Loading...
1i. Plans & Specs for Kerber Blvd Improvements CITY OF `1 a 1 , L, n ; ?>. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900,', ,,,'., A.,l'v.:-- 1 MEMORANDUM - y/zi/ y Don Ashworth, City Manager :r: ° „ ' ' • ITO:FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer „-tr, 2 ; - _ 1 DATE: April 21, 1988 SUBJ: Approval of Plans and Specifications for Kerber Boulevard 1 Improvements and Authorization to Take Bids File No. 87-9 Kerber Boulevard curb and gutter improvements were the center of I much discussion early last summer. As will be recalled, the pro- ject authorized by the City Council calls for the upgrading of the south half of Kerber Boulevard from West 78th Street to the 1 Triple Crown Estates subdivision. This will include expansion of the existing road to a 44-foot roadway section, concrete curb and gutter, storm drainage improvements, street lighting on the south half of the road segment, and trail system. IHigh-intensity commercial type street lighting was authorized for the southerly ( commercial and high density residential) portion I of the project area. A trail was to be provided along the west side of Kerber Boulevard to pick up the existing pedestrian traf- fic from the sidewalk located on the east side of Kerber I Boulevard at Triple Crown Estates. This was an undesirable crossing movement, however, topographic site restrictions on the east side of Kerber Boulevard at the time of the feasibility study, limited the construction of the trail system to only the Iwest side of Kerber Boulevard. As a result of a fortunate turn of events, the downtown retention I pond construction project was faced with disposal of several thousand yards of poor building fill material. With the City' s acquisition of "Kerber East" from Builder' s Development and I Finance, we were able this winter to make good use of this fill material along the east side of Kerber Boulevard. This has allowed us to now propose a trailway along the eastern side of Kerber Boulevard which presents a very nice walkway overview area I of the Chanhassen Pond and conservation easement as shown in the plans . Due to the high pedestrian demands anticipated from the West Village Heights and Saddlebrook subdivision and their multi- 1 family segments, staff felt the west side trail should also be retained in the project. II I Don Ashworth April 21, 1988 I Page 2 In addition, the Chanhassen Elementary School was interested in establishing an internal trailway system into the schoolyard along Kerber Boulevard. The trailway system for the school pro- perty is shown on sheet 13 of the plan set. The attached plans and specifications have been prepared in accordance with the discussions from May and June of last year and the subsequent staff modifications as indicated above. The feasibility study estimated total project costs to be $502, 939. City fill located on the South Lotus Lake Park site still remains in reserve for use on this project to help defray the fill costs . Likewise, City participation was planned for 50% of the storm sewer costs in accordance with standard policies . The cost of commercial street lighting is to be assessed to the southerly properties in the lighting area. The revised project estimate including street lighting, the addi- tional trail on the east side of Kerber Boulevard and the trail system in the school district property is estimated to be $535 , 935 . This figure includes the 30% overhead burden for legal, administrative, engineering and contingencies as in the feasibility study estimate. As originally approved, the project is to be funded through a combination of general obligation par- ticipation, economic development district funds and special r assessments to abutting properties. It is therefore recommended that the plans and specifications for Kerber Boulevard improvements, City Project No. 87-9 , dated January, 1988, prepared by William R. Engelhardt & Assoc. be approved and authorization given to solicit bids. Attachments 1. Construction Plans ' 2 . Council Memorandum dated June 29 , 1987 3 . City Council Minutes dated June 15 , 1987 4 . City Council Minutes dated June 29, 1987 r r r r r J II d'' ' ' CITYOF /---1. .,-. I \ if. \ , k. .itAtit il AL: . , Z' \ ` ' 690 COULTER DRIVE •• P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 il , ,. . (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM ilTO: Mayor and City Council IIFROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: June 29 , 1987 ilSUBJ: Kerber Boulevard Curb and Gutter Improvements, Continuation II "In the midst of every crisis is an opportunity. " I firmly believe in this philosophy. To call Kerber Blvd. a "crisis" would be an exaggeration - a statement with which the three prop- erty owners facing $5 ,000 assessments may not agree. The benefit II of a real or perceived crisis is that it brings people together. Secondarily, positions of strength disappear. The City Council' s il overwhelming position that the project would occur, with staff being instructed to work out who will pay, signficantly