The URL can be used to link to this page

2. Ordinance Amendment Regarding Sprinkling , ....)._ :_ C I TY OF • ■• • \ - CHANHASSEN \ , 1/4 p ,„.. ,, , „• 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN,-MINNESOTAk55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM • TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director DATE: July 20, 1988 - "�-a �" SUBJ: Public Hearing to Amend City Code Section 19-28, Sprinkling Restricted On June 13 , 1988, the City Council approved first reading to amend the City Code regarding sprinkling restrictions, Section 19-28 . On June 27, 1988, the final reading to the ordinance amendment was presented to City Council. At that time, the Council decided to hold a public hearing regarding the ordinance amendment. The public hearing was therefore set for July 25 , 1988 regarding the following ordinance amendment: Section 19-28. Water Use Restricted. Whenever the City Council (by resolution) or on a temporary 1 emergency basis , the City Manager and the Fire Chief shall determine that a shortage of water supply threatens the City, they may limit the use, times, and hours during which water may be used from the City water supply system. Any water customer who shall cause or permit water to be used in viola- tion of the provisions of the resolution shall be in viola- tion of this code. IIt is staff' s recommendation that the ordinance amendment be adopted as presented. I cc: Scott Harr, Assistant Public Safety Director I 1 1 • c=p_.. CITY OF ______ ,., , , ,„ , \ , ,\ , 5 ,,,... . `` _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN,-MINNESOTA,55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director DATE: July 20, 1988 - �.- - SUBJ: Public Hearing to Amend City Code Section 19-28, Sprinkling Restricted On June 13 , 1988, the City Council approved first reading to amend the City Code regarding sprinkling restrictions, Section 19-28 . On June 27, 1988, the final reading to the ordinance amendment was presented to City Council. At that time, the Council decided to hold a public hearing regarding the ordinance amendment. The public hearing was therefore set for July 25 , 1988 regarding the following ordinance amendment: Section 19-28. Water Use Restricted. Whenever the City Council (by resolution) or on a temporary emergency basis , the City Manager and the Fire Chief shall determine that a shortage of water supply threatens the City, they may limit the use, times, and hours during which water may be used from the City water supply system. Any water customer who shall cause or permit water to be used in viola- tion of the provisions of the resolution shall be in viola- tion of this code. It is staff' s recommendation that the ordinance amendment be adopted as presented. cc: Scott Harr, Assistant Public Safety Director pity Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 CONSENT AGENDA: (N) CITY CODE AMENDMENT, SPRINKLING RESTRICTIONS, FINAL READING. Councilman Horn: I was curious, we did hold a public hearing on this? It seems to me that something like this we should have a public hearing on whether it's required or not. Acting Mayor Geving: Would this be normal Barbara? Councilman Horn: No, I don't think so. Acting Mayor Geving: This would not be a normal operation? Barbara Dacy: No, the public hearing isn't required because it's not an amendment to the zoning ordinance. However, it's up to the Council. Councilman Horn: I think any ordinance change that affects how people live should have a public hearing. One of the complaints that we've gotten is that this thing was totally mismanaged in terms of informing the public and I totally agree with that. I think one of the ways we as a body counteract that is by having public hearings when we have an ordinance change. I'd like to suggest that we do that. Acting Mayor Geving: Any comments? Bill, do you agree with that? Councilman Boyt: Can't argue against a public hearing. Councilman Johnson: I don't have a problem with a public hearing. I do have, I was going to pull this one also. The wording in here, it says whenever the City Council or on a temporary emergency basis, the City Manager or Fire Chief shall determine that a shortage of water supply threatens the City, they may, by resolution. Now, how is the Fire Chief and City Manager, by resolution, going to call for a sprinkling ban? I think we have to reword this to where we have that the City Manager and Fire Chief do have the temporary emergency basis to do this. They can do it on a temporary emergency without having a resolution and then it shall be followed up within some set time frame to have a resolution. Acting Mayor Geving: I would agree that those two words, by resolution, are