Loading...
6. Approve Plans & Specs for Frontier Trail Upgrade 1 i . C I TY OF CHANHASSEN ,.., . I • -: -• 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 •• .t (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action by City Administrant Endcrsd. II MEMORANDUM Moi:,r.:�.. Re}ec e.,.. -.-- TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager D3tF .;5 - _.3 pate Subrn; ec; to Co-milission IIFROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer Pete So'.r.:"°c tc Council DATE: March 7 , 1990 3 - ( - =%._ SUBJ: Approve Plans and Specifications for Frontier Trail Upgrade Improvement Project No. 89-10; Authorize Advertising for Bids The attached plans have been prepared as directed by the City Council for the upgrade of Frontier Trail from Highland Drive to Kiowa Circle. A neighborhood meeting was held on February 6, 1990 to receive input from the neighbors and to appraise them of II the specifics of the construction. Their input has been factored into the revisions to this final plan set. II The current engineer 's cost estimate including 30% overhead is $716, 000. We have reduced the magnitude of the storm sewer improvements by approximately $40 , 300. Similarly, we have used a more conservative sanitary sewer rehabilitation strategy which 11 has resulted in a $63,000 savings in project cost versus the total replacement option. II On the plus side of -the ledger we are recommending the replacement of some segments of watermain due to construction conflicts and repair experience which has added approximately $46,000 to the construction estimate. Similarly, the street 11 reconstruction cost is now estimated to be $401,500 versus the $281,000 feasibility estimate. This was necessitated due to the poor soils and our conservative approach. The total project cost IIin the feasibility study ranged from $537,700 to $707 ,200. The net result to the property owners under our earlier E assessment scenario is that the anticipated assessments are approximately the same as had been portrayed in the feasibility study hearing process ( see attached public hearing staff report II dated October 5, 1989 ) . The revised engineer 's cost estimate is broken down as follows: II II 11 Don Ashworth March 7 , 1990 Page 2 Sanitary Sewer $132,528 Storm Sewer 136 ,016 ' Watermain 45 , 955 Roadway 401, 465 TOTAL $715,964 SIDEWALK As directed by the City Council, the plans have been prepared to include a concrete sidewalk ( sheet 3 ) . It was initially thought ' that the left-hand side of the roadway as you are proceeding north would be the probable location for the sidewalk. Due to difficulties with matching driveway grades and slopes which would ' necessitate expensive retaining walls, the right-hand side of the roadway has surfaced as the preferred location and the plans reflect this decision . The estimated project cost for the sidewalk is $40 ,100 . As will be recalled, Engelhardt & ' Associates has agreed not to bill the City for the inclusion of this element in the design unless it is actually built by the City. 1 Plan sheets 13 and 14 show the landscape relocation plans for the five properties which have plantings in the City right-of-way which would be affected by this construction . A landscape ' architect has been utilized to prepare these detail plans . For the most part the approach has been to relocate existing plant stock or replace in-kind outside of the right-of-way area. The most extreme case is 7301 Frontier Trail where the plantings lie on a sharp bend which actually restricts sight distance to the driver. The relocation of these plants and bushes at this 11 location should be considered from a safety standpoint even if the City does not choose to construct the sidewalk. NSP OVERHEAD LINES On a related note, NSP has responded to our question concerning going underground with the overhead power on Frontier Trail. As noted in the attached February 15 , 1990 letter from NSP, they estimate a cost of $21,408 to accomplish this. The overhead power is located between 7220 and 7201 Frontier Trail which includes approximately 900 feet of line and six residences. This cost does not include the individual homeowner 's costs to convert their overhead service to underground which could run from $300 to $500 each. Based on this expense I presume there is no ' further interest in proceeding with this element. I I I. Don Ashworth March 7, 1990 Page 3 PETITION - SIDEWALK As City Council is aware, the attached petition was received by Mr. William Loebl of 7197 Frontier Trail indicating those property owners who do not want the sidewalk included in the Frontier Trail reconstruction project. It is my interpretation that the heart of this resentment lies in the assumption that the property owners would be individually responsible for the maintenance and snow removal on their property, although I could be wrong. ' The City currently has an unwritten policy relative to maintenance and snow removal on trails and sidewalks. Basically, Public Works staff has been directed to remove snow from sidewalks in commercial areas and sidewalk/trail areas which have a community benefit such as the carrying of major pedestrian traffic to community buildings, i .e. retail centers, schools, etc. The sidewalk on Laredo which feeds to the downtown area and Chanhassen Elementary School is an example of the kind that is cleared by Public Works staff. This is a subjective call on the part of staff . As was reviewed with the Lake Susan Hills trail issue, the City needs to formalize its sidewalk and trail policies as it relates to the maintenance and snow removal issues. Some cities such as Eagan choose to leave a portion of their trails unplowed during the winter. The question of liability does arise obviously. The City's nuisance ordinance, Section 13-2(c) (1 ) (attached) declares as follows: "The following are nuisances affecting public peace and safety: I (1) All snow and ice not removed from public sidewalks within twelve (12 ) hours after the snow and ice has ceased to be deposited thereon; " PETITION - FINANCING Concerning the financing of the project, Council will also note I in the attachments a second petition submitted by Mr. Bill Loebl on December 18 , 1989 indicating a preference for the front footage method of assessment for the project. The parties who are not in support of the front footage assessment method are primarily those on the corner lots or on the curves of Frontier Trail who would receive a higher assessment versus the unit assessment method. This office still supports the front footage assessment methodology in that it is a defensible and historical method for assessing this type of construction proportional to the magnitude of improvement to the property. 1 I I I Don Ashworth March 7 , 1990 Page 4 11 It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve the attached plans and specifications for the upgrade of Frontier Trail construction and authorize advertising for bids. It is further recommended that the front footage assessment policy be adopted for the project. ktm ' Attachments: 1. Plan set. 2 . October 5 , 1989 staff report. 3. October 9 , 1989 City Council minutes. 4 . Sidewalk petition dated February, 1990 . 5 . Assessment petition received 12/18/89 . 6 . March 5 , 1990 letter to Frontier Trail property owners . 7 . Affidavit of mailing dated March 5, 1990. 8 . Nuisance ordinance - snow/ice removal. c: Bill Engelhardt, Engelhardt & Associates 11 I 11 I I 1 I I I CITY bF -- . CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM Action by City tI^ Endorsee y __ O: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer DATE: October 5, 1989 _ 1 p i. SUBJ: Public Hearing for Frontier Trail Utility and Roadway Improvement Project No. 89-10; Authorize Preparation of -----/°119 Plans and Specifications On September 11, 1989, a public hearing was held to receive public comment on the subject project. Council took action at that meeting to remove Kiowa Circle roadway improvements from the project scope and tabled further action on the item to allay staff to do further research and respond to certain unanswered questions. As luck would have it, the legal notice for the September 11, 1989 hearing was not published in the newspaper and, as such, it is necessary to reconvene the public hearing on October 9, 1989. Testimony from the September 11, 1989 hearing will be incorporated into the official hearing record such that it does not need to be repeated. Revised notices were mailed to property owners explaining this situation and inviting them to this hearing. Likewise, the newspaper notices have been properly published. It is suggested that the public hearing be convened with the direction that the I minutes fran the September 11, 1989 hearing be incorporated into the hearing record and further, that any members of the public who have not had a chance to comment on the project or wish to clarify previous comments that they be invited to do so at this time. In response to the follow-up questions which staff was directed to research, Mr. Bill Engelhardt has prepared the attached response for consideration. Bill and I have discussed this at some length and I believe his attached report addresses the outstanding issues as best as possible at this point in the project. ASSESSMENT POLICY There appears to be sane understandable hesitancy in establishing the assessment policy for this project. I believe this is due to a large extent to the impli- cation that this policy will be the policy to stand forever for the City as we continue to rehabilitate future roadways. In contemplating this further, I I I 't • Don Ashworth - October 5, 1989 11 Page 2 believe such an endeavor goes beyond the scope of this project since a policy of that nature really needs the benefit of input fran a system inventory of the City's total street network. As has been acknowledged in previous discussions, ' almost every street in the City could have its own peculiarities which would make writing a comprehensive policy very difficult if not unmanageable. I believe the policies that we have presented from the camiunities surveyed have actually grown out of individual projects which these communities have under- taken in the past which, when compiled, have set the policy for the cities. It is therefore my suggestion that perhaps we step back fran the ominous task of establishing an overall street rehabilitation policy at this time and instead deal specifically with what is appropriate for the Frontier Trail properties. In this regard I continue to support the 60% cost participation on the part of the City as a reasonable and supportable policy for the roadway improvement por- tion of this project. Establishment of an overall policy as a part of implementing a "pavement manage- sent system" for the City is a goal and desire of this office. The Frontier Trail rehabilitation project will then factor in as one of perhaps several case studies to build the City's assessment policy from. It would be my recommendation therefore that 1) the upgraded roadway width be established at 27 feet fran gutterline to gutterline; 2) the front footage assessment policy be established as a guiding policy for this project; 3) that 40% of the roadway improvement costs and 50% of the storm sewer improvement costs be assessed to the benefitting property owners in the project area; and 4) that the City Council order the preparation of plans and specifications for the 1 Frontier Trail improvements from Highland Drive to, but not including, Kiowa Circle and that the firm of Engelhardt & Associates continue as the City's design engineer on this project. Attachments 1. Staff report dated September 7, 1989. 2. September 11, 1989 City Council minutes. 3. October 4, 1989 letter supplement from Bill Engelhardt. 1 4. Copy of public hearing notice to property owners. 5. Copy of public hearing notice to newspaper. c: Bill Engelhardt I I I I 7 C1TYOF -- 1 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM NOTE: It might be advisable to II bring your copy of the feasibility TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager study to this meeting. If you 'need an additional copy, please FROM: Gary Warren, City Enginee contact Kim at City Hann.by City Administreor DATE: September 7, 1989 _ Worse lda:i�a SUBJ: Public Hearing for Frontier Trail Utility and Roadway R° +ste Improvements; Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications Ate S�tl�t eA i C;,:,1 n File No. 89-10 male., W i,,fitCi -1,- On July 24, 1989, the City Council accepted the feasibility study for utility and roadway improvements to Frontier Trail from Highland Drive to Kiowa Circle. A neighborhood meeting was held on August 30 , 1989 and over 25 people were in attendance as noted on the attached roster. A presentation of the project was made by City staff and our consultant, Bill Engelhardt, and a healthy discussion ensued relating to a number of topics. In general, there was strong support for upgrading Frontier Trail. The questions and comments related more specifically, as might be expected, to the magnitude of the improvements and the cost participation on the part of the residents. The following are a few highlighted comments or questions from the meeting: i 1. Will the road be widened and, if so, how is this done? It is our desire to construct and upgrade the existing road I section which varies from 24 to 26 feet wide to the standard City road section which is 31 feet from back of curb to back of curb. This may not be possible or practical and during the design phase of the project this will be closely looked at such that a compromise may need to be struck between the width of the road versus the environmental harm which may result from encroaching further into trees and boulevard areas. 