Loading...
2. Frontier Trail Utility & Roadway Improvements, Plans & Specs 1 K tow* CHANHASSEN CITY F �... 690 COULTER DRIVE •• P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 7,..„ I (612) 937-1900 M NORANDUM non v II TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager _ __ � _ �Jt'-' IFROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer ... __1_�1s'/ 9- /-3'-- DATE: October 5, 1989 _ IISUBJ: Public Hearing for Frontier Trail Utility and Roadway Improvement Project No. 89-10; Authorize Preparation of •------/- 2 4'-/ IIPlans and Specifications On September 11, 1989, a public hearing was held to receive public comment on II 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 allow staff to do further research and respond to certain unanswered Iquestions. 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 I 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 I explaining this situation and inviting them to this hearing. Likewise, the newspaper notices have been properly published. II It is suggested that the public hearing be convened with the direction that the minutes from 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 II to do so at this time. In response to the follow-up questions which staff was directed to research, Mr. II 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. IASSESSMENT POLICY I There appears to be some 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 IIcontinue to rehabilitate future roadways. In contemplating this further, I 1 ARE I Don Ashworth October 5, 1989 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 from 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 communities 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 from 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- I ment 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 from 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 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. 4. Copy of public hearing notice to property owners. 5. Copy of public hearing notice to newspaper. c: Bill Engelhardt 1 I 1 7 CHYOF _- 1 . CIL , , N:T. _ 4 ,i I .(.:11 4 K 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I . -.. (612) 937-1900 i MEMORANDUM NOTE: It might be advisable to I bring your copy of the feasibility TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager study to this meeting. If you kneed an additional copy, please IIFROM: Gary Warren, City Enginee contact Kim at City Hali:by c;y h��;,;s,r•,r DATE: September 7, 1989 In��F ✓ �- II SUBJ: Public Hearing for Frontier Trail Utility and Roadway 2zj81"eri --. Improvements; Authorize Preparation of Plans and i'`�"- — - 7=� Aite:,s2L.,ttt,( '.) (,,,?-:f;:r)q Specifications IIFile No. 89-10 II 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 Ion 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. IIn general , there was strong support for upgrading Frontier Trail. The questions and comments related more specifically, as II 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: I1 . Will the road be widened and, if so, how is this done? It is our desire to construct and upgrade the existing road 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 I 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 Iareas . 2. Will the cost for sanitary sewer repairs be assessed? IINo. 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- ' IIlihood, will be reduced during design. II II Don Ashworth I 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 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 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 4U% 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? , 11 II IL Don Ashworth September 7 , 1989 Page 3 A collapsed sewer pipe and open offset joint exists at 183 feet south of the manhole on Frontier Trail . Vertical misa- II and evidence of leaking exists from this point to the manhole in the cul-de-sac. Therefore, approximately the 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 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 t 1 1 r • -, - - ----- I - Ad t'il 1:111 1, 0 t 0 L _A-Lazo cr-9 ifi '-'11\.b L -- 'inifNVk ■J\..D-_\ 9\ -.AE 1 -- - /,/3__c- I7EZ r-frir ,- --L.7 -3,-Y: c- g 111-727) -) c) ----- L / 5/774 -7z- -7 Z 7.-722"-vi,--- ‘0 7/--.7 ,---,, ''"/-271 7 r/ Y I-- - (rim-?, EI, -,-2:)-,- -,' 1,,t No L 1 Lae L - --, • -,,,/-/-7'' N= , ----,---- ---- •=-7. ,'=, ---0/z 4 ---2' G2"-ti - //27Z._ _g‘/47,:/b/ - // I Iv- cc-Ngz7.xe> - ,--,--,../- ' Z.)-1.714;,/ tA I6---s-,F-74 t----6 v6,7,(.47/// 0 'IWO.- c , a__1„ - ?U(I, 4 2.14 cf _ zt_ -I CP /7---b E--, -)Y_/-V t9 f-i.A/C.a .- . .Z - - NI-9 577/7/ NOG -- - - ------ 4.-- 4.....!- -h r b r'''./._ --f"Lr'd P"L 4.-10141 ■",1 1 r 1— si i -5/2- 7‘› -7")g 6 7r :2-3 0(72- • ---- -- ' 76 (57-3,1,\ --... .) c')IcA 1., ----1°°\rrk 1 - 7 T , ,2 , _hz,, yri-_, ,, 7-r.-z, ,, , ;; _... rrer_c7; i ,, 111 -do' --ZP4 C4-ld teineLl 0 tiv ---r-ww N CZ i/ 42* 4hif r •.r.,7 y 1,Lzri - 2 I : ,, l'%/8 ). ) . . 1 : .� 1 .. • .. CITYOF ___ l'I:LI • cHANHAIssEy 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (61I . 2) 937-1900 ° Action by City AiltntflIetfottfr MEMORANDUM Endcz_d 1.°.°/. 114.0k ITO: Don Ashworth , City Manager 1` 2 mo041t P. , Late :..:muted to Commbabq 1 FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer DATE: July 19 , 1989 lima Submitted to ww�cll 1--.2-i'-q I SUBJ: Accept Feasibility Study for Utility and Roadway Improvements to Frontier Trail from Highland Drive to Kiowa Circle; Call Public Hearing 1 File No. 89-10 I 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 I the feasibility study as prepared by Bill Engelhardt for the City. The project basically deals with three elements of improvements 1 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 I 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 . 1 The sanitary sewer and storm sewer upgrade is a little more sub- jective at this point, namely since there are alternatives I ,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 1 Frontier Trail will be thoroughly reviewed as a part of the design process . At present, the feasibility study presents a worst case cost sce- 1 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 I 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 1 1 — Don Ashworth 4 II July 19 , 1989 Page 2 specifications would reflect a combination of sealing -re airs n reconstruction . Rehabilitation of Kiowa Circle is also being a d proposed at this time to address the fact that sanitary sewer repairs are warranted for the sewer on Kiowa Circle which , if not done at this time, would necessitate excavating the upgraded Frontier Trail at some future date which obviously would not be wise. The storm sewer upgrade includes the construction of concrete barrier curb and gutter to better convey and handle the storm 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. As a part of the preparation of plans and specifications , it would also be wise to address the infiltration/inflow contribu- 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 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 ) requires that clear water sources of this nature noc 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 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 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 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 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 1 1 Don Ashworth ' July 19 , 1989 Page 3 ' 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- 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 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 ' nature the $88 ,146 of storm sewer improvements not being assessed will need to be funded through a bond issue. ' The 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 after the construction project has been completed. Since this is a public improvement ro 'ect the p 7 � next step after acceptance of the feasibility study would be to call a public 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- priate and revised documents submitted for a formal public hearing. The project schedule , as I see it, would result in construction ' 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 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 ' 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 . Attachments ' 1 . 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: Sill Engelhardt i - Ili f ,, . ,., . . 1 , .,_. _.,,•.. