Loading...
3. Public hearing Report on street and utility proejcts to Teton Lane & Lilac Lane 1 CITYF 3 I # CHANHASSEN 0 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 "On by City Administrator 1 MEMORANDUM mooed Mead TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date Subm to Commission I FROM: Charles l Submitted to Coma RO C axles Fo ch, City Engineer we sun 1// 7 - 13-52 1 ' DATE: July 8, 1992 I SUBJ: Public Hearing on Supplemental Feasibility Report on Street and Utility Improvements to Teton Lane and Lilac Lane Project No. 91 -4 • • • ' t f- This public hearing was previously presente to fe City Council at their regular meeting I on June 8, 1992; however, as luck would lnAte it, some of the properties directly affected by this improvement project were not notified properly as required by law. Therefore, the previous public hearing was technically invalid.. Despite this unfortunate occurrence, it I appears now that there may be some positive news to report on this project as it relates to the project cost responsibility from tentative agreements reached between staff and the developer of the Ithilien subdivision. x A number of meetings between staff and the developer have resulted in a revised but consistent proposed improvement program. In an effort to facilitate the project planning I development process, the developer has proposed and agreed to construct, at his expense, all of the improvements within Teton Lane :north of Ashton Court consisting of sanitary sewer, watermain, :storm sewer, concrete curb and, gutter and new standard urban road 1 I section. The scope of the City's improvement project would be reduced down to those improvements within `Lilac _Lane between County Road 17 and 'Teton Lane. The improvements within Lilac Lane consist of installation of storm sewer and a new City I standard urban roadway section. The developeriias also agreed to accept a 20% assessment share of the project costs for the improvements to Lilac Lane. This affords the City the I ability to conduct a 429 bonding for this improvement project. In exchange for constructing all of the improvements to Teton Lane, specifically the sanitary I sewer and watermain, the developer asked staff to consider waiving the trunk hook -up charges for the 17 proposed lots in the Ithilien subdivision. Staff has taken a closer look at this issue. It is apparent that any further subdivision of the large lot parcels on the east side is tot PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Don Ashworth July 8, 1992 1 Page 2 I of Teton Lane would likely acquire utility lateral service from the lines to be constructed in Teton Lane. In a sense, the lines in Teton Lane could be considered to function as local trunks. In sketching conceptual lot layouts for these properties, it is apparent that anywhere I from 0 to a potential maximum of 13 lots could be generated on the three large -lot parcels east of Teton Lane (Ware, Natole and Pickard properties). I Taking all of this into consideration, staff agrees in principle with this argument presented by the developer and would recommend to the Council that, under the current proposed project financing schedule, trunk utility hook -up charges be waived for the lots in the Ithilien I subdivision given that they will be constructing the local trunk lines on Teton Lane at their expense. I What does this all mean for the City? First of all, the previously proposed overall public improvement project estimated to $142,610 has been reduced down to an estimated $54,982 public improvement project consisting of $31,283 for street construction and $23,699 for 1 storm sewer construction of which the developer has agreed to accept a 20% project cost assessment. In addition, the City would no longer propose to assess the four large lot property owners (Johnson, Pickard, Ware, Natole) for these improvements; however, staff 1 recommends that a connection charge be established for the storm drainage improvements in this area, specifically the referenced four large lots in the amount of $2,687 per contributing acreage if future subdivision of any of the four large properties would occur in I the future. The connection charge unit rate has been calculated based on determining the total contributing drainage area of these properties into Teton Lane and Lilac Lane and I dividing this total into 50% of the public storm sewer project cost. As you are aware, it is City policy to pay for 50% of the storm sewer improvements on a typical project such as this one. A revised assessment roll schedule has been prepared which also shows the anticipated I connection charge for storm sewer improvements for each of the four large -lot parcels. Again, I would emphasize that these charges will not be levied as a project special assessment, but only collected if future subdivision of a property should occur. These I connection charges will also be adjusted annually for inflation based on the construction cost index. I The result yields a smaller public improvement project whereby the net financial responsibility of the City, after the assessment to Ithilien development and future connection charges to the large lot parcels, remains relatively consistent with the proposed financial I responsibilities in the previous cost breakdown. Yet, none of the large lot property owners will be prematurely or unduly burdened with a special assessment for this improvement project. In effect, the development is paying its way. I The only remaining issue involves the existing barricade on Teton Lane north of Ashton Court. At Council's request, staff has met with maintenance representatives for the City of I 1 Don Ashworth 1 July 8, 1992 Page 3 1 Shorewood to discuss how the two breakaway barricades have performed. In short, I Shorewood maintenance staff consider both temporary barricade installations a real maintenance problem, particularly during winter conditions. Extra time and labor effort is expended in clearing snow by hand and with a small bobcat from the barricade area. Quite I often, a number of days pass following a significant snowfall event before maintenance personnel can get out and clean the snow out and the numerous times they have been out to these barricades with hot water to thaw out the frozen flexing mechanism of the I barricades. They also stated that they continue to expend significant dollars to replace broken and removed pieces of the barricade. Shorewood staff also brought a sample of the material for each of the two temporary I barricades. I observed both materials to be a flexible, rather flimsy type of fiberglass material. I strongly doubt that this would prevent vehicles other than emergency response 1 vehicles from attempting to drive through the barricade. You may recall that problems were experienced with the initial installation of a barricade at the Teton Lane location. Vehicles were found to be driving on the shoulder on the east side around the barricade, thus, city 1 maintenance staff brought in concrete jersey barriers to block this access. Shortly thereafter, vehicles were observed driving on the shoulder on the west side of the barricade on Teton Lane, thus, maintenance staff were again employed to install snow fence along the roadway. In all, it is apparent that the claim that these existing temporary barricades in Shorewood are functioning just fine is quite over stated and incorrect. I In conclusion, Teton Lane is a public street both north and south of Ashton Court and the general public should have free access of use to this roadway as they would any other public street within the City of Chanhassen. Staff continues to support the removal of this barricade. It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve the feasibility report and 1 supplement dated July 9, 1992 for the installation of street and storm drainage improvements to Lilac Lane between County Road 17 and Teton Lane contingent upon the I developer for,the Ithilien subdivision waiving his right to a public hearing, accepting a 20% assessment of the smaller project cost, and agreeing to pay the full costs of the larger Teton Lane project (curb and gutter, street expansion, sewer and water extension, etc., including barricade removal). In addition, it is recommended that a connection charge for the storm sewer improvements to Lilac Lane be adopted for the (Johnson, Pickard, Ware and Natole) properties for collection at such time that future subdivision would occur at any of these properties based on a rate of $2,687 per acre of contributing area as presented in the revised cost schedule and annually adjusted for installation based on construction cost index. jms 1 1 1 1 1 Don Ashworth July 8, 1992 Page 4 1 Attachments: 1. Revised project costs assessment schedule dated July 9, 1992. 1 2. Letter from resident dated June 30, 1992. 3. Minutes of the public hearing on June 8, 1992. 4. Staff report dated June 4, 1992. I c: Bill Engelhardt, Engelhardt & Associates g g 1 Jim Fenning, Hilloway Corporation Richard Bloom, Land Concept Corporation Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician 1 Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W.R. ENGELHARDT ASSOC. TEL No.612- 448 -8805 Jul 8,92 12:15 No.005 P.02 11 WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. osl.SUlli rl� 4111 , 94 . PU?4 : 44 1107 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 1 (612) 448 -8838 1 July 8, 1992 1 1 City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Charles Folch 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 RE: Teton Lane /Lilac Lane Improvements Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Pursuant to your request, we have prepared a supplemental report 1 for the above project. After discussions with the developer of Ithilien Addition, a proposed assessment policy has been arrived at for the project. The basis for the proposed assessment policy is for the Ithilien developer to pay for all of the costs of the Teton Lane Improvements, including street, curb and gutter, sanitary sewer, and watermain under a private contract. The Lilac Lane improvement is proposed as a city project with 20 percent of the cost to be assessed to Ithilien Addition. The balance of the Lilac Lane cost is proposed as a city cost, storm water fund cost and a portion (5O%) of the storm sewer cost as a connection charge to the Teton Lane properties, due when they subdivide. We have included page 8 (extended to page 9) of our original report indicating the modified proposed assessment policy. We have also included a revised assessment schedule for the Lilac Lane project. The connection charge for storm sewer is proposed for the 1 Johnson, Ware, Pickard, and Natole property based on contributing area. The total drainage area is 4.41 acres or a cost of $2,687 /Acre ($11,849.50/4.41 acres). The proposed connection charge for each property is tabulated as follows: 1 1 W.R. ENGELHARDT ASSOC. TEL No.612 -448 -8805 Jul 8,92 12:15 No.005 P.03 1 1 City of Chanhassen ' July 8, 1992 RE: Teton Lane /Lilac Lane Page 2 1 PID NO. NAME ACRES CONNECTION CHARGE ' 25- 002 -2410 Gordon Johnson 0.72 Acres $ 1,934.64 1 25- 002 -2100 Charles Pickard 0.80 Acres $ 2,149.60 25- 002-2000 Leonard Ware 1.40 Acres $ 3,761.80 25 -002 -1900 F. J. Natole 1.49 Acres ,$ 4,003.63 $11,849.67 1 We will be available to discuss this report at your convenience. Very truly yours, Y Y Y 'WILLIAM It. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. William R. Engelhardt WRE /las Attach. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W.R. ENGELHARDT ASSOC. TEL No.612 -448 -8805 Jul 8,92 12:15 No.005 P.04 1 1 FINANCIAL: 1 The financing for this project is proposed by city storm sewer funds, special assessments, and General Obligation Bonds.. The total cost for street and utility improvements are Teton Lane: Street Construction {$ 53,499 ** 1 Storm Sewer Construction (Private ($ 5,649 ** Watermain Construction Project) {$ 14,681 ** 1 Sanitary Sewer Construction ($ 13,798 ** Lilac Lane: Street Construction (City ($ 31,283 * ** Storm Sewer Construction Project) {$ 23,699 * ** Total Project Cost $142,610 ORIGINAL METHOD 1 * City of Chanhassen storm sewer fund by policy to pay for fifty percent of Chanhassen's storm sewer cost. 1 * Hilloway Corporation, the developer of Ithilien Addition, to be assessed the cost for sanitary sewer and watermain construction on Teton Lane and a portion of street construction for Lilac Lane. * Direct assessments to benefitted property is based on a unit , basis, with one unit equal to a 15,000 square foot lot with 90 feet of frontage. ' CHANGES AS OF 7/13/92 1 ** TETON LANE Ithilien Addition improvement costs under private contract. ' 8 1 W.R. ENGELHRRDT ASSOC. TEL No.612- 448 -8805 Jul 8,92 12:15 No.005 P.05 1 11 * ** LILAC LANE Ithilien Addition, 20% of $54,982 = $ 10,996.10 Storm Sewer Fund, 50% of $23,699 = $ 11,849.50 1 Connection Charges = $ 11,849.50 City of Chanhassen (Non - assessable) = $ 20,286.90 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 June 30, 1992 City of Chanhassen Charles D. Folche City Engineer 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Teton Lane Improvement Project No. 91 -4 , Dear Mr. Folche, Approximately two and one half years ago the home owners of Curry Farms petitioned the city council to allow access to the north portion of Teton Lane and through Lilac Lane. As new home owners in Chanhassen we felt we should have access to all the roads in this city since our taxes paid to maintain them. The city council heard testimony from the home owners ' from both Chanhassen and Shorewood whose property fronts those roads as they explained that we did not deserve the right to use "their road ". The city council welcomed us as new taxpayers by placing a barricade in the middle of the street. It did not matter that it increased traffic through the only other access or that our children needed to walk five blocks to catch a school bus. In the past 90 days during an emergency on Teton Lane, the county sheriff had to escort an ambulance up here because it could not find the way around the road block. • Now, however, someone wants to build more homes that would require improving Teton Lane and Lilac Lane and assessments have been proposed. It has been suggested that, once improved, there is no further reason to barricade the road. To my amazement, Ms. Natole, who lives on North Teton Lane, has suggested that the property owners of Curry Farms be assessed because we "may" use the road. According to that logic, every Chanhassen resident should share in the cost because, who knows, any one of them just might elect to drive on Teton Lane! CITY OF CHANHASSEN , JUL 0 N 1992 ENGINEERING DEPT. 1 11 Ref: Project No. 91 -4, continued. 