meaningless in this context. Councilman Johnson: With the City Council side of it it's okay but it probably needs to be broken into two pieces. Acting Mayor Geving: Is that all you had there? Councilman Johnson: Yes and I agree with the public hearing. The other thing I was going to talk about was the lack of good communication on this one. We are guilty of poor communications with the citizens quite often. It's not that tough, I believe you can get a postcard type thing to go through Xerox machines. We could publish and print overnight cards to go to every citizen in the City if we would stock the stuff. The concept is there. We didn't really communicate this well enough. On Monday after the emergency call, we should have had a mailing go out and when we switched back last Thursday, we should have had another mailing go out. A lot of people don't know what's going on. Not 14 City Council Meeting - June 27, 1988 59 ' , everybody reads the newspaper so we can't depend upon only the newspapers. Especially something as important as this, as our only communications. I think this also points to the need for a public information officer for the City as a part time duty for somebody that is the focal point for desiminating this kind of information. The other thing was, we had mass confusion up front. Something needed to be typed up and handed to the receptionist just from hour to hour on that Monday and Tuesday. It seemed that everything was changing and that actually was what was happening is that the emergency was maturing. We were getting a better understanding of it. By later in the week the ground rules were well enough known but I had a friend who for several weeks carried buckets of water to her garden just after she had her gall bladder surgery. She was told she couldn't get a permit just because she has stitches in her side but she can carry her buckets. She didn't actually tell anybody she had stitches in her side. She's just that kind of person. I think there's a lot of mice in the world that don't create waves and when they don't get clear instructions, they don't know exactly what's happening, they don't protest and they go carry their water buckets out there to water their gardens with buckets but that's all I've got to say on that. Acting Mayor Geving: I think we all learned a great deal from this emergency and it wasn't really an emergency. I think that the Fire Chief and City Manager acted in good faith to take care of a situation that I believe at the point we probably should have had a City Council meeting. There should have been some better semination of clearcut information as to what was really happening. Possibly even hand carried flyers from door to door. I think we finally caught up by using the television and of course we had very good coverage from the local papers so we've learned a lot from this effort and hopefully the crisis is somewhat past. Not to say it isn't going to happen again in a different way with a different means but I do think we do have an area now. We have an ordinance amendment where we can handle this. The Fire Chief, City Manager is involved. Certainly the Public Safety is involved. One of the things that I wanted to include in this ordinance amendment was a means by which the public safety department would be totally responsible for getting out to the media what these levels of water useage restrictions would be in this particular case. So we have to place the responsibility someplace and I believe that that's where it should be. That it should be with the public safety department in getting the media attention and information. As far as Clark's recommendation in terms of a public hearing, I can see nothing wrong with that. I think it's a good idea. If we get the information out first and then can have a public hearing. This is important. It's one of the more important things that we've talked about in the last couple of weeks. I think we've got it solved here or at least got a handle on it. No further questions or comments. We're going to direct staff to add whatever comments that were made tonight to this. My specific comment was that I would like to see the public safety department be totally responsible for the media attention and dissemination of information and Clark Horn's suggestion here that this be placed in terms of the public hearing. Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the table the final reading of the City Code Amendment, Sprinkling Restrictions until a public hearing can be held on the matter and to include having the Public Safety Department responsible for informing the public. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 15 In ; CITY OF •■••••■••■•••■•■•••■■ I CHANHASSEN \ ., ii, \\L ,,, ' „, -- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 ",iii.•+.___ __ —__.__ MEMORANDUM ~'y' . D,it2 :c r.;; TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director '� "' " ` DATE June 16 , 1988 SUBJ: Final Approval on Second Reading of the Ordinance Amendment to City Code Section 19-28 Sprinkling Restricted On June 13 , 1988, the City Council had the first reading to amend the City Ordinance regarding sprinkling restrictions , Section 19-28. The final reading to the ordinance amendment should read: Section 19-28 . Water Use Restricted. Whenever the City Council or on a temporary emergency basis , the City Manager and the Fire Chief, shall determine that a shortage of water supply threatens the City, they may, by resolution, limit the use, times and hours during which water may be used from the City water supply system. With the amendment to the ordinance, as indicated, the City of Chanhassen' s Public Safety Department will be able to take imme- diate enforcement action. In addition, City Staff may institute graduated water use restrictions as may be dictated by the cir- cumstances . The following graduated step system for sprinkling/ water usage restrictions will be established by policy directive: 1 . Odd/even watering restrictions; , 2 . Odd/even watering restrictions with defined times; 3 . Total ban with a permit system. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will hold a public hearing on July 25 , 1988 , at 7 : 30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an amendment to City Code Section 19-28, Sprinkling Restricted, eliminating the civil penalties as stated and providing for emergency sprinkling restrictions authorized by the City Manager and City Fire Chief . All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. B ORDER OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL Mme, I im Chaffe ublic Safety Director hone: 937-1900 (Publish in the Carver County Herald on July 14 , 1988 ) l � CHANHASSEN r(\ ( POWERS BLVD. (C.S.A.H. 17) W. 78TH. STREET DETACHMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY PROJECT NO. 87-2 DESIGN AND . IMPLEMENTATION REPORT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT # 1 JULY, 1988 PLANNING TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING BENNETT, RINGROSE, WOLSFELD, JARVIS, GARDNER, INC ARCHITECTURE CHANHASSEN POWERS BLVD. (C.S.A.H. 17) / W. 78TH. ST. DETACHMENT FEASABILITY STUDY C.P. 87-2 Chanhassen, Minnesota Design and Implementaton Report SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT # 1 Prepared for CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Prepared by Bennett, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc. 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 JULY, 1988 ,;.n nit - PLANNING TRANSPORTATION k' k ># TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING x N ARCHITECTURE BENNETT, RINGROSE, WOLSFELD, JARVIS, GARDNER, INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700 July 21, 1988 Chanhassen Mayor & City Council Chanhassen Housing & Redevelopment Authority 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Supplemental Report #1 to the Powers Boulevard/West 78th Street Detachment Feasibility Study and Report Honorable Mayor, City Council , and HRA Board: Enclosed herewith is Supplemental Report #1 to the Design and Implementation Report (dated July 1987) for the Powers Boulevard/West 78th Street Detachment Study Area. The Design and Implementation Report outlined the suggested design criteria for infrastructure improvements and streetscape, the estimated costs for implementation, and the proposed project financing. A public hearing has been held on the project and the project was approved on 8/3/87, for plans and specifications. Subsequent to the City Council action, changes have occurred which have a signi- ficant impact on the project, as well as a portion of the abutting property. This Supplemental Report #1 is intended to summarize these changes and to quan- tify the impact to the project and the abutting properties. We welcome any comments that the City Council , HRA Board, or City staff may have, and look forward with anticipation to the implementation stage of this project. Sincerely, BENNETTIRINGROSE- •LSFELD-JARVIS-GARDNER, INC. 400 f - Gary A. /hr-t, PE Project Manager GAE/sk Enclosure DAVID J.BENNETT DONALD W.RINGROSE RICHARD P.WOLSFELD PETER E.JARVIS LAWRENCE J.GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A.AMUNDSEN DONALD E.HUNT MARK G.SWENSON JOHN 8.McNAMARA DONALD L.CRAIG RICHARD D.PILGRIM DALE N.BECKMANN DENNIS J.SUTLIFF MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. Introduction 1 - 2 II. Proposed