Loading...
1b Feasibility Study 2005 MUSACITYOF CHANHASSEN 7/00 Market Boulevard POBox147 Chanhasse~. Mia 55317 Arlminislralion Phone: 952 2271100 Fax 952 227 1110 Building Inspections Pilot/e: 952 227 1180 Fax: 952227 1!90 Engineering Fax 952227 1170 Finance Phor, e: 952227 1140 Fax: 952 227 !110 Park & Recreation Fax: 952 227 1110 Recreation Oenter 23!0 Coulter Boulevard Pt~one 952227 1400 Fax~ 952 227 1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952227 1130 Fax; 952 2271110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 9522271300 Fax 952227 1310 Senior Center Phone 9522271125 Fax 952 2271110 Web Site www ci (,t~ar~t~assen mn u~s MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: DATE: SUB J: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Director of Public Works ~i~ ,~, August 1'7, 2004 0'~ Receive Feasibility Study; Call Public Hearing roi' the 2005 MUSA Improvements Project No. 04-05 BACKGROUND (Simple Majority Vote Required) On February 23, 2004, the City Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility study roi' street and utility improvements within the 2005 MUSA (see attached Project Location Map). The feasibility study was initiated in a proactive effort to provide for the planned extension of roadway and utility infrastructure to the 2005 MUSA. Staff is proposing that the City lead the planning and design of these infl'astructure improvements rather than each property owner/developer being responsible for the extension of the required infl'astructure for their individual developments. This will allow for better planning and a more comprehensive approach to the extension of the necessary roadway and utility infrastructure. The feasibility study for the 2005 MUSA Improvements has been completed. The executive summary from the report is attached detailing the improvements included as a part of the project. Complete copies of the feasibility study are available fol' the Council's review in the Engineering Department. A draft of the feasibility study was reviewed with the Council at a work session on August 9, 2004. The draft report has been subsequently modified based upon the Council's comments at the work session and some additional discussions between City staff and the consulting engineer, Kimley-Horn & Associates. These modifications are as follows: 1. Sanitary Sewer Assessments The draft report did not include any assessments for the installation of sanitary sewer along Powers Boulevard and Pioneer Trail south of TH 212, since this area is outside of the 2005 MUSA. Based upon input fi-om the Council, the final report includes the assessment of a portion of these costs. Todd Gerhardt August 17, 2004 Page 2 2. Assessable Area The assessable areas for some of the properties in the project area have been modified. The feasibility study proposes that properties be assessed based upon the gross area of the parcel less roadway right-of-way, wetlands, and flood plain. Additional review has been completed to verify the estimated wetland and flood plain areas on each property based upon the City's GIS records. 3. Dorsey & Dorsey Property Assessments The Dorsey & Dorsey parcel along the south side of Lyman Boulevard is currently in an Agricultural Preserve District. State statutes do not allow for the assessment of properties within an Agricultural Preserve District nor could the parcel be allowed to connect to public water and sanitary sewer until it is removed from the Agricultural Preserve District. The assessment roll included in the feasibility study notes that no assessments are proposed to the Dorsey & Dorsey property at this time. it is proposed that this property provide funding for the trunk infrastructure improvements at the time of development through hook-up and connection charges. The Council also questioned the determination of the proposed assessment area for the arterial/collector roadway assessment. This assessment is proposed only to those properties within the 2005 MUSA (south of Lyman Boulevard) based upon the fact that development of the 2005 MUSA will accelerate the need for the reconstruction of Lyman Boulevard. The assessment area does not include any properties north of Lyman Boulevard. The arterial/collector roadway assessment will be assessed at the time of development of each property and will be included within the individual development agreements. Additional assessments may also be lcvied in the futm'e against those properties with fl'ontage on Lyman Boulevard