Loading...
1980 Lake Lucy Road waterCITY( OF EHAI{Hf,$SEI[ PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Land Use Coordinator, Bob Waibel DATE: April 16, I98 0 SUBJ: Lake Lucy Road As mentj-oned in the Planni.ng Commission memorandum of April 14, L980,there are some major Iand use guestions regarding the ability of theCity to interconnect two major water systems within the municj-pa]ity. As also mentioned, City Engineer, Jim Orr, wiII be present togive an overview of the problems that this proposed system connectioninvolves, and also to ansr^rer any questions the Planning Comnission may have on this matter. .l, b1\ ( I 7610 LAREDO DRIVE.P.O. BOX 147'CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 553'I7 (612) 474-8885 74/"-u ,t CITY'-3F EIIANIIfrSTTNq 7610 LAREDO DRIVE.P.O. BOX l47.CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 .612]. 474-8885 MEMORANDU]Vl DATE : TO: FROM: SUBJ : l4arch I0, I980 Planning Commission anil Staff Bob Waibel, Land Use Coordinator Lake Lucy Road Trunk Water Improvement Feasibi.lity Study Attached please find the February 4, 1980, letter to City Manager, Don Ashworth from City Engineer, Jim Orr regarding the subject item. ?he letter outli.ned and addresses the five options which were discussed by the Planning Commission at previous meetings. TheCity Engineer wiIl additionally be present in order to elaborateon any of the questions that the Planning Commission might haveregarding the attached letter. Although the Planning Cornmission has reviewed this proposal many times in the past year, it may beadvisable to defer any recornmendation at this time, however, such deferment should be done with a firm scheduling of the item for review at a meeting within the next month. ( U ( WILLIAM D. SCHOELL CARLISLE. MADSON JACK T, VOSLER JAMES B. OHR HAROLO E, DAHLIN LABRY L, HANSON RAYMONO J, JACKSON JACK E, GILL ROONEY B. GOROON THEOOOFE D- KEMNA JOHN W, EMONB KENNETH E, AOOLF WILLIAM F, ENGELHAFOT BRUCE C. SUNDING R. SCOTT HAFBI OENNIS W, SAABI GEFALO L. BACKMAN I) vlhy not connect to the city a soLution? r SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINEEFlS ANO SURVEVOFiS of Excelsior srater system as (61a 93&7601 . 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH . HOPKINS. MINIIESOTA 5534i1 OFFICES AT HUBON. SOUTH OAKOTA ANO OENTON. TEXAS February 4, 1980 City of Chanhassen c/o ur . Don Ashi.rorth,P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota City Manager 5s317 Subject:Supplement to l,ake Lucy Road Trunk Water fmprovement Feasibility Study Gentlernen : Pursuant to your request, we herein wish to provide supple- nentaL information to the above narned study dated June, 1979. In accordance with your instructions, the origj"nal study did not present <ietailed information on various alternatives. rn the process of considering the proposed improvements, the City Council heferred the matter to the Planning Cornunission ' This supPlemental report addresses the coronents brought out by the Planning cornmission, and answers in writing the questions given verbal ansr&ers previously. Following are questions and answers: We have explored this possibility ar:a estimated rough costs to be 9225,000 for iuch. The closest point of suitable connection is at Water Street and Trunk Highway No. 7. This would involve installing approxinately 3400 feet of 8-inch main and a b'ooster stati.on. -rhlie exists a differential in efevation of about 100 feet. Minimal, if any, lateral benefit r,'ould be obtained from this alternative, and we cin not recon'mend the expenCiture under the circumstance. ' 2, vihy not ins',all a boosEer station at the existing 63rd anC Yosemite pressure reducer? ?he estimateC cos" of such a facility vrould be from S25,000 - $50,000. It wcul-d be on an existing 8-inch main and riould yield ( City of Chanhassen c/o Mt. Don Ashworth, City Manager Page Two I'ebruary 4, 1980 insufficient capacity for a permanent installation to provide donestic and fire flows to the high pressure zone in the event of failureof l,lell No. 3. For this leason, we feel the expenditure would be wasted in a period of years. Another problem with this option isthat the Minnesota Department of Eealth does not aLlow tvater boosterstations except in situations where other reasonable alternativesare not available. This does pose a question as to the approva-bit ity of a booster prunp in this case. 3) Can we connect to the well iurrently authorized to beconstructed on the northwest side of Lake Susan? Yes, this is a feasible option. we had presented roughcosts for this option to be $452,000. This would construct another segrment of the Cityts proposed trunk water system. The disadvantageof this proposal is similar to the recomrnend.ed Lake Lucy Road water improvement -- that of building a water trunk through an unseweredarea. It is also substantially }arger and more expensive than the Lake I,ucy Road proposal. 