The URL can be used to link to this page

1986 05 19 I I I 14~5 REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 19, 1986 , I:. ~ Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was. opened with the Pledge to the Flag. Members Present Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving, Councilwoman Watson. Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, and Bill Monk. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson asked if the council could review the Hidden Glen development in further detail. All other council members approved the agenda as written. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the agenda, Councilman Geving seconded. All voted in favor and motion carried. ANNUAL BOARD OF REVIEW: Mayor Hamilton-introduced Scott winter and Frank Mennenga from the County Assessor's Office and gave instructions for procedures for the Board of Review. He indicated that no action: would be taken this evening, but that the Assessor's Office would be in contact with citizens and try to resolve the problem. There will be a future meeting on June 9, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. when we will get the information back from the assessor's office and make determination of settling your arguments. i) I Carol Watson-25-300540 Made improvements last year and assessments went up which was fine. No improvements were made this year, and assessments went . up. Paul Prenevost-25-1950011 Representing Chanhassen Mall~__.Assessed value was at $377,000.00 when the building was purchased for $120,000.00 last year. Gene H. Fury-25-5050330 ,Homestead property was assessed at $87,400 last year and was $96,000 this year. Have no lakeshore access. J.O. Klingkenberg-25-5500130 There has been an 11% increase in their assessment. This doesn't equate' with the real estate market nor with the value of his neighbor's house. Tom Pzynski-25-8200280 Market value of house is at $85,200. and it was assessed at 94,600.00. The assessments have jumped 45% since 1983. The only improvements have been 90 square feet of living space. ... .. _., .: J Howard Noziska-25-3300060 Believes 10-12% increase in assessments are unrealistic. They live in area with privately maintained road, private septic tank and well system, and neighbor with public utilities sold their house for 35% less than their assessed value. I -'I', ,&~ ...:.:... .1.._ "'V Chanhassen City Council MinuteS-May 19, 1986 Tom Droegemueller-25-6030270 They live in a new development that is 35-45% complete. Their lot was assessed at $30,000.00 when in fact they paid $27,000.00 and entire property is assessed at the price they bought house for which they could not turn around and sell at this time for the same price. I Terrance O'Brien-25-0023100 Since 1982 his assessments have tripled. He did add a garage last year and assessments went up $400.00 Brian Marshall-25-0122000 He stated he worked for the U.S. Postal' Service and is representing the Chanhassen Post Office as the lessees on the property and pay all the taxes on the property. They think it is over assessed by about $65,000.00. Income approach is best estimate of value and he had calculations for the County Assessor's Office. - . Hartune & Otto - 25-0150500 Had 58% increase this year on agriculture piece of-property which is out of line with agriculture market. Last.yeaL it went up 2% which is contrary to market. No improvements, just vandalism. Bev Ricker-25-3500230 Assessments have stayed the same but value of property has. gone down. Fighting a water problem that can't be won. :. Yard and basement are under water. Russ Stoddart-25-8050040 Just plotted property into four lots. The lot that has no sewer or water is being assessed more than the two buildable lots. On homestead, the. assessment is approximately the same as before property was subdi videdinto four lots. I LaVerne Butler-25-0151700 Property is agricultural land and it is his understanding that agricultural land has dropped about 26% and his assessments keep going up. 30 acres of farm land and 50 acres of swamp. L.J. Renner-25-2750030 That is Lot 5, Block 1 in' Frontier Development~ Value went from $76,000 to 139,000. Either mistake or just out of line. Joseph Kandiko-25-3320270 Without making any improvements over last year, assessment went up $7,500. Neighbors and themselves both refinanced through same mortgage company and had same appraised value as them. Their assessment went up $300.00 compared to their, .$7,500.00. Deb & Bob Johnsen-25-3300070 Vacant lot at Hesse Farms. Last year estimated value was $21,300.00. This year it is $31,800.00. 50% increase. . Since 1982 assessments have increased 50% already. - Evelyn S. Lohr-25-5450040 Increase in rate of $743.00. Gone up consistently over past years with no improvements to house. Rod Hjelm-25-0230500 40 acres of farmland. Assessed value went up $9,000.0(0 to $95,000.00 this year. I Tim Bryker-25-5500070 15% or $13,000 over last year's assessments. Improvement was addition of deck. Back yard is on busy street. 2 I I I Chanhassen City Council Minutes~May 19, 1986 Jon Bi1fi11an-25-5500200 Increase from last year of $15,800. Improvements was addition of deck and lives next to TH 101 which is noisy. Don Mezzenga-25-0032800 12 acres of agricultural land. Very dramatic InCreases in assessments without any justifiable explanation. Harry Ahrens-25-5050370 OUtlot B in Minnewashta Manor which is completely submerged. Appraisal went $200.00 to $1000.00 this year. Merle Vo1k-25-0150700; 25-0151500; 25-0151510 There is a 22 acre parcel which had $20,900.00 increase in value; 77 acres had $95,400.00 increase; on 80 acres went from $186,000.00 to $194,000.00. All agricultural land. Julius Smith-25-5660010; 25-0020600 Representing Frank Beddor. Parcel 25- 5660010 is the first of those parcels being improved this year and has a 256% increase in taxation since last year, although there was no change in property other than 6 lots were platted into one lot. Understand since improvements are being made this year it will increase next year. Parcel 25-0020600 is up $29,500.00. There have been improvements on this property and just want to reserve right to discuss this with Assessor. Jane Klinkenberg-25-2100080 The neighbor's house was sold at a loss so doesn't understand how assessments can goup'when.property is being sold at a loss in the neighborhood. Theodore Pahl-25-0350200 The one that is under water is the one he wants to discuss, the same one as last year. The County Assessor noted that the value of Mr. Pah1's property was assessed at $2,000.00 which was a mistake and would be taken care of. Cathy Mitchell-25-2100070 Houses in area are being sold at loss. Their property is new house and is the first time it has been assessed, but went up from value bought at. Al Krueger-25-0024000 Just wanted to reserve right to discuss taxes with Assessor. Over last three years have had 40% increase, and has between 35- 45% high and low of water, and would like to discuss with Assessor how that is factored into the assessment. Al Keinge1hutz-25-023l610 He stated he wanted to discuss assessment. Roberta Buchheit-25-1700050 She didn't get up to speak. The following is a list of written notices to the Board of Review regarding assessments on property which will be reviewed along with the above mentioned people on June 9, 1986. Arnie Hed-25-1700060 Alan_H.:Dirks-No Parcel No.,331 Deerfoot Trail John & Jill Rykher-Lot 002, Block 004, Fox Hollow Louise Fenger-25-8000140 3 '8f71[ Chanhassen City Council Minutes~May 19, 1986 David K. Luse-Section ~2, Twpl16, Range 23, 75 acres. Leo Gray Representing AVR, Inc.-Section 13, TWP 116, Range 23, 2.62 Acres in W 1/2 of NE 1/4 Dale Ahlquist Representing Chaska Investment for the following parcels: 25-0151200 25-0160300 25-0220100 25-0221300 25-0160600 25-0220700 I Councilwoman Swenson moved to close the Board of Review, Councilman Geving seconded. . All voted in favor and motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved, and Councilman Geving seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All voted in favor and the Motion carried. __., .u.. .'_ __.. 2 a. . Appointment to Community Development Block Grant Advisory Corrmittee. b. Final Reading of Ordinance 2-J Amending the Liquor Ordinance. I RESOLUTION 86-27: c. Revoke Parking Restrictions on.Mandan Circle. ' , Councilwoman SWenson asked totable i tern (d) on the Consent Agency.. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Al Krueger: I live at 1600 Lake Lucy Road, I'm on a corner lot with Yosemite on one side and on Yosemite I have a very swampy area. My concern there was encephe1itis, but I guess Tom talked me out of that in terms of the wood hole mosquito, and that also brought another question to mind. I would like the engineer to look at the drainage patterns that are available and if they are blocked, to bring them up to speed. There is a house that is a little further down that suffers quite a bit with water. Then a question to the council. I have two children and I am very concerned with encephalitis because there have been four cases that I know of and I don't how many unheard of in the area. I have a wood problem and I am curious if there are any programs that are available to help assist or labor through' some of the high schools that some of stuff can either be hired or help funded through the city to get rid of this wood that would indeed cause I this grief and our neighbor's grief if encepheli tis did come from my property. 4 f,} {f7l' fed l; P- I I I Chanhassen City Council Minutes~May 19, 1986 Mayor Hamilton: We don't have any programs that I know of A1, at the present time. Probably the only thing I could suggest at this time, it seems like each year we get a request from Boy Scouts that are looking for projects to earn their Eagle Scout award and that might be a program that they might want to work on to help you. It sounds like it might be a good project for them. They are usually looking for a project that takes 30 or 40 hours and they have to supervise other scouts, so it might be something that they would be interested in pursuing.' Al Krueger: Then the City Engineer will look at the drainage situation? Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think it is probably best if you give him a call and discuss it on the phone with him and he can corne out and take a look at it with you. If that fair enough Al? Al Krueger: That's fine. Pat Swenson: Al, I think you should know that we still have some cement- like substance that you can fill in any holes in your trees around the roots of the trees because this is also a breeding place for that particular mosquito. Chanhassen, as you probably know, has an ordinance against this which lists the things that are breeding grounds and you can check that out with Staff. There are things you can do. There is an educational program going on in the schools. I agree with the Mayor. My only suggestion, don't get anybody too young to go around where those breeding areas might be, because we don't want any kids going out and getting bi tten. Al Krueger: Is moisture a big factor with these mosquitos? Pat Swenson: Moisture and shade. Mayor Hamilton: Old tires, old empty drums, holes in trees, flower pots, that sort of thing. Jay Johnson: 7496 Saratoga. I want to talk to you about acoustics, and I think it is on all of your minds. It is probably later on the bill too. Basically what my old drill sergeant used to tell me all the time, "I can't hear you".. You got a lot of PeOple in the back. This microphone works good, Carol's works goods, that other one sometimes works goods, but the public has a problem hearing the City Council as they speak. I have heard that at several Planning Commission meetings, I heard it the last two Council meetings. people saying "What did they say?". I've heard it tonight already. I've spent the last meeting of the Planning Commission listening to the microphones. I used to be in electronics, I'm an engineer myself now, and you have got a poor amplifier. It has a hum over there, that we call is in the speech interference range. The hum is worst when trying to hear the people. Some of the people on the Council we can't hear hardly at all over the hum in the speakers. Two meetings ago you looked at paying the bill for the system and questioned that. If that bill is on your agenda again tonight, I would question it again because your acoustics are not very good. 5 9~Z Chanhassen City Council MinuteS-May 19, 1986 As long as you brought up the knot hole mosquito, is construction junkyards included in that, old construction shacks and piles of junk? Because at the end of Frontier lane there is a bunch of junk left over from construction sitting there that should be cleaned up. It gets plenty of moisture and plenty of shade there, if. somebody wants to look into that one. Howard Noziska: Just for the record, I think you should be aware if you haven't been up and down Bluff Creek Drive lately, it is going through it's normal spring deterioration. Only it's probably as bad, if not worse, than it has been in the past. That little clay pot hole between the Bluff Creek Bed and Breakfast and Highway 212 isn't getting better, it's getting worse and it's got a big hole in the road right now. On the east side of the road, we have a canyon where the water comes down there. For the uninitiated one that might be swerving towards the ditch to get out of the way of a car coming down the hill, he could end up getting hung up there and pretty much tear the bottom of his car out. I donit know what the program is for Bluff Creek but I heard from the Engineer tonight that they are going to shut down TH 101 for a li ttle while. That is going to intensify the traffic on Bluff Creek so I think you need to think about doing more than we've been doing. We've been dumping gravel on it and it's been sinking into that clay now for 8 or 9 years that I'm familiar with that mess, so whether its putting down a fabric filter and putting gravel on top of that. Maybe that is a solution. I don't know, but I think it needs to be looked into and somebody needs to address that crater on the east side of the road. ' . I Bill Monk: If there are no further visitor presentations, Nancy Raddohl was here to hear item 2 (d). I know that under normal procedures that goes to the end of the agenda but I was wondering if the Council might consider that now so she doesn't have to sit through an entire meeting. I would like to know what Councilwoman Swenson's problem was with Item 2(d). Mayor Hamilton: Is the council agreeable to discussing item 2(d) at this time rather than at the end. I All council members were agreeable. Councilwoman Swenson: All I wanted was to reaffirm "your final paragraph, that no construction documents or litigation of any type will be done until cleared with the property owners, specifically Mr. Hobbs. Bill Monk: Basically until the council approves the plan draft, then you will know at that point how everybody feels. Councilwoman Swenson: construction details. very clear. Just so we are assvred everyone is satisfied with That was the only thing. I just wanted to make that Mayor Hamilton asked if there were any further questions on this item. I 6 \.-:-,/Yi-;.;' .::1(JfJ I I I Chanhassen City Council Minutes-May 19, 1986 Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman seconded to approve Item 2(d) on the Consent Agenda. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 2. d. Approve Carver Beach Estates Final Plat. PUBLIC HEARING STREET VACATION REQUEST, WILLOW ROAD IN CARVER BEACH, BETSY DISCHER. Public Present Betsy and Brett Discher 6728 Lotus Trail Mayor Hamilton: Is there anyone from the public that would like to make a comnent? Betsy Discher: Willow Road is currently a paper street that is plAtted in Carver Beach. There happens to be about a 90 degree slope there. It has been indicated to me by various staff from the city that it would be next to impossible to build a street in that area. OUr property abuts willow Road and we have requested a variance to do some improvements on that. We would like to proceed with the vacation process. I understand that there are some lots whose only access is willow Road and we would be willing to grant an easement across the property to accomplish that. I am sure that the city isn't interested in, first of all, making the road there, nor maintaining it because of the difficulty of the site. Mayor Hamilton: Is there anyone else here who would like to speak about this item? Council woman Swenson moved to close public hearing, seconded by Councilman Horn. All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamil ton: Do the council members have any comments? The Board of Adjustments and Appeals dealt with part of this issue, did they discuss the road vacation? Councilman Geving: That really doesn't have a bearing on this issue here. I think we will pick that up at the_app~opriate time. This paper street, Willow Road, was platted a few years ago just to even out the plat and make some access to Lotus Trail, but it kind of reminds me of the Devil Slide area. If we were ever to build a road it would be the most difficult thing to do and to maintain forever, and I would be totaly against ever building willow Road as a street for the city and I think the best thing we could possibly do is to vacate this road to the abutting property owners and give it up. Councilwoman Watson: The only problem is the three property owners who have land that would have literally no access if they aren't granted some 7 :- f:7 r/' ~7U0 Chanhassen City Council Minutes-May 19, 1986 sort of easement- Over the land where Willow Road is now planned. They literally could never get to that property. I don't think any of those parcels are buildable. I Barbara Dacy: No,the lot sizes are substandard. However, the City Attorney was very emphatic in his advice to me that they have to sign a waiver allowing the street vacation before the city can actually vacate the roadway. Otherwise, we are denying them access. That is the reason we are recommending a tabling for approximatelyuf:hirty (30f days on the vacation request. The abutting property owners have been notified. They live out of town. They should have received the mailed notice, but Mr. Knutson has advised that they sign a waiver first before the city vacates the street. . . Councilman Horn: Although I heard the recommendation from Staff to table this for the next thirty (30) days, I believe it would be in order for us to approve this subject to the 30 day notice period and hopefully the approval of the other abutting property owners and if there was no objection it would come back to us on the consent agenda and we would just approve it at that time. Rather than dealing wi th this at that time, I would just as soon dispose of it. Mayor Hamilton: If it were a condition and the approval came back from the people who owned the property and made their rights, then we would see it again. Councilwoman Swenson: I understand your Motion to say now that the receipt of the filing of their opinions and comments be received of their approval of the affected property owners? I Mayor Hamilton: That is correct. RESOLUTION 86-28: Councilman Geving moved and Mayor Hamilton seconded, to approve the street vacation request for Willow Road in Carver Beach with the condition that the abutting property owners give their written approval within thirty (30) days. All voted in favor and motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO LAKE LUCY ROAD BETWEEN GALPIN AND POWERS ---- BLVD. Public Present: Rosemary Steller Elizabeth A. Glaccum Joyce Slater Poppe Wayne Poppe Don Mezzenga Al Krueger Al Klingelhutz 1931 Crestview Circle 1510 Lake Lucy Road 1950 Crestview Circle 1950 Crestview Circle 6731 Galpin Blvd. 1600 Lake Lucy Road 8600 Great Plains Blvd. I 8 /,r-;.. C; I I I Chanhassen City Council Minutes-May 19, 1986 Jay Johnson Dave & Sherry Hughes Tom Klingelhetz Reinhold Getthmiller John Hennesey Terry O'Brien Al Harvey Janet Babatz Russ Stoddart Larry Kerber 7496 Saratoga Drive 1780 Lake Lucy Road 8551 Tigua Circle 1801 West 67th Street 7305 Galpin Blvd. 1420 Lake Lucy Road 1430 Lake Lucy Road 1650 Lake Lucy Road 1611 West 63rd Street 6420 Powers Blvd. Bill Monk: I believe that everybody here is very familiar with the road but I would like to take a few minutes to go back over, since this is a public hearing for a major street improvement, to go over just the basics of what is being proposed. Then a couple of specific i terns including potential installation in the future of a water main and some realignment options that have come up since the feasibility study was accepted. Monk then went to the overhead projector for presentation. The street improvement project includes paving portions of the existing