Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
75-01 - Comp Plan Amendment pt 1
METROPOLITAn WAfTE conTROL commlffion Twin Cities Area January 23, 1978 Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager City of Chanhassen 7610 Laredo Drive P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Ashworth: We have received your letter of January 17, 1978 transmitting an analysis of "Sanitary Sewer Construction and Connections" for your City until 1981. This information is being considered together with information received earlier (MUSA line, etc.) as an amendment to update the comprehensive sewer plan (CSP). It would be appreciated if you could transmit another copy of this information to the Metropolitan Council for their review and comments. This letter is also written in answer to a previous letter (dated November 23, 1977) which requested that the Commission review and respond to the proposed alternatives for constructing a trunk sewer for the industrial area north of Lake Susan. In a previous meeting (November 9,.1977) and correspondence (letter of October 18, 1977) the possibility of using metropolitan funds to finance over -sizing of this trunk sewer as a metropolitan facility was discussed. It was explained that the involvement of metropolitan funding is one in which each proposed construction project must be included in the Metropolitan Council's Waste Management Policy Plan and the Commission Development Program before.it can be considered. The Policy Plan included this potential metropolitan facility only in the study phase. It will take the Commission a minimum of three (3) to five (5) years to have this facility available under these procedures. One alternative you propose suggests that the Commission pay for the over -sizing of this trunk sewer. This alternative proposes that the City construct a trunk sewer along the potential route of the metropolitan facility and oversize to provide for the diversion of sewage flow from the western areas of Minnetonka. There are two problems with this proposal: a) The proper of the sewer cannot be determined until completion of the 201 Facility Plan Study. b) A sewer built by local government at this time for metropolitan usage in the future could have only limited financial support if -constructed without federal and state construction grant funds. 350 METRO /OUARE BLDG. 7TH 6 ROBERTlTREET! lAinT PAUL Mn 55101 612/222.8423 ! recycled �ipi Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager City of Chanhassen January 23, 1978 Page Two If the City needs to provide service to the subject area in 1978, it may be necessary to proceed with providing sewer service by the installation of a trunk sewer facility sized for the City only. The Commission would have no objection to the installation provided the Metropolitan Council concurs that the area is within the MUSA and since this area of service appears to be in conformance with your approved CSP and the amendments now proposed. The Commission will approve the construction of a trunk interceptor by the City providing that the trunk sewer would not complicate the construction of our future interceptor and unduly increase the interceptor construction cost. If you have any questions in this regard, please feel free to contact US. Sincerely, Richard J. Dougher Chief Adm strato RJD:RAO:bdw cc: Ruth K. Hustad, MWCC Commissioner, Precinct H Metropolitan Council Schoell and Madson Julius Smith 1 / 19/78 STATE OF I•ZINNESOTA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION BOARD COST -SHARE PROGRIAM E14ERGEIJCY RULES SWC 1. Authority, Scope, Definitions. A. AUTHORITY AND SCOPE Minnesota Statutes 1976, Chapter 40, as amended by Laws of Minnesota 1977, Chapter 304, autil-lorizes the State Soil and Water Conservation Board, in cooperation with the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, to administer a program of cost -sharing with land occupiers on the installation of soil and water conservation practices. These rules provide procedures and criteria to be followed by the State Board in allocating cost -sharing funds to districts, and standards and guidelines which the District Boards shall include in all cost -sharing contracts prior to the passage of permanent rules and regulations. B. DEFINITIONS 1. "Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service" means the U. S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, an agency of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. -__N 2. "Annual plan" means a plan prepared by the district according to the "Guidelines for Annual Planning" published by the State Board. 3. "Approved practice" means a soil and water conservation practice which qualifies for state cost -sharing and has been approved by the State Board. 4. "Chapter 40" means the Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Districts Law as. established in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 40. 5. "District" means a Soil and Water Conservation District organized under the provisions of Chapter 40. G. "District Board" means the five supervisors of a District authorized to carry out the functions of the District under Chapter 40. 7. "District Conservationist" means the District Conservationist of the USDA -Soil Conservation Service. 0. "District Cooperator" means a land occupier who has requested the assistance of a district in controlling conservation problems. Such request must be formalized by the signing of a District Cooperators Agreement provided by the State Board and approved by the District Board. 9. "District Technician" means a district eitiployee or county employee assigned to the district who possesses expertise in the design and application of soil and water conservation practices. They shall perform under the technical supervision of the District Conservationist. ,^1 10. "Enduring practice" Weans a soil and water conservation practice which is designed for an effective life in excess of 10 years. 11. "Field Office Technical Guide" means the docuraent providing all standards and specifications necessary for technical requirements of soil and water conservation practices as provided by the Soil Conservation Service -USDA and adopted by the District Board. 12. "Group Spokesman" means an individual selected by the several individuals involved in a group project, who may speak for the entire group in negotiations with a district for cost -share assistance. 13. "Land Occupier" means any person, firm, or corporation who shall hold title to, or shall be in possession of, any lands lying within a district organized under the provisions of Chapter 40, whether as owner, lessee, renter, tenant, or otherwise. 14. "Non -production practice" means a soil and water conservation practice which is installed or appliecu to control soil erosion, reduce sediment yield, or protect water duality. Practices installed or applied solely to bring land into production or to increase the short terra productivity are excluded. 3 15. "Soil and 11ater Conservation Practice" means those structural and vegetative practices applied to tine land for the purpose of controlling soil erosion, sediment and other water pollutants. 16. "Soil Conservation Service" means the U. S. Soil Conservation Service, an agency of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. 17. "State Board" means the State Soil and Vlater Conservation Board as defined in Chapter 40. 18. "Stream" means a well defined channel or bed that has water in it the majority of time under normal conditions. This includes natural perennial and intermittant rivers and creeks as well as man-made channels that meet these general criteria. SWC 2. State Board Functions. A. ESTABLISHING APPROVLD P�.ACTICFS AIM t-IiAXIMUP•I RA^ES 1. The State Board, in consultation with the districts, shall maintain a list of practices which arc eligihl_e for cost - share funds and a schedule, of maximum rates. 'Yhc list shall be contained in SWC 4 of these rules and thc� schedule in SWC 5. Changes to the list and schedule shall bo made in the manner provided by the rules -making provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 15. 2. Practices approved by the State Board must meet tho following criteria: 4 a. Their primary purpose must be the control of soil erosion and sediment, and protection of water quality. b. .They must be enduring in nature. All practices cost -shared under this program shall be designed for a minimum effective life of 10 years. C. They must be non -production practices. 3. The maximum cost --share rates established by the State Board represent the maximum per cent of the total cost of a practice that may be funded by state cost -share funds. where state and federal monies are cost -shared on the same project, their combined amount shall not exceed the maximum cost -share rate. B. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS 1. Before the State Board can allocate cost -share funds to a district, it must first receive the district's application for cost -share funds. The application shall be rude on forms provided by the State Board and must be accoripanied by the district's Annual Plan. The State Board i•?ill. accepk: applications until April 1, 1978, and shall give preference to early applications. 2. The State Board shall review all district. appli- cations for cost -share funds with respect to the {01IM-7i'19 criteria: 5 a. Consistency of district priorities with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 40. b. Historical success of the district in applying soil and rater conservation practices. C. Availability of cost -share funds from other sources. d. -Readiness of the district to effectively utilize the funds. 3. Following review, the State Board shall provide grants to the districts for the purpose of cost -sharing with land occupiers for the application of approved practices. C . P-IOTTI T ORING For the purpose of monitoring the progress of the program and utilization of funds, thu State Board shall receive from each district quarterly reports on October 15, January 15, and April 15, and an annual report of the year's accomplishments on July 15. The State Board may require such additional special reports as may be necessary to rionitor the cost --sharing program. The reports shall be on forms provided by the State Board. A s S�,TC 3. District Functions. A. APPLICATION FOR FUNDS BY DISTRICTS Each district shall apply for funds as indicated in SWC 2. B. B. ADMINISTRATION OF FUNDS 1. Following receipt of grant monies from the State Board, the respective districts are responsible for admini- stration of the funds in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 40 and all other applicable laws. The District Board shall have the authority to make all decisions concern- ing utilization of these monies within the rules established herein. 