The URL can be used to link to this page

9. Chanhassen Estates Street, Drainage & Utility Reconstruction Project 93-10; Approve Plans & Specifications and Authorize Advertising for Bidst 7 �I � 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF � CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ACW by W Adegp~ TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer DATE: March 22, 1994 W ilke , ` Node Date Subin, ted to Commissiotl Y Date Sc `fed to Council 3 --a�- 9Y SUBJ: Approve Plans and Specifications for Chanhassen Estates Street, Drainage and Utility Reconstruction Project No. 93 -10; Authorize Advertising for Bids I don't believe enough time has passed for the Mayor, City Council and staff to forget a Council meeting night back in October of 1993 when the very emotional assessment hearing for the Minnewashta Parkway improvement was being held. Coincidentally, at that same Council meeting, a public hearing was also held on the feasibility study for the proposed street, drainage and utility reconstruction project for the Chanhassen Estates subdivisions. During that public hearing, the specific improvement elements, costs, and preliminary assessments associated with the project were presented. Unlike most feasibility hearings, the only general concern that those property owners expressed was to minimize boulevard tree loss associated with the project. Other than that, the Council heard no objections to the roads being reconstructed, the utilities being repaired, or additional storm drainage improvements being made. There was also no objection to the preliminary assessment costs presented. Staff and the project consultant assumed that the extensive communication effort which was made with the property owners early on in the project (see attachments) played an important role on how smoothly things went at that public hearing. What appeared to be welcome send off into the preparation of project plans and specifications for the project now appears to have possibly been an aberration. When the preliminary project plans were ready for public review and comment, two informational neighborhood meetings were held in February. Admittedly so, the extent of boulevard tree loss (30-40 trees) on the project was very much underestimated at the feasibility stage. It was not until a detailed physical survey of the project was completed during the preparation of the plans that a more accurate estimate of boulevard tree loss (100 -115 trees) was determined. Understandably so, this information was of great concern to many of the residents at the neighborhood meeting; however, staff and Council may recall that significant tree loss is not uncommon with street reconstruction projects, i.e. Minnewashta Parkway, Frontier Trail, Lake Lucy Road, etc. This problem is exacerbated on the Chanhassen Estates project due to boulevard trees being planted within`a zone of three to six feet behind the edge of road. The controversy over boulevard tree loss appears to have spread like a virus into other issues with some residents now questioning the proposed road width, type of curbing (barrier curb versus surmountable), assessments, whether or not utility repair work should be completed, whether or not additional storm sewer should be added, to ultimately whether or not the project should even be undertaken. This has left 1 Don Ashworth March 22, 1994 Page 2 the project consultant engineer and myself somewhat confused as we would have expected these types of questions and concerns (other than tree loss) to have been brought out at the feasibility hearing. ' Following the rather "spirited" informational neighborhood meetings, staff directed the project engineer to prepare and send to the property owners a detailed informational packet concerning these issues, as was ' presented at the neighborhood meetings, and a survey to be completed and returned accordingly. Staff and the project engineer felt it was imperative that if design standards and changes to the project were going to be considered from that which was presented at the feasibility public hearing, then all property ' owners needed to be notified and solicited their input. Approximately 71% of the affected property owners returned a completed survey. The results of the survey are also attached. ' In ternis of street width, the majority vote indicated a desire to implement a 28 -foot back -of -curb to back - of -curb road section rather the City's standard 31 foot roadway. Chanhassen Estates 1st Addition currently has a pavement width varying from 26 to 28 feet with no curb and gutter while the 2nd Addition has surmountable curb and gutter at a 28 -foot width from back -of -curb to back -of -curb. It should also be ' noted that a 28 -foot road width may save approximately 15 to 20 of the 115 trees estimated to be lost. Property owners were also solicited their preference as to which side of the street "no parking" should be restricted if the 26 -foot road width was the preferred road width. Since the 28 -foot road width is the ' majority preference, the "no parking" restriction is a moot point. In terns of the type of curbing to be used, there is an overall 50150 split decision. The 1st Addition preferred barrier curb while the 2nd Addition preferred surmountable curbing. The City typically implements barrier curbing on reconstruction projects, i.e. Frontier Trail, Minnewashta Parkway, Bluff Creek Drive, Kerber Boulevard, Lake Lucy Road, etc. Barrier curbing is preferred from both a design ' and maintenance standpoint as it carries storm water more efficiently and it defines the roadway for snow removal equipment which minimizes damage to sod in the boulevards. 1 In terms of tree removal, 45% of the survey respondents agreed with the plan to remove trees at the beginning of the project to facilitate the reconstructive work, while 55% preferred that the tree removal be staged during the project. Without question the majority of boulevard trees will be lost due to their close proximity. The remaining trees would be observed during construction and determined if root damage would require removal. In terms of the tree replacement plan, nearly two -thirds of all the respondents indicated that they agreed with the proposed tree replacement plan on the project. A few of the residents indicated a desire to have a choice of tree species from the planned tree replacement list. A few respondents have questioned the need for replacing the watermain when it is 25+ years old. The response to this question is that the existing watermain is cast iron pipe which was the standard at that time. This type of pipe material is no longer today's standard since it is highly susceptible to breakage in soils that experience active frost action, i.e. Chanhassen. In addition, watermain repair work in the southwest metro communities have found soils to be highly corrosive to the metal pipe. This is why the City's current utility standards specify ductile iron watermain pipe which is wrapped in a poly fabric to resist corrosion. It is important to note that there have been 18 watermain breaks throughout all of the streets in Chanhassen Estates subdivisions over the last 20 years. In fact, there have been three breaks since August of 1993. The City's utility superintendent indicates that this area is one of the three worst waternain breakage areas in the City. Staff is concerned that newly reconstructed streets may be u Don Ashworth March 22, 1994 Page 3 compromised in the future without the watermain replacement. While there is no guarantee that new watermain would never break, the probability is significantly reduced from its present condition. It appears from the survey and letters received that residents in the 1st Addition are nearly in full support of the reconstruction project using 28 -foot wide streets. Residents in the 2nd Addition are somewhat , divided as to whether or not their streets should be rebuilt now. Their streets are five years newer and visually do not appear as bad as those in the 1st Addition; however, the 1991 Pavement Management Study indicates that these streets are in marginal condition and that a bituminous overlay would be , ineffective due to the condition of the existing pavement, settled curbing and poor subgrade soils. The lack of storm sewer along Erie Avenue, Erie Circle and Cheyenne Avenue will continue to exacerbate the deterioration of these roads. In conclusion, the project plans have been designed in accordance with City Standards and accepted ' engineering design principals implementing the elements presented in the feasibility study. If the Council chooses to deviate from the City Standards and implement a 28 -foot road width, the plans will be revised , accordingly. Staff strongly recommends the use of barrier curbing and firmly believes that it is important to replace these highly problematic watermains as a part of reconstructing the streets. Many boulevard trees will have to be removed initially while others can be staged. In all, the majority of the property owners have indicated a desire to see the project move ahead. As such, staff recommends proceeding with the project. jms/ktm ' Attachments 1 1. Letter from Dave Mitchell of OSM dated March 23, 1994. 2. Survey results. 3. Survey. , 4. Letters received from residents. 5. 6. Notice /attendance list from neighborhood meetings OSM correspondence to residents. , 7. Feasibility hearing staff report dated October 5, 1993. 8. 9. Feasibility neighborhood meeting list. Original survey /correspondence (March 23, 1993). , project c: Dave Mitchell, OSM gAeng\charla \cc \chenest ' Orr Sdvkn 30o Park Plate Center March 23, 1994 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 5541E-1228 612 -595 -5775 ' 1.800- 753 -5775 FAX 595 -5774 Mr. Charles Folch P.E Engineers � Archltecis City Engineer Planters City of Chanhassen surveyors P. O. Box 147 690 Coulter Drive ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Survey for Proposed Construction ' Chanhassen Estates Street & Utility Improvements Chanhassen, MN City Project No. 93 -10 OSM Project No. 5108.00 ' Dear Charles: Attached is a compilation of the surveys received as of today from the recent survey of the ' Chanhassen Estates residents. Enclosed is a tabulation of all survey results. Also enclosed are graphic representations of the answers received to each of the questions for the entire Chanhassen Estates area. A summary of the attached information is as follows: Of the 129 properties within the Chanhassen Estates area, 91 properties returned surveys, representing 71% of the property owners. Results from the surveys indicate the following: ' 1. Road Width ' 16% of the surveys preferred the 31 -foot width. 55% of the surveys preferred the 28 -foot width. 29 % of the surveys preferred the 26 -foot width. 2. Curb & Gutter Type The surveys received were split with 50% preferring barrier style curb and gutter and 50% preferring surmountable curb and gutter. ' 3. The side of the street that parking should be limited on in the event that a 26 -foot wide street is constructed indicates 49% prefer the odd side, 38% prefer the even side, and 13% had no opinion or indicated that either side would be fine. 4. When residents were asked if the stro opposed "no p arking" , 40% of the Y S Y PPo P g residents responded, yes, they do strongly oppose "no parking", with 60% of the respondents saying they did not strongly oppose "no parking". H.\C1Vlt.\NM\gNGINEER \no►t\LErr S\*2rA.CF Finy1 Annnr",nity Fmnlnvm MAP 24 '94 10:37 GSM MPLS, MN P... Mr. Charles Folch, P.E. City Engineer City of Chanhassen, MN March 23, 1994 ' Page 2 5. When the residents were asked if all trees should be removed as shown on the plan , and that a new planting plan be implemented, 45% of the residents answered yes, 55% answered no to this alternative. ' 6. Similarly, when individuals were asked if they preferred that tree removal be staged through the construction process, 51% responded yes, 49 responded no. 7. When residents were asked if the existing boulevard tree on or near their lot was in good form and health, 61% responded yes and 39% responded no. , 8. When residents were asked if they preferred that the existing boulevard tree on or near their lot be removed as part of the project, 48 % responded yes and 52% responded no. Also of interest under this item, some residents who felt that their , tree was in good shape and healthy indicated that it was all right with them to remove that tree to implement the street and utility improvement project. ' 9. The final question on the survey asked if individuals agreed with the proposed planting plan for their specific area. 63% of the residents responded yes, 37% of the residents responded no. The individuals responding no indicated on their survey form an alternative tree species that they would prefer being planted in their area. 10. Finally, on each of the surveys, additional comments were solicited. Those comments have been typed and are attached. ' As indicated earlier, 29% of the residents did not return surveys. In the cover letter that accompanied the surveys and packet of information, you will note that it was stated that if ' surveys were not returned, it would be assumed that those individuals agreed with the plan as it has been developed. If we, in fact, impose this stipulation on surveys returned, it will sway the results to indicate that the preferred would be to implement the improvement , project as it was proposed. In summary, that would include the following: A 31 -foot wide street from back -of -curb to back -of -curb. ' B618 or barrier type of curb and gutter. This plan would not require limiting of parking. H:\ CIVI L \Kk \ENGINEM \DDM \LMTERS \M2394.CB I Mr. Charles Folch, P.E. City Engineer City of Chanhassen, MN March 23, 1994 Page 3 1 The plan would implement a staged removal of trees which would involve the removal of trees determined to definitely be lost due to construction and then observing trees during construction to determine the impact on the root systems caused by the construction process. If impact is deemed to be substantial, the tree would then be removed at that time. The tree replacement plan would be done in accordance with the plan presented at the March 7th informational meeting. We would strive to work out acceptable solutions for individuals not in agreement with the proposed planting plan. My intent is to present this information at the Council Meeting on March 28, 1994. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MA'YERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. "vrl/ David D. Mitchell, p.E. Project Manager q x:\CWM\NM\ENGI M\DDW,LUr=kCS2YAZP MAR 23 '94 15:34 OSM MPLS, MN RETURNED SURVEY P.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MAP 23 '94 15:35 OSM MPLS, MN PREFERRED STREET WIDTH P.5 PREFERRED CURB TYPE r j l n L n. rc r 50 0� /0 J/ Surmounfal le .• <•i Barrier •e: >'C i:sr. ? ?%ASc • �' Ai> All Surveys r j l n L t i 1 MAR 23 '94 15 :37 OSM MPLS, MM P.7 SIDE FOR "NO PARKING" (26' Caption Only) STRONGLY OPPOSE "NO PARKING" r r 1 r� J J 1 MAR 23 '94 15:39 OSM MPLS, MN P.9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 REMOVE TREES AS PER PLAN STAGE TREE REMOVAL (DURING PROJECT) r u 7 MAR 33 '94 15:41 OSM MPLS, MN _^ P.11 I IS EXISTING TREE IN GOOD HEALTH AND FORM i MAC' 23 '94 15:42 OSM MPLS, MN P.12 REMOVE EXISTING BLVD TREE y > .r. y 48% i Jy P 52% v Yes No S ^ • s � y T 4 All Surreys MAR 23 '94 15:43 OSM MPLS, MN P.13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AGREE WITH PROPOSED TREE PLAN ra MAP 23 '94 15 :44 OSM MPLS, MN P.14 r Survey for Proposed Construction Chanhassen Estates The following are additional comments received on the returned survey forms. The comments are sorted by 1ST and 2nd Addition. The comments are also sorted by street ' name but addresses were left off for anonymity reasons. 1ST ADDITION 1 Dakota Avenue & Dakota Circle I We definitely support wider street, improved watermains and barrier curbs. We strongly feel each homeowner should choose their own trees form the 5 options. This will ' provide variety and similarity within the neighborhood. Two for one replacements may not be practical for all lots. I strongly oppose a 31' or 26' street. The other issues I can live with, most of them. I feel that the watermain should be replaced at this time. rm disappointed the watermain question is not on the survey. I would = replace the watermain. If the consensus of the neighborhood is to replace the watermain, it should be moved to the other side of the street, and a trench box used from the middle of the street to the edge. I'm not intimidated by your "impacts of a delayed start date ". You could delay the start by a year or just do part this summer. There's no reason except a scare tactic to leave any street uncovered all winter long. ' I think widening the street would just increase the speed of the traffic on a residential street. If you've checked, you'd see that on our section of the street the cars already ' speed through the neighborhood but we were told we couldn't get speed bumps or dips in the road. Keeping the street narrower should reduce the speed for safety of kids and people backing out of driveways. If campers can't get through, they don't belong on a residential street. The materials you sent out were good and very thorough. Thanks for being responsive ' to homeowners' needs. What type of opening in the curb will there be made for the drainage ditch that runs , immediately south of my house? I brought this matter to Charles' attention at one of the meetings I attended! ' Good luck. Hope you can get on with the project. Parking is no problem - few people park on the street. That's good - neighborhood looks less cluttered. By all means, do the water /sewer. Good information package. This project is long past due. As far as watermain replacement is concerned, we have had so many breaks in the past two years that I don't see any alternatives. 1 JA$1"W0 C{V111\Mt$C\SUF1M"}: MAR 23 '94 15:45 OSM MPLS, MN P.15 Let's get the project started and finished before next winter sets in. Let's not let this drag on like Hwy. 5 remodeling. Will paving contractor do repaving of driveways at property owners expense? There are those in our community that do not want the sewer /water pipes replaced. IF this project proceeds, it should be done right or not at all. If the water /sewer pipes are not all replaced, the project should = proceed. We say this even though we re—al-ly want the project to proceed ASAP, but only if it's done right. Thank you for the survey and the accompanying documents. You captured the key issues from the "spirited" meeting this past week. ' set's get on with it. It is obvious we need watermains replaced, new streets, curbs, etc. This neighborhood is starting to look "tacky" because of our streets. Don't let a few who have their own self - serving needs as a priority, to spoil this for all. The project must proceed without delay to assure substantial completion in the fall of 1 1994. You mentioned that heavy, wet clay soils - corrosive in composition have led to the deterioration of the cast iron water breaks. Did no this condition also lead to the failure of RCP storm drains. Consideration should be given to use flexible storm pipe to counteract the shifting soils and corrosive nature of the medium. Prefer continuity with the tree replacement plan except for the Patmore Ash. Use more Red Maple /Swamp White Oak or change to a species of Sugar Maple. Please do whatever is necessary to get this street project started ASAP? WE do need new streets and water lines on Dakota Avenue this summer. Do the job right. Do it in one season. Get started now or wait until '95! n t Thank you for all the information. Your original plan was done by experts. Don't listen to people that don't know anything about civil engineering. We are happy with the choices for our yard. How about moving Tom Kotsonas ' evergreens closer to his house. He has made the entrance to our development very attractive. I don't want to be driving on gravel over the winter - no matter what!! Cheyenne Avenue, Cheyenne Spur & Cheyenne Circle Every "honest" effort must be made to save "every" tree. Why are the various spruce & arborvitae trees not mentioned in the total loss. This is another effort on your part to deceive the residents!! Your proposal is no more than a slash & bum technique. Because we are an older and lower priced Chan. neighborhood, we are treated with disdain. If we were living in more expensive homes your attitude would be much different. Do your job right and help protect instead of destroy! Tree planting: Irregular planting - please get off the Uniform - easy -look alike concept. Why are you bent on making this neighborhood look like a piece of sterile suburbia? Streets: It is important that the streets remain narrow in order to discourage casual drivers from touring the neighborhood at high speeds. Recent construction along Hwy 5 has brought 2 J.\S1NX\C1V[L \UMC\SURVEy"V. 1 LIAR 23 '94 15:46 OSM MPLS, MN P.16 noise, dirt, exhaust, etc. at an increased rate. They have also brought a large increase of cars /drivers who do not live in the neighborhood. Please actually consider what you are doing to this neighborhood and its residents. Yes, I am aware of your attitude and that of City Hall -- "I don't live there, I don't care. Do the cheapest and easiest way possible," Everything in your proposal reflects the cheapest and easiest. The City is tax payers and we are taxpayers. Do you realize - your proposal removes all of the tress protecting me from highway pollution of all types? I live on the corner of Dakota & Cheyenne. Also, from what I have been told, I will (also) lose four to six Qualily spruce and arborvitae trees with no plans for replacement. Thank you for the packet. Thank you for keeping us so well informed. Do the project right and do it ASAP. Do ' not let the vocal minority postpone this badly needed project. Appreciate your patience and expertise. Project must proceed with haste. Narrower street widths would be a plus as would conservation of trees, if possible, without damage. Barrier curbs are a must. Thank you. far Streets are mostly 26 -28 feet wide now. Leave them the width they are. As as curb goes, Mrs. Kraus will go with flow. Mr. Kraus would like to see streets should be 28 ft back to back. As far as parking goes, even with streets the width they are now, you don't drive on the shoulder even with cars not parked. Most people drive about 4 feet from edge anyway at least. With the curb at 1 -1/2 feet wide, you're only taking up 2 -3 ft of road anyway. We have been established for 25 years and have had no problems with parking and won't in future. No parking is bull. Also want watermain relocated so trench will be in road rather than sticking into yard as proposed by an attendee at last meeting. Want to determine where tree placement will go within boulevard and neighbors' trees. Do not increase the size of our cul de sac (Cheyenne Spur). The only benefit that we can see is that the City could use large snow plows. Get a smaller plow like you had years ago when you did a good job on cul de sacs. Please move fast to complete this project before winter. Please also do the streets in the 2nd Addition (Erie) now so that our streets will not be damaged by heavy equipment in a few years when those streets will have to be done. ' We hope you follow the "majority" votes rule, so we can get on with this project. No more surveys and playing around. Do what the majority states. If it is delayed, we'll be (1 very unhappy. ■ We feel very strongly that our street needs to be replaced. We appreciate the informational meetings and the well- developed plan that has been put together. We would like to see the timeline that has been presented to be followed to substantially complete construction in 1994. We would like the watermain construction to be constructed according to plan and do not support the more costly proposal of moving the main to opposite side of the street than it is currently on. ' Would it be possible to make arrangements with the contractor to have our driveway done at the same time as the road construction? 3 J: \nUX \GML \M=\SUSVLyA" Relates to Money Locust the choice for our portion of the street: 1. A seedless eultivar _would be preferred. 2. A cultivar that would n have spined or thorny bark would be desired. We already have a Honeylocust tree in our front yard! Please don't force another one on us! ' 2ND ADDITION Erie Spur & Erie Circle ' I don't think the roads in the 2nd Addition need complete overhaul. I think a good patch job is all that's needed in our area, and I like very much having the mature trees in the area. I would hate to lose them. Regarding No. 4, we agree with removing all boulevard trees, but don't agree with the groupings. Ideally, the property owners could select the tree species of their choice or at least, alternate the tree groupings more frequently. 1 Not interested in having honey locusts in our neighborhood. Strongly prefer 31 -foot roads. I am furnishing my opinion so that I won't be counted as in agreement. But I protest the limited choices and the language in which this was written. I understand street width varies in Chan Estates - why not keep them as they now exist. Wider streets mean faster traffic! The tree on the north side of my property was hit by lightning, not in best of form. If you put in a new street it makes sense to put a new watermain in. Erie Circle is 28' road now, leave it 28' and any others that are 28' the same the rest 26' to save trees. We feel the watermain issue should be re-evaluated. The 2nd Addition has newer mains, so why replace them when they still have a life span of approx. another 24-25 years. Also, why couldn't the watermain be part of the left side of the street along with the storm sewer? Difficult maybe, but not imRossible Dakota Lane I walked through the entire neighborhood and I think I don't understand is alot of the trees with pink ribbons on them are back from the curb 4 to b feet and are due to be taken down because of the reconstruction of the streets. If we keep the streets at current width and to put in the curbs you have to go out 3 feet that should still leave room to save the trees, and I don't think it will damage those trees. I will give up the blue ribbon trees that will come down because of the watermain but please try to save 9 MAP SS '94 15 :45 OSM MPLS, MN P.16 all the ink ribbon trees that will still leave slot of our n character. Please p � save all the trees you can. I think it would be a mistake to do the road work and not replace the water lines and upgrade the drainage system. r petition to the We have requested through a pe City Council that the street on our cul -de- sac (Dakota Lane) just be resurfaced and the watermain untouched. Curbs are in place and street width satisfactory (2nd Addition). We have no problems - why create one? Save the tax payers some money and resurface where you can. People in 2nd Addition are upset over an assessment figure that is I,,lr g ham. We should be re- evaluated as most ' of the problems are in the 1st Addition. Ques. 1: First Add'n only!. 2nd Add'n needs only front of curb to front of curb resurface, not reconstruct. Please do not make construction contingent upon the 2nd ' Add'n acquiescence. Firs Add'n roads need work. No watermain replacement for gntire area. This should be handled on a need basis. ' Street width should be determined by majority of neighbors in each section - existing trees should be saved - standards change but we invested in a neighborhood based upon a previous standard which was acceptable and is preferred. Street parking should reflect ' traffic and safety concerns, il.e. do not park opposite a steep driveway or park on right curb approaching a stop sign. Parking may require clustering mail boxes on opposite curb line for mail delivery. If first addition requires new sewer, then rebuild street, but if it is not necessary to do sewer (2nd Add'n), then resurface and wait on sewer to dictate rebuild. ' Why not have one sided parking on 28 -foot streets. 1) If necessary, no parking with 28'. 5) This is an ideal approach, but not efficient. 6) Only growth on one side, due to adjacent evergreen, otherwise ok. 7) Only because the plan "requires" it. 8) Slight concern about "salt" sensitivity but 15' set -back should reduce impact of road salt used on streets. "Could /will City provide equipment to move other (non -ash) plants (ex. evergreens) back from locations that appear to be too close to new curb /excavation lines? If waiting and observing trees means if one dies we're responsible for removal, then we would vote no on number 5. I believe the residents in the 2nd Addition have different needs than those of the 1st and should not be required to pay for reconstruction where it is not necessary. We feel the watermain does not need to be replaced at this time. Especially in the 2nd Addition. We also do not want to see the roads widened in the 2nd Addition because we just do not have the traffic for it. Our driveway is steep; that needs to be taken into serious consideration - our road is 28" and should stay that way. 5 ,AS1ffiM,CrVTL,M1SC,WRVRY2MX Cheyenne Avenue I don't think a residential area of homes and young children should have parking on both sides of the street - it's dangerous - why do we need a street for heavy trailer traffic or even faster driving!!! please save what beau ty`we have and fix the worst streets in ' Chanhassen. I hope that residents of Chan. Estates can agree on a street width of 28 feet and that this project can get underway by early April and be finished by later fall. Since the streets and c e watermains in the 1st Addition are in much worse condition than the streets and watermains in the 2nd Addition, we prefer that the 1st Addition be totally redone, and that the 2nd Addition streets be resurfaced or I and .na watermains replaced in 2nd Addition. The "information packet" which you pit together and sent out to all of the Chanhassen Estate residents was very helpful and informative. I was sort of disappointed, however, that the survey did not include an option for residents to respond on the issue of "Improving Chan Estates Addition 1 only, and just resurfacing Addition 2 streets ". This is the option I prefer. Thanks for providing the "informational packet" and for your willingness to keep the residents informed on the project developments. We are really against widening the street because of reckless driving (speed). 1 Erie Avenue One boulevard tree is in good health and has good form, the other doesn't have as good of form as the other and has broken in storms before. Health is reasonable. I wish to talk to neighbors first to get their thoughts. Currently, they are on a 6+ week vacation. Odd and even parking if road vote goes 26 feet should depend on the month, working like water restrictions do!! I now understand better the need for tree removal. Do it correctly now so in 20 years people won't have more trees to rip out. It's just a shame though when the area finally starts to look "old and established" that so many trees must come out. But take only what is necessary and those badly damaged in construction and replant all at once instead of some now, some more in 2 or 3 years and maybe a few more even later. I like the narrower street and no parking for the basic reason that it's easier for everyone to get in and out if parking is restricted. Streets don't need to be widened. How many people have RV's? Do a count ?! How about a speed bump at 8005 and 8009 Erie. Too many people start at 8040 Erie too fast and are really clipping along by the time they get to the curve in front of 8009 Erie. There are many children riding bicycles and families ' out walking that are not seen and can't move fast enough for these vehicles. A speed bump or two would slow them down. I do not support replacing the watermains. We feel at this time there are too many unanswered questions and the reconstruction for I the Chanhassen Estates area should be delayed until the spring of 1995. 6 xi51UM\Civu.,MSC\SUR M"x MAR 23 '94 15:49 OSM MPLS, MN P•20 This survey is incomplete and misleading and very late in coming. We should have been , given complete and accurate information long before the plan ever got to this point. It seems you don't really want the opinion of the people who are actually affected by your decisions. I don't feel Erie Ave. needs the total reconstruction you're planning. WE have the street width, curb and gutter and very few watermain problems. The majority of the problems are in the area with no curb & gutter. Your plan is to come and tear the entire neighborhood up, trees, watermain, property, without any regard to our opinions on its need. If it is indeed necessary for improvement in other areas of Chan Estates, the project could be done in stages -- doing Cheyenne & Dakota Ave. (those areas without curb & gutter) in the first phase and the rest later if and when it is necessary. This plan would also address the sere tactics you've used of having the entire neighborhood unfinished because of "our" delays. It's my opinion this entire project should be set back a year and planned in a responsible and professional manner with our input based on com2llete and accurate information. Finally, I do not believe the value of my property will be improved $4,000. Removing 2/3 of our trees will lower property value. And replacing them based on "neighborhood continuity" rather than individual choice is ridiculous! There is absolutely no reason to make the street wider since our streets don't go anywhere. We don't want faster traffic flow - nor do we want all the tree loss your plan proposes. I've also got some landscaping in my front yard that your plan will put too close to the street to look good. I do want the street by my house replaced. I just don't think it needs to be a freeway to accomplish that goal. And stop beating around the bush, just do it. Would prefer just overlaying Erie and not removing any trees or watermain. ' Erie Ave. is 28 ft wide in front of my house. Try to keep it the same. Do not replace watermain. Regardless of the tree loss, the streets need to be fixed along with the watermain. We really don't think Erie Avenue should be done at this time. R i present, he At the meeting where Ms. Laurie Mc ost a was p ese t, s said th ere would be no problem if residents wanted to pick whatever tree they wanted instead of grouping the trees as shown in the sketches we received. Basically, we are paying for the trees, one way or another, so we should have a say and we definitely don't want the honey locust. I don't like the idea of grouping. Give people what they want. Please repair the street as soon as possible, save as many trees as you can and do a good job. We were told we could have a choice of 2 replacement trees for the one that was lost. Everyone I spoke with in the neighborhood remembers tree replacement the same way I have indicated. We do not approve of Ms. McRostie's plan at all. Her plan looks like as each section got finished a different tree was on special pricing. people we spoke with liked the idea of mixing the trees being replaced and not running 5 to 6 lots on both , 7 Y. \510800 \CML \afiSC\SLTEtVEYRMK sides of the street with the same trees on as her plan indicates. We feel as we are paying for the replacements in the total cost factor of our assessment, we surely should have the right to choose which trees we would prefer on our boulevard. Regarding Ques. 5, if some trees are left with the intention of waiting to see what will happen with them and we will have an addition, to our assessment for the removal and replacement of these trees in the future, we are not willing to pay any additional charges. By the way, we did not see any questions in the survey regarding watermaia replacement which we find very strange as this was also a concern of our neighborhood. We don't feel that our watermain needs replacement at all. I would prefer no overnight parking on any street. I also feel the planning should be better so boulevard trees are not over planted too close to roadway. Lack of foresight ■; should not be again repeated. We feel very strongly that our street needs to be replaced. Parking should be moved on the even side, for this is the side that we enter on. The tree on the north is not in good shape - blocks the street light and is too close to the spruce. I would like to see the streets in this area maintained and improved of course. Maybe by being millled out and resurfaced. I don't agree with your all or nothing plan, but I guess we're stuck with it. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my opinion. in MM MM for PMED Crdm . Chorhomn E;totesSireet Recor4truClcn City o Chanh assen City Project No. 93.10 OSM Project No. 5108.00 ry IL Z E U7 J d U O l� u� v s m f�J Poge 1 Relumed Sur+re y Pretend Widlh Preferred Curb No ParkMa Strongly 0000 Remove All Trees Treo Removal St Currently In Good Health R £xi PARCEL NUMBER [ ADDRESS Block lot Yes No 31' 28' 2V Barder r mount able Even Odd I EWher Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Ye Chanhassen Estates 25.1&000111 25.1800020 25.18000.30 25.1800040 8=0MOTAAVE. 80M0MOTAAVE. 8004 DAKOTA AVE. 8006 DAKOTA AVE. 1 1 1 2 3 4 l 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.1200050 8008 DAKOTA AVE. 25,1800060 25.1800070 25.18000@0 8010 DAKOTA AVE. 8012 DAKOTA AVE. 8014 DAKOTA AVE. 1 1 7 8 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.1800090 25.1800100 10045 OLYMPIC BLVD. IAC 8018 DAKOTA AVE. 1 1 1 10 1 1 i 1 1 1 i t 1 1 1 25.E 800110 25.1800120 25.1800130 25.1800140 25.1800150 8020 DAKOTA AVE. 9022 DAKOTA AVE. 8024 DAXOTA AVE. 8026 OAXOTA AVE. 8028 OAXOTA AVE. 1 1 1 1 I 11 12 13 14 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f T 1 T 1 1 1 1 1 25.1800160 25.1800170 80030AXOTAAVE. 8005 DAKOTA AVE. 2 2 1 2 1 1 I I 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 253800180 25L 1800190 2007 DAKOTACIR. 8009 DAKOTA CIR. 2 2 3 4 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 &1800200 8011 DAKOTA CIR. 2 5 1 I 2&1800210 2&i800220 8013DAKOTACIR. 8015DAKOTACIM 2 2 6 7 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 25.1800230 8017 DAKOTA CIR. 2 8 2S 18CO240 8019 DAKOTA AVE. 2 9 1 25. 1800250 8021 DAKOTA AVE. 2 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.1800260 8023 DAKOTA AVE. 2 l! 1 25.1800270 8025 DAKOTA AVE. 2 12 t 25.1800280 8026CFEYENNE AVE. 2 13 1 1 I 1 M 1 i 1 1 1 1 25.1800290 8024 C1Z:YENNE AVE. 2 14 1 25.1800000 8022 CHEYENNE AVE. 2 15 T 25.1800310 802O CHEYENNE AVE. 2 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 2& 1800320 8018 CHEYENNE AVE. 2 17 1 2S 1800300 8016 CHEYENNE AVE. 2 18 2518CO3d0 8014 CHEYENNE AVE. 2 19 26. 1800950 8012 CHEYENNE AVE. 2 20 1 1 25.1800.360 8010CHEYENNEAVE. 2 21 1 1 25.1800370 M CHEYENNE AVS 2 22 _ 1 25.1800380 8001 CHEYENNE TRL. 3 1 25.18004390 SMCHMNNE AVE. 3 2 1_ 25.1ACGtOO M6CKYENNEAVE. 3 3 _ 1 1 1 1 -- 25.1800410 4'007 CHEYENNE AVE. 3 4 1 I 1 1 2& 14'00420 4'009 CHEYENNE AVE. 3 5 25181.130 8011 CHEYENNE AVE. 3 6 Chanhassen Estates 3rd Addition 25.1830010 8013CHEYe:I6\IECIR. 