Improvements 3 - 4 III. Right-of-Way 5 IV. Project Costs 6 - 9 • V. Project Financing/Assessments 10 VI. Summary/Conclusions 11 • Appendix FIGURES Figure No. 1 Proposed Improvements (Figure 4 - Design and Implementation Report) Revised July 1988 2 Landscape Concept (Figure 13 - Design and Implementation Report) Revised July 1988 3 Assessments (Figure 16 - Design and Implementation Report) Revised July 1988 • • I. INTRODUCTION This supplemental report is intended to summarize changes to the information presented in the Design and Implementation Report dated July 1987. The Design and Implementation Report was accepted by the City Council on August 3, 1987, a public hearing was held, and final plans and specifications ordered August 24, 1987. Subsequent to the acceptance of the original feasibility study and ordering of plans and specifications, changes have occurred which require revisions to the previous report, and a new public hearing. A brief discussion of each of the changes to be considered in this supplemental report is as follows: #1 Design Change The July 1987, Design and Implementation Report based it's content upon the fact that a 24-foot wide private service drive would be constructed by the abutting property owners, at the cost of the abutting property owners, in the area of Old West 78th Street south of the new detached West 78th Street (Refer to Figure 1.). This private drive was intended to serve Lot 1, Block 2, of the West Village Heights Development, Lots 1-3, Block 1, of the Burdick Park 2nd Addition, and would have access via a service drive entry from Powers Boulevard. This service drive entry would have access to Powers Boulevard via a "Right-in/Right-out" con- dition. Subsequent to the acceptance of the Design and Implementation Report, the public hearing, and the ordering of the plans and specifications, this service drive connection to Powers Boulevard and the "Right-In/Right-Out" condition were care- fully examined by Carver County. After considerable review, Carver County has elected to deny permission for connection of this service drive to Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) . This report addresses the impact from an engineering and cost impact standpoint of eliminating the private service drive connection to Powers Boulevard, and as an alternate constructing a 36-foot wide commercial street section cul-de- sac in lieu of a private drive to serve the properties described above. (1) #2 Cost Updates The Design and Implementation Report assumed construction of the public improvements during the 1988 construction season. It is now considered that the public improvements for this project will be made during the 1989 construction season. The estimated improvement costs have been updated in this report to more accurately reflect expected 1989 construction season costs. Further discussion of these issues follows in this report. Footnote: The West Village Heights Development has subsequently been platted as the West Village Heights 2nd Addition. (2) II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS All aspects of the proposed public improvements were previously reviewed by the City Council of Chanhassen, a public hearing held, and plans and specifications ordered by the City Council (August 24, 1987). As outlined in the design and Implementation Report, numerous public improvements are proposed to be constructed. The focus of this supplemental report are the changes which will be necessary to the public improvement project by constructing a public cul-de- sac roadway which will abutt Lot 1, Block 2, and Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, as shown on Figure 1, in lieu of a private service drive, as originally proposed. Work to be included as part of the public improvement project includes the following: A. Demolition and Removals Existing pavement, signs, culverts, etc. , will be removed from the right-of-way, as necessary, to construct the new roadway. B. Grading Grading and earthwork will be completed to construct the roadway to it' s proposed grade including boulevard areas, ditches, etc. C. Sanitary Sewer Since an existing eight-inch trunk sanitary sewer main runs through this area, the only anticipated work includes manhole and/or manhole casting adjustments and sewer service stubs to the abutting property. D. Watermain Trunk watermain facilities have been installed proximate to this location. New trunk facilities will not be required for this project. Watermain service stubs will be necessary and will be constructed to serve the abutting property. E. Drainage/Storm Sewer Improvements As outlined in the Design and Implementation Report, major storm sewer trunk facilities are