2. Will the cost for sanitary sewer repairs be assessed? I No. Any repairs to the sanitary sewer system are proposed to be covered by the City's trunk sewer funds. The feasibility assumes total relay of all sanitary sewer which, in all like- ' lihood, will be reduced during design. I 11 ' Don Ashworth September 7, 1989 Page 2 3. Why is so much storm sewer proposed for the project? To be conservative, a complete storm drainage system has been 11 proposed in the feasibility study. With the addition of barrier curbing, more drainage will be captured in the road- way section, thus necessitating more catch basins to properly l' convey storm water off of the roadway surface. It was evi- dent from the meeting that some residents believe there are little or no drainage problems on the roadway, while others, probably those who live in low areas, believe that the storm sewer system is indeed necessary and that the roadway does have problems. This will be reviewed in detail as a part of the design and proper engineering standards will be applied to the roadway design to accommodate the drainage. 4. What assessment rate will be chosen? This will be up to the discretion of the City Council. The feasibility study has laid out three assessment scenarios for consideration as examples. There were obviously those that felt that the City should pay for the entire upgrade but there were others who could understand and had no problems with paying for roadway improvements which were not pre- ' viously paid by them, i .e. concrete curb and gutter or a wider road/increased road section strength. On a public improvement project, a minimum of 20% must be assessed per State Statute. Our calculations show that, in general terms, the costs for upgrading the roadway with concrete curb and gutter, widening if possible and installing a stronger road- way section would amount to approximately 40% which could be considered as new improvements to the roadway which would be an assessable amount consistent with some other cities. 5 . Why haven't you talked to more cities in your sampling? The five cities which we surveyed we felt had provided us with a good enough cross-section and understanding in that community policies range across the board, depending on local preferences, for funding projects of this nature. This goes all the way from zero participation on the part of the pro- perty owners up to 100% assessments of improvements. While additional communities could be talked to, it was felt that indeed this was a reasonable sample. The ultimate funding policy will depend on City budgets and philosophy. The results of our discussions to date would suggest that the City could go with any approach it felt reasonable. 6 . Is it necessary to include Kiowa Circle in the project scope? I/ 1 Don Ashworth _ September 7, 1989 I/ Page 3 A collapsed sewer pipe and open offset joint exists at 183 feet south of the manhole on Frontier Trail. Vertical misa- lignment and evidence of leaking exists from this point to the manhole in the cul-de-sac. Therefore, approximately the I upstream 115 feet of this line needs to be relayed in Kiowa Circle. This could be done at some future date since it likes outside of the Frontier Trail construction; however, from the economics of scale standpoint I would still recom- mend it be included in this project scope. 7. Numerous questions relating to City maintenance policy and I fund expenditures in the past were also fielded. Attached is a letter from Bill and Babs Arons which was received at the public information meeting which hits on these items and a number of other comments for consideration. I felt that the meeting was very well attended and some very positive discussion resulted. Our consultant, Mr. Engelhardt, will be prepared as a part of the public hearing discussion to present the findings of further items that he has researched since the public information meeting. At the close of the public hearing it would therefore be appropriate to authorize the pre- paration of plans and specifications for this project. As a part of the design effort, the project scope will be further refined. Similar to Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain construction, addi- tional opportunities for public input will be provided as speci- fics of construction become apparent relating to individual properties. Attachments ! 1. Neighborhood Meeting Roster. 2. July 19 , 1989 Staff Report. 3. Memorandum from Bill and Babs Arons. 4. Kiowa Circle sewer line inspection report. c: Bill Engelhardt I I I I • _ I . . - • • i ' __ I A#1,447 i .._ 1 IQ A.......A... 044,1444 etio -0- •-.i r el-dAt / AzAbs......., 7.z.7..4 7A....z..; fl I , , )...Vaec-- 1\cic,_ .Fc-s. .-... \,1/4r...L9 1 • , /- ----- 1-2-00 ezthAt) &i,fic 93 cz-- c7i -//5--• _ ____.1111111-107 v-,.. e iJi.;.... husixt-----) --)31a P"...74;.- 7.-.w:/ 93V-43'797_, 1 1-17,. . 13-fP4.4.ci: ,aQ i-__.,-, ..i., „ 3.--,_ __. 90 cf zz.../ g.-_ ___ ..____ .._.._ .. Dc N iii45-6-7/4. ._ __73.37,__ I5A44.c.c...-4a44:4 721S- _Fge Amer 7:2_ ._ ._ .. . "1. 471- -02-W_ _. EXIA,,,,ii! /7/Pbc.-7,— gee /-lici./m/4) .Zie • --.- _.._.,. _9-07 .5-3 _ I ._ .__ .._ . 77A°Y71.4F - . V w / .17 .k,2 , 7;44.11-....-. - 9,Y4?gd 9:----■--- 1 -- . i.:'CA.14a° glAg/t;/75 72// .01 ,1.777 7z// fil 41777e, _.. ... I _ _____. 4_,..s.z.-- 2.-- r _czy.d.-7--,.72.r._—__ ._ -tEscuz:As _ ,-.......dtru,4--1-..„ 111 /3://4-- e/4„.11-- . I 7 0 7 e..4" .74 ,L. -k ' (5-624:-01-14tE4A.tri 0- .r.-L - 93 7-g-V/4 Sct--4-4-\, (.1 e-4 .-- i-Ps.._ U ....:--____ . 41,42-e-X-144-r1,44..e.,zei 7 2,of ,,,t_e_,i,-7.,...,:z., __ Y3 \ / ...____.. ____. ._ ._9.;■,77 Cj n:J.:_g cala 7 3 3/ 3 a' F 4,00(...Ze4- . P3 s"- oz., .... __... I---- l---.-.. Vk•i\o-c-r el SLc.F-c-c)-N-- ek-- .7Viz.S2 - (MS.--,1355— t<cu 14 .,?,1-2._. mr1k..I Litc3L. 931-1 - 7 0 17 I - 6-,AA 1L„\t- 7a$34 I 4, • . . � CITYOF 1 cHANHAssEN ` - �.- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 Action by allf kdRAnMne j MEMORANDUM fneatsrd � Ill R%+r. I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager r,� 1- / ->r/ V4-11%--j :ate:.ccmired to CommiNbq FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer DATE: July 19, 1989 - into Submitted m GuuxuM 7-7,4f_SCI SUBJ: Accept Feasibility Study for Utility and Roadway Improvements to Frontier Trail from Highland Drive to Kiowa Circle; Call Public Hearing II File No. 89-10 On April 10 , 1989 the City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility study for utility and roadway improvements to Frontier Trail from Highland Drive to Kiowa Circle. Attached is the feasibility study as prepared by Bill Engelhardt for the City. The project basically deals with three elements of improvements I for this road segment, namely street reconstruction, sanitary ' sewer rehabilitation and storm sewer upgrading. The street reconstruction is relatively straightforward based on the City's II previous investigative work that has been done. Basically, due to the poor subgrade and lack of adequate drainage, the road is in need of total reconstruction. This is estimated to cost $307,620. II The sanitary sewer and storm sewer upgrade is a little more sub- jective at this point, namely since there are alternatives II available for sanitary sewer rehabilitation which, if effective, can substantially reduce the financial commitment. Likewise, the amount of storm sewer and catch basins which may be necessary on II Frontier Trail will be thoroughly reviewed as a part of the design process. At present, the feasibility study presents a worst case cost sce- I nario for removing and replacing virtually all of the sanitary sewer underneath the pavement and extensive installation of storm sewer and catch basins throughout the roadway. The total project II cost estimate is $707,227. If a sealing and testing repair program is possible for the sanitary sewer rehabilitation, approximately $170,000 can be eliminated from this program. In all reality, I would expect that the construction plans and II 1• II ' Don Ashworth July 19, 1989 11 Page 2 II specifications would reflect a combination of sealing .repairs and reconstruction. Rehabilitation of Kiowa Circle is also being proposed at this time to address the fact that sanitary sewer repairs are warranted for the sewer on Kiowa Circle which, if not IIdone at this time, would necessitate excavating the upgraded Frontier Trail at some future date which obviously would not be wise. IIThe storm sewer upgrade includes the construction of concrete barrier curb and gutter to better convey and handle the storm II water drainage in the street section. The cost for barrier ver- sus surmountable curbing -is relatively the same and since all the . driveway curb cuts are known at this time it would be appropriate to construct barrier curbing in this road section. IIAs a part of the preparation of plans and specifications, it would also be wise to address the infiltration/inflow contribu- II tion which the City receives from properties in this general area due to foundation and/or sump pump drains connected to the sani- tary sewer system. The benefit of constructing an extensive - storm sewer system would be to connect all foundation drains I along this frontage to the storm sewer system. This will in all likelihood require building inspections to be performed to iden- tify the internal plumbing. City Ordinance (Section 19-44 ) II requires that clear water sources of this nature not be discharged to the sanitary sewer system although this has been poorly enforced over the years due to various reasons. Assessment/funding scenarios are presented in the report. A review was conducted of several communities where street rehabi- litation programs are an annual budget commitment to receive some 1 idea as to what other communities are doing. The results of this investigation are contained in the report and basically show that it is somewhat subjective in nature. Although the assessment hearing, which will be conducted at the conclusion of the construction, is the forum where the assessment policy would be finalized, it has always been prudent and a preference of the City to deal with the assessment policies up front so that 1 surprises do not arise at the hearing phase after the project has been completed. In that perspective, it appears that the 43% assessment scenario very closely approximates the increased road- !' way benefit being provided on this project. Likewise, utilizing the City's policy for storm sewer construction, 50% of the storm sewer would be assessed. Obviously, any work required on the homeowners ' part for disconnecting foundation drains or repairing II service lateral leaks on private property would indeed be the responsibility of the private property owner. The improvements to the sanitary sewer system would, by rights, be funded from the II City's Sewer Expansion Fund No. 401 and likewise, although no watermain repairs are anticipated for this area, any field con- dition which warrants watermain repairs would be funded out of II II ) • I/ Don Ashworth July 19, 1989 Page 3 I. the Water Expansion Fund No. 402. As you will recall , we have budgeted $150,000 in the Sewer Expansion Fund for 1989- for sewer repairs to eliminate infiltration/inflow. We likewise are anti- II cipating a similar commitment for the 1990 and future Sewer Expansion Fund budgets. A comment is also appropriate at this time to further address the II need for a storm sewer utility fund to be established for the City to provide a vehicle for addressing the storm sewer upgrades such as are proposed in this study. Without a fund of this I nature the $88,146 of storm sewer improvements not being assessed will need to be funded through a bond issue. . IIThe report contains in the appendix preliminary assessment rolls for the various funding/assessment options. As noted above, the actual assessment roll would not be compiled and adopted until II after the construction project has been completed. Since this is a public improvement project, the next step after acceptance of the feasibility study would be to call a public II • hearing. Due to the uniqueness of this project and the new policy being considered by the City concerning street reconstruction and utility repair, it is my suggestion that a neighborhood meeting be held to invite the interested public in the project area to discuss the policies and receive input on the project on a more informal basis. Any inputs and modifications to the feasibility study could then be prepared based on this public input as appro- II priate and revised documents submitted for a• formal public hearing. The project schedule, as I see it, would result in construction I most likely in the spring of 1990. I believe that the design phase of this project needs to be thorough enough to address the project challenges and therefore will take perhaps a little more II time then normal. The public input element will also add three to four weeks to the schedule. There is an advantage to this in that the construction documents would be prepared during the late summer and fall of this year and bidding could then be done during a more favorable bidding climate. It is therefore my recommendation that the attached feasibility II study prepared by William R. Engelhardt & Assocates be accepted and that a public information meeting be held to receive local input on this project. It is further recommended that the formal public hearing on this report be held September 11, 1989. II Attachments II1. April 5, 1989 staff report. 2. Feasibility study. 