Loading...
3. Lyman Blvd. and Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Project; Authorize Preparation of Plans & SpecificationsCITY OF 3 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works /City Engineer of lk-- DATE: :July 7, 1994 gUBJ: Continuation of Public Hearing for Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32; Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications This is the continuation of the public hearing from June 13, 1994 for the Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32. As requested by City Council, all of the affected property owners associated with this project have been renotified of the continued public hearing date and have also been informed by writing of the proposed special assessment against their property (see attached sample). 'In addition, the previous Council hearing minutes have been reviewed and formal responses have been prepared and enclosed in this staff report for the relevant questions raised at the first public hearing. A presentation of these questions/responses will be made at the continued public hearing. Staff and the project engineer have also responded to phone calls and have met with individuals as necessary concerning the project (see attached letter). It is believed that these proposed improvements are necessary to meet the growing transportation and utility needs in this region of the community. At the close of the public hearing, if there are no further relevant questions or concerns which would require further investigation, it would be recommended that the City Council approve the feasibility study for the Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32 dated May 9, 1994 and authorize the project engineer, OSM, to prepare the project plans and specifications. Manager's Comments (7- 7 -94): One of the "ideas" presented at the last hearing was, "Why not delete upgrading Lyman Boulevard from the current project ?" The "idea" was seen as a potential compromise for 3 or 4 owners* and a means to lower their assessment. Please do not consider this as an option. I firmly believe that this "idea" would transform itself into one of the worst mistakes we have made. As soon as sewer and water are made available to this. area, major subdivisions, both north and south of Lyman, will be given the green light to file their plats and to sell lots. Most of the subdivisions will have their backyards abutting Lyman in a very similar fashion to the lots on Kerber and County 17. Thank God we were ahead of the development on Kerber by making the assessment against the owners of Saddlebrook, Triple Crown, Chaparral, Chanhassen Vista, West Village Heights, etc., before the lots were sold to individual owners. Owners in any of these subdivisions did not realize or care that they may have paid $200 or $500 more for their lot to pay for Kerber Boulevard. Although these 5 -10 developers objected to the upgrade of MEMORANDUM I Mr. Don Ashworth July 7, 1994 Page 2 Kerber, can you imagine holding a public hearing today to assess the cost of upgrading either Kerber or County 17 to the property owners having their rear yards abutting Kerber or County 17? Those hearings would attract hundreds of owners all of whom would protest the project, object to the assessment, and would successfully defeat us in court. The alternative would be a two -laned Kerber Boulevard with ditches and without walkways, landscaping, street lights, etc., much the same as it was ten years ago or the way Lyman looks today. You have a choice Monday evening to have Lyman look like Kerber Boulevard looks today or to leave it as a deplorable neighborhood collector for well into the future. Please approve the total project or none of it.� jms Attachments: 1. Sample public hearing re- notice. 2. Letters to residents dated July 6, 1994. ' 3. June 13, 1994 City Council minutes. 4. Staff report dated June 6, 1994. 5. Meeting summary dated June 23, 1994. ' 6. Letter from OSM to A] Klingelhutz date June 29, 1994. c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer ' Jean Meuwissen, Treasurer Dave Mitchell, OSM Wayne Houle, OSM ' g ^englcharleslccNyman 1 r J L OAMSV L Sdielen Mayeron & Associates, Inc. June 20, 1994 825.0240800 City of Chanhassen c/o Treasurer 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Resident Update Letter No. 1 Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements and Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction Chanhassen, MN City Project No. 93 -32 OSM Project No. 5183.00 Dear Treasurer: 300 Park Place Center 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 612 -595 -5775 1 -800- 753 -5775 FAX 595 -5774 Engineers Architects ' Planners Surveyors 1 On June 13, 1994 the Chanhassen City Council opened a public hearing for City Project ' No. 93 -32, Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements and Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction. The public hearing was tabled at that time and will be continued at the July 11, 1994 council meeting. This letter is to discuss the general scope of the project and ' the proposed assessment to your property so that you can be more informed of the possible impacts to you. The Chanhassen City Council would like to hear your comments at the July 11, 1994 council meeting. Upon completion of the public hearing, the city council may ' order preparation of plans and specifications as the next step in this project. Generally, the project includes the following: , VVATER]MAI N Trunk watermain is proposed from T.H. 5 southerly along T.H. 101 to Lyman Boulevard; easterly on Lyman Boulevard to the Chanhassen city limits; from a point ' just west of the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Boulevard northerly to 86th Street, then westerly to T.H. 101. Connections to the existing water systems will be made at T.H. 5 and at Lake Susan Drive along T.H. 101. , Lateral watermain is proposed to extend from the trunk watermain on Lyman Boulevard southerly along Lake Riley Boulevard to serve the existing homes along ' Lake Riley Boulevard and homes in the Sunny Slope Addition. Lateral watermain is also proposed to connect existing watermains on Tigua Lane to the water system. SANITARY SEWER Trunk sanitary sewer improvements are proposed from the Lake Ann Intercepter near the creek between Lake Susan and Rice Marsh Lake southerly along T.H. 101 to Lyman Boulevard; easterly on Lyman Boulevard to the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Boulevard. The segment along Lyman Boulevard will be a force main from a new lift station constructed at the intersection of Lyman H:\M83.0D\CSAL\C0RRES\06MYF Equal opportunity Employer I Boulevard and Lake oulevard. The new lift station will upgrade the existing Riley Y Pg g lift station at that intersection and will have capacity to serve the proposed and anticipated development in the area. Lateral sanitary sewer is proposed to extend from the proposed lift station westerly along Lyman Boulevard to Quinn Road and northeasterly along Lake Riley Boulevard to the Lakeview Apartments. ' STREET & STORM SEWER ' The project proposes the reconstruction of Lyman Boulevard from T.H. 101 east to Lake Riley Boulevard and Lake Riley Boulevard from Lyman Boulevard north and east to the city limits. The reconstruction would include storm sewer, and curb and ' gutter. The proposed width east of the Lakeview Apartments is 36 feet and west of Lakeview Apartments is 52 feet. These widths will accommodate traffic anticipated from proposed and anticipated development in the area. The roadway will be ' designed to meet Minnesota Department of Transportation State Aid requirements. This will include realignments, both vertically and horizontally, to provide better sight lines along the roadway. An 8 -foot wide bituminous trail is proposed on the south side of the reconstructed street area. This trail provides an important link in the city's trail plan. ' This project is proposed to be funded with City Funds, Municipal State Aid Funds, and special assessments to benefitted properties. The assessments to individual properties depends on a number of parameters, but is related directly to the benefit the property will realize from the improvement project. The proposed assessment to your property shown on the preliminary assessment roll in the feasibility report is $2,425. A final assessment roll with the actual assessment to your property will be prepared upon completion of the project in 1996 and adopted by the city council at an assessment hearing in the fall of 1996. The assessments would be spread over approximately eight years and would first appear on your ' 1997 property tax bill. ' If you have any questions or concerns regarding the project, please contact me at the above address or by phone at 595 -5699. If you don't reach me directly, please leave a voice mail message and I will return the call so that we can discuss your concerns. Sincerely, ' ORR- SCHELEN - MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. David D. Mitchell, P.E. ' Project Manager c: Charles Folch - Chanhassen City Engineer Don Ashworth - Chanhassen City Manager Mayor and City Council - City of Chanhassen ' H:\5183.00 \CML \C0RRFS \06MYF S�dtden July 6, 1194 3W park Mace Center 5775 Walz8t8 wuievard Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 612-595.3775 ' t- 800.753 - 577 5 Mr. Russell Frederick FAX 595.5774 yn sneers 540 Lyman Blvd ArcNtects Oatihassen, MN 55317 planners ' surveyors Re: Public Hearing Information Lake Riley Area 'Trunk Utility Improvements ' Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction City Project No. 93 -32 OSM Project No. 5183.00 , Dear Mr. Frederick: 1994 Public Hearing ' This letter is in reference to questions that le we bearing you indicated a concern with the cost regarding the above project. At this p of the project and the timing of the project. ' The majority of the costs for this project will be carried by the developers, the assessment methodology used treats each Residential Equivalent Unit(REU) equally, thereby n , penalizing any one property owner. 'These REU's are based on potential development for the assigned land use, which is taken front► the City of oug homeL an ile th other Your current asse ssment will be for the existing REU , y ' units will be deferred until development or your property sed asses collected total street assessment be collected at this time. The prop beginning in 1997 is $4025.00 with the remaining $2425:00 proposed to be del} r a lized ' time of development or sale of your prop Benefits e your anc. � he area develops. As increased property values as the improvements , development occurs in this area it is imperative that street improve menu thins study a ea, utilities be provided. Currently over 350 residentW lots are. proposed with over 200 of the units along Lyman Blvd. We have also looked into your concern that your lot cans not bo div ided, v your current property. that there is sufficient area to provide. a second building We would like thank y Y our y ou for t, and if you have any further questions or concerns ' input, P . regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 595-5699. Sincerely, , Y ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. .E. David D. Mi tchell, Project Manager c: Charles Folch, Chanhassen City Engineer i� >s�soAO\��vrcic+oxRES\�n rt opvonumfty �� ` r ' d WW S�dW WSn ? T :6T rE ; 90 - I ii Orr O�S)& Sdidw =, inc. 300 Park Place Center "5775 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, Mtn S54)6 - T228 632 - 595 -5775 ' I -80,)- 753 -5775 July 6 , 1994 FAX 595-5774 Eng sneers Planners _ Arclvtects Surveyors Mr. Gerald Luebke 8526 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Public Hearing Information Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction Cit Project No. 93 -32 OSM Project No. 5183.U0 Dear Mr. Luebke: This letter is in reference to concerns that were expressed at the June 13, 1994 Public Hearing regarding the above project. At this public hearing you indicated a concern with the alignment of the proposed trunk watermain along the existing State f-fighway 101. I would like to reiterate from our site meeting on June 23, 1994, that the final alignment of the trunk utilities will be decided during the final . design of the project. As. I indicated during our meeting we will pursue an alignment along existing TH 101. We will keep you informed as major decisions in alignment in your area are ma -de. We would like to thank you for your input, and if you have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 595 -5699. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MA,XERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Davtid D. Mitchel , P.E. Project Manager c: Charles Folch, Chanhassen City Engineer i x:�sr�AO,ctvtt.�ooRl�s�o>os�.� ' Wl OPPWW?gwUVWya WW `S WSO SZ :C-i t6, go - 11 f o5 helm =Inc. 300 Pari: Place Center July b, 1 994 5775 Wyzata Bouleva Minnealxolis, MN 55416 -1228 612.5 -5775 ' 1. 