4. Utility Improvement to Teton Lane and Lilac Lane I
CITYOF 4
'1 1 0: 0 11 0 4 CHANHASSEN
1
1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOT 55 317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' N kb= by CitY Administrator
I indorse 1✓ (��'
MEMORANDUM *Witi ert—
Reinter
II Dat — ' — ..
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date Submitted to Commission'
1 FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer / f, Date Submitted to C ow
DATE: June 4, 1992
111 SUBJ: Public Hearing on Street and Utility Improvements to Teton Lane (Lilac Lane
to Ashton Court) and Lilac Lane (Teton Lane to County Road 17);
1 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
No. 91 -4. The proposed improvements consist of the installation of sanitary sewer and
I watermain from their existing terminus at Ashton Court to the proposed access street for
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
I gutter and storm sewer facilities. The three properties located on the east side of Teton
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
1 for all the costs associated with the sanitary sewer and watermain installation.
At the May 18, 1992 City Council meeting, there was some public discussion on this
I proposed project. Donna Pickard of 1215 Lilac Lane raised a question as to why James
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
1 County. It is apparent from further discussions with the County that a land transaction or
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
1 purposes regardless of who owns the property at the time the assessment is levied.
Florence Natole of 6251 Teton Lane also spoke publicly with concerns over the cost of the
1 preliminary assessment estimate to her property of $6,571.78. This number was derived
based on an assessment methodology of one unit being equal to an average 15,000 square
1 foot lot with 90 feet of frontage. The Natole property is large enough to generate two units
1 art PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1 Don Ashworth
June 4, 1992
Page 2
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
' 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.
' 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.
1 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
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, P ry P P 3 t, 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
' 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
' 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 11 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
improvement.
1
1
1
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 ,
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 1
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. 1
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 1
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 1
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
I
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 1
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 I
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. 1
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. 1
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
I
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 1
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
111
1
1
1 Don Ashworth
June 4, 1992
1 Page 4
' has no record that the properties along Teton Lane north of Ashton Court have paid a
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.
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
1 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.
ktm
Attachments: 1. Revised proposed cost and assessment schedules.
2. Public Hearing notice mailing list.
3. March 28, 1988 City Council minutes.
1 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 No.612- 448 -8805 Jun 3,92 11:24 No.001 P.02
II
II
PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
II
A) STREET CONSTRUCTION:
PID NO. NAME UNITS STREET_OOST 1
25- 002 -2410 Gordon Johnson 1 $ 3,456.90
25- 002 -2420 James Donovan 1 $ 3,456.90 II
25 -002 -2400 Norwest Rank 16 $55,310.50
I
(Hilioway Corp.
25- 002 -2100 Charles Pickard 1 $ 3,456.90
II
25 -002 -2000 Leonard Ware 1 $ 3,456.90
25- 002 -1900 F. J. Natole 1 $_,456.90
1
21 $72,595.00
II
Assessable Street Construction = $ 72,595.00
Assessment Rate = $ 3,456.90 /unit
II
8) STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION:
II
PID NO. NAME UNITS STORM SEWER COST
25 -002 -2410 Gordon Johnson 1 $ 611.34 II
25- 002 -2420 James Donovan 1 $ 611.34
II
25-002-2400 Norwest Bank 16 $ 9,781.46
(Hilioway Corp.)
25- 002 -2100 Charles Pickard 1 $ 611.34 II
25- 002 -2000 Leonard Ware 1 $ 611.34
II
25- 002 -1900 F. J. Natole 1 $ 611.34
21 $12,838.16
II
Assessable Storm Sewer Construction = $12,838.16
Assessment Rate = $ 611.34 /unit
B -1
II
M MO 01111 UM O M M • O O MI OM • I MO MI Ma
m
m
r
TOTAL STREET AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION BREAKDOWN
w
0
STORM SANITARY -1
PID NO. NAME STREET SEWER WATERMAIN SEWER TOTAL
25- 002 -2410 Gordon Johnson $ 3,456.90 $ 611.34 - - $ 4,068.24 0
25- 002 -2420 James Donovan $ 3,456.90 $ 611.34 - - $ 4,068.24
25- 002 -2400 Norwest Bank $55,310.50 $ 9,781.46 $14,681.00 $13,798.00 $ 93,570.96
(Hilloway Corp.) co
co
25- 002 -2100 Charles Pickard $ 3,456.90 $ 611.34 - - $ 4,068.24
25 -002 -2000 Leonard Ware $ 3,456.90 $ 611.34 - - $ 4,068.24
25- 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
TOTALS $84,783.00 $29,348.00 $14,681.00 $13,798.00 $142,610.00 ti
n)
0
O
O
C''— ` e
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE 1
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 1
ss
COUNTY OF CARVER ) 1
1
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath
deposes that she is and was on - /.- , 19 �/• , 1
the duly qualified and acting Deputy ` of the City of Chan-
hassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed
a copy of the attached notice of 1,/
,-
1
c. /4( 7 C t.-1 -/ L�. �it V) i_c /- ii a (.' '71 . - L LT �< _ f
il
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
/t /�'i
Karen J. n elha 9t, Deputy Clerk 1
Subscribed and sworn to ,"/ -�
before mg this Wit_ day 1
of ) /., , , 19%
Notary Ptblic
1
XAAAAAA AAAMAAMMAAAAAAAAAAAAILIAAAX
1 r +�. KIM T. MEU I
' P` NO TARY PU BLIC • W:SSEN
MINNES
NTY
1 ' it CARVER COUs- s. My Commission Expires May 29. 1992 t
1 • CITYOF
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.
