3. Public hearing on Cty Rd 17 improvements 1 CITYOF 3
--
i
l _ i CHANHASSEN
1 4 tkiff , -„
% ,eri ,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I 1 (612) 937 -1900 •FAX (612) 937 -5739
Mott Ily city Administfetor
d ✓ ,w i
1 MEMORANDUM WitteeC+
Rejected_....__,_,
L —s
DetQ
I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date Submitted to Commission
FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer — bete Submitted to council
1 DATE: April 21, 1992
I SUBJ: Public Hearing on Feasibility Study Update for County Road 17 Improvements
South of Trunk Highway 5; Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications
Project No. 90-4
1
At the regular meeting on March 23, 1992, the City Council received the feasibility study
I update for County Road 17 improvements south of Trunk Highway 5, Project No. 90-4 and
called for a public hearing. During the interim, staff conducted a neighborhood meeting
with the effected property owners for the project. Unfortunately, we did not have anyone
1 attend.
From discussion during the March 23, 1992 City Council meeting concerning this feasibility
1 study update, staff was posed the question as to whether total road reconstruction was
needed or whether an overlay option would be possible. Staff was directed investigate the
situation and provide oral response to the overlay option.
I In reviewing the project history, it was found that a bituminous overlay was considered and
g P J rY Y
investigated at the time of the original feasibility study back in June of 1990. At that time,
I this option was studied to determine if the overlay was feasible and, if so, what the cost
savings might be available as compared to total reconstruction. It was found that due to the
extensive removal of large portions of the existing pavement for the installation of the storm
I sewer and wiring conduits and for the installation of curb and gutter on the outer edge of
the roadway, it was determined that overlaying would only be feasible in limited areas of
I the roadway. The existing condition of the roadway was also reviewed. It was apparent
from visual inspection that the road is in what would be considered fair condition. Large
transverse and lateral cracking is present along with severe areas where alligator cracking
I is visible. Carver County has indicated that this roadway is very active during the
freeze /thaw periods due to poor subgrade drainage. This was verified with recent soil
borings taken on the project. It is also apparent that Carver County placed some large
"
ts, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
r Don Ashworth
April 21, 1992
1 Page 2
' patching sections in the roadway during 1991. It is forecasted that an overlay would
probably last approximately four to five years with the subgrade continuing to worsen during
that period.
1 Based on these findings, the previous city engineer determined during the original feasibility
study that a bituminous overlay did not warrant further consideration. Given the
' information available, I tend to agree. In addition, recent discussions with Roger Gustafson,
Carver County Engineer, indicate that Carver County would not support the overlay
alternative.
The attached letter from the project consultant engineer dated April 1, 1992 describes the
overall history of this issue in more detail. The revised cost estimate and assessment roll
1 is attached to this report. The project is proposed to be funded by a combination of special
assessments and tax increment financing. This is the public hearing for the project. The
project consultant engineers will be in attendance at the public hearing to respond to
questions and concerns accordingly. At the close of the public hearing, if there are no
further relevant questions or concerns to be addressed, it is recommended that the feasibility
study update for County Road 17 Improvements (south of Trunk Highway 5) Project No.
' 90-4 be approved and that authorization be given for the preparation of plans and
specifications.
1 jms
' c: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
Jon Horn, BRW
' Attachment: 1.
2. Revised cost estimate and assessment roll.
Letter from Jon Horn, BRW, dated April 1, 1992.
3. Letter to property owners from Charles Folch dated April 7, 1992.
4. Minutes of this issue from the March 23, 1992 City Council meeting.
1
1
1
1
1
0 l� f . 1 4 "L'S.Z9AV.:.i' lL:'d;.. .' i.':aV. Teti INC; 41 - f
APR 22 ' 92 11: 44 BRW IN t .: #;: K • r. f J � r ti
•
1
1
April 22, 1992
•
1
B R W INC. Mr. Charles Folch, PE
City Engineer
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: County Road 17 Upgrade Project
CP 90 -04
1
Planning Dear Mr. Folch:
Iransportat ion
Engineering Our March 17, 1992, letter of reinitiation for the above - referenced project
Urban Design included a revised preliminary assessment roll considering the current project
costs. As .requested, we have reviewed and modified this preliminary
Th resher 5quare assessment roll considering comments and direction from City staff.