800 - 753 -5775 FAX S95-5774 IEnginetrs Architects h1r. Richard Chadwick Planners 9530 Fox Ford Road surveyors Chanhassen, MN 55317 Information ' Re: Public Hewing ' Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction ' City Project No. 93 -32 OSM Project No. 5183.00 Dear Mr. Chadwick: Th1s letter 1s in reference to concerns that were expressed, at the June 13, ;1994 Public , Hearing regarding the above project. At this public hearing you indicated a concern with the cost of the project and not benefiting from the proposed project. , The benefits to the assessed property owners is based on Residential Equivalent Units(REU's). These REU's are based on potential land use, which is taken from the City ' of Chanhassen 2000 Land Use Plan. The proposed Trunk Highway 212 corridor area was not assessed as part of this project. Your current assessment will be for the existing REU's, your existing home, while the other units will be deferred until which time they are ' developed or your property is sold. it is required that the total street assessment be collected at this time. For your two properties the proposed assessment to be collected beginning in 1997 is $19,275.00 with the remaining $14,550.00 proposed to be deferred until I the time of development or sale of your property. Benefits to your property will be realized in increased property values as the improvements are made and the area develops.. As development occurs in this area it is imperative that street 'improvements and municipal I utilities be provided. We would like to thank you for your input, and if you have any further questions or , concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 595 -5699. Sincerel ORR- SCHELEN- mAYERON ' & ASSOCIATES, INC. David D. Mitchell, P.E. Project Manager c: Charles Folch, Chanhassen City Engineer I H: Sigs 001QV[[ �CORRFr1v1C99+rk Equal opponordy Employer ' t ,� NW `S WSO 8T :6T b5: go in I] I ] July b, 1994 CA bA I n c. . ?•00 Park race Center f Ws%zata Boulevard ?.ginneapoiis, MN $5416.1228 Mr. Bailey Janssen low 500 Lyman. Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Public Hearing Information Lake Riley Area 'Trunk Utility Improvements ,Lyman Boulevard Reconstmcdon City Project No, 93 -32 OSM Project No. 5183.00 Dear Mr. Janssen: 61 ' -800- 753 -5775 FAX 595 -5774 Engineer Architect s Planners s urvl!xors This letter is in reference to questions that were asked at the June 13 1994 Public Hearing regarding the above project. At this public hearing you indicated a concern with the cost of the project and discontinuing the use of your existing well and septic system. The majority of the costs for this project will be carried by developers and large parcel land owners. The assessment methodology used treats every Residential Equivalent Unit(REU) equally, thereby not penalizing any one ro Potential development for the assigned land use hich is taken These om the City of Chanhasse 2000 Land Use Plan. Your current assessment will be for the existing REU's, your existing home, while the other units will be deferred until development or your property is sold, It is required that the total street assessment be collected a,. this time. The proposed assessment to be collected beginning in 1997 is $10,412.00 with the remaining $7175,00 proposed to be deferred until the time of development or sale: of your property. Benefits to your property will be realized in increased property values as the impr. ovements are made and the area develops. As development occurs in thus area it is imperative that street improvements and municipal utilities be provided. The assessment areas are within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary and will eventually require that all existing well and septic systems be connected to the municipal utilities. We would like to thank you for your input , and if you have an concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at S9� furth questions or 59. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. David D. Mitchell, P.E. Project Manager ' C: Charles Folch, Chanhassen city Engineer � . - Equal om*mUntty Employer 1 4W `SIdW WSO 6T : ET t G, Go - inf AM City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Resolution #94 -59: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council approve the request for vacation of Minnewashta Avenue subject to final plat approval of Neumann Subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: LYMAN BOULEVARD STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN SECTIONS 13 AND 24, PROJECT 93.32. Public Present: Name Address Al Klingelhutz Gary Skalberg Richard Chadwick Bailey & Mary Lou Janssen Daniel Frederick Russell & Orletta F. Frederick Diane Riegert Eunice Kottke Robert H. Peterson Gerald & Rosemary Luebke Marc Anderson 8600 Great Plains Blvd. 510 Lyman Blvd. 9530 Foxford Road 500 Lyman Blvd. 540 Lyman Blvd. 540 Lyman Blvd. 520 Lyman Blvd. 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. 9101 Lake Riley Blvd. 8526 Great Plains Blvd. 420 Merrimac Lane, Plymouth Charles Folch: Thank Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As indicated in the staff report, this capital improvement project is a joint petition project by land owners and/or developers massing 1 to 3 acres in Sections 13 and 24 in Chanhassen. This particular report was received by the Council approximately a month ago. Last Monday we followed it up with a neighborhood meeting where all the affected property owners were invited. Tonight at the public hearing, we have our project consultant engineers from OSM, David Mitchell and Wayne Houle to provide a presentation of the feasibility study consistent of project elements, cost and method of financing the project. So with that I'll turn it over to OSM. David Mitchell: Thanks Charles. Your Honor, members of the Council. As Wayne set this up I'd like to point out a couple of typographical errors in the report and to just clarify a couple of items. I don't know if anyone has the report with them but in the executive summary we made a statement that funding for the reconstruction of Lyman. Boulevard, north of Lake Riley Boulevard, includes 7% special assessments. That should be corrected to 71% special assessments. To the benefrtted properties. 25% municipal state aid funds and 4% from the city's drainage funds. The second typographical errors, they're on page 17 of the report. Under cost estimates. The fast paragraph. These costs. The report states these costs do include. That should say, these costs do not include land or easement acquisition costs or cost of wetland mitigation. With that I will open the presentation by discussing basically the study area of the proposed land use. I want to make sure this is showing up on the monitors for the public. Basically the study area extends from Highway 5 at the north down to Trunk Highway 101, Kiowa Trail area. Then from east to west, from the east side of, from the city limits to currently Chanhassen Hills addition west of Trunk Highway 101. Primarily this area is zoned single family residential through this area There is some mixed use along the primary corridors through the area There's also some 11 �1 i i f', I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 J [I i 1 �ft high density residential, medium density residential zoning areas. You may remember a number of years ago, 3 or 4 years ago, our firm was before this Council with a similar study. At that point these lands through here and the current Rogers- Dolejsi property was under a green acres status. Therefore he was unassessable at that time. There are current developments proposed in those areas at that time the green acres would be lifted as a part of those developments. With that I will introduce Wayne Houle who is very familiar with the proposed improvements and he will discuss some of the alternatives that were looked at as a part of this study. Wayne Houle: Thanks Dave. Mr. Mayor and Council and residents of the study area.. As Dave said, my name is Wayne. I'm with the engineering firm of OSM and right now I'm going to basically cover the ... cover the existing conditions, the proposed conditions, and some of the other items that were addressed in the study. First off, all the items that I'm going to be covering on are covered in the comprehensive plan for the city of Chanhassen... different than the actual comprehensive plans that were stated before. The watermain portion, trunk watermain portion of this project consists of, the actually existing portion of this project is all the, the whole study area is on a well system right now. So what we're proposing to do is extend a trunk watermain along the proposed Lake Drive and then down existing, or actually Market Boulevard to the existing TH 101 and then tying into Lyman Boulevard and looping around the system. In looking at the watermain issues, we separated them into two different segments. Actually two different alternatives but about 4 different segments. The first part is we'd be tying in up by Lake Drive and Great Plains Blvd. And then carrying it through on Lake Drive and then down to the, where Great Plains Blvd hooks up with Market Blvd. The other alternative would be to go down the existing Great Plains Blvd. The reason why we chose the recommended route was there'd be a lot of tree loss along the existing Great Plains Blvd and this street here hasn't been constructed yet but the ease of construction, it'd be quite simple to extend that through. But also put in a looping system with the existing water system. The second segment that we looked at were basically from Great Plains Blvd down to 86th Street. Now we follow the existing TH 101 construction, actually the proposed TH 101 construction because of the timeliness of the new TH 101 proposed. The third segments that we looked at were down, either down the proposed TH 101 construction to 86th Street or through the existing TH 101 highway. As you recall back in, I believe it was '86 or '88. The existing, we had plans out for from 86th down to Lake Susan Drive and ...but that was not constructed at that time. So what we're proposing to do is just follow the same route that the plans had covered before. Then when we go east on Lyman Blvd, we continue the trunk system out to the city limits and then also loop the system through the proposed Lake Riley Hills area and up through 86th Street, through the Mission Hills Addition and up to 86th Street. The Lake Riley Boulevard area and the Sunnyslope Addition would be served also by this trunk line. As one part of the study that we covered, the Lake Riley Blvd area was, the residents were sent a survey and about 72% of them were in favor of looking into extending the watermain to their residences. The next item that we looked at was the sanitary sewer. The existing portions of the sanitary system is the Lake Ann Interceptor, which is a MWCC line and residents along Lake Stuart were also... drainage to the Lake Ann Interceptor was the gravity system. The people along Lake Riley Blvd, the Sunnyslope Addition, about half of them drain down to the lift station or up to another lift station which is at Lake Riley Blvd and Lyman Blvd. The force main is then pumped up to about Lakeview Hills Apartment complex. From there it's a gravity system which also serves the people on the Tigua Lane area Those tie into existing Lake Ann Interceptor. What we're proposing per the comprehensive sanitary plan is to extend a trunk line down to Lyman Blvd. There's two different alternatives that we also studied there. One is to place the line along the proposed Highway 101 extension or alignment, or else follow the existing. Since the watermain was placed along the existing and also some depth restrictions along the new TH 101, we're recommending the alternative 2 which is along the existing 711101 alignment. This would be also a gravity line from the Lyman and the Highway 101 intersection to the Lake Ann Interceptor. Also part of the sanitary system would be improving the lift station, which is at Lake Riley Blvd and Lyman Blvd. Right now the existing lift station can only handle an addition, I believe it's 34 services before it needs to be improved so that's one of the reasons that 12 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 David Mitchell: There is a much more detailed cost estimate found in the report. If there's any members of the audience that want to see that breakdown, you can look at that but at this point what we're looking at is , estimated project costs for Lyman Blvd. reconstruction is approximately $1.55 or $1.6 million. A watermain, which would include the, all the trunk improvements for watermain would be $1.35 million. Sanitary sewer is $974,000.00 and the Lake Riley Blvd watermain, which would be the watermain that Wayne showed coming , down Lake Riley Blvd and looping around Sunnyslope aces, would have a project cost of $251,000.00 for a total estimated project for the area encompassed with the study of $4.144.2 million. The assessments for this area become quite complicated. I guess Wayne's got me set up here. The assessment area for the watermain area is shown, is shaded here. The trunk area primarily