Loading...
2. 1991 Audit Report C I TY 0 F CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55 (612) 937=1900 • FAX (612) 937-573 • Ot MEMORA M TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager 15ATE: June 4, 1992 SUBJ: Presentation of 1901 Audit Report, Deloitte and Touche, Cliff 'Hoffman and Men Vanney 1 Attached please find a copy of the 1991 Audit Report and Management Repdrt. As can be seen, the city has had another good 5ea. Cliff }Milian and Karen Vanney will be at Monday's meeting to pre these reports. I anticipate that their presentation should be fairly short, i.e. 15 to 20 minutes,. 1 Ov'rj . I I • 4r. to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER II TO: Chcnbassen City Council Members FROM: Frank & Florence Natole TYATE : June 8, 1992 I IN REGARD T0: Feasibility Study for Teton Lane & Lilac Lane 5/6/92 Il It was NOT a "study ", it was a price list and a plan by which four parties would be made to pay for it. Even though pages 1, - 2 and 8 refers to us as I the ? "benefitted properties ", we would in no way have any benefits. The Engelhardt Co. will have to "go back to the drawing board". What benefit would we have from a "freeway " in front of our house? There's an estimate of 565 trips per day (not our figure-- Englehardt's) on page 4 of the Study. This includes household cars, trucks - delivery,. garbage and re- cycling - and possibly the school bus. Our property value would drop drama- tically. An excellent selling point is our 'rural" atmosphere. Many persons I looking for a home to purchase think this is -an important point. The "benefitted properties" would not be US or the Ithilien development. Those home owners 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 and then right down to #17. They would not want to drive through the entire Curry Farm Development. 1 The "benefitted properties" would be the 21 residents of Curry Farms that are mentioned in the Original Feasibility Study, dated September 2, 1987. 1 These people are not mentioned in the newest study. We're sure if each of them were assessed 46,571.78 as we are, this room would not be large enough to bold the protesters. In the original Feasibiblity Study, Page 4 a statement said, "the existing 33 feet of land for Teton Lane should be pursued at this time city right- or The additional 17 feet. of right - of-way should be considered from the Donovan property (now H111oway owned) IF AND WHEN IT 15 SUBDIVIDED.'" Sounds as though the developer would be responsible for any costs to upgrade Teton. One way to do this is to divide the 429,573.02 which we four were to pay and add 41,739.59 to each of the 17 houses or lots, when sold. For anyone paying 4150,000 or more for a house, another 41700 over a 20 or 30 year mortgage, seems insignificant: I Now for 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 472,486.00 and also lose some building lots, " to build another access road. I Therefore, Bill Boyt made a suggestion that a break -away barrier" be built, as Christmas Lake had. They closed that road any years ago and it has never been opened -- they did not object to setting a precedent to please the home- ", owners, even though several houses at the West end were barred from its use. This was finally agreed to by the Council on March 24, 1988. Break -away was used over and over. again, ,however on January 29, 1990 (two years later) when II the barrier was put in, it was a "blockade" instead. Despite many objections • over the years, it was never corrected by anyone in authority. Even when two instances that might have been "emergencies ", nothing was done. As recently as March 26, 1992 a letter was sent to JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner from Mark I Littfin, Fire Marshall 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 know where the fire hydrants are located so this I would not happen again. However, again we were told four years ago that "any of the Chanhassen trucks could go through MANY barrier." When this latest thing happened, someone should have checked up on this problem and corrected it. One other thing which has not been mentioned. Several persons were paid for the easements to Teton Lane when it was closed. Loris, Reamer, Cameron, Wong I and Carlson.. . , total of 414,070 -- will these persons have to return these monies if the road is opened? 1 HERE IS 7 SI LE S0LUT0 J Replace the present blockade at Teton Lane and ' ire iton. Court wlth "'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... I After four years, it is time to "put this issue to rest " for all time;:'. TO: Chcnhassen City Council Members II FROM: Frank & Florence Natole DATE: June 8, 1992 II IN REGARD TO: Feasibility Study for Teton Lane & Lilac Lane 5/6/92 I It was NOT a "study ", it was a price list and a plan by which four parties would be made to pay for it. Even though pages 1, and 8 refers to us as the ? "benefitted properties ", we would in no way have any benefits. The I Engelhardt Co. will have to "go back to the drawing board'. What benefit would we have from a "freeway" in front of our house? There's an estimate of 565 trips per day (not our figure-- Englehardt's) on page 4 of the Study. This includes household cars, trucks - delivery, garbage and - • re cycling - and possibly the school bus. Our property value would drop drama- tically. An excellent selling point is our rural atmosphere. Many persons looking for a home to purchase think this is an important point. I The "benefitted properties" would not be US or the Ithilien development. Those home owners would probably never use the South end of Teton on their I side of the barrier. It would be more "feasible" for them to exit to the left for the short distance to Lilac Lane and then right down to #17. They would not want to drive through the entire Curry Farm Development. 