Loading...
6. Authorize Preparation of Plans & Specifications for Stage II Improvements to Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Area Utility Improvementsi 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF 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 ' DATE: October 20, 1994 Action by City lu rinistrstor Endorsa;l Modifi . Reject cwo Ab Submitted to Commission >� %1bmttW to CoACR / -aq -9N SUBJ: Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Stage II Improvements to Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Area Utility Improvements Project No. 93 -32B r At their regular meeting on May 9, 1994, the =City Ctauncil received the feasibility study for the Lyman Boulevard Street Reconstruction and Like Rile Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32 and set the public hearing for thjr meetiri F At that meeting, the project scope and findings of the feasibility study were form y present4to the City Council and general public. ' At the close of the public hearing, the Cry Council voted table action on ordering the project until their July 11, 1994 meeting and °requested thatsaff provide responses to each of the questions raised during the public hiring. In addition he Council requests that all of the ' affected property owners be notified in writing of the co 1 nued Council meeting date and the proposed assessment against thetr'`property. At the July 11 994 meeting, staff and the project engineer presented formal responses to each of the questions ised at the previous public hearing x.t5 held on June 13, 194 0It is important to note that this agenda item was also conducted as a public hearing. I urtng �tl urp�u c�Jiear t, `r the Lakeview Hills Investment Group expresserr ncdW concerning this project from the e g the Charles Adelman property expressedcc�ci about the timing of this project an sments in relation to the impending RALF 212. The public hearing was then closed and following some: di, ssion, the Council again tabled action on authorizing the plans and specifications f project and directed staff to meet with representatives of the Charles Adelman prop', and Lakeview Hills property to work out the ' issues and/or investigate the opportunity to stage this improvement project. The Council also requested that this issue be brought back before them at their regular meeting on July 25, 1994. Accordingly, staff and the project engineer strategically developed a phasing program for this project which would provide for the initiation of the project elements which are tied to critical i 't Don Ashworth October 20, 1994 Page 2 timepath modes and thereby allow for additional time to revise and fine tune the approach to the ' remaining stages of the project. At the July 25, 1994 City Council meeting, staff and the project engineer presented a Stage I portion of the project which would begin construction this fall and involve the installation of trunk watermain from its current terminus on Trunk Highway 101 at Lake Susan Drive and extend north along Trunk Highway 101 to the new 86th Street alignment then east through the Mission Hills development, then south through the proposed Lake Riley ' Hills (John Klingelhutz) development, temporarily terminating at Lyman Boulevard. This stage was compatible with the timing and needs of the Mission Hills development located at 86th Street and will provide some advanced utility accessibility for the proposed Lundgren Bros. ' development south of Lyman Boulevard early next summer. As such, the City Council took action to order the preparation of plans and specifications for the i referenced Stage I portion of the project with the understanding that a Stage II, and possibly Stage III portions of this project would be presented to the Council within 30 to 60 days. During the interim, staff and the project engineer would continue meetings with owners of the Adelman ' and Lakeview Hills properties and allow staff additional time to evaluate the needs and future development plans of these two properties. Following a number of strategy meetings and the continued progress of the RALF acquisition, it appears that the remaining portion of the originally proposed project can be constructed as a Stage II improvement project. Representatives of the Adelman property were initially concerned about delays in the Trunk ' Highway 212 right -of -way condemnation or RALF acquisition over a portion of their property and the ability to obtain an interested developer to purchase the remaining portion of the property. It appears that both of these two issues are moving ahead in a compatible time fashion. The representatives of the Lakeview Hills property also had similar concerns related to the MnDOT right -of -way acquisition for future Trunk Highway 212, and their ability to subdivide the remaining undeveloped portion of their property. Again, it now appears that these issues have ' been addressed accordingly. ' It is important to note that this is not an official public hearing since the City Council has conducted two public hearings on this overall project previously (see attached minutes). As is typical with these types of projects, the primary emphasis of questions raised at the previous public hearings were by non - developing property owners who owned large lot or small acreage - type properties. Staffs' response to these questions has always been consistent with the Council's policy of not financially forcing non - developing homesteaded properties into a sale or development situation due to assessment costs. The policy has been to assess non - developing homesteaded properties one unit of trunk utility and lateral benefit, if appropriate, for each 10- acre increment of property owned with the remaining trunk and/or lateral units listed on the assessment schedule to be paid as a trunk hook up charge and connection charge (for lateral benefit) at the time that subdivision should occur in the future. LJ �1 Don Ashworth October 20, 1994 Page 3 ' It now appears appropriate to take the next step in the process by ordering the preparation of ' plans and specifications for Stage II, the remaining portion of the overall improvement project. The project engineer, Mr. David Mitchell from OSM, will be on hand at the meeting to re- present the primary project elements and schedule associated with the Stage II portion of this overall improvement project and provide information on associated costs and funding, including special assessments. It is therefore recommended that the City Council authorize the preparation of plans and ' specifications for the Stage II improvements to Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32B. I ems Attachments: 1. Location map. 2. Supplemental Report from OSM dated October 24, 1994. 3. Letter from OSM dated October 10, 1994. ' 4. Minutes from the June 13, 1994 City Council meeting. 5. Minutes from the July 11, 1994 City Council meeting. 6. Minutes from the July 25, 1994 City Council meeting. c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Dave Mitchell, OSM ' gAeng \charles \cc \lymanii I n i n L � N Orr 0-AMS%t_k Schelen Mayeron & Associates, Inc. October 10, 1994 300 Park Place Center 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Lake Riley, Lake Susan, and Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 Lyman Boulevard Area Residents 612 -59 1- 800 - 753-57 53 -5775 Chanhassen, MN FAX 595 -5774 Re: Resident Update Letter No. 2 Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements and Lyman Boulevard Reconstruction, Chanhassen, MN City Project No. 93 -32 OSM Project No. 5183.00 Dear Resident: I I We would like to update you on the status of the above - referenced project as it affects you , and your neighborhood. PHASE 1 i As many of you are aware, on August 8, 1994 the Chanhassen City Council ordered plans and specifications for Phase 1 of the project. Phase 1 of the project includes the following: WATERMAIN Trunk watermain is proposed to connect to an existing watermain at Lake Susan ' Drive. It will extend along T.H. 101 from Lake Susan Drive to 86th Street, easterly on 86th Street and then southerly to Lyman Boulevard. Lateral watermain will connect the existing watermain on Tigua Lane to the water system. ' PHASE 2 The City Council will consider ordering plans and specifications for Phase 2 of the project on Monday, October 24, 1994, at 7:30 P.M. Phase 2 of the project includes the following: WATERMAIN ' Trunk watermain is proposed from T.H. 5 southerly along T.H. 101 to Lyman Boulevard, with the exception of the portion between 86th street and Lake Susan Drive; easterly on Lyman Boulevard to the Chanhassen city limits. Connections to ' the existing water system will be made at T.H. 5 and to the watermain installed as part of Phase 1. Lateral watermain is proposed to extend from Lyman Boulevard southerly along Lake Riley Boulevard to serve homes along Lake Riley Boulevard ' and in the Sunny Slope Addition. 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 Boulevard and Lake Riley Boulevard. The new lift station will replace the existing lift station at that intersection and will have capacity to serve the proposed and H: \5193.00 \CNI1. \CORRES \101094.res , Equal Opportunity Employer el's `% t t Engineers Architects Planners Surveyors Lake Riley, Lake Susan, and Lyman Boulevard Area Residents October 10, 1994 Page 2 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 Hills 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 design 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 eight foot wide bituminous trail is proposed on the south side of the reconstructed street area. PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION ' Bids were received on October 6, 1994 for Phase 1 construction. Upon award of a construction contract by the City Council, construction will commence along T.H. 101. The anticipated start date for this construction is the week of October 24, 1994. Substantial completion is scheduled for December of 1994 with final completion and restoration anticipated in the spring of 1995. ' PHASE 2 SURVEY In the next few weeks OSM's survey crews may be in the area preparing for future surveys ' and to identify some property issues. They drive blue Chevrolet Suburbans. If you have any questions regarding the work you see them doing please call. ' 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 as soon as possible so that we can discuss your concerns. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INF. 