HomeMy WebLinkAbout7 - Carriage Hill Road Feasibility Study Res. 91-22
AGENDA NUMBER:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION:
BACKGROUND:
"CELEBRATE PRIOR LAKE'S CENTENNIAL. 1991"
7
BRUCE LONEY, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
CONSIDER FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CARRIAGE HILL
ROAD - RESOLUTION 91-22
MAY 20, 1991
The purpose of this Agenda item is to consider
the approval of the Feasibility Study for
carriage Hill Road.
On February 4, 1991, the City Council
authorized Staff to prepare a Feasibility
Study for the improvement of Carriage Hill
Road from 500 feet west of the Chatonka Beach
Trail and Carriage Hill Road intersection to
the Ferndale Avenue and Carriage Hill Road
intersection. Staff has prepared the attached
Feasibility Study for Council consideration
and review.
The Feasibility Study includes the curvilinear
extension of Carriage Hill Road from Ferndale
Avenue westerly approximately 1,800 feet
through the undeveloped parcels known as
Meadowlawn and the GrassinijGrothe properties.
This study identifies construction of a
collector road through these properties as
shown on the 1991 Capital Improvement Plan.
The street improvement being proposed in the
study is a divided four lane urban roadway
with an eighteen foot median with trees
planted in the median to create a parkway
effect. This parkway idea was first ~roposed
by the developer who was working wlth the
owners of the Meadowlawn and GrassinijGrothe
parcels. Staff has met on this concept and
feels that a divided roadway with trees placed
in the median would blend into the surrounding
area and would provide for a scenic roadway
leading to the DNR access and Sand Pointe
Beach park.
Staff has met with the property owners of the
three parcels to be affected by the divided
roadway concept from CSAH 21 to Ferndale
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 i Fax 612) 447-4245
An Equal Opportunity! Affirmative Action Employer
Avenue and all have
approval to creating
Carriage Hill Road.
The street improvements identified in the
study will also include a concrete sidewalk,
bituminous trail with trees placed in the
median and boulevard areas, storm sewer and
watermain crossings for future development.
Existing Carriage Hill Road from Ferndale
Avenue to CSAH 42 has a 5 foot concrete
sidewalk and a 8 foot bituminous trail and
trees have been recently planted in the
boulevard area.
given a
a parkway
preliminary
effect for
Included in this study is the construction of
a 500 lineal foot gravel road to connect Beach
street residents with the proposed paved
Carriage Hill Road. This temporary connection
would provide an access for residents on Beach
street to CSAH 42 besides the existing gravel
surfaced Pike Lake Trail. It is proposed in
the study to abandon the portion of Pike Lake
Trail south of Embassy Circle and the portion
of Carriage Hill Road west of Chatonka Beach
Trail with the installation of this temporary
road connection to the paved Carriage Hill
Road. The gravel surfaced street pro~osed to
be abandoned is shown on the Feasibil1ty study
ma~ and is a narrow road with steep grades.
Th1S road has been a maintenance problem,
particularly in the winter, as certain
locations along this road will become blocked
by snow drifts and require additional
snowplowing trips. This section could be used
for field access.
The main impetus for extending Carriage Hill
Road at this time has been to provide a paved
road access to the GrassinijGrothe parcel.
This property was assessed for sewer and water
improvements on Project 82-3, North Shore
improvement project. Len Grassini and Fred
Grothe have stated per the attached letter
that their property is not marketable without
a paved street to their property. Access to
this property can be provided by extending
Carriage Hill Road westerly from Ferndale
Avenue, or by improvin9 Pike Lake Trail from
CSAH 42, or by install1ng carriage Hill Road
easterly from CSAH 21 to Pike Lake Trail.
Development interest has been occurring on the
Meadowland parcel with the Lundgren Brothers
Construction, Inc. and thus this alternative
to provide access to GrassinijGrothe parcel
was initially pursued. Staff will discuss the
2
status of the different alternatives to
providing street access to the GrassinijGrothe
parcel at the Council meeting.
The Feasibility study identifies funding
mainly through Municipal state Aid Funds and a
combination of assessments, Trunk Reserve,
Construction Fund and Contingency Reserve
Funds.
Carriage Hill Road is designated on the Cit~'s
Municipal state Aid System and is classif1ed
an urban collector. Staff is recommending
that no direct access be allowed for
individual lots to the collector street due to
the amount of traffic that will be generated
in the future. The City's Assessment Policy
for individual lots with no direct access is
not to assess the property for the collector
street improvement. A collector street fee
needs to be considered as an additional
revenue source in addition to MSA funds to
fund collector street improvements. The
collector street fee to be considered is
attached. As part of this a~enda item, Staff
will introduce to the Counc1l the collector
street fee concept. with the current policy
and no direct individual lot access to a
collector street, the City is responsible for
the cost of the road.
In past projects such as CSAH 21 and Fish
Point Road, sidewalks have been installed with
no assessment to the adjacent propert~ owners
as this is deemed to be a commun1ty wide
benefit. Likewise, no assessment is being
proposed for the Carriage Hill Road sidewalks.
These walks, however, are eligible for MSA
Funding.
Included in this study is the construction of
a 500 lineal foot gravel road from the
westerly terminus of the permanent improved
Carriage Hill Road to the intersection of the
existing gravel surfaced Carriage Hill Road
and Chatonka Beach Trail. This temporary
connection would provide an access for
residents on Beach Street to CSAH 42 besides
the existing gravel surfaced Pike Lake Trail.
The cost for this temporary road is estimated
to be $11,000.00, and is not eligible for MSA
Funding.
3
other non-participating MSA items include
watermain crossings, 50% of the storm sewer
cost, tree plantings and the associated
indirect costs with these items.
storm sewer is not assessed on this project as
these pro~erties will be assessed a storm
Water Dra1nage fee when the properties are
~latted or when developed. This fee was
1nitiated with the new Assessment Policy which
was adopted by City Council on February 21,
1989. The fee is applied to net acreage
exclusive of roadways, public ponding areas
and public park land and the fee rate will be
computed on a per square foot net lot basis
according to the schedule in the Assessment
Policy.
Initially, in preparing the Feasibility study
and determining the cost allocation for the
improvements, staff utilized the following:
The City's Assessment Policy for Public
Initiated Improvements
Council's past policy of paying for
propertr necessary for the construction
of publ1c improvements.
Recent policy of not assessin~ sidewalks
on collector streets to abutt1n9 property
as this is deemed a commun1ty wide
benefit.
