities and
states that “(n)o person shall engage in or permit construction activities involving the use of any
kind of electric, diesel or gas powered machine or other power equipment, manual tools,
movement of equipment and other activities except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
on any weekday or between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any weekend or holiday.”
The impacts are further mitigated through engineering standards which any development is
subject to during construction of improvements which further restricts working hours as follows:
“All Work shall be done between the hours 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, including starting and warming up equipment,
loading and unloading equipment, and material delivery operations. Work outside of these hours
and on holidays is permitted only with prior written authorization by the Engineer.”
No further analysis is required and impacts are anticipated to be less than significant in this regard.
37 | P a g e
25. SENSITIVE RESOURCES
On August 12, 2003, the 106 Group Ltd. conducted an archaeological assessment of the Victoria
AUAR area to provide preliminary cultural resources information for completion of the AUAR and
to assist in future compliance requirements under federal and state law. If the regulatory review
for projects is at the state or local level, consultation with the Minnesota State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) is appropriate. If there would be any federal involvement in the future
(e.g., through funding or permitting), consultation with the applicable federal agency and the
SHPO would be required.
The purpose of this archaeological assessment was to assess the AUAR areas potential for
containing previously unidentified archaeological resources. In addition, the background research
and field survey identified whether any properties present within the AUAR area are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The archaeological assessment included
background research, a visual reconnaissance of the entire study area, and assessment of
archaeological potentials within the study area.
A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation was performed for the Lundgren property by
Hemisphere Field Services in May 2001. No evidence of cultural resources was observed and
no further work was recommended for the Lundgren property.
AUAR Figure 10-3 showed all of the existing farmland was proposed to be converted to
residential, institutional, or park and open space use by 2020. The conversion of this farmland is
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan (through the Southwest Area Study
comprehensive plan update) which also shows all of the land in the study area being converted
for residential use.
Regarding scenic views and vistas, the 2004 AUAR noted that Scenic views exist around Carl
Krey Lake and Wassermann Lake. These view corridors were to be maintained, and even
enhanced, through the preservation of open space around significant portions of these water
bodies. Open space has been preserved around Carl Krey Lake. A proposed trail was anticipated
to follow the north and east edges of the lake creating opportunities for viewing the lake. Similarly,
the south portion of Wassermann Lake will be open space, including an active park and containing
a trail along a portion of the southern edge of the lake.
The AUAR also concluded that an extensive system of wetlands and woodlands existed in the
AUAR area. Glacial erosion patterns also created a strong relief in the landform. Wetlands and
edge conditions of wooded slopes have been a primary focus during formulation of the Southwest
Area Master Plan (Scenario Two) and provide the basic constraints to the proposed development
pattern. The AUAR concluded that these land forms guide not only the development of residential
structures and amenities but also roads and infrastructure. Previous mitigation strategies are
included in the table below.
38 | P a g e
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
SENSITIVE RESOURCES
1. Portions of the study are known to contain or are in
proximity to previously recorded precontact
archaeological sites, and area are considered to have
high potential for intact precontact archaeological
resources. Locations of farmstead sites are
considered to have high potential for intact postcontact archaeological resources.
PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGIES
1.
Recommend a Phase I archaeological survey of the
locations of these sites is recommended to
determine whether these sites are potentially eligible
for listing on the NRHP and to identify whether any
previously unidentified archaeological resources
exist within the study area and, if so, to determine
their potential eligibility of any such resources for
listing on the NRHP.
2.
Recommend a Phase I documentary research on the
ownership and occupational history of these
locations is recommended to determine whether any
archaeological sites that might exist in these
locations hold potential historical significance. If any
such sites are found to be potentially significant, a
Phase I archaeological survey of these locations
should be conducted to determine whether sites
remain and, if so, to evaluate their potential eligibility
for listing on the NRHP based on site integrity and
the types of resources present.
3.
Ensure that prior to any ground disturbing activities,
Phase I research and survey for precontact and
post-contact archaeological resources can
appropriately be performed during the platting and
development process for the AUAR area.
4.
Consult with the Minnesota SHPO regarding these
recommendations and any subsequent survey work.