2. Prior to considering any applications from land occupiers for cost -share assistance, the District Doa rd shall establish the cost --share rates for practices to be installed under the program, which shall not exceed the maximum rates established by the State Board. This decision shall be based on the following factors: district; a. Advice of technical experts familiar with the b. Cost -share rates currently in affect. under the Agricultural Conservation Program administered by the U. S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service zind other assistance programs; 7 C. District priorities as established in the districts` plans; and d. Cost -share funds available. C. APPLICATION FOR FUNDS BY LAND OCCUPIERS 1. Land occupiers seeking assistance under this program shall apply to the districts on forms provided by the State Board and available from the district office. Each application shall be filled out in its entirety. The application must be signed by the land occupier and if the land occupier is not the owner must also bear the owner's signature. Applications must be submitted not later than June 1. The District Technician shall make a determination of need and cost estimate prior to review by the District Board. Specifics on the desired practice which may be required by the District Board in their consideration of the application shall be included. 2. A situation may arise where the cooperation or several land occupiers is required to solve a conservation problem. The District may share the cost of such a Group Project provided that all of the land occupiers are eligible as incli.vidual:s and the practice or practices satisfy the criteria of the program. The land occupiers must reach agree:acnt on the division of payrlE_,nts and shall select a member of the group to act as their spokesman in negotiations with the District. The group SI)OkeSillan shall be identified on the application and shall file the form with the District. Checks for the district share of the practice shall be issued to the group members based on the division of: payment 3 plan prepared by the group. 3. if the project being applied for involves land in more than one district, application shall be made to the district containing the most land affected by the practice. D. CRITERIA FOR DISTRICT BOARD REVIEW 1. The applicant must be a district co-operator. 2. The desired practice must be on the list of approved. practices. 3. The primary purpose of the desired practice must be the control of soil erosion, reduction of sediment delivery, or protection of water quality. In cases o'iere the "primary purpose" is questionable, the District Board shall make a determination of the acceptability of the application. Additionally, the District Board shall make aetermi.nation of the need for supplemental practices to protect any practice installed under this program, e.g., fencing of water impound- ment structures. If the District Board determines that supplemental practices arco necessary, the', r:,ay Z.iurhoriZe cost - sharing for their inf;L illation. 4. The desired practice must be c_on_:.i stent with district plans and priorities. 5. The practice must- be maintained by the land occupier, who is responsible: for operation and maint-onance of practices applied under this program. 6. Priority consideration will ba giv`n to land occupiers or groups of land occupiers who demonstr_atc, the ability to meet matching requirements. n J 1 7. The practice must comply with the specifications of the Field Office Technical Guide of the USDA -Soil Conservation Service as adopted by the Soil and Water Conservation District. E. DISTRICT APPROVAL The District Board shall either approve or deny the application. If approved, the District Board shall instruct the Chairman or acting Chairman to sign the applica- tion. Once signed, the application becomes the contract between the District and land occupier and serves as the authorization for work to proceed on the practice. If denied, the District Board shall notify the land occupier in writinel within 30 days, of the reason for denial of the application. Changes in any provisions of the contract are subject to review and approval of the District Board. F. DISTRICT RECORDS The District shall maintain a current ledger of all cost -share contracts on forms provided by the State Bol-ird. The ledger shall specify the land occupiers which the District has contracted with, the practices involved, status of con- struction and a total of funds encumbered. Districts having funds which are unencumbered by December 1 of each pr.oUra;n year may be required to return those funds to the State Board for reallocation to districts requiring additional funds. G . PAYIJ.MNTS 1. Construction of practices shall be monitored by 10 c the District to insure compliance with the specifications in the Field Office Technical Guide. Upon completion, the district technician shall certify whether or not the practice has been satisfactorily performed, which includes a certification by the District Conservationist that the practice meets the requirements of the Field Office Technical Guide. No such certification shall be made until all specifications have been satisfied. Upon certification of completion, the land occupier shall request payment. 2. In -kind services provided by the land occupier such as, but not limited to, earth work, seedbed preparation and seeding, can be credited toward the land occupier's share of the total cost of the practice. The District Board shall determine whether charges for such services are prudent and reasonable. In cases where the actual cost of the practice exceeds the estimated cost, the District may only share the approved percentage of the estimated cost. Where tho actual cost is less than the estimated cost the district shall only share the approved percentage of the actual cost of the practice. The District Board shall review the receipts provided by the land occupier to determine the actual cost of the practice. When the District determines that all claims are reasonable and justified, they shall authorize issuance of a check for the District share of the practice. Where -the District Board determines that certain claims are not justified they shall notify the land occupier in writing of the unjustified claims within 30 days. The District Board shall then authorize the issuance of a check for the District share of the justified claims. H . MAINTENANCE The land occupier is responsible for operation and maintenance of practices applied under this program. Should the land occupier fail to maintain such practices or willfully remove them during their effective life, the land occupier shall be liable for the amount of financial assistance received for their installation. The District Board may authorize the removal of a practice installed under this program provided the land occupier can show good cause for removal of the practice. The land occupier shall not be held liable for cost - share assistance received provided that soil and eater_ con- servation practices are applied which provide equivalent protection of the soil and water resources. In no case shall a district provide cost -share assistance to a land occupier for the application of practices which will replace practices which were applied with cost -share assistance and were removed by the land occupier during their effective life or failed due to improper maintenance. I. APPEALS In cases where a land occupier feels he has been treated unfairly, he may demand that the District Board give him a hearing to review its decision. Should the land occupier 12 and District Board reach an impasse, the land occupier may petition in writing for a hearing before the State Soil and Water Conservation Board. If it grants the hearing, the State Board or a referee appointed by it shall hear all testimony offered, and shall accept written_ testimony for 10 days after the hearing. The referee, if used, shall report his findings and recommendation to the State Board, which shall within 50 days of the hearing'.date make its decision on the appeal, upholding, reversing, or amending the decision of the District Board. J. REPORTS TO STATE BOARD Each district shall submit to the State Board the reports identified in SWC 2. SWC 4. Approved Practices. A. EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES 1. Definition: A structure to (1) stabilize the grade or control head -cutting in natural or artificial channels; (2) provide temporary storage of floodwater; (3) control. release rate providing downstream channel s'cability; or. (4) impound water. 2. Purpose: To control soil erosion and sediment. An erosion control structure may provide multiple benefits including but not limited to water supply for livestock, 13 recreation, flood control, channel stability, wildlife habitat and fire prevention. 3. Applicability: To any lands where such structures are necessary for the control of soil erosion and sediment. 4. Policies: a. Cast -sharing is authorized only on erosion control structures that provide for reduction of soil erosion or sediment pollution. b. Cost -sharing may be authorized for the installation of livestock watering facilities in conjunction with erosion control structures only if such facilities are necessary for the proper managpnent and protection of the structure as determined by the district board. C. Cost -sharing may be authorized for permanent fencing of an erosion control structure as determined by the district board. '. Cost -sharing may ha authorized for plantings and seeding required to stabilize the structure. Wh:�never possible, the district board shrill encourage the use! of those species that. provide wildli Ee habitat and visual enhancement. e. Cost -sharing may be authorized for erosion control structures which provide multiple benefits provided the primary benefit is soil erosion and sediment control. B. STRIPCROPPING 1. Definition: Striperopping shall mean the development and application of a cropping system for a farming unit which 14 provides for planting row crops with the contour where practicable and incorporates alternate strips of row crops, close SOWn, and sod crops. 2. Purpose: To establish a system of farming with contour or field striperopping to reduce wind and water erosion and sediment pollution. Striperopping may provide additional benefits to wildlife. 3. Applicability: To 'any lands where striperopping is necessary for the control of soil erosion and sediment. 4. Policies: Cost -sharing may be authorized for the cost of establishing the system. C. TERRACES 1. Definition: An earth embankment, or a combination ridge and channel constructed across the slope. 2. Purpose: Terraces are constructed to: a. reduce slope length; b. reduce erosion; C. reduce sediment content in runoff water; d. intercept and conduct surface runoff at a non - erosive velocity to stable outlet; e. retain runoff for moisture conservation; f. prevent gully development; g. re-form the land surface; and h. reduce flooding. 15 Terraces may provide additional benefits by creating wildlife habitat. 3. Applicability: This practice applies where: a. water erosion is a problem; b. there is a need to conserve water; C. the soils and topography are such that terraces can be constructed and farmed with a reasonable effort. d. a suitable outlet can be provided. e. runoff and sediment damages land or improvements downstream or impairs water quality. 