Loading...
1g. Authorize prep & feasibility study for drainage improvements on Lone Cedar Lane CITYOF L._ cHANBAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1,01,4 ` .,ms ✓ btu Pi i .;Ar MEMORANDUM Y „ S-sS-cl TO: Charles Folch, Acting City Engineer FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician D. 1 DATE: May 15, 1991 SUBJ: Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Report for Frontage 1 Road Improvements at Trunk Highway 5 and Lone Cedar Lane; Project No. 90-9 BACKGROUND In May 1990 the City requested MnDOT to enter into a cooperative 1 agreement for construction of a frontage road along Trunk Highway 5 at Lone Cedar Lane to eliminate and/or reduce the number of accesses . Since that time there has been many meetings including a neighborhood meeting in September 1990 which discussed 1 extending the frontage road from Lone Cedar Lane east to 3800 Arboretum Boulevard (Mitlyng residence) . • 1 In conjunction with the frontage road MnDOT was looking at eliminating the Lone Cedar Lane access onto Trunk Highway 5 . This intersection has sight distance and grade problems making 1 access onto Trunk Highway 5 difficult and unsafe at times. The overall response from the neighborhood was that this intersection (Lone Cedar Lane) should be left open and a right turn lane be added to westbound Trunk Highway 5 to promote safety in turning 1 movements onto Lone Cedar Lane. At that time the estimated cost of the frontage road improvement 1 project was approximately $25,000.00 . The State had agreed to fund approximately two-thirds of the storm drainage cost and all the street construction cost except for one-half of the concrete curb and gutter cost. The City's share of the project was ' estimated at approximately $10,000.00 . At that time similar to now it was not determined how the City,s share would be funded.' - Possible funding sources included special assessments and the City's State Aid Fund (No. 415 ) . 1 1 I PROJECT STATUS The present status of the project is at a stalemate between the affected property owners, the Gauers and Mitlyngs . Staff and ' Evan Green, Project Manager, MnDOT, have been working with the residents to explore alternatives to limit impact on adjacent properties . Both MnDOT and staff feel we have reached an ' alignment that achieves this goal. The exact design of this alternative requires some additional survey field work which is typically done in conjunction with the feasibility report. The ' feasibility report will also address the cost of the project as well as financing methods and any alternative designs. The initial frontage road design was proposed at 28 feet wide ' curb to curb (typical urban standard) . However, staff felt in this case with anticipated very low traffic volumes we have pro- posed reducing the road down to basically a 20 foot wide driveway ' with concrete curb and gutter on one side of the road for drainage purposes . A majority of the frontage road would be constructed within the City' s 60 feet of right-of way and a small ' portion in MnDOT' s right-of-way. Once the frontage road is constructed the City may want to consider vacating the right-of-way to eliminate the maintenance responsibilities over such a narrow and low volume street. The City' s 12 inch watermain is located within the existing right-of-way and therefore, a utility and drainage easement would have to be reserved over the appropriate areas. The vacation of the remaining right-of-way may allow the Gauer ' s to apply for subdividing their lot into two lots contingent upon conveying a access easement for the Mitlyng residence plus any other ' pertinent planning requirements . Staff has brought this item to the City Council to receive authorization to proceed with a feasibilty report. The City has not received a petition with at least 35 percent of the affected property owners . In order to proceed with the 429 improvement process the City Council will be required to initiate the project with 4-5 votes . The right turn lane proposed by MnDOT will be a safety improvement which everyone agrees is necessary. The drawback is the driveway access to the Mityling residence will have to be closed off and an alternative access provided. Without an alternative driveway access to the Mitlyng residence MnDOT will not consider construction of the right turn lane along Trunk Highway 5 . It is recommended that the City Council authorize preparation of a feasiblity study for extension of the frontage road from Lone Cedar Lane to the Mitlyng residence approximately 300 feet east of Lone Cedar Lane adjacent Trunk Highway 5 . Staff would recommend the engineering firm of Van Doren, Hazard, Stalling prepare the feasibility study. Attachments : 1. Location Map. 2 . Correspondence. I Nor moilimmaisommaimmailamais ma am as ow am =I am 7.