1c. West 78th St. Improvement project II lc,_
N CITY OF ....._
I fiol 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, N E,SQTA,553,1,7.
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 R,
I Nip
MEMORANDUM _._—,
a„2
ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager (�
FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer ft"_________-----
IDATE: September 19 , 1990 __r. ' ±_,
SUBJ: Reinitiate West 78th Street Detachment Improvement Project
INo. 87-2 - Phas,e I; Call for Public Hearing
I There 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
completed in July of 1987. Since that time the project has
I encountered numerous delays and obstacles surrounding the
development proposals for this segment of West 78th Street
between Kerber Boulevard and County Road 17 . None the least of
Ithese 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
upgrade which is scheduled for a March 22, 1991 letting.
I Incorporated in the MnDOT plans is the relocation of the existing
West 78th Street/County Road 17 intersection to the new
detachment area approximately 350 feet to the north. In order to
I 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
bids can be taken this winter and construction started as soon as
Iweather permits in the spring.
The construction plans for this project were authorized by the
I Council and have been 99% complete for some time now. With the
development proposals of Target and others in this area, the City
has presently taken a "wait-and-see" attitude concerning the
I 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
Iexpect to have the results of their report in the next two weeks.
1 .
I
Don Ashworth
September 19 , 1990
Page 2
Armed with this information, the final road section can be
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
' 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
1
=EP 7'r=. '9n 10: 4 r;Rl 4 MPLS P.2 4
L.� "IJ jt.UT NANNI
TC�!:Sr<PTATI
ENGINEER ING
NG
URBAN
DESIGN
—J - - - - - = 'rl---;,.E - i7. 780 F.Ay 37.9-1
September 20, 1990
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
ATTN: Mr. Gary Warren, PE '
City Engineer
RE: Reinitiate West 78th Street. F es ibi i ity Study, Phase I
City Project 87-2
Dear Mr. Warren:
The rec estrection of the West 78th street Detechment again appears to require
City Council act on to proceed. The project ;, s reinitiated by the City Council
on Aagu-et 28, 1989, with a public hearing berg held at that time. Since no
action-has occurred since that time, reinitlatlon and a new public hearing are
required in accordance with governing statutes.
The original feasibility study for this prcject was completed in July of 1987.
The original feasibility study considered and 'Yids based upon a right-in, right-
out private drive from Powers Boulevard to ed West 78th Street when the new
West 78th Street detachment was eeesteucted. Subsequent to this study,
Supplemental Report #1 was issued, which uderessed ar alternative roadway con-
figuration. The roadway alternative a cul -de-=sac) described in Supplemental II Report #1 was subsequently eliminated and the :Ight-ln, right-out private drive
as addressed in the original fe=asibility stud=y was reinstated. The project was
then re nitiated with updated Lost estimates in August of 1989 as referenced
above. The original feasibility study show; be °reaccepted" or "reinitiated"
for this project again at this time.
The general content of the original feasibility study remains germain to the II 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.
•
DAVIDJ uCrrr_Yt ..,•JA_L....fl ;;R3;E ■;MARC _="c.7 rt: ■_• ,_A..M„P.:EEN DONALD Hllryr MARKv.SWENSCe
JOHN Me+AWA::1 RK-AkF. _i.L-N bc'-",.••API' 5`_'7'.1. 5- - - r_i L. _- _ - &LLM ORilE7 G4AHA:.r aARYJ ER! `DP.
MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TUCSON ST.PETERSBURG SAN DI C
SEP 7111 qri i0: 4 SPi- iHC NFL'S
/I
Mr. Gary Warren
September 20, 1990
Page 2
#3. Subsequent to toe or, ina' fea!-:'51Iity stJf2y design activities were ini-
tiated by Mn/DOT for TH 5, As a part -if tose activities, modified designs
have been considered for the TH 5/Powers 3ouleiard intersection. (In bar-
ticJlar, to aCCorrrriOclete tt)e rig0.-in, right-out to the private drive.) We
•• have worked with Mn/POT tc comple a :,)rzlstent design in this area, and
to Further define the lit:its of efrJr'k f()r _his project and the TH 5
reconstruction project by Mn/DOT.