4. Policies: a. Cost -sharing is authorized for construction necessary to properly establish the terraces including earthwork, material and seedings if necessary. b. Cost -sharing is authorized for title systems necessary to the establishment and operation of the terraces, including the outlet which shall be limited to 300 feet below the last terrace in a system. D. DIVERSIONS 1. Definition: A channel W, Lth a supporting ri_('1(_W on the lower side constructed across the slope. 2. Purpose: The purpose of this practice is to diverL water away from erosive areas to sites where it can bc used or disposed of safely. Diversions may provide additional benefit to wildlife. 3. Applicability: This practice applies to sites jjizerc: 16 a. runoff from higher lying areas is damaging crop- land., pastureland, farmsteads, or conservation practices such as terraces or striperopping; b. surface and shallow subsur_ace flow is damaging sloping upland; c. required as a part of .a pollution abatement system, or to control erosion and runoff on urban or developing areas and construction sites. d. cost -sharing is authorized ifor tile systems necessary for the establishment and operation of erosion control practices such as waterways, terraces or diversions. e. cost -sharing is authorized for seedings necessary to properly establish the practices or permanently stabilize critical areas. E . S'='ORMTHATER CONTROL SYSTE!-IS 1. Definition: A system of waterways, diversions, sP.',iment control structures, surface drains, stabilization structures, culverts, channels and floodways to convey storm runoff to a constructed or natural outlet in a non -erosive manner. Tri1 practice does not apply to areas for which the primary purpose is drainage to improve crop production. 17 2. Purpose: The purpose of this system of elements is to provide a means of removing runoff to protect the area from flood damage and erosion, to prevent pollution of water- sheds, lakes and streams, to protect natural scenic areas, and to provide for the conservation of the natural resources of the area. Additional benefit may be provided through creation of wildlife habitat. 3. Applicability: The provisions of this system of elements to convey runoff applies to all lands by utilizing vegetative and mechanical protection for control of erosion and pollution. 4. Policies: a. Cost -sharing is authorized for practices required in a complete stormwater management system. Such practices shall include, but are not limited to: channel lining, chutes, drop spillways, surface drains, vegetative filter strips, protective outlets, sod waterways, permanent sod cover, fencing az,.J permanent vegetation including trees, shrubs and grasses thay. provide wildlife habitat and visual enhancement. b. cost -sharing is authorized for tile systems necessary for the establishment and operation of erosion control practices such as waterways, terraces or diversions. C. Cost -sharing is authorized for seedings necessary to properly establish the practices or permanently stabilize critical areas. lE P. FIELD WINDBREAKS 1. Definition: A strip or belt of trees, shrubs or grass barriers established within or adjacent to a field. 2. Purpose: To reduce soil blowing; to conserve moisture; to control snow deposition; to protect crops, livestock and wildlife and to beautify and othe-rwise enhance the landscape. 3. Applicability: In or around open fields which need Protection against wind damage to soils. Additional benefit may be realized from the creation of wildlife habitat. 4. Policies: Cost -sharing is authorized for land preparation, planting materials, planting, chemicals for %,7eed control and other applicable costs necessary to establish the system. The land occupier shall be responsible for controlling competitive vegetation for two years following planting and shall bear the cost of control. G. ANIPUIT. WASTE C014TROL SYSTEMS 1. Definition: A planned agricultural ri,_inager1ent system to contain and manage liquid and solid �vast.e including runoff from concentrated animal waste areas with ultimate disposal in a manner which does not degrade air, soil or wator resources. This practice includes sytems for safe disposal of livestoc}; wastes through :use of soil and plants. 19 2. Purpose: Agricultural x-.7aste management systeris are - used to manage wastes in rural areas in a manner which prevants or minilnized degradation of air, soil and water resources and protects public health and safety. Such systems are planned to preclude discharge of pollutants to surface or ground water and, to the fullest practicable extent, recycle wastes through soil and plants. 3. Applicability: To any animal impoundment any part of whhich is located within 300 feet of a stream or 1,000 feet of a lake. 4. Policies: a. Cost -sharing is authorized for all structures and vegetative practices necessary to store animal wastes or control stormwater runoff from animal confinement areas inclu(9-_ng storage facilities, diversions, waste storage pond, b, Cost -sharing is authorized for the systems ne:�es for the establishment and operation of a system. Cost -sharing is authorized for seedings necessary to properly establish a system. d. Cost -sharing is authorized for fencing necessary to protect a system. e. Cost -sharing is prohibited on any costs normally incurred Li the management of an animal confinerent area. "his shall n-L de h�.:,ildings, yards, pumps, tan]: wagons, etc. 20 f. Concrete used for holding tanks, collection basins and other aniilal waste storage facilities, is eligible for cost -sharing provided the District Board determines that they are necessary to protect water quality and also provided that the entire system needed to control pollution =s installed. g. In cases where a holding tank is necessary to control pollution and v7ill becone an integral part of a building, the normal cost of the building foundation and the cost of the building is not eligible for cost -sharing. The cost attributable to the foundation shall be represented by the top four feet of the storage tank stalls. h. Equipment utilized in the handling or transfer of animal waste is ineligible for cost -sharing. H. CRITICAL AREA STABILIZATION 1, Definition: Planting vegetation such as trees, shrubs, vines, grasses or legumes on sites subject to severe erosion. (Does not include tree planting for xiood products.) ;, Purpose: To provide permanent vegetative cover to stabilize the soil; to protect from wind and water_ erosion; reciuce damage from sediment and runoff to downstream areas; irlprove wildlife habitat; enhance natural beauty. 3, Applicability: On sediment producing, highly erodible or severely eroded areas (including urban areas), such as dan.s, dikes, mine spoil, levees, channels, water�•:ays, terrace back - slopes, surface ;lined areas, roadsides and denuded or gullied areas where vegetation is difficult to establish. 21 4. Poli( es: Cost -sharing is authorized for seed and seeding and other associated costs necessary to stabilize the area. SWC 5. Cost -Share Rates A. MAKIMUtl RATES The maximum per cent of the total cost of a practice that may be funded by state cost-s'lare funds is 75 per cent. Where state and federal monies are cost -shared on the same project, their combined amount shall not exceed 75 per cent of the total cost of the project.. B. DISTRICT RATES Each district shall establish its cost -share rates as provided in SWC 3. B. 2. 22 WILLIAM D. SCHOELL CARLISLE MADSON JACK T. VOSLER JAMES R. ORR HAROLD E. DAHLIN LARRY L. HANSON RAYMOND J. JACKSON WILLIAM J. BREZINSKY JACK E. GILL THEODORE D. KEMNA JOHN W.EMOND KENNETH E. ADOLF DANIEL R. BOXRUD WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT i seo.- . y G IE•4�C SCHOELL & MAOSON. INC. r� ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Don Ashworth, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota Gentlemen: (6121 938-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343 OFFICES AT HURON, SOUTH ❑AKOTA AND DENTON, TEXAS January 12, 1978 City Manager 55317 Subject: Projected Trunk Sanitary Sewer Construction and Connections. As requested by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, we have developed a plan indicating the projected trunk sewer con- struction in Chanhassen and estimated the number of new connections for the years 1978 through 1980. The projected trunk sewer construction in the next three years consists of installation of gravity sewer from the western termi- nus of Lake Ann Interceptor Phase I to north of State Highway No. 5, paralleling the proposed alignment of Lake Ann Interceptor Phase II. Additional sanitary sewer units in the City of Chanhassen for the years 1978 through 1980 are projected to be as follows. Residential Industrial Total Year Units Acres Units Units 1978 113 12 88 201 1979 122 15 109 131 1980 132 15 109 141 The number of residential units estimated was based on actual 1977 connections, with the rate of growth increasing by eight percent per year. Industrial growth was based on develop- ment of the number of acres shown in the table with an average daily flow of 2,000 gallons per acre. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. WJBrezinsky: bk�� /='�� CITY OF A F I EA. SEX 7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 November 23, 1977 Mr. Richard J. Dougherty Chief Administrator Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 350 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: City of Chanhassen Dear Mr. Dougherty: As part of the legislative mandate concerning the updating and expanding of its development plans, the City of Chanhassen is reviewing its Comprehensive Sewer Plan. In so doing, it became apparent that a specific determination of a legally described boundary line of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) within the limits of the City is desirable, indeed necessary, in order to properly complete the utilities portion of the plan. We have enclosed herewith a legal description setting forth what we feel would be a reasonable MUSA line, and request that it be established as the 1976-1980 interim Urban Service Area Line. The suggested line does not vary significantly, as far as we can determine, from the generalized line agreed to by the Council and contained in the Development Guide published by the Council. Would you have the Commission staff evaluate the suggested line, and, if in accord, pass it on to the Council for such action as may be required to formally establish this legally definableboundary as the interim MUSA line with the City of Chanhassen. Because of the necessity to provide service within the MUSA line in an area adjacent to the core business center, our plan requires that a short portion of the Lake Ann Interceptor be built in a location as shown in the plans and programs of the Commission. On October 12, 1977, we asked that you consider construction of a short extension of the Lake Ann Metropolitan Interceptor as soon as possible. The portion Mr. Richard DouglLerty -2- November 23, 1977 we are interested in is the westerly extension of the existing Lake Ann Interceptor (the terminus of which is just East of State Trunk Highway No. 101) a mile or so along the north shore of Lake Susan to State Trunk Highway 