1 My position is that my family and I have learned to live with the barricade. And, if we have to pay a toll to use the streets of our own city, it can remain there permanently as far as we are concerned. I think Ms. Natole should get her ' wish and enjoy her road, and her assessment, in total privacy, independent of the residents of Curry Farms. ' Being that I will be traveling on the date of the next council meeting, please share my opinion with the members of the council that will be considering this matter. Thank you for the courtesy of your notification. Sincerely, 1 l V ohn C. LeDuc ' 6401 Teton Lane ` Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 1 1 1 1 1 city Council Meeting - June 8, 1992 g. Approval of Temporary On -Sale Beer License, Fourth of July Celebration, July 3 and 4, 1992, Chanhassen Rotary Club. 1 h. Resolution 192 -68: Approve Change Order No. 1 to Lake Ann Park Picnic/ Recreation Shelter, Project RA -110. ' i. Water Obstacle Permit, Lake Minnewashta Ski Club, John Timberg. j. Resolution *92 -69: Resolution Establishing Fees for Hazardous Materials 1 Incident Response Costs. k. Approval of Accounts. ' i. Board of Equalization and Review Minutes dated May 11, 1992 City Council Minutes dated May 18, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 20, 1992 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated May 14, 1992 All voted in favor and the motion carried. , Councilwoman Dimler: Could I just make a comment on item (h)? I'm so glad to see that the price of the Lake Ann Park Shelter went down and that we're going to get a better product and this is the kind of example that I like to see. It's really great work. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. ' PUBLIC HEARING: STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENST TO TETON LANE (LILAC LANE TO ;fit ASHTON COURT) AND LILAC LANE (TETON LANE TO CR 17); AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF a\ PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. PROJECT N0. 91 -4. Public Present: Name Address Richard Bloom Rep. Hilloway Corporation ' Jim Fenning Hilloway Corporation Dave Priem 6360 Teton Lane Frank & Florence Natole 6251 Teton Lane Gordon & Joey Johnson 1275 Lilac Lane, Excelsior Donna Pickard 1215 Lilac Lane Joel Dressel City Engineer, City of Shorewood Randy Karl 6391 Teton Lane Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Our project consultant engineer, Mr. Bill Engelhardt is here tonight to give a presentation on the feasibility report. Then I will close the staff presentation with a few comments before we can open it up to the public. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council. As Charles indicated, this is the report on the feasibility study for Teton Lane and Lilac Lane. The 6 1 City Council Meeting .June 8, 1992 II s project area is from Ashton Court north to Lilac Lane. From Lilac Lane out to II County Road 17. The project, from an engineering standpoint, is feasible. We have a detailed cost analysis for all the improvements. The improvements involved, construction of sanitary sewer, the public right -of -way the roadway II from Ashton Court north to the new proposed subdivision and I'll try to get this right, Ithilien subdivision. That new subdivision consists of, I believe it's 17 single family lots. This sanitary sewer would serve the new subdivision, flows south to the Curry Farms development. The total project cost for sanitary I sewer is $13,798.00. The second portion of the project is construction of a watermain along side the sanitary sewer. You would connect to the existing watermain at Ashton Court and carry it north to the proposed new subdivision I roadway. The developer then would pick up the pipes at that point, carry it throughout his subdivision and make a looped system back to Lilac Lane. It would ultimately end up... The cost for the watermain is $14,681.00. As part of the street construction, we have storm sewer construction. Storm sewer over I to Teton Lane is a cross culvert maintaining existing drainage patterns. The major portion of the storm sewer is up at Lilac where we'd be picking up a portion of Teton Lane that flows to the north at this intersection and then II carrying it down to the County Road ditch area where it will be discharged. The storm sewer portion of the cost, total Teton Lane and Lilac Lane is roughly $29,000.00. The major portion of the project is street construction. Right now II we have an existing 22 foot mat on Teton Lane and similar mat on Lilac Lane. Lilac Lane, corporate boundaries run down the middle of it where the south half is the city of Chanhassen and the north half is the city of Shorewood. We II contacted the city of Shorewood. From a staff standpoint, there's some willingness to participate in the project. There has been no official word on the participation by Shorewood. The roadway on Teton Lane is proposed to be upgraded to city standards. The 31 feet back to back, concrete curb and gutter. I Full depth section pavement. Crushed rock and 4 1/2 inches of bituminous base. Lilac Lane would be constructed in similar fashion. There would be some regrading and reshaping of that area in order to improve the sight distances and II the access onto County Road 17 would be realigned to provide for a 90 degree access out to County Road 17. We can do that within the right -of -way that is presently existing. So that intersection would be substantially upgraded. The total cost for the roadway of the street construction on Teton Lane is I $53,499.00 and the portion on Lilac Lane is $31,283.00. The total project cost, including a 30% factor, $142,610.00. Again the street construction for Teton Lane is $53,499.00. The Lilac Lane is $31,283.00. Teton Lane sanitary I sewer $13,798.00, watermain $14,681.00 and storm sewer construction is $5,640.00 on Teton and $23,699.00 on Lilac Lane. The original report as presented to the City Council for their acceptance of the feasibility study had a method of II assessment or method of paying for the facilities. There was some discussion on that particular method at the time. The original method we had looked at all buildable lots and what the potential for units would be if all of the lots were II totally developed. You have fairly good sized lots along Teton Lane. This was the original total available units where Mr. Johnson had 2, Mr. Donovan had 2, Norwest Bank which is the Hilloway Corporation and the subdivision was 15, Charles Pickard had 2, Leonard Ware had 3 and F.T. Natole had 2. That was based I on a 15,000 square foot lot with a 90 foot frontage would develop into that type of units. We went back and looked at the second method of assessment. Basically maintaining the philosophy on how to assess it but adjusting the units II to reflect present day conditions. The present day conditions, Gordon Johnson, Donovan, Pickard, Ware and Natole units down to 1 and we picked up... What that II 7 II City Council Meeting - Jun, 1992 1 means, if you look at the street map. Properties along Teton would be assessed just for the existing dwelling that is on Teton. Donovan along Teton and the Gordon Johnson. There is some question about whether Mr. Donovan owns this piece of property or not. Our understanding that it's the Hilloway Corporation has it under purchase agreement. It just hasn't closed yet so we didn't study it. The County Records show it as still being owned by Donovan but eventually that will be owned by the Hilloway Corporation and those units will go against that particular subdivision. If we look at dollars for financing the street 1 construction and what I call assessable costs, $72,595.00. The reason I call it assessable costs is because the portion that's in Shorewood, which amounts to about $15,000.00, is not assessable. We can't cross lines and we can't assess in Shorewood. They would have to assess their property and return those dollars. I left that in there as a project cost, basically as a GO cost for this particular project. Looking at the assessment rate, we would be at, taking the 21 units and assessing it equally, we get $3,456.90 per unit for the street construction. On storm sewer, maintain the policy of 50% of the storm sewer costs coming out of the storm water fund. The assessable cost would be then $12,838.16 or $611.00 per unit. What that means to the individual property owners is that Mr. Johnson would have a storm sewer and street assessment. The Donovan property which exists today would have a storm sewer and street assessment. The Hilloway Corporation would have storm sewer, street, watermain and sanitary sewer assessment. All of the sanitary sewer and watermain has been agreed to be paid for by the developer. There will be no sanitary sewer or watermain assessments to the individual property owners along Teton Lane. We would leave services for those properties so that in the event that they would subdivide, that there would be a service provided and we would not have to dig up the street. That cost would also be assumed by the developer. Mayor Chmiel: Strictly stubs would be put in? Bill Engelhardt: Strictly stubs, right. The Charles Pickard property would be street and storm sewer. The Natole property, street and storm sewer. The City of Chanhassen would have storm sewer of $12,838.17 and then again what I call the non - assessable cost would be the portion that's in Shorewood, that's $15,859.67 which is made up of $12,000.00 street cost and a $3,600.00 storm ' sewer cost. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Go through any portion of the report. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone at this particular time that would ' . like to make a presentation to Council? Questions you may have? Florence Natole: Charles was saying he wanted to talk before... , Charles Folch: I can certainly finish up if you'd like at this point in time before the public speaks, if you'd like Mr. Mayor. ' FLorence Natole: That's what you were saying. Mayor Chmiel: That's alright. Why don't you just stay right there. It won't ' take him that long. Charles Folch: One of the key issues that came up at the last meeting when the ' Council received the report was a question concerning the need for the 8 1 City Council Meeting ) June 8, 1992 improvement. As Bill explained in his presentation, the existing road is substandard. It's a 22 foot wide rural section. It's construction previously was approved with the intention that it would be served more of a temporary type of facility if and when a future development would ever occur on the large 10 acre parcel on the west side. That future sewer and water installation would tear up any of the road surface that would be there and render it unuseable. So the road was constructed with a 2 inch mat over minimal Class V as Bill ' explained. The City's current urban street standard is a 28 foot wide roadway section with concrete curb and gutter. The design section consists of 12 inches of Class V, 2 inches of bituminous base and an inch and a half of bituminous wear. The existing road section is inadequate and again the major disruption which would occur with the utility installation would make reconstruction really the only logical improvement. The proposed subdivision will create 17 new homes as.Bill explained and therefore there's a need to provide adequate road capacity and safety for the increased volume which will occur. There needs to improve the road to city standard urban section and remove the barricade north of Ashton Court. Concerning the barricade issue, I cannot speak for previous discussions and Council decisions which I was not a part of, but in reviewing Council Minutes it does appear that the barricade was installed, one of the primary reasons was to separate two different and somewhat at that point in time, incompatible land use areas. There was a desire of the Council to preserve the open, rural atmosphere that was occuring north of Ashton Court. However, with the Ithilien subdivision and the addition of 17 new homes, you're going to have a neighborhood not unlike the neighborhood in Curry Farms and not unlike any ' other neighborhood within the city. Therefore the separation or barrier between the two is really no longer warranted. Costs for the project, as Bill had mentioned is $142,610.00. Staff has gone through as Bill explained and revised the assessment methodology that is consistent with previous assessment methodologies used on recent trunk sewer and water improvement projects so as to not to force large lots and small acreage hobby farm land owners off their property when an improvement comes by. That did make a significant reduction to the large lot property owners proposed assessment on the east side of Teton Lane. There also is a potential for senior deferment. In accordance with State Statute, the City has in the past accommodated senior deferments of special ' assessments whereby an assessment could be deferred anywhere from 5 to 10 years or until a death or change of property ownership were to occur. Certain financial criteria have to be met to qualify for this program. These are reviewed when applications are taken following the levying of the special ' assessment. The existing road section that's there today was built by Centex Homes as a part of the Curry Farms development. The City has incurred considerable expense securing the road easements and will continue to expend dollars to maintain the new street and storm sewer facilities. Staff is not aware that any of the properties along Teton Lane north of Ashton Court have ever. been or have ever paid a special assessment for street or storm sewer. Therefore the assessment for this improvement seems appropriate. As Bill mentioned, staff has had meetings with the staff of the city of Shorewood. Shorewood staff did present this feasibility study to their City Council on Monday, May 26th. Or on May 26th I should say. Local residents along Lilac Lane were notified of the meeting, as I understand. The report was presented for informational purposes only and no other action was requested. Shorewood directed their City Engineer to provide review and input on the project plans so as to address any Shorewood resident issues that may come up. At the close of this public hearing, if there are no other outstanding relevant issues requiring 9 City Council Meeting - .14.4 8, 1992 further investigation, it's staff recommendation that the feasibility study for improvements to Teton Lane from Ashton Court north to Lilac Lane and Lilac Lane from Teton lane east to County Road 17 be approved and that authorization be given to prepare plans and specifications for the project. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Florence Natole: Florence Natole, 6251 Teton Lane. First I have to ask Bill, did you say you would cut us down to just one per person? Bill Engelhardt: Right. Florence Natole: Then my lovely write up here is a little bit different from what I thought because the thing that we received, went and got I should say, a copy of the feasibility study and in there you had charged us more than that. So we didn't feel that it was a study. We felt that it was a price list and a plan for the four of us to pay for that plan and this upset us quite a bit. We felt that if the builder's going to build and needs to do something with that road, he should be the one paying it. We couldn't see why, in our case, there would be a $6,571.78 cost to us for a road which we do not need and we do not want and now what will it be, $2,000.00 and something. That's still too much. The way we look at it, the road should be left open. I'll give you this afterwards with the figures being different. The road should not be open. It should be left but what you should do is what should have been done and I'll read that part of my report. The problem of the hazard blockade at Teton and Ashton Court. This was a compromise made because Centex did not want to pay an additional amount of $72,488.00 and also lose some building lots to build another access road. Therefore Bill Boyt, who was then on the Council, made a suggestion that a, in quotes, "in many, many places, a break away barrier be built as Christmas Lake had ". They closed that road many years ago and it has never been open. They did not object to setting a precedent to please the homeowners even though several houses at the west end were barred from it's use. This was finally agreed to by the Chanhassen Council on March 24th, 1988. Break away was used over and over again. However, on January 29th, 1990, two years laters, when the barrier was put up, it was a blockade instead and despite many objections over the years, it was never corrected by anyone in authority. Even though two instances that might have been emergencies, nothing was done and as recently as March 26, 1992 a letter was sent to Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner from Mark Liftin, the Fire Marshal about the barricade. When I called about • this I was told they made a wrong turn. This could have been serious but it would be prudent to have all members of the Fire Department know where the fire hydrants are located so this will not happen again. However, again, we were told 4 years ago that any of the Chanhassen trucks could go through any barrier. When this latest thing happened, someone should have checked .up on this problem and corrected it. One other thing which was not mentioned, I noticed he mentioned something about this but I didn't hear of a repayment. Several ' persons were paid for their easements to Teton Lane when it was closed. Loris, Reamer, Cameron, Wong and Carlson. A total of $14,070.00 was paid. Will these persons have to return these monies if the road is open? Sounds logical to me. I have a simple solution, and to you it won't be simple. You're an engineer. But we were not sent any notice by the way of the Shorewood meeting so we couldn't put any input into it. In fact we did not any of us receive a notice that this meeting was being held but we don't let this stuff get very far past 10 ' City Council Meeting ,�.",)une 8, 1992 us. So I have a simple solution. Replace the present blockade at Teton Lane and Ashton Court with the break away barrier which was proposed so long ago. Give Hilloway Corp the go ahead to build the homes proposed with whatever upgrading must be done being paid for by the developer as it should be. After 4 years it's about time to put this issue to rest for all time. Now, I have a P.S. here. We're called benefitted properties in that report. The benefitted properties would not be to us or the Ithilien development. Those homeowners would probably never use the south end of Teton on their side of the barrier. It would be more feasible for them to exit to the left for the short distance to Lilac Lane than right down to CR 17. They would not want to drive through the entire Curry Farm development. The in quotes, "benefitted properties" would be the 21 residents of Curry Farms that are mentioned in the original feasibility study dated September 2, 1987. These people are not mentioned in the newest study and we're sure if each of them were assessed $6,571.78 as we are going to be, this room would not be large enough to hold the protesters. So that is what I came up with and now maybe the prices are a little less but it's still not fair. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Donna Pickard: Sure. ' Mayor Chmiel: Could you please come up to the podium and state your name and your address please. Donna Pickard: My name is Donna Pickard. I live at 1215 Lilac Lane. I made copies of what I was going to talk about tonight. Is that helpful for you guys to have that or not? ' Mayor Chmiel: Sure. ' Donna Pickard: Do you want it now? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Donna Pickard: Also, I'm not a very good speaker so I think I'm just going to read this, if that's okay. The first part of it is kind of a statement and some of it will be saying some of the same things that Florence brought up. Also I wasn't here for the very beginning. You're saying that the residents that were once assessed per unit is now just going to be assessed kind of a flat rate of 1 unit? Is that my understanding? Per existing house on each lot. So my original assessment of $6,571.78 will be half that? Is that my understanding? Bill Engelhardt: It will go down from $6,000.00 down to roughly $4,000.00. Donna Pickard: Okay. Okay first I have a question about how the benefitted properties are defined. We are referred to in this study as benefitted properties. We would like to know how that is defined and then explain to us 1 how we are benefitting. If the roads are upgraded, the development built and the barricade removed, our traffic, and specifically our traffic because our house is located at one neighbor explained as a pivot point where we get traffic on both Teton and Lilac Lane. Our traffic will increase from 70 trips per day to 450 trips per day. The taking of property will occur in the process of ' 11 r City Council Meeting - Jur"t 1992 1 widening Lilac Lane, the loss of mature trees and shurbery is bound to happen if Chanhassen can only widened on their side of Lilac Lane. It is unclear in the feasibility study how the road will be widened. So in the future we can look forward to a 542% increase in traffic, it's resulting noise and dangerous safety situations, lack of privacy, loss of property and probable loss of trees and shurbery, all resulting in the disappearance of a nice quiet rural neighborhood that we now enjoy walking and playing in with our children. In addition, we get to pay for all of these "benefits ". My assessments I'm told now will equal probably around $4,000.00. To me it doesn't appear that we live on one of the benefitted properties. It feels like we live on one of the penalized properties. Who's benefitting? Obvious Ithilien is benefitting. They receive their urban roadway that can handle their increase traffic at reduced assessments and no penalties. Chanhassen benefits. The barricade which has been a• subject of controversy will be removed and the issues resolved. The 210 additional trips per day from Curry Farms doesn't affect the new Ithilien development so while the opening of the barricade is a real concern for the existing neighborhood, Ithilien has divorced themselves from the issue. Their stand seems to be let's build in this neighborhood but ignore everything that has ever happened here or will happen here as a result of our building. We are grateful that the City Council doesn't agree with that philosophy and is working on getting these issues resolved before approving the final plat. Curry Farms residents receive a nice benefit. The report clearly states that 21 homes in Curry Farms pretend to use Teton and Lilac Lanes for ingress and egress. They've been wanting this for a while now but Teton Lane and Lilac Lane were never built to handle their traffic and the city held to their original agreement with the Lilac Lane neighborhood to keep the barricade. When Ithilien moves in, the roads will be upgraded. The barricades removed and the access open. All to be paid for by the benefitted properties. Aren't those 21 or so homes in Curry Farms benefitted properties? And if that is the case, why aren't they assessed for the improvements? As a matter of fact, they benefit more than we do and without getting penalized since they will be receiving a new and improved way to access their homes at no cost. I can't believe that those of us who have a road that works just fine for us, have to pay for a new road that we don't need while those in Curry Farms who want this new road, feel like they need this new road, won't pay a penny toward it's construction. Let's us honestly look at who the benefitters are. It is unfair to charge us for a road that doesn't benefit us at all. It is unfair that the real benefitted properties, Ithilien and Curry Farms get away with reduced assessments or no assessments at all. I have some other concerns that deal with the actual construction of the road that to me wasn't addressed at all in the feasibility study and maybe they have since been worked on. But if you can answer these. I don't know how much detail you have about...for construction but how wide will Teton Lane be and where are you going to take the width for that? Charles Folch: If it's improved to a city standard, it would be a paved road section that's 28 feet wide paved with concrete curb and gutter and it would be centered, typically it's centered on the right -of -way that we have which would be proposed to be 50 feet wide. Donna Pickard: That's Teton? Charles Folch: That's Teton. ' 12 ' 1 City Council Meeting egagune 8, 1992 Donna Pickard: How wide will Lilac Lane be and where are you going to take that width? Charles Folch: Lilac, we also have 50 feet of right -of -way but the combination ' between the City of Shorewood and the City of Chanhassen is 50 feet of right -of- way on Lilac so we would do our best and we would have to probably do a transition just north of the intersection with Teton but then for the rest of ' the remaining segment down to CR 17 but likely be centered on the right -of -way. However; in order to get the right angle intersection at CR 17, as we get closer to CR 17, we're probably going to have to shift to one side of the right -of -way in order to form the curve to make a right angle intersection. Donna Pickard: Just on our side? ' Charles Folch: Likely on the south side. Donna Pickard: Is there a map that shows that? I mean has that been drawn out ' so I know what I stand to lose as far as property or trees? We have quite a few trees there and I guess I just feel real insecure not knowing how much is going to be taken. ' Charles Folch: As far as property goes, the road is proposed to be constructed within existing right -of -way so there'd be no property loss from that perspective to you. Donna Pickard: Okay property but even on the right -of -way there's quite a bit of mature vegetation there. So that potentially, since it's on Chanhassen right -of -way can just get? ' Charles Folch: No, one of the things we will do as we et into the detailed ailed design, if we get into the detailed design segment, is to look at exactly what ' the significant trees are there and we would, as we have on other projects such as Minnewashta Parkway, when we had no choice but to remove vegetation, trees, etc., we will propose a tree replacement plan. But that level of detail comes out in detail design. Donna Pickard: Are the residents notified each step of the way in the design process? Or are we notified like we were tonight? You've got to look in the Villager. Charles Folch: Well, I have to apologize. There may have been an error in the mailing list while I was out of the office the week before last and it appears that maybe some of the residents weren't notified. I apologize for that. ' Donna Pickard: Was anybody notifed? Resident: Yes. Donna Pickard: Some people were notified? Charles Folch: But I apologize if there was a mix up in the notifications that were sent out. At any rate, it's our intent to maintain open communication through the project. It's likely that we would have probably a neighborhood 13 1 City Council Keeting - irof 8, 1992 meeting as we get into the design process which would allow you to have some review and input as to what's actually occurring out there and again, the design, plans and specifications would be brought back to Council for approval which you would have input at that time again in a similar situation as we're here tonight. ' Donna Pickard: Okay. Have you considered what the transition is going to be like between the new Lilac Lane and the old Lilac Lane? Because it's a straight road now and you're contemplating upgrading just a small part of it. Charles Folch: Yeah we would, as I mentioned, start the transition probably just west of Teton Lane and then carry the new section down CR 17. ' Donna. Pickard: Okay, but is there going to be like a curb there? I mean I just want to make sure that, especially people in Shorewood might be aware that. ' Charles Folch: There will be a curve as you get to the intersection with CR 17. We want to try to shift it down to get more of a right angle intersection. ' Gonna Pickard: No I mean up on Lilac. I mean you're saying you're putting in curb and gutter. I don't know, I guess I'm having trouble visualizing what that's going to look like with an old tiny road and then a nice, big wide new road. Charles Folch: Well we will have to taper back with the curb section back to a non -curb or rural section. There will be a transition through there. It likely won't be a curve per se. It would probably be more of a gradual taper. It's not going to be a sharp curve or anything like that. Donna Pickard: Okay. Some of these things I just want to make sure you're thinking about because it's going to affect what the neighborhood feels like and I don't know if I want to feel like you're isolating part of the neighborhood in order to facilitate traffic from houses that aren't even in the neighborhood. And also you kind of got into this improving intersection geometrics at CR 17 and Lilac Lane. You were saying that you were going to take the road and kind of tilt it in at more of a right angle? Charles Folch: To improve sight lines, yes. Shorewood has received some complaints in the past concerning both sight lines at that intersection and also the steepness of the grade coming down with there not being a landing area, particularly in winter time conditions. If the road have ice or snow and things like that. A few residents have filed letters with the City of Shorewood concerning that issue. Donna Pickard: Okay. Has any details been talked about as far as grading of the road? I mean I know you just brought it up a little bit. We're right, I don't know if you've ever been there? Because our house comes down and there's a pretty big slope and then the road's straight and then especially west of us, it drops down again. If you're bringing it down harder, then there's going to be a lot of issues that you'd have to deal with, especially the landscaping on our property. If it needs to be landscaped, is that something that's going to be tacked onto the assessments for the neighborhood? Because there's going to be grading that's going to be done and either landscaping or retaining walls or 14 ' 1 City Council Meeting - ne 8, 1992 as I said in my letter, erosion which is what happened on Teton Lane. They came and just graded it and they didn't build anything, they didn't plant anything there and it just kind of has been washing down. I mean now there's weeds there so. 1 Charles Folch: As we would get into the design phase, Bill and his staff will work with a number of profiles and then evaluate cross sections and try to find a balance or happy median between the lower side to the north and your much higher property to the south. Certainly we haven't defined exactly what the impact is going to be as far as tree replacement and things like that but rough numbers, as far as cost associated with replacement and grading, etc. have been ' estimated in the cost that's been presented tonight. So there would not be any additional costs. That's not been missed I guess I should say. That's not been missed from the estimate. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Charles, maybe 1 can make a suggestion. In the event that it gets pretty hard to visualize what's happening, it might behoove the staff to come out to the site with Mrs. Pickard and show her exactly what you're talking ' about. I think that way you can visually see and probably try to understand that a little bit more. I know that oftentimes we sit here too and try to remember exactly what you're saying. where it's going to be presents a problem. 1 So maybe you can sit with or make an appointment with Mrs. Pickard and talk about that. ' Charles Folch: You bet, we can certainly do that. Mayor Chmiel: The additional thing that I see too is that if these hearing notices were not sent out, I think it would not constitute the public hearing this evening. We're going to have to continue this public hearing until the next Council meeting because legally, technically they should have been sent out and somehow it just fell between the cracks. That's something that must be 1 done. Charles Folch: Absolutely. Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry, Mrs. Pickard, do you have anything more? Would that be workable with you to have staff come out? ' Donna Pickard: I would love to have more communication from staff. That'd'be wonderful. Along with what you just said, I hope that there is proper and regular communication with the City of Shorewood on this subject and also with it's residents. I think everyone, not everyone. All the residents along the street in Shorewood should be sent all these notices too. Because although they don't-live in Chanhassen it directly affects them. ' Mayor Chmiel: We have no authority to really send it out to the city of Shorewood people. Donna Pickard: Pardon? Mayor Chmiel: We have no authority to send it out to the city, people within ' Shorewood. 1 15 1 City Council Meeting J e 8, 1992 Pickard: Even a decision that will directly affect what's happening to them? Mayor Chmiel: Right. I still have some questions about Shorewood too. Donna Pickard: Okay, that's interesting. And also I want to make sure that there's an agreement, I don't know what you call it. An agreement and an understanding or a contract as to who maintains these roads. I mean who's going to plow them. Who's going to clean out the sewers. Repair them. You know fill in the potholes. Mayor Chmiel: I think as far as that road is concerned, it will probably be ' Shorewood's responsibility to plow. The other maintenance as far as with the sewers or water, that would be still our responsibility. Donna Pickard: That would be your responsibility to come and do, okay. I just wanted to make sure that that kind of stuff was being done because it seems to me before you, well one of the things you said at the last meeting, I think it was the May 18th meeting, that you felt like this project was contingent upon Shorewood approval so I would hope that they would get all the information so that they can make an informed decision. Also at the last meeting you brought up the issue of speed control. While I know that speed bumps are not possible, one idea that I had, I don't know what the policy is on putting up stop signs but to put up a stop sign at what would be the newly formed intersection of Teton Lane and the road that enters into Ithilien. That's about the halfway mark between Ashton Court and Lilac Lane. To me that might be a good solution to solve what is going to be an inevitable problem. Because a long, nice straight speedway with no driveways coming in, people are going to go real fast. Anyways, thank you for your time and thank you for listening. Joel Oressel: Mr. Mayor, my name is Joel Oressel. I'm the City Engineer from the City of Shorewood. I thought it was an appropriate time to jump in here. From a staff standpoint, we do have several items of concerns, mostly revolving around the geometrics of it, none of which I think are insurmountable but we would like to have some input in the plan stage. She's also alluded to another item of concern for us is to, who would be handling the maintenance. Would that be a City of Chanhassen, a City of Shorewood, some combination of the two or something like that. Those are the two major items that the City has a concern with and we would appreciate notifying our residents for further input. From. Shorewood as the project progresses. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Richard'Bloom: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm Richard Bloom. I represent Hilloway Corporation, the developer of the proposed Ithilien subdivision. First of all I'd like to thank Mr. Engelhardt and Mr. Folch for the cooperation that's been extended to us. We've met with both of them on several occasions relative to this whole project and they've been very helpful and I think they've made their best effort to be fair in these matters. I understand that arguing about who pays for it always get controversial and I think they've tried to do their level best. I guess what I might do is really make two comments really relative to the report and I guess at that point I'd also like to offer an alternate that we would like to suggest 16 ' II City Council Meeting rgune 8, 1992 �,,,,, u , 1. j; that you might want to give some consideration to. I guess the first comment II is, if you look at the project itself, it's really kind of a catch bag of things that are being thrown in here in terms of what's being proposed for improvements. You've got Lilac upgrading. You've got Lilac storm. You've got I Teton upgrading. You've got Teton storm and Teton sewer and water. The theory is then, the way that assessments incidentally were handled, they were kind of all lumped in the pot and then there was to kind of figure out how that would be II spread. I guess our concern is, especially as it relates to the Lilac storm sewer and really for that matter the Teton storm sewer. When we designed our subdivision, we were required to look at the drainage area within our subdivision which is greater than our 9 acres incidentally, and we did provide II the pond...etc and all the wetland designs, which we laid out to handle that whole area. As best we can tell in looking at the topography very carefully and going out Friday afternoon and actually looking at the property again,.I don't II believe that our property drains to the Lilac storm sewer at all. It was thought that maybe the north end of our subdivision does but you've got Gordon Johnson's property between us and where the storm sewer is proposed and it's still going uphill. I think the north end of our property actually.drains II across the street or across Lilac to the north and into Shorewood. The balance of Teton, where the break point is from drainage really draining into our subdivision, also the storm sewer proposed into Teton is draining really the I Ware property into our property. So I guess what we're saying is that from our, from the storm drainage perspective, we feel like we're more than adequate accommodating what's draining into our property and frankly that is being added into, winds up being our portion of the cost for something that we don't contribute any water to. Secondly, I would guess I would reiterate the comments of Mrs. Pickard and Mrs. Natole earlier. I know the whole Teton barricade issue has been very controversial. I guess we really take no position on that issue 1 one way or the other but the fact is, if the barricade is removed, there's going to be considerable improved access provided to Curry Farms. Now we are being asked to pay our prorata share of the roadways in this area. Primarily due to II the fact that even though we don't front on some of these roadways, i.e. Lilac, we'll have our homes will drive down there eventually and we get an access benefit. Well, if that's true, Curry Farms gets an equal access benefit for, II and I understand why you were not proposing to assess them because of the controversy associated with that. I guess what we would suggest, and we would be willing to maybe I guess throw out kind of a compromise that we would be willing to do. And really the original sewer and water that we had proposed out I of the right-of-way, we did that at the time thinking we were going to go on with a private job. Do this ourselves. Not affect the neighbors but then it's kind of grown as we've gotten into the process with the feasibility and that's, 1 in other words the scope of the project has gotten a lot bigger than what we originally anticipated. What we would be willing to do is to install the sewer and the water coming up Teton, as is shown in the report. What we would also II work on upgrading Teton Lane along the length of the whole up to Lilac Lane. Beyond, in other words our property. We would ask however that in exchange for that upgrading, that we be given credit against our trunk sewer and water. We actually feel that the sewer and water that's being proposed in Teton Lane is II not really a lateral to us at all. It will become a lateral once we install it in our street and hook our houses up to it but really the piece that's being installed into Teton Lane is really a trunk line that's coming up to our 11 subdivision. We will then in turn extend it into ours and then serve our 17 homes off of our internal lateral. So I guess what, and we would also ask that II 17 II City Council Meeting - , 8, 1992 . f some consideration be given to, and this would be subject obviously or concurrence by Mr. Engelhardt and Mr. Folch, is we're not still yet convinced II that Teton Lane itself necessarily has to be torn up. The proposal is that it's a 2 inch mat and a minimal sub base under it and therefore the substandard should be torn out and replaced. Well, there might be possibly by increasing II pavement thicknesses or something like that, there might be an equivalent way to give you the 9 ton or 7 ton load limit that you want on your road without necessarily having to tear out the whole road. We would still propose curb and II gutter along both sides and in effect then the widening would occur on our side of the road, lessening then that you have a possible impact against the Natole property. They've been very concerned about their trees in their front yard. This proposal will potentially would have minimal impact on them other than the II fact that curb and gutter be installed along their side of the road. Under our solution then, what we would propose then is sewer and water that we would build. We get credit for that but the city however could still gain those units I back for the credits you've given us by, if and when they're property ever is subdivided. At that point you could collect a hook up fee so the credits you've granted us, you could recover that back at such time as the adjacent people were to subdivide. The advantage in what I'm suggesting here this evening is that II you don't have to assess now and then possibly defer under the senior deferment or something like that because it still accrues interest, bear in mind even though it's deferred. You could defer the matter until such time as they were II to ever subdivide. If they were to stay in their home and use it as it's presently being used today. There would be no impact on them whatsoever. With the one caveat I guess we would ask is that the Teton storm, that some II consideration be given to that. I guess we feel that we're the receiving end of that little pipe that's coming across and that we would not be willing to build that portion and we'll work with your staff maybe on solving that problem. But II it's really an overflow from adjacent properties onto ours. I guess as far as the Lilac Lane improvements then, what we would strongly recommend you might want to consider is the costly item in that project, for Lilac now I'm speaking, is really that storm sewer that's being proposed in there which would be on the II south side of the road as I understand it. What we're thinking is, possibly by rebuilding Teton or repaving Teton, we might be able to shift the drainage point farther north such that we can divert more of Teton's water coming our way to 1 lessen the water that's going to go down the street and around the corner. And if we could do that, what we might suggest that you might want to consider. Now I know this may not be a perfect solution but it would be I think a workable one, is if you had some catch basins down at the bottom. Maybe several in a row II because of the water velocity. Where you could intercept that water coming down Lilac Lane and then just have a pipe going underneath the road. That would take out a pretty costly item in storm sewer then running that up the street. Having II said that then, if you look at the city's portion of what they were proposing to contribute towards this entire project, frankly the city would probably, almost have enough money to build the road with a reduced storm sewer and it might be fairly much of a wash. It would then have no effect on the city of Shorewood II people and it more or less stays the same. So I guess we would throw that out as a possible alternate and also note that objections that we did make. Thank II you. Frank Natole: One question. What are you going to do with the storm drain that is in front of my house now? 1 18 1 1 City Council Meeting -1 ine 8, 1992 Richard Bloom: Well there'd be no change to that I guess is what we're saying Mr. Natole. If that drain is currently there, it remains. If it's currently draining our way, it would continue to drain that way and we would not propose interfering with that one way or the other. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, maybe Charles, maybe you could give us a little insight. ' Some of these things seem logical. I wonder if you could make comment on it. Charles Folch: Sure. As far as the recon issue, as mentioned in my presentation in the staff report, we are going to disrupt a significant portion of the existing pavement that's there when the sewer and water would be installed. There would also be curb and gutter that's going to be installed along both sides of the roadway. In effect, if you went with an overlay type ' situation, you're going to have, we could piecemeal it in that way but you're going to have differential behavior of the pavement. Each pavement section there. We also took a look at what would have to be the pavement thickness in order to do just an overlay type situation and that amounts to basically an additional 3 inch overlay. About 3 1/2 I believe it is above and beyond what's there existing. I believe Al had the cost numbers, comparison between the two but again as I mentioned before, the amount of pavement that would be saved after we're done constructing utilities and putting in curb and gutter is going to be minimal and in my experience with the type of settling and froze action we have in our Chan soils, that you're much better off designing one uniform consistent roadway section. As it relates to the storm sewer issue, it is an interesting idea to try and move the high point along Teton Lane farther to the north to eliminate or reduce as much drainage going to Lilac as possible. However the high point in Teton Lane, in that segment of Teton Lane is about at 1 the midpoint or just south of the midpoint along that distance. The drop if you will in elevation between the high point and the intersection at Lilac is 7 feet. That's going to be very difficult to try and bring 7 feet down in an overlay type situation. Or even in reconstruction. Reconstruction would make it more feasible to try and move that high point but we certainly couldn't move the high point anywhere near that intersection. There's just too much drop. As ' far as the utilities go, neither the sewer nor the water would qualify as trunk lines. Based on their size, based on the type and number of connections that are going into them. They're not trunk lines. They're local lateral lines and should be installed and constructed as such. ' Bill Engelhardt: We've been involved in Teton Lane for about 6 years I think here. Going way back to the original study. There's a right way and a wrong ' way of doing this job. What we've got proposed to you is the right way. I disagree with what they're talking about in a storm sewer. Trying to move the high point. We don't contribute to storm sewer. I disagree with that totally. ' They are responsible for part of that storm sewer and they should pay their share. In light of the fact that the city is even picking up half of the storm sewer, for the developer to say that they're not responsible for any of that storm sewer is ludicrous. We've tried to take the cost of this project and divide it evenly. The property's on the east side of Teton Lane, Natole, Ware, and Pickard are both very large properties. Originally as it was mentioned earlier, the reason for the barricade was try to separate the rural area from 1 the developed area. Under the original, back in 1987 report, the Donovan property was never going to be developed. It was in a 100 year trust. It was never going to be developed. I think if you don't look at this project as 19 1 City Council Meeting - Jupa0, 1992 upgrading the roadway to city standards, upgrading the sewer and water in the proper manner, putting in the right -of -way, taking care of your storm sewer, you're going to be asking for problems down the road and we're going to be right back here again looking at another alternative to try and fix the problem. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Is there anyone else? Randy Karl: I'm Randy Karl, 6391 Teton Lane. I don't know what you folks here are going to decide on this. I would recommend that if you do decide to open up the barricade on Teton Lane, that we try to do it as soon as possible. I think you were made aware of one of our neighbors the other day that had a medical situation and the ambulance got on the wrong side and the Sheriff had to go out and get him and stuff and that could have been disastrous if his wife had not had some medication to attend him. I believe the Pickards talked about putting a stop sign at this new street and being a resident up here, I know I don't like 1 to stop at a lot of stop signs but I think in the interest of public safety, it might be prudent to consider putting stop signs at the corner of Ashton Court and the other street. That would definitely discourage a lot of that speed being picked up there on that road and maybe cut down on some of the commuting but at the same time it would help with the public safety issues of school buses that now have to turn around at the corner of Teton and Bretton Way. I've got a lot of little kids starting to grow up, going to kindergarten, first grade and stuff up there so that's a real safety concern with school buses and has been. They're very careful and we haven't had any incidents but we also have had a number of incidents, now I think 2 or 3 where safety vehicles, either fire or ambulances have, for whatever reason, got on the wrong side of the barricade. I would hate for that to happen to any of the folks on either side if they were responding from Chanhassen and for some reason came up through our area and couldn't get across. That could happen to anybody. We've been lucky so far. So as you consider this, I'd recommend since the break away barricade that was agreed to a number of years ago wasn't executed, and if the road is going to be opened up, that you consider removing the barricade as soon as possible and maybe attending to some stop signs and stuff to keep the traffic slowed down through that area so that it can be safe for everybody and enjoyable. Thank you. , Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Randy. Yes. Richard Bloom: Maybe if I could just comment or clarify. As far as Teton Lane ' and what we're proposing, I meant to say we want to explore the idea of this overlay idea. Now if we find that in fact, and frankly it sounds like it may not be worth doing because the extra pavement. You might be better off just tear it out. We are very willing to do that. Now our credit request as far as the trunk sewer and water goes, I guess we still do feel that that particular line and we have no lateral benefit off of it so it really is not a lateral line to us. It is trunk. I understand what Mr. Folch is saying but we're also talking about building a piece of roadway that doesn't abut our property and we're doing so in the interest frankly of hopefully resolving many of the problems that you have out here. Perhaps not all of them but what we're offering is really there would be no assessment at the present time at all to the existing neighborhood. Other than with the possible exception of the one drainage coming underneath the overflow coming across Teton. That issue I think we still have to resolve but I think that we were not, and also shifting that 20 , 1 • City Council Meeting une 8, 1992 high point, if we can, we'll shift it, we think we can move it slightly to the ' north, especially if we now rebuild the whole road. We might be able to help at least improve that to some extent. I wouldn't suggest for a minute we could put it all the way down to the corner either. That's quite a drop and we understand ' that too. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? I know I had some concerns about the safety aspect of it too and I asked Mr. Harr to have someone from our Fire Department come ' down and maybe we could just address that issue of that. Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor and City Council. The public safety department has been involved with discussions regarding this issue with the City Engineer and City Planner, with the Fire Chiefs, the Fire Board and our entire department and our position is that the fact that we have had two incidents involving problems, once with a fire engine and more recently with an ambulance, indicates that in ' our opinion the barricade does need to come down. Fire Marshal Mark Liftin is here to address any other specific questions. Positions have been taken that every fire fighter should know the exact way in and out and while they do try t their best, occasionally rigs come in from the wrong way. This happened once with a fire engine and a second time with an ambulance and the ambulance personnel are not city employees. They're going by maps and by routes that they ' believe to be the best. But even if vehicles do come in the correct way, our response protocols do not always permit a single entrance. For instance, if we were to set up the aerial tower, that vehicle takes up the entire roadway and we'd have no choice but to bring vehicles in from the other direction. And we are human too and mistakes do happen and we do not want anyone's property or their families to suffer as a result of that. Our position is that the barricade be removed and as soon as possible. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. ' Scott Harr: Councilwoman Dimler? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, Mr. Harr could you tell me, would a break away barricade answer all those safety concerns or is that not feasible? Scott Harr: We don't believe so. There was already confusion about this barricade that was supposed to have been constructed in a break away manner and ' it isn't. We would not risk our vehicles with the barricade that's there now. But we look ahead toward winter time when the street department would be plowing and piling up snow there. We're not in favor of a break away barricade because for a number of months of the year, it's still obstructed. Florence Natole: Mr. Harr? Scott Harr: Yes. Florence Natole: How has Christmas Lake been able to do that for 10 -12 years and have no problems? Scott Harr: I don't know. 1 21 'City Council Meeting - Jun ,8 , 1992 4 Florence Natole: Well why would there be more problems for us than there is for them? Scott Harr: I'm afraid I don't know what the situation is. Florence Natole: Well they've got two roads...and they don't fight Christmas Lake people. If they put something in, it stays there and I would think that Chanhassen had a little power too. If it's supposed to be in there and supposed to be a break away, it should have been done and it hadn't. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something we can discuss and talk about within that particular preview of that Christmas Lake situation. Thank you Scott. Anyone else? We are not going to close this public hearing. We're going to continue it. I think some of the things that you're looking at and some discussions maybe should be looked at fully. Come up with that final conclusion of whether we do or whether we don't. And anything from Council? Councilwoman Dimler: Lots of things. Shall I start Mike? Councilman Mason: I have lots of things too. Is tonight the night or 2 weeks from tonight? Mayor Chmiel: I think 2 weeks from tonight probably maybe but unless there's something pertinent to what we discussed that may be discussionary at this time. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I've got 2 things in particular that might influence what gets done in the next 2 weeks. Before the next public hearing. That one is the break away barrier. Since we don't know and I think the question is legitimate, what has Christmas Lake been doing and I know in the Minutes of the last Council meeting I brought that up too and it was just said that that's part of Shorewood and it was dropped at that but maybe we should look into that and learn and see what can be done and if it is feasible. It doesn't sound like right now it is but obviously it's been working for Christmas Lake so for the next meeting, if we could have that study and then have a report on that. 1 Mayor Chmiel: And I'd like to know the length of the road that they had along the lake frontage as well. What the distance was to be included up to the break aways. Councilwoman Dimler: And the second item was, I do appreciate Mr. Bloom's efforts in trying to come to some sort of a compromise here but I do think that , Council in general should remember that this whole thing is before us because of the development. If it weren't for the development, we wouldn't be looking at a road upgrade. We wouldn't be looking at storm sewer and we are putting a cost on those neighbors and I think that we should consider that when you divide up how it's going to be paid. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Michael? 