3. West 78th St. Detachment Improvement 1
CITY OF,s,
j , ,"Ike` CHANHASSEN
„,\,,..„,._..,., ,.,,, ,0-.1
.P I t I " V it • •
T.. , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
} , - (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
IMEMDRANDUM '/ Gam%
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
II FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer _' .-\\V-41 -
•- \
DATE: October 3, 1990 '" `
I/ SUBJ: Public Hearing to Reinitiate the West 78th Street Detachment , : ., ; .)
Improvement Project No. 87-2
IAt the September 24, 1990 City Council meetin g. a hearing was set for this
evening's meeting concerning the reinitiation of the West 78th Street Detachment
II Improvement Project. Project costs and scope have been updated as noted in the
previous staff report to reflect the current project. As noted at that time,
the Powers Boulevard segment south of the new detachment intersection is
11 included in the MnDOT Trunk Highway 5 plans which will be under construction
next year. In order to facilitate the staging of the Trunk Highway 5 work as
planned by MnDOT, it is necessary that the City have the West 78th Street
I Detachment Project completed to serve as a by-pass for Pavers Boulevard traffic
during the disruption and reconstruction of the Trunk Highway 5/Powers Boulevard
intersection.
1 The original assessment roll was established in 1987. A review of the original
roll indicated a need to update the roll because of the scope and project cost
revisions as well as several changes in the platting of the assessable property.
I The attached BRW report details the revisions in assessment methodology and any
significant changes which have been made to the assessment roll. A revised
preliminary assessment roll is attached to this report for information.
II It is therefore appropriate for Council to receive public cam:ent at this
hearing and upon close of the hearing to reinitiate the project for construction
in 1991.
11 ktm
I Attachments: 1. Staff report dated September 19, 1990 w/attachments.
2. Letter fran BRW dated October 4, 1990.
3. Revised preliminary assessment roll.
4. Assessment location map.
1 c: Gary Ehret, BRW
II
I
C_) / -4-
ANA
i. / c_
I .
CITYOF _.
..
II ,,
1! CHANHASSEN
....,,, _,„;,,,, - ,
1 ,, .,,,,, ,,. _, .
4 . ..
, -:-747 "..;;:�,; 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, Mi E$Q1.A�5431,7.
' ,
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM rMod44``-----.--°- _
_
ITO: Don Ashworth , City Manager �'�� 'c FROM: Gary Warren , City Engineer r.:.._.�___
ilDATE: September 19 , 1990 _..._..._. Y_.2 _ =:
II SUBJ: Reinitiate West 78th Street Detachment Improvement Project
No. 87-2 - Phase I; Call for Public Hearing
IIThere are skeptics I'm sure who might question whether this
project will ever be constructed. As the Project No. 87-2
implies , the original feasibility study for this project was
II completed in July of 1987 . Since that time the project has
encountered numerous delays and obstacles surrounding the
development proposals for this segment of West 78th Street
11 between Kerber Boulevard and County Road 17 . None the least of
these has been the Target proposal .
Be that as it may, the City has obligated itself for the upgrade
I of County Road 17 north of Trunk Highway 5 to the detachment
intersection . As will be recalled, this portion of the project
is currently included in MnDOT' s plans for the Trunk Highway 5
I upgrade which is scheduled for a March 22 , 1991 letting.
Incorporated in the MnDOT plans is the relocation of the existing
West 78th Street/County Road 17 intersection to the new
II detachment area approximately 350 feet to the north. In order to
properly sequence with MnDOT 's County Road 17 construction, it
will be necessary for the City to proceed forward with the
construction of the West 78th Street detachment project such that
II bids can be taken this winter and construction started as soon as
weather permits in the spring.
II The construction plans for this project were authorized by the
Council and have been 99% complete for some time now. With the
development proposals of Target and others in this area, the City
I has presently taken a "wait-and-see" attitude concerning the
final design for the road section. To this extent, the firm of
Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch has been commissioned to provide us with
road capacity options for this segment which will allow us to
make a final decision on the road section and capacity needs. We
expect to have the results of their report in the next two weeks.
II
II .
Don Ashworth
September 19 , 1990
Page 2
Armed with this information , the final road section can be i
solidified and the plans amended for bidding.
As required by State Statute, since no construction has been
initiated on this project within one year of the public hearing
and since this is a Statute 429 public improvement project
utilizing special assessments as a portion of the funding
mechanism, it is necessary for the City Council to reinitiate the
authorization for the project and re-hold the public hearing to
update the scope and costs associated with the project. To this
extent, the attached September 18 , 1990 letter has been prepared
by BRW to address the scope changes and cost impacts associated
with the delay in the project. I have also included a copy of an
exhibit from the original feasibility study to aid in
re-familiarizing you with the project scope. Copies of the
original feasibility study are available from the Engineering
Department and can be provided if requested.