5 right-of-way in Section 14. This extension would make it possible for programmed buildings to get under way in our industrial park near our central business area and would coincide with the timing of the realignment of Carver County Road 17 so as to allow installation of sewer before completion of the new road. We also ask that the Metropolitan Council Policy Plan be modified to include this portion of the Lake Ann Interceptor in order that this interceptor extension can be constructed early in 1978. Please refer to our letter of October 12 for location maps and estimated costs of construction of that portion of the Lake Ann Interceptor we feel is of the highest priority. Because of the urgency involved in the construction of this line, and in order to keep all options open so that no matter how the funding questions for this line would be finally determined, we would appreciate it if the Commission would review the location and sizing of this line with respect to its relationship to the overall metro- politan plan as a separate and distinct matter from the funding questions involved. As soon as approval of such location is forth- coming from the Commission, the City can proceed to hold the necessary public hearing and have most of the legal requirements completed while the funding questions are being resolved. In that way, construction can proceed immediately as soon as funding arrangements are completed. If you have any questions concerning any of these matters, please contact me. Sincerel Don Ashworth City Manager DA:k cc: Dunn and Curry Schoell and Madson CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O BOX 147oCHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 October 12, 1977 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Attn: Mr. Richard J. Dougherty, Chief Administrator 350 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Mn. 55101 Dear Mr. Dougherty: The City of Chanhassen has completed a feasibility study for the extension of the Lake Ann Trunk Sewer to provide service to property presently being considered as a planned industrial park. Extension of this line is consistent with the approved sewer plan of the City and the property in question is shown on. the City's Comprehensive Plan - such additionally having been approved by the Metropolitan Council. As you are aware, the extension of the Lake Ann Interceptor Sewer has been under consideration for several years. In the late 1960's the City began consideration of this line and in 1971 bonded to have the sewer extended to meet local government needs. At that time, the Metropolitan Sewer Board designated this line as an interceptor to eventually meet the needs of communities north and west of Chanhassen. Since 1971, there have been numerous delays in the proposed construction schedule - such now appearing not to occur prior to the early to mid 1980's, if at all. As the metropolitan Was Le Control C-o mission is unabl-e to cormnit to the construction of the Lake Ann Interceptor, we would respect- fully request the MWCC to approve a local trunk sewer meeting our current and future needs. nR1u " Mr. Richard J. Dougherty -2- October 12, 1977 The City of Chanhassen believes that there may be benefits to the MWCC to require oversizing of the local sewer and, as such, we would suggest establishing a meeting date where methods of providing such oversizing could be discussed. As any future public hearing date (establishing construction techniques, alignment, proposed assessments, etc.) is dependent upon approval and/or requirements of the MWCC, we would request such meeting to occur as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration. Sincer y, Don Ashworth City Manager DA:n cc: Dunn & Curry Schoell & Madson CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 147eCHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager, Don Ashworth DATE: September 19, 1977 SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills Feasibility Study, Request for Consideration - Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Attached please find the feasibility study for sanitary sewer for the Lake Susan Hills development area. It should be noted by the City Council that the total scope of the feasibility study included sanitary sewer, water and street improvements; however, as decisions will be required by other agencies, i.e. Carver County and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, it is the belief of this office that the city council is unable to act on the total feasibility report. If all elements of the feasibility report were considered at this time, the next step would be to order a public hearing at which time the council would make a final determination as to whether the project should proceed and the specific elements of such, i.e. which alternative sewer proposal would be installed together with costs of such, and location of roads with associated costs. At this point this information could not be given as the County has not made a final determination as to the alignment of new County Road 17 and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has not:acted on whether they would approve any or all alternatives for sanitary sewer. At the present time, the county is providing public notice as to the alignment of County Road 17. Assuming all hearings would be required, a decision as to the final alignment of this road will not be known for an additional 60 days. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has not provided a specific time table for completion of the Lake Ann Interceptor. Present time tables reflect that this construction may occur in 1983; however, the City Council has seen these schedules continuously delayed since the original proposed construction date of 1971. As such, staff is recommending that the council act upon the sanitary sewer feasibility report for this project area. Specifically, we are recommending that the council propose construction of a local gravity sewer in this area meeting the future needs of the City of Chanhassen. This position would be presented. to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for their review and comments. Should they determine that the over sized - Mayor and Council -2- September 19, 1977 b line is requirednMWCC for their future expansion needs, an agreement should be proposed by them for payment of over sizing costs or an agreement setting forth the terms of purchasing the over sizing costs when Lake Ann Interceptor is constructed. If the MWCC is unwilling to make committments as to the future extension of the Lake Ann Interceptor, they should allow the City to construct the sewer meeting the future needs of the city - all being in accordance with the proposed land uses for the City for which the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission have previously approved. Attached please find a letter from Dunn and Curry in support of the position presented above. It is assumed that the MWCC will act within the next 60 days on the request from the City of Chanhassen and such would be returned to the City Council for final acceptance of the sanitary sewer, water, and street feasibility reports. At this future date, decisions as to the position of the MWCC and County would be known and the City would be in a position to order the public hearings, should the city council so desire, for final consideration of making these improvements. WILLIAM D. SCHOELL CARLISLE MADSON JACK T. VOSLER JAMES R. ORR HAROLD E. DAHLIN LARRY L. HANSON RAYMOND J. JACKSON WILLIAM J. BREZINSKY JACK E. GILL THEODORE D. KEMNA JOHN W.EMOND KENNETH E. ADOLF DANIEL R. BOXRUD WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC. ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS (612) 938-7B01 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, �V.INNESOTA 55343 OFFICES AT HURON, SOUTH DAKOTA AND DENTCV, TEXAS September 16, 1977 City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Subject: Lake Susan Hills Feasibility Study - Sanitary Sewer. Gentlemen: We are submitting the sanitary sewer portion of the subject project for City Council consideration. The alternate methods of serving the property oulined in our report were presented to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Staff in March, 1977, for concept review. After thorough discussion, of the options, the MWCC asked that the Chanhassen City Council submit specific proposals. Because negotiations with the MWCC may be time consuming, we are asking for City Council endorsement of certain methods of construction and financing at this time. We feel the methods recommended in our.report are the most cost efficient and also limit the City's financial exposure. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. WJBrezinsky:bk enclosure SANITARY SEWER General Trunk sanitary sewer service can best be provided by con- nection to the existing Lake Ann Interceptor, Phase I at its terminus approximately 300 feet east of Highway 101. The con- nection could be made either by extension of the Lake Ann In- terceptor or by construction of a local trunk system. The feas- ibility of construction of extension of the Lake Ann Interceptor and four alternative local trunk systems are presented herein. Lateral sanitary sewer service would be provided by gravity lines following the alignment of Lake Susan Hills streets and connected to the trunk system. Study was confined to the lat- eral system necessary to serve Phase I developement of Lake Susan Hills. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) criteria was used for design sewage flows for all systems.studied. An average daily flow of 2,000 gallons per developable acre per day was as- sumed for the Lake Susan Hills development. The construction costs presented anticipate construction during 1978. Engineering, legal and administrative costs of 21% were added to all estimates. Easement costs, outside of Lake Susan Hills were assumed to be $6,000 Der acre. Trunk Alternate No. 1 - Lake Ann Interceptor Extension To provide trunk service to Lake Susan Hills, the Lake Ann Interceptor would be extended to north of the railroad tracks as shown on Drawing No. 9564-1. The alignment in- dicated is the same as shown on the City of Chanhassen Com- prehensive Trunk Sewer Plan as approved by the MWCC. The pipes were sized using MWCC population forecasts for assumed saturation in the year 2050. Present MWCC scheduling indicates availability of Phase II of the Lake Ann Interceptor in 1983 at the earliest. Current Metropolitan Council regulations prohibiting the MWCC from building additional interceptors without 90 percent grant funding could further extend the completion date. The schedule could be expedited by the overloading of the Shorewood force main. As an alternative, the City and/or the developer could finance the project with future acquisition by the MWCC when required. Although EPA funding is not presently available for acquisition of existing interceptors, this may change in the future. Our estimated cost of this alternate is $546,855 as itemized in the Appendix to this report. 