3. Laredo Drive Area Reconstruction: Hold Public Hearing - Authorize Prep of Plans and Specs
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952,227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952,227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952,227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952,227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952,227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
3
-.::r [fl
"'
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer ~ t
o/~
'00.
FROM:
DATE:
January 28,2008
SUBJECT:
Laredo Drive Area Reconstruction, Project No. 08-01
Hold Public Hearing, Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications
BACKGROUND
November 14,2007 a neighborhood meeting was held. Eighty-six (86) notices were sent
out for the meeting. Approximately 40 residents attended the meeting.
On December 10, 2007 Council accepted the Feasibility Study and called the Public
Hearing.
On January 7, 2008 Staff met with representatives from the Lotus Lake Water Quality
Association and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District to discuss storm
water improvements.
On January 23, 2008 Staff is planning to hold a neighborhood meeting to continue
discussions with property owners and update them on the plans for public hearing
meeting with the City CounciL
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends that City Council order the preparation
City Project 08-01.
for
DISCUSSION
For the public hearing staff is requesting the Council authorize stafftoproceed.withthe
project and complete plans and specifications. The purpose of the public hearingisto
determine if the project should advance to construction, The.publichearingisIlotfor
finalizing the assessment methodology or the amounts.
The City's pavement management program recommends that streets in the Laredo Drive
area be reconstructed. The City receives the most complaintsabouttheconditionof
Laredo Drive from residents and the traveling public then any other streetinthe system.
The public utilities in the area are old, have had many problems and should be replaced
or repaired. Approximately 1.35 miles of streets are proposed to be reconstructed. The
area for improvements include: Laredo Drive, Laredo Lane, Longview Circle, Cimarron
Circle and Highland Drive (west of Laredo Drive).
The City of Chanhassen . A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play,
Paul Oehme
January 28,2008
Page 2
For several years the streets in this area have been temporarily patched. Street patching can temporarily
increase the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) since the pavement surface is improved. However, the
streets will typically quickly deteriorate back to the original PCI or lower since major structural problems
are due to the conditions that exist underneath the paved surface. Public works crews have worked over
the years to patch the roads to reduce the amount of complaints however the underlying structural
problems have not been addressed.
Street Improvements
All the streets are proposed to be reconstructed approximately the same width as the existing streets.
Laredo Drive between West 78fu Street and Saratoga Drive is proposed to be built to a 36-foot wide urban
street section. Laredo Drive from Saratoga Drive to Frontier Trail is proposed to be 31' wide. The side
streets are proposed be built to a 28' wide roadway.
The streets are proposed to be urbanized and reconstructed with concrete curb and gutter. Most streets
currently have bituminous curb or concrete curb and gutter. Replacement of the existing sidewalk panels
is included in the project. No additional sidewalk or trail improvements are included in the project at this
time. No street light improvements are included in the project.
Public Utilities
The reconstruction project will include the improvement or replacement of most public utilities within the
reconstruction project area. The project includes replacement and installation of additional storm sewer
within the streets. Environmental manholes are proposed with the project to help treat the runoff prior to
discharging into adjacent water bodies. Due to the narrow right-of-way in the project limits and the
limited amount of City owned property typical storm water treatment ponding in the area is limited.
However, this project will reduce the impervious surface coverage in the area and will provide additional
water quality improvements.
Staff has looked into constructing raingardens or other types of infiltration basins in the area to treat the
street stormwater runoff. A raingarden is a relatively small area of plantings near the drain spout of a
building or paved area. Rainwater (or snow melt) is routed to the garden and filtered naturally by the
plants and soils in the garden. This filtration process removes nutrients and pollutants. By acting as a
micro-detention pond, the raingarden plants and soils provide an easy, natural way of reducing the
amount of water that flows from rooftops, lawns, and driveways. Then, using the concept of bioretention,
these gardens remove pollutants from storm water and help restore some natural infiltration.
The project is at the high end of the drainage area and limited drainage can be captured and pretreated in a
storm water pond. The grades within the project area can not be significantly altered to redirect drainage
due to the limited right of way width and matching in to the existing driveways along the project. Staff
has identified potential locations in the low points of the watershed- outside of the project area limits-
where alternative surface water management techniques could be constructed. The Lotus Lake Water
Quality Association has offered to contact these property owners to determine if they would be willing to
participate.
The City obtained soil borings for the project that indicate the soils within the road corridor are mostly
clays which have limited infiltration capacity. The groundwater elevation within the soil types present
within much of the the project range from zero to three feet below the ground surface. Many residents
Paul Oehme
January 28, 2008
Page 3
within the project area experience drainage problems- such as sump pumps running continuously year
round; therefore adding additional water into the groundwater system in these areas may not be prudent.