necessary to serve the entire West 78th Street/Powers Boulevard area. Upon closing of the public hearing, the City Council of Chanhassen selected improvements proposed in Alternate A of the Design and Implementation Report. Therefore, the Alternate A storm (3) sewer system is used as the basis for this supplemental report. Changing the proposed private drive from a 24-foot paved private drive to a 36-foot public street with a cul-de- sac will not have a substantial impact upon the proposed storm drainage system. Minor storm sewer improvements will be made to accommodate the proposed cul-de-sac. F. Roadway Improvements This supplemental report proposes to construct a maximum of a 36-foot wide public roadway with a cul-de-sac which would have access off of West 78th Street east of Powers Boulevard only. Access to Powers Boulevard will not be permitted by Carver County. This proposal is in lieu of a 24-foot wide private service drive which had been previously proposed. G. Street Lighting Street lights are proposed to be constructed consistent with standards established on West 78th Street, the downtown area, and the Chanhassen Business Park. H. Streetscape Boulevard plantings consistent with West 78th Street and Powers Boulevard are proposed for construction in the right- of-way of the cul-de-sac. I. Private Utilities Changes to the private utilities including gas, electric telephone, etc. , will be made to serve the abutting proper- ties as necessary. As outlined above, these public improvements are proposed in the area of the new proposed cul-de-sac roadway only. The design con- cepts and project intent of the Design and Implementation Report dated July 1987, remains unchanged in all other areas. (4) I I H ' i ' CHANHASSENs, 1 • , POWERS BLVD. (c.s.A.H. 17) i 41 .',I 1 I k . — - — WEST 78TH STREET , I \ --- _ .11 I . DETACHMENT -=_ �- FEASIBILITY STUDY 1i : ' i :—la _ • < \, SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT #1 `„ l' --- , C.P. 87-2" / i,:: I, p . 1 ,o___,„_>>_ , • .\ 1:LOT 1 LEG EN D i VI / /i1 '• BLOCK 2 I \\ ` / ----EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY/ !. : ,I 'r, ,// ■ ---- PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY j PROPOSED STORM SEWER `N� �`, -- ---_- (BY OTHERS EXISTING ROADWAY ll' PROPOSED ROADWAY cry/, i ! \ PLATTED R/W : o—;; /0_ , _ J ' N► ��\ ' EXISTING STORM SEWER 1ST le-01P WY ti / ar/� . . 1 • —<<---'•--- 'A4:"- li; V IOU ��, � «- 4.r� y��< a � �—>--a-•>—PROPOSED STORM SEWER •r --- • :c, —- fn:n:;.:�;.k :" �, a —� n,;;.„ytp• ..�^':� :}.:,�.:<< 3' y.;•:sy::.�•,w.,�:;Ott.;.;..:•}:}u4?:;w::.•}.i. � PROPOSED x . �y ' •:, . r �f, <><: ,>">,.•••• _PROP? sToRM SED S SEWER a.,}. ..:.`t{ ` g: •h,. �py•v:H.v: vMJiw,\y:r: ' / STORM SWR. .: < ..:,e .'401t0416::;::. :it :;,;:A::;f<;:o:<• }:<::.;::}:y::.:. L1Tir —p : .: :<:<:.. :<<::>>:>:::<: > ------ --- .(BY ) i / � � ;,.:::a:-.:•r%yam , -��.}�'`i I { PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED .�� / \':c •;�`v:i -.viF;'k`:` x. EXIST.eT VVC SAM .i a �� 4 /�~ ��∎ �\� STORM SWR. PROPOSED `15' UTILITY EASEMENT/1" ,2 8' P.V.C. 1 105' ROADWAY —1-1----t- EXISTING WATERMAIN ' /y' / SAN. SERV. —� EXISTING R.C.P 1 �' TO BE REMOVED 8' D.I.P. WATER SERV. / y,•' // /./ RIGHT-OF-WAY i ADDITIONAL REQUIRED 8' D.I.P. WATER SERV. -c-0 .-+- PROPOSED WATERMAIN A/ �' RIGHT=OF-WAY -t I " PROPOSED `� LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 IMPROVEMENTS i ; ' BLOCK 1 \ a 100 200 - --......,... i ■-di rnwiirmiail II ___ ■ NORTH • , PLANNING 1 ... I . . .... _ + BRT TRANSPITEC TURF FIGURE 1 BENNETT, RINGROSE WOLSFELD JARVIS GARDNER INC THRESHER SQUARE 700 THIRD ST S '.IINNEAPOLIS,MN 55415 JULY, 1988 I s 1 0 I p CHANHASSEN _ . . POWERS BLVD. (C.S.A.H. 17) WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY ISUPPLEMENTAL REPORT # 1 1 / , ... . _ , ,,.. _ . _,.,.. .. .. ... ...„., Dal ( C.P. 87-2 I ______\ i 5 ?...1 , 1 STREET TREES LEGEND i i ' l!cn cj --- EXISTING RIGHT—OF—WAY /D./; , � CONIFEROUS TREES :.�� -- . `4 -- PROPOSED RIGHT—OF—WAY ' ' 0 ORNAMENTAL TREES ;4#. ------- . --_ ____ EXISTING ROADWAY I � a H P.S. LIGHT FIXTURE `7. PROPOSED ROADWAY , ,.•oy• . 11-- / / / .• - ...,.-i / 111111 j 0.. _0 _ LIMITS OF SOD // / 1/ SEED REMAINING R.O.W. LANDSCAPE CONCEPT /\ O 100 200 1 , / . , NORTH v \ PLANNING I + BMW 2 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING y ARChii7ECTURE FIGURE BENNETT.\�■�\ THRESHER SQUARE 07 0 THIRD ST S.. JMNNEAPOU GARDNER. INC. JULY, 1988 1 . . (l) I j III. RIGHT-OF-WAY I/ The Design and Implementation Report assumed construction of a private service drive between Lot 1, Block 2, West Village Heights 2nd Addition, and Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Burdick Park 2nd Addition, therefore, public road right-of-way was not necessary. Construction of a public roadway, as addressed in this supplemen- tal report, will require that public right-of-way be obtained. 