1 Councilman Mason: I concur with that. I think the point from Mrs. Pickard about benefitted properties is very well taken. Curry Farms certainly is going to get a far more benefit out of this than the people already living on Teton 22 City Council Meeting June 8, 1992 Lane and I don't think, as it stands right now, I don't think that's an issue that this Council is dealing with and I think we need to. I really do. And I guess I just, Bill what you said about a right way and a wrong way. I agree with that completely. You know from a technical aspect. I think sometimes it's not the only thing we need to look at. There's certainly a lot more to be said but I guess it should probably wait for 2 weeks. Councilman Workman: Well, I agree with sort of all. You know Shorewood, the Curry Farms residents already paid for their road. And this road should have never matched up with Teton Lane if it was never intended to go through so we can blame our fore fathers and everything else on that but it never should have been matched up and you know that we have wisdom when new neighborhoods are coming in and we're saying, that they want to do that. They still want to do that and you know, who wants to assess the Natole's or the Pickard's or ' anybody? The fact is that Curry Farms paid for their roads and they probably should already have that through. It should already probably be done. I think we ought to be notifying those Shorewood residents a little bit better. One of the strongest voices, Mr. Simcox, has I think given up and thrown in the towel ' and he's probably more. Donna Pickard: He was at the Shorewood Council meeting on the 20th. Councilman Workman: He's given up with us. Donna Pickard: Well yeah. Councilman Workman: But he's probably got more riding, I think the headlights go right into his house. He's probably home watching the Twins tonight. So I mean just the fact that it matches up. It should have never matched up. We could fix the situation maybe for public safety by just renaming one end of Teton Lane. I mean that's, Natole Way or something. But I do too. I probably ' talked about this issue now a half a dozen times so I won't go on any further but you do have to look at the other end and what has been set up in Curry Farms. And that isn't very good either but it's really a loser situation. So I'll be announcing my resignation, no. Mayor Chmiel: You can't do that until later. Councilman Mason: Just one more quick question. I'm confused as to why we can be going ahead with this without anything from Shorewood. I mean this, obviously we're not just going to tear down half the street. I don't get that. Don Ashworth: Well, we are proposing a joint powers agreement. We have been in meetings for issues such as the maintenance and what not. I've talked with Mr. Herme on and I feel comfortable that Shorewood does know about the project and that a joint powers agreement will be entered into and the issues that have been brought out here this evening will be put into writing. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that I would like to continue this public hearing until 2 weeks from today which will also be on a Monday evening. Councilman Mason: We need to get the Pickard's and Natole's on the mailing list. 23 'City Council Meeting - Jun 8, 1992 ems. , Mayor Chmiel: That's one of the things I mentioned before. That we have to, that's why we're continuing the public hearing is so we can recirculize to the people who did not get notified and that's the reason why we're continuing the hearing. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: The Attorney informs me that it is more than just sending out the notices that somehow did not get sent out. If you're calling literally for a new public hearing, it's going to require a new advertisement as well as the individual notices. And I think, I don't think we can make that in the 2 week period of time can we? Charles Folch: Do we have someone from the newspaper here? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Dean Trippler: You need 2 weeks don't you... Mayor Chmiel: 10 days notification prior to the public hearing. 1 Roger Knutson: So you can't do it. Don Ashworth: You're not going to be able to. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Even with the continuation? Roger Knutson: Technically this is an invalid hearing. It's not a hearing at all. Councilwoman Dimler: I see. Mayor Chmiel: So we're talking a month from today. Charles Folch: July 13th. Mayor Chmiel: That would be July the 13th. And I'd like to make one suggestion ' with the agenda. To make sure that this is one the front side. Up close so these people don't have to sit through hearing it one more time again. I'm sure they enjoy coming here and they would just prefer doing anything else except. So with that we will then republish and continue the public hearing in the proper sequences our Council has indicated. Councilman Workman: Do we need a motion? , Mayor Chmiel: Do we need a motion Roger? Roger Knutson: It's a good idea. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would call for a motion. 24 ' City Council Meeting , June 8, 1992 ,,� 1 : ? Councilman Workman: For a public hearing? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Call for a public hearing and notification of all adjacent property owners included the Shorewood people as well. 1 Councilman Workman: So moved. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to call for a public hearing on July 13, 1992 and to notify all adjacent property owners, including ' Shorewood residents for street and utility improvements to Teton Lane (Lilac Lane to Ashton Court) and Lilac Lane (Teton Lane to CR 17), Project No. 91 -4. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 NON- CONFORMING USE PERMITS FOR RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS: ' A. FRONTIER TRAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Public Present: 1 Name Address Andrew Hiscox 7500 Erie Avenue Tom Manarin 7552 Great Plains Blvd. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the request before you on 5(a) is for Frontier Trail Non- Conforming Recreational Beachlot. This one and the one following it are fairly straight forward. They're requesting approval of the status quo condition as was found on the property in 1981. Therefore there really is no disagreement. They're inconcurrence with the original inventory. The Planning ' Commission reviewed 5(a) and did recommend it's approval. Since the Planning Commission meeting, there's been some discussion between the beachlot, the city staff and the adjoining property owner, Mr. Hiscox. Apparently there's a boat ' launch that is actually located serving the recreational beachlot that's actually located on Mr. Hiscox's property. There's negotiations going on where they're going to exchange easements to legitimize that. Additionally the beachlots' dock which is currently located in the vicinity of Mr. Hiscox's 1 property will be relocated back onto the beachlot and be consistent with our dock setback. So we are recommending that it be approved. Mayor Chmiel: There's only one thing that I see Paul and it's just minor. But on the shoreline you show the non - conforming recreational beachlot permit with the association request and it shows 200 feet. Shouldn't that be 193.5? Paul Krauss: It should be. Mayor Chmiel: It's on the second page in on the back of the second page. Back 1 side. You show 200 feet. Paul Krauss: Yeah. We'll make that correction. Councilwoman Dimler: Roger's gone? I wanted some legal counsel. 1 25 1 ,.._...,, j 1 CITY CF 4 ., ___,,, 1 . _, ‘,.„. ;.,(::„ . -.-- it :if ir s ii,„ , i z k _ : 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 Mien by City Administrator fiidorsect,t MEMORANDUM NI ditie� Rejecte TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date Submitted to Comm' FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer ( Dete Submitted to Cow DATE: June 4, 1992 "' SUBJ: Public Hearing on Street and Utility Improvements to Teton Lane (Lilac Lane 1 to Ashton Court) and Lilac Lane (Teton Lane to County Road 17); Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications Project No. 91-4 1 This is the public hearing for the proposed Teton Lane and Lilac Lane Improvement Project 1 No. 91-4. The proposed improvements of :the installation of sanitary sewer and watermain from their existing terminus ,fit Ashton Court to the proposed access street for 1 the Ithilien subdivision, the reconstruction of the referenced segments of Teton Lane and Lilac Lane to the City's current urban residential street section with concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer facilities. The three properties located on the east side of Teton 1 Lane and the property located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Teton Lane and Lilac Lane all have sanitary sewer and water service; therefore, the developer will be paying for all the costs associated with the sanitary sewer and watermain installation. 1 At the May 18, 1992 City Council meeting, there was some public discussion on this proposed project. Donna Pickard of 1215 Lilac Lane raised a question as to why James 1 Donovan was still listed as the owner of one of the lots in the feasibility study. As I responded to at the meeting, all of the property ownership information is acquired from the County. It is apparent from further discussions with the County that a land transaction or 1 ownership change is pending; however, the official closing has not yet been completed and recorded by the County. In any case, this lot is considered as one unit for assessment purposes regardless of who owns the property at the time the assessment is levied. I Florence Natole of 6251 Teton Lane also spoke publicly with concerns over the cost of the preliminary assessment estimate to her property of $6,571.78. This number was derived 1 based on an assessment methodology of one unit being equal to an average 15,000 square foot lot with 90 feet of frontage. The Natole property is large enough to generate two units 1 t41, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 1 Don Ashworth June 4, 1992 1 Page 2 1 from a gross area standpoint. However, staff has given this some consideration as it relates to the City's recent practice on assessments for large lot property owners involved in trunk utility improvement areas who are homesteaded and do not intend to subdivide their 1 property. The practice has been to assess one unit for the existing dwelling on the property and not collect or assess any further units unless a future subdivision of the property would occur. Given the existing dwelling locations, property owner intentions, etc., this same methodology could be applied to the Johnson, Pickard, Ware and Natole properties whereby only one unit of assessment for the street and storm sewer construction would be levied. Future units would be assessed to these properties if subdivisions were to occur. In accordance with state statutes, the City has also in the past accommodated senior deferment of special assessments whereby an assessment could be deferred 5 to 10 years or until a ' death or change of property ownership were to occur. Certain financial criteria have to be met to qualify for this program which are reviewed from applications taken after a project special assessment is levied. 1 Mrs. Natole also mentioned that their property has an existing storm sewer catchment which was constructed by the Centex Development in 1988. The existing catchment serves to ' collect drainage along the front boulevard area which is lower than the existing street grade. The proposed new urban street section with curb and gutter would eliminate this ditch and allow boulevards and yard areas to drain into the street and ultimately into the City's storm 1 sewer system. It is likely that the existing catchment would be abandoned. It appears that there are two primary issues associated with this improvement project, one ' of which is common to most improvement projects that being the need for the road improvement itself. The other issue relates to the existing barricade located on Teton Lane north of Ashton Court. On the first matter, as it relates to the need for the road 1 improvement project, Teton Lane itself is a 22 -foot wide rural roadway section. • The segment of Lilac Lane between Teton Lane and County Road 17 is not much wider and has some grade and site line problems. It is quite clear from the City Council meeting minutes 1 from March 28, 1988 approving the installation of this road that the paved roadway would be constructed as a substandard roadway section given that it is to function on a temporary basis. It was thought, and justifiably so, that at some future time when the 10 -acre parcel ' owned by James Donovan located on the west side of Teton Lane would develop that sanitary sewer and watermain facilities would need to be extended along Teton Lane requiring major disruption of the roadway. Therefore, a 2 -inch blacktop mat was paved at a width of 22 feet over a minimal Class 5 base. The current City residential urban roadway section consists of 12 inches of Class 5, 2 inches of bituminous base and 1 inches of bituminous wearing course paved to a width of 28 feet with concrete curb and gutter. The inadequate existing roadway section and substantial destruction of the existing pavement when the utilities are installed yield reconstruction of the roadway as the logical 1 improvement. Don Ashworth 1 June 4, 1992 Page 3 1 At the present time, Teton Lane serves only one property due to the barricade located just 1 north of Ashton Court. The development of the Ithilien subdivision on the west side of Teton Lane will create an additional 17 single - family units taking access from Teton Lane. In order to provide adequate roadway capacity and safety for the increased traffic volume and public safety services for the local area, these segments of Teton Lane and Lilac Lane need to be improved to City standard urban roadway sections along with the removal of the barricade. It is also apparent from previous City Council meeting minutes, i.e. March 28, 1988, that the installation of the barricade was to be temporary in nature until such time that development occurs on the 10 -acre Donovan parcel located on the west side of Teton Lane. Mr. Donovan testified that the property was in a 99 -year trust and would not be developed. While I do not generally support the installation of barricades limiting access on public streets, I can understand some of the reasoning behind the previous decisions made. The characteristics and the environment of the properties north of Ashton Court were different and somewhat incompatible with the characteristics and environment of the Curry Farms residential subdivision. In order to preserve those pre - existing qualities on the properties north of Ashton Court, the barricade was established to limit development impacts to the non - developed areas. With the platting of the Ithilien subdivision, 17 additional homes will be added to the area north of Ashton Court yielding it a residential neighborhood similar to that of Curry Farms and common to most other neighborhoods within the City. In 1 general, these two land areas will no longer be incompatible in their use. Teton Lane is a public street both north and south of Ashton Court and the general public 1 should have free access of use as they would any other public street within the City of Chanhassen. Previous staff reports have also addressed the problems associated with maintenance and emergency response difficulties associated with having the barricade exist. It is my understanding that officials with the Chanhassen Fire Department will be present at Monday night's public hearing to give testimony on their perspective to the barricade issue. Finally, the cost for the proposed improvements is estimated to be approximately $142,610 to be financed by a combination of general obligation and special assessments. I have attached revised proposed financing and assessment schedules for the project. As I mentioned previously, the large -lot property owners with an existing dwelling would be assessed one unit for the street and storm sewer improvements at this time. The proposed street unit assessment is $3,456.90. The proposed storm sewer unit assessment cost is $611.34. Therefore, the combination street and storm sewer assessment per unit is estimated to be $4,068.24. Even though the existing road was built by Centex, the City has incurred considerable expense in securing the road easements and will continue to expend dollars to maintain the new street and storm sewer facilities. Following some research, staff 1 • 1 1 Don Ashworth June 4, 1992 Page 4 has no record that the properties along Teton Lane north of Ashton Court have paid a 1 previous road assessment; therefore, assessment for the improvement project is appropriate. ' This feasibility report was presented by Shorewood staff to their City Council on May 26, 1992. Local residents along Lilac Lane were notified of this meeting. The report was presented for informational purposes. No other action was requested at this time. ' Shorewood City Council did direct their City Engineer to provide review and input on the design of the plans so as to address any relevant issues that Shorewood residents along Lilac Lane may have. 1 The project consultant engineer, Bill Engelhardt, will be on hand to provide a presentation of the proposed improvement project and answer appropriate questions accordingly. At the close of the public hearing, if there are no relevant outstanding issues requiring further investigation, I would recommend that the feasibility study for improvements to Teton Lane (from Ashton Court north to Lilac Lane) and Lilac Lane (from Teton Lane east to County ' Road 17), Project No. 91-4 be approved and that authorization be given to prepare plans and specifications for the project. 