7 bw w crwW y >- cn U) w — m to v a (� cr — Y -J Z X o w w N Q Q Z< Y 0 `} to 41 0 =cj Q Z Z c F- w� � L� > Q C 0 a Q O U) Q F-, � U) (n _ (n w Z U W F- a a~ Z Z IS z Z J z i- � i 1 Z - LL' _ w Y > Q Le) to i 02 w Q Ir x -� w o Z J J c9 W l+1 Z 0 U) a W p z Y 3 0 o I"" � = w = — U U w Y Q U Q N J \ / 1� ZEn w ) IY j zo a Z • I �o CO O� / a O 1 �l — i avom LN 00 a3SOd08d L N OtfO AINN65 I\` C bo bl �n Trunk Alternate No. 2 - Local Gravity Sewer. This alternate would entail installation of a gravity sewer sized to meet local needs. The alignment of this sewer would, of necessity, follow the same alignment as the Lake Ann Interceptor as indicated on Drawing No. 9564-2. Interference with future interceptor construction could be created. The estimated cost of this alternate is $379,647 or $167,208 less than Alternate No. 1. a r OFiiII���s�� O z O a � 1 f 1I_ N z I I` %8 z U) Ir / r f be W wax W W W U - z cn 3 to 3 z LLI w — m Ld M a LLJ W N N J U) z M cn Q Fa— Z W z Ir to W _ O fW.. z maw r(X Q C) U) J In = cn w z w U W C H Z 0 z CO z z J Q Q F- Z d5 z - V_. Z = cr Y Q fn cn W Q Ir X J W vi -O Z J .j 0 w J w z 0 Q Q w z Y O cn 0L'o_ = W = — w U N J W a a � J 1 a ' z z � (no co wcn 1 \\\� xJ 1 --------- -- �/ aQ 1, aJ �\ LI--'ON--GvOH 1N 00_ 03SOd02id — __ — L� d AiNno:) (07 t, _Li �: h Trunk Alternate No. 3 - First Gravity - Lift Station - Force Main Alternate As indicated on Drawing No. 9564-3 a lift station and force main could be substituted for the gravity sewer between proposed County Road 17 and the east property line of Lake Susan Hills. The gravity lines are sized to Lake Ann Inter- ceptor standards. The force main could be placed to avoid future interference with interceptor construction. The estimated cost of this trunk system is $461,287. The $295,070 expended for construction of the gravity sewer could possibly be recovered by future MWCC acquisition. The es- timated $166,217 in lift station and force main costs would be lost except for lift station equipment salvaged. W 3 Cr w W 3 c m — q LC Z L; .� Z cn W U) N a a C w r W U) it M W 2 Ir M YL Q O O in N to o Q _ a Q _ o Z 7) w Y z Z (n 0> W F- Q Q 3 O Z Q z �1-MZ F- Q Q© Q=1 ct ~p o c a Q () J F- N N L w z U W z y C) as Z J Q Q z cr Lo 05 Z ti=X J Yto Qo O Q X w vi 0 z 9 JZ W Oi Q l O= aUL U cn • U W w a Q �\ J \1 Z a 1 _- N - �� �`----- �I--ON-_OVOU - 1N 00_---O3SOd0a___-- I i 1` \\ I 04 \ N Trunk Alternate No. 4 - Second Gravity - Lift Station - Force Main Alternate This alternate is the same as Alternate No. 3 except the force main is extended from the east property line of Lake Susan Hills to the existing interceptor as shown on Drawing No. 9564-4. Of the total estimated $415,582 cost, $184,130 could possibly be recovered through future MWCC acquisition of the 42" gravity sewer west of County Road 17. The remaining $231,352 would be lift station - force main costs (only partially re- coverable as previously noted). 3 w w w tr �.r Z cwn w w w z° \ _ W cn cn N W Z c \ y M (f) Y J O to a z a Z W w 'o ;,; c \1 0 =Q z z Dw DzZ ��a a o U� a QO can F-Q (n~o c 2 (n w Z -� w H w Uz � a ar z m~ C5co z —r--- 1 I • J Z ` H p ti Z = X w� W w F- '� W Ya J Ld o O \\ Z J J CD W N J J z O � W ? Y ILLJ J y \� M = W = - U 4 � �\ \ U W • � u,i >_ 2 a � 11 i W �j rI W > I f Y' -1 J 40 cr r zZ ' cn - W(n ,t wJ / /L0 1t 1= / (L a 03 i \ �,------- ---------------- 1N 00 __—a3SOd02id _--- 0 . \,\-"I \\ I I I I �J Trunk Alternate No. 5 - Third Gravity - Lift Station -- Force Main Alternate Rather than following the lakeshore alignment, the force main would be located within the proposed street right-of-way as indicated on Drawing No. 9564-5. The advantages of this alternate are: there would be no interference with future Lake Ann Interceptor construction; easement acquisition would not be necessary along the Lakeshore, saving an estimated $24., 000. The estimated total cost of Alternate No. 5 is $403,545. As in Alternate No. 4, $184,130 of this cost could conceivably be reimbursed through MWCC acquisition. Ir W 3IrWLj � W 3 LLJ a)Ld z LLJ � w 'n w z r` U) y- � `� J N z a M W (� Q a Z a � Y Z O�n V) w = Q _ Z Z � W� Z Z 0> Q Q p / Q O = cn cn J F- g F- Q cn w -- U W cn w F- z z ? o w U F- z a6 z J Q < z crC/) LLJ x Q Q x _ x--C\l L` J w Z o a J Cp W— J w Z Y z— 0 } cZ O = (D p wGO = -n _ U • 0 W w Y Q a n S "INS I I Z J z cn WU) ---- W / 0 o �+ ` �\ Qa. it J II am --- — ----- — -- LI ON OV02� 1N 00 03SOd0ad ` 1 `, 1 "Y o i\ T LI N GVO A.LNf103 �J i SUMMARY Trunk Sanitary Sewer The most cost efficient way to serve this area would be by extending the Lake Ann Interceptor as described in Alternate No. 1. Availability of this phase of the interceptor is not scheduled by the MWCC until 1983. Construction of this sewer by the City and/or the developer does not seem economically feasible without either an acquisition agreement with the MWCC or a cost sharing agreement involving the MWCC, the developer and the City. The most economical locally sized trunk sewer is the gravity sewer described in Alternate No. 2. It seems logical that the developer's initial assessment be the estimated $379,647 cost of this construction alternate. Construction of this line would cause the most interference, of all alternates considered, with the future Lake Ann Interceptor. The other alternates include construction of various portions of the interceptor and a lift station -force main system. The interceptor costs could possibly be reimbursed by future MWCC acquisition. The lift station -force main system would be obsolete when the interceptor is constructed and the costs (ranging from $166,217 to $231,542) only partially recoverable. We recommend consideration of the following.methods of construction and financing of the trunk sewer system to serve Lake Susan Hills: 1) Construction of the necessary extension of the Lake Ann Interceptor with an acquisition agreement between the City and the MWCC prior to commencement of the pro- ject at an estimated cost of $546,855. Initial assessment of $379,647 (the cost of the most economi- cally feasible locally sized trunk) against the proposed development. 2) Construction of the interceptor extension and a cost sharing agreement with the developer assessed $379,647 and MWCC funding of the remaining $167,208. In other words the MWCC would pay the cost of oversizing the sewer beyond local needs. 3) Construction of local trunk Alternate No. 2 with all costs assessed against the development. We feel consideration should be given to the other alternates only if agreement cannot be reached on one of these three methods of servicing the area. Lateral Sanitary Sewer Lateral sanitary service to Phase I of Lake Susan Hills can best be provided by a gravity sewer along the alignment, shown in yellow on Drawing Nos. 9564-1 through 9564-5. The estimated total cost of $81,303 of these facilities would be assessed the developer. DUNN & CURRY Real Estate Management Inc. It* 4940 Viking Drive, Pentagon Office Park, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 • Phone (612) 835-2808 September 14, 1977 The City Council City of Chanhassen 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Preliminary Feasibility Report Lake Susan Hills Planned in- dustrial Development. Attention: Don Ashworth Gentlemen: This letter is to advise you that we have received and reviewed the preliminary feasibility study for the development of the first stage of The Planned Industrial Development Dis- trict in our Lake Susan Hills project. As general partner of the Lake Susan Hills partnership, we would like to make the following requests and observations: SEP1977 cd DECEIVED VILLAGE OF. tO q10 CHANHASSEN,, MINK. 1. 2. After reviewing the prelimin a t of the feasibility study, it ur opinion that al- ternate layout no. 5 ill adequately meet the needs of our project and should provide suf- ficient sewer capacity to handle the projected growth of the City of Chanhassen in that area affected by the new trunk line extension. With respect to the proposed sewer installation, we hereby request that The City Council submit copies of this study relating to the installation of sewers to the Metropolitan Waste Control Com- mission (MWCC) for their review and comment. _ __rk;s pff .ej 3. We propose that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) review this study in light of its own projected.needs. Should the MWCC deem it necessary to require an oversizing of the sewer line to serve areas beyond the Chanhassen community, we would like to express our interest and willingness to work with the agency to provide for such a system and to de- tail the means by which each party will contri- bute their fair share to the cost of installation. N0 As we indicated to you in our initial request last spring, the development of this portion of Lake Susan as a planned industrial area is in keeping with our overall development program. It is planned as our first stage of development. We presently have interested parties who de- sire to put industrial buildings on our sites but who need firmer time commitments on the. delivery of sewer in order that they may proceed with their decision making. We feel, therefore, that it is imperative that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission receive, review and respond to the proposed sewer layout as soon as possible. We appreciate the efforts on your behalf to move for- ward with the overall feasibility study. We are in support of the general findings of the study and are committed.. to undertaking the next stage of the design/development process. We would be happy to assist you and Join in any pre- sentatior_s to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. ASi rel yours, Ro n ey __ . H- rdy ' Vice President Dunn and Curry Real Estate Management, Inc. for Lake Susan Hills Partnership -2- SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC. August 4, 1977 LAKE SUSAN HILLS SANITARY SEWER Developer should initially be assessed: 1) All lateral costs (the gravity sewer in the Phase I street). 2) The cost of the least expensive feasible trunk system necessary to serve the project area. These costs are: Lateral Sewer $ 81,303 Trunk Sewer 391.582 TOTAL $472,885 Future costs would include: 1) All lateral cost not initially installed. 