surface of Lake Lucy Road from Galpin to a turn that is to be decided at tonight's meeting designated on here as phase 1 and phase 2 and a realignment of a section of Lake Lucy Road through the Lake Lucy Highlands plat over to Galpin Blvd. designated phase 3 and then construction of a small cul-de-sac in Lake Lucy Highlands designated as phase 4. Basically, improvements are street related. No utilities, water and sewer are not included at this point in time. Designated costs for improvement are $658,000.00. As proposed, those costs are broken down with $468,000.00 to be picked up using State Aid dollars by the city with a balance of $190,000.00 assessed to benefit the property, the majority of which directly abuts the road. The roadway proposed for the realigned and existing section of Lake Lucy Road is 36 feet wide between the surface, 2- 12 foot travel lanes and 1-6 foot walkway between the walkway on either side of the road. It is noted when the feasibility study was accepted, because Lake Lucy Road is a state aid road, it is proposed to use a wider section of pavement than the standard 24 foot width with not much shoulders. The extra cost associated with the extra strength and extra width are picked up totally using state aid dollars. Proposed assessment rate for this project.. wi th phase 1 and phase 3 is proposed at $11.25 per foot where Phases 2 and 4 commit $22.20 per foot and there is a feasibility study of these proposed assessments. Again, we went over most of these items at the last council meeting. Also at the last council meeting, several wanted discussion centered on a return of phase 3. The original report included a realigned intersection where Lake Lucy Road would swing south as an extension of the cul-de-sac out to a point where all properties that presently abut Lake Lucy Road would be given frontage along phase 1 or phase 2. As I said, there was considerable discussion at the last meeting about a second alternative where phase 3 would be shortened to the point that Pheasant Hill has already been proposed to extend down the south to Lake Lucy Road and that be turned into a "T" intersection. If I remember 9 r"";: t~,,>':" 7 t::'0\J .Chanhassen City Gouncil MinuteS-May 19, 1986 correctly that was the suggestion of Gouncilman Geving in an effort to potentially reduce the assessment costs. In going through this alternative, basically as far as frontage goes, there would need to be a realignment to the driveway for the existing lot that now has a driveway onto lake Lucy Road. That driveway would have to be realigned to either Galpin or more likely to Crestview to the south. Both are feasible. Also, Outlot "0" exists on the north side of the road would in all probability, in the future would have to be given access to Galpin Road. The Attorney has looked at that and said that as long as OUtlot "0" can retain access to some public right-of-way, that the council would be within it's authority to approve this tyPe of plan because it does not stop any platted lot from having access to a public street. As I noted, the original proposal with a cul-de-sac coming all the way down about 100 feet short of the existing road. Total cost on that is approximately $129,000.00 for phase 3. On alternate number two, th'e. costs for this plan can be reduced to about $97,000.00, although assessments are reduced approximately $7,000.00 at the same time. Because some of the comments that came up from the public last meeting, I came up with a third alternative that council could consider. It goes a little further on the same principle as phase 3. We are almost forced to go to Galpin because the terrain would be too difficult to cross the existing wetlands to finally get any type of access to the existing cul-de-sac. Basically, we would be creating one lot that would have no frontage on a public road and would have to work some tyPe of alternate access which would be difficult but it is feasible. It is difficult because of restrictions regarding drainage in this corner of the site. Again, it could be done. The other problem that I would like to show is when pheasant Hill was subdivided, it has always been shown with a southern access that would come down to lake Lucy Road. If this alternative was chosen, the southern portion of pheasant Hill would basically move around to the south and would have to use the existing two access points, one off of Galpin and the one onto 63rd Street and would not allow traffic to exit from pheasant Hill down onto this extension of lake Lucy Road. In all . probability, this would cause a traffic increase backed up onto 63rd Street and Yosemite Avenue with people trying to go from this project to downtown Chanhassen. As I said, it has always been proposed that Pheasant Hill would access down to the existing lake Lucy Road in this location. Under alternates 1 and 2, that would still be achievable. Under alternate 3 that would not be achievable and basically pheasant Hill would be required to move back and use the existing access at 63rd and Cardinal in this location and at 117 instead of being able to move down and go downtown in that direction. What might happen is alot of this traffic would probably come up this way, come down 63rd, go down Yosemite. It is a lot faster to do that than try and go out the back way and come around from that direction. It is interesting to note however, that because this section of road goes through such a bad soils area, that total costs of Phase 3 under alternate 3 can be reduced to just below $35,000.00. Take into account the reduced assessments, the overall project cost of approximately $75,000.00 for what is proposed in the report. Again, all three alternatives would be feasible. Each one has a series of consequences that have to be thought out in terms of the overall traffic circulation pattern in the area and access to individual lots as has been noted. The only other i tern I would like to make SPeCial note of and then answer questions from the public or I I I 10 --.~t r-:-7 P-:;7 1'-(0(, I I I Chanhassen City Council Minutes~May 19, 1986 the council, regards to the water main issue. As noted in the last meeting in a plan review on this, looking from this on top, you've got 36 foot wide 2" surface width, 2-12 foot travel lanes, a 6-foot bikeway on either side. Because of the right-of-way width, there is an additional 15 feet on the north side of the road basically designated if a water main was to be extended as has been proposed in several studies that the council has looked at. To loop behind the water systems the city presently has and supplement the tower. Construction could take place within that 15 foot area with a minimum of disruption to the street. Services could be extended over to people on the other side or connections to that line. Staff did take a careful look at that because no one wants to put in a street and then have to come back in and dig it back up, so we did look at that quite carefully. That can be done and at this point in time there is no proposal to extend water main lines down Lake Lucy Road. Total cost for the four different phases is just over $658,000.00. The proposed assessments are also listed here and we put down the amount for the different phases that represents total costs. For phase 1, 24% of the project is proposed to be assessed, the balance from state aid. In Phase 2, 30% is proposed to be assessed, the balance would come out of state aid. In phase 3 which again is the section with the three alternatives that we looked at with the original alternative, would 21% assessed, the balance being MSA and phase 4 which is the short cul-de-sacs servicing 5 lots, would be 100% assessed because that is basically off the state aid system. Councilwoman Swenson: Bill, I'm a little confused. I understood that phase 2 is supposed to. reduce the assessment. I'm looking at the memo stating the estimated cost of the option is reduced. Bill Monk: Basically what we are talking about with the alternative is phase 4. Instead of 129 that is listed here, with alternate 2, that 129 would be 97 and with alternate 3 it would be 34,660. That would definitely affect the proposed assessment and percent assessed and council would be in a position where we have a $35,000.00 reduction. The council could use that as it sees fit. At this point I am recommending that they leave the assessments as shown and not make a determination on how to use that $75,000.00 because if we reduce the assessment too much, I'm very concerned wi th the impact that has on overall policy in terms of minimum section sets. Councilwoman Swenson asked about the percentages being higher and the cost being less in Phases 1 and 2. Bill Monk: You have to remember that basically there is a different standard being applied to Phases 1 and 2. In phase 1 we are applying the equivalent, $11.25.' We are applying assessments toward the equivalent of a 5 ton roadway to a 24 foot width and basically that comes in and gives you these numbers for section 1. For section 2, because there is no road there for a majority of that stretch, we are using a little bit heavier standard because there is a lot more construction involved with phase 2 over phase 1. So basically the percent assessed goes back into a number of variables with the understanding of how much frontage there is to assess, etc. There 11 10, '7" r;7 \U;'~(..J Chanhassen City Council MinuteS-May 19, 1986 are four phases with three alternatives for phase 3, that's all there is. I Councilman Geving: I would like to comment. I think the project itself, I think we need to do the project. There is no question in my mind about that. Although I did propose the alternate 2, that I thought there was a $35,000.00 savings to be made that could be brought back in the whole project and reduce the assessments paid, I still think that is a good alternative over the original alternative where you bring the cul-de-sac all the way down through the existing homeowners, so I would like to propose to eliminate for further discussion alternative 1 and proceed immediately to discussion on alternative 2 and alternate 3. There are advantages to alternative 2 in that we do still have a connection to fit into pheasant Hills project. I did hear some discussion from homeowners this evening who recommended to be based on what they saw as a traffic pattern emerging in that area. There is an awful lot of traffic starting