2015 Update: To date, nothing has been discovered during development in the study area. The
Lundgren property has been owned by Lennar for nearly 10 years and has been left vacant. It
has not been inhabited by anyone nor has it been used for farmland. A portion of the property
was graded and then left through the economic downturn of 2008-2011. Any tree clearing is being
mitigated through the City’s tree preservation ordinance, including new on-site tree plantings.
Nothing has changed pertaining to cultural or naturel resources on the Lennar property. In the
event that anything is unearthed during grading or excavation of the Lennar property or any other
vacant property in the study area, the SHPO would be contacted and any resources would be
handled in accordance all applicable State and local standards. No further analysis is required
and impacts are anticipated to be less than significant in this regard.
26. ADVERSE VISUAL IMPACTS
The 2004 AUAR concluded that development of the area would not create adverse visual impacts
during construction or afterwards, as a result of development. As stated in Item 25, scenic views
currently exist around Carl Krey Lake and Wassermann Lake. These view corridors will be
maintained, and even enhanced, through the preservation of open space around significant
portions of these water bodies. Open space will be preserved around the majority of Carl Krey
Lake. A proposed trail will follow the north and east edges of the lake creating opportunities for
39 | P a g e
viewing the lake. Similarly, the south portion of Wassermann Lake will be open space, including
an active park and containing a trail along a portion of the southern edge of the lake.
2015 Update: As part of development within the Southwest Area Master Plan, open space
adjacent to Carl Krey Lake and Wassermann Lake has been preserved and dedicated to the City
of Victoria in accordance with City ordinances and requirements. Trail connections have been
made through key upland areas within dedicated open spaces of developed areas which provide
and maintain views of the water bodies and other scenic view corridors. Additional upland trail
construction is planned as part of remaining property development in the master plan area to
sustain access and views of these natural resources. Parkland areas are being developed in
accordance with recommendations of the City’s Park and Recreation Committee and direction
provided by the Comprehensive Plan.
27. COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANS
The Southwest Area Master Plan serves as an implementation tool for the City of Victoria
Comprehensive Plan. The AUAR and AUAR update ensure that the area is built out to not only
meet the Goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, but also
to ensure that humans and the environment are protected from one another throughout
construction and buildout. Laketown will be built out in accordance with all of these Policy Plans
and regulations, and reviewed by the City as implementation occurs.
The City of Victoria Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the requirements of the Metropolitan
Land Planning Act requirements for 1998 plan updates. The plan was reviewed by the
Metropolitan Council and found to be consistent with the Regional Blueprint and with the
Metropolitan Council’s regional system plans. The plan complies with the requirements set out in
Minnesota Rules 4410.3610, subpart 1, which requires local comprehensive plans to address
land use, transportation, and sanitary sewer systems and include an implementation program.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
COMPATIBILITY WITH PLANS
PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGIES
1.
The Shoreland District Ordinance and Official
Zoning Map do not include shoreland areas that will
be annexed from Laketown Township.
1.
Prepare and submit an amendment to its 1998-2020
Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for
review.
2.
Under Scenario Two, the amount of units in and the
configuration of townhomes will require a variance to
Zoning regulations through the PUD process.
2.
Ensure that development is consistent with its
adopted Comprehensive Plan that has been
reviewed by the Metropolitan Council in accordance
with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
3.
Amend the Shoreland District Ordinance and Official
Zoning Map to include shoreland areas annexed
from Laketown Township.
2015 Update: The above Mitigation Strategies have been and continue to be implemented. No
further analysis is required.
40 | P a g e
28. IMPACT ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES
The 2004 AUAR included an in-depth discussion on the proposed upgrades to public services
such as roadways, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and the water system. These have all been
previously addressed in this document. Additional services discussed include telephone,
electricity, natural gas, and cable and internet. School enrollment projections in the AUAR were
estimated at approximately 960 new students in Scenario Two (the preferred alternative). Fire
and police services were also addressed and discussed.
2015 Update: All services discussed above have been provided to constructed homes within the
master plan area from local and regional providers that serve the area. It is anticipated that there
adequate firefighters and police officers in the area to serve the remaining areas as they are built
out. The City of Victoria continues to monitor the level of calls for service related to both police
and fire needs in the community. The City ensured critical equipment purchases within each
public safety entity serving the needs of a growing community. Hiring practices related to the full
time and on-call staffing of the fire department continue to be evaluated and adjusted in order to
stay competitive in the metropolitan region for retention and expansion of staffing levels as
needed. The City continues to monitor staff levels and the existing contractual services for police
coverage provided by Carver County Sherriff’s Office. No further analysis is required.
29. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
This item was not addressed in the 2004 AUAR. No updates or further analysis is required.
30. OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
None. Only the items addressed in the 2004 AUAR have been addressed with this update. No
further analysis is required.
31. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
This document serves as progress update and summary to the issues that were identified and
analyzed in 2004. No further discussion is necessary.
A. CERTIFICATION BY THE RGU
This document has been prepared as an update to the 2004 Southwest Area AUAR. The City of
Victoria acknowledges that it is legally responsible for the accuracy and completeness herein,
and for properly distributing it.
41 | P a g e
B. MITIGATION PLAN
The Mitigation Plan is included throughout the AUAR update document to provide reviewers,
regulators and prospective purchasers of land with an updated understanding of the types of
actions that have been or would be necessary to protect the environment and limit impacts by the
proposed development of the AUAR area. It is broken out and included in each section of analysis
so that reviewers can see what was recommended at the time the original Mitigation Plan was
crated, and how it has been implemented through present day (July 2015).
The primary mechanism for mitigation of environmental impacts is the effective use of ordinances,
rules, and regulations. The mitigation plan does not modify the regulatory agencies
responsibilities for implementing their respective regulatory programs, nor create additional
regulatory requirements. General Mitigation Plan Implementation Tools are listed below:
o
The Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan guide the permitted land use, residential
unit types, and other development activities in the AUAR area.
o
Under Scenario Two, the development will be reviewed as a planned unit development
and approval will occur in stages. All development activities shall fall under the jurisdiction
of the City.
o
Under Scenario Two, approval of a planned unit development and an associated
development agreement will set forth specific requirements and conditions of approval
that will mitigate environmental impacts.
o
Remainder of development within the AUAR area shall be subject to the enforcement of
the permitting requirements of all applicable local, state and federal agencies. A list of all
known required permits is included in Table 8-1 and is adopted as part of this AUAR
update.
o
The AUAR will be updated in five years, or earlier, if certain conditions or assumptions
should change.
42 | P a g e
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1
Vacant Lands
EXHIBIT 2
Laketown 9th Addition Sketch Plat
EXHIBIT 13
Trunk Sanitary Sewer System Plan
EXHIBIT 15
Future Water System Map
43 | P a g e
Auburn
Lake
Lunsten
Lake
Stieger
Lake
5
@
A
?
Church
Lake
TS18
Carl Krey
Lake
Te
lle
r
s
R
TS11
d
A bby w
TS43
oo
Wassermann
Lake
d
dR
Lake
Bavaria
ST
111
Pierson
Lake
S ummi
tPl
Marsh
Lake
ak
ew
oo
d C
ir
L
ST14
EXHIBIT 1 - VACANT LANDS
Victoria Southwest Area AUAR Update 2015
Victoria, Minnesota
2004 AUAR Boundary