Earlier this month staff met with representatives from the Lotus Lake Water Quality Association and the
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District to discuss storm water improvements. The engineer for
the Watershed District is planning to work with City staff to review plans and see if best management
technologies can be incorporated into the project or in the future. Staff is planning to continue to work
with the Watershed District to identify and incorporate storm water best management practices into the
design if a project can be identified. The Watershed district is planning to work with property owners in
the project area to gain easements if a project can be identified. Staff is also planning to design the storm
sewer system to plan for potential future improvements. Also, staff is discussing cost participations with
the Watershed district for these improvements.
Draintile is included in various areas along the street to pick up residential sump pump water discharge
and reduce the amount of groundwater in the street subgrade. Reducing the amount of groundwater in
subsoils increases the pavement strength and reduces the likelihood of pavements heaving because of
frost.
The watermain in this area is mainly cast iron pipe which has experienced seven breaks. It is proposed to
replace all the watermain with PVC watermain pipe. Water service pipes and curb stop boxes are
proposed to be replaced.
The sanitary sewer service has been televised and approximately 1000' of sanitary sewer pipe is proposed
to be replaced. Also several sanitary service pipes to residential properties have been identified as
needing replacement. Most of the pipe proposed to be replaced is clay pipe that has off set joints, cracks
or ground water infiltration problems. By replacing this pipe it is anticipated that the city will see
reduction of inflow/infiltration (1&1). This reduction will be quantified and included in the City's MCES
1&1 surcharge reduction plan for credits. Along with the sanitary sewer pipe, sanitary sewer services will
be replaced.
Estimated Assessments
The purpose of the public hearing is to cover the project scope and merits of the project; however Staff
has included the assessment methodology in the background to review the preliminary assessments and
see if Council would like any changes or additional information be provided at a later date.
Per the City assessment practice, forty percent (40%) of the street costs are proposed to be assessed to the
benefiting property owners; the City will be responsible for the remaining 60%. One hundred percent
(100%) of the utility costs will be paid for by the respective enterprise funds. The total assessment to
benefiting properties is proposed as follows:
$1,763,400
Total Street
Improvement Cost
x 40% =
Assessable
Portion of Cost
$705,400.00
Total assessments
The Laredo Drive oversizing between West 78th Street and Saratoga Drive- the cost difference between a
31' and 36' wide street- was not included in the residential assessment calculation. The preliminary
assessment amounts for the single family properties are only for the residential equivalent street section.
Paul Oehme
January 28, 2008
Page 4
There are 80 residential and 6 commercial properties proposed to be assessed for the street improvements.
The total assessable front footages for residential and commercial properties were measured to determine
the construction cost per frontage foot.
The City has historically deemed single family properties as a single
benefit, meaning that comer lots or "double frontage" lots (lots with a
street at the back and front of the lot) will only be assessed for projects
associated for one street. For example, the four comer lots at the
intersection of Laredo Drive and Frontier Trail were assessed for the
Frontier Trail project in 1989, and are therefore not included in the
preliminary assessment roll for City Project 08-01.
Alternatively, non-single family residential- such as apartment buildings, commercial, office and
industrial uses- are considered to have multiple benefit when the property has frontage on more than one
street. The following summarizes the non-single family residential properties and their frontages:
Use Street Frontage 1 Street Fronta2:e 2 Street Fronta2:e 3
Apartment Building Laredo Drive Saratoga Drive Santa Vera Drive
- two accesses - no access - one access
Elementary School Laredo Drive Kerber Boulevard nla
- three accesses - no access
Fire Station Laredo Drive Chan View Ave. nla
- two accesses - one access
Post Office Laredo Drive Chan View Ave. Market Boulevard
- one access - two accesses - one access
Bank Laredo Drive West nUl Street Market Boulevard
- one access - no access - one access
Retail Laredo Drive West nUl Street nla
- two accesses - one access
These uses benefit from more than one frontage; therefore the assessment amounts for each of the above
uses are proposed to be based on the amount of benefit generated from the Laredo Drive frontage. To
calculate this benefit, Staff proposes to determine the equivalent front footage along Laredo Drive for
each use. The following steps were followed to calculate the assessment amounts:
Step 1: Determine the benefiting lot area for the non-single family uses.