when the roadway is reconstructed. A portion of the project costs are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners in the project area. A copy of the assessment roll for the project is attached detailing the estimated assessments to the individual property owners. It is proposed that all of the assessments, with the exception of the Dorsey & Dorsey property assessments and the arterial/collector assessments, be levied in 2004/2005; however, it is proposed that payment of the assessments be deferred until the time of development of each property. Property owners would be responsible for interest charges accrued between the time the assessments are levied and the time that they are paid. Todd Gerhardt August 17, 2004 Page 3 City staff and the consultant have conducted two neighborhood meetings to present the feasibility study information to the area property owners and to receive their input. The meetings were held on May 26, 2004 and June 29, 2004. A summary detailing the questions/issues raised at the May 26th neighborhood meeting and City staff's response to each question/issue is attached. REQUESTED ACTION Staff requests that the City Council receive the feasibility study for the 2005 MUSA Improvements, and call a public hearing for the project on September 13, 2004. Attachment: 2. 3. 4. Project Location Map Feasibility Study Executive Summary Preliminary Assessment Roll May 26, 2004 Neighborhood Meeting Questions and Responses C~ Matt Saam, Asst. City Engineer Jori Horn, Kimley-Horn g:\cng\public\04-05\rccci vcd feasibility study 84174)4.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2005 MUSA AREA EXPANSION IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 04-05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Feasibility Study and Report has been prepared for thc 2005 MUSA Area Expansion hnprovements, City Project No. 04-05. The proposed project includes public infrastructure improvements for the 2005 MUSA expansion area of Chanhassen. The 2005 MUSA Expansion Area is generally bordered by the following roadways: · Lyman Boulevard (CSAH 18) on the north · Audubon Road (CSAH 15) on the west · Pioneer Trail (CSAH 14) on the south · Future Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) on the east The proposed Mn/DOT TH 212 project runs through the southeastern portion of tine project area. Some of the improvements included as a part of this Feasibility Study will be constructed as a part of the TH 212 project. Infrastructure improvements included as a part of this Feasibility Study are as follows: · Construction of various public roadway improvements · Construction of trunk watermain improvements · Construction of trunk sanitary sewer improvements · Construction of trunk storm drainage improvements The proposed improvements are detailed in Exhibits 2-5 in Appendix A of this report. The estimated costs for the proposed improvements are detailed below. These costs include a 10% construction cost contingency and a 30% allowance for indirect costs. Proposed Improvement Estimated Cost Roadway 1. East-West Collector Roadway 2. East-West Collector Roadway Turn Lanes/Signal 3. North Connector Roadway 4. South Connector Roadway 5. School Area Road 6. Cul-de-Sac Turn Lanes on Powers Blvd. 7. Cul-de-Sac/Bluff Creek Dr. Turn Lanes on Pioneer Tr. 8. Lyman Blvd./Audubon Rd. Intersection 9. Lyman Blvd. Turn Lanes on Audubon Rd. 10. Lyman Blvd. Turn Lanes at North Connector Roadway 11. Audubon Rd. Turn Lanes at Lakeview Dr. 12. Pioneer Tr. Turn Lanes at South Connector Roadway 13. Lyman Blvd. Reconstruct. (Audubon Rd. to Powers Blvd.) 14. Powers Blvd. Turn Lanes at East-West Collector Roadway Subtotal $ 4,930,000 $ 906,000 $ 9O,000 $ 21,000 $ 688,000 $ 21,000 $ 3,364,000 $ 250,000 $10,270,000 Trunk 1. 2. 3. Watermain Powers Blvd. Watermain (Lyman Blvd. to Pioneer Tr.) $ Lyman Blvd. Watermain (West R.R. R/W to Powers Blvd.) $ Lyman Blvd. Watermain (Powers Blvd. to TH 101) $ Pioneer Tr. Watermain (West City Border to Powers Blvd.) $ Audubon Road Watermain (Lyman Blvd. to Pioneer Tr.) $ East-West Coll. Watermain (Audubon Rd. to Powers Blvd.)