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 '� (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM ✓ - T0: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer "S� DATE: April 5, 1989 .,s,,,.. ;.,..........-, -, u ii SUBJ: Authorize Feasibility Study for Utility and Roadway Improvements to Frontier Trail from Highland Drive to Kiowa Project No. 89-10 When Frontier Trail was 11 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 II repaired and patched and sealcoated over the years; however, it has diminished to such a state that continued maintenance of this nature is truly a waste of money since these are only band-aid II solutions and a major operation is needed for the cure. In 1988 , the City contracted for a "Road Rater" deflection IItesting of the pavement surface to determine if complete replace- ment 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 I 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. I 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- II 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 electric to give them an opportunity to make any necessary impro- vements to their systems and in the case of electric , to consider II undergrounding of this utility similar with new subdivisions in the City. This project will be unique in that it is the first residential I roadway in the City to be considered for reconstruction . This feasibility study will therefore blaze the trail in helping us to II II Don Ashworth April 5 , 1989 Page 2 establish policy as far as the funding of improvements of this 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 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 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 ' 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. ' The City has a number of older streets in town which didates for improvement and once we have established a rprogram, 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 ' feasibility study for utility and roadway improvements for Frontier Trail from Highland Drive to Kiowa and that it preparea by the firm of William R. Engelhardt & Associates. I Attachments ' 1 . Location map. 2.. Letter from A. L. Brock dated April 7 , 1988 . 3 . Road Rater sheets . ' 4 . Letter to Elinor Kerber dated April 3 , 1989 . cc: Bill Engelhardt A. L. Brock Manager ' s Comment: It should be noted : I1 . Sealcoat Program: When the sealcoat orogram was initiated in 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 lower portion of Frontier Trail, Chanhassen Estates , and potentially Scholer ' s Addition (West 76th/Chan View/Iroquois ) were specifically identified 35 streets not meeting City 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 1 ` 1 Manager' s Comment ' ' Page 2 is difficult to assess property owners for street costs ; 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 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"-been 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. DU) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 tau`?-1 I j .r ' — 1 't, ' :::. 2.--. Ill ; 1I! I ,', ' ? ' �9 FOXTAiL a INIIIMERIMIN ' ft• I/ \\ -.RIC I\ . . P ■ MN a7-Mill - 11 X111 , 1 CP 1"5115 WI - la Did . ' g va za, „, IN 201111 UP -4,441Zq ' le., 1:441 7 Iv: la II „,,,....lettio spri,,1,_ latii .in i_...in oval sq'St - '\ ---/)' \ IIPI ( AVOW'''. dram i■si P. Lihr - ... VeSVA Ir.t ellarill• I 70 = .5 Pw►+V . :• Hal RU ' �'� R. \i L O T U S ^11,,t rte 'L% rA R 0,. • TA ILL tilirtata- g �J Ey 1111-= mei IN 4. 6--3-= 4.,,,,e1 17,,,,„. „„Ak. , ....., ' si 4131 m.,PO: fg- itt. lipit'Air" ). l'ir•tt. -.. -.,141- szi ,v,.,.. , _ 1 Maw ra,,,; ,,,p_ot / R S•.;.;,.:•, ••�1� . eSe 1111 �� - cal► ►...v:ilSe I li ,- 1-;SENN arjr * Of i =ai Nile I-T—w W ,Il .._--;--:-.--,,,,, es II � \L A 'E� �■► � � , gnus, 4 am, ,: ‘ 4 ' eV( •• wk. - . s,s\ , . • . 7, - ,- 04A* ,-, 7Floy �•th i 1° ■ aroma, �� - �= . <� , z i i 2 -, -4P7''z_n,L-----a,-'rl-,- -- , • diii■Rigus' 414:1fra.e\ \ II rte-- rPoi �� ��11i)—( i 466'? f X ; , X11■ 111111111111 ' ' P i I I CCU E. ,UR. <• R �. t--,; ®ST tRIHIST �' MU Illir W ■i■ �� P�. • URNS ' :11-11; 4L‘r"-- km!_-' ----til ---- 5 ..,--ivm 401 ,„ \i _ ----000,5 I t.,0 1.;■ 41,, 44 ,____, - i • lly die v llE' pAC1F I.. ate— ST V t _ 1 !1 :s, z EaI as I P _ �� amp ■► 0. • 0.-, tra��� • 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 Cit y Hall , 1 on March 29, 1988. As discussed, I am greatly concerned with two problem areas. First, the curbing and run-off drain to Lotus Lake, which is located on the north side 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, 20 , The road is literally destroyed and needs to be repaired. Last�week. d child 1l. 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 k.ho pays over 5,000 year , in property tax, to edpedite these matters, please contact me. I thank you in advance for your concern and attention. ' Sincerely, A.L. Brock 7203 Frontier Trail , Chanhassen, Minnesota � innesota X5317 I ,` 934-0539 ALB:jm ,<<Y • t�4 cc: Mayor Tom Hamilton V19t �- Chanhassen City Council WkW� Scl.�.?y+t 00 e 1+n�t Alt 291 ZZLtact; Ro 4,0 p . I A eDi 0Qtus _ . I CITY OF C AG MMSSU 1 I ° L6,,r,�q�n MEMORANDUM AUG 3 0 1989 I'0: Chanhassen City Council Members RILTHERING DEPT. ROM: Bill and Babs Arons 7211 Frontier Trail Chanhassen I E : Frontier Trail Feasibility Study Report ( 7/20/89) by Englehardt Associates, Inc . IIATE: 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 . IOur family has resided at 7211 Frontier Trail for almost 18 years. Also. as a Civil Engineer with 23 years of experience I I Relieve that I understand the technical and construction issues within the report. I . ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS IThere is no doubt in my mind that the roadway should be re-built in 1990 to the current City standards, which Iincludes concrete curb and gutter. Financing discussion to follow. II . SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS. Trusting that the decision is made to re-build the road , the only logical sanitary sewer option is complete replacement of the 30 year old system. I 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. IIII . STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS In the 18 years that we have lived here I have not been 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. I1 do not f @el that it i@ appropriate to expend •i76,293 when it might be possible to correct those isolated problem areas . at a much smaller expense. I - , • I IV. FINANCIAL PLAN • A. Construction cost estimate. The estimates as presented have a very conservative 30% factor for those "other costs" . Are these 1990 costs? B. Assessment Policy of Chanhassen . 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 staff . The League of Cities may have this information. The use of a 43-57 cost split (street constuction ) does not appear to have any rational basis and should be reviewed in greater detail . Is it time again to review the current assessment policy, if ' in fact, one does exist? The City has experienced significant growth in the past few years and the citizens , may benefit from certain improvements in municipal policy. C. Annual Revolving Fund--Municipal Improvements It seems that there are many positive features and few nogAtiva caht@r n% far this type of fund far th@ f @l 1eWIRE! municipal uses; , 1 . Annual storm sewer improvements 2. Annual road upgrade/improvement projects The consulting engineer (Englehardt ) supports this funding mechanism as do 3 of the 6 cities surveyed (Appendix B) Funding will always be available on an annual basis. The decision by the City Council will be to allocate those funds ' to the projects which have the highest priority and which are in the beet interest of the citizens of Chanhassen . -- I strongly support the establishment of this type of funding , for the Frontier Trail Roadway Improvement project . I 1 I . r >' VISU-SE . ER CLEAN & SEAL, INC."