11 The area of specific focus in this report is abutted by two pro- perty owners only. Plats have been submitted for both properties to the City for review and approval . It is our understanding that at the time of this supplemental report a final plat has been sub- mitted and approved for the West Village Heights 2nd Addition, which includes Lot 1, Block 2, which abuts the proposed right-of- way on the north side. It is further our understanding that a plat has been submitted and approved for the Burdick Park 2nd Addition, but the final plat has not yet been signed. This report assumes for a basis of study that no changes will occur to the final plat of the West Village Heights 2nd Addition, I as a result of this project proceeding, but that proposed right- of-way dedication would be made by the abutting property owners and as such no public improvement costs have been included for right-of-way acquisition for the proposed public roadway. Minor utility easements may also be required. I I/ I/ I I 11 (5) I I IV. PROJECT COSTS The Design and Implementation Report used as a basis of study, the assumption that construction of a 24-foot wide private service drive and the costs of construction of this service drive would be the responsibility of, and at the direct expense of the abutting property owners. This supplemental report uses as a basis of study, the assumption that this will now be constructed as a public roadway with improvement costs to be assessed to the 11 abutting property instead of being a direct expense. This supplemental report will address two elements relative to project cost. They are: 1. Identify the public costs and subsequent assessment amounts associated with the proposed construction of a public roadway I/ and cul-de-sac, in lieu of a private service drive. 2. Update costs shown in the Design and Implementation Report as I/ Phase I costs, to reflect anticipated costs for 1989 construction of these Phase I improvements. Phase II costs proposed for 1990 construction will also be updated. I1. Consistent with the Design and Implementation Report, public improve- ment costs will be summarized in three primary categories. They are: A. Construction Costs B. Land Acquisition/Easement Costs C. Administrative Costs These costs, as associated with the proposed 1989 construction of a public cul-de-sac, are summarized below. Detailed cost estimates can be found in the appendix of this supplemental report. ESTIMATED COST CUL-DE-SAC A. Construction Costs 1 Cost Element Estimated Cost Sanitary Sewer $ 1,150.00 Watermain $ 7,775.00 Drainage/Storm Sewer $ 8,100.00 L Grading/Roadways $ 79,525.00 Traffic Signals $ 1,600.00 Landscaping/Paths/Lighting $ 23,100.00 Private Utilities $ 10,000.00 Total Estimated Construction Costs $131,250.00 (6) 11 1 Cost Element Estimated Cost I/ B. Land Acquisition/Easement Costs Assuming that the right-of-way which will be necessary to construct these improvements will be dedicated by the abutting property owners, land acquisition costs are not included. Temporary construction easements may be required. 1 Total Estimated Acquisition/ Easement Costs $ 5,000.00 Administrative Costs $ 34,000.00 IC.. The administrative costs of the project, consisting of architectural , engineering, planning, legal , fiscal , appraisal , consultant fees, City staff expenses, publication and meeting costs and other miscellaneous expenses for the total redevelopment project are estimated to be 25 percent of the total construction and acquisition costs. Estimated Project Cost for the Proposed Cul-De-Sac $170,250.00 2. Project costs shown in the Design and Implementation Report, dated July 1 1987, assumed 1988 construction. -It is now anticipated that construc- tion of Phase I improvements will not occur until 1989 and Phase II improvements will occur in 1990, coordinated with the improvement of Trunk Highway 5 by MnDOT. Escalating construction costs should be anticipated for 1989 and 1990 construction. Therefore, the estimated costs outlined in the design and implementation report are being revised to reflect this anticipated escalation in construction costs. Phase I improvement costs have been increased 2% and Phase II costs 4% to account for anticipated construc- tion cost increases. I I (7) I 11 REVISED ESTIMATED COSTS (ESCALATED FROM 1988 ESTIMATES) A. Construction Costs Phase I Phase II Estimated Cost Estimated Cost Cost Element (1989 Construction) (1990 Construction) Sanitary Sewer $ 15,900.00 - Watermain 34,700.00 - Drainage/Storm Sewer 