$ Subtotal $ Trunk Sanitary Sewer 1. Subdistrict BC-3 Trunk Sanitary Sewer $ 2. Subdistrict BC-2 Trunk Sanitary Sewers $ 3. Subdistrict LB-1 Trunk Sanitary Sewer $ Subtotal $ Trunk Storm Drainage 1. Powers Blvd./Lyman Blvd. Pond $ 2. Powers Blvd./TH 212 Pond $ 3. Pioneer Trail/South Connector Ponds $ Subtotal $ 499,000 1,008,000 333,000 429,000 700,000 328,000 3,297,000 545,000 716,000 300,000 1,561,000 350,000 300,000 350,000 1,000,000 Subtotal Project Costs Right-of-Way/Easement Acquisition Costs Total Project Cost $16,128,000 $ 0 $16,128,000 The improvements are proposed to be financed through a combination of special assessments to benefiting properties along with City and County funds. The following is a summary of the estimated funding amounts fi'om each of the proposed financing sources: Financing Source Roadway Special Assessments State Aid Arterial/Collector Road Assessment Other City/County Funds Subtotal Trunk Watermain Special Assessments City Water Utility Funds Subtotal Trunk Sanitary Sewer Special Assessments City Sewer Utility Funds Subtotal Trunk Storm Drainage Special Assessments City Storm Water Utility Funds Subtotal Amount $ 5,279,000 $ 1,627,000 $ 1,088,700 $ 2,275,300 $10,270,000 $ 2,248,000 $ 1,049,000 $ 3,297,000 $ 1,265,000 $ 296,000 $ 1,561,000 $ 967,500 $ 32,5OO $ 1,000,000 ~o 2005 MUSA AREA EXPANSION IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROJECT 04-05 MAY 26, 2004 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Q UESTIONS/ISS UES A ND RESPONSES SUMMA R Y The following is a summary of the questions and issues raised by the property owners at the May 26, 2004 neighborhood meeting along with City staff's response to each question/issue. The cast-west collector roadway will serve as a connection from the TH 212/Powers Boulevard interchange to neighborhoods in Chaska. What can be done to limit the use of this roadway by Chaska residents and by heavy trucks? Response: 77w,/hud design q/'llte easl-west collector roadway is proposed to include some "trq~]ic cahning" techniques to address this concern. The roadway ix proposed to be constructed to a parkway-(vpe design with trails, a raised center median and landscaping. Minimum radius horizontal curves and trelliS'o' control signage will also be considered to help minimize speeds along the roadway and to help reduce the desi~ztbilitv q/'the roadway as a cut-throu(g,h rollle. What is the estimated traffic volume on the east-west collector roadway? Has anyone done a study to look at travel times to determine il' the east-west collector roadway will be used as a cut-through route for Chaska residents? Response: The pro. jetted traf/ic volumes along the east-west collector roadway vary from 4,500 vehiclex/ &ly (ADT) on the west end ~o 11,600 ADT on the east end.Iht 2010. As stated above, the./ina/ design q/'the roadway will consider various measures lo reduce the potential./hr the roadway being used as a c'ut-t/trou,gh route. Does the east-west collector roadway need to cross Bluff Creek? Why can't it be two cul-de-sacs without a creek crossing? Response: The trq/Jic study completed as a part q/' the A UAR Jbr the prejec't area ident(/ied the need./hr the east-west collector roadway to constructed ax a COlllillltOllS roadway between Powers Boulewtrd and Audubon Road. 77te roadway needs to extend across Creek to reduce lite alllOltlll qfl'congestion that proposed development would create al [he proposed intersection qfl'the east- west collector roadway and Audubon Road. Who determined the design/alignment for the east-west collector roadway and can it be something different than what is shown on the maps? Response: The alignment was delennined based llpOll lhe physical conslrainlx qf the project al'erg, roadway design requirements and discltsxions with Cam, er County and Mn/DOT. The east-west collector roadway must intersect with Audubon Road at the existing Buttenutt Drive intetwection based upon Carver CormU requirements. The east-west collector roadway must intersect with .fitture Powers Boulevard at lhe proposed TH 212 interchange ramps based upon inputJh)m Mn/DOT and Carver Colmty. The location q~'the Bll(~' Creek crossing has been selected based upon lopography and the need to minimize construction impacts to creek and associated wetlands. The.final design alignmen({br the roadway could vary slightly,{~om the current design; however, the intersection and creek crossing constraints limit any sign(tic:ant changes in the alignment. The proposed intersections along Audubon Road and Lyman Boulevard may not work considering topography and land features. Were these issues considered in the design of the various roadways? Respo~lse: 771e proposed inlersection locations along Audubon Road and Lwnan Boulevard were determined considering intersection spacing intervals along both roadways. There will likely be significant changes