It is recommended that based on the updated project scope and
costs as presented in the attached September 18 , 1990 letter
report from BRW, the City Council reinitiate Improvement Project
No. 87-2 - Phase I, and call for a public hearing to be held
October 8 , 1990 .
ktm I
Attachments: 1. September 18 , 1990 letter report from BRW.
2 . Project Improvements exhibit.
3 . City Council minutes from the August 28, 1989
public hearing.
c: Gary Ehret, BRW '
I
I
1
1
r
I
I
I n Bill,' PLANNING
TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING
URBAN DESIGN
BRW,INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55415 • PHONE: 612/370-0700 FAX. 612/370-1378
September 20, 1990
1
City of Chanhassen
' 690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
ATTN: Mr. Gary Warren, PE
�. City Engineer
' RE: Reinitiate West 78th Street Feasibility Study, Phase I
City Project 87-2
Dear Mr. Warren:
' The reconstruction of the West 78th Street Detachment again appears to require
City Council action to proceed. The project was reinitiated by the City Council
on August 28, 1989, with a public hearing being held at that time. Since no
' action has occurred since that time, reinitiation and a new public hearing are
required in accordance with governing statutes.
11 The original feasibility study for this project was completed in July of 1987.
The original feasibility study considered and was based upon a right-in, right-
out private drive from Powers Boulevard to old West 78th Street when the new
1 West 78th Street detachment was constructed. Subsequent to this study,
Supplemental Report #1 was issued, which addressed an alternative roadway con-
figuration. The roadway alternative (a cul-de-sac) described in Supplemental
Report #1 was subsequently eliminated and the right-in, right-out private drive
1 as addressed in the original feasibility study was reinstated. The project was
then reinitiated with updated cost estimates in August of 1989 as referenced
above. The original feasibility study should be "reaccepted" or "reinitiated"
for this project again at this time.
The general content of the original feasibility study remains germain to the
1 project, but several decisions have been made which have impact upon the project
scope and cost. These items are summarized below:
#1. Two storm sewer alternatives were presented in the original feasibility
study. Alternative A which is a storm sewer system that drains to the
Eckankar property, was the selected alternative. In our opinion, this
remains the best alternative, and the project has been designed in this
' manner.
#2. The private drive to the Burdick Plat was originally intended as a 24-foot
wide drive. This has since been modified to include a 28-foot wide drive
at the direction of Carver County.
AN AFFILIATE OF THE BENNETT.RINGROSE.WOLSFELD.JARVIS,INC.GROUP
DAVID J BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E JARVIS THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A AMUNDSEN DONALD E.HUNT MARK G SWENSON
JOHN B McNAMARA RICHARD D PILGRIM DALE N.BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF JEFFREY L BENSON RALPH C.BLUM DAVID L.GRAHAM GARY J ERICKSON
1 MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST.PETERSBURG SAN DIEGO
I
.Mr. Gary Warren
September 20, 1990
Page 2
#3. Subsequent to the original feasibility study, design activities were ini-
tiated by Mn/DOT for TH 5. As a part of those activities, modified designs
have been considered for the TH 5/Powers Boulevard intersection. (In par-
ticular, to accommodate the right-in, right-out to the private drive.) We
have worked with Mn/DOT to complete a consistent design in this area, and
to further define the limits of work for this project and the TH 5
reconstruction project by Mn/DOT.
• #4. Subsequent to the original feasibility study, an additional requirement for
storm water ponding has been placed upon this project. We have examined
alternative storm water pond locations for discharge of local runoff prior
to discharge into the Eckankar ponding area. Additional costs will be
incurred as a result of this requirement for additional ponding. These
costs have been included in our updated cost estimate below.
#5. Subsequent to the original feasibility study, the need to extend the limits 1
of construction further north on Powers Boulevard were identified. . This
change has resulted in modified project costs.
#6. Phase I construction is now being considered for 1991 rather than 1988, as ,
considered in the original feasibility study. We have updated the project
costs to account for inflation, etc.
#7. The current Middle East Crisis has had a significant impact upon the price
of bituminous, and, in our opinion, will have an impact upon the cost of
construction as well . We have modified our cost estimate to reflect anti-
cipated increases in the price of bituminous.