Apartment: 82,982 SF
Retail Center: 81,546 SF
Bank: 95,625 SF
Post Office: 41,250 SF
Fire Station: 56,580 SF
School: 227,700 SF
Paul Oehme
January 28,2008
Page 5
Step 2: Determine the total front footage of each property. This value includes frontage along all
street frontages identified in the table on page 4 of this report.
Apartment: 949 FF
Retail Center: 579 FF
Bank: 885 FF
Post Office: 595 FF
Fire Station: 597 FF
School: 1,320 FF
Step 3: Calculate the area: frontage ratio for the average single family unit.
Average Lot Area: 12,560 SF
Average Front Footage: 86.24 FF
Single Family Ratio: 145.64
Step 4: Calculate the area: frontage ratio for all other uses.
Apartment: 82,982 SF -:- 949 FF = 87.44
Retail Center: 81,546 SF -:- 579 FF = 140.84
Bank: 95,625 SF -:- 885 FF = 108.05
Post Office: 41,250 SF -:- 595 FF = 69.33
Fire Station: 56,580 SF -:- 597 FF = 94.77
School: 227,700 SF -:- 1,320 FF = 172.50
Step 5: Calculate the "Residential Factor" for each use. This factor is equal to the amount
calculated in Step 4 divided by the amount calculated in Step 3. This calculation
balances the multiple benefit of the non-single family properties with respect to the
single benefit of the single family residential properties.
Apartment:
Retail Center:
Bank:
Post Office:
Fire Station:
School:
87.44 -:- 145.64 = 0.60
140.84 -:- 145.64 = 0.97
108.05 -:- 145.64 = 0.74
69.33 -:- 145.64 = 0.48
94.77 -:- 145.64 = 0.65
172.50 -:- 145.64 = 1.18
Step 6: Apply the "Residential Factor" calculated in Step 5 to the actual Laredo Drive front
footage for of each property. The result is the "Equivalent Front Footage" for each property.
Single Family:
Apartment:
Retail Center:
Bank:
Post Office:
Fire Station:
School:
1.00 x 86.24 FF/unit x 80 units = 6,899.20 FF
0.60 x 514 FF = 308.59 FF
0.97 x 243 FF = 234.98 FF
0.74 x 255 FF = 189.18 FF
0.48 x 110 FF = 52.36 FF
0.65 x 205 FF = 133.40 FF
1.18 x 660 FF = 781.70 FF
Total = 8,599 FF
Paul Oehme
January 28,2008
Page 6
Step 7: Calculate the cost per front foot by dividing the total assessable amount listed on page 3 of
this report by the front footage calculated in Step 6.
Total Assessable Amount:
$705,400/8,599 Feet =
$705,400
$82.03/FF
Step 8: Calculate the estimates assessments for each use.
Single Family:
Apartment:
Retail Center:
Bank:
Post Office:
Fire Station:
School:
86.24 FF x $82.03/FF = $7,075/Unit
308.59 FF x $82.03/FF = $25,314
234.98 FF x $82.03/FF = $19,275
189.18 FF x $82.03/FF = $15,518
52.36 FF x $82.03/FF = $4,295
133.40 FF x $82.03/FF = $10,943
781.70 FF x $82.03/FF = $64,123
A summary of the proposed residential and non-single family assessments is as follows:
Total Residential Assessments (80 units):
Total Commercial Assessments (6 units):
Total Assessments:
$566,000
$139,468
$705,468
RESIDENT RESPONSE
Residents within the project area have contacted Staff regarding this project.
Resident Response #1: The cost per front foot for single family is higher than the cost per front foot
for the non-residential uses, therefore the single family assessments subsidize the non-single family
uses.
The proposed assessment methodology.takes into consideration that the non-
single family residential uses benefit from more than one street frontage-have
"multiple benefit" - whereas single family residential properties only have "single
benefit" .
If all properties along Laredo Drive were single family, 19 additional single
family units, 86.24 feet wide, 12,560 square feet could be included in the
assessment roll (total of 99 single family residential properties). Based on this
scenario and the City's policy to assess 40% of the reconstruction cost, the unit
assessment for single family would be $705,400 -:- 99 units = $7,126/unit, which
is more than the proposed assessment.
Paul Oehme
January 28, 2008
Page 7
Resident Response #2: Laredo Drive is a collector road. therefore the City should pay more than
60 % of the reconstruction cost.
Local roads carry less than 2,000 vehicles per day; collector roads carry between 2,000 and 12,000
vehicles per day. The following summarizes the results of traffic counts taken along Laredo Drive:
Location of Details of Traffic Count A vera2e Traffic Volume
Traffic Count Northbound Southbound
Between Longview May 21, 2007
. 48-hour count
Circle and . Monday to Wednesday 316 286
Iroquois A venue . School was in session.