itl tile lopography of the area when the properties are developed which may help address lhis issue. Il is proposed that the north connector roadway and the school area roadway, and their associaled intersections on Audubon Road and Lyman Boulevard, be built by llte proper(v owners/developers. Coordination will be required with Carver Coun(¥ al that lime lo obtain approvals for the.final inlersection localions. Who determined the design for the proposed sanitary sewer lines? The locations shown on the maps will split properties and may impact future development plans. Why can't the sanitary sewer follow the roadways? How deep will the sanitary sewer be? Response: The sanilary sewer alignments shown in tite.J'easibili(¥ report are preliminasv and have been determined based upon existing topography and the proposed roadway alignmenIs. Topography will be an importan[ consideration in [he final design OJ'l]le sanitaO' sewer to minimize sanitary sewer depths and cost. It expected that the trunk sanitary sewer will vacv in depth approximately 12 Jbet to 30Jbet. The final design/alignment trunk sanitasv sewer mains will need lo be coordinated with properly owners lo minimize potential impacts to development plans. 7. 10. The proposed assessments are quite large. How much will the City and/or other parties be paying for the improvements? ResDo~se: The total cost for all of the roadway, watennain, sanilaO, sewer and storm drainage improvements included in the J~asibilily reporl is $16,128,000. The proposed assessment amount is $10,848,200, or about two-thirds q~'the total project cost. The remainder pr(4ject fimding will come Jkom CiU State Ai~L Water UtiliU, Sanitary Sewer UtiliU, Storm Water UliliU and other Ci(v/County Why does Lyman Boulevard need to be widened'? Why should the 2005 MUSA area pay for the widening'? Don't the proposed widening improvements benefit Chaska and areas outside of the 2005 MUSA area? Response: Lyman Boldevard is a Carver CourtU roadway. The CourtU has been planning jbr the,fitture widening ~f the roadway to accommodate trq/fic growth since the early 1990's. The development el'the 2005 MUSA area will accelerate the need to expand the roadway. Il is proposed that properties within the 2005 MUSA area participate in the costs,&r the Lyman Boulevard improvements through an arterial/collector roadway assessment. 77~e arterial collector roadway assessments would only pay jbr approximately 25 - 30% qf the costs of the roadway improvements. Other.fimding will have to be providedJbr the remainder ¢'the project costs. What is the origin of the proposed arterial/collector roadway assessment'? Is this a City policy and how were the proposed assessment amounts determined? Response: See above. 77w arterial/collector roadway assessntent is proposed to be levied against properties within the 2005 MUSA area to help provide.fimding Jbr the nec'essacv reconstruction/widening ¢' Lvman Boulevard between Audubon Road and Powers Boulevard. Il is proposed that the 2005 MUSA area properties be assessed fi)r approximately 40% qf the costs to reconstruct a (vpical two-lane roadway and 50% qf the costs to widen a hvpical roadway jkom two-lanes toff)ur-lanes. The proposed arterial/collector roadway assessment is $2,400/acre Jbr residential properties and $3,600/acre Jbr commercial properties. There should be a reduction in assessments for those properties that dedicate right-of-way and easements. Response: The assessment areas for individual properties are proposed to be based upon the gross parcel area less roadway right-of way, wetlands, and floodplain. Ther¢]'bre, there will be an assessment reduction Jbr those properties that dedicate public right-o.[ way. I1. it seems like different properties will be benefited for the roadway, sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm drainage improvements. Are the assessment areas the same for all of the improvements'? ResDollse : Separate assessment areas have been developed./bt the roadway, watennain, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage improvements based upon the bem¢}'ting areas. 77w.&asibility report includes exhibits detailing the proposed assessment areas,/bt the various improvements. 