Reinitiation of the project should be made based upon the original feasibility
study dated July 1987 and the general modifications outlined above. The
modified project costs for Phase I are outlined below:
A. Construction Costs '
Cost Element 1991 Estimated Cost
Sanitary Sewer $ 37,500.00
Water Main 58,500.00
Drainage/Storm Sewer 235,000.00
Grading Roadways 850,000.00
Traffic Signals (conduit only) 15,000.00
Landscaping/Paths/Lighting 150,000.00
Private Utilities 10,000.00
Estimated Construction Cost $ 1,356,000.00
B. Land Acquisition Cost $ 150,000.00 1
11
II
Mr Gary Warren
September 20, 1990
Page 3
1
C. Administrative Cost 451,800.00
Total Estimated Phase I
Project Cost $ 1,957,800.00
As outlined in the original feasibility study, the project was to be financed b
Y Y. P j by
General Obligation (or Tax Increment Funds) and special assessments. We esti-
1 mate that costs incurred above the original feasibility study estimate are
primarily general obligation costs, and will not be a significant part of the
special assessments. The assessment roll , as provided in the original feasi-
bility study and the subsequent public hearings, remains applicable with the
following exceptions:
#1. As outlined in Clarification #6 and #7 above, the project costs were
increased to reflect anticipated 1991 versus 1988 construction costs.
Therefore, the assessment amounts, as listed in the original assessment
roll have been increased accordingly.
' We will provide a final Engineers Cost Estimate at the time of plan and
specification approval .
We will also privide a Revised Assessment Roll for the public hearing.
In conclusion, I would like to clarify two other issues.
First, this reinitiation addresses only Phase I of the original feasibility
study, which' includes all improvements lying north of TH 5. Improvements lying
south of TH 5, which were a part of Phase II , are not addressed in this
reinitiation.
Secondly, that the project costs and assessable amounts are a function of the
final bidding process, and land acquisition costs and final assessments will
reflect actual costs determined during the assessment hearing at the conclusion
of the project.
Please feel free to contact me if I can clarify anything further.
1 Sincerely,
BRW, N .
Gary A. E et, PE
1 Project Manager
GAE/ch
cc: File 7-8711
i
*!'•• .
d • 1
TO PROPOSED Z 1.
DETENTION POND _. 1 ;.; I
•
.t 'k ■
s. f
1,A
d ,
It PROPOSED I 80.11.0.W-
-- /-
v EXISTING
12.W.M,
WINN:.STUB
11.1111111111111111FRotip fr SAN.SEW i ER STUB
8.WM.STUB
, .
ClIANHASSEN
COUNTY ROAD 17 /
.4meire. WEST 78TH STREET
•
. -ii '" . ---"--E ------ ''''' '--
.Q'.,
—— _ 'Ilitris. \ FEASIBILITY _
r 8624 CURB&GUTTER /4:S/171rTARY
Nf :I i, SEWER ir WATERM-AIN ........ \ P"ii;°. AON
1 ,igt N• i: 16 \SWPOND STUDY
1 I I i:',';, ' ;:.'' 1 1
,.:; ,k.. B624 CURB&GUTTER TrAyscHE76,i5\5‘.
TOP EL akO 52' F-f
...,
EXISTING GAS MAIN i.iii: .,, i . SEE TYPICAL
'.
1 i -, t , I PROPOSED ,.: .1;,,, SECTION LEGEND
_ , ‘,
mil r1 ' k EXISTING BURIED PRIVATE DRIVE
EASEMENT Al‘i‘.
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
-.... TELEPHONE DRIVEWAYS
:,---/ 1411/...,...'.‘ ..--.. : •TH • . ...^4111§L : elbh, -----PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WA
_
-. . eRworA rePorls.,• OW ■ —• .-,
'ilifik"'"irlara. ....
Miri - hill4W4,.-,-- -, 7--- EXISTING ROADWAY
./ _
/ - • 6- ,r,- / I..-- .."u*--- ___
— __ ,
_ ---, '"01 PROPOSED ROADWAY
Aitfii. he• -.---- -.. -R%
: ' 4.„:"4, 1 ---=--
City Council Meeting - Aug''�", 28, 1989 A...p..I l a
IICouncilman Johnson: Same pi_oblern.
Fted Oelschlager : My problem is the distance out into the dtiveway. That's a
teal hang-up. Okay. Well, that's fine. I understand that. Thanks for all
II your_ time.
I LOT DEPTH AND LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUESTS TO SUBDIVIDE A 27,405 SQ. FT. LOT INTO
2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 185 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, CARL MCNUTT.
IMayor Chmiel : Is Carl here?
Jo Ann Olsen: It was denied and he's not appealing.
IIMayor Chmiel : He's not appealing it? Okay.
IIWEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 87-2:
A. RE-INITIATE FEASIBILITY STUDY - PHASE 1.
IIResolution #89-98A: Councilman Boyt t moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve to re-initiate a feasibility study for Phase 1 of the West 78th Street
Itachment Improvement Project 87-2. All voted in favor and the motion camel.
IIB. PUBLIC HEARING - PHASE 1.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
IIB.C. Jim Burdick: First of all, I would like to see this Phase 1 again if we
may. I know it's late.
ICouncilman Boyt: Mr. Burdick, you need to introduce yourself.
