Loading...
3. Accept Teton Lane Feasibility Study, Alternate 4 CITY OF %, CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 i:i;, , MEMORANDUM TO Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer DATE: March 24, 1988 J . ' SUBJ: Teton Lane Feasibility Study (Alternate No. 4 ) ____3/24Yr Curry Farms Subdivision - Phase II File No. 87-16 (private) The Teton Lane feasibility study was considered by the City Council at the March 14, 1988 meeting. A compromised solution to the access issue which addressed providing the secondary access while still mitigating the impact to the local neighborhood ' resulted from the discussion at the Council meeting. Staff was directed to bring back an Alternate No. 4 which was to evaluate the feasibility of Teton Lane being upgraded with an intermediate ' roadway section that would be physically separated from Phase II of the Curry Farms subdivision with some form of breakaway struc- ture that could be surmounted by emergency vehicles in time of emergency. Bill Engelhardt has prepared the attached supplemental report which addresses Alternate No. 4 as requested by the Council. ' This has been reviewed with personnel from Centex Homes and it is my understanding from Bill that they are supportive of this alternate. The report is relatively self-explanatory. The actual design of the upgrade for Teton Lane and the barricade would be incor- porated in the plans and specifications for the second addition, ' which would be prepared by Centex Homes ' engineers . City Council and staff will specifically review the details of the design at that time. The design of the breakaway barricade, the cul-de-sac/Tee turna-round and the steep grade at the north side of Teton Lane where it intersects with Lilac Lane would be the details to be straightened out with the submittal of the plans and specifications . In the worst case scenario, emergency vehicles and maintenance vehicles may need to utilize the Natole driveway as a turnaround. If this is the case, the City will require the apron portion of the driveway to be improved as a part of the Teton Lane improvements . I Don Ashworth March 24, 1988 Page 2 The $18, 000 cost estimate for Alternate No. 4 compares to the $16,074. 50 cost estimate for the upgraded roadway for Alternate No. 2 in the original feasibility report. As stated in the ori- ginal feasibility, the storm drainage improvement costs for this area are associated with the plat of Curry Farms Second Addition and therefore the developer' s responsibility also. Due to the complexity of this issue and the extra meetings required, the City has incurred additional consultant expenses than what was originally anticipated for preparation of this feasibility study. Centex Homes was responsible for paying for the costs of the study which originally was estimated at $2,500 . We now estimate the consultant fees to be approximately $3,700 and believe that these additional costs should also be reimbursed by the developer. It is therefore recommended that the City Council accept Alternate No. 4 as the preferred alternate for the Teton Lane feasibility study and that the expense for implementation of this alternate shall be borne solely by Centex Homes. It is further recommended that the developer be responsible for reimbursing the City for its consultant' s expenses in preparation of this study, namely $3, 700 . Further, that design details for the upgrade of Teton Lane in accordance with the criteria laid out in Alternate No. 4 shall be submitted for approval to the City Engineer and the City Council as a part of the plans and specification appro- val process for Curry Farms Second Addition. ' Attachments: 1 . Alternate No. 4 dated March 24, 1988 2 . Map 3 . March 14, 1988 City Council minutes 4 . Feasibility Study dated February 18, 1988 1 I 1 I WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. Vomitt/tiny 1"u9irrPNrs 1107 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 (612) 448-8838 I March 24 , 1988 I City of Chanhassen c/o Mr . Gary Warren, P.E. 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen , MN. 55317 RE: Teton Lane ' Supplemental Feasibility Study Alternate No . 4 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members : Pursuant to your request we have prepared a supplemental report for the above named project . This report outlines Alternate No . 4 which consists of improving Teton Lane with a bituminous surface , a turn around , and a barrier to prevent through traffic to Lilac Lane . The existing right-of-way for Teton Lane is 33 feet . The recommended bituminous surface width for Teton Lane is 22 feet . ' The proposed section utilizes a minimum of 6 inches of Class 5 rock to a maximum of 10 inches . Test rolling and field condition will dictate the rock thickness used . The bituminous mat thickness considered is 2 inches . This recommendation is based on the fact that only one property owner , Natole , will be utilizing Teton Lane for access . We also feel the 22 foot width will provide a more than adequate width for emergency vehicles . ' We also believe the benefits achieved by a wider section do not justify the cost . The installation of future improvements , sanitary sewer and watermain , will, completely remove road ' materials installed now. Construction of a full cul -de-sac to City standards ( 40 foot diameter ) can not be completed due to the limited right-of-way width and trees . We recommend a tee type turn around to allow for snowplow turning . Teton Lane should also be posted as a dead end street . A barrier to prevent through traffic from the Centex Homes development is proposed at the south end of Teton Lane. The barrier proposed could be constructed of break-off wood posts to MAR 2 '1 1988 CITY OF CHANhASSEA I (March 24 , 1988 1 City of Chanhassen Page 2) allow emergency vehicles access to the Curry Farms development but prevent through traffic movements . The barrier in this particular case is a good compromise which addresses the adjoining neighborhood concerns . Road barriers should not be considered a standard policy. Similar situations of this nature which come up in the future will need to be addressed on their own merits . The estimated cost for a 22 foot bituminous section utilizing 10 inches of Class 5 rock , maximum section , and 2 inches of bituminous is $ 18 , 000 . 00 . This cost includes restoration of adjacent areas and wood post barriers , Very truly yours , WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES , INC. William R. Engelhardt WRE/ las ' 1 i 1 I MI MI NM OM NM • NM MR r I • NM NM MI SIMCOX CITY or - CITY OF SHOREWOOD M4 LILAC LANE CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA -- - FEASIBILITY S1U Y FOR ■ CITY OF, CHANHASSEN �1 1 ■ \\ TETON LANE AND LILAC LA'N'E ,� ■ ■ PICKARD JULY, 10137 Stf�LEt _IhIh13bVLM�ENrS ALTERNATE ! w ; ALTERNATE Nn. I 2 4/ 4 N 0. 18r 2 �.4 a \ —• ALTERNATE N0, 3 44 WIC LLI4 I R.ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES INC. JAMES DONOVAN 1107 HAZELTINE BLVD. SUITE 480 • SCALE: w CHASKA, MN. 55318 % LEONARD WARE Ifi=200' ~ 71 L LI -� S \\- 4 * ■ ■ F.J. NATOLE e c6 _,0 G ROAD H _. OUTLOT (EXCEPTION) 11 CAMERON °ya D S.R. REAMER 12 SHAKELTON E3RANCEL G 20 i 1 ‘ ''' ', 3 4 (EXCEPTION) 9r g /�Oqn RIRICHARD CARLSON [ 15 ./,''''°\, ;•"°, 5 , ..0°..1.1 ��� CITY 2 8 � B '� O F 7 CHANHASSEN 6 II 10 ` 14 I ROAD G 1 (EXCEPTION) 9 13 LARRY KERBER FRANCO 6 5 4 3 2 I LORIS 8 • 12 WO DRAWING NO. 1 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Councilman Johnson: I support the Mayor's motion, to tell you the truth. I think it puts out to a very vital part of our community, our seniors, which there is a very large group of. I was surprised when I went to the Senior Center the couple times I've been there and how many folks from Chanhassen were there and they actually knew they lived in Chanhassen. It's a great little center. I'm sorry to hear that you're going to have some housing problems coming up in a couple years because that's really going to be a real problem and I foresee a problem for a senior center for our seniors and we should put money that way to help solve those problems our seniors are going to have in a few years. I support the $15,000.00 at this time and I also think it's a good idea to hold back and take a broader look at the hotel and all these other projects that it can be used for. I think Tom's come up with a good fair split that will immediately start helping our seniors and hold back some for everything else. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to close the public hearing. ' All voted in favor and motion carried. Resolution #88-21A: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to allocate $15,000.00 of the Community Development Block Grant Funds for the Year XIV to the South Shore Senior Center. The remaining $17,197.00 shall be allocated at a future meeting after staff has researched additional opportunities for these funds. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and Councilman Horn who opposed and motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOTS 1 AND 2, CHADDA ADDITION, BUILDING BLOCK DAYCARE, HERB MASON AND ROGER PAULY. Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing. I All voted in favor and motion carried. Resolution #88-22: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Vacation Request #88-2 of the existing sanitary sewer easement located on Lots 1 and 2, CHADDA Addition, Building Block Daycare, Herb Mason and Roger Pauly's property. All voted in favor and motion carried. ACCEPT TETON LANE FEASIBILITY STUDY. Mayor Hamilton: I think we've all had an opportunity to read all of the information and comments that have gone on about this project. It's been to us before so we're not unfamiliar with it. I know there are several of you here this evening who may wish to make comments but we'll have a brief staff report 1 V and then we'll entertain comments from the public. Bill Engelhardt: I'm here tonight to present the feasibility study for Teton Lane. Just to briefly update you. This is the Centex Project Phase 1 which is under construction. Phase 2 to explain why the feasibility study was done was ilCity Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 1 11 long try and find a third access for the 2nd phase so that would eliminate the long cul-de-sac. Three alternatives were studied. Alternative #1 was a overview of the project in upgrading Teton Lane, an existing gravel road, to a private drive. Alternate #1 was looked at as a sole development section for 1 illustrative purposes only. We did go through and run numbers to determine assessments for sanitary sewer and water, curb and gutter and the full depth street section. Alternate #1 then would utilize the existing right-of-way of I Teton Lane plus an additional 17 feet of right-of-way that would have to be acquired from the Donovan property and the full street section would be constructed. I won't go into a lot of detail. I've got some drawings on sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer was in this basic alignment. Put the II watermain also in connection into Road G. Alternate #2 was an interim method we felt that would provide adequate traffic patterns for the Centex development. It was proposed that existing Teton Lane would be paved. There I would be some minor regrading and reshaping and the drainage would be controlled with bituminous berms versus concrete curb and gutter. The ultimate section or the Alternate #1 would only be constructed when the adjacent I property owners determine that they would like to develop and it's been made very clear in all the homeowner meetings that, at least in the case of Mr. Donovan, that he is not desiring to do any kind of developing and he can speak to that issue himself but it was made very clear that he was not interested in II doing any development. The Alternate #2 cost was proposed to be directly assessed or put back against the Phase 2 development of Centex. We felt it was a direct benefit to the developer versus any of these people already have E._ 1 access to the roadway and then to CR 17. The third alternate was a completely separate alternate. A way from Teton Lane was providing a connection to CR 17 via the city property. Centex development would lose one lot in there but we felt that there were some land exchanges that could take place and this was a I viable alternative and that would completely eliminate the use of Teton Lane as a roadway except for a small portion of it where Mr. Natoli would have access onto what we call Road G, to utilize the alternate to CR 17 as an I ingress/egress. The Ware property accesses through the Pickard property through an easement to Lilac Lane and the Pickard property accesses to Lilac Lane. The Donovan property, they access onto Lilac Lane in this area. If II you'd like I could go into the costs a little bit and some of the details of the assessments or if you want we could just open it up to questioning. Mayor Hamilton: The costs seem to speak for themselves. I don't know if the Irest of the Council wants to rehash them or not. I don't think it's necessary. Councilman Geving: I think the letter of March 10th is very important to this Iwhole process. The letter from Centex. Maybe you could address that. Bill Engelhardt: I haven't seen that one. I didn't hear anything. IIGary Warren: We got that at the last minute when the staff reports went out. Any specific part of that Dale? II Councilman Geving: I'm not so sure that the homeowners are even aware that this letter is in existence. Are the homeowners aware of this? [7 IIDonna Pickard: Yes, we got a copy of it today. II City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Councilman Geving: The reason I ask that this be highlighted is because this is a little bit different scenario than what was presented at the homeowners meetings with them on the 9th. As I read this now, Atlernate #1, 2 and 3, particularly in Alternate #2, as I understand it, would the Centex Development Corporation agree to pick up all of these costs in Alternate #2? ' Gary Warren: That was a proposal that they would do the... Councilman Geving: And they agreed to that, is that correct? , Gary Warren: From what I understand, yes. We don't have anything in writing. Councilman Geving: Because it seems to me the number one fear that I read throughout the Minutes of