to move through the old housing areas in Yosemite as a result of this pheasant Hill development on 63rd Street. I'm inclined to think that it if we don't allow that access to the new phase 3, alternate 2, that traffic is going to loop around into pheasant Hills development and create a bottleneck somewhere else and we have over a 100 homes in there that we are going to have concern ourselves with. If you look at that alternative versus the third alternative which is really very, very intriging and one that I wish we could take advantage of, the $75,000.00 in savings. It bothers me a little bit because we still have the problem of the land locked Lot 13 and what to do about the people in pheasant Hills. I don't know, that's an individual choice and I think it would work and we could probably plow that $75,000.00 in savings back into reducing homeowners assessments which I am very much in favor of doing. Speaking just for myself, I find that Phase, 3, alternative 3 is very tempting, but I think in the long run would be very difficult to operate. That is the extent of my comments except I still feel that the benefiting people from this whole project are being assessed and I feel the pheasant Hills people as well as the people who live on 63rd Street are getting by scott clean in this particular assessment. They are going to derive all the benefits, having to drive on a brand new road to and from their homes and they are not going to pay a nickel under these proposed assessments, and that bothers me. That's the end of my comments. \ \ I Councilwoman Watson: It is important we talk about the Water extension and Bill did address that. I think things are sort of sneaking up on us one thing at a time. So I think it is good that we discuss that. I thought that past discussions about Bluff Creek we talked about off line assessments, I don't know exactly how that works but if we use alternative number 2, the people in the pheasant Hills addition do significantly benefit from this road because they are going to be using it. I'm sure that a major portion of the in and out traffic will be from this development. How does the off line assessment work. Is it possible that some off line assessments be used. These people are benefiting. Bill Monk: The only way the City of Chanhassen has used the off line assessments, at least to my knowledge in the past, has been situations where, Creekwood Drive down south comes to mind, people must use a single I 12 aTf?? Vi l;... ((.9 I I I Cj';~P7 /..1 ~'_ t Chanhassen City Council Minutes~May 19, 1986 road for their access but don't front on that road like the people on Mandan Circle or the golf course. They don't actually abut the street but they have to use the street to get in and out to their residence or business. That is not the case with pheasant Hills. There is multiple ways in and out. I'm not sure how the off line assessment could be applied. I really don't. Councilwoman Watson: Because there is more than one access, people just would say they would never use it. Bill Monk: That is one of the main reasons why Staff is proposing that the council authorize maximum use of MSA participation to offset assessments on this project, is for this very reason so the cause of the .major citywide benefit of this road. It is the only way Staff could see to do that. I agree with councilman Geving's comment but it is the only way that Staff could find to do that. Councilman Horn: As far as I am concerned, alternative number 3 doesn't make any sense, in fact it creates two problems. It doesn't allow access into pheasant Hills area and also the situation upon the homeowners in addition to Alternative number 2 and I know I wouldn't go along with changing the assessments. Councilwoman Swenson: I concur with Councilman Horn. Mayor Hamilton: I would have to agree. I think alternate 1 still is a possibility because of allowing whatever might go on Waldrip's addition, it is an access on Lake Lucy Road rather than accessing onto Galpin. I would rule out alternate 3. I think the amount of savings gained certainly aren't going to outweigh the problems that will occur later. Alternate 2 is probably workable. It accomplishes everything that we need to accomplish plus it does save a few dollars so I would compromise on 2, but I still think 1 is the best way to do the construction. It gives us the most options on the road but in the interest of saving the city a few dollars, alternate 2 might be. Merrill Steller: I am the developer of the Lake Lucy Highlands and I would just like to make a comment concerning Lot 13. The second alternative you are suggesting for phase 3 would make it difficult to get a driveway onto Lot 13. About the only place I could get a driveway on there is on the west side of that property line, the rest of it is wetlands and it would necessitate going across the wetlands with a driveway for that lot so my preference would be for the first alternative on phase 3. Mayor Hamilton: The existing road that is in there I would suspect could be maintained privately to act as a driveway to get down to Lake Lucy Road, could it not, if there is one of the east side there? Merrill Steller: I don't know what happens to that road. Is it going to be vacated? Mayor Hamilton: It probably will. 13 C1JlQ LdLO Chanhassen City Council Minutes-May 19, 1986 Merrill Steller: That would possibly work out if I could get to the west property line because that is just about where I would have to bring that driveway in on that lot. It would be difficult to cut anything across there if they shortened that up and went up like that particular map shows, but that is a good suggestion. I could possibly work something out that way. I Al Krueger: I live at 1600 Lake Lucy Road. I am basically in favor of the project, as many of us are here. I have been driving on the road too long. I looked at 3 and I first liked 3 and as I hear some of the discussion I am kind of tending away from it. 2 doesn't enhance, I don't like 2 very much for the fact that the connection up into pheasant Hills. We've talked about traffic patterns corning in out of pheasant Hills, but I don't think anybody has really addressed traffic patterns in the sense that traffic patterns really start over at TH 7 there, and follow up Galpin Lake and travel down Lake Lucy over getting into TH 5, because it is neither advantageous for them continue down Galpin Lake all the way over to TH 5 and as they travel east on TH 7 there is no exit to get up onto the other road which is 17 or Mill Street to get them over towards Chanhassen. I walk my children up Lake Lucy to catch the bus on the corner and cars just sail down there and other days I take my kids too and I just fight traffic turning up Galpin Lake. I hit them there every morning when I leave sometimes going into Excelsior to take the kids, and I use the Post Office there and what have you. I am really opposed at the traffic patterns there because they are just going to jog up through that residential area and on thru. Another concern I have is the future sewer and water as it comes thru and you kind if have a sneaking up effect and somehow this seems to magically happen all the time and I guess the cost between putting in sewer and water in a situation like I've been living in now is drastically less versus going through a finished roadway. First of all the pushing cost and the labor cost are much higher and I think it would be an interesting task to look at the cost difference at what we would be faced with. Not necessarily put in now, but the two options between putting and pushing it today and what I am going to have to push it through later on, because it will cost me a lot more money. I have a friend who is in the business of pushing cable and the things that go in there. I too speak to Mr. Gevings's that assessments again, the road is not really being assessed very fairly when you go up through the Highlands, and there again, I guess in one step further that it isn't assessed from the people who are presently using it down TH 7 and I think it is very difficult. I actually think the City has down a good job in determining and assessing things as they go through. You spoke a little bit earlier on phase 4 and the lots that are just around phase 4, now their only access is to Lake Lucy Road. Do they share in phase l? That was just a thought I had when I was sitting here, and those are my feelings and I would just like to see them addressed. I Mayor Hamil ton: Does anyone else have comnents? I Wayne Poppe: I live at 1950 Crestview and I would have to say that I am more in favor of alternate 2 for a variety of reasons. One of them is obviously that I'm not faced with the possibility of the morning drive to 14 I I I Chanhassen City Council Minutes-May 19, 1986 get my paper. I think that would be a workable alternative for access to pheasant Hill and probably benefit traffic patterns. I would be interested in what would be proposed for vacating the existing road and also for rerouting my driveway and those are the only comments I would have. Thank you. Mayor Hamil ton: You talked about your property and where you put your driveway. I forget, you were granted access to Crestview? You don't access that now do you? Wayne Poppe: No, I access Lake Lucy Road. Mayor Hamilton: I was just wondering if we go with alternate 2 will you be able to get your driveway onto Crestview? Wayne Poppe: We would have to be rerouted across. What happens now. OUr home sits something like this on this plat. Right now my driveway comes in something like that. What would obviously be the alternative would be to bring the driveway in this part. We are the only existing home that has the access. The remainding one, which Bill brought up, is whatever to do with the north side there, Waldrip's. Other than that, all the other homes would be accessed via phase 3. Mayor Hamilton: Anyone else have a comment? Al Krueger: I have a question. In all fairness to you, that extra cost of that driveway or rerouting, does that get tossed into the hopper. Mayor Hamilton: I think we would. Bill Monk: Anytime there is a rerouting of a driveway when you abandon a road, basically it would become a project cost. It has to, because basically you are closing off their frontage and you can do that if you don't damage them, but you will have to provide access and that would become a project cost. I believe it would be rerouting. I