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 I H: \5183.00 \CIVIL \CORRES \101099.res 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 benefined 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 �. City ouncil Meeting - June 13 1994 tY 8 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. , c l� Public Present: Name Address ' Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Gary Skalberg 510 Lyman Blvd. Richard Chadwick 9530 Foxford Road Bailey & Mary Lou Janssen 500 Lyman Blvd. Daniel Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd. Russell & Orletta F. Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd. ' Diane Riegert 520 Lyman Blvd. Eunice Kottke 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. Robert H. Peterson 9101 Lake Riley Blvd. ' Gerald & Rosemary Luebke 8526 Great Plains Blvd. Marc Anderson 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 benefined 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 i City Council Meeting • June 13, 1994 ' high density residential, medium density residential zoning areas. You may remember a number of years ago, 3 or 4 years ago, our fum 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 area 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 alteratives 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 ... coverthe ' 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 1 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 Susan 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 Dills 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 TH 101 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 1 12 City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 , 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 ... Ibis 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 area, 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? ' 13 1 L L t t C 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 $1,375.00 per resident equivalent unit or approximately $2,750.00 per acre. The total trunk funds generated from this project would be $1,032,150.00. Total trunk water funds generated would be $1,986,875.00. 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 watermain assessments to Lake Riley Blvd would be $2,500.00 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 $819.00 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 $119,300.00. City storm drainage fund would contribute $61,900.00. 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 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 1 t City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 is ' 11 , 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 '96. November. Completing construction November of '95 with a final wearing course put on the roadway in ' 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 $548,000.00. 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 unfit 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. i is ' 11 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 A] spoke of and would like to know why the water is being routed down along that township 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 1, 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. 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 AI's or some of the 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 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 t City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 high. It's something that I support to people that are on the line. I think its been handled very efficiently because there's been what was thought to be the issue resolved 2 years ago and roadway right -of -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 heating? 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. ' 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 17 1 I I City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 I assessments broken out between what's utility assessments, trunk and lateral and what is roadway assessment. 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 packing 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. 1 mean those lines can stay there and there won't be any problem. If 1 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 t City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 19 1 , Councilman Senn: No. Not at this time. 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 ygu 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. Charles. , Mayor Chmiel: 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, I 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 I i I i 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 staffs 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 I Ith 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. 1 20 J n City Council Meeting - June 13, 1994 1 77 I L J Councilman Senn: So moved. 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 t n until July 11, 1994 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE LUCY ROAD STREET AND UTILITY EXTENSION, PROJECT 92 -12. � Public Present: Name Address , Bill Engelhardt Wm R. Engelhardt & Assoc. Ed & Mary Ryan 6730 Galpin Blvd. David Gestach 8001 Acorn Circle Brian Klingelhutz 8860 Co. Rd. 10 E Lee Paulson 8880 Wildwood Avenue Sam & Nancy Mancino 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 1 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Mayor Cbmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approval the final plat for Lots 1 -3, Park One Third Addition, Marcus Corporation with the condition that Councilman Senn sign a form prepared by the City Attorney claiming no financial or personal interest in the project. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Dockendorf abstained, and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to give your season for abstaining? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just haven't thought it through. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. I guess I probably would not have brought this up either if the name is still on the final approval. If it were removed, I would have no question. Thank you. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: LYMAN BOULEVARD AND LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK UTILITY PROJECT NO. 93 -32• AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND IFI PE ATIONS CONTINUED FROM S C C JUNE 13, 1994). Public Present: I Name Address Kevin Finger 9151 Great Plains Blvd. Bernard Reich Steve Liefschultz 4776 Karen Place, White Bear Lake, MN 3D25 Harbor Lane, #315, Plymouth Jeff Brauchle Plaza VII Building, Minneapolis Dick Putnam Tandem Properties Jim Ostenson Tandem Properties Don Jensen Rottlund Homes Scott Wirth 361 Deerfoot Trail John Dobbs 361 Deerfoot Trail Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros. Bruce Malkerson 3200 Piper Jaffrey Jim Dolejsi Jerry & Rosie Luebke 9260 Kiowa Trail 8526 Great Plains Blvd. Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Dan Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd. V.G. Prewitt 420 Lyman Blvd. Russ & Orletta Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd. Bailey & Mary Lou Janssen 500 Lyman Blvd. R.H. Peterson 9101 Lake Riley Blvd. Barbara BonGiovanni 4502 West 36th Street, St. Louis Park Kristine Uppman 532 Lyman Blvd. Diane & Rick Riegert 520 Lyman Blvd. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of Council. At the previous public hearing a detailed presentation of this project, including it's primary elements, costs and financing was made. Following the 6 t City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 1 presentation there were some questions raised by property owners who had been at the public hearing. In addition it appeared both to staff and Council that the attendance ... by the project was very light given the large size of the project and as such the Council directed staff to take the Minutes from the meeting and provide written responses to the questions raised and also re- notify all the property owners of...hearing date along with the information on the proposed assessment to the property. All of this has been done during the interim between these public hearings. The written responses were not available in time to be put in your packet. However they are provided to you tonight as a handout that has been passed out. The project engineer, Mr. David Mitchell with OSM is here tonight to provide verbal response to each of the questions raised at the last public hearing and then following his conclusion I would like to respond back with some updated information of this project prior to... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. David Mitchell: Thanks Charles. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As Charles indicated, I'm Dave Mitchell with OSM Engineering, project manager for the project. On June 13th we had 5 individuals, property owners that were represented at the public hearing. Basically it broke down into two groups. The first group being Mr. Klingelhutz and Mr. Luebke who own properties adjacent to Trunk Highway 101 and 86th Street. Their primary concerns were with the alignment of the trunk utilities through that area. Mr. Wayne Hule from our office and myself met with Mr. Klingelhutz and Mr. Luebke on site. Discussed some of the alternatives present and I believe we reached a conclusion that was acceptable to all. Primarily what we will be doing is looking at alignments that is along Highway 101 and working with the property owners adjacent to...this kind of alignment is acceptable to everyone. W. Klingelhutz also had some questions regarding his assessments and the breakdown of those assessments. I've provided that for him. His primary concern was the assessments associated with the Mission Hills versus the assessments related to the property that has had retained and those ' questions have been answered been for him. Other questions came from properties owned by the Frederick's, the Chadwick's and the Janssen's. All three properties are in ... Lyman Boulevard area. Their primary concerns again were costs and assessments associated with their properties. Also some concerns with the timing of the ' project. A comment was made with regards to their existing systems being in good condition. Also some concerns about specifics such as tree loss, retaining walls, and whether or not the trunk highway 212 properties were being assessed. In a letter that was prepared for these residents, I