5) ?rhat is the cost of a new well at Well Fi.eld No. 3 locatj.on? l.le estimate roughly $125,000at Well Field No. 3. This would add in the event of failure of l{e1l }Io. 3 as the cost of another some reliability to the r*e 1.1 sys t em We trust that the information presented herein provides a basis for further pursuit of this project. We once again urge that additional reliaL,ility be built into the system tlirough one of the various rneans under ccnsideration. It is our opinion that the originally recommeni.ed proposal to construct the Lake Lucy RoaC watermain ls still the best alternative. The status of well No. 3 is in gues+-ion, and this prcvldes a reminder that back-up and , reliabilit'/ are essential in a public water s\rstem- Very truly yours, SCTiOELL & MADSON,-r-( INC . , ^-+JROrr:nkr ( - SCHOELL A. MAOSON,rNc. - 4) What is the current status of the Lake Ann Interceptor Sewer? As of February I, 1980, staff of the MICC indicate that their dispute with Metro council staff as to the need for this sewerj.s near an end. There still is the problem of obtaining State and Federal funCing for the wcrk, as weLl, as Cesign and construction of same. Mr. Ray Payne of MIrtC indicated 2-3 years before construction, and that is a guess with no certainty. I CITY-OF EHfrI[IIfi$5EN q\ ( 7610 LAREDO DRIVE.P.O. BOX 147.CHANHASSEN, IUINNESOTA 55317 612r. 474-8885 MEMORANDUM TO: City Planning Comrnission FROM: City Manager, Don Ashhrorth DATE: July 16, 1979 SUBJ: Lake Lucy Road Proposed Watermain I will assume that Planning Commission members have reviewed theengineer rs feasibility study for the proposed watermain prior toreading this report. fn summation, this water l-ine must be buil-tas soon as possible to i.nsure back up water service capabil-itiesare maintained throughout the city, i.e. if a well faj-Iure were tooccur at the well on County Road 117 water,/fire protection serviceto the high service area would be jeopardized. There would bean additional benefit to the low service area in assuring that thequantities of water needed in the low service area could be accommo-dated should the efevated storage tank in the oLder section of the community become unusable. Construction of a second welf on County Road L17 was considered by the Council, in their overalL review ofthe ci.tyrs water system, but rejected. as such woul-tl not providethe benefits back to the older section of the connnunity, would not beoff set by any additional- lateral benefits, and wouLd hinder thecityrs ability to provide iron removal possibilities. I cannot overstate the importance of constructi-on of the trunk watermain as soon as possible. The only feasible way that such constructioncan be carried out is through special assessmenL Given the magni tudeof costs, it is not feasib-l,e to se1l revenue bonds or to increasewater rates to pay for such construction. On the other si,de of theboin, assessing abutting property owners for the water extension assumesand/or mandates that subdivision wiLl be aI1owed. For e:ramp1e, itis not reasonable to assume that, if construction were to occur and assessments made against a parcel in a hypothetical amounL of 920,000'for a potential of 5 1ots, that the city would then deny a five lotsubdivision on this property because sanitary sewer was not availableto the property. it- is- for this reason that this issue is beingsubmitted to the Planning Commission for their recommendation andconsideration prior to consid.eration by city council, i-.e. assessmentpolicies adopted for this project witl determine developrnent policiesfor this area. Planning Commissio.-July 16, 197 9 by Schoell and Madson, units as we 11 as have sanitary sewerof such, and the d also be possible 1 and trunk $rater Council agree wi-th this how to assess the in this discussion ded to this area". e area, wherein hen sewer were to be- fn reviewing the "Unit Designation Map", prepared it woul-d be possible to assess both the existing proposed units for the easterly properties which ivaitalle (Ersbo property and Properteis to east RLS 27 lot and properties east of such). It woul to assess all other existing units for one latera assessment. Should the Planning Commissio\/ciLy philosophy, the only question remaining would be iemaining potential units. The underlying issue is "if and when sanitary sewer will ever be exten Extending the philosophy used in the north servic these would simply become deferred units if and w come available, cannot be recomrnended. T\i/o options appear to be oPen constructed and assessed.: to the City if the waterl-ine is to