The URL can be used to link to this page

4. Assessments for Frontier Trail Improvement Project 1 CITYOF I 0,01., v CHANHASSEN 1 , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 * FAX (612) 937-5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager IFROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer IDATE: October 23, 1991 SUBJ: Adopt Assessment Roll for Frontier Trail Improvement Project No. 89-10 1 Attached please find a copy of the staff report for each of the I previous assessment hearings for the Frontier Trail Improvement Project No. 89-10. In reviewing the minutes from the October 14, 1991 City Council meeting, it is apparent that action on the I assessment roll was tabled to allow the Council and staff to further investigate the possibility of coming up with funds for a 70/30 split. I There was some discussion presented by residents at the last hearing concerning the issue of the front foot method versus the unit method of assessment for the street improvement. As I am sure I you are aware, the City did receive a petition during the early stages of the project development representing a two-thirds majority of property owners in favor of the front foot method of assessment. In response to Mr. Pzynski's claim that going with the I unit method would increase assessments to only five property owners, this is primarily a result of the included cost reduction for a 70/30 split. In comparing apples to apples based on a 60/40 I split which the present assessment roll is based on, the special assessment for the 51 parcels for the street costs would amount to $2,766 per unit. Using this number in comparison to the current I assessment roll shows that 38 properties would increase while 13 properties would decrease by changing from the front foot to u nit assessment for street costs. I point this out as a matter of clarification to show the true impacts which would occur in making 1 such a change. y . There is also a claim that outlots do not have any value and thus I cannot be assessed. While this is true for Outlots 1 and 3 which are long and very narrow strips of property averaging two to three feet in width adjacent to the right-of-way it is not true for 1 Outlot 2 adjacent to and owned by Lot 9, Block 3 of Sunrise Hills 1 t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Don Ashworth October 23, 1991 Page 2 2nd Addition. According to the County Assessor, this outlot does have a taxable value of a little over $3, 000. The front footage ' for Outlot 2 and Lot 9 were added together and qualified for the large frontage curve lot reduction. Without the outlot, Lot 9 by itself would have been assessed at its full frontage of 155 feet. The present footage for assessment is 169.5 feet. Thus, in the ' true sense, less than 15 feet of the total 74 front feet of Outlot 2 is actually being assessed. This amounts to a net assessment of approximately $350.00 directly related to Outlot 2 . Staff continues to support the inclusion of the frontage for Outlot 2 for special assessment of street costs. ' The only other relevant outstanding issue, which happens to be the primary issue, is the 60/40 versus 70/30 split and where this potential difference is funding would come from. I am confident that you would be in a better position to address the question of ' other potential funding sources. However, based on the premise that the City should adopt and stand by an assessment policy which mandates that all new roadway improvement costs, which were not ' paid for previously by the adjacent properties, should be directly assessed. Staff continues to support the 60/40 split for the Frontier Trail Improvement Project No. 89-10 as it proposes to ' assess the costs of new improvements to the street. ktm ' Attachments: 1. Assessment Roll dated October 23, 1991. 2 . Staff Report dated August 2 , 1991. 3 . Staff Report dated September 4, 1991. ' 4 . Staff Report dated October 9, 1991. Manager's Comments (10-24-91) : The issue as to whether the City can afford to move from the 60/40 split to 70/30 needs to be examined from two aspects--long term implications and precedent. During the course of any one year, something occurs which requires "finding $10, 000" (approximate cost of increasing from 60% to 70%) . ' When these crises occur, there is no question but that a means to fund them has occurred. The difference between those occasions and this issue recognizes that we are making a long term commitment of ' "finding $10, 000 each and every year for the next 10 years. " As to precedent, I firmly believe that the actions we take will definitely affect decisions that need to be made in the Chanhassen ' Estates neighborhood as well as parts of old town. The decision will also affect the majority of our streets which are moving from a 10-20 year age bracket into a 20-30 and eventually 30-40 year ' bracket. Is it realistic to assume that the current sealcoat program can perpetuate the life of a typical 20 year street to 25 years? 30 years? 35 years? 40 years? In reaching a conclusion ' in your own mind as to which level of assessment should be Mr. Don Ashworth ' October 23, 1991 Page 3 considered, I would recommend that you read the Pavement Management Report (Item 8 on this agenda) , and the Manager's Comment included in that report. In my mind, that report demonstrates that the 60/40 split is, if anything, too high. A 50/50 split will be far less damaging to us recognizing necessary future decisions. fo 11 a .M. • M EM 1M • — — — — — — — Man — — MI • 1 *Front foot reduction for large CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA frontage lots on curve. FRONTIER TRAIL UTILITY AND ROADWAY Amount = Average lot of 110 feet IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 89-10 plus i of the remaining total REVISED 10/23/91 frontage. STORM SEWER STREET ASSESSABLE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FRONT BASED ON BASED ON TOTAL P. I .D OWNER FOOTAGE $ 1 , 360. 21 /UNIT $23.95/F.F. ASSESSMENT 25-8270010 Malcolm A. & L. MacAlpine 100 ' $ 1 , 360. 21 7187 $2 ,395. 21 $3 , 755. 42 187 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8270020 Kevin T. Daniel & Debra A. Freseth 100 ' $ 1 ,360. 21 $2, 395. 21 7189 Frontier Trail $3 , 755. 42 Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8270030 John C. & S. Reger 100 ' $1 , 360 .21 7191 $2, 395. 21 $3, 755. 42 191 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8270040 Jay & Rebecca Legler 100' $ 1, 360. 21 7193 $2 ,395. 21 $3, 755.42 193 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8270050 William & Mary Ann Schepers 140' $ 1 , 360. 21 $3 ,353.29 $4 , 713. 50 7195 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8270060 Helen L. Loebl 78 . 84 ' $1 , 360. 21 $ 1 , 888. 38 $3 , 248. 59 7197 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8270070 Robert A. Uecker 31 . 94 ' $1 , 360. 21 $ 765 . 03 $2,125.24 7199 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 *25-8210010 Rolf G. Engstrom 167. 24 ' $1 , 360. 21 $4 , 005. 40 $5,365.61 7201 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 • 2 STORM SEWER STREET ASSESSABLE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FRONT BASED ON BASED ON TOTAL P. I .D OWNER FOOTAGE $1 , 360.21/UNIT $23 .95/F.F. ASSESSMENT 25-8210020 Patrick & Kathryn Pavelko 130 ' $ 1 , 360. 21 $3 , 113.77 $4 , 473. 98 7203 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8219939 Steven & Therese Berquist 110' $ 1 ,360. 21 $2,634. 73 $3 , 944. 94 7207 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8210040 Walter & H. Bielski 110' $1 , 360. 21 $2 ,634. 73 $3 , 994.94 7209 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8210050 William C. & B. Arons 110' $1 , 360. 21 $2,634. 73 $3 ,994. 94 7211 Frontier Trail Chanhasen, MN. 55317 25-8210060 Donald D. & J. King 155' $1 , 360.21 $3,712.25 $ 5,072.46 7200 Kiowa Circle Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8210070 Robert Downs & Susan Hanson 118. 08' $1 , 360. 21 $ 0. 00 $1 , 360 . 21 7202 Kiowa Circle Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8210080 Barry & Katrina Trent 105. 03 ' $ 1 ,360. 21 $ 0. 00 $1 , 360.21 7204 Kiowa Circle Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8210090 Charles H. & Ursala Dimler 156. 03 ' $1 , 360. 21 $ 0. 00 $1 , 360 . 21 7203 Kiowa Circle Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8210100 Donald K. & C. Sueker 115 ' $1 , 360. 21 $2 , 754. 49 $4 , 114. 70 7194 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 MN NM MN MN 11111111 MO IN NM OM MN IIIIIII MN E MI MI MI MI MI = MI M I OM M OM MO OMM 11111 M M M MI I OM O M O MO 3 STORM SEWER STREET ASSESSABLE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FRONT BASED ON BASED ON TOTAL P. I .D OWNER FOOTAGE $ 1 , 360.21 /UNIT $23 . 95/F.F. ASSESSMENT 25-8210110 Peter J. Huber 110 ' $ 1 , 360. 21 $2, 634. 73 $3 , 994 . 94 7196 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8210120 Jack D. & F. Barnes 110' $1 , 360. 21 $2 , 634. 73 $3 , 994. 94 7198 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 * 25-8210130 Evelyn L. Bakke 178. 46 ' $1 ,360. 21 $4 , 274. 12 $5 , 634. 33 7200 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 * 25-8210140 Dave W. & B. Halverson 169. 48 ' $ 1 , 360. 21 $4 , 059 . 05 $5, 419. 26 7206 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8210150 Robert & Threse Thielges 110' $1 , 360. 21 $2 , 634. 73 $3 , 994 . 94 7208 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8210160 Joseph & Kathleen Witkewics 110 ' $1 , 360. 21 $2, 634. 73 $3 , 994 .94 7210 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8210170 Robert A. & C. Scholer 110 ' $1 , 360. 21 $2 ,634 . 73 $3 , 994. 94 7212 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8210180 Gary D. & Kay L. Boyle 110' $ 1 ,360. 21 $2 ,634. 73 $3,994 . 94 7214 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8210190 Harold & Leona Kerber 100' $ 1 , 360. 21 $2, 395. 21 $3 , 755. 42 7216 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 4 STORM SEWER STREET ASSESSABLE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FRONT BASED ON BASED ON TOTAL P. I .D OWNER FOOTAGE $ 1 , 360.21 /UNIT $23. 95/F.F. ASSESSMENT 25-8210200 Michael H. Roberts & Pamela A. Galas 100 ' $1 , 360. 21 $2 , 395. 21 7218 Frontier Trail $3, 755. 42 Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8210210 Craig & Deborah Luehr 99.99' $ 1 , 360. 21 7226 $2, 394. 97 $3 , 755. 18 226 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-210220 Paul & Ellen Differding 110' $ 1 , 360. 21 7228 Frontier Trail $2 , 634. 73 $3 ,994. 94 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8210230 Thomas & Kathleen O'Leary 110' $1 , 360. 21 7230 $2, 634. 73 $3 ,994. 94 230 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 553177 25-6780010 Sunrise Hills c/o Marilyn Holter 50. 17' $1 , 360.21 $ 1 , 201 . 67 7201 Frontier Trail $2 , 561 . 88 Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8220010 James R. & L. Kraft 110' $ 1 , 360. 21 72113 Frontier Trail $2 , 634. 73 $3 , 994. 94 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8220020 Bruce K. & S. Savik 110. 09 ' $1 ,360. 21 7215 $2 , 636. 88 $3 ,997. 09 215 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 *25-8220030 Adolfo & Leonor Zamerano 159.35 ' $1 ,360. 21 7301 $3,816. 43 $5, 176. 64 301 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 • MI MI • • MI MI MIll • MO r ' • MI M illii IMI MN ME MO ME ME NM 11111 MN ME MO ME ME ME MIll ME MN NM Mill Mill ME • 5 STORM SEWER STREET ASSESSABLE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FRONT BASED ON BASED ON TOTAL P. I .D OWNER FOOTAGE $1 , 360. 21 /UNIT $23. 95/F.F. ASSESSMENT * 25-8220040 David J. Wollan & Susan K. Lippka 159. 35 ' $ 1 , 360. 21 $3 ,816.43 $5, 176. 64 7303 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8220050 Joel & Mary Jenkins 110' $ 1 , 360. 21 $2 , 634. 73 $3 ,994.94 7305 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 * 25-8230020 Robert & C. Scholer 151 . 23 ' $1 , 360. 21 $3, 621 . 96 $4, 982. 17 7212 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8230030 Scott M. & Theresa Mercier Dever 97.0' $ 1 , 360. 21 $2 ,323. 35 $3 , 683. 56 7220 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 * 25-8200010 Edward C. Jordan 69. 5 ' $ 0.00 $ 1 , 664 . 53 $1,664.53 7341 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8200020 Edward C. Jordan 135 ' $ 1 , 360. 21 $3 , 233. 53 $4 , 593. 74 7341 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8200030 Arlis A. Bovy 100' $ 1 , 360. 21 $2 , 395. 21 $3 , 755. 42 7339 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8200040 Richard & Jennifer Kedrowski 100 ' $ 1 ,360. 21 $2 , 395. 21 $3 , 755. 42 7337 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8200050 Fred L. Cuneo, Jr . 100. 07 ' $1 , 360. 21 $2,396. 88 $3 , 757. 09 7335 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 6 STORM SEWER STREET ASSESSABLE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FRONT BASED ON BASED ON TOTAL P. I .D OWNER FOOTAGE $ 1 , 360 . 2141NIT $23.95/F.F. ASSESSMENT 25-8200060 Joel & Wendy M. Wiens 100' $ 1 , 360. 21 $2 , 395. 21 $3 , 755. 42 7333 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8200070 Susan L. Johnson 100' $ 1 , 360. 21 $2 , 395. 21 $3 , 755. 42 7331 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8200080 Kenneth R. & Lois J . Groen 100 ' $1 , 360.21 $2 , 395. 21 $3 , 755. 42 7329 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8200170 Richard & G. Pearson 140 ' $1 , 360.21 $3 ,353. 29 $4 , 713 . 50 7307 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8200180 Wayne L. & K. Mader 128.31' $1 , 360. 21 $3,073.02 $4,433.23 400 Highland Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8200240 Donald M. & D. Huseth 110' $ 1 ,360. 21 $2,634. 73 $3 , 994. 94 7332 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8200250 James J. & R. Waletski 110 ' $1 , 360. 21 $2,634. 73 $3, 994. 94 7334 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8200260 John P. & R.C. Spalding 110' $ 1 , 360. 21 $2, 634. 73 $3,994.94 7336 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8200270 James & Linda Mady 100.62 ' $1 ,360. 21 $2,410. 06 $3, 770.27 7338 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 MN M IMM NM • MI MN MI MS • • ' • • MN • • OM O M 111110 OMM OM OM O O MO M O 11111 M I M O M O 7 STORM SEWER STREET ASSESSABLE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FRONT BASED ON BASED ON TOTAL P. I .D OWNER FOOTAGE $ 1 , 360. 21/UNIT $23. 95/F.F. ASSESSMENT 25-8200280 Thomas R. & S. ' Pzynski 168.81 ' $1 , 360 . 21 $4, 043. 00 7340 Frontier Trail $5, 402 . 21 Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-0800320 Robert & Sally Horstman* 40 ' $ 1 , 360.21 $ 958 .08 $4 , 015. 29 7343 Frontier Trail $4, 095.29* Chanhassen , MN. 55317 [+ *) $4, 095.29 * City added assessment $1 , 777.00 for surge basin and sanitary sewer extension . r: , . , .___ _ 5 010 „, 0 CITY o __ 1 . i i CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 '`' t'S' City Aestii t-:�- MEMORANDUM ri`s'e.`''""'d.._____ _ ---°— Rc'I6fiCsi..—a.—..-._--_ I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager r � FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer DATE: August 2, 1991 g- 11-qj_/__,_ SUBJ: Assessment Hearing and Adoption of Assessment Roll for I Frontier Trail Utility and Roadway Improvement Project No. 89-10 i This is the assessment hearing for the Frontier Trail improvement project which was completed during this year 's construction 11 season . The limits for this project were between Kiowa Circle to the north and Highland Drive to the south. This project involved four elements of improvements consisting of street I reconstruction, sanitary sewer rehabilitation, storm sewer upgrading and watermain construction. The final cost for each of these improvement elements is as follows: I 1 . Street Reconstruction $ 352,664 .40 2 . Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation $ 93, 479.85 3 . Storm Sewer Upgrade $ 146, 902 .68 4 . Watermain Construction $ 47,371. 77 II TOTAL COST $ 640, 418 .70 II I am anticipating that there will potentially be two primary topics of discussion at the assessment hearing, the first being the methodology of the assessment, i .e. unit versus front-foot II basis, and the second being the portion of the project costs that are proposed to be assessed. On the subject of assessment methodology, as you are aware, the I cost for the sanitary sewer improvements are being financed with the trunk sewer funds and is not being assessed. Only the II roadway and storm drainage improvements are proposed to be assessed. Assessing the roadway improvement on a front-foot basis is a very common practice to appropriate benefit and has often stood the test in judicial proceedings. Benefit is II measured in terms of an increase in property value due to the associated improvements . The rule is that for the assessment to be sustained, the increase in property value must be equal to or I greater than the assessment levied. Don Ashworth August 2, 1991 Page 2 The unit method of assessment for a street project is normally used when there are properties benefitting from the roadway ' improvement project that do not directly abut the street. All of the properties proposed to be assessed for the Frontier Trail project have frontage on the street. Therefore, the front-foot method seems most appropriate for assessing benefit. The storm drainage improvements, on the other hand, are proposed to be assessed on a unit basis . The reason for this is that the storm drainage improvements are considered an area-wide improvement for the contributing areas . Thus, the unit assessment seems most appropriate for this improvement element. The other primary issue will likely involve the portion of the costs to be assessed. As mentioned previously, only the street ' and storm drainage improvements are proposed to be assessed. A 60/40 cost split is proposed for the street improvement project whereby the City's share is 60% of the total cost and 40% is assessed to the benefitting properties . The rationale for this 11 was a logical and prudent one. It was the general concensus early on that a property owner should not be assessed more than once for an abutting street improvement during the street 's normal ' life span unless some new improvement elements, that did not exist previously, were constructed. This is precisely the situation for the Frontier Trail roadway improvement project. IIn general, the cost for upgrading the roadway with concrete curb and gutter, widening and installing .a stronger roadway section, amounted to approximately 40% of the total roadway cost. This ' 40% is considered the cost for new improvements which did not previously exist on the roadway and thus are proposed to be assessed accordingly. ' As mentioned previously, the total street cost is $352, 664 .40 of which the 40% assessable share yields a front-foot assessment ' rate of $23 . 95 . The current policy for funding a storm sewer improvement of this type is a 50/50 split between the benefitting properties and the ' City. Based on the total storm sewer cost of $146, 902 .68 and a total of 54 assessable units, the unit assessment rate is $1 ,360 . 21 . 1 It should be noted that the 1990 bond issue which was approved by City Council last fall incorporated the financial obligations of this project as a part of that issue. A determination of the amount of bonding for this project needed to be made last fall . Mr. Dave MacGillivray of the Springsted Group, working in cooperation with the previous City Engineer, Gary Warren, ' developed a bonding format which incorporates the 60/40 split for the street construction and 50/50 split for the storm drainage I 1 Don Ashworth August 2, 1991 Page 3 nts ain I would like to re-emphasize that the basis improvements . Again, p for the 60/40 assessment split is a very logical and prudent one. Mr. Bill Engelhardt, the project consultant engineer, will be present on my behalf to address any questions that might be raised at the assessment hearing. At the close of the hearing, if are no outstanding issues or questions to be resolved, it would be appropriate for the Council to adopt the Frontier Trail Improvement Project No. 89-10 assessment roll and that the assessment term be set for eight ( 8) years at an 8% interest rate. jms 1 Attachments: 1 . Final Assessment Roll dated August 6, 1991 . 2 . Location Map, 3 . Assessment Area Map. 4 . Public Hearing Notice to Paper. 5 . Affidavit of Mailing. 6 . Notice of Correction to Special Assessment Notice and corresponding Affidavit of Mailing . 7 . Assessment Objections . c: Jean Meuwissen, Treasurer 1 Dave Hempel , Sr . Engineering Technician Bill Engelhardt, Engelhardt & Associates i Manager's Comments The method of assessment was discussed twice by the Council before 1 agreeing to the front foot method and was supported by most of the residents (petition from them supported this method) . An appeal to this decision was made by Joel Jenkins. The Council decided that they would not reconsider the earlier decision. To re-open either the method of assessment or general obligation portion is not recommended. 