involves everything except the Lake Riley Hills area or Shore Acres I should say and Sunnyslope area Areas that are shaded or cross hatched in blue indicate some trunk benefit to properties with lateral benefits... properties in front directly onto trunk watermain. Therefore they are assessed an additional amount that is standard for, for example—here would have additional lateral benefit to , these areas. We would assess lateral benefit in a similar manner. The proposed line on Lake Riley Blvd would also be assessed as a lateral. Another area that would show some lateral benefit would be the area along Lake Susan and the short area along the proposed Missions Hills plat. , Councilman Wing: Why is the Kiowa, maybe I missed that earlier. Why is Kiowa excluded there? David Mitchell: Kiowa Trail currently has sanitary sewer within the system. There's no provisions to loop the ' watermain through this area at this point. So we did not include them in the study ... end up being a very long, dead end lines along this area. I'm not sure if they're, are they actually in the service area? �l 13 1 that lift station was looked into. Another reason is this line that, the gravity line from Lakeview Hills Apartments to the Lake Ann Interceptor is actually through this marshy area is in pretty bad shape and needs to be placed in or upgraded and if we were to force any more sewage into that line. This lift station, well actually over what we're proposing to do is reroute the force main along Lyman Blvd to the new trunk sanitary sewer ' and Lake Ann Interceptor. Also along the Lyman Blvd would be a gravity system which would go down in—lift station and back up to the force main to that intersection. One other thing. The Lakeview Hills Apartments, this line would be abandoned and the Lakeview Hills Apartments would basically turn around to the gravity system with the new line so the lift station and then up ... This on the north is ... and this is Lyman Blvd. One item that was also looked into was the reconstruction of Lyman Blvd. Currently it's a 24 foot wide roadway. It's in very poor shape with a lot of areas in need of repair. The vertical curves for the traffic that's on that road right now ' do not meet MnDot's State Aid funding or requirements for that width of a roadway. So part of the feasibility report was to look into the realignment of Lake Riley and Lyman Blvd, both horizontally and vertically. The existing daily, average daily traffic is 1,069 cars per day. In the year 2010, according to Carver County Transportation Study, the ... would increase to 7,400 vehicles per day. So taking that all into account, we're ' proposing to expand the width of the roadway to a 52 foot width from the intersection of the existing balance of proposed Highway 101 to the entrance or the area of the entrance of the Lakeview Hills Apartments. The Lakeview Hills Apartment, it was reduced back down to about a 36 foot roadway section. This 52 foot roadway ' section would accomplish striping for 2 lanes of traffic with left turn treatments at all the major intersections that could be put into the proposed development and also the realignment of Lake Riley Blvd. And also left turns into the Lakeview Hills Apartments. Also along the south side of the Lyman Blvd. would be an 8 foot trail, pathway or bikeway. This is also covered in the Chanhassen trails comprehensive trail plan. This road would , be, another portion of the roadway would be concrete curb and gutter ...and also no parking the entire length of the roadway. You'd have storm applications, storm drainage applications throughout and also... That pretty much wraps up the project elements... Dave can go over the cost. , David Mitchell: There is a much more detailed cost estimate found in the report. If there's any members of the audience that want to see that breakdown, you can look at that but at this point what we're looking at is , estimated project costs for Lyman Blvd. reconstruction is approximately $1.55 or $1.6 million. A watermain, which would include the, all the trunk improvements for watermain would be $1.35 million. Sanitary sewer is $974,000.00 and the Lake Riley Blvd watermain, which would be the watermain that Wayne showed coming , down Lake Riley Blvd and looping around Sunnyslope aces, would have a project cost of $251,000.00 for a total estimated project for the area encompassed with the study of $4.144.2 million. The assessments for this area become quite complicated. I guess Wayne's got me set up here. The assessment area for the watermain area is shown, is shaded here. The trunk area primarily involves everything except the Lake Riley Hills area or Shore Acres I should say and Sunnyslope area Areas that are shaded or cross hatched in blue indicate some trunk benefit to properties with lateral benefits... properties in front directly onto trunk watermain. Therefore they are assessed an additional amount that is standard for, for example—here would have additional lateral benefit to , these areas. We would assess lateral benefit in a similar manner. The proposed line on Lake Riley Blvd would also be assessed as a lateral. Another area that would show some lateral benefit would be the area along Lake Susan and the short area along the proposed Missions Hills plat. , Councilman Wing: Why is the Kiowa, maybe I missed that earlier. Why is Kiowa excluded there? David Mitchell: Kiowa Trail currently has sanitary sewer within the system. There's no provisions to loop the ' watermain through this area at this point. So we did not include them in the study ... end up being a very long, dead end lines along this area. I'm not sure if they're, are they actually in the service area? �l 13 1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 ' Charles Folch: Yes. They're in the service area but we did not receive any indication from any property owners that they were interested like we did from Lake Riley Hills. We did receive a few phone calls and there was some interest in that. Basically that area can be served with a lateral line at any time in the future coming off of the proposed subdivision that Lundgren Bros is doing so at which time they would decide to have water so but it didn't necessarily need to be at this time. David Mitchell: Similarly the sanitary sewer... includes areas of Mission Hills on the north to Bandimere Park and the Lundgren proposal on the Rogers - Dolejsi property. Currently Shore Acres, Sunnyslope area along Lake Riley Blvd has sanitary sewer and has been assessed for that or as part of that whole project. I think Kiowa Trail the same thing. Some of the areas here are shaded. Lakeview Hills Apartments has been assessed a portion for the units that are in place ... Again, these areas are all served with the existing systems. The assessment area for the sanitary sewer is shown and is highlighted. Similarly there are some lateral benefits along Lyman Blvd for gravity systems for the individuals that front directly on Lyman Blvd will realize benefits ' from those segments. Lyman Blvd reconstruction. The assessment area for that is again shown in the shaded. The proposed area really has no other collector route out of their designated areas. Therefore they're being assessed for the entry of Lyman Blvd. Lyman Blvd itself is a state aid route. 25% of the project cost will be paid for with state aid funds. Enforcement of the cost for the storm sewer will be paid for out of the city's storm water funds and the remainder will be assessed back to the properties. If I can switch gears here and move over to the overhead, the assessments rates are shown here and a majority of the assessments are actually realized from the trunk utility charges that are in place from the comprehensive plan that the city updates on an annual basis. Each resident equivalent unit is assessed $1,050.00 per resident equivalent unit for sanitary sewer or approximately $2,100.00 per acre and the trunk watermain is 51,375.00 per resident equivalent unit or approximately $2,750.00 per acre. The total trunk funds generated from this project would be 51,032,150.00. Total trunk water funds generated would be 51,986,875.00. Assessments for lateral sanitary sewer service, a total of $27,000.00. Those were the areas shown on Lyman Blvd. Additional lateral watermain assessment of $142,686.00 would be received from the trunk watermain itself that benefits abutting properties. Lateral 1 watermain assessments to Lake Riley Blvd would be 52,500.00 per lot. Similarly that would be the same assessment for the lateral benefit throughout the entire study area and those areas up along Lake Susan. But that number is included in the $142,000.00 but along Lake Riley Blvd would be $100,000.00. The Lyman Blvd ' assessments, each unit shown in the shaded area would be assessed $ 800.00. The areas that front directly on Lyman Blvd, including the development areas, would be assessed another 5819.00 per unit, primarily because of their frontage on Lyman Blvd. So the areas along Lake Riley Blvd would be assessed $800.00. These areas along here would be assessed approximately $1,600.00 per residential unit. Lyman Blvd funding basically comes down to $1.1 million from assessments. Another $394,000.00 from municipal state aid funds and another $62,000.00 for storm drainage funds for a total of $1,576,000.00 for round numbers. As we add these together, this would be the total funding for the project. Assessments would be $4.4 million. Of that, $122,800.00 would ' be deferred assessments which would be collected as future hook -ups. Those areas are primarily the 2 to 10 acre hobby farm areas north of Lyman Blvd. Approximately halfway between TH 101 and Lake Riley Blvd. Primarily these areas H. I, J. K, L, M, N. O, Q, R and S. The city funds needed for this project would be approximately 5119,300.00. City storm drainage fund would contribute 561,900.00. Municipal state aid funding ' would be $394,000.00 for a total amount of funds generated of $4.9 or approximately $5 million. As stated in the report, there is the assessments collected are larger than the total project costs. The reason for that is the trunk utility charge. The trunk funds are then put into the bank, so to speak and would be used for future 1 updates to wells, storage systems, sanitary sewer, lift stations. Those types of items so that is an area charged throughout the city. Proposed schedule. As Wayne mentioned, there are plans that have been done for approximately, or a portion of this project between the existing additions to the west of TH 101. Chanhassen Hills and 86th Street. Some of these plans have been drawn. Those may be, it may be possible to bring parts of 14 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 those on line prior to this, what this schedule shows but basically to run through it quickly. Council received or , first saw this feasibility report back on May 9th. Ordered a public hearing at that time. As Charles indicated, we had a public informational meeting last week with a public hearing tonight. We would anticipate Council ' authorizing preparation of plans and specifications either at this meeting or the following meeting on June 27th. September, end of September we would hope to have the plans complete and come back to Council for authorization for bids. Bid opening would be in October. We would anticipate beginning construction in November. Completing construction November of '95 with a final wearing course put on the roadway in '96. Assessment hearing in '96 and first payment on real estate taxes in May of '97. With that, that basically concludes our presentation for the evening. I'd like to open it up to Council, if they have any questions at this point. Or turn it back over to the Mayor. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think what I'd like to do is open this up for the balance of the public hearing that we have this for and maybe listen to some of the residents that are adjacent to this with some concerns they may have and at least get some of those things, some of those answers addressed Is there anyone at this time ' wishing to come forward and express your concerns regarding this specific proposal? Please state your name and address. Al Klingelhutz: Al Klingelhutz, 8600 Great Plains Blvd. I guess I'm not against the project but I'm against , what it's going to cost. After the neighborhood meeting last week—some figures and I've seen 3 different figures and the total is $548,000.00 against my property. Now I don't know if those figures are right or not but it looks to me like that's about 1/8 the cost of the whole project. I've got a total of 70 acres there and the , highway's going to take about 25 of it. They said there's over 300 acres in the project and it just doesn't seem right. A year and a half or two years ago there was another feasibility study done on the project and it was just to put the water line in. At that time the total cost for the water line along, the trunk charge for the water line , on my property was $85.000.00. I think if you go back in the Minutes, there's a statement there exactly showing that. And there was some discussion on the property being green acres and it was even talked about deferring the interest on it until such time as development could occur. I believe those things are all in the Minutes. I don't know if they took into consideration that the house on the farm had been hooked onto city sewer for at least 12 years. Sewer line runs through part of my property. At the present time there's an 8 inch line serving the house. I notice that with all the checks marks to be assessed, I didn't know if it was just for water or just for sewer or what. I paid assessments on that once before. Something said the other night that , instead of following TH 101 on the north side of my property, they were going to cut across the section corner and then go south. And that again would be a detriment to my property because looking into the future of sometime a project developing that land, if you sever that property would ruin the three lots on the property... But getting back to that $85,000.00 proposed trunk charge. Less than 2 years ago I believe it was, for water and I understand that the sewer trunk charge is somewhat less than the water. But if you put the $85,000.00 and add 75 to it, you'd come up with about $170,000.00 instead of 5548,000.00. I just can't figure out where all those dollars came from. You might remember some of that land was zoned commercial and for sure there's no ' commercial development going to come there if Highway 212 don't come in. I understand you're leaving some of the 10 acre parcels and 5 acre parcels on Lyman Blvd getting by for 1 unit. Well I paid for 1 unit on the balance of my property except it's 20 some acres was sold to Mission Hills. I don't know why people can be , treated differently. I'm willing to pay when development comes but when you're looking at 42 years on the Highway 212 committee and there's no highway there yet. And you might be looking at another 42 years before it comes. It might never come. I don't know about placing an assessment on that property that can't be used at this time. I guess that's about all I've got to say except I'll be dead against the property, the sewer or water line going down on a section line instead of following TH 101. Thank you. r City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Al. Is there anyone else? ' Gerald Luebke: Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Would you like to come forward? Gerald Luebke: Mayor, Council. I'm Gerald Luebke. I live at 8526 Great Plains Blvd. Our property abuts this township line that AI spoke of and would like to know why the water is being routed down along that township 1 line. Section line, excuse me. I see where the, if the water does go along the section line and having talked with Al a long time before I even bought the property and understood what his plans were, that it will sever 3 of his lots. It will also run through a small grove of trees which I and wife paid handsomely for and I think it would kill all of those trees. I see absolutely no reason, I would be the only one that that water would be servicing and see no reason for it. I'd like to talk with whoever the designers were and try to get an understanding for why that water's running where it's proposed. I am definitely, the wife and I, are definitely in disagreement with that decision. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Bailey Janssen: Bailey Janssen from 500 Lyman Blvd and I'm against the project. I think the cost is way too high and I live on Lyman and I think we're being penalized because we live on Lyman. They're double charging us for the widening of the road. They can't give us any definite direction on which way it's going to go when they widen it and if we're going to be losing trees and taking retaining walls and things like that, I ' think we should know. I think there's a lot of people in the area that are against the project. I don't know if they're going to come up and say or not but the benefit that we were told last week is that we're going to have sewer and water and the road is going to be widened. The benefit is not to us. We don't need the road wider. 1 We already have good wells and most the septics are working fine around there. The benefit is to the developers. Let's let them pay for it. Not the homeowners that are there. That covers it. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Richard Chadwick: My name is Richard Chadwick I have property on Lyman Blvd. 420 Lyman Blvd. I presently live over on Lake Riley. 9530 Foxford Road. I agree that the cost to the property owners along ' Lyman Blvd and along TH 101 appear to be substantially higher than any benefit that we would ever receive from the construction of the water and sewer systems. The property in there is all tied up with the proposed Highway 212. There's not much that can be done with any of the property, whether it be Al's or some of the 1 others. People that are actually living there and have good water and sewer, it's not benefitting anybody except the large developers that may be coming up on the south side of TH 101. Or pardon me, the south side of Lyman Blvd or some of the other areas in here. I would be against the development of the project. ' Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? This is your opportunity to express your opinion. Russ Frederick: I'm Russ Frederick I live at 540 Lyman Blvd. I'm not directly affected on the road but will 1 be affected by the assessments and so on. It seems to me, as they had stated, that the costs are on the extremely high side and it seems to me that it's way ahead of it's time. I don't see the need for a major reconstruction at this time. I agree there is a water loop they wanted to put in a couple years ago and there's also a sewer line that's ... I don't see any sign that this is going to accomplish the water loop that they wanted 2 years ago and the ' sewer line, I haven't had the chance to get into this deep enough. I can't state that other than the cost are very 16 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 high. It's something that I support to people that are on the line. I think it's been handled very efficiently because there's been what was thought to be the issue resolved 2 years ago and roadway right -0f - -way was adjusted ... on both sides of the road. It comes back this year like it was a brand new issue. I guess it don't make sense to me. I'd like to see a little more common sense in tying together of the effort. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else? Marc Anderson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Marc Anderson. I'm with Lundgren Bros Construction. We've have an approved preliminary plat ... south of Lyman Blvd... We believe the time is right for this project and that we've seen a lot of demand for housing in the west area here and in Chanhassen and we look forward to ... As we've seen that land in Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and places like that are unavailable there. They're basically—Secondly, regarding the costs ... that costs associated with these lots are basically in line with other kinds of developments we see. They're a little over $4,000.00 per unit. We find that those are acceptable , costs... Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Going once. Going twice. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in , favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Charles, this has been sitting around for quite some time. Some of the questions that had been ' asked this evening, I'm just wondering if we shouldn't just try to answer them and get back to each one with respect to those questions and get the answers for each of those things. And probably have this come back again to Council, unless Council has any other direction that they'd like to go and look at it one more time. And I would suggest that we, I don't know how long it would take you to respond to those answers. I'll set a time line for you to come up with the date that we can review this. Charles Folch: I think we can get a copy of the Minutes when they're available and respond to each question as they had come up. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. What would you be looking at? The 27th of June or are you looking at more like July. ' It takes at least, what a week to hopefully get these Minutes pulled together from the meeting. Charles Folch: I think given the numbers that we have to deal with tonight, we could pull it together by the 27th. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. I Councilman Wing: Can you keep the road construction on Lyman kind of independent. Let's look at sewer and water and then let's look at that road construction and widening and upgrading maybe as a separate issue. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I want to look at that 52 feet in some areas and some in 36 feet and others. Charles Folch: One thing that probably is important to keep in mind is the amount of units that are proposed to go out there that we've seen the basic drawings for. The conceptual plans if you will. Lyman would be a very hazardous situation to introduce that much traffic without doing any type of improvements that need to be done on that type of roadway. Getting that standard to an urban design. But we do have the costs broken out and the I 17 1 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 t assessments broken out between what's utility assessments, trunk and lateral and what is roadway assessment. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a couple of detail questions. I agree we need to bring it back. Get some of those questions answered but on the north side, where instead of following, on the very north part of the project, instead of following current TH 101, we're going to cut across. Right up abutting Highway 5 and then go down Market where it meets up with TH 101. Seeing that we don't have anything currently coming in to the city about what's going to happen with that parking lot. I forget the people's name on that. Charles Folch: The Ward property? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. The Ward property, thank you. Have we heard anything from them? Do we know what their opinion is? Charles Folch: We've not had recent contact with the Ward's. Basically... that we would attempt to either acquire right -of -way or acquire the utility easement needed to bring that line across and follow the alignment that's anticipated for future Lake Drive. The importance of getting that line connected back along Lake Drive to Great Plains, from a surprise standpoint. We've got 3 wells located ... by the park off of TH 101 and we just completed a 20 inch trunk line, if you will, that crosses Highway 5 and.. basically stub out by the Legion there and we really need to get to that, connected to that system to provide the amount of flow we need for development that's going on down there. So that is an important link in getting... Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay. Following the current TH 101 alignment, I assume that there's no problem. Well if and when we do the new TH 101. I mean those lines can stay there and there won't be any problem. If we do put it in, will there be construction, any delays through there on the current TH 101? Charles Folch: We're anticipating that we'd do most of these improvements off road on TH 101. There may be times where the shoulders might be compromised during the day when we have to have appropriate barricades and such but we would be shutting the road down. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay. And then my last question is, doing a traffic study on Lyman and then necessity or the finding out if we do need to increase. Does that take into consideration TH 212? The possible TH 212 or is that independent and does what? Charles Folch: No, that's correct. It does. Basically the numbers we've been working off of for the Eastern study that was done back in '89 -'90. The Eastern Carver County transportation study which took into account the TH 101 improvement and Trunk Highway 212 and basically growth in the region and forecasted improvements to Highway 5 accordingly. And again, we're always integrating into that the amount of units that we're seeing there could come on line conceivably over the next couple years. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay, thanks. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: Not at this time. I saw these questions need to be answered... Mayor Chmiel: Mark. 18 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Councilman Senn: No. Not at this time. I Mayor Chmiel: I would like to carry this meeting over then to June 27th. Mark that down because we hopefully will get back to the questions that are asked and get your answers to that. Maybe we can look at this ' in a little more detail. Al? Would you like to come up to the mic so we can pick this up please. Al Klingelhutz: It's kind of hard to judge when there's no really price tag attached. I'm just wondering when you have a hearing like this if each individual that's going to be assessed shouldn't be able to find out what the proposed assessment's going to be. I didn't sleep well the night after that meeting, after I found out it was going to be a $548,000.00 assessment. I guess a lot of you wouldn't either. That's over half a million bucks. I'm getting kind of old to worry about some of those things. So it would be helpful I think to, for everybody involved, if we would know ahead of time what the proposed assessments would be. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Charles. Charles Folch: Each property that's proposed to be assessed is listed in the feasibility study and broken out in terms of what portion of assessment and type of improvement, whether it be trunk sewer, water, lateral, street. Every property owner affected in this project was notified of the public hearing tonight. Each property owner affected by the project was notified of the neighborhood meeting we held last Monday. The letter also included an invitation that if anybody wanted to come up to City Hall during daytime hours to look at the study and look at costs, the information is certainly available to anybody who's interested in seeing it. It's all here in the report. Councilman Senn: Charles, that raises a good point though when we send that letter out. Why can't we include in that letter, here's what your assessment is? I mean to tell them to come to a public hearing and that all the books and records are available at City Hall, I mean that's. Councilman Mason: Pretty intimidating. Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean can't we add a paragraph to the letter that notifies them of what their assessment is and, you know we have a problem like at the neighborhood meetings I know and you've commented before of getting people out and stuff and I think if people had something more personalized to identify with, I think they would. I think that would sure go a long way in doing that. Charles Folch: Yeah and these are proposed assessments and as you all know the official assessment hearing wouldn't be held until the project is completed and at that time we send out notices which give the exact numbers. But if you so wish, we could certainly do something like that. Councilman Mason: I think that would certainly get people's attention a little bit more. I think that's a real good point. Charles Folch: In light of that, I guess if that's the Council's desire to do something like that like, l guess I , would recommend maybe tabling this for another 2 weeks past that to allow a mailing to go out with the costs and such and maybe continue this on the first meeting in July. Mayor Chmiel: Which would be July 11th. Scratch the date of the 27th and it will be July the 11th. Continuation. 19 1 Affda. City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 Gerald Luebke: Who makes the ultimate decision as to the routing of the water line, i.e. whether or not it runs down the section line or ... TH 101. Mayor Chmiel: ...the city does. Any discussion... Is that right Charles? Charles Folch: Pardon me. Mayor Chmiel: My statement that I made basically is with the city. Charles Folch: Correct. The decision lies ... by staff s recommendation. Mayor Chmiel: So with that. Gerald Luebke: Is the decision final then? Mayor Chmiel: Pardon me. Gerald Luebke: Will you be making a final decision? Mayor Chmiel: On the 11th of July? Gerald Luebke: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Conceivably we could. Gerald Luebke: So if we wanted to bring legal counsel, that'd be the time to do it? Thank you. David Mitchell: Mr. Mayor, one point that I think should be made is that the exact alignment would not be defined. That we would be more than willing to work with individual property owners as far as the. Al brings ' up a good point. You don't want to bisect properties and those type of situations we want to avoid so we would be more than willing to work with individuals then have those type of concerns. And that's when we get into a detailed design. Mayor Chmiel: Right, and I would think that that discussion can take place once we get answers to the questions that have been risen. Okay, so this specific public hearing will be carried over to July 11th and you'll be notified as to the time. Hopefully everyone who is here for this has signed in so we know who to send this to. In fact if all the people on that list that Charles has will be sent that information as well. So this will be carried over until July 11th. Councilman Senn: Do we need a motion then to do that? To table it or what. Mayor Chmiel: I would ask for that motion that I'm going to come up with right now. Can I have a motion to table? ■ Councilman Senn: To July 11th. Mayor Chmiel: July 11th. ,I W1: City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 Councilman Senn: So moved. I Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table action on the Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction and Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements in Sections 13 and 24, Project 93 -32 until July 11, 1994 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. r ��)— PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE LUCY ROAD STREET AND UTILITY EXTENSION PROJECT 92 -12. Q- Public Present: Name Address Bill Engelhardt Ed & Mary Ryan David Gestach Brian Klingelhutz Lee Paulson Sam & Nancy Mancino Wm R. Engelhardt & Assoc. 6730 Galpin Blvd. 8001 Acorn Circle 8860 Co. Rd. 10 E 8880 Wildwood Avenue 6620 Galpin Blvd. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. You may recall that last week about this time we had two public hearings on this proposed project. At that time the project stalled out due to one of the originally petitioning property owners withdrawing the petition and they were an integral part of the getting the road alignment across the property. Since that time there's been new ownership, new acquisition of that property and we did have two property owners that petitioned for the road improvement. Subsequent to that we had the project engineer prepare a supplemental report or update if you will to that original feasibility study. There are some revisions to that specifically related to the road alignment. We do think, at least coming out, the portion coming off of Trunk Highway 41 is a much better alignment in terms of reducing the grading -..and tonight we have the project engineer here to provide a presentation of that... elements of cost and method of financing for the project. With that I'll turn it over to Bill Engelhardt. Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council. I'm Bill Engelhardt with William Engelhardt Associates. We've been working on this project for a couple of years with the individual property owners in trying to determine an alignment for the Lake Lucy Road connection. As Charles gave you some of the background, the history of the project. Gestach- Paulson property is situated in this area After they purchased the property they sold off a piece of property in roughly this area to the Westside Baptist Church. Those two property owners petitioned for Lake Lucy Road. A study was done to determine for alignment purposes only, from TH 41 over to Lake Lucy Road. What you see underneath the underlying drawing here is what was originally shown as the alignment to the Lake Lucy Road. As part of the consideration for the alignment for Lake Lucy Road we have 2, 3 basic criteria. One was to work with the church area and how that property would be bisected when the church was involved. And then a sketch plan that Gestach- Paulson have had in the works for about 8 to 9 years for the development of their property. The purpose of that sketch plan back in 1985 was that the Lake Ann Interceptor was running through their property and they wanted some idea of how the property could be developed and accommodate the Lake Ann Interceptor. So what you see in the dashed line is that sketch plan that was done some number of years ago. It gave us an indication on how many lots, how many units that that 21 t 1 s L�' I I MEMORANDUM CITY OF 3 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action by City Adminlstrstor TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works /City Engineer DATE: June 6, 1994 Modifin - R*cte - Dot Date Submitted to Gcmmission Dge S ji- r'?trd t0 6 tc _ 1 3 - - -Ii 4 SUBJ: Public Hearing for Lyman Boulevard Street Reconstruction and Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements in Sections 13 and 24 - Project No. 93 -32 V This is the feasibility for the Lyman Boulevard Street Reconstruction and Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements in Sections 13 and 24, Project No. 93 -32. The impetus for this feasibility study was a joint petition from property owners and/or developers amassing over 300 acres of land in this area. The primary project elements consist of the following: - Reconstruction of Lyman Boulevard (Trunk Highway 101 to Lake Riley Boulevard) and Lake Riley Boulevard (Lyman Boulevard to east corporate limits) to an urban roadway section with concrete curb and gutter, turn lanes, trail and storm sewer - Reconstruction and relocation of the existing lift station located at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Boulevard - Installation of trunk sanitary sewer and forcemain along Lyman Boulevard from Lake Riley Boulevard to Trunk Highway 101 and along Trunk Highway 101 from Lyman Boulevard north to the Lake Ann Interceptor - Installation of trunk watermain on Lyman Boulevard from Lake Riley Boulevard to Trunk Highway 101 and along Trunk Highway 101 from Lyman Boulevard north to Great Plains Boulevard. ' - Installation of watermain on Lake Riley Boulevard and Deerfoot Trail south of Lyman Boulevard ' During the process of the feasibility study being prepared, a number of residents along Lake Riley Boulevard south of Lyman Boulevard contacted staff and/or the consulting engineer about t Don Ashworth June 6, 1994 Page 2 the possibility of extending City water down Lake Riley Boulevard. Subsequent to these inquiries, a survey was sent out to all of the property owners located on Lake Riley Boulevard and Deerfoot Trail south of Lyman Boulevard as to whether or not they were interested in being a part of this feasibility study. The overwhelming majority of the survey respondents (72 %) indicated that they were at least interested in the City studying the aspects of this watermain improvement and determining associated costs and special assessments. Therefore, this project element has also been included in the feasibility study. There are a couple alignment alternatives presented for the installation of the trunk watermain and trunk sanitary sewer along Trunk Highway 101. The alignment variations are based on installation within the current Trunk Highway 101 alignment or the future Trunk Highway 101 corridor. Given the wetland impacts, significant grading work and the uncertainty as to the timing of the new Trunk Highway 101 project, it is recommended that the trunk utilities following within the existing Trunk Highway 101 alignment. As is evident from the list of project elements, this is a very large -scale improvement project which is anticipated to begin construction this fall and be substantially completed by the fall of 1995. The estimated project cost is just over $4 million and is proposed to be financed through a combination of State -Aid road funds, local funds, and special assessments to benefitting properties. The City Council may recall that a previously proposed project to extend watermain along Trunk Highway 101 from Chanhassen Hills to 86th Street had plans prepared; however, it did not proceed into a construction contract. There have been some discussions between staff, the project consultant and the developers of Mission Hills on advancing the schedule for installation of this j portion of the watermain work during the summer of 1994. Whether or not this advanced contract work occurs will depend greatly on the developer's ability to obtain City Planning Commission and Council approvals in a timely fashion. An informational neighborhood meeting concerning this proposed project has been scheduled for Monday, June 6, 1994. All affected property owners have been invited. The project engineer from Orr - Schelen - Mayeron & Associates will be present at the public hearing to provide a detailed presentation of the feasibility study. At the close of the public , hearing, if there are no relevant questions or concerns which require further investigation and response, it would be recommended that the City Council approve the feasibility study for the Lyman Boulevard Street Reconstruction and Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements in , Sections 13 and 24, Project No. 93 -32 and authorize the consulting firm of Orr - Schelen- Mayeron & Associates to prepare the project plans and specifications. ktm L__l 1 Don Ashworth June 6, 1994 Page 2 the possibility of extending City water down Lake Riley Boulevard. Subsequent