outlined the benefits for the properties would be realized when the improvement's been made and that their property values would increase proportionally with, perhaps proportionally equal to the amount of assessments that's the basis of the whole assessment policy. Assessments are also based on a residential equivalent unit, which is something that the city of Chanhassen has accepted through their comprehensive plans. That is briefly described in these letters. Also we discussed the deferments to the small acreage homesteaded properties and that they would be assessed only for the units that they have at this time along with the entire road assessment. The remaining assessments would be deferred for future collection of...for sale of the property. With regards to timing of the project, we have over 350 units proposed under concept plans within the study area with over 200 of those units proposed adjacent to Lyman Blvd. The timing of this is right. It's time for these things to happen. We've got lots of land out there ready to develop. Also explained was the trunk highway 212 property that is not being assessed. That is undevelopable land. It is mapped and will be likely purchased by the State of Minnesota for the construction of Trunk Highway 212. Recently, not discussed in the letters but in a phone conversation with Mr. Bailey Janssen, he had some concerns with regards to his trees and his wall. We've indicated to him that we will work with him through those areas. We realize that those properties are very sensitive. That there is going to be some room ' for adjustments for road in respect to these areas to preserve as much existing features out there as possible. With that I'll let Charles update you with some additional information that's come forth. i City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 r Charles Folch: Thank you David. Late last week staff was contacted by Mr. Ernie Peacock with Edina Realty who was representing Mr. Charles Adelman's property which is located, it's about 52 acres located north of Lake Riley Blvd. Evidently Mr. Peacock was unaware of this project and unaware that his previous notices were ' being sent to the property owner of record, Mr. Adelman. As such Mr. Peacock raised some objections... time to take a look at the feasibility study and formally respond back to staff on the position with the cost of assessments and such that have been proposed. In addition, Mr. Peacock has also contacted the new property owners for Lakeview Hills Apartment complex... purchased the property recently on a contract for deed. As required by law, we noted the fee owners of the property of which the new contract owners ... the information received at the County. Therefore, evidently it appears from what they're saying that the information of these public hearings and notices that have been sent out were not being forwarded onto them and they've also contacted us. They raised some concerns for not having had the opportunity to come to any of the public hearings in the past or review the feasibility study. They're requesting a continuance of the public hearing so that they have time to take a look at this information. Given all things considered, these two properties do represent a significant share of the project. Proposed project both in size and potential financing through assessments. Due to circumstances, the utilities and notification that they weren't forwarded on, these notices, it appears that there could be some justification for a continuance to allow some time to review and prepare... 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The continuance that you're looking, I believe you're looking for at least to come back probably before Council on August 8th? Or is there. Charles Folch: Yeah at this point I guess it's hard to know exactly how much time these people would like. I think some of them are here tonight and they can have the opportunity to speak to what time they think they might need. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Jeff Brauchle: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members. With regards to that question, my name is Jeff Brauchle. I'm an attorney with the Oppenheimer Law Firm and we represent the Lakeview Hills Investment Group. Mr. Reich and Liefschultz are in the audience. They are two of the partners in that investment group. The facts are, as Mr. Folch states, said on a public contract under which the investment group owns this property. It is of record. A notice was not received until seridepitiously enough Mr. Peacock called and let us know about this today. Since then we have gotten the feasibility study. We've tried to look at it quickly. We've already talked to an appraiser and we've assembled a group and myself to be here tonight. We're determined to do our level best to move as quickly as possible to analyze the work that you've done to try to catch up. To work with city staff and the City Council and Mayor to try to ... with a just resolution to this situation. Having said that, we face the task of getting an appraiser to work on this and get a work product out on it as well as I ordered some engineering expertise to help us with some of the questions. For example, this parcel has a large well on it and how that will interact with the proposed watermain assessment which is roughly half of the $925,000.00 assessed against this property. As an example of the question that we're going to ask of you. And as I say, we're prepared to do our level best to work as quickly as we can on this so that the city is not delayed while property owners have ample opportunity to analyze the questions and get the expertise they need. But you folks hire appraisers and engineers as well... we fear that August 8th is too soon and we're not going to be able to, dispute our best efforts in spending some money, to have enough time prior to August 8th to formulate a position and come back to you with a meaningful position and the investment group humbly beseeches you for more time than that. At least to give us 60 days. We'd also like to make it clear that the current formulations we do object to the proposed assessment and.. We'd be happy to answer any questions that 8 r t City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 1 you have ... say about the projects but I think it's best said after ample and full investigation. And we do pledge , to move quickly and professionally on... Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Charles. , Charles Folch: For the record, both copies of the letter that we received from the Lakeview Hills Partnership , and the Ernie Peacock are included in that handout that was provided to you tonight. I should point out that if we do delay this project 60 days, we may need to take a look at some alternatives for the project in teams of, there currently is one project that will be before you later on tonight that is in the preliminary plat stage. At this time what they need is trunk watermain. Depending on what happens with their approval process, it may be prudent for staff and ... engineers to look at staging this project and maybe at least letting a small watermain contract at least to provide the necessary service to that property if it looks like it's going to develop this fall and leave the main work to take place next summer. If we delay this 60 days, basically the project is not feasible, , the project will not occur this year. Mayor Chmiel: But to continue with the project...60 day delay, this would still come back before Council for discussion and the final determinations at that time and then this would either be done the following year with , the balance of the needs to accommodate whatever is going to be done. Charles Folch: That's correct. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Is there anyone else at this time that would like to address this particular issue? As you can see, there's going to be a delay but if you would like to come forward and present your position, we'll be happy to entertain that at this time. Terry Forbord: Your Honor and members of the City Council. Good evening. My name is Terry Forbord. I've Vice President of Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata About 23, maybe 22 months ago we began working with the city of Chanhassen on a piece of property that's commonly known as the Rogers - Dolejsi property. Prior to that, there was another developer that was working with the city on this very site and there's another developer that was working on a site that is just north of the Rogers - Dolejsi project. Well probably for 3 to maybe 4 years there's been developer interest in this area that is served by the improvement project. In December of 1993, about 8 months ago, you approved the preliminary plat on the Rogers- Dolejsi property by Lundgren Bros at the intersection of TH 101 and Pioneer Boulevard. The plans and the other plans that have been presented to you for properties in that area are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The schedule that was presented to you regarding this public improvement project, which you received on May 9th of this year, suggests that if you approved the project at your last meeting, that the project would be substantially completed in November of 1995. Now as you know, in Minnesota it's very difficult to get a lot of work done on a project of this scope, and if this project is delayed now, we'll lose two winters. We'll lose this coming winter and then we'll lose the following winter. So essentially we're making this into a 1996, late '96 project for the Rogers- Dolejsi property. We also notice that the City of Chanhassen normally, at least typically building permits are not granted until the blacktop is down. So that's puts an additional burden on those who are trying to get into the ground and get going. And needless to say, a delay of the magnitude that's being discussed earlier this evening would push this public improvement project and the investments that the other people have made in the area over the last 24 to 36 months, 48 months, economically unfeasible. If, you know that this is not an assessment hearing. You do know that this project can be ordered. Preparation of the plans and specs. And you also know that you can choose or elect to not do the project later on, if you would select even after the plans and specs have been prepared. Even later on, after the project is I 9 1 i i City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 started is when the assessments... so there are plenty of opportunities for those who are affected by this project, to speak before you in the future. If you elect to delay this project, which I'm not sure is in the best interest for the city, I would urge you to consider breaking the project into phases. So those who have been working with the city over the last number of years, can keep on their time tables that have been established. However, I do note, at least from talking to the consultants. To the city consultants and the city staff has worked very closely with all who have been participating in this for months. It's not a new item. I do know, at least from what I've been told, that not doing the project as it's proposed, poses additional problems for the city and the orderly . development of that area, and those can be better addressed by the staff. Thank you very much for your time. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? 1 Jim Ostenson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Jim Ostenson. I'm with Tandem Properties. We've also been working with the city for several months, more than a year in developing a project which you're going to hear later tonight, Mission Hills. We've purchased the property contingent upon approvals from two long time residents of Chanhassen who have gone ahead and made decisions, personal decisions of their own. We have worked with the staff. We've worked with the Highway 101 and 212. All the ... project that is totally consistent with your comprehensive guide plans. It fits in what people perceive appropriate for this part of Chanhassen. And as Mr. Forbord has indicated, now at the 11th hour it appears that we could have a substantial delay. With our development, as the engineer eluded to earlier, that we could go ahead with accommodation made for the watermain. If it's a minimum, we'd like to see you have that conversation with the engineers and move on and do that... But I think for everyone that's worked in the area and has been diligent in the process of doing so, to have it delayed now is not right. Especially when the city has acted properly in notifying people but that they ... I'm sympathetic to that but at the same time there are a lot of other people who have spent a lot of time and money that I think deserve to be treated fairly as well. Thank you. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? If I might make a point of clarification to what I heard Charles say, and I think what I heard you say. And that is that we would like to provide additional time for the Lakeview Hills people to analyze this proposal and that could go upwards of 30, 45 or maybe 60 days. But I also see that the engineers will probably be in a position to offer an alternative, hopefully by the 25th of this month or the first meeting in August, which would look at the phasing request that Mr. Forbord had eluded to and Mission Hills. Because I think their comments are also very valid. That they will lose 2 winters and we as a community may lose the opportunity to see an orderly development along Lyman Blvd. So I guess what I'm saying is even though there may be a longer period for Lakeview Hills, I sincerely believe that either on the 25th, does that seem logical Dave? David Mitchell: I think we could put together some alternatives by the 25th. I guess in just braftistorming it right now, there may be some opportunities to exclude those areas. Don Ashworth: Well at least have them as part of Phase 2. David Mitchell: Correct. Don Ashworth: Phase 1 could reasonably be ordered on the 25th with whatever additional time necessary to order Phase 2. David Mitchell: That's correct. Or even conceivably if Phase 3 is... 10 t City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? r Don Jensen: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Don Jensen. I'm Developer Manager with the Roalund Companies. We've been working actively with Tandem and with the city staff as the builder for the Mission Hills project for over a year. In our process and primary focus as a developer and as a builder where someone else develops the land as this project is, Mission Hills. A development for the Rottlund Companies if you will, there's nothing that we can see that would preclude the city from moving forward with plans and specs in order to keep the process moving for those of us who have been waiting for a development project and process and still analyze at the same time well in phases that go with those final plans and specifications. As a builder, it is critical for us to have the pavement down, as it is for Lundgren Bros. If the city were to wait for every client that wanted to study further alignments and phases, maybe that would be an interesting compromise. But presuming that the city would choose to not lay the pavement down before building permits, we're in the precarious position of tooling up a whole organization. Ready to sell. Selling people and mortgage dates that we can deliver based on presumptions by the city ordering the project and have a weather problem just like we had 2 years ago. Like many people experienced last year in not getting pavement down the last 2 weeks of when a plan is supposed to be opened. And then spending the whole winter sitting idlely by while you've had a whole lot of commitments to people who are very interested in being residents of Chanhassen. And we would urge them not only for Mission Hills but as a follow up builder to do what it can to move the project along because there's an awful lot of work in preparing plans and specs, because I know by ordering for private developments but in working with cities on a major public improvement. So I guess in closing, we would urge you to see if there is a dual track process you can't follow here. Thank you. Kevin Finger: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. My name is Kevin Finger and we've heard from all the big boys and I figure maybe one of the little guys should talk. I'm just a single property owner and in all fairness, they do have a lot of money invested but on June 21st I received a letter from Dave Mitchell and I was very thankful I received the letter because prior to that point I had no idea that I was being assessed for this trunk line and I really don't want to get into my concerns and whatever at this point. I'll wait and see whether you decide to table it and deal with it later but I feel that it's important for us to have a chance to search farther. To look into the alternatives we have and as they have, over many, many months, we have had it for about 2 weeks. And we need a little bit more time and I imagine some people when they're looking at hundreds of thousands dollars, they'd like a little more time. So I understand that we have a couple good projects proposed and that but good projects will stay and good projects will come. We're home owners and we're residents of Chanhassen and I think we have to be concerned about us too. Thank you. Jim Dolejsi: Mr. Mayor, City Council. My name is Jim Dolejsi and as a homeowner and resident of ' Chanhassen, I guess—from the development, I'd like to go on record as stating that I guess I'd like to see some action tonight taken on this because we've had-It's kind of frustrating. I'm amazed all these ...and same things show up. I don't think anyone's questioning the engineering work that's been done. The feasibility of the project or any of the numbers. It's more really what will be enforced and the phasing issues that can be dealt with after a vote and we can pass this tonight and continue to work those issues. I don't think there's much disagreement that the project at some point in time will go through in that area Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else? AI Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz. 8600 Great Plains Blvd. I've lived in Chanhassen all my life. Part of this, a good share of this project is covering some of my property and I've worked with the engineers. I think we've come up with a very satisfied solution to the problems that I discussed with you at the last meeting. I know for 11 i City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 a fact that there was a feasibility study prepared I think a year and a half ago. I think most of the people were notified about that and we know it's going to have to happen someday. It just seems that even from a year and a half ago until today the costs have increased dramatically. In fact I remember ... watermain in my property was a total of $85,000.00 and today for the watermain, including Mission Hills and my property, is close to $200,000.00 which is sort of large. The total project is about $450,000.00 for my property. When you look at a watermain coming in a year and a half ago for $85,000.00, virtually the same trunk charges. I think there might have been a little added to them because they do escalate with inflation and with cost. If we delay this project much longer, we know that the costs are going to be that much higher. It don't take long to make them considerably higher. I just feel that we're going to have to bite the bullet and go ahead with it because of the fact that we know it's going to come. It's going to have to be. I can remember when we put in the north service area, each unit for sewer and water and blacktop the street was $3,200.00. And look at what it costs today. That included lateral benefits, trunk charges and the whole works. How long ago did that happen? 20 some years ago. Councilman Wing: Al, I could have killed you when you did that. Al Klingelhutz: And kiss me today for doing it. Mayor Chmiel: This really is a friendly city. Anyone else? Jeff Brauchle: Council, I'd like to make a couple more comments from the Lakeview Hills group. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead. 1 Jeff Brauchle: Just briefly then. Again, the two property owners representing about a third of the property of the project costs at the end of the line here through I believe no fault of theirs, did not receive notice of this. This is genuinely the first opportunity to look at this project. We're surprised that it's been in progress for a year but we literally did not know about this. Much less know that $925,000.00 would fall on the Lakeview Hills Group. We are not in principle opposed to phasing the project we think but we are concerned and would Re to express our concerns that the project not achieve and we have this ability that it doesn't preserve because ourselves and I believe ... Mr. Peacock, are opposed to the project of at least in it's currently configuration based on the little we know about it and the amount of the costs. So you do have one -third of the project cost basically not in agreement with the project with all due respect at this point and I would not like it to be understood that in saying that phasing is probably okay in principle, that we are acquiescing in any way... the ability of the project either as a phase 2 or a phase 3. We naturally appreciate the extra time in any... Mr. Liefschultz, did you want to... Steve Liefschultz: My name is Steve Liefschultz. I'm one of the owners. It's hard for me to say too much because it was only at 9:30 this morning I became aware of the situation. I'm still a little bit shell shocked but we have, we aren't developers and until this morning we never heard about $925,000.00. I spent about 5 hours today trying to get educated. I talked to an appraiser and Mr. Brauchle and I'm not sure exactly what's best for us. I'm not sure what's best for the city. I do know that, I don't know anything about land or development. I know quite a bit about existing properties such as apartment buildings and I know our position now, as I mentioned to Mr. Mitchell earlier tonight, is that we view the proposed assessments as having no benefit to the existing apartment complex itself after having talked with our appraisers and I don't know if that's something that the city doesn't want to become more involved in as well and have some time to look over because with myself and Mr. Peacock, who I've never met. Just got a phone call from representing one third, I don't know 12 t City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 1 what the nature of his objection is but our objections for sure involve some of the money involved and that may or may not have an influence on the city in terms of the overall cost. Now I don't know enough today about whether or not if you exclude our end or don't exclude it or phase it, I'm not aware of that but I do know that , the amount of dollars we're objecting to at this point based on what little information we have or have assimilated as such that it may also be in the best interest of the city to know ... where that's going. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else? If seeing none. AI Klingelhutz: Just one question. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Would you like to come forward Al? Al Klingelhutz: If you would exclude the Lakeview Hills property, what would that do to the assessments on the rest of the property? Don Ashworth: I honestly wouldn't encourage you to respond to that. Charles Folch: Staff would have to take a look at that in terms of what would have to be done. Whether they were included or excluded and what the costs would be and what method of financing. We'd have to... Mayor Chmiel: I think that, we also had some people here, some residents that were here who were told that , this was probably going to get tabled this evening and I know that they probably would have liked to have made comments as well again. And Charles and I had discussions with another lady who came up and talked to us about it. I guess I'm sort of betwixt and between because we did tell a couple of these other people that this may be tabled. I didn't want to, and I should not have presumed or assumed or presumed it, I should say. But I did. And I'm thinking maybe with some of the other information that we had gathered on that particular location and that feasibility study from a couple of years ago, was it the same feasibility we're looking at now or. Charles Folch: The project area is a little bit larger and probably about a third larger than what we were looking at previously. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Maybe that answered some of the questions that you had Al as well. I'll just pull back here and I'm just considering whether or not if we do do this, we could close the public hearing now and if we do decide to table it, we still can table this for a 2 week period or 4 week period or whatever your feelings are. But I would then at this time, if there's no other information that anyone else would like to provide in regards to this particular project. Terry. Terry Forbord: Your Honor, I'm Terry Forbord. Just one closing remark. If. I'm reiterating myself but if the Council decided that they feel that it's best to delay this, I would just plead with you to consider doing it in phases because there's just too many people who have spent a tremendous amount of time and energy and money invested in this part of the community. It's in the guidelines of the comprehensive plan and depending on the roads that have been allocated through the approval projects by the county, so the commitment's made with those approvals and we would just really urge you, if you are going to delay it, please do it in phases so we don't lose any timing. If we lose two winters, we'll have to walk because there's no way I can afford to not do anything for two full winters. It's tough enough to wait through one but then all of a sudden we'll lose another 13 I City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 one. What you're really looking at is 12 months. That's how much time you lose. A whole year so I'd really urge you to do it in phases. If you elected not to, I would... Mayor Chmiel: Charles, once we prepare the plans and specs, we then will come back with cost factors. In making the preparation of the plans and specs, who assumes those costs? Charles Folch: Well, we've had a couple different situations in the past on some projects in the past where the city has basically, we felt comfortable... progressing. We assume those costs knowing full well we'll recover the costs which the project is proceeding and the assessment financing is such. There have been a couple instances where there's been some uncertainty as to the commitments that might be there with the development. In those cases we requested a letter of credit or cash escrow as a deposit covering the cost of preparation of plans and specs. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Good, thank you. Yes. Dick Putnam: Mr. Mayor, my name is Dick Putnam. I'm the partner with Jim Ostenson in Tandem Properties. We have the Mission Hills project. We had hoped last year in August to be starting construction on the Rottlund project. That got delayed for a number of reasons, one of which was TH 101. The other was this public improvement project so we've missed one year already. We've talked with the staff relative to running the watermain that goes through primarily Mr. Klingelhutz' property as a private project as part of our own work. If the public improvement project that we're talking about now just can't go ahead. I guess that would be one thing I'd like to throw out and I don't know if some of the other owners are in the same position to do the work themselves with the credit against the public assessments that we have. What I just heard being discussed tonight was a 60 day delay to order plans and specs probably puts the death nail on this project for this year and I'm not sure that's fair to anyone involved. Be it staff or the property owners so I guess I would like to ask you to really consider at least authorizing plans and specs and if you choose to continue part of the project for the apartments or others, give yourself that flexibility in the future but so to speak, don't throw the baby out with the bath water at this meeting. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Appreciate that. I know we have several of the residents here who have not spoken this evening and of course they have much of their own concerns as well with the additional assessments that they're going to be getting. Whether they be large or small, it hurts them all. And I understand that the project's going forward by the developers are something that are benefrtting the city as well because of the additional tax base that come back in. But yet we still have the other people who are still involved with this particular project and I know with some of the assessments and I had brought this up at other particular meetings when I put in my water and sewer and my street, by the time I finished it was about $10,000.00 that was assessed against my property. Of course we had a period of time to pay that off as well, which I'm sure will be the same with this particular project. And I know it's a little early but Charles, in doing that, what can be done for the property owners in regard to payments and period of time. And I know we can't say interest because that keeps jumping around and mainly going up but maybe you can address that so they're aware of that as well. Charles Folch: Well I guess we can certainly with our proposal bring back and take a look at the logistics of the bonding term that we could use in terms of length. I think we're.-about a 10 year pay back on these type of improvement projects—for extending that out. We can take a look at doing that. The long and the short of it is ... interest cost has occurred. That's the down side ... We can certainly provide some options and alternatives for you to consider. 1 14 t City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. With that I would entertain a motion at this time to close this public hearing. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to dose the public hearing. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. The public bearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. Michael. as Councilman Mason: First question for the City Attorney. What, are there any legal ramifications if we proceed tonight with this current information of people that we assumed were notified but found out were not? Tom Scott: My understanding that the fee owner of the property was notified, is that correct? Charles Folch: That's correct. The property owners of record were the ones that were notified. Jeff Brauchle: No, that's an incorrect statement. Charles Folch: The property owners of record, the information that the county gave us, were notified. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Tom Scott: I don't see any problem with the notice requirements and going ahead and order to be approved. Councilman Mason: Okay. That's my fast question. Second comment is that this is not an assessment hearing. Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Mason: When, if we approve everything tonight. If. Typically when would the assessment hearing be? How far down the road is that? Charles Folch: Probably, typically it's towards the end of when a project is completed. We'd have to take a look at their schedule and revise schedule based on when they expect to have an approval on this. But at the earliest, assessment hearing could be late next fall of '95, first payable in '96. If there's any delays incurred, it's more likely there will be an assessment hearing in the fall of '96, fast payable in '97. Councilman Mason: Okay. David Mitchell: The schedule outline in the feasibility report calls for the fall of '96 for the assessment hearing. Councilman Mason: The assessment heating in '96, payable in '97? David Mitchell: That's correct. We anticipated some work carrying over into the fall of '95. It would be too hand to define final project amounts at that point....assessment heating. Councilman Mason: Sure, sure. That area, I agree with some of the people that have said that area's going to be developed. It's going to happen. Mission of thine, quit saying gonna. And I think the city, by and large has done a fair job of staying ahead of development. And I really think on an area of this size it's paramount that we stay ahead of this. My concern, if we don't take any action on this, is that it rightly or not. I'm heating I 15 1 i City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 some people saying things are going to come unraveled. I think we could probably argue that but I think the city needs to make sure we're staying ahead of things here. If phasing is a legitimate option, according to our staff, I don't have any trouble with that. But I do feel pretty strongly that things need to start moving here. And I guess a 2 week delay to find out the in's and out's of phasing is one thing but I'm not prepared to wait 60 days. Personally. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything more? Councilman Mason: No. Just knowing that this is just to authorize preparation of plans and specs, I think maybe we need to keep that in a little better focus at this point. That's it. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Alright, Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Charles, would a 2 week delay do anything to the schedule? Could we still start this fall? Charles Folch: Again. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Weather. Charles Folch: If we get an October snowstorm, I guess we'll probably kick ourselves for waiting 2 weeks but if I was a betting person I'd say it's not going to kill us, 2 weeks. And you might feel more comfortable seeing exactly what's being proposed and what's being presented before you in 2 weeks. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay. Do we lose any efficiencies if we do a phased project? I'm song Dave, I should probably be asking you. David Mitchell: Certainly some efficiencies are lost but in a project of this size, it's... Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Well, you know whenever we have assessment and this, as Mike stated, this is not an assessment hearing but whenever we talk projects of this size, I understand when individual residents come in and say, you know I didn't know. It's too short a time, blah, blah, blab but when a developer has, or anybody. A private citizen owns 53 acres of land in a community that is rapidly developing, it would behoove them to read the local paper and we certainly do notice these in the paper. So I have a hard time having a lot of sympathy. I guess I'm not adverse to waiting 2 weeks to see what we can do with phasing but yet on the other hand, I'm just ready to go ahead with it tonight so. As Mike said, it's going to happen. I mean you know, and we need to be ahead of this development. I mean far be it for me to encourage development but it's going to happen regardless and we need to be ahead of it so. Mayor Chmiel: And I think the only thing that would benefit for us within the next 2 weeks is seeing the staging proposal for phasing, and that might give you a little better idea or concept as to what's going to happen. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yeah, and I'd be okay with that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. 16 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 1 Councilman Wing: Development is going to happen, it has happened. It's already there. It's just a matter of final approvals. So Mission Hills and Lundgren Bros is not thinking about this, they're already going to do it. It's just a matter of getting the stuff in. so you know it's kind of the big guys versus the little guys here and I'm pretty empathetic towards the little guys but unfortunately the City is expanding and there's not much that can be done about that. The two weeks was just to look at the phasing issue? I got lost on that when you first started. But the only real phasing here is the east end is kind of the end of the tracks. I mean it's sort of out there in the middle of no place. It's open land and there's an apartment building and I guess the only phasing I'm interested in is maybe just simply deleting the end of the track area. I don't see why that even has to be part of the project right now necessarily unless it highly impacts cost but it's such an obscure, isolated area right now. How do you run lines out there without incurring incredible costs? Charles Folch: Actually though we really need to know what's going to happen there in terms of sizing the lift station that needs to be put into this project. Councilman Wing: Okay. I'm kind of with Colleen. I think we simply ought to, this whole thing is a done deal and the only question in my mind at all would be the Peacock property maybe, and maybe the only one is the apartments and there may be some credibility to their statement that there's a little confusion of who's going where, what but it is a lot of money being imposed on that group and I guess I have some questions on what we're going to do with them. To move on the whole project tonight seems to make sense because it's got to get done. I mean it's already here and I again, I'm one of the little guys so I have the empathy for the small guys but they're caught up in something that's already done. I mean it's ahrMy under law exists and nothing's going to change. These assessments are going to occur and I just don't want one myself and that's why it's so hard to sit here and dish them out. But we're not doing that tonight, as Mike pointed out. If we move on this, do you have the opportunity to clarify the east end issue? Or do we have to separate it out? Charles Folch: We're going to have to separate it out. Councilman Wing: Okay. Then I guess I have to go along with the 2 weeks. Get that information. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah and I guess I would like to see that as well because often times we jump into it a little too quickly and I know this has been on the books for a long time but we have not seen what that staging can do. So that's where I'd be coming from and I'd feel more comfortable with that once I saw that. So with that, I would make that a motion. dim Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: That we would table and come back with the staging proposal as to how this can be done for that facility. It's been seconded. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: Just one comment about little guys versus big guys and I think most of you know how I feel about too but I think we do have to remember that the little guys are also, some of the little guys are also people that have lived in Chanhassen for a long time that are selling some of this land. So I don't know, I'm not quite sure where the balance is there. It's a tough issue. Don Ashworth: Can I get a clarification if I may. Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Don. I 17 1 City Council Meeting - July 11, 1994 Don Ashworth: Dave, is there any question as it deals with the 25th? Should we advise people to watch the paper as to the 25th or August 8th or can you make a commitment to the 25th? David Mitchell: I can make a commitment to the 25th. We're - Address those issues. I think in that time frame we can look at some possible alternatives for the east end and be prepared to do that I guess as I sit here and think of one of the options that has been presented is the density issue out there and the additional impact that Charles has given on the lift station as a possible-1 think we can address some of those impacts and proceed with the project at that point... Don Ashworth: Thank you. t I Councilman Mason: Will this private versus public thing enter into this at all? I mean what was mentioned. I mean for their credit towards what's going on. I believe it was Mr. Putnam brought that up. Is that an option to be looked at all here? I mean would that facilitate things at all or we don't care about that? Charles Folch: At this point, as long as there's still hope in doing at least that portion of the worm this year, I think we should probably leave that issue, that alternative... Councilman Mason: Okay. Okay. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other discussion? Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Trunk Utility Project No. 93.32 and authorizing plans and specifications until the next City Council meeting on July 25, 1994. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PLANNED UNI DEVELOPMENT REQUEST, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 74 LOTS OF MIXED HIGH DENSITY (186 DWELLING UNITS). 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND AN OUTLOT WHICH CONTAIN FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE(S), SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MIXED HIGH DE NSITY UNITS LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AT WEST 86TH STREET: MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES. Public Present: Name Address Dick Putnam Tandem Properties Jim Ostenson Tandem Properties Don Jensen Rottlund Homes Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Ed Hasek Westwood Engineering Dick Putnam: Mr. Mayor, my name is Dick Putnam, Tandem Properties. Jim Ostenson is here, who's my partner. Don Jensen, Director of Development for Rottlund Corporation is here to answer any questions... on the units themselves and Ed Hasek from Westwood Engineering who will present to you the changes that we made on the plans since the last meeting—went back to the Park and Rec Commission to take a look at the site plan. 18 t City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 J' PUBLIC HEARING: LYMAN BOULEVARD AND LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 93-32, (CONTINUED FROM JULY 11, 1994). Public Present: Name Address Mike Pflaum Pat & Ben Swenson Rosemary Luebke Russell, Orletta & Dan Frederick Tom & Kristine Uppman Eunice Kottke Rick & Diane Riegert Richard Chadwick Bailey & Mary Lou Janssen Laura & Lee Wyman Greg & Kelly Hastings Norm Grant Nancy R. Smith Al Klingelhutz B.J. Reich Jeff Brauchle Steve Leifschultz Len Levine Ernie Peacock Lundgren Bros Construction Chanhassen 8526 Great Plains Blvd. 540 Lyman Blvd. 532 Lyman Blvd. 