enhanced our . ability to reach agreements between the numerous par- ties . ilI believe the City Council will be happy with the results of negotiations occurring during the past two weeks . Conclusions reached include: Although final authorization has not been received, Saul Segal has agreed to pay the assessments associated with II Chanhassen Vista 1st Addition. The development contract will be modified to include the approximate $10 ,000 to $15 , 000 assessment (original assessment reduced as noted IIbelow) ; and - High intensity lighting will be included and assessed in the southerly portion of the project. Through the Saddlebrook section, typical residential lighting will be installed producing a less intrusive form of lighting for abutting property owners while still providing safety; and — The general obligation level can be reduced to approximately one-half of what was previously being considered based on recommendations being made regarding the street lighting element of the project; and - Mr. Murray has agreed to sell the easterly nine acres to IIthe City for their actual costs in purchasing the property. II Mayor and City Council June 29 , 1987 Page 2 In so doing, the City will be consummating acquisition of the remaining parcel outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for public ownership of Western Hills Park. From Mr. Murray' s standpoint, the acquisition will provide the funds necessary to reduce their costs associated with the Kerber Blvd. improvements . Although not cheering for this settle- ment, Mr. Murray is in agreement with it; and ' - The development agreements for all of the affected property owners will be modified to include assurances to pay the costs associated with the improvements as outlined above. As noted in the beginning of this memorandum, the upgrading of Kerber Blvd. has presented a number of challenges. I sincerely appreciate the cooperativeness of all of the developers throughout this process . I believe the recommendations staff is bringing back to the City Council are reasonable and equitable. I would also like to thank the City Council for its continuous support and challenging staff to find a means by which to make the project equitable. Without the Council' s position that the project would occur, staff would not have been able to reach the concensus currently before us . Authorizing Kerber Blvd. improvements as a public improvement 1 project, in accordance with the recommendations made above, is recommended. 1 1 1 1 11 _ 187 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 I6. The developer shall submit specifications for site grading to the City Engineer for his review and approval prior to the initiation of site grading. 7. The developer agrees to modify his grading plan consistent with the ' final plan for curb and gutter imrpovements, if required, on Kerber Blvd.. ' 8. The developer agrees to comply with the recommendation of approval as issued by the Watershed District. 9. This grading approval does not include the drainage improvements. A ' separate drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City and the Watershed District. 10. The developer shall present to the City his plan for demolition and ' disposal of the Kerber farm on the northeast corner of the property for approval by the City Engineer. U. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and abide by the conditions of this development contract. 12. The developer shall provide the City with a letter of credit in the amount of 110% of the cost of site grading, site restoration, and erosion control prior to initiation of construction. IIAll voted in favor and motion carried. ' KERBER BLVD. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS, CONTINUATION. Don Ashworth: Bill Engelhardt is going to give the update which will basically parallel the Staff Report. Bill Engelhardt: I'll speak to Don's memorandum dated June 15th. What we did is we went back and we broke the project down into three sections to look at what kind of development and what kind of section would be most appropriate. The first section we looked at, Section 1, was from CR 16 up to Santa Vera le Drive. In looking at what we colored in orange on this particular map, shows ' what would happen if we would take Coulter Blvd. and again, these are just examples, and extending Coulter Blvd. all the way through looking at West Village Heights and Santa Vera Drive. What would happen if we would install ' right turn lanes and by-pass lanes on the rural section we have out there right now. As you can see, when you get down to CR 16 area, granted these intersections may be a little close to CR 16 but when it comes down to developing this site, there is going to have to be another access be it this way, be it off of CR 16. The same with the James property. Any potential developing we can look again for a drive through be it an extension of Coulter or another driveway off in this area. In any event, what happens is that with the 40 mph design speed through here, is that your right