2015 AUAR Update - Remaining Development Properties
2,000 1,000
0
2,000
4,000
6,000 Feet
N
Trunk Sanitary Sewer System Plan - Sewer Service Area
Exhibit 13
City of Victoria 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update
MCES LS-21
LS-2
Mud
VIRGINIA
LS-1
O
VICT
Stone
LS-9
LS-6
LS-11
9
Stieger
16SW
4C
2A
LE
R
LS-18
LS-16
S
LS-17
27"
ON
21"
LAKEWOOD
KE
LIN
MA
DA
Marsh
RS
HL
AK
E
18"
2D
4E
2C
43
AD
24"
O
R
TY
N
U
O
2E
C
JERSEY
2F
LS-A
"
27
"
18
JUNIPER
HYACINTH
1
2B
21"
LA
Pierson
4B
COUNTY ROAD 10
82ND
ON
ALP
H
S
ER
PI
4A
2A
86TH
OAK
RIA ADOW
ME
OAK
RED
Wasserman
WEBER
ILY
O
VICT
AIRPORT
TE
L
LAKETOWN
Turbid
IS
LA
DUCK N D
10"
CHURCH LAKE
LS-D
Carl Krey
YL
DA
BAVARIA
16SE
T
81S
TILIA
82ND
80TH
I
15
14"
TH
AL
OR
19
18
21
"
"
18
79 1/2
GANNON
AL
77
GUERNSEY
3
E
RHOY
MA P L
AR
B
LS-14
78TH
KOCH
IA
LS-15
17
HIGHWAY 5
DIN
MCES LS-22
13
ET
UM
LS-12
LS-13
CAR
Tamarack
12
11
PINE
PARLEY LAKE
Auburn, East
LS-E
10
Schutz
14
Auburn, West
7
AY
HW
8
K
Lunsten
RK
PA
2
LS-7
R
PA
ER
RV
CA
Virginia
HIG
LS-5
4D
3
4
7
MCES LS-23
IRVING
Zumbra
Parley
R
TE
AS
1
LS-4
Minnetonka
6 5
RIA
GRIMM
LS-8
LS-3
AUGUSTA
Future City Lift Station
Future Trunk Gravity Sewer
Service Area 1
Current City Limits
Exsiting City Lift Station
Future Trunk Forcemain
Service Area 2
Ultimate City Boundary
Existing MCES Lift Station
Existing Trunk Sewer
Service Area 3
MCES Connection Point
MCES Interceptor
Service Area 4 (Post 2030 )
MCES Forcemain
0
0.5
1
K:\gis\VICTORIA\PLANNING\SanitaryCompPlan\San Sewer Comp-Area2.mxd
2
Miles
Map Date: June 2008
Future Water System Map
Exhibit 15
City of Victoria 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update
Mud
MAPLE
BAY
CLIF
FE
A
BR
HI
G
HW
AY
Zumbra
Parley
SM
O
HT
IT
N Virginia
W
IA
IN
IRVING
VI
CT
OR
7
N
KE
LA
R
TE
Schutz
W
IS
TE
RI
A
NARCISSUS
ORCHID
RHOY
MEADOW
CARRIA
GE
N
AK
KE
LA
LAKEWOOD
Elevated Tank
No. 2
86TH
DE
ER
RU
N
RIDGE PONDS
CO
DUCK
UN
TY
RO
AD
43
SO
ER
PI
MA
RS
HL
Pierson
82ND
OAK
LINDEN
O
RED
Booster Pump
No. 1
80TH
ORIA
VICT
LAKETOWN
82ND
AIRPORT
WEBER
Well
No. 3
Well
No. 4
PINE
CEDAR
ROSE
ZINNIA
KREY
M
IU
RS
Wasserman
TAN
TRIS
RIA
BAVA
81ST
81 1/2
Elevated Tank
No. 3
ABBYWOOD
S
RE
AC
78TH
Well
No. 2
IL L
TR
E
LL
TE
Turbid
G
Water Treatment
Plant No. 1
KELZER POND
CHURCH LAKE
Carl Krey
LIN
Auburn, East
HIGHWAY 5
Tamarack
PARKVIEW
ARBORETUM
H
77T
Stieger
SPR
ING
VALL
CAR
EY
DIN
AL
L
RO
IA
PARLEY LAKE
Auburn, West
H
KOC
RK
PA
ER
RV
CA
Lunsten
RK
PA
KINGS
M
ZU
GRIMM
R
TE
AS
Minnetonka
MIN
NE
WA
SH
TA
Stone
AK
E
Marsh
Well No. 5
Well No. 6
Booster Pump
No. 2
Water Treatment
Plant No. 2
COUNTY ROAD 10
Well No. 7
GUERNSEY
ITZ
JERSEY
P
POP
JUNIPER
Well No. 8
AUGUSTA
Existing Trunk Watermain
Existing Water Treatment Plant
High Service Area
Existing Trunk Watermain (High Service Area)
Existing Booster Station
Low Service Area
Raw Watermain
Existing Elevated Water Tank
Current City Limits
Existing Lateral Watermain
Existing Wells
Ultimate City Boundary
Future Trunk Watermain (High Service Area)
Future Water Treatment Plant
Future Trunk Watermain (Low Service Area)
Future Booster Station
Future Elevated Water Tank
Future Well
Future Pressure Reducing Control Vault
0
0.5
1
2
Miles
Map Date: June 2008
K:\gis\VICTORIA\PLANNING\WatermianCompPlan\future water sys.mxd