November 26,2007
South of . 51-hour count 1199 1885
Chan View A venue . Tuesday to Thursday
. After Thanksgiving holiday
Resident Response #3: There are a lot of side yards and rear yards alon2 Laredo Drive. The street
reconstruction costs alom?: these len2ths should not be assessed.
The proposed assessment methodology is based solely on front footage benefit, not on the total front
footage within the project area. This methodology is consistent with past reconstruction projects.
Approximately 25.6% of the total front footage of Laredo Drive is side and rear yard. In comparison,
approximately 25% of the total front footage of the KoehnenlY osemite 2007 reconstruction project was
front or side yard.
Resident Response #4: Based on the proposed assessments. the percent benefit to the non-sin2le
family uses is much lower than that for sin2le family.
The non-single family uses benefit from more than one street frontage.
Resident Response #5: Why was the front foota2e of the trail connection to Kerber Pond Park
i2nored in the assessment methodolo2:v?
There is no vehicle access or parking associated with this frontage. In the past, the City has not assessed
outlots which do not benefit from a street improvement project.
Resident Response #6: Shouldn't the assessments to properties adiacent to the 28-foot wide streets
be lower than those adiacent to a 31-foot wide street?
It has been City practice to assess based on a neighborhood benefit. Both the 28' and 31' wide streets are
considered residential roadways.
Paul Oehme
January 28,2008
Page 8
Resident Response #7: Petition reQuesting that Highland Drive be removed from the project.
On January 15 Staff received the attached petition signed by seven ofthe eight property owners on
Highland Drive, west of Laredo. The residents are requesting that this street be excluded from the
project:
a) Highland Drive east of Laredo Drive is excluded from the proiect. The sanitary sewer
televising shows that the sewer within the eastern portion of Highland Drive is in fair
condition. The televising shows that a portion of the sanitary sewer west of Laredo Drive is
leaking and should be fixed. In addition, the watermain is cast iron pipe- which is prone to
breaks- and should be replaced.
Highland Drive was constructed in 1969. A thin overlay was completed by city crews on
both segments of Highland Drive in 2000. Since 2000 the pavement condition continues to
drop 20+ points every three years, which indicates that a structural project is necessary. For
example, the PCI for the western segment was 100 after the thin overlay. The PCI dropped to
79 in 2004 and to 56 in 2007.
The eastern segment will likely be included in a project within the next five years.
b) A property owner feels curb and gutter is not a tOQ priority at this time. Curb and gutter
provides better drainage off the pavement surface which prolongs the life of the pavement
and will help with water quality improvements planned for the project.
FUNDING
The estimated costs for the 2008 Street Improvements, City Project 08-01, as proposed in this feasibility
study, are detailed below. The estimated project costs include a 5 percent construction cost contingency
and a 15 percent allowance for indirect costs such as engineering, administrative, legal items, and
capitalized interest.
Proposed Improvement Estimated Cost
Street Improvements $ 1,801,000
Storm Sewer Improvements $ 389,600
Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 100,700
Watermain Improvements $ 617,100
Total Project Cost: $ 2,908,400
Total Project Cost:
Amount
$1,598,400
400,000
250,000
660,000
$2,908,400
Funding Source*
Revolving Assessment Fund (assessments and City share)
City Storm Sewer Utility Fund
City Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund
City Watermain Utility Fund
*Note: Some costs associated with the street improvements are proposed to be paid for with
utility funds because they are directly attributable to the utility improvements.
Paul Oehme
January 28,2008
Page 9
SCHEDULE
The following is the proposed project schedule:
Public Hearing; Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications:
Approve Plans and Specifications; Authorize Ad for Bid:
Bid Opening:
Assessment Hearing/Award Contract:
Construction Start:
Construction Completion:
January 28,2008
February 25,2008
March 28, 2008
April 28, 2008
May, 2008
August, 2008
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council order the preparation of plans and specifications for City Project 08-
01 and direct Staff to investigate alternative assessment methodologies for Council consideration.
c: Chadd Larson, Kimley-Horn and Associates
Kim Benson, Kimley-Horn and Associates
G:\ENG\PUBLIC\_2008 Projects\08-0l 2008 Street Improvements\Ol-28-08 public hearing auth plans & specs.doc
~t-;.t;Dri . ~ l..WcSf)Hl,/rt."J
-:g....i~ r~r~ ~wers ~ ~
e.Xt:Lw.leJ. ~.ffle.. ~~
~",;"e. ""R"..d p"'Je~ +- ~r + .