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. 520 Lyman Blvd. 9530 Foxford Road 500 Lyman Blvd. 400 Lyman Blvd. 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. 8600 Great Plains Blvd. White Bear Lake, MN 3400 Plaza VIII, Mpls 55110 3025 Harbor Lane #315, Plymouth 2028 B Ford Parkway, St. Paul 55116 17325 Panama Avenue, Prior Lake Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. You'll recall at the last public hearing it was concluded with Council's direction to staff to take a look at the overall proposed improvement project and evaluate it's structure. To determine whether the project could be split out into phases, if you will, which would allow some construction to begin to meet some of the initial time lines and needs for the petitioning property owners on the project and yet allow ... but would also provide improvements for the remaining properties... During this past week staff and the project engineer have had time to review the project. We've also had a meeting with one of the landowners representing the Lakeview Hills Investment Group to discuss some of the concerns that they had raised at the previous public hearing. Following that meeting, which can be viewed as a positive meeting. I think there's still some things to work out but the discussions were positive. I think given some time, the remaining issues can be worked out. But in the interim, we have developed a stage one portion of the project which basically involves constructing a large share of the watermain under this year's fall and early spring contract. We do have, Dave do we have the overhead that we can show? Basically stage one would involve construction of the watermain from it's current terminus on Trunk Highway 101 and Lake Susan Drive. Would be extended north along TH 101 up to the future 86th Street realignment. Then extended east along the 86th Street and then going south along the John Klingelhutz property. Continuing south of Lyman Blvd and then extending for a short distance probably back to the west. This would provide water service to the petitioning properties, Mission Hills which would like to begin development work yet this fall. Also John Klingelhutz property and the Lundgren development south of Lyman Blvd. It's also proposed with stage one to construct a small amount of sanitary sewer from the current lift station located at the intersection of Lyman and Lake Riley Blvd. Extend that back to the west and provide some interim capacity over the proposed Lundgren 3 1 n 1 C i i L 17 H r City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 development with stage one. This would in effect eliminate some of the concerns that you heard raised by Mr. Forbord last time about being 2 years out ... could begin this year. That would be the extent of the proposed stage one. Basically, from a revenue standpoint, cost to revenue would balance with that proposed stage... Phase two has not yet been completely defined. It's possible that all of the remaining proposed work would be done under phase two, depending on how our discussions continue with the Adelman property and the Lakeview Hills property on the very east end of the project. It's possible that the project could be split up even further where a stage two would eliminate any proposed improvements adjacent to those properties. We would expect or hope that within the next 30 days we could have these remaining issues ironed out. At least make a determination of whether we can go ahead and proceed with the remaining portion of the project or ... so at this time it would be staff's recommendation to proceed with ordering phase one of the proposed improvement project as stated and then we would propose to come back to Council within 30 days and give a recommendation on the remaining portion of the work to be done with this project. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think tight up front here, if Council so chooses, we can move the plans and specs but we cannot order the project because it's going to requite a 4/5 majority and being we only have 3 here and I just wanted to bring that up at this particular time. Roger Knutson: The only exception to the 4/5 or 2/3 Wile is if you have proper petition signed by 35% of the people in frontage and then you have to put it in the paper and do a few other fancy things. But effectively, if you order the plans and specifications, if you want to, you can move the project along. You really can order the project. You can order plans and specifications. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. Dave Mitchell: I was just going to comment on that. That we did do some analysis as far as the front footage. That we do exceed that 35% petitioning... that's required. Audience: We can't hear back here. Mayor Chmiel: Can we turn the microphones up so everyone can hear this? Is that one on up front? Dave Mitchell: Yep, now it is. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, can you hear now? Audience: That's better. Roger Knutson: Even when you exceed the 35% frontage, then you have it published in the newspaper and check the validity of the petition. And you create some potential, conceivable problems. I'd still recommend maybe we could get by that if we just order`the plans and specifications. Maybe you can by -pass that issue entirely. Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Charles. Charles Folch: That'd be fine. 4 s City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anything in addition to what you said basically right now or is there more than , you're planning to show? Okay. I know that we had requested that you re- review some of those things and you had covered each of those accordingly. We did have the public heating on this. We closed the public hearing. ' But because of my nature, I do hold it open if there are anyone who have not been here previously and would like to comment on it, you have your opportunity at this particular time. Yes. Would you please come to the microphone. Pat Swenson: If it's absolutely necessary. Mayor Chmiel: State your name and your address please. Pat Swenson: My name is Pat Swenson. I'm on Lake Riley Blvd and I guess I'm sorry that we were unavoidably absent at the previous meeting. Do I understand that in the inspection that you're discussing tonight, we are not discussing the road. The improvement of Lake Riley, I mean of Lyman Blvd? Charles Folch: That's correct. That would be proposed under a state improvement. Pat Swenson: What is the purpose of putting in the water until we put in the road, which is much more important? Charles Folch: That's a very good point. But in fact the proposed watermain alignment that we'd be looking at with stage one, basically does not follow the Lyman Blvd alignment so that we would not be putting the cart before the horse if you will by doing stage one. Pat Swenson: And my second question is, is that lift station adequate to take care of the new development? Charles Folch: We've analyzed, based on pumping records that we have for that lift station and we estimate that basically is operating at 50% capacity right now and could take roughly another 65 to 70 homes total. So what we would propose to do as the interim, in the ... proposed development's going on, we would look at splitting that allocation to two subdivisions, proposed subdivisions down on Lyman. Basically limit the remaining capacity and not exceed, we basically would not allow any more building permits until we had the... Pat Swenson: Because I remember when that trunk main was put through and tyre was an established limit of capacity at that time and perhaps Don remembers what it was. I don't. I haven't retained my records on it but there was a question I remember at that time as to whether it was going to be adequate to accommodate development in that area. ...the lift station, you're intending to leave it where it is? Is that the idea? Charles Folch: No. The new lift station would be located actually across the street from where it is now. Pat Swenson: To the north? Charles Folch: To the north. Pat Swenson: I don't want it any closer to our house. Charles Folch: It'd be to the north side of the new road. a i City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 Pat Swenson: Alright. Then from an assessment standpoint, people along Lake Riley have nothing to be concerned with at this time? Charles Folch: Not with stage one. Pat Swenson: Thank you kindly. I'm song to have detained the meeting here but there were some questions hanging over. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: You bet. Any other further discussion? If none, Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have no comments. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark. Councilman Senn: I'll move approval of staff's recommendation, ordering plans and specs. Mayor Chmiel: Ordering plans and specs. Okay. Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: There is. Richard Chadwick: Mayor, may I speak for a moment please? Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. If you'd come up please and just state your name and your address. Richard Chadwick: My name's Richard Chadwick. I live at 9530 Foxford Road. I have some property over on Lyman Blvd. A number of other people here in the audience also have but most of us have spoken earlier in this consideration of this project but before this phase one or phase two or whatever we're talking about now, were broken out. And I guess I have concern tonight because of the phase that has been discussed hasn't discussed anything about the cost to the various property owners and when that might come to play against our properties which may or may not be benefrtted at all by phase one, or even phase two. We haven't had any discussion about what phase two or phase three or what others there might be. I guess I'd like to have, hear some discussion about it. I received letters in the last week or so indicating that it's going to cost me maybe $35,000.00 for the project that is considered here and I know we've got a number of people that are here in the audience that, if they are forced into paying for a project of this nature, some of them are retired individuals. Others are on fixed incomes, that it's just going to force them to sell their property or develop the property that we've all learned to love and know as a rural section of Chanhassen and it's just destroying that entire area there ' and we are forced to develop the land or sell it into smaller lots. I guess I would like some comment, if I can, about what the cost is going to be and when the cost is going to be incurred or put upon us for even for phase one, and I haven't heard anything about that tonight. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Maybe we can expound on that just a bit Charles. In addition to that, I also thought about some of these people who have existing systems of their own for their sewers with septic systems and the question I had, have we ever gone through a process of deferring payment on that? And also, having them make connection to the sewer at the time when their system fails. And I'd like you to address that too. Councilman Senn: Point of clarification though. I thought we weren't dealing with sewers tonight. City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 1 Mayor Chmiel: No. But I wanted `' Councilman Senn: Oh okay. Alright. ' Mayor Chmiel: Eventually. Charles Folch: In terms of the first question or point that was made. The proposed assessments as shown in the ' feasibility study that was prepared by OSM, those remain the same. The splitting up of the project into stages here, we've done it in a fashion that they are still very sizeable type contracts and we don't expect to see a different... bid prices due to loss of economy of scales. In terms of timing of potential assessments. We would be looking at holding an assessment hearing of this project likely at this point in time, with the type of staging we're going to do, likely that we wouldn't hold the hearings until probably the fall of '96 now and then with assessments being fast payable in May of '97. Typically on these types of projects, we've had somewhere between 8 and 10 year term paybacks on those assessments. For the large lot properties, as I'm sure you're all aware of what we've done in the past with trunk utilities projects where we don't, it's been Council's position not to force non - development of large lot land holders off their property with heavy assessments so typically we've done this one unit assessment per 10 acres of homesteaded, non - developed property with the remaining is to be collected as a hook -up charge that they would subdivide or develop. In terms of existing sewer and water, the ordinance does require that when sewer is available, lateral sewer is available to property, that they have one year to hook up to that sewer and make a connection. In terms of water, they may elect to continue to use their well. Well water and are not required to hook up until such time as their well would fail and then they would be required to hook up. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Does that answer your questions? Mr. Chadwick. ' Richard Chadwick: Well it would still seem to assess the property owners along Lyman Blvd. the same amount of money at approximately the same time without giving any benefit to those individuals. As I see it, there'd be no sewer or water, at least in phase one, down Lyman Blvd. There would be none into the back part of the properties and yet they're going to be assessed for that. It doesn't sound right to me. I think it's going to force people really to sell their properties and move away and/or develop properties very quickly. That's something that people who have lived in that area for 30 years and had it for the intention of living in the rural area and being forced into development now and actually forced off of their land. Charles Folch: I should clarify that Mr. Mayor, members of Council. With stage one, that portion of the project does not affect these people along Lyman. If that was the only part of the project that was ordered, that's all that we would assess for. We would not assess for the improvements, unless there was improvements down on Lyman Blvd with reconstruction of trunk sewer and water. ' Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Any other discussion? Any questions? Rosemary Luebke: Rosemary Luebke, 8526 Great Plains Blvd. I have something to add. I had requested that ' the water line had been originally scheduled to come through part of our property and our neighbor's, Al Klingelhutz' property and we did have a meeting with the engineers and they came out and said they would make a recommendation that the water line be moved back and follow TH 101. Not to go through the property and I guess I just want a little bit of clarification. I'm not sure right now. They said the recommendation has been made that it be moved to TH 101. We're not sure if we, if this is a decision now that the Council has to City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 1 J make or whether they approve their recommendation and so can we expect a letter from the city saying that you've accepted their recommendation. I guess we're not sure exactly what that means. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I can have Charles address that. Charles Folch: Sure. The first time that we looked at doing this, actually looked at doing this portion of the work about 2 years ago. It was originally proposed to follow TH 101 and then we had a request from one of the property owners to extend it slightly off of TH 101 in order to serve the property at that point in time a little bit more efficiently. That has since, that issue has since gone away and it is our proposal that we would stay along TH 101 with the alignment... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard Chadwick: Did I understand the engineer correctly that there would be no assessment to any of the properties along Lyman Blvd east of John Klingelhutz' property? Charles Folch: That's correct. There will be no assessments associated with stage one. At a future date when stage two is ordered, then there would be. Richard Chadwick: Is there any proposal now or any idea when stage two might be proposed? Charles Folch: We expect to come back to the Council with that proposal within 30 days. Richard Chadwick: We'd have a right then to appeal again? Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Okay, with that. Any other discussion? A] Klingelhutz: One question. Mayor Chmiel: Al, would you like to come up please and just state your name and address. Not that we don't know you. A] Klingelhutz: I guess the only question I've got, if you're going to require the feasibility study on it now or the? Mayor Chmiel: No, just the plans and specs. Al Klingelhutz: Plans and specs. How long does that take? Charles Folch: You're putting me on the spot. Dave Mitchell: We would anticipate having plans put together in order to meet the Mission Hills project. I'm assuming that's the prime reason for this behind Al's question. I would anticipate those plans being ready sometime in the same time frame. We may be here on the same night for the same thing. 30 days or there abouts. 4 to 6 weeks. Al Klingelhutz: And then you let it out for bids? 8 F City Council Meeting - July 25, 1994 1 Dave Mitchell: Then we would go out for bids at that point. 1 A] Klingelhutz: How long does that take? I ask the question for my son who's planted some crops on some of I this land and he's wondering when he's going to have to harvest them and this is why I've got these questions. Dave Mitchell: I would anticipate that there would be very little activity out there before the first or second week in October. Mayor Chmiel: Crops will be in. ' Al Klmgelhutz: Maybe. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that, we have a motion on the floor with a second to prepare the plans and specs for Project No. 93 -32. Resolution #94 -73: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for stage I of the Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley area trunk utility improvement Project No. 93 -32, with the understanding that staff will bring back a recommendation on the phasing for the remaining work within the next 30 days. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' {" _AWARD OF THE BIDS: WELL NO. 7. PROJECT NO. 94.3. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This past Friday, July 22nd ... bids were opened for the Well No. 7, Project No. 94 -3. Only four bids were received for this project with the low bid being received from Lane Minnesota with a low bid of 5164,996.00. It's approximately 90%. Mayor Chmiel: Could we have it just a little quiet. If you'd like to have discussions, would you mind going outside in the hall. Thank you. bid contingent upon being able to work out this easement negotiation for this site with the Gestach- Paulson I group. Charles Folch: This is approximately 90% below the engineer's estimate which is approximately $180,000.00. 0 We've checked references on ... At this point in time we're still trying to work out some easement acquisition for the site location, which is proposed to go along the future extension of Lake Lucy Road and beyond the Gestach- ' Paulson property which will be submitting a subdivision proposal to Council within a month. However, right now the Gestach- Paulson group is let's say concerned or reserved about granting the easement and complying with the site location before they actually have a subdivision proposed so that's approved at least in a preliminary stage by both Planning Commission and Council. So they are scheduled to come before the ' Planning Commission I believe on the 18th of August. Following the meeting they would be before the Council and it would be staff s recommendation that we award this bid tonight to Lane Minnesota at the contract base Mayor Chmiel: When we get ready with that, I'd like to see the exact location as to where it is with a map ' attached showing the proximity to where this might be located. I drove out there today but I couldn't find any names. Charles Folch: Once we have a preliminary plat, then we can go off a survey for a location. 9 