3. Memorandums concerning the City's sealcoat maintenance program. ' 4 . Section 19-44 of the City Code. c: Bill Engelhardt 11 - II �1 aE I 1 i IN■ 7 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 IIMEMORANDUM V _tt/A TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager "`' g-- IIFROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer -_ ;,_,"' S DATE: April 5, ` Apri , 1989 - ;M::. T,:.;J :J wear SUBJ: Authorize Feasibility Study for Utility and Roadway Improvements to Frontier Trail from Highland Drive to Kiowa 11 Project No. 89-10 11 When Frontier Trail was first constructed around 1967, little did people know that to travel on this roadway in the 1980s would be as challenging as its name implies. The roadway has been repaired and patched and sealcoated over the years; however, it II has diminished to such a state that continued maintenance of this nature is truly a waste of money since these are only band-aid solutions and a major operation is needed for the cure. In 1988 , the City contracted for a "Road Rater" deflection - testing of the pavement surface to determine if complete replace- IIment of the roadway section and reconstruction of the sub-base would be necessary or if instead some sort of remedial overlay could be conducted on this roadway section. The results of the Road Rater analysis had confirmed that the sub-base of the road- , way has deteriorated to such an extent that complete reconstruc- tion is in order for a majority of the roadway. In addition, the storm drainage system in this area needs to be upgraded as well as some isolated sanitary sewer and watermain 'repairs which would be prudent to undertake as long as the road- way surface is being replaced. The City televised the sanitary sewer in this area in 1987 to locate these areas of rehabilita- tion. This would also be the time where we would notify the respective private utilities such as gas, telephone, cable and II electric to give them an opportunity to make any necessary impro- vements to their systems and in the case of electric, to consider undergrounding of this utility similar with new subdivisions in IIthe City. This project will be unique in that it is the first residential roadway in the City to be considered for reconstruction. This II feasibility study will therefore blaze the trail in helping us to II r Don Ashworth April 5, 1989 II Page 2 establish policy as far as the funding of improvements of this II nature, including any appropriate assessment policies. It has been common practice in other communities where pavement manage- ment systems are in place and street reconstruction is an annual II event, to assess a portion of the reconstruction and upgrade costs to abutting property owners. The policies vary from com- munity to community but in general terms, if a roadway is being II widened or curb and gutter is added when it was not in place . before, the abutting residents are normally looked at to pay for the cost for the new elements of the roadway and the costs for restoring the existing portions of the roadway and utilities is II _ borne by the community. This needs to be looked at in full detail as a part of the feasibility study and will be appropriately addressed since the cost estimates for the rehabi- litation will also be presented in the report. II The City has a number of older streets in town which are can- didates for improvement and once we have established a program, II the next likely candidate after Frontier Trail would be the Chan Estates area, i.e. Cheyenne road and the old town area (see attached letter to Elinor Kerber) . It is therefore my recommen- dation that the City Council authorize the preparation of a II feasibility study for utility and roadway improvements for Frontier Trail from Highland Drive to Kiowa and that it prepared II by the firm of William R. Engelhardt & Associates. Attachments I 1. Location map. 2.. Letter from A. L. Brock dated April 7, 1988. II 3. Road Rater sheets. 4. Letter to Elinor Kerber dated April 3, 1989. cc: Bill Engelhardt I . - A. L. Brock Manager's Comment: it should be noted: 1. Sealcoat Program: When the sealcoat program was initiated in II the early 1980's , it was noted that a majority of the City' s streets were in good condition and, through such a main- tenance program, we could reasonably assure that the lives of these streets could be maintained well into the future. The II lower portion of Frontier Trail, Chanhassen Estates, and potentially Scholer' s Addition (West 76th/Chan View/Iroquois) were specifically identified as streets not meeting City ' II standards. By contrast, once these areas were brought up to City standards, the City would insure that the life was main- tained in those streets through continuous maintenance. It I • I •. . _a }(S Manager's g Comment Page 2 is difficult to assess property owners for street costs; 11 however, Carver Beach, Greenwood Shores, old town section, West 79th Street, downtown, business park, Pleasant View, are all areas where new streets were installed either separately or in combination with utility work and the costs assessed back to property owners. All new streets, as a part of our Y:( ( Subdivision Ordinance, are required to meet current standards - curb and gutter/full depth. These owners have also paid for those streets via purchasing their lots. It was and is staff' s belief that it is not reasonable to have maintenance dollars pay for roadways which have'4een brought up to reasonable standards. Memorandums as considered by the City Council in establishing the seal maintenance program are proposed to be included with the feasibility study. DWG' r I I I I I I •%' � I •; FOXTAIL �IM • ■ =,I I,■II■ '. v. M ... a � COURT . " Wit,♦ ;� PL. p e--1 111111 Mr 1.4.,A w. •p4b Vil all '' ; - IMMO litAkitil (1 s \ „,--____:- Ak 11. 1 UM WI e offlva•ZU ' ' . ,,, % . "11..- rill, __sigt. . • ..r7-4-. A a vii. -. \ (7 KW v t •40111 rJ'�•.-. , a . at, _ \�J \��/// ifMN•- snit:� ter. r7, twos � f► 1 k ' '� frirw = 44; , ,. MIL6RU .ROCS •M��` 0R. , L 0 / v .7 -��� J a � It RN Wiwi i=ce �� �.7 4A wrI _ ,t ��...�inn- Are ix' si IiiL on ro. to.firk:,: ,...z. 16.1:: ini,...4?3, ). I'l eig,,,- iv: i-;,!..14,7,.: " _vv. 0 PAW,-/ Inaiiiii es ..-Ttr..: ::: 1 _* it,. . " • , �isawnsi l .■ Mme fills*• S �, iliMr .(' L. r ipren11,� ar ,vili inure■ Iv' VIE a 11. I. is 47 A� L A KF" ��( I� �l �j t% sr qW %10 Wee lalb, \. / •., $ -- -.-.'' - lova ..,. `7°' ' Elimi*N-1/4 % - am og - !, 00400 I ■ �{• • v Er/tl�i� u r1�AL c ar tabgi Wil cn po, „so■ 0,,,,,177;74 im. rm.* iimb A s gg mit,, i.„ O i, Ik\i ,fit iggi■ I. cL + 01.1. �© QED■■ � j� 0 wec mr.7 �s� - t , Wr - . IntUn 11111 1111111 .k Q �t� c • ■ ug C !2tr'' �_. 11 cau > - !DR• 1 ki,„ i 11111111111s ®sr te, meNl llii' /W 1 ' etc R1YE '• mpu 1 t� cps ! 4ISP I- el Ion' Wr. 4E7" / 1. ft0•0 II "'" diL,-(1-..t.... 1111_.___.- .-- ' -4■410,,,,,i , s 04 Liu er.,1 ' pAcl, ._ -+_'_ q TE i. �• _______s_,7. --___.1 HIGHWAY o �r ,dio of iik i x,14 7 1 April 7, 1988 Mr. Gary Warren ' • City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Gary: This is to follow—up on our conversation at City Hall on March 29, 1988. 11 As discussed, I am greatly concerned with two problem curbing and run—off drain to Lotus Lake, which is located aon the rnorth hside of my home. As stated, last summer the swale area was blocked by debris, and during the July storm turned into a raging river which came within five feet of my home. As a direct result, over $8,000 of property damage occurred, none of which was insured. I called City Hall on four occasions and was told the curbing on the east side of Frontier Trail leading to the drain would be repaired. Also, that the drain would be kept clean at all times. Instead, a crew repaired the west curb and I have personally cleared the drain area twice. This is a potentially dangerous situation, not only due to flooding again, but also the embankment above the drain was weakened and the ground could give way at any time. Your immediate attention to the curbing and drain area will be greatly appreciated. The second area of concern is the 7100, 7200 and 7300 section of Frontier Trail. The road is literally destroyed and needs to be repaired. Last week, a child was almost run over as a car hit one of the huge potholes and momentarily lost control. This section of Frontier Trail has been in dire need of attention for the past few years, and should be given attention before a serious accident occurs. Also, perhaps by repairing this section of Frontier Trail, a good portion of the drain problem will be reduced. Pieces of asphalt are constantly washed down from the 7300 block and clog the drain. If there is anything I can do as a property owner who pays over S5,000 year in property tax, to edpedite these matters, please contact me. 11 I thank you in advance for your concern and attention. Sincerely, A.L. Brock 7203 Frontier Trail Chanhassen. Minnesota a5317 1`.:a 934-9539 11 ALB:jm ;,1( 1 2 V 19400 +� cc: Mayor Tom Hamilton Chanhassen City Council Saste)A Mat A 6ficoll 4(7.14 0 • M.ra "ale Roams CW'LA"'t 4,o pi • wit *Air P , ,y • - *' CITY OF CHANHASSEN 11 MEMORANDUM p'E ` I AUG S O 1989 TO: Chanhassen City Council Members FROM: Bill and Babs Arons ENGINEERING DEPT. 7211 Frontier Trail Chanhassen I RE: Frontier Trail Feasibility Study Report (7/20/89) by Englehardt Associates, Inc . DATE: August 4, 1989 I offer the following comments as my personal opinion of the above noted report. These comments are intended to be constuctive and to be in the long-term interest of the ever-growing City of Chanhassen. Our family has resided at 7211 Frontier Trail for almost 18 years. Also. as a Civil Engineer with 23 years of experience I believe that I understand the technical and construction issues within the report. I. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS I There is no doubt in my mind that the roadway should be re-built in 1990 to the current City standards, which includes concrete curb and gutter. Financing discussion to follow. I II. SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS. Trusting that the decision is made to re-build the road, the I only logical sanitary sewer option is complete replacement of the 30 year old system. A. The annual MWCC treatment costs will be lower. B. Repairs will not be needed again in a few years. C. Funding is available with "trunk sewer"funds. 11•. .III . STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS In the 18 years that we have lived here I have not been 1 aware of any significant "storm drainage" problems which occur on a frequent or recurring basis. It is true that there are certain isolated areas which require improvement. I do not feel that it is appropriate to expend $176,293 when it might be possible to correct those isolated problem areas . I at a much smaller expense. I t • } 1/ 1 IV. FINANCIAL PLAN IIA. Construction cost estimate. The estimates as presented have a very conservative 30% factor for those "other costs" . Are these 1990 costs? IIB. Assessment Policy of Chanhassen. II Appendix B presents a brief summary of policies which are in effect at six communities of varying size. I recommend that a detailed survey of assessment policies for 20-25 cities (with a population of under 10,000) be prepared by City IIstaff . The League of Cities may have this information. The use of a 43-57 cost split (street constuction) does not 11 appear to have any rational basis and should be reviewed in greater detail . I Is it time again to review the current assessment policy, if in fact, one does exist? The City has experienced significant growth in he past few years and the citizens may benefit from certain improvements in municipal policy. IIC. Annual Revolving Fund--Municipal Improvements II It seems that there are many positive features and few fPgat4VP goncornA for Th4; typo of fNnd for the #®l1ewiRB municipal uses; II1 . Annual storm sewer improvements 2. Annual road upgrade/improvement projects IIThe consulting engineer (Englehardt) supports this funding mechanism as do 3 of the 6 cities surveyed (Appendix B) IFunding will always be available on an annual basis. The • decision by the City Council will be to allocate those funds II to the projects which have the highest priority and which are in the best interest of the citizens of Chanhassen. - I strongly support the establishment of this type of funding IIfor the Frontier Trail Roadway Improvement project. 1 II II I _ . - VISU-SEJER CLEAN & SEAL, INC. ) TELEVISION INSPECTION N59 W14397 Bobolink Ave,Me • nomonee Fens,WI 53051 14141 252-3203 AND I 2849 Hedberg Or.,Minnsspoks.MN 55343 1612)593-1907 GROUTING R E P O R T C _ SANITARY X STORM DATE October 29, 1987 Kiowa Circle IF LOCATION DIRECTION DS to the North FROM MH 3 SURFACE Asphalt To MH 2 PIPE TYPE 8" VCP - 5' Section ■ LENGTH 294' - VIDEO TAPE 5 : 4100 - 4985 CONNECTIONS TEST CHEM. FTG OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS L TOP R PRES. GALS 0 MH 3 7 Vertical misalignment to 26' 62 Mineral deposits at joint 67 Y Mineral deposits at service . 74 Y . Service running • 91 Vertical misalignment to 111 ' 111 Camera under water to 112' 112 Open offset joint and sheared pipe (Unable to proceed) Reverse set-up, viewing US to the South 0 MH 2 tut. Es.0&Am. 'MAIL 183 Open offset joint and sheared pipe I (Unable to proceed) • 1 1 1 1 I C 1 PROJECT Chanhassen, Minnesota PAGE NO. 125 • ' City Council Meeting - pptember 11, 1989 ) I . UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 3, KURVERS POINT, ROBERT CONKLIN. II Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant asked us that this be withdrawn. They are going to go through the subdivision process now and same things have changed. IIPUBLIC HEARING: FRONTIER TRAIL UTILITY AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. . 