700 Third Street So.
Minneapolis. The revised March 17, 1992, assessment roll included the assessment of all
MN 55415 roadway, landscaping and streetlighting costs and the assessment of a portion 612/370 -0700 1
Fax 612/370.1378 of the water main, storm drainage and sidewalk/traiI costs for the project, City
staff has requested that modifications to the assessment roll be made as '
Minneapolis follows:
Phoenix •
Denver 1. All roadway costs associated with the surcharge construction shall not be
Orlando assessed.
San Diego '
Seattle 2. All landscaping costs shall not be assessed.
Doriafd w' Ringrose
3. All streetlighting and signal system conduit costs shall not be assessed.
Richard P Wolsfekl
Peter E. Jervis
Thomas F Carroll 4. All sidewalk/trail costs shall not be assessed.
Craig A. Amundsen
Donald E. Hunt
John S. McNamara
Richard D. Pilgrim
Dale N. Beckmann
Jeffrey L. Benson •
Ralph C. Blum
Cary J. Erickson
John C. Lynch •
Paul Bay '
APR 22 '92 09 :17 BRIM INC. P.
1
1
' Mr. Charles Folch, PE
April 22, 1992
Page 2
' A summary of the estimated costs for the project including the identification of
costs associated with the surcharge process, and landscaping, lighting and
sidewalk/trail improvements is as follows:
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION
ITEM COST
' Water Main $ 29,087.00
Storm Drainage 160,046.50
' Roadway Construction* 611,353.00
Surcharge Construction 200,000.00
Sidewalk\Bituminous Trails 27,660.00
Landscaping Improvements 9,000.00
Lighting Improvements 25.000.00
' Total Estimated Construction Cost $1,062,146,50
Administrative Costs (30 %) 318.643.50
1 Total Project Cost $1,380,790.00
•
' * The estimated roadway construction cost does not include any costs
associated with the surcharge process or sidewalk/trail, landscaping and
lighting improvements.
•
The new revised assessment rate for the roadway construction would, therefore,
1 be as follows:
Assessable Cost $794,760.00 = $189
1 Total Front Footage 4,203 FF
The total assessable cost noted above includes the construction cost plus
1 administrative costs in the amount of thirty percent (30%) of the total
construction cost.
1
APR 22 '92 09 :19 BRW INC. P.4
1
1
Mr. Charles Folch, PE
April 22, 1992
Page 3
1
A revised preliminary assessment roll is attached including the new assessment
rate for the roadway construction. A copy of the assessment roll included as a
part of the original June 18, 1990, Feasibility Study, is also attached for your
information.
Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide any additional
information.