25.1830020 8015 CHEYENNE AVE. 1 2 Poge 1 = = ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ M. ■■ mo m= w ■ ■ ■rii�= = = ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ M. ■■ mo m= w ■ SWfar P1WD C(OW101• M M M M M M M li Choll'OSSen E S10te S Slr ROCOMNUC O City of Ctwnhasw City Project No. 93 -10 OSM Project No. 5108.00 o� [U 0_ Z Cfl J 0_ E Cfl O N u; s v it t2 1= Pogo 2 Returned Strongly i!>tmv* All Tree Removal Curnnly In R Su nre Preferred Width Prefamsd Curb No Patmn sa Trees Ste ped Good Health Exl r PARCEL NUMBER ] ADDRESS Btcck lot Yes No 31' 28' 26' Boater mount able Even Oda EHher Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Y4 Chanhassen Estates conE) I _ 25.180rA40 8011 CHEYENNE SPUR 3 9 1 _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.1800& 8019 CHEYENNE SPUR 3 10 1 1 1 25.1d�160 8021 CHEYENNE SPUR 3 11 1 25.12MA70 8023CHEYENNESPUR 3 12 1 25.1800480 802SCHEYENNE SPUR 3 13 ^ I 1 1 1 1 1 25.1"490 8027CHEYENNEM 3 14 1 1 1 1 1 t 2&180000 8029CHEYENNE AVE. 3 IS 1 1 1 1 251800510 8031 CHEYENNE AVE. 3 16 1 25.1800520 8033CHEYENNEAVE. 3 17 1 25.1800530 803SCHEYENNE AVE. 3 18 T 25.18006x-0 8007 CHEYENNE AVE. 3 14 i Chanhassen Estates 2nd Addlflon ; 25.1820010 8042CHEYENNEAVE. 1 1 1 F 1 1 1 1 1 25.1620020 8044 CHEYENNE AVF- 1 2 1 251820010 8046 CHEYENNE AVE. 1 3 1 1 1 ` I f t 1 1 25F82004fl W390AKOTAM 1 4 1 1 1 T 1 1 25.1820050 8037 DAKOTA LN. 1 5 1 25. }820060 8033 DAKOTA LAI. 1 6 26.1820070 DAKOTA L04. 1 7 1 1 } 1 25,1820M 8038 DAKOTA LN. 1 8 1 1 1 } 25. } 820x90 8W OAKO1A LN. 1 4 1 1 1 1 25.}820100 8045 ERIE AVE. 1 10 1 1 1 1 25.1820110 8043 ERIE AVE. 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 } 1 25.1820120 8041 ER* AVE. 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.1820130 8039 EM AVE. 1 13 1 I 1 1 25.1820140 ISM7 ERIE` AVE. 1 14 1 25.18201 EO 80.15 ERIE AVE. 1 iS 1 _ 1 1 25.182x160 8033 ERIE AVE. 1 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.1820170 8001 ERIE AVE. 1 17 1 25.1820180 8029 ERIE AVE. 1 1 18 1 2518Y0190 897 310 AVE. 1 19 1 T 1 1 I 1 1 25� 1820200 8025 EME AVE. 1 20 1 I 1 1 } 1 1 2&1620210 8023 ME AVE. 1 21 1 1 1 1 1 251820220 8021 ERIE AVE. 1 22 1 251820230 80MRIE AVE. 1 2 - 3 1 25.1820240 8M ERIE AVE. 1 24 i I L 1 ► I_ T __ 1 1 t 1 25.1620250 3820 UNOEN CIR. 2 1 1 251820268 2006 ERIE AVE. 2 2 25.1820270 16180CAMINALDR. 2 3 25.1820280 80 t 2 ERIE AVE. 2 4 1 --J- -- = VAsely Estates - 25.887C010 ERE AVE. -- 25.9870020 8018 ERI£ AV =. 1 2 Pogo 2 ■ W, .. MEN SURVEY for P cCPOSED C IUCTI Chcrrass&n ESrote3 Sheet ReccnstmHon City of Chcehossen Cih/ Project No. 03 -10 OSHA Project No. 5108-CO �f CV a Z I!1 J E 107 O v to u� T hl z P*ge 3 Returned su ev Preferred WkHh Preferred Curb No Porkl1no skawly 000050 Remove All Trees Tree Removal CurmANY IA Good Health I Ex r PARCEL block tot Yes No 31' 23' 26 Barter mount able Even Odd Ellhvr Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Y NUMBER ADDRESS Chanhassen Estates 2nd Addltlon conQ 2x1820300 ERIE AVE. 2 ga 251820310 ER 'tAVE. 2 7 1 25. f 820320 DEL MAR 2 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 25.18c0330 8028 ERIE AVE. 2 9 1 1 25.1820340 8030 ERIE AVE. 2 i0 25.1820050 8032 ERIE AVE. 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 25.1620360 8034 ERIE AVE. 2 12 1 1 1 t i 1 i 1 t 25.18200170 80.96£RIEAVE. 2 13 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 25.1820 8038 Ef11E AVE. 080 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.1820090 8040 E41E AVE. 3 2 1 1 1 25.1820400 8042 ERIE AVE 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.1820410 8044 ER.£ AVE. 3 4 1 r l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2x1820620 9046 ERIE SPUR 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 251820430 8048 ME SPUR 3 6 25.1820440 8060 ERIE SPUR 3 7 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.1820460 8062 ERIE SPUR 3 8 1 1 25.182D460 8054 ERIE SPUR 3 9 1 1 1 1 1 25.1820470 8056 ERIE AVE. 3 10 1 1 ( 25.1820480 8102O AKOTALM. 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 251820490 81040A.KOTAIN. 3 12 1 1 25.1820.500 81060AXOTALN. 3 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.1820510 81C8DAXOTALN. 3 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.1820520 8110 DAKOTA LN. 3 15 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 I 2�a 1820530 8049 CHEYENNE AVE. 4 1 1 ( 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 25.I820540 8PA CHEYENNE AVE. 4 2 1 1 8043 CHEYE 251820550 NNE AVE. 4 3 1 ` 25..18'10.560 8045 CHEYENNE AVE. 4 4 1 l 225.1820570 25.1820570 &X7 0 CHEYENNE AVE. 4 5 1 1 1 2&1S - ,MO 8049 CHEYENNE AVE. 4 6 1 1 i 1 i F it 25.182055 8051 CHE YENNE AVE. 4 101 25.1820600 8 DAKOTAL 4 8 1 1 25.1820610 8103OAXOiA N. 4 9 1 t 25.1820620 814513MOTAI.N. 4 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.1620630 8107 DAKOTALN. 4 1 t 1 1 1 25.182C640 81C9DAKOTAAVE. 4 12 1 25.1820650 at 11 E71E CIR 4 13 _1 25.1920660 8113 ERIE C [2- 4 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.1820670 9115 ERiCI CO. 4 15 1 25.1820680 8117 ME CIR. 5 25.1820540 8118 EM E CIR. 5 2 251820700 8116 ERE OR. 5 3 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.ISe0710 8114EIZECIR. 5 4 1 1 t 1 1 t 1 1 1 25.1820720 18112 DAKOTA UM 5 TOTAL 5 I 91 38 1 14 ! I 1 49 i 26 1 45 45 26 34 9 34 50 40 49 43 42 51 35 Z I!1 J E 107 O v to u� T hl z P*ge 3 W = m Orr SSchelen Mayeron & O AI S V � March 11,1994 Associates, Inc. 300 Park Place Center 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Chanhassen Estates Area Residents M inneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 612 - 595 -5775 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1- 800- 753 -5775 FAX 595 -5774 Engineers , Re: Proposed Construction Survey Planners Architects Chanhassen Estates Area Street and Utility Improvements Surveyors City Project No. 93 -10 ' OSM Project No. 5108.00 Dear Resident: We have had two rather spirited informational meetings over the last 5 weeks. At the last meeting on March 7, 1994 it was suggested that a formal survey of the property owners /residents of the ' Chanhassen Estates area be done to help in the decision of some of the more major issues surrounding this project. The major issues identified from the two recent informational meetings include the following: ' Road Width Curb and Gutter Type Parking vs. No Parking Tree Removal Tree Replacement Plan Watermain Replacement ' Construction Techniques Construction Staging Construction Schedule Enclosed is an information packet discussing each of the above items in more detail. Also enclosed is a one page survey asking specific questions regarding some of the issues. We ask that you review the information in detail and then answer the survey and return it to us by March 21, 1994 in the enclosed stamped envelope. Please, take the time to submit the survey. Any "no response" will be assumed to agree with the plan as it has been developed. Please note that plans and specifications and results of the survey are scheduled to be presented to the City Council on March 28, 1994 for acceptance. If you have any questions regarding the information provided on the survey please call me at 595- 5699. Tree replacement questions can be directed to Ms. Laurie McRostie at 595 -5646. Thank you for taking the time to review the information and providing valued input to this project. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. David D. Mitchell, P.E. Project Manager GFIT i' -- L� c: Charles Folch - City Engineer Don Ashworth - City Manager Mayor & Council H:\S1 MZ\CrV1L\LETfEFtS\120l93JtES Equal Opportunity Employer 1 F] I SURVEY for PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION As a property owner /resident in the project area affected by the reconstruction of streets and utilities in the Chanhassen Estates area, we ask that you please review the information provided and indicate your opinion on the following issues. ' 1. It is my /our opinion that the City of Chanhassen should reconstruct the streets in the Chanhassen P h' Estates area to a back -of -curb to back -of -curb width of (please circle one). 31' Ci of Chanhassen Standard Residential Street) 31' ( City S ) 28' 26' (Requires "No Parking" on one side) I 2. It is my /our opinion that the City of Chanhassen should reconstruct the streets within the Chanhassen Estates area using curb and gutter of this type (please circle one). Barrier type (Currently proposed) Surmountable type (Currently exists in 2nd Addition) ' 3. If a 26' wide street is selected, it will be necessary to limit parking on one side of the street; It is my /our opinion that the City of Chanhassen should limit parking on the (please circle one); Even Odd side of the street. I/we strongly appose "No Parking" on one side of the street. YES NO I 4. Do you prefer to remove all the boulevard trees shown in the plan and plant new trees in the groupings proposed in the tree replacement plan? YES NO I Additional Comments: 11 5. Do you prefer to remove some of the boulevard trees that will be damaged by construction and wait to observe the remaining trees in the field and implement the tree replacement plan without continuity? YES NO 6. Is the ash tree on your boulevard in good health and in good form? YES NO, 7. Would you like to have the Ash tree in your boulevard area removed? YES NO, r segment 8. Do you agree to the tree species shown on the replacement plan for your of boulevard? YES NO, If not - Which tree species would you prefer? ' Signed: Address: I Additional Comments: 11 ROAD WIDTH r Existing: I The existing streets in the area of Chanhassen Estates 1st and 3rd Additions are currently 26' to 28' wide with no curb and gutter. The existing streets in the areas of , Chanhassen 2nd Addition and Wisely Estates are currently 28' measured from back -of- curb to back -of -curb. Proposed: The proposed width for the reconstruction of the streets in the Chanhassen Estates area is 31' measured from back -of -curb to back -of -curb. (City of Chanhassen Residential ' Street Standard) Options: , Options that have been proposed by residents at recent informational meetings include 26' and 28', both of which would be measured from back -of -curb to back -of -curb. The following is a list of attributes typically associated with each of the street widths discussed. Please review each list carefully and answer the associated survey questions. STREET WIDTH COMPARISONS ' 31' Width 28' Width 26' Width City Standard Not city standard Not city standard , Provides more driver Provides more driver Provides least driver reaction zone than other reaction zone than 26', reaction zone of the three options but less than 31' options , Maximum tree loss Significant tree loss Minimizes tree loss (120+/-) (100+/-) (70+/-) Provides parking on both Provides parking on both Provides parking on one sides sides side onlX "NO ' PARKING" signs on one 14' +/- through traffic 11' +/- through traffic side width with parked cars width with parked cars 17' +/- through traffic Greatest permanent Minimal or no permanent width with parked car impact on existing impact on existing No permanent impact on boulevard width, typically boulevard width existing boulevard width, 1.5' - 2.5' on either side increased boulevard width , in some areas Please note the attached sections relating to emergency vehicle traffic. The sections depict both summer and winter conditions. 1 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER Existing: The existing streets in the areas of Chanhassen 2nd Addition and Wisely Estates currently have a surmountable or drive -over type curb and gutter. Proposed: The proposed curb and gutter is a barrier type curb and gutter. See the attached detail. Options: Options that have been proposed by residents at recent informational meetings requested retaining the surmountable or drive -over type of curb and gutter similar to what exists in Chanhassen 2nd Addition and Wisely Estates. ' The following is a list of attributes typically associated with each of the curb and gutter types discussed. Please review each list carefully and answer the associated survey questions. Barrier ]Npe Safer of 2 options, keeps traffic on the street and out of yards Surmountable LMe Does not keep traffic on the street and out of yards Carries storm water more efficiently Defines limits of parking more effectively Not bicycle friendly Defines road for snow plowing Defines driveway entrance May slightly reduce driver speeds depending on final width and parking Does not carry storm water as efficiently as barrier type More user friendly for children and bicycles Does not define road for snow plowing Doesn't define driveway as effectively as barrier type May have slightly higher speeds than barrier type depending on final width and parking Please note the attached standard detail plate for the two alternatives. 2 F1 PARKING Existing: Parking is currently allowed on both sides of the street. Parking is restricted by City Ordinance between November 1 and April 1 each year. The restriction is city -wide and restricts parking on city streets between the hours of 1:00 A.M. and 7:00 A.M. In the event that more than 2" of snow accumulates during the day, parking is restricted until I the street is plowed curb to curb. Proposed: ' The proposed plan with a street width of 31' from back -of -curb to back -of -curb will facilitate parking on both sides of the street. The 31' width provides sufficient width to facilitate emergency vehicle traffic between parked cars on a year -round basis. Parking ' restrictions would still be imposed as the ordinance dictates. Options: ' Options that have been proposed by residents at recent informational meetings include 28' and 26', both of which would be measured from back -of -curb to back -of -curb. If a 28' wide street is constructed parking would be allowed on both sides of the street ' ,p g subject to the City Ordinance discussed above. A 28' wide street would present a safety ' issue with regard to conveyance of emergency vehicles through the neighborhood. In the event that cars were legally parked on both sides of the street, the clear space between vehicles could be reduced to 10' + / -. This is wide enough for traffic to get through but it is not sufficient to safely facilitate emergency vehicle traffic between parked cars on a year -round basis. In the event that a 26' wide street is selected, it would be necessary to limit parking on , one side of the street to allow for unrestricted flow of emergency vehicles. If this width is selected, "NO PARKING " signs would be required. These signs are typically placed 2' -3' behind the curb and gutter and spaced at intervals of 200' -300', 1 every 2-4 lots. This scenario would require a consensus by residents as to the side of the street that parking would be allowed. Parking would also be limited by City Ordinance as outlined above. Please note the attached typical sections representing parking as it relates to emergency I vehicle traffic. The sections represent both summer and winter conditions. ii u I K ' The condition of the Green Ash is poor, however, they do provide a certain character to the neighborhood, which is important. Street trees that are the same species, look similar and are spaced evenly along the boulevard, creating unity. There is an overall visual perception that the neighborhood is one special place. Construction Impacts CHANHASSEN ESTATES TREES Condition of Existing Trees ' then the tree dies. In addition, soil compaction occurs from equipment working in the ' The existing boulevard trees in Chanhassen Estates are: - Green Ash ' - Approximately 25 years old ' - Planted 3 ft. - 6 ft. from the existing pavement edge These trees are generally in poor condition. Trees have been pruned so that they have ' few branches on the street side. As a result, many trees are one - sided, making the trees ' very weak and susceptible to damage from storms and winds. Many trees have already sustained damage and have big splits down the center of the trunk. In addition, a majority of the trees have very low crotches or V's. This is a very weak characteristic in trees; they should have straight trunks to be strong. ' The condition of the Green Ash is poor, however, they do provide a certain character to the neighborhood, which is important. Street trees that are the same species, look similar and are spaced evenly along the boulevard, creating unity. There is an overall visual perception that the neighborhood is one special place. II Construction Impacts Construction severely impacts trees. Cutting roots during excavation will damage and weaken a tree so that it will not live. This damage for may not show up two years and then the tree dies. In addition, soil compaction occurs from equipment working in the ' area near the tree. This cuts off the oxygen the tree needs to live and it will die. The existing Green Ash are so close to the road and the construction area required for ' the new road and utilities that either cutting roots or soil compaction will damage them. Experience shows that trees typically do not live under these circumstances. It may be more appropriate to take them down now and avoid future damage to property and ' increased costs. II J Tree Loss I Trees will be lost due to construction. Two ways are proposed to deal with this circumstance. I 1. Trees which are certain to be lost will be taken down at the beginning of construction. Remaining boulevard trees will be observed and impacts to ' them will be determined in the field during construction. If damage to the tree is extensive it will be removed at that time. The tree replacement plan will take remaining trees into account. Street tree continuity will be , sacrificed with this option. 2. Remove all the Green Ash boulevard trees at the beginning of the road ' and utility construction. The tree replacement plan can then be implemented in its entirety. Continuity and neighborhood character can be ' established most effectively with this option. Tree loss is shown on the attached exhibit. I The New Street Tree Plan 1 It is very important to *the City and to the residents of Chanhassen Estates that the neighborhood character be restored once construction of the road and utilities is ' complete. Therefore, the City proposes to plant new trees in the following manner: - Plant 2 new trees for every 1 tree lost - Plant them 8 ft. back from the new curb (avoid future impacts) ' - Plant five varieties of trees in continuous large groupings - Plant trees that are 2 1/2" to 3" caliper (12 -15 ft. tall) , - Small trees grow more rapidly than larger trees and are more able to adapt to new soil conditions - Plant trees every 50 ft +/- to establish a regular pattern ' - Integrate the new planting with existing trees and landscaping - The street tree plan must be flexible. Planting the street trees as proposed will provide the neighborhood character that is , desired. It is important in establishing this character to keep similar trees together. It will take approximately 10 - 12 years for the new trees to reach a height similar to the existing Ash. The tree replacement plan is attached for your review. , t Tree Replacement Species Five trees have been selected for the street tree replacement plan. These trees have been selected for their ability to grow along the road and in the heavy, wet, clay soils in the area. The five tree types are listed below and descriptions are provided for your information. Red Maple Honeylocust Hackberry Patmore Ash Swamp White Oak 1 1 1 1 These trees have been placed on the tree replacement plan in groups. The groups relate to each other in how the trees look and how they associate in nature. It is important that the trees be planted in groupings to establish continuity and a visual unity along your neighborhood road. Neighborhood Survey This packet includes a survey that will help the City determine your needs and the direction that construction and restoration will take. You will be asked which street tree removal and replacement plan you prefer (See Tree Loss- Items 1 & 2). In addition, you will be asked to select a street tree variety from the above list. Responses will be considered in light of the proposed tree groupings. So, please give your fullest consideration to the street tree proposed for the segment of street where you live. The grouping will be changed only if a majority of residents select the same tree species. 6 1 WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT I Existing: The existing watermain serving the Chanhassen Estates area was constructed at the time of ' development using 6" and 8" Cast Iron Pipe. At the time of construction, Cast Iron Pipe was the preferred material for watermain. ' At the time of construction the nature of the soils and their affect on this material was unknown. What has been determined over the past 25 -30 years is that the soils found in the southwest areas of the metropolitan area, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Shorewood, and , Chanhassen, are primarily heavy, wet clays that have a slight corrosive nature to them. This corrosive factor has weakened the watermain in the Chanhassen Estates area. This, along with the brittle nature of Cast Iron Pipe and the natural tendency of clay soils to move, has caused the existing watermain to fail numerous times. The City water department has been keeping records on watermain breaks since the early 1970's. What the records show is that the Chanhassen Estates area has experienced approximately 17 watermain breaks over the past 20 +/- years with over 75% of this occurring , in the last 10 -12 years. These breaks have been distributed fairly equally over all streets in the subdivision. This is a very large number of breaks in comparison to the rest of Chanhassen's watermain system. ' Proposed: The proposed construction includes the construction of a new watermain throughout the entire Chanhassen Estates area. The new watermain will be constructed using Ductile Iron Pipe wrapped in a polyethylene encasement. The Ductile Iron Pipe is designed to be less brittle than Cast Iron Pipe. It will absorb more of the natural soil movements associated with clay ' soils. The purpose of the polyethylene encasement is to provide an effective and economical way to protect the pipe from the corrosive nature of the soil. As part of the watermain replacement, services and hydrants will be replaced. Options: Some residents have questioned the need to replace the watermain. Others have questioned ' the placement of the watermain in a location that will have less impact on existing trees. The replacement of the watermain is needed. It is true that we would not be proposing to replace the watermain if we were not doing a street reconstruction project, but this is the opportune time to replace the watermain. Although we cannot guarantee that the new watermain will not break, we can be assured that over time we will not have near the number of breaks currently experienced with the existing watermain. The replacement of watermain in a location that has less impact on trees may be possible. ' The determining factor will be the selected street width. A 31' wide street will not likely warrant further consideration to redesign the watermain. A 28' wide street may warrant some further consideration to redesign the watermain. A 26' wide street will certainly require further consideration to redesign the watermain. It should be noted that redesigning of the watermain would delay the start of the project and possible 1994 substantial completion. I CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES Legally we are not able to define the `specific techniques a contractor will use to construct a given project. We can set parameters which he must observe. Examples of these parameters include construction limits and elements to protect within the construction limits. These parameters must be set within reason to accomplish the construction in an acceptable manner to both the engineer and the contractor. Items that cannot be compromised include safety of ' residents and workers, materials used, and quality of the finished product (ie. street and utilities). ' Keeping the above in mind, the limits set forth to the contractor cannot include the protection of all trees on the project. With the excavation required to install the watermain and - construct a sound street, some trees will be lost. Other trees will have their root systems severely damaged and should be removed. ' To provide a stable base on which to put the street and curb and gutter, the excavation must be oversized to provide the necessary lateral, side -to -side stability to prevent the curb and gutter from tipping and to prevent the street from slipping. The typical section designed for the Chanhassen Estates area requires a 3: subcut. The over - sizing required for this deep of a subcut is, at a minimum, 3' at the surface and it would be desired that this be closer to 6'. The intent would be to narrow the over - sizing to 3' behind the curb near trees designated as ' requiring a second look during construction. Watermain construction will require similar considerations. At a minimum, a contractor requires 12' -14' just to maneuver the backhoe being used. A minimum trench width _at the top of the trench is in that same 12' -14' range with the desired width being closer to 18' -20'. These parameters are primarily for the safety of the workers in the trench. The contractor may choose to use a trench box for portions of the project. Trench boxes are 6' wide and require additional over - sizing so that the box can be pulled along the trench. The trench would likely be 10' -12' at the surface in this situation. As discussed above, we cannot specify that the contractor use a box during construction. Again, the intent would be to narrow the over - sizing near trees designated as requiring a second look during construction. Please note the attached sections which show minimum impacts due to trenching and subcut activities. The existing trees are shown at 4.5' behind the proposed curb and gutter. This is the average distance from the proposed curb and gutter of the trees scheduled for removal under the 31' alternative. Impacts resulting from narrower street widths would be less by half the difference in total width. Watermain impacts may change if it is determined feasible to place the watermain in a different location. 1 a 1 CONSTRUC ?ION STAGING The intent is to stage the project in such a manner that not all streets will be having construction activities on them at the same time. The purpose is to minimize the distance , from homes to stable roads during bad weather conditions. This distance will be limited to 600' -800' or a total of 1200' of roadway open. ' The contractor will be required to provide access to all properties during construction. This may not always be possible during certain construction activities but should be restored prior to the contractor leaving the site each day. Residents should be aware that during periods of rain the soils in the area make it very difficult or impossible to provide access. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE The proposed schedule is shown below. This schedule is based on a bid opening date in April of 1994. If the bid opening is delayed due to the redesign of significant elements of the plan, the schedule will require adjustment accordingly. Plans and Specifications Accepted & Ad for Bid Authorized April 11, 1994 or before Bid Opening May, 1994 ' Council Awards Contract for Construction May 9 1994 Begin Construction May, 1994 , Substantial Completion of Construction October 31, 1994 Pond Excavation and Wetland Construction January, 1995 Complete Construction July, 1995 ' Substantial completion will be defined as Curb & Gutter and the first of two lifts of I bituminous surfacing. Impacts of Delayed Start Date: If the start of construction is delayed, it may become very difficult to complete the first lift bituminous paving prior to freeze. This would require that residents drive on gravel roads through the winter and spring of 1995. This situation could be undesirable for many reasons including inefficient snow plowing, poor drainage, mud, driveways not completed, and additional construction costs. r 9 � 31 ALTERNATIVE 7' MIN 3' -10" 8' 3' -10" 7' M IN 7' MIN _,_2' -4'; SUMMER 8' 2' -4 ",_ 7' MIN x ------- - - - r%-- WINTER SNOW BANK -- il ---------- Drown By: Date: Comm. No. Orr Drawing Title Figure no. Schelen CWK 03/10/94 5108.00 05 Asao Lea Inc. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN ESTATES Engineers ■ Architects a Planners a Surveyors 000 Park Plate Center ■ 6776 tapHs Boulevard Minnapollr,YN 66116 -IM a 112- 616.6776 PARKED CAR 7' MIN PARKED CAR 7' MIN PARKED CAR ■� ;�_: BANK \ Ililll!. III�III�II'II!'I',ill il''Ilf!II�Vlllil iiiiii ll WINTER W 7' MIN PARKED CAR 28' ALTERNATIVE 2' -4" 8' 2' -4" SUMMER 7' MIN _,10; 8' Drawn 8y: Date: Comm. No. Orr Drawing Title Figure no. Schellen Mayeron & CITY OF CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN ESTATES CwK 03/10/94 5108.00 Asaociatee,lnc. Engineers a Architects ■ Planners a Surveyors 000 Park Place Garr a SM Wayzata Boulevard Yla a. IN • ele- mm = M M= mm = m r m= == r am 26' ALTERNATIVE 7' MIN 4' -10" 8' 4' -10" PARKED CAR REYIM SUMMER 7' MIN 3' -4" 8' PARKED CAR ------- - - - rx.-- Drown By: Dole. Comm. No. Orr Schelen Mayeron & CMK 03/10/94 5108.00 CAMS'& Associates, Inc. Engineers a Architects ■ Planners a Surveyors 300 Pork Place Center a 5M Voyseto Boulevard YloneoNlls.YN 65416 -1228 0 812 - 546.6 773 WINTER 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 3' -4" SNOW BANK - JI ---------- Drawing Title I Figure no. CHANHASSEN ESTATES r r r r 1 /2•r V 3•r. • 13 3/4 FT a• , 1e• / X1/2• i I r 17 1/2• I ,0 1/2' 8• 2•r. M.H.D. B618 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER Wear course to be W above edge of gutter. 3•r. 1 � rr O p• r 3/4• PER FT 3•\2; 131/2• SLOPE 3/4•� 12• - A 20- Rr:vlsa<D z-o, 2 -93 CITY OF CHANHASSN DATE 5-89 SURMOUNTABLE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER NOTE: FOR USE ONLY WITH PRIIMTE DRIVEWAYS, PARKING LOTS OR MEDIANS. ALLOWABLE CURB SECTIONS PLATE N0. 5203 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXISTING TREE 4'-4..5'FROM PROPOSED BACK OF CURB NEW BOULEVARD STREET TREE; PLANT A VARIETY 31' BACK TO BACK SUB CUT I EXISTING SANITARY-----,,_ SEWER O 1-1 MINIMUM TRENCH STANDARD TRENCH TRENCH BOX L PROPOSED WATERMAIN - EXISTING WATERMAIN PROPOSED WATERMAIN TRENCHING HC FR MMTNQ TREK 4-4.WF" PROPOSED RACK OP CUM I le MW BOUL"ARD STFAMT TARE PLAUT11D W-V CUM NWO.Cl "Dun sw FROM Itow. NEW DOULIMAND 911=1 TFKXPLAKT A VARIETY STBACK TO BACK NEW CUM Exurr m & GUTTIR ROAD PROPOSED no" 7 7 1 t an mr- PROPOSED ROAD 1ST ADDITION 0*01" TREE 4 A FIROM PROPOSED BACK OF CM NEW sou"im STMW TRH PLAKM lr4r=, . CUR/ WO.C. .4 MW P�AJ I A W TFAML mw CUM STBACK TO BACK QVrMlR MUSTSIS ROAD m"m I "A" HOUSE sw FROM X.O.W. "Mm ow FKm R.O.W. "MISS SO' FROM R.O.W. PROPOSED ROAD Wit CHANNAMEN 2ND ADDITION Red Maple �X�� y 1: 125 5 10 Acer rubrum FORM: ovoid to globular, young trees often conical to elliptic O Size: large canopy 22.5 to 3o m (75 to 10o ft) Spread: wide -15 to 22.5 m (50 to 75 ft), commonly 3/4 the height Mass: moderate q BRANCHING: strong ascending, less regular than Sugar and Black Maples, medium texture Q�� Taw(, slender, smooth becoming flaky, green-red becoming bright red in winter Bud: flower buds clustered, blunt rounded, bright red, 5 mm (1/5 in) long Bark: smooth breaking into scaly plates exfoliating at ends; silvery gray with occasional orangish patches FOLIAGE: opposite, simple, usually palmately 3 lobed, v- shaped sinuses, medium fine to medium texture Surface: upper dull, lower light silvery gray Color: spring - red green; summer - light green; autumn - varies, usually crimson red Season: deciduous; emergence - mid to late April, drop - late September FLOWER: small local clusters, 5 to 10 mm (115 t0215 in) long, short spider -like filaments x Color: both male and female bright red , Season: late March or early April, several weeks before the leaves Sex: monoecious or dioecious FRUIT: paired samaras, keys 19 to 32 mm (3/4 to 1 1/4 in) long, in heavy terminal clusters Color. usually bright red maturing to red brown, rarely yellowish Season: late April to mid June, appearing with new leases Wildlife Value: very high; songbirds, waterbirds, small mammals, hoofed browsers HABITAT: formation - forest: region - northern, central; gradients - lowland vet, wet mesic, and upland dry; north - cool lowwet areas, high humidity, also steep rocky land; central - mesic ravines; south - floodplain 4OF Shade Tolerance: tolerant; index range 6.0 -7.9 Flood Tolerance: tolerant SOIL; Texture: coarse sands and sandy loams to fine silty clays and clays, common on poorly aerated soils Drainage: very poor to well Moisture: demands wel to average Reaction: prefers acid, pH 4.5 -6.5 HARDINESS: zone 3a Q Rate: medium to fast-5.5 to 7.5 m (18 to 25 ft) in 10 year period �O Longevity: medium- seldom living longer than 150 years SUSCEPTIBILITY; Physiological: frequent -manganese chlorosis in calcareous soils Disease: frequent- rot causing fungi, canker injuries, Verticillium wilt Insect: frequent - leaf hoppers, many borers and scale Wind -Ice: frequent -weak wooded URBAN TOLERANCE; Pollution: resistant - O,, HCl, Cl; intermediate • SO, - I L Lighting: sensitive Drought -Heat: intermediate Mine Spoils: intermediate �T Salt: sensitive Soil Compaction: resistant Root Pattern: very shallow, %vidcspreading fibrous; easily transplanted in early spring B&B or BR if small SPECIES; Associate: north - Gray Birch, Paper Birch, Black Spruce, Balsam Fir, Quaking Aspen, Black Ash; central - Black _) and Sugar Maple, fellow Buckeye, American Beech; south - River Birch, Baldcypress, American Svveetgum Similar: Silver staple exhibits more massive irregular form, yellow green autumn coloration Cultivars: 'Columnare' - narrow upright form, 'Armstrong' • fastigiate, 'October Glory ' •retains leaves late , �l A -�- -- Common Hackberry W�-- MM�WA �� 10 - 6 173 Celtis occidentalis y FORM: globular o Size: large canopy- 22.5 to 30 m (75 to 100 f1) Spread: very wide-22.5 10 30 m (75 to 100 ft), as wide as tall Mass: moderate BRANCHING: long dear trunk, abruptly upright limbs becoming arching, high umbrella crown, medium texture Twig zig zag, green brow Bud: inconspicuous, egg shaped, light brown Bark: blocky, young trees with short narrow knobby cork -like ridges; light gray FOLIAGE: alternate, simple, ovate, oblong ovate to ovate - lanceolate, long tapered tip, uneven base, medium fine texture /) Surface: dull and rough, young leaves densely woolly j/ Color: spring -light green; summer - light blue green; autumn -pale lemon yellow Season: deciduous; emergence - late April, drop - early November FLOWER: small clusters, individual 3 mm (1/8 in) across Color: yellowish green with brown tint l I Season: late April through early May, with the leaves Sex: monoecious FRUIT: singular thin fleshy berry, 8 mm (1/3 in) diameter, on slender 19 mm (3/4 in) stem Color•. purple brown I Season: Seplembrr- October, persisting on tree most of winter through February Wildlife Value: very high; man, songbirds, small mammals HABITAT: formation - forest, savanna; reg - central; gradient - lowland wet -mesic and upland mesic dry; drainage basins, mature floodplains, also wooded slopes or on high rocky limestone bluffs bordering streams, windbreak Shade Tolerance: intermediale; index range 4.0 -5.9 Flood Tolerance: intermediate - sites with permanent high water table harmful SOIL; Texture: moderately coarse sandy loams, silty clays to moderately fine sandy loams Drainage: well to moderately poor. Moisture: from %vet to dry Reaction: neutral lu alkaline, pH 6.6 -8.0, common on limestone soils and rock outcrops HARDINESS: zone 3a Rate: medium to fast - 56 to 76 cm (22 to 30 in) annually, 6 to 9 m (20 to 30 ft) in 20 year period Longevity: medium to long- mature at 100 years, commonly surviving 200 years SUSCEPTIBILITY; Physiological: infrequent , Disease: frequent - %vetches' broom, powdery mildew, leaf spots Insect: frequent - hackberry nipple gall, morning cloak butterfly, scales Wind -Ice: Infrequent ' URBAN TOLERANCE; Pollution: Lil;hting: Drought - Heat: resistant Mine spoils: resistant � Salt: resistant Soil Compaction: intermediate Root Pattern: deep coarse widespreading laterals; easily transplanted B &B or BR in spring or fall with care SPECIES; Associate: Sugarberry, American Elm, White Ash, Green Ash, Silver Maple, Red Mulberry, Black Walnut, I Common Hone ?•locust, Eastern Wahoo, American Planetree, lim0hurn species Similar: American Elm, Japanese Zclkova (Asiatic) exhibits finer texture, Sugarberry is more southern Cultivars: 'Prairie Prince' -resistant to witches' broom, uniform shape r J .:' %�' 'i• ' !'- fT'r+.....- +- •;1�;•r•.•lr%• �:• •: �;r: .cam <I.:'• "'. jrQ S r . Swamp White Oak f. I 293 is 10 Quercus bicolor ,� �-;-�� -•-- :.-�:. ,; •yam- ,:• ic.�ricacas*� FORM: ovoid Size: large canopy - 22.5 to 30 m (75 to 100 ft) O Spread: wide -15 to 22.5 m (50 to 75 ft), 2/3 that of height Mass: moderate BRANCHING: short Irunk, lower limbs descending, upper crown ascending, nuYlium Iexture O V. Twi moderately stout, pale raised lenticels, red brown buds, light chestnut brown O�� Bud: clustered blunt globular end trees shedding in ragged papery flakes, adult deeply furrowed; dark gray -brown Bark: young FOLIAGE: alternate, simple, obovate - oblong obovate, shallow lobed to wavy margin, medium coarse texture Surface: dull, leathery appearance, pale grayish green beneath and tomentose dark autumn - golden yellow brown Color: spring • purplish green; summer - green; Season: deciduous; emergence - early May, drop - early November FLOWER: male in pendulous catkins, S to 7.5 cm (2 to 3 in) long f Color: yellow green Season: early through mid May, with or soon after leaf emergence ?' Sex:- monoecious FRUIT: acorn, 19 to 38 mm (3/4 to 1 1/2 in) long, cap enclosing 1/3 to 112 length, long stem, usually in pairs Color: tan brown Season: September through early October Wildlife Value: very high; man, eater birds, upland ground P,irds, songbirds, small mammals, hoofed brO��KMS HABITAT: formation - forest; region - central; gradient - lowland wet and wet- n,esic; second bottoms, alluvial flats, border of small streams, lake margin Shade Tolerance: intermediate; index range 4.0 -5.9 Flood Tolerance: tolerant SOIL; Texture: medium to fine; stiff hard pan clay, silty clay, fine sandy clays, fine sandy foams A Drainage: moderately poor to very poor Moisture: demands wel to moist Reaction: neutral, hli 6.0.6.5 w oo HARDI'N'ESS: zone 4a Rate: medium to fast - one of faster growing oaks, 46 to 60 cm (1 1/2 to 2 ft) per year, slowing with maturity mature in 125 to 175 years Longevity: medium. generally SUSCEPTIBILITY; Physiological: frequent -severe iron chlorosis, requires acid soils Disease: infrequent - oak wilt, Ant hracnose, canker, Phomopsis canker, Coniothvrium dieback Insect: infrequent 1Nind -Ice: infrequent .-1. URBAN TOLERANCE; Pollution: Lighting: Drought -Heat: resistant Mine Spoils: resistant ?"**. 7 Salt: resistant Soil Compaction: resistant Root Pattern: shallow fibrous; transplant readily B &B in early spring or We autumn Silver Maple, Tuliptree, American Swectgum, River Birch, Pecan, SPECIES; Associate: Black Ash, Red Maple, Boxelder, American Planetree, Green Ash, Shingle Oak, Bur Oak, Pin Oak Oak comparable cultural requirements, shape and branching form (7 Similar: Pin exhibits Cultivars: none available commercially �. ,� �-;-�� -•-- :.