No individual lot direct access will be
allowed on Carriage Hill Road.
Upon applying the above criteria to the
extension of Carriage Hill Road, the City of
Prior Lake is responsible for almost all of
the road construction cost. The property
owners would be paid for the right of way and
would have a road built that could be utilized
in future development. STAFF FEELS THAT THE
PARCELS ARE RECEIVING A BENEFIT AS THIS ROAD
WILL INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE LAND, AND IS
NEEDED FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR.
DISCUSSION:
1.)
2. )
3. )
4. )
The Feasibility Study contains
alternatives which analyzed the costs to
parcel and to the City. The
alternatives are as follows:
1.)
2. )
three
each
three
Previous practice used in the
development.
Current Assessment Policy
criteria listed previously.
Sand Pointe
and the
4
3.) Negotiated alternative between staff and
the property owners.
In Alternative NO.1, the assessable items
include the grading, sidewalk on one side and
utilities and the assessable cost is estimated
to be $136,150.00. The Cit~'s MSA project
cost is reduced due to the h1gher assessable
cost and the City's project cost which is not
MSA eligible is estimated to be $38,500.00.
This cost is for the temporary road, 50% of
the non-eligible storm sewer, and the tree
plantings. The indirect cost percentage is
25% for this alternative as bonding would be
necessary to fund the project.
Alternative No.2 has only an estimated
$11,000.00 of assessable costs based on the
Assessment Policy. This alternative will have
approximately $427,600.00 of City project cost
eligible for MSA funding. The City's project
cost (non-eligible MSA) is increased by
$40,000.00 to $76,400.00 due to the right of
way payment to the property owners. Right of
Way 1S technically eligible for MSA
reimbursement. staff would prefer not to use
MSA funds for right of way to minimize the
complexity. However, for $40,000.00 it may be
worth the effort and problems. The total
project cost is increased also by the right of
way ~ayment cost of $40,000.00 to $515,000.00.
The 1ndirect cost percentage is 18% as 95% of
the MSA funding is available immediately, thus
eliminating the need to bond.
In Alternative No.3, staff negotiated with
the property owners to have the right of way
dedicated to the City in exchange for the City
constructing the roadway with no assessments
to the propertr owners. The City's project
cost (MSA el1gible) is estimated to be
$427,500.00 and the City's project cost
(non-MSA eligible) is estimated to be
$47,500.00. Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 would
necessitate approval of a collector street
fee. The collector street fee to be
considered will provide the City with
additional revenue to construct its collector
streets. The Municipal state Aid fund
allocation is being decreased by 5% due to
current budget changes within the state of
Minnesota. The concept of a collector street
fee is being proposed because the City's MSA
Funds will not keep pace with the cost of
5
ALTERNATIVES:
constructing collector streets especially
those with no individual lot access to the
collector street.
With the Meadowlawn Parcel, this project would
~rovide watermain crossings that could be used
1n future development. In the initial
discussions with the owners of Meadowlawn,
they would support the project if no
assessments would be incurred. Staff proposed
to install the watermain crossin9s at no cost
to the pro~erty owners in l1eu of the
necessary r1ght-of-way for the project be
provided at no cost to the city.
with the request for the improvement by Len
Grassini and Fred Grothe, Staff feels the
necessary right-of-way for the improvements
should be dedicated to the City at no cost.
The proposed improvement in the study would
provide an access for the GrassinijGrothe
parcel to develop as well as the Meadowland
Parcel. An access to the residents on Beach
Street can be provided with this project. It
would allow the City to close a portion of
Pike Lake Trail and carriage Hill Road which
is gravel surfaced and has been a maintenance
problem the past years.
The negotiations with the Meadowlawn Parcel
were primarily through Jim scoggins. At one
point it appeared that the proposal, as
previously outlined, may have been acceptable.
The City has received the attached letter from
Mrs. Joseph M. Griffith indicating that she
does not support the extension of Carriage
Hill Road. Mrs. Griffith indicates that she
is one-half owner of the parcel and regardless
of support of the other owners of the
Meadowlawn pro~erty, her approval is required
to obtain r1ght-of-way as outlined in
Alternative No.3. At this point, the
proposed negotiated Alternative No. 3 is not
acceptable to all of the Meadowlawn property
owners.
The alternatives are as follows:
1.
Receive the Feasibility
establish a Public Hearing
17, 1991 at 8:00 P.M.
Resolution 91-22.
Report and
date of June
by adopting
2. Table this item for a specific reason and
provide staff direction for obtaining
additional information.
6
RECOMMENDATION:
ACTION REQUIRED:
3. Direct staff to modify the Feasibility
study as per Council direction and
resubmit at a future date.
4. Deny Resolution 91-22 and do not ~roceed
with the improvements as outlined 1n the
Feasibility study at this time.
At the time of writing this report, staff
believes that the Council will receive
additional comments from the property owners,
at the meeting, from both the Meadowlawn and
the GrassinijGrothe parcel. Those comments
may either be in support or objection to the
extension of Carriage Hill Road. Depending
on the comments received, it may be
a~propriate to schedule a Public Hearing or
d1scontinue further action. Resolution 91-22
has been included in the Agenda packet if the
Council approves the Feasibility study and
calls for a Public Hearing on the project.
If either the property owners or the City
Council do not support the proposed study
improvements, staff recommends that Council
give direction to staff in whether to proceed
with other alternatives to serve the
GrassinijGrothe parcel or to discontinue
further study in this matter.
The action required will vary depending on
Council discussion.
7
. / , , / . 'I
/V "'..J ~ ~ "",<f. f.'~,,, C-y.) ,.-;
I If S" () 0 ht.u~---~"",- T r-o...'..L {I/. ~.
7~ I~L, 11~~c..- ~->~7~
1h~/O,/991
~.J~d- ~'7v
~~~~cd.
f~ M,~--t;.
FlECEIIJED
hAY 1 3 'J9,
~OF
~
~ ~ ~UJ ~Vl ct ~ ~/Yl~1
~ ~'~ ~ tf-~ ~ ~rvxa~ or
~ p1~ ~ ~~~d (). ~ /,L.~'--
~t ~~~)~l~~ i~
~~4..",- ~~ ~fft1 tA~-t...,
~ otJ '1'u:-v: <.~ ~ ~ f~ j tJ- -th-u_
U ~ ~d.. ~ t:l<.d' ~t. JLo ~ ip~
u--g &~~ HJ1 t:?cnJ- .L4- ~~ ~ '"i L ~t.