Mr. Burdick: Of course. B.C. Jim Burdick. Excelsior, Minnesota. I'd like to
1 see the Phase 1 again if we may?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Gary do you have. ..
IIGary Warren: I have an overhead. The West 78th Street detachment project, the
entire project just to start from that point, is the attachment of West 78th
Street some 300 feet to the north of it's current alignment and the subsequent
IIimprovements which include storm water retention pond south of TH 5. But
basically the Phase 1 elements of the project are all those north of TH 5 so
basically for all intensive purposes, this graphic fr_an the feasibility study
Iwill show, we'll bring the storm water over to the Eckankar pond. That's a part
of the project. The installation of the utilities on West 78th Street.
Construction of improvements, roadway improvements on CR 17 which would be
Iintegrated with the TH 5 improvements now and realignment and the construction
of West 78th Street from Kerbers Blvd. to the intersection of CR 17.
II
60
i
' City Council Meeting - n dust 28, 1989 .? 1
Councilman Workman: Gary, what kind of, we're at the right-in/right-out and
what do we, I know I was at 'the Carver County meeting. Where are we at with
that?
Gary Warren: Basically Carver County has issued a permit. A copy of that is in
the packet allowing right-in/right-out so our plans, which we will now go
forward from this meeting. . .acknowledge that a right-in/right-out connection
will be at that location.
Councilman Workman: Right-in/right-out except for the Burdicks? I'm talking
about some of the finer details about how traffic is going to be curbed and
everything else.
Gary Warren: The actual details of this private road as it has now become, and 1
right-in/right-out connection and such will be up to the applicant to supply to
the City and to the County for review but there have been already discussions
about conditions and elements of that design. '
Councilman Workman: We don't need to approach those this evening?
Gary Warren: No. Does that answer your question? 1
Mr. Burdick: Yes. I think it does. Unless you have a more detailed drawings
of this area. ,
Gary Warren: We do have a design set that's available in more detail but
basically this is the best overall summary I can give you at this point. It's
the same project that we've been through now since 1987.
Mr. Burdick: Yes. I believe I've seen enough to go ahead. Now .first, I would
like to have the Minutes show that I delivered a letter which is.. .and things of
this sort concerning the assessment. Could we leave the drawing on the board?
Gary Warren: .Sure. '
Mr . Burdick: Now we are being assessed $140,000:00 for this. Now the criteria
of assessment is only one thing. Does it benefit the property and this is
obvious. In our case we are not benefitted. It's reduced because of our
property. Particularly Lots 1, 2 and 3, if you will point to those Gary and
perhaps the first half of 4 being assessed about $70,000.00-$80,000.00 for
those. Now there's no question but what this should not be assessed because
that portion of the road does not touch Our property. It's not adjacent to our
property. It's been held many times that property cannot be assessed unless the
improvement, the road :Improvement is immediately adjacent to it. I
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, this is not the assessment hearing at this particular time.
Mr . Burdick: Ch, I understood it was and I stopped in City Hall and all. 1
Mayor Chmiel: No. This will come at a little later time and I think at that
time you can present your case but at this time it is not pertinent to what
we're proposing to do.
Mr. Burdick: Thank you. I inquired to City Hall. I
•
61 1
IIGifu Council ^met .ng - Aug . 28, 1989
II
Mayor Chmiel : This public hearing c hea _rng is being held pursuant to M;nnesota Statutes
Section 429. The area proposed to be assessed for said improvement is the
1 property abutting the above mentioned roadways.
Roger Knutson: This is not the assessment hearing. This is the public
1 improvement hearing. State Statutes require you to say how much you're going to
be assessed. You may assess in that public ;.mprovament hearing notice. The
decision to assess specific parcels will be made by you at a later date when the
II assessment hearing is held.
Councilman Johnson: This is a public hearing to approve the feasibility study.
IIMayor Clrmiel: Right. Exactly.
Gary Warren: Brian Burdick and I met last week and I had run through it with
1 Brian. Jim wasn't able to attend our meeting but basically I explained that
that was the process.
II Councilman Johnson: But it's always good to let your opinion be known as early
in the process.
Mr. Burdick: Yes, I don' t regret caning. There's a ninnber of other. things I've
II been interested in tonight. Okay. And apparently this public, well it's not an
improvement because it's not an improvement but this change is all cut and dry?
I'm somewhat of the opinion that this government body at this time would not
IIvote for moving this street. It has been decided at the present time that TH 5
is only going to be 40 feet, that's 40 feet farther to the north than previously
and we're moving this street 300 feet, or 250 feet. Can this be taken up and
II reconsidered at this time? The entire expenditure of over 2 million dollars
which I feel, I don't feel. Actually I know is not necessary. We're taking a
beautiful straight street and making it a squir_rely street.
Gary Warren: Mt . Mayor, if I could address that?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead Gary Gary.