1 iJAfE 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA FRONTIER TRAIL UTILITY AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 89- 10 • STORM SEWER STREET ASSESSABLE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FRONT BASED ON BASED ON TOTAL P. I .D OWNER FOOTAGE $1 , 360. 21 /UNIT $23 . 95/F.F. ASSESSMENT 25-8270010 Malcolm A. ( L. MacAlpine 100' $ 1 , 360. 21 $2 , 395. 21 $3 , 755 . 42 7187 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8270020 Kevin T. Daniel & Debra A. Freseth 100' $ 1 ,360. 21 $2, 395. 21 $3 , 755. 42 7189 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8270030 John C. & S. Reger 100 ' $1 , 360. 21 $2, 395. 21 $3 , 755. 42 7191 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8270040 Jay & Rebecca Legler 100' $2 , 360. 21 $2 ,395. 21 $3 , 755 . 42 7193 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , ' MN. 55317 • 25-8270050 William & Mary Ann Schepers 140 ' $ 1 ,360. 21 $3, 353. 29 $4 , 713 . 50 7195 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8270060 Helen L. Loebl 78 . 84' $ 1 ,360. 21 $ 1 , 888.38 $3 , 248 . 59 7197 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8270070 Robert A. Uecker 31 . 94 ' $1 , 360. 21 $ 765 .03 $$2 , 125 . 24 7199 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8210010 Rolf G. Engstrom 224.48' $ 1 , 360.21 $5, 376. 76 $6 , 736.97 7201 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 • 4 STORM SEWER STREET ASSESSABLE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FRONT BASED ON BASED ON TOTAL P. I .D OWNER FOOTAGE $ 1 , 360. 21/UNIT $23. 95/F.F. ASSESSMENT 25-8210200 Michael H. Roberts & Pamela A. Galas 100' $ 1 ,360. 21 $2 , 395. 21 $3 , 755 . 42 7218 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN . 55317 25-8210210 Craig & Deborah Luehr 99 .99' $ 1 , 360. 21 $2, 394 . 97 $3, 755. 1 7226 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-210220 Paul & Ellen Differding 110' $ 1 , 360. 21 $2 ,634. 73 $3 , 994 . 94 7228 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8210230 Thomas & Kathleen O'Leary 110' $ 1 , 360.21 $2, 634. 73 $3,994 . 94 7230 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN., 553177 25-6780010 Sunrise Hills c/o Marilyn Holter 50. 17' $1 , 360. 21 $ 1 , 201 . 67 $2 , 561 . 88 7201 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8220010 James R. & L. Kraft 110' $ 1 , 360. 21 $2 ,634. 73 $3 ,994 . 94 72113 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8220020 Bruce K. ac S. Savik 110. 09' $ 1 ,360. 21 $2,636. 88 $3 , 997. 09 7215 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8220030 Adolfo & Leonor Zamerano 208. 69 ' $ 1 , 360. 21 $4, 998. 55 $6 , 358 . 76 7301 Frontier Trail Chanhassen - O M MO OM O ME IMM M MMO 11.1 IMII O IIMM MO MMO MO 5 STORM SEWER STREET ASSESSABLE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FRONT BASED ON BASED ON TOTAL P. I .D OWNER FOOTAGE $ 1 , 360 .21/UNIT $23,.95/F.F. ASSESSMENT 25-8220040 David J. Wollan & Susan K. Lippka 208. 69 ' $1 , 360. 21 $4 ,998. 55 $6 , 358 . 76 . 7303 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8220050 Joel & Mary Jenkins 110' $ 1 , 360. 21 $2, 634. 73 $3 , 994. 9' 7305 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8230020 Robert & C. Scholer 192. 46 ' $ 1 , 360. 21 $4 , 609. 81 $5 , 970. 02 7212 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8230030 Scott M. & Theresa Mercier Dever 97 .0 ' $ 1 , 360. 21 $2, 323. 35 $3 , 683. 56 7220 Frontier Trail . Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8200010 Edward C. Jordan 164' $ 1 , 360. 21 $3 ,928. 14 $5 , 288 . 35 7341 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8200020 Edward C. Jordan 135' $ 1 , 360. 21 $3 , 233 .53 $4 , 593. 74 7341 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8200030 Arlis A. Bovy 100 ' $ 1 , 360. 21 $2, 395. 21 $3 , 755. 42 7339 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 • 25-8200040 Richard & Jennifer Kedrowski 100 ' $ 1 ,360. 21 $2 , 395. 21 $3 , 755. 42 7337 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN . 55317 25-8200050 Fred L. Cuneo, Jr . 100. 07' $ 1 ,360. 21 $2, 396. 88 $3 , 757. 09 • 7335 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 • 6 STORM SEWER STREET ASSESSABLE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FRONT BASED ON BASED ON TOTAL P. I .D OWNER FOOTAGE $1 , 360. 21/UNIT $23.95/F.F. ASSESSMENT 25-8200060 Joel & Wendy M. Wiens 100 ' $1 , 360.21 $2, 395. 21 $3 , 755 . 42 7333 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8200070 Susan L. Johnson 100' $ 1 , 360. 21 7331 Frontier Trail $2 , 395. 21 $3 , 755 . 42 Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8200080 Kenneth R. & Lois J . Groen 100' $ 1 ,360. 21 $2, 395. 21 $3 , 755. 42 7329 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8200170 Richard & G. Pearson 140' $ 1 ,360.21 7307 Frontier Trail $3,353. 29 $4 , 713. 50 ' Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8200180 Wayne L. & K. Mader 146. 61 ' $1 , 360.21 $3 ,511 . 61 $4 , 871 . 82 400 Highland Drive Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8200240 Donald M. & D. Huseth 110' $ 1 , 360.21 $2,634. 73 $3 , 994. 94 7332 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8200250 James J. & R. Waletski 110' $ 1 , 360. 21 7334 Frontier Trail $2 ,634. 73 $3 , 994.94 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 25-8200260 John P. & R.C. Spalding 110' $1 , 360. 21 $2,634. 73 $3 , 994. 94 7336 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-8200270 James & Linda Mady 100.62' $ 1 , 360.21 $2, 410. 06 $3 , 770. 27 7338 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 MI MI Mi. NM Mil IIM Mili Mil IMMII NIN IMO MIN an INM • MS MINI INN MI MN NM IMMI NM MN NM NIM 11111111 IMMI I • NEN M Ma NM MN • • 7 STORM SEWER STREET ASSESSABLE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FRONT BASED ON BASED ON TOTAL P. I .D OWNER FOOTAGE $ 1 , 360.21 /UNIT $23. 95/F.F. ASSESSMENT 25-8200280 Thomas R. & S. Pzynski 227.62 ' $ 1 , 360. 21 $5, 451 . 97 $6 , 812 . 18 7340 Frontier Trail Chanhassen , MN. 55317 25-0800320 Robert & Sally Horstman* 40 ' $ 1 , 360. 21 $ 958 .08 $2 , 318 . 29 7343 Frontier Trail $4 , 095 . 25 Chanhassen , MN. 55317 * City added assessment $ 1 , 777. 00 for surge basin and sanitary sewer extension . • �. 1 ) ,it,, ,,,,, SOU 1 1 o . \ c.) G .c�P �� LOTUS �. .:2-_#-.--* OS/47?&Allig \-&-." ., I \ I" ., , 0 , , , N LAKE N ' 1 Imam 1..... v vt /, AMIN 11111111.-„0 -> grill HIGHLAND . Pi - • \ :„,, z I DRIVE a 46 - -_,, ,, ir 11110 - 0111 ov CIMARRO 1111 \ ,, O m CIR ■INO t.'. ''O FOIL .■ ', DRIVE ■■ . I" i \ . .. • .0 �� ' ge 4,4,,,,tnill ::: • 1>i, II D L ■ ■wag MIN III c7 :-:-j I lei iiui/1 W SANTA FE TRAIL w r r WEST 76TH ST1 ____T • .._z �� c 3 a z—er fl ■ i Q O O J A _1 D: I , m - CITY OF CHANHASSEN ,� MINNESOTA CHAN I tirwi FRONTIER TRAIL FEA SIBILITY STUDY . COULTER DR. STREET RECONSTRUCTION I I WEST 78TH ST. . Jorq M `4 PROPOSED STREET RECONSTRUCTION WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS �� CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 �• SCALE : 1"7.500' DATE: JULY 1989 I I \ \ 0 \ • I • . j) \14 V ERE . '- .";" i‘ •NI\ 9 \ I.: -i...I I,: BIGHORN :c... . \ \ s ' . ... I 8 \ 7 -.. -. - I 2 t :.'4 •,----. , 2. \ . • 2" :., • , .. 1 ... . • v. . : OC" 1 '"--- , ‘ ??.., 6)• . •2).• 1 ! _ ,C / • - • .c , i I I St•:::.:.:.pit........ ./s.-..E..%••.. •.•.::::;:.;:.;:...,:::::;.:::..;:E.....;.:1,! : . ::;:::.. .• :.:x.:......:(:••••••••••••41.:::;:f1:::•••::•:::........:7:-...f...."....4...;.:,..:::, , .c.-*''':*:*:''::.•.:..:::::.....:**.f..:-:: ,..,::........:::.i...:.iiii:::::::::•:,::.:,: i . :?;e• -,4•'"r5 ::iieti"ilia:11::.:i::::: :::":.:::::.11?'11:::?::f.:::.:itii!":];:"iiiii.;i1;;:::::::::i;:: : 14.100e.i:; ;I:MililifiliN \ 19 • -P ' g'z' va ..•::i:ii: *•;t:q.:i0::b1iI11+.:.*:::•: '•AI:•"!:.•:::.i::••1:::i.:::;:i.Q:;:::::;::: :::••••::::;.::,:..;:*:.;.:;.:;:* .:.:.•'.- ...:,•:••••••-••...,...,•..... ..1,1 . "b : :••::*.::::.:.• ::: .. ''''"' --** ' . '! .•••••.'••:::'.::•••;: ::::::::;::•:;:i::::;:iiii;••:;:.,:::: ::,:iiii::::::::i:::i;:;;;;;;; ;:;::::::::, Ili' FP' F.... F R 0 N T I R TR A I,17: ' , • :1:;:::::.:10::::::.:N::::;::::;::W:*:::: :::::iiiiiiiiii:Ui:ii:.'i i i . •.• ••::::•.i...- '.•-:.....1 :,...-::-::..,::......*-: r::::1::::: :: :•:-. . ::::::::::::::„:.... . , • ••••••• ••••••:•.•:•:•:.:•:•::.::•:,:::::,:.• :::,:;::::ii:iff,i•i::-.-iffi..:::i;::: :::: ::..Vi..,;...: :..:,...4i2,....N'::::: :::::i...::::::::::. .:1:1i-:::::::1i: ,•".*:;ifi•: :::•ii:::e.: :.::.:.:,.......... ...1111 i ..., •.. 4 4 ;:;:;::,.. -....::::::•:::,::. 0 ..-:::.: . ::. : ::iiii:::;:,... ....".•:.•:::::%:.:::::- '•-:•Tati.-.... :........•,:::::•::i::•:::::::: 1 _ ..:......-,........*::::::::.: •••:•:•...:-:•::::::::-•:-.:::-::::: :::::::::•:::•:::::::...:::•.::•::::::::::::.:,;::.:.. ••••....;.,:.: .:.:....:......:.: •:. •••I! D .!:•:IKI:':::.::::•: .:::::::::::•:%:•::.'•:':::.:.:. :::.::•::..::::.::::'•:,...::-..:;;;;.,_.••••::•••••••• •• • ..................==...... 3 ':*•' ..*•••••';. .. ; .. "•'.4i17 ' ••• .'-'•-••••••:':.4.;•../i.a;4:.:"..".• :::• •0,::;::C:*::::.:':•:.::',:;::.::::::*:•:-: — - ' . . • •• •............ .......,..... . ... li V‘TA Ci,:i.:::::::.i:i::::::::::::::::...:*::::;:.::i...:..".:.". lig .0...:m::::::::::::::::::::.iii:•::::.. , :..:„..44:::::::,. .:.:.::......... . 1 Iii.::::4:;:::::"::::::i::: .;:-....7..:-.....,.............::::.:::::.........: • .. ...........„...... i., ; • ...••••,,:•::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.- • 1, ; : ::1.:1:-.,.:::::::::-4::::::.......:::•:: :ii. ., 1‘1 ,.. q 6.iNo.;i::::.4.q: II/\1\' 5 :ii,:ii,:iiiir..-..mawi:......:4::::::::::::::.:::::::::......................... ..:::iiii:c::::::::::.:4•1::::....:::::.:::-.1t:::ii:::::::.1:1:::::::::..; ‘‘, / 6 :.......:•:.::•:::•:••:::::.•4ii..1: : :•:,....•...:•:•••:•.••:•:::•:•:•..3.•••••••••••.*-•..-••• .••• ...---•;%:::::::•:::....:•:::*::;:::::::::::::.;•::-..- \-, \ :::11::::::•1:::;:4: :::::::::::::.::::.:,.::::: ::::::..::.:::::::::•:::::.:(::-..::.:::::•::.::::: -:::::::::::4:t:::::::::::.:„:.:::.... ........ .:.:::.:::...1.:„......!,-::::;:::.:..if,...-.. . ,s CouR 7. :::::::::::.i.::: :;:::::::::-i.::::::::::•:::::„:.;::::i.:::::::::.::::::•.- .:.:::.ii;:;.:1.:p.:..."::4:::::'.... „s , :1::::: ::" KAii.:::::::::7::::.'!::? ..::::'........:::::::.::::::-:::::::::::::::.- ..::....::::.:::..„...::,.:.:A..::::::::::;„•• , , - ::",,:::::::•...::.:.....:::::::::::::, :N::: ..-.:..:::.:... // • \, :;.-0.-...:: ::::::::..:-:::::::.iv:::.. ..:.:-:.:.-:::*::::::::iii:::::::.....::..:i:::::;.:::::.:. a .. ..:::.::::.::...--.-:.:::::::::::F.,‘:::::::::•:::::.:::?, • .,..-.. ..:?..::.,..::..i4i:::::::?...*i:•::,.. :::::::.::.......:,..:..::::::::::::::::::*:::::::::::::::"..:::.::::::•....::..........,•\:4,:;;N:;:n'.•-::::::::::' •ts.: i• 5 ' :::::::::::::i'::--1ti:;:::::::::::11.::.;:;:;:::* ..::::•.*::::.i::::::::..;::1::::iiilt-o:.::•::::::::,:i.•::::::..c-, .:-.. • :•:::::*::::::::::1:..:•-•%:::::::,.. ..:.•••:,...::•:.:::. :::::::N:::.:•• ..:....• -, \ , ::::::.::::::::.:I.:,...-Nk‘:......... ....::::: ;..• ..• g•::.....„..qb•::II:::* ' ' I:. t.. S:40•'::' ::"'%':V.}.•••• .:•:• : '.'"3c1:-•::.:•:'..':': ......:;•::tc., .::;•:::;:::::::III:. i'4.4 .,,•!:*:::••.i.i:'.';I.fl... I•':':.:-.:::• . 4/. '\ . •:•::::•:•:•::•••:••::.:.::., 1:::.*:•'?....i::-::::::.:::::.::iiI.' V•...::I..:III.O.I.II i'..;::::::::::: I...,:•:•.-?:::.;,,.:':::.*. t•••••,.:;:i:;;;:.:::-. - . • • • • ........-:::"..I.::. ' ". .. ::.:::::::':::?•!5.-SV..;': 'Ii:::::.° I':: 16 ' - .:::: •:. •••••i•:•::::.:.::;:;:::::ifi:-:.:?1::•::f"'-::::::::::1:::::'•::::::i:M:::;i::•::•"i::;::•::::•;-: ' ',,... • ---..- ii::'-iii.:4•.•:':•:::::•:::;. i:•.:::-:::::*::.:..i. - . :--7---"--------N. ;:::•::,...„,...4.-tv::::::: •••••:::-:. .:.-:-..::.::::.::::::.; „..:::::::::::::•;::: Ws_ *:• ..::•:.''.,:*:.-:•:•::::::::%:,...:.:;.::.::::.•:::i;:,......;:;:::••••:::„:":;:;:::::::.:.::::.•:•:••:::::::k: -. •- ,--• :'""*.,..,'fijitV.•• • '::::::.• '''•:-.:.:.::::-::.:.4.•,*: :::::::::::,1:::•:.::: --- x..._::•:::',::::::::::::;:::::::1:::.:•;;;;: i'iN:•.i.,..*:::::.:i..:„:::::-:K...:.:i.i..i:i:...::::..:::.::.•::%.... .- .. . :1:t9.:::.:5:'':-:1":ii Ki:.•••. '*.:1i:ii:iiiii:ii:11:::::::::•::,:::::::::';.:::::i E i*:::c.....:-........:::!:::::::.ii:...:7.::.:.:!::: •:::::::::::::#?•:.:...:,:i:.,:::.::.....:.:.:..1.•::::::1•••-•::.. f:............ iV. ••:::::::::::.,:::.:.,.:•-i:••••:••t".:'•:•••..:-.... ".:::?;: iiiii:::•:::::•: ::.§i::::::::: z -::::::.:1::...rk::.:::::i::::::•••:::::-:::i-.*:.: • :•I:.::::::::::::,:i1:: ::::::::.::::::::::,':;:::::.:..:.:.•::•:::::::::::::... ., • -•:::.:..i.:''.1e.4.;•': . l::::: ::::.,... .•:.::.....:::...7:w::::::...:-. ........-: .. ••,'24,:::.:::•::. :.::::::.::::.:::••:..... .f: K:::%:...'. ..:.:::...... FRONTIER ., 7 .............. i ••••' ........ .• ..,0:1.r i ,•.:.:: •.'"•.-* "' f t :7.:....::::..3: :-... . 1::44.;:.-:•.:-.1.:.:;,. • .......1:: .......... '..:::i; • :: •:::-:.-.:-.... : :..:... i ::..--•.. ' ' 1 .::.::::".-.•:•.:*:''...:::.:- ..:'SUNRISE iiittgi, -::::::::.•:...1::::::::::•i..• •Ai,,i...-:..:•:•...:..t. :.:.. .. .. .... ...„.i:.....,... :: . ...:::,..i ... , .....:.: '''" .::::::... I......:•:::.:•..4::..-"i" • ::.: .'::.'•g::•:::..::1::*-: :.::. ''.4:i i 4:::::::34::::f:.:"...:., .':'. :.:::i.'.........:;;,.,. :..*:...:.. .";.' 214V.: :...4ta...... •il:-- ---..1:...•••••,. • .• : • •••-• • ••••::: ...1:.::..:. :.::. ••• -45.i.-,' \ : , •-• i I — I -%:.'v..':...' .M•:::••.: — ...., " ■ i f,::::'-.?:::- *I;: - -..,. --•......• q ,, 4:■■-i-S t E ti - 7 . C." "- ''.. 3 I ., I •".: i -• 1 i 3 471 .0/.)2 ',..i..•,.. . :1. z:......: ::...: ....:.:.:,....,y .... ,. 1 29E C.', . -: • \ I ' I I I ! ., ...., ' ' -J - '") •='-‘ /r . , .: z... =... DRIVE H.1',:ii-IL:IND ;•• a z •E ,/ i : , ! -• 2 E 4 I = ' ...: - '..„--- H-- ----- --- -FIRST ADD 5 I 4 1 2 3 1 z, 1 , 1 3_ ... Z.......-- / —"- "-.. - '.-' ' ' •1 - .-11.—L S F . ADD ' z • %Ltr:..T-1-"C"Pry I - ASSESSMENT AREA - STORM SEWER 1 . I , • II /.• io: • \ , 0 • 2‘ . G- , : I - - v E • , T T . ,''' \5 9 \ f. .: l' BIGHORN • , . . \ l. . E 1.■ .... . .1. 8 r AZ . 7 . . •›. _ ' I ' ' '''' - .., ' I . • - I 2. 1 -- - • " -- .. , ' . 2 i I 'w' ( 2. .. 10C\C i ' "7 .• • s.. . A tt . •:C dc> I t2)\• I i .. l>. 2 ......... ...... ........ ..........................,. ... ' ., gag g•i . .1-j...•::ii.:1::•:::: :::::: -:;:■ --.-7-'.'.7"'..* ::.fitt.....:::::::f'::::::.:..:n..::::::..:::::: •E .., s. .4, ... .:;:„:„::,,, :::::.•::...:.:::::.:......::::.:::„...:::.:•:•:.:.:„..::.::.:.:•:..:•:.:.:•:„...:•:•:.:. ......... ... ..... . ...... .-i. ,,,,,, ::.:::::1::::::::::: ::A.:::::::::::::::::: ::::::: ::::::::.:1-::::f.::: ::::::::::A:::::::::::::,.:::::t.::.:4.0*-1.5:::,,,::::-:::,...:.:::::::::::::::;:y::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:::)i : -P -,.-A -. :::::.::::i;:%::::: :::.:::;:.::....:::::::::::::,::::::::::::::_iii!ii.::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:-::::.:::::r.iiii..:::i::::..::-....:!..::4.: ..oz::::*:::.:,.:::::.:.::::::::::::::::::::::;: i, ; I 19 ••..... •..•• •• ••••••••••••••• •••••• •••••••".•.......... 77-T414. g. pp..-- ;J.. FRONTIER TRAIL' ' •• ..-:•:•:•:-:•'..-:•:.:•:-:•:•:•:-•:-:•:•:•,:-:-:-.:-:.:•••:•:•:-:•......:-:-: • ' .• , - ' •.::•:::::::*:•:::•:::::::::*:•::::::::i:::::::::::::::::::*:::::::::. I! •, *0 • ,:;::.:.;:ig.K:1 < iii"iii:lig:1:•.:i 0iiii .. I • ..P. '., • .••••••#:::::/::. ':.::::•:••:..:.:::::::......:..::::::::::,::::-:::::::::: *::: . .N) :......::!r:t.:.:::::::::::....::::.1.1 ! 5 ...:-:.:-.•:-:•::•••:--.-:-: • .'":•:.:'' ...)•,;-;•:. .:•.'. 7'.....;*. ;.,..,..*:.:::.;:::.:'.. " :::...,. .:,4:4...:.:.. •.••-I I "".'"..'...""."".." '.::iii::::::::::::.::::::::.::::,.;.::: !.1?:5:!:t:'.7..-:•..44 :::::.:5.::i1::::i.:::.:iiie:ii:::::-...-Yi'.1i:Iiiiii:- i i ' . .. ..... . .. ....... . 1. 2 VIVA .:.:, -.::?.-::::.••••-•• :::::::::*:•:::::::::::::::.::::::::.:-:::::::::.yi.::.*:: :, , 4 I •-•::...:::.:::.:,::.-..:::.:::::::::::•::::•:::.::::::: ! , -/\1\S'C 4 , -.,..,:na::i. •-• !... ' ......:.,:..•:-•:R;:t...:: ::.•:::'r.-..:!7..:::::•:::::::.!• ' I 6 i :::::•::•.%::::::::::t4I:.:::::•:::. ..-.-.•:::::::::::•1:::::::::::":::::::::::;:.I.I..::::::;:•.;:::?.:•I•I:::::•::" \ 52::•:•::::•.:•:•:•::::•::••:•:•:•:•:•:•:•• .•::::::•:. •I•I...::::•.•:•:•...:•-•••••••.••••: ••:•:....••: I.;:.•"!:;;:!?(::',:::::::::Iii:i::::::::d:i...::::iii ..:::::;::;:;.:i54.:.::::,..........: *.'.:: ::ii.:::":::.:::::...:::::/". \ •,. • COL/Fi,r ..:::::::::::•.....:*:.*:;:ii*.:::::;:;:i.:::.:,:i.::' ..;.;:.":>::.,..1"."...:'.• .-W• •-••••••••• ...., • •\ ...::.0.:.:::; *::.;:.:::iiniii::::::::::::::** ...:::::::'::::%::*::'.it:::,.:*:I....::::•:::: • '„ •/ r4I.:::....:::..;: ::::.:.:••■••::::•:::• .• .::i:•:•.:111....":16t..7::••.':.::Ai:iii:.:Y:: 4111111111L, f':.. .N."<! "..:1:::::i::3': •**:-.••:••:''::::::17.-.:::,.-:::::•. .::••••::::, . • \ 3 / ,4.; :.:.:::::• ..''' / 4 ::..:,, ....:.::•:;:•::::•:'::••:•.:*•':::•:::i,::::;K•il ••••.a.".•:;..: iiiiiii...N. ••.•-•.-. ........L.....••...........-... \ •;.. ' '• •.:i••:•.':•:,_::..":•:;:i.:;::.:".::::::i.:.".x.....i5. •":.::::i.:::::.::::::?"•::••,.,...:i.:•. ".i:•::::::.%?:::•:.:' , • c: 1 . ' ' :.;;:iii:i.;::::"•SI:4,k:.i.....::::*:::.;.;:::. •:::::•::•::::i•:.:..7.':'4\44:,;:-:.i...........:::::••••••• i::1:-.i:i1:?:::•:.:...::... .tok...;••:. .::::.*:‘ ::::.:::'C:i:%.N. •44:•.4..*::: ::::.:...bc.):.•V,•..::::::: ::••.:::....,:k..•.. '.•:.:*.:: ..;■ .;•,•••• _ ,..,....:" ...., .• :::.% • NoV.7-';.....:•::' ..:410Y•••••••::-..:. 'V■ 1:. ....-'--et.:. ..:•...:::•:.. .. ....:::.::•.::-:. 0\4 V-;r:.......?A;;;•"*.:':.: %•".73:•.:_,_. :.:'.'• • • " Z. = Iri.•-:r:••...... :::':.::....:i.i• .. :-•*: .::"..".---. - ::.*".:-:014:-.....•:-...;r1.:.: v.-.:- '' , , \ . - :.--:--- . .t.::::.•:,4; ' 6.y. . "j.... • :-.:...:.••::::.::1::-::,••:i ,....•-•••i:- . ''•-'1%- .•..- f'•...;•:- ••••'. • - Sy'-k.:".:7...i.i. •.':•:•:;• '. '''.'-i....f.7..: .iit.'•:•* • -.. ::::-;:':••::** ::- -. 14..,,t•4•''4.:.::r•-..i..-:. ..k •......,: ': •.-.:::%;4.-: :"..:...... • i: ... . '.:: - •''''• :iS•.'/..••••:.:•. ••• .•:... ::::•:•:':::...... ....:' ..•.:.-•:1::.-'.:.::: = 5...7le::. ‘: +....i•.1.. ..:.•-••:P:: :''''.•.•::...::' .•* •••••'::'••••••• • ' ,1 4•DP.'...•%::. .. S FRONTIE.F . , :.- ...,.,...,„2/ `,4:r-' k::::.,:;:;:t:' -.:. .:::::.'••,.. ' . .. .J •I. • .. • :: :::.. .. . '..: '. .....• .'•, 1 I:: ......'...:.. .:.$0104E..1.1.11Lit5i ' : .. :i;I: .. :i•A.... • [ -.:... :...•*1...0./•• 1/4.. ......‘Y:' • ....:.: ........ . .. . :.. .Y•''' . ": ..1q....' ....•...... .. 5:.....-:t. :: •.:•...: •:. :' .•..".•:'••.0• %•."- f .'" ••• 4• 1 - '- .:- :. • tit4D: - -4= • • :1:. -- - Ix -•:, • .--. ,-,) iF * .,,,.. : ••• .... . . . . .. ... ..±. . ... .-.): • .. ..- • , • -, .,.. .. i2 ; ,.:..:- . '... ...:' - ••---./.„4„,,, -L:,..,....ssEl. • 7 • .'.: • 1 i - . • - ,e7 - L. .. :::: 1 •.::-. !..) ,9:. cc) ..J \ • 1 . — 'z• I - ; - - r y- c •i;•;• -:!: :.:. ., . . a i 1 . < — 3 . ' i.:..(..): " :.i i . .:...:i.,'•-•"X , . . ..• I , \ .- i . z f 2 , ; - 7 e .. 1 1 2 , ! .. . ; 3 . _ Z /z I --:- i .