turn lanes and your by-pass lanes in effect create a four lane roadway through this whole area. When you do that, you are essentially creating a berming area or an urban 35 188 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 section which is concrete curb and gutter, controlled drainage. Controlling the drainage becomes an issue because as you extend these roadways out in order to build these turn lanes, you are eliminating the ditch section that ::r you now have so your pipe section has to go in the ditch area and then your storm sewer could be carried by the pipe with catch basins in the roadway. So in Section 1, you're looking at, by constructing turn lanes and by-pass lanes, all except for a minor area up in here that would be basically a four lane road and granted you made some assumptions down in this area that this is what could happen. Section 2 is from Santa Vera up to what I call Chan Vista. It's Chan Vista 3rd and 4th Addition up in here. This is the Saddlebrook property. This is the triangular piece along Kerber Blvd. on the east side and there is some question on what can be done. Can it be developed. In this particular section you can see that really the widening of the roadway or putting the turn lane, does not dictate the whole construction of a four lane roadway in this area. It does dictate that in this area and this area that you would need extension of the blacktop. The third section that is from the Chan Vista 4th all the way up to the existing curb and gutter, in that location we have Sierra Trail and Santa Fe Pass and those areas again, it looks like a substantial amount of roadway would have to be created as a four lane road by the time you got your tapers and lane widths. Going back to Section 1, the next issue that we addressed is basically the street lighting and hydrant location. As you can see, the street lighting location is placed behind the proposed curb and gutter but next to the walkway. What this does is provide for safe pedestrian walkway and it provides some protection to your light poles and your light stands. The section through number 2 shows the lighting, the walkway and the hydrants again on the west side and in this 1: case we are proposing that we would continue the curb and gutter on the west side but addressing the council concern on the east side, we felt the curb could be deleted from this section for approximately 1,400 feet. That would not jeopardize our section. This roadway, the drains could be handled two ways. One, it could be super elevated which means it would be set up so that the drainage would cross to this side. We have to be a little careful on design criteria to be sure that it isn't tipped too steep or too flat in order to put in some icing that could happen there or we could construct this roadway wide enough to get four lanes but on this section, b.ccause it drops off so fast, just continue our grading in the area the way is is right now. It seems to be reasonable that that could work. Section 3, again going north, we proposed that curb and gutter be placed on both sides of the roadway and there, we're basically trying to carry the drainage on the Sierra Trail side to try and match the existing entrance. We're trying to match drainage patterns and pick up the drainage and carry it into the roadway into the existing outlot. So, all and all, we're looking at three sections. These three maps indicate what would happen if these three areas are developed to the full extent. It even could get worse than this but it does show that four lane section would basically be built after you've constructed your turn lane. Another item that we addressed was the walkway and I know there was a great desire on the Council's part to establish a walkway on the east side of the roadway. We looked at that. Again, walked up and down both sides of the roadway several times to try and figure out what could be done in some of these areas. Basically the conclusion that I came up with is that the walkway lir on the west side, where we're establishing an urban section seems to fit the terrain the best. Seems to be least costly and provides the most safety for 36 _i ^<_ City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 IIir the general public from a walkway standpoint. This section would be lit with the street lights as proposed. The walkway would be up at grade with the I roadway. There may be some areas where it would dip down slightly but in general the walkway would be up at grade. Those are the advantages. The disadvantages are that you do have to make crossings but whatever side you do II put the walkway on, be it east or west, there are going to have to be some crossings. As Don mentioned in his memo, there's a cattle pass that we wanted to use to make a crossing from the Chan Vista area and continue that on to the Lake Ann Park. The existing cattle pass that's under the roadway is not I adequate to handle that kind of traffic. So the three issues basically are the turn lanes dictate that the curb and gutter be installed which