Sincerely,
BRW, INC. 1
. .r 1
on t. Horn, PE 1
Project Engineer
JBH/jkh . 1
Attachments
cc: File #1377A90
110484
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
ALTERNATIVE A
Estimated Assessments by Property Ownership 3)
io
xi
Revised Assessment Roll 4F22192 ni
ro
w
DJ
Water Main Storm Drainage Roadway cD
Drainage Front
Area Footage Assessment Assessment Assessment Total °D
Description PIN (Acre) (PF) $/Service Amount $/Acre Amount $/FF Amount Assessment to
z
Lot 1, Block 1 255660010 2.7 574 $3,365.00 $0.00 84,604.00 $12,430.80 $189.09 $108,537.66 8120,968.46
Park Two 0
2nd Addition
Lot 1. Block 2 25-5650070 1.5 421 3,365.00 0.00 4,604.00 6,906.00 189.09 79,606.89 86,512.89
Park Two
2nd Addition
Outlot F 25.1900317 9.2 1,100 3,365.00 6,73fl 00 4,604.00 42,356.80 189.09 207,999 00 257,085.80
Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park
Lot 2, Block 3 25- 5650090 2,8 500 3,365.00 0.00 4,604.00 12,891.20 189.09 94,545.00 107,436.20
Park Two
2nd Addition
Lot 1, Block 3 25- 5650080 5.6 485 3,365.00 0.00 4,604.00 25,732A0 189.09 91,706 65 117,491.05
Park Two
2nd Addition
Lot 1, Block 2 25- 2710010 0.8 613 3,365.00 0.00 4,604.00 3,68320 189.09 115,912.17 119,595.37
Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park
3rd Addition
Dutlos B 0.0 110 3,365.00 0.00 4,604.00 0.00 189.09 20,799.90 20,799.90
Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park
3rd Addition
Outlot C 0.0 400 3,365.00 0.00 4,604.00 0.00 189.09 75,636.00 75,636.00
Chanhassen Lakes -
Business Park
3rd Addition
m
rows 22.6 4,203 $6,730.00 8104,050.00 $794,760.00 $905,540.00 un
Total Assessable Cost $905,540.00
ia,54
AI.TERUATLVE A
Estimated Assessments by Property Ownership 73
ORIGINAL JUNE 18, 1990 ASSESSMENT ROLL r r\)
Water Main Storm Drainage Roadway Bituminous Sidewalk/ N
drainage Front
Area Footage Assessment Assessment Assessment Assessment Total 0
Description PIN (Acre) (FF) $!Service . Amount $/Acre Amount $7FF. Amount SIFF ' Amount Assessment `�'
lot 1, Block 1 25- 566010 2.7 574 $ 3,365.00 $ 0.00 $ 4,604.00 $12,430.80 $ 189.51 $108,778.74 $ 2.76 $ 1,584.24 $122,793.78 00
Park Two bd
2nd Addition E
H
2
lot 1. Block 2 25- 5650070 1.5 421 3,365.00 0.00 4,604.00 6,906.40 189.51 79,783.71 2.76 1,161.96 87,851.67 0
Park Two
2nd Addition
O.illot F 25- 1900370 9.2 1,100 3,365.00 6,730.00 4,604.00 42,355.80 189.51 208,461.00 2.76 3,036.00 260.583.80
Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park
tot 2, Block 3 25- 5650090 2.8 500 3,365.00 0.00 4,604.00 12,891.20 189.51 94,755.70 2.76 1,380.00 109,026.20
Park Two
2nd Addition
Lot 1, Block 3 25- 5650080 5.6 485 3,365.00 0.00 4,604.00 25,782.40 189.51 91,912.35 2.76 1,338.60 119,033.35
Park Two
2nd Addition
Lot 1, Block 2 25- 2710010 0.8 613 3,365.00 0.00 4,604.00 3,683.20 189.51 116,169.63 2.76 1,691.88 121,544.71
Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park
3rd Addition
Outtot B 0.0 110 3,365.00 0.00 4,604.00 0.00 189.51 20,846.10 2.76 303.60 21,149.70
Chanhassen takes
Business Park
3rd Addition
Outtot C 0.0 400 3,365.00 0.00 4,604.00 0.00 189.51 75,804.00 2.76 1,104.00 76,908.00
Chanhassen takes
Business Park
3rd Addition
Totals 22.6 4,203 6,730.00 104,050.00 796,500.00 11,600.00 918,880.00
Total Assessable Cost 918,880.00 m
r
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'1
1
I3IR,��
' April 1, 1992
B R W INC.
Mr. Charles Folch, PE
II City Engineer
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
II Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: County Road 17 Upgrade Project
CP 90 -04
Dear Mr. Folch:
I Planning
Transportation The following additional information is provided as requested
Engineering regarding the proposed scope of work for the above - referenced
Urban Design project. The information is provided in response to questions
1 raised at the March 23, 1992, Council meeting regarding the
Thresher Square possibility of overlaying County Road 17 as an alternative to
700 Third Street So complete reconstruction.
I Minneapolis,
Mn 55413 The improvement of County Road 17 with an overlay was considered and
612/3 -0700 investigated at the time of the original June 18, 1990, Feasibility
I Fax 612/370-1378 Study for the project. At that time, an analysis was conducted to
determine if an,overlay was possible or feasible and to determine
Minneapolis any cost savings associated with the overlay construction.