-�:. ,; •yam- ,:• ic.�ricacas*� 11rM.w.l1M L.J llnA\ /I!1!`/ ■C 141,- 1 *,- 111 1 Gleditsia triacanthos . FORM: irregular- globular O Size: small canopy -15 to 22.5 m (5010 75 (t) Spread: ++•ide - 15 to 22.5 m (50 to 75 ft), as wide as tall Mass: open BRANCHING: horizontal, picturesque, irregular, coarse texture y. T%%'g: zig zag, swollen at the nodes, red brown; armed with 3 branched thorns, trunks with massive clusters Bud: small, mostly hidden Bark: shallow furrowed, wide long flat irregular plate -like ridges curling along vertical margin; brown black FOLIAGE: alternate, pinnately or bipinnately compound, 26 -32 leaflets, elliptic -oval, entire, very fine texture Surface: dull e� VO Color: spring - light green; summer - bright yellow green; autumn -pale yellow Season: deciduous; emergence -late May, drop -late September FLOWER: small slender pyramidal spike -like clusters tip to 10 cm (4 in) in length Color: yellow green Season: early through mid June Sex: dioccious FRUIT: legume, 30 cm (12 in) Ions, twisting flat bean -like pod, pendant Color: purplish brown Season: late July persisting until mid winter, through January Wildlife Value: % low HABITAT: formation - forest, sivanna; region - central; gradient - lowland wet - mesic and upland mesic - dry; alluvia lands, rocky hillsides, open or %vooded pastures, fence rot -.•s, abandoned fields (especially in midwest), windb t: Shade Tolerance: intolerant; index range 2.0 -3.9 Flood Tolerance: intermediate SOIL; Texture: prefers fine clay, heavy loams, fine sandy and silty clay; tolerant of moderately coarse sandy loam Drainage: moderately poor to well ,Moisture: wet to porous droughty granular soils Reaction: slightly acid to neutral, pH 6.1 - 7.5 HARDINESS: zone 4b LO Rate: fast - 61 to 76 cm (2 to 212 ft a year) over a 20 year period Longevity: medium- mature around 100 to 125 years, rarely survives 200 years SUSCEPTIBILITY, Physiological: infrequent Disease: infrequent - occasional canker, witches broom, leaf spot Insect: frequent - honeylocust borer, Mimosa +webworm is most serious in the midwest Wind -Ice: infrequent URBAN TOLERANCE; Pollution: sensitive - Lighting: Drought - Heat: resistant Mine Spoils: resistant Salt: resistant Soil Comhiction: resistant Root Pattern: variable taproot, deep laterals to shallow fibrous spreading; easily transplanted B &B in spring, autul SPECIES; Associate: American Sweet um, American Elm, Green Ash, Red Maple, Silver Maple, Boxelder, Pecan, Kentu Coffeetree, Black Walnut, Pin and Swamp While Oaks, Common Hackberry { j Similar: Kentucky Coffeetree is less regular, coarser; Black Locust is narrower, less tolerant of flooding Cultivars: 'Moraine' - seedless, 'Shademaster' -ascending habit, 'Skyline' -pyramidal, 'Sunburst' - yellow foliage 'Patmo'.re.'Ash A:1 10 1 3 ')n7 r Fraxinus pennsylvanica lanceolate ` Patmore ` FORM: irregular -ovoid O Size: small canopy -15 to 22.5 m (50 to 75 ft) Spread: intermediate -10 to 15 m (35 to 50 ft), 2/3 of height Mass: moderate J a BRANCHING: recurving, very coarse texture Ali Twig: Loge leaf scars with conspicuous lenticels, mostly shiny, rigid, smooth yellowish brown OV Bud: naked, triangular, chocolate brown end buds Bark: shallow furrowed, close narrow ridges cross - checking into diamond -like pattern; silvery to ashy gray FOLIAGE: opposite, pinnalely compound, 7.9 short - stalked leaflets, lanceolate- oblong lanceolate, medium texture Surface: glossy upper, pale smooth lower Color. spring - light green, summer - dark green; autumn - golden yellow to orangish Season: deciduous; emergence -early May, drop - early October URBAN TOLERANCE, Pollution: sen.itivc - SO O,; intermediate - HFI; resistant - 2,4 -D - Lighting: resistant Drought - Heat: resistant - most tolerant ash Salt: inlermediale Soil Compaction: resistant Mine Spoils: resistant Root Pattern: shallow fibrous pattern; transplants readily BR or B&B in spring or autumn with care SPECIES; Associate: Bur Oak, Silver Maple, American Elm, Common Hackberry, Eastern Poplar, Pin Oak, American �� ' S.ve:eigum, Pe(:an, American Planctree, Black Willow, Eastern Wahoo, Eastern Redbud, hawthorn species 'J Similar: Black Ash, White Ash is less tolerant of flooding not as drought tolerant, Boxcider Cultivars: 'Honeyshade' - glossy green leaves, selected corm; Marshall's Seedless; 'Summit' - pyramidal form t I ; , It. y j r S 2 a, FLOWER: compact many (lowered clusters :! ^ Color: deep purple .j1. Season: late April through early May, before the leaves Sex: dioccious FRUIT: winged singular samara, 2.5 cm (1 in) long, borne in dense drooping clusters Color: tan brown Season: early August persisting through winter months to late February Wildlife Valuc': low; songbirds, small mammals HABITAT: formation - forest, savanna; region - northern, central; gradient - lowland wet -mesic and upland mesic -dr , alon streams and lakes, floodplain, midtwest windbreak and farmstead plantings Shade Tolerance: intolerant; index range 2.0 -3.9 Flood Tolerance: tolerant SOIL; Texture: coarse to medium _. Drainage: moderately poor to well Moisture: wet to porous droughly _. Reaction: slightly acid to neulral, pH 6.1 - 7.5 HARDINESS: zone 2 /tp Rate: fast - 76 cm (21/2 ft) a year is average, commonly 91 cm (36 in) and more in some years Longevity: medium -100 to 1S0 years SUSCEPTIBILITY; Physiological: infrequent Disease: infrequent - heartwood rot, leafspots, many cankers Insect: frequent -ash borer, oysiershell scale, brown headed ash sal. dly, lilac Ieaf minor, lilac borer Wind -Ice: frequent -brittle twigs commonly broken URBAN TOLERANCE, Pollution: sen.itivc - SO O,; intermediate - HFI; resistant - 2,4 -D - Lighting: resistant Drought - Heat: resistant - most tolerant ash Salt: inlermediale Soil Compaction: resistant Mine Spoils: resistant Root Pattern: shallow fibrous pattern; transplants readily BR or B&B in spring or autumn with care SPECIES; Associate: Bur Oak, Silver Maple, American Elm, Common Hackberry, Eastern Poplar, Pin Oak, American �� ' S.ve:eigum, Pe(:an, American Planctree, Black Willow, Eastern Wahoo, Eastern Redbud, hawthorn species 'J Similar: Black Ash, White Ash is less tolerant of flooding not as drought tolerant, Boxcider Cultivars: 'Honeyshade' - glossy green leaves, selected corm; Marshall's Seedless; 'Summit' - pyramidal form t I ; , It. y j r S 2 a, CHANHASSEN ESTATES ERIE E.Ri A YE UE .7 N IL b F4 A • / . , & I �K A BACK ILL- AVENUE I SOIL � 7 3 BALLED III GUALAPPED STOCK all SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM Of MOLE. My 2. PROCEED WITH CORRECTIVE PRUNING AS DIRECTED T OY E 4EER. 3. SET PLAN ON UNDISTURBED NATIV SDI, OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED OAMILL SOIL AT THE SAME DEPTH (IF PROPER) AS 94 THE NURSERY. 1- ♦. PLANT SHALL G &L R O O E W PLACED IN PLANTING ,, l 0 HOLE I" "LAP AND WRE BASKET, ad 4A IF USED. IN ACT. CHCE W PLACE. -c THE RANT SMALL BE BACKFILLED TO 1. 9 WITHIN 12"OF THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL AND WATERED. T BURLAP SHALL BE H. FOLD OR CUT'DACK, Nor PLUMB AND BAZKF;LL wilm THE CENTER THEE TR-.K•A BACKFA.L SOIL SPECIFIED. 6'•6'FROM BACK OF CURB 6. APPLY W ATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS IrEN CONSTRUCT EIACKF IL L 3" DEP TH IN WAFERING MITI. SOIL 7. WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS. MLCH w a PI MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE "ALI I. 4j x IS EXCESSIVE, 43 9 BIODEGRADABLE TWINE MAY BE LEFT ON AS SUPPORT FETWEEN THE ROOT BALL AND ROOF COLLAR UN r' - THE END 0 CLEAR AND GRUB OF THE PLANT ESTA9USmmE"T PERIOD AT WHICH TIME IT MUST BE CUT AND TOTALLY REMOVED FROM THE ROOT COLLAR USE OFLNONM"GRADABLC TYPICAL TREE PLANTING LOCATION TWINE jtWL NOT BE PERMITTED. P reliminary GENERAL NOTES BRANCH DARK JUDGE TREE LOSS Elf I. THE PLANTING DErAkS qEpoEsfmr ADEOUArELY DRAINED SOIL C THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD EXERCISE DISCRETION AN SErTWG PLANTS 8 IN POORLY CRALNEO SOXS. IC3 0, TREES LIKELY LOST AT MY .101. 7. ON 21 S OPES 00 GREATER vo NOT comsrfiucr THE UPHILL HALF OF FARE WAFERING BASIN J z ' Z . DEAD BRANCH LIVING BRANCH ON WEr. CRAAWO SORS.00 NOT CONSTRUCT WAFERING BASIN 1.0 '" 1. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ADFOLMI FE DRAINAGE IN HEAVY POORL C ADDITIONAL TREES LIKELY LOST AT WIDTHS DRA1110 OR AWERWOUT SONS WIDER THAN 26' PLANTS SHOULD BE SET AT THE PROPER DEPTH WHEREBY THE SEGhNNING TAPER OF THE ROOD C FLARE A - A DEPTH 15 AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE FINISHED SOIL GRACE. THIS SHOLILD BE THE $Abg $469 0 ADOITIONAL TREES LIKELY LOST AT WIDTHS AS THE PLANTS WERE GROWN Ar &N FNE Atesfar BUT VOTE THAT THE RoorS 0 OF SAILED ARIQLAPPEO PLANTS ARE pREOUEmyty FOURD To BE &4WACCEprASRr VEEP jw r#C BALL x di WIDER THAN 26 WHEN THEY ARE COVERED 8 V AORE THAN 4 - OF SOU, MY THE FDA MANG" COLLAR i It BRANCH COLLAR ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED Witt BE MA"EO AV THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER iL REMAINING FREES WILL BE P*OrECrEO Or THE CONTRAC IF T CUT PA THE CONTRA C FOR WALL Of RESPONSAIL v FOR REPAIRING ANY DAMAGE OR RESTORING THE T : J FORM OF ALL REA"0•006 TREES OR &INUIRS ADJACENT TO REMOVALS THE Fatmw Wrwoo IS Orr *.WJM I- I— NOTES CErAR A LEAVE BRANCH COLLAR ED T C .0 00 NOT FLUSH CUT NEW FREES SHALL BE PLANTED #Q`GC *�Caf POSSIBLE 00 NOT CUT ALONG LINE C-X) 00 NOT LEAVE SWISS TO ARALCH NEW TREES WIN I' OF WOOD CHIP MACH, IM PRUNING DETAIL ISHIGO 61ET14001 6 34 F j/ • I/i i /ii rinl%/. j I � •� /� /u�.vuau/ / w\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\[\\\\ a,•.•::.•.•.v: �•::..�a.x-t..cimtolr. r:�c•: ••. • �� •� • 1. �� t ``�� \, ,,,;;� � �\\\ \ \ \\_l�V\\\\1\\uV aYCil•: b' u:{ i:. V:. tC•:.• .•.•.•..•.•::.•.•!.•Si� ?•�'.'Y. i [• A j a �'t'LS: ciq',��'i u. ui��iJ as`. :.�:i.: \•:.:a...r..�r'a��'. �i� %� .ti{ 1' ►7 4• Iiii /l. %r /i / /��i % / / / / / % /i /l dV I .��: `�,�� /i�•Y! /ill / / /_�•C III / /Ilt� 1 �''` \tip P.•. ;...: j, I q • I mr BRANCH SARK ROCS TREE REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE ��f DEAD IRAHLII B LINaO HANOI . C // C � A A D � D BRANCH COLLAR l K KRNCL COLLAR FIRST CUT PART WAY THROUGH • a • ® THE BRAHOI AT A THEN CUT R AT B. MAKE THE FRAL CUT NOTES A T, C •D: -,-- ' ` I LEAVE BRANCH COLLAR � , DO NOT Cull ALDIO L� rl C•D D HOT LCAK STAB PRUNING DETAIL ISHIGO METHOD) TREE REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE KEY PLANT NAME OUANTITY SIZE CONDITION ® RED MAPLE. ACER RUGRW 56 2' a a a ® NACKB[MT. CELTIS OCCIUKTALIS S2 T'•j • a • ® FORM OF At Ar""'WRO TREES OR S/ANAS ADJACENT TO REMOVALS RE PRWANG AETROO IS S[ I h a a• T__..- e . ..... ....... y'� _ . r!F..+.w AML. — ► . - ar . -- } .» ..a........ ` M YIILOI/ AEW lRff! IN►N B: OK L1AW LIIRCYL -4i' KAC U S auEACS ucaa� ►ATLORE ASH. 2a 2 q • a • ©' FRASINUS FcwsvLYANIcA LAK(OLATA 'PATMOR[' ® .Locust. TSIA .. 2 • -- T& a 0.[OI IRIKANTNOS •LAC% "ILLS SPRUC[. IL PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA • "1 1. THE PIANTAVG DETAILS REPRESENT AccouAr DR AINE D C S THE CONTRACTOR C� 004 SN ExE GmE Pooft pSCRENDY w SEI7PIG PLANTS T'•A w POMLY pTAwED SOBS w 21 S 09 7. OV TI SLOPES OR GREATER, DO NO7 CONSTRUCT THE OPIgt HALF OF TIE WA7ERwG BASIAI 1 ON WET. Wt PGOY ORAINID SOIL4D0 NO7 CONSTRUCT wATEHHAA. BASH u • A THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPOAISKE FOR PROVIDING AOEODAIE DRAINAGE IN HEAVY POORLY DRAINED OR "'E"WOUS SOILS A. v . : R ONi< G S PLANTS SNOIILD SE SET AT THE PROPER DEPTH WMEREBY THE BEGINNING TAPER OF YNE ROOT FLARE IS A7 THE SANE ftEVAlAOW AS THE FMWSIED SOX GRADE. TANS S.MD BE THE SALE ' DEPTH A$ THE RANTS WERE GROWN AT AV FRE MISERY WT NOTE THAT 7/E ROOTS OF BALLED BO$ARIED PLANTS ARE FRIOLENTLY FOIIND TO Bf LWACCEPYAKY DEEPW FIRE BALL i Ft Y d dBBB WHEN THEY ARE COVERED BY NDRE THAN 4'00 SOIL AT TIE TOR t ALL TREES TO SE REMOVED WILL BE MARKED RT TIE P1110 BY THE ENGINFER r REAaA1NWO FRIES WILL W PROTECTED SY THE CONTRACTOR B THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE AESPLWSAKE FOR REPA/MW ANY DAMAGE pT RfSTORWG THE FORM OF At Ar""'WRO TREES OR S/ANAS ADJACENT TO REMOVALS RE PRWANG AETROO IS AS A NEW FREES SHALL Bf ALANTEO ID•OC WHERE POSSKE. . t .... .. • . . D� T__..- e . ..... ....... y'� _ . r!F..+.w AML. — ► . - ar . -- } .» ..a........ ` M YIILOI/ AEW lRff! IN►N B: OK L1AW LIIRCYL -4i' _}-. 4 - � March 14, 1994 CITY OF CHANHASSEN d Q�S�tsuv�5 � Chanhassen City Council NdR 1 993 ' Chanhassen , Mn 55317 ENGINEERING DEPT. Subject: Chanhassen Estates Street Repair Project 1 p J We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned about the condition of the streets in the Chanhassen Estates development where we reside, and wish to express our support for the project. In recognition of the state of the condition of both the street and the water main system, we support the following: 1. Replace the streets, including surface and sub -base using current accepted design criteria. 2. Replace the water main system (totally) and sanitary sewer system (where needed) at the same time. 3. Recognizing the value of mature trees, do what is feasible to save trees, but do not substitute inferior design criteria to eliminate tree loss. 4. We encourage the city to adopt a plan with a street width of 28 or 29 feet from edge to edge (including curb and gutter), but not so narrow was to require one - side -only parking. Widening the street to 31 feet violates the sight lines and vistas which were intended to be created at the time of the original design. Reducing the green space between the road and the houses will tend create a "tenement" appearance. Bear in mind, this is a fully developed neighborhood with No- chance for further developments ever using our streets. 5. We further urge the city to move forward with this project as quickly as possible to improve the chances the project can be completed in 1994. 6. We generally prefer the barrier curb, but are so anxious to see this project begun, we will accept either. 4 Respectfully submitted, .C( G� /J kf Y, 9 345'3gg Chanhassen Estates Street Repair Project, Continued r V (::A 4 L , . 1 !V( ada/ l ,�'�u W bAe �3'v -'X30 1 y34-6Yz4 0 13 "/- 4 S.2 � • 1 43 ( $U13 U (u. 93y =3G7�f CITY O CHANHASgkl MAR 2 31994 ENGINEERING DEPT. fl G f CITY OE GHANHASSE March 14, 1994 l � PW,ir'�IT. o . 10RR N. J 1 994 Chanhassen City Council Chanhassen, Mn 55317 ENGINEERING DEPT, Subject: Chanhassen Estates Street Repair Project We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned about the condition of the streets in. the Chanhassen Estates development where we reside, and wish to express our support for the project. In recognition of the state of the condition of both the street and the water main system, we support the following: 1. Replace the streets, including surface and sub -base using current accepted design criteria. 2. Replace the water main system (totally) and sanitary sewer system (where needed) at the same time. 3. Recognizing the value of mature trees, do what is feasible to save trees, but do not substitute inferior design criteria to eliminate tree loss. 4. We encourage the city to adopt a plan with a street width of 28 or 29 feet from edge to edge (including curb and gutter), but not so narrow was to require one - side -only parking. Widening the street to 31 feet violates the sight lines and vistas which were intended to be created at the time of the original design. Reducing the green space between the road and the houses will tend create a "tenement" appearance. Bear in mind, this is a fully developed neighborhood with NQ - chance for further developments ever using our streets. 5. We further urge the city to move forward with this project as quickly as possible to improve the chances the project can be completed in 1994. 6. We generally prefer the barrier curb, but are so anxious to see this project begun, we will accept either. Respectfully submitted, la 0� p JYl 80 'we sldae) � tZ Ba�G Z''' go o l �Le___) 'e rz --P(� ?J41 31011 g3zl-,301/ q,�4 '7S ?a g3ZI4333' 9gy -y .3 3 e I Chanhassen Estates Street Repair Project, Continued Name Address Phone No ,&dim 1 ?V -1 z 9� _ 4 1 3 7 - t sow 13 b6 Fo a s _ kcye (k(k a Gf ur gai G' Cl 2 CITY Or CHANHASSEN no m% � P m m MAR 2 0 1994 ENGINEERING DEPT. -3 93 � Lgg �� 1 d LJ' i March 14, 1994 1 of Gmwssf p ETIMI I MP Chanhassen City Council IVIIAR 0X904 Chanhassen, Mn 55317 Subject: Chanhassen Estates Street Repair Project ENGtGEfrRON DEPT, We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned about the condition of the streets in the Chanhassen Estates development where we reside, and wish to express our support for the project. In recognition of the state of the condition of both the street and the water main system, we support the following: 1. Replace the streets, including surface and sub -base using current accepted design criteria. 2. Replace the water main system (totally) and sanitary sewer system (where needed) at the same time. 3. Recognizing the value of mature trees, do what is feasible to save trees, but do not substitute inferior design criteria to eliminate tree loss. 4. We encourage the city to adopt a plan with a street width of 28 or 29 feet from edge to edge (including curb and gutter), but not so narrow was to require one - side -only parking. Widening the street to 31 feet violates the sight lines and vistas which were intended to be created at the time of the original design. Reducing the green space between the road and the houses will tend create a "tenement" appearance. Bear in mind, this is a fully developed neighborhood with NO- chance for further developments ever using our streets. 5. We further urge the city to move forward with this project as quickly as possible to improve the chances the project can be completed in 1994. 6. We generally prefer the barrier curb, but are so anxious to see this project begun, we will accept either. Respectfully submitted, Name Address Phone Nn L/ a3`.1 Vii- Saa 5 s r To: Charles Folch, City Engineer Regarding: Street Reconstruction Project, Chanhassen Estates We, the residents of Chanhassen Estates, want the following to occur: 1. We want to have our streets reconstructed in a timely manner (this summer). 2. We also want and need a new water main, as proposed currently, understanding there is no additional cost for this to us residents. 3. We want a high - quality job done that meets all current standards and codes of street reconstruction. We don't want to sacrifice the quality of street work for the sake of the trees. 4. We want our streets to remain the same width as they are now, constituting a 28 foot back -to -back width rather than the proposed 31 foot back -to -back street. 5. We don't want "No Parking" signs throughout the neighborhood. One sign at the entrance should suffice. 6. We want solid curbs, solidly constructed, as per the current proposal. 7. We want to have the choice of larger replacement boulevard trees. We feel those individuals who want those larger trees should be given the opportunity to pay the extra cost for those trees. 8. We also want to be able to choose (within reason) the species of tree for our boulevard frontage, individually. OU- dvl- 1 0 11 44� /� 0 e YJ'o /to, 1", W " �. s ea C0 J 6? 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- 7\C l� Aa r re vv — nor i k 3T A� ELL _ _ - -- �- 1_ � t�►�L A ) r-- 3 at tZ / li 1 F fi ia4 cl �i to L 1 (fAh011ne J car r. a7 a9 �l- 3z March 9, 8007 Cheyenne Avenue Cti f OF CHANHASSEm o ,n Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ nrn Chanhassen Mayor and City Council BOAR 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ENGINEERIN9 GC P i . Dear Mayor and Council Members, , This letter is to express our appreciation to Charles Folch and Dave Mitchell for their commitment to high quality standards and a long -term vision for the Chanhassen Estates road project. Both gentlemen politely addressed comments from self - appointed construction experts at Monday's hostile neighborhood meeting and attempted to build understanding about the project. ' The vocal group of residents present at that meeting do not accurately represent the wishes of many of their neighbors, however, they have intimated many people from speaking out. Even with the dissention some common threads are clear: ' *The roads must be repaired without delay *Residents do not welcome unnecessary improvements. It is on this point, however, I believe the vocal residents are not listening to the recommendations of the project engineers, hence the debate over the water main replacement. ' *The work should be done in a conservative manner that minimizes tree loss. In most cases this has been construed as a narrow -as- possible street width. We improvement applaud the city's proactive strategy and want to reiterate the necessity for completing the project with haste. The conditions of the Chanhassen Estate streets do not reflect the city's commitment to high- quality aesthetics and degrade property values. ' We understand and accept the plan as written, including water main replacement and B -Style curbs as critical components of that plan. We do believe reducing street width would be a plan improvement to better preserve the integrity of the tree -lined neighborhood. Parking restrictions to safely accomplish the width reduction would be a plus in a neighborhood of generous driveway sizes. , It is our hope the Mayor and Council will retain their vision and act without delay in a manner that protects the Ion$ -term interest of the neighborhood and not allow a , vocal, misinformed community group to derail the project with the short-sited cost - cutting efforts. Again, our appreciation to the city and project engineers for their expertise and their ' patience. Sincerely, Gerard Amadeo Undsay c: Charles Folch, City Engineer Dave Mitchell, OGM To: Chanhassen City Council Date: 3/8/94 Re: Street Improvements, Chanhassen Estates From: Residents of Dakota Ln. Cul -du -sac, as signed below. With in the past few weeks we have been made aware of the full extent of the proposed street "improvements" in the Chanhassen estates development. The feasibility study circulated last fall outlined a project involving 20 to 30 trees. The impression left was that the streets would be resurfaced, curbs added where needed and left in place where they were already in place. A project of this scope still makes the most sense with the water mains replaced in addition 1. A further saving to our neighborhood is readily apparent to those who would make brief inspection of the cul -de -sac end ' of Dakota Ln... This section of street, like the rest of the Estates, has received no maintainence in at least 5yrs. Despite this it is in good condition. The curbing has not sunk, there are no areas that pond water and there are no potholes. We have had no water main difficulties. The most this section of road needs is ' resurface with the existing curbs, and trees, left in place. We, as the residents on Dakota Ln. cul -de -sac, request that ' you support a project of the scope outlined above and do not allow an excessive amount of work to be performed. You will save all the residents money, save space in landfills (which ' is why we all recycle our garbage), and still provide the street needs of 6 homes. Name Address 4k 4 � 7 3. X At 4.' 5. 6 . 7C L_J 8028 Dakota Avenue Chanhassen, Mn. ' 55317 March 7, 1994 Mr. Charles D. Folch ' Director of Public Works / City Engineer City of Chanhassen Re: Chanhassen Estates Street Reconstruction Project Dear Mr. Folch: ' I am writing to express my support for the proposed street reconstruction project as explained to me by Dave Mitchell. My family and I are 15 year residents of Chanhassen Estates. Our home is on the SW corner of Dakota and Cheyenne, and we have one of the nicer ash boulevard trees in the subdivision. , The water, sewer, and street improvements are long overdue. ' The present streets would be improved by widening (and the neighborhood would suffer if the streets were narrow and one side parking was mandated). It is my understanding that changing the plan to have narrow streets would delay the project for 4 -6 weeks and push completion out into 1995. One summer's inconvenience is more than enough for me. , Please include my opinion in the data to be presented to City Counsel. , Sincerely, 7 E:) &V. U Donald M. White ' u r it I March 5, 1994 ' Charles Folch City Engineer Chanhassen City Hall Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Folch, ' Since we will be unable to attend the meeting of March 7, 1994, I thought I should write you a letter. ' This is in regard to putting in new water mains, widening streets, cutting trees, etc. We are not in favor of this project. When the letter was sent out asking if we'd like new streets or keep patching them, it did not give anymore specifics (dollar amounts). Had it said, would you like new streets at a cost of $4000 or should we keep patching them, I would vote for patching. If not patching the potholes, hopefully a little more effort would be put ' in by the working crew, not just hit and miss, why wouldn't putting an overlay on, unless the cost would be comparable to putting in new streets. ' I didn't want to make this letter long but wanted you to know how we felt. Thank you, Jerry & Claudia Carson 8039 Erie Ave. Chanhassen, MN 55317 I cc: Mayor & City Council 1 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BRIM MAR 0 7 1994 EHGINEERI DEPT. I M V f) V _�eSt re ( "4 tree On the South cornar cf our lot E sck. tree fiot yej�,r�; The prowth has poor and Wer t -, - Cet -- t O tha branchpc that are dead. The tree is k- ;:k. V1 I 2 ) F e cl c. cl r i v s,,v .3 y k 0 t 6, t 0 c k a nd the property to the gi r) I c VU iderati on. I I 1 1 I CITY Of CHANHASSE t- c- b r u a r v '2" 1 , 1 9 4 0 M 0 Tom : A P -_/. - !0 i FEB 2 5 19 2 e Z e S \i 1 L- 1 Ili 8v i 3 D t a C- i r c l ENGINEERING yr-t co am no" the DEPT. s.�jre what of rn, I ot, 47 h y M V f) V _�eSt re ( "4 tree On the South cornar cf our lot E sck. tree fiot yej�,r�; The prowth has poor and Wer t -, - Cet -- t O tha branchpc that are dead. The tree is k- ;:k. V1 I 2 ) F e cl c. cl r i v s,,v .3 y k 0 t 6, t 0 c k a nd the property to the gi r) I c VU iderati on. I I 1 1 I : A - 1 "J \i 1 L- 1 Ili meet in— yr-t co am no" the s.�jre what of rn, I ot, y M V f) V _�eSt re ( "4 tree On the South cornar cf our lot E sck. tree fiot yej�,r�; The prowth has poor and Wer t -, - Cet -- t O tha branchpc that are dead. The tree is k- ;:k. V1 I 2 ) F e cl c. cl r i v s,,v .3 y k 0 t 6, t 0 c k a nd the property to the gi r) I c VU iderati on. I I 1 1 I = THE UITABLE October 10, 1993 Charles D. Folch, P.E. Director of Public Works /City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, 124 55317 Mr. Folch: I aria a homeomer in the Chanhassen Estates sub- division and attended your presentation on September 29 on the city's plans for street reconstructdnn in our neighborhood (Project No. 93 -10), Your presentation was both thorough and informative and I appreciated your willingness to address the personal concerns any of the residents may have regarding this project. I vrill be unable to attend the October 11 City Council meeting but want to express my support for this project and my desire to see it completed in 1994. Zhank you for your work MANCINI AGENCY 8400 NORMANDALE LAKE BOULEVARD SUITE 1 - 00 BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55-f* (G 1?) 8ii-f1(li I Sin F.onald Olson 8015 Dakota Circle Chanhassen, ?.IN 55317 Agent /Registered Representative The Equitable Life Assurance Society New York. NY I0019 (2) Z) 554.123-1 Individual and Group I.* and Health Insurance and Annuities Agent Equitable Variable Life Insurance Company (EVLICO)' New York, NY 10019 Variable Life Insurance, Life Account and single Premium Deferred Annuities Registered Representative Equico Securities. loc.' New York, NY 10019 Mutual Funds and Other Securities `a wti id—of The Equnabk CITY OF r CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 , (612) 937 -1900 0 FAX (612) 937 -5739 February 16, 1994 Re: Notice of Second Informational Neighborhood Meeting ' Chanhassen Estates Street Reconstruction, Drainage & Utility Improvements - Project No. 93 -10 Dear Resident: ' You were previously notified of an informational neighborhood meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 8, 1994 concerning the draft project plans and detailed drawings for the Chanhassen Estates , Street Reconstruction, Drainage and Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -10. Turnout for this informational meeting was very light as only 18 of the 129 property owners affected by this project were in attendance. The weather conditions on the meeting night were much less than favorable which may ' explain, in part, the reason for the light attendance. There are a few important issues which were discussed at the previous meeting such as the proposed street ' width in the 1 st Addition (streets currently without concrete curb and gutter) and boulevard tree loss and replacement throughout the entire project. The project engineer and City staff' wish to present more detailed information concerning these issues which was not available at the time of the feasibility study ' and very much desire your input and opinion accordingly. As an affected property owner associated with this project, you are cordially invited to attend another ' informational meeting to be held Monday, March 7, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. This is your opportunity to acquire more detailed information about the project, its impacts and to voice your opinion on any of these matters accordingly. Your input and opinion is an important part of the ' planning process before the plans are finalized and submitted to the City Council for approval on Monday. March 14, 1994 We look forward to discussing the draft plans with you at the meeting. Sincerely, , CITY OF CHANHASSEN , ,�� <4 Charles D. Folch ' Director of Public Works /City Engineer CDF Jms ' c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor , Chanhassen City Council Dave Mitchell, OSM g: I o 1 ' �Piu�G� Ucc , olt T 7. O0 P ^-' �� O o Z D O Iry gooc Ertc- �, -- &03( i n a� _1101r .. E��c f7VG _._.,. )cop, 1 Al fm 3v?( kttv(a k I t to Erie cfak bet kvi� Am, �, An< All" A ro''� e / g oo y rH -h POSOJ1 C Ok;on $o3 o i AVE 1 O E j - �/Xi1L11- ck� Y� s �� v� f =n'.ercLs P'iscF�� L6 gJ 4 a Et2; & 8o�a CQa.� Cw�_ 1 - - - fie o 'ale 1 T. 041 P-A I A& 'Pllllk m gt/D�� 40�eAhv '04 VF '. Ar. (�� 1 �,�� __. X003 c��y� � - �� J � ® D y �L r� �� SW7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 r January 21, 1994 Re: Notice of Informational Neighborhood Meeting Chanhassen Estates Street Reconstruction, Drainage & Utility Improvements Project No. 93 -10 Dear Resident: The City's project consultant engineer, Orr - Schelen - Mayeron & Associates (OSM), has designed the project plans and detailed drawings for the Chanhassen Estates Street Reconstruction, Drainage and Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -10 which is proposed to begin construction this summer. A draft set of these plans is now available for review. City staff would like to provide property owners with the opportunity to review and discuss these plan drawings at an informational neighborhood meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 8, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. You are cordially invited to attend this informal neighborhood meeting. We look forward to discussing the plans with you at the meeting. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Charles D. Folch Director of Public Works /City Engineer CDF Jms c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Dave Mitchell, OSM City Council Administrative Section (2/14/94) g:kr4 charles\chanesU Ll 1 t I 1 �•//�i1/ �=577��s N�� lr�, Dv&-� 4 80 , ve- 1q WC �.PM� �ua,✓ 8025 Dt ka '�'1'RUC.. gA 4 �tn.� qQ &q L Dwer�p-G&l,c ah �� &/,a 1 10a� 1 1 1`D V A9 de-.- 8 O L,s" e1,eye,*n Sjcus - Oa 0� S) Sdtekn Mayelon & As.SOCiates, Inc. December 1, 1993 300 Park Place Center 5775 Wayzata Boulevard ' Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 612- 595 -5775 Chanhassen Estates Area Residents 1 -800- 753 -5775 ' Chanhassen, MN FAX 595 -5774 Engineers Architects Planners Surveyors , Re: Resident Update Letter No. 2 Chanhassen Estates Area Street and Utility Improvements , Chanhassen, MN City Project No. 93 -10 OSM Project No. 5108.00 ' Dear Resident: You may have noticed that survey crews have been in your area surveying to gather pertinent Y g 8 Pe information required for the design of this project. This work has been completed and the final design of this project is under way. We are on schedule and anticipate a public meeting in ' January of 1994 to review the proposed plans with interested residents. I would like to express my thanks to all of the residents who have contacted me over the last few r weeks to express concerns or to simply ask questions. This has been a great help in identifying potential problem areas. It has also provided me with a feel for the positive attitude that the residents have toward this project. , Again, I ask that if you have any questions regarding the project or concerns you feel should be incorporated into the design of this project, please contact me at the above address or by phone at 595 -5699. If you don't reach me directly, please leave a voice mail message and I will return the call so that we can discuss your concerns. Your comments are greatly appreciated and will add to the overall quality of this project. ' Thank you for your time. May you all have a joyous holiday season. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON , & ASSOCIATES, INC. David D. Mitchell, P.E. ' Project Manager c: Charles Folch - City Engineer Don Ashworth - City Manager Mayor & Council /nm , Equal Opportunity Employer 1 J 1 n Off O�S)& sett =. A tx. October 18, 1993 Chanhassen Estates Area Residents Chanhassen, MN Re: Resident Update Letter No. 1 Chanhassen Estates Area Street and Utility Improvements Chanhassen, MN City Project No. 93 -10 OSM Project No. 5108.00 Dear Resident: 300 Park Place Center 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 - 1]28 612 - 595 -5775 1 -800- 753 -5775 FAX 595 -5774 Engineers Architects Planners Surveyors As you may already know, the City of Chanhassen City Council formally ordered preparation of plans and specifications for the reconstruction of street and utilities within your residential area. As consulting engineers for the City of Chanhassen on this project, we will be providing plans and specifications for the proposed construction. As we proceed through this project, I intend to inform you on a regular basis of the progress being made on the project. As indicated at the Council Meeting on October 11, we will provide the public with an opportunity to see the design documents prior to the City Council accepting the plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bid. At this time, I am anticipating that this public meeting to review the proposed plans would be held sometime in January of 1994. Visual items that you will see happening on this project over the next few weeks will include a detailed topographic survey of the area to determine locations of existing utilities, existing trees, and existing landscape features in the area. We will also be surveying the existing street and cross - sectioning your driveways to determine match points during the design phase of this project. We anticipate this part of the project being completed in November of 1993. Plans will be developed during the latter part of November and the month of December prior to the public meeting anticipated in January. I encourage each of you to contact me in the next few weeks if you feel that there are some concerns in the area that I should be aware of. Particular areas of concern would include drainage problems that you may be experiencing, or any existing problems with your sanitary sewer or water service. I would also be happy to answer questions you may have concerning the project itself, whether it be the schedule or the proposed improvements. We hope to work together with you and the City of Chanhassen in developing a quality project that the residents of the Chanhassen Estates area can live with for many years in the future. Many factors come into play to determine the quality of a project of this nature. An item that we have no control over during the construction of the project will be the weather. Items that we can control are up -front planning, communication, understanding and cooperation on the project. As a team, you the residents, the City of Chanhassen and OSM & Associates can work together to provide a final plan that is acceptable to all. Z o1 yEMIOY * MEMORANDUM TO: FROM DATE: SUBJ: CITY OF J CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE 0 P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action by MY Adminlsttator Morif,c ate submitted to commission Date Su"^,itted to Council 1 -H -93 Don Ashworth, City Manager Charles Folch, Director of Public Works /City Engineer October 5, 1993 Specifications - Project No. 93 -10 t Public Hearing for Street Reconstruction and Drainage Improvements in the Chanhassen Estates Subdivisions; Authorize Preparation of Plans and At their regular meeting on Monday, September 13, 1993, the City Council formally received the feasibility study for the street reconstruction and drainage improvements in the Chanhassen Estates subdivisions and called for a public hearing on Monday, October 11, 1993. The proposed project improvements consist of removing the existing deteriorated street surface, performing subgrade correction, reconstructing the streets to the City's current residential design section with concrete curb and gutter and the installation of additional storm sewer facilities in the areas identified as being deficient. The project also proposes to replace the old cast iron watermain system with modern plastic- wrapped ductile iron pipe. The existing sanitary sewer system will also undergo testing, sealing and spot repair operations as identified from a previous televised inspection of the sewer lines. The total project is estimated to cost $1,530,000. The storm sewer portion of the improvement project is estimated to cost $229,000. Based on the City's policy on similar projects in the past, the City will fund 50% of the cost of the storm drainage improvements. The remaining share is proposed to be assessed on a per unit basis at $996 per unit. 27 lots located on the east and south end of this project are proposed to be given an additional 50% drainage credit since more than 50% of their total lot area does not drain into the existing or proposed City storm sewer facilities. The cost associated with the sanitary sewer and watermain improvements totalling $368,000 are proposed to be funded through the City's utility and sanitary sewer rehabilitation funds. The street reconstruction cost is estimated at $933,000 and amounts for nearly two- thirds of the overall project cost. The street reconstruction cost is proposed to be assessed on a per unit basis in the amount of $3,000 per unit to the properties within the Chanhassen Estates lst and 3rd 1 �. Don Ashworth October 5, 1993 Page 2 Additions (these lots did not have existing curb and gutter). The lots within the Chanhassen Estates 2nd Addition and the Wisely Estates are proposed to have a per unit assessment of $2,750 which takes into account a $250 allowance for the existing curb and gutter which will be replaced. The proposed street reconstruction per unit assessment rate is believed to be the direct value benefied by each property owner from the project improvement. The proposed assessments to benefitting properties would generate approximately 40% of the revenue for the street reconstruction cost with the remaining 60% portion to be paid by the City through general funds. On Wednesday, September 29,1993, staff and the project engineer, David Mitchell of OSM, held an informational neighborhood meeting for all affected property owners in the Chanhassen Estates subdivision. Turnout was light, however, good constructive discussion took place. Near the end of the meeting an impromptu call of hands was made by one of the residents, for which support of the project was nearly unanimous. One of the primary concerns raised by residents at the neighborhood meeting was the concern for tree loss and to recommend that the City and contractor implement construction measures which will save trees wherever possible. There was also a concern raised by a resident with the opinion that the City was lax over the last 10 or 15 years in routine maintenance, i.e. sealcoating, patching, etc. that has contributed to shortening the life of these roads. I explained that I do not have the history to address the previous maintenance issues; however, I did explain that the design life for a typical urban local roadway ' in Minnesota is 20 to 25 years. From what I can determine, the roads within the Chanhassen Estates lst Addition are 27 years old with the streets in the 2nd Addition being slightly over 20 years. ' At the close of the public hearing, if there are no outstanding questions or comments which require further investigation or study, it would be recommended that the City Council approved the feasibility study dated September 13, 1993 as prepared by Orr- Schelen- Mayeron Associates, Inc. for the street reconstruction and utility improvements to the Chanhassen Estates area and that authorization be given to prepare the project plans and specifications for which OSM shall be designated as the project engineer, Project No. 93 -10. ktm ' Attachments: 1. Public hearing notice to newspaper. 