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 with our public information neighborhood meeting, I see we have a good turnout I of residents which we certainly appreciate. In the staff report I tried to address for Council's consideration same of the items, at least the key items 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 ug quickly those items briefly and then Bill is here also to give any further follow-up but we can, at your discretion, go into the public hearing. This is a public hearing, as you II 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 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 same 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 1 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 closer to 26-27 feet wide as it currently stands from our measurements so we II 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 holding a 27 foot roadway width gutter to gutter which using the barrier curbing IIthen would give us a 28 1/2 foot roadway section out there. Mayor Qimiel: Gary, .what does this do to some of the property owners that have trees? may 1 Gary Warren: We think it will be very compatible with it because basically we II will be holding that gutter line as it stands with sane minor exceptions on same 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, it appears that we do have right-of-way without trees or any major conflicts so II 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 item that I listed was the cost of the sanitary sewer repairs. If they were II going to be assessed. As I think the Council is aware from our budget process 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 II 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 look in the design of the project and reduce that cost somewhat but it indeed, II35 1 ' City Council Meeting - Se. Imber 11, 1989 I/ 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 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 don't have a cost in the feasibility study for that but we may indeed run into sane cast iron pipe that may need to be replaced and that would cane 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 same 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 II policy here. The prevailing attitude that at least I interpretted fran 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 I 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 sane numbers together on that. II 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 II do came 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 sane 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 sane maintenance here that may have been deferred or whatever and here's a percentage that should not be assessed. While I'm touching on that, I was asked to look at comparable dollars for building a new II 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 CEO. 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 ill funded and those would come out of the general fund and both of those, that 36 II II ' City Council Meeting - utember 11, 1989 ) ! - 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 ids. 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 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 were totally assessed. There was a comment that was made in a letter that we 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 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 Frontier 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 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 I 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 caning up around the curve and then caning 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 staying at the existing gutter seers 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. 1 Councilman Boyt: Bill excuse me but maybe you could turn that. 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 alignment 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 screen. 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 right on the existing curb line and we feel very comfortable with putting the 37 1 City Council Meeting - Se; amber 11, 1989 ) 1 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. This is a B618 barrier curb and it's 26 inches across the bottom. Surmountable curb that you see in new subdivisions is 28 but the driving lane area is 18 II versus 10 1/2 so it leaves us same 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 carne up that we only looked at 5 cities and some of them they didn't II 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 II cities that we did look at, you can get a pretty good feel for how they cane 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. Golden Valley was II strictly a 40-60 with residents at the 40 and city at 60. St. Louis Park was 60 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, II 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% ill 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 II 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 II behind the curb because some 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 II 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. II 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. i 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. I 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 II II %wAU wui.eC 11 r ULing septema11, 1989 I . figure Bill? II1r- Bill Dngelhardt: 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. ' Gary Warren: St. Louis Park is, if I'm interpretting Bill right, $16.00 is the max that they would ever see right? ' Bill 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 II40% 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 II 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 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. W would like to be able to implement a pave and management system 39 1 City Council Meeting - SeI "fiber 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? . Gary Warren: Right. Out of the GO. Councilman Boyt: Yeah. 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 with it. _ I Bill Engelhardt: Just a couple of more real quick items on some of the comments fran the meeting. From 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 11 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. Ontlot 3 is in this particular area and it runs all the way [111111 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 40 1 11 �-►�: w�uxx1 meeting -. ptember 11, 1989 ) of 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 II Ir- street and it's probably unlikely that he could sustain...but that's something 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 Frontier Trail as a part of this project. They'll have to take a look at their system and get an estimate to the City. That would also be a cost I guess. 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 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 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 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. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll open it up for public hearing. Any discussion? 1 Does anyone have anything to bring forward? 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, 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 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 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 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 will speak for then and I see 3 or 4 of then are here tonight, including 2 of I the council persons, that the expending those dollars on that street are very, 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 IIbeen telecast? Has that been camera scoped? 41 I City Council Meeting - Se bnber 11, 1989 ) 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 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 forme , as a business person to understand that. I think maybe the cure is worse than the cancer. Thank you. Any questions? Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions? I guess not. Is there anyone II else that would like to address this? Joel Jenkins: Joel Jenkins, 7226 Frontier Trail. We've had several discussions I with Bill and Gary and so on. Sane 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 II 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 canes 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 canfortable with the fact that Bill II is going to design that in the appropriate manner and not overdesign it as the study shows. So I feel real camfortable with that. However the width of the street I'm still somewhat uncomfortable with. It's my understanind in the 8 IIII years that I've lived there, at least one accident has occurred which resulted in a death because of the curviness of our street. Arid you know when Frontier 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 same 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 I I Lary uouncrl Meeting - ` ptember 11, 1989 1 - street 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- !' 1r- 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 is no question about the fact that we will, we should have a new road. The question that I would like to 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 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 same 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. 11 Tom Pzynski: My name is Tan 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 seers 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? Wbuld 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. Zb us it meant that the front footage was a very fair and equitable way of spreading the costs in this particular project. Don 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 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. 11/ L 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 1 f ' I street up. The street is far from 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 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. Sane 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 , all the way. And for now, for me to all of a sudden say that I have to incur such a stringent cost on this whole assessment, I don't really agree with. I go along 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 Tom Pzynski had previously asked about with assessing owners based on units versus frontage foot. The neighbors, our neighborhood is predominantly very similar size homes. Very similar size homes. 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 from 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. Fran 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? 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 1 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 111: there. Oh pictures. And who are these little children? 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 1 City Council Meeting -.—Jptemher 11, 1989 I . like they could have been concrete or they were very highly beveled and they II ir- 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 ' research on it. That's all I can say. Our records, at least from what we checked, weren't that clear. That's not to say that things aren't added from a street maintenance standpoint without a plan. ' Arlis Bovy: Can we be assured that this will be checked into? Councilman Johnson: Yes. ' Mayor Chniel: Check it out. Gary Warren: I will check it out. Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, are you sure it was bituminous and not concrete? II Gary Warren: Well fran 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 I hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' 45 I City Council Meeting - Se, ober 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 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 today on our sewer charges because one of the points made was that our bills to the Metropolitan Waste Control Coninission 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 coming down. I guess I just wanted to point that out that the sanitary sewer there is not an emergency type of situation. So I would move that before we consider the rest of the project, that we an the project to take out Kiowa Circle. Councilman Johnson: Is that it? Mayor Cmiel: 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 it at this particular time. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Table the whole project or just... Mayor Cmiel: Table, not the full project. Table it until all the questions that were brought up by the residents be answered. Councilman Johnson: Specifically? Mayor Ciniel: Specifically many factors brought up about the curbs such as now. Councilman Johnson: You mean what was brought up tonight? 1 Mayor Cmiel: Yes. This evening. Councilman Johnson: Well why don't we wait until the Council finishes discussing it so our concerns can be brought up too? Mayor Cmiel: 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 discussion. Councilwoman Dimler: I made a motion which was not seconded to take Kiowa Circle out of the project. ' Mayor Cmiel: 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 I W.u,L.,.l nee-tang , pptember 11, 1989 ) II - Councilwoman Dimler: I would just like to see it taken off since if we take it off then the discussion becomes freer to discuss Frontier Trail. Councilman Boyt: It does. That's true. Councilwoman Dimler: It's not so confusing. Councilman 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 gathering of additional information. Preparation of plans and specifications says let's get more specific. I think some of the 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 asked to do anything other than gather more information as it is. Isn't that right? Gary Warren: The questions, at least the way I have read them, relate to the assessment policies which as I think Council is aware, is dealt with in a separate 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 Council feels comfortable with the scope of the Pe 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. II Councilman Boyt: If we get there better 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. ' Gary 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. Councilman Boyt: Roger tells me it's very expensive to do plans and specifications and sa maybe tabling is the smarter move. A couple of the issues 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 homeowners who are going to be assessed for this, I being one of them, it seems 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 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. 