2) Trunk availability charges in accordance with City policy. Assuming 2,000 gallons per acre per day,"5.40 single-family equivalent units per acre would be developed. The total of 317 acres in this area would then result in 1,712 single-family units. At the present trunk charge of $506, the area would ultimately generate $866,272. The least expensive feasible trunk system is described in Alternate No. 4. The City could ultimately gain $474,690 if this trunk system was installed. Alternate No. 4 results in alignment conflicts with the future Lake Ann Trunk, Phase II. When the Lake Ann Trunk, Phase II is installed, this system would be abandoned. Except for some lift station equipment no.monies would be re- covered. Alternate No. 2 substitutes a.gravity sized sanitary sewer to Lake Ann standards for the trunk sewer north and west of the lift station and for the eastern 1,250 lineal feet of the force main. This alternate would cost $518,590, of which$391,582 could logically be charged to the developer initially. The remaining would be deferred, but realized with full development. The City owned gravity line could someday be purchased by the MWCC. Alternate No. 1 is the Lake Ann Trunk,Phase II. The estimated cost is $757,597. Of this amount$391,582 could be initially assessed. Potentially, and estimated $866,272 could be generated in trunk assessments, resulting in a savings -of $108,675. The City could someday realize the entire cost of the facilities (plus interest) from the MWCC in addition to trunk assessments from the developer. SCHOELL & MASON, INC. Lake Susan Hills Sanitary Sewer - Continued: SANITARY SEWER August 4, 1977 TOTAL TRUNK PROJECT COST �0) Alternate No. 1 - Lake Ann Phase II Alternate No. 2 - Lake Ann Trunk from Lift Station to north of tracts, ?ct p� � Lift Station, Forcemain.along '1'k �� Lake to Lake Ann Phase II Alternate No. 3 - Lake Ann Trunk from Lift Station to north of tracks, Lift Station, ? �Forcemain on road alignments Alter ate No.,4 - Lake Ann Trunk from Lift Station to north of tracks Forcemain along lake to existing trunk Alternate No. 5 - Chanhassen trunk sewer cost up- dated from 1971 Report Lake Susan Hills Phase I Lateral Cost TOTAL SANITARY SEWER COST Alternate No. 1 Alternate No. 2 Alternate No. 3 Alternate No. 4 Alternate No. 5 $676,294 + $81,303 437,287 + 81,303 403,545 + 81,303 391,582 + 81,303 355,6147 + 81,303 $676,294 437,287 403,545 391,582 355,647 TOTAL LATERAL COST $ 81,303 TOTAL PROJECT COST $757,597 518,590 484,848 472,885 436,950 SCHOELL & MAOSON. INC. Lake Susan Hills Watermains: August 4, 19,77 TOTAL TRUNK COST Trunk Watermain - Connection from existing watermain on 78th Street, 18" watermain, pumphouse, well, installation of second booster pump in existing station on County Road No. 117 $607,874 TOTAL LATERAL COST Lateral Watermains - Lake Susan Hills Phase I $ 99,220 TOTAL WATER COST Roadway $707,094 TOTAL ROAD COST Lake Susan Hills Phase I Roadway $175,408 Lake Susan Hills Total Project Cost for Sanitary Sewer and Water, Roadway and Easements: (Easements) Sanitary Sewer Watermains Roadway Total Cost Total Cost (106,000) Alternate No. 1 $757,597 $707,094 $175,408 $1,640,099 $1,746,000 (106,000) Alternate No. 2 $518,590 $707,094 $175,408 $1,401,092 $1,507,092 ( 97,000) Alternate No. 3 $484,848 $707,094 $175,408 $1,367,350 $1,471,350 (106,000) Alternate No. 4 $472,882 $707,094 $175,408 $1,355,384 $1,461,348 (106,000 Alternate No. 5 $436,950 $707,094 $175,408 $1,319,452 $1,425,452 1 RO40 COUNTY OAD NO. 17 OT 1 — — — — PROPOSED — — CO _WTI— ROAD NO. — 17— — --- -- —D u' m WN oc c (n Z D L f n I m `-AL \ n r D rm m Cn n 0 -- 0 z = C z a x rrn D o z m f m c� r q z o a, M r x x D m K O m < rn = z _n 3 90 — z D z I z � z -+ rr- cn m 0 m v -a r- D z m D (1) = O D G o v o D -1 --Ai D m m Lo z� c O D O cr Q D Z — D (nw w z r m z m m U) m cn z m m 1 � m b I N 1 \\ I al v 00 / / I m / i r 1 I I I. 7 t // G7 PROPOSED — CO NT ROAD^ NO. -- `-711- r to D D m r � m x z = c —I p. A D z m r o r N m G, r z o cn rn r m : X' sD m p cXn rn 9D (n X z D D F Z z w n C) -< z � cn rn C) D m Z m in = / O C D p D D —1 D j D D� z z C -j x Z Z D Z < v z in c o = rn m U) A M z D Ul 00 O D T. x z N Cn w� Cn r N -� La U _ m cn rrl z m z m m * m mom m X m r D c D z D r� rm .U) CDcn oN Z D p z v 0 2 O C \ � b GR D W 1 CDT / 0 / I umi m / � 1 01 7 I / / = v� lL 11. UPI _ I PROPOSED CO NT _ ROAD -N0. - 17 - __ -- --------- - --- - - - - - = r C) / ----------- l r� I� �1 M.m I to rn Cc) Ch Z D I , I pZ at I m � } I MA D N cn D 2 < I 111 o rn D D ` O O Z M r r N rn cY r Ej z \\ o u, m r- m -- > x rn � p \\ c 4p cn --1 m N< m m= z -n D z r z �_i_ z p c" 0 z -� z -Di v m C7 PLAIN m D rn G� z m cn_ GR W U cn K -4 K --I r cn p y a o o c D p D X > Z z Z z �-T ! D m n z z z rn Z o D= \ i r'! Ln O cO X m� D cn (A m Z r W m rn �= w�z rnm m Z rn x J ol? COUNTY r I / IE IJ i PROPOSED CO NT _ ROAD_ —N_0__ _ ------ -- I f D r� Nm '' cn �c oz D J a f m I ,1 U) C N D z r cn ' D D m r m • 0 - = m O 7,Zm z m r r IV. X m D z o v,M r m = D7z m O g Sp O cnm z --I �D D r r Z Z 9D c-) G) z —I cn M C) m Dm rz m cn= oc pD -i D OD D D D p Z z C Rl z z D= rn m O u) O z 7 C z —I D D N z tin w m Z r CA w m _ U)(n U) m rn rn m cn z n g m m m c 7o ao m I A x G S its Ru a& w \\ RO40it— COUNTY AD NO. 17 I A,' PROPOSED _ _ co NT _ ROAD _ N_0. - 17- _ - _ \ `i CD -0 f =r , oo / I �o I cnm oc oz I - 7 � D j 1 \ i r cn D D m cn m � n = z = C O a) O D p � D z m r X x D m Z 0 m z = Z �1 -i D D r Z Z QD -C z --Acn M (7 m z m (1) 2 o c -i r -� D O D 7o D D D C -i z z D Z < O z IT1 C O = C) m ca -< oO A M ; D > z w m z cn D cn m (A o (A cn m m m (D n m m cn Z m m m * m i b m Ul 1 A M I % \ \ ZO {I 11 O I GRAD �M O z O sap., Un- I Im i n W I I I _ I I I / ' = D \ 1 rr- m \` N CD C: 1 O c !1 c> z D I oaz i PROPOSED COUNT ROAD NO. 17 •� ; I r r- 0 � D� n D m m n ■ C•) o '- a) O -C o ;KZ m D o z m r- v m z M r c x v O mZ = z v z� z c� U) mc) rri a o c� a< S O D D= aoo v gD m m M rn m cn Cn m m CA o p Z D D D Z D W� rm- m (D z r z z z z A I rn v z c 17 M i 0 il /-I 1�7 CITY'OF F CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVEeP.O BOX 1479CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Action by CoUncifj FROM: City Manager, Don Ashworth endorsed " Modified DATE: June 21, 1977 RejectedDate C /� SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills, Preliminary Plat and Improvement Request, Dunn and Curry Dunn and Curry would like to proceed with development proposals for their Lake Susan Hills Planned Industrial Development. This site has been approved by the City and Metropolitan Council as a Planned Industrial area, but no plans have been presented except in conceptual form. They are prepared to begin specific development plans with the planning commission, but will be delayed or stopped if public improvement questions can not be answered, i.e. roads, water, sewer, etc. During the past several months various alternatives -.to each of the public improvement issues have been explored, i.e. 1). Sanitary Sewer: The Sewer Board is not prepared to install the Lake Ann Interceptor, but would be forced to choose between extension of a portion of the line with assurances of repurchase or allowing a local line to be built - if the specific area to be served and sizing were established; 2). Public Water: Public water to the site could come from a new well at the site or through extension of existing systems - depending upon the area the city desired service be available to. For the most part, it appears as though Dunn and Curry have solutions to the public improvement questions for their property, but such may not be in the best interest of the city in considering future needs, desires, and planning principles. Based on these facts, Dunn and Curry would request that the City Council allow them to proceed with developing plans with the Planning Commission and, simultaneously, have the City Council order a feasibility study for public improvements in this general area. Based upon the options presented in the feasibility report, the City should then determine which improvements or options are in the best interest of the City and which improvements are of/or should (can) be of a private nature. --.1 Mayor and Council -2- June .21, 1977 The request of Dunn and Curry appears to be the most reasonable method by which answers to public improvement questions can be answered. Of concern to this office is the potential cost of such a study recognizing that no assurances are being made by either party that any or all of the improvements so studied will be ordered. To alleviate this concern, Dunn and Curry have stated that they will escrow sufficient monies to cover any or all of the expenses of the study (estimated to be $7,500) and pay any costs which are not a part of an ordered improvement project by the City Council. It is recommended that the City Council order the City Engineer to prepare a feasibility study for public improvements, including sewer, water, streets and drainage in this general area conditioned upon the posting of an escrow account by Dunn and Curry in accordance with the City Manager's memorandum of June 21, 1977. 4.- t. i i r v r ,. se.s_.� CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 May 11, 1977 Dunn and Curry Attn: Rodney Hardy 4940 Viking Drive Pentagon Office Park Minneapolis, MN 55435 Dear Mr. Hardy: I am in receipt of your request for improvements on the Lake Susan Hills property. I have set a meeting with our staff for this next week to identify issues requiring council consideration. I'may be back to you after this meeting for clarification of certain aspects of your request. Assuming these items can be handled without a significant amount of additional information from city staff or requested from you, I would anticipate that this item could be presented to the council for preliminary discussion on June 6, 1977. Sincer y, w_,_ Don Ashworth City Manager DA:k DUNN & CURRY 616177 Real Estate Management Inc. It 4940 Viking Drive, Pentagon Office Park, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 • Phone (612) 835-2808 May 4, 1977 Mr. Don Ashworth City Manager City of Chanhassen 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Lake Susan Hills Property Development Dear Don: On behalf of the Lake Susan Hills partnership, we should like to hereby request the City Council of Chanhassen to immediately undertake a feasibility study for the installation of utilities and frontage road across our property and con- tiguous properties. The specific site which we are requesting this feasibility study be one on includes all parcels south of Highway 5, east of Route 101 and west of the proposed align- ment of relocated County State Highway 17. The feasibility analysis is to determine the size and lo- cation of a proposed force main sanitary sewer, water supply system and alignment for an access frontage road to tie in with Routes 101 and 17. Following the completion of the feasibility study, we will make a formal petition to City Council for the final de- sign and construction of these utilities. At the time we make our formal petition we will provide satisfactory assurances to the City Council necessary to meet financial commitments that will appropriately be requested by them. Our request now for a feasibility study and our statement of preliminary petition are made at this time consistent with the development objectives of the partnership. It is our firm conviction that development of the industrial land in Chanhassen should continue on an orderly schedule with the advent of County State Highway 17 and the return of general development activity in the area. We are prepared to commit resources to the delivery of industrial property to the marketplace within the next 12 months. 19 11977 RECEIVZD CTIA:;:1gSg�N 7 > .L a Attached please find the latest outline development plan which has been prepared for the property. As you know the Chanhassen Planning Commission approved in concept the pro- posed use of land along Highway 5 for industrial development. This land use was also incorporated into the Metropolitan Urban Systems statement that is being prepared for the Metro- politan Council. As.part of this request for feasibility analysis we, as general partner for the partnership, are prepared to assist your consulting engineering firm in the evaluation of the proposed utilities systems. We are also prepared to assist you in any other way we can. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact us. - 2 - '14i ides CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 May 11, 1977 Dunn and Curry Attn: Rodney Hardy 4940 Viking Drive Pentagon Office Park Minneapolis, MN 55435 Dear Mr. Hardy: I am in receipt of your request for improvements on the Lake Susan Hills property. I have set a meeting with our staff for this next week to identify issues requiring council consideration. I may be back to you after this meeting for clarification of certain aspects of your request. Assuming these items can be handled without a significant amount of additional information from city staff or requested from you, I would anticipate that this item could be presented to the council for preliminary discussion on June 6, 1977. Sincer y, Don Ashworth City Manager DA:k ItDUNN & CURRY 6161" Real Estate Management Inc. 4940 Viking Drive, Pentagon Office Park, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 • Phone (612) 835.2808 May 4, 1977 Mr. Don Ashworth City Manager City of Chanhassen 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Lake Susan Hills Property Development Dear Don: On behalf of the Lake Susan Hills partnership, we should like to hereby request the City Council of Chanhassen to immediately undertake a feasibility study for the installation of utilities and frontage road across our property and con- tiguous properties. The specific site which we are requesting this feasibility study be one on includes all parcels south . of Highway 5, east of Route 101 and west of the proposed align- ment of relocated County State Highway 17. The feasibility analysis is to determine the size and lo- cation of a proposed force main sanitary sewer, water supply system and alignment for an access frontage road to tie in with Routes 101 and 17. Following the completion of the feasibility study, we will make a formal petition to City Council for the final de- sign and construction of these utilities. At the time we make our formal petition we will provide satisfactory assurances to the City Council necessary to meet financial commitments that will appropriately be requested by them. Our request now for a feasibility study and our statement of preliminary petition are made at this time consistent with the development objectives of the partnership. It is our firm conviction that development of the industrial land in Chanhassen should continue on an orderly schedule with the advent of County State Highway 17 and the return of general development activity in the area. We are prepared to commit resources to the delivery of industrial property to the marketplace within the next 12 months. t 11977 �4 N; REcElyeo v,z ...aaj T= CWa�cr�i,gg(W f6c. Attached please find the latest outline development plan which has been prepared for the property. As you know the Chanhassen Planning Commission approved in concept the pro- posed use of land along Highway 5 for industrial development. This land use was also incorporated into the Metropolitan Urban Systems statement that is being prepared for the Metro- politan Council. As part of this request for feasibility analysis we, as general partner for the partnership, are prepared to assist your consulting engineering firm in the evaluation of the proposed utilities systems. We are also prepared to assist you in any other way we can. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact us. - 2 - s CITY OF CUNBASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE * P. O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 474-8885 . April 19, 1977 Mr. Ed Dunn Dunn and Curry 4940 Viking Drive Suite 608 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Dear Ed: I am in receipt of Schoell and Madson's notes regarding your meeting with the Sewer Board. It would appear as though this was a productive meeting. At your convenience, I would like to discuss "how to proceed from here". Many of the decisions in this area will be up to you, but I can foresee a number of issues which will have :to be considered before being presented to the City Council. Sincerely,, Don Ashworth City Manager DA:k cc: Jim Orr, Schoell and Madson Bruce Pankonin, City Planner SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC. MEMO TO: Don Ashworth SUBJECT: MWCC Meeting on Sewer Service to Ed Dunn Development DATE: April 15, 1977 1�In1���1c? PRESENT: R.-J. Dougherty, Chief Administrator, MWCC B. J. Harrington, Director of Engineering, MWCC R. APR1977 Claus Forester, MWCC Ed Dunn, Developer r'01, � a Bruce Pankonin, Chanhassen Planner ASssEN,,�� Bill Brezinsky, Schoell & Madson, Inc. CIO Jim Orr, Schoell & Madson, Inc. A meeting was held with the above -named people present to discuss options for sewage disposal on the "Ed Dunn Development". We pre- sented the following options for discussion purposes: 1. MWCC to build immediately the Lake Ann Interceptor up to Highway No. 5. 2. City to build Lake Ann Interceptor up to Highway No. 5 with an acquisition agreement for MWCC to acquire same when they need the Lake Ann sewer. 3. City or Developer to build a locally (small) sized trunk sewer on the interceptor alignment. 4. City or Developer to build a force main and pumping stations system to serve the development. These options were thoroughly discussed to obtain direction from MWCC as to what their preference is within the context of a need for immediate service. Mr. Dougherty's comments were that the Lake Ann Interceptor is currently not scheduled, and that a schedule would not be established until completion of a 201 planning study expected to be finished in 1979. The earliest availability on this schedule would be 1983. Also, the current chances of obtaining EPA funding for such interceptor construction are, at best, uncertain. The only thing that would cause XVCC to expedite the Lake Ann project would be overloading of the Shorewood force main ---which, incidently we think may occur within a year or two. Current regulations of the Met Council would prohibit MWCC from building any more interceptors %4i.thout maximum grant funding (90%) and virtually all grant moneys are now being dir- ected to treatment works. In other words, option No. 1 is not bright in terms of prospects. (Approximately $5,000,000 of reimbursement grant funds may be available to aid in financing.) 8CHOELL & MA080N, INC. MEMO TO: Don Ashworth DATE: April 15, 1977 PAGE 2 Option No. 2, or a hybrid of it, was encouraged by Mr. Dougherty.,. He urged lobbying with MWCC members, Met Council and the Sewer Advisory Group for Service Area No. 4. He suggested some kind of written pro- . posal from the City that would include cost sharing with the WICC, City and Developer. This proposal seems the most interesting of all dis- cussed and would maximize dollar efficiency. What this would entail in terms of dollars is open for negotiation. We recommend. that the first step would be the City to authorize us to come up with some cost estimates for the segment of this sewer should there'be interestin pursuing this option. This could be done very quickly since a detailed.., alignment has previously been selected.. Construction of a smaller trunk sewer on the interceptor align- ment met with the least favor. MWCC would not likely.approve of such . a proposal if future interference with the interceptor would be created. MWCC must approve of all sewer construction in any event. Option No. 4, construction of a force main system, would also be acceptable. This may be the best alternative, but such a system would be .redundant to some extent when the interceptor is finally built. In summary, the meeting was productive, and we recommend further efforts be made. The first step should be obtaining a detailed esti- mate of the costs involved. Next, discussions with Ed.Dunn as to what degree of participation he sees as possible. Finally, going back to MWCC with a proposal. This all presumes an interest exists in proceeding. Jim Orr October 25, 1976 Mr. Bruce Pankonin 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota RE: Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan Amendment Metro Council Referral File #3858 Dear Mr. Pankonin: It has recently been brought to my attention that you are proposing an amendment to your Comprehensive Plan. I would appreciate very much if you could forward a copy of the proposed amendment to our City Offices for review by our City staff. If the amendment is for a portion of your community only, perhaps it does not affect the City of Minnetonka. If this is the case, please advise us of that fact by return mail. Thank you very much for your cooperation in this matter. o ially yours, ohn R. Sweeney Administrator of Dk_ i r`n and Planning JRS/eel CS ✓ v�. RECEIVED; VILLAGE OF. CHANHAsSEN, c;y \ � MINN. t3. the city offices are located at 14600 minnetonka boulevard minnetonka, minnesota 55343 933-2511 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 227- 9421 October 22, 1976 Mr. Bruce Pankon in , City Planner City of Chanhassen 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment; 150 acre Industrial Area Expansion Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 3858 Dear Mr. Pankonin: At its meeting on October 9, 1976, the Metropolitan Council considered comments and recommendations on the above plan amendment submitted on August 30, 1976. This proposal would change a 150 acre parcel, north of Susan Lake from single family residential to industrial. This industrial expansion will be served by the future Lake Ann Interceptor and 'hew County Road 17 scheduled for construction in 1979. The City plans to manage develop- ment of the site consistent with the availability of metro and local services. The City has stated that it 'Will not allow the rezoning of the subject area to PID (Planned Industrial District) nor will we issue building permits until necessary utilities are available. Because of the 'uncertainty' of the Lake Ann Interceptor we cannot, at this time, be more specific as to the timing, staging and placement of the urban services. " In the light of Chanhassen's recognition of the problem related to the Lake Ann Interceptor the Council finds that the proposed change in land use classification is a local concern and the Council has no further comment and recommendation on the change. As a result of the Council's required notification procedure, the attached V ^71 ^ RECEIVED .VILP_F_c?g CF CHANHASSI_h, MINN, An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropoli'tkli,-Area Comt3risin Anoka County O Carver County o Dakota County O Hennepin County 0 Ramsey County�t Cpxnty County Mr. Bruce Pankonin October 22, 1976 Page two letter with attachment was received from the Riley -Purgatory Creek Water- shed District. It is forwarded to you for your information. Sincerely, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL o n Boland airman JB :ba Att . cc: P. Reichert, Metropolitan Council Staff Allan Gebhard, Barr Engineering PLANNING REPORT DATE: October 21, 1976 TO: Don Ashworth, City Administrator FROM: Bruce Pankonin, City Planner SUBJ: Lake Susan Plan Amendment PETITIONER: Ed Dunn PETITION Action by City Administrator Enduse.'t_.....