12. The properties that are ready to be developed are pushing other properties that aren't ready for development. The proposed assessments will force property owners to develop. Why can't all development be delayed until everyone is ready? Response: The CiU must make it~/'rastructure available to meet ttw needs ~/' developing properties. We agree that it would be best (['all properties were rea~(v to deveh)p at the same time; however, it does not appear that this will be the case in the 2005 MUSA area. An ~]brt will need to be made to provide iq/kastructure Jbr lhose properties that are rearer to develop w/file ntinimizing impacts to those properties that will have delayed development. Assessments are proposed to be &¢}erred until the time (~/'development to help arMress this issue. 13. How will the proposed trail construction be funded? Why should property owners be assessed for trails as a part of the roadway construction when they will be required to pay a separate fee for trail improvements when they develop'? Response: The costs of the prw~osed trails along lite east-west collector roadway are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting properties as a part of the roadway costs. No other trail costs are proposed to be assessed to properties within the 2005 MUSA area. Consistent with all developing properties within the City, the properties within the 2005 MUSA area will be required to pay Park Fees at the time of development that will provide,fimding,/br various Ci(vwide park and trail costs. 14. There are too many interchanges on TH 212. We don't need an interchange att both Powers Boulevard and TH 101. Response: 7'tie CiU Council has already provided municipal consent,for the preliminary layout for TH 212 in March 2004 including interchanges at both Powers Boulevard and TH 101. 15. What is the status of berming along TH 212 for noise abatement? Response: The CiU's continued involvement in the design q/'berming/noise abatement along the TH 212 was a condition of the City's municipal consent approval for TH 212. The City will have the abilicv to review proposed benning/noise abatement as the final design of the rFH 212 project proceeds. 16. What is the timing for the proposed improvements'? Will the City be purchasing my property it' my home is in the way of the proposed roadway improvements? The timing of the proposed 2005 MUSA Area improvements will be dependent upoll the needs e[ development. Various infrastructure improvements will be initiated as development dictates. The C/ty has no immediate plans to acquire properties or remove existing homes in the project area. 17. What is the schedule/process for the feasibility study? Will property owners have another opportunity to review the proposed improvements before the feasibility study is presented to the City Council? Response: Proper(v owners were provided all opportuni(v to review the proposed improvements again at a neighborhood meeting on Jlt~lc 29, 2004. The agenda fi;r that meeting was developed based upon the questions detailed above. A copy of the agenda.[br tlte.[bllow- up meeting is attached. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 21}05 MUSA AREA EXPANSION IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROJECT 04-05 Follow Up Neighborhood Meeting June 29, 2004, 6:00-8:00 PM AGENDA 2) 3) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) · Defined Required Infrastructure Improvements · Approved December 2003 TH 212 Improvements · Municipal Consent Granted March 2004 · Municipal Consent included the following Conditions: Review of Traffic Noise Issues/Design of Noise Walls & Berms Screening and Landscape Design Review PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Roadway Improvements · East-West Collector Roadway i. Design/Alignment ii. Bluff Creek Crossing vs. Cul-de-Sac Roadways iii. Cut-Through Traffic iv. Projected Traffic Volumes/Truck Use v. Construction Phasing/Schedule · North Connector, South Connector and School Area Roadways · Location of intersections along Audubon Road and Lyman Boulevard · Need for Lyman Boulevard Widening Utility Improvements · Trunk Sanitary Sewer Design - Location and Depth PROPOSED FUNDING PLAN & ASSESSMENTS A. Proposed Assessment Methodology Assessment Areas · Roadway Improvements · Arterial & Collector Roadway Improvements · Sanitary Sewer Improvements · Watermain hnprovements · Storm Sewer Improvements Assessment Area Reductions · Right-of-Way · Wetlands · Floodplains Funding from Other Sources · City of Chanhassen · Carver County · Mn/DOT Other Development Costs/Fees · Surface Water Management Fees · Park Fees · Sewer and Water Hook-up Fees · Local Roadway and Utility Costs F. Assessments Deferred until Development Occurs 4) OTHER QUESTIONS & DISCUSSION