- , .7, _ t -...in' ADD.' - z 114.1LLS FIRST ADD ASSESSMENT AREA - STREET CONSTRUCTION I • City Council Meeting ptember 11, 1989 I _ , IIUTILITY EASEMENT VACATION BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 3, KURVERS POINT, ROBERT CONKLIN. IIJo Ann Olsen: The applicant asked us that this be withdrawn. They are going to go through the subdivision process now and some things have changed.. IIPUBLIC HEARING: FRONTIER TRAIL UTILITY AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. DF(A , \% Gary Warren: A brief introduction perhaps is in order. Bill will put an , overhead up that reflects the project area, just for everybody that's here. As I with our public information neighborhood meeting, I see we have a good turnout of residents which we certainly appreciate. In the staff report I tried to address for Council's consideration some of the items, at least the key items I that were brought to our attention that were discussed with the public that we further did some research on and I know I've had discussion with several of the Council today on the item. Maybe I could run through quickly those items briefly and then Bill is here also to give any further follow-up but we can, at I your discretion, go into the public hearing. This is a public hearing, as you mentioned, which is the formal step here to accepting the feasibility study in ordering, the project. The first item that I addressed was the road width . I considerations for the project here. As has been mentioned all along,.a 33 foot roadway width is our standard section with mountable curbing. In this project we're looking at going to barrier curbing which actually, we did some further refinements of our calculations, would result actually in a 28 1/2 foot wide road because the barrier curb has more of it's section actually in the travelway or can be used in the travelway. So Bill has a graphic that we can look at in a minute here but basically our field measurements show that the roadway favors I closer to 26-27 feet wide as it currently stands from our measurements so we would be proposing to go along and establish the gutter line at what is the current gutter line. We wouldn't vary it obviously but we would look to be II holding a 27 foot roadway width gutter to gutter which using the barrier curbing then would give us a 28 1/2 foot roadway section out there. Mayor Chmiel: Gary, what does this do to some of the property owners that may Ihave trees? Gary Warren: We think it will be very compatible with it because basically we I will be holding that gutter line as it stands with sane minor exceptions on some curbs. Bill and I have been out to look at the roadway and again, looked at it this evening and areas where I think we would have to be fattening the roadway, I it appears that we do have right-of-way without trees or any' major conflicts so I think it's a compromise on the standard city section by a 1 foot width but with the barrier curbing, I think it's a reasonable compromise and would result in a decent road section compatible with what we have out there. The second II item that I listed was the cost of the sanitary sewer repairs. If they were going to be assessed. As I think the Council is aware from our budget process IL here, this is not proposed to be assessed at all. The question is what the magnitude of repairs would be necessary out there. We've conservatively estimated that the entire sanitary sewer system would need repair and replacement. I think that we hope to refine that number as a part of our detail Ilook in the design of the project and reduce that cost somewhat but it indeed, 35 City Council Meeting - Sr rber 11, 1989 , if things are in the worse case scenario, it could be with our clay tile, that it all needs to be replaced but that's how the cost is estimated. And again., no I/D q `o assessments are proposed. It would be funded out of the City's truck sewer " expansion fund. Similarly with the watermain, I didn't touch on it here. We 0� don't have a cost in the feasibility study for that but we may indeed run into ('n same cast iron pipe that may need to be replaced and that would come out of the water trunk funds. Not assessed. What assessment rate will be chosen? As Council is aware, we've got 4 options that we had included in the feasibility study from 43% up to 100% assessment. We've done some more telephone surveying which Bill has here tonight and can go through in a minute to talk to other communities to see just what is going on out there. It still supports the fact that there is a lot of discretion that the City's have in establishing their policy here. The prevailing attitude that at least I interpretted from our discussions with residents and perhaps the Council is the fact that anything that we are proposing, as far as upgrade to the road section, anything that hasn't been paid for before, would be a reasonable item to have assessed. The difficulty was if we were going to be looking to get assessed any items where we're rebuilding the old road section. We put some numbers together on that. The concrete curb and gutter and the driveway aprons. 50% of the sod cost and restoration and basically the sub-base costs. The improvement of the sub-base to address our soils conditions out there. When we look at those elements, , which we would include or consider as new elements of the roadway section, they do come up to approximately 40% or a little bit higher than 40% of the cost of this street upgrading. The 1 1/2 inch wear course which could be considered as an overlay, we did not include in there as that could be looked at I guess as a typical 0 & M type rehab cost that normally might have been funded if we had decided to overlay this road at same point in time. As we all know, the condition of the road now would not allow an overlay so that's the reconstruction but we did not include that so maybe that could represent the City saying that there were some maintenance here that may have been deferred or whatever and here's a percentage that should not be assessed. While I'm r ' touching on that, I was asked to look at comparable dollars for building a new road section under our typical standards. I haven't had a chance to look .through all or a number of projects but I did pull out one that's on the Council agenda tonight, the Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition project, which is a little smaller than this but nonetheless the cost per foot for that project, per linear foot are running $96.00 based on the consultant's, the developer's numbers for the roadway. As we have in the feasibility study, the cost for our street work here that's proposed is $45.88 per front foot so I think it reflects that we have not gone overboard here on the costs. I already mentioned that we had talked. We've talked to other cities and Bill will throw up a sample on that on the results of that. I think basically it does go all over the board and Bill's discussion will hit that a little more closely. Other questions relating to the assessment policies and that. I guess I can feel those maybe as we go along here. As it relates to the City Council's budget workshop and our discussions and that, the elements of the project that we had included in this budget session as far as part of the general obligation. Actually as I touched on the sanitary sewer and any watermain costs, those would come out of the trunk funds so it would not be in the GO. But $88,000.00 of the storm sewer improvements here which would represent half of the storm sewer improvements, we have no other funding source than the general fund at this time so $88,000.00 would be from that area as well as if the 40% assessment policy were adopted, there'd be approximately $185,000.00 of the street costs that would need to be funded and those would come out of the general fund and both of those, that ' 36 ICity Council Meeting - 'tember 11, 1989 I totals to $273,000.00. If we bonded for that, which in all likelihood we would, and you looked at say a 10 year payback at 8% interest rate, you're looking at roughly $30,000.00 per year that the city would fund out of it's debt retirement I funds. The other item that at least I have on my list here was sidewalks. it hasn't been addressed specifically-in the feasibility study. We've taken a look at it to see what's practical out there. Cost estimate, if it were put on side a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk which would be consistent with our residential ,\p sidewalk, would run anywhere from $45,000.00 to $50,000.00 with the engineering and overhead on it. That represents maybe $7,30 to $8.10 per front foot if it �� ware totally assessed. There was a comment that was made in a letter that we I \ received and was in the packet concerning whether we had used an appropriate overhead factor in the cost. We used a 30% overhead factor. As a comparison for you, I think it's a good number and the assessments, the preliminary 11 assessment roles that are on tonight's agenda for Bluff Creek Drive, Minnewashta Meadows and the Kerber Blvd. improvements, those projects run from 27% to 34.5% for overhead but the aggregate total is 30% right on the nose. And the project that more closely represents the amount of effort and the magnitude of the IFrontier Trail project, which is Bluff Creek Drive, came in at 27% so I think that our cost estimate and the overhead factors are historically sound and I'm very comfortable with our costing. Maybe you could take a moment here, if we II could have Bill touch on the assessment policy research to further elaborate on our community research. Bill Engelhardt: This is going to be difficult to read but hopefully as the camera zooms up you'll be able to pick it up. Just to touch real lightly on what Gary said about looking at the street section and where we will be with the width of the street. This is a computer printout of the alignment of Frontier Trail and the dashed orange line is the existing edge of pavement and the green line is a 31 foot street centered on the center line of the road. Starting down here at Highland and then working north. This is Laredo and then coming up I around the curve and then coming up to Kiowa and this is the end of Frontier. So you can see it on the camera, you can see that we're very close in most areas to the existing. This scale, it's difficult to read by the scale but you're talking about 1 to 20 feet and that 27 feet that Gary was talking about and I staying at the existing gutter seems to be a very good...location. We've got some detailed points in here where we actually measured it at right angles and the roadway was 27, 25, 24, 25, 22, 27.29, 27.73. ICouncilman Boyt: Bill excuse me but maybe you could turn that. I Bill Engelhardt: I'll leave this graphic here at City Hall so if anyone wants to stop in and look at it, you're more than welcome to do that. That just shows you a little bit of how close we are. You're not going to be able to read it probably with the camera but when you get up close you can see where the Ialignment is and again, the thought is to stay with the existing roadway. Councilman Boyt: Maybe you could explain it now because it's real big on the Iscreen. Bill Engelhardt: The red line is the right-of-way line. The dashed orange line is the existing bituminous and the green line indicates the roadway at a 31 foot back to back so even at a 31 foot roadway, back to curb to back to curb, it runs pretty close like in this particular area here. It runs pretty close to being IIright on the existing curb line and we feel very comfortable with putting the 37 II City Council Meeting - SE nber 11, 1989 ' road in at that location and not expanding. Now when we get down into a curve area, this curve up in here, that one is about 3 to 4 to 5 feet off but it's right on the northerly edge and we have to expand off maybe a foot and a half, two feet to what I'll call the southerly edge which doesn't cause...problem in this area but you still stay within the right-of-way... The reason we can do that is again going like Gary mentioned, going to this different type of curb. \p This is a B618 barrier curb and it's 26 inches across the bottom. Surmountable curb that you see in new subdivisions is 28but the driving lane area is 18 versus ersus 10 1/2 so it leaves us sane flexibility in there to get the curb in there to get a good location and still keep the driving...where it is. We researched, changing gears here a little bit, we researched several more cities. The comment came up that we only looked at 5 cities and same of them they didn't feel were comparable to the City of Chanhassen. We called several additional cities to get their comments and find out what their policies were. Again, they don't all mix necessarily with Chanhassen but through the 9 or 10 different cities that we did look at, you can get a pretty good feel for how they come about and how you arrive at the numbers. White Bear Lake, 100% paid by the residents. Richfield, 100% but there was no construction in the last 15 years so there's a lot of qualifiers in these types of things too. ;olden Valley was strictly a 40-60 with residents at the 40 and city at 60. St. Louis Park was 60 11 for residents, 40 for the city. They had a cap on it with the maximum on the residential assessment not to exceed $16.00 per foot. Excelsior ran 70-75, 25-30 for the city. Hopkins 60-40 and right now that's a temporary policy. The previous policy, 100% of the cost was assessed. Inver Grove Heights has no clear policy that was ever established. West St. Paul is 30% residents, 65-70% city and they have a cap on that of $20.00 per frontage foot set as the limit. Coon Rapids, they have a cap, just a flat $30.00 for per front foot maximum to be paid by the City. Burnsville has 40-60 and then when rehab work involves construction of elements not previously in place such as the curb and gutter, the curb and gutter, that cost for those facilities are directly assessed. So it's 40% plus the cost of the curb and gutter. It's not a 40% cost. How do we arrive at our 40? We had 43-57% split and what I did is I took the cost that Gary mentioned the cost of the concrete curb and gutter. Concrete driveway aprons which are basically requirement when you put the concrete curb and gutter in. A portion of the restoration behind the curb. The driveway restoration behind the curb because same of then, after you put the driveway apron in, you're going to have to cut the driveways back and restore those so I took the driveway restoration and I took 50% of the subgrade cost or the amount of depth that we have to cut below the existing roadway in order to fit the curb in and put the City section in so you have about 9 inches, 10 inches of concrete curb and then below that there's another 4 to 5 inches of the rock base so we get 50% of the sub and that's how we came up with the 43%. We think it's a good number. Some of the residents asked us to look at a 20% split but in reality, going down to a 20% split, you don't pick up all the cost of the new construction. The 40% is closer to picking up the cost of the new construction. Councilman Boyt: I have a question. Gary, didn't you say that Lake Susan West was, did you say $90.00 a foot? Gary Warren: I was going to correct that here. had mispoken. I said $96.00. Actually it was $68.00. $68.00 and we were $46.00. Councilman Boyt: What does that do to these numbers when we've got not to exceed $16.00 a front foot versus $68.00. Not to exceed, what was the other 38 City Council Meeting - "-sotember 11, 1989 II Ifigure Bill? Bill Engelhardt: There's a not to exceed $20.00 and a not to exceed $30.00. ' Councilman Boyt: So right away they've knocked half of it off. Half of the cost. The cost is $60.00 some dollars a front foot and they're saying well we'll do this assessment up to as much as $30.00 a front foot. Then they're ' saying right off the top the City is picking up half of this cost and then in the other half of the cost, we're going to bill you 40% of it up to the $30.00. So 40% of the $30.00. Now 100% of everything above the $30.00 is what the worse case scenario has got there. �,C Gary Warren: St. Louis Park is, if I'm interpretting Bill right, $16.00 is the max that they would ever see right? IBill Engelhardt: Right. ' Councilman Boyt: That the residents would ever see. Bill Engelhardt: That's right. ' Councilman Boyt: And so what I'm pointing out is in Coon Rapids, which is your worse case scenario. I think that's the right one. Bill Engelhardt: I think Burnsville is the worse case because they're paying 40% plus 100% of the new construction. ' Councilman Boyt: You're right. In Coon Rapids though we've got a situation in which it looks like, if it was a 40-60 split with the city picking up 60, in reality the City's picking up about 80 and the residents 20 because it tops out at only half the actual cost. ' Councilman Johnson: What? That's 50-50 then. Gary Warren: 30 versus 68. Councilman Boyt: 30 is what they figure the 40-60 off of Jay. ' Councilman Johnson: No. I think what they're doing here is saying the resident's not going to pay more than $30.00 per linear foot so if the thing was at $60.00 per linear foot to build it, the residents would pay 50%. Not 20% or 30% of the. White Bear Lake's the worse with 100%. Bill Engelhardt: This could be that like in Coon Rapids, this cost per front ' foot of their street may be running $100.00 per foot so the City would be picking up $70.00 and the residents would only be paying $30.00. ' Gary Warren: What you don't know and we haven't had the time to research I guess is how are they funding it. Several of the established communities, I would think like Golden Valley and maybe St. Louis Park no doubt have a pave and management system in place to where they have established an annual commitment I and funded for that annual commitment. And there was a comment in I think one of the letters here that we need to look at that and that's I think a reasonable comment. We would like to be able to implement a pave and management system 39 City Council Meeting - SE :tuber 11, 1989 ' here to prioritize and to budget properly. Councilman Boyt: I think that one of the things that, if the project is going to cost the City $273,000.00. That I think was your number. Gary? 0V ` Gary Warren: Right. Out of the GO. Councilman Boyt: YE.h. Well that's out of our bonding capacity so that's really $273,000.00 out of the community center Jim. Or out of the trail system or out of a tax reduction for the City as a whole. So there's trade-offs to this thing. ' Gary Warren: It relates to the debt retirement status of the City and with certain bonds being paid off, there is some debts where you would look to deal I with it. Bill Engelhardt: Just a couple of more real quick items on some of the comments from the meeting. Fran the homeowners meeting on the storm sewer and we met with several of the residents after the meeting and the comment was that the storm sewer is somewhat overdesigned and I readily admit that it's a conservative approach to a storm sewer. And that definitely during the final design of the storm sewer, we'll sharpen our pencils on it and see if we can get it down. The ability of maybe changing some grades slightly to eliminate runs of catch basins, that possible to do but we don't know that until you actually do the final design. One thing to keep in mind, another objective here was to try and find out during the design stage if we have sump pumps, if we have drain tile and that type of thing, that the residents would have the ability to tie into a storm sewer via a stub that would be run out or back to the catch basin. By putting the storm sewer in, you have that ability to take that inflow that's caning into the sanitary sewer system and through the storm sewer. Without the storm sewer, we don't have that ability. It basically runs across the top of ground and in the case of a sump pump you can create icing conditions on the street but that's something that we basically promised the residents we definitely would look at during the final design of it. If we can eliminate some of the storm sewer and keep it down, then we definitely will do that and that will certainly reduce the cost of the storm sewer. The other question that came up, if I can find a good graphic here... We have several outlets there. One is, well there's a very small piece here. A very, very small outlot owned by the City right adjacent to the homeowners association lot that access the lake. We checked on, the initial feasibility study included that frontage as part of the calculation to determine the assessment. The assessment is based on benefit. This particular lot in checking with the County, it was deemed that it had no market value. Without any market value, you can't assess it because you're going to increase the market value by putting curb and gutter. The County has it on their tax roles as no market value. Another outlot is right in this particular area. That's owned in fee title and if the gentleman is here who owns that he can correct me on it but we believe that's owned in fee title by title by Lot 9 and therefore he has direct benefit of that particular lot...assess that. Outlot 3 is in this particular area and it runs all the way along this road. We feel that the actual lots themselves have direct benefit to the road so the straight line frontage across would be assessed and there's one more outlot in this particular area that was just created with this realignment up in here and I don't have a good answer on that one. It's probably going to, we're going to have to look at if there is value to this particular lot and kind I 40 IICity Council Meeting - Member 11, 1989 I Iof get that one ironed out at the assessment hearing. It appears that with his access off of Kiowa, that this does not give any real direct benefit to this street and it's probably unlikely that he could sustain...but that's something II we could look at during the final assessment. I think that addresses most of the questions that came up at the... Gary Warren: To just wrap up our presentation. We have been in contact as of this evening in fact with NSP concerning undergrounding of power lines on ,D Frontier Trail as a part of this project. They'll have to take a look at their r, systan and get an estimate to the City. That would also be a cost I guess. • k These things aren't done for nothing. That if the City was interested in doing underground with the power lines out there, we would have to consider how that would be funded. We have gone underground on the downtown system and on Audubon I Road most recently. It's not inexpensive by any means. There we've had other funding sources available to us aside from assessment. Kiowa Circle, I did address in the staff report. It is possible to rehab Frontier Trail without II having to risk future tearing up of the roadway section on Frontier Trail. The collapsed sewer is approximately where the storm sewer crosses the sanitary sewer at about 112 feet south of Frontier Trail and from there to the manhole in the cul-de-sac which is about 183 feet, that sewer line probably needs to be I repaired. So our recommendation was, since we're going to be in the area, and the road is quite alligatored from observations this evening, we'd have 183 feet of road tore up for the repairs and it made sense when we looked at this in the • feasibility, to include it in this scope. Again, you can repair Frontier Trail without risking future dig up if you want to Kiowa Circle at a later date. With that Mr. Mayor we'll throw it back to you. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll open it up for public hearing. Any discussion? Does anyone have anything to bring forward? II Chuck Dimler: Good evening Mayor. Chuck Dimler. 7203 Kiowa Circle. First I can't escape the opportunity as a spouse of one of the councilpersons to thank you all for the service that you do put in. Whether I agree with your positions or not, I can only appreciate the effort that you do and believe me, I it's a big sacrifice. Mr. Warren just addressed Kiowa Circle and I did appear here and question that at the informative meeting held on the 30th of August. From the information that I had, I don't have available tonight but I had at I that time a copy of the feasibility report. I don't recall the page but I'll kind of do this from memory. I remember that the costs were approximately $55,000.00 to do the sanitary sewer, reconstruction and the redevelopment of the I street, Kiowa Circle. There are four residences on Kiowa Circle and I think it first got my attention when I saw that. That I thought that's just an awful lot of dollars for four residents. Also there are about 300 linear feet there and I we're looking at $55,000.00 and from my minuscule experience with construction costs and from what I hear from some of the professionals in the business, even $100.00 a linear foot is a lot of dollars to spend putting in a new development. And we've been I think and I've visited with most of the neighbors there and I will speak for then and I see 3 or 4 of then are here tonight, including 2 of the council persons, that the expending those dollars on that street are very, IL very many dollars per unit of use and secondly, I think most of us are quite satisfied with the street. Now the sanitary sewer, I recognize that there's a problem if there's infiltration and maybe I would ask Gary or Bill, has that been telecast? Has that been camera scoped? II 41 • City Counc om;; g_-_S -0- - • Gary Warren: Yes. That sewer line was televised. The information I relayed earlier here was a result of televising that sewer. - Chuck Dimler: Okay, but maybe we have to look at what we can do without 1 spending that many dollars and I speak not only from a resident there, because I think we need to be looking at the bigger picture of what everyone has to do, but spending that many dollars both in the make-up that's been discussed. Whether it's by the City or by the residents, it seems a little difficult for me as a business person to understand that. I think maybe the cure is worse than the cancer. Thank you. Any questions? I i0 Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions? I guess not. Is there anyone si, A else that would like to address this? Joel Jenkins: Joel Jenkins, 7226 Frontier Trail. We've had several discussions d with Bill and Gary and so on. Some of the neighbors have and I guess I would like to speak positively about the improvements to the Frontier Trail. Specifically that I think we indicated that we felt that it was appropriate to replace the sanitary sewer if that's the most cost effective, long term solution since it doesn't come out of resident's dollars but comes out of the general fund. Secondly, I agree and in talking with Bill the other morning over breakfast that the storm sewer, I feel real comfortable with the fact that Bill is going to design that in the appropriate manner and not overdesign it as the study shows. So I feel real comfortable with that. However the width of the street I'm still somewhat uncomfortable with. It's my understanind in the 8 years that I've lived there, at least one accident has occurred which resulted in a death because of the curviness of our street. And you know when Frontier [II Trail was a dead end, if we had speeders go down it, we knew they were coming back. And there have been many occasions when neighbors have jumped out in front of speeders and gave them a local neighborly encouragement to not speed again. With that in mind, it's my understanding also that there's been two other deaths from accidents on that street in the history of that street. With that in mind, I would like to encourage possibly a narrowing'of the street to what I stepped off to be about 24 feet currently in some places and 20 feet in others and possibly put sidewalks in as an alternative to the cost savings to the narrowing of the street. Now I realize that that changes the City's structure of their standard street format but it would appear to me that because of the terrain, if we're going to put a sidewalk in for safety purposes, a 30 foot wide street does not necessarily leave a lot of front yards. Especially in the hilly areas. I'd also like to call your attention to the fact that it's my understanding that a pavement management system would bring a taxation in addition to what we are currently taxed for that pavement management fund. It would appear to me that if we set a precedent as a Council, and that's really what you're doing here since it's my understanding that this is the first street in the City of Chanhassen which will be reconstructed, that if we decide the assessment is to be 40, 60 or whatever it is, and then a reconstruction fund is brought forward in the future, that would mean that we'd have to wait another 30 to 50 years before we would participate in that fund when it was reconstructed . again. So it appeared to me that the Council has to look at this very carefully in the assessment process, and I realize that's to be taken care of at a different meeting but I'd call your attention to it that I think you're going to , be setting precedence here. Especially if we also then establish a pavement management system fund. I appreciate your time and I appreciate your work and I hope that you would consider the sidewalk issue and certainly the safety on that ' 42 ' City Council Meeting - ?tember 11, 1989 Istreet because we do have several young children in the neighborhood. We have a good mixture of young people as well as middle aged people as well as semi- retired and we all do like to take walks in our neighborhood.. A sidewalk I think would be beneficial even though I'm sure that it's a controversial issue in our neighborhood and if possible, since other sidewalks in other neighborhoods have been paid for completely by the City, I would think that this sidewalk maybe could also. Thank you. Bill Loebl: Bill Loebl, 7197 Frontier Trail There �.s no question about the fact that we will, we should have a new road. The question that I would like to I address to you Mr. Mayor and the City Council is the way we have to.pay for it. The proposal gives several alternatives. The thing that struck me when I read this feasibility study was the fact that the City accepted a substandard piece ‘r11 of road when it was originally built. As you all know from business, when you make a mistake you pay for it. I have always operated that way while I was working and I don't think city governments ought to be excepted from this procedure. So for this reason I would propose that you very seriously consider ' assessing the residents the minimum which is by law 20% and the City pay for the remaining 80%. Under the circumstances I think that is the fairest way to correct a mistake that was made by sane previous city government or city engineer. Otherwise I have no qualm with the rebuilding of the road. We need it. It's obviously the worse piece of road in the whole neighborhood because that's the only piece of road where by cars rattles. 1 Tom Pzynski: My name is Tom Pzynski. I live at 7340 Frontier Trail. The only concern I have has to deal with I guess with the assessment and how it's handled by the Council and what the citizens or the residents on Frontier Trail are ' going to have to do. I've been hearing a lot of discussion about linear foot. Cost per linear foot and it seems to be a default that that's the way it's going to go. I'd like the Council to consider a per unit basis for the assessment ' instead of a linear foot. I think there's, somebody with a larger front yard really gets no more benefit over a good road than somebody with a smaller yard. That's my only concern. • Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor? Would you like us to address that question? Bill Engelhardt: I can do it real quickly. Your Honor we looked at that ' particular issue and we feel, I guess from an engineering standpoint, very strongly that the person with the larger lot, more frontage, does benefit more. And taking the costs and spreading it on a unit basis, about 71% of the properties out there, the lots, would actually go up in their assessment versus coming down. To us it meant that the front footage was a very fair and equitable way of spreading the costs in this particular project. In King: Don King. 7200 Kiowa Circle. I'd first like to all express the engineering presentation that Bill has made. I think it's been excellent. Very informative to all of us that are the homeowners. I think it's given us good 1 insight of how it's planned. We have a lot of questions and they've been well answered. I'd like to just reaffirm some of the comments that have been made. One relative to the Kiowa Circle situation. My driveway does not go onto Kiowa Circle but the taxing of 4 or 5 families is quite stringent level for the amount of work we're doing and I would certainly like to encourage the City to use other methods to accomplish this sewer line repair such as what was recommended last time by going in and being able to reseal that without having to tear the 43 City Council Meeting - Se''' lrber 11, 1989 street up. The street is far fran being inferior compared to Frontier Trail. I can best describe Frontier Trail probably in the words of Chuck Dimler. I can't even drink my coffee on the way going down the hill and that's a very true statement. I have another interesting comment to make relative to that. When you live at the end of Frontier Trail, as we have for the last 15 years, it's i kind of the last place that anything happens except for where all the lover's lane and everything else takes place. Over this period of time really I've only seen our street repaired one time. Some fixing in a few areas but it never gets to the end of the street so for 15 years I've put up with a very inferior street \O all the way. And for now, for me to all of a sudden say that I have to incur k such a stringent cost on this whole assessment, I don't really agree with. I go tPvttrIalong with the idea of a 20%. We've used the word benefit here considerably the last time we were here at our homeowners get together and today. Yes I do gain benefit by the curb and gutter and the driveway apron and I have no problem with that particular assessment. The way it might be done. As far as the remainder of the street, it was a substandard street. It was never maintained to keep it to the level it should have been and therefore all it did was degrade itself faster over a period of time. So I would strongly have you consider the 20% program or in fact the funding issue. Let this be your benchmark to establish a new precedence for the City and the methods of handling future street constructions. I think the Council would be well advised to consider that. Thank you. Jim Mady: Jim Mady. 7330 Frontier Trail. I guess I'd like to ask the Council to strongly look at what Tan Pzynski had previously asked about with assessing I owners based on units versus frontage foot. The neighbors, our neighborhood is predominantly very similar size homes. Very similar size hones. Very similar size lots. There are a few residences who have very large frontages. Mine happens to be one of the smaller ones. I'm a benefitter fran the way it's being looked at right now on frontage foot but my benefit is probably equal to the person next to me who happens to have a large frontage. His property's not being increased in value more than mine is so I think the unit basis may, at least in our situation, be a little more fair,to the individuals. And specifically to Frontier Trail in the 1st Addition, Sunrise Hills, there's evidence to show that that area was curb and guttered at one time when it was first put in so we asked staff to look into that. It wasn't addressed so I guess I'd like to hear more on that because there is evidence to show that that was there once upon a time. From various utilities going in over the years, that's been removed and so we would not want to have to pay for that a second time. Councilman Johnson: Was that asphalt? 1 Jim Mady: I'm not sure. I've only been there a little over 6 years so I don't know but it was there at one time. ' Gary Warren: Bill had looked, we looked through the As bills and could not find any evidence of it. It's not to say that it may not have been built without a plan but we could not find any evidence of the curb and gutter as referenced there. Oh pictures. And who are these little crildren? Arlis Bovy: Arlis Bovy, 7339 Frontier Trail. I've lived on Frontier Trail for 28 years and have, I'm sure paid for at least 2 roads that have gone in. Both of them very substandard. At one time we did have very good curbs. They looked 44 City Council Meeting - ptember 11, 1989 like they could have been concrete or they were very highly beveled and they were adequate. They were taken out when we needed road repair and never replaced they said because they ran out of funds but we were assessed for that once already. My complaint is why do we have to be reassessed for curbs I've already paid for at one time. ' Gary Warren: They look like bituminous curbs. I know especially in Mrs. Bovy's residence there with the storm water runoff issue, that's been one of the interests is to keep that beefed up curb section there to help confine the storm ' \water as much as possible. It's an assessment issue. We'll have to do more A\ research on it. That's all I can say. Our records, at least from what we b\ checked, weren't that clear. That's not to say that things aren't added from a ai street maintenance standpoint without a plan. Arlis Bovy: Can we be assured that this will be checked into? ' Councilman Johnson: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Check it out. Gary Warren: I will check it out. Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, are you sure it was bituminous and not concrete? ' Gary Warren: Well from that picture it looks like bituminous, yeah and I know what's out there now is bituminous. ' Arlis Bovy: I know it wasn't what we've got now which is just shoveled up blacktop. Gary Warren: But that looks like a formed bituminous curb to me. Arlis Bovy: It was very sturdy and it was very adequate at the time but they ' took it out when they redid the street and never put it back simply because they said they ran out of funds. Gary Warren: What year was that? Arlis Bovy: The picture shows 1968. ' Gary Warren: But when they took it out? Arlis Bovy: Probably 1969-70. ' Gary Warren: We'll check it out. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Once again, this is a public hearing. This is your opportunity to express your views. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 45 • City Council Meeting - SE mber 11, 1989 , Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, Mr. Mayor.. I'd like to start out. I think we've heard from the residents of Kiowa Circle pretty clearly that they would like to have the Kiowa Circle portion of it taken out of the project. I say this because it has been explained that the sanitary sewer that is crushed, Gary has i indicated that it can be fixed at a later date and that it will not in any way disturb the new Frontier Trail. Also the road is not substandard and does not really need to be replaced. I would like to point out too that I checked with Jean Meuwissen todal on our sewer charges because one of the points made was that our bills to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission have been going up. She indicated to me that in 1988 we were paying $33,349.21 per month and now in 1989 we're paying $31,187.32 so it's actually carving down. I guess I just \ wanted to point that out that the sanitary sewer there is not an emergency type e 1tt of situation. So I would move that before we consider the rest of the project, \r that we amend the project to take out Kiowa Circle. I Councilman Johnson: Is that it? Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to say something on this too before we go much further. I There's been a lot of questions and a lot of points brought out that have not yet been addressed and I would like to make a motion at this time so those can be addressed that we table =.t at this particular time. Councilwoman Dimler: Table the whole project or just... Mayor Chmiel: Table, not the full project. Table it until all the questions that were brought up by the residents be answered. Councilman Johnson: Specifically? Mayor Chmiel: Specifically many factors brought up about the curbs such as now. Councilman Johnson: You mean what was brought up tonight? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. This evening. I Councilman Johnson: Well why don't we wait until the Council finishes discussing it so our concerns can be brought up too? I Mayor Chmiel: I'm just throwing my thoughts out right now. I'm not saying... Councilman Johnson: I thought you were making a motion to table which cuts off 1 discussion. Councilwoman Dimler: I made a motion which was not seconded to take Kiowa Circle out of the project. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. Is there a second to your motion to take Kiowa Circle out of the project? Councilman Johnson: It's a little premature. Councilman Boyt: I might be willing to do that later on but at this point, I'm not ready to do that. 46 II City Council Meeting • 1ptember 11, 1989 I f Councilwoman Dimler: I would just like to see it taken off since if we take it II off then the discussion becomes freer to discuss Frontier Trail. Councilman Boyt: It does. That's true. Councilwoman Dimler: It's not so confusing. IICouncilman Boyt: I think what we're doing tonight other than listening to the residents, which has been valuable, is we're being asked to authorize the Q gathering of additional information. Preparation of plans and specifications says let's get more specific. I think some of the t� questions you're asking will be answered there so I don't see a need to table it. I don't think we're being ,.c�, asked to do anything other than gather more information as it is. Isn't that II right? Gary Warren: The esti qu ons, at least the way I have read then, relate to the assessment policies which as I think Council is aware, is dealt with in a IIseparate hearing when the process is done. There's no reason I guess in my opinion why the assessment issues and the questions can't be further researched when we bring those back at the next meeting or two meetings from now. If 1 Council feels comfortable with the scope of the project as far as what we propose, it certainly could be authorized for plans and specs to be initiated which is_ the more detailed data gathering as it relates to the road width and some of these other things that you may want. I Councilman Boyt: If we et there better er through tabling it, I don't see any big rush. We're not going to do this work until next year anyway. Mayor Chmiel: I think what I'd like to see is at least all those questions addressed. IIGary Warren: We certainly can do that. We, as a matter of fact, scheduled for bidding the project during the winter months, January-February and we have time to do that. IICouncilman Boyt: Roger tells me it's very expensive to do plans and specifications and so maybe tabling is the smarter move. A couple of the issues II that I heard. The issue about whether Kiowa Circle needs to be in or out of the project. It's difficult to decide just whether or not I can vote on that much less how to vote on it. But one of my concerns is, if there is in fact only 4 I homeowners who are going to be assessed for this, I being one of then, it seers to me there's a real advantage in being part of the 100 or so other homeowners that are being assessed at the same time. I'm not so sure that I'm real eager just as an individual homeowner to tackle this at some later date as 25% of the 1 group paying for it. So that's part of the issue. I'm interested in, you know Chuck mentioned 305, was that linear feet Chuck? 