--Z\ 41- - \ \ Lake Minnewasnto z, 1-- z III A / , 2 7 / \ A i , , PA r 10 f. (..) S.P. 1002-53 SC \ / „ . r- \ I / \ STUDY "E6" . /1„,\\ \ l ,•5 /,,,,, w- APRIL 1, 1991 // G \ K\ \) z„\- DECK // .0 f BASED ON STUDY "E5' , , NI S.P. DATED . , MARCH 6,1991 • '' ... -?--- --c // ---- ,, ,' "...7• DNA< ' ,---\ , \ _. / \—, / / 7 ‘‘ PROP6SEQFRONTAGE ROAD Ih....../ 7/51:11111 ,, ,-0:),-- -----____.____ / Ir-- . i / ( (i ,--1 (.- --•_... II /1 -- - lck ..... ....... / \ 1 / .-....,..„ i ----:_,411,,, --------._ , _.... , 4fts. / •---_,,, Ak ? .. , , -..„ ---__ -----------...:-__-_-:_:::.,•:1___ -----_____ , _-___ ' 3.-. /*R ISO ii. f.--7.-_--' \ i / loW IT T i - DECK ._ . is. V / ) \\,. == \ V\ ' -'''' DI - ,,//'\X 7 \ ., -,1 -''''''''''' -'.... .'■ '-'-''' C4 PS .--4P ------ - -- .‘ / ------ --..„._... --'-''--:::-'---_----- --„ kb or -'--'■,, \ / \ ..----__ '.-- ---- -_ --- • . ---, 411*' - 'I , ''---,,,,. .... ,..• 1 --____. ----.. -----. / 7 -..____‘ ---------- , „----•, ---_____ ■:- --.___. , . -1----- ------, -.... . ------:17---, ._ ....,_ • °ANNE r� f nesota Department of TTansporta'' o ti Metropolitan District ITransportation Building kti ",~ �o� St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 rOF Ti* Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 5 12 Hadley 5 8 Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 IReply to Golden Valley Office Telephone No. _593 - 8537 1 April 12 , 1991 IMr. Dave Hempel Senior Engineering Technician -..`, - CITY OF CHANHASSEN t i"' `""'"" " I 690 Coulter Drive P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 ti nc ' 1J F�, _ I S.P. 1002 - 53 T.H. 5 'r :Y :"`.P `45 ^ Proposed Frontage Road/Right Turn Lane IIat Lone Cedar Lane Study "E-6" IIDear Dave: • Attached are copies of the above referenced preliminary plan. II This plan is based on the drawing labeled "Study E-5" overlay that we reviewed with the property owners. We are assuming that Study E-6 will be the preliminary plan that your final plans and specification are based on. IIn regard to the City's share of the drainage costs, based on the preliminary design information we feel this is the best estimate I we can make at this tine. Once you have decided who will design the project and a field survey is completed we should review the proposed drainage system to see if there is a more efficient way Ito handle it. You should also note that we have plotted the inplace 12" water main on the plan. This could impact the location of a proposed I storm sewer. Again, until we get into final design it is hard to determine if there will be a problem. I am having our Soils Engineer take borings for the turn lane and shoulder work. He will furnish recommendations for the design of theses. IIf you have any additional questions, please feel free to call me. ISincerely, I / v: 4,,,..___ RECEIVER Evan R. Green APR 1 6 199 1 Project Manager �MI 1990 � CITY ATTACHMENT 2 i An Equal Opportunity Employer I Joseph and Marilyn Mitlyng 3800 Arboretum Boulevard rip: g May 6, 1991 t;, g , Mr. Donald Chmiel, Mayor City of Chanhassen MAY 0 7 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 y�� .�,,. �. Chanhassen, MN 55317 LNGIN- ,tlit;ib DEPT. Dear Mayor Chmiel, ' • This letter is to request the City Council to take whatever actions are necessary to proceed, under a cooperative development agreement with the Minnesota Department of , Transportation (Mn/DOT),to develop a frontage road connecting my property with Lone Cedar Lane, close my present access to Highway 5, and develop a right turn lane off Highway 5 onto Lone Cedar. My access is presently directly onto Highway 5. This access is hazardous, and increasingly so, as more people move to Victoria and Waconia. There have been, and continue to be, several accidents on this stretch of Highway 5. My family was involved in one accident, while turning into my driveway. The residents of Lone Cedar are also concerned about the hazards of their access,without a right turn lane off Highway 5. They have asked Mn/DOT to provide a right turn lane in the past, and they reaffirmed that interest at a meeting this past Fall. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has indicated willingness to now pay the ' total costs of the frontage road (and a right-turn lane off Highway 5 to Lone Cedar) except for a portion of the costs for storm drainage estimated to be about$6,500. The proposed frontage road uses both a portion of the city right-of-way connecting my property with Lone Cedar(plotted as Cedar Crest Court) and a portion of the highway right-of-way. Scott and Laurie Gauer (Gauers) also own property which adjoins Cedar Crest Court. , The Gauers have expressed interest in possibly subdividing their property if a portion of the right-of-way can be vacated and added to the size of their present lot. If the subdivision were to occur, the new lot would also require use of the proposed frontage road to access Lone Cedar. My wife and I(Mitlyngs) will agree to the vacation of all of Cedar Crest Court in favor of the Gauers,if we have two permanent easements: Use of the frontage road plus five feet on each side of the road for snow removal and utilities (to be maintained by the Mitlyngs) and A permanent easement on the easterly 10 feet of the right-of-way to plant trees as ' a visual highway barrier. Several versions of the frontage road plan have been developed by Mn/DOT working . ' with Scott Gauer and myself. The first was reviewed by the City Council in May, 1990 and by other users of Lone Cedar in September, 1990. This plan called for also closing the present Lone Cedar access to Highway 5, and it was rejected by the other users of Lone Cedar. At the September meeting, the other users of Lone Cedar expressed again their interest in having a right turn lane off Highway 5. I I Since that time, there have been many meetings including Scott Gauer,Evan Green, Project Manager at Mn/DOT, David Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician for Chanhassen, and myself. The objective of those meetings has been to attempt to find a ' plan that best meets the interests of the various parties. The proposed version, with vacation of the right-of-way in favor of the Gauers (with the above easements) and with the right turn lane, appears to best meet the interests of the Gauers, Mitlyngs, and other users of Lone Cedar. Since mid March, 1991, there have been several meetings between Scott Gauer and myself to negotiate an arrangement that best serves our interests. Despite our best efforts ' (and at least tentative agreement on the above points), we have failed to reach full agreement on the treatment of the assessment costs. Mitlyngs have offered that if the frontage road is solely for their use and benefit, except for incidental use by Gauers to ' move vehicles to and from their yard or lakefront,Mitlyngs will agree to be responsible for the entire assessment (estimated to be up to$6,500), and all costs of road maintenance to include surface maintenance and snowplowing. As of May 4, 1991, Gauers have now expressed their wish to have general access to the frontage road. If that is Gauers wish, we need to ask the City to determine the sharing of the assessment costs between our two properties - as if we were any two other properties served jointly by a new road. This letter also asks the City Council to determine that split as part of the ' actions to move ahead with the cooperative development(with Mn/DOT)requested at the beginning of this letter. When my wife and I purchased our house in June, 1986, we saw the city right-of-way on the plat map. A copy of that plat map is attached. We reasoned that if the Highway 5 traffic became a problem, we could develop an alternate access over the Cedar Crest right-of-way. Over two years have now gone into an effort to develop that right-of-way. _ ' Throughout this period, Mr. David Hempel of the City staff, and Mr. Evan Green of the Mn/DOT staff, have been thoughtful, cooperative, and even handed as they worked to identify and explore various alternatives. They are good people to work with. I now ' need to ask the City Council to take whatever actions are necessary to proceed with the proposed development- and to address the safety concerns involved- for myself and my family, for the users of Lone Cedar, and for the users of Highway 5. ' Very truly yours, ' Joseph W. Mitlyng ' JWM/tig • 1 1 ■__inky tAiRtway t.n ■neer (boo rd of Commissioners I hereby (crt'► y ■ Jt the board of County Commisstoncrs of Carver County,ttnntsot. I cloy of 0.0. 19 , duly approved the occo anyinq plot, Q rCounl QYaitor, Carver (our I This plot wos opprovcd by the Ikon fliQ rA of the on of Chanhossen Carver County t4tnr mceti ihcrcoi he/lld/this 1� day of `� r l f). 19 \ I /��-G►►1ti CI'Crv`�_l V L 11 Door) Chc►rrnon ova tic This plot was approved as to corns and execution or I D.D. 196k . ,.\$ "if/A, County Qtlorncy I ''�; NF 1,JAMtS r►.1. ILVt2SOt,1,hereby °•� �461192%A survey of the escrtt I ,:.N / CEDAR (REST,and that the plat ••5 -/-,c.... and that the iron monuments h .