1 ktm Attachments: 1. Revised proposed cost and assessment schedules. 1 2. Public Hearing notice mailing list. 3. March 28, 1988 City Council minutes. c: Bill Engelhardt, Engelhardt & Associates Jim Fenning, Hilloway Corporation Richard Bloom, Land Concept Corporation ' Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal 1 1 1 1 1 1 W.R. ENGELHARDT ASSOC. TEL lo.612- 448 -8805 Jun 3,92 11:24 No.001 P.02 1 1 PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS 1 A) STREET CONSTRUCTION: 1 PID NO. NAME UNITS STREET COST 25- 002 -2410 Gordon Johnson 1 $ 3,456.90 1 25- 002 -2420 James Donovan 1 $ 3,456.90 25- 002 -2400 Norwest Bank 16 $55,310.50 1 (Hilloway Corp. 25- 002 -2100 Charles Pickard 1 $ 3,456.90 1 25- 002 --2000 Leonard Ware 1 $ 3,456.90 11 25- 002 -1900 F. J. Natole 1 _ $ 3456.90 21 $72,595.00 II Assessable Street Construction = $ 72,595.00 1 Assessment Rate = $ 3,456.90 /unit B) STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION: II PID NO. NAME UNITS STORM SEWER COST II 25 -002 -2410 Gordon Johnson 1 $ 611.34 25 -002 -2420 James Donovan 1 $ 611.34 1 25-002-2400 Norwest Bank 16 $ 9,781.46 (Hilioway Corp.) 1 25- 002 -2100 Charles Pickard 1 $ 611.34 25- 002 -2000 Leonard Ware 1 $ 611.34 1 25 -002 -1900 F. J. Natole 1 $ 611.34 21 $12,838.16 1 Assessable Storm Sewer Construction = $12,838.18 1 Assessment Rate = $ 611.34/unit B -1 1 1 O MS I I I M MO O = OM OM 111111 01111 I I O M INN 7J m L m r d TOTAL STREET AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION BREAKDOWN 0) m C) STORM SAN I TARY - 'ID NO. NAME STREET SEWER WATERMAI N SEWER TOTAL lrm- 5- 002 -2410 Gordon Johnson $ 3,456.90 $ 611.34 - - $ 4,068.24 T 5- 002 -2420 James Donovan $ 3,456.90 $ 611.34 - - $ 4,068.24 5- 002 -2400 Norwest Bank $55,310.50 $ 9,781.46 $14,681.00 $13,798.00 $ 93,570.96 (Hilloway Corp.) co co 5- 002 -2100 Charles Pickard $ 3,456.90 $ 611.34 - - $ 4,068.24 0 cri 5- 002 -2000 Leonard Ware $ 3,456.90 $ 611.34 - - $ 4,068.24 5- 002 -1900 F. J. Natole $ 3,456.90 $ 611.34 _ - $ 4,068.24 City of Chanhassen - $12,838.17 - - $ 12,838.17 Non - Assessable Costs $12,188.00 $ 3,671.67 - - $ 15,859.67 OTALS $84,783.00 $29,348.00 $14,681.00 $13,798.00 $142,610.00 N 0 O ^) (7 II 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE II STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 1 ss II COUNTY OF CARVER ) 1 I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on gf !� q( -� "511/': ;, � . 19 9)' . 1 the duly qualified and acting Deputy of the City of Chan- hassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed II a copy of the attached notice of II 7 l J11 C/2 Lc ZY - lil(i L f -1 -.( Cl II to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A ", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and II depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the 1 United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such 1. by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. II 1 ( . 4.. Ct/ t // 4 _."- - e-l--i' , -- - <-t6 /----- "" - -- Karen J. y , Deputy Clerk II , Subscribed and sworn to before mp this. 171ay II of —,/)(1-, , 19 -� 1 • r� 44c-7-...._ 1 •., t , - I / � .- -1 (� t < < ` \_Notary P blic X AALAAAAAM AMA1AAAAA&AAAAAAAAAAX r:p. KIM T. MEUWISSEN a af�22 NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA Fri CARVER COUNTY C IT ' T OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 May 19, 1992 1 Re: Notice of Public Hearing Teton Lane and Lilac Lane Improvement Project No. 91-4 1 Dear Property Owner: Notice is hereby given that a public hearing has been scheduled for public input on the Teton Lane (from Ashton Court north to Lilac Lane) and Lilac Lane (from Teton Lane to County Road 17) feasibility accepted by the City Council on May 18, 1992. The public hearing will be held as a part of the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on Monday, June 8, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The project deals with the upgrading of the referenced segments of Teton Lane and Lilac Lane to current City residential road sections with concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain. It is also ' proposed to remove the barricade on Teton Lane located immediately north of Ashton Court. Said improvements are to be financed through a combination of special assessments and general obligation bonds. The area proposed for assessment includes those properties within the City of Chanhassen abutting Teton Lane north of Ashton Court. The total project cost of said improvements is estimated to be $142,610. 1 A copy of the feasibility study showing the project scope and cost is available for review at City Hall during regular business hours. We look forward to discussing this project with you at the public hearing. 1 Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN • Charles D. Folch, P.E. City Engineer CDF:ktm Attachment: Proposed Assessment Area Map c: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician Bill Engelhardt, Engelhardt & Associates Allan Larson, Engelhardt & Associates 1 1 v q. 41, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER MI • MI NMI II•11 11111 M. Mill MUM M . 11111 Mil riiiiirl lifiROMEMSMAERMARall CITY OF SHOREWOOD LILAC LANE . CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 7 TETON LANE AND LILAC LANE ;,.;,.%..-,*mN*.,ss,MN\ FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR di:T,.elOP:strHANHI5E:1"!:1 . • :,:::•.•,,. .x. ,. ... .:.. ... • • ... . . ... ; :::: :' ($..',• • . ...ti:..4 . . . .. . . • " . STREET .. L.i.. :;:.::; .:.!::0,,.. ::Y..!: 4, :....4A0'....." :: ,.. . .... . _ .... _ .. .. - • •.. \ .. . . _ ...... _.... .. CONSTRUCTION ... ..... . • • .. WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES INC ..,,,•::;0j.•*; '''''''"•"•:.4.1;-,-:N,..;t::::::::::::::::::::::....::,#.P.oposco• .•:.• ....... ......... .:• .. ,] ' •-• .,.., .: . -: • ......... •••••••••....,•••••••.••••••••.•-•,,, •• 'To. W ..' ,I1ter CONSTRUCT!QN .'; 1.107 CHASKA, MN. 55318 HAZELTINE BLVD SUITE 480 I I . 1:..' t '. . ....., ' :1:; . f k , • 4 :... "AA:: ..............ts I ••: :j; . ;g' ::: : tg:ONAP.V iV J Q11\ 1111111 . 44160' I ii '''.....:. f :.:: .i>, •••• . ..... '.."'...." .....f.: . •••••: • ...... . .. .' 0 . : . : ..... li . : O'' :60Stika... ;W ':: • i 0 :•:•• :1 , 1i ..O.: • . •••• ..,.::. . .. . .1„ .!A::.• ....4 7,i.it..:.• 4 ::: 40:: k -............- \ : 44. ," :,?..:.,,,i,":„,„ .:,,,.:., :: •:.: \..., .:• ,: , NI • 1 I :..,.. ..4:. '.::•• . ..,••••• . :':: ti• :::1: 0 .:4•0:6L'E':. CARVER ( 0 c. I .. .'' . .....•••11 ; ' ; ...,....iiSH . 41116 M.,..,....t :: . ...:i...' ..i. : CO .,. ..1- . A . . • . .... ..... / CAMERON 0 V OUTLOT (EXCEPTION) • 11 0 D S.R. REAMER 12 SIIAKELTON - 11 k 1 ( 10 BRANCEL -1 0 O - .:11 . \ 3 4 (EXCEPTION) IF U la' Me Y RICHARD CARLSON 15 9_ 5 \ CITY 2 6 0 0 F CHANHASSEN 7 II 10 14 Ai I \. . _________. IEXCEPFION).--- 9 RONALD LEE METCALF --------___ r-rws:co 13 6 5 4 3 2 1 L01-21S 0 FARMS A D 11 II NI, /0 1 ri BRADLEY & JANE i E WING MICHAEL & PAMELA HORN MARK FISCHBACH & 1 1321 ASHTON CT 6330 TETON LN TAMIE KUPITZ CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 6340 TETON LANE I CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LEE & LORI ERICKSON DAVID & JOAN PRIEM DAVID & SUSAN EWALD 1 6350 TETON LN 6360 TETON LN 6370 TETON LN CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 ANDREW & TERESATHULIN THOMAS & SANDRA RYAN STEPHEN & DYNTHIA DOMS 6380 TETON LN 6390 TETON LN 6398 TETON LN 1 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I DAVID DAHL & LESLIE KEITH & FRANCES JOHN & DONETTE LEDUC CZECH OCONNOR 6401 TETON LN 6421 TETON LN 6411 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 RANDY & SHEREE KARL FRANK & MARY UGGLA JAMES & GWEN COSGROVE 6391 TETON LN 6381 TETON LN 6371 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 JAMES & RHONDA DOWNIE MICHAEL COUGHLIN & JON & CATHERINE GUY I 6361 TETON LN WENDY JOHNSON 6341 TETON LN MI CHANHASSEN MN 55317 6351 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 FRANCO LORIS STEWART & KAREN PO BOX 145 REAMER 1 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1331 ASHTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 1 1 1 1 1 unci.l Meeting - h 28, 1988 ( 11111( II Sewer Plan Update. How's that. That will accomplish what you need, right? It will leave it a little bit short but that's pretty close. II Resolution #88- 21(b): Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to allocate $7,500.00 to conduct a study for the senior citizens of Chanhassen and allocating, $9,697.00 for the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. All voted in II favor and motion carried. t II ACCEPT TETON LANE FEASIBILITY STUDY, ALTERNATE 4. Mayor Hamilton: We got a lot of information here. I don't know that I ever II saw Alternate 4. I'd like to have seen something that would indicate to me what the heck it is. II Councilman Horn: That's the one we proposed last time. Mayor Hamilton: I know but I don't see anything here. I know we talked about it. _ II Bill Engelhardt: The reason there wasn't a map included along with the report is that Centex was still working on their alignment for the cul-de -sac in this area. If you recall, in their initial proposal for Phase 2, they had a cul-de -sac included up in the Donovan property and we just received this map today where they had finally worked out the details for the lot sizes in the Phase 2. The change would be, and the way that Phase 2 will come in, Road G will stay all up on their property. These lots will all, I believe will meet II the city standards. Concerning Teton Lane, we'll have a 33 foot easement in the rear of the right -of -way and construct a 22 foot bituminous roadway from Lilac Lane up to their property line, the Centex property line. At that point we're proposing that a barrier be installed and neck the driveway down to a 10 foot bituminous lane and then landscape it with shurbs and bushes in this II corner. The reason for that is we wanted to not give the appearance that this roadway would be a through road at some point in time and we felt that by going down to a 10 foot bituminous in this area, that would accomplish that. We also II felt that the 22 foot wide bituminous roadway that would be constructed would accomodate the traffic from the area. In effect we have one property owner, the Natoli property that would be using that as an ingress /egress point. The II Ware's could eventually use it. They do cross the Pickard property to get onto Lilac. They could eventually use it so really our number of property owners that will be using this 22 foot lane is very minimal and it would provide the surface area that would be capable of carrying the emergency vehicles in and I out. The sections for the proposed roadway as we said in the re P from 6 inches of Class V rock to 2 inches of bituminous mat to 10 o nc h es ould go depending on what the soil conditions would dictate out there. We're II estimating the cost to use the 10 inches and the 2 inches to give a maximum number so we know what we should have to work for. Any plan for Teton Lane to be prepared in conjunction with the Phase 2 of Curry Farms, it would go through the process of approval and review by the City Engineer prior to construction. II I think you did receive a letter from Centex stating they were agreeable and it was feasible and they would be agreeable to carrying the cost. 16 II y Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Bill, will the Shakelton, Cameron, Brancel property then, they'll just have to use Road G, is that correct? Bill Engelhardt: They'll just have to use Road G. I think that's probably the best alternate for those parcels because they are big enough where they could be subdivided and they might have to have additional roads or somebody might come in and put this whole parcel together as one development. Jack Brancel: I'm the owner of the property back there. Would there be any costs associated with that if we're going to be taken off of this Teton Lane and brought back onto this Road G around Road E and back out again? Mayor Hamilton: I don't believe so. There wouldn't be any assessments. Councilman Geving: Costs to you? ' Jack Brancel: Yes. 11 Mayor Hamilton: No. Nothing. - Jack Brancel: Okay, that's the only question I had. Councilman Boyt: Tell me where you're going to put the snow. i Bill Engelhardt: It's a very difficult question. In fact, the directive from the Council was to look at a cul-de -sac in this area. That's not feasible because of the limited right -of -way. By going with the 22 foot wide surface, we then have about 5 1/2 to 6 feet on each side of the roadway for snow ' storage. It's not like a typical right -of -way. You should usually have about 7 to 8 feet but in this case, it's like putting it off to the side. I think the "T" turnaround right at this