2. Affidavit of mailing. 3. Attendance roster for September 29, 1993 neighborhood meeting. c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Mike Wegler, Street Superintendent Dave Mitchell, OSM u t CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR CHANHASSEN ESTATES STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 93 -10 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will meet in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 690 Coulter Drive on Monday, October 11, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. to consider the feasibility report for Chanhassen Estates Street Reconstruction and Utility Improvements, Project No. 93 -10. This project deals with reconstruction of streets and utilities within the areas of Chanhassen Estates, Chanhassen. Estates 2nd Addition, Chanhassen Estates 3rd Addition, and Wisely Estates. A portion of the said improvements are proposed to be assessed to the properties ' benefitting from the referenced roadway and utility improvements. The cost of said improvements is estimated to be $1,530,000.00. All interested persons may appear and be heard at said time and place. Charles D. Folch, City Engineer 937 -1900 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on 9/30/93 and 10/7/93) t t �t - ►J CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) 0 -1 I I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on Q �� Q , 19 93 , Ij the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chan- to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A ", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. X4 re6'Z. T z lhardt, Deputy Clerk Subscribed and sworn to befor me this �2; day of 19 VICTORIA L NOTARY PLW - MINNESJ� TA iZ CARVER COUNTY Notary public W °°"""w+°"'°c�n PP hassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of �t - ►J CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) 0 -1 I I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on Q �� Q , 19 93 , Ij the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chan- to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A ", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. X4 re6'Z. T z lhardt, Deputy Clerk Subscribed and sworn to befor me this �2; day of 19 VICTORIA L NOTARY PLW - MINNESJ� TA iZ CARVER COUNTY Notary public W °°"""w+°"'°c�n PP hassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 r Re: Notice of Public Hearing and Neighborhood Meeting for Chanhassen Estates Street Reconstruction and Utility Improvements Project No. 93 -10 Dear Property Owner: Notice is hereby given that the City Council will consider the feasibility report for Chanhassen Estates Street Reconstruction and Utility Improvements, Project No. 93 -10 at their regular meeting on Monday, October 11, 1993 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. This project deals with reconstruction of streets and utilities within the areas of Chanhassen Estates, Chanhassen Estates 2nd Addition, Chanhassen Estates 3rd Addition, and Wisely Estates. A portion of the said improvements are proposed to be assessed to benefitting properties of the referenced roadway, drainage and utility improvements. The cost of said improvements is estimated to be $1,530,000.00. A copy of the project feasibility report is available for review in the Engineering Department at City Hall Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. You are invited to attend an informal neighborhood meetinp, on Wednesday, September 29, 1993 at 7:00 p.m in the City Council Chambers to discuss the feasibility study and proposed improvements. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN C L'i - L'�.t..c.�> —al Charles D. Folch, P.E. Director of Public Works /City Engineer CDF.jms c: David Mitchell, OSM J r— September 22, 1993 STn�T ��ON o�R4P,73 93 -/D .t/FiG,�Hi3o�yooD /fl�Ti.+iy � W� sF� z9, X993 71OO 1 V -g -ol f pty.fq4.. 4v r........ ..- - -� - -- Dale 1�✓frOZ1��5 Soho �r ��e SQu.�. _. S-eve t rer -soft Aekoft Ae, 800 3 y Pnu` - ' �� / D�•�>rQ eve, X00 8' cl7 ��-•'� SeG -� ��3� C� � en�u 14 u'� y _ . G�O/PG.- -IWO&,Ols . 8oa9_ Gf' yF,v vo - -- —__ _ — - & P" AvA1L1) f l m,–a At a M V -g -ol f pty.fq4.. 4v r........ ..- - -� - -- Dale 1�✓frOZ1��5 Soho �r ��e SQu.�. _. S-eve t rer -soft Aekoft Ae, DATE: June 1, 1993 uiiYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Chanhassen Estates Residents SUBJ: Street Reconstruction and Drainage Improvement Project No. 93 -10 Dear Resident: Earlier this spring you received a letter and survey concerning your street and all of the streets within the Chanhassen Estates subdivisions. Nearly half of the notified residents completed and returned the survey. The City wishes to thank all of those residents for taking the time to complete and return the surveys. Of the surveys received, the overwhelming majority supported the City at least taking the first step in the project process which is to prepare a detailed feasibility study to defined the work scope, project costs and method of financing as required by State Statute 429. As a result, the City Council has authorized the preparation of this feasibility study. This study is expected to be completed in late July. As this feasibility study nears its completion, you will be notified of both a neighborhood meeting and public hearing concerning the feasibility study and the project in general. At these meetings discussions will take place concerning project costs, financing and potential special assessments. Again, thanks to those who completed the preliminary surveys. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Charles D. Folch, P.E. City Engineer CDF:ktm c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Mike Wegler, Street Superintendent Dave Mitchell, OSM I L 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER J J 11 I i I I I - 1 March 23, 1993 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937.1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Re: Chanhassen Estates Street Condition File No. PW -167A Dear Resident: Over the past few years many of you have contacted myself or other City staff regarding the condition of the streets within the Chanhassen Estates subdivision. Those of you who have discussed these matters with me learned that the City was undertaking a study on the condition of all the local streets within the City. At this point in time I believe that it is appropriate to provide you with some background history and an update on the completed City -Wide Pavement Management Study. In late 1990, the City's Engineering Department, with the assistance of the consulting ' engineering firm of Orr- Schelen- Mayeron & Associates (OSM) embarked on a City -wide study of the condition of all of the local streets. The purpose for the study was to accomplish a number of goals including cataloging each street infrastructure, identifying problems inherent with the street, assigning the appropriate repair strategy, estimating the cost of the needed repairs and prioritizing streets needing repair. Data accumulated for each street was entered into the CalTrans Pavement Management computer program for processing. Based on the extent of road surface deterioration and subgrade soil problems, the CalTrans program assigned repair strategies ranging from "do nothing" to crack filling and seal coating to overlaying to total street reconstruction.. Streets recommended for total reconstruction were then ranked and prioritized in terms of need. A draft 5-year capital improvement program for street reconstruction was developed and presented to the City Council in early 1992. Streets recommended for sealcoatittg or overlaying will be administrated through annual street maintenance programs. As many of you might expect, the Chanhassen Estates subdivision ranked as the highest priority area with streets in need of reconstruction. It is also evident from this study report that due to the extent of deterioration and apparent subsoil problems of the streets in the to t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER March 23, 1993 Page 2 Chanhassen Estates area, other repair strategies such as crack filling, sealcoating and even P 8' overlaying would not solve the problem and any monies spent on these types of repair efforts would essentially be wasted. The City would like to bear from you, the residents from the Chanhassen Estates subdivision, to assist in determining whether or not a detailed feasibility for a street reconstruction in your area should be conducted. I have attached a brief questionnaire as to your thoughts and ideas regarding your streets. Please fill out the brief survey and return by mail or deliver in person to City Hall by April 16, 1993. A copy of the Pavement , Management Study is available for review in the Engineering Department during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Thank you in advance for taking the time to complete this survey. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Charles D. Folch, P.E. City Engineer CDF:ktm ' Attachment: Survey c: Don Ashworth, City Manager Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Bill Bement, Engineering Technician II Dave Mitchell, OSM ■ City Council Administrative Packet (4/12/93) 1 CHANHASSEN ESTATES STREETS SURVEY Based on the information provided in the City Engineer's letter dated March 23, 1993, I offer the following opinion regarding the streets in the Chanhassen Estates subdivision (please check only one box): E3 I would recommend that the City conduct a detailed feasibility study to identify the primary elements, costs, and potential special assessments associated with a street reconstruction program for the Chanhassen Estates subdivision (this does not mean w nnu out more inrormanon 13 I would recommend that the City conduct a detailed feasibility study as stated above and I would be interested in attending an informal neighborhood meeting to further discuss the Pavement Management Program and its findings regarding the streets in the Chanhassen Estates area. 1:3 I would like to attend an informational neighborhood meeting to discuss the results of the Pavement Management Study and findings regarding the streets in Chanhassen Estates subdivision. I do not wish for the City to pursue the idea of street reconstruction in Chanhassen Estates any further. I am in favor of the streets remaining at status quo. E3 Other opinion: i I Please remit q uestionnaire to: City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 I t CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott and Diane Harberts I STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director and Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner ' PUBLIC HEARING: HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR STUDY AND EAW FOR THE NORTH ACCESS BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS. THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY 5 OVERLAY ' ORDINANCE WILL ALSO BE REVIEWED AT THE HEARING. THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT THE GOALS OF THE PLAN. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS WILL BE ' FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR FINAL DECISION. I Public Present: Name Address Peter Olin Frank Clemmens Mn Landscape Arboretum Camiros, Chicago, IL Camiros, Minneapolis 8301 Galpin Blvd. 3160 West 92nd Street, Chaska RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins Heritage Development, 450 East Co. Rd D, Little Canada Barton- Aschman Assoc Barton- Aschman Assoc Barton- Aschman Assoc Chanhassen Chanhassen DataServ, Inc. DataServ, Inc. DataServ, Inc. Chanhassen 2061 Oakwood Ridge 829 Woodhill 4980 Co. Rd 10E, Chaska i1 L, Joyce Levine Roger Schmidt Paul Paulson Steve Schwauke John Dobbs ' James Unruh Barry Warner Deborah Porter Lee & Pat Kerber Charles & Susan Markert Caroline Watson Don Honeck Jim Paulet ' Lisa & Ray Notermann Colleen Dockendorf Mike Mason Betty & Larry VanDeVeire Mn Landscape Arboretum Camiros, Chicago, IL Camiros, Minneapolis 8301 Galpin Blvd. 3160 West 92nd Street, Chaska RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins Heritage Development, 450 East Co. Rd D, Little Canada Barton- Aschman Assoc Barton- Aschman Assoc Barton- Aschman Assoc Chanhassen Chanhassen DataServ, Inc. DataServ, Inc. DataServ, Inc. Chanhassen 2061 Oakwood Ridge 829 Woodhill 4980 Co. Rd 10E, Chaska i1 L, f Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Name Address Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros. Jay Dolejsi 6961 Chaparral Lane Michele Foster Opus Corp, P.O. Box 150, Mpls. John Uban DSU /Gateway Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Robert L. Hoffman Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren 1500 NW Financial Center, Bloomington Peter Beck 1500 NW Financial Center, Bloomington Paul Krauss and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report along with the planning consultants, Barry Warner, John Unruh and Deborah Porter from Barton- Aschman to outline the work that has been done on the Highway 5 Corridor Study, Environmental Assessment for North Highway 5 Access Boulevard and the Highway 5 Corridor Overlay Zone. Chairman Scott then called the public hearing to order and opened up the floor for public comment. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Terry Forbord. I'm with Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Blvd, Wayzata, Minnesota. If it's okay, I'll use the visuals that are provided to you from the consultants. Some of you may know that Lundgren Bros has approximately a 200 acre neighborhood community not very far north of Highway 5, located between Galpin Blvd and Highway 41. It's been commonly referred to, through the preliminary plat process as the Johnson/Dolejsi/Tumer and Song property. Now as a part of that land holding, Lundgren Bros has an interest in a piece of property that comes down to and abuts and is contiguous to Highway 5. And that property is the property that I'm depicting with my pointer here. Scott: Could you do that again please? Terry Forbord: It's commonly known as the Jay Dolejsi property, which you probably will recognize the name Dolejsi as it was a part of our preliminary plat approval. One of them anyway. Lundgren Bros obviously has an interest in what you're all talking about in regards to this property. I'm going to talk to you specifically about the road and the land use. We have volunteered to participate in this process and unfortunately our participation was not accepted. But being now that the formal public hearings have started before the Planning Commission, I'm here to share our feelings with you. I know, I'm a little confused in that the land use that's described in this document and on the exhibits and the color are a little different than what I hear people talk about. It's our understanding from looking on the colored map here that the land use in this general area was to be medium and high density. 2 r 1 11 1 r L i Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 However Commissioner Mancino I believe was talking about some of this area being single family. I'd like to tell you as a provider of housing, I would love to be able to share with you that that should be residential single family housing, because that's what I do. But from a planning perspective, these would be horrendous parcels of property to locate detached single family, private ownership housing in this particular area. And the reason is because the topography in that area is generally high where Alternative #1 is and it lowers down to Highway 5 approximately I'm guessing 60 to 65 feet. And I don't know very many people that are going to buy homes at the price that homes go for in Chanhassen and have them abutting Highway 5. At least for detached single family type of homes. And because of the elevation, it's going to be very difficult to berm that and even if you ... on top of that berm, you're not going to be able to screen the impact of either the view or certainly providing the... for the sound of the highway traffic in general. So from purely a planning standpoint, I believe that these areas that would be just north of the highway should be either multi- family ownership or rental or apartment buildings or something along that line. Now, let me just editorialize a little bit about why I believe that. Before the task force was commenced with it's undertaking on the project, I think that it was clear that the City Council mentioned where they were concerned about what it would look like, not only when it was built but 20 years from now. If you put low priced, and that's what would be there. I mean I don't know how you achieve that with the land prices in Chanhassen but if they were less expensive homes, you're not going to end up seeing what I believe that the city hopes to see in that corridor... within the highway. So I think you should just think about that before you make any decisions. Now again I'm a little confused whether it is given to medium density or high density or single family because I've got some conflicting information. As it relates to the roadway alternatives, I believe that Alternative #1 generally is the appropriate location. I'm just talking from a layout and if you're familiar with the site and you've spent any time out there. However I do believe that probably, and I know this is general and it's not cast in concrete. At least that's my understanding. I believe that it's probably a little more appropriate to move that road maybe 100 yards south. I don't understand why it needs to go through the trees. I think you could bring that out into the open a little bit. The way I look at that, when I look at a transition zone from highway to higher density to lower density, I use that road as part of the buffer. That road actually becomes a transition zone in itself between lower density housing and higher density housing so, and given that there's a stand of trees that's kind of goes in this general area, I believe this road could be actually coming down to the south here and it creates an area of an upland area, kind of like a peninsula, that protrudes out into that wetland area. So for the record I wanted to enter those comments and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those either today or at a later date. Thank you. Scott: Terry, let me just ask you a quick question. From my recollection you're the first land owner or land owner representative that has preferred Alternative #1 even though it 3 F] Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 pretty much cuts your property in half. And could you give us some comments on that. Is it because it's a buffering? Is it because you'd have to build one through there anyway to service the parcel? Terry Forbord: No. I don't like collector roads ever going through our property because they create problems but they also can be a necessity. I look at it like I say from a land use. I always give every piece of property that I'm developing the would I live there test. Or if I did live there, how would I want it to be. I run it through that test myself. So I mean whether I was living in a townhome or an apartment or single family dwelling, how would I put them on this property given the or constraints that exist around and on the property, how would I do it? So when I look at this, I realized that it would probably make some sense to have that collector road there. So where would you put it where it would have the least impact on the site. It will provide for a reasonable layout of the land to accommodate the various uses. Now again from my perspective I think there should be more than one use on that site because I don't think this portion is good for single family detached private ownership housing. Who'd want to live there? One of us have to do that test when you make that decision. But I think it's a great site for apartments or rental housing, and that's not a bad thing. Just because they're rental or apartments doesn't mean it's bad. They certainly do a very good job with those types of housing products. Scott: Paul that's, I mean according to this, that's medium density south of, okay. Terry Forbord: In the exhibit I see, I believe it's medium and I'm not sure if it's high because these two colors are so close. Scott: There's really only one high density area, as far as I understand it and that is the area that is just to the east of Powers Boulevard. Correct? Are there any other high density areas? That's the only one that I, okay. So basically what we have is we have medium density south of Alternative #1 and then we have low density or RSF, residential single family up above, so. So you concur with, okay. Farmakes: I think some of the confusion came from what Nancy mentioned. Rather than list it as residential, it said single family. Aanenson: Right. If you read the supporting text that follows it, it mentions that that was one of...summary of the recommendations... Terry Forbord: As it relates to that text, under potential uses in the second paragraph, should that be west instead of east? I was a little confused. Multi- family residential appropriate for along Highway 5, blah, blah, blah, uses east of Galpin. Should that be west? 4 r 1 1 t t l n 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Farmakes: It's both. Terry Forbord: Or both, east and west. That's what I was. Aanenson: Yeah. It's both. Terry Forbord: Thank you. Thank you very much. Scott: Okay, thanks Terry. Anyone else? Jim Paulet: Planning Commission. My name is Jim Paulet. I'm the facility's manager at DataServ. We're located at 19011 Lake Drive East which is the far east end of the project. We're not even on the map here. Southeast corner of the far east of the project. We are the new owners of that site. We recently purchased that site from Sunlink, which is the real estate arm of our parent company. And our plan at this time, we currently have 315 employees there. We've been there since 1988. And our plan at this time is to move an additional 350 employees from Eden Prairie to Chanhassen in 1996. And at this time, I have a letter with me that I guess is addressed to Paul Krauss. We met with Paul yesterday and Todd Gerhardt and at this time we'd like to express our opposition to the approval of the Highway 5 corridor use study until we have had a chance to conduct our own land use study. We believe that it's possible that some of the restrictions, the setback restrictions, the design restrictions, could greatly impact the developability or salability of our land. And until we have a chance to do our own study, we just don't feel we're in a position to approve this plan, or we would like to see this plan approved. So we're just asking for time to conduct our own land use study. We are brand new owners of the land and we intend to commence our study as soon as possible, which they're looking already for architectural engineering firm to do that for us. Thank you. Any questions? Mancino: What property? Jim Paulet: This would be the former CPT site. Scott: Is that the Sunlink that was right on the corner of Dell Road and Highway 5? Harberts: East side? Krauss: This entire site right here. Jim Paulet: Approximately 55 acres of land. 5 r Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Farmakes: Are you opposed necessarily to a particular or you're not sure at this time whether , you are or aren't? So you can study the issue. Jim Paulet: ...until we've had a chance to do our own study. Scott: And of the 350 employees, are you going to be moving out of, you have a facility in , Eden Prairie? You'll be moving out of that and closing that facility or whatever and relocating all of your employees? Jim Paulet: Our current lease terminates in 1996. The intention at this time is to move those individuals or those employees to the Chanhassen site. Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments for Jim? Okay, thank you. ' Michele Foster: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Michele Foster. I'm Director of Real Estate Development for Opus Corporation. I'll be brief this evening. I know that we had talked about the Opus Corporation property at Highway 5 and 41 many times before. This month celebrates the 2 year anniversary of our getting involved with this ' property and we hope we're starting to make some progress on developing... in what happens to this property. I know that at one of your last meetings John Uban of the firm of DSU presented to you some of the land use changes that are now considering and actually are now proposing for the property which are summarized both in a previous meeting and by Kate Aanenson of your staff. I will not go into details. Those are summarized here in this letter and in order to respect your agenda this evening I won't go into those in great detail. What ' I'd like to direct your attention to specifically is on page 3 which is our specific request regarding the ... some of which may be more appropriate for the City Council but several of which are obviously appropriate this evening. Our first request, probably one of those is more appropriately directed to the City Council but we are asking that the City explore all possible sources of State and Federal funding for this south access road which as I understand, would also benefit the north access road and we only ask to be treated equally as , far as that road. Our second request is with respect to the land use plan. We have obviously a number of objections to the land use plan as it's currently proposed in the task force study , but the task force study did prompt us and our consultants to make a number of modifications to our land use plan, which as I mentioned before have been summarized for you. That would basically result in the IOP classification being retained for all of the property with the ' exception of the one multi- family site on the west side of TH 41. We think that that addresses a number of concerns that were addressed by the Highway 5 task force, by the Arboretum, by a number of the interest groups that have looked at our property and we would ' strongly request that the land use plan, as we are now proposing it, be incorporated into the final recommendations in the study. Our third request has to do with the parks and open 6 �1 i Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 ' space issue and I can maybe clarify a little bit the question that was raised about that. We had originally proposed in our concept plan for the park a significant passive park area that would be dedicated as a part of the planning process. A good part of that property is wetland ' area but another significant area is also upland and wooded and would provide for a very nice passive park. As we understand it, the Park and Recreation Commission is now in concurrence with that proposal and again that is something that evolved throughout this ' process and we would request that the final recommendation by the Planning Commission incorporate the passive park element of the Gateway Business Park. The fourth item that we would draw your attention to are a of the design standards that are included within the ' overlay district. The setback in the task force report is recommending to use 70 feet and we would request that that be reduced to 50 feet. We feel that a 50 foot setback is more than adequate in combination with the variety of other components of the overlay district that are ' also being incorporated such as no parking on the Highway 5 side. The request and the desire for high design standards. We think a 70 foot setback is excessive and we would request that it be recommended to be 50. And the other objective that we have, and is really ' a more subjective standard is the requirement for significant visual relief being provided for industrial buildings. We understand what the objective of the design standard is but we also need to respect the fact that industrial programs have certain functional requirements that may ' not always be able to be met through steps in the building or architectural components of the building and we think that this needs to be at least modified or tailored so that we can provide architectural relief through a variety of different components but not necessarily ' through stepping of the building or major elements of the building being ... The fifth item is, I believe a little bit of reservation because it isn't perfectly clear to us what importance this particular element of the task force study has but our fifth recommendation or request has to ' do with Figure 8.21 in the task force study which is referred to as the parcel site analysis. There are numerous architectural design objectives stated for the property that we are ' involved in and we feel very strongly that should all of these be required of this development, there will be a significant taking of the property. There are requests and I go into this earlier in the letter but we are providing a number of or meeting a number of those objectives ' already in the plan that we've proposed for the park but if we need to provide new ... provide major view corridors, resource corridors, wetland preservation, there's just so many objectives that if you actually look at that particular figure in the task force report, you get dramatic ' impacts on the developability of this property. So all we ask is that there be some clarification that these objectives for the property have to take into consideration the economic viability of being able to develop this property in a reasonable manner, and that 1 perhaps not all of the multitude objectives that are being stated for this property can be met simultaneously. So with that I'll conclude my comments. I'm prepared to answer any questions that you may have. John Uban is also here this evening from DSU. Certainly our ' most important objective have to do with the land use component for this property and we hope you'll take our request under consideration. Thank you. 7 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 Mancino: A question I guess I have of Paul. Number one ... is the city at this time exploring ' possible State and Federal funding for the south access road? Krauss: No, we have not. When we originally entered into discussions with MnDot on this, , they expressed a desire to work with us on the north side. Not only because of the continuity between Highway 41 and 101. The south side road we think is important and necessary but ' it's discontinuous because it's broken into 5 or 6 segments. So MnDot initially expressed on behalf of themselves and ... the desire to work with us on the north side. Now in fact that north side in cooperation needs to become problematic because they're pushing they're , construction horizons so far away that it's inevitable that we're going to need parts of the road prior to their ability to—There are some things that we've been discussing with Opus and Michele and I and that has more to do with establishment of a tax increment district and ' devoting some of those funds to offsetting some of the development costs. We need to further those discussions. It's not clear exactly yet what would be funded by those tax increment proceeds. But that's probably the only source of revenue... , Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay, thank you. one Paul. The sketch from Conrad: A quick Op us that we saw last week and the road alignments there. Because you worked with Opus, or they responded to some of our concerns in the previous meeting. I'm not sure if the concern with the road is a response to a previous ' plan or is concerned as we kind of saw it last week and as our plan states. Maybe that's confusing what I just said. ' Aanenson: No, I think they're two separate issues. I think they're just concerned about the cost of putting that whole segment of road project and participation on the north segment. Krauss: Relative to the other design issues? Conrad: Yeah. , Krauss: These things don't, I mean we're not working in vacuums. These are kind of ongoing processes. The plans, the concept plans that are in the Highway 5 plans are just that. I mean they are not hard and fast. Thou shalt design your project this way. Their goals, design goals that we wanted to adhere to, we could take a look to see if, in light of the most recent proposal which we have, they're uncomfortable with, that we should go back and tinker with that. But again it's a concept and I think we decided at our last meeting when John Uban gave his presentation that we believe that we went into this process about a year ago now with 14 -15 outstanding design items on this project and we seem to have resolved the wide share of them with their revised plan. 8 i Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 ' Conrad: I came out of that meeting last week thinking that the north/south road alignment seemed to start fitting together much better. I didn't hear any concerns from Opus about how that was fitting. I didn't hear any concern with the east/west at that point in time so I'm ' really kind of, I'm not sure. I hear one, or I read something that you're very concerned about it and I hear Paul saying that we can tinker with it a little bit. Now I don't know what the issue is. Obviously it's a plan and things are going to change but based on the sketch that we ' saw a week ago, I didn't go away from that meeting thinking things were out of whack. Michele Foster: What we think we are here this evening talking about though is the official ' document that's in front of you that is at divergence with where the process has evolved to—and all that we are asking is that we have a problem with what is in the official study that is being considered this evening and we would like to have incorporated in the most recent processes that we have gone through because you're right. Today we're in a much different place even than when the task force report was done. So we're just asking that it be brought to you. ' Conrad: I understand. Krauss: You know it may be beneficial but I think this is a concern that's going to occur whenever we did one of these things and we did 7 or 8 of them, that when we look on ... well where Chapter 8 starts where we go into a description of what the development concepts are, that we make clear that these are just that. Conceptual studies not meant for construction purposes and—express concerns and issues that we have ... is one way of dealing with that. Relative to Opus' specific concerns, we could go back and tinker with those. We said that ' the 100 % ... everybody's in agreement with it, I suppose you could... For example, the road that they proposed is kind of an amalgamum of what we're proposing here and what they had originally proposed and I think it works better than either one of those two original suggestions so, I think that's a normal process. Scott: What kind of dialogue? It was interesting I think when Mr. Uban showed the eastern side of their project and moved the boulevard and said, oh by the way the people from Centex can just move their buildings over here. I was taken aback by that but I assume that ' there has been some dialogue inbetween city staff, Centex and Opus or is this just another example of well we don't really care too much about our neighbor over here. We're just going to stick it here. What's the process? Krauss: Part of our job is to make sure that the pieces fit together. Scott: Okay, because that didn't' fit. C 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 r Krauss: Well, we raised the, but it didn't fit but in our conversations with Opus, we thought that it was a better proposal for everybody and Centex would have seen ... but a point in fact, , we received notice last week that Centex is not going forward with that project anyway. Scott: So it doesn't matter. I Aanenson: So the next person we can then communicate that. Scott: Okay. So then basically that road is going to be set by the Opus development. Okay. ' Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Lee Kerber: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Lee Kerber and I have , several questions. One of them is, why don't we get our map upgraded here so it's proper? You're about 45 feet off and it goes right back to the creek line back here. I brought it to , someone's attention a few years ago ... well, if it takes as long to change the map, it takes that long to run me out of town, I'll be happy. By that time I'll probably be dead anyway. I'm one of the few original natives of Chanhassen. I don't know if there's anyone else in the room here that was born in this area or not. I'm quite concerned about why you're staying this far away from Highway 5 and then all of a sudden you get right back next to it here