your meeting was the people and their concern for any assessments for the improvement of using Alternate #2. ' Gary Warren: There was a lot of discussion to explain Alternate #1 and #2. There was confusion as to what Alternate #1 was and they were looking at the assessments as they relate to Alternate #1. We explained that that was sort of a base start. That Alternate #2 was not assessable the way it was set up. Councilman Geving: Did you show all of the homeowners your summary of costs and the feasibility on page 3 for Alternate #1, 2 and 3 so they were totally i aware? t =-- Gary Warren: They have a complete copy of the feasibility study. Mayor Hamilton: So we don't need any additional financial information, I don't believe. Do you have anything else Bill that you would like to say? Bill Engelhardt: No, unless you have some questions that you want me to dig into, I'll do that but like I said, everyone seems to be pretty aware of it. We've had two homeowners meetings. We've had very good participation and they were excellent meetings. We had some back and forth comments and it worked out real well. Mayor Hamilton: Do Centex representatives have any comments they would like to make? Tom Boyce: I would, for the most part, I think our letter more or less summarizes our position. Alternative #3, we did take a little closer look at it again this afternoon ourselves. I guess one of the other concerns we would have with Alternative #3 is that the improvements for #3 don't put in sanitary sewer or watermain thus one of the questions I would.. . Mayor Hamilton: I guess I agree with that. I'm not sure that has been clearly ' identified yet. I know there are some residents here that would like to make some comments. If you would, if you have something that's new that we haven't 1 heard to this point or if there is one person who is going to speak for a group of you, I would be more than happy to listen. To have you speak and tell us what it is that your concerns are. 1 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 I Florence Natoli: We are the most important people on this. We are the terrible Natolis. Because of us, you've got a problem. There's one question which I asked at the meeting two weeks ago and it says that the rights to Teton Lane, to the property owners abutting Teton Lane at cost. Now what does 1 that mean? What is this at cost that Centex was going to give the land back to the people living on the road, at cost? ' Gary Warren: It's one of the steps that has to be established. I guess right now the only thing we know is that Centex has a purchase agreement for the property at $30,000.00 to $35,000.00 which includes some other work for Carlson ' out there. We don't know what the extra cost is on that. That's something that through these purchase agreements and such, will have to be arrived at. It will be somewhat less than let's say $35,000.00. Florence Natoli: Can you force us to buy that road if we do not want to buy the road? ' Gary Warren: If we would do a 429 Assessment Project for example, that was acceptable, the City could put assessments against the property. Florence Natoli: Thank you, that was what I wanted to know. Donna Pickard: I live on the corner of Teton Lane and Lilac Lane. I guess, were you the one I was talking about the assessments? The neighborhood ' understands that Centex was going to pick up the full cost from Alternative #2 and that #1 was, the way it was presented was that it was presented with the _ assessments. The thing that we're concerned about is that the road, if #2, if that was selected, we are worried that that road would not last. I guess the life of the road is estimated at 5 to 10 years and that the traffic coming from the development would then determine that the road would be made a full development and that the neighbors would be assessed for improvements that do ' not benefit the people who live on the roads at all. While we understood the clarifications between #1 and #2, we were worried that we would have to end up doing #1 anyway, even if #2 were to be selected now. I think there are the few of us who do live right on the road would be willing to buy the road at a reasonable cost if that were to happen but we would also like that to be determined. ' Jim Donovan: I'm on the east side of the road there, the majority part of the property. My question is, after reading the Centex letter here, first of all the last paragraph where they sort of try to hold a loaded gun to the whole project. I don't believe that for one minute because they've invested too much money in the project as it is right now. They're not going to pull out because of not getting their way in it. They'll do it. That's not a feasible and a reasonable statement to make in the letter. I hope that the Council realizes that. Secondly, on Alternative #3, the first paragraph states there that it's least acceptable to Centex because no provision is made for assessing any benefitted landowner other than Centex. Well, as been's stated before, none of the land adjacent to that property is going to benefit from a upgrading of that property into a 2 inch blacktop road anyway. We use that road, or the other people use the road now as i.s. They don't need it to be blacktopped. The trips that are made per day on that road, right now the road handles very easily. With the Curry Farm Development going in there, there will be I City Council Meetin g - March 14, 1988 approximately as in your notes there, showing approximately 215 trips a day which would be 90% of that, 90% to 95% of that would be from Curry Farms traffic itself. They would be the beneficiaries of this road. Not the people who currently have property immediately adjacent so that comment in the Centex letter is not correct. We are not the beneficiaries of that road. It is Curry Farms no matter how you want to state it. I think that the Council should take into consideration that that road itself, as it stands right now, is more than adequate for the needs of the people who use the road right now. We don't need it blacktopped. We don't need it to be used by Curry Farms people and a 5 to 10 year use, I don't believe that that road would last 5 to 10 years with trucks, moving trucks, things like that, going over that blacktop road. 5 to 10 years is not a reasonable estimate for the lifetime of that type of road. A 2 inch blacktop road. With 215 trips a day, it would never last 5 to 10 years with our thawing and freezing that we have here. I believe that that's not a reasonable estimate to make. Therefore, that would then become a public road and as such, a public road would mean that the people immediately adjacent to that road would be taxed to have it upgraded once again either by storm sewer, water, whatever it might be there. We then, not benefitting from this road once again and Curry Farms benefitting from it, we would be the ones who would be paying for the cost of this rather than Curry Farms. Now if Curry Farms wants to pay for the entire cost of that right now to upgrade it to a full road, that's a different story, to make it last but as it stands right now, that road would not last. We would not benefit. I think