- TELEVISION INSPECTION N59 W14397 Bobolink Ave..Menomonee Fells,WI 53051 (4141252-3203 AND 1 1 ./ 2849 Hedberg Or.,Minneapolis.MN 55343 (6121593-1907 GROUTING REPORT SANITARY X STORM DATE October 29, 1987 ILOCATION Kiowa Circle 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 I FTG CONNECTIONS T E S T CHEM. L TOP R PRES. OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS GALS I0 MH 3 7 Vertical misalignment to 26' I 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' I112 Open offset joint and sheared pipe (Unable to proceed) I ( Reverse set-up, viewing US to the South 0 MH 2 a* Tito t f►ci■. TRAIL I 183 Open offset joint and sheared pipe (Unable to proceed) I • I - I I I I I C PROJECT Chanhassen, Minnesota PAGE NO. 125 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 II II ir- UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 3, KURVERS POINT, ROBERT CONKLIN. I Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant asked us that this be withdrawn. They are going to go through the subdivision process now and some things have changed. I PUBLIC HEARING: FRONTIER TRAIL UTILITY AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. II 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 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 II further did some research on and I know I've had discussion with several of the Council today on the item. Maybe I could run through quickly those items briefly and then Bill is here also to give any further follow-up but we can, at your discretion, go into the public hearing. This is a public hearing, as you mentioned, which is the formal step here to accepting the feasibility study in ordering the project. The first item that I addressed was the road width II considerations for the project here. As has been mentioned all along, a 33 foot roadway width is our standard section with mountable curbing. In this project we're looking at going to barrier curbing which actually, we did some further refinements of our calculations, would result actually in a 28 1/2 foot wide II road because the barrier curb has more of it's section actually in the travelway or can be used in the travelway. So Bill has a graphic that we can look at in a minute here but basically our field measurements show that the roadway favors II closer to 26-27 feet wide as it currently stands from our measurements so we would be proposing to go along and establish the gutter line at what is the current gutter line. We wouldn't vary it obviously but we would look to be holding a 27 foot roadway width gutter to gutter which using the barrier curbing II then would give us a 28 1/2 foot roadway section out there. Mayor Chmiel: Gar y, „what does this do to some of the property owners that may II have trees? 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 some minor exceptions on some curbs. Bill and I have been out to look at the roadway and again, looked at it this evening and areas where I think we would have to be fattening the roadway, it appears that we do have right-of-way without trees or any major conflicts so 11 I think it's a compromise on the standard city section by a 1 foot width but with the barrier curbing, I think it's a reasonable compromise and would result in a decent road section compatible with what we have out there. The second II item that I listed was the cost of the sanitary sewer repairs. If they were going to be assessed. As I think the Council is aware from our budget process here, this is not proposed to be assessed at all. The question is what the II magnitude of repairs would be necessary out there. We've conservatively estimated that the entire sanitary sewer system would need repair and replacement. I think that we hope to refine that number as a part of our detail look in the design of the project and reduce that cost somewhat but it indeed, II 35 II IICitr Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 IIif things are in the worse case scenario, it could be with our clay tile, that it all needs to be replaced but that's how the cost is estimated. And again, no I 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 II some cast iron pipe that may need to be replaced and that would come out of the water trunk funds. Not assessed. What assessment rate will be chosen? As Council is aware, we've got 4 options that we had included in the feasibility study from 43% up to 100% assessment. We've done some more telephone surveying 1 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 1 policy here. The prevailing attitude that at least I interpretted from our discussions with residents and perhaps the Council is the fact that anything that we are proposing as far as upgrade to the road section, anything that hasn't been paid for before, would be a reasonable item to have assessed. The IIdifficulty was if we were going to be looking to get assessed any items where we're rebuilding the old road section. We put some numbers together on that. The concrete curb and gutter and the driveway aprons. 50% of the sod cost and II 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 1 do come up to approximately 40% or a little bit higher than 40% of the cost of this street upgrading. The 1 1/2 inch wear course which could be considered as an overlay, we did not include in there as that could be looked at I guess as a typical 0 & M type rehab cost that normally might have been funded if we had 1 decided to overlay this road at some 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 I City saying that there were some maintenance here that may have been deferred or whatever and here's a percentage that should not be assessed. While I'm touching on that, I was asked to look at comparable dollars for building a new road section under oux typical standards. I haven't had a chance to look through all or a number of projects but I did pull out one that's on the Council agenda tonight, the Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition project, which is a little smaller than this but nonetheless the cost per foot for that project, per 1 linear foot are r_unning.$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 1 that we have not gone overboard here on the costs. I already mentioned that we had talked. We've talked to other cities and Bill will throw up a sample on that on the results of that. I think basically it does go all over the board and Bill's discussion will hit that a little more closely. Other questions 1 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 1 budget session as far as part of the general obligation. Actually as I touched on the sanitary sewer and any watermain costs, those would come out of the trunk funds so it would not be in the GO. But $88,000.00 of the storm sewer improvements here which would represent half of the storm sewer improvements, we have no other funding source than the general fund at this time so $88,000.00 would be from that area as well as if the 40% assessment policy were adopted, h there'd be approximately $185,000.00 of the str of costs that would need to be C IIfunded and those would come out of the general fund and both of those, that 1 36 • City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 II IItotals 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 II funds. The other item that at least I have on my list here was sidewalks. It hasn't been addressed specifically in the feasibility study. We've taken a look at it to see what's practical out there. Cost estimate, if it were put on side a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk which would be consistent with our residential II 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 1 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 II 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 II could have Bill touch on the assessment policy research to further elaborate on our community research. Bill Engelhardt: This is going to be difficult to read but hopefully as the , camera zooms up you'll be able to pick it up. Just to touch real lightly on what Gary said about looking at the street section and where we will be with the width of the street. This is a computer printout of the alignment of Frontier t Trail and the dashed orange line is the existing edge of pavement and the green line is a 31 foot street centered on the center line of the road. Starting down here at Highland and then working north. This is Laredo and then coming up II around the curve and then coming up to Kiowa and this is the end of Frontier. So you can see it on the camera, you can see that we're very close in most areas to the existing. This scale, it's difficult to read by the scale but you're talking about 1 to 20 feet and that 27 feet that Gary was talking about and II staying at the existing gutter seems to be a very good...location. We've got some detailed points in here where we actually measured it at right angles and the roadway was 27, 25, 24, 25, 22, 27.29, 27.73. , 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 I 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 II 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 I screen. Bill Engelhardt: The red line • 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 