-�v_ h/. \ ■\ �0 and MOCK Cor rs�and. r- I , -. �/ ��► \ gistered Land Surveyor,Minn , 4r/ ' _• & spa STATE Of 1�11N tSOTA ��A'4/44/ 4 s'r '''�. 1 \ COUNTY OF�Edi �s The above 1 J 4,,,� 11`'�{� O O.'' \ �� / to before me this d CO; '73 4s ore y/ •° " .•_ W. •I,• ..... 1 t ,7 ; Z • .,� /'�• ���v kolary Public e .So ie w 3 1 3 h �' S My. Commission • na e/ . -.,.r - / rti Zan; I ,r-t_e,4 R G / I . '. t. / 0r'10 r , , _,,,,,,,,j� " \ a v G ;J/ '' / wrtherf / �� '�i x/ L3; ��, 5 4/ k / \ `�rst . l `.,� I a/ v/ r Q�rI�WYMoisQ / � ' \ Y ,b `, r. it,/Ucst line �ov'1 tot 5 ---y tso . \t� �• _ 4 • �t•t�•I „s t v. . y rument o - , ►• The\ the ordinance reka\•lnol to ?ubVc. ark end OcAtolrou e) I _ rcqulremcnts have been corrrplsccl u►tln to the tiakisEac"o,n of 13oa, d of Count/ too misswllerS, Carver County, nines Q Ind{or LLJ )f 2/ I C,to me tedgcd Chairman of Carver County tsoar'cS co is I v I RECE V J. MAY 5 1991 C! ' Y 1./r iir `=i`0`1ASSE Scott and Laurie Gauer ' 3820 Lone Cedar Lane Phone: (H) 474-4951 (0) 864-3196 May 13, 1991 Mr. Donald Chmiel, Mayor ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Dear Mayor Chmiel: I have recently received a copy of a letter sent to you by Joseph Mitlyng in which he requests that you proceed with plans to develop a frontage road connecting his property with Lone Cedar Lane. Mr. Mitlyng has worked in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to develop several different plans to increase the safety of the Mitlyng's access to their home. The plan favored by the Mitlyngs and MNDOT involves construction of a city street extending from Lone Cedar Lane to the Mitlyng's property. Unfortun- ately while this road would meet the needs of the Mitlyngs and MNDOT, it is a cause of great concern to my family and me. I have a wife and two daughters, ages 4 and 2. As designed this new road ' will come within fifty feet of my children's play area. Construction of this road would require the elimination of a large berm and a row of trees and hedges which currently provide a barrier between my property and Highway 5. This barrier is very important to me in separating my children's play area from Highway 5. The amount of highway noise affecting my home and property would also increase ' significantly without the presence of the berm and row of trees and hedges. What is currently a beautiful row of mature Russian olive trees, lilac hedges and cedar trees planted years ago by the previous owners of my property would ' be replaced by the sights and sounds of Highway 5 and a twenty-foot wide road extending to the Mitlyng's property. I have been informed by repre- sentatives of the City of Chanhassen and MNDOT that any landscaping or other costs incurred in attempting to restore some measure of privacy to my home ' will be borne solely by me and my family. For these reasons my family and I have opposed construction of the proposed ' road, hoping that some alternative could be found that would provide a solution to the Mitlyng's legitimate safety concerns without causing the above mentioned problems for my family and me. Several diffsferent plans were OF MAY 15 EtIGINEfiliNG DEPT. I/ Mr. Donald Chmiel, Mayor -2- May 13, 1991 developed by MNDOT including several that would shift the entrance of the Mitlyng's driveway on Highway 5. The plan preferred by both the Mitlyngs and MNDOT, however, is the plan which extends the Mitlyng's access to Lone Cedar Lane. Despite our concerns, my wife and I have agreed to the construction of this road if the City agrees to vacate a parcel of City land known as Cedar Crest Court which lies between our property and Highway 5. Vacation of this land in our favor would allow us an area to do some landscaping to replace the lost berm and trees and hedges, and would also allow us at some point in the future to subdivide our property into two buildable lots. Vacation of this parcel of land in favor of the previous owners of my property (Ralph and Carol Kandt) was approved by the Chanhassen City Council in September, 1988, conditional upon the provision of a driveway easement to the Mitlyngs. The proposed vacation, however, was blocked by the Mitlyngs and did not take place at that time. The Mitlyngs have now again conditionally agreed to the vacation. Many meetings have taken place over the past couple months between the Mitlyngs and Gauers and the major issues, I believe, have been agreed upon. The Gauers will consent to construction of the road and will provide the Mitlyngs with a permanent easement for its use as well as a permanent easement on the easterly ten feet of the right-of-way to plant