11 Councilman 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. 47 City Council Meeting - Se' Timber 11, 1989 Chuck Dimler: No, one side. Councilman Boyt: Okay, so there's really 590? Gary Warren: 590 front feet. Councilman Boyt: Kiowa Circle, the road condition, never having studied the engineering study that you did on that, just looking at it. It doesn't look in great shape to me. Now long do you think it will last? What's your engineering estimate? We don't get a lot of traffic down there. 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 some 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 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 Ctmiel: I'll call the question. Is there a second? I Councilman Workman: I'll second it. Mayor Qmiel: It has been moved and seconded. 48 1 1 city (01/1C11 Meeting - ptember 11, 1989 II Councilman Johnson: Discussion? Mayor Chmiel: It is open for discussion. Councilman Boyt: Is Sue Downs here? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Now we've got 75%. Well we've got 100%. Two members of the Council and the other two. ' Councilman Boyt: Well we don't have the Suekers. ' Sue Downs: The Suekers are here. We've all talked about it and we all are in agreement with Chuck Dimler. He spoke for us. I don't know how Bill Boyt felt but the rest of us are in complete agreement with Ursula. ' Councilman Boyt: Well I guess that seals the deal. Councilwoman Dimler: Good for you. Councilman Johnson: Where's the break in the sewer? Gait/ Warren: About 112 feet south of the manhole in Frontier Trail. Councilman 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 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? ' Gary Warren: Whoever's got the lowest service. Councilwanan Dimler: That's us. ' Councilman Johnson: That's you? Councilwoman Dimler: And we haven't had any back up. Councilman Johnson: Not yet. ' Councilwanan Dimler: won't. Councilman Johnson: If you have a broken sewer, eventually. ' Gary Warren: The sewers don't connect to that. Dimler's do not take service off of that line. 11 Chuck Dimler: The map is not up now. accuse me Mr. Mayor. Chuck Dimler again. The 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 49 I City city' Council Meeting - Se-'ember ii, 1989 1 " are not on that line, you know if there's a problem there they might go in a different direction or they might just came 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. I Councilman Johnson: 8 inch diameter. Is it possible to, if we're only serving 1 or 2 hares there, retrofit through what's existing there with a 6 inch or another adequate size to serve the, it sounds like maybe only 2 hares 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 cannon technique, slip lining is the technique that's been 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? ' Gary Warren: 6 inch typically. Councilman Johnson: Those are 6 inch typically. And if this does, do you know ' bow 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 Hoyt: That wasn't sanitary sewer. That was... 50 I i IIGary Warren: That was 26 granted as a road. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, right. But if you don't 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. Wye could go in tomorrow at a much lesser cost and strictly repair this break or II 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. Mawr Qiniel: What minimal cost? Gary Warren: I don't know. Maybe $5,000.00 at the worse. But the problem y don't know with clay tile which this is, is that once you go in and you rt sta you ' 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 you may end up chasing that pipe all the way back to the manhole and you don't know until you get in there. Councilwoman Dimler: you Gary, do see this a Gary, you 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 priority, yes. ICouncilman Dimler: But it's not emergency? ' Gary Warren: It's not my basement. Councilman Johnson: It's Bill's basement and Sue's basement. Councilwoman Dimler: I don't think we have any problems. Councilman Johnson: Kiowa Circle is well represented up here. ' Councilman Boyt: Since I was going through my comments when we went to this 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 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 Don King's and you remember that storm sewer which was non-functional there I 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 Chan Vista went in. I guess where I'm going with this thing is I don't want to see the City settle with sanething 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 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. 51 I 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? 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 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? I Gary Warren: And that's not assessed. Well, it's not assessed in either case. 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? 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 expensive manner and still have adequate nseage. 52 1 I 'Councilman Johnson: Now I'm not sure if this is the point for us, this point in . the project for us to say okay. Take it off. I think we should give directions I i 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. I 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 than to do the sanitary sewer when they do their updating of the system. ICary Warren: We would include that spot repair in our '89 program. That possibly could be done even this year. IResident: Can I ask a question? . Mayor Chniel: Sure. II Don 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 I 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? IIBill Engelhardt: We looked at that, not in great detail but it appeared that 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. Gary Warren: Plus the service lines which now cane to the front would have to Ibe redone. Bill Engelhardt: Everything would have to be redone and came back around the house. It's more involved than just trying to relay the pipe at a different II angle. It gets pretty involved with the trees and everything out there. Mayor Qmiel: Any other further discussion Council? We have a motion on the Ifloor with a second. . Councilman Johnson: I have discussion on other aspects of the project. ICouncilwoman Dimler: No. I think we should vote on this motion first and then discuss the rest of the Frontier Trail project. IICouncilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to delete the Kiowa Circle portion from the Frontier Trail utility and roadway improvement project. IIAll voted in favor and the motion carried. ICouncilman Boyt: I can't believe I voted for it. Councilman Johnson: I thought you would abstain being a benefitting person on it. II53 ..._ 7 • II 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. Councilman Boyt: Well back to, before we got onto this I had sane, 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 II the City is taking on a fair size portion of this. Whether it's 60% or 80% or somewhere in there and when we do that, the City doesn't have any means of 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 II 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 II 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, 1 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 came out in the II 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 I:: 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 canes 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 [11: 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 II 1 City Council Meeting - 1 ptember 11, 1989 ) II cost, that means 39% of the households. Ir Councilman Boyt: 29. I 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 I 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 I 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? IResident: Freidlanders. Councilman Johnson: Oh Freidlanders. Aren't they moving? ICouncilman Boyt: They did already. They're gone. I 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 Ito 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 gray. IIBill Engelhardt: 71% wouldn't have the reduction. Councilman Johnson: Or 71% would have an increase. IIBill Engelhardt: You!re acting... I Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'm standing up for the guys that are the minority. Yes. I Bill Dnglehardt: 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 I 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 IL . look at it. Councilman Johnson: But the benefit's equal. You're sitting on a paved street. II 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 II55 I City Council Meeting - Sep.,. tuber 11, 1989 decision but right now I need sane more information before I make that decision. Mayor Chmiel: That's why I'm suggesting that we table this at this particular [1! time and come back with sane conclusions as to what we're looking for. With that I will make that into a motion. ' Councilman Johnson: I've still got one more comment on width of road. Mayor QYniel: 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 anymore narrow personally. 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. Councilman Boyt: Make it one way. Mary Warren: On a curvy road like this, narrower could be more hazardous actually. Councilman Johnson: More dangerous. When you start putting the barrier curbs, 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. I Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion to table. Is there a second? 1111 Councilman Johnson: I'll second it. Mayor Qimiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table action on Frontier I Trail Utility and Roadway Improvements for further information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: Mr. gay or?y oi. I would like to move that we amend the agenda to move item 12 to the next item. Mawr Qiniel: Very good. That was going to be my next one. Councilman Johnson: Rick Murray is here. He's the person who requested this I density. TO have it other than the consent agenda. Mayor Chsniel: Why don't we take that one first and then we can move from there. Councilman Johnson: That's item 8. Councilman Boyt: We have quite a few people here for Vineland Forest Addition j that have been here all night. Mayor Qhmiel: Let's just move real quick to item number 8 and then we'll go fran there. With that I would consider that an amendment... 56 I r ) } ' - - WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. Vonsu 1 e zee44 1107 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 (6121 448-8838 CITY OF CHANHASSEN October 4, 1989 EME OCT 051989 ' City of Chanhassen c/o Mr . Gary Warren ENGINEERING DEPT. 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 - II RE: Frontier Trail Supplemental Feasibility Study Honorable Mayor and City Council Members : Pursuant to your request we have revised our July 20, 1989 ' feasibility study for the above named project . As directed by the City Council , we are no longer considering street improvements for Kiowa Circle . However , the storm sewer improvements are still being considered a part of the overall program for this area. After review of the City Council minutes of September 11 , 1989, several key questions warrant further discussion. ' UPGRADED ROADWAY WIDTH Discussion centered on what width the roadway will be ' - reconstructed . The city standard roadway width for a residential street section is 31 feet back of curb to back of curb. The present width of Frontier Trail varies from 24 feet at the narrowest point to 28 feet at the widest point. The average width at the present gutter line is 27 feet for the roadway . By using Minnesota Highway Curb Specification B618, which is a standard curb design for residential areas as well as major roads , the gutter line could remain at a uniform width of 27 feet . This means there will be slight adjustments of the existing gutter line to maintain a uniform width , but , overall , the roadway gutter line will stay as it now exists . The curb design will allow for ' approximately one ( 1 ) foot less pavement width than the city standard design but fits the existing yards more accurately. I 1 - 1 City of Chanhassen October 4, 1989 Page 2 EXISTING CURB ON FRONTIER TRAIL Pictures of the area by the Bovey residence, dating 10-15 years ago, presented at the public hearing, showed what we believe is a bituminous curb . There presently is a bituminous curb in this area. The curb was installed to control runoff . As-built plans do not indicate concrete curb being installed on this roadway. This is not to say that concrete curb did not exist in the past. New curb and gutter along with concrete driveway aprons are proposed as part of this project . We feel that it is more than appropriate for all properties that are receiving new curb and gutter to be assessed, regardless of past conditions. To try and reconstruct what was done in the past and credit individual properties would result in an unmanageable administrative task. UNIT METHOD OF ASSESSMENT VS. FRONT FOOTAGE Typically, street construction is assessed on a front foot basis . Keeping in mind that the amount of an assessment must meet the test of benefit. Benefit has been defined to be the increase in market value that the property will incur due to the improvements . The increase in market value must be equal or greater than the assessment . A front foot basis of assessment has been well established in the courts as the most acceptable means of assessment for street improvements . This means the benefit to properties can be readily shown if challenged in the courts through an assessment appeal . We highly recommend for this project that the city maintain a position on assessment that is easily defended in court . A unit method of assessment is used on street projects where properties do not abut the street but definitely can be shown to have benefit from the project . All properties proposed to be assessed on the Frontier Trail project abut the street or have frontage on Frontier Trail . ASSESSMENT POLICY This the most difficult issue to address . Our feasibility study presented several options for cost participation by the city. The option recommended was basically a 40-60 split ; 40 percent property owner participation , and 60 percent city. The basis for this cost split was derived ' from calculating the cost of new improvements which are not I 1 I . City of Chanhassen ' October 4, 1989 Page 3 presently in place , such as curb and gutter . Several cities were contacted for the initial study to get a feel ' for how projects of this nature are paid for . In addition, several additional cities , for a total of ten , were contacted prior to the public hearing to again get an example of how city' s react to projects of this nature. Our conclusion is that each city defines their own program through the public hearing process . From a property owners standpoint , the worst case presented , is where a city assesses 100 percent of the cost back to the benefitted properties . 