II right on the existing curb line and we feel very comfortable with putting the II 37 11 IICity Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 11 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 I 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 II 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 versus 10 1/2 so it leaves us some flexibility in there to get the curb in there 1 to get a good location and still keep the driving...where it is. We researched, changing gears here a little bit, we researched several more cities. The comment came up that we only looked at 5 cities and some of them they didn't I feel were comparable to the City of Chanhassen. We called several additional cities to get their comments and find out what their policies were. Again, they don't all mix necessarily with Chanhassen but through the 9 or 10 different cities that we did look at, you can get a pretty good feel for how they come about and how you arrive at the numbers. White Bear Lake, 100% paid by the residents. Richfield, 100% but there was no construction in the last 15 years so there's a lot of qualifiers in these types of things too. Golden Valley was I 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% II city and they have a cap on that of $20.00 per frontage foot set as the limit. 1 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 3 construction of elements not previously in place such as the curb and gutter, I 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 behind the curb because some of them, after you put the driveway apron in, 1 you're going to have toscut 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. 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 lip all the cost of the new construction. The 40% is closer to picking up the cost of the new construction. II Councilman Boyt: I have a question. Gary, didn't you say that Lake Susan West was, did you say $90.00 a foot? 11 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 v What does that do to these numbers when we've got not to C IIexceed $16.00 a front foot versus $68.00. Not to exceed, what was the other II38 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 1 , figure Bill? ' Bill Engelhardt: There's a not to exceed $20.00 and a not to exceed $30.00. Councilman Boyt: So right away they've knocked half of it off. Half of the cost. The cost is $60.00 some dollars a front foot and they're saying well we'll do this assessment up to as much as $30.00 a front foot. Then they're saying right off the top the City is picking up half of this cost and then in the other half of the cost, we're going to bill you 40% of it up to the $30.00. So 40% of the $30.00. Now 100% of everything above the $30.00 is what the worse case scenario has got there. 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 40% plus 100% of the new construction. Councilman Boyt: You're right. In Coon Rapids though we've got a situation in which it looks like, if it was a 40-60 split with the city picking up 60, in reality the City's picking up about 80 and the residents 20 because it tops out at only half the actual cost. Councilman Johnson: What? That's 50-50 then. Gary Warren: 30 versus 68. Councilman Boyt: 30 is what they figure the 40-60 off of Jay. Councilman Johnson: No. I think what they're doing here is saying the resident's not going to pay more than $30.00 per linear foot so if the thing was at $60.00 per linear foot to build it, the residents would pay 50%. Not 20% or 30% of the. White Bear Lake's the worse with 100%. Bill Engelhardt: This could be that like in Coon Rapids, this cost per front , foot of their street may be running $100.00 per foot so the City would be picking up $70.00 and the residents would only be paying $30.00. Gary Warren: What you don't know and we haven't had the time to research I I guess is how are they funding it. Several of the established communities, I would think like Golden Valley and maybe St. Louis Park no doubt have a pave and management system in place to where they have established an annual commitment and funded for that annual commitment. And there was a comment in I think one of the letters here that we need to look at that and that's I think a reasonable " comment. We would like to be able to implement a pave and management system , 39 1 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 11 here to prioritize and to budget properly. I 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? IIGary 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 1 or out of a tax reduction for the City as a whole. So there's trade-offs to this thing. II 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. IIBill Engelhardt: Just a couple of more real quick items on some of the comments from 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 II 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 I 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 Itile 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 I coming 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 II 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 II came up, if I can find e 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. II 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 IIyou'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 1 who owns that he can correct me on it but we believe that's owned in fee title by title by Lot 9 and therefore he has direct benefit of that particular lot...assess that. Outlot 3 is in this particular area and it runs all the way I 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 II up in here and I don't have a good answer on that one. It's probably going to, we're going to have to look at if there is value to this particular lot and kind i 40 • City Council Meeting - September 11; 1989 II jr- of get that one ironed out at the assessment hearing. It appears that with th his access off of Kiowa, that this does not give any real direct benefit to this street and it's probably unlikely that he could sustain. ..but that's something we could look at during the final assessment. I think that addresses most of II the questions that came up at the... Gary Warren: To just wrap up our presentation. We have been in contact as of II 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 II collapsed sewer is approximately where the storm sewer crosses the sanitary sewer at about 112 feet south of Frontier Trail and from there to the manhole in the cul-de-sac which is about 183 feet, that sewer line probably needs to be I repaired. So our recommendation was, since we're going to be in the area, and the road is quite alligatored from observations this evening, we'd have 183 feet of road tore up for the repairs and it made sense when we looked at this in the , feasibility, to include it in this scope. Again, you can repair Frontier Trail without risking future dig up if you want to Kiowa Circle at a later date. With that Mr. Mayor we'll throw it back to you. IIMayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll open it up for public hearing. Any discussion? Does anyone have anything to bring forward? IIChuck 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, II 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 II will speak for them and I see 3 or 4 of them are here tonight, including 2 of 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 with the street. Now the sanitary sewer, I recognize that there's a problem if there's infiltration and maybe I would ask Gary or Bill, has that been telecast? Has that been camera scoped? 