believe it is a gravel driveway right now and basically it would be rerouted and a gravel driveway would be brought in. Dave Hughes: I live at 1780 Lake Lucy Road. Perhaps I missed a point here. If I'm not mistaken Mr. Steller was assured that the road would be left in there as a private road for access to his one lot that he couldn't get access any other way and now we're talking about not leaving it in there and the Henderson's having to access another way. You might clarify that for the listeners here tonight. Mayor Hamilton: If that road was terminated as shown on the map as alternate 2, in all likelihood the City would vacate the existing road that is there now. That would go to the property owner. Mr. Steller could, if he wanted to, if that becomes his property, leave that open as a driveway to get down to Lake Lucy. It would just be a longer driveway for him. 15 '/J::; I) u........ 1:- Chanhassen City Council Minutes~May 19, 1986 Bill Monk: Mr. Steller's point in regards to Lot 13~ his driveway is going to have to come up the west side of the lot across the existing wetlands here and he is concerned about how that driveway were to get over if the road were to end here. Running it basically to the old road bed and they would push that driveway. The other option I think would be going across the northwestern corner even though it is low, you could actually get something built in there, but I believe that Mr. Steller could do that. I Al Harvey: 1430 Lake Lucy Road. We proposed or we gave you a petition at your last meeting, or where you accepted that feasibilty study. There is a number of us people in phase 1 that still have kind of the same feeling. We've been there a number of years and we feel that we are being a little bit stepPed on here. A developer comes in, and I certainly understand that he likes to get out to the road. We can appreciate that. We feel to put a 9 ton road in at this time is not the time to do it. You are talking sewer, you're talking water, you're not sure when, we're not sure when and we don't want to be stabbed with extra cost later on. We also feel that we are out there. I've got 11 acres, there are a number of 15-20 acre plots. We've been told that that was going to be left, more or less, stayed up in that are. .Now we're in a position where we can not be helPed. You kind of have us fenced in there and yet you are very willing to give us assessments for water, sewer, road, whatever. We can not develop. We do not want to develop. We like where we're at. We like what we're doing there. We have horses. This is what we're there for. If a developer develops out, he can put his assessment costs to his lot, he can recover. We can not. We have no way of recovering our assessments to us. I've talked to Bill on this a number of times and they have come a long ways. I would still like to suggest, perhaps, another option, and that would be that you would carry Lake Lucy Road down to pheasant Hill so that you pick up the traffic. We are not interested in having the traffic come by us 50 MPH. We're there, we are only 19 people. There are 100 homes up there coming in through there. Send it out to 177 where there is a good road, they can travel 50 MPH. I'm sure most of the people would rather do that. To my way of thinking, this would be more feasible than what a couple of your options you've proposed. Just bring it down to pheasant Hill then you take care of the Waldrip, you take care of the property that already access' up there. I At this point Mr. Harvey went to the map and showed his proposal as to how the road could meet up with pheasant Hill. Mr. Harvey: I don't care how many 30 MPH signs you put up there, the PeOple aren't going to go 30 MPH, and we see a cop up there perhaps once a week. We are not interested in that many people coming by us at 50 MPH. unfortunately I built too close to the road and I realize this now. When I built in 1965 they said water and sewer would be through and we would all be happy to join it, so at this point it is hooked up right here. It wouldn't be any longer and they can access on here and they could travel on a good, solid road. TH 117, they can go 50 MPH. Then the flow of traffic would go away from us. Even though you are putting in a very nice road, there are 100 horses from here out to where Twin Hills goes down to the highway. A bike trail isn't going to help our horse problem, and we are I 16 -1..'-. (-,~ 1'- "". 1 .... ....Jr' ..:..... I I I liLl<D.l -.L :.~ r:::...[~ Chanhassen City Council MinuteS-May 19, 1986 out there because we like to be in a rural area. We pay certainly enough taxes for the little amount of services we ask of this city, so this would be my suggestion that perhaps you consider this at this point. You put the traffic going this direction. At this point we would like, even if the road is smoother, I would like to set up a radar and show you the speed of the traffic coming over those hills. It is just unreal, and when you get a nice tar road, it will be worse. We still feel that we are being overly assessed for what we are benefiting from. When 10 years ago you put in, and I have a sample of the black top, it was just about this thick and you shot it on and you rolled it over a couple of times and it lasted for about 10 years. The assessment was like maybe $500.00 to $1,000.00 per unit which was very easy to handle. Then when you come through with sewer and water you don't have much to break up and that wasn't even over a good road. Now you've got a real good road in there and it would certainly last as long until you are ready to bring the development sewer and water. We feel we are being over assessed and we are not interested in extra traffic coming from the development and we propose to see you send it out to 117 and give us consideration for that. Larry Kerber: I live at 6410 Powers and I own the property at the intersection of Powers and Lake Lucy. As I mentioned last time, I don't feel I should be involved in this assessment at all. The first four property owners on Lake Lucy have a grated base, grated banks and black top. The road is driveable, it hasn't even been in 10 years. We don't need a new road. The road we have there is fine. The other people may, but we have to be given some consideration because our road is in and paid for and I don't feel we should be assessed with the rest of the owners, whatever the end result of this is, whatever phase you go to or whatever type of road you make, we have a road there and it is plenty good and we don't need a new one. I would like some comment on that. Mayor Hamilton: This isn't an assessment hearing. Larry Kerber: I realize that but, this is going to come to something at some time and the first four property owners who are on that 400 feet of useable road, if something is done with the rest of it, should not be assessed the way the other people are going to be. We have to be given some consideration. Mayor Hamilton: I hear your comment but this is not an assessment hearing and that is when that will be addressed. Larry Kerber: Well, I just don't want to wait until that time when assessments come around and then say something. Mayor Hamilton: There will be an assessment hearing before any assessments are placed on any properties and we would look at every parcel along the road and determine what assessment is fair for that property. Larry Kerber: Okay, just so everyone is aware of it. 17 150 Chanhassen City Council Minutes-May 19, 1986 Dave Hughes: Mr. Harvey brought something up that I wasn't even aware of. He said that there are 100 horses there in about a two block long area and it seems that the council has an obligation to, although I'm not a horse owner and I don't even ride but they are nice to watch, it has an obligation to the owners there that have been in the communi ty a number of years to see they have access. I hear that there is going to be asphalt bikeways on each side and asphalt road and it would seem to be nice if there was a bridal trail figured into the project someplace for those riders because they do ride there every day. There are horses there every day and you are just telling them to get out. There is no facility for them. I Mayor Hamilton: We're not telling them to get out. We're saying, or at least I've heard for a number of years, that the people that live on Lake Lucy Road want to have a better road. I think that a lot of people forget that this part of the western side of Chanhassen is getting urbanized and is not a rural area that it once was. It is becoming more and more urbanized every year and it is going to continue, so I guess I haven't heard anyone but Al speak in favor of the project and I am beginning to think that if that is the general feeling of this, there is no sense in doing it. You can drive on a dirt road forever. Al Harvey: We're not asking you just leave us a dirt road. You gave us a blacktop road 10 years ago. At that time you assessed us and you said you would maintain it. This is the type of blacktop you had in there and this type of road was in there and it lasted for 10 years and the cost was very nominal.' It wasn't much of a cost for each owner. This is what we are asking. We're not happy with the dust, but we're not happy with the 9 ton road you suggesting either. I Bill Monk: If you want to take all of the comments, I'm taking notes and I'll try to get back to all of the things or I can do it now. It is up to the Council. Mayor Hamilton: I think we should perhaps table it again and get some more information. I don't expect you to go through a whole scenario tonight. I would have to review it some more myself and think and talk with some more of the people out there to see. Councilman G:!ving: I think the problem here Tom, is we had this objective in mind to do two roads. Lake Lucy Road and Bluff Creek. No matter what it takes, we are going to get those roads paved and I think in our desire to pave them and use the utmost of State Aid funds to reduce the amount of assessments against homeowners, we went the State Aid road which require certain things of us. A certain size road and as a result the cost escalated to the point where this is a $600,000.00 and some dollar project. I don't think any of us realized that it was that kind of a project to begin with. I want to see this road completed. It's been on our docket for 10 years, but maybe we are trying to take something and do too good of a job on it. I 18 I I I ~ h---; _~0j' Chanhassen City Council Minutes-May 19, 1986 A1 Krueger: I speak in favor of A1 and Mr. Hughes. You know the horses that are over there. I think you do have a responsibility to let them continue to ride on there. Number one, it is a commercial operation and somebody makes their living on one end of it and there is also a pathway that goes, as I understand it, I don't know what to call it, it runs out to Lake Lucy and out to the little island out there that is readily used by horses and this would just really terminate. Last time I suggested if you did bikepaths on both sides, you could have an alternative of keeping one side really for dirt for horses and my other point too, and I hadn't thought about it earlier, but A1 had brought up a road going out to 117 or Galpin Lake out of the pheasant Hills. I think that is a real viable option and I think the Council deserves to look at that because traffic really is a problem. You don't realize what comes off TH 7 and down through there. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to comment on one thing here. One of the reasons for doing this, proposing it the way it is, Lake Lucy Road dropping down and coming out onto 117 where it is proposed to go through Steller's Addition, is because of the sight distances. It is a dead corner where Lake Lucy Road now intersects with 117. We want to get rid of that intersection. As traffic increases that is going to be an even worse intersection and somebody is going to get killed there someday. It has been proposed for a long time to have Lake Lucy Road come out on 117 where it's at. That is going to continue on to TH 41 and I think one of our objectives was to get rid of that intersection and if it meant cutting up one piece in the middle and putting another intersection back in, improve and enlarge. A1 Krueger: Can I add one point? If this traffic does move very fast along there. I think there are ways of slowing traffic down and they sure should be looked at to their ultimate. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not sure about taking any more comments since I think we've got a little more homework here to analyze and I think we're all aware of what you are trying to accomplish and I think we can accomplish that without getting a paved road on the other end. Merrill Steller: I'm really anxious to get this thing together. I've not been accommodated by the zoning but I also feel that I accommodated you folks and I hear you. You are hanging me up on this road if you don't take action and I would urge that you do that at your earliest convenient time. I've got a couple of lots sold that are contingent on the road being in there the first of October. Mayor Hamilton: Isn't it possible to go ahead with the road construction Bill, and not necessarily pave it and we could have a road in there that Steller Addition could use that would be adequate until the Lake Lucy Road is resolved? Bill Monk: There are a number of comments I would like to make. I'm not sure if the Council does table all or a portion of the project, I guess I would like to make sure how you want Staff to proceed in bringing the item 19 152\ Chanhassen City Council MinuteS-May 19, 1986 back. If the Council would indulge me for a few more minutes, I would like to go over some of the points that have been raised and try and figure out what direction we are headed. I Councilwoman Swenson had a good point. I won't go back over the history of it, but the five years that I've been here, Lake Lucy Road has been a problem. There is no question that development in the area has speeded up the problem or speeded up the necessity for a resolution to that problem, but that road since 1971 has been sealcoated a number of times which is an oil, dust coating product. It was coated so many times that in essence, a layer built up and as chuck holes started to occur, the city started to pave it. That is how that road basically became, in essence, a paved road. It's an old gravel thing that was tarred so many times that we had to pave it to repair the breakups in the oil. There is just no way we can realistically go back to that type of situation. There is no question that there is a conflict here between the way the City has designated that road on it's State Aid program to try and carry traffic east and west between TH 7 and TH 5 and what alot of the people would like to see it remain. There is no way I can explain that conflict. It is a basic conflict in a developing communi ty of rural versus urban and I think we eluded to that last time. It is because of that conflict and because of the nearby developments, again, that we are proposing such a hefty State Aid participation. I've talked to several individuals and tried to explain to them the $11.25 per foot assessment. In essence, that gets down to a minimal 5 ton section, 24 foot wide and allows all the single family residential property in there, excluding the stable, to come out with an assessment that is approximately the same as the street assessment for one lot in pheasant Hill, which I think Ted Coey owns about the most frontage of anybody except for that one parcel. For 360 feet, his assessment was proposed for $4,000.00 which is approximately the same as one lot in pheasant Hill and again that was the reason that we went that route was to try and reduce that amount. It is costing the city appreciably more. I would like to talk about a couple things that were mentioned because I think I can answer them. One thing, Mr. Harvey did mention a different alternative. I did give that some thought. Basically Mr. Harvey is talking about taking out this section. phase 3 would come out right where to the p is in phase 3. This section would be deleted and this road would be run back over to Galpin Blvd. It does eliminate an expensive section. You can reduce the cost. The problem with that is I continue to believe, as I mentioned to him when we first discussed it, that people in pheasant Hill who want to go downtown will come up and use Yosemite to come across. They will not be forced to go over to Galpin and all the way down here to TH 5. Traffic on Lake Lucy Road will continue pretty much as it is. One of the primary goals that I've always had and the City as a whole, was the closing of this intersection which I still think is very important and is one reason that I came up with the other alternative for phase 3 because it basically stops this access. They can get access to 117 through their own subdivision and don't need this portion to get down to 117. I just didn't think from a traffic standpoint that it achieved what everybody was looking for and that was the reason I didn't propose it. I would like to address the horse issue. The things you have to remember on this plan, it does have two 12 foot lanes and two 6 foot bikeways, but it also has a I I 20 I I I r! ;::~.." ~.t ,:_:,'0. \", Chanhassen City Council MinuteS~May 19, 1986 bituminous curb which will basically allow for abandoning and filling in the ditch sections that exist along the entire section of street. Especially as the ditch sections are filled in on the north side of the street where the water main will go, it will give quite a surface off the edge of the bituminous for horses or for whatever. Basically it would be reclaimed as lawn but it would be inside the right-of-way. The ditch section, I would guess, is about 60 feet edge to edge and that would basically be regrated with filling in 36 feet so there would be part of it outside the trailway that could still be used for that purpose. Nobody is trying to rule out horses or whatever from going along the road and the same along the blacktop. I guess I have eluded to the assessments quite a few times and the rate of $11.25 is again, very minimal and the reason it is used because we do realize that the overall benefit to the city where we are trying to reduce the impact on the people who abut the street to maximum so they don't incur undue hardship because the assessment rate is so high that it will force them into premature development or whatever. As far as the question about Phase 4, whether that was being assessed for Lake Lucy Road and the answer to that is yes. Those assessments are higher than the rest of the lots along here and that is because they not only pay for the cul-de-sac but pay for some Lake Lucy frontage so the answer is yes. The lots in here do in essence, probably indirectly, pay what you might term off line, and that is why their assessments are $1,000.00 higher than the same assessment along Lake Lucy Road. Also, Larry Kerber brought up the point, and addressed it very quickly, the feasibility study acceptance was that when Carver Beach was put in, sewer was extended down along Lake Lucy Road and up the east line of the stable property. At that time the road was paved up to that point. At that point in time, Mr. Clark and Mrs. Jacques were assessed approximately $600.00 a piece per unit for that street. We did take a look and and did a feasibility study at the possibility of stopping phase 1 at this location but because the road was proposed at 36 feet wide and the existing street was no where near that, it was thought better to continue the road to the trail ways and just overall street circulation all the way over to the County Road and that the people being assessed $600.00 ten years ago for the use of that road was more than reasonable for use of a road for ten years. That is the reason for it. These people were not assessed $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 a piece for that road. If they were, then we would have proposed relief as part of any new assessment before that would have gone on to this point. Again, the water main issue, the 1980 study that was done did propose an 18 foot trunk along the existing line of Lake Lucy Road. At that point in time the estimate was somewhere over $300,000.00 for that trunk. I guess at this point in time, Council later on this agenda, is going to look at some trunk with storage facility improvements a possibility of it. There is just no way at this point in time that the City will come in and change extension of that run. I do believe that it is important that this street be upgraded because the maintenance burden it places on the city to grade it, dust control and continuing work done on it. There also is the option if the Council can at tonight's meeting consider approval of any phase of the project, and the Council is within it's authority to approve Phases 2 and 4 tonight as they are shown on here and delete phases 1 and 3 and direct City Staff to do whatever for a follow-up meeting on this. The City does have to make a commitment at some point in time because we did allow platting of 21 --;1 r? A }, '""'\D!