to these inquiries, a survey was sent out to all of the property owners located on Lake Riley Boulevard and Deerfoot Trail south of Lyman Boulevard as to whether or not they were interested in being a part of this feasibility study. The overwhelming majority of the survey respondents (72 %) indicated that they were at least interested in the City studying the aspects of this watermain improvement and determining associated costs and special assessments. Therefore, this project element has also been included in the feasibility study. There are a couple alignment alternatives presented for the installation of the trunk watermain and trunk sanitary sewer along Trunk Highway 101. The alignment variations are based on installation within the current Trunk Highway 101 alignment or the future Trunk Highway 101 corridor. Given the wetland impacts, significant grading work and the uncertainty as to the timing of the new Trunk Highway 101 project, it is recommended that the trunk utilities following within the existing Trunk Highway 101 alignment. As is evident from the list of project elements, this is a very large -scale improvement project which is anticipated to begin construction this fall and be substantially completed by the fall of 1995. The estimated project cost is just over $4 million and is proposed to be financed through a combination of State -Aid road funds, local funds, and special assessments to benefitting properties. The City Council may recall that a previously proposed project to extend watermain along Trunk Highway 101 from Chanhassen Hills to 86th Street had plans prepared; however, it did not proceed into a construction contract. There have been some discussions between staff, the project consultant and the developers of Mission Hills on advancing the schedule for installation of this j portion of the watermain work during the summer of 1994. Whether or not this advanced contract work occurs will depend greatly on the developer's ability to obtain City Planning Commission and Council approvals in a timely fashion. An informational neighborhood meeting concerning this proposed project has been scheduled for Monday, June 6, 1994. All affected property owners have been invited. The project engineer from Orr - Schelen - Mayeron & Associates will be present at the public hearing to provide a detailed presentation of the feasibility study. At the close of the public , hearing, if there are no relevant questions or concerns which require further investigation and response, it would be recommended that the City Council approve the feasibility study for the Lyman Boulevard Street Reconstruction and Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements in , Sections 13 and 24, Project No. 93 -32 and authorize the consulting firm of Orr - Schelen- Mayeron & Associates to prepare the project plans and specifications. ktm L__l Don Ashworth June 6, 1994 Page 3 Attachments: 1. 2. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice to Property Owners. Public Hearing Notice to the Chanhassen Villager. c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Jerry Boucher, Utility Superintendent Mike Wegler, Street Superintendent Dave Mitchell, OSM NOTE TO CM COUNCIL: A copy of the feasibility report has previously been presented to you. Please bring your copy to the City Council meeting Monday night. g Aeng\charles \cc\Iym an.ph L CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on 3 ( 01 19 the duly qualified and acting Deputy Ark of the City of Chan- hassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of-/)I c_W ' , -,h en . ' . I- V-44 . to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Ka en J' nge rdt, Deputy Clerk Subscribed and savor to before me this d ay of 1 19 Notary Public KIM I MEUWISSEN NOTARY PUBUC — MINNESOTA CARVER COUNTY ZZI y My Commission EVIMS MAY 29. 1998 1 1 u 1 w f I� .�Ag CITY CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 a CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Re: Notice of Public Hearing for the Lyman Boulevard Street Reconstruction and Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32 I Dear Property Owner: Notice if hereby given that a public hearing has been scheduled for public discussion on the Lyman Boulevard (Trunk Highway 101 to east corporate limits) Reconstruction and Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32 at the City Council's regular meeting on Monday, June 13, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The project deals with the reconstruction of Lyman Boulevard to an urban roadway section with concrete curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities, an d installation of trunk watermain and sanitary sewer along Lake Riley Boulevard, Lyman Boulevard and Trunk Highway 101. Said improvements are proposed to take place within Sections13 and 24 of the city and are proposed to be financed by a combination of state aid funds, local funds, and special assessments. The total project cost of said improvements is estimated to be proximately $4,150,000.00. A copy of the feasibility study showing the project scope a dcosts is available for review in the Engineering Department Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. NOTICE OF INFORMATIONAL VEIGHBORHOOD MEETIlVG 1 You are also invited to attend - ,an, , informaL.informational ,meeting on this project to be held on Monday, June 6,1 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. ' Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Charles D. Folch Director of Public Works /City Engineer 1 CDF:jms g \eng\heanng \lyman Iu May 24, 1994 825:0240800 R25.0241300 _ R25.02428W City of Chanhassen Kevin & Valette K. Finger James F. & Patricia M. Dolejsi c/o Treasurer 9201 Great Plain Blvd. 9260 Kiowa Trail 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0241100 825.0240400 R25.0231600 Vencil G. & Cathleen L. Prewitt Robert & Doris Rogers James A. Curry 421 Lyman Blvd. 4917 Diane Drive 4817 Upper Terrace Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Edina, MN 55435 R25.0242410 R25.5620020 R25-5620010 James A. Curry Eugene R. & Therese A. Quinn Michael L. & Brigid A. Keifer 4817 Upper Terrace 4510 West Shore Drive 532 Lyman Blvd. Edina, MN 55435 Rapid City, SD 57702 Chanhassen, MN 55317 825.0241800 R25.0242000 R25.0242200 G. Skalberg Bailey L. & Mary Lou Janssen Richard F. & Diane M. Riegert 510 Lyman Blvd. 500 Lyman Blvd. 520 Lyman Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0241900 R25.0142100 R25.0241700 Dixon R. & Karon L. Blosberg Russell L. & Orletta Frederick Timothy R. & Diane Srdar 530 Lyman Blvd. 540 Lyman Blvd. 550 Lyman Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25-5620030 R25.0241500 R25.0241600 Eugene R. & Therese A. Quinn Richard Chadwick Richard J. Chadwick 4510 West Shore Drive 9530 Fox Ford Road 9530 Fox Ford Road Rapid City, SD 57702 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0241400 R25.0242600 825.0136300 Leland E. & Laurie E. Wyman Klingelhutz Development Co. Charles Adelman etal. 400 Lyman Blvd. (Lake Riley Hills) 1411 W. 97th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 350 Hwy 212 East. Bloomington, MN 55431 P.O. Box 89 Chaska, MN 55318 825.0240100 825.0242411 R25.0242400 Lakeview Hills Investment Co. U.S. West Inc. Al H. & Mary Jane Klingelhutz 45 7th Street south Corp. Tax Dept. C/O Aloysisus Klingelhutz 3010 Plaza VII Tower Attn: Klaus Cox 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Englewood, CO 80111 Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0242700 825.0135700 R25.0136000 John D. Klingelhutz AI H. & Mary Jane Klingelhutz Keith D. & Carol M. Bartz (Part of Lake Riley Hills) C/O Aloysisus Klingelhutz 2209 Acorn Court 350 Hwy. 212 E. 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Lexington, KY 40516 P.O. Box 89 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 R25.7400080 R25.7400070 R25.7400060 Richard & JoAnne Larson David T.'& Corrine A. Nagel David & Sharon Nickolay c/o MGM 8550 Tigua Lane 850 Tigua Lane 8590 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 R2�.7400050 Arthur W. & JoAnn Mulligan 8501 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 i R25.7400040 Neil & Brian Klingelhutz 350 Hwy 212 East P.O. Box 89 Chaska, MN 55318 R25.7400020 R25.7400010 Kimberly A. Jones & Stafford Nelson Brenda M. Schaeffer 8571 Tigua Lane 8591 Tigua Circle ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 t R25.0135900 Mark T. & Lori Jesberg 8407 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen,MN 55317 825.0134500 M. J. Ward C/O Jerome Raidt, Psnl Attdnt 930 Baker Building 730 2nd. Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 -2475 825.0133800 Terril & Betty Ann Clark 8522 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 825.006400 John & Barbara Jacobs 8516 Great Plains Blvd. 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 � R25.0134600 George W. & Leslie Gilman 8506 Great Plains Blvd. ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 825.0134900 James & Gail Murphy 8500 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 !R25.0135800 Joseph & Patricia Eickholt Great Plains Blvd. thanhassen, MN 55317 V 0134700 Robert Armstrong Jr. A FW Great Plains Blvd. hanhassen, MN 55317 825.0133500 Willis & Anita Klein 8405 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0134810 Gerald A. & Rose Mary Luebke 8526 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0185400 Wayne & Kathleen Holtmeier 8524 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 825.0135300 Richard & Marion Nieland 8510 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 825.0135100 Norman C. Jr. & Kimberly Grant 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0135500 Eugene & Martha Klein 8412 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0133400 Milton Bathke 8404 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0240200 Dale L. & Randi E. Boyer 9005 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 f �a R25.7400030 Joseph & Gayle Hautman 8551 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.00W 10 Andrew A. & Lynda W. Freseth 8411 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 825.0133600 George, Jr. & Margaret H. Shorba 304 Chan View Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0134800 Walter E. & Marian T. Paulson 8528 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0135200 Timothy J. & Terry Owens 8520 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0135600 Donald Slather 8508 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0135000 Shirley M. Robinson 8502 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0135510 James & Katherine Jacoby 8410 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 825.0133700 Donald & Dorthy Gale 8402 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0240300 Benjamin E. & Patricia Swenson 9015 Lake Riley Rd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 f R2 R25.7470010 R25.7470020 Norman C. Jr. & Kimberly Grant Delbert R. & Nancy R. Smith Raymond M. & Judith N Lewis 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950020 Robert H & Cheryl A. Peterson 9101 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950050 John B. Jr. & Marlyn G. Goulett 9119 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950080 Alan H. & Karen L. Dirks 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950120 Gregory L. & Kelly R. Hastings 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950150 Alan H. & Karen L. Dirks 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950030 James L. Tonjes 9111 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 825.7950060 Richard D. & Frieda A Olin 9125 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950100 Timothy D. & Patricia L. Besser 9209 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950130 Dennis R. & Ann Baker 9219 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950160 George B. Dewitt 3127 4th Street SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 R25.7950180 R25.7950190 Frederick Potthofl III & Judith C. Pothofi John W Ardoyno 9231 Lake Riley Blvd. 