.ft11/~"'" ~~~i::.t ~ is ~J
(j){.ea. Y-)J, 'P""cc+. . I
II!:.. ". -nt' 6 .L ." ,.,.,-1.. . /'"IIL
-r-. cl s-..,..T~c- ... L. r.
An ~. - ~- J....-~-..~... . _*--J , n."'" .
~ ,f1 IJ~. ....~ I
1)n :h4~~>~ FccL- C&.IrP
~ 1f-~~ ftfJt'" A. +..,
.. .ncs ~-+ .J,....t-J;S fiMC-.
~~r' '1 ·
~~'t(~~- ~~
· 1hJIl- ~~ M4k.
RECEIVED
JAN 1 5 2008
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
SD3 HI,/' ~ ~".e.
2. 3~.. 'B~
StJS HI4HtIW_ f)~
"z-<;3Y- ?8S8 ·
s. t \\, """",,,.t.. ,.... -
,'-l.... 6 --... ·
SO., H'tM....."'. ~.V~
'Sc.... 1.7 3' ·
16 '- J../ 1ft~ ,...,., ~
'>> ,,/ 1"'''~ ~/:7
SO I t/:,\t.I.,.A Or.
c.u. 711.S_
~ AI;4'.-" D,~
1S1..n~ ,*
'-
f..J ~
&-..1If1. ~
-r~'t>~
~ L",~a'iY\n /
~-t~ ~
Q) vOulf
...0
~-ro--:........;A
~= =: ~,.,," ~ "l
/L-
~~ ~; [1~
~/ ~;~~ ~
C"'~_"=~_ '~#;;:- ~
~f--- Wit
,=j ~ I q rive
ro -vera Drive
S""", ~[l
~
~0'O
0"
~
I ~
~
st Village Road
m
~
i-
") I
I
I ...-----r--ll I I
-
~'
-<-,
~(t}
~,o
Frontier Trail
~
1\
Highland DriVe
/
~'O.,<!
~
~
~
v-
Del Rio Drive
Q
\ 7 ~~l
~~J~ I r-r--- J
co ffiU ... \---1
(/) (/) 1..-- L
Fe Trail - _
I I
~~
Oel /'-"";::/a
I
I
-
w
76th 51
-
1
a
.0
c:
o
in
I~
- -
'co
~-
c
a
:>
OJ
----'
-
I i]
L:
-~--- ~
~~~'
1
-
-
=
-
-
(W 78th 50
W 78th 51
I
~
I
I
N
+
2008 Street ProJect
300 150 0
~--
300
I Feet
November 5, 2007
g:\eng\public\08"01 2008 Street ImprovementslMapslAssessment Map~mxd
=
o
-P"l
.....
U
=t-....
bO
rI:J I
=~
o -
u 0
QJZ
~.....
..... u
QJ QJ
QJ --
b 0
rJ)~
t-....
o
~
I
I
~--
I
I
~'l.th I' \ \
"~J \- J
"Ve~',--__, \--=(rn I
" eL, i "---- -,,,-LJ ,I
" '7" 'I
-"" ',. ~'.
., ~
-,
'""
'""
'j
'"d
g
.-d
(J)
.....
~
jl
--;:
~
~
./
rl
o
I
\0
o
./
u
;.!:l
..0
~
./
~
./
(j
..
.
I-
:tf
I-
z:
!~
en
en
w
en
en
<
z <Oiiii(
=
o
.....
....,
ul""'I
eo
...., I
fnto-
=0
o .
u 0
Q)~
~....,
...., u
Q) Q)
Q) .~
... 0
...., ...
UJ~
to-
o
o
N
1
iii
~
1:i
a
fIJ
fIJ
fIJ
.:!
......
fIJ
~
cu
:s
......
"'"
o
~
o
......
(,)
...
-
~
......
o
~
......
c;
"t"""
o
I
'lilt
o
.
o
z
......
CJ
(1)
.~
o
...
D..
......
C
(1)
E
(1)
>
o
...
Q,
E
-
c..
11l
::i
11l
l!!
<C
-
c
CI)
E
Ul
Ul
CI)
Ul
~
....
o
..l-
o
~
:c
:J
c..
-
Cl
c
.9!
Cl
......
(1)
e
......
U)ca
me
+ic:(
c......
(1) C
:2(1)
tn E
(1) tn 'lilt
D:::tno
.....(1).......
O~ tn <.0
otn~
N c:( It)
IJ')
o
,
o::t
"
co
~
to
:E1f7
"
,
I-
~
I-
z
LU
:E
en
en
LU
en
~