with that frontage road. You've got 145 feet between the highway right -of -way and my gardens and then you've got 20 -30 feet of garden. You've got another 20 -30 feet of house, and then you plan to come right on the north edge of my house. I particularly don't see any reason why that's necessary. Also, at the present time if you brought a frontage road up to your , park property, your park driveway, that would make a lot of sense. There's a lot of traffic having problems getting in and out of the park every day throughout the summer. If you put your frontage road up to the park property, you would eliminate a lot of the possibility that , they could take the frontage road and go up to CR 17. They'd have no problems getting across. It'd make a lot more sense in my opinion to do it that way. Then another question. What's the time frame when they think about going all the way out to Highway 41? Does , anyone know? Does anyone have any kind of an idea what I'm supposed to prepare for? Krauss: Yeah, that's a real valid concern and any time you're looking at buying somebody's ' house for something like this, it's obviously where the road ... is a big issue. Two years ago when we started this, MnDot was telling us that they had the money to go ahead with this thing in 2 -3 years. They now tell us it's 6 years and what's leading, what this is leading us to believe is that certainly between Powers and Galpin this is going to, it has to be a project that is done by the city in conjunction with whoever develops property. So I can't give you a ' definitive date. Probably until, what we've been talking about in -house is the road needs to be built up to the park entrance 2 years ago. That needs to be done right away. Other stretches of it are going to be contingent upon when development occurs. I think at your last ' 10 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 meeting you heard that there's one development proposal in the near offing on the Conway property that is coming into this area from the west. And potentially a golf course or ' something else, a golf course with something else inbetween. We're doing the same thing on the south side. The road's being built in pieces as development occurs. One of the issues that's going to have to be brought up to the City Council, and I don't have an answer for this ' but it is a concern. We're having the same question on Highway 101 where the ultimate alignment for improving Highway 101 south of Highway 5 seems to need to take 2 houses. Is that we need to go to the City Council and say these people have legitimate concerns here. ' You can't hold somebody hostage for some unlimited period of time without knowledge of how this is going to come about. If the city's going to define a roadway corridor, then we have some kind of an obligation to work with the property owner to try to say if you're looking for an early buyout, maybe we can arrange something. If the road's going to be built on a delayed timeframe, they need to know what it is. I don't have a good answer for that right now but it is something we need to carry forward to the City Council. ' Lee Kerber: Well, as far as I'm concerned, I could live with being between the highway property and my house. It could be bermed. It could go next to the highway along here instead of taking the old house where I was born. You're not just taking my home. You're not just taking a place I built to live in for a little while. I was born on that property. You're taking my whole life away as far as a place, it's not just a house. It's home. If you can come back next to the highway here, why can't you do it here. Mancino: Mr. Kerber, can I see your solution? Lee Kerber: Pardon? ' Mancino: I couldn't see you. I couldn't see what you were pointing to. Could you show me what you are suggesting? ' Lee Kerber: This piece right here, the red property is mine. And you could come down here through your tree farm. Those trees are going to be replanted anyway. All along here you're talking about all kinds of trees. Save the trees. I've got trees that are 25 -30 feet in tall and there's some of them this big in diameter. You're going to have to cut them down if you go through my house. The tree farm over here, those are little trees that are an inch and a half, two inches in diameter. They're going to be moved anyway. I think that's something that could be considered. Krauss: There is a design reason for that but there's also potentially an issue that needs to be looked at. This was raised with the task force. The reason the road has to bump up over there is if there's going to be an intersection of Audubon Road, for safety sake you need to 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 offset it from Highway 5. We've done the same thing with 78th Street which is where we , just kinked it up and moved it back away from Highway 5. There are those on the task force who question whether or not you need the north leg of that intersection of Audubon. If in , fact this connection is necessary at all. That if Audubon Road stays the way it is today as a 3 way intersection, there would not be the need from a design standpoint to bump that road up to the north. This was the recommendation of the task force I think was to keep it like this but that was certainly an issue that I recall being discussed and something the Planning Commission members counted on. Now James, is there anything—that you wanted to add to that? ' James Unruh: You said it. You said it just right Paul. The only other comment Paul that you'd want to make is that the new lanes of Highway 5 are going to be north of the existing lanes as well. So you'd be squeezing 2 more lanes of Highway 5 on the north side of the lanes and then a frontage road. So it would still gets awfully tight but what you just said , Paul about Audubon Road is right. It needs to be determined whether we really do need an intersection there or not. Lee Kerber: Well, if you delay it for about 10 years I might be gone anyway. ' Scott: I kind of wonder too then if we have development, I think that the Gorra property and ' some other property, how would, with no access onto Highway 5, because I know MnDot is... to add any more access points so we'd still end up in a situation where you'd have to get out somehow. ' Krauss: You're going to have intersections onto Galpin and Powers which will be the signalized intersections on Highway 5. That's probably sufficient to handle what's going to ' happen. Then after all, I mean we also questioned on the south side. When MnDot first laid out this highway 20 years ago it all went through corn and soybean fields and they said okay, you can have intersections inbetween every major street that have in Chanhassen. In today's world, looking at a town of 35,000 people at some point in time, we didn't think that that was all that good an idea. That we wanted to eliminate some of those and there's been concerns raised by any number, by the City Council on down about the number of traffic signals that ' would result. As an outcome of that, this entire area. Here's the school site over here and here's McGlynn. This entire area basically is going to be served off of that access boulevard down here. This is going to be a right- in/right -out only. If that. Onto Highway 5. And that 1 serves, I would suspect, as much if not more development than would occur between the park and Galpin. ' Highway 5 planned to be signalized , Scott: And isn't the intersection of Galpin and g y p gn alized in '94? In advance of the school opening? 12 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 I Krauss: Yeah, in advance of the school. ' Mancino: They could use it now. Scott: Okay. ' Conrad: Let me, I want to track something for Mr. Kerber here. Paul, basically what you just said was, there's a reason to put a road through to the park. The rest of this property ' will, the roadway will go in when developed. Krauss: When development occurs, yes. But development is occurring so fast that. ' Conrad: Well I think I'm trying to relate that to Mr. Kerber. There's not a plan to come in y g P and put this road in that we're doing other than maybe to the park. Where you live, somebody's going to have to come in and buy the, not the city. Lee Kerber: You mean I can negotiate with them? I'd prefer that. Krauss: You know, I agree with you and I hope it would turn out that way but there may be a need. If everything occurs west of Mr. Kerber's property, there may be a public need to finish that road and make the connection through there. And if that's the case, then the city would have to become involved. Otherwise we'd prefer to wait for development to do it as ' well. Farmakes: Irregardless, this is still the blueprint. ' Krauss: Yes. Conrad: I guess for you to know what we're saying is, we're going to, we have some preferences so when something happens there, whether you develop it or somebody buys the land from you or to the west, they're going to have to have a road and we're going to say where we'd like that road to go. We're saying that right now so people can anticipate that but we're not putting that in at the current time. Lee Kerber: Well I've developed the way I want it. I spent 35 years doing it. I just completed about a year and a half ago putting heat in my shop. The reason I didn't do it sooner, I spend the money after I get it and I've got it the way I want it now. Where do I go from here? Then I'm sitting on the fence, don't know which way I'm going to fall off. If you're my age, I don't have time to develop another place. It took me 35 years to get where I am after I had the house built and I don't know if I've got 35 weeks or 35 months. It's 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 kind of a touchy situation as far as I'm concerned. Scott: Would anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra. I've got the 140 acres to the south and southwest of Lake Ann. Harberts: Could you show us please on the map? Mike Gorra: This piece here. 1 think most of you have heard what I've had to say before so I'll keep I brief. Just keep this for the record. I look at that plan of that road there and to me it just doesn't look right. You've got two roads. One you've already got there. It's either 4 lanes now or it will be 4 lanes in the near future and that's Highway 5. And a very short distance to the north, not a half a mile, not two miles you've got this frontage road. They're both going to the same place. The frontage road, it's going to be expensive. I can't see where it's going to serve any useful purpose except maybe to collect more stop signs. It's going to be, you're going to have to put two bridges down there because you've got two creeks to cross. They're not going to be cheap. And it's going to be destructive. You're going to go through people's homes and you're going to go through undeveloped property and you're going to go through businesses. For what purpose? What's that road going to do that Highway 5 can't do and Highway 5 can do it better. There's not going to be as many stop signs on Highway 5. It's going to be 55 mph. With that frontage road, it's going to be even without stop signs, it's not going to be 55 mph. And if Chanhassen follows through to the true to course, they're going to have a stop sign every 200 -300 feet anyway. You're going to have about 28 to 35 stop signs on that mile and a half road. And who's going to take that road? Wouldn't they just rather drop down to Highway 5 and coast into Chanhassen on a 55 mph road than go 15 or average 15 -20 mph? Not only that but you're going to, by putting that road through there, you're going to pre - determine what kind of development you're going to have there. It's a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Any intelligent developer or development would want to take into consideration what you're going to do there first and then decide where the roads are going to go. I don't know if anybody here has ever built a home, but maybe someone has bought a lot to build a home on. Is the first thing that you did was to put your driveway through the center of the lot and then go to the architect and say hey, design me a home for this lot? Or did you go to him and say, put the home in the best place and then decide where the driveway's going to be? Well that's what you're doing here only a much bigger, more destructive scale. I kind of agree with what Mr. Kerber says that if you want a road to your park, that's fine. That's not going to disturb any of the property to the west. I know it will probably take a lot of traffic off of Highway 5 of people going to and from the park. As far as the rest of the property to the west, they have access to CR 117. That's why CR 117 was put there years ago. The State 14 I 'i 1 t t t 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 puts roads every so often for collector streets and then they let the development decide where the rest of the roads will go. If they wanted roads through there, they would put roads every half a block or every half a mile. As far as I'm concerned, I already talked with the State a year ago and their representative, I think it was Evan Green said that they had already planned to stub access from Audubon Road into my property so I wouldn't have to worry about access to Highway 5. I have been working on a development for my property for 2 1/2 to 3 years now and I think you saw the plan last time I was up here. It was a golf course and I don't think I have to tell you what a road through the center of a golf course could do. You just wouldn't be able to build a golf course with something like that there. And even if I didn't build a golf course, and I decided to put other types of development in there, I am a developer. I did purchase most of this property 20 years ago just for that purpose but I held it out of construction just because I thought it was a pretty nice, unique piece of property being that it's on the lake and it has a little creek running through it and has access to Highway 5. I thought it deserved a little more than a boiler plate type development that you can find in Richfield or even Fridley. Multiply next to the highway and then maybe a couple ... and then getting single family farther away from the highway closer to the lake. I think something else could be done with this property that would best serve the developer and the city both. And I think that would most likely be a golf course at this time. I know you talked about mapping this road through so future developers would have an idea of where you want this road but I don't think that's going to do any good in my case because I can't imagine any development that I would put on this 140 acres that would utilize the road going right through the center of it. And the only reason why is because if I develop this property, I want it to be a success. I guess that's about all I have to say. Mancino: Mike, might I add a comment on land use. You said that you could see it as a golf course. What other land use designation were you thinking about? For instance, single family north of the access boulevard and multi- family south? Mike Gorra: Well that's the land use I didn't want to see. Mancino: Okay, what did you want to see? Mike Gorra: I want to see it one chunk of property without a road running through it so whatever I decided I could determine where the access, where the roads would be after I decided what would go in there. For example, even a higher end single family development, an estate type single family development, you wouldn't want a road running right through that. That's just one example. But no matter what, like I said before, I've been a developer for 30 years and I've always stayed away from a piece of property that had a heavily traveled road on both sides of it because it's been my experience that anything that's been developed inbetween two heavily traveled streets or roads or highways, has always been somewhat of a 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 Fannakes: Excuse me. Can you point out where you live? ' o Mike. Oh on this ma as far as where I live. I do , Moms Conway: Yeah, I m right next p own a piece of property, let's see. I'm Moms Conway right here. But I didn't intend to 16 11 ' second rate type development. The land usually sells cheaper. It's usually a commercial or an industrial type development and that would take away the flexibility if anybody, myself or if I did sell the property, take away the flexibility of determining what would go on that piece , of property and Chanhassen would ultimately suffer too. If you don't have the flexibility on a piece that big. Especially when it's right on Highway 5. Everybody leaving the town or coming into the town will see what's on that property. What would you rather have them see a nice green golf course or a road running through it with multiple dwellings and industrial on one side and low end single family housing on the other side. That's the choice we have to make. It's as simple as that. Once you put a road through a piece of property, the flexibility's gone. Scott: Any questions for Mr. Gorra? Thank you. Yes sir. t Morris Conway. Morris Conway, 4952 Fremont ... I wasn't going to talk this morning, or this evening but I just agree with everything Mike has to say. And just on the point of view of , roads. I think that there was a vision, as I went to some of the early meetings, about the road coming in and maintaining a sense of what Chanhassen, or I remember seeing photos of German villages you know and coming into a village and the gateway concept. And I think , that's a noble position. When I, you know in looking at, just taking a step back and looking at other visions. You know I remember going after some trips to Italy let's say and you come to these beautiful towns and you think what a wonderful city. You know you take your bikes right in and you have this beautiful city. And then I go to Minneapolis and I cross this moat of Interstate 94 and it's like it chops the city right in half. You know there's no walking sense that we've got a city here. Well you're putting a road, as I see it, you're going ' to create little islands here. You know you're going to create these medium and high density islands between Highway 5 and this other road. And I just don't, I think you're going to be creating the types of things that I was asking Brad Johnson there, what is that like Cedar Riverside. You know in Minneapolis there you've got these areas where you've got these intersecting highway areas. You're isolating people into these high fragmented, urbanized , areas and then it's not a, I think that you can create bad situations and I think having people, creating a situation where you're going to force people to live within this band between these two roads, is going to be a mistake. And I don't see any really good reason for it. I just ' wanted to speak to that. And I think it's a very important time for you guys to really sit here too and say, does it make sense. To step back and really decide, for you to decide, does it make sense as opposed to just go along with the process. ' Fannakes: Excuse me. Can you point out where you live? ' o Mike. Oh on this ma as far as where I live. I do , Moms Conway: Yeah, I m right next p own a piece of property, let's see. I'm Moms Conway right here. But I didn't intend to 16 11 fl t 1 L n u Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 speak, as I say. And I've talked with different people as far as what would work out better in terms of development or not and I don't know what will sell better or worse in terms of development. Whether high density will sell better or worse, but I do think some things strike me as being dumb and part of this strikes me as being dumb. I just don't like to see dumb things done. John Pryzmus: I just want, my name is John Ptyzmus and I have the property here on Galpin Boulevard that's the driving range and miniature golf course. And I guess I don't understand, I mentioned it at the task force meeting that this property all can be developed without these roads. You've got a major intersection that's going to come in here that can service this and this. My parcel and Larry VanDeVeire's can both be serviced from CR 117. As Mike said, he don't need this road for his development here and so what you're creating is really, an expensive, expensive road that we're all going to have to pay for as taxpayers. And besides that, the City of Chan just spent like $2 1/2 million to put in a park right over here on this corner. Now you want to take and tear out my park that I put in and paid for myself with no qualms. Don't worry about the money it's going to cost you. Just put a road through there. Design it and I don't know that anybody ever came to my property and took soil tests. I don't remember ever shutting it down. Down through here you'll find a ... that comes down into a low area. If you're saving my parcel, would do if you ever did put a road in. But there's really no need other than coming to Lake Ann to, for any of this road to ever be done to develop the north side. Like Mike said, when I do sell that property some day, it can be serviced from CR 117. There's no problem. The same with Larry VanDeVeire's. You're cutting his property right in half and making it practically useless. It just don't make sense at all. Thank you. Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson. I represent Morris Conway as a developer for his parcel and as I've mentioned in the past, I live at 7245 Frontier Trail. We are in the process of developing his parcel and taking both your input relative to this plan and also in our feelings as to what should go there and then taking it to, I guess one step farther than the fellow over on the east side of town. We've taken it to professional engineers that have advised us as to how to develop the site, which I have with me. But before I go into that, I have two other concerns as a resident of Chanhassen. I know that in your proposed plan of the Ward property and at least the, what I'll call the triangle area, it's not recommended to be 100% retail. We would be concerned about that as a retail developer in town because we feel that to have successful retail you need additional massing to attract more people so that our businesses are successful and we certainly object... Ward's but object to that as a developer of other parcels in town. We feel we're short on retail land. Secondly, I concur that we do need a way to get to the park, because we have a baseball program that I sponsor here. There probably is a reason Paul and I'm not going to, but like Park Drive was not the major interchange as I always thought it was going to be and probably the distances, we should 17 u Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 r have ... which would solve the problem for Mr. Kerber. We do need access to that. I doubt very much that people are going to enjoy driving over to CR 117, which is a fairly significant , turn now to stop there and try to turn. Or all the way out to Galpin to get into the park. So maybe Audubon is the best choice but you're going to make it significantly difficult to get there but I do agree that that interchange today should be closed because it is dangerous. Relative to Mr. Conway's property, we hope to be in, and that is located as I guess he pointed out, right here. We hope to be back to you soon with the development for that parcel and as we mentioned last meeting, we're trying to deal with sort of a moving target with a time line that says we'd like to come in and get this all done with this year. Recognizing that you will be in the process and the City Council will be in the process of trying to determine , exactly what you're going to do. We perceive there probably is a need for a collector road, certainly out of our property and over to Galpin. Inevitably we need a collector road someplace. We have a golf course proposed currently, or at least in the planning stages according to our neighbor, to the east and so that limits our site as far as road systems within there. Mike has assured me that he's very serious about developing the golf course and at the minimum, I know if that would not work, he is oriented towards an executive kind of home, ' which we do not have in Chanhassen other than on the lakes, and that would be I would guess in the $400,000.00 to $600,000.00, sort of estate type of house. I think that's how he perceives that, as I listen to you, that's how he perceives that development to proceed. Given 1 the fact that that is not there and we can ... thinking about doing, we presented that to the planners and we have come up with basically a system of handling that and the only reason this affects you is that we do not want to have to deal with the Hennessy property at this time in our own plan because that would require the city taking it. In other words, if you came in and said we had to put a road in and the road went nowhere, then you'd have to purchase the Hennessy property, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me at this time because he's quite happy with that. By the way, we have checked with all the landowners in our area. The Hennessy's, the VanDeVeire's, and Gorra and they all kind of agree that this plan would be acceptable to them. I'm sure it's acceptable to Rottlund who's to the north because it happens to connect directly and looks just like what they're doing to the north of us. Now the issues then are what? Well...altemate #1 which is coming through about right here and ' require that, it's very defundling how today, or at least until you take the Hennessy property and agree that Gorra can't build his golf course, we should put a main road through the center of this property. Mainly because it's just difficult to develop. Secondly I'm talking, I won't say it's going to look like Cedar Riverside over here if we do it that way but in talking to developers, there's a very big concern about splitting communities and types of housing by a road. And by using the Alternate #2 up here, that would be sort of devastating. Secondly, I have heard that you are trying to seek government, or State assistance for the development of the service road, and if I recall correctly the reason that they were willing to give you assistance is that that road, for a year or two, would be Highway 5. Right? And they were going to close Highway 5 and then use this road. 18 1 1 r t 1 1 t � Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Krauss: Let's be clear on this Brad. The reason they were willing to participate in this is it eliminated a series of access points onto Highway 5. That's their long range purpose. It also supported local trips without going onto Highway 5. They also thought yes. If they could put mainline traffic onto it say for a period of a year, year and a half, they could substantially cut, I think cut in half the time it took to build the highway. And for all of those of you who have lived through Highway 5 construction and it drags on for year after year after year, that may be worth a short term disruption. Brad Johnson: Yes, and that was proposed to the HRA I don't know who funded your study but they approved that based upon that was going to take and construction was going to start this year. We're now being told that's, and I had no problem with that at the time because that seemed logical. There was nothing there. We're not being told that that particular situation will not happen for 6 years, maybe the year 2000 or so but as highways go, at that time I think they will have fairly, at least I know Lundgren's will be developed. You're just going to have development over there and basically it's a fairly good threat to say to somebody that we're going to put a road through the middle of all these properties and that, by the way, in order for us to fund it so maybe ... and I understood the reason that the Highway 5, the State was willing to fund that was for that purpose and I was at a number of the meetings when Mr. Ashworth, when he prepared the statements like that and it was presented in that way and that was the idea and I think we all went along with that. So I'm going to say that I don't think this road will ever be used as an alternate for Highway 5 if there's any development here in the next 5 to 10 years, because the neighbors will be in here you know, then we'll have neighbors. Right now we don't. What we have done on our proposal is recommend if you're going to have a corridor, and if you're going to map this corridor, we'll go along with it if it's on the south side. And with our current plan we would use Alternate C to cross, our planners have said this is the proper place to cross it. To cross Bluff Creek and they've used the road through VanDeVeire's property and ultimately as our access point for ... road on the south portion of the property. So the only major changes that we need to see, then we'd be willing to dedicate the normal amount of roadway that we would be required to if you mapped it so it would cost you nothing. If we just stayed down in this area. We have gone north a little bit so that we can cross at this point which is the same point I think that they were crossing. What happens is we don't necessarily represent VanDeVeire's but this is one way that that could be accomplished. And we end up with then, zoning or a proposed use as you have recommended. We have high density here but a minimum of high density. There's only been about, of rental property, maybe 2.2 acres developed in the city of Chanhassen since I've lived here. We currently have under development another 8 acres of high density. It's just not a high absorption kind of thing. I don't think you need a lot of it but we'd be comfortable with about 4 acres here and we'd anticipate that would be developed over the next 5 to 10 years. But that is about as soon as that could be done, and about the time the road would go through. And then the rest would 19 �-1 r Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 be medium density and then homes here that would go onto the proposed golf course. If there's no proposed golf course, we're very comfortable if Mr. Gorra was to develop a high class development over there. So our recommendation to you is that you amend the recommendation of the task force. Select if possible Alternate #2. Stay with crossing at C with a minor deviation at that point because we have an adequate buffer. And we too agree with the folks from Lundgren. That is you cannot put single family homes on a highway. With this type of road coming through here, this is a two family home developer. Medium density and the prices are $150- $200,000.00 per unit. He would feel comfortable but he would not build up against the highway—and that's where we're at. We're willing to cooperate. We're willing to work with the process. Come back with a road that you know that would fit whatever you, and dedicate our normal required width for your use. All we're asking is a minor modification of the plan for Alternate #2 and thus the elimination of your recommendation or to vote against the recommendation of the other people on Alternate #1. I think that works much better with Mr. Gorra because that leaves him to have the ability to develop his site that he wants. In the case of Mr. Kerber, you're going to have to deal with Audubon sometime I guess down the line. But certainly not until Mr. Gorra gets around to developing or there's a real problem with Lake Ann. Any questions? As I said, we'll be in with this plan sometime in February. We're more than happy to work with it and we don't have a cost evaluation... Robert Hoffman: Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Robert Hoffman, 1500 Northwestern Financial Center. I'm here this evening on behalf of two property owners. One, Dr. Conway who was up here a couple minutes ago and then Fleet Farm. Mills Fleet Farm. And I'm going to just review briefly some of the issues as it relates to both the Conway and the Mills Fleet Farm properties. And then specifically discuss a couple of aspects with Fleet Farm, because you've already heard from Brad and the doctor as to the specifics on his piece of property. When Paul Krauss made his introduction, he categorized the plan as a forward thinking concept. And I would certainly agree with him. The consultants you've had working on it, whether it's Bill Morrish or Joyce Levine or Barry Warner, all certainly have reputations of forward thinking in this metropolitan area and other parts of the country and I've worked with most of them over the years on a number of projects. With most forward thinking concepts, at least it's been my experience that you can achieve most of your objectives but probably have to do some modifications as to what may come from the initial concept that the forward thinkers come up with. And in the two cases of the property owners that we represent, they're really asking for some modifications. And you've heard discussions on Dr. Conway and that is a preference for the south line in order to better develop that particular piece of property. As I listen this evening, I know you certainly were aware of the considerably restraints that a planner must deal with. But those are also the considerable restraints the property owner must deal with. And whether they are landscaping or topography or wetlands or tree cover, or colors of buildings or use of materials 20 'J ri 1 I 1 r� t 1 I n 1 � i F 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 or setbacks or traffic considerations, they all start to impact the ability to develop a piece of property in the way the city would like to have it developed, or the way the property owners would like to have it developed. And neither of us are free today to do just what we'd like to do. That's the system And as I listen to the significant list of constraints over the past year that have been addressed, I'd ask you to then think of the property owner also with those similar constraints and then at least in the case of the two that I'm talking about, asking for some modifications in order to assist them on the development. I noted that in, I think it was James' presentation, in suggesting the location of the access boulevard as it related to the park. It was pushed as close to TH 5 as possible to preserve the park. I didn't hear that same comment as it related to several of the private property owners. And that perhaps was a serious consideration but I've heard several property owners suggest a movement of that to preserve their property uses and I heard that being a very significant factor for a public use. But I didn't hear that, at least as yet, as to a private use. As you proceed with the prospect of actually building a road, which has been described by Barry as the most difficult task of locating it and Paul indicating that the funds are not readily available, and then looking at piecemeal development because that's what you will get as you work with individual property owners. You're certainly going to be faced with what has been described, the economic aspects of that particular forward thinking concept. And as you proceed with the suggestion that perhaps now, that perhaps maybe Federal and State funding may not be available, for as available as you would like them, that the property owners will then bear the cost of that development. You're certainly going to be faced with what has been described as access for sub - regional and regional trips on the access boulevards. As compared to just serving the abutting property owners and therefore again I would suggest that if you can look at some compromise, if you can find the property owners who will say yes. I will preserve the wetlands. Yes, I will preserve the trees. Yes, I'll work within that topography. Yes, I will dedicate land for this right -of -way. In fact maybe pay for it. If you move it in a way that I can now develop my property in order to afford those, that that is something at least I would suggest the city look at. Because as you're talking about access boulevards, or sub - regional trips, you're not talking about, at least in Minnesota as yet, facilities that the property owner has to pay for. Those are community wide or region wide issues. That the community or the region pays for. But not the immediate property owners. The immediate property owner is required, at least currently under law, to pay for that part of the roadway that the current property owner causes in the capacity to be needed. Not boulevards or trails or landscaping, that is not absolutely needed. Those are all desired from the standpoint that you get the economics of it. I think you're going to be faced with that so again I'm suggesting that, if at all possible, if you can work out this system which is definitely forward thinking, and you don't have a ready source of funds to do it in one fell swoop, then perhaps working with some of these property owners, and in particular the two that we represent, would help facilitate that. Specifically then as to the Mills Fleet Farm piece of property, which is on State Highways 41 and 5. As you know they acquired that several years ago. They first of 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 all have asked and will continue to ask for a land use different than is proposed. The land uses proposed is neighborhood commercial, medium or higher density and then single family density as you go to the north. Obviously Mills Fleet Farm would like to build a Mills Fleet Farm facility at that particular intersection. I think earlier the discussion of big box uses was discussed and as big box uses like to be near higher arterials, and TH 5 and TH 41 are two of the higher use arterials that you have at least in the city. Therefore, as to a use, land use, we have in the past where we continue to request that the land use be considered for a Mills Fleet Farm facility. And the previous, not previous but the two studies, the Highway 5 corridor land use study on page 33, Figure 5.1 and the Environmental Assessment boulevard document on Figure 6.1 appeared to put this roadway either on or very close to the northern edge of Fleet Farm. And when we asked then for the legal description of that right -of -way, it showed this configuration which was basically through the middle. Therefore the preliminary study documents suggested that roadway be on the north edge of the ... and so apart from the land use, Mills Fleet Farm would certainly accept a northerly designation or location of that particular roadway. Or a southerly designation of that roadway. But the problem it's going virtually right through the middle. And as I listen to Terry Forbord discussing with you the inability from a marketing sense, to have single family next to high density arterial, then again I wonder from a land use when you have an existing high use arterial with TH 41 and the suggestion is that single family be the land use next to that. So our request is, from these two property owners. One is to consider the modification of the location of the roadways. You haven't either of them say they're opposed to the roadway. I think both of them have indicated that they would, certainly Mills Fleet Farm is interested in preserving the wetlands. Is interested in preserving the wetlands if it can develop the property in a reasonable way and is interested in paying it's fair share for such a facility. I think Dr. Conway has indicated the same. If it's located so they can develop their property. If you have any questions I'd be ' pleased to answer them. Mancino: I just have a real quick on. I want to make sure I'm tracking with you Mr. Hoffman. You said that Mills Fleet Farm was fine with the northern route. Robert Hoffman: The northern route that was shown on the previous two studies. Not the northern route that is now Alternative #1. Mancino: Okay. Robert Hoffman: That's why I made reference to the three, at least I'll call them conceptual designs of the roadway, seem to hug the northern edge of the property. 