1 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.
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
�4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
MI SIB • • INN MI • • MO NM MIN Ell riari NIPRollinErNisEl'ItielPiRall
CITY OF SHOREWOOD LILAC LANE \ \ CITY OF
- CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
w-,s -- \\\ w •A\'‘,VA%\ --- FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR
t
.. .; - :air.ort":::: goki4:6...s.ietvi .s..-:::.. 0,, " i - .:. i .:,..
....:, TETON LANE AND LILAC LANE
:::.::
. \
..
it . •it....t)::: . * : : ..i,
VO: : :A :: '' .....:11:::::: • i :: .::.: STREET
-,iii.:;....:: •x .....: c 1 .... -: • .:A: .. •,.. i,N: . i ....,:.. 0::::...' ....
. CONSTRUCTION
...n: ..... ................ . ............
..,..i -,,':::•,AA::::.::„...................».•: ,..
..
..
• ..
•
.
::
. . ,:,44....:.. .
.............
. .: ' ' • . . .. • .. . . ••••••••• ......----- •.
,
WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES INC
"*"':••: :('-'... ..)::. .:./ lir " ......................,...... ,: :: .•'••
STREET ::00tOrtgrdridt .. •*:: 1107 HAZELTINE BLVD. SUITE 480
---.. - -.... - - - i CHASKA, MN. 55318
• :44.:44 r.:: I I •.'. .... :ti•BrWAA: •:•: .... .*: :'4I :1
14ii.t :,.::.:: .....0:.4: 40:7.1::• :: .4; :1' li .. tt0W8.00 'WO* 11.411111111.11
. 4:40:00:i' .*. 1::...60::.:::"::•Ittt ••••• - ::..1:: Ii.. :.:::.........1 k:. ::::-..:::..,:::..••••••••••••*.:•••:•:.:.......:•••:•••••••••••••:.•:.••••••••••. :•••••••••...•••••••:•••:••.: •
11 1
1 ..,. ...i . , ... ...,...- ' „: 414 0 :•,••• !. .. f ,:s. : . : . :! . : .....:. :...:.,..;: .„., . 1.1 . . .:E.......x....)..s...t 43..../.. :w...,..,...
•
. ••••:.
• ....,..
.. .
• • ••:.• f
,...,
..::::::::... ....,,,,..,..•:Ain*,,,•••?**,,•,„•,:!,4
:: ..., ::e*,:no••• ..,•• :....,.:
:::::•.....„.el...... ..:. I
......••••••
.••
: .,.
f !
...
t .:•. .. ..... :•1::
..
, .: . ei• • : \ •::-• '••••::••
:: :: , ai: .‘,, %:. ••:i••
$ .,..........,..:1 .......................:: L.. ..............
... ..
•
•
.:•..-:.
•
:••
•.
:•: ,; ....... ' •••,:•:.\\ 1:•;• • • • • • • ...........;:,••=:•:•:
•.:, ::
i,, 1 ! .:.... ...;:.:,.: .: , Z72 . 7' 1 ,:-........:••:,::•:.............
•••"' '.....AS:farft.:...:::CE.,: •,,, :::
:.:
;;ON) .'. ''''. I I ' ..... ' H W:: INWT9Pg:
S A K E ' IT .' 0N .... ' ....... ''' ...r. CAMERON
D S.R. REAMER 12 .... ..
I
. .i .. : CARVER
COUNTY
0 U TLOT (E X C E \C I lO cti,
'1)
97 0 9 i
1 .. 1...
BRANCEL
--.
. .-..*
/\. 10 I1
. OUT' OIA .. ; . -1
3 4 ( EXCEPTION) 11
U al g° Y
9 RICHARD CARLSON 15
CITY
5 - - - - - - - - - - - Wein" 1 1 INI
2 B OF
1 0
7 . CHANHASSEN All
6 •
11 10 14
I ■..
- . \
(EXCEPTION) 9 I 3 RONALD LEE METCALF
--...,.__.