1 The "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. We're sure if each of I them were assessed 46,571.78 as we are, this room would not be large enough to hold the protesters. _ 'IL the original Feasibiblity Study, Page 4 a statement said, "the existing feet of land for Teton Lane should be pursued at this time -as city riRht- -way . The additional 17 feet_ pt right -- of-way should be considered from- the novan property (xtow Rilloway owned) IF AND WHEN IT IS SUBDIVIDED." Sounds though the developer would be res onsible for any costs to upgrade Teton. e way to do this is to divide the 029,573.42 which we four were to pay and d 01,739.59 to each of the 17 houses or lots, when sold. For anyone paying 50,000 or more for a house, another 01700 over a 20 or 30 year mortgage, ems insignificant: I Now for 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 472,488.00 and also lose some building lots, to build another access road. I Therefore, Bill Boyt made a suggestion that a 'break-away barrier" be built, as Christmas Lake had. They closed that road many years ago and it bas never been opened -- they did not object to setting a precedent to please the home- owners, even though several houses at the West end were barred from its use. ' This was finally agreed to by the Council on March 24, 1988. Break -away was used over and over. again, however on January 29, 1990 (two years later) when the barrier was put in, it was a "blockade" instead. Despite many objections over the years, it was never corrected by anyone in authority. Even when two II instances that might have been "emergencies ", nothing was done. As recently as March 26, 1992 a letter was sent to JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner from Mark I Littfin, Fire Marshall about the barricade. When I called about thisp I was told they made a wrong turn ". This could have been serious but it would be prudent to have all members know where the fire hydrants are located so this would not happen again. However, again we were told four years ago that "any I of the Chanhassen trucks could go through ANY barrier.' When this latest thing happened, someoyie should have checked up on this problem and corrected it. `Ad -ne- other thing which has not been mentioned. Several persons were paid for ae easements to Teton Lane when it was closed. Loris, Reamer, Cameron, Wong id Carlson. A total of 414,070 -- will these persons have to return these conies if the road is opened? ERE IS A SIMPLE SOLUTLONt Replace the present blockade at Teton Lane and 6hton C uo`rt -the- "break -away barrier" which was proposed so long ago. tve Hilloway Corp. the go ahead to build the homes proposed with whatever ?grading must be done being paid for by the developer, AS IT SHOULD BE... i 'ter four years, it is time to " put this issue to rest" for all time.:. ! 1 1 TO: Chcnhassen City Council Members 1 FROM: Frank & Florence Natole DATE: June 8, 1992 1 IN REGARD TO: Feasibility Study for Teton Lane & Lilac Lane 5/6/92 1 It was NOT a "study ", it was a price list and a plan by which four parties would be made to pay for it. Even though pages 1, and '8 refers to us as the ? "benefitted properties ", we would in no way have any benefits. The I Engelhardt Co. will have to "go back to the drawing board". What benefit would we have from a "freeway" in front of our house? There's an estimate of 565 trips per day (not our figure-- Englehardt's) on page 4 of I the Study. This includes household cars, trucks - delivery, garbage and re- cycling - and possibly the school bus. Our property value would drop drama- tically. An excellent selling point is our 'rural" atmosphere. Many persons I looking for a home to purchase think this is an important point. The "benefitted properties" would not be US or the Ithilien development. Those home owners would probably never use the South end of Teton on their I side of the barrier. It would be more "feasible" for them to exit to the left for the short distance to Lilac Lane and then right down to #17. They would not want to drive through the entire Curry Farm Development. 1 The "benefitted properties." would be the 21 residents of Curry Farms that are mentioned in the Original Feasibility Study, dated September 2, 1987. I These people are not mentioned in the newest study. We're sure if each of them were assessed *6,571.78 as we are, this room would not be large enough to hold the protesters. In the original Feasibiblity Study, Page 4 a statement said, "the existing 33 feet of land for Teton Lane should be pursued at this time as city right- - of -way. The additional 17 feet_ of right -af -way should be considered from the Donovan property (now Hilloway owned) IF AND WHEN IT IS SUBDIVIDED." Sounds. as though the developer would be responsible' for any costs to upgrade Teton. One way to do this is to divide the *29,573.02 which we four were to pay and add *1,739.59 to each of the 17 houses or lots, when sold. For anyone paying #150,000 or more for a house, another 01700 over a 20 or 30 year mortgage, seems insignificant: I Now for 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. I Therefore, Bill Boyt made a suggestion that a `break -away barrier" be built, as Christmas Lake had. They closed that road many