this letter that Curry Farms sent that I've just seen today, I just received in my mail tonight, does not really show a true picture of what the story is. 1 Larry Kerber: I'm sure Alternative #3 does satisfy the Teton Lane and Lilac Lane people. It does nothing for me. It makes my situation worse. These people, if Alternative #3 is passed, they are allowed to buy total privacy for the cost of whatever they have to pay for that road easement back. Now I had objections to the street to the south of me. No one came up with a plan like this to offer me total privacy or to buy my way out or a relocation of the street. Alternative #3 is allowing them to do that. I would like to be given the same opportunity and I'm not. Alternative #3 does not give me an access to my property unless I can buy the land that borders the road to the south of it. So the Alternative #3 is not going to help my access problem. Now if Alternative #3 is selected, there's a road to the north of me. There's already a road that goes to the south of me. In checking with Carver County, I found out I can get no further access to my property. I'm bound now by what I've got there so I'm sitting with a piece of property with no further access out. The only way I can get an access, like I said, is to buy the land to the south of Alternative #3 and then, that would only solve access for a little sliver of my ' land, existing land, across that creek that runs through it. It does nothing to the other 2 1/2 acres of my property. Another point I'd like to make is, I think it's point 10 on the proposal there, that if you do select Alternative #3, this be changed. The cost of that road, if it does go through, should not be assessed to the abutting properties. It should be a direct developer's cost like the rest of the road costs are in the development. If we go up there we can see Road H or whatever it is, I don't think Jim Donovan is being assessed for that now nor is Stu Remer who is benefitting nor is Richard Carlson, Franco or anybody else. It's a developers costs. Likewise that road going in is a developer's cost. The property as it sits, the City property, does not need that road. It can access directly to CR 17 so I would really like to see that ' IL X1_4 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 ' changed to be a developer's cost and not assessed to the abutting properties. Ir- Mr. Natoli: What I want to know is who is responsible for filling in the potholes on Teton Lane and who can we force to do it? The guy that owns it or ' somebody else? There are holes in that road right now that my car is hitting bottom. You can't miss them there are so many of them. You can't go around them except unless you can go out in the fields somewhere and you can't do that so I want to know who we can force to fix that road. Mayor Hamilton: That's not the issue we're dealing with right now and I would ' ask that you would talk to our City Engineer and that he will answer that question for you. Mr. Natoli: It's an issue to me because I live right on Teton and I'm the guy who uses it. I have no way in and out except going over the holes. Mayor Hamilton: I realize that so Gary, if you'd give him a call tomorrow. Councilman Geving: It's not a city street. Gary Warren: It's owned by Carlson. Paul Shervold: I represent Larry Kerber. Presently his Pe Y ro rt on the north P is low and there is a culvert under CR 17. Now the water that's immediately to the west of there, there is a dike. The water is ponded there. It now causes damage to Kerber's property. Any additional development of this area, whichever alternative you choose, will only increase the damage to the Kerber property. As recently as a couple of weeks ago the water froze and ponded on Mr. Kerber's area, on his land and it will continue to do so for the rest of time and I would ask that you bear that in mind when you develop this area because it is not a proper disposal system made at this time. This was explained as long ago as last September with a meeting with your City Engineer and a person from Centex, a couple of people from Centex, that there would be problems with water and there presently is. This will only be aggravated, not ameliorated by your development of this area. I'd ask you to bear that in mind. Councilman Boyt: One question I have is, we talk about Alternative #3 would ' mean the losing of Lot 15. What's the value of Lot 15? Tom Boyce: The market value? ' Councilman Boyt: Yes. Tom Boyce: $25,000.00 to $30,000.00. Councilman Boyt: So when we look at real costs of Alternative #3, it's conceivable that we would add $25,000.00 to $30,000.00 to that? ' Tom Boyce: Plus I think in cost factors for a watermain in the road which we've estimated in our office at another $30,000.00. Plus property both north and south would depreciate. .. City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 11 1 Gary Warren: The watermain basically abuts the property all along CR 17. Sanitary sewer comes through the Kerber property on the south side so it's not : ' that far away from that. Councilman Boyt: So you're thinking $30,000.00... ' Gary Warren: I'd say that's pretty excessive. • Councilman Boyt: We have a potential then of adding maybe $60,000.00 to II Alternative #3 which begins to make Alternative #1 look good in terms of cost. I'm real interested to see how this works out Mr. Mayor. There are enough = issues on both sides of the situation it seems. As I understand it, the developer agrees to pay all costs of Alternative #2. That one of the questions that seems to be raised about Alternative #2 is the life expectancy of the road. It seems to me the engineering study said 10 years. How does this compare with the typical urban section of road? 1 ' Gary Warren: I guess we would hope to get 15+ years out of a typical urban section. , Councilman Boyt: Could you tell me what the difference is? What gives us 15 where you expect 10 here? Gary Warren: Basically we're not proposing to go in on Teton Lane and do an p g 9 any major sub-base correction work. Grade it out, compact it, put it a 2 inch bituminous lift on it versus a 3 inch, for example for a standard urban section. Councilman Boyt: If we did that, didn't put in the concrete curb but we put in a 3 inch asphalt base, what would that do to the cost of Alternative #2? Gary Warren: Increase them. Bill Engelhardt: I don't think the difference between a 2 inch mat and a 3 inch mat, you're probably talking in that stretch maybe $5,000.00 at the most. Councilman Boyt: What kind of life expectancy are we talking about with the 3 inch mat? Bill Engelhardt: The key is not necessarily the thickness of the mat but it's the depth of your rock base. If you 2 inch or 3 inches, we'd still be using the standard section of 10 inches of rock base in the city standard section and that's the key to the whole thing. Getting 5 years or 10 years, if you sealcoat it every 3 years, you might stretch that life out 15 years. So the blacktop thickness is not the key, it's the depth of the rock base. If we put a sufficient rock base in it so the 2 inches or 3 inches doesn't make any difference. Councilman Boyt: Then let's start with the rock base. If we put