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950210 Sunnyslope Homeowners Assn 340 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950220 Joy A Tanner 9243 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950240 James F. & Mary Ellen Jessup 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.8100020 Robert D. & Kristin S. Rebertus 320 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.0240700 Donald & Kitty Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.8100030 Kyle D. & Leslie E. Tidstrom 340 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950040 J P Jr & Judith M Hunglemann 9117 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' 825.7950070 j James Lee Hendrickson 9131 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950110 Curtis G. Krier 9211 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' R25.7950140 Eunice Elizabeth Kottke 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950170 j Ronald Ytzen 9227 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.7950200 Paul Kent Olson 9239 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 825.7950230 Lucille Louise Remus 9245 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 825.8100010 Jeffrey P. & Heidi S. Nelson 300 Deerfoot Trail ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.8100040 Daniel M. & Jean Christensen 360 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.8100056 Kevin M. & Linda P. Sharkey 380 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.8100080 Scott Alan Wirth 361 Deerfoot Trail ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 825.8100110 Gregory G. & Raquel A. Wallin 321 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 � I � I � I I I � I � I R25.8100060 Paul E. & Gail A. Terry 400 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 8258100090 Steven A. & Patricia A. Sekely 341 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen. MN 55317 R25.8100120 Dale B. & Diane Kutter 301 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.8100070 Ri.tard R. & Jill M. Madore 381 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 R25.8100100 Christopher T. McGrath & Christine McGrath 331 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 J CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR LYMAN BOULEVARD STREET RECONSTRUCTION & LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 93 -32 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City ouncil will meet in the i tY City Hall Council Chambers located at 690 Coulter Drive on Monday, June 13, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. for a public hearing on the Lyman Boulevard (trunk Highway 101 to east corporate limits) Reconstruction and Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project Not 93 -32. This project deals with reconstruction of Lyman Boulevard to an urban roadway section with concrete curb and gutter, storm drainage facilities, and the installation of trunk watermain and sanitary sewer along Lake Riley Boulevard, Lyman Boulevard and Trunk Highway 101. Said Improvements are proposed to take place within Sections 13 and 24 within the city and are proposed to be financed by a combination of state aid funds, local funds, and special assessments. The total project cost of said iprovements is estimated to be approximately $4,150,000.00. All interested persons may appear and be heard at said time and place. Charles D. Folch, City Engineer 937-1900 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on 6/2/93 and 6/9/93) t Orr SChelen 300 Park Place Center 6I2- 595 -5775 Mayeron & 5775 Wayzata Boulevard 1 -800- 753 -5775 Associates, Inc. Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 FAX 595 -5774 MEETING SUMMARY � •f t', t i6 t." r r r TO: File U' r o DATE: June 23, 1994 ,. -, DEPT . BY: Wayne Houle, EIT SUBJECT: Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements and Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction /Upgrading City of Chanhassen Project No. 93 -32 OSM Project No. 5183.00 A meeting was held today at the Al Klingelhutz property in Chanhassen, with the following people in attendance: Al H. Klingelhutz - Resident Gerald A. Luebke - Resident Dave Mitchell, OSM Wayne Houle, OSM The meeting was scheduled to discuss the alignment of the trunk water main along with assessments to Mr. Klingelhutz properties. The following items were discussed: 1. Gerald and Al stated that the anticipated water main alig nment, which is to follow the P g section line, would disrupt many mature trees along their property lines. Al also stated that he would rather have the watermain follow the existing alignment of State Trunk Highway No. 101, than to have it bisect his two properties. Dave stated that either alignment would bisect his property, since he owns land on both sides of TH 101. Al and Gerald expressed their interest in seeing the pipes placed along existing TH 101. Dave indicated that we would pursue an alignment with the pipes along TH 101. 2. Al questioned Wayne and Dave about his assessments and that he still did not know exactly what the assessments are. Wayne stated that he would mark up a sketch of ' Al's land indicating how the assessments were calculated; this would be done before the next public hearing. ' NOTE: The above constitutes OSM's understanding of the items discussed at this meeting. If there are any questions, comments or changes, please notify us at 595 -5775 immediately. ■ c: All Attendees Charles Folch - City of Chanhassen H:\5l93.00\CML\C0RRES\0623W.MS VIL \CORRES \0623W.MS ' Engineers - Architects - Planners - Surveyors Q June 29, 1994 Mr. Al H. Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Breakdown of Assessments Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction City Project No. 93 -32 OSM Project No. 5183.00 300 Park Place Center 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 612 -595 -5775 1 -800- 753 -5775 FAX 595 -5774 1 1 I E Engineers Architects Planners Surveyors Dear Mr. Klingelhutz: 1 Attached is the information that you requested during our meeting of June 23, 1994. You will note a breakdown for the two properties that are proposed to be assessed as part of the above - referenced project. Property I.D. No. 825.0135700 is the 10 -acre parcel east of Trunk Highway 101 (T.H. 101) ' and north of 86th Street. Within the feasibility report, we are showing a preliminary assessment for 25 residential units. All of these residential units fall within the proposed Mission Hills development. The total assessment proposed for these 25 units is $60,625. Property I.D. No. R25.0242400 is the area south of 86th Street and east of T.H. 101 and includes slightly less than 60 acres. Of this 60 acres, approximately 18 acres are proposed to be developed as part of Mission Hills with a total number of residential units equal to 133. Of the remaining acreage, approximately 30 acres would be future right -of -way for T.H. 212 and T.H. 101. The remaining approximately 11 acres was estimated to be able to generate 27 residential units. The preliminary assessment breakdown for this parcel shows a total assessment for the parcel to be $399,800. Of this, approximately $334,325 would be assessments directly related to the Mission Hills development and the units proposed in that area. The remaining $65,475 would be assessments for areas that are left undeveloped at this time and not included in the Mission Hills development. At your request, I discussed with Mr. Charles Folch, the City. Engineer the potential of future adjustments to the assessments when you develop your remaining property. The , City's current policy is that adjustments would only be made if the actual Residential Equivalent Units (REU's) proposed to be developed is higher than what has been assessed. This would result in additional trunk charges being levied at the time of development. The current policy does not permit reducing of the assessments at the time of development. The 1 Orr Schelen Mayeron & Associates, Inc. H: \5l83.00 \CIVIL \CORRES \06MAHK 1 Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Al H. Klingelhutz Chanhassen, MN 55317 June 29, 1994 Page 2 rationale is that trunk facilities are sized to accommodate proposed land use. Future development with less density does not reduce the cost of the trunk system nor does it reduce the benefit to the property. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 595 -5699. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON &a ASSO ASSOCIATES, INC. bt J David D. Mitchell, P.E. Project Manager Enclosures c: Charles Folch, Chanhassen City Engineer w /Encl. rm H: \5181M \CML \CORRES \062994 AH K Lake Riley Area Assessments f Chanhassen, MN At Klinglehutz Property P1D # R25.0242400 SUMMARY ur KtV a ZONING AREA UNITS TOTAL UNITS MISSION HILLS UNDEVELOPED MISSION HILLS UNDEVELOPED RES - LOW DENSITY 7.22 14 52 RES - MED DENSITY 7.81 3.26 52 13 13 RES - HIGH DENSITY 1.15 81 MIXED - USE 7.79 81 0 WETLAND 2.33 0 RIGHT -OF -WAY 30.08 41.71 133 271 160 TOTALS 17.93 CHARGES: TRUNK WATERMAIN: 160 Units X $1375 /Unit = $220,000 Lateral charges thru Mission Hills = $11,800 Total Watermain Charges $231,800 TRUNK SANITARY SEWER: 160 Units X $1050 /Unit = $168,000 Total Sanitary Sewer Charges $168,000 Total Assessment $399,800 Mission Hills portion: 133 units X (1375 +1050) _ $322,525 Lateral $11,800 Total Assessment Associated with Proposed Development Total Assessment Associated with Undevelopment Property $334,325 $65,475 6/30/94 KUNG As I Lake Riley Area Assessments Chanhassen, MN Al Klinglehutz Property PID # R25.0135700 rI I 11111 A nV !1[ Dc 1 0 vv,�nw. ZONING UNITS MISSION HILLS UNDEVELOPED TOTAL UNITS RES - LOW DENSITY 4 4 MIXED - USE 21 21 TOTALS 25 25 CHARGES: TRUNK WATER MAIN: 25 Units X $1375 /Unit = $34,375 TRUNK SANITARY SEWER: 25 Units X $1050 /Unit = $26,250 Total Assess $60,625 Mission Hills portion: 25 units X (1375 +1050) _ $60,625 Total Assessment Associated with Proposed Development $60,625 Total Assessment Associated with Undevelopment Property S KUNG2.XLS 6130/94 NAME ADDRESS PHONE CONCERNS/ ENGINEERS COMMENTS COMMENTS Scott Wirth 361 Deerfoot 445 - 7811(H) Wanted breakdown of 6128 - Indicated to him that the total assessment for his property Trail 930- 2255(W) assessment. He indicated was made up of 3 components, $1375 trunk watermain, $2500 that he did not want City lateral watermain, and $800 Lyman Blvd reconstruction. I told him water. Also indicated that he that if council heard enough opposition to the lateral watermain on did not feel that it was right Lake Riley Blvd. they may choose not to order that portion of the to assess him for the street. project. I also indicated that if this were the case he would still be He also wanted to know assessed for trunk watermain and the street. I explained the fact when council would address that the street assessment was an assessment based on the fact that this. he had to access Lyman Blvd. and. that the individuals along Lyman were being assessed at a higher rate. I told him that council would lie, addressing this on July 11th. Dale mutter 301 Deecfoot. 448 -5570 'Warted breakdown. of 6124 -. Indicated to him that .the total assessment for his property Trail assessments. was made up of 3 components, $1375 trunk watermain; $2500 lateral watermain, and $800 Lyman Blvd reconstruction. Jack 9117 Lake.. 725- 8495(!N) Not sure how he feels about 6124 - Indicated .to him that the total assessment for his property Hunglemann Riley Blvd. 835- 4263(lP) the project. Does not was made up of 3 components, $1375. trunk watermain, $2500 835-1137 support it if his'and other _ lateral watermann, and $804 Lyman Blvd reconstruction. I told h im 835 -0206 wells in the area are in good I could check to see if I could get an estimated life for a well and shape and will last a number get back to hinx of years. But would support 6/28 - Left a message on his voice mail telling him the expected it if he had an idea that his life for a point well was 25 -30 years and 65 -75 years for a well was going to fail in the residential well. Indicated that I did not know what type of well he near future. He requested had but if 1 were to guess. I would guess that it would be of the my opinion as to well life. residential type. 14ASI83.0MCry IAMC1CONCERNS.RES Page 1 PdaW on Ally 7. 1994 RESIDENT CONCERNS _ �= - LAKE RILEYAREA TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS - - — - -- - -- :., -- AND LYMAN BOULEVARD RECONSTRUCTION NAME ADDRESS PHONE CONCERNS/ COMMENTS ENGINEERS COMMENTS David 850 Tigua 782- 2306(W) Feels that the residents of 6124 -Told Dave that it was our understanding that the residents on Nickolay Lane Tigua Lane have paid all of Tigua have not paid a watermain trunk charge. Told him I would their assessments. They check with the city and get back to hire. were led to believe this when 6127 - Told Dave that the City had no record of a trunk watermain they purchased the land. charge being paid. Sewer trunk and laterals were paid. Water lateral was installed by the developer but never hooked up so that would have been included in the cost of the lot+ Dave was going to review his purchase agreement and research on his own. I encouraged him to do that. Peter Beck - : 'Ward Property Larkin & Wanted to make store we_ had 6123 - Told him that we had. Hoffman figured in assessments already paid. Mike Keifer 532 Lyman 937- 8549. Iniiicated that he had sold'his 6f24-. I oonctured and sent new letter: to Mr. Upprnan. Blvd.. . ` property 'to. a Mr. 