�'� Appiedtaci.....-.. Date yah S "; ;r� isii ii CuiaIDlSBion ; o Cuuncil As shown in Exhibit A, the proposal before the council is a request to change the land use designation of certain lands located north of Lake Susan from low density residential to industrial. The proposal is unique in that many soil searching planning issues will have to be resolved by the council when considering Mr. Dunn's request. These issues include, but are not limited to, the following: What type of land use ip "appropriate" for land abutting a railroad track?; Whay type of industrial base, if any, does Chanhassen want in the future?' What degree of emphasis should be assigned to the conservation of natural environmental features?; What positive or negative affed.ts will the proposed land use change and eventual implementation have on the City's social and economic infra -structure?", etc. PLANNER'S COMMENTS Land Use Abutting Railroad Tracks. In the past, the steam locomotive produced noise, vibration, ash and smoke which created an "industrial" atmosphere that was highly detrimental to adjacent land uses. The railroad facilities of today still have this effect, although on a less dramatic scale. A diesel -hauled freight train running at higher speeds than in the past, still produces severe noise levels, vibration and some air pollution. Cities, like Chanhassen, continue to grow and unless their growth occurs in a controlled manner in accordance with a rational plan, the problems now presented by the railroad will continueto multiply. Existing grade crossings in the fringe areas will become more heavily used, and .new housing will be proposed and built adjacent to railroad tracks and yards. Only realistic proposals formulated by the Planning Commission can prevent the mistakes of the past from being repeated to procreate the "urban blight of the future." Planning Commission -2- October 2 1, 1976 Industrial land use is most frequently associated with railroads. That is certainly the most appropriate use in some cases (assuming that an industrial market exists) industrial sites can also be served by municipal services and good arterial streets. Of course, if all the land adjacent,to railroad lines are zoned for industry there would obviously be an excess of industrial lands. The area to be zoned must conform to the calculated needs of the community over a realistic planning period, and other uses must be found for the remainder of the land. Commercial uses (especially automobile sales, lumber yards, monument works, and other uses that involve storage) are not damaged by proximity to the noise and vibration of railroad trains. Recreational areas, particularly large„playfields, may also co -exist with railroads. Residential areas, on the other hand, require protection from rail- road right-of-ways to minimize noise, vibration and pollution. This may be achieved, to some extent, by platting lots that back onto railroad tracks so that they are at least 200 feet deep, or by establishing a buffer zone of public land between the railroad and residential lots. In either case, land adjacent to the tracks should be planted with shrubs and trees of suitable variety to minimize the prese 1 of fhe railroad. icc In summary, depending upon market economics and local and regional accessibility, and adjacent to railroad tracks, for obvious reasons, is an appropriate and compatible land use. General principals relating to the location of industrial land require a process of evaluation that is basically subjective, however, the following parameters are often termed industrial location standards: Source: Chapin, Stewart, Urban Land Use Planning, pages 371-373: 1. "Industrial areas" should be located in convenient proximity to living areas where there are nearby inter -connecting transit and thoroughfare routes to insure easy access back and forth, and should be in convenient proximity to other (industrial areas) where uses accessors to one another have access to inter -connecting truck routes. 2. Manufacturing Areas. a. Reasonably level land, preferably with not more than 5% slope, capable of being graded without undue expense. b. Range of choice in close -in, fringe, and dispersed locations. Extensive manufacturing: large open sites for modern one-story buildings and accessory storage, loading and parking areas in fringe and dispersed locations, usually 5 acres as a minimum, .with some sites 10, 25, 50 or 100 or more acres depending on size or urban area and economic outlook for industrial development of extensive lines of activity. Intensive manufacturing: variety of site sizes for modern one-story or multiple -story buildings and accessory storage, loading, and parking areas in close -in and fringe locations, usually under 5 acres. i Planning Commission -3- October 21, 1976 C. Direct access to commercial transportation facilities; in fringe and dispersed locations, access to railroad, major trucking routes, cargo airports., and, in some urban areas, deep water channels; and in close -in locations, for a major proporation of the sites, access to both railroad and trucking routes, with the balance adjoining trucking thoroughfares or, if appropriate, port areas. d. Within easy commuting time of residential areas of labor force and accessible to transit and major thoroughfare routes directly connected with housing areas. e. Availability of utilities at or near the site such as power, water and waste disposal facilities. f. Compatibility with surrounding uses, considering prevailing winds, possibilities of protective belts of open space, development of "industrial parks", and other factors of amenity both within the manufacturing area and in relation to adjoining land uses. 3. Wholesale and Related Use Areas: a. Reasonably level land., preferably with not more than 5% slope, capable of being graded without undue expense. b. Range of choice in close -in and fringe locations, site sizes usually under 5 acres. C. Direct access to trucking routes and major street system for incoming goods and outgoing deliveries; frontage on a commercial street or in well -served wholesale centers essential; railroad access for minor proportion of sites or centers. d. Suitability for development of integrated centers, with consideration for amenity within the development and adjoining areas." As you can see from the proposed site plan, the vast majority of the subject area has slopes in excess of 5%. What this constraint means to me is that Chanhassen will not have the "typical" type of industrial park development, but,rather will be absorbed similar to the well planned and well designed uses found in Jonathan's and Opus II's industrial areas. The absorption of the subject property as industrial land should have far reaching positive affects on the city's economy and environment. Not only will the industrial base increase the areas effective buying power but also will act as a catalist to absorb additional residential land in the sewered areas. This, I believe, is the most dynamic impact industrial land.can have on the local economy, because of the feasibility of the need for people to live close to work. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION As shown in exhibit B, the commission duly held a public hearing on June 16, 1976, to consider Mr. Dunn's request. -1 Planning Commission -4- October 21, 1976 On June 16, 1976, the commission made the following recommendation: "Nick Waritz made.a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to amend the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan to designate that area presented by Mr. Dunn, Exhibit A, that portion south of the railroad tracks be changed from low density residential to planned industrial. Seconded by Walter Thompson. All in favor. Motion carried." CITY ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION As shown in exhibit C, the City Engineer recommends approval. RILEY-PURGATORY CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT'S RECOMMENDATION As shown in exhibit D, Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District outlined certain criteria to be maintained when the property is eventually rezoned, subdivided and structures are placed on the land. The district did not make recommendation for or against the proposed plAn amendment. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION As shown in exhibit A, the Metropolitan Council "approved" the proposed plan amendment. PLANNER'S RECOMMENDATION I feel the proposed land use option for the subject property should be limited to planned industrial and open space as proposed. This amendment and subsequent rezoning and subdivision (after sewer and water is available) should have many positive effects on the City of Chanhassen and the region. Action IV Council: En0-Mcd_-------- Re ;ed Date Ri%ey Tau=rgatary= Creek Watershed-_Disti`ct 8950 COUNTY ROAD #4 -EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNES_0TA.55343- October 11, 1976 Mr. John Boland, Chairman Metropolitan Council - 300 Metro Square Building -Seventh and Robert Streets ` St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: Chanhassen Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Boland: - As requested by the Metropolitan Council, the Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District has reviewed the proposed amendment to the Chanhassen Comprehensive -Plan.- The amendment indicates an industrial -area between ._ Lake Susan and Trunk -Highway 5. During late March and early April of 1976-,-,the Watershed District reviewed a development -concept plan -.called "Lake Susan PID", located, in the area that is the subject of the plan amendment request: --At the April 1976 meeting of the Watershed District, the Managers instructed the engineering advisors to transmit the District comments regarding -the Lake Susan PID to Mr. William Brezinsky of Schoell -- and Madson, Inc., consulting engineers for the City. A -copy of -that letter is enclosed and represents the Watershed District's policies and criteria that would be applicable to an industrial development in the area that is the subject of- the plan amendment request. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 920-0655. Sincerely, 0L Allan Gebhard BARR ENGINEERING CO. Engineer for the District AG:ps Enclosure cc: Mr. Bruce Pankonin Mr. -William Brezinsky -- - Mrs Frederick Richards - Mr.. Conrad,=Fzsknes-s VILLAGE or Co CHANHASS- �.1 �, MINN. r�t13 ,,,j o uU T I O/V R , 1776-1976 CITY OF CHANHASSEN . 7610 LAREI)O DRIVE•P.O. BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINN ESOTA 55317*(612) 474-8885 October 11, 1976 Ms. Peggy Reichert Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Chanhassen Plan Amendment Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 3858 Dear Peggy: As we discussed on Monday, October 11, 1976, the City of Chanhassen requested the above plan amendment be placed on the Chairman's Consent List. Thank you for your cooperation. W rs, n City Planner cc: Don Ashworth, City Administrator