a sufficient II rock base in, then are we approaching the cost of Alternative #1? Is that the heart of Atlernative #1's cost? City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Bill Engelhardt: The heart of Alternative #1 is also curb and gutter. That's very expensive. You're talking about a wider road. You're going out to the [- full width of a typical urban section. Councilman Boyt: Let me propose an alternative then that has a 33 foot wide road with the full gravel base that you're talking about and the 3 inch asphalt but an asphalt curb. Give me a feel for the cost of that. Bill Engelhardt: It's going to be essentially the same as what we're proposing with the 2 inch. You're talking very few dollars extra because of that 1 inch ' thickness. . Councilman Boyt: I'm not on. the 1 inch of asphalt. I'm on the 10 inches of rock underneath it. Bill Engelhardt: But what'I'm saying is, in the proposal that 10 inches of rock is in there. ' Councilman Boyt: In Alternative #2? Bill Engelhardt: In Alternative #2, yes. Councilman Boyt: So we have the full rock base we're looking at for a regular city street so the only difference we're talking about is another inch of ' asphalt really and that's a $5,000.00 cost. Gary Warren: And the width is less. ' Councilman Boyt: So we narrow the road and we get about the typical city life expectancy for a road for $39,000.00 to $40,000.00. Gary Warren: That's about it. Plus we're not improving anything on Lilac. Councilman Boyt: Given that and where the City of Shorewood is coming from, ' which they say they like Alternative #3, I would be interested in the neighborhood's reaction if one of their concerns is Teton Lane not being built to city standard, if we build it to a city life expectancy standard, does it then become an acceptable alternative? ' Donna Pickard: I don't like you using our neighborhood as an access point to a development that's easily, I don't know how far away it is but it's just a ' development in our neighborhood. It is a development down the road that is using Teton Lane only because of cost and ease. It's an existing dirt road. They don't have to do anything major but throw on an asphalt mat on. It's easy ' for them to do and I just feel kind of cheated that because of our location, that's why they're using it. They're not using it for any other reason. Councilman Boyt: Mrs. Pickard, then what you're telling me is that the key issue for you is not the life expectancy of the road but the increase in the traffic? Donna Pickard: Not only that. I'm on the corner so now am I going to have to bear future assessments on Teton, if there are any and by your definition your City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 II saying with this improved roadway. .. . but Lilac Lane is not a very good road II at this point and they would have to possibly, Shorewood or Chanhassen would possibly have to, on that side, put an addition so we're looking at double assessments. 1 Councilman Boyt: You're telling me it's not the road surface. It's not the assessments. It's the traffic. Donna Pickard: It's not primarily the assessments, it's also the traffic. II Sure, I've got two toddlers, I don't want to have cars zipping down. You can put 30 mph posted on that highway there but you know they're going to zip down II there going 40. Councilman Boyt: I understand. I'm just trying to get straight on your issue. II Donna Pickard: That's my issue. The other homeowners may have e other issues. Councilman Boyt: Then I would gather that even if we included some sort of I upgrading to the road surface of Teton and added another $10,000.00 or $15,000.00 for that, we're still talking about $55,000.00 to $60,000.00 takes care of the road in terms of building it up to an acceptable like expectancy. II That's all the questions I had Tam. I Councilman Horn: I support that alternative also. My major reason for that is i I don't necessarily see it as the easiest access but I see it as the only II reasonable access from this development. If we put in Alternative #3, we've in effect precluded any rights that the Kerber property has with access onto CR 17. Besides that I think we have to try in all cases to try to minimize our II number of accesses. Whether they County dictates them to us or not, it's only prudent traffic management to do that so I would support a modification to Alternative #2 to make the road more substantial. II Councilman Geving: This is a difficult situation. I've probably-spent more time on this issue, as we all did on it over the weekend, than we normally do on any one single item when we have 16 or 17 items to discuss. I really had to II go to the site twice over the weekend and once even this afternoon one more time to look at the potential for Alternative #3. I haven't been out to your place for a while Larry but you've got quite a few more neighbors now than you II had a couple of months ago when I drove out there. The road that's on the south side of your home has certainly impacted on your development there. I was looking at where that potential alternate road #3 would come in, the Alternate #3 to the north of you, and of course that would completely landlock II you with a road on the north and a road on the south. Probably prohibit you forever of getting other access to CR 17, if you ever wanted to do anything with your 2 1/2 to 3 acres there. I was looking at the trees to the north of li you and I noticed that Alternate #3 happens to be a fairly heavily wooded area. We'd be taking a number of trees to put that road in and that kind of turned me against that alternative. I have a number of comments but it seems to me in looking at the neighbors concerns in the Minutes that I was able to read, they II seem to be very concerned about cost, potential cost for any assessments is Alternate #1 or #2 were to be selected. The more I looked at all of our alternatives, I too kind of came to the conclusion that I didn't like Alternate II #3 for a number of reasons and just how far to take this Alternate #2 led me to 1 city Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 II believe that if we did a substantial amount of roadwork, building up the base I and the contractor now has agreed to pick up these costs which alleviates the homeowner's concerns, I don't believe we would be adding a whole lot of new traffic onto Teton Lane. Most of the people who are going to be using an I improved Teton Lane would be the 7 homeowners that presently live there and I suspect some of the new people from the Curry development certainly would come out that direction but Lilac Lane isn't the best road in the world either. My feeling is they would probably drive south and come out south of Kerber's I property there and come out to CR 17 if that was the direction they were heading. I think we're looking at what I'll term to be an intermediate solution to a very long range problem. Nothing ever stays the same as it was I 10 years ago and if we could predict that this road could go in and we could upgrade Teton and it would last 10 years, that's about all we ever get out of any street in Chanhassen and I've lived here 22 years. So 10 years is a pretty I good