#4. Suhequent to the original feasiY ' ity c.;tdy, en additional requirement for
storm water pond'ing h, s beer pled project. We have examined
alternative storm water pond )r,' tuns fo d' charge of local runoff prior
to discharge into the Eckanar o:rclng cV . Additional costs will be
inc,Tred as a result cf this rtrq_iremert aciditional ponding. These
cot s rave been nclued- In c 4cateci c, tt estimate below.
#5. S:Ji. equent to the original feasiOlity sti, v, the need to extend the limits
of construction further nrh Powers Ecuie.ard were identified. This
chz! ./ge has rest, Ited in riodifitc1 project co5CS.
#64 Phase I construction is now :orlYdeed for 1991 rather than 1988, as
cohLAered in the original fea ,tility 5° 3y. We have updated the project
costs to account for infltiun, etc.
#7. re current Middle East a s ;nificant impact upon the price
of tituminous, and, in our cpIn- o , will hae an impact upon the cost of
contruction as well . We hale Toli] fied 7)(1- cost estimate to reflect anti-
ciped increases In the ;:rice of bituminos.
Reinitiation of the project should be liade baei upon the original feasibility
study dated Juy 1987 and the ocner4fl -nodific.utions outlined above. The
modified project costs for Phase : are outlined oelow:
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
11 Landscaping/Paths/Lighting
Private Utilities 150,000.00
10,000.00
Estimated Construction Cost $ 1,356,000.00
B. Land Acquisition Cost $ 150,000.00
P.4 4 ----ii
SEP 7'0 '90 10:'F. BP11 TA 1C- MPLS
Il
Mr. Gary Warren
II
Septemhar 20, 1990.
Page '3
II
C. Administrative Cost 451 ,800.00
II
Total Estimated Phase I
Project Cost $ 1,957,800.00
II
As outlined in the original feaslbility stuoy, tne project was to be financed by
IGeneral Obligation or Tax Increment; funds) arc special assessments. We esti-
mate that costs incurred above tre or glnai feasibility study estimate are
primarily general obligation costs, and will ii:it be a significant part of the
II
special :-issessments. The assessment roll , os ;:rovided in the original feasi-
bility study and the subsegJenr, public itlearir2!- , remains applicable with the
following exceptions:
II#1, As outlined in Clarification #6 and #7 abofe, the project costs were
increased to reflect articipiAted 1931 -vers 1988 construction costs.
Therefore, the assessment amounts -is list:?d in the original assessment
IIroll nave been 'ncreased accordingly.
We will provide a final Enclioeers Cf.,st f:-':it gate at the time of plan and
spec'fication approval .
II
We will also privide a Revised As:iessment Poll for the public hearing.
In conclusion, 'I would like to clarify two other 'issues. II
First, this reinitiation addresses only Phase 1 of the original feasibility
study, which includes all imorovements in north of TH S. Improvements lying II
south of TH 5, which were a part of Phase II, are not addressed' in this
reinitiation.
ISecondly, 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 . he assessment hearing at the conclusion
IIof the project.
Please feel free to contact me if I can clarify anything further.
IISincerely,
BRW, Ni.