in effect I dictates that the storm sewer be installed. Advise for locaton of the lighting and in doing so, you then have a good location for the walkway and safe walkway for the general public. The issue of the first part of the memo addresses the legality of the assessments on it. Mr. Knutson has addressed II that. The assessments could be sustained on it. We are reducing the assessments to Mr. Murray for the portion of curb and gutter through this area, through the 1,400 feet where curb and gutter would not be installed. It's a minor amount when you look at the total picture of the project. It's I $15,000.00 but it is a reduction for curb and gutter not being installed there. We still have to widen the roadway to four lanes. As far as the street lighting goes, I think there was some comments and questions on what II could be deleted from the project and we looked at deleting the street ' lighting from the project and making that in Section 1, an assessment to the development who is developing West Village Heights area. Constructing typical residential lighting via NSP and the standard street lighting through this I - area and again picking up assessments to the north with the addition of assessments against the property owners. The savings that you would look at, minimum would be $40,000.00. The initial report had $110,000.00 so it would I be $110,000.00 that we would be looking at and by assessing this portion of the lighting to the James Company property and the Jacobson property, we could probably get that down to about $70,000.00. IICouncilman Geving: So just Section I, is that what you're saying? Bill Engelhardt: Right. That's basically what we've com•.!f up with through the Ithree hearings trying to put all the different pieces together and make some compromises through the issues. We do feel that the road should be constructed as a 44 foot urban section with the deletion of the curb through II the easterly portion of, I'll call it the Murray property. I'm not certain what the name of it is but I'll call it the Murray property. Delete that curb and gutter and still construct the roadway so we have a consistent roadway and it's a safe traveled surface area. I Councilman Johnson: I personally disagree g p lly with the deletion of the curb in that area. The large dropoff to the right, I think a curb adds a little bit ' of a safety factor to the vehicles. Most of them are driving too fast in there anyway but without the curb and a wider street for them to drive faster on yet and that huge drop on that side, for $15,000.00 the safety involved and also the icing problems potential, the engineering problems of putting that on your super elevation and all that good stuff, I personally am in favor of keeping that curb in that section and doing your $110,000.00 worth of lighting II37 II n CIO • V 11. City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 reduction. Taking that $110,000.00 which we had designated to come out of the General Obligation and taking that against the assessed cost of the project that was going to be assessed. I think with my rough calculations shows a 35% reduction in the assessment which I think is a substantial reduction in assessment. I didn't realize the lighting was g g going to have to be that substantial in the area. I missed that in my review. $110,000.00 is a lot of lighting and talking to our Public Safety Director, the lighting for sidewalk for safety reasons and I'm not totally convinced that we would be able to do an adequate job in other ways with some other funds. I think that may be a good alternative that will provide us substantial reduction to the Saddlebrook property. In fact as reduction of around $15,000.00 if I look at this right. Bill Engelhardt: I rattled those numbers out. I don't have them on a piece of paper to present you with. If we take the $110,000.00 we would be reducing the curb per foot cost from $37.10 down to about $24.00 to $25.00. In doing that, the Saddlebrook assessment would go from $104.00 down to about $67.00 so there's a substantial savings and that would be carried throughout all the property owners then we would assess or we would see if these property owners would pick up their portion of the lighting here. We want to maintain some continuity coming off of West 78th Street and CR 16 with your downtown lighting. Pull that up into this commercial area and fit that in and they seem to be willing to work with us. ' Councilman Johnson: My only other comment, my suggestion is if we do that, take out the widening and work the widening through over avenues in the future if widening is seen, after we find out if it is necessary or not, if we can. We're trying to protect the people from being run over by having lighting on this detached sidewalk. Once somebody is driving down that sidewalk, I don't think the street lamps are going to help them much. The other one is the issue of the Chan Vista lots which I think there are several methods that we're going to work with that. I think that can be worked out in the assessment