305 linear feet in Kiowa Circle? I haven't measured it. IChuck Dimler: I estimated 300 linear feet. Councilman Boyt: Alright so that's around both sides of the road a total of 300. Gary Warren: 590. I 47 II City Council Meeting - Se- comber 11, 1989 Chuck Dimler: No, one side. Councilman Boyt: Okay, so there's really 590? 1 Gary Warren: 590 front feet. Councilman Boyt: Kiowa Circle, the road condition, never having studied the I engineering study that you did on that, just looking at it. It doesn't look in great shape to me. How long do you think it will last? What's your engineering estimate? We don't get a lot of traffic down there. Y4\ Gary Warren: Well that's certainly one advantage to the road section is you • don't get a lot of road traffic and I don't see that there's a lot of drainage that is sustained on the road which is another factor. The life cycle of a pavement is difficult to estimate but the thing that is common with a life cycle is that it's sort of an expedential curve in that there is a point in it's life where if you do not undertake routine maintenance at that time, it goes downhill drastically to where you can't repair it. Frontier Trail may have hit that point years ago that predates me but the whole pavement management system approach is the fact that you evaluate your pavements to find where they are in their life cycle and you do maintenance on those that are timely. Where maintenance is worthwhile and then other roads that may look good but because the sub-base doesn't test out, those you do the rehab and structural repairs as necessary so it's a real difficult thing to say. There's alligatoring out on the roadway. As I was looking at it tonight. Alligatoring. Cracking and such would indicate that you've got same sub-base problems but because the traffic isn't that heavy. Probably the heaviest loads out there are our snowplow trucks and that's in the winter or our dump trucks or trash collectors but again it's not that heavy of volume. Councilman Boyt: I guess I'd like to have more information about Kiowa Circle 1 before I would personally, just as a property owner, not as a Council member, want to see us pull it out of the project. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to restate. Number one, it states in the study that Kiowa Circle was only included to repair the sanitary sewer which is the City's desire. I have already gotten information to say that our sewer assessment bills are going down instead of up and it is not an emergency. Gary himself has stated that it can be done at any later date and it will not disrupt the new Frontier Trail. The citizens are not going to be assessed for the sanitary sewer but they are going to be asked to pay a premium price to replace the street which does not need replacing. Therefore, I move again that Kiowa Circle be taken out of the feasibility study and out of this project in order to make this project less confusing. That we don't have to include it in the estimated costs and later take it out. For those reasons I move that we take Kiowa Circle out. Is there a second to that motion? Mayor Chmiel: I'll call the question. Is there a second? Councilman Workman: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: It has been moved and seconded. i 48 IICity Council Meeting - ltember 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Discussion? Mayor Chmiel: •It is open for discussion. 1 Councilman Boyt: Is Sue Downs here? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Now we've got 75%. Well we've got 100%. Two 11 members of the Council and the other two. Councilman Boyt: Well we don't have the Suekers. I \O Sue Downs: The Suekers are here. We've all talked about it and we all are in Ck' \ agreement with Chuck Dimler. He spoke for us. . I don't know how Bill Boyt felt ii0 but the rest of us are in complete agreement with Ursula. Councilman Boyt: Well I guess that seals the deal. IICouncilwoman Dimler: Good for you. Councilman Johnson: Where's the break in the sewer? IIGary Warren: About 112 feet south of the manhole in Frontier Trail. ICouncilman Boyt: About the middle of the road. Councilman Johnson: Okay so if that sewer plugs now because, as it further deteriorates and we stop and it plugs say next year. Who knows? It might be 10 I years from now. It may continue. As is we're just putting sewage into, the ground out there. Eventually it will plug up and then the sewer's going to back up into somebody's house and who owns those houses? - IIGary Warren: Whoever's got the lowest service. Councilwoman Dimler: That's us. ICouncilman Johnson: That's you? IICbuncilwaman Dimler: And we haven't had any back up. Councilman Johnson: Not yet. 1 Councilwanan Dimler: We won't. Councilman Johnson: If you have a broken sewer, eventually. 1 Gary Warren: The sewers don't connect to that. Dimler's do not take service off of that line. ' Chuck Dimler: The map is not up now. Excuse me Mr. Mayor. Chuck Dimler again. ILThe map is not up but I had asked the engineers that they might look at. I'm not certain that in the future, and of course I'm not an engineer so please forgive me for being so presumptuous but I'm not sure that in the future that we even need that line on Kiowa Circle. I think a couple of us go out to the sewer in our backyard. The line that runs in the creekbed and then the other folks that II 49 1 City Council Meeting - Ser' -,mber 11, 1989 ' are not on that line, you know if there's a problem there they might go in a different direction or they might just come back in to the line behind the homes rather than in the street. I'm not certain that that's been looked at or whether it should but I think that should be considered before we spend you know, before we cut our foot off because we have a sore toe. Councilman Johnson: Next thing on this is what is the size of the sewer? Gary Warren: 8 inch diameter. (}fk Councilman Johnson: 8 inch diameter. Is it possible to, if we're only serving '') -1:4 1 or 2 homes there, retrofit through what's existing there with a 6 inch or another adequate size to serve the, it sounds like maybe only 2 homes are being serviced by that. An 8 inch will service many, many more homes than 2. Is there a way we might be able to, instead of having to rip up the road and all this, work a pipe through there? Gary Warren: The common technique, slip lining is the technique that's been 1 used in instances of that but where you have a structural failure which we have here. An open offset joint and sheered pipe is the description from the televising, it's not a recommendation that I would entertain. That's a ' structural problem that needs to be addressed. I don't know. Maybe it's existed this way for since it was installed. You don't know. Chances are good because I believe this is close to where the storm sewer crossed that it happened when the storm sewer was put in above it. But it's not a condition. We have an 8 inch minimum standard for our sanitary sewers and that's because of the fact that in order to properly clean those lines with our equipment, it needs to be that diameter to minimize and tolerate blockages that do happen. There are two service laterals on the line which our TV report comments on them. They are both upstream of this busted pipe. Councilman Johnson: So we have two service laterals. How big are those? 1 Gary Warren: 6 inch typically. Councilman Johnson: Those are 6 inch typically. And if this does, do you know how big the offset is? Bill Engelhardt: It's big enough that they couldn't get the cameras... ' Gary Warren: They couldn't get the camera through. The camera is on skids and it's normally close to the diameter of the pipe so it doesn't take more than an inch offset to prohibit you from going but I haven't personally looked at the videotapes to see what we can do there. Councilman Johnson: I'm not thinking about doing a slip. I'm thinking of actually putting a smaller diameter pipe clear through. If you've got a clear enough shot to put it through, put the two laterals together and basically almost abandon it up. The sewer. While it won't meet the city's standards, we're only talking 2 people. It's not like, it's,an option that might be a heck - of a lot less than $55,000.00 and there's a small environmental problem capabilities there. Councilman Boyt: That wasn't sanitary sewer. That was... 50 City Council Meeting - °sptember 11, 1989 IGary Warren: That was 26 granted as a road. ICouncilman Johnson: Yeah, right. But if you don't have to tear up the road. Gary Warren: We included the cost for the total road repair because if you would be in replacing 183 feet of the sanitary sewer, it would make sense. We I could go in tomorrow at a much lesser cost and strictly repair this break or this sheer and ignore the rest of this line and take our chances with it but we certainly could do that for a much less cost. 1 C�� t, Mayor Chmiel: What minimal cost? II Gary Warren: I don't know. Maybe $5,000.410 at the worse. But the problem you don't know with clay tile which this is, is that once you go in and you start digging it up, you have to go back to a good piece of pipe and when you take the overburden off of those pipes, depending on their age, they tend to crumble so I you may end up chasing that pipe all the way back to the manhole and you don't know until you get in there. IICouncilwoman Dimler: Gary, do you see this as an emergency situation? Gary Warren: Well in my videotape viewing days as a sewer rehab consultant, I typically addressed any sheered type problem as something that should be high IIpriority, yes. L Councilman Dimler: But it's not emergency? IGary Warren: It's not my basement. IICouncilman Johnson: It's Bill's basement and Sue's basement. Councilwoman Dimler.. I don't think we have any problems. ICouncilman Johnson: Kiowa Circle is well represented up here. Councilman Boyt: Since I was going through my comments when we went to this I amendment that's virtually guaranteed passage here, I'm not in a good position to talk about street assessments because I'm certainly not the person who's assessed the most on Kiowa Circle. I'm concerned about sanitary sewer. Whether I it's Kiowa Circle or anyplace else and the storm sewer is virtually non-functional. If it hadn't been for all the problems with the Chan Vista development, the one thing that it did was it kept what's now Sue Down's yard . from flooding out. I don't think you have floods back there anymore and I Don King's and you remember that storm sewer which was non-functional there which flooded my basement out. So that issue, the storm sewer issue, I don't know what the status is now because I think the drainage has changed a bit since I Chan Vista went in. I guess where I'm going with this thing is I don't want to see the City settle with something less than a functional sanitary sewer system and if we need a storm sewer in there, we need that. As far as the road goes, if the neighbor's don't want the road, I'm in no position to force them to take I the road and I wouldn't do that. I'm not so sure it's the right decision but if that's what people want to do. II 51 II City Council Meeting - Ser'- mber 11, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, then I would ask Gary. Do you consider the sanitary sewer functional? Gary Warren: All I can say is it's functioning at this point in time. It defintely should be on the rehab program. �© Councilwoman Dimler: At some later date? CA' yP' Councilman Johnson: It depends on what you consider functional. It's leaking sewage to the environment and ground water into the sewer. If that's your definition of functional, it's functional. To me it's broken. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Can you prove it? Councilman Johnson: Do you want to look at the videotapes? Yes, we can prove I it. Gary Warren: Maybe to address it. We are in the process of having plans and specs prepared for our 1989 sewer rehab program and this spot repair could certainly be added to that. Or it could be added with the utility contract for the Frontier Trail project also maybe more appropriately. Councilman Johnson: And that's not assessed correct? Gary Warren: And that's not assessed. Well, it's not assessed in either case. I Councilman Johnson: But the street repair that goes on above it is going to be. Councilwoman Dimler: What I'm saying is that you could do as Don King ' recommended and that is to do some other less expensive type of repair where the sewer would be functional and would not be endangering the environment. Gary Warren: The thing that I can't guarantee you is that when we go in to do the spot repair at that location, that we wouldn't have to repair the sewer all the way up to the upstream manhole, 183 feet. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Right. And at that time would you have to tear up Kiowa Circle to that point? i Gary Warren: Right. I mean we could confine the trench to as little as necessary. Councilwoman Dimler: So the repair cost could be considerably less? Gary Warren: It could be less. Councilman Johnson: They wouldn't do the entire subgrade. The sub-base. The curb and gutter. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, right. I guess I would opt for that. I don't want us, our citizens to think that we're not concerned about the sanitary sewer. I just want to make it very plain that we can handle that in a different, less I 1.* expensive manner and still have adequate useage. 52 • City Council Meeting - °-,oteember 11, 1989 1 I Councilman Johnson: Now I'm not sure if this is the point for us, this point in II the project for us to say okay. Take it off. I think we should give directions to the engineers at this point that it should be our recommendation and highly considered that this be looked at as a spot repair and then go on. Councilwoman Dimler: But it can still be taken out of the project because we're addressing Frontier Trail here and Kiowa Circle was only included because of the sanitary sewer and I expect them to do the sanitary sewer when they do their Xr\, updating of the system. they . � Gary Warren: We would include that spot repair in our '89 program. That possibly could be done even this year. • . Resident: Can I ask a question? IMayor Chmiel: Sure. II in King: Being that there's only 2 homes on it, it appears that the line is basically non-functional except for 2 homes. Is there an alternate way that they could be diverted from these two homes...the line that goes behind Dimler's at a much less cost and then cap off that line that goes down Kiowa when you tear up Frontier? . • Bill Engelhardt: We looked at that, not in great detail but it appeared that I there was a difficult construction going down between the homes and going down the hill, down into the sewer line down in the ravine and would probably do more damage to the yards and everything than anything. III- Gary Warren: Plus the service lines which now come to the front would have to be redone. I Bill Engelhardt: Everything would have to be redone and come back around the house. It's more involved than just trying to relay the pipe at a different angle. It gets pretty involved with the trees and everything out there. IMayor Chmiel: Any other further discussion Council? We have a motion on the floor with a second. ICouncilman Johnson: I have discussion on other aspects of the project. Councilwoman Dimler: No. I think we should vote on this motion first and then IIdiscuss the rest of the Frontier Trail project. I Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to delete the Kiowa Circle portion from the Frontier Trail utility and roadway improvement project. All voted in favor and the motion carried. i_ Councilman Boyt: I can't believe I voted for it. Councilman Johnson: I thought you would abstain being a benefitting person on it. II 53 1 • City Council Meeting - Se' 'nber 11, 1989 1 Councilman Boyt: Yeah, but I knew which way it was going. Didn't make any difference. Councilman Johnson: Then that would have been a good reason to abstain. I Councilman Boyt: Well back to, before we got onto this I had same, a list of concerns and I'd like to finish that up. I think that one of them is, Joel brought up the comment about the pavement management fund. It looks to me like \� what we're in the process of doing here Joel is establishing that. That clearly y C� \ the City is taking on a fair size portion of this. Whether it's 60% or 80% or v somewhere in there and when we do that, the City doesn't have any means of C paying for that other than selling a bond which pulls out of our bond capacity which in essence is saying we're establishing a fund. We're dedicating a • certain amount. And if we do that at the rate of about $55,000.00 worth of payments a year or I think we look at it in terms of $273,000 worth of our bonding capacity a year, we eat that capacity up pretty quick. So there's actually been, and maybe this is pure fantasy but I've actually approached the idea that the City can't afford this project. So that's one of my concerns. Then Joel's comment about the sidewalk. I suspect everybody knows that I am a supporter of a sidewalk system. I also though, as I mentioned to Joel earlier, think that it's, from what I picked up in the neighborhood, there's not overwhelming support for a sidewalk and we'd need to generate that before we considered that option. One of the interesting things that's come out in the numbers here and maybe can be addressed as we approach this further, is that I haven't figured out what the philosophy is that the City would be billing back on. It looks like right now if the City goes to the approach that the only thing the residents are paying for is improvements in the road surface above and beyond what they're paid for originally, what we paid for originally, then maybe what we're really saying is the City is paying 100% of the cost and we're just paying for the improvements which was one of the options up on the screen. And what does that say about, what are doing for the future? What are we doing when the City comes in now and replaces a road that's fully up to urban standards? Does that mean the City, since we're not upgrading that road, that the City's .covering 100% of that expense? I don't know but I see that as one of the issues that needs to be examined further. I think the City has quite a long history, at least the 3 years I've been watching it. I can only think of one project off hand where we did a per unit assessment and that was out on, was it Bluff Creek? Gary Warren: Bluff Creek Drive. Councilman Boyt: Due to the tremendously large size of some of those units. I don't rule that out but just the City hasn't done that. So I agree that we're certainly setting a model for the future here. The way we do it. That deserves time. Whatever time it takes to figure out what the City would probably do in other situations and I would appreciate having the chance to vote on parts of this but when it comes down to the actual assessment percentage, it would be my intention to not vote. Unless of course, if Kiowa stays out of it I guess it doesn't make much difference. I probably can vote. That's all I have. . Councilman Johnson: One of the points that Bill made was that per foot is the good way to go because if you didn't go per foot, 71% of the households would be increased. Well to me that figure -says that per foot's the wrong way to go because if 71% of the households would be increased by going to the per unit 54 City Council Meeting - Member 11, 1989 cost, that means 39% of the households. Councilman Boy t: 29. 