I Phoeni\
Denver The analysis included a comparison of the existing conditions and
Orlando the proposed improvements to determine areas which could possibly be
I San Diego resurfaced with an overlay. The removal of large portions of the
Seattle existing pavement is required by some of the improvements included
as a part of this project. Trench excavation necessary for storm
1 Donald W Ringrose sewer construction and the installation of wiring conduits for
Richard Wolsfeld possible future signal systems at Park Road and Lake Drive require
Peter E. Jarvis the removal of large portions of the existing pavement. Pavement
' Thomas F. Carroll removal would also be required for the installation of curb and
Craig A. Amundsen gutter on the outside edges of the roadway as well as for the
DonaldE Hunt proposed center medians. Overlay construction would, therefore,
JohnB McNamara only be possible in limited areas of the project.
Richard D Pilgrim
Dale N. Beckmann f! A , ° ' ;
Jeffrey L. Benso �� `I� °�`±" •�
�
r�
�tai�u Id lli j�j
Ralph C Blum n
gall' ; ;
Gary J. Erickson
John C. Lynch APR 03 1992
I Paul N. Bay
niettrggE.IVV: UV
Mr. Charles Folch 1
April 1, 1992
Page 2 ,
•
The condition of the existing roadway was also 4onsidered in II determining the feasibility of overlay construction. The current
condition of the roadway varies through the project area from fair
to good with some cracking and other surface irregularities. Based
upon conversations with Carver County, it is our understanding that
the roadway is very susceptible to problems during freeze -thaw
periods due to poor subgrade drainage. '
Although the overlay would provide a new roadway surface, it would
not improve the current subgrade drainage problems. In addition, it
is likely that a majority of the existing surface irregularities
would appear in the new roadway surface within one to four years and
would continue to worsen with time.
It should also be noted that the proposed improvements include
substantial widening of County Road 17 in some areas. These areas
would require a combination of overlay construction and complete
reconstruction. Differences in the performance of these two
pavement sections could result in the creation of additional
cracking in the roadway surface over time. 1
} These issues were discussed with Gary Warren during the preparation
of the original Feasibility Study and it was determined that overlay ,
construction did not warrant any further consideration. It was
recognized that the initial construction cost for the overlay
alternative would be less than for complete reconstruction; however,
considering long -term maintenance.and reconstruction costs, it was
agreed that complete reconstruction would be more feasible. It was
also recognized that the savings in the initial construction cost
•
would be minimal since large portions of the existing pavement had
to be removed to enable utility construction. Further analysis of
the overlay construction and the preparation of a detailed cost
estimate for the overlay were, therefore, not performed.
The complete reconstruction of County Road 17 will provide a roadway
with a 20 -25 year life. The expected life of a roadway with an
overlay is substantially less. The granular subbase and subsurface
drainage system included as a part of the complete reconstruction
will also help to lengthen the life of the roadway by eliminating
current subgrade moisture problems. We feel that it is in the long-
term best interests of the City of Chanhassen and Carver County to
completely reconstruct the roadway. Based upon our discussions with
Roger Gustafson, it does not appear that Carver County would support
the overlay alternative.
r Mr. Charles Folch
April 1, 1992
' Page 3
' Please call if you have any questions or wish to fu,ttier discuss
this issue.
Sincerely,
BRW, INC.
-44 1 11 rool,
J•n B Horn, PE
Project Engineer
JBH /srb
1 cc: File 1377A90
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF ..
,r_-, ;.;-' CHANHASSEN 1
.. __ ,,:.-
q .
,_. , z.„ .