hearings. Other than that, I'm still against assessing which I've maintained every time, I voted against it. Those three private homeowners should not be assessed $13,000.00 or whatever it is and we have to be reasonable. L 'Councilman Boyt: I have a question of either Clark or Dale and I guess I would say that given where I think this is headed, I don't see the point in carrying the discussion on further. Councilman Horn: Were the owners of Chan Vista notified of the public o improvement hearing? Don Ashworth: At the time the notices were prepared, Saul Segal owned all of that property. Since that point in time two of the three lots have indeed changed ownership and the property owners involved did come in to the last meeting noting that they did not want to pay for those assessments. Councilman Johnson: They are here tonight also. Councilman Boyt: That takes care of one concern so I'll follow that with d couple others. As I stated last time, and I think Don stated in his letter, 38 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 i this is really a one time window that we've got to do something right on this II piece of property. There are going to be many more affected property owners if we come back and attempt to upgrade P P pgrade this at some future point. I'm not optimistic that we're going to find lighting under another fund although I haven't talked to anybody to indicate that one way or the other. I find on I the one hand Bill is saying we can get along without lighting and on the other hand, one of the major reasons that they didn't want the trailway system to go on the east side of the road is because of the difficulty of lighting. IBill Engelhardt: Yes, there's a difference in the type section on the eas t side dipping down and going down below the hill where we have virtually no II lighting at all and a very difficult path to maneuver going up and down the hill. On the west side we're essentially building a sidewalk at grade with the grade of the street and it's a much easier path to manipulate to maneuver on so that's the reason for it. IIDon Ashworth: Staff has not given up on the lighting or the importance lighting. Since this will back onto the rear yards, we have changed the I position of the higher intensity lighting through the middle section. On the lower section we continue to believe that by working with Jacobson and Charlie James that we in fact can get the lighting through and that they will agree to an assessment on that. I'm more than willing to drop it out of this project if it helps get this one ahead but we're not giving up on the lighting. Councilman Boyt: What you're saying is that this lighting will come it will come through those southerly property owners. Don Ashworth: That's right. And through the central section then is a I different type of NSP lighting where there would not be the heavy development charges associated with that. In that section you would see residential lighting very similar to any one of our neighborhoods. That would be the type of lighting that would dot that entire section. It would still provide Ilighting to the sidewalks. Councilman Boyt: I would encourage something other than 1 light fixture I hanging off a telephone pole. We can do better than that. As far as curb and gutter, I agree with Jay. The savings are minimal and I think it makes the road look something less than professional to have curb and gutter run II down three-fourths of it and then disappear. i think if the development on the north end of Kerber could afford this, the developments that are looking at this now should be able to afford the same sort of situation. I'll accept the lighting going out given that we have other funding sources but I would Ivery strongly support keeping the curbing in. Councilman Horn: Rick, with the exception of the lighting going out, is this acceptable to you at this point or do you still have a concern? ' Rick Murray: Clark, I still have a concern. My concern is I look at this as li-- being an off-site improvement period. If you start with the premise that we've got adequate service for 140 lots from Powers Blvd. which is a 9 ton commercial highway, Kerber becomes auxilliary to us. It's nice to have but Iit's by no means the only access I have to my project. The Attorney mentioned 39 II 192 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 the subdivision exaction which is quite appropriate for on-site ro improvements. If we wanted to change the plans and I don't, I sincerely don't, I want to work something out but we've got two cul-de-sacs on the edge towards Kerber. We don't need Kerber. In fact I've got 30 lots that don't even access Kerber. Have no way of getting there. So I do have a problem per se with the payment method or proposed payment method for this project. I don't have a problem with the project but I think that Jay and Bill are absolutely right. It's a one time window that the City has without dealing with a whole bunch of neighbors. Even with three neighbors y problem causes. We're going to have 15 