1/ The City of Burnsville assesses 40 percent of the street replacement cost and 100 percent of the new improvements. This seems to be a hybrid policy to accomplish the work needed without putting a burden on the overall tax levy. It is apparent from the public hearing that the people did not object to paying for the cost of new facilities . It may be that this particular project will not set the precedent for future projects . Most of the cities interviewed have been at this process for a much longer period of time and have refined their policies as they go , trying to treat each individual area as fairly as possible, as well as the general public or general tax levy. 1 The option of a 40-60 split , in our opinion, is a fair and equitable basis for assessment on this particular project . The benefit to the property owners is very defendable from ' an assessment standpoint because the 40 percent paid by the property owner is a direct benefit for new construction. The 60 percent to be paid by General Obligation Bonds may be somewhat high , but is offset by reduced maintenance costs • after the road is improved . The exact savings in maintenance is not easily defined, but a savings by the city will be incurred. ' We suggest that the proposed method of assessment based on a 40-60 split is an equatable method for this project but the ' policy may be left open to be refined as additional project areas are undertaken. We feel that locking into the exact . policy for future areas may limit the city' s ability to accomplish work required and still meet the benefit test for assessments . In other words , reconstruction or rehabilitation projects rates will be reviewed and updated annually. 1 City of Chanhassen October 4, 1989 Page 4 We will be available to address any questions concerning this matter at your convenience. ' Very truly yours , I WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. ,fri7.0e4' Ari William R. Engelhardt , P.E. WRE/las I 1 i 1 i 1 1 11 I 1 1 - I CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE I STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ' ) COUNTY OF CARVER ) ss I I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on :SeRVentiler 1989 Ithe duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chan- hassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Puh j�, 4ecr i•n -4-0 Trc,vn- e r l rcci ) U4-1' t 4-J X r 4 cx {we / r1�! Z,v�?r��,JF cwwr�N-S 1Prj P<---- 110 . 89-10 / J to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the } names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. 1 Kar- n Jinge _rdt, Deputy Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this z_21i+h day rAAAA(5.7., AAaaaau�aaaAae of (� r the r , 1 9 aC1 KIM T.MEUWISSEN TARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA CARVER COUNTY . mmission Expires May 29,1992 • 1 Notary P blic 7301 Frontier Trail f 7329 Frontier Trail ) Chanhassen, NN 55317 Chanhassen, NN 55317 David J. Wollan & Richard & G. Pearson Susan K. Lippka 7307 Frontier Trail 7303 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, IAN 55317 Don W. Loftin & Myra M. Farish Wayne L. & K. Mader 7305 Frontier Trail 400 Highland Drive Chanhassen, IAN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert & C. Scholar Donald M. & D. Huseth 7212 Frontier Trail 7332 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, NN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert H. & J. Grodahl James J. & R. Waletski . f 7220 Frontier Trail 7334 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, NN 55317 Chanhassen, NN 55317 Robert K. & Patty L. Lehman John P. & R. C. Spalding 7341 Frontier Trail 7336 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Arils A. Bovy James & Linda Mady 7339 Frontier Trail 7338 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, IAN 55317 Richard & Jennifer Kedrowski Thomas R. & S. Pzynski 7337 Frontier Trail 7340 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Fred L. Cuneo, Jr. Bonnie J. Roening & 7335 Frontier Trail Cecil H. Nelson Chanhassen, IAN 55317 401 Highland Drive Chanhassen, IAN 55317 Joel M. & Wendy M. Wiens Morlais Jr. & June T. Hughes 7333 Frontier Trail 7343 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, NN 55317 Chanhassen, IAN 55317 Susan L. Johnson City of Chanhassen 7331 Frontier Trail 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, NN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 t . CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA 11 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR FRONTIER TRAIL UTILITY AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 89-10 I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will meet in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 690 Coulter Drive on Monday, October 9, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. to consider utility and roadway improvements to a portion of Frontier Trail. This improvement deals with the reconstruction of that portion of ' Frontier Trail from Highland Drive to Kiowa Circle. Sanitary sewer, storm sewer and watermain repairs are also proposed. Said improvements are to be financed by a combination of special assessments and bonding. The total project cost of said improve- ments is estimated to be $707,227.00 . A copy of the feasibility study showing the project area, scope and assessment area is available for review at City Hall during regular business hours. ' All persons interested may appear and be heard at said time and place. Gary Warren, P.E. , City Engineer 937-1900 ' (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on 9/28/89 and 10/5/89) i 1 City Council Meeting - October 9. 1989 II Councilman Workman: Oh it was Chris? Chris Burns. In your article, wasn't the II management 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? I Chris Burns: I believe that was the ca►ment made. Paul Oaks: Yes it was. I 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 II don't understand where you say we're false in making those accusations. Paul Oaks: I don't have a copy of the letter. There was a letter sent a few months back referring to Mr. Maros' residence where there was a major II structural problem. The homeowner ran a large amount of water into his garage. 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 II himself to do that and it blew out a back wall. That's what started this whole 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 II ownership. 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 II you'll continue with a... . Paul Oaks: We sincerely hope so. We're looking forward to building in this II city for quite a while. Mayor Chmiel: GDOd. Thank you. Any additional Visitor Presentations? II PUBLIC HEARING: FRONTIER TRAIL UTILITY AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS: AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. I Public Present: Name Address t Michael Bierlein 681 Bighorn Drive II Walter & Gelen Bielski 7209 Frontier Trail Helen & Bill Loebl 7197 Frontier Trail Chuck Dimler 7203 Kiowa Circle Sandy & John Reger 7191 Frontier Trail II Cheri Sueker 7194 Frontier Trail Dick Pearson 7307 Frontier Trail Babs Axons 7211 Frontier Trail II Larry Leebens 7201 Frontier Trail Susan Downs 7202 Kiowa Circle Bob Scholer 7212 Frontier Trail II1 Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, as Council will remember, September 11, 1989 we had a hearing and received good public comment at that time concerning the Frontier 13 II City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 I Trail utility and roadway improvement project. At that time the item was tabled 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 I 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 I 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 them for coming this evening. I would ' suggest either we can invite their comments at this time as a part of the Ihearing or we can give a brief summary of the items that we interpretted to be outstanding that Bill has addressed in his supplement report. II Mayor Chmiel: I think that would probably be, we'll open it up for the people as wall. Those who have already spoken at the previous meeting, your information is on record for our review. If you have something new in addition I to that, we'll welcome your input. Maybe we should just address these specific questions and then go from there. Bill Etgelhardt: Your Honor, members of the Council, I'm Bill Engelhardt. IFtge1hardt 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 than just II 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 there. 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 I the high back curb. By using that type of curb, we gain some 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 some cases where we hit that 24-25-26, there's going to be same 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. Hovey had with her that night. I was guessing on the age of the pictures. I said 10 to 15 years and that maybe high or low, plus or minus. That was my guess. Right now II there's presently, and maybe she's here and she can tell me what the exact date is. 14 City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 .I _ Gary Warren: The 1968 was the photo date. 1 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 II 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 same of the people had a concrete curb and gutter there at sane time and we can't find anything in the records where there was curb and gutter. There's no II way to really determine who paid for it. If it was there. Now 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 II facility and it should stay in the program and became 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 II 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 II 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 I 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 II : i 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 II 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 II roadway. That's the difference, this distinguishing difference on those two 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 II between the cost sharing for the city and the cost sharing for the residents. Our recammendation 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 II 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. II 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 II 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 I 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 II were sane 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 II II City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 street replacement costs and then 100% of the new improvements like the curb and 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 seem to agree that the street needed same ' improvement. That the cost for paying the new facilities, although nobody likes to pay costs, they seem 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 recommendation 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 than 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 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 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 II 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. II 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 I hope that that was a joke or whatever and that that assessment isn't being seriously considered. Mayor Chmiel: Larry, what is your front footage on your property? 