11 Councilman Johnson: Or 29. What time is it? Okay. It was an early morning this morning too. 29% of the households are being asked to pay' more than what would seem to be a fair share. If you had a developer that had 300 feet that he was going to be assessed for and he could subdivide that into a Curry Farms or \° \ whatever, into many households, the per foot makes a lot of sense to me. When \ there's no subdivision available for these people and there's nobody going to subdivide here. The unit makes more sense in a street and sewer. You know you only get one sewer connection. Of course it's not in this one but you're only doing one driveway except for Jim. Or who is it that has two driveways down there? ' Resident: Freidlanders. ' Councilman Johnson: Oh Freidlanders. Aren't they moving? Councilman Boyt: They did already. They're gone. Councilman Johnson: They already moved. Okay. They've got the two driveways. Per driveway assessment. I don't know. But to me, because one person happens to be on the curve and has the outside of the curve as his property and has 300 feet and another guy's on the inside of the curve and has 50 feet, and they're next door neighbors even. They both drive the same distance down it. They're both protected the same way by it. I can't see that it's worth 6 times as much to that guy with 300 feet as it is to the guy with 50. That does not seem fair to me. So my gut reaction looking at it, and if 71% of the people would have a reduction if you went the other way, it seems to me a per unit may be a fairer 1 way. Bill Engelhardt: 71% wouldn't have the reduction. ' Councilman Johnson: Or 71% would have an increase. Bill Engelhardt: You're acting... ' Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'm standing up for the guys that are the minority. Yes. Bill Englehaidt: Your Honor. One quick comment on that and maybe Roger, we can research this for you and bring that back too but you have to keep in mind that you have to show benefit and that the cost of the improvements are going to ' increase the market value by the property equally that amount and so if you do it by the unit method and you have a small lot, his market, it'd be very difficult to prove the benefit on that. We can research that and look at it and I'll talk to Roger a little bit about that but that's the reason you have to look at it. Councilman Johnson: But the benefit's equal. You're sitting on a paved street. ' i can't see that your property value's going to go up because you've got all this fancy curb in front of your house. So anyway, that needs to really be researched more but this isn't the assessment hearing. We're not making that 55 City Council Meeting - Sek Aber 11, 1989 1 decision but right now I need same more information before I make that decision. Mayor Chmiel: That's' why I'm suggesting that we table this at this particular time and cane back with some conclusions as to what we're looking for. With that I will make that into a motion. (r t `Councilman Johnson: I've still got one more comment on width of road. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let's wind her up because we've got a lot more to go yet. Councilman Johnson: I know. I can't see making it any more narrow personally. 1 Even though making it narrower makes it theoretically people will slow down more. I don't know if they really would slow than down to make it narrower. I'm not sure if it will speed them up to make it wider. 1 Councilman Boyt: Make it one way. Gary Warren: On a curvy road like this, narrower could be more hazardous 1 actually. Councilman Johnson: More dangerous. When you start putting the barrier curbs, 1 if you hit that curb at a speed, you can flip and whatever. I'm against getting down, back to 24 foot all the way through or something like that. I think 27 would be much better for that road. It's hard to say which is safer. Make it a little wider so that's it. Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion to table. Is there a second? Councilman Johnson: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table action on Frontier Trail Utility and Roadway Improvements for further information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor? I would like to move that we amend the agenda to move item 12 to the next item. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. That was going to be my next one. Councilman Johnson: Rick Murray is here. He's the person who requested this density. To have it other than the consent agenda. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we take that one first and then we can move from there. 1 Councilman Johnson: That's item 8. Councilman Boyt: We have quite a few people her, for Vineland Forest Addition - that have been here all night. Mayor Chmiel: Let's just move real quick to item nianber 8 and then we'll go fran there. With that I would consider that an amendment... 1 56 1 City Council Meeting - ..tober 9, 1989 II Councilman Workman: Oh it was Chris? Chris Burns. In your article, wasn't the 11 had of Frontier Homes kind of admitting that they had problems and they had growth problems and they were maybe trying to do too much too quick? Chris Burns: I believe that was the comment made. II Paul Oaks: Yes it was. 1 Councilman Workman: So whether the management was new or old and swithced or whatever, what else do we have to go on. There have been serious problems. I don't understand where you say we're false in making those accusations. • IIPaul Oaks: I don't have a copy of the letter. There was a letter sent a few months back referring to Mr. Glaros' residence where there was a major structural problem. The homeowner ran a large amount of water into his garage. I The hydraulic pressure on that blew out a wall. He ran his garden hose in his garage without a garage floor. To settle, take out the frost. Took it upon himself to do that and it blew out a back wall. That's what started this whole II ball rolling. It's been nothing but gaining speed. We have had our problems. We're not going to shy away from that. That's one reason we're under new ownership. I Mayor Chmiel: Well that's good Paul. I appreciate your comments and hopefully with the approach you're taking now, these things will all get corrected and you'll continue with a... IIPaul Oaks: We sincerely hope so. We're looking forward to building in this city for quite a while. IIMayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Any additional Visitor Presentations? II PUBLIC HEARING: FRONTIER TRAIL UTILITY AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 1 Public Present: - Name Address IMichael Bierlein 681 Bighorn Drive Walter & Gelen Bielski 7209 Frontier Trail Helen & Bill Loebl 7197 Frontier Trail I Chuck Dirtier 7203 Kiowa Circle Sandy & John Reger 7191 Frontier Trail Cheri Sueker 7194 Frontier Trail I Dick Pearson 7307 Frontier Trail Bibs Axons 7211 Frontier Trail Larry Leebens 7201 Frontier Trail - Susan Downs 7202 Kiowa Circle IIBob Scholer 7212 Frontier Trail Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, as Council will r -m441 'er, September 11, 1989 we had a 1 hearing and received good public comment at that time concerning the Frontier II 13 City Council Meeting - Cc+- 'hex 9, 1989 Trail utility and roadway improvement project. At that time the item was tabled 1► and staff was directed to take the record, such as it was, and address any outstanding questions that were left from that meeting and bring them back to Council for further consideration. We have done that and attached in the packet II is a supplemental feasibility report, letter report from Bill Engelhardt. - Towards the end of your packet which basically summarizes as best as we could interpret from the Minutes any of the outstanding issues that were still under consideration. We also noted unfortunately that the legal notice did not get published in the newspaper as required by statute so as we were bringing this item back anyway, we did take the initiative to once again publicize this as a formal public hearing just to make sure we were covering the bases. It would be my recommendation that the testimony from the September 11th meeting be incorporated into this record also as a part of the hearing. The residents have all been notified once again. We thank then for caning this evening. I would suggest either we can invite their comments at this time as a part of the hearing or we can give a brief summary of the items that we interpretted to be outstanding that Bill has addressed in his supplement report. Mayor Chmiiel: I think that would probably be, we'll open it up for the people 11 as+well. Those who have already spoken at the previous meeting, your information is on record for our review. If you have something new in addition to that, we'll welcome your input. Maybe we should just address these specific questions and then go from there. Bill Engelhardt: Your Honor, reibers of the Council, I'm Bill Engelhardt. ' Engelhardt and Associates. We did go through the Council Minutes as Gary indicated. We tried to pick out what we thought were some of the key questions and concerns that the public had up on Frontier Trail. I've listed then just starting out. The upgraded roadway width. That was a question on a number of people's minds. The present width of Frontier Trail ranges from 24 to about 28 feet at it's widest point and it just kind of meanders through thexe. The average width of the present gutter line is about 27 feet. The curb specification that we're using, the B618 curb is a standard curb design for residential areas. It's also used in major roadway areas but where you have existing homes and not a new residential area, you generally go with the B618 or the high back curb. By using that type of curb, we gain same additional width and it appears that we could put the road in there at a uniform width of about 27 feet but would keep our gutter line at about the same area that it is right now. In same cases where we hit -that 24-25-26, there's going to be some minor modifications in there but generally what we try to do is split the distance on each side so it's not all taken on one side if that's possible. So I think the question about are we going to put in a -31 foot roadway, the answer would be no. We'd be putting in a 27 foot roadway at the gutter line which gives us about a 29 back to back so it's a little bit less than the 31 feet. Mayor Chmiel: Bill, when you say gutter line; are you saying from the... Bill Engelhardt: Face of the curb. Face of the curb to the face of the curb. The second issue that I've highlighted was the question of existing curb on - Frontier Trail. We did see pictures that I believe it was Mrs. Bovey had with her that night. I was guessing on the age of the pictures. I said 10 to 15 111 years and that may be high or low, plus or minus. That was my guess. Right now there's presently, and maybe she's here and she can tell me what the exact date is. 14 City Council Meeting - 'tober 9, 1989 Gary Warren: The 1968 was the photo date. • ' Bill Engelhardt: So 20 years. So I guess I was low but there is an existing bituminous curb there. It looked like it was bituminous to us and it's basically to control drainage. That's the purpose of what we're trying to do with the curb and gutter that we intend to install. The comment was made that ' some of the people had a concrete curb and gutter there at some time and we can't find anything in the records where there was curb and gutter. There's no way to really determine who paid for it. If it was there. How it was removed. Why it was removed or anything like that so we felt that we would be replacing the present bituminous curb with a concrete curb and gutter. It's a new facility and it should stay in the program and become part of the project and those properties would be assessed like everyone else along the road for the improvements. Another question was the unit method of assessment versus front footage. I've done it both ways. Typically this type of street construction where you have all of your properties abutting on the roadway, you do it on a front foot basis. It gets more into a legal issue other than an engineering issue because the front foot assessment is easier to defend if you're going to be challenged during an assessment appeal. You have to remember that the project can be assessed for benefit and benefit is defined as if the property increases in market value equal to the assessment. When you have a front footage assessment, it's my opinion from my experience in other municipalities and this type of assessment procedure, that the front footage assessment is more beneficial or it's easier for the City to defend. I guess my recommendation would be to stay with the front footage. It's a policy that's been proven in the past and it's highly defendable if it was to be challenged. Not saying it would be but if it would be, it's highly defendable. I guess just one more point. If we had properties that, and as an example the Bluff Creek Drive for example was done on a unit method that we just got done with. But those ' properties were off of the roadway but they did have direct benefit to that roadway. Here, all of our properties that are being assessed are right on the roadway. That's the difference, this distinguishing difference on those two 1 projects. The assessment policy, that was probably the most discussed issue and it's one of the most difficult issues of the whole program. Our feasibility study presented several options with breakdowns where we had different splits between the cost sharing for the city and the cost sharing for the residents. ' Our recommendation was a 40-60 split where we had 40% for the property participation and 60% for the city participation. The basis for the cost split was derived from calculating the cost of new improvements which were not previously in place such as the curb and gutter, and same of the roadway base and subgrade materials and that basically came out to be about 40% of the cost. Driveway aprons. All of the new facilities that had not been there before. Now ' we did contact several cities for the initial study to get their reaction and to get their programs. At the public hearing we had available other cities that we had contacted for about a total of 10 and our conclusion is that after talking to all of the various cities that we did contact, was that their ' assessment policy is kind of worked on over the years. Many of the cities that we talked to have been in this process for maybe 5 to 10 years and working in the cities and their policy is refined as they go. Your public hearings kind of ' shake out on how the policy should be looked at. The worse case scenario was where 100% of the cost was assessed back to the benefitted properties and there were same cities that did that. There were also same cities that took it all out of the general tax. The City of Burnsville for example assessed 40% of the 15 City Council Meeting - Oct^ber 9, 1989 street replacement costs and then 100% of the new improvements like the curb and 11 gutter. This seemed to be a hybrid policy to accomplish what we thought was the work needed without putting a burden on the overall tax levy. I think that's what they were looking for on that one. But it was apparent that the, at least to me it was apparent that the people seen to agree that the street needed some improvement. That the cost for paying the new facilities, although nobody likes to pay costs, they seen to accept that. We still feel that the 40-60 split is a fair and equitable basis for the assessment on this particular project. I think that what you want to do is, I guess my recormendation would be not to look too far down the road where you're trying to say well, the next project are we going to do it a 40-60 split or are we going to do it a 20-20 because when you get into these projects, each individual project has it's unique features and you have to be flexible and it.does give you same lattitude. Maybe after you do 1 or 2 or 3 projects, you can focus in on more of a defined cost split on them but you want to look at reconstruction, rehabilitation projects, rates where you can review and update than annually so you could look at each individual project. So that was kind of what I picked out as the key issues from the public hearing and I guess I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have or the public might have. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to address the Frontier Trail proposal? Larry Leebens: Good evening. I'm Larry Leebens. I live at 7201 Frontier Trail. I want to speak to the issue of the unit versus foot frontage concept of I paying for this assessment. Normally I would agree with that foot frontage is the most equal, equitable standard way of doing it. I would say it would take care of 90% of the roads that are being built because they're straight. The amount of foot frontage correlates to the size of the lot. In the case of Frontier Trail, because of the curves, there are about 5 or 6 or 7 homes, mine included of course, that have a large foot frontage because of the curve. It doesn't have any relationship to the size of the lot. It just so happens that we're on the curve so our assessment will be higher because the amount of foot frontage will be greater. I think that adds a different light of this road *compared to same other roads that are being built in Chanhassen. Is there a I/ benefit to living on a curve? I'm going to be paying more because I supposedly have greater benefit from living in this area and I don't agree that there is better benefit. If you can check my mailbox about once every 6 months after it's been knocked or my yard that's been run into and the lawn torn up. I don't have a greater benefit by living there. I do appreciate that there is curbing because that will help that kind of a problem. The second part of this thing is that not only will we be assessed greater, but we don't have use of that road because there's no parking signs so I don't have the same kind of right of using that road as everybody else on Frontier Trail but again I'm being assessed more. At the last council meeting there was a reference to another assessment being made for driveways that are circular and of course I have a circular driveway. Again, if you look at the two houses that have circular driveways on Frontier Trail, the Friedlander house and my home, they're at the very sharpest points of those curves which makes it almost a necessity to have a driveway so you can get _ out and be able to see the traffic in the road so'1 hope that that was a joke or whatever and that that assessment isn't being seriously considered. IFMayor Chmiel: Larry, what is your front footage on your property? 