or 20 more that will ba back up toathatat site. Per lineal foot is not -the way to propose the assessment. I guess that's my major concern. Just south of us, for instance, you look at Table 3 of the May 22nd memo from the Staff. Table 3 says Saddlebrook is getting a great deal. $440.00 per lot. Sounds good. Chan Vista right across the . street is $442.00. The other one, is $441.00 or $446.00 or something like that so you're getting a good deal. Go south of me one property Property. When you come up with my $440.00 p pertr to in my proposed 96 townhouse units on the south end of the site. If ouwn in my property to the south of me, the West Village Townhouses, they haveo250 the proposed townhouses. If you're going to treat us the same, those guys are less than $90.00. They are all going to use the same property and same road and have the same impact. Yes, I do have a problem. Philosphically and practically with my use of Kerber Blvd. and my participation in Kerber Blvd. at least to this extent. There are some good reasons to have it done. Staff is giving you all the good reasons to have it done. I just don't agree with the method of paying for it. Staff hasn't given you any good reason why this 9 ton rural section needs to be upgraded. It's only 7 or 8 years old. Why it needs to be upgraded. There has been reference from Carver County of any incidence along this road. Pedestrian or vehicular. In our EAW, MnDot has a standard that says once you get to 10,000 vehicle trips find a way to get to four lanes. You are there on TH 5 and day, only two to lanes guys. Here, after all of this development, you'll be at 3,000 or 3,500 trips per day. If you're looking for a place to spend money, spend it on TH 5. There's no health, welfare and safety question of doing this. It's a great idea and it's a good time to do it. I don't particularly like the method of which you are proposing to assess us for it because I don't think it's really fair. Half of my property could be serviced from Powers Blvd. if you're going to be fair about it. Councilman Horn: Let me ask Roger then, is this sufficient relation between development of Kerber and the development? Roger Knutson: You mean under 462? Yes. Councilman Horn: Being adjacent to the development. Is that sufficient relation in your opinion? Roger Knutson: As I pointed out to p you, the standard the courts use is whether this development and other similar developments in the area and tendering the need now and in the future for having the improvement. That's really a fact question you'll have to wrestle with but in my opinion there obviously is a relationship between Kerber Blvd. and this development. Kerber 40 I r City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 Blvd. is not a major arterial. It is a collector. It's not TH 5. It's not Ian interstate. Councilman Horn: So what I think we are seeing is that this is an appropriate assessing method for a collector. I believe I also heard that the property I owners in Chan Vista 1st Addition were notified of the improvement. Is that true also? I Don Ashworth: No. The owner at the time the project was initiated was Saul Segal who was notified. Since that point in time two of the three lots have been sold. IICouncilman Horn: What does that mean legally Roger? Roger Knutson: At the time the notice went out, County records were such that IMr. Segal was listed as the owner and he was given mailed notice required by 429. On subsequent sales, you don't have to keep checking every 30 days, every 60 days to find out if there are sales. You have to give the notice to IIthe person who owned it when the notice went out. Councilman Geving: And that did happen? I , Don Ashworth: Yes. Councilman Geving: I think the last point that Clark made was the most I ' — important point that I was trying to get at. Everything really hinges on that notification for the people who are here and own those lots. I think that our Staff and Manager have come a long way in the last two weeks since we met on June 1st in attempting to resolve a lot of discussion and coming up with some I alternatives for us. I kind of like the way they broke the project down into three sections. I too believe right now that we should attempt to keep the II assessment amount as low as possible. Whatever is practical. I believe that this is a well traveled or will certainly be a well traveled route throughout the city and a lot of people will benefit from having that road brought up to standard. I believe that we should put the lighting in to the extent II practical for Section 1 which leads through the West Village Heights and the James Property. I was very surprised about the amount of money that's involved in lighting but I certainly want to save the $110,000.00 or whatever you've come up with now. I guess it's $70,000.00. Is that right Don? I Don Ashworth: The $110,000.00 would come out of General whether or not we included the southern portion and assessed littnow ordStaff II simply worked with Jacobson/James to insure that it got in as a part of their