end, we're probably going to have to push it into this area and maybe leave the pole just across the drivingway and leave some kind of an area open on the end and try to move that out onto the field and try to get the snow in this area. That's about the only think you can do with it. Councilman Boyt: I can give you another possibility. Not one I particularly like. I'm concerned that if we have a barrier there, we need to have some way I so the snow isn't piled up in front of it or it becomes useless. I'd like you to take your cul-de -sac that services Lots 12 and 11 and take your temporary barricade and put it down there right across from the corner of Lot 11. Now ' we've got a cul-de -sac basically. Bill Engelhardt: Then you would use this cul-de -sac, you'd come in Lilac, come down Teton and into this cul-de -sac? Adding another cul -de -sac. Councilman Boyt: I guess we would yes. That has a drawback to it too. !! Bill Engelhardt: The key to that, I guess one of the reasons for not doing it was to avoid the traffic on Teton. Councilman Boyt: I agree that we don't want to put traffic on Teton Lane. I ' also think that to make this workable, we have to have a place that we can put snow relatively easily so it doesn't get stacked up against the barricade. I'm ' 17 ' uncil Meeting - March 28, 1988 somewhat skeptical that that plan is going to do it. Gary Warren: It's going to come down to our city forces and the particular individual who plows this area to have the marching orders that that's not done. I guess we feel, it's not whether we have the right -of -way or not, they plow the road and the snow builds up on the sides. We'll get it open and use whatever area we need to do that and specific direction will be given to keep the barricade area, don't use the snow as the barricade but keep that area clean and I see that as a workable situation. Councilman Boyt: How can they take that truck and turn it around in there so they'can clean in front of that barricade? I don't understand how they can do that. Bill Engelhardt: I think the 33 feet, if we use a "T" in here, we should be able to get enough so they can come in and probably push it ahead and "T" it on both sides. Wing it on both sides and take it away from the front and put it on this side and this side. It will happen. We'11 have to work with it. It's such a limited area up there. - Mayor Hamilton: Except that Mr. Donovan has been very cooperative and I would suspect that if we asked him, he would allow us to put a "T" in at the end of the street, there. There's nothing there. It's just a field. We're not going to be hurting anything if we did it at our expense and returned the property to the way it is now when we're finished with it. I can't imagine he's going to have a problem with that. Councilman Horn: If you're going to put that shrubery in there, you can blade up to the barricade from one side and you can blade up to the shrubery from the other side but the rest of it's going to be filled with snow. How is that going to be an access in the winter? Bill Engelhardt: We're talking about a 10 foot walkway in here. You'll have 11 to come in and take that 10 feet out. Clean that out. Councilman Horn: Before you could get a firetruck through you'd have to come 1 and plow it. Bill Engelhardt: No, when he plows snow, when he gets done plowing your cul-de -sac out, then come in and take that out with a front end loader or something. Gary Warren: We go around on our second pass so to speak and we dress up areas ' that we know are problem areas such as cul-de -sacs and this would be just another one put on the list. Clean out, as Bill said, with a front end loader or bobcat for example would be very useful in that type of a situation. 1 Bill Engelhardt: I think Gary, you do that with hydrants too. Don't you go out and clean around hydrants so it would be the same piece of equipment that you'd be cleaning around hydrants. Councilman Horn: Explain to me again what you're oin to thought you were going to g 9 put in that area. I section. 9 n9 put something in there so it wouldn't like a through 18 1 111 unci.l Meeting - March 28, 1988 Bill Engelhardt: The Centex proposal was to, you can leave this blank too. You wouldn't have to put any landscaping in there but it would seen to me I guess, a good idea too that if we would dress that corner up a little bit so it wasn't all weeds and who's going to take care of it? We don't want to go out there and have to cut that little piece of grass. I suppose you could pave it. That's one option to pave the whole thing but it would appear that it would be more attractive as you came into this cul-de -sac area, to give the appearance that it wasn't a through road. If you pave it and you put all the blacktop in there and the barriers, somebody down the line is going to say, that's a right -of -way and you're going to start getting petitions to utilize it as a t right -of -way. Councilman Horn: How are you going to have something that you can landscape that you can plow through? Bill Engelhardt: You aren't going to plow thr going to scoop the snow off to get a get foot stri just p the sl You r just d around the hydrants. Go in with a front end loader pull your snow and you wsnl snow back make the 10 foot strip. pull k to Councilman Horn: Is that a city street then? City maintained street? Gary Warren: Yes. II I Councilman Horn: It isn't now? Gary Warren: No. Councilman Boyt: I want this barricade to work. To me, for it to work, one of the things we have to do is we're not building a permanent barricade here but at some point, maybe it's 20 years from now, land is going to develop on the other side of these big parcels and when it does, the conception is that that road is going to go through. I think we need to make it pretty clear that someday that road is going to go through because if we hide it, then I can assure you that we're going to get a tremendous petition the day that we decide to open it up. So I'd like to see the area that you've got shaded there, paVed. I would even support a sign there that said this is a temporary barricade. I want the barricade there because I don't want the traffic but I don't want to mislead anybody into thinking that it's going to be closed forever. ' John Speakes: I'm with Centex Homes. If we take that barricade, if you think of the barricade on the diagonal across that road instead of perpendicular, the snowplows are going to go by one side. Gary Warren: We can cork out the details during the plans and specs phase you'll have another chance to look at it then. Obviously it needs some more thought here to get it to that point. Kevin Clark: I also am with Centex Homes. In anticipating some of the questions that would come up tonight, I spoke with the Natoli's and mentioned ' to them that basically what we have is a situation of a deadend and there would be some backing up of city vehicles and such. I proposed to then that Centex 11 19 it Meeting - rch 28, 1988 1 ld improve a 10 foot apron so that in essence, we would deed it over to the ity to have an area to back up into and you're not backing up into a rutted 111 area. What we wanted to do was put in an improved apron on the Natoli property. I had talked to then before the meeting so there's a place to properly back up in. Councilman' Geving: I think it's important though, if we do this with the driveway at the Natoli's, the Natoli's may not always live on that property over the next few years until that is developed. I would hope that we would have some kind of an agreement with the Natoli's that is binding on the future homeowners as well. Mayor Hamilton: We'11 get an easement. Councilman Geving: Okay, we'll get the easement necessary to do that because I can see that as a potential future problem. I did talk to the Natoli's and they are more than willing to use their land. Bill Engelhardt: After listening to discussion, if we took that 10 foot strip and made it 22 and just carried it all the way through, that would solve it. Mayor Hamilton: Seeing how Mr. Natoli is here, I'll ask him. Everybody has been telling us that you agreed that we may be able to back our trucks up during plowing to use a part of your property so they can turn around. Would you be agreeable to an easement so we could do that? Mr. Natoli: Perfectly alright. Bruce Cameron: I just had a question about Teton Lane. There has been talk at one time that Centex was going to purchase that and deed it over to the city. Is that the case? Mayor Hamilton: That's what is being accomplished here, right. , Bruce Cameron: So at some point in time the property owners could be assessed if that street was put through there and brought up to the city standards? 1 Gary Warren: If it was brought up to full city standards. Councilman Geving: Potentially. ' Mayor Hamilton: Yes, full city standards. Someday. Councilman Boyt: I think we should follow up on this gentleman's comment that, were you here two weeks ago when we discussed this? Bruce Cameron: No I wasn't. Councilman Boyt: The plan is to not upgrade this road until that property is developed over there at which time there would be a much'larger group of people 1: that would be assessed for it. Bruce Cameron: Thank you. I was in the hospital. . 20 1 ' i.tac %" .City Council Meeting March 28, 1988 i Jim Donovan: I'm just wondering, were you saying that you're not going to assess it until the property develops? Like my property would be developed. II You wouldn't be doing any assessing until that time? ' Mayor Hamilton: That's Y t correct. Could I ask you a question too Jim? I'm sorry, I didn't see you come in. We had talked again about the availability of having our trucks when they're plowing, turn around at the end of that street. I was wondering if you would be amendable also to just a "T" at the end of the street so the truck could pull in there and back up and turn around. If we ' could get an easement from you and develop it at our own expense? Jim Donovan: Yes. Councilman Horn: I'd like to finish my question. You were saying we would have a 2 inch bituminous coating on this? Bill Engelhardt: That's right. Councilman Horn: Similar to a driveway? 1 Bill Engelhardt: That's correct. ' Councilman Horn: Do you know what garbage trucks can do to a driveway? How long do you expect that to last? Bill Engelhardt: I really don't have a problem with it. With a 2 inch mat ' i with a base that's constructed properly. We talked about that last week. It's the base that creates or doesn't create a problem and if that's constructed properly, I don't think the 2 inches will have a problem. You find in the city ' streets that 2 inches is almost the standard section. Councilman Horn: The other thing I read in here is that everything we put in now will come out when it's brought up to city standard so there will be no benefit in what we're doing now to a final street? Bill Engelhardt: That's correct. Councilman Horn: It seems kind of a waste. Is there anyway we could do something that would be more permanent at a later date? Gary Warren: The reason that that statement is true is because of the work that would be done with the utilities and normally we run the utilities down the center of the road in that easement area so by the time you get done ' excavating the trenches for the utilities, you've basically destroyed the subbase and you have to come back and rebuild that. That's the reason why we couldn't take advantage of what we're putting in now. 11 Councilman Horn: And you couldn't go besides it or make some provision for that now? Gary Warren: The utilities? Councilman Horn: Yes. 1 ' 21 ..-.-.1. II • .ty Council Meeting -k 'ch 28, 1988 ' i' Gary Warren: We try to be creative and if we've of s i 9 some existing condition that is worth salvaging, ng, Church Road for example where we're looking at the south end of Church Road, even though we've got the Metropolitan Commission is going to be installing our full road section out there, the Carlson property is • going to be putting in the sanitary sewer on the west side outside of our road section so we don't have to bust up that road section. So we do, if the II situation dictates it, we will try to be creative and put our utilities in other areas. I think in this case, it all depends on how the development goes and we'll certainly keep that in mind. Councilman Horn: I really have trouble with this. What it all II we're doing all this just for a 11 quirs enwn to e some point. The City is going to have to� plow aosect oncofsstreetlnowethattit didn't have to plow. We're going to have to put in a chunk of pavement that is II totally temporary. I really question the benefit of this whole thing based on this. Now if there could be something of a permanent nature for a future plan I could see it but I really have to question this. II Mayor Hamilton: Wouldn't you be able to__salvage the Class V out of there? Gary Warren: Yes, you're not going to totally lose it but it gets contaminated II as a result. We did, in the downtown here for example, we salvaged a lot of material there so those things are feasible. It's just a matter of what the II proposed improvements would be and how you could justify the salvaging of than. Councilman Geving: Centex Homes are here tonight. Is there someone here who can speak for the corporation? Do you agree with the recommendation in the Council's packet tonight that you would pay for not only the street but the expanded scope of the Alternate #4 study? II Kevin Clark: I can't say I agree totally but I'd like to get beyond this. Councilman Geving: That's good enough for me. II Resolution f88 -25: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Teton Lane Feasibility Study Alternate #4, Curry Farm Subdivision Phase 2, II File #87 -16 with the recommendation that the expense for implementation of this alternate study be borne solely by Centex Homes. It is further recommended that the developer be responsible for reimbursing the City for it's II consultant's expenses in preparation of this study, namely $3,700.00. Further, that design details for the upgrade of Teton Lane in accordance with the criteria laid out in Alternate #4 shall be submitted for approval to the City Engineer and the City Council as a part of the plans and specifications II approval process for Curry Farms Second Addition. All voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed and motion carried. II APPROVAL OF PLUMBING /HEATING INSPECTOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH HEATING PERMIT AND FEE SCHEDULE. I ` . . Mayor Hamilton: This was an item we looked at last week and I had asked tine- C to table it until such time as we had an opportunity to review the - )a.p.'total staffing needs within the City. I think I've asked for that about 3 ' 22 II