16 City Council Meeting - .:tober 9, 1989 ' Larry Leebens: You know, I don't know. I'm sorry. I think my lot is probably, of all of them, is probably the least amount. I think the other 5 or 6 on the corner have a greater front footage than mine but mine's right up there. Thanks for your time. Bob Scholer: Honorable Mayor and Council. I'm Bob Scholer, 7212 Frontier Trail, Chanhassen. I also own Lot 2, Block 1 of Sunrise Hills Fourth which has access from Longview Circle above. In other words, it's a double lot. My concern of course is for the great amount of footage that I have on Frontier Trail that I really don't receive any benefit for. That's what I want to talk about. I agree with the engineer who says that ordinarily assessments are based on benefit. I agree with that. I think the project has been broken down cost wise into area served by the storm sewer. In other words, any drainage caning ' off of the subject lot, I would have no argument. ...My first feeling would be, I shouldn't be assessed at all except for anything but storm sewer but to be fair I have to say, if you would do it on a unit basis, I would accept it ' because it's fair to the rest of the people living in my neighborhood. That's really all I have to say I guess to that. I haven't seen any revised engineering drawings. I know there was a lot of discussion that may be over in engineering and I guess that's probably playing it safe. I want to emphasize a point that I think a unit base is more fair. I'll also say that being in the real estate business, that it's been traditional, and I always flinch when we hear that. I don't think there is any such thing as typical. I think every ' situation has to be looked at individually. It used to be that we would think of an assessment as being full on what was the front and then maybe 15%. It used to be 15% of the side. The feeling being that it gave a builder and an ' engineer, homeowner, an opportunity to decide where he wanted to bring his driveway in or even if he wanted a circle driveway, in and out. I think there are more people today that I see that you couldn't give a corner lot to so I think that's a fallicy. Which brings me back to my original statement that I think a unit basis on this project is more appropriate. Whether it can be defended or not, I'll leave up to the attorneys. With your permission and if you have time, I'd like to address the surfacing of Frontier Trail through the 2nd Addition of Sunrise Hills because at other hearings, other meetings there's been a considerable amount of discussion on how that road was designed. Why it was designed the way it was. Why it was surfaced the way it was. Who did it and who paid for it. With your permission I'll read same notes that I made back at that time and date. Is that alright Mr. Mayor? I'll sumarize where I can because I've also got some notes in here of some other telephone conversations with contractors that really doesn't have any bearing on the point. On ' 5-31-1968, and these are notes that were dictated then, I contacted Tory Flannilbel who was the Village Engineer, to see how much gravel would be needed after the Village finished sewer and water work and the replacement of gravel ' that I had already put on there when I built the roads. Tory thought very little and went so far as to say that the Village might cooperate by giving credit for dust coat by furnishing more gravel or some similar workable credit ' to enable the work, that is the blacktopping, to be done now. This would also alleviate some of the problems between Scott and Erickson. That's down on the lakeshore. I don't remember the lot numbers. I should say the Erickson house and the Scott house. The last two homes on the lake on Frontier Trail, caused by gravel washing off the road and into the drainage easement. Tory suggested I call Mayor Gene Colter or see if the Village would cooperate. I called Gene the same day and he thought this was a good idea. He'll go along with whatever Tory, the Village Engineer recommends and suggests we put the plan down on black 17 City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 1 and white and present it to the Council. Telephone conversation with Tory on 6-3-68. The Village is willing to go as far as they can to prepare for blacktop if I want to do the blacktopping at this time. The Village will place the base, shape, roll and prime and they'll give me credit for the sealcoat. I awarded the contract to Northern will do the work and give me their bid the morning of 6-4. These are some other conversations. A review is this. Discussion between the Village Engineer and myself followed by a letter from the Village Adminstrator confirm- the agreement as follows. The Village, at their expense, would install the base as required and prime the same. Scholer would install blacktop and backfill the curbs. The Village would issue a credit to Scholer for sealing in the amount of $922.00. The Village would sod or seed as required to restore adjoining lots to original condition before installation of utilities. In other words, I hadn't surfaced because they hadn't done the utilities so the agreement was that they tore everything up when they put in the utilities, they agreed to replace the Class V, the base and everything if I would blacktop it immediately. Blacktop was installed on 7-11-68 by Phelan. Engineers inspector stopped the paving on the inside of the curve past lots and that's blank but that would be at the low spot down there by Ericksons on Block 2, Sunrise Hills. The inspector was on the job off and on all day, day 11th. No comment to me that the curbs were not straight enough. The comment was that the center line of the paving around the curve was moved from a foot to a foot and a half off center to fit the existing base conditions but this was not a problem. In fact it was considered a normal situation. Paving operation was stopped about 8:30 on the 11th. On the morning of the 12th, the inspector informs me the curbs are ready for back filling. I contacted John Anderson, Bollig, Brendon, Northern Contracting. Northern was the only one able to do the work immediately but the foreman said Friday afternoon was too muddy to work. 8:00 a.m. the following Monday, the 15th of July, they would start backfilling. 3/4 of an inch of rain on Thursday night, 2.4 inches of rain Friday night, 5.5 it inches Saturday. Started backfilling Monday' morning July 15th. Adminstrator informs me 7:15 Monday morning that some blacktop will have to be taken up around the curve and the gutter line straightened. Northern and Phelan were notified. 7:15, attended the Council meeting. Reviewed my intention to lay the blacktop, fill behind the curbs as per agreement but refused to be involved in the drainage and other problems that are really restoration problems resulting .Lwt the contract between the Village and the general contractor. Then I have the times that I have there and Northern foreman, that's Northern Contracting foreman says that my part, Bob Scholer's part of their agreement was fulfilled on 7--17-68 at 10:00 a.m.. Their contract with Commercial Landscaping allows 2 ' inches of black dirt on the berms. A final brush-up of the power rake. I have on July 17th we had .20 of an inch of rain. On the 22nd we had 1/3 of an inch. On the 23rd we have .10. On July 30th sodding began on the boulevards. On August 3rd boulevard sodding was completed, 1968. That's about all" I have to say about Sunrise Hills. I can give you one letter. I have more but in the interest of time. On Rosevine, which is now called Kiowa. With your indulgence I'll just... Mayor Clvziel: Bob, maybe if we could get a copy of that so we could review it. Bob Scholer: I'd like to have the people here hear, with your permission. I I won't take too much time. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. 10 18 , 1 City Council Meeting - tober 9, 1989 Bob Scholer: I'll try to put it in order here. May 22nd, 1970. Letter from Schoell and Madsen to the Village of Chanhassen. We've reviewed the proposed grade for Rose Lane, now Kiowa, as submitted by Mr. Scholer and find that it 11 will be satisfactory as shown on the attached profile. He proposes to do the grading, to rough subgrade elevation. That is 10 inches below the final grade and to place a 6 inch tube in some sort of way to convey a drainage from the end of the existing tile line. That's a fuel tile that comes in from the west. Through the fill. This should prove satisfactory temporarily. Ultimately a storm sewer with two catch basins will have to be installed at the sag in Rose Lane but desireably this should be done in conjunction with installation of ' sewer and water. July 22nd. We've reviewed the proposed storm drain to be installed by Bob Scholer across Rose Lane as shown on McCombs-Knutson plan. Is satisfactory as shown. Should provide an easement it says. My letter to the City, June 24th. Please be informed that I've entered into a contract to bring Kiowa to rough grade in preparation for the Village's installation of sewer and water. The contract calls for the work to be completed on or before July 30, ' 1970. The contract also covers the installation of the catch basins, the storm sewer as approved by the Village Engineer in his letter of June 22nd. My letter to the Village says please be informed that on July 10, 1970 I completed the grading to rough subgrade elevation and the installation of the storm drain on the above subject street as shown in the McCombs-Knutson plan dated 6-4. Upon installation of sewer and water by the City as outlined by the engineer, Project so and so, I contemplate completing the installation of the base and the 2 inch ' asphalt mat. On October 8, 1970. This letter to Schoell and Madsen, copy to the Village. Regarding Sunrise Hills sanitary sewer, watermain extension, Project 70-2. Before the contractor for the above referred to project is released from obligations, this is the City now putting utilities and Rose Lane or Kiowa, I would ask that you make a determination if there's been damage to the underground fuel and drainage tile in the easements between Lots 1 and 2 of Block 3, Sunrise Hills 2nd Addition to the west of Kiowa Circle. I've noticed that the contractor has driven heavy equipment over that tiled area during construction of Project 70-2 and it would seem very possible that the alignment of the 4 inch clay tile has been disturbed. I kindly request a copy of your report on this matter. That will clear up some misunderstandings as to who did ' what and where the obligations are. Thank you for your time. Councilwoman Dimler: Mx. Scholer? You mentioned that you also owned a Lot 2 on ' Block 1. Is that correct? Is that lot buildable? I guess I'm not real sure that it is. • Bob Scholer: Yes. Councilwoman Dimler: It does not have a home on it though? ' Bob Scholer: No. Councilwoman Dimler: Then the other one, you made a statement that an ' agreement between the Village and the general contractor. It was my understanding that you were the general contractor or not. Were you not the - general contractor on Sunrise Hills? ' Bob Scholer: And was this referenced to? Councilwoman Dimler: I don't know. You were talking about the blacktopping. I 19 City Council Meeting - Oc+—ber 9, 1989 have it under date 7-11-68. I was trying to write as fast as I could. I didn't get it all down but you said something about that it was an agreement between 111 the general contractor and the Village and it made it sound like you were not the general contractor. Bob Scholer: No. Councilwoman Dimler: You were not? I Bob Scholer: I was referring, in that instance I was referring to the contract that the City had for the installation of utilities with that contractor. • *Councilwoman Dimler: And who was that contractor? That wasn't you? Bob Scholer: No. That was the Village's, I don't want to give a name because I'm not sure. Now I could go back and look but I don't want to take your time. I think it was Northern. Councilwtrian Dimler: I'm just a little confused because I thought you were the , general contractor on Sunrise Hills. Bob Scholer: No. The Village was in control of the installation of the , utilities. • You see you have to understand that I was the developer. I built • the street. I put in a base. I was told to hold it because the Village was considering putting utilities through Sunrise Hills 2nd Addition. By the way they also assessed all of the lots in Kiowa even before I built them. That's why they came back in at a later time because I said now you assessed, now you'd better do it so that's why we had this agreement that when I brought it to grade, they would do it under the original assessment. But the general '' contractor was whoever they contractor was that was in charge of the installation of sewer and water working for the city. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you. Bob Scholer: Any other questions? , Councilman Boyt: I have a question for Gary about this or Bill. One of the two. On double frontage lots, Mr. Scholer's second lot. The lot that's not currently built on is a double front lot. How is that assessed? Gary Warren: Well we would have to look at previous assessments against the property. As far as what is it, Longview Circle which is the other side of the frontage there, and see. Again, it would have to stand the test of benefit so the starting point, the overall policy may be a front footage assessment but we would look at specific cases such as double front lots. This outlot situation that we've got 3 outlots on to arrive at the final benefit. Councilman Boyt: It's my understanding that hares are assessed by their address 11 generally? Gary Warren: As fax as what we consider their front footage? Well, I think that doesn't hold in all cases. You have to look at, for example on corner lots 111 we look at giving a credit to the •one half of the shorter side so even though the address may be on short side, the long side, if it's on Frontier Trail, 20 , i City Council Meeting - ober 9, 1989 ' would be the full assessment side so where the address is doesn't necessarily hold true all the time. Councilman Boyt: Okay, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else who wishes, I thought I saw one more hand back there. Dick Pearson: Back when a lot of this was going on, I was sitting where you gentlemen were, and the things that have been raised for the unit assessment were the reasons that we did it at that time as a unit assessment. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Joel Jenkins: Joel Jenkins, 7226 Frontier Trail. I'd like to do two things this evening. Real quickly since you have everything I said last time on record. First of all I'd like to clarify my position in reference to the ' sidewalk. It was my understanding that we had a choice of a 31 foot roadway at that time, not the current roadway width. It would be my position that a sidewalk still would be beneficial to our neighborhood. Yet I would prefer to ' have the same 24 foot width across the board with a sidewalk as compared to the 31 foot full width road and Bill has assured me we're going to have maybe a 28 Or 27 foot road so that's fine. I still think if you look at your feasibility study, etc. maybe there is a rational reason to, if a sidewalk is ever going to ' be put in our neighborhood, that that be considered now in the feasibility study because it would be a lot less expensive now to have the engineers look at it at this time because I'm sure that they would change the roadway direction or path ' a little bit if it was determined that there was to be a sidewalk sometime in the future. So possibly, I don't know how you do this. If it needs to be a neighborhood percentage of the majority rules or something like that but I think ' there are some people in the neighborhood that are very pro sidewalks. Some people who are not pro sidewalks and I'm not sure what that percentage would be or if it needs to be 100% for or 100% against. I'd just call your attention to maybe, at least in the feasibility of a sidewalk, especially if it's the City policy that the sidewalk predominantly is paid for by city funds throughout the community, that it be at least looked at in your study. I would also say one other thing and that's, I would encourage you to do this project and I think our neighborhood gives you full support. Thank you. Bill Loebl: Bill Loebl, 7197 Frontier Trail. Mr. Mayor and members of the City ' Council. Having heard Bob Scholer's remarks, I find that my remarks of last September 11 are even more important and pertinent. what is becoming more and more apparent is the fact that the City, your predecessors, accepted and approved a substandard piece of construction and my neighbors and I continue to oppose the fact that we should be asked to pay for the City's mistake. Having said that, I have given this a lot of thought and have come up with several constructive suggestions which I would like to present to you. The first suggestion I have is to postpone reconstruction of Frontier Trail until a road restoration fund is available which should be started immediately. I believe that every property owner would feel roach better about paying a few dollars into ' the fund everytime we pay our real estate taxes and then after 2 or 3 years, there might be enough money to pay for Frontier Trail out of this fund and the City could have it constructed the way it wants it. At the time the fund is established, a priority list should be started and Frontier Trail should be 21 City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 first on the list because obviously it's badly in need of repair. There's no question that such a fund would be needed anyway in the future as the City grows II) and the sooner you start, the better off you will be down the road. The mechanics of setting up and operating such a fund can be investigated easily by contacting cities which have such a fund in operation. Eden Prairie and Shoreview are listed in the study here and I'm sure that there are others who have such a fund which you could approach. This proposal also addresses the long term planning which should have replaced the hand to mouth operation under which the city is now operating. It would also be relatively painless for everybody. We on Frontier Trail would not be paying for the original mistake to the extent that we're asked to pay for and it would mark you as the wise city fathers for which I'm sure you would like to be remembered in the future. The second idea I have is... Councilwoman Dimler: And mothers too. I Bill Loebl: City persons. My apologies. The second idea I have is to forget about reconstruction and continue to patch the road when necessary. I have lived with this for 11 years and same of my neighbors for a lot longer. It has two advantages. One, of keeping down the speed at which people drive. Also, people will be less inclined to use the road because there are better roads in the neighborhood. Finally, I have a question which I would like answered. In the past several weeks I've noticed in the newspaper several references to exemptions from assessments being granted to homeowners age 62 and older. Plymouth has such a policy and several others which I forget right now. What is Chanhassen's policy on granting exemptions to people 65 or over? I hope my suggestions will let you find a solution which will be less painful to us property owners than what is proposed in the feasibility study. Thank you. Don Ashworth: State statute addresses the issue. The City endorses that and It there is a deferment for senior citizens but at issue is one of based on financial need. So the senior citizen involved would have to show that there is a financial need for that deferment. Records are kept confidential, from the applicant, but that must be submitted. Did you wish to state anything else Dave? Councilman Johnson: That's a deferment? Bill Loebl: A deferment is not an exemption. , Don Ashworth: I don't know of any exemption. Bill Loebl: Plymouth has it for one. , Dave Harmeyer: It's a council policy but the State Statute that Don is referring to talks about deferring assessments for senior citizens if the Council adopts number one, either an order or number two, a resolution setting up that procedure. One of the conditions that has to be addressed is whether or not the particular deferment is a hardship on the individual that is requesting ' it. As far as exemption goes, that would deal strictly with an assessment policy that the Council might want to consider. It's an unusual kind of a thing because a portion of law says that assessments have to be spread uniformily and if you exempt senior citizens, not based on hardship, then you're uniformity sort of flies out the window. 22 • I City Council Meeting - tober 9, 1989 Bill Loebl: Thank you. Mayor Chriiel: Is there anyone else? If hearing none, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Workmar moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Johnson: I think one of the issues brought up that I'm interested in is unit versus front footage. I think we should set an assessment policy not on what's defensible in court but what's fair to the people. In this case, when I think the statistics was 60% or 70% of the assessments would be increased if we went to a unit basis versus a front footage, indicates to me that 60% tO 70% of the assessments are getting better treatment than the other 30% to 40% of them. ' Those particular people with the longer front footages are footing a lot of bill for other folks. When you have a street with a curve, you're going to have one guy on one side of the curve with a whole lot of front yard and the other guy's on the opposite side of the pie, he's going to have a very small front yard even ' though they have exactly the same amount of square footage. They both may drive 2 cars and they both drive on the same street. They both get the same benefit from the street so just because the other guy chose to live on the other side of the street doesn't mean he should pay 2, 3, 4 times as much for the benefit to live on that side of the street. He also gets a lot more snow plowed into his yard every year as the snowplows came by. So in this case I think it needs to ' go, every assessment needs to go on a case by case basis and to me in this particular case with the curvatures of the streets and the unequalness of this, that a unit basis seems more appropriate to me. And I think the project does need to continue on. It is probably one of our worse streets. I also think we need, we don't want to hold this one up for a couple years while we build a fund. Another version of doing that versus building a fund is to have the fund capable of doing assessment reductions. So although we may levy an assessment ' at this time, that we can also create a fund to help pay those assessments versus having a fund that pays for the street, have a fund that helps pay for assessments which is satiething that I've talked about for a couple years. Especially in places where there's a hardship to help senior citizens and other people out. There's been several times that we've, the past councils have deferred special assessments to people for 5 years or something and at the end of 5 years, all of a sudden they've got this whole special assessment to pay. ' So what do they do? They close the family farm and they sell it off to a developer to subdivide and they're off of their family farm and it's gone. I don't think deferments have been a real godsend to anybody. I may have delayed ' the inevitable but it also almost increased the timing of when somebody had to sell off the family farm. In one particular case when I moved into r:y house, I talked to the neighbor behind me and he said, they'll have to carry rye out of this house feet first. I've lived here 60 years. I don't plan on ever moving. Then he deferred a special assessment and 5 years later he sold off to a developer when the special assessment came due. While I agree there are some hardships, especially people on fixed incomes, the retired, that adding to the I cost of their homes is unfair and we need a mechanise to work with this. I'd like to start looking at a special assessment reduction fund that is a discretionary fund of the Council to approve. 