1 16 City Council Meeting - October 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 coming 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 summarize where I can because I've also got same notes in here of same 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 same 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 1 City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 mm 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 same other conversations. A review is this. Discussion between the Village Engineer and myself followed by a letter from the Village Adminstrator confirms 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 wok ame.dtiahe te y l w inthg e Mfoonrdea n thsae id Frh idoy ufye,rntohoen y was ld oo s tmaurdt d y o wiork g. 3/4 of an inch of rain on Thursday night, 2.4 inches of rain Friday night, 5.5 � 1 inches Saturday. Started backfilling Monday morning July 15th. Adminstrator informs me 7:15 Monday morning that same 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 from 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 CYmiel: 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 won't take too much time. Mayor Chmiel: Sure. 18 City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 um 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 sane people in the neighborhood that are very pro sidewalks. Sane 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 catmunity, 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 came 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 much 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 I - . City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 It first on the list because obviously it's badly in need of repair.it There's no i badly question that such a fund would be needed anyway in the future as the City grows I 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 1 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 I 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 Isecond idea I have is... Councilwoman Dimler: And mothers too. 11 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 Itwo 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 IIthe 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. } ;I Don Ashworth: State statute addresses the issue. The City endorses that and 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 ' II 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? IICouncilman Johnson: That's a deferment? Bill Loebl: A deferment is not an exemption. IDon Ashworth: I don't know of any exemption. IBill Loebl: Plymouth has it for one. Dave Harmeyer: It's a council policy but the State Statute that Don is I 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 1 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 II if you exempt senior citizens, not based on hardship, then you're uniformity sort of flies out the window. II22 l.lG� Wt7�K;T1r et . g UCLOLSet`J, 19139- Bill Loebl: Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? If hearing none, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Workman 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% t0 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 come 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 something 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 my house, I talked to the neighbor behind me and he said, they'll have to carry me 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 same hardships, especially people on fixed incomes, the retired, that adding to the cost of their homes is unfair and we need a mechanism 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 1 City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 It Mayor Chmiel: 1991? ' 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, than 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 II to rebuild it and there's quite a few others that will probably be coming up to a useful life. Pleasant View and sane in Carver Beach and sane all over this city. So this is something that's going to continue to rear it's ugly head is ' 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. IIGary 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 same 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 I with same reasonable projections on the cost burden and then can look at the financial avenues that are available also. II 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 Ifund as opposed to pay what your assessment basically is. You have timeframes 1 24 City Council Meeting - October 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 (hmiel: New road. Any other discussion? ' Councilwoman 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 expressed 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 comment 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. 1 Mayor Qmiel: 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 11 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. 1 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 than Vista that would have been ashpalt plus curb and gutter. I 25 I 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 assure. So now what the City is saying is we'll replace that, paying for all of it. Then they're asking the people on Frontier Trail to pay for the upgrade. Gary Warren: That'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 somewhere 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 I 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 want to continue to pay an increasing amount to repair the road and try to keep II 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 I 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 lased 1 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 I 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 i 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. IICouncilwoman 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 a-rcil7L/Pe VlilVllCll 7, 1707 will came 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 ` time. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think that's... I 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 Dimler: Cary, 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 firm 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 Cdzniel: 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 IICity Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 11 bids, at that time we either tell the... ICouncilwoman 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 IIportion of the bid. So there is flexibility in it. Councilwanan Dimler: But you did say it would alter the road? IIBill 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 I 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 I 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 Ctmiel: Would you like to repeat that in the mic Bill? IIGary Warren: He'd be entitled to a fee if he wanted it. Councilman Johnson: So basically by including the sidewalk in the plans and 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 I between now and then to discuss these issues with the citizens without having to delay the project. IIMayor Chmiel: And whether or not do all the residents want sidewalks. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. That's the jest of it. 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 going in. ICouncilman Johnson: Nothing is automatic. IICouncilwoman 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 I 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 IIcul-de-sac. I'll let the residents decide if they want a sidewalk or not. I 1 28 City Council Meeting - October 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 somebody's going to have to, I understand why you're doing it per foot and everything but that's 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. Councilman Workman: Second. I 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 Chmiel: 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 Dimler: 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 Chmiel: 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 j comments regarding the County State Aid Highway 14 right-of-way request to I vacate? 29 ' \ 11 City Council Meeting - October 9, 1989 IIResident: I live there. I'd like to see what they're going to do there. Gary Warren: CR 14 recently this summer has been upgraded by the County and I 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 II 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 I 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. I Councilman Johnson: So the two property owners of Lots 1 and 2 would then get that land as part of their land but it would still have William's Pipeline? IIGary 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. IIMayor Chmiel: All you're doing is dropping from 100 to 95. Councilman Johnson: And the guy's probably already mowing it and anything. ITaking care of it anyway. Gary- Warren: I'd say there's no visible differences out there that you'll see. ' It's just from a legal standpoint to address William's Pipeline's proprietary concerns for their petroleum easement. Councilman Johnson: Does this go back then, would affect anybody's taxes? IIGary Warren: It's an easement so I wouldn't think so. ICbuncilman 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 public hearing. IAll voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 30 t The following petition contains 72 signatures obtained from 38 homes. I North side of Frontier Trail - Total of 26 homes: - 2 homes are vacant ' 4 homes are in favor of sidewalks 20 homes do not want sidewalks South side of Frontier Trail - Total of 22 homes: - 4 homes are in favor of sidewalks 18 homes do not want sidewalks , Totals: 17% in favor of sidewalks an do not want sidewalks 1 C C . • ) _) ) ) ) ) c) O O C O1. ? ) 3 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) • O C ! : 11), " L. =:: :- = . ) _ 'I 7C; f ) • ) ) ) ) 00 fiS C �' -� • �� :,, __. ' =' '. ; ) "# ) ♦ _-) �) ) 1 )- ) ) .;) Co y �` j. f I IP E T I T I O N SIDEWALK ON FRONTIER TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT IWHEREAS THE SIDEWALK WAS PUT INTO THE FRONTIER TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION PLAN ONLY FOR STUDy 1 PURPOSES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WILL OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD PREVAIL---• III THEREFORE NOW, WE THE UNDERSIGNED DO NOT WANT THE SIDEWALK INCLUDED IN THE FRONTIER TRAIL IRECONSTRUCTION PROJECT: NAME Z-Oeil-P1Q- ADDR ESS PHONE NUMBER DATE ►s ' ' 1.AZAJA)--. 1"‘ji • 01 /i o fnv ' Ilt.41Cal Z r c 4 -r t.o,:L t ”.— $ 77 7 2.1/0(f 0 0, 1,, '► ,,0, `1 i q3 Fkr �' D Q3q- 5777 f tof 4 0 • i • di,. A-71 - 14,4 7/7.5"----Yy/6-21" a/ f,J,4 4,7‘r ../-/o-ic l ' 1 � . G, K.. . :1-71.11.0, --:�i%� /61)1,. c.) i j#— `1°"/ i . Pj-r; 7 iv P--rsi Tv-% 1 2 ? fr y/,1 /7 P 1 d'al.'f."-/ 7/5 7 1r (MA t 1 .--- .-, /17—J./ . -,-- -?.3 '1%5,1'7 0./--//40 -(4,)4L.----,4 ‘4 -‘._______ 7.)-c)--- ,-;„,,,,,,,,_- .,,, ,,, 9.3(i. _c-s)c,(/ --,2-i/-b ,, I.CJc-'-C.�CUB. - oz - %-- ,'' �:33j- . tt c , . 1 Z-/-4;:- ,/. ,4 • � ='33 64.-- -;,i1"- -41.0. `134-- z` ; -is -�' 1 /> ' ? Lt �- ,d -c 7>3/ iz c ;-c f,rc:r �a/- /l'z -f-1:;---fe' } _ G Iacct!" -J 2%J �it,`,n . 7c1— 134 IlL 4 L.,1 lire-e'l77L- 70'7%64/77a-€/—FAI/Z. t 77:AI/h. '1'2 --/4C2Y( IJA.44..4,.., c ,2,/e7.„...._11./ 17,:::.115.-' 4/144%Li: "t's" 9 3 q- 09iti -18 "9 ID c'�- 1 .. C .- % `� --I-'`IC L1 L. 730/ 1 -L uz. l-ktz-.• t� 1 .i- 0. 1 PETITION I SIDEWALK ON FRONTIER TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT II WHEREAS THE SIDEWALK WAS PUT INTO THE FRONTIER TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION PLAN ONLY FOR STUDY ' 3. PURPOSES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WILL OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD PREVAIL-I THEREFORE NOW, WE THE UNDERSIGNED DO NOT WANT THE SIDEWALK INCLUDED IN THE FRONTIER TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT: I NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER DATE .._�� c e-21q, r,E'o '/( ' rye,91L 93q----/30/ .2—lD-1 4 l/ ""f 4..,c4..waftc' 73S 7 -u ; 7 ?.3`f /341/ '7- /0- /9 - 3�e, --.$6- `L y14%- `7.3; _ -?44- -. -/,J. �L�� �� jam- -i3 i- `/6.5-� '—/6 " ,` .cam 7•c_ - 7/9c- /� k ,.. ..... . ,-,„ a,!/.7zid. c‘,5 7,i 924-X-ri'3 -k-c-A"" 23/2..„,.-.‘.,-...-......" /--":""--'4'---) • I I 1\.�c` ' I 7I/ % I (7 `(./57 -L Z _jr, -`,7-r I 7 ,.,13 J-4,-;.-ze 1, �� I `-zt.. ....t4J zi,i,,,d1 41.- 7 3 1 o ,-V-,/--7 kyx2 - I L I „i,,,i,e(a/./,,,Za.14 9,7 3 3 Frt:1,./1?-ek- 7r,k,"Q Y3 Y- Y F2 <-/c .� 4 7 7c- � •c..t�. !%ti«—�% 937— Yi6 �- i�� �i I t& ',1.Z c. J Fr 4 ; r .- r \ 9 3 i,i- 3v., k zf/ c f t ."4/abii.A., 'd./X /.,4::-. 7,7�3 4 .Z14_, 4t ez. 7 y.. (7— 3.2 6..i_ =-://0/1 0:0 ii,_ j 7;G/ i--74.4-= , i../ 9-1‘/L S 17U -k —ft : a . op .E- s,„, I A, nTA A 1.iia 93y-/3T— -2--/e- 'ie _ -t I S t F✓LOrJtEA< TVA MU• 39•—? Sit •-II - ccl Or 4 . I I 0 t Vi -ii 1 I y/p.,a3 t.i4.1,2 / I \/4„, ://t,es:41- 7 "....c .2: .3..'t...e.—PLZ"'i— Ttel..r...:2:- 9 5`74- 14'dr ,,Z —ii- -: I ' P E T I T I O N ISIDEWALK ON FRONTIER TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WHEREAS THE SIDEWALK WAS PUT INTO THE FRONTIER TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION PLAN ONLY FOR STUDY PURPOSES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WILL OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD PREVAIL--- THEREFORE NOW, WE THE UNDERSIGNED DO NOT WANT THE SIDEWALK INCLUDED IN THE FRONTIER TRAIL IRECONSTRUCTION PROJECT: NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER DATE i áyf/ L 40-,-IN d D. ct 3 5 ?//-7/410 IPCIN-1 23.c .v -7 j t7;" 4 1 3 t/-/Si3 I Rh., / ti...,,,n , -Ad,/1,Lez 7 / 9 VA4--71-6-e.tJ 9:_i i -. f c 5 ...;y, 7/,,O c� /�/yc lb/ t' ail;70 74//1/441^ 4 ( t___-_\ S2S____ 77 E.-,_ `13i- LTSY7 2-4/7/90. 1 �3 3 �� ,�/7.g4 2:-c 3 y--..4-4/9. /.. )41.61i-ja 0 j �5 F- .dt Cr {.-6' l / III cv t..�.^SIN ,.-A.1-mac -1)t' ='v- 1';6 I a4,.. 7;:i g37.Ail/ . -347/90 Gil Ifil ' 2,Z.d n2.9/0ke , / j1).74(. /3y" 35' -1?- y , 0 ellt . , .zir 2i1:2a"il ) tad .04.vet 7 vo -2._)44...,,,,tc.") 74.411 1/;4 v r A. =:11-14-4;(: g39-7 8 50 :) ./ _ 9 e ‘,.,,,,,, ,./(„ig, 702/8 P/";YJA'ER Tl,;L ,,y-7/5'0 •2-/--2 4144 n W 1S- 7/Wfi i l ea/.4.. ► % t 130.,v34,1,01 .,.'te ca ( l / 93L(- OW - 1 -?4) mi':I- G1 ' , l . - ' ( �I 2 c 3 C `7� y;c � .GAG u C, 9 - /./, � / ie, L ' r ' . PETITION I SIDEWALK ON FRONTIER TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WHEREAS THE SIDEWALK WAS PUT INTO THE FRONTIER TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION PLAN ONLY FOR STUDY I/ PURPOSES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WILL OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD PREVAIL--- THEREFORE NOW, WE THE UNDERSIGNED DO NOT WANT THE SIDEWALK INCLUDED IN THE FRONTIER TRAIL 1 I RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT: II NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER DATE 1 414,&(lit.tivi‘ 733 )- A,r -th,t- c44, q_340/-ge,__ ?--/4c n 7332 FP -v 1 31 o .2-16' • Yh GJa�„-L- 33 Li Fry.. ., ",--e 1 tjar.4...."