phase, either way, it's taken out of the GO portion and made availalbe to reduce overall assessments yet lighting is still accomplished. ICouncilman Geving: I think it's important on the southern section. As much as I would like to see the sidewalks and bike paths on the east side, there li-- really is much more room on the west side to accomomdate that and it seems reasonable. Let's move on down to some of the comments that were talked about in the earlier discussions about curb and gutter on both sides of this road to the extent of Sections 1, 2 and 3. The Manager has suggested to us that we II 41 II 194 II City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 lir delete the curbing on the east side. I need to know one other fact before I comment on this. How many acres do you have Rick on the east side? Rick Murray: 7 or 8. Councilman Geving: If the decision was made to curb and gutter the entire extent of those 1,400 feet that we're talking about here, this would have a great impact upon you obviously of those 7 or 8 acres probably as the Mayor indicated at the last meeting, to be far in excess of the cost. Rick Murray: To the extent that there is no market value. Councilman Geving: Let me ask you, I'm negotiating. I'm in a position now of negotiation because I really believe, and I'm speaking just for myself, I really believe that the City has a grand opportunity here to acquire that 6 or 7 acres as a part of our Park and Rec total acreage for the pond in Chanhassen. If the City were to approach you for the sale of that 6 or 7 acres, and I don't know if they have yet, what would be your comment on that? Rick Murray: I would be willing to discuss it. I'm not the owner. I sold the contract to the two gentlemen who own our company so speaking for them, I would say yes, they would entertain discussion. ' Councilman Geving: The reason I throw that out for discussion, I know we've all seen this particular area. I've walked it nearly every night for several weeks and every time we get to that point I kind of stop and look and wonder how 4, 5 or 6 homes might look on that site and the more I look at it the more I think it's not really a very nice homesite or something I would like to see homes built on and if at all possible I would like to see the City pursue the opportunity of acquiring that for a park. That's just my comment. I'm not speaking for the rest of the Council. I had some other comments regarding the curbing and guttering. I think really it makes very little sense to me to curb the east side of Kerber Blvd.. Even if it's only a $15,000.00 item, it's definitely a savings to the developer and I'm questioning whether it's really worthwhile. I would have to think about that a little bit before we were to vote on it but again it gets down to these discussions where it's your only opportunity to do something and do it right. For $15,000.00 I might say, let's do it. On the other hand, it's $15,000.00 that the developer might get stuck with too. Finally, that is the discussion. That's the end of the Manager's letter and I thought this whole letter, this 3 or 4 pages was well thought out. My main thoughts tonight in looking at this, I haven't changed my thinking any, I want to see this project proceed. It's going to happen. The development is going to take place. I think whatever we can do to get it going this season, we would be better off. I was more interested in the legal issue on the notification to current homeowners. That's all I have. Mayor Hamilton: I'm not going to get into everything other than to say that I still don't agree with doing the project. I realize that there may be an opportunity to do something but the traffic on the road in my opinion doesn't warrant spending the funds that are needed to be spent to accommodate this project. I think by not doing the curb on the east side and eliminating some !!: of the lighting is certainly the first glimmer of hope I've seen for 42 City Council Meeting - June 15, 1987 accomplishment of the project. What I would like to do, in light of the discussion this evening and I think hearing that the Council is basically in favor of some of the comments that have been made and moving ahead with the project, there's been an awful lot of time and energy spent on this project to this point and we need to have Staff again meet with Rick Murray and the Chan Vista people and with the Jacobsons and James to work out exactly how the assessment is going to work out on this project and I think Don feels confident that all of those issues can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. Mayor Hamilton moved, Counci lman Horn seconded to table the Kerber Blvd. curb and gutter improvements until the City Manager has had an opportunity to meet with Rick Murray, the Chan Vista people, Charile James and William Jacobson to resolve the assessment issue and bring it back to be settled once and for all. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and motion carried. Joe Pertoo: As far as the comment of Dale Geving as far as the current homeowners being formally notified of this project, I moved into my property of Lot 14, Block 4 on May 15th. I called the City Manager's office around the 10th of May and I asked them if there were any taxes being assessed or pending against my property or taxes or any assessments that would be assessed in the future and I was given an affirmative no. I had heard about this project by 7 rumor so to speak so I was never formally notified. Mayor Hamilton: I think what was said was that you weren't supposed to be since the owner of the property at the time this project began was Saul Segal and he was notified and according to the City Attorney, that's all the notification we were required to make. We still want to work with you and we're happy that you've come and we'll keep in touch with you. Joe Pertoo: For the record I would formally like to say that I would like to see the assessments of the three lots be absorbed into the General Obligation Fund since this would be only 7/10th's of a percent increase in the cost of the project. I feel that's unfair for three proparties to pay for 30 others that would equally benefit. Gary Warren: For the record, I had talked with the timing of the transition of the property sales vand SDavid 1Segal lrelated lto me that ownership of his lot was transferred on April 29th. That's when the closing was conducted. Our feasibility that we called a public hearing, we held that meeting on April 20th and notices were mailed out so the timing coincides almost identically with the transfer of sale so our notices did go out to Segal who was on record at the time. REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 4.7 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, CREEK RUN ON YO S AVENUE, ROBERT ENGSTROM. — Mayor Hamilton: This item was tabled two weeks ago and we asked to go back and redo his plans and submit a new plan which appears developer have received, ppears as though we 43 I -- • 2211 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 II KERBER BOULEVARD CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS, CONTINUATION. Mayor Hamilton: This is a continuation of an item that's been discussed for II the past month approximately. It appears as though through the efforts of Don Ashworth the City Manager and Rick Murray of BMT, we have reached a good compromise on the project. Fic.. Resolution #87-65: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to authorize the Kerber Blvd. improvements as a public improvement project in II accordance with the recommendations as outlined by the City Manager. All voted in favor and motion carried. REAR YARD VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN ENCLOSED DECK, JOHN MERZ, 3900 LONE CEDAR II LANE. Mayor Hamilton: This was an item on the Board of Review and Appeals. Did you I turn this down Dale? Councilman Geving: The chairman is here, maybe he could say. I Willard Johnson: There would be construction on it and we denied it. We felt II he was changing a non-conforming to non-conforming and passed it on to Council. We could not find a hardship. Barbara Dacy: The parcel is located at the end of Lone Cedar Lane at 3900 II Lone Cedar Lane. The request is for a 5 foot rearyard setback variance to add an addition and enclose a portion of the existing deck. As you can see, the rear wall of the existing house is right on the rear setback line. To the II best of the City's records, we have a copy of the permit of the building itself but we do not have the record of the deck being built in conjunction with it or as separate date in time. Because the existing unenclosed deck exists within the rearyard setback, it is technically non-conforming. Staff II recommended denial based on the fact that he is required by findings as declared by the Ordinance could not be met. The applicant is here. John Merz: Without going into details that we used before the committee, I number one we realize that the ordinances in this city are for good reasons. I appeared to fail to show hardship although in my own mind I have some II hardship in that the criteria that was used in the design of this addition was bad criteria on my part. I had some documents that I assumed to be the rear setback requirements that were 15 feet in lieu of the 30 feet that I found when I made application. Furthermore, I had reason to believe that because II the deck was on there that it was within the setback requirements that the city had. The design that we've gone through, Mary Ann and I, have really made a considerable effort to improve the north elevation of our home and make I it better for the neighbors all the way around. It was unfortunate for us that the criteria that I used in the design aspect was incorrect. I've taken the time to go through all the people within 500 feet of my property. I've I II 3 reviewed the plans. These plans. I've reviewed the survey criteria and I've asked them if they would all sign this letter which I will give to you. I could read to you and save you time. It just says, Dear Friends and II 5 1