• . `t V. - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
'
April 7, 1992
- II
1
Re: Notice Of Public Hearing Change - County Road 17 Upgrade
Improvement Project No. 90 -4 1
• Dear Property Owner:
Notice is hereby given that the previously scheduled public hearing for public 1
input on the County Road 17 upgrade feasibility study updated accepted by the
City Council on March 23, 1992 has been changed from Monday, April 13, 1992 to II
Monday, April 27, 1992 in order to allow the opportunity to conduct a
neighborhood meeting with affected property owners. The public hearing will be
held as a part of the regularly scheduled City Council meeting which commences
at 7:30 p.m. 1
In the meantime, you are cordially invited to attend an informal neighborhood
meeting scheduled from Wednesday, April 15, 1992 at 7:30 a.m. in City Hall. The
II
intent of this meeting is to allow affected property owners the opportunity to
review the specific project changes, associated cost schedules and discuss with
staff accordingly. We hope you can attend this neighborhood meeting on Wednesday
morning and, again, we would like to remind you of the change in date for the II
public hearing which has been rescheduled to occur at the City Council's regular
meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, April 27, 1992.
Sincerely, 1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
II
Charles D. Folch, P.E. 1
City Engineer
CDF:ktm
1-
c: Jon Horn, BRW
City Council Administrative Packet (4/13/92) 1
1
Is
t Ii PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
R ECEIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR COUNTY ROAD 17 IMPROVEMENT (FROM TH 5 TO 400 FEET
SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE); CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING, PROJECT 90 -4.
_II Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As I have described in my
staff report, this project was previously authorized by Council back in July of
II 1990 and at that time plans and specifications were authorized for preparation.
Since that time there's been a number of factors that have affected the time
schedule of this project. One particular being the interfacing with the
improvements of TH 5 at CR 17 and the desire to only have one road closure at
II
that location. And since this project has not initiated construction within one
year of it's ordering, we're required by State Statute to rehold the public
hearing on the project. So basically I've asked our project consultant engineer
II to prepare an updatr' to that feasibility study which is included in the packet.
We are asking that you accept the .update this evening and call for a public
hearing on April 13th.
II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Charles, I look at that total amount of dollars.
What total distance is that from TH 5 all the way 400 feet beyond Lake Drive?
I couldn't find it in here.
II Charles Folch: I may have that.
I Ma -or Chmiel: The reason I'm asking that question is that it appears to me that
$1,380,790.00 seems rather exorbitant.
II Councilman Mason: It does seems like a lot for not a very long stretch of road.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
I Charles Folch: Probably estimate that it's a little bit better than half a mile
stretch of roadway.
II Mayor Chmiel: Is that an overlay that we plan on doing?
Charles Folch: No, that's a total reconstruction.
II Mayor Chmiel: All new?
Charles Folch: All new.
1 Mayor Chmiel: How long has that existing road been in?
I Charles Folch: I don't have that information off the top of my head but it is
an existing rural section there and so it is proposed to be totally
reconstructed to 4 lanes with turn lanes and curb and gutter.
II Mayor Chmiel: Presently it runs 4 lanes up to.
Charles Folch: Just south of Lake Drive, that's correct.
II Don Ashworth: Between 1977 and 1978 is when that was built.
1
32
II
II
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: That long ago? It doesn't seem like that long. Okay. But yet
as I look at that, the condition of that road is really not that bad. What is
existing now with the 4 lanes that go under the viaduct. Or under the underpass
of the railroad. Could that not have an overlay? It seems like the road itself
has stood up quite well. There's not been any real potholes on that at this 1
tin? Or does the configuration of the road, is it going to be different than
what it is presently?
Char1Es Folch: The base alignment will follow the same alignment that's
currently there now. With the addition of, you're going to have the of
the turn lanes. You're going to have some extension of the road base section
itself. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Is there some way that we can check that out just to make sure? I
know I'.e looked at the figures that you've got in here, or some of them. And
this sort of makes me sit back and just ask those specific questions as I have.
Cve on the adminstrative costs. 30%c of that for $318,000.00.