~ ~ - t-(~ ~~Y1'~ ~.:L"t.c:U -<<-A
U. ~ )- c/..,c -;u;:f u~ f c' tz...~ ~-y' ~~-rJ- '\. C/U:~
er(; ~ ~ t/vc-t-- ro au- F-If(~60U 71Q~, ~
~ W ./U~ cL~ LL J Iu--<-~ 'rU. U~!r tk.. /'u-t4 L JU-y-
&.c ~ .u..J ~~{ u~ 1: t-u-v ~.
JJvz+ I ) U ~~ to r IYn /u L~rrrJ- ~ ~
IJ-~n ~1"\Vr Ml~~ f() Q lJ-~ ~'V~~.
~ ~'~t- HUI ~c,.
-
'"
~r- f~ a~ ~~~ ~
JJv:-. ~.
, .
-,...... .
,~~,
:r a-o ~ frfa-
i~
~' ,
. .
.' ~ ~"
-\' , ,
-,"''' ..
,,-~ \ -:-..
. .:.. ~ :,,~"
pI
/I~,cfr
5' !.
--
"
II
BOLGER
PUBLICATIONS/:REATIVE PRI~TING
Larry Anderson
City Engineer
Prior Lake C,ity
4629 S E Dakota
Prior Lake MN
THIS LETTER WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS COMPLETED.
RECE\Vf;O
MA't' 1 5 1991
~ etKE
May 14, 1991
Hall
Street
55372
Dear Mr. Anderson,
Currently, there is no purchase agreement existing bet~een the o~ners
of Meado~la~n and any developer. The purchase agreement bet~een the
developer, Lundgren Brothers and the o~ners of the property expired
last month ~ith little prospect of rene~al.
Without plans to develop the property, my mother, Genevieve Griffith
Bolger is opposed to the extension of Carriage Hill Road through the
meado~la~n farm land. She prefers to continue her use of the property
undisturbed by the road.
My understanding is that my great aunt, Fanny Griffith is also opposed
to the extension of the road at this time. With both Genevieve and
Fanny opposed to the road, those ~ho hold a majority interest in the
land are opposed to the road.
It seems to me that the improvement of the Pike Lake road provides the
access needed for the development occuring to the ~est of Meado~la~n.
Please make our opinions kno~n to the mayor and the council. Mother and
I plan on attending the council meeting on May 20th. I am ~riting this
letter as mother is out of to~n this ~eek. My personal thanks to you
for taking the time to discuss this matter ~ith our family.
Charles Bolger ~
Vice President/Treasurer
l.)()l Cmlo An: SE f\1"'EAI'OLlS, MN 55414
6126456.111. 800 999 6311 . FA,)( 6126451750
To the Pr~or Lake C1 ty Councll;
2/4/91
We recently slg~ed a pet1tlo~ to the C:ty of Pr10r Lake
to prepare a feas~blllty study for the extens10n of Carr1age
H1l1s Road.
Although sewer and water have been extended to our property,
very l:r.--,lted vehlcle access to th1S lOO acre parcel is a
maJor deterrent to 1ts develcprient. W1thout the access that
an extended Carnage H1lls Road would provide we see no
poss1bil1ty of development.
We have owned th1S property
looked forward :c :he arnva:
extension of Carr1age Hllls
arr1ved, with the resultant
utll1zatlor: of these serv~ces
access lS available.
We stro~g:y s~pport the preparat10n of the feasibility study
and the ex:enS1C~ of Carrlage H~lls Read a~d ~rge the Council
t 0 use w r. a':. eve r rr, e a ~ S ':. ~. e y r: a: eat the 1 r d:. s p 0 S a 1 to a c h 1 eve
these obJe~t1ves.
for several years and have
of sewer and water and the
Read. Sewer and water have
tax ::urde~. However, the
ca,.~c: occ'..;,r until suitable
/Jlldi
/:/~%rot~e'i{
'-.J
-lit
.../
~?
- -
1 c/
C1~
GraSS1nl
THIS LETTER WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS COMPLETED.
May 15,1991
Mr. Larry J.Anderson, F.E.
Director of public works
City of Prior Lake
Mr. Dave Unmacht
City Manager
City of Prior Lake
Dear sirs:
This letter is in response to my conversation with Larry
Anderson on 5/14 regarding the extension of Carriage Hills
Road.
The extension of Carriage Hills Road is of the utmost
importance to us, in that we are faced with a massive tax
burden on our property in 1992. We have been trying, for 3
years to sell our property to developers to offset this
problem but have had no luck whatsoever. The reason for this,
according to our land broker, Gonya Land, is because of the
severely limited access to the property, and we must correct
this condition.
The obvious access to our property will be an extension of
Carriage Hills Road. We have had many meetings with the city
staff over the years regarding this and the answer always
leads to the orderly extension of Carriage Hills Road over
due time and as state grants allow, with an eventual tie in
with county road #21 to the west as part of the master plan
tieing in with the sewer and water project of 1986.
There was an opportunity to extend Carriage Hills Road in
1990 but this opportunity was missed due to timing and the
unwillingness of the land owners to the east to cooperate. We
are in exactly the same position again in 1991, the attitude
of the land owners to the east is still the same and time is
running out. If Carriage Hills Road is to be extended to
County Road #21 eventually, it seems that the logical next
step is to extend east from County Road #2l if that is the
only available choice at this time, and in due time and as
state grants allow, Carriage Hills Road will, sooner or later
be a thru road, one section at a time.
In the past we have cooperated with the city in every way
asked, relative to granting easements or exchanging land ect.
During this entire process adjoining land owners held back
their co-operation and were rewarded handsomely thru
condemnation or outright purchase at great cost to the city.
In one instance the city bought a parcel of land from us and
never made payment. The explanation was simply that we got
caught in a legal shuffle and lost out. In another, we
granted an easement for a sewer pipe to cross our land ln
order that some lots on Beach street could have sewage flow,
this easement was granted to the city on the lst request and
at no cost, what happened was, we received an assessment for
the pipe and are still paying for it.
We still do not understand these things, but all this aside
we still need access to our property in order to sell the
land, in order to pay the pending special assessments.
Knowing this we would agree to grant to the city at no cost
the necessary land for right of way to extend Carriage Hills
Road. And will consider granting the necessary temporary
easements required by the city for the upgrading of velvet
road for improved access to Beach street upon further
explanation and documentation of exact needs.