-Mc-44_. / q 34-57 i y a -/6 ro �-r 4A. 9351..is-3 2 - a- %a • moo flow - C.v� _ , �xJ'AI" 15 7- (fgt./ /y � ! G'4(4: 4 fit- i t 93-7 s7`3-`' 1 - t 73r� FrM °.� -Jri-I 0-,� y.� c r 7�a � - C'l 3 -� �,. elic- Sei .7 7•/ 7 , ;,/ f3 `/731 `1 j )4144.E79 - 7.3 4/0 A-42-x, ' - .�� 9.a' 3 33 .. //9/9d 73 a F�cfi e:-�� 1 AA . /�s t � �.2- X37-L o� ��t 9/9c, .i f1• ift6 (0.) giJ3 FroiAe,- (; X37 -(c Icy. -a I(?f Ic 1 111..M.At". (1 "7".- - rrzoo ‘2.t)k.s.7 41 ci il cilettol- � Tr c\ I33 - 91-q� 79),,, -k\cv.,:, ,F vcAyit ' /o1 )ice 7:-..:(, /13f 'e 0 e Q- 44-9,11 dLL *A, 6 Ala ��:4: 73-.14, ya y_t o 0'.. --d 4-i 1 r ,..,...„. _ i I1 _____1/1/1 DiNidatelit'e &CD l V PETITION `�� WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED REBUILDING OF FRONTIER TRAIL, CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA IIWE THE UNDERSIGNED, ALL RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA OF FRONTIER TRAIL INVOLVED, SUPPORT THE FRONT FOOTAGE METHOD TO DETERMINE WHATEVER ASSESSMENT IS NECESSARY ' 1 THE HOMEOWNER : ' NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER DATE . / j-if Fee,4-__-- 7 i 7 > ?- it- /3 O/ 0-c -& 7 /q 1 zU 1 93 /--4019‘75 1/-L/may 114 tA14--A. c_4•02A-€-/ •7./icsh `'L, 7a-i0 Fill- ,�, I r4, I ”)-raci ii-y-�1 9 � 1?'/t' ;24)1a 9�7- X24/ 'r-5E-F, 1 :1\t(At,2,4L . 6-4-f - /11L‘A-Lt‘•-r-L‘..k.,■ TS1,---nCli 1)--M---2° ct,,,i et/6V_ 72/8 %len-Y.41474 9.3 - e-c // - _ klar.17/ 7,g/se /r04/Mv TR, 73y i/so "/ Y-8T V:421,44, 4zZ,L,I, • 2 ,, 2,7(°‘-'- e•-• . Pa„.1 -A 64,-A--,_4....z,.. 7a:? 5 - , 73 y- 7.�a —//- Sl -i * c-)� 7 0 V S-7'144 - -P ?3y-fvf ,/,* -7338 -- 1-14;49 5'3Y.423 o //- y-67 ' p7 338 � 06 /7.-t,sco( !35/- Y9? I I-- v-fl 4�t,cti✓ 73a-7 • 93 AP-S/0 a //%e i v 7L2-E Ii-rn v2 . 9341- 616 //- V-Pi 744/'lido- 7...2 /6 ci r:-. 9.34-//a'3 // -v-,9 9. ,eirse //ye-sr c_. )(ze,t.e._ c.-7)J.42,1444.j 7.1. g 4- • 1 PETITION i WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED REBUILDING OF FRONTIER TRAIL, CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, ALL RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA OF FRONTIER TRAIL INVOLVED, 1 SUPPORT THE FRONT FOOTAGE METHOD TO DETERMINE WHATEVER ASSESSMENT IS NECESSAR 9 THE HOMEOWNER: NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER DA1 iN 2/9/ ,.‘, 1-0 .A-4‘j, 93it -i40, II Iht(WI t/i'lltt' Pija/( -Tig /1774' 'Z't PAV 93 v--.C37.3 fige 1, ja.4444.4__ ,2. aeeri-A-/ 7/'1 it 9 4'- 7r#? „NI \k)V GaQievzi. i1c(I `` 93H - Weer 1017 4 ./M i ,.,e,,Lt._ -7 al 7 70. T7l. 3Z> 212, Jo //14 d)011 ' , . . 9/87 ' 9.0-44.2./0 ,, D / 1 9! �'. - G2�.�: ,`30-021/3 - ##1/11 4//ccu.443 -17, & 7 d-tzegt 92:J ?3 7- 4 '4 li/1/� 7 13 V- YtC � �` Y'7-i.tit--d .,._. �i� it=s/ l, Z G f Al 14-0-v u vil./4-eact: 7 1_0 , elA....evt.W:1-. 7"... 5' 341- 44 a P-44 t� °f�`/-- izll il'illf (ZZO CIO-C11., /77 /.0 _ I, _ oz., >> '*4 giu, - 7245 qy9 -: g +`( tVI irZx l'Y .,:„.„ cc. . ".s..4 -It S g /04 inatee- 'MN inpae4;7;-. •I N "-Act(' rirvali er Tr q is,.../c#s - i335� AN 1 s- 91/i-13 35 /s/ ettZ)/(47r VOq OONIld,f0C., g.37441& 1 I . . PETITION WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED REBUILDING OF FRONTIER TRAIL, CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA IIWE THE UNDERSIGNED, ALL RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA OF FRONTIER TRAIL INVOLVED, •I SUPPORT THE FRONT FOOTAGE METHOD TO DETERMINE WHATEVER ASSESSMENT IS NECESSARY THE HOMEOWNER : INAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER DATE ...7i 9 3 ya-�a L, ) /--f I �lQ�-v.} off►^ c g qt,,,Z,I2L-4uv q34 - 7 da� 1 r-- S I *le,Vo,... ,,:rel„,„f y2.0 s-- /4,97-z.4- 73 aq 2.0,t-{ , i" �mw 1u 4.339 ,�- ,,T 3 - - I &4,42-4Q-11.4, .7. I gat19,7.4 . 33 7 4 L; i u AA) 71q4 „,; q3 q 764, 41 i 1 _ .c it(. 7zI4-c Qt °-T r - � `tom 1lvl7 tr -S I 91 - _ -733C ,)n ac_. 434_ (£ -(3 1 Vs- I iWn. W , iga Fi-emirei-- Tr" q37-d5ii/ ///7 I, cv � T 3�-/ 99Z 1 7 q 0 I 4.406c-, 7it.,,,p/_,,• A /3 ti� � C f Z // I /1 1 f to: ,/ ! 1. PETITION 1 WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED REBUILDING OF FRONTIER TRAIL, CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA, WE THE UNDERSIGNED, ALL RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA OF FRONTIER TRAIL INVOLVED, I SUPPORT THE FRONT FOOTAGE METHOD TO DETERMINE WHATEVER ASSESSMENT IS NECESSARY THE HOMEOWNER: NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER DATE' 4,9 LLz_ 7 .3 3/ 4..c�K M 13q— 6-.O C/ ' c/6 7'2 �` ''�- 9 3 3 ) FC.C''-' % Tre-l/ 9 '— 3 /��� �, 1�! L ii? . tars cv _2333 t,'.,,_ 7)- 2_,../. 93Y-- 4•697 1//� j ci- os-s--4 /0 1 .„,giki_tv ett,ift.ti -733-r ?--,/t-to-• ‘-‘ --/-A-a-`; q 73 3 7 fte'J i 1i,o'., F3T-142i3 ph/4 r , . , .)./t. 73,--2f4 Ali 71C4:4, A1P- i 9 52 / 7/9> rile--776A,- /,-. 9W-- 7 716 i I I I I I I I 1 I • CITYOF 1 1 _ CHANHASSEN I . , , . ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II (612) 937-19000 FAX (612) 937-5739 March 5, 1990 I IIRe: Frontier Trail Upgrade Plans and Specifications Approval 1 Improvement Project No. 89-10 Dear Property Owner: I The construction 'plans and specifications have been completed with the benefit of the input received from the February 6, 1990 neighborhood meeting. For those of you who were able to attend, 1 we appreciate your taking the time and showing interest in this project. As promised, this letter is to notify you that the plans and 1 specifications are being brought back to the City Council for consideration at the upcoming March 12, 1990 meeting. That is this coming Monday night at 7: 30 p.m. 1 As directed by the City Council previously, the engineers have designed the roadway to incorporate a sidewalk. Due to 1 difficulties with matching driveways and slopes which would necessitate expensive retaining walls, the easterly and northerly side of the roadway is the preferred and proposed location for the concrete sidewalk. The City Council was presented with a I neighborhood petition on this matter at the February 26, 1990 City Council meeting and this petition will be included in the staff report presented to the council. 1 If you have any questions, please feel free to call. I Sincerely, -:` CITY OF CHANHASSEN if 7-1 I ; , I -ary ^. Warren, P.E. Iity ngineer GGW:ktm 1 1 I CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on March 5, , 19 90 , the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chan- hassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed I a copy of the attached Inctetcxxxgx March 5 , 1990 letter regarding Frontier Trail Upgrade Plans and Specifications 1 Approval I to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and , depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, -Minnesota , and by other appropriate records. I 1 a en J. yng=40 ardt, Deputy Clerk II Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of March , 19 90 livl� 1 .Q1 tL.n d.11pAti. XAAAA.AAAAAAAkAA AAARAAAAAAa.AAAAAAAA II Notary lic KIM T. MESS NOTARY PUBLIC UWIk�`:+�EN SOTA : . CARVER COUNTY ' , My Commission Expires May 29, 1992 xvvvlYvvvry z Malcolm A. & L. MacAlpine William C. & B. Arons Joseph & Katheleen Witkewic IA 7187 Frontier Trail 7211 Frontier Trail X 7210 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 William R. & Marcia K. Shirley onald D. & J. King Robert A. & C. Scholer li Y 9 7189 Frontier Trail 7200 Kiowa Circle )C 7212 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, bIN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 IIJohn C. & S. Reger Gary D. & Ray L. Boyle K 7191 Frontier Trail 7214 Frontier Trail II Chanhassen, MN 55317 Y Chanhassen, MN 55317 II IMary Jane Prill Harold & Leona Kerber 7193 Frontier Trail x 7216 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II William & Mary Ann Schepers Travis H. & Duaine L. Hull II7195 Frontier Trail )( 7218 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Helen L. Loebl Donald K. & C. Seeker Joel S. & Mary G. Jenkins If7197 Frontier Trail X 7194 Frontier Trail 7226 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 X Chanhassen, MN 55317 IIDonald Jr. & K. Miller Peter J. Huber Paul & Ellen Differding (for 7199 Frontier Trail) x 7196 Frontier Trail 7228 Frontier Trail I13473 Winchester Place Chanhassen, MN 55317 X Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, bIN 55344 IIRolf G. Engstrom Jack D. & F. Barnes Thomas & Kathleen O'Leary 7201 Frontier Trail X 7198 Frontier Trail X 7230 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II IIAlice L. Barker Brock Evelyn L. Bakke Sunrise Hills Association 7203 Frontier Trail K 7200 Frontier Trail % Joel Jenkins, President Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 X 7226 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Steven & Therese Berquist Dave W. & B. Halverson James R. & L. Kraft 1 7207 Frontier Trail X 7206 Frontier Trail x 7213 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Walter & H. Bielski Timothy J.J & Ginger Murray ruce K. & S. Savik g Y X 7209 Frontier Trail 7208 Frontier Trail 7215 Frontier Trail IIChanhassen, MN 55317 1( Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard & K. Friedlander Kenneth R. & Lois J. Groen X 7301 Frontier Trail 7329 Frontier Trail II Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II David J. Woll.an & Richard & G. Pearson X Susan K. Lippka X 7307 Frontier Trail 7303 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Don W. Loftin & Myra M. Farish Wayne L. & K. Nader I X 7305 Frontier Trail ,( 400 Highland Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Robert & C. Scholar Donald M. & D. Huseth II . 7212 Frontier Trail x 7332 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Robert H. & J. Grodahl James J. & R. Waletski II f 7220 Frontier Trail f, 7334 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Robert K. & Patty L. Lehman John P. & R. C. Spalding 4- 7341 Frontier Trail 7336 Frontier Trail II Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Arlis A. Bovy James & Linda Mady II t 7339 Frontier Trail X 7338 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Richard & Jennifer Kedrowski Thomas R. & S. Pzynski I t 7337 Frontier Trail k 7340 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Fred L. Cuneo, Jr. Morlais Jr. & June T. Hughes II g 7335 Frontier Trail % 7343 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Joel M. & Wendy M. Wiens X 7333 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Susan L. Johnson II lc 7331 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 /AV INorthern States Power Company • Minnetonka Area ' 5505 County Road 19 Excelsior, Minnesota 55331-8565 Telephone(612)474-8881 February 15, 1990 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 ATTN: Mr. Gary Warren Dear Gary: Per your request, a test project has been engineered to replace ' seven spans of electrical overhead facilities with underground facilities, along Frontier Trail between 7220 and 7201 Frontier Trail. ( i & ± The cost of Northern States Power Company replacing the above mentioned facilities would be $21,408.00. This cost does not include the cost that will be incurred by six home owners who will have to convert their service entrances to except underground service. This cost figure is calculated with the project being built in the 1990 construction season with no frost conditions existing. If you have any questions concerning the above information, please call. Thank you. Sincerely, I6J4ar F. Fortun ' Customer Service Representative 470-3318 tifANHASSEh FEB 16 1990 ENGINEERRIG DEPT. I I § 13-2 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (6) Dense smoke, noxious or offensive fumes or odors, gas,soot,or cinders in unrea- sonable quantities; , (7) Offensive trade and business as defined by statute or ordinance not licensed as provided by law; (8) All public exposure of persons having a contagious disease; (9) The distribution of samples of medicines or drugs unless such samples are placed in the hands of an adult person; (10) All decayed,unwholesome,or contaminated food offered for sale to the public; (11) Carcasses of animals not buried or destroyed within twenty-four(24)hours after death; (12) The keeping of horses,cattle,swine,sheep,goats,rabbits,dogs,or other animals 1 or fowl so as to result in offensive odors or disagreeable noises to the discomfort of adjacent property owners,and allowing any animal or fowl to run at large; "at large"means off the premises of the owner and not under restraint,and"owner" means any person who shall own,harbor, keep or have custody of an animal, or the parents or guardians of a person under eighteen(18)years of age who shall own,harbor,keep or have custody of an animal. Cross reference—Other animal nuisances, § 5-20. (13) Placing paper, litter or debris on public or private property, or throwing paper, litter or debris from motor vehicles; (14) Causing or permitting any unnecessary noises or annoying vibrations. (15) The pollution of any public well, stream,river, lake or body of water by sewage, , creamery,or industrial wastes.. (16) Breeding sites of the Aedes Triseriatus (tree hole mosquito) including but not limited to: the basal holes of hardwood trees, unused tires (not mounted on wheels), pots, pans, cans, pails, bottles and other containers left outdoors in which water or debris may accumulate; (17) All other acts,omissions,occupations and uses of property which are a menace to the health of the inhabitants of the city or a considerable number thereof. (b) The following are nuisances affecting public morals and decency: (1) Any vehicle used for the illegal transportation of intoxicating liquor; (c) The following are nuisances affecting public peace and safety: ' X (1) All snow and ice not removed from public sidewalks within twelve (12) hours after the snow and ice has ceased to be deposited thereon; 1 (2) All buildings, walls and other structures which have been damaged by fire, decay or otherwise to an extent exceeding one-half of their original value, or which are in such a hazardous condition or so situated as to endanger the safety of the public; 724 1 I