41 1 IICity Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Gary Warren: Yes. That sewer line was televised. The information I relay v ed 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 for me 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 else that would like to address this? Joel Jenkins: Joel Jenkins, 7226 Frontier Trail. We've had several discussions with Bill and Gary and so on. Some of the neighbors have and I guess I would like to speak positively about the improvements to the Frontier Trail. Specifically that I think we indicated that we felt that it was appropriate to replace the sanitary sewer if that's the most cost effective, long term solution since it doesn't come out of resident's dollars but comes out of the general fund. Secondly, I agree and in talking with Bill the other morning over breakfast that the storm sewer, I feel real comfortable with the fact that Bill is going to design that in the appropriate manner and not overdesign it as the study shows. So I feel real comfortable with that. However the width of the street I'm still somewhat uncomfortable with. It's my understanind in the 8 years that I've lived there, at least one accident has occurred which resulted in a death because of the curviness of our street. And you know when Frontier Trail was a dead end, if we had speeders go down it, we knew they were coming L back. And there have been many occasions when neighbors have jumped out in front of speeders and gave them a local neighborly encouragement to not speed again. With that in mind, it's my understanding also that there's been two other deaths from accidents on that street in the history of that street. With that in mind, I would like to encourage possibly a narrowing of the street to what I stepped off to be about 24 feet currently in some places and 20 feet in others and possibly put sidewalks in as an alternative to the cost savings to the narrowing of the street. Now I realize that that changes the City's structure of their standard street format but it would appear to me that because of the terrain, if we're going to put a sidewalk in for safety purposes, a 30 foot wide street does not necessarily leave a lot of front yards. Especially in the hilly areas. I'd also like to call your attention to the fact that it's my understanding that a pavement management system would bring a taxation in addition to what we are currently taxed for that pavement management fund. It would appear to me that if we set a precedent as a Council, and that's really what you're doing here since it's my understanding that this is the first street in the City of Chanhassen which will be reconstructed, that if we decide the assessment is to be 40, 60 or whatever it is, and then a reconstruction fund is brought forward in the future, that would mean that we'd have to wait another 30 to 50 years before we would participate in that fund when it was reconstructed again. So it appeared to me that the Council has to look at this very carefully 11 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 C management system fund. I appreciate your time and I appreciate your work and I hope that you would consider the sidewalk issue and certainly the safety on that 42 • City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 II II.:- 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- ;, retired and we all do like to take walks in our neighborhood. A sidewalk I I think would be beneficial even though I'm sure that it's a controversial issue in our neighborhood and if 9 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. II 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 II 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 II 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 II assessing the residents the minimum which is by law 20% and the City pay for the remaining 80%. Under the circumstances I think that is the fairest way to correct a mistake that was made by sane previous city government or city il 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. I Tom Pzynski: My name is Tom Pzynski. I live at 7340 Frontier Trail. The only concern I have has to deal with I guess with the assessment and how it's handled I by the Council and what the citizens or the residents on Frontier Trail are II going to have to do. I've been hearing a lot of discussion about linear foot. Cost per linear foot and it seems to be a default that that's the way it's going to go. I'd like the Council to consider a per unit basis for the assessment II 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. II Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor? Would you like us to address that question? Bill Engelhardt: I can do it real quickly. Your Honor we looked at that I 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 II properties out there, the lots, would actually go up in their assessment versus coming down. To us it meant that the front footage was a very fair and equitable way of spreading the costs in this particular project. Don King: Don King. 7200 Kiowa Circle. I'd first like to all express the II 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 j i II nsight of how it's planned. We have a lot of questions and they've been well L_ answered. I'd like to just reaffirm some of the comments that have been made. One relative to the Kiowa Circle situation. My driveway does not go onto Kiowa II 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 II 43 II IICity Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 1 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 continent 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. Some fixing in a few areas but it never gets to the end of the street so for 15 years I've put up with a very inferior street 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 1 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 Torn Pzynski had previously asked about with assessing owners based on units versus frontage foot. The neighbors, our neighborhood is 1 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 ' parson 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 11 guess I'd like to hear more on that because there is evidence to show that that was there once upon a time. From various utilities going in over the years, that's been removed and so we would not want to have to pay for that ajsecond time. 1 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 any evidence of it. It's not to say that it may not have been built without a plan but we could not find any evidence of the curb and gutter as referenced there. Oh pictures. And who are these little 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 a C of them very substandard. At one time we did have very good curbs. They looked 44 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 II 1 like they could have been concrete or they were very highly beveled and they were adequate. They were taken out when we needed road repair and never replaced they said because they ran out of funds but we were assessed for that once already. My complaint is why do we have to be reassessed for curbs I've already paid for at one time. Gary Warren: They look like bituminous curbs. I know especially in Mrs. Bovy's residence there with the storm water runoff issue, that's been one of the Bovy 's 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 Chmiel: Check it out. Gary Warren: I will check it out. Councilwoman Dimler: Gary, are you sure it was bituminous and not concrete? I Gary Warren: Well from that picture it looks like bituminous, yeah and I know what's out there now is bituminous. Arlis Bovy: I know it wasn't what we've got now which is just shoveled up blacktop.) Gary Warren: But that looks like a formed bituminous curb to me. Arlis Bovy: It was very sturdy and it was very adequate at the time but they ' took it out when they redid the street and never put it back simply because they said they ran out of funds. Gary Warren: What year was that? Arlis Bovy: The picture shows 1968. Gary Warren: But when they took it out? Arlis Bovy: Probably 1969-70. 1 Gary Warren: We'll check it out. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Once again, this is a public hearing. This is your opportunity to express your views. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' 45 IICity Council Meeting - September 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 I 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 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 Commission have been going up. She indicated to me that in 1988 we were paying $33,349.21 per month and now in 1989 we're paying $31,187.32 so it's actually 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 amend the project to take out Kiowa Circle. Councilman Johnson: Is that it? iMayor Chmiel: I'd like to say something on this too before we o much t g ch f.�rther. There's been a lot of questions and a lot of points brought out that have not 11 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_ Chmiel: Table, not the full project. Table it until all the questions that were brought up by the residents be answered. ICouncilman Johnson: Specifically? Mayor Chmiel: Specifically many factors brought lip about the curbs such as now. Councilman Johnson: You mean what was brought up tonight? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. This evening. Councilman Johnson: Will why don't we wait until the Council finishes ' discussing it so our concerns can be brought yip too? Mayor Chmiel: I'm just throwing my thoughts out right now. I'm not saying.. . Councilman Johnson: I thought you ware 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 Chmiel: That's correct. Is there a second to your motion to take Kiowa Circle out of the project? ICouncilman 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. I 46 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 II 1 Councilwoman Dimler: I would just like to see it taken off since if I then the discussion becomes freer. to discuss Frontier Trail. take zt Councilman Boyt: It does. That's true. II 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 II Council feels comfortable with the scope of the project as far as what we propose, it certainly could be authorized for plans and specs to be initiated which is the more detailed data gathering as it relates to the road width and some of these other things that you may want. II Councilman Bovt: 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. II Mayor Chmiel: I think what I'd like to see is at least all those questions addressed. II 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. II Councilman Boyt: Roger tells me it's very expensive to do plans and specifications and so maybe tabling is the smarter move. A couple of the issues II that I heard. The issue about whether Kiowa Circle needs to be in or out of the project. It's difficult to decide just whether or not I can vote on that much less how to vote on it. But one of my concerns is, if there is in fact only 4 II homeowners who are going to be assessed for this, I being one of than, 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 II 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. II Chuck Dimler: I estimated 300 linear feet. Councilman Boyt: Alright so that's around both sides of the road a total of 300. h Gary Warren: 590. 47 II IICity Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Chuck Dimler: No, one side. ' Councilman Boyt: Okay, so there's really 590? Gary Warren: 590 front feet. 11 Councilman Boyt: Kiowa Circle, the road condition, never having studied ed the engineering study that you did on that, just looking at it. It doesn't look in great shape to me. How long do you think it will last? What's your engineering estimate? We don't get a lot of traffic down there. 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.say. 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 1 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 1 Kiowa Circle out. Is there a second to that motion? Mayor Chmiel: I'll call the question. Is there a second? ' Councilman Workman: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel: It has been moved and seconded. ' 48 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 ir- Councilman Johnson: Discussion? Mayor C uniel: 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 1 members of the Council and the other two. Councilman Boyt: Well we don't have the Suekers. ' Sue Downs: The Suckers 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? Gary 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 tip into somebody's house and who owns those houses? Gary Warren: Whoever's got the lowest service. Councilwoman Dimler: That's us. 1 Councilman Johnson: That's you? r_ Councilwoman Dimler: And we haven't had any back up. Councilman Johnson: Not yet. ' Councilwoman Dimler: try 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. Chuck Dimler: The map is not up now. Excuse 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 • IICity Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 are not on that line, you know if there's a problem there they might go in a different direction or�they the might just come back in to the line behind the homes rather than in the street. I'm not certain that that's been looked at or whether it should but I think that should be considered before we spend you know, before we cut our foot off because we have a sore toe. ' Councilman Johnson: Next thing on this is what is the size of the sewer? Gary Warren: 8 inch diameter. ' Councilman Johnson: 8 inch diameter. Is it possible to, if we're only serving 1 or 2 homes there, retrofit through what's existing there with a 6 inch or another adequate size to serve the, it sounds like maybe only 2 homes are being serviced by that. An 8 inch will service many, many more homes than 2. Is there a way we might be able to, instead of having to rip up the road and all this, work�a pipe through there? - - Gary Warren: The common technique, slip lining is the technique that's been 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 how big the offset is? Bill Engelhardt: It's big enough that they couldn't get the cameras.. . ras.. . Gary-Warren: They couldn't get the camera through. The camera is on skids and it's normally close to the diameter of the pipe so it doesn' t take more than an inch offset to prohibit you from going but I haven't personally looked at the videotapes to see what we can do there. Councilman Johnson: I'm not thinking about doing a slip. I'm thinking of actually putting a smaller diameter pipe clear through. If you've got a clear enough shot to put it through, put the two laterals together and basically almost abandon it up. The sewer. While it won' t meet the city's standards, we're only talking 2 people. It's not like, it's an option that might be a heck ' of a lot less than $55,000.00 and there's a small environmental problem capabilities there. Councilman Boyt: That wasn't sanitary sewer. That was.. . 50 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Gary Warren: That was 26 granted as a road. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, right. But if you don't have to tear up the road. 1 Gary Warren: We included the cost for the total road repair because if you would be in replacing 183 feet of the sanitary sewer, it would make sense. We could go in tomorrow at a much lesser cost and strictly repair this break or this sheer and ignore the rest of this line and take our chances with it but we certainly could do that for a much less cost. I Mayor Cimiel: What minimal cost? Gary Warren: I don't know. Maybe $5,000.00 at the worse. But the problem you don't know with clay tile which this is, is that once you go in and you start digging it up, you have to go back to a good piece of pipe and when you take the overburden off of those pipes, depending on their age, they tend to crumble so 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: Gary, do you see this as an emergency situation? Gary Warren: Well in my videotape viewing days as a sewer rehab consultant, I typically addressed any sheered type problem as something that should be high priority, yes. Councilman Dimler: But it's not emergency? Gary Warren: It's not my basement. Councilman Johnson: It's Bill's basement and Sue's basement. 1 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 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 something less than a functional sanitary sewer system and if we need a storm sewer in there, we need that. As far as the road goes, if the neighbor's don't want the road, I'm in no position to force them to take 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 ' IICity Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, then I would ask Gary. Do you consider the sanitary sewer functional? Gary Warren: All I can say is it's functioning at this point in time. It defintely should be on the rehab program. Councilwoman Dimler: At some later date? 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? tCouncilman 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? 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 stibgrade. 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 liseage. a C 52 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 11 Councilman Johnson: Now I'm not sure if this is the point for us, this point in Fthe project for us to say okay. Take it off. I think we should give directions to the engineers at this point that it should be our recommendation and highly considered that this be looked at as a spot repair and then go on. Councilwoman Dimler: But it can still be taken out of the project because we're addressing Frontier Trail here and Kiowa Circle was only included because of the sanitary sewer and I expect them to do the sanitary sewer when they do their updating of the system. Gary Warren: We would include that spot repair in our '89 program. That 1 possibly could be done even this year. Resident: Can I ask a question? ' Mayor Chmiel: Sure. 