We would appreciate it if you would make copies of this
letter and distribute them to the City Council and Mayor.
Thank You,
~L
-Len Gr~rr~
~~
Fred Grothe
PRELIMINARY REPORT AND ESTIMATE OF COST
FOR THE
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 91-11
STORM SEWER, CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER,
BITUMINOUS SURFACING, SIDEWALK, BIKEWAY, LANDSCAPING
AND APPURTENANT WORK
MAY 20, 1991
I. TYPE OF WORK
The general nature of the improvement project is for the
installation of street, storm sewer, sidewalk and appurtenant
work improvements to carriage Hill Road from 500 west of the
Chatonka Beach Trail and Carriage Hill Road intersection to
the Ferndale Avenue and Carriage Hill Road intersection.
II. LOCATION OF THE PROJECT
The project area is ~ocated in the Northerly portion of the
City of Prior Lake 1n the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25,
Township 115 North, Range 22 West, Scott County, Minnesota
and in the Northeast 1/4 and Southeast 1/4 of section 26,
Township 115 North, Range 22 West. Thg street to be improved
ill this area is Carriage Hill Roan.
III.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The improvement will provide an urban collector street
through the presently undeveloped properties known as the
Meadowlawn parcel and the Grassini-Grothe parcel. This
street will be a divided 4-lane roadway with an eighteen foot
median landscaped with trees and having a sidewalk and
bikeway along the roadway with trees placed in the boulevard
areas. The improvement of Carriage Hill Road is in the 1991
capital improvement program.
The extension of Carriage Hill Road will have the following
work items: clearing and grubbing, grading, watermain
crossings, storm sewer, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous
surfacing, concrete sidewalk, bituminous sidewalk,
and restoration work including planting of trees in the
median and boulevard.
IV: LENGTH OF PROJECT
This proposed project consists of approximately 500 lineal
feet watermain crossings, 1800 lineal feet of a divided
4-lane with an eighteen foot median with concrete curb and
gutter and bituminous surfacing, concrete walk, bituminous
walk and tree plantings. Also included in the study is the
gradin9 and placement of a 24 foot wide temporary gravel road
approxlmately 500 lineal feet in length from the intersection
of Carriage Hill Road and Chatonka Beach Trail to the
proposed westerly extension of the proposed permanent
carriage Hill Road improvements. This temporary gravel road
would provide the Beach street residents with a road access
to CSAH 42 instead of the existing gravel Pike Lake Trail.
V. FEASIBILITY
From an engineering standpoint, this project is feasible and
can be accomplished as proposed and not in conjunction with
any other project.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
The following costs were prepared based upon
Estimate and are subject to change depending
design of the project, bids received, and
performed. The method of assessment and
determined at the Assessment Hearing.
The estimated project cost below is for the installation of
grading, watermain, storm sewer, and street improvements for
Carriage Hill Road along with the grading and aggregate base
placement of a temporary road connecting Chatonka Beach Trail
with the proposed westerly extension of Carriage Hill Road
and includes 18% indirect costs if bonding is not required:
an Engineer's
on the final
actual work
rate will be
PROJECT COST..................................... $475,000.00*
* Costs have been estimated without the benefit of soil
borings.
If bonding is required, the estimated project cost includes
25% indirect costs:
PROJECT COST..................................... $503,000.00*
* Costs have been estimated without the benefit of soil
borings.
VII.PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED
The area proposed to be assessed is every lot, piece, and
parcel benefitting from said improvement, whether abutting or
not, within the following described areas:
The northwest 1/4 of section 25, Township 115 North, Range 22
West, Scott County, Minnesota; and the northeast 1/4 and
southeast 1/4 of section 26, Township 115 North, Range 22
west, Scott County, Minnesota.
Specific property descriptions included in the
description area, but not exclusive, are as follows:
above
The unplatted property abutting Ferndale Avenue in
section 25,
The unplatted property abutting Carriage Hill Road and
Pike Lake Trail in section 26,
in the City of Prior Lake, Scott County, Minnesota.
VIII.ESTIMATE ASSESSMENTS
The estimated project cost
previously is:
for
the
improvements
listed
PROJECT COST (18% INDIRECT COSTS) ............ ... .$475,000.00
PROJECT COST (25% INDIRECT COSTS).. .......... ....$503,000.00
carriage Hill Road is on the Municipal State Aid System and is
classified an urban collector. State Aid funds will pay for most
but not all of the proposed work improvement items. The items
not eligible for MSA funds have an estimated project cost as
follows:
NON ELIGIBLE MSA PROJECT COST............... ......$47,400.00*
* Non-participating MSA items include watermain crossings, 50% of
storm sewer, tree plantings, temporary road placement plus
indirect costs associated with these items which are not eligible
for MSA participation.
The assessments to each parcel within the project area are
described in the following alternatives. Three alternatives were
developed on how the project is to be funded. THE REASON BEING
THAT THIS PROJECT IS UNIQUE FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE DUE TO THE
FACT THAT THE CITY IS PLACING A STREET IN AN UNDEVELOPED AREA
PRIOR TO A PLAT. THERE IS ONE PRINCIPLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
AREA UNDER CONSIDERATION AND PREVIOUS PROJECTS. AN EXAMPLE IS
THE SAND POINTE DEVELOPMENT OCCURRED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE
CONSTRUCTION OF CARRIAGE HILL ROAD AND CREST AVENUE. THE AREA
CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT BEING DEVELOPED PRIOR TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE COLLECTOR ROAD.
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
The estimated assessments for this alternative are based upon the
past practice used on installing Crest Avenue and Carriage Hill
Road in 1983 in the Sand pointe develo~ment. In this case, the
developer was responsible for the util1ties, sidewalk on one side
only, grading of the roadway, and dedication of the right of way
at no cost to the city.
The assessable costs based on the previous criteria is as
follows:
ITEM DESCRIPTION
PROJECT COST* COMMENTS
SIDEWALK - ONE SIDE
GRADING
$ 11,650.00
$ 18,500.00
$106,000.00
WORK IS ENTIRELY ON
MEADOWLAWN PARCEL
BOTH PARCELS
BOTH PARCELS
WATERMAIN CROSSINGS
* Cost include 25% indirect project costs.
ASSESSMENTS
NAME OF PARCEL
ASSESSMENT AMOUNT
$105,900.00 - For the cost of
watermain crossings, sidewalk,
and grading of roadway.