I Gar Warren: The detachment has been supported by the County Engineer and by
the Benshoof Report basically that was done initially on this alignment in
concert with MnDot who supported the separation. trot's road widening, I don' t
II know if I understood you Jim about referencing 40 feet. That may be their
actual TH 5 road widening requirements but the actual detachment at it's current
location is founded in the Benshoof Reports and the work that the State
II basically did also as far as what they were interested in seeing so Mr. James
and his platting of his subdivision had dedicated the right-of-way, as you're
aware the rough roadway is already put in the for the detachment so I would say
11 things are pretty well set in that regard.
Mayor Chmiel: You're also going to connect that into the future frontage road
too on the west end of CR 17 which will be going to Lake Ann Park.
IGary Warren: That's our intention at this time is to, in conjunction with the
pond that will be built there, is to use this as a further extension of the
IIfrontage road. That's correct. That separation is founded primarily in the
i 62
, City Council Meeting - A st 28, 1989
("7
necessity for stacking the vehicles at that intersection. In order to provide 1
enough roan for stacking during the light changes.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? 1
Councilman Boyt: I would move closing the public hearing?
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? I
Councilwoman Dimler: Have sc fissions.
you finished?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, are you done Jim or do you have some additional d�.' 11
Mt. Burdick: Oh I think so. I think so. I appreciate being here tonight.
I might not be here for the following meeting but Brian has heard my opinion now
so I'm sure he can carry on without me. I just don't want to be under the
impression that we're going to consider this as increasing the value of our land
so that we will pay an assessment and I think if we consider the entire piece
there, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, it would come out as a net loss to us. As I say,
we strongly feel you can only be assessed if an appraisal of the property before
and after shows an increase in value and of course it will not. Thank you for
your time.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I have a motion on the floor . '
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman soconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. g
Councilman Johnson: Mr . Mayor, I move we accept the feasibility study as
updated August 24, 1989. J
Councilwoman Dimler : I second that.
Roger Knutson: Which means you're ordering the project. You're not ordering '
plans and specifications for it. Is that correct?
Councilman Johnson: And authorize the preparation of plans and specifications '
is the rest of the sentence.
•
Resolution #89-98B: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
accept the feasibility study as updated August 24, 1989 and authorize the
preparation of plans and specifications. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
D. APPROVE INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT WITH CARVER COUNTY. ,
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Interagency
Agreement with Carver County. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
63
I _
It PLANNING
TRANSPORTATION
ENGINEERING
URBAN DESIGN
BRW INC THRESHER SQUARE 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55415 PHONE 612'370-0700 FAX 612'370-1378
IIOctober 4, 1990
II
Mr. Gary Warren, PE
II City Engineer
City of Chanhassen CITY DE CH HASSEN
690 Coulter Drive , raR np
Chanhassen, MN 55317i.�lU !�;ifl��
' RE: WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT OCT 1990
CP 87-2
11 ENGINEERING DEPT.
Dear Mr. Warren:
' As a function of the re-initiation process for this project we felt it advisable
to review and revise as necessary, the assessment methodology, assessable
parcels, and total estimated assessments based upon the current cost estimates.
IOur review has indicated a need to consider revisions to the assessments outlined
in the original feasibility study. The need for revisions is based upon the
IIfollowing:
1. The original costs (1987 estimates) have been revised to reflect current
IIcost estimates (1991) .
2. The project has changed in scope as outlined by conditions One through
ISeven of our September 20, 1990, re-initiation letter.
3. Since final design is nearly complete, we are aware of design changes
Iwhich affect the assessments.
4. The final platting of the area has changed subsequent to completion of the
IIoriginal feasibility study.
5. We have revised the assessment roll to include current Property
IIIdentification Numbers (PID's) and current ownership.
II
IAN AFFILIATE OF THE BENNETT.RINGROSE.WOLSFELD.JARVIS INC GROUP
DAVID J BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E JARVIS THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A AMUNDSEN DONALD E HUNT MARK G SWENSON
JOHN B McNAMARA RICHARD D PILGRIM DALE N BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF JEFFREY L BENSON RALPH C BLUM DAVID L GRAHAM GARY J ERICKSON
iMINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST.PETERSBURG SAN DIEGO
Mr. Gary Warren, PE
October 4, 1990
Page 2
I
A review of the assessment methodology and recommended changes for each
item to be assessed is identified below:
A. SANITARY SEWER. Sanitary Sewer is proposed for assessments (100%) '
to properties on a front-foot basis for lateral mains and by service
connection for benefitting properties which will be served by the
new sanitary sewer main.
Significant Changes:
o West Village Heights Block 2, Lot 1, will be served by private 1
connection and will not be served by the new sanitary sewer.
Therefore, this property has been eliminated for the sanitary
sewer assessments.
o New Service stubs are being provided to West Village Heights
Block 1, Lots 3 and 4; therefore, these properties have been
included in the sanitary sewer assessments.
o The assessable properties have been modified to reflect ,
current platting.