lifetime cycle for any street. If we could do it at a cost that would be minimal to the homeowners and looking ahead to what may happen to Mr. Donovan's property or the Ware's, the Natoli's, we all understand that things change. II Places where I never thought there would be homes have homes on them today. Larry Kerber can tell you that 2 years ago he looked across his pasture and Rosilee Dodd had horses on top of the hill. It's changed a lot so in 10 years I could see some of these 7 homeowners selling and redeveloping their 1 properties. I'm looking at the potential for you to have the least amount of impact and still have the kind of street that Mr. Natoli talked about earlier. Certainly one that he could drive on without hitting his car in the ditches and bumps. Now I'd have to assume, if we were to take Alternate #2, the City would [___ II take this over as a public street. Is that correct Gary? Gary Warren: If it was brought up to our standards. ICouncilman Geving: We bring it up to standards. We would take it over as a public street and then we would maintain it from that time on and it would IIstill be meeting all of our rural standard for that roadbed. Gary Warren: It's actually in the urban service area so concrete curb and gutter is our standard for the urban roadway. ICouncilman Geving: Would that go in there? You don't have room for it. 1 Gary Warren: The discussion we've had now is some compromise with bituminous curb. I Councilman Geving: I can see that compromise would be a very fair one at this time because in the future if the land does develop, I suspect that would be the next thing we'd do. Thinking in terms of sewer and water and upgrading the II entire roadbed. I am very much in favor of Alternate #2 for a number of the reasons I've stated. I still believe it alleviates the homeowner's concerns. We will get 10 years wear and tear on this road. It's the best alternative that I can see in the three that's been presented by the feasibility study. ICouncilman Johnson: This is probably the toughest issue for the night. I see L7 Alternate #3 as the developer taking care of his own problem his own way. Not his own way but not affecting other people. He affects the city of Chanhassen IIProperty there. He has some effect on Larry Kerber. Alternate #2 though, from II T 4 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 my feeling on a public safety standpoint provides for slightly shorter cul-de-sac distances on Road H there but probably about equal if not slightly longer for Road G. Actually it does provide two different ways to get into Road G better than Alternate #3 would because Alternate #3, you're dependent upon Road E to get you into Road G. Now you have Teton Lane to get to Road G and Road E which is a plus for me for Alternate #2. What's also interesting with this one is later on tonight we're going to theoretically approve a change to another ordinance that would say Alternate #2 wouldn't be allowed. That any street within the urban service area has to be to full city standards. I guess if we're going to do Alternate #2, we better do it before we change the ordinance a little later on tonight which to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. I do believe that your cost estimates don't include the $12,000.00 for 12 inches of subgrade on Alternate #2 that they do on Alternate #1 so if we do the subgrade corrections putting in 12 inches of modified Class V is about $12,800.00 more dollars. We're probably pushing up into the upper 20's to do Alternate #2. Is there a possibility of leaving a strip of outlot, very thin along the edge of the road to where the property owner on 2 is Curry Hills? You give yourself a 50 foot strip of land to put a 28 foot road in generally. ' Gary Warren: We only have 33 feet in Teton Lane right now. Councilman Johnson: How wide were you going to put Alternate #2? ' Councilman Geving: 33 feet. Councilman Johnson: No. Councilman Geving: That's all we've got. ' Councilman Johnson: Is the road going to go edge to edge? Gary Warren: No. Councilman Johnson: How wide is the road? Bill Engelhardt: It's roughly 22 to 23 feet wide but we build within that 33 foot strip. Just center it within the 33 foot strip. Councilman Johnson: So the City would own property on either side of that 33 ' foot strip which is the normal boulevard? Gary Warren: It would be less than a normal boulevard. I Councilman Johnson: What's a normal city street, concrete width? Gary Warren: We're 28 feet gutter line to gutter line. 31 feet back to back with curb. Councilman Johnson: So we're going to have a 5 foot narrower road? , Gary Warren: It's the same issue with Church Road where there's a 33 foot right-of-way and we're asking for 17 additional feet so we can have more than 1 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 I ' foot on each side of the back of the curb. Councilman Johnson: But what we're planning on building here is a 25 foot road for 210 cars a day that's narrower than most other streets in the City. I ' don't like to throw another halfway done street in and I guess in order to do it, we have to buy 17 foot of property from Mr. Donovan to put the right street in there. Is that what we're looking at here? ' Gary Warren: We would like to obviously have a 50 foot right-of-way consistent with our standards. ' Councilman Johnson: What would it cost to put the normal 28 foot wide street in there? Gary Warren: Alternate #1 basically, $40,000.00 plus road cost is the total urban section with curb and gutter. ' Councilman Johnson: And the cost estimate curb was $8,400.00, curb and gutter, so we did the bituminous curb for a couple thousand than we're at $30,000.00 to $28,000.00 road cost to put a 28 foot section in this 33 foot area with asphalt. That gives us a road that's safe, not just durable. We need the ' width in the road to be safe also because people are going to be walking on that road, on the edge of the road, whatever, just as well as any other place. The long and the short of it is, there's a lot of problems with using Teton ' Lane. I prefer to solve their problems internally and use Alternate #3. The water comes off of CR 17 and the sewer off CR 17, he doesn't have those problems. Unfortunately that does something to Larry but it doesn't create another substandard road in this City. Mayor Hamilton: I just have a question on the property to the north of Road E. Has Centex purchased all of the Richard Carlson property that shows on our map ' as the exception? You have not purchased that? It seems like you could do a lot of people a big favor if you purchased that. The Shakelton, Cameron, Bransell and the Winsor property, most of which is for sale. The road ' alignment could be changed considerably and that whole area could be developed and cleaned up a tremendous amount. Tom Boyce: We looked at that at one time and basically the prices were ' astronomical. Mr. Carlson wanted in the neighborhood of around $200,000.00. Mayor Hamilton: What about the Bransell and Cameron and the Winsor property? ' I know all or parts of that are for sale right now. Tom Boyce: There's one house for sale on the lot. We looked at that at one time. If you