1.) MEADOWLAWN PARCEL
2 . )
GRASSINI-GROTHE PARCEL
the cost
grading
of
of
$30,250.00 - For
sidewalk and
roadway.
In this alternative, the right of way would be dedicated to
the City at no cost.
COST SUMMARY - ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
carriage Hill Road improvements include 25% indirect costs
to cover engineering, bonding and administration. If the
vast majority of the costs are eligible for Municipal State
Aid funding where 95% of the funding is available
immediately, the need to bond is eliminated. The normal
percentage of indirect costs for a project of this type is
25% when bonding is required.
Assessable Project Cost...................... $136,150.00
City Project Cost (MSA funds) ................ $328,350.00
City Project Cost (Non-MSA eligible) ......... $ 38,500.00*
Total Project Cost........................... $503,000.00
* The city's portion of the project not eligible for
Municipal state Aid funds will be paid for by a combination
of Funds available from the Trunk Reserve, Construction Fund
and Contingency reserve.
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
The estimated assessments for this alternative are based on the
assessment policy for Public Initiated Improvements and on the
policy of recent years that the City should pay for right of way
when installing public im~rovements. The total right of way cost
for this project was est1mated to be $40,000.00 and was based on
$8,000.00 per acre for permanent right of way and $800.00 per
acre for temporary easements.
with this alternative, a collector street fee could be initiated
by the City to reimburse the City for the cost of a collector
with no direct lot access to the street. The City's assessment
policy states that if a lot has access to the collector street,
then this lot can be assessed the residential equivalent of a
standard City street. No direct lot access was assumed for this
collector street.
In this alternative, the sidewalks would be paid for by the City
similar to past projects such as CSAH 21 and Fish Point Road.
These collector streets had no assessments to the adjacent
property owners as this was deemed to be a community benefit.
The estimated project cost
previously is:
for
the
improvements
listed
PROJECT COST (18% INDIRECT COSTS) ................$475,000.00
PROJECT COST INCLUDING RIGHT OF WAY..............$515,000.00
The assessable costs based on the previous criteria is as
follows:
ITEM DESCRIPTION
WATERMAIN CROSSINGS
PROJECT COST* COMMENTS
$ 11,000.00
WORK IS ENTIRELY ON
MEADOWLAWN PARCEL
* Cost include 18% indirect project costs.
NAME OF PARCEL
ASSESSMENTS
ASSESSMENT AMOUNT
1.) MEADOWLAWN PARCEL
2.) GRASSINI-GROTHE PARCEL
$11,000.00
$ 0,000.00
COST SUMMARY - ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
Carriage Hill Road im~rovement costs included 18% indirect
costs. This is a Munlcipal State Aid Project where 95% of
the funding is available immediately, thereby eliminating the
need to bond. The normal percentage of indirect costs for a
project of this type is 25% when bonding is required.
Assessable Project Cost...................... $ 11,000.00
City Project Cost (MSA funds) ................ $427,600.00
City Project Cost (City funds) ............... $ 76,400.00*
Total Project Cost........................... $515,000.00
* The City's portion of the project
Municipal State Aid funds will be paid for
of Funds available from the Trunk Reserve,
and Contingency reserve. Includes payment
property owners for right of way.
not eligible for
by a combination
Construction Fund
of $40,000.00 to
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
This alternative was developed by City Staff in an attempt to
develop a solution which is amenable to all parties involved.
This project affects two undeveloped properties commonly known as
the Meadowlawn and Grassini-Grothe parcels. DUE TO THE PENDING
DEVELOPMENT FOR THE GRASSINI-GROTHE PARCEL, NO RIGHT-OF-WAY
ACQUISITION COST SHALL BE BORNE BY THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE. In
lieu of providing the Meadowlawn parcel with watermain crossings
no ri9ht of way cost will be incurred by the City of Prior Lake
likewlse.
This alternative would also suggest a collector street fee be
incorporated so that the City has a means to pay for collector
street improvements.
The assessable costs based on the above previous criteria is as
follows:
ITEM DESCRIPTION
PROJECT COST* COMMENTS
WATERMAIN CROSSINGS
$ 11,000.00
WORK IS ENTIRELY ON
MEADOWLAWN PARCEL
* Cost include 18% indirect project costs.
ASSESSMENTS
NAME OF PARCEL
ASSESSMENT AMOUNT
No assessment in lieu
providing the necessary
of way for the project.
2.) GRASSINI-GROTHE PARCEL No Assessment
1.)
MEA DOW LAWN
PARCEL
of
right
In this alternative, the right of way from the
GrassinijGrothe parcel would be dedicated to the City at no
cost.
COST SUMMARY - ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
Carriage Hill Road improvement costs included 18% indirect
costs. This is a Municipal State Aid Project where 95% of
the funding is available immediately, thereby eliminating the
need to bond. The normal percentage of indirect costs for a
project of this type is 25% when bonding is required.
Assessable Project Cost...................... $ 0,000.00
City Project Cost (MSA funds) ................ $427,600.00
City Project Cost (Non-MSA eligible) ......... $ 47,400.00*
Total Project Cost........ .............. ..... $475,000.00
* The City's portion of the
Municipal state Aid funds will be
of Funds available from the Trunk
and Contingency reserve.
project not eligible for
paid for by a combination
Reserve, Construction Fund
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plan, specificati?n~, or report was
prepared by me or under my direct superv1s1on and that I am a
duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the state
of Minnesota:
Larry J. Anderson, P.E.
Date:
May 20, 1991
Reg. No. 010609
I hereby certify that this plan, specifications, or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a
duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the state
of Minnesota:
Bruce Loney, P.E.
Date:
May 20, 1991
Reg. No. 017590
~
- /
'., . ---.)
C.R. 42
...
~
I
I
: ::.:.~I'':.~'~'"'''''' J:
I
i
/
i "rS,T. ~~o.": .T~ . ,
. ..OlIT.. 5..I)IIE 0&1 S I
T I.
/
I
!'
3/'l0 .00" ~
I I ~ '.
Lb' )}--.~ ,-!i!
I,' ,'-' ...i...i.
/ .
~:!JoR' \IoO'R( ~
!!ill ~ . .. I
_ ,I ~/ "",' / ....
~ i ~.-.s' > .~.
< I \ . / ......
i.-/I Ii l
;~lA;
Section of Road
--- to be Abandoned
I
t
-"----.CHAroNKA BEACH T1WL
I
I
!!5
5TH AOO'...~.~
< .