B. WATERMAIN. Watermain is proposed for assessment to properties on a
front-foot basis for lateral mains and by service connection for
benefitting properties which will be served by the new water main.
Significant Changes:
o The cost to relocate two hydrants has been identified as a tax
increment cost ($4,000) .
o The assessable properties have been modified to reflect
current platting.
o A watermain service stub will be provided to serve Burdick
Park, Second Addition, Block 1, Lots 4 and 5; therefore, this
property has been included in the watermain assessment.
I
1
Mr. Gary Warren, PE
October 4, 1990
Page 3
' C. STORM DRAINAGE. Storm Drainage is proposed for assessment on an
area basis. Credit is given for one-half the cost of construction
of the storm sewer system.
Significant Changes:
o The assessable properties have been modified to reflect
current platting.
D. ROADWAYS/LANDSCAPING/LIGHTING. Roadway, landscaping and lighting
' costs are proposed for assessment to properties on a front-foot
basis. The methodology is as follows:
' I The West 78th Street Roadway is assessed at a rate equivalent
to the cost of constructing a commercial roadway 36 feet face-
of-curb to face-of-curb.
' II Improvements to Powers Boulevard are not assessed.
III Lighting is assessed in full to West 78th Street properties.
IV Landscaping is assessed at one-half the cost to West 78th
' Street properties.
Significant Changes:
o The assessable properties have been modified to reflect
current platting.
Consistent with the original feasibility study and other similar projects, the
' following items have not been assessed:
1. Construction of the Ekankar Pond.
' 2.
3. Traffic Signal Conduit at West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard.
Private Utility Costs.
4. Property Acquisition.
11 5. Those "Credits" Referenced Above.
' I
Mr. Gary Ehret, PE 1
October 4, 1990
Page 4
1
A summary of the project funding, based upon the current costs estimates and the
II
revised preliminary assessment roll , is as follows:
ASSESSABLE OTHER FUNDING II ITEM AMOUNT AMOUNT
Sanitary Sewer $ 48,750.00 $ -0- II
72,050.00 4,000.00
Storm Drainage 152,750.00 152,750.00
Roadways/Landscaping/Lighting 483,210.00 686,790.00 II Pond Costs -0- 130,000.00
Traffic Signals -0- 19,500.00
Private Utilities -0- 13,000.00 II Subtotal $756,760.00 $1,006,040.00
Property Acquisition -0- $ 195,000.00
Subtotals $756,760.00 $1,201,040.00 I
TOTAL $1,957,800.00
II
Attached to this summary is the revised assessment roll for the public hearing. II
Sincerely, 1
BR INC.
II
4111111i ', (;? Mg/
/ II
Gary A. Ehret, PE
Project Manager 1
GAE/j al
Attachment I
cc: File 7-8811
II
II
II
- --- -------------- l fO
II
et tO N 0 CO to 11
$ o 0 0 0 0 0 • ° is f
tR
• CR
S.Kme e2�-- e�.... o= ova --
8�� c e t:e :o M ob coM McEz4 t2`CC4 f 11 a Or
Oa - FS .. �8 8 ^g a g
V;� r< ea Iv, ot
t: CPI O
O
Pt 0 M.. . o e e o� i 8 NM g NM 0 f "om o
Of tO o
Cl
ma II
tt
tt
tt►s.. r-i N- - `t� G+°.1< N i..° ^'R'-... m,.,. m C C`•-e c,
I so
▪ tal FR
o
on on
o
on
co
Oft Oft
OC1 :1
tf
0 61.1§0f
emanti
ea
ea
. V. Oft m 2C `('1 J r:14_..)CD
K
to N N N
1C bC
11 MI
irTM
V iJ
!-
co t�aSie
I (Q
tPIf MM O °���
COD
- o
EJ'3
I ° o o o 211
$ o o N o e $
N ° ea it
en
0
cr. 0 o S t
0 g oo° o o '000 0
• •-• Il
O 0 0 0 0 0
0
II
=M II
i .■ f._ w c, N c.
a "�' .�. . o r �d CR
o
4. m o L. rn w o o °o -'' e-cn
o
o.
vs
en
at
att
M on
o °o o • e
att
e o °e ° o
o
• o.
O 0 0
0
0
te
o ° 1 on i.•
s"3
- -------------- ------------------------------ --
I 11
II
II
Mf
f
=f
-
na
to
h M .ii
ap o s N e ..
Iig ff
Ei ii
oil
RN
fps N i 11 to
C.
E O N O O O 1 1
U N .. CO o of ii•---- ------
M « i cie a N � f s !!
n o o e �, a r l no I
I • • 11
1 '
I •
-.
1
Fa .