Charle-. Folch: Yeah, that 30'c is a typical. '
ma /cr Yeah, and I understand that. And that went up from the 244 to
the 320 because of the additional cost. Just because the increment cost changes.
that ha tan place in the past year. Could you take a look at that and get
back t c me on that?
Char ir°:, Folch: Sure. 1
Councilman Mason: I thought Mr. Horn was going to be here tonight. Do you know
what happsnsd wi' h him Charles?
Charles Folch: Actually, since this ended up towards the end of the meeting and
not Snowing how late it would go, I basically gave him the night off until the
pJb] _' c hearino- .
Cr.: - ;lman Mason: Okay, and maybe you can answer this. Do you know why this
in, r Fa` .
Charles Fol•_h: Yeah, it was adjusted from two factors. One being the increase
frc s5oJt a year, year and a half. Actually 2 construction years
fr 1990 to 1992. But also as we went into the design phase last
year, sail borings were taken out there and a soil exploration was conducted
which that information,that was generated was not available at the time the
original feasibility was done. We found that there's some very, very poor soils
out there. In fact because of the poor soils, the project is going to have to
be constructed in two stages where the northern half basically from Lake Drive
to 'FP 5 will be constructed as permanent this year and the southern portion
would go under a surcharge for 9 to 12 months and that be constructed until net
year. So that has added a substantial amount of that increase to the project.
Councilman Workman: Quickly, I remember when we went over this the first time
and we got a prominent business person in the community was rather nervous about
all this and so was his attorney and everything else. Has there been further
discussions with those people? And I recall some of the discussions being, we
33
1
City Council MF&ting - March 23, 1992
already paid or they thought they aid for a 4 lane highway. Now we're doing it
P 9
again and now we have poor soils and now I mean. I tended to kind of empathize
11 w). - . a i I still am and I haven t — been - kinid of, I still hawPn't
been sold over that t,..ha. husinesses and those parcels maybe aren't being
heated unfairly. Does that. make sense?
Charles Folch: Yeah. I can't speak for what was said before but being that
that iE a county road, I'm assuming the first time it was constructed was under
1 county contract and if that's the case, I wouldn't have assumed that any
portions of those road improvements would have been assessed back to the
abutting property owners. Typically county road improvements aren't. But as
Todd and I have discussed today, we had planned on getting together with these
' adjacent property owners between now and the public hearing, at least informing
them of the new cost and what's involved and such before the hearing.
' Councilman Workman: Whether they're assessed or not, to know that there's a 4
lane highway out there now and then to come back and redo it and get assessed
for it now, they're probably figuring it does them just fine and they might have
an argument. But I'd be interested in knowing what they say about that or where
they're at because.
Todd Gerhardt: A lot of people still qualify for special assessment reduction
programs. Some of them only took advantage of a year and a half or two years so
the still have about, I'm going to say about another year's worth of, in the 3
year program.
Cour,cilwn Workman: Meaning what? Meaning HRA would.
Todd Gerhardt: Assistance, yes.
Don Ashworth: I'm not sure the owners you're referring to but it was actually
Jerry Carlson and Frank Beddor who were the early ones in actually stimulating
' thir project and yes, I did meet with Jerry. He can see a real benefit in being
able to, with an urban section, they would literally be recapturing a portion of
that property in the storm sewer and lighting, etc.. And Todd is correct.
' Thc• =__ are 3 businesses that really did not use dollars that were kind of
available to them. It's kind of ironic, in fact I was just mentioning to the
_�
att-nE, because one of the things that Jerry said was, well then if this goes
through I could truly be treated as the rest of the businesses. And I said, yes
' and e was happy at that point. The only one who I think might be hurt by the
project or could make the kind of comments you're referring to is.
' Councilman Workman: Don Patton.
Don Ashworth: Well I don't know. Do we go down and touch Patton's property?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so.
Don Ashworth: I don't think so. I was thinking of Bongard and the Empak
property.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, he would be.
1
34
1
1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Todd Gerhardt: ...check his numbers but I think...dollars available with some
of the increases we've seen this year. I don't know if we're going to be able
to pick all of it up but a pretty good chuck of it.