years ago and it has never been opened -- they did not object to setting a precedent to please the home - ' owners, even though several houses at the West end were barred from its use. This was finally agreed to by the Council on March 24, 1988. Break -away was used over and over again, however on January 29, 1990 (two years later) when the barrier was put in, it was a "blockade" instead. Despite many objections I over the years, it was never corrected by anyone in authority. Even when two instances that might have been "emergencies', nothing was done. As recently as March 26, 1992 a letter was sent to Joann Olsen, Senior Planner from Mark I Littfin, Fire Marshall 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 know where the fire hydrants are located so this I would not happen again. However, again we were told four 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 has not been mentioned. Several persons were paid for _ the easements to Teton Lane when it was closed. Loris, Reamer, Cameron, Wong and Carlson. A total of *14,070 -- will these persons have to return these monies if the road is opened? HERE IS ,A SIMPLE SOLUTSON?� Replace the present blockade at Teton Lane and iish ton Court with th`e "break -away barrier" which was proposed so long ago. I 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 four years, it is time to " put this issue to rest" for all time::: 1 June 8, 1992 City of Chanhassen ' 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen , MN 55317 ' RE: Teton Lane and Lilac Lane Improvements Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, ' The following are concerns and questions we have regarding the upgrade of Teton and Lilac Lanes. Defining " Benefitted Properties ": ' We are referred to in the study as 'benefitted properties'. We would like to know how that is defined and then explained to us how we are benefitting. If the roads are upgraded, the development built, and the barricade ' removed,our traffic will increase from 70 trips per day to 450 trips per day.* The taking of property will occur in the process of widening Lilac ' Lane. The loss of mature trees and shrubbery is bound to happen if Chanhassen can only widen 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 foward to a 542% increase in traffic, its resulting noise and dangerous safety situations, lack of privacy, loss of property,and probable ' loss of trees and shrubbery 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 these "benefits ". My 1 assessments total $6571.78. It doesn't appear that we live on one of the benefitted properties, it feels like we live on one the penalized properties. Who is benefitting ?: ' Obviously Ithilien is benefitting. They receive their urban roadway that can handle their increased traffic at reduced assessments and no penalties. Chanhassen benefits. The barricade, which has been a subject 1 of controversy, will be removed and the issues resolved. The 210 additional trips per day from Curry Farms doesn't effect the new Ithilien ' development, so while the opening of the barricade is a real concern for the exsisting neighborhood, Ithilien has divorced themselves from the issue. Their stand seems to be, "Let's build in this neighborhood, but 1 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. ' *This is according to your standard of ten trips per day per household. Curry Farm residents receive a nice benefit. The report clearly states that 21 homes in Curry Farms would tend to use Teton and Lilac Lanes for 1 ingress and egress. They have 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 barricade removed, and the access open; all to 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 1 without getting penalized), since they will be recieving a new and improved way to access their homes at no costl 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 its construction. Let us honestly look at who the benefltters are. It is unfair to charge us for a road that doesn't benefit us at all. It is unfair that the REAL benfitted properties (Ithilien and Curry Farms) get away with reduced assessments or no assessments at all. 1 Other concerns: If you can answer these now, it would be appreciated. ' How wide will Teton Lane be? Where will you take the width? How wide will Lilac Lane be? Where will you take the width? What will the transition be between New Lilac Lane and Old Lilac Lane? 1 What exactly do they mean by "improving intersection geometrics at Co. 17 "? ' Has the necessity of grading the road been determined? If so, what are the details? Are the roads being graded higher or lower? 1 If lower, how will slope be dealt with? *retaining walls, landscaping, or erosion, as was the ' case when Teton Lane was upgraded 3 years ago. *Who pays for the above? Is there proper and regular communication with the City of Shorewood and it's residents concerning the upgrade of these roads and the effect it will have on them? Has an agreement been made with Shorewood as to who maintains, plows, repairs, clean out sewers, etc. on New Lilac Lane? If this project is contingent on Shorewood approval, as was stated by the Council on May 18th, then I hope the above is occuring. 1 The issue of speed control on Teton was brought up at the May 18th meeting. 1 know speed bumps are not possible In this climate, but putting ' up a stop sign at the newly formed intersection of Teton and the road that enters Ithilien seems to me a good solution for this inevitable problem. Thank you for listenning. Donna Pickard 474 -0821 1 Charlie Pickard