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 they could be diverted from these two homes...the line that goes behind Dimler's at a much less cost and then cap off that line that goes down Kiowa when you tear up Frontier? Bill Engelhardt: We looked at that, not in great detail but it appeared that I there was a difficult construction going down between the homes and going down the hill, down into the sewer line down in the ravine and would probably do more damage to the yards and everything than anything. I Gary Warren: Plus the service lines which now come to the front would have to be redone. Bill Engelhardt: Everything would have to be redone and come back around the house. It's more involved than just trying to relay the pipe at a different angle. It gets pretty involved with the trees and everything out there. I Mayor Chmiel: Any other further discussion Council? have a motion on the floor with a second. Councilman Johnson: I have discussion on other aspects of the project. Councilwoman Dimler: No. I think we should vote on this motion first and then discuss the rest of the Frontier Trail project. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to delete the Kiowa Circle portion from the Frontier Trail utility and roadway improvement project. All voted in favor and the motion carried.utility roadway Councilman Boyt: I can' t believe I voted for it. Councilman Johnson: I thought you would abstain being a benefitting person on it. 53 I IICity Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 ' 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 some, 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 ' the City is taking on a fair size portion of this. Whether it's 60% or 800 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 certain amount. And if we do that at the rate of about $55,000.00 worth of payments a year or I think we look at it in terms of $273,000 worth of our bonding capacity a year, we eat that capacity up pretty quick. So there's ' actually been, and maybe this is pure fantasy but I've actually approached the idea that the City can't afford this project. So that's one of my concerns. Then Joel's comment about the sidewalk. I suspect everybody knows that I am a supporter of a sidewalk system. I also though, as I mentioned to Joel earlier, think that it's, from what I picked up in the neighborhood, there's not overwhelming support for a sidewalk and we'd need to generate that before we considered that option. One of the interesting things that's come out in the ' numbers here and maybe can be addressed as we approach this further, is that I haven't figured out what the philosophy is that the City would be billing back on. It looks like right now if the City goes to the approach that the only thing the residents are paying for is improvements in the road surface above and beyond what they're paid for originally, what we paid for originally, then maybe what we're really saying is the City is paying 100% of the cost and we're just paying for the improvements which was one of the options up on the screen. And ' what does that say about, what are doing for the future? What are we doing when the City comes in now and replaces a road that's fully up to urban standards? Does that mean the City, since we're not upgrading that road, that the City's covering 100% of that expense? I don't know but I see that as one of the issues that needs to be examined further. I think the City has quite a long history, at least the 3 years I've been watching it. I can only think of one project off hand where we did a per unit assessment and that was out on, was it Bluff Creek? ' Gar_y Warren: Bluff Creek Drive. Councilman Boyt: Due to the tremendously large size of some of those units. I don't rule that out but just the City hasn't done that. So I agree that we're certainly setting a model for the future here. The way we do it. That ' deserves time. Whatever time it takes to figure out what the City would probably do in other situations and I would appreciate having the chance to vote on parts of this but when it comes down to the actual assessment percentage, it would be my intention to not vote. Unless of course, if Kiowa stays out of it I guess it doesn't make much difference. I probably can vote. That's all I have. Councilman Johnson: One of the points that Bill made was that per foot is the good way to go because if you didn't go per foot, 71% of the households would be increased. Well to me that figure says that pet foot's the wrong way to go because if 71% of the households would be increased by going to the per unit 54 i City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 cost, that means 39% of the households. Councilman Boyt: 29. Councilman Johnson: Or 29. What time is it? Okay. It was an early morning this morning too. 29% of the households are being asked to pay more than what would seem to be a fair share. If you had a developer that had 300 feet that he was going to be assessed for and he could subdivide that into a Curry Farms or whatever, into many households, the per foot makes a lot of sense to me. When there's no subdivision available for these people and there's nobody going to subdivide here. The unit makes more sense in a street and sewer. You know you only get one sewer connection. Of course it's not in this one but you're only doing one driveway except for Jim. Or who is it that has two driveways down there? Resident: Freidlanders. Councilman Johnson: Oh Freidlanders. Aren't they moving? g Councilman 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 1_ to that guy with 300 feet as it is to the guy with 50. That does not seem fair to me. So my gut reaction looking at it, and if 71% of the people would have a reduction if you went the other way, it seems to me a per unit may be a fairer ' way. Bill Engelhardt: 71% wouldn't have the reduction. ' Councilman Johnson: Or 71% would have an increase. Bill Engelhardt: You.'re acting... ' Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'm standing up for the guys that are the minority. Yes. ' Bill d-iglehar_dt: Your Honor. One quick comment on that and maybe Roger, we can research this for you and bring that back too but you have to keep in mind that you have to show benefit and that the cost of the improvements are going to increase the market value by the property equally that amount and so if you do it by the unit method and you have a small lot, his market, it'd be very difficult to prove the benefit on that. We can research that and look at it and I'll talk to Roger a little bit about that but that's the reason you have to look at it. Councilman Johnson: But the benefit's equal. You're sitting on a paved street. I 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'r_e not making that 55 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 decision but right now I need some more information before I make that decision. ' Mayor Chmiel: That's why I'm suggesting that we table this at this particular time and cane back with some conclusions as to what we're looking for. With that I will make that into a motion. ' Councilman Johnson: I've still got one more comment on width of road. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let's wind her up because we've got a lot more to go yet. Councilman Johnson: I know. I can't see making it any more narrow personally. Even though making it narrower makes it theoretically people will slow down ' more. I don't know if they really would slow then 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. Gary 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 t 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. say Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion to table. Is there a second? 3 Councilman Johnson: I'll second it. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table action on Frontier Trail Utility and Roadway Improvements for further information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor? I would like to move that we amend the agenda to move item 12 to the next item. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. That was going to be my next one. Councilman Johnson: Rick Murray is here. He's the person who requested this ' density. To have it other than the consent agenda. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we take that one first and then we can move from there. Councilman Johnson: That's item 8. Councilman Boyt: We have quite a few people here for Vineland Forest Addition that have been here all night. Mayor Chmiel: Let's just move real quick to item number 8 and then we'll go from there. With that I would consider that an amendment. .. 