"', III .'
-.. :::..
III
I ,\1, ' G:) ......-
C: 6) ;,q"T!1 ~-;O;:D ,.,."'In~
. . AARIAGE ~\l.l. ROAD \P(o~" .. :uJl.iU^~~~
~ -.....---.......... :l.i'. 8" . ,'. : ".::.-l~
!II I <., ~~I' ..~.
~ ~ ~ , l",V"', .
!II ~ ~SHORE TlV'\l-_~
.. .r I,i
'/// "'Q~lr I ,; " . Jot
.~. .,;--; 1 -~--
-- :--~
:..~~~
~
/
/
..-.....:..-
./
.,
._10". ,_Oft.
\ '
. I;'" '.~,) .... ,\ ..
...c'"
/ ..(.00"
/
t
II ....:~c 'I;" .~\"c'"
'->~
'r.: /
,~~,~~:;~] ~~/
.J,""'.' 01"-"/.- ~
I . ~~~,...... ..-
, , .~
. . '.\.~~ -
: ~ /
, ',~
N
~,
,->v
,
~ '!
/
_ _ _ _ Proposed Permanent Street Section
r~~~" Proposed Temporary Street Section
.,'
pR.OR
,..(
RESOLUTION #91-22
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY STUDY AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #91-11
MOTIONED BY
SECONDED BY
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 91-03 of the city Council, adopted
on February 4, 1991, a report has been prepared by the
City's Engineering Department with reference to the
improvement of Carriage Hill Road from 500 feet west of
the Chatonka Beach Trail and carriage Hill Road
intersection to the Ferndale Avenue and Carriage Hill Road
intersection by the construction of bituminous street
improvements, storm sewer, grading, aggregate base,
concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, bikeway and
appurtenant work, and this report was received by the
Council on May 20, 1991.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR
LAKE, MINNESOTA, that:
1. The Council will consider the improvement of such streets
in accordance with the report and the assessment of
property as described in the report for all or a portion
of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the
improvement of $475,000.00.
2. A Public Hearing shall be held on such proposed
improvement on the 17th day of June in the Council
Chambers of the City Hall at 8:00 (p.m.) and the City
Manager shall give mailed and published notice of such
hearlng and improvement as required by law.
Passed and adopted this
th day of
, 1991.
YES
NO
Andren
Fitzgerald
Larson
Scott
White
Andren
Fitzgerald
Larson
Scott
White
David J. Unmacht
City Manager
City of Prior Lake
{Seal}
4629 Dakota 51. 5L Prior Lake. ;-.linnesota~5372 ; Ph. -<2i 4.-+74230
Fax (612) 4474245
"CELEBRATE PRIOR LAKE'S CENTENNIAL - 1991"
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR & COUNCIL
FROM: RALPH TESCHNER, FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE: COLLECTOR STREET FEE ANALYSIS
DATE: MAY 20 1991
The first phase of the extension of carriage
Hill Road to the west is currently under
consideration. As the major collector within
the North Shore area, a significant investment
will be required to finance the construction
of this road system which will eventually be
completed to County Road 21.
The majority of the funding of carriage Hill
is expected to be from municipal state aid
funds. However, another revenue source will be
required, in addition to MSAS funds, to
provide the trail systems, bikeways, sidewalks
and right of way acquisition which are
integral components of a collector road.
In order to accomplish these improvements it
may be necessary for the City to establish a
collector street fee. Therefore, Staff is
requesting Council review of such a charge as
outlined within this report.
For the most part the City's collector system
of streets on the MSAS system which have been
improved, have allowed both residential and
commercial access. Some examples of these
would be Fish Point Road, Fairlawn Shores
Trail and Duluth Ave. This past policy of
granting full access provided benefit to the
property owners and allowed the City to assess
these improvements. In those cases, municipal
state aid funds were only utilized to pay for
the oversizing cost of the road.
Standards, especially in the area of safety,
have changed with respect to high volume
collector streets. Driveway access is not a
desirable condition and is no longer allowed
or, at the most, approved on a limited basis.
Because this practice precludes immediate
development fronting on collectors, the City
cannot expect to be successful in assessing
only the abutting property. Under this access
proviso the cost/benefit relationship is not
4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 ! Ph, (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245
INTRODUCTION:
BACKGROUND:
An Equal OpponunityiAffirmati[;e Action Employer
DISCUSSION:
supported. Instead, the benefit of individual
access has transcended to an area-wide benefit
with the addition of trail corridors which
funnel pedestrian travel as well as vehicular
traffic of adjacent residential developments
that depend upon these collectors. As such, an
area-wide fee would be considered appropriate.
carriage Hill Road is actually the first such
collector the city may be constructing thru
largely undeveloped tracts of land. There are
other MSAS designated streets on our system
that will be installed in the future. As a
result, Council action concerning a collector
street fee policy will layout the ground
rules for these projects. Whatever is
concluded will be very important in
establishing precedence and developing a fair
and equitable method of cost recovery of our
collector roads.
staff recognized that keeping the cost level
down would be a primary objective not only to
the Council but develo~ers and property owners
alike. Identifying wh1ch costs should be paid
for and what method of cost distribution would
be the most effective were two key concerns of
Staff. A number of criteria and assumptions
were made to resolve these issues.
It was acknowledged that while the collector
street serves the entire community, certain
aspects of construction provide a more local
impact upon a neighborhood and should be borne
by that specific area. All pedestrian related
improvements i.e., bikeways, sidewalks, trail
systems plus excess right of way were
designated as area-wide beneficiaries. While
actual costs associated with construction of
the collector such as engineering, grading,
bituminous and curb and gutter installation
were deemed to be reimbursable from MSA
funds.
The most favorable funding approach would be
to create a two-tier fee. One would be an
acreage fee that would be complemented by a
road charge on the building permit. This would
share the financial responsibility between the
builder and the land owner/developer. In-fill
lots throughout the city would then also
participate.
cities such as Savage and Eagan charge $201.00
and $370.00 respectively for their collector
street fee. Staff arrived at a fee of $150.00
in its cost analysis, in an effort to balance
the acreage fee. Our proposed combined fee, in
effect is less than those of both Savage and
Eagan.
Ideally from a community transportation aspect
east-west and north-south collector roads
would be built every half mile. Based upon
this premise, an engineerin9 model was
developed using cost project1ons from the
carriage Hill feasibility report to determine
an appropriate acreage charge.