'Thomas Uppman and was no longer responsible for the assessments, to the property: Page 2 s . >• �■ �■ Nit i■�t RESIDENT CONCERNS LAKE RILEY AREA 'TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND LYNL N BOULEVARD RECONSTRUCTION r NAME ADDRESS PHONE CONCERNS/ COMMENTS ENGINEERS COMMENTS Kevin Finger 9201 Great Wanted breakdown of , 6f24 - Told him that the assessment was made up of sanitary sewer Plains Blvd. assessment and requested and watermain trunk charges based on the potential lots available if possibility of having lateral he were to develop his property. Told hire that one unit. $2425, extended from the Lundgren was proposed to be assessed at this time with the remaining development to Bandimere deferred. I told him that this amount may double if he has 2 units Park along the east side of on the property. He understood this.. He was going to contact the his property so that he could City and coordinate the extension of the lateral to the park from the have access to City water. Lundgren Development. I told him I would estimate the cost of He stated he has 2 homes on the lateral to be about $20 per foot with the cost to him depending this .property: He asked me on the length of the lateral and. participation from the City for the :. for an estimate of lateral service to the park: assessment for the extension. Keith Bartz. 2209 Acorn .606-259- Wanted breakdown of 6/24 - -.Gave him a breakdown of assessments for his property. Court 2746 assessments. Indicated that. Told him I would verify assessment.. numbers and effective date of Lexington, KY 606259- he. thought that they had paid assessment and get back to him. 40516 2742 sewer assessments before. 6127 - Indicated to him that the City showed a lateral sanitary He was also concerned as to sewer assessment to his property but no trunk charges and that the when the assessments current assessments were for trunk charges for the units proposed became pending. as part of the Nfission Hills development. Indicated that the assessments became pending assessments at the time that the council completed a public hearing and ordered the project. I told him I anticipate that happening prior to the closing date on his property of 8/1194. I suggested that he review his purchase agreement if he was under the impression that the developer'was to I satisfy the assessments. 0 co 3 3 r u� 3 z T X�' Page 3 RESIDENT CONCERNS LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS AND LYMAN BOULEVARD RECONSTRUCTION r NAME ADDRESS PHONE CONCERNS/ COMMENTS ENGINEERS COMMENTS David Nagel 8550 Tigua Wanted to know what the 6/27 - Told him that the $1375 assessment was a trunk watermain Lane assessment was for. He charge for the placement of the trunk watermain that would provide wanted to know if this was service for the Tigua Lane watermain that was installed with the associated with the Mission plat but has never been hooked up. i indicated that the project was Hills Development He also driven by the Mission Hills development as well as development wanted to know if there along Lyman Blvd and the assessment he would -see was a trunk would be additional charges charge that was a flat rate adopted and adjusted each year by the to hookup to the watermain City. I`indicated that each unit existing and proposed within the once it was on line. study area. was being assessed this same charge plus others. I told him that I did not know if .there .would be additional charge to him for hooking up to the watermain. I told him I would assume that there would be some charge for the.. permit and that he would have to pay fora plumber to extend. the line into his house but that he . _ should check with the City to determine any hookup charges. Chris 331 Deerfoot _: ` 442= 9317(W) Wanted breakdown of 600 - Indicated to him via voice mail that the total assessment for McGrath Trail assessments. his property was made up of 3 components, $1375 trunk watermain, $2500 lateral watermain, and $800 Lyman Blvd reconstruction. 110 R1 n LO 3 cn i :z �I rr it r r r r r r rr r r r rl r� r� r ■i■r rr ___-RESIDENT. CONCERNS-- LAKE RILEY AREA. TRUNK UTILITY 1MPROVEMEENTS AND LYMAN BOULEVARD. RECONSTRUCTION NAME ADDRESS PHONE CONCERNS/ COMMENTS ENGINEERS COMMENTS lbomas 532 Lyman 937 -8420" Wanted breakdown of 716 - I explained the breakdown of assessments to his property Uppman Blvd 941- 0556(W) assessments. Understands based on potential units and trunk charges and street assessments benefit ftom street for each unit. I explained that one trunk watermain and one trunk reconstruction but has a sewer charge would be assessed at this time along with the entire problem seeing the benefit of street assessment. I explained to him that the trunk charge was an sewer and water if a lateral area charge and that it did not mean that the utility had to be is not provided to his adjacent to his property. I told him that if he and his neighbors property. He wanted to agreed to having a lateral line extended along Quinn Road, they know what his options were. should submit a petition to the council to add it to the project. I He also indicated that he explained to him that the council would be listening to public would not. be-available for comment at the July 1 Ith: meeting. I also indicated diet. by law we the July I lth meeting and must be. able to show benefit equal to or in excess of the wanted' to know if a letter to assessment and that if he felt that he . was hot receiving the amount the council would be of befit being assessed he could- formally appeal the assessment sufficient to express his at the assessment hearing in 1996..An.,appraisat would be done at concerns. that time and that he could also do the same. For right now I suggested that he either consult an appraiser or stated that a real estate agent may be willing to give hick an opinion. Page 5 _: - - - -- RESIDENT CONCERNS LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK UTILITY 1WROVEMENTS AND LYMAN BOULEVARD RECONSTRUCTION NAME ADDRESS PHONE CONCERNS/ COMMENTS ENGINEERS CON VAENTS Dan 360 Deerfoot 937 -4531 Concerned with breakdown 716 - Indicated to him that the total assessment for his property was Christensen Trail of assessments. Concerned made up of 3 components, $1375 trunk watermain, $2500 lateral with alignment of watermain, watermain, and $SOU Lyman Blvd reconstruction. I explained that Questioned why it was going the preliminary plan was to extend the watermain down the west ahead when all that had been side of Lake Riley Blvd. and then around the outside perimeter of sent to date was a survey. the Sunny Slope development including the area along the north and west side of Lake Riley Blvd to complete a loop. I explained that the majority of the residents responding to the survey wanted to know how much the watermain would cost them. We had included that' the feasibility report and if tha council did not hear many objections from residents. that the project would likely be done. H:151810MQVp WSOCQNCHRNSAES PdaW nn My 7, 1994 Page 6 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 1lll• .= M dim 1' NAME ADDRESS PRONE CONCERNS/ ENGINEERS COBUKENTS COMMENTS F_,rnie Charles 927- 1661(W) He was very concerned with 716 - i tried to explain the methodology used but he was not Peacock Adelman the assessment proposed to willing to listen. We set up a meeting for 718/94 at 10:30am at Property the Charles Adelman Chanhassen City Hall with Charles Folch. property. He feels that there must be some mistake. He indicated that.there is 53 : acres of land and a $554,066 assessment which equates to over $12,000 per acre and he doss. not feel that the land is worth.that. When I _told.him we were only assessing the - land that we felt was available for developernent, 16 acres, he stated that .only made it worse. -He said at an assessment rate of $41,0M you can have the land. - F ft1dJ93.0MCMAMWMMCMNS.RES Page 7 PMtM.m 7uty ?, 1494 JUL 11 '94 9::7 FROM PAGE O1 ' July 11, 1994 Via FAX (937 -5739) and MAIL ' Charles D. l~olch, City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive ' Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Lakeview Hills Apartments and Surrounding Acreage ' Dear Mr. Folch: I am a managing general partner of Lakeview Hills Investment Group, the ' Minnesota general partnership that owns Lakeview Hills Apartments and surrounding acreage. I was advised today by our adjacent landowner that there is a proposed assessment in excess of $9O0,000 with respect to our land. I was also advised that notices dated May 24, 1994 and June 20, 1994 were sent regarding the proposed assessment. We received nothing. My first knowledge of any proposed assessment was today. I tried to call you but you were unavailable. I am hoping to stop out to the city offices this afternoon to visit with you, obtain a copy of the report and, hopefully, the two notices that we did not ' receive. I was also advised that there is a city council meeting tonight, It is my ' understanding that the subject of the assessment will be discussed and possibly voted on. As I have indicated, we only found out today about the proposed assessment. We do not have the report or any other information. It will take us and our advisors some time to assimilate the information in order to be able to form a position regarding the proposed ' assessment. Accordingly, we would respectfully request that the issue of the proposed assessment be postponed and scheduled at a Iater date when we will be prepared to address the matter. An additional problem is that our partners are not available to attend the meeting ' this evening. I look forward to discussing this matter with you. Hopefully you might be in your ' offices this afternoon. Thank you. : Very truly yours, Steven B. Liefschultz ' SBL/dsc ' P. S. All future notices should be sent to Lakeview Hills Investment Group, c% The Remada Company, 3025 Harbor Lane, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447. Thank you. TAE R mAbA ComPANY W6 HARBOR LANE &M315 PLYMWTK Sul6814s (B 9) US-1614 ' F FAX 0 6b7.0M July 11, 1994 Via FAX (937 -5739) and MAIL ' Charles D. l~olch, City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive ' Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Lakeview Hills Apartments and Surrounding Acreage ' Dear Mr. Folch: I am a managing general partner of Lakeview Hills Investment Group, the ' Minnesota general partnership that owns Lakeview Hills Apartments and surrounding acreage. I was advised today by our adjacent landowner that there is a proposed assessment in excess of $9O0,000 with respect to our land. I was also advised that notices dated May 24, 1994 and June 20, 1994 were sent regarding the proposed assessment. We received nothing. My first knowledge of any proposed assessment was today. I tried to call you but you were unavailable. I am hoping to stop out to the city offices this afternoon to visit with you, obtain a copy of the report and, hopefully, the two notices that we did not ' receive. I was also advised that there is a city council meeting tonight, It is my ' understanding that the subject of the assessment will be discussed and possibly voted on. As I have indicated, we only found out today about the proposed assessment. We do not have the report or any other information. It will take us and our advisors some time to assimilate the information in order to be able to form a position regarding the proposed ' assessment. Accordingly, we would respectfully request that the issue of the proposed assessment be postponed and scheduled at a Iater date when we will be prepared to address the matter. An additional problem is that our partners are not available to attend the meeting ' this evening. I look forward to discussing this matter with you. Hopefully you might be in your ' offices this afternoon. Thank you. : Very truly yours, Steven B. Liefschultz ' SBL/dsc ' P. S. All future notices should be sent to Lakeview Hills Investment Group, c% The Remada Company, 3025 Harbor Lane, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447. Thank you. JUL 11 '94 9:47 FROM FADE 01 THE T -EMADA COMPANY =6 HAFOOR LANE. sA7E 316 FLYNOUTK UN 66047 0191 500.1664 FAX 9 562499 July 11, 1994 Via FAX (937 - 5739) and MAIL Charles D. Folch, City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Lakeview Hilts Apartments and Surrounding Acreage Dear Mr. Folch: As a follow -up to my previous correspondence, also dated today, this correspondence shall serve as notice that Lakeview Hills Investment Croup, as equitable title holder to the subject premises, objects to the proposed assessment in all respects. Very truly your Steven B. Liefschultz SBUdsc FROM .1 .1 "A Family Tradition Since 2955 "' I Edina Office n I C ].=.1 07. 11. 94 11:59 AM P02 4015 West 65th Street Uina, MN 55435 Office (612) 927 -1100 FAX (612) 927 -1675 Charles Fol ch City Engineer City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN Dear Charles: July 11, 1994 To follow up on our conversation of last Friday, I would like to make a formal request that "The Lake Riley Area Utility Project" be tabled until we have had ample time to review the proposal. As I indicated, I just became aware of the new proposal and I have not had enough time to review the contents of the proposal. The proposed amount of the assessment is in excess of $654,000 and I believe we should have additional time to determine how this will impact my client's land. There also appears to be a major problem with the number of units we could put on this parcel and the proposal is based on the maximum use. If the actual use is something less than the proposal, adjustments should be made. There are too many unanswered issues in this matter! Sincerely yours, Ernie Peacock