FRANCO
- 6 5 4 3 2 I LORI S a
FAR M S A D • it NI, 10
1
BRADLEY & JANETTE WING MICHAEL & PAMELA HORN MARK FISCHBACH &
I 1321 ASHTON CT 6330 TETON LN TAMIE KUPITZ
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 6340 TETON LANE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
1 LEE & LORI ERICKSON DAVID & JOAN PRIEM DAVID & SUSAN EWALD
6350 TETON LN 6360 TETON LN 6370 TETON LN
1 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ANDREW & TERESA THULIN THOMAS & SANDRA RYAN STEPHEN & DYNTHIA DOMS
6380 TETON LN 6390 TETON LN 6398 TETON LN
• ' CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
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
RANDY & SHEREE KARL FRANK & MARY UGGLA JAMES & GWEN COSGROVE
1 6391 TETON LN 6381 TETON LN 6371 TETON LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES & RHONDA DOWNIE
MICHAEL COUGHLIN & JON & CATHERINE GUY
6361 TETON LN WENDY JOHNSON 6341 TETON LN
I CHANHASSEN MN 55317 6351 TETON LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
1 FRANCO LORIS STEWART & KAREN
PO BOX 145 REAMER
I EXCELSIOR MN 55331 1331 ASHTON CF
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
1
1
1
1
1
- .air
,,,/unci1 Meeting - 1, :h 28, 1988 ?�
you Sewer Plan Update. How's that. That will accomplish what II
P y need, right?
It will leave it a little bit short but that's pretty close.
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
I
allocating $9,697.00 for the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. All voted in
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.
Councilman Horn: That's the one we proposed last time. II
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
1!
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
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
II
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
felt that the 22 foot wide bituminous roadway that would be constructed would II
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
Wares 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
out. The sections for the proposed roadway as we said in the report, would go II
from 6 inches of Class V rock to 2 inches of bituminous mat to 10 inches
depending on what the soil conditions would dictate out there. We're
estimating the cost to use the 10 inches and the 2 inches to give a maximum
II
• 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.
[!! think you did receive a letter from Centex stating they were agreeable and it
til was feasible and they would be agreeable to carrying the cost.
16
II
�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 alt for those parcels because they are big enough where they could
II be subdivided and they might have to have additional roads or somebody might
came in and put this whole parcel together as one development.
1 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?
1 Mayor Hamilton: I don't believe so. There wouldn't be any assessments.
Councilman Geving: Costs to you?
1 Jack Brancel: Yes.
1 Mayor Hamilton: No. Nothing.
Jack Brancel: Okay, that's the only question I had.
1 Councilman Boyt: Tell me where you're going to put the snow.
T
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
I 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
I 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
1 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.
II 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.
1 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.
1 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
II was to avoid the traffic on Teton.
Councilman Boyt: I agree that we don't want to put traffic on Teton Lane. I
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
II 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'll 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
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.
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 going to put in that area. I
thought you were going to put something in there so it wouldn't like a through
18 ,
II uncil Meeting - March 28, 1988
11 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 seem 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
I r 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
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 through the sides. You're jst
going to scoop the snow off to get a 10 foot strip just like J
around the hydrants. Go in with a front end loader your snow back and pull you would clean
make the 10 foot strip. P ck to
Councilman Horn: Is that a city street then? City maintained street?
' Gary Warren: Yes.
3 Councilman Horn: It isn't now?
s
L 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 tre=mendous petition the day that we decide
to open it up. So I'd like to s o 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 work out the details during the plans and specs phase so
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
-� questions that would come up tonight, I spoke with the Na oli's 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 than that Centex
19
1
i
I/
t Meeting - March 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
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'll 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. 1
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
11
City Council Meetinc 'March 28, 1988
II 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.
You wouldn't be doing any assessing until that time?
Mayor Hamilton: That's 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?
' 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
'F 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.
' Councilman Horn: And you couldn't go besides it or make some provision for
that now?
Gary Warren: The utilities?
Councilman Horn: Yes.
' 21
-ty Council Meeting - i__..ch 28, 1988 % ^4
II
Gary Warren: We try to be creative and if we've got some existing condition
that is worth salvaging, Church Road for example where we're looking at the
south end of Church Road, even though we've got the Metropolitan Commission is
II
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
situation dictates it, we will try to be creative and put our utilities in 11
other areas. I think in this case, it all depends on how the development goes
and we'll certainly keep that in mind.
II
•
Councilman Horn: I really have trouble with this. What it all boils down
to
is we're doing all this just for a potential secondary access requirement at
some point. The City is going to have to plow a section of street now that it
II
didn't have to plow. We're going to have to put in a chunk of pavement that is
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.
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
proposed improvements would be and how you could justify the salvaging of then. II
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
1 /._
Council's packet tonight that you would pay for not only the street but the
expanded scope of the Alternate #4 study?
Kevin Clark: I can't say I agree totally but I'd like to get beyond this. II
Councilman Geving: That's good enough for me.
II
Resolution #88 -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
consultant's expenses in preparation of this study, namely $3,700.00. Further, I
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 HENT
/ ING INSPECTOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH HEATING PERMIT AND
FEE SCHEDULE.
Mayor Hamilton: This was an item we looked at last week and I had asked the
C
I!:
ouncil to table it until such time as we had an opportunity to review the
,_)!``total staffing needs within the City. I think I've asked for that about a
II
22
11