1 Mancino: Even more than the one that we are seeing right now as Alternative #1? ' 22 1 1 U 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Robert Hoffman: Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you. Scott: Okay, we're going to take about a 5 minute break. We can all probably use it and we'll reconvene, well let's reconvene at 10:00 sharp. (There was a short break at this point in the meeting.) Scott: We'll reconvene the Planning Commission. Peter Olin: Peter Olin. I'm Director of the Arboretum and also a member of the team that worked on this plan. There's been a lot of comments about the plan and I would like to say we think it's pretty good, as coming from the team and I think there's some good recommendations. I think one of the things that we saw when we looked at this was the fact that there was an opportunity to get away from the old standard of putting the frontage road, and there's a need for a frontage road right along the side of Highway 5, on either side, creating a huge swath of pavement. The idea was to move it back a ways so that you've seen in some places that creates some pieces of land which aren't really very buildable. So the idea again then was to move it over further to make parcels of land and I think we've got 500 to 700 feet of land between the frontage road or what we hope would become a city street rather than just a frontage road and create another main, continuation of main street in Chanhassen. So there's buildable parcels between there. Exactly types of land use, I think the planners were in some agreement and we agreed with them that it could be a higher density use but single family would probably be the best use in that. I think that we did try to look at all the uses there and in fact if you looked at that road, instead of cutting these parcels in half that is serving them, it is a different point of view and it makes those parcels of land very developable. Perhaps a golf course obviously would not work but then we don't know whether that's going to happen or not. But I think we asked the same question. Is that golf course going in there, and since you don't know, this would be a better location for a roadway. I think my only concern I would have with the plan is that some question came up about the Arboretum as being a buffer and I would like to say that we feel that the buffer is a cultural, education and research institution. It's not a buffer but perhaps does need a bit of buffering. We have a national and perhaps international reputation and we are very concerned about development in our city at this point in time. As I've expressed at various points throughout this process. I think the reputation of the 30 acres on the west side of Highway 5 that we suggested be a residential use, is a little easier on us than the industrial commercial use. But I did want to get up and say that a lot of time went in. A lot of thinking. We did listen to all the folks that are here tonight and tried to make some judgments that we felt would fit the town as well as the developers as they came through. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: Any comments for Peter? Okay, thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public that would like to address the Planning Commission? Susan Markert: Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. I would like to really ■ question. Scott: Excuse me, could you identify yourself for the record please? Susan Markert: Oh, Susan Markert. 9461 Hazeltine Boulevard. I'm wondering, I heard the gentlemen speak about the Fleet Farm and how he wished that the city would take into consideration all the restraints and so on and the placement of the road specifically. But you know he's saying that for certain things that you know if you could kind of loosen up on but when we're getting right down to the nitty gritty, when we're talking about the overlay. The standards. The building standards that were set forth. I'm looking through here piece by piece and I'm really not seeing very much and I don't see where you can get hardly anything that the building, that I've seen the Fleet Farm put up, would meet. Okay, I mean they want, and I'll just go through here as quick as I can. They want you know parking lots along Highway 5 so people can see parking lots that you know look like there's a nice viable business there. The architectural style, it's what I would consider, from what I've seen of th e Fleet Farm store so far, it's totally incompatible with what we've set forth for the other buildings and developments that we have in Chanhassen. And according to this each building shall contain one or more pitched roof elements. I've never seen, I don't think, a pitched roof element there. They'd have to change that. And there are not to be any exposed cement or cinder blocks. I believe they might use that. Fabricated metal or pole construction structures. I believe that that's something that might pertain to that exterior ... but that's a possibility. Experimental materials possible. A solid wall relieved by architectural detailing. That isn't for sure. The materials and construction methods used for one aspect or a portion—significant lower in quality. You know I can just keep going on. Also with the fencing, that it says screening of service yards and I think it might be like the lumber yards that... The screening of service yards. You know you can't have a chain linked fence and I did specifically hear them mention that they would buffer our house from them by you know volunteering to put the road right at the very, you know where it just abuts our property, which I believe they already have an 80 foot easement built into that. And they were going to put up a chain link fence that would buffer us from them. Mancino: Susan, could you point to where your property is. Susan Markert: We're right here. And this is you know where the proposed northerly route would go but from what I could get from the gentleman that was speaking for the Fleet Farm, he was asking that we would move this road right up here because I've already heard this... 24 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 before. You know. That way that can give them more room to build and then they might even want to designate this property right here as a natural, that wetland or pond or whatever. Which would move that building you know closer to our property and totally disrupt the look of, we planned the entire road, which I believe was a good plan. The northerly route because it's very scenic and I've walked it with Nancy. And we took the time and it was very well done. It's very beautiful back there and we did not want, you know like a service road. So according to the plan, it looks nice but then when you get the corner of TH 5 and TH 41, I think that they're wishing that that road would just kind of like go right up there and just ruin everything you know basically that we've planned and I would have an absolute total objection to that. That if that's what they would want to do, then we would not wish to live there or do our home occupation there any longer and that's the whole thing. You know with ... but I really don't want to see that. As a person that lives there, I enjoy it and we're there because we like it. We preserve things. We take care of things. People that are absentee landowners have a totally different view. I like, I've used the word bastardizing the corner and I just kind of think that that might be what happen, what could happen to it if �. Chanhassen doesn't really hold to the design standards that were set forth. Because I believe that we're you know a very high class community and that we should keep going forward with the plan that we've developed and I guess that's all I have to say. Scott: Good. Any questions or comments? Good, thanks. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes sir. L VanDeVeire: Hi. I'm Larry VanDeVeire and I own the property on the northeast QTY Y P P corner of Highway 5 and Galpin. Right here, and I'd just like to make a comment for the record that, and correct me if I'm wrong but I think that if all the landowners have been listened to throughout this process, the only landowner that would be getting what they want is the city through the Lake Ann parcel. And like I say, correct me if I'm wrong but I think most of the people that have been here, and have either objected to or suggested changes in the way the road alignment is planned. And I guess if that's listening to the landowners, then I don't know. I'm missing something. If there's any type of input because there's quite a few of us. And like I say, the only landowner that isn't objecting the city themselves I think. Scott: Well Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros was the first person who spoke was in favor of the alignment and asked us some questions about zoning and so forth. He's probably the only one that I've heard from that was in favor of it. Larry VanDeVeire: But he still suggested some changes. 1 Scott: He had a little bit of a, he was a little bit confused as to what the colors meant because the difference between medium density and low density. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 L VanDeVeire: Wasn't he suggesting that it be pulled south towards the road though? I an'3' gg g P Scott: No. Mancino: No. Conrad: A little bit. Mancino: 100 feet south. Larry VanDeVeire: Well, 100 feet would be pretty significant on my property. Maybe not on his but 100 feet is 100 feet. Harberts: Larry, can you outline how much is your property? Larry VanDeVeire: Right here. 13 acres. Harberts: Okay, thanks. Larry VanDeVeire: And I guess what I'm getting at is he eluded to, I don't know how developable some of the properties are, and I'd just like to state for the record that I have my concerns also as far as how it's going to be developed. What it's going to look like all the way through. I guess a property that I think of that isn't the same right across from the high ' school in Minnetonka. Right across from Minnetonka High School. There's a non - developed piece of property there that it splits off into a Y and you can call it, it's been for sale from time to time. I don't know what could be put there. Right now it's natural but I don't know if that looks, is attractive either. Mancino: Larry, I don't understand where you're coming from. If I know your property. It doesn't matter, in fact if we take the preferred route, the recommendation the Highway 5 task force made, unless the road, access boulevard goes through your property, less roadway goes through your property if we take the recommendation from the Highway 5 task force. Larry VanDeVeire: I guess my concern is the supposed inflexibility of the road where Terry Forbord was ... right now you have it going through the tree line and I'm not so sure that's good for me or good for the city of Chanhassen. Mancino: So how would you change it? 26 � Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Larry VanDeVeire: I don't know. I'm just suggesting that I'd like some flexibility and that there should be some flexibility through this according to development rather than stamp the road in place and then say now, try to make something fit. I just don't know that that's the way it should be done. And I realize that something has to be done as far as guiding it but I still think there should be some flexibility allowed and still meeting what you people want too. And I guess like I say, and I think, I forget who said it but oh, it was Mike I think with the driveway. No one builds a house around a driveway and that's basically what you're looking at here. Trying to make stuff fit with what's left and that's why I suggested the property across from Eden Prairie High School. I don't know what they're going to do with that. It's for sale from time to time but nothing, you know it's a pie shaped lot and it isn't real wide and not that this is what this will turn into but I do think that you limit what can be done with it when you all at once you set restrictions. And then again with the wider setbacks, all of the other restraints that Chanhassen would like to see, it further limits what i can be used. I guess that's it. Thank you. Scott: Would anybody else like to address the commission? Peter Beck: Mr. Chairman, Commission, Peter Beck. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South. I'd just like to briefly reiterate the request I made at the workshop last week. That the Commission adopt the recommendation of the task force and guide the Eckankar facility portion of the Eckankar property for institutional uses. As I mentioned, the Temple is one integrated site. It will never be subdivided or sold or built into any multiple family residential use so we request the addition ... And I don't intend to belabor the point any more ... answer any questions and to address that issue in greater detail. Scott: Okay. Go ahead Sue. Susan Marken: Susan Markert speaking again. As I sat down I realized, people, any time there's a change people get afraid and this is real obscure. You know you see a road coming through our town. And for 2 years I've dreaded the thought and I've, you know I've actually gotten sick over it when I'd have to come to these meetings and try to make a conscientious decision for the city. And it became a process where I kind of became desensitized to it but I'm still very sensitive. So as a landowner, I can speak from both sides. As a landowner I would prefer not to have any roads and have the rolling hills and all the beauty forever. As a person that came up here to plan for the development of Chanhassen, I say that we definitely need a plan and this is what has been implemented and we're not putting the cart before the ' horse. We're not putting the driveway in before the house. We're putting a plan so there can be good development developed off the plan. If there was no road and we allow people to put their driveways in and whatever they wanted to do, we'd have a mish mosh and then we'd have like a can of worms that nobody would know what the heck was going on. It 1 27 1 r Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 certainly wouldn't follow any plan whatsoever so what I'm saying is I really do believe we need the road. I would love to you know go down this road without getting onto Highway 5 because I was one of the biggest complainers of trying to make a left onto Highway 5 out of TH 41 with people getting very angry before they did have that turn lane. And also, if we did not have that road in there, I have gone to Galpin Boulevard. I had left something at ABC Daycare Center, which is I think what is it, Lake Drive or something? Scott: Yeah. Susan Markert: It should only be like a minute away but you know like at night when the traffic was coming, it took me 15 minutes to go down to Galpin Blvd and make a turn to come back to get to ABC Daycare Center to get what I needed to get so you know. Somehow if we would have had this road I believe I could have done that quicker and much more safely. So I do believe that we need the road no matter what a lot of other people think. It's just, it's progress and that's what you're paying for and it's better to have a plan than not to have a plan. That's just the way it is. Scott: Good. Thank you Susan. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Yes sir. John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs. I represent Heritage Development Company. I would like to speak just briefly to page 7 of the memorandum handed out this evening, and specifically to the following land use issues still need to be resolved. The fifth one down, that Heritage Development West. Harberts: Wait, wait, wait. Where are you? Scott: We've got to get there. Conrad: Page 7 of the staff report. Harberts: Thank you. John Dobbs: Fifth one down. Heritage Development west of Bluff Creek, south of frontage ' road, multi- family should be considered as an option with industrial. I would like to say that I would like to concur that we would like that as an option very much. We currently, we are the owners of the residential property south of the frontage road east of Galpin. Next to Timberwood Estates. We also own, and I believe this comment speaks to a piece of property that we own on the east side of Bluff Creek. We currently I think McGlynn Bakery is there and also to the north it's proposed to be industrial. We are proposing and we are very I 28 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 tentatively scheduled on February 2nd to bring in a multi- family and single family detached concept for your approval and I'd just like to say that we believe that it is a transition zone between existing industrial and what will be single family detached residential. I recognize that there are a number of issues associated with this particular piece of property in that there's the Bluff Creek corridor and industrial on one side and residential on the other and that transition needs to be dealt with sensitively and we are in the process of looking at a variety of options to do that. But as it's slated on this plan and ... we'd like to see that. Scott: Good. Any questions or comments? Good. Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Seeing no other members of the public who are interested in addressing the Planning Commission. Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Because of the complex nature of what we have to deal with, I'm certainly open for suggestions but it appears that the least controversial thing we have to do is to pass the EA document onto the City Council. Are you? Aanenson: Except part of that is to select an alternative of the road. Scott: Okay. I guess I'd be open for suggestions as to how we can, perhaps instead of having general comments on everything from the Planning Commission at the same time, perhaps focus on specific pieces. Now what those specific pieces are and in the order which it seems like the land use kind of drives the alternative for the access boulevard. Conrad: What are we recommending for passage here? Scott: Well, according to the staff report we've got the EA document, which has the. Let's see the EA document has got the alternative associated with it. And then the corridor study has got land use and the architectural standards. Farmakes: Are we going to do all three or are we going to separate them? Scott: I'm just trying to think so we can perhaps focus. I don't know, maybe we can't focus on one particular aspect. Do you want to go at this as just making general comments? Harberts: Well I have a question. What's the desire of the commission here to look at some of these issues in which the commission is not in concurrence with the task force recommendations as outlined on page 7? Do we need to have some kind of basis? Do we 29 1 r Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 want to have some kind of basis of concurrence? Scott: In my mind that'd be probably the easiest thing to get started on because it is pretty concrete. Mancino: Yeah. And we've had some more input tonight so maybe we will come to some resolution of some of the areas that we weren't before. Makes you look at those again. Scott: Because these are basically all land use. Harberts: Well, except it's going to impact development in the future of Chan. Scott: Well why don't we start with the first topic with regard to how large should the commercial zoning extend, which I guess is do we have our central business district, a retail district cross Highway 5 to the south? Mancino: Which specifically is the Ward property. Scott: Ward property, right. Krauss: Which and Brad was talking about ... not recommended. What the plan showed was the possibility for commercial along the first, I think about 20 -25 acres. Aanenson: Predeveloped. Mancino: Actually that is in Figure in your chapter 8. Figure 8.13- 8.14 -8.15. Scott: Perhaps the philosophical question is you know, do we believe that you need to have retail across Highway 5 from what is known as our central business district? Farmakes: Is this open discussion? Scott: Yeah. I think we can have open discussion. Farmakes: My feelings about it, again I think we discussed this in the study group. I'm open to extending retail. I don't see a compelling reason. I am told from a marketing standpoint that it would help. I think Brad made the comment that more retail development is good for all retail, although the last retail development that we had in here he wasn't in concurrence with that. We really are looking at two issues it seems to me. One is do we serve Chanhassen with retail. Or do we look outside of that to the sub - region issue? And if so, 30 1 1 1 e i 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 how much additional space do we look at? I'm not sure that there's a compelling reason outside the half a million square feet that you said for retail space that we need to expand that. I think it's important that it would be in the central district. That we don't have a bunch of malls going off all over in our community. I don't see any compelling reason not to bring it down below the highway but I'm not sure we need the additional service. I haven't seen any information in our study group that has compelling, that says that we definitely need that other than to have a developer come forward and say that we need more retail property. They happen to be in the business of doing, developing retail property so that would make sense that they would say that but I'm not sure the community needs that. Scott: Okay, so your position is, you could go either way but you were not presented with a compelling reason why. Farmakes: I'm looking for a compelling reason that would serve the community good. t Scott: Okay. Alright. Personally I don't see that need either, and I've always been a proponent of a very concentrated central business district. I will continue to oppose, as most of us would, any sort of major retail development anywhere outside of the central business district. And I would look very carefully at any sort of strip mall save a neighborhood business in an area that was fairly heavily developed. So I don't see a need for retail space south of Highway 5 either. Anybody else like to comment on that? Conrad: But then you do think that office space is essential? Scott: Well, having. Conrad: Which we have a fair amount of so. Scott: Well, you know having just expanded our business and looking for office space, there is, you know I haven't and I've checked into the buildings. I don't sense that there's a lot of vacant office space in town. I don't have any statistics but if it's anything like our rental, we have about a less than a 5% rental property vacancy right now in Chanhassen from an apartment standpoint and my sense is that the office space is fairly tight as well. But I personally don't see the need to go across the highway with retail. Conrad: That's not what I've heard but you and I are not experts in the business. I Scott: No... 31 t r Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 Conrad: So I won't even P ush that. It's a matter of, it's sort of a gut feel. Right now I don't know but I think we need retail space. We're out of it, period. It's like, it's a decision. And I'm not sure that you know, I made some points the last time. Or now that we've got the traffic, should we do something to convert that traffic into retail sales. We don't really have the land to really do that so the verbiage and the time we spend on this right now is probably not worth a whole lot. We don't have much and unless we'd be committed to really getting out of the downtown area, I don't think we have a chance to really tap into the, it's really a resource. A traffic resources coming to Byerly's and Target. We really won't utilize maybe as much as we can. And I think the city of Chanhassen, the residents that I've talked to, they're comfortable with that. On the other hand, on the flip side of that coin, I see that the downtown doesn't have any more area for retail and therefore the Ward property looks to me to be the right place to put any kind of retail space. Mancino: What do you mean there isn't any more retail area? What about behind the Frontier? There's that whole vacant land that a huge retail development could go back there. It could also go where the bowling alley is at this point. Conrad: I guess a little bit of it, yeah. Mancino: I think there's a lot of space there for retail. Conrad: I think you could pick that up but a finite, there's a limited amount. You know how many people do we have in Chan right now, 12,000? And what are we going to grow to, 35? Mancino: 35, yeah. Conrad: That's triple. And I'm saying as we grow, there's probably different needs that we may need in 5 years and really you've got one parcel behind the Dinner Theatre that's owned by one person. They can develop it the way they want and I guess I'd like to have some flexibility in town to think that maybe we have some other parcels. Sooner or later it's going to, there's a limit. You know we're limiting retail in Chanhassen. Where you see red and that's it. There ain't going to be no more and I think that's fine. I think that's what I've been around for is to make sure that we keep it in one place. But I'm just saying, right now it appears to me in a gut feel that we need retail space just to satisfy maybe some of the needs of the residents that could be here the next 20 years. As we sell out in Chanhassen and I'd like to have that opportunity to do that. Farmakes: What I question with that kind of thing, and I agree with almost everything that , you said. But what I question is, is how many liquor stores do we need? How many mail box type operations do we need and how many, when you transcend into soft goods retail and 32 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 you come into stores that are selling clothes, we don't support that type of foot traffic and destination, the specialty type shops. It's more of a service to a suburban community and how many duplications do we have? Conrad: Well let me just throw that back. And they're good questions. How many places do you have to put a restaurant in Chanhassen? How many restaurants do we have? How many do we need? Probably more than we do today. Probably is such a nice supporting feature to a population of 35,000. Where are we going to put them? Mancino: 212? Farmakes: Actually per capita we probably have the largest restaurant space in the United States I would guess, short of Manhattan. Conrad: But that's just one. You put restaurants in places like what I'm talking about. That's where, and where do they go? They could go behind the Dinner Theatre but that's one spot. Farmakes: Two of them over by Target. Conrad: Yeah. My guess would be, and I'm not an expert in the field but if you have 35,000 people, you don't have enough space to put a restaurant. A couple more that might give us a variety of options other than some fast food you know. And maybe that's what we're going to get anyway after we program some more space. We may end up getting more fast food. Scott: So you're for expanding the retail south of Highway 5? Conrad: Yep. Scott: Okay. 1 Conrad: Thanks. Scott: Should I start down here since you... Mancino: Well I don't know. I like having, I mean the unique part of Chanhassen to me right now is that we have a centralized downtown. Centralized retail right there and I like that. I mean I can go shopping anywhere, but I can't get a sense of community any other place. And I like it in one area. I can go to malls anyplace, anywhere, anytime and I still 33 r Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 don't get a downtown feel like I get when I go to Chan and I'd like to keep that. So I would not like to see the retail go over across. I'd like to keep it over here. Scott: Okay. Y Ledvina: I would also be in favor of maintaining it north of Highway 5. I think if it is located in that area, that that fragments what we call the downtown. Scott: Diane. I Harberts: I think I'm torn. I think you can stand on either side of this issue. I guess looking at it broadly, I like everything on the north side because it would I guess hopefully induce more of a higher concentration that pedestrian oriented type of development that everybody in Chanhassen seems to want. But on the other hand I certainly support competition and when you have that free enterprise, the competition, it's good for the community. I guess I'm concerned about are we just envisioning like another strip mall in terms of if something happens on the Ward property or would there be something of desire for the community in terms of retail. I guess my biggest concern is, do we have 3 more dry cleaners or something like that or will we get something in there that actually will benefit the community? I like you know just myself as a resident, I certainly like to run down to the corner store or whatever and pick up whatever I need. So I guess 1, I have mixed feelings in terms of one r way or the other because I think there's issues on both, there's support on both sides. I don't, you know when you look at the fact that the Ward's is probably the last piece of opportunity and if staff has the, oh I don't know what you'd call it. It's not really the control but has the opportunity perhaps to in a sense put something in there or help ensure something goes in there that's going to benefit the community rather than just be another fourth liquor store or dry cleaners, I would certainly be in favor of seeing that Ward's property develop in that way. Mancino: But we have no control over that. We can't tell you what in 5 years is going, you ' know how that's going to change hands. Harberts: I don't know that, yeah. Scott: Is that part of the Rosemount TIF district or does that stop at TH 101? Krauss: It's part of the downtown TIF district. So is Rosemount and... Harberts: So would you say you have that opportunity to...? 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 i Krauss: In the next few years you do have the ability to ... financial support. ' Scott: That's until '97? Krauss: Well, it's until 2001 I think. 2000. But the program has been to do 3 years of increment and you know it's 1994 right now so as time goes on, there's less ability to do something. But in terms of tools, that's the whole purpose of this exercise. The plan you're ' looking at, the ordinance is a tool. It's not going to guarantee you that you get a ... book store or something like that. But then again, you're not going to have ... I think it's inevitable that if you provide a little more opportunity, you're going to get a little better mix. Exactly what ' that mix is going to, there's no way I can tell you and we don't operate in an environment... Scott: Well I know we're talking we're going to be building a pedestrian bridge across Highway 5. If you think about why people would want to cross Highway 5, they're probably not going to have as much of a need to do that if, our central business district and the services and so forth is the draw to pull people across Highway 5, why would we stick more ' retail down here which would kind of short circuit the reason that they would use the bridge. Harberts: Which way are they crossing? North to south or south to north? Scott: Probably coming from a residential area into the central business district I would think. Rather than going from residential to CBD and back again. But I don't know. I don't ' know if I could be convinced otherwise like that. But by my scientific calculations here we've got 2 who are leaning strongly towards adding more retail south of Highway 5 and 4 who are quite strongly leaning the opposite directly so do we need more discussion on this ' particular item? Conrad: The current recommendation though on the map is what? It's a mix. ' mix right. What we're saying is do Aanenson: It's a g yang you want to take commercial that's y ' already... Conrad: So you have, really folks you have a choice. You can leave it as is and basically there's a compromise with what was all said here. Or if you don't want anything. If you don't want retail, you've got to take it out. Mancino: So it'd just be officeNinstitutional without retail. Harberts: I would follow the staff recommendations. 1 35 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Farmakes: Now is that office retail or... Mancino: What's high tech industrial? Krauss: ...high tech industrial kind of walks like an office building, talks like an office building but if you go inside it could be warehouse and manufacturing ... high tech buildings, you know along 494 in Minnetonka that ...Pond project on one side and. Scott: There's Baker Industrial Park. Mancino: Those are high tech buildings? Krauss: Those are high tech buildings. They're glass fronts. They look like offices from the street frontage and a lot of them are 70 -80% office but the interiors are flexible. And there's loading docks ... in the back. Mancino: ...and that would come under office, high tech industrial? Krauss: Yes. Conrad: Just think Nancy how nice a retail center this could be. Where you have wetlands and you have some character that we're striving for in downtown that everybody wants but is not really there. Here's an area that might just be something with some character. Farmakes: Well the issue of office, where we say office, use it as a word for a zone. I always get a little cross eyed at that. The issue of the two developments that we have down here that are office, the bottom floors are retail. Would that use then be acceptable in this if it's office? Krauss: I don't think so but it depends on how you do it. The Comp Plan, the '91 Comp Plan actually has one area, it's on the Ward property that's shown only for office uses. Solely for office uses which I suppose means that it would be zoned office institutional is the only use that can go there. In that district that's all you can do. Then again if somebody came in as a PUD, which the last 25% of the uses could be something else, it is possible to get a mix. I agree with you and I know, I remember the conversation very well with Brad where the line gets real blurry. Are these retail buildings or are they office buildings? I think you can be more specific than that. But again... Scott: Well if we, I'm just kind of looking across old Highway 101 from that area. If we're talking about putting some sort of a hotel, park and ride kind of a complex over there, it is 36 F1 F v i !�I 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 conceivable he said we're going to have, it looks like that hotel development will probably be a little bit more substantial than Country Suites, maybe? Yes? No? Might there be small retail associated with that project? I suppose anything's possible but I'm just thinking. Krauss: That's a project that hasn't coalesced yet. We're still working on that. If it did happen in it's current incarnation, there's already a little strip mall there right now, and it provides a nice mix. The only other additional retail that was thought of is a restaurant, free standing or attached in conjunction with the hotel/motel. Scott: Okay. Well, on this particular issue do we go with the staff recommendation or do we remove commercial, which I would understand, would we remove retail? If we remove commercial designation from here, that remains retail? Aanenson: Except as Paul mentioned, if they came forward with a PUD. Scott: With a PUD it could be 25% but then that would give us the opportunity to look at the plan in it's entirety and if we felt at that point in time that some small retail would be appropriate, maybe that's the bottom line. Maybe we remove the commercial segment of this but if it happens to come in with a PUD and it looks good to whoever happens to be on the Planning Commission at that point in time, what do you think about that? Mancino: Works for me. Scott: Works for you? Ledvina: That's acceptable for me. Scott: Matt. What do you think Diane? Harberts: Yeah, it works for me. I think that enables more of an influence by the city and community. Scott: Okay. What do you think Ladd? I Conrad: No. Scott: It stinks. It still stinks. Conrad: Yeah, you know. My position would be, I'd really like to see some nice retail go in there. 37 k f Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: What's nice retail? I Conrad: Well we've got to get moving along but we don't have a lot of control on that. I ' just, really my bottom line is, I don't think you can afford to take retail out of, we need some retail space and I'm not convinced we need the other space that you're zoning it for. That's really my bottom line. Scott: Alright. Are we. Farmakes: Is that property in or out of the TIF district? Krauss: It's in and it was included, at least part of it. I Farmakes: So the odds are we would probably be seeing the PUD no matter what anyway on this particular piece of property? ' Krauss: Again, if something happened... Harberts: Ladd, are you maybe hedging that you'd rather see most of this retail rather than ' the office? Conrad: I like the mixed use and I'd like to see a real nice. To tell you the truth, I'd like to see a real nice retail shopping center there. Versus high tech office? Harberts. a sus g Conrad: But what are the chances that, the chances are minimal that we'd get it so. ' Scott: Yeah, on 7 acres. I mean if we went with a 25% PUD, we would get probably 4 or 5 acres of retail. Let's say 4 acres of retail versus 7 acres, which is obviously about 75% more. ' Mancino: Ladd, you could just as easily get a discount store there. Scott: Can you get big box retail on 7 acres? Conrad: Can you? Scott: That's, we don't want. I mean I don't want that. Target's 10? 1 38 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Krauss: Target's on 10 ... we'll have to check. Scott: Yeah, so I mean so it's conceivable. Personally I don't want to see these big box retails but. Mancino: K -Mart. Wal -Mart. Scott: I don't want it. I don't want that there. Conrad: Just a clarification though. Based on the current zoning, a discount store could go. Or based on the map that we looked at, a discount store could go in. Krauss: You're right. Conrad: And maybe it's better what you're doing. Scott: Okay, are you okay? Mancino: We're all in agreement. Scott: Anyway, so we're done with the Ward property. Harberts: What about the Fleet Farm? Mancino: It's not a very clear recommendation so the City Council knows. Farmakes: Well, which one are we on right now? Scott: Still the first item. So anyway. Basically what they're, the zoning that we're going to recommend is all office. We call it office, IOP. Mancino: Office institutional. Scott: Office institutional and that is, in the vernacular of planningese that is what? OI? Krauss: That would be one of the zones in the appropriate. Scott: Yeah, and what would you call it? OI, office industrial? 