1$ S.
o :a
o ti
81 o, o o o o S
,, .... c... 0 •
1 I
2 i■ Fa::::.. .9 63,F. P 1:1''' 1---7-^4 r:' 17---."' N tg. 111
E :I EP' EP' r. g- v . EP' •
r
r-
._. ._..-.
0 = a a a a a
_ -
0 0
:I 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 4....
...a .
:1
I I
1 I
1.I
1 I
I
11 0 0 00 I-1 CY 0 .-11 0 00 0 0 MI •-•... 041 0
a...0 1•-•0 ...• 0
II ''' _4 g,'" .'“--.0 1-'.'-*7-7 r'.•-•7-3 r--..,-. r-z.--;
0 0.••• CO OC. CO SIC CO 0 CO MC to
1: S PI i•C'. § ;"• § 7—'' § E
§E
I
11
. ■ . . .
6. 6.-.. .... ,.. 0
11 r..a .... 6,4 ...- ,,J •-• ....
.6 I
8 6
8 t
IA
I 1
11
I I
1 1
1 1
11
11
11
I t
1 1
11
I
1 1
1 1
11
11
11
—•• .
•..- ..
..— 0 .... .. .. .r. ... ....
I
---------- ---------..
0 11
0 11
0 11
0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0
11
1 I
11 I
11
1 1
11
I 1
I I
11
11
16
1. -...--..■-- ...-
- j
On 11
ro I I I
J.. ■,
o o o o o o
-------..------
C.. i i •-•
S ...6 ..r.
o
o •6 O o o. ,=, o
.
o $i o. o o O o
O. " o o o ... S o
III
8 I
6.
1 I
I 1
I
II
11
11
11
11
11
I I
1 I
16
1 I
a 11
11
61
••..••”-••.....•...-..•-- ••••••
I; II
I
t. 11
0 11
to- o := f-- - := := -
O 61 0 0 0 0 0 0
O 11 0 0 0 0. 0 0
11
11
11
11
I
11
11
11
11
If
11
I 1
11
I I
I I
VI “.• --....•..•••• ---
tl VI 01."'
0 0
O CC
.... I
0 I I 0 0 ... 0 6-•
11
..:Z1 : Om •• O. a. 4. ....
:: ....
c, c.,
... .....
0 0
CO 0
O 0
Ir.'
I
11 cr. o op ...a
co. 11 o 0 ...scr. ..... t..a ..ca''
0 C. vs ..., c.v. an ....
0.8 •-• ..r. o
::::::::7.:7..---.•--::::::.:::::.:""""'''.""" '"•-
. . 111
I
.0..•
I
. .
/
I -
N0.
., ./
� --- -:�. ,I 1 I\
/
/4.:.:..:ii::...:.:..-.::.:i::::,.:...... TRACT :. :.:.. .. .:: : 2:: < 7... : : � _— - ': I I POWERS
BLVD
,cc.s.A.H. 17)
WEST 78TH STREET
- _ DETACHMENT\:.
,'"�-;; _ ` FEASIBILITY! :` :: :..:. - ':' I STUDY
v�EST 1ILL °:G HEIGHTS : :ND ADD. : I C.P. 87-2
.• I I ,1 •
.: _1 2 � 8 ?c K 1 ::: 11
.. _/ ---- I P' 1!°' ::.: 3 P tOPOSED 4 ': I EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
< �r < < `': ---= PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY 14.E : IVTI O N I — _
FZQ ! I 1 I f<>rr.ra .R'spni • e�.._. \POND :,;.: I - ______- EXISTING ROADWAY
�C'. I I 1 -" ,::_ I I PROPOSED ROADWAY
B OT
>._ :.( FIRS) I
1 ::::: K 2 '' .,. i'-'%:;.:',::- : I °--->-°-->-EXISTING STORM SEWER
FUTURE FROM / ; . .?G :::' I I
"t:�l 78 < ` ` I ._>_._,_PROPOSED STORM SEWER
7/� _ .' �_< < j — -- -------W. 78TH STREET ASSESSMENT
.....��.►. .��.��.����������������.�� •l ,—— ,: :,. t STORM SEWER ASSESSMENT
\ \\\�� // 1 2 I 3 OUi�LOT A 11 V I 1 WATERMAIN ASSESSMENT
��� ��_--- / j ND ADp1T ON 1 ' SANITARY SEWER ASSESSMENT
2
• �'\� y/G' URp1G1
ti P E31-°i K 1 3 //� CITY OF CHANHASSEN
• i I i\— ��'� Y I 4 5 M 2 ���M��
2 I OCT 041990
\i\ON 1� �/ \� 0140500 I 3
/ 5650090
// '