_ - ~.- -- Chanhassen City Council Minutes-May 19, 1986 some lots to these future streets. The City is committed to doing Phases 2 and 4 and I am recommending basically that the Council proceed with the project because I don't think much can be done to off set the cost below what is proposed right now. Again, the Council could approve phases 2 and 4 and give specific direction on 1 and 3 if that's what you choose to do. I Councilwoman Swenson: Let's say that we do that, phases 2 and 4, what would happen on Phase I? We've done a lot of basic work in there during the last couple of years. What would happen if we did the suggestion of Mr. Harvey and put this type of blacktop down? Suppose we were going to move out the area and how much would that cost on top of the assessment cost? Bill Monk: Al and I did talk for quite a while about the construction of the roadway. There are so many variables involved in this project but I did take a city standard rural section, 24 foot mat, 6 foot gravel shoulders on either side with a substantial gravel base underneath and use the same criteria that we use on this, I came up with a cost of approximately $22.50 a foot. Councilwoman Swenson: So if we pulled out of the MSA funds and built a road similar to what they feel they would like, the assessments would be $22.50 and a better road for $11.50. Councilwoman Watson: Would we absolutely have to pull all the MSA funds if we did less than was required. I Bill Monk: We get back to the study about what MSA will accept. If we ask for MSA participation on the project, basically we move back to a rural section we have to acquire right-of-way on either side of the clear zone, if you remember that discussion. So bascially, our standard rural section cannot be built in this right-of-way as shown unless we acquire some extra right-of-way in the clear zone and that is the reason we are proposing that we go to an urban section and put in more money from MSA to overbuild the road, in essence, to a more open section, because that does fit in righ-of- way that we have and there would be no additional right of way purchases. It is in the report and it is a basic part of the entire premise, is do you build a urban or rural road? Basically what we are doing is we are calling it an urban road but it has no concrete curb and gutter and the reason for that is because there is going to be future work, so on and so forth because we know we may disturb the edge and we don't want to have to rip up the concrete curb. It is kind of a hybrid. Councilman Horn: First of all I don't think, as Dale implied earlier, that we were going to put in a lot of extra costs into the road. I think we want to off set that and the fact that people would be getting a cheaper road which is much better might be at this point that our options are to just complete phase 2 or 4 or forget the whole thing. I think the people on the south side of the city would jump at the chance if we were to rule like this and as far as I'm concerned, we should go through with it. I don't think we should do just phases 2 and 4, I think we should do the whole thing with option 2. If I I 22 I I I -~ fZ h JL ~> ~0 Chanhassen City Council MinuteS-May 19, 1986 were living on that road, I think that would be the best deal. I can't believe that my property value wouldn't increase with the paving. My recommendation is not to table but to approve the whole thing with al ternative 2. RESOLUTION 86-29: Councilman Horn moved and Councilman Geving seconded to authorize preparation of plans and specifications based on Alternate number 2 for the proposed street improvements to Lake Lucy Road between Galpin and Powers Blvds. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Hamilton: I agree with the motion. I think we should go ahead with the project. What I would like to do is begin discussion as soon as we can and look at the surface construction of the blacktop and make it as proposed, within the plans and specifications and take the time to look at what kind of surface we want to put on there or are we tied into because of MSA funds to what is being proposed? Bill Monk: Do you mean width or depth or both? Mayor Hamil ton: I mean the black topping on the road. Bill Monk: We go what they term "urban section" using the curbs. Basically we are committed to the 9 ton and to the wider street sections so that if you use the MSA funds for this type of section you are really tied in. There are not a lot of options for width and depth if you use the MSA dollars. If there were options, then we would have laid them out in the feasability study. There just are not. Councilman Geving: I think one of the reasons I'm in favor of this project at this time, I've seen some very favorable construction bids and I think the period is now to take advantage of that opportunity. I think if we are lucky at all, we are going to come in far less than the estimates in the feasibility study. There is a good possibility. In fact, better now than I've ever seen. That is why I look to move on this. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I would like to see one thing though and that is that your best estimates, review what we would be looking at later for the water and sewer problem. I would kind of like to let everybody know what our very best possible guess when sewer and water might come down that road. I know it is hard to do but I think we can at least take a look at it and give them some kind of estimate. Whether it is going to 2 years or 10 years. Bill Monk: Briefly, what I have been telling people lately or recently is that the city cannot afford to put in the trunk water main at this point, that is a foregone conclusion, but that at some point in time the connection between the high and low system is going to be made and I expect that to happen sometime within the next five years. This is my best guess. It could take longer. As far as the sewer goes, the Council is well aware with the Lake Ann Interceptor that chances are that will not occur for at least 15 years. If it occurs 23 1'1 ~ (}}. t, 1-;--" i'i t.C..C-" .J Chanhassen City Council Minutes-May 19, 1986 faster it would be because the use of the line would be forced to change before that time and at this point in time there is no possibility of that but whether that will change in 5 years or 10 years is unknown. I'm telling people, water main perhaps within 5 years out to 8 years, depending on a lot of circumstances and sewer basically double that. There are no numbers associated with that except the sewer does have an assessment proposed, but just so everybody knows that is basically what is my best guess at this time. I Public: May I ask just one question, somebody said that the bids might corne in cheaper. Would that corne back to the homeowners if you get that road built cheaper. Bill Monk: Basically, the Council would make that decision at the assessment hearing based on actual cost. If cost is lower then assessments could be lower. Councilwoman Watson: They have been corning in below feasibility study figures. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the Minutes dated April 23, 1986 as submi tted, Councilman Horn seconded. All voted in favor and motion carried . I LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUEST, LOTS 1927-31, CARVER BEACH, LEWIS WOITALLA. Mayor Hamilton: This item was tabled at our last council meeting. I asked for discussion at Councilman's Geving's request to make comments on this. We did discuss details. I think you saw the Minutes and discussion that pursued, it did fail however, so you can make your comments. Councilman Geving: I appreciate your tabling at the last meeting. My only purpose for requesting that you table it, is I did have some information that I would like to make as part of the record. I have a recalculation for the lot in question that I demonstrated for JoAnne, our Assistant City Planner attended the last City Meeting. What I've done, when we have an odd sized lot such as this, and this is a typical and accepted surveyors rule, you take the two sides, you add them together, divide them by two and you get a mean. You run the mean for both sides, both north and south lot lines and the east and west. You do that wi th both of those and you arrive at a mean for both sides. You then multiply the two means to arrive at the square footage of this particular lot. I would like to demonstrate this for you for the record. For example, the north lot line, or we will use this lot, is 99.4 plus 75.24 equals 174.64 di vided by 2 is equal to 87.32 feet. That is a mean. The next two sides are 100 plus 101.82 equals 201.82 divided by 2 equals 100.91 which is our second mean. You multiply the first times the second and you arrive at a lot area record of 8,811.46 square feet. So for the record, I would like to state tonight that this I 24 I I I 157 Chanhassen City Council MinuteS-May 19, 1986 lot is 8,811.46 square feet and that the lot area variance request is 6,188.54 feet, for the record only. That is more than we requested earlier. This is a correction to the original one in square footage of 9,322 which is in all of previous records, I calculated this myself. I'm not totally accurate but I do know how to use a calculator and I do know how to do these kinds of things and I think I am correct. Russell Norman: I represent Lewis Woitalla. Certainly those angles are right angles on the one corner. The little program in my computer says 87.32. I believe the issue is was whether or not it was platted before the Council set a minimum lot requirement and I guess we are dealing with your ordinance 47 which I could not find and could not really get a copy of 8.06 which is mentioned in 87 which says you could allow 7,500 square feet or half of that variance if it had been platted of record as of a certain date. Also in your own comments, and your analysis of April 21st, you said that Council had no minimum square feet but you were using 10,000 over the years. So as close as I can tell in 1977, you passed 47J requiring 15,000 square feet retroactive to 1972. If this is the case that you didn't have minimum lot requirements up to 1977 except they were unofficial, then Mr. woitalla split those lots in 1976 and actually retroactively created a hardship for him. If you created a hardship then I think you will have to take that into consideration. If Lewis created the hardship then we will recognize and maybe you can't grant the variance, but we would like it reviewed and we would like an analysis of your decision, whatever that is. Thank you. Mayor Hamilton moved that we table the Lot Area Variance Request until our next meeting so that the City Attorney prepare the findings of fact. Councilman Horn seconded. All voted in favor and the motion was tabled until the next meeting. John Pfeiffer: I had a question on that last one that was brought up. You said that you changed the lot size variance in 1977 made retroactive back to 1972? Mayor Hamilton: That is one of the things that we are going to check the file on and we will get back to you on that. That is what they are claiming. We will check our records and see if that is the record. John Pfeiffer: will other local property owners in the area be notified? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. Do you want to be. Please state your name and address for the record. John Pfeiffer: I live at 6889 Yuma Drive. Bruce Ferrington: 6869 Yuma Drive. Don Ashworth: This item will be back on June 2nd meeting so you can be at that meeting. 25 -:l~ ~0 , ;"'<'. r'~ ..:... v "-J Chanhassen City Council MinuteS-May 19, 1986 I Mayor Hamilton: We moved to deny it until the Attorney draws up the Findings of Fact. If that goes back to 1972 will be part of those Findings of Fact. John Pfeiffer: Didn't you state at that last Council meeting though that the city was not responsible. Mayor Hamilton: Mr. woitalla split the lots without consulting the City and consequently he created the hardship himself. That's where we are coming from. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS: Mayor Hamilton moved, and Councilwoman Watson seconded, to approve the bills dated May 19, 1986, check numbers 023659 through 023756 in the amount of $441,142.85 and check numbers 026548 through 026642 in the amount of $107,924.11. All council members voted in favor and the Motion carried. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 6728 LOTUS TRAIL, BETSY DISCHER. This item was discussed and approved prior at the Board of Review and no action was taken at this point in the meeting. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF WATER TOWER AND TRUNK LINE IMPROVEMENTS. I Councilwoman Swenson asked a question that wasn't clear on the tape. Bill Monk: The projections of the water study show that plumbing is good through 1990 and probably until about 1995 when we might need a new well. The biggest problem that we have is storage, but if we can get the trunk lines in that feed the various areas and make the connections necessary, the storage facility is basically our biggest need and will fulfill our demand for the next 10 years. That is why I didn't bring that up specifically at that point knowing that they were going to phase their operation which would help us, but also that we were going to have to do something over the next two years. Councilwoman Swenson: I'm sure it will be a matter of time before that whole section of the urban area is going to be filled up. I'm sure the requirement for water is going to be in there and a whole flock of people will be in there. Councilman Geving: The study that we did on the water study didn't qualify as a feasibility study. I don't know how much money we spent on that. It seems to me that we are doing that again and that water study isn't that old. It was only done in 1984, so it's less than 2 years from the study and we're paying. for ita second time. I Bill Monk: Remember, what we are doing is the expense involved in this would be extremely minimal because it would be done in-house. What we will 26 I I I 159 Chanhassen City Council Minutes-May 19, 1986 do is we will take the data from the study and we are going to twist that data and just put it into a feasibility study form. That is all we are really going to do. Councilman Geving: The last comment I had has to do with the next to the last page where we talked about our capital expenditures. I guess it has been my experience, and maybe I'm going to be wrong in this case because we tend to cry wolf more often than is really necessary when it comes to these issues. If I had to make a recommendation, I would say that possibly the 1986 item would be the number one issue but for the most part, I would like to see us move one year down the road at least in those projections. For example the story of Lake Lucy Road from '86 to '87 and '88 and change the Lake Lucy road to a trunk line to '88 and '89. Now tonight, and of course the last trunk highway 5 connection that goes all the way to Lake Tanadoona We might not do that for a long, long time, but what I am saying is I think we tend to rely an awful lot on people who are in business to generate more business. As a result they generally the worst case for something that has to be done tomorrow and I'm nor sure it always has to be done tomorrow. My point is that there is a lot of money in these first three items and I don't know what your plans are Don or what you are suggesting here as far as what would go into a bond for this year, but I think I'm getting the feeling, looking at all the other things that we've done that this is going to be a substantial bond and we would sure like to split it out and delay whatever we need to or can delay until some future time. Don Ashworth: Interest rates are down. Councilman Geving: I understand that. I know that this is a good time to jump into the bond market but I sometimes get the impression when we deal wi th water studies and sewer analysis and all these other kinds of things that there is always an attempt to influence us in terms of urgencies and emergencies that may not always be real. The reason I say that is when you live in a community and watch it grow, as we all do, we know where the pressures are and we know that we are growing at a substantial rate but I would like to hold on as long as we can before me make substantial improvements. Bill Monk: So the Council is aware, the proposal that we are looking for specifically, or what the feasibility study will detail, are the first two items listed on that page under 5 year capital expenditure. I'm aware of the fact that a lot of people, consultants, recommend projects to continue their own work and so on, but hopefully as Staff looks at these things we are able to weigh through what is necessary and what's not. We have put off the storage needs for a considerable number of years and the feasibility study will undoubtably include the first two items. Whether the Council will be a position as part of a bond sale to accept them or not, remains to be seen, but the City Managers's office has done a lot of work to date and will be providing at the next Council meeting some detailed proposals of what we can bond for and what we can't. We have approved a lot of work, there is no doubt about that. Most of it is assessed and the only one that we are really looking at that is not assessed is the tower. The trunk line would even be assessed. It's the 27 11~0 .1.-\a~J Chanhassen City Council MinuteS-May 19, 1986 tower itself. I don't think we've been crying wolf about the sprinkling ban and things like that. It's very real and I think we're going to have to do something about it and that is what this feasibility study will lead to. I Councilman Geving: My argument with you Bill is when you live in a community and have to face people who are paying a big sewer and water bill every three months, it is becoming more and more of an issue. It's hard to sell these things, so I just wanted to let you know that sewer and water are going up. Don Ashworth informed the Council that the issue of the water improvements and trying to meet some of the real water shortage storage problems will be talked about on June 2nd. Bill Monk stated that even if we bond for a tower in 1986, it wouldn't be finished until 1987 or later and you just have to get things started. This study will revolve around those very two items of trunk extensions and a tower, nothing more. Those are the specific items that will addressed in this feasibility study. Councilman Geving: I may not be comparing apples to apples when I compare wi th people in Eden Prairie, but it might be a good idea to conduct a short survey like that in the area. I Bill Monk: I do that from time to time. We don't always specifically report back to the City Council, but the water rates are comparable. We've done a good job in that area I believe. Sewer rates are slightly higher and appreciably higher than several other communities in the area but when you compare rates, the thing you aren't taking into account is the amount of usage does each individual has and that just shoots the whole thing up and down. OUr sewer rates are high and we are working now to try and cut down I & I and several other things to bring them back into compliance. If you look at our city, with seven lakes and 20 lift stations, you don't get that in a lot of other cities around here. Even as close as Minnetonka and Chaska, they don't have a lot of the same things that we have that just inherently bring out rate up because you have to maintain it, repair it and things like that. We have an expensive system to maintain. We are trying to bring it down into a better rate but the problem is as we bring that down through certain methods, the feds and the state are getting out of the subsidy business so all of a sudden Metro Waste, one is going down the other is going up. The overall intent is we have been binding our time but we may not be able to bring it down soon but it may become extremely expensive just like garbage. RESOLUTION 86-30: Mayor Hamilton moved and Councilman Horn seconded to authorize preparation of Feasibility Study detailing Water Tower and Trunk Line Improvements. All Council members voted in favor and motion carried. I Mayor Hamilton moved to adjourn the meeting, Councilman Geving seconded, all voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Prepared by: Nann Opheim June 2, 1986 28