39 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Mancino: Office institutional. Scott: Okay. Office institutional. That's for the whole thing. Farmakes: How long does that remain in TIF by the way? Is it the end of the decade? Does TIF run out, is it 2000? Conrad: 2001. Krauss: There's also an industrial. Mancino: Just office institutional. Not office industrial institutional. Krauss: Oh, if you consider changing two things. Mancino: Well there was never office industrial on here. Scott: Yeah, because we've got office institutional. Krauss: That's one with the stripes. Mancino: Oh, I'm looking again at this site plan. Scott: Well, because I'm looking at I think maybe the same thing. At least according to this Figure 8.14. The 7 acre parcel was retail office, high tech industrial and what we want this whole thing to be is office institutional. Two different things, right? Mancino: Yes. Pink and blue. Scott: So we nailed down our recommendation is that we want to see the entire property, the land use office institutional. Aanenson: You're eliminating the high tech type, smaller footprint industrial? That was one of the uses... Harberts: I think, it was my understanding the only thing we're doing is removing commercial out of the staff recommendation. Am I right on that? Scott: Okay, so we're removing commercial. C:17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Harberts: Did you get that? Krauss: You wanted to clarify in the text to say that. Scott: No commercial zoning on the Ward property. Harberts: Period. Krauss: No, that's not what you said though. As a part of a PUD it could possibly have some. Mancino: That's true. Farmakes: ...have to say that is that a PUD allows for... Aanenson: If you turn to page 21 in the document and it talks about... Scott: Which document? Aanenson: It says it's the Ward property. Scott: Okay. Aanenson: Potential uses. Scott: Yep. Aanenson: We're eliminating retail commercial but we're saying office industrial and add institutional. And then you say PUD ... may be considered under a PUD. Scott: Would we agree with that? Why don't you restate that? That was good. Aanenson: Okay. Under the potential use ... the first one will be retail commercial. Scott: So we strike that. Aanenson: Strike that out. Scott: Okay, that's out of there. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 Aanenson: Residential—and office industrial/institutional. I Scott: Okay, because it does mention institutional in the text but you want to have it all office industrial/institutional. Aanenson: Right. And then say commercial may be permitted under the PUD. May be ' considered. Scott: Yeah, may be considered. Yep, that's important. May be considered. Okay. Is ' everybody clear on what we've done? Farmakes: We're eliminating industrial. ' Scott: Ah no. We're eliminating, for a potential use retail and commercial. It's going to be all office industrial/institutional and commercial may be considered as part of a PUD. Not to exceed 25% but I guess that's the PUD ordinance so. Okay. Have we finished that item to everyone's satisfaction? I'll say yes. Farmakes: Yes. Mancino: Yes. , Scott: Okay. What about the Opus? I Mancino: I have some notes. Scott: Oh okay. These issues affect the option for commercial zoning on the Ward property. Which I understand, and the VanDeVeire. Okay, let's talk about that. Mancino: What are we talking about? Scott: How does this affect the option for VanDeVeire? I Aanenson: These are the other commercial pieces that you're looking at. This portion of Fleet Farm and the question that we talked about, potentially including in a park. And the other one is the VanDeVeire piece which ... so that ties back into ... and if there should be some ancillary to service the neighborhood. And support commercial. Scott: Let's talk about for VanDeVeire. Right ' Scot ht now we have what? Let me see with the g Song/Carlson property and some of the Lundgren developments, if we add all that stuff 42 [l r1l Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 together with the existing people living in that area, we're looking at 400 -500 single family houses. I'm just trying to get an idea. Mancino: No. 200 Lundgren. Krauss: If you're looking at a service area for neighborhood commercial, add the 144 homes in the Hans Hagen and the 70 homes in ... but they're not turning the same comer. So I think... we think that's where your trade is. Scott: So we have the same question on that property. Is that something that, I guess Diane, ' how do you see that particular corner? Do you see that as a general commercial or something like a neighborhood business kind of...? ' Mancino: ...is that what it is? Farmakes: Is that the property? Harberts: Is that what he has and then he has that commercial? What's this commercial proposed as neighborhood or ... something else? Krauss: At this particular time... Conrad: I think it should stay neighborhood. Harberts: Ditto. Scott: Neighborhood commercial? 1 Conrad: Yes. Ll II u Scott: What is the zoning classification on that? Neighborhood. Harberts: That's what that represents now. Krauss: Actually we've shown it as a mix. Neighborhood commercial, medium family residential and I believe... Mancino: ...I don't have a big deal with the way and I like the three suggestions. The medium density, multi- family, the neighborhood commercial and I think we even said on the task force open space. You know it's across from the school. It's surrounded by the Bluff 43 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 Creek corridor, which I think is an amenity to that whole area, and so I think it's important ' where we do have that corridor amenity there, that we do have families living around it that can use it and not to put either institutional right up to this wonderful nature trail and corridor ' that people don't use it, or to put a lot of commercial around it. Because I think that homeowners and family members will use it so much more. So that's kind of my concern and I know we're just getting started to work on the Bluff Creek corridor so I'm concerned ' about that. I'm also a little concerned about having commercial across the street from a school but it also serves neighborhoods in'that area too. So I don't have a big concern either way. ' Farmakes: That's one of the properties that I thought, at least next to the creek there that I thought that the city should try and acquire some of that. The development that I saw up here tonight goes right up to the limited borders of that creek and if it is a multi, I don't think you're going to see much of that creek from the highway. To be honest with you. I'm fine ' with some limited commercial, neighborhood commercial. I guess from a planning standpoint, I guess any of these other uses that were listed are also fine. I do think though that that's another one of the areas that does have some wooded areas or it's adjacent to wooded areas. That we should try and preserve that. Scott: So do we have a consensus on neighborhood business, multi- family, open space. So ' there would be no change there. Okay. Are we okay with that? No change on the VanDeVeire? Okay. Okay, how about the westerly piece of the Fleet Farm site adjacent to the limited access road? I was going to ask, what page is that on? We've got these great maps here. Harberts: It's got to be on TH 41 there where the TH 41 and TH 5. Aanenson: On page 48 of this. Ledvina: Can you point out what's done on the westerly part of that? , Mancino: Look to your 8.7 and 8.8. Aanenson: Easterly. Is that the one we're looking at tying with the park? As we stated, we're not sure that that will be a full intersection at that ...We're having Opus doing a traffic ' study and stated that that may just be a free right only. It may not be a full intersection. Harberts: So, that would make a difference. ' Scott: Yeah. 44 1 i 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Harberts: Well when we went out there and drove it, if this is what happens with the road system. I don't know, I thought I kind of liked it. Mancino: Which part? Farmakes: Like it is? Harberts: Yeah. At least from what I've seen. Mancino: You can't have that west city road go up north? Harberts: Well with the development or potential development there, with those access. Mancino: I think this northern part between Galpin and TH 41, and I said it earlier to Ladd, absolutely gorgeous land. I mean it's got these wonderful wetlands and you look up north there, just beautiful, beautiful land and rolling hills. Farmakes: I'm fine with the uses being proposed for those two smaller parcels. Obviously I'm not for the Mills section. Conrad: Would you be though if there's not a road there? Farmakes: For large scale commercial? Aanenson: Look at the development parcels. We're looking at really three 3 to 5 acre parcels on either side of that road. I think the reason that got raised ... go back and look at the site analysis, and in the development design that was done for both parcels, commercial was never mentioned on the easterly portion or evolved from this plan... Farmakes: What I see here on the map is 3 acres to the east that says office institutional and then 2.5 acres to the west that says alternative land uses. Office institutional, neighborhood retail. Those are the two parcels that we're discussing right now? Or are you expanding that out to the entire area? Aanenson: I was looking at... Krauss: Well yeah, you've got 3 questions on there. Two of which we raised in here and one which was raised in the... Farmakes: Right. I'm just wondering what, you know are we going to discuss them as a 45 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 group or are we going to discuss them each as a, it seems to me that they're, from my standpoint anyway, a couple of those uses are fine. And some of the alternative uses that were being discussed by Mr. Hoffman here ... that's a different animal. Scott: Well the size of the parcels obviously could change depending upon if that west city street actually becomes a full intersection and the street goes up and intersects with the access boulevard. Because then we'd have what,, a fairly large parcel. Aanenson: It'd still be just a free right to get in there and then come back out. And then if you wanted to proceed, a free right to get onto the frontage road and then come back out on TH 41, but that may not be a full intersection is what I'm saying. Scott: But whether or not that street's there will have a lot to do with what happens on that property. Farmakes: Sure. But that might be 10 years from now. Scott: So do we have any, do we want to guide that for something else or are we comfortable with the? Ledvina: That's okay. Harberts: I think generally it was okay. The issue is going to surround with the, what type of intersection, if any, as I understand it. Will the city be able to consider? They won't have that information at the time this is moved ahead so it's just one of those transition pieces. Is that correct? Or this goes ahead until that traffic study's completed. Krauss: You know the traffic study is going to tell us whether or not Opus needs an access out onto Highway 5 at that point. Whether or not that should be signalized. It's not going to tell us whether or not we need the north leg. It's the same kind of a thing I was talking about on Audubon. Realistically this road is perfectly adequate to service that entire area without that intersection on the north side. Scott: Yeah. That's so close to TH 41. I can see where the traffic study of ingress and egress from the development but not for that other... Krauss: Whereas Opus needs it from a traffic standpoint... is to their probably benefit by not having it. You're not chopping up parcels. You're keeping neighborhoods together. 1 46 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 ' Scott: Well maybe we should consider, at least consider it as a contiguous piece of 7 to 8 acres ... and look at it that way. So how does that, does that change anybody's thoughts as to the applicability of the zone guiding on it? Harberts: I guess I don't, I'm not against what you're saying Joe. I'd like to, let's just leave the road system in until the traffic study's done. Krauss: Maybe there should be some language in there because the only reason why there was a commercial use in there is because there may be an intersection. No intersection, there's no reason for a commercial use there. Mancino: So then having an alternative if there isn't a road, I would go ahead and continue the multi- family. Aanenson: Or the park option. Scott: Okay. So okay. So if there's no extension. So if then if there's no extension of the west city street, then it's multi- family park? If there is an extension, then it's neighborhood business? What's the second piece here really? Harberts: Well I was under the impression that if there is no road extension, that the commercial element is just removed as an option. ' Scott: Which would make sense. Harberts: The other option is park. Krauss: The ... would be like a church site. ' Harberts: Right. The other option would be a park and then was there a third option for that g P ' piece? No, guess not. Aanenson: Multi - family. Harberts: Multi- family, so there's three options. ' Scott: I think we're through now with the first piece. Opus site should be left IOP except for the most northerly portion. Get your maps out. The most northerly portion west of Highway 41 which shall be left medium family residential. That's up against the 10 acre 47 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 parcel that's a single family , P g Y home? Aanenson: Yes. , Scott: Okay. ' Mancino: Now where's medium family again? Aanenson: It's right here. Mancino: The piece behind? 1 Aanenson: All of this will be zoned IOP. And we've always stated that commercial will not be permitted at this corner. That commercial under a PUD, if they have 25% and if they were to put it in ... down in this corner and not on this side of the street. And the PUD would guide this to be office type uses...design, the lighting be compatible with the acreage. Scott: And then multi- family would abut the 10 acre parcel. Aanenson: Where the wetland is adjacent to the house? I Scott: Yeah. That kind of, the wetland kind of bisects that parcel. Let me ask a question. It says the PAD. ' Aanenson: That should say PUD. Scott: That's kind of what I thought. Another acronym I didn't know. Okay. What do we feel about that? Conrad: It's P erfect. ' Mancino: Not for me. ' Scott: It doesn't work for you? Mancino: I would still like to see all the, the land that touches the Arboretum multi- family. I went and looked at a land use map and looked through the city and looked at our city parks and what kind of land use was around you know Lake Ann, Meadow Green Park, Greenwood Shores Park. You know all of our parks are surrounded, except for Lake Susan Park, but most of our parks we have tried to, at least from what I can see that predecessor's have done, 48 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 have tried to put them in those green spaces in single family or multi- family areas. Scott: From my big packet, that's a park deficiency thing. ' Mancino: And I think that's done for a reason. I think that there are green spaces. If you look at that map that's up in front of us, besides Lake Ann Park, if it weren't for the Arboretum, there wouldn't be a lot of big chunks of green open space. And I'm very concerned about what we do around those big green open spaces. To preserve them. To keep them as a place where people, want to go and walk and see vegetation, etc. And so I would like to see medium family surrounding the Arboretum. Scott: Well isn't the trailhead for the Chaska trail system is actually right across from what is now ... as IOP, right? And if we brought multi- family all the way down, that might make. Mancino: Which is what they've done in Chaska, and what abuts the Arboretum in Chaska is single family. Scott: Yes. Along with the road coming in. Now correct me if I'm wrong. Everybody... that actually the folks at the Arboretum would prefer industrial office because of the activity being predominantly 8:00 to 5:00 and nothing going on on the weekends and so forth when there'd be people at the Arboretum versus multi- family. The times that the multi- family are going to be the most active would be when the Arboretum's most active? Krauss: I talked with Peter Olin on that after our last meeting. No, that is not his position. I think it was the position of the people, the residents in the area, who are Chaska residents... Aanenson: That's what Peter Olin spoke tonight... P g Scott: Yeah, I heard that and that didn't make sense to me. ' Aanenson: Just to go back to the park issue. One of the most successful parks we have in the city is in an industrial park and I think Todd's preference is, is his desire to have the park in an industrial parks. Scott: Lake Susan? 1 Aanenson: Lake Susan is a good example and for scheduling and then the traffic. It works better than trying to impact things on the neighbors who are concerned about lighting and traffic through the neighborhood and it's been very successful. That's why he was pushing so hard to get it into the Opus site. Where it benefits both large industrial users where they 1 49 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 have a place to go on their lunch hour, after work or ... organized activities. 1 Scott: Do the customers or does Todd think his customers for Lake Ann, or Lake Susan Park, is there a lot of activity from the leagues from Rosemount, Roberts? Krauss: A tremendous amount. ' Scott: Okay, so his view is that it's something that kind of suddenly dawned on me is that this could be basically you're putting the park where your customers are. For organized. , Their vision of the park is active, scheduled type stuff where we tend to lean more towards the passive, wetland. Okay. Anyway, what do we all think about having multi, bringing multi- family all the way down to West 86th Street? Aanenson: 82nd. 82nd Street. And having a multi-family strip Scott g Y P there instead of IOP down there on 82nd. We know what Nancy thinks. What do you think Ladd? Conrad: I think its nice. Farmakes: I've never seen a compelling reason to bring industrial across the highway. But tempered with what comments I have heard from the Arboretum, I'm open to whatever the residents that abut that property would like. From a planning perspective, this is like really kind of a back closet in Chanhassen. It's a corner and it's, I think it's an issue of buffered use at this point. It's not really a planning issue. I'm open to vote either way on that particular item. Scott: Okay, good. What do you think? Conrad: I think we're treating this like it's an access park. You can't, your multi- family , folks can't go into the Arboretum. That's trespassing. Mancino: Sure they can. , Conrad: But you made some parallels between other parks and that doesn't count. They can't go there. I think, the issue is buffering the Arboretum. Flat out, that's the issue. My perspective, and the second issue is doing what the local residents who have single family care about. Single family folks would rather put the office institutional in there is what my feeling was when I heard them talk. In fact, my feeling is, the best buffer, the best visual control we have is putting in. Making it IO in that area. I think we could just do a terrific 50 t 1 - Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 job for the Arboretum in terms of visual impact if we left it IOP. Because we've got control. 1 We've just got a ton of control. We can put some, we can do so many things that just make it unobtrusive to the Arboretum. Maybe you could make the same comment about putting in multi- family but multi- family is real, I'll tell you. If you put multi- family in there, it doesn't, it's like you're putting it in the middle of where? You've got office. You've got industrial to the south. You've got industrial IOP to the east. It is kind of nice to put it up against a park but they can't use the park. Mancino: Sure they can. They can walk to the. I Conrad: You can't walk through. Mancino: It's right there. But you also have single family right south of them. I Conrad: It goes south but not in the park. 1 Mancino: No, but there's single family. The Chaska zoning is single family. Conrad: But anyway, bottom line for me is, I think the residents would rather have it the way, the IOP. Ledvina: Well, can I just try to recollect my thoughts on that? I think they were thinking that if we were going to be doing multi- family there, they'd rather have the IO, the industrial thing application. But we had it set up here as a recommendation for single family and that's consistent with what they have. Am I right there? Aanenson: Well the way t's shown here, a portion of it's single family and a portion of it's Y P g strictly office. Scott: But is that square that's single family, that's one single family home. ' Aanenson: No. It's 30 acres. Farmakes: There is an existing single family home. Ledvina: So I think in comparison to multi- family and industrial, light industrial, they'd rather have the industrial but I think for single family, I don't think they would object to single family as well. I mean given the hierarchy of land use. I Farmakes: The single family though were looking at developing the property. 1 51 t Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Ledvina: Right. Farmakes: As industrial. Ledvina: So whatever. I guess overall I'm pretty comfortable with how the staff has laid it all there. The parcel to the east, that's pink there on the map. The reality of that chunk is that there is a very large wetland on the nprthern part of that that buffers the Arboretum and I don't know what, even if you could possibly do anything with that single family orange, industrial so I'm not, I'm pretty indifferent to any classification on that. So I'm comfortable with it the way it is. Scott: Okay, so what you're saying is single family up above, multi- family on 82nd or IOP on 82nd? Krauss: I think if you look at Figure 8.21, you have that recommendation. It shows medium density, office and medium density down on the street. Ledvina: Okay, so it isn't single family? Aanenson: No. Ledvina: I guess considering that, I would agree with Ladd then. Kind of flip flopping but I thought that was, right along 82nd there was single family on our maps but that's incorrect. Scott: It's IOP. Aanenson: No, it's shown as... Harberts: It splits. Farmakes: Industrial, medium density residential. Scott: Okay. Ledvina: I guess I'm comfortable with the way the staff has laid it out. Scott: You're not. Jeff's kind of. Mancino: Well I'm comfortable with the Highway 5 task force recommendation, which is medium density in that. 52 L !l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Aanenson: Adjacent to the Arboretum and then office... Harberts: I support that staff recommendation. Mancino: Which? Harberts: Medium. Conrad: Which is the task force? . Harberts: Yeah. Aanenson: The modified...? Harberts: The modified. Medium density. Aanenson: With the rest all IOP. Harberts: Yep. Scott: Yeah, I would agree with that as well. Okay. So we're clear. Are you guys clear on what. Aanenson: So was there consensus on that? A show of hands? Scott: 4 of us liked it as indicated. Jeff was. Farmakes: I'm comfortable as it's written. Scott: Okay. And then Nancy you wanted to see multi- family brought down to the, you're snickering. What are you snickering about? Okay. You got that? Aanenson: Yep. Scott: Okay. Eckankar property. The owners are requesting that in addition to the multi- family, that institutional be listed as a permitted use. Diane. Harberts: Now as I understood from our work session, that the multi- family would be the underlying designation in the event something happened to the current owners. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: So your concern is, it's okay to have it institutional but if something happens to the institutional use, it would revert back to multi- family? Harberts: Right. Now the only question that I have, what's their current, how is it currently guided? Krauss: I think it's medium and high. Harberts: Okay, so we're not changing it. Aanenson: You wouldn't rezone it. Krauss: The only proposal in here was that, I think it covers both bases because basically you leave that yellow up there... Harberts: Okay. , Aanenson: The zoning would still remain the same. I Harberts: Yeah, and as I said at the work session, I don't have any problem with it. I thought it was fine. I Ledvina: Well I didn't attend the work session but I think that's a reasonable way of amending it. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Perfect. , Scott: Jeff. You're okay? Okay. Okay, so am I. Okay, so that's a yes. Okay, about what? I Farmakes: Well we discussed the parcels next to it, I'm wondering about the issue of commercial scale on the corner of TH 5 and TH 41. ' Scott: But recommending an access boulevard alternative do we, and then also recommending the design standards, doesn't that take care of the Fleet Farm use on that ' corner? Farmakes: Well yeah, I'm sure it will be brought up to the City Council and I'm wondering if philosophically. 54 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 I Scott: You're looking for a statement. Farmakes: A statement and the issue of expanding large scale commercial outside the business district. Scott: Oh, well. I think we can take care of that I mean I stated my opinion but I guess, we'll take just a quick, actually sort of a detour but as Jeff is stating, as I understand it, that as Planning Commission I think we may need to make a very specific statement about the use for the property on the Mills Fleet Farm property. And your thoughts are? Farmakes: My thoughts are that the large scale commercial use would be inappropriate in that area. Scott: Okay, I would agree with that. Nancy? Mancino: I agree. Scott: Ladd. Diane. Ledvina: I agree. Scott: Okay so just for the matter of record, the Planning Commission is unanimously ' opposed to any large scale commercial use of the property northeast on the intersection of Highway 41 and Highway 5. Otherwise known as the Mills property. Okay. J.P. Links, which is 15 -20 acres may be considered as a park site. Aanenson: ...another option. Scott: Fine, fine? Okay. That's a yes there. Heritage Development west of Bluff Creek. South of the frontage road. Multi - family should be considered as an option with the industrial. What do you think Ladd? Aanenson: That was the piece we were just talking about. t Scott: With Mr. Dobbs, correct? Okay, Dobbs? John Dobbs: That's correct. Conrad: I think that's fine. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: Fine. Nancy. Mancino: No problem. Scott: Jeff. Farmakes: No problem. Harberts: Fine. Scott: Just because of it's proximity to the Bluff Creek corridor, obviously this is coming in as a PUD? Aanenson: Yes. Scott: Okay. Mancino: Is it going to be industrial on the outside and multi- family on the inside? Farmakes: Sounds like a candy bar. Scott: And crunchy too. Conrad: How many acres are we talking about right there? Aanenson: 120. We'll have three different ones. Single family, multi - family and industrial. Conrad: Okay. Good. So by doing what we just did, giving them the option, how many acres are we taking out of? Aanenson: You're taking it out of the industrial. Conrad: How many acres would we be taking out? Aanenson: We're not taking it out. We're saying... Conrad: It could be but more than likely... Scott: And then we'll be able to, we're going to see it anyway so. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Conrad: My only point is, you know industrial's a high value. Do we have enough of it? Krauss: You have to remember that's also a flood plain. Scott: Okay. Possible locations of a 15 -20 acre park of the easterly portion of the Fleet Farm property. Aanenson: We talked about that already. Mancino: I actually think it would be a wonderful viewpoint into that area, into the wetlands that are north of that. Scott: Okay, that's a big yes on that one. Okay. Now we move on into development and design standards issues. Application of these standards should be in two subdistricts, the central business district (HC -1) shall go from Dell Road on the east and Powers on the west. And that was something that just came out of our discussion at the work session. Krauss: That was something that when we expanded the CBD district... Scott: Which will definitely impact the DataSery looks. Krauss: I think it gets to a lot of the ... I don't know what the concern is but that was one of the things we discussed. Scott: But that's the gate, the eastern gateway to the city and I think it's appropriate that we do something. So we're all in favor of that? Okay. Now here's a big item that we'll be debating for a long time. Application of these standards for public transit, is there flexibility? Mancino: No. Scott: Okay. Better definition of pitched roof elements, graphics will be added. So that's. Aanenson: We'll put that in there ... we asked for 3 different typicals ... Not all pitched roofs depending on the same of the building—so different applications. Scott: Okay. Definition of accent color possibly amended to exclude corporate logos. Aanenson: That was raised by Jeff. Scott: Yes we will. 57 1 CJ Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Aanenson: You want to put that in there? Scott: Yeah, I think so. Conrad: Why? Harberts: Yeah. Scott: Well, because we talked about accent colors and that we want to have accent colors to break up the monotony but I don't consider a Hardee's sign an accent color. So it can't be part signage. Ledvina: What I'm thinking of, what if they have an admiral blue as part of their, one of their logo colors. They can't use that? Scott: Well, I think what we're trying to get away from is someone saying we're breaking up the monotony on our building by using our signage. Krauss: I think Rapid Oil is a good example where they have their red barreling as part of their logo. Or Burger King which has a neon orange stripe around the building. If that's an accent color... Scott: Yeah, we're looking more at architectural elements and not signage. Aanenson: I think what we did is put it in context. Ledvina: You're telling them not to use their color. Scott: No, no. They can't include the color as, see if we're asking them to break up the monotony of a surface on their building or their structure by using accent colors, generally they do something with tile or brick or something like that which is great but by putting or using, holding their signage up as a conformance to adding accent colors to break up the monotony, signage should be. I don't know if you want to. Aanenson: ...context of looking at the ... of the ordinance about—Those are questions to make sure we... Scott: Okay, and then the height of parking lot lighting possibly amended to state they are limited to one story and it shall be neutral in color. 58 1 1 IJ 1 1 n. Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Aanenson: So you want that added? Scott: Do we? Yes. Ledvina: Well, I don't know. Harberts: As opposed to what? 3 story? Ledvina: Is it appropriate to do that? I mean in all cases to limit it to 1 story? I don't know that that's. Krauss: Well, you're going to wind up with more poles, which raises cost. Ledvina: Yeah. Which there's more lights. LI t t Scott: Well then we have our landscape, our parking lot landscape stuff which is going to cause more islands. Ledvina: How tall is one story? 12 feet right? That means you're looking at a 12 foot light? Scott: How tall is Target? Ledvina: Those are 40 feet. Krauss: Those are 40 feet, yeah. Ledvina: We want something inbetween. Scott: What are we looking for here? Mancino: Well we didn't want anything taller. One of the things was it wasn't any taller than the building. Like the ones at Target are much taller than the building. Krauss: Well there you have a 25 foot high building. Scott: So is Market Square and it seems like every, I think you go into any commercial parking lot and you can see. Mancino: You can see them over the heads. I mean you can see them 3 miles away. W �J Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 Ledvina: Yeah but one story, is that overkill? I mean that's what scares me. I Mancino: I don't know. I Conrad: You know actually I think you're right because I'm not sure that that makes sense. Scott: Should it be 1 1/2 times the height of the building? I mean is that what we're looking for? Mancino: Well that could be 3 stories... Farmakes: We toyed there about whether or not it should be any higher than the building, similar to a pylon issue. Then there was a discussion that you would have too many lights because they don't, the arch of the lights does not give off enough, it's not high enough to give off enough light coverage. So can we get, it would seem to me again that that's a professional response to what's appropriate. I think the issue is, you don't want to drive in and see these kind of arched lights that are far higher than any of the buildings... Well they lend too much visual pollution from the standpoint of it kind of becomes signs in a way. Ledvina: I understand and I agree with that but can we just, instead of saying these shall be whatever, 12 feet. I mean can we say that they're going to be. Mancino: In proportion to the height of the building. Ledvina: Yeah, right. Scott: What does that mean? I mean I was more comfortable when it was like 1 1/2 times. Farmakes: I'd like to see a specific gap similar to the way that we do pylon signs. Scott: What is that? Farmakes: I'm not saying it should be the same. I'm saying that something that is reasonable for the economy of lighting a parking lot. But no more than that. Scott: Why don't we say 1 1/2 times the height of the structure and if somebody comes back and says, watts and all this kind of junk and they can say well. Mancino: But 1 1/2 times is still higher than the structure. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 Scott: 1 1/2 times so it's 16 feet on a 12 foot building. Farmakes: But you could have a maximum building though of more than 40 feet. Conrad: We really don't know what we're talking about here. Let's stop this. Somebody's got to tell us. The intent is real valid but we don't have a solution. Ledvina: Let me get back to that just a little bit though. I mean if we can't say that it should be in proportion or use a qualitative term like that, then the whole, then we're taking the wrong approach to this ordinance because we go through this throughout the ordinance in terms of being subjective and having qualitative measures and all of that. So if we're trying to do that for light fixtures, I think we've got to take a real deeper look at that what's in here and how we're doing it. Farmakes: No, I disagree with that. I think that there are qualitative issues on there. There are issues such as how many materials are being used in comparison to build it... There are other issues where you don't want to be quantitative and the issue of the height of something, I think you should be, should say specifically what the maximum is. And the issues of aesthetic things, that becomes a far more difficult issue. You talk more about the end intent of what you're looking for. Ledvina: Isn't the height of a light fixture aesthetic though? Farmakes: Not necessarily. Not if you're going to qualify it. If you want to qualify it, and you say in proportion to the building, define the word proportion. Many of the definitions that are in there, that may seem ambiguous are defined. And I think in the purpose of the light fixture, or we discussed that issue. You were concerned I think about the ... and issues of things that are already currently in our ordinance. I think the purpose of it was that you did not get disproportionately huge lighting situations going on. Scott: But I don't have any problems specifying something and it doesn't have to be 1 1/2 times the building but I think when you put some language in, the ... who would be impacted by it, would take a look at it and if they can come back and you know with reasons why this isn't going to work. I mean I don't know, quite frankly on that issue I don't know what we're talking about but I think we do need to put something in there that's specific. So as part of the next step of the process, if somebody should come back and say here's why or why not it doesn't make sense. Farmakes: Currently I believe don't we have a height restriction on lighting? 