4 I "OPOSED _ – r"- - ENGINEERING DEPT.
r'4 ? - D ENTION 5 1 i ,NB.-
ASSESSMENTS
ii ii EXISTING. \�F ND p1� 1
I r POND �� \ \ BY O HERS) �uF; I I o <oa Boo 7 1* (f) /
. i ,,,k BY J1�
P I ,
\ 4 NORTH rillilnenlINII
, -V10 i
ffliCIEW Rw S:1,1 2
G— _ \ \ w RCN,TECTURE FIURE
, 2
— — — I I 3 \� /,'1�I I , � .\ � SOUwRE0i0o fwb SiE SO..IaRVEwEOUS.wnER33! REVISED
10/3/90
NM MI i i i i i i i i i Si i • • i i MN i
•
_. ... _ P.2/2
II e '
L rn JL
TRANSPOR ATION
LJL_ .:! ENGINEERING
BRW ItVC • Tr iPE$.-!ER^ = _ URBAN DESIGN
Jac, 'S_ 3J h�'!;ij L'1'B[�.�' - -
�- F' rC- .•na;c;E TA 5F:415 PMONE 612'370-0700 FAX, 612;370.1378
MEMORANDUM
I
DATE: October 4, 1990
TO: Gary
Warren, PE ;i
!
FROM: Gary A. Ehret, PE
� RE: WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT RE-l�:I{IA T I ON
t
i ASSESSMENT MODIFICATIONS -
'' CP 87-2
ilf
IV
This is a note for the project records. that the preliminary
'� revised for the o r i nary assessment roll, as ?r::
October 8, 1990, City Council meeting, does not reflect a .�
41 reduction for oversizing of the storm sewer as a result of the elimination of on- k!
site pondinr for the James property. of 11.1 As a f,ari a. the Development agreement for 1 the James property, they will be responsible for reimbursement of the oversizing
costs, which should result in a net reduction the c
t Tet , ,.,,lac:i:�n F n vhe assessable storm sewer costs
to all properties, from these shown n the preliminary assessment roll . `,';
• GAE/srb
cc: File 7-8711
it
, i
•
.
4
,
1
-r
le. .I
.-L --—",-,----------------..-,._-______________"_••.__„__----------•--—_____-_.—,,__•-,,.....___-_---__-_----, ::.,
i
IMlNNEAPpLi$ `
DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST.PETERSBURG SAN DIEGO
•
I
4.06. Construction Trailers . Placement of on-site
construction trailers and temporary job site offices shall be
approved by the City Engineer .
4 . 07 . Driveway Entrances. I
A. There shall be a maximum of four driveways on the north
side of West 78th Street and the driveways shall be directly
opposite of existing driveways to the south or placed in a loca-
tion such that future driveways on the south side can be
constructed opposite of those on the north ( i .e. lot lines) .
B. Access to Lot 4 , Block 1 to West 78th Street shall be I
located a minimum of 300 feet from Kerber Boulevard opposite the
access to the Burdick property to the south. Lot 1 and Lot 2 ,
I
Block 1 shall share a common driveway to be located on their com-
mon north-south lot line as shown on Plan C, approximately 290
feet east of the Powers Boulevard right-of-way line.
C. A maximum of two driveways shall be allowed along Kerber
Boulevard, one of which shall directly oppose and be centered on
Coulter Drive. I
D. There shall be no permanent driveway access to County
Road 17 ( Powers Boulevard) from Lot 1 , Block 1 or Lot 1 , Block 2 .
IAn access permit shall be obtained from the County for any pro-
posed temporary access .
4 . 08 . Realignment. The City shall , in its best efforts, I
proceed with the construction of the realignment of West 78th Street .
Upon its completion , the existing West 78th Street access to
Powers Boulevard shall be closed and the adjacent property owners II may petition to vacate the entire right-of-way with City approval .
4. 09 . Drainage. The City agrees to waive its con
dition for on-site retention of storm water for the subdivision , II
providing the subdivision runoff can be accomodated in the City' s
storm water improvements as outlined in the West 78th Street
detachment feasibility study. The Developer shall be responsible
for providing and maintaining temporary ponding measures to
control site runoff to the predevelopment rate or less , until
such time as the City has completed its storm water improvements I
to accomodate this runoff in the proposed "Eckankar" pond. Until
that time , development of Lots 1 through 4 , Block 1 will only be
allowed providing this temporary ponding provision and the con-
ditions of Section 2 . 02C are complied with.
4. 10 . Storm Water Surcharge. The Developer agrees to
compensate the City for transporting and accomodating his site I
runoff from the subdivision in the proposed "Eckankar" pond. The
actual incremental cost of this accomodation will be determined
at the completion of construction of the storm water improvements
and assessed in accordance with Section 3 . 02 of this contract .
Ir
The Developer agrees to provide the City with a Letter of Credit
in the amount of 110% of the estimated cost for this accomodation
to guarantee the payment of this assessment. I
-5- S u, C7gOs
I