trees. The Mitlyngs will agree to the vacation of the right-of-way in favor of the Gauers and to any subsequent subdivision of the Gauer's property. Since the new road benefits the Mitlyngs and does not benefit the Gauers, the Mitlyngs have agreed to pay the full assessments and costs of upkeep of the road. If at some point in the future the Gauer's lot is subdivided and a new home is built on the subdivided lot, the owners of the new house would be entitled to use of the road and would reimburse Mitlyngs for the appropriate portion of the assess- ments and will also bear the appropriate portion of the costs of upkeep of the road. The Mitlyngs and the Gauers have agreed to these points. Negoti- ations between the Gauers and the Mitlyngs have broken down, however, because the Gauers have refused to agree to further conditions demanded by the Mitlyngs. The first of these is a provision recently brought up by the Mitlyngs that ' the Gauers would be barred from any incidental use of the road other than to move vehicles to and from the yard and lakeshore. I agree in principle that the Mitlyngs will be the primary users of this road. As you can see from the enclosed map, there is absolutely no reason for us to use this road except on a rare and incidental basis. Mr. Mitlyng, however, has made it quite clear that he wants our agreement worded in such a way that any and all use of the road by myself or my family would be barred except for a narrowly defined use to move vehicles to the yard and lakefront. I cannot sign-such a restrictive agreement. The second provision that the Mitlyngs have added is that the Gauers give Mitlyngs a lien on the Gauer's property to ensure our performance under the agreement. This, of course, is unacceptable for obvious reasons. I have ' i Mr. Donald Chmiel, Mayor -3- May 13, 1991 I ' suggested to Mr. Mitlyng that if the Gauer's performance is ensured by a lien on the Gauer's property, that it seems fair that the Mitlyng's perfor- mance also be ensured by a lien on the Mitlyng's property. Mr. Mitlyng promptly rejected the idea of placing a lien on his own property, Yet con- tinues to insist on placing a lien on my property. As mentioned above, the Gauers and Mitlyngs have long been in agreement con- cerning the major issues of the road and assessments and vacation. We have been arguing and negotiating over the past couple months about a series of additional provisions raised by the Mitlyngs. The Mitlyngs have dropped • some of these provisions and the Gauers have accepted some of the pro- visions. It is my intention and I believe it is also Mr. Mitlyng's intention to try to resolve our differences and come up with an agreement that will be reasonable and fair to both parties. If, however, we are unable to come ' to an agreement, I would request that the City of Chanhassen take the following actions: 1) As a part of the feasibility studies for the proposed project, other alternatives should be looked at which will serve to provide a safe access to the Mitlyng's property. I believe that there are alternative plans which would result in less cost to Minnesota tax- ' payers and which will not cause the safety, noise and site problems of the currently proposed project. 2) If the City proceeds with the project, I would ask that the City provide assurances that it will vacate to the Gauers that portion of Cedar Crest Court that lies between our property and Highway ' 5. The City Council originally agreed to this vacation in 1988. Earlier this year I received verbal assurances from David Hempel, Senior Engineering Technician for Chanhassen, JoAnn Olson in the City Planning Department, as well as Evan Green, Project Manager ' at MNDOT, that they would consent to vacation of this land in my favor as an integral part of this project. The Mitlyngs have also agreed to the vacation if they are provided with certain easements ' with the Gauers will agree to provide. 3) If the City decides to proceed with the project as proposed, I would request that the City assess the appropriate party for the ' costs to the City. It seems reasonable that the party who desires the project, benefits from the project, and has been pushing the project through (Mitlyngs) , should be the party assessed for the ' costs. The party that gains no benefit and in fact suffers harm from the project (Gauers) should not also be required to pay a portion of the assessments for the project. 1 I Mr. Donald Chmiel, Mayor -4- May 13, 1991 I Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, 1 Scott Gauer, D.C. Encl. • cc: Joseph Mitlyng Evan Green, MNDOT David Hempel JoAnn Olson 1 1 1