II d II at), ---,
Gary A. E ,ret, PE , I
Project Manager
GAE/ch
IIcc: File 7-8711
II
.. NM MN I 111111 NM EN N O OM NM I OM MN MI MI EN MI 11111 111111
v EXISTING
_. O 12'W.M,
TO PROPOSED i PROPOSED
Z 80'R.O.W.-
DETENTION POND i
=I f [VW.M.STUB CHANHASSEN
-8'SAN.SEWER STUB
0 _L_ 8•W.M.3TUB COUNTY ROAD 17 /
;."m,►
.., ,� \�� 4 Fh \ WEST 78TH STREET
v --- � �,. '_ %N � ��������\ FEASIBILITY -
I \ 71101P0 D •
'WATERMAM � .�I I jl ./g'3ANR ARV B \
8624 CURB 8 GUTTER gE,q,ER �D• NTION STUDY
- 1 �S ����POND
-. I I 8824 CURB R GUTTER �. BY OTHERS 11 1
A,. TOP EL 950.0 52 TYPICAL ` LEGEND
- EXISTING GAS MAIN `) I •`� ,; .�'`,, \ SECTION
q t i ! ''1I PRIVAOTE DRIVE
— I/'� EXISTMaBURIED EASEMENT ,; t' ', EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY���¢gj o TELEPHONE DRIVEWAYS__. ,-- ___///: �j�lI ! __ :Y •THERS /�\ 44164°' ----PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
-a_o�"" I - �,,,, /Y � ," — __ :::T :_=EXISTING ROADWAY
` Ilt..- . _- :3- ... -t �z v A PROPOSED ROADWAY
/* _ —. --- >->43-->—EXISTING STORM SEWER
',,,,4,"'; - ''` � �- --a-----°-- --a— • =
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
counciLman Johnson: Same p roblem.
Fted Oelschlager: My problem is the distance out into the driveway. That's a I
real hang-up. Okay. Well, that's fine. I understand that. Thanks for all
your time.
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. '
Mayor Chmiel: Is Carl here?
Jo Ann Olsen: It was denied and he's not appealing. 1
Mayor Chmiel: He's not appealing it? Okay.
WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 87-2:
A. RE-INITIATE FEASIBILITY STUDY - PHASE 1. '
Resolution #89-98A: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve to re-initiate a feasibility study for Phase 1 of the West 78th Street
Detachment Improvement Project 87-2. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
B. PUBLIC HEARING - PHASE 1.
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order. 1
B.C. Jim Burdick: First of all, I would like to see this Phase 1 again if we
may. I know it's late. ,
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Burdick, you need to introduce yourself.
Mr. Burdick: Of course. B.C. Jim Burdick. Excelsior, Minnesota. I'd like to '
see the Phase 1 again if we may?
Mayor. Chmiel: Sure. Gary do you have. .. '
Gary 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
improvements 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 from the feasibility study
will 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
integrated with the TH 5 improvements now and realignment and the construction
of West 78th Street from Ker_bers Blvd. to the intersection of CR 17.
60 1
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
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
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?
' 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 $70,4100.00-$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.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, this is not the assessment hearing at this particular time.
Mr. Burdick: Oh, I understood it was and I stopped in City Hall and all.
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 inq.iir_ed to City Hall.
•
' 61
I
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
I
Mayor Chmiel: This public hearing is being held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1
Section 429. The area proposed to be assessed for said improvement is the
property abutting the above mentioned roadways.
Roger Knutson: This is not the assessment hearing. This is the public
improvement hearing. State Statutes require you to say how much you're going to
be assessed. You may assess in that public improvement hearing notice. The
decision to assess specific parcels will be made by you at a later date when the
assessment hearing is held.
Councilman Johnson: This is a public hearing to approve the feasibility study. '
Mayor_- Chmiel: Right. Exactly.
Gary Warren: Brian Burdick and I met last week and I had run through it with I
Brian. Jim wasn't able to attend our meeting but basically I explained that
that was the process.
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 coming. There's a number of other things I've
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
vote 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
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 squirrely street. '
Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, if I could address that?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead Gary.
Gary 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. MnDot's road widening, I don't
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
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 -
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.
Gary 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
frontage road. That's correct. That separation is founded primarily in the
62 ,
11 City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
necessity for stacking the vehicles at that intersection. In order to provide
enough room for stacking during the light changes.
I.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Boyt: I would move closing the public hearing?
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Have you finished?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, are you done Jim or do you have some additional discussions?
Mr. 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 seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
' Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I move we accept the feasibility study as
updated August 24, 1989.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I second that.
Roger Knutson: Which means you're ordering the project. You're not ordering
plans and specifications for_fit. Is that correct?
' Councilman Johnson: And authorize the preparation of plans and specifications
is the rest of the sentence.
I
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