put them all together, they ended up being $400,000.00 to tear ' everything down. We just couldn't make sense of it. We looked at the City property at the same time. It also gets very hilly and wooded back in there. I think development costs in addition to tearing things off and tearing houses ' down would add some value. Mayor Hamilton: That was my first thought that there couldn't be some way that land could be purchased and be made a part of the Centex development. That would certainly clean up that entire area, which needs to be cleaned up. It's City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 1 a mess back there. I see this very similar to the Pheasant Hills subdivision where the road going through Pheasant Hills 4th Addition and out to Yosemite has not been approved by the Council. It's exactly the same situation as this, I feel. Development attempting to drive a road through a residential area that currently exists and the neighborhood doesn't want i.t. I'm certainly not in favor of using Teton at this time for the Centex development. I guess I haven't seen a good alternative but I'm certainly not in favor of trying to mess up Larry's property anymore than it already has been. But I'm not in favor of running the traffic down Teton, forcing Mr. Donovan to sell part of his property that he doesn't want to sell in the first place and then utilizing a substandard street on Lilac that couldn't handle 210 trips a day at any rate. So I don't know if there's another alternative. I'm not sure how to handle , this because I don't like much of what I see I guess other than to not use Teton and to not use Alternate #3 which means everything is going to have to flow out to the south and to the east. I don't know if it's good or not. I guess I can't make that decision. There's two ways out. Teton is a private street at this point and I don't see that we ought to be forcing development in there just for a development. If the Council decides that they want to use Teton, I would certainly not be in favor of anything other than the developer paying for all the expenses of it. Gary Warren: That is the overview perspective of what we're left with because there's no access here or here. Mayor Hamilton: There's one access going to the east out to CR 17 to the south of Kerber's property and then there's another one going south out to Lake Lucy so it's not as if there's only one access. There are two. It still is a long cul-de-sac, that's true. There's no question about that. Councilman Boyt: We can't support that. Mayor Hamilton: Well, I won't support Teton so unless you can find me another alternative, I won't support going through Teton. Councilman Horn: Would Teton, as it exists today, serve as an emergency access to this if we didn't allow Alternate #3 or the upgrade of Teton? Really what we're looking for is an emergency access to a long cul-de-sac. Gary Warren: We're looking for a secondary access and an access that we can rely on to get in there as far as being properly maintained from a service condition standpoint. Councilman Horn: Apparently the Natoli's have to rely on this access. , Gary Warren: And you heard the comments. Councilman Horn: Yes, but they're going in there with a car. Most of the heavy equipment we would bring in there would, I assume be a little heavier duty than the average passenger car. Looking at it as a temporary situation that would still allow us access. I tend to agree with the Mayor on this. I don't see a good alternative here either. 1 iCity Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 II II Councilman Boyt: Maybe I can offer an alternative. We take Alternative #2 and (— the as the developer has suggested, a fourth alternative where Road H comes in we put in, off Teton Lane we put a cul-de-sac of sorts and a barricade. The cul-de-sac would be designed so that a snowplow could sweep right in front of 1 the barricade and the barricade would be there to prevent through traffic. We would have Alternative #2, which would be an upgrade of Teton Lane with at least a paved surface. I'm concerned that if we really need to have an I emergency access, that Teton Lane really doesn't fit the bill if we leave it alone. I agree with what's been said about the difficulty of increasing traffic through a neighborhood that doesn't want it and maybe that offers a possibility. ICouncilman Geving: I'm confused by what just said.Y you j� a d. You indicated that you would like to see a barrier on Teton Lane with a cul-de-sac for a turnaround of 1 our snowplowing vehicles. You also indicated though that you said that you would allow the developer to improve Teton Lane. Isn't that what you said? Why would they want to do that? ICouncilman Boyt: They would want to do that because we can't use, I don't think we can use the existing 17 foot wide questionable roadway as an emergency access. By the very nature of it, when we need to get in there, the conditions IIof travel are generally not going to be good and to put it on a road that's already questionable, I think doesn't provide that area with any increased safety level. They can increase it with a minimum amount of $34,000.00 will get us a 33 foot wide roadway which will allow the plow to get in there. Put a cul-de-sac at the end of it, the plow can swing around and now we've got, all we need to do is break through a simple barricade and we're onto Road H. Then if at some point that land develops, we're sitting in pretty good shape to come I in there and finish the road off. If the Donovan land develops or the Ware or Natoli or some other significant chunk of property. I'm striking for a compromise Dale between having a 17 foot wide road that really doesn't give us Iemergency access. Councilman Geving: If you accept the $34,000.00, you're accepting the I maintenance of that road. Teton Lane. If you out that barrier there, I just don' t understand what you're really buying. Councilman Boyt: What we're accepting is the maintenance on a road that's 1 going to get very little wear. It's going to have basically three families using it unless we need to break through the barricade to access it in an emergency. IICouncilman Geving: Where, for example the snowplow, how would that happen if we tried to maintain Teton? IIGary Warren: We would access off Lilac Lane then. What Bill is addressing, I guess he's got some value in that we get the upgraded road to an interim standpoint so we can rely on it. My concern I guess is that it's travelable, I especially in emergency situations and yet we'd have a barrier at the end of it so it would not be used for normal ingress and egress. Thus addressing the (7 neighborhood concern that it's not a thoroughfare type of arrangement. II II City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Councilman Geving: You didn't address this do nothing in the feasibility study. The do nothing option. What are your comments on that? ' Gary Warren: The do nothing concept I think goes contrary to city standpoint on other long cul-de-sacs. Lake Riley Woods. Those issues where we have said that this is too long of a cul-de-sac. That it should have a secondary access. Councilman Horn: I guess I don't see that as a do nothing alternative. I see that as a wait alternative until the rest of this area develops. It's very similar to what we had in Chanhassen Estates and many other areas. It doesn't provide an immediate secondary access but it will provide that in the future. I think what we're saying is, if we had some of these of these other properties developed we could get a more acceptable access at that time. Councilman Geving: I have no problem with the alternative. I think it's probably a good comment. Mayor Hamilton: Alternative #3, can that swing any further to the north? Bill can you move that? Bill Engelhardt: That drops off. Councilman Boyt: I think if we leave it as a 17 foot wide roadway, we run the risk that the people who live on Road G and H, there's just a few there I suppose, but those people are never going to want that road to go through. If we put that 33 foot wide strip up there on the other side we're pretty clearly saying that someday that road's going to go through. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think because you don't do it now you're not saying it's never going to go through. Councilman Boyt: I know that but I also know that people get used to living on a road that doesn't go through. I think we have a chance to have the developer pay for paving that road. We can put a barricade up and still manage to plow in front of it so we can get access. I like the alternative and I make that motion. Councilman Johnson: I suggest that instead of making that motion without any engineering being done yet, that a more viable motion would be that we do that to see if that thing is feasible. Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that. Larry Kerber: What are you going to vote on now? Are you going to close off Teton Lane? Mayor Hamilton: The motion is to make Teton Lane a 33 foot wide paved road with a barrier to be placed someplace, I'm not exactly sure where, and a 3 cul-de-sac placed on there so emergency vehicles can get through there but there will not be through traffic. Larry Kerber: So Centex's traffic will not be using it? City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 I II Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. (- Larry Kerber: They will pay to upgrade? Okay, now that is going to be bringing a lot of additional traffic past my place. When we originally went in ' here, we were looking at three accesses and I expressed a concern. Now, where's that traffic going to come out? It's going to come out, I'll have a lot more past my place. Mine is the quickest route. Mayor Hamilton: Either to the east or to the south. I think we're aware of that. There's only two places. Larry Kerber: I just wish, if they're going to save any money in this, Centex, and I'm certain they are, if they're just to upgrade that road and put a barricade there, that something should be appropriated, some type of blocking, I . screening, something for my place there. I just really feel with all the extra traffic now. When we went into this, I had no idea. At that point we said three. Now we're down to two accesses. Councilman Horn: You've got no more traffic this way than you would if you had Alternative #3. Then it would all move past your place on one side or the other. Larry Kerber: Yes, but we don't have Alternate #3. ' Councilman Horn: That's right but if we did choose Alternate #3, which was one of our options, you'd get just as much traffic as you're getting this way only L_ they would be buzzing around on both sides of your property. Larry Kerber: Okay, but what I'm saying, if there's any money savings for the developer... ' Councilman Horn: There won't be. Larry Kerber: But we've still got an unaddressed screening issue at my place. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a separate issue. Larry Kerber: I realize it is. I just wanted to reiterate on that. Councilman Geving: I think that maybe we have to accept the feasibility study. Mayor Hamilton: What we're doing is looking for another alternative within the feasibility study. Councilman Johnson: Let me understand the motion is to increase the feasibility study to include an option #4? Mayor Hamilton: Which is as Bill outlined which the staff will come back to us with additional information to see if it's feasible. ‘177 Gary Warren: This is not a 429 feasibility study so really you can do with it as you want as far as the motion. I City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 f- i Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to increase the feasibility 1 study to include a fourth alternative which will improve Teton Lane to a 33 foot wide paved road with a barrier placed at the end to provide for emergency access only. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried. Jim Donovan: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask, could you please put that up there. I was disturbed by something I saw there. This road here, Road H, that's a cul-de-sac on my property. Mayor Hamilton: Well, it's not on your property. Wherever it is, it's not on your property. Councilman Johnson: When he final plats it, he can't do that. Donna Pickard: Can I ask just one quick question? The cul-de-sac they were talking about putting onto Teton Lane here. We're talking about where the barricade would be. Are we talking about being able to access by Natoli's or putting it closer down here? Mayor Hamilton: I think that's one of the things we're asking staff to A I T. identify for us is where that cul-de-sac should be and how it should barricade. APPROVAL OF DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CHANGE ORDER, SHAFER CONSTRUCTION. Councilman Geving: I think, first of all, when I saw that this was a change order for $291,000.00, it seemed to me there were a lot of things in here that were very questionable to me. Were all of these changes, and they were substantial, I see them all the way up to 47 on one part. Items on the C Schedule up to 43 and on the E Schedule up to 48. I don't know if these were consecutive or how they were arrived at but who approved all of these and authorized these changes as they were done in the field? Gary Warren: The changes that you've seen here, some of them are quantity changes. For example it is a unit priced contract so in example, I guess the 72" RCV pipe, there we just got a bust in the quantity that was in the original bid schedule so we're making a correction from that standpoint. The contract did say that we will pay as we consume this. Councilman Geving: Could you miss on the aggregate base, for example, by I 13,000 tons for a total of $79,000.00? Is it possible that someone really missed that when they bid this or the specs for the bid were really that bad? I can't imagine 13,000 tons of aggregate at a change order. I Gary Warren: This addresses the sub-base that we ran into on the West 78th Street. The actual granual material that was out there was quite extensive. We did do some salvaging and we had a decision because the soils actually turned out to be worse than what our borings had showed us. We made a decision that we would use more granual material based on our soil consultant's recommendation for what he saw. I