23 City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 1 Mayor Chrttiel: 1991? 1 Councilman Johnson: Yeah. 1991 at the soonest: Don Ashworth: I'd like to research that issue a little more. Anytime that you switch from a special assessment program to some other type of program, you typically end up with double costs. Right now you have projects that the city property owners are still paying costs associated with the north sewer area. Projects that have been done for the last 10-15 years. When you have a project such as this one that will be assessed over a 15 year period of time, whatever the timeframe we used, and there is going to be a city participation along with that, we in fact are obligating outself, everyone here, to pay that amount, the city portion, every year for the next 15 years. In a way you have established a reduction program or means by which we're all contributing to that because we're all contributing to costs associated with Kerber Blvd., Erie, Chan View. When those streets were built in that neighborhood 2 to 3 to 4 years ago. When we did Carver Beach. The assessments associated with that. Greenwood Shores. The sewer and water. Those were carried out over a 15 year period of time. There was a general obligation portion that went along with those. Again, if you move from one method of paying your bills, you might say, to another method, you typically will end up with a double cost because you still have those costs to pay off and yet you're saying, establish a fund so we don't have to carry these over a period of years. Again, we can look at that as a part of the budgetary_ process but it is quite expensive because you are taking double hits. , Councilman Johnson: I think one of the main purposes of this fund is for rebuilding existing roadways. This is one of the first that the people have already paid for the roadway once. It's now done it's useful life and we want to rebuild it and there's quite a few others that will probably be coming up to a useful life. Pleasant View and some in Carver Beach and some all over this city. So this is something that's going to continue to rear it's ugly head is I how do you do these projects as we mature as a city. We need to, I think start collecting monies now. Putting it aside for everybody's road. Your street and my street in another 20 years is going to need to be rebuilt. Mine's falling apart already but. Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor? Just a quick comment. If the Council would be leaning in that direction, I think really what is the appropriate forum for that is to establish a pavement management program wherein we do an inventory of the city streets and prioritize streets and make some estimates as a part of that program to establish' what the total financial burden to the City would be. If we're going to get into a 4 year, 8 year, 20 year type rehabilitation on these roads. That's really the state of the art at this point in time that a lot of communities are going to. Where they are able to, through this initial study which does take some detailed inventory of the streets themselves, they came up with some reasonable projections on the cost burden and then can look at the financial avenues that are available also. Mayor Chmiel: I keep thinking about when I first moved into my home. I had rougly about a $10,000.00 assessment on that with road, sewer, water, and curb. Whether you provide for it now and set up something or you pay for it over the 15 year period, I'm not sure what the cost differences would be to put into a I 111 fund as opposed to pay what your assessment basically is. You have timeframes 24 1 1 City Council Meeting - ,:obey 9, 1989 either way. You either start putting money aside or you pay for it as you go and as I have. I'm not sure. Councilman Johnson: Was that rebuilding your road or just putting it in? Mayor Chmiel: New road. Any other discussion? ICouncilwoman Dimler: I'd like to address something that wasn't addressed here this evening and I did talk to Bill Axons about it. He is an engineer and he,a concern and I know Bill met with Bill Engelhardt and also with Joel ' Jenkins. About this storm sewer, and I realize that if you're going to have curb and gutter, you're going to have to have collecting points but it was his feeling that we had too many catch basins that were shown on the drawings and I talked to Gary about that too today. I guess I would just like to reiterate that if we keep the project costs down, that no matter what percentage we charge, the cost will be down to the people that are affected and I would just ' like to see that we do that. And that it was his feeling that we design for what happens between 75% to 85% of the time and not for a catastrophe. Bill said he had to be out of town this evening but he would be available to meet again with the engineers if it were necessary. He would be back on Wednesday. ' I guess one =tr ent I'd like to make on the assessment. I don't think we need to make a decision right now unless Council desires to do so. I don't think that will probably be until 1991 or so when that will came before us but with • Mr. Scholer's explanation of how the Village was involved and the road.has been called substandard, many people feel it was substandard to begin with. I would like to suggest that we do give a break and perhaps go with the 70-30. ' Mayor Chmiel: As opposed to 60-40? Councilwoman Dimler: Right. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? ' Councilman Boyt: I have a couple as we work down here. I think if the City's proposing, as I understood it, that 60% of the cost of this was replacing the existing road and 40% was bringing it up to city standards for an urban road. ' So what I hear the City saying is we're going to pay for 100% of replacing the existing road and we're going to ask the residents to pay for 100% of upgrading the road. Now maybe there are other scenarios but that sounds like exactly what we would do if this was a new development and we'd charge the residents 100% for the new road they got. Is that right? Gary, did you follow that? Gary Warren: I don't think I got all of it. Councilman Boyt: Well let's start at the end of it. When the City asks, when a developer comes in and builds a new road, how much of that does a developer typically pay for? ' Gary Warren: The developer covers all his costs for the installation. Passes than onto the property owners typically when they buy the lots. ' Councilman Boyt: And that would be, say in Chan Vista that would have been ashpalt plus curb and gutter. 25 City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 Gary Warren: Full city standard that is being constructed. Councilman Boyt: So the property owner is paying 100% of that and the people on Frontier paid 100% of whatever was built in 1968, I would assume. So now what the City is saying is we'll replace that, paying for all of it. Then they're II asking the people on Frontier Trail to pay for the upgrade. Gary Warren: T hat's basically what we've been saying. The 40% recognizes what for the most part wasn't built before. What's new to the roadway basically. Councilman Boyt: I agree that this deserves a whole separate hearing all by itself. Just on the face of it seems to make sense that we're asking the people on Frontier Trail to pay what we would ask any group to pay. Now maybe there's a hole in that logic somewhere and we've got a whole year and a half or 2 to figure out what the hole is. That's how it would seem'to me. The other, as far as reconstructing the road or not reconstructing the road, I asked Gary to make a very rough estimate and apparently we can count on spending, or this year we've spent sanewhere in the neighborhood of $5,000.00 to patch the road. Maybe more. Maybe a little less. In the ballpart of $5,000.00. Gary did an even rougher estimate to suggest that 2-3-4 years from now that would be looking at $15,000.00 a year. Maybe more. Maybe less but it's going to go up. That the study shows the road is shot. I think most of us who drive it would say that's probably right. So what I see the City looking at is do we want to rebuild the road and I honestly don't know if the city has the money to do that personally but if we go ahead, we're going to find the money somewhere. Or does the City I want to continue to pay an increasing amount to repair the road and try to keep it healthy from one winter to the next? Good question but I think a lot of that, I think it's well worth doing the plans and specifications because some day that road's going to cane out of there and when it does, we're going to need this information so I'd be all for getting it. I think when we do, that we should find out, because this is on the official city sidewalk trail map, we ought to do the plans and specifications for the sidewalk. It's very little additional cost and Gary tells me that it will change the way the road's laved out slightly if a sidewalk's put in there or not. So if we're ever going to do it, we ought to design the road so it can take it someday. Whatever that day is. So I would like to see us authorize the preparation of plans and specifications knowing that in all likelihood we'll probably proceed with this because we're going one more step down the path in that direction but I think the City needs to look at the question that Gary's raised about how are we going to fund these things. I think we're talking about $700,000.00, in that neighborhood, for this project and that's caning out of our bonding capacity, as I understand it. That's a big decision. So how in the long run are we going to fund this stuff? I can tell you that we're not going to do very many projects at $700,000.00 a pop out of our bonding capacity because we don't have that kind of money in that capacity. So I would like to see the preparation for plans and specifications approved with the addition of sidewalk plan. Councilman Johnson: Is that a motion? Mayor Chmiel: It's still open for discussion. Councilwattan Dimler: I would like to address that please. I think without public hearing or public input for this sidewalk, I would be relunctant to put it in and for one reason only and that is that once it's in the plan., people 26 1 I . City Council Meeting - 'tober 9, 1989 will come back and say, well see here it is. In the plan. We've got to put it in. I guess I don't have a real feeling for where the residents stand on •the sidewalk at this point and I would prefer not to put the sidewalk in at this l time. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think that's... Councilman Boyt: Well I'd like to respond to that. Correct me but we can't do it both ways. We either approve this to include those plans or we lose the opportunity to ever do that because that would mean coming back and redoing all the plans and specifications again. Councilwoman Dirtier: Gary, would you address that? ' Mayor Chmiel: For a sidewalk? Councilwoman Dimler: Is it possible to do just Frontier Trail and then put a sidewalk in later like we do with so many other roads? Gary Warren: Well we have been doing that the last year and a half now that ' we've gotten into the program. Let me say that it's more efficient to do it at that time. The plans could be prepared to show the sidewalk as an alternate and either bid it and not accept the alternate or don't bid the alternate but at least the plans could show so the design of the roadway, any horizontal or vertical alignment issues could be shown to accommodate the sidewalk and not go any further than that so at least we have made whatever provisions necessary in the road alignment to accommodate the sidewalk. ' Mayor Chmiel: What additional costs would that involve Gary for that distance? Gary Warren: I think from a design standpoint, since the design firms would be designing the sidewalk as part of it, he's entitled to his 6% fee which is typical for that so if we're looking at a $50,000.00 rough estimate for that sidewalk, it's a $3,000.00 cost roughly for including that in the plans and ' specs. Mayor Chmiel: Would it be the same distance as we have along Frontier as what we have on Laredo? Gary Warren: Same distance? ' Mayor Chmiel: Length. Gary Warren: I would think it'd be longer. It'd be pretty close probably. Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, did I hear you correctly. You're going to do two studies. One with a sidewalk and one without? Gary Warren: Studies? Councilwoman Dimler: I mean two specifications. Gary Warren: It would be one plan set and basically it would be dealt with in the actual bid proposal. Whenever the project is decided to be advertised for 27 1 City Council Meeting - Octrber 9, 1989 bids, at that time we either tell the... I Councilwoman Dimler: You can leave the sidewalk out at that point? Gary Warren: Yeah, we can delete it at that time or include it or bid it as an alternate to see what the dollars would be and still refuse to accept that - portion of the bid. So there is flexibility in it. Councilwoman Dimler: But you did say it would alter the road? 11 Bill Engelhardt: Can I just clarify one thing? If we take an alternate bid and the Mayor asked a question on:the design fee of the sidewalk. If you take the alternate bid, the engineer, my engineering fee is based on the award of bid so if you were not to award the sidewalk, you wouldn't be paying for the sidewalk as a design fee. What it does is it gives you the opportunity to have a price in front of you. You can take a look at it and say, gee does it make sense to put the sidewalk in at $1.00 a square foot because we got a good price. What the residents say. What the...say of if we get a $5.00 a foot it doesn't make any sense to do it so it gives you a lot of flexibility and then you can make a good decision as to whether it should go in or not. I guess I would say don't worry about the design fee which if it's not awarded, I don't get paid for it. Gary Warren: That's quite generous on Bill's part but I would think he'd be... Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to repeat that in the mic Bill? 1 Gary Warren: He'd be entitled to a fee if he wanted it. Councilman Johnson: So basically by including the sidewalk in the plans and I specs at this time, we'll have more information to put in front of the citizens when we talk about doing this project when we have the next meeting, which there will be more meetings for approval of plans and specifications. Which will be the time, at that time to say, okay do we want to do it? We'll have time between now and then to discuss these issues with the citizens without having to delay the project. 1 Mayor Chmiel: And whether or not do all the residents want sidewalks. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. That's the jest of it. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: That's alright with me as long as everyone understands that just because it's in the plans and specifications, it's not automatically I going in. Councilman Johnson: Nothing is automatic. Councilwoman Dimler: Well, sometimes that's the way it's presented. Councilman Workman: I don't have a whole lot of comments. This is a really 1 exciting topic. We're talking about an awful lot-of money. It puts us in a position the new council hasn't been in yet and we we're not talking about cracker jacks. If there ever were a test as to whether or not we should have a sidewalk on a certain road, this may very well be it. It's certainly not a cul-de-sac. I'll let the residents decide if they want a sidewalk or not. I 28 I 1 City Council Meeting - - -tober 9, 1989 think it should be 8 foot wide bituminous though on Jim's side. Just at Jim's house. With a bridge. Covered. I think we should move on this. I'm not going to bore everybody. I'm very interested in listening to this. I am intrigued by the per unit cost. I know those curves, when you really ask yourself the question what extra benefit is a person with more frontage in that situation going to have, I don't know that I've found the answer yet so saiebody's going to have to, I understand why you're doing it per foot and everything but that's 11 a bend, that's a pretzel. I would I guess go along with the sidewalk again and ask for Bill to restate his motion so maybe I can second it. Councilman Boyt: I would move that we authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for Frontier Trail utility and roadway improvements including the plans and specifications for a sidewalk. 11 Councilman Workman: Second. Resolution #89-110: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for Frontier Trail utility and roadway improvements including the plans and specifications for a sidewalk. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: Hopefull we won't, because a lot of the discussions we've had that the other issues, the side issues of how are we going to do this in the future and special assessment reduction funds and all these other issues... Mayor. Chm el: Case by case situation Jay. Councilman Johnson: Right but we need to be looking into that in a more comprehensive as more of these streets start going. ' PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF CSAH 14 RIGHT-OF-WAY. Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. Councilwoman Dinder: Second. Councilman Johnson: You've got to open the public hearing first. Mayor Chmiel! I already did. I called it as a public hearing. _ Councilman Johnson: I thought I heard somebody move to approve it. Mayor Chttiel: Gary? Councilman Boyt: Can we just see if there's anyone here from the public? Save some time. Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe that's a good idea. Is there anyone who has comments regarding the County State Aid Highway 14 right-of-way request to vacate? I 29 City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 Resident: I live there. I'd like to see what they're going to do there. Gary Warren: CR 14 recently this stirimer has been upgraded by the County and William's Pipeline has a petroleum easement that basically comes through this right-of-way area. The County has a 100 foot right-of-way. 50 foot on either side. William's Pipeline does not entertain or want to have to share an easement rights with the County for the roadway which is not untypical for petroleum products carrier so they have, in quite a bit of negotiations that they've had, they've actually' moved their whole pipeline out of the project area here at some considerable expense so what they have requested the County to do and the County has agreed in the resolution in your packet and has asked the City to also vacate because it impacts our Deerbrook subdivision, is to basically vacate the 5 foot piece of our right-of-way here which has the effect of adding 5 feet to each of these lots. Lot 1 and 2 and shrinks our right-of- way from 50 feet down to 45 feet off the centerline so the total, at least in this area where it will be vacated of a 95 foot right-of-way. The.road is built. It's a County road. We have sufficient right-of-way for that. We see no problems with vacating that extra 5 feet. It allows William's Pipeline to have the sole dedicated right-of-way for their pipeline. Councilman Johnson: So the two property owners of Lots 1 and 2 would then get that land as part of their idnd but it would still have William's Pipeline? Gary Warren: William's Pipeline easements still is there. Councilman Johnson: Right now it's not even part of their property. It's part of the County highway. Gary Warren: Right. So it goes from one to the other basically. I Mayor Chmiel: All you're doing is dropping from 100 to 95. Councilman Johnson: And the guy's probably already mowing it and anything. Taking care of it anyway. Gary Warren: I'd say there's no visible differences out there that you'll see. 1 It's just from a legal standpoint to address William's Pipeline's proprietary concerns for their petroleum easement. I Councilman Johnson: Does this go back then, would affect anybody's taxes? Gary Warren: It's an easement so I wouldn't think so. I Councilman Johnson: So it doesn't increase his acreage? Mayor Chmiel: Property value, no. I would say not. Anyone else wishing to ' address it? Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the lic hearing. Pub ng. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. I! 30 1