56 II WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. ronslulliny f Jr rpd. , 1107 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 (6121 448-8838 CITY OF CHANHASSEN October 4 , 1989 MPH 0 C T 05 1989 City of Chanhassen c/o Mr . Gary Warren ENGINEERING DEPT. 1 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen , MN. 55317 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 ' ADWAY 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. • 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 II City of Chanhassen 1 October 4 , 1989 Page 3 1 presently in place , such as curb and gutter . Several I 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 1 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 1 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 . I The City of Burnsville assesses 40 percent of the street replacement cost and 100 percent of the new improvements . 1 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 - II 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 II 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 1 general public or general tax levy . The option of a 40-60 split , in our opinion , is a fair and equitable basis for assessment on this particular project . 1 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 . 111 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 II rehabilitation projects rates will be reviewed and updated annually . I r ICity of Chanhassen October 4 , 1989 I Page 4 I We will be available to address any questions concerning this matter at your convenience . I Very truly tl yours , , IWILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES , INC. frl/�.0 �c° f_......"_dZz. /----- IWilliam R. Engelhardt , P.E. IWRE/ las II I II II II II I I I I 8 ? l I CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) , I, Karen J. Engelhardt, bein g first duly ' y sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on `3fp -e o— , 19 89 the 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 --}-fit;h l jC . A ec,r I n , -c-Or Vrc \-\-t.e r 1 rC, 1-< <i•t- R e f er--I- (\j 8 9-ltd 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. Kar,.n Jingedtrdt, Deputy Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this ��� day XAAAAAAAAAA1dAl>,WAAAA AAAcaaAAAAA4X of �� -enther , 19.69 r,<w .;t KIM T. Iv1EUN/IS SEN NOTR_Y PJ8I_IC My Commission Expires Wiay 29, 1992 otary PlZblic nvinrow Ctr'VMVG VVV1"1CgygyyyX II ' CITY OF 1111: HANHAS SE II I , • �1 . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I ',- '�• -.---- (612) 937-1900 II September 20, 1989 Re: Notice of Public Hearing Frontier Trail Utility and Roadway Improvements IProject No. 89-10 Dear Property Owner: IIAs you are aware, the City has held a neighborhood information meeting on August 30, 1989, and a public hearing at the September 11, 1989 City Council meeting on the Frontier Trail road improvement project. The City Council tabled its action on this project until the October 9, 1989 City Council meeting to allow staff to further research and address the unanswered questions from the September 11, 1989 meeting. IDue to an oversight, the newspaper ads for the September 11, 1989 public hearing were not published. The public hearing for this project is therefore being I readvertised to be held on October 9, 1989 as a part of the regularly scheduled City Council meeting. The City Council meeting commences at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 690 Coulter Drive. All interested persons may appear at said time and place. IIThe project deals with the reconstruction of the portion of Frontier Trail from Highland Drive to Kiowa Circle. Sanitary sewer, storm sewer and watermain II repairs are also proposed. Said improvements are proposed to be financed by a combination of special assessments and bonding. The total project cost of said improvements is estimated to be $707,227. IIA copy of the feasibility study showing the project scope, costs and assessment area is available for review at City Hall during regular business hours. 1 We look forward to discussing this project further with you at the October 9, 1989 meeting. If you have any questions in the meantime, please feel free to call. ISincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN I be Gary G rren, P.E. II City E i eer GGW:ktm , Ic: Bill Engelhardt, Engelhardt & Associates, Inc. City Council Administrative Packet (9/25/89) II Malcolm A. & L. MacAlpine William C. & B. Axons Joseph & Katheleerr Witkewill 7187 Frontier Trail a 7211 Frontier Trail fl 7210 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, NN 55317 II William R. & Marcia K. Shirley Donald D. & J. King Robert A. & C. Scholer 7189 Frontier Trail 7200 Kiowa Circle 7212 Frontier Trail II Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I John C. & S. Reger Robert Downs & Susan Hansen Gary D. & Kay L. Boyle 7191 Frontier Trail 7202 Kiowa Circle 7214 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 .. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Nary Jane Prill William S. & Susan N. Boyt Harold & Leona Kerber II 7193 Frontier Trail 7204 Kiowa Circle 7216 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, NN 55317 II William & Mary Ann Schepers Charles H. & Ursula Dimler Travis H. & Duaine L. Hull II 7195 Frontier Trail 7203 Kiowa Circle 7218 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Helen L. Loebl Donald K. & C. Sueker Joel S. & Nary G. Jenkins 7197 Frontier Trail 7194 Frontier Trail 7226 Frontier Trail il Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, NON 55317 II Donald Jr. & K. Miller Peter J. Huber Paul & Ellen Differding (for 7199 Frontier Trail) 7196 Frontier Trail 7228 Frontier Trail 13473 Winchester Place Chanhassen, NN 55317 Chanhassen, NN 55317 II Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Rolf G. Engstrom Jack D. & F. Barnes Thomas & Kathleen O'Leary II 7201 Frontier Trail 7198 Frontier Trail 7230 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, NN 55317 II Alice L. Barker Brock Evelyn L. Bakke Sunrise Hills II 7203 Frontier Trail 7200 Frontier Trail c%o Marilyn Holter Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 7201 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, NN 55317 II Steven & Therese Berquist Dave W. & B. Halverson James R. & L. Kraft II 7207 Frontier Trail 7206 Frontier Trail 7213 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Walter & H. Bielski Timothy J. & Ginger Murray Bruce K. & S. Savik 7209 Frontier Trail 7208 Frontier Trail 7215 Frontier Trail II Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard & K. Friedlander Kenneth R. & Lois J. Groen I73'01 Frontier Trail 4 ( 7329 Frontier Trail f- . Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 David J. Wollan & Richard & G. Pearson ISusan K. Lippka 7307 Frontier Trail 7303 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 " Den W. Loftin & Myra M. Farish Wayne L. & K. Mader 7305 Frontier Trail 400 Highland Drive " Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 IRobert & C. Scholer Donald M. & D. Huseth 7212 Frontier Trail 7332 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 IRobert H. & J. Grodahl James J. & R. Waletski 7220 Frontier Trail 7334 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Robert K. & Patty L. Lehman John P. & R. C. Spalding 117341 Frontier Trail 7336 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Arlis A. Bovy James & Linda Mady 7339 Frontier Trail 7338 Frontier Trail IIChanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 IlRichard & Jennifer Kedrowski Thomas R. & S. Pzynski 7337 Frontier Trail 7340 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Fred L. Cuneo, Jri Bonnie J. Roening & 7335 Frontier Tral Cecil H. Nelson Chanhassen, MN 55317 401 Highland Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Joel M. & Wendy M. Wiens Morlais Jr. & June T. Hughes I7333 Frontier Trail 7343 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Susan L. Johnson City of Chanhassen 7331 Frontier Trail 690 Coulter Drive 'Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ' CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR FRONTIER TRAIL UTILITY AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 89-10 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: 31 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 specia 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 ) ' / / . .P lcA 1 1 1