M ycr Chmiei: Because of all the work that we did on TH 5, that's the reason
we're retaining BRW for this, is that correct?
Charles Folch: Excuse me? -
Mayor Chrliel: Because of all the work that they have done previously on this is
the reason why we retained BRW?
Charles Folch: That's correct. They had prepared the original feasibility II
stud/ and plans and specs for the project and are familiar with the history.
Todd Gerhardt: This project was submitted about 2 years ago. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I remember that. About a year. No, I thought it was, well
c.-rc ago and it was brought in last year I thought. ,
CHrlcs Folch: Yeah, the date that we have for authorizing preparation of plans
ar ' _r7 was July of 1990.
Councilman Wing: Charles, how are these properties going to benefit from this
improvement? They've already got, as was mentioned, they've already got this
large road. For this amount of money, how are they going to benefit? What are
yr going to do for them that justifies?
rh 2es Fol_r!: As it relates to the roadway itself, with the introduction of
c!-arr:elization turn lanes. It makes access in and out of their properties more
a r; .i c As Con had mentioned, instead of having ditches running alongside
t-. it properties, there will be storm sewer installed and with the urban section
r'. thE, have more basically land on the property for landscaping and such.
TO: Gerhardt: I think people that have buildings out there will probably
bertij from it but the people that will contend that they won't benefit will be
lip=
tips Paul's who own that large tract of land on the south side of the
railroad tracks that haven't developed yet and are holding the land you know for
fig rr_ developments. I'm sure that a representative of their's will be in at
the public hearing contesting it. But there's just nothing I can do until they
build something out there.
Councilman Wing: Just one more question. As it ties into TH 5 and you '
mentioned earlier about the rise of the road, how this has to be done is this
percipitating. Is this independent from that or does it tie into that?
Cc -plim =ant that? '
Charles Folch: I'm sorry, I didn't follow that.
Councilman Wing: TH 5 is coming in at a higher level.
Charles Folch: That does have a minor impact on CR 17. In fact the touch down
pci't for the TH 5 project is about halfway between TH 5 and Park Road.
35
1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I'd like to get some of •
that clarification back on it. But do we have a motion to call for a public
hearing, Project 90 -4?
Councilman Wing: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
II -61
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #92 -44: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to accept
the feasibility study update for County Road 17 Upgrade south of Trunk Highway 5
with clarifications by staff; and to call for the public hearing for Monday,
April 13, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor?
t .
' Cchuncilran lJir,,.: This is my weakest point. Council Presentations.
Ma >o Chmiel' Yo. didn't put it on the agenda.
11 Councilman i!;. _: And we had a rather serious house fire on Saturday and the _
fire d r rtmcrt was reviewing that and I was hard pressed to walk out. But I
did ha.= ar' it €r5 I r,,anted to just hit on briefly. Very briefly. Would the
Ma>or allow mt_ ju_t one quick Council presentation?
Mc'..or Chmiel: Sure. GO h
a ead.
' Councilman Wing: The water quality task force has been very effective and it's
a seasonFd group that has gotten together and kept this thing on line and
directe I believe that we could emulate that group very effectively with a
' sis;la tasl force cn this TH 5 project, which I think is probably even more
It needs even more direction and I think we've talked about task force
biit I : -_,lc' 1;!c to request Council's permission to instruct staff or however I
'
should sa this, as,k the Mayor to instruct Council, if so desired, to advertise
fcr :r' -e`+e,d parties to formally establish a TH 5 corridor study task force so
that we can sect on a regular basis and get this directed and keep tabs on
what's going on. I certainly an interested in serving on it and I know there's
a lot of other community citizens.
Councilman Workman: ...we've done that thought?
' Councilman Wing: No, that was only to look into the possibility of a
feasiHlity study. So I would like to ask Council to formally establish a TH 5
corridor study task force.
Mecvor Chmiel: I think that's a good idea but I'd like to see incorporated into
that sorry= of the business people in and adjacent to TH 5.
1 36
1