be 1).Carry out construction and assess all properties on the- basil of existing units as well as potential units. This option woul-d assure that the proj'ect was adequately funded; however, it woul,d also mean that property owners could request subdj-vision of their property into 15,000 sguare foot fots in advance of sanitary sewer being available. If this option were chosen, it woulcl be based on the assumption that sanitary sewer would be available to the area at some date in the future and that each of the 15,000 square foot lots created in advance of sanitary sewer would connect when sewer was available; or 2).construct the water line and assess properties not having sanitary sewer available on the basis of estate developments. This vroulal assume that a minimum 1ot size of approximately 2\ acres would be established for all properties in this area. The option would have the benefit of assuring that the project was fuJ-ly funded and assure that all subdivision of pioperties woufd have municipal water and fire protection capabilities. This office d.oes not believe that a precedent worrfd b" establ-ished in that the city would be stating that only areas having municipal water and. not being anticipated to be served by sanitary sewer could be developed into estate d.evelopments. It woul-d have the deficit of allowing developments to occur where sanitary sewer was not available. Further, it would presume that, even if the Lake Ann Interceptor sewer is extended northwesterly, that a gravity line would not be extended back into ttris area and/ot that if such were to occur that further subdivj-sion of the property would not be con- sidered. This office believes that either option has certain fallacies associated with it. Specifically, allowing for the area to be platted into 15,000 square foot lots, in advance of sanitary sewer, establishes a alangerous piecedent. In addition, it presumes that sanitary sewer will become lvailable - within a short period of time. r sincerely question this assumption. The Planning commission/city council should iecognize that other alternatives to the extension of the Lake Ann fnteiceptor are under consideration by the Metro council. This sewer may never be built and, assuming that such were built, it is possible July 16, 1919 extension. wou Id. probably of years after to this area. that the city would not be alfowed to connect into this Further, if the Lake Ann extension were to be built, it be a number of years and it would probably be a number that before a lateral woutd be built northeasterly back The second alternative, which would designate this area as an estate development area, add.itionally has precedent problems. This option also forecloses the ability of the city to Provide sanitary sewer to this area and,/or to increase the density of developments in the area if and when salitary sewer were available, i.e. the location of homes on the estate lots would not readily be conducive to replatting to 15,000 square foot lot standards. f believe there is one other option which could be considered by the City. SpecificalIy, this option would assess all existing homes for one lateral and trunk water assessment and would assess the fuI1 potential number of lateral and trunk units to lots having sanitary iewer availabl-e to them (easterly lots along Pl-easant View). The remaining potential units, whether considered as estate units or 15rOO0 square foot lot units, woul-d be deferred for a five year period. If this option were chosen, debt retirement sched.ules would have to be prepared on the basis of recognizing that principal payments would not occur during the first years (simifar to an open noie). It would also have to be well docunented that one of the t\47o options noted above would be made by the city Prior to the end of the five year perioil and thati:the fufl amount of the frontage for each parcel would be assessed at the end of this five year period. rhis option does not change the fact that the city will have to make a deciiion as to whether this area wilL be considered for estate developments or for typical platting standards. However, it does provide the city with the additional time necessary to determine whether the Lake Ann Interceptor seleer wifl- be a reality and whether such sewer cou]d be extended to this area. Additionally, as specific deferments against individual properties, the amount of the assessment against each parcel will have been specifically set forth with the specific time frame over which such deferment will run, As with other deferments, the proPerty owner then s'rould become responsible for payment of interest during the five year perj-od of deferment' cc: Ray Jackson, Schoell and Madson Planning Commissio--3-