176,700.00 $161,000.00 Grading/Roadways 454,500.00 168,300.00 Traffic Signals 4,900.00 - Landscaping/Paths/ 224,400.00 117,100.00 Lighting Private Utilities 76,500.00 26,000.00 Construction Cost by Phase $987,600.00 $472,400.00 Total Construction Cost $1,460,000 I 11 I 11 I I I I 11 I (8) I I/ COST SUMMARY: A summary of the revised project costs by phase, including the addition of the proposed cul-de-sac and the 1989 and 1990 cost escalation factors, is outlined below: TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS A. Construction Costs Phase I Phase II Cost Element Sanitary Sewer $ 17,050.00 - Watermain 42,525.00 - Drainage/Storm Sewer 184,800.00 $161,000.00 11 Grading/Roadways 534,025.00 168,300.00 Traffic Signals 6,500.00 Landscaping/Paths/Lighting 247,500.00 117,100.00 11 Private Utilities 86,500.00 26,000.00 Construction Cost by Phase $1,118,900.00 $472,400.00 B. Land Acquisition/Easements Costs Land Acquisition/Easements Cost by Phase $ 135,000.00 $ 0.00 C. Administrative Costs Administrative Cost by Phase Total Cost by Phase $ 313,500.00 $118,100.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $1,567,400.00 $590,500.00 I/ $2,157,900.00 I I I 11 (9) I \ ' / q:am il;;--- OUTLOT A I how OUTLOT B yi< I s. v .:.. .nvv. .:. 'v .:�.r•).',n,S..x� ...v.n n...uv:.v n\v:M�wv •.,xn•vY 1.t.N 0 ::::* .:;: ::.:: ;I:::: 4 p,NN\ ;E :i \ �: G :4 1I CHANHASSEN I . ot.,, {A. /.11 I ';,;:.:•e CO I TRACT B J .:rr�?�M::. E2>. 4 R BLVD. (C.S.A.H. 17) ;?. c;: i) :).�•^:•::: k 1'` 2 3 1 I O W E S)•;.;??•:..::`:r:� y:)L•:' I r ' !�•;}:):,•r..t�:v;:xn .w.; ";''z. -•'y: yy�ALT A - ,) .�.� m ., r ' - _ WEST 7 8TH STREET EXTEND 12 xtr,.4 :.N �'''i N • :•%.• '•, �•••::::. I �o � _ a.�. ,, Y I DETACHMENT • II . OUTLOT D 4 F- IIBILITY STUDY TRUNK � ,. :�, _ ` i.Y)'•:._._� _.,,,.,,.�,�� _ • �'- ��` fiz SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT * 1 ` 1 � `\ , p lir C.P. it -/ 1� I 2N � ■ I 1 i - -...- ::...k.,...„., tiK� R� i G BuRp i $LO�K 5 L E G E N D ,, s--- ,9 y I I 4 I I EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY• _=_` I 7-... U OUTLOT ;O ?o\P¢ 0\: =' / / , :S65o -- \�� RIGHT-OF-WAY r ! f: :1-,,.,� ! 2 = bE •ELATION 5 . ?W`. , EXISTING ROADWAY ••I I . o, '``' = ' `r'p `... 4 \\P ND ;k3apA 1 _-___ \ i I : EXISTING/A. \3Y OHERS)1 'k. J i _ _ POND / �.\\ � \ or PROPOSED ROADWAY• 4 I I t --� �" >-v- >- EXISTING STORM SEWER _ _ROAD }' x� - - .. . .-,- PROPOSED STORM SEWER - _ _ ___ .2;3:-.--= t c;,; ; 3 CO. 17 ; ;;;:\ NW.CO. 17 ROA d '- - - S. OF H1h`Y 5 ■ STORM SEWER ASSESSMENT I Gci•• Llt,� = I'. 'el ., ' ±±T N. 0 F H W Y 5 I y = , v Z::;;<<: :EN-2]`. STORM SEWER ASSESSMENT ilil t =_ - 1IIi � S. OFHWY5 1900400 I5 =• _ • = i ' WATERMAIN ASSESSMENT • LAKE DRIVE SANITARY SEWER ASSESSMENT ii \ 'OVTLOT F i -_ �<� S I" - CUL-DE-SAC ASSESSMENT • 70: y#: l,^ t '' SS P — f1 G rs. -'�4'•':_. j '.r=-' CITY OF .- d S y:.: _ _- = -. 3¢0 ' ASSESSMENTS 6\ �F' // /1 ': v%<;,.:.. CHANHASSEN o •., �. � ':.::r.:,.:.,f•;nra;::t., N 0 400 800 I II OUTLOT D r1 \Q 4:4(./ y}r» j }� rJs - I /`Ij_. :j.4 J gFi:1.:.T.�;"!'7'.%':!'fiY..0''�''# P OUTLOT E �,J \AN °W:,., / " :zip•�1 WW >:N <. 0\3'P' SAN \ s: / ! J..',::Fj:;,jJf:•';K _�/ i% rl . ',.G ?r��:, NORTH %i:q;l/:,�JS'"''S fpiy.,:' CITY OF 111 %/'%y% iii/">i CHANHASSEN ': PLANNING / "6::..0417;::0 ,:vo i s i OUTLOT C TRANSPORTATION / / ,//!'/,1�.,�, `r; - ENGINEERING , soot"' FIGURE Q � /;;/�)�,;i• � ARCHITECTURE '� �I f�/ %!;•?`.:! , BENNETT. RINGROSE. WOLSFELD, JARVIS. GARDNER, INC. JULY, 1988 . / / THRESHER SOUARE 700 THIRD ST.S„ MINNEAPOLIS.MN 55415 ■I / // • LAKE SUSAN \ + I II V. PROJECT FINANCING/ASSESSMENTS I The proposed assessment methodology, as used in this Supplemental Report #1, is intended to remain consistent with the Design and Implementation report, and as such, reference to the design report II should be made for an assessment methodology summary, with the exception that a 5/30th credit has been used to account for the remaining value to the abutting properties of the existing road- way. IAs presented in the Design and Implementation report, it is anti- cipated that project funding will come from several sources. For I purposes of this report, funding is identified as assessments or Tax Increment funds, as appropriate. The table below illustrates the revised project financing, to include the estimated costs of I the proposed cul-de-sac and the revised Phase I and Phase II costs, as described in the previous section. PROJECT FUNDING TABLE I Tax I Improvement Assessable Increment Amount Amount Total IA. Construction Costs Sanitary Sewer $ 17,050.00 - $ 17,050.00 Watermain 42,525.00 - 42,525.00 I Drainage/Storm Sewer 116,250.00 $ 229,550.00 345,800.00 Grading/Roadways 426,175.00 