The right of way cost, in excess of the normal
50' residential street, which is needed to
accommodate the above referenced trails and
collector street shall be cost-back to the
area charge. On an average this would be an
additional 30' or 37.5% of the 80' right of
way. This aggregate cost for the half mile
section would amount to $32,230 plus $105,480
related to pedestrian ways for a grand total
of $137,710.00 of eligible costs.
The 1/2 by 1/2 mile grid equals 160 acres
which would translate to 128 net acres of land
suitable for development if 20% were consumed
by roadways, park and ponding areas. A typical
subdivision based upon 2.5 units per acre
would equate to 320 lots. These lots would
generate approximately $48,000.00 in revenue
(320 @ $150.00). An acreage charge of $700.00
per acre would be needed to recoup the
balance. This calculation is conservative due
to the fact that in most plats the net acreage
would more realisticaly be closer to 70% than
80%. This was purposely done in an effort to
keep the acreage fee at a lower, more feasible
level.
A computation summary is as follows:
Excess ROW $ 32,230.00
Walkways 105,480.00
Total $137,710.00
Lot fees $ 48,000.00 (320 @ $150)
Acre charge 89,600.00 (128 @ $700)
Total $137,600.00
The lot fees would be paid at time of building
permit application. The acreage fee would be
incorporated into the developers agreement and
paid at time of final plat approval. The
acreage fee would be applied only in the
event of new development. Commercial and
industrial property shall be charged the same
rate. However, the building permit charge
shall be calculated upon RED units as defined
in the City's Assessment Policy.
The fees collected would be dedicated to a
street Collector Fund and used solely for the
purpose of those park trail improvements which
would benefit the City on a community-wide
basis and street related expenditures as
discussed within this agenda report. This
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDATION:
BUDGET IMPACT:
'T
ACTION REQUIRED:
would provide the fiscal resources needed in
future anticipation of the Bridge connection
and its correlating impact upon Prior Lake.
However " overall funding efforts would still
fall short to finance all projects identified
in Prior Lake's CIP over the course of the
next four years. Municipal state aid eligible
project expenses approach nearly $2,320,000
while MSA revenues amount to only $1,550,000.
This disparity becomes larger when factoring
in anticipated expenditures associated with
widening CSAH 42 & 44, the extension of County
Road 21, bridge improvements and upgrading of
Highway 13, all of which are NOT listed in our
current CIP and are presently unknown at this
juncture.
The available alternatives are as follows:
1. Direct Staff to develop a follow-up
resolution establishing a collector fee
structure as outlined.
2. Authorize a resolution to incorporate fee
amounts as determined by the Council.
3. Reject collector street funding or tabling
action for further consideration.
Depending upon Council action, the Assessment
Polic~ would be amended to include a section
pertalning to the subject of collector fees.
Effective date of application could be 7/1/91
and would exclude any platting proposals that
are substantially advanced in the process.
Otherwise, all plats given preliminary plat
approval subsequent to July 1, 1991 shall be
subject to street collector charges.
Currently, the only potential development that
would be exempt under these guidelines would
be the the Mahoney/Giles proposal.
No immediate impact upon the City's operating
budget would result. In effect the City's tax
and bond rating position will be enhanced and
strengthened as special levies for these
collector streets may be avoided.
.If the Council concensus is one of endorsing
such a funding method then a resolution will
be subsequently drafted adopting the schedule
and fee amount as proposed. The timeframe for
cons~deration would likely coincide with the
public hearing on the Carriage Hill Road
extension, if ordered by the Council.
_.
--. \\ . ,..,' ,: l.." l;~
, \' . J~"i~.'
_. . ~._~~~,,\_c~ : .
I ~'.~~.~__ \.__~
~
~
1... 1'lI11WII"1Id R........'Ut ...,.
. '. ...- --.- -c:f--....
'<~~i .
~ --- (-,-~.< -~ --
· '-, \.,,; C,.,). :1
I;>\.\l.: - ~ ;
. . .'~'
~ ..'
I '.
. "','
'~2 MILE - -T---- 1/2 MILE _--~~'/2 MILE
. - . -~ --J-. " _.~- _~. __--
~ . :'I~.~ - --- J . ~
... c......
'- ~.-'
~ ' ~,)
~' , J
COLLE~TOR ---. I
STREET
':x-.--_
-
PIKE LAKE TRAIL
-~
....
,.'
i
CSAH 2'~_.
~
.....
- to'
~ ,:. i i
V. J,
To!
- (;('
....,.,. "r PI
IH
I'!
Ift""'~.. iii III bR ..d Ild
.~
I
~
~
I
~
I
f
L.
-f
-/
-",.,...
~~~..
. i
/
PRIOR
{J
Collector street fee is based on a one-half mile by one-half mile
collector grid street system. Each quarter section (160 acres)
would ideally become responsible for two one-half mile sections
of collectors. The above drawing shows the proposed collector
street sytem in the North Shore area having an approximate
one-half mile grid to serve the area.
FIGURE 1
~{'&~~
HARVEY, THORFINNSON, SCOGGIN,
LUCAS & KALLAS, P.A.
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS
THOMAS M. THORFINNSON ..
WILLIAM L. LUCAS'
MICHAEL T. KALLAS
GERALDINE C. STEEN
HOWARD L. BOLTER
VALORIE E. EDWARDS
KENNETH M. ALWIN
THE MAROUETTE BANK BUILDING
6640 SHADY OAK ROAD. SUITE 400
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
TELEPHONE (612) 941-1040
TELECOPIER (612) 941-8942
HOWARD E. HARVEY
Ross L. THORFINNSON
JAMES R. SCOGGIN. .
LORRAINE TESLOW
LEGAL ASSISTANT
May 17, 1991
Mr. Dave Unmacht
Prior Lake City Manager
4629 SE Dakota street
Prior Lake, MN 5372
~E: Carriage Hill Road Extension, Meadow Lawn parcel
Dear Mr. Unmacht:
I understand that the City Council is considering the extension
of Carriage Hill Road westward from its present terminus across
undeveloped property known as the Meadow Lawn parcel in
accordance with a feasibility study which the City Engineer is
preparing. I have not seen the final study, but understand that
one of the alternatives considered will accomplish the extension
across the property with no assessment against the property
owners. I also understand that one of the joint owners of the
Meadow Lawn parcel, Mrs. Joseph M. Griffith, has expressed
opposition to the proposal.