276,150.00 702,325.00 Traffic Signals 0.00 6,500.00 6,500.00 I Landscaping/Paths/Lighting 235,500.00 129,100.00 364,600.00 Private Utilities 0.00 112,500.00 112,500.00 IISubtotals $ 837,500.00 $ 753,800.00 $1,591,300.00 B. Land Acquisition/Easement II Costs $ 5,000.00 $ 130,000.00 $ 135,000.00 C. Administrative Costs $ 210,600.00 $ 221,000.00 $ 431,600.00 ITotals $1,053,100.00 $1,104,800.00 $2,157,900.00 Assessment amounts shown in the table above are intended to be I consistent with existing City assessment policy, where applicable, or consistent with normally anticipated rates experienced in simi- lar projects. Methodology, rates, areas to be assessed, credits, etc. , can be revised from those illustrated in this report, at the Idiscretion of the City Council . A revised preliminary assessment roll has been completed and is Iincluded in the appendix for reference. (10) II I VI. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are offered for consideration based upon the analysis and preliminary design performed in this study: o After extensive review by Carver County staff, and the Carver County board, it has been concluded that a private service drive with "right-in/right-out" access to Powers Boulevard will not be permitted by Carver County. In order to provide access and public service to Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Burdick 2nd Addition, a public cul-de-sac should be provided, as shown on Figure 1. o The proposed public improvements are feasible and can be constructed, as illustrated on Figures 1 and 2 of this report. o Project costs, as illustrated herein, are reasonable and representative of the proposed scope of improvements. o Detailed design will be closely reviewed by City staff, City Commission and the City Council , as well as other jurisdictional agencies. o Funding for this project will be provided by both special assessment and Tax Increment funds. o The next appropriate step, if the City Council desires to proceed with the project, is to hold the required public hearing. • I 1 I (11) I IIAPPENDIX Al IISanitary Sewer II Unit Estimated Item Quantity Unit Price Cost IF & I 8" PVC (10'-12' ) 25 LF $ 22.00 $ 550.00 Connect to Existing Manhole 1 EA 500.00 500.00 II Subtotal $1,050.00 Misc. Contingencies (10%) 100.00 Estimated Construction Cost $1,150.00 II APPENDIX A2 IIWatermain II Unit Estimated Item Quantity Unit Price Cost F & I 8" DIP 225 LF $ 17.00 $3,825.00 11 F & I Hydrant 1 EA 1,500.00 1,500.00 F & I Fittings 500 LBS 1.50 750.00 Connect to Existing IWatermain 1 EA 500.00 1,000.00 Subtotal $7,075.00 IMisc. Contingencies (10%) 700.00 Estimated Construction Cost $7,775.00 II II 1 - II II II I IAPPENDIX A3 IIDrainage/Storm Sewer II Unit Estimated Item Quantity Unit Price Cost I 12" RCP Storm Sewer 120 LF $ 19.00 $2,280.00 15" RCP Storm Sewer 20 LF 21.00 420.00 24" x 36" Catch Basin 3 EA 900.00 2,700.00 I Trench Stabilization Rock 20 TON 10.00 200.00 Remove Storm Pipe 100 LF 7.50 750.00 Connect to Existing Structure 2 LF 500.00 1,000.00 I Subtotal $7,350.00 Misc. Contingencies (10%) 750.00 IEstimated Construction Cost $8,100.00 IIAPPENDIX A4 IGrading/Roadways Unit Estimated IItem Quantity Unit Price Cost Common Embankment Material 1 LS $3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 I Roadway/Pavement Removal 3,500 SY 3.00 10,500.00 Common Excavation 700 CY 4.00 2,800.00 Subgrade Preparation 5 RDSTA 150.00 750.00 I Subgrade Excavation 300 CY 6.00 1,800.00 Granular Borrow 300 CY 6.00 1,800.00 Aggregate Base (12") 1,600 TON 9.00 14,400.00 2331 Bituminous Base I Course (4") 2341 Bituminous Wear 525 TON 25.00 13,125.00 Course (2") 265 TON 25.00 6,625.00 I B624 Concrete Curb & Gutter 1,150 LF 10.00 11,500.00 Concrete Driveway Pavement 80 - SY 30.00 2,400.00 Reconstruct Manholes 15 LF 175.00 2,625.00 II Pavement Markings 1 LS 500.00 500.00 Signage 1 LS 250.00 250.00 Erosion Control 1 LS 250.00 250.00 I Subtotal $72,325.00 Misc. Contingencies (10%) 7,200.00 IIEstimated Construction Cost $79,525.00 I II 1 APPENDIX A5 II Traffic Signals Unit Estimated Item Quantity Unit Price Cost I 2" Conduit 60 LF $ 5.00 $ 300.00 3" Conduit 100 LF 7.50 750.00 Handholes 2 EA 200.00 400.00 1 Subtotal $1,450.00 Misc. Contingencies (10%) 150.00 IEstimated Construction Cost $1,600.00 IIAPPENDIX A6 IILandscaping/Paths/Lighting I Unit Estimated Item Quantity Unit Price Cost Street Trees 3" Cal . 16 EA $ 300.00 $ 4,800.00 1 Coniferous Trees 8' Hgt. 10 EA 272.00 2,720.00 Ornamental Trees 2" Cal . 10 EA 200.00 2,000.00 HPS Light Fixture 3 EA 3,500.00 10,500.00 I Sod 290 SY 2.00 800.00 580.00 Seed 0.5 AC 400.00 II Subtotal $21,000.00 Misc. Contingencies (10%) 2,100.00 Estimated Construction Cost $23,100.00 II 1 _ II II II II