This property has many joint owners and most of them would
approve of the extension if it can be accomplished without an
assessment against them. Attached are copies of communications I
have received from the following owners and their spouses to that
effect:
Mr. Henry L. Griffith, Jr.
Mrs. Mary Griffith Dean
~r. John M. Griffith
Mr. Leonard E. Griffith
Mrs. Ann Griffith Scoggin
Very truly yours,
HARVEY, THORFINNSON, SCOGGIN,
UCAS & KALLAS, P.A.
l \ 2:t~~~
J mes R. ~oggin .
CC: Henry L. Griffith, Jr., Mary Griffith Dean, John M. Griffith,
Leonard E. Griffith, Ann Griffith Scoggin
\RRE\G0518601.57
. LICENSED ALSO IN WISCONSIN
.. .. LICENSED ALSO IN ILLINOIS
To: The Prior Lake City Council
Re: Carriage Hill Road Extension
As part owners of Meadow Lawn, we would like to have the City go
forward with the extension of Carriage Hill Road across our
property.
J/e-vA1!f ~.~ gv.
7n rvcu-n 0. .~
-.
---
. -
j.....W.. VI' I ,.... "'11'
,__ 110W 1-...,_.....__
'W'.... oJ I . '-'''-
~: ,~. . ~
.. . .
, ~ '
. ~ I IklA-\-{"""'\S'-<\ IS~
. ~ l>-"-14 v-I<.~ 1:'4. r/ 1'-1 / q (
- 0
(i:Q:.-.~~ \\ )~O~~
'D~ ~; .
..' .~~ c:. w.. ~ 1
~ 'i tf /},(p/q I /U., CCv1AI"j""
'.K~. o. '.G-c ~ ~~\-., ~. H".-
....~~..6-~.J. ~~
~ -t 0 ~fUlM- ~'(r"- IW 'KdQ..
€'f-+&u.~. ~ ~
'"'fIA ~ .'. d-~~ ~A-<~ ~
Sv~~
\
,
\
,
\
'.
'.
,
. .
I I hM~'- J 04\L
~~ ~H vJ1
~ 1/9aCf
EMPIREHOUSE. INC.
TEL No.
612 338 0919 May 01,91 13:56 P.02/02
- . .- .~,
TO WHOM: city of Prior Lake Council
DATE: May 1, 1991
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CARRIAGE HILL RD. EXTENSION
We, as joint owners of the property known as Meadow1awn,
would like to go on record FOR the extension of Carriage
Hill Road, at this time.
SIGNATURE:
(~~L'-M ~~ .
;~) .JIib~1n") .&:.~. ~, U4' Sf/'::IG.~
~d;-')S( :g;1;:~" . .::-. -' .,' ,~'..;. :':,/~~ ~~'\:.-;~.:
"._~H~.:.:,. '>-'~7?:?//~' ~ivZ; ~;jc/4'
,i :1./ ", '~ii'~~~f{";3~tit~f,(?:~"~');:~~\"';;~:~2~~~;:
SIGNATURE:
ADDRESS:
-:. ," .;..- ~ ..':. ,-,
. ,.-,:-.' '.~ '., -
ADDRESS:
...'. -'
"
--. -~.
==1 ,--
~'_' 1 I
~Il
",J,,;
;lJoiofl.
~-".
;i'I'!"'t': ~
.......,'"
-~r
::"'-1
-S:~
.tJj~ I
.~.~..j
~:II
y.,
~'
""'...
~"
';:liIl'.
.~
~f
:J!tl:
r.::;~';
,~-,..
'~jr~ ;
....-It.
'dt~:.
:ti;l:
::;i;.
-;;~..'
:::;'{: F'AK MAIL
; 4-29-91 10:57AM;
6025773619~
612 941 8942;t;
1
IU!-k!
-:t:;
. C..,
." .'.;'.'
.:-. =~~
.........:.:..
. .......
--""'11
......=,
I'. !!:;~
I," B::;:'~:
.. _.;.
... iiI.i&.i"
, ~~~
1".,'
;HI ::!:
, :a.ao&o~
!I1'~
"
--
-
...
=~
_rv
i!f~--'
I~~~:
, ......
1- ;::..,;:;:
, ~""'-.."
, :::lti
! 1!lI!!~,::<
. .........
'I" ~7~
~"I'.'"
. ....,.
, ~.
, -
:~ d.~
...-1,
, ,
~::
I. Ei~='~~'
.' .......;
"I~
. ,~j:
, ~ ,
.,. "'" ......
- ~
::m~.~
IJ!!Z
.' '~. '.r
~ ,~
I~
i!:
. illl.l,
1'!.';
'""
~st:
...
-
""'" .,.
~.,.~,~
=:..~
~~
I __..1.
I ~..._
~.. ..!t'~,
" ";,,.~.
ti.. ,-'t
.~=~~~'
......('4~ .'
-......."'
.I-~
, 1iZ.. ~;"l"~':
.._t;Li
. ......-,..
I; .11
~ ::::,
. ...........
. _:,:;Ij/
... .~Ol ..;"
~S:;Z;
....." ~
=;~
I~
~
~-.
~_.."
_.......
I-=:"-~
E'i
"'l!'
..;...
'.~ :-::
;1....1
i2:::~~:"
,.... ....11I,,:...'
..... ........
I-:-;;~
I ......~
'.=E:
11. '''h:.'
. "JJl1
.. ...~
.;;;:r;.;
~"""'''''
.1....../
, ft1'C-....i
( 1Ci~:
la~
!lIE
~;t~
!.6b.......~...
.........,..
-.....
......-
Attention Jim Scoggin
FAX;
612-941..8942
LEONARD EVERETT GRIFFITH
4430 N. V!R~PA ROSAOA
TUCSON, ARIZONA el571e
April 29, 1991
TO: City ot Prior Lake
FROM: Leonard E. Griffith
RE: Carriage Hill Road
To Whom It May Concern:
We, as Mea~owlawn property owners,
request that you consider immediate~ action
to extend Carriage Hill Road across our
...1"-';; i":,..'~
property. . ,---" .. .'
~'~-:~>~~'> :,
you for giving this
-.
--'
\
;.
TO: Prior Lake City Council
RE: Carriage Hill Road Extension
As part owners of Meadow Lawn, we would like to be recorded as in
favor of the proposed extension of Carriage Hill Road across our
property.
Dated May 15, 1991
,
J es R. Scogg'
5505 Oak1awn A
Edina, MN 55424