1 61 t Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Mancino: I think we just have a candle. Krauss: Now we have a half a foot candle at the property line. Farmakes: You just have a power restriction. Krauss: And the problem always comes about, that when they take these plans to an electrical contractor... to bid, that can save .you $25,000.00... Farmakes: Well, I would entertain just getting a professional responses to what would, the economic... leave it to that. Harberts: I think it's a public safety issue too perhaps. Scott: Yeah. Let's do it. Mancino: I have one quick question. Kate and Paul, on Chapter 8 with the standards related to architectural designs. It says standards governing all these architectural designs shall ... both new and renovated buildings. Do we need to say what a renovated building is? I mean does that mean when somebody existing on Highway 5 let's say, I don't know the storage company who has rooftop equipment that shows now. It's very visible from Highway 5. Wants to screen and do a little bit of building renovation. Do they have to comply with these standards now? Krauss: I think we should have some more specific language. One of the things we talked about, a couple of years ago ... you want to work with your existing business community by encouraging them to expand or improve and a way to do that is not to throw, not come down like a ... you're adding a window, therefore you've got to add $75,000.00 in improvements to make it proportional. We can probably put in some language there that says just that. Ledvina: I'd recommend that. Scott: Also too, this is on page 12 where it talks about in locations where plants would be susceptible to injury, so on and so forth. Possibly something in there about the salt tolerance and I may have missed that if it was in here but we spend a lot of time talking about that in all of our developments. This would be good to have use of salt tolerant species. Krauss: ... over the summer we had the ordinance that... 62 u r n I r � F� fl L� 1 1 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: Good. Okay. What about the comment that came up about any development, and I don't know whether it's going to be at the conceptual plan would show not only all the elevations but some sort of a computer aided design or a computer generated simulation of actual, the actual visual impact and as constructed. Not in 15 years when the trees are big. It seems like when we see these plans, first of all and I got quite excited when I saw that, the bridge because I think we were able to jump on that and make some better decisions. I think we would be better served if we had that as a requirement of all projects at a certain point. Aanenson: ...you may want to amend the ordinance to say any large scale parcel... Scott: Okay, so that's a different spot. Okay. Have we satisfactorily dealt with the land use portion and the design standards? Mancino: I have one other design standard question for people to talk about and that is, there's nothing in here on neighborhood commercial. And I would like to see something about how neighborhood commercial is different than a regular commercial area, meaning does it, how it fits in with the neighborhood better. Does it have more residential type materials being used that reflect the neighborhood that it's support to be part of? Scott: Good point. Farmakes: Won't that be part of the zone though? Scott: I don't think it is. Aanenson: In a PUD certainly when we looked at that with Opus, certainly that would be something to put in a PUD development plan. Do you want it to be architecturally compatible so it looks as one cohesive unit, and that's one of the goals. But certainly if you had a separate case that's not under a PUD. Mancino: Yeah, I mean what about Galpin and TH 5. Aanenson: Right, and that is built separately without any other project, right. Do you still want it to go under the residential, so it looks like it's part of that neighborhood. Mancino: Yes. Because it is neighborhood commercial. I mean it's not general commercial. Aanenson: I know that's in the intent. I think we'll have to make sure that, even the intent when we adopt the plan. I mean that's in the goal statement there but how we put that into 63 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 ' v some clarification from the City Attorney on that. That was I the ordinance, we'll have to get ry Y an issue that was... A & Scott: Any other comments on design standards or land use? Seeing none, let's talk about the access boulevard. Harberts: I'd like to maybe broaden that a little bit. Just with regards to the comments we heard this evening. I think some of the comments that we heard tonight we've addressed through some of this discussion. And there seems to be other comments. I don't know if .they're really our role to address such as with the roadway, moving it 100 feet south or, I guess what really concerns me is some of the comments made by the, well the fact that the comments made by the landowners in terms of not supporting the whole access boulevard concept. I'm not saying that, I certainly recognize the need for development and I think the best thing that this community can do is put a plan out there. I think we've all sat on this commission and pulling the hair out of our head in terms of, give us a road map. An infrastructure plan so we don't have this pieces here, pieces there of roadways not connecting. I like the idea of putting the access boulevards out there as a guide plan so that we do know what way development is going to go. I guess I'm going to defer to the task force of where the alignment is for the corridor because of all the time they spent on it. I guess when we look at DataServ, I don't know who's role it is to consider that request with regard to you know 600 employees. That's somewhat of a major development for Chanhassen. So I'm just sharing my, I guess my comments in terms of what I heard tonight. Farmakes: I would qualify that. I was on the task force and we had known that, the task ■ force was made up of many divergent interests. The same divergent interests that you see here tonight. And it's similar to this commission I guess. They don't always vote alike. Sometimes it's 5 to 4 and sometimes it's 10 to 1. I mean there were a lot of different things to look at on this issue. Many of them, particularly the landowners, obviously they have a divergent interest. Their properties are all shaped differently. How they can maximumly develop them to get their return on their property. Where their access roads would be. Each property owner, if left to decide that, it would be different and obviously you can't build a corridor like that. And the other spectrum of that process. Harberts: And did the corridor task force hear these same comments or similar comments then? Farmakes: Oh sure. Yeah. I Harberts: And that's why I'm saying that I certainly defer to what's being recommended by the task force because of the detailed work that you folks went through, and overall like I 64 It Planning Commission Meeting - January 1.9, 1994. said having plan for a roadway system that's going to help enhance the mobility of our g P Y Y g g P tY community is important. And I think with what's being planned, I think it's good. Farmakes: I just wanted to say that the task force was in disagreement just like we are here and the issue of what was voted on of course is, in some cases there was no disagreement whatsoever and in other cases there was disagreement. Scott: And also too, as necessity is the mother of invention, I think left to their own devices, I think any developer, and rightfully so, would take the path of least resistance, the least creative, the least costly and you get basic stuff, which is what we don't want in our community. You know we need a plan. I happen to prefer the alternative as proposed by the Highway 5 task force and after the hoopla dies down, this property is still going to be developed. We're probably going to see the same people coming back in here with similar plans. Tweak those a bit but they're going to have to think and they're going to have to stretch and they're going to have to be creative, and isn't that what we want anyway. f 1 11 Farmakes: But you would expect that though. I mean this is in use now as agricultural property. So it's much more of a free for all than on the east side of TH 5 where it's much more defined and city zoned. And as I said, each individual property owner has a different expectation. And rightfully so. That's their prerogative. They own the property. Scott: So you've got, you support your recommendation. I support the recommendation. Each of the guys that are on the task force, you guys were on opposite sides or? Farmakes: No, not necessarily. I, obviously I'm in the minority of the issue of the access road. I believe it's 2 between Lake Ann and Galpin Road. I support the southern route solely because I think that the city would be able to control more of the property. Whether the city buys it or whether the State buys it. Whether the money's there or it's not there or if it was there 6 months ago and now it's not. 6 months from now it might be back. I think that it's logical to assume that by controlling that property between Highway 5 and the access road gives you more opportunity to landscape out and buffer TH 5. The issues of land use, it seems to me it's convenient to slice off that chunk and essentially make a strip of high density housing. And I've already talked about this with everybody so I'm not going to repeat myself again about my issues there. Failing that, I do support the northern route around the Bluff Creek area which is not currently on the recommendation. I'll just give you my opinion. I don't think that the task force spent a considerable amount of time with that issue. We spent more time arguing the north and south routes. That's my personal opinion anyway. And I feel if you go and look at the property, there's a lot of compelling reasons to run it to the north. There are some issues of crossing over residences. If you look at, there's 4 for on either route and this is a sensitive issue. But if you look at the long term ... one 65 Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 would have to say that there's a limited short term life span for those uses. Based on what's coming in there. So if we were looking in terms of, long term planning and we're looking at essentially a highway network that's going to be here for the foreseeable future, I would say that it would seem to me that protecting that creek corridor, where the trees are, and going around it rather than through it would be in the best interest, long term of solving the intent of the original statement which was to keep Highway 5 from becoming a wall with no landscaping, no trees and no separation. Scott: That seems to be a wash with construction cost anyway. Mancino: Yeah, I'd ditto Jeff on that too. I mean ... and did like the northern route. In fact I think the site plan that's done for that parcel between Lake Ann and Galpin, it's a very good one that shows some view so that we won't have a medium density just lining Highway 5. There's some good site plan analysis in here. But so I do agree with him on taking that northern route and not cutting through Bluff Creek in that heavily wooded area. Scott: Okay, Ladd. I Conrad: I agree with that. Ledvina: I agree with the proposed alignment and again I would support the northern route right at Galpin there avoiding the crossing at Bluff Creek. I see that as a severe crossing at Bluff Creek. I see that as the most environmental friendly way of tackling that feature of the terrain. Scott: Say that again. Conrad: Yeah, say that again. Scott: You support the A -C connection or just number 1? Ledvina: No. I support the northerly route. Conrad: The blue. Ledvina: Right. Right. Scott: Blue all the way. Ledvina: I think that you know I feel bad about displacing people and that but again, we are 66 H I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 talking bout long term planning issues and that's really the key. And if we stay with the g g P g Y Y objectives of the task force and what was laid out for us as the ground rules, I think that northerly route at Galpin satisfies those objectives. Scott: So the recommendation that we will then pass to the Planning Commission would be the complete Alternate #1 without A -C. Just the blue line that we see here with the northerly connection at Galpin. Harberts: That's basically what Jeff indicated in the beginning? Scott: Yeah. Harberts: Going around Bluff Creek. Farmakes: I disagree with another section but yes. No crossovers. Just go up to the north. Scott: I had some concern about that too because I was thinking, if it's dollar for dollar and such huge soil stabilization and so forth at the head waters for a pretty benign and fairly flat connection versus a tremendous amount of landfill and re, I think we had 200 or 300 feet of. Farmakes: It's still all essentially a wash. Any of the routes that you go and from an environmental impact. Or at least that's what the recommendation. Scott: So we'll pass the complete alternate #1 without the A -C connection. We've gone through the EAW on the design standards. Farmakes: I'll dissent on that one. Scott: Okay. Oh, because of your. Farmakes: Yeah. I support no crossovers and that issue but I just don't support the northerly route from Galpin to Lake Ann. Aanenson: We can break these out into three separate motions. Scott: Yeah, can I have a. Farmakes: I'm not sure, are we voting on this or are we just giving recommendations? Scott: Well, we're going to now. 1 67 t Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1 Farmakes: It makes no difference to me. Conrad: Let's not vote yet. The northerly route, does that eliminate the possibility of the golf course? Scott: Well, my personal opinion is that the golf course is not real. Farmakes: I would not be opposed though'to leaving in an option in there that should it become real, or should he acquire another 40 acres to the west and it becomes a viable issue, let him bring it forward. Let him bring it forward and let's see it. I mean it does support the intent. Conrad: I'm not sure how we do that Jeff. It's like. I think we can revise stuff but you know. On the other hand, where can you put a golf course? You can put a golf course in a residential. In our zoning, as we would have it, even though we've already talked about zoning, we don't have a zone for a golf course but they're permitted where, in our proposed zoning, would a golf course be permitted where he's got the property? Krauss: Actually I don't think we'd permit it practically anyplace. We'd probably have to... the zoning ordinance to do it but in itself... Farmakes: Since the city or the developer is going to have to pick up the cost for the road anyway, when it does go in from that section, I would assume from a matter of practicality if �p he comes forward with a golf course, it doesn't stop him unless there's a zoning issue that �I would stop him from proposing that. Scott: Plus the fact is that the, there is not going to be any access to that parcel off of Highway 5. All access to that parcel has got to come off of the access boulevard, right? Krauss: Well yes. That's the way we see it ... MnDot will see it. ■ Scott: So, I think you can take the senior housing would have to be serviced from a different way. And still, you know having a 15, actually we've got 30 feet. The total right -of -way for the access boulevard is what? Aanenson: 80. Scott: 80 feet? I can think of 5 golf courses right now that have major, major like University of Minnesota golf course has got Larpentur Avenue. That's 4 lanes. Minnekada. Interlachen. I mean the list goes on. 68 f Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Conrad: Yeah. I don't think a road would preclude. It will take some property but I don't think it's going to preclude putting a course there. I think the total amount of land is more an issue than the road going right, you know separating 3 or 4 holes from it. Scott: He's got to have. Farmakes: Another 20-40 acres. Conrad: He probably does but I guess my only issue, and again my only issue is I don't want to not, I don't want to force that as not a possibility by whatever we're doing and my perception is, the road is not the thing that's going to keep it from happening. But I want to make sure that we haven't done something zoning wise that is keeping that from happening. If he can make it happen. Actually if he can make it happen I'd rethink a lot of stuff. What makes the northerly route valid in my mind is that it's not only, it's transit for people to the northwest to downtown but it services some high density area that we really are putting in between the road. It's really a very functional street and that, once we drop that street down to right next to Highway 5, then it's nothing in my mind. It's nothing. It's just not doing a great deal. Farmakes: But what's right next to Highway 5? 80 feet? 100 feet? 400 feet? Conrad: You'd end up with not a functioning piece of property. Farmakes: Something that you could develop as a medium density or high density. Conrad: Basically a service road concept doesn't give you much to work with between Highway 5 and. Farmakes: Well in the case of TH 7 or 494, there's nothing. It's right next to the slope. Conrad: Right. And I think we've of a eat op to do something different and g g � PP tY g that's why I like what we've got but that's why I want the road to the north to make it. I need to justify it cost wise and that's not our decision here. Price is no object to the Planning Commission. We kind of want a realistic solution but we don't really weigh it against some price options. We typically don't. But from a citizen standpoint, I can justify that road and when it's servicing some people, plus it's also a corridor for the community. Farmakes: It would seem to me then that the only thing it would restrict, since they're not... the road, would be an issue of how much time we're looking at or the timeframe we're looking at here and whether or not the zone that we're committed to or give a guideline to is 0 t Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 going to include that Does the fact that that's going to be single family and multi keep them from putting in a golf course there? Scott: Wouldn't you think though that if a proposal like that came forward for a golf course, that would be able to be built on that property, I'd be willing to bet that any Planning Commission who saw that would say, well oh you mean we have to rezone this to have them build a golf course. I would think that most Planning Commissions would go fine. Let's change it. That's definitely something you want. Farmakes: But what happens when you get some piecemeal development going on there? Maybe they don't want a golf course. I can't imagine that but maybe they don't. Scott: Well I. Farmakes: Are we committing ourselves here? Are we essentially zoning this to the effect that nothing else can go in there? Where we have it as multi- family and single family, I think on the comp plan it's listed as residential, is that correct? Aanenson: It's guided right now for multi- family and single family. That's how it's guided right now. Farmakes: Okay, but what I'm saying is there isn't, is there a line on the comp plan that shows exactly where multi- family begins and single family ends? Krauss: Pretty much. Farmakes: Okay. Krauss: I mean arguably it could slide a little bit one way or the other but the line was put exactly where Mike Gorra asked for it to be put several years ago. When he says he was never consulted on this, I mean... Farmakes: When you submitted the comp plan. Krauss: Yeah. Scott: Yeah he was, yeah, I read through all that stuff. On the July 23rd meeting. He talked about ... but are we in a position right now. I see we've got three things to adopt. Should we make that into three motions? I think we all have them in front of us. I'm not going to make the motion since I'm not supposed to do that. 70 t 1 t t 1 s I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 I Mancino: Paul, I thought of something else that I wanted to add to this whole thing. Scott: It says approval of these things, like the corridor land use study as modified. With modifications. I supposed you want to get the modifications in before your motion tonight. Harberts: Yeah. Just real quickly. Aanenson: Those that we took notes on, and I'm assuming there are modifications. I Scott: Yeah, but if anybody has any more, let's get it in before we made a recommendation. Mancino: The only thing I'd like to add is to the park and trail section which is Chapter 5. I'd like to beef up the Bluff Creek corridor specifications. You know when we had the school site and we reviewed it, one of the things that I commented to staff I thought they did a great job on was proposing that the applicant meet with the DNR to determine the original landscape along the corridor and also to have a 60 to 100 foot width set aside for that purpose of getting it back to it's original vegetative state and we all kind of talked about it. 1 And I think that would be really good in here. Some sort of specifics on the Bluff Creek corridor and how it was treated going through the Highway 5 area. Does that make sense? Krauss: Well I think it ties in real well with the ... the way the routing should go on the north side. By the way, when you touched on this golf course thing too. There's some issues that were raised tonight that we're going to want to address as staff ...but it may be appropriate to add some text to the plan that says if a golf course is legitimately demonstrated to be a viable option, then that's something that will be considered. Conrad: I would like that very much. Scott: But it's not going to change the alignment of the access. Krauss: Well I don't th ink it will but since we don't have that.-coming down the pike immediately, it could. I mean if Mike came in with a proposal and said look. I really need to slide this thing over. Over to here because it's going around the 14th hole. We always work with people on stuff like that. Scott: Is it going to go down the line and down the line and down the line and then all of a sudden the road's looped all over the place? Krauss: Well yeah. It obviously has to meet our parameters and the longer Mike waits to do something, the less flexibility he's going to have if the die is cast on either side. What I 11 71 e Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 heard Mike Gorra saying was, don't do anything and I'll tell you what I'm going to do when I'm ready to tell you. But if you want to keep your foot in the door and say that the golf course is a possibility. Conrad: See Joe, if somebody brought in a golf course that was real, it's a terrific community asset and it's equivalent if not better than where this road goes. I'll just tell you, if you can get a golf course in Chan, if somebody's willing to put it on this high potential property, if that's what he wants to do, I'll slide roads wherever they want them because I perceive that to be a very definite community resource. But I'm real comfortable keeping the roads the way they are right now until that comes in but I do want to communicate to them that I'd sure consider it. That's real valid. I just ...the course next to the park, it's just really neat but I considered it but not until I see it. Scott: Yeah, I'd go with that. We want to see something that's for real and we haven't seen it yet. I mean I think we were all took it as waving the golf course around to try and get the road to move so something else could be built there. And I think it was pretty obvious that's what was going on, at least to me. But I would agree with Ladd. If something for real comes in and it's something that we're comfortable with, we're not going to, I mean I'm personally not going to shove the road all the way down to Highway 5 but, as Ladd is saying, if the layout is such that you need to put a bend in there or something to get it around a hole, I can see that minor modifications but nothing major. Farmakes: If we were talking about his proposal exactly, I would not entertain any other uses though except a golf course. Conrad: Correct. Farmakes: He had some other uses that were envisioned there including a large space, building yet to be determined. Conrad: Well there was some strange stuff. Farmakes: But recreational golf area between... Scott: Why don't we take this, can we take this as one motion or three? Ledvina: No, three. Scott: Okay. Well, who wants to start? 72 1 I I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 I Ledvina: What would you recommend? Aanenson: Obviously number one's been amended... Ledvina: Okay, well I would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. Number 1. Affirming the original Alternative #1 alignment without the A/C cross over for the access road alignment and review of the Arboretum Boulevard Environmental Assessment document prepared by Barton- Aschman. Scott: It's been moved. 1 �l Harberts: And second. Scott: Is there a second? Yes. It's been moved and seconded that we affirm the preferred Alternative #1 as stated by Matt. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to affirming the original Alternative #1 alignment without the A/C cross over for the access road alignment and review of the Arboretum Boulevard Environmental Assessment document prepared by Barton - Aschman. All voted in favor, except Jeff Farmakes who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Scott: And your reason? Farmakes: I don't support Alternative #1. Scott: Same as during the discussion prior to this? Farmakes: Correct. For reasons already stated. Scott: Okay. Is there another motion? Ledvina: I would move the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. Recommending approval of the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Study and the land use recommendations as discussed in detail this evening, and we had several discussions on the items that were identified by the staff report. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. 73 k. Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Study as extensively modified. Is there any discussion? No discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Study and the land use recommendations as modified during the previous discussion of the issues outlined by the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Is there another motion? Ledvina: Well I'll finish it off. I would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the ' following motion for the approval of the Ordinance Establishing the Highway 5 Corridor Districts with modifications as discussed this evening. Scott: Is there a second. Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the ordinance of the corridor districts. Is there any discussion? No discussion. ' Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Ordinance Establishing Highway 5 Corridor Districts with modifications discussed during the previous issues outlined in the staff report. All voted in favor, except Diane Harberts who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to I. Scott: And your thoughts Diane? Harberts: Public transit needs to be further flushed out and we'll do it at the Council level. Scott: I'm sure you will. Motion carries. Due to the hour, unless there's some significant administrative approvals or first of all, we'll accept the Minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Scott noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 5, 1994 as presented. Scott: Unless there's any objection. Yes ma'am. Mancino: We just need a calendar for our attendance at City Council meetings for '94. ■ 74 1 I� C Orr Schelen Mayeron& March 11,1994 Associates, Inc. 300 Park Place Center 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 Chanhassen Estates Area Residents 612 - 595 -5775 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1- 800 - 753 -5775 FAX 595 -5774 Re: Proposed Construction Survey Chanhassen Estates Area Street and Utility Improvements City Project No. 93 -10 OSM Project No. 5108.00 Dear Resident: Engineers Architects Planners Surveyors We have had two rather spirited informational meetings over the last 5 weeks. At the last meeting on March 7, 1994 it was suggested that a formal survey of the property owners /residents of the Chanhassen Estates area be done to help in the decision of some of the more major issues surrounding this project. The major issues identified from the two recent informational meetings include the following: Road Width Tree Removal Construction Techniques Curb and Gutter Type Tree Replacement Plan Construction Staging Parking vs. No Parking Watermain Replacement Construction Schedule Enclosed is an information packet discussing each of the above items in more detail. Also enclosed is a one page survey asking specific questions regarding some of the issues. We ask that you review the information in detail and then answer the survey and return it to us by March 21, 1994 in the ' enclosed stamped envelope. Please, take the time to submit the survey. Any "no response" will be assumed to agree with the plan as it has been developed. L J Please note that plans and specifications and results of the survey are scheduled to be presented to the City Council on March 28, 1994 for acceptance. If you have any questions regarding the information provided on the survey please call me at 595- 5699. Tree replacement questions can be directed to Ms. Laurie McRostie at 595 -5646. Thank you for taking the time to review the information and providing valued input to this project. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. David D. Mitchell, P.E. Project Manager c: Charles Folch - City Engineer Don Ashworth - City Manager Mayor & Council CIT 0y. q y l�py� p f�+� � T,r. Wj��I - ��1' D MAR 14 N I e: \510s00\crn [.\[.ErrE[ts\120193.RFx Equal Opportunity Employer SURVEY for PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION As a property owner /resident in the project area affected by the reconstruction of streets and utilities in the Chanhassen Estates area, we ask that you please review the information provided and indicate your opinion on the following issues. r 1. It ism /our opinion that the y p City of Chanhassen should reconstruct the streets in the Chanhassen ' Estates area to a back -of -curb to back -of -curb width of (please circle one). 31' (City of Chanhassen Standard Residential Street) ' 28' 26' (Requires "No Parking" on one side) 2. It is my /our opinion that the City of Chanhassen should reconstruct the streets within the Chanhassen Estates area using curb and gutter of this type (please circle one). ' Barrier type (Currently proposed) Surmountable type (Currently exists in 2nd Addition) ' 3. If a 26' wide street is selected, it will be necessary to limit parking on one side of the street; It is my /our opinion that the City of Chanhassen should limit parking on the (please circle one); Even Odd side of the street. I/we strongly appose - "No Parking" on one side of the street. 4. Do you prefer to remove all the boulevard trees shown in the plan and plant new trees in the groupings proposed in the tree replacement plan? YES NO 5. Do you prefer to remove some of the boulevard trees that will be damaged by construction and wait to observe the remaining trees in the field and implement the tree replacement plan without continuity? YES NO_ 6. Is the ash tree on your boulevard in good health and in good form? YES NO, 7. Would you like to have the Ash tree in your boulevard area removed? YES NO. 8. Do you agree to the tree species shown on the replacement plan for your segment of boulevard? YES NO If not - Which tree species would you prefer? Signed: Address: YES NO I Additional Comments: ROAD WIDTH ' Existing: The existing streets in the area of Chanhassen Estates 1st and 3rd Additions are currently 26' to 28' wide with no curb and gutter. The existing streets in the areas of ' Chanhassen 2nd Addition and Wisely Estates are currently 28' measured from back -of- curb to back -of -curb. Proposed: The proposed width for the reconstruction of the streets in the Chanhassen Estates area is 31' measured from back -of -curb to back -of -curb. (City of Chanhassen Residential ' Street Standard) Options: Options that have been proposed by residents at recent informational meetings include 26' and 28', both of which would be measured from back -of -curb to back -of -curb. 11 The following is a list of attributes typically associated with each of the street widths discussed. Please review each list carefully and answer the associated survey questions. ' STREET WIDTH COMPARISONS 31' Width 28' Width 26' Width ' City Standard Not city standard Not city standard Provides more driver Provides more driver Provides least driver ' reaction zone than other reaction zone than 26', reaction zone of the three options but less than 31' options Maximum tree loss Significant tree loss Minimizes tree loss (120+/-) (100+/-) (70+/-) ' Provides parking on both Provides parking on both Provides parking on one sides sides side only "NO PARKING" signs on one side 14' +/- through traffic 11' +/- through traffic width with parked cars width with parked cars 17' +/- through traffic width with parked car Greatest permanent Minimal or no permanent ' impact on existing impact on existing No permanent impact on boulevard width, typically boulevard width existing boulevard width, 1.5' - 2.5' on either side increased boulevard width in some areas Please note the attached sections relating to emergency vehicle traffic. The sections depict both summer and winter conditions. 11 I I CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER Existing: The existing streets in the areas of Chanhassen 2nd Addition and Wisely Estates currently have a surmountable or drive -over type curb and gutter. 1 i F_ J 1 Proposed: The proposed curb and gutter is a barrier type curb and gutter. See the attached detail. Options: Options that have been proposed by residents at recent informational meetings requested retaining the surmountable or drive -over type of curb and gutter similar to what exists in Chanhassen 2nd Addition and Wisely Estates. The following is a list of attributes typically associated with each of the curb and gutter types discussed. Please review each list carefully and answer the associated survey questions. Barrier Tyne Safer of 2 options, keeps traffic on the street and out of yards Carries storm water more efficiently Defines limits of parking more effectively Not bicycle friendly Defines road for snow plowing Defines driveway entrance May slightly reduce driver speeds depending on final width and parking Surmountable Tyne Does not keep traffic on the street and out of yards Does not carry storm water as efficiently as barrier type More user friendly for children and bicycles Does not define road for snow plowing Doesn't define driveway as effectively as barrier type May have slightly higher speeds than barrier type depending on final width and parking Please note the attached standard detail plate for the two alternatives. 2 1 PARKING Existing: Parking is currently allowed on both sides of the street. Parking is restricted by City Ordinance between November 1 and April 1 each year. The restriction is city -wide and ' restricts parking on city streets between the hours of 1:00 A.M. and 7:00 A.M. In the event that more than 2" of snow accumulates during the day, parking is restricted until the street is plowed curb to curb. ' Proposed: The proposed plan with a street width of 31' from back -of -curb to back -of -curb will ' facilitate parking on both sides of the street. The 31' width provides sufficient width to facilitate emergency vehicle traffic between parked cars on a year -round basis. Parking restrictions would still be imposed as the ordinance dictates. Options: Options that have been proposed by residents at recent informational meetings include ' 28' and 26', both of which would be measured from back -of -curb to back -of -curb. If a 28' wide street is constructed, parking would be allowed on both sides of the street ' subject to the City Ordinance discussed above. A 28' wide street would present a safety issue with regard to conveyance of emergency vehicles through the neighborhood. In the event that cars were legally parked on both sides of the street, the clear space between vehicles could be reduced to 10'+/-. This is wide enough for traffic to get through but it is not sufficient to safely facilitate emergency vehicle traffic between parked cars on a year -round basis. In the event that a 26' wide street is selected it would be necessary o limit parking ry pa mg on one side of the street to allow for unrestricted flow of emergency vehicles. If this width ' is selected, "NO PARKING " signs would be required. These signs are typically placed 2' -3' behind the curb and gutter and spaced at intervals of 200' -300', 1 every 2 -4 lots. ' This scenario would require a consensus by residents as to the side of the street that parking would be allowed. Parking would also be limited by City Ordinance as outlined above. Please note the attached typical sections representing parking as it relates to emergency vehicle traffic. The sections represent both summer and winter conditions. ' CHANHASSEN ESTATES TREES Condition of Existing Trees The existing boulevard trees in Chanhassen Estates are: - Green Ash - Approximately 25 years old ' - Planted 3 ft. - 6 ft. from the existing pavement edge These trees are generally in poor condition. Trees have been pruned so that they have few branches on the street side. As a result, many trees are one - sided, making the trees very weak and susceptible to damage from storms and winds. Many trees have already sustained damage and have big splits down the center of the trunk. In addition, a ' majority of the trees have very low crotches or V's. This is a very weak characteristic in trees; they should have straight trunks to be strong. ' The condition of the Green Ash is poor, however, they do provide a certain character to the neighborhood, which is important. Street trees that are the same species, look similar and are spaced evenly along the boulevard, creating unity. There is an overall visual perception that the neighborhood is one special place. I Construction Impacts ' Construction severely impacts trees. Cutting roots during excavation will damage and weaken a tree so that it will not live. This damage may not show up for two years and then the tree dies. In addition, soil compaction occurs from equipment working in the ' area near the tree. This cuts off the oxygen the tree needs to live and it will die. The existing Green Ash are so close to the road and the construction area required for the new road and utilities that either cutting roots or soil compaction will damage them. Experience shows that trees typically do not live under these circumstances. It may be more appropriate to take them down now and avoid future damage to property and increased costs. r� Tree Loss Trees will be lost due to construction. Two ways are proposed to deal with this ' circumstance. 1. Trees which are certain to be lost will be taken down at the beginning of ' construction. Remaining boulevard trees will be observed and impacts to them will be determined in the field during construction. If damage to the tree is extensive it will be removed at that time. The tree replacement plan will take remaining trees into account. Street tree continuity will be sacrificed with this option. 2. Remove all the Green Ash boulevard trees at the beginning of the road and utility construction. The tree replacement plan can then be implemented in its entirety. Continuity and neighborhood character can be ' established most effectively with this option. Tree loss is shown on the attached exhibit. The New Street Tree Plan ' It is ve ry important ortant to the City and to the residents of Chanhassen Estates that the ' neighborhood character be restored once construction of the road and utilities is complete. Therefore, the City proposes to plant new trees in the following manner: The tree replacement plan is attached for your review. 1 5 - Plant 2 new trees for every 1 tree lost - Plant them 8 ft. back from the new curb (avoid future impacts) - Plant five varieties of trees in continuous large groupings - Plant trees that are 2 1/2" to 3" caliper (12 -15 ft. tall) ' - Small trees grow more rapidly than larger trees and are more able to adapt to new soil conditions - Plant trees every 50 ft +/- to establish a regular pattern - Integrate the new planting with existing trees and landscaping - The street tree plan must be flexible. Planting the street trees as proposed will provide the neighborhood character that is desired. It is important in establishing this character to keep similar trees together. It ' will take approximately 10 - 12 years for the new trees to reach a height similar to the existing Ash. The tree replacement plan is attached for your review. 1 5 Tree Replacement Species Five trees have been selected for the street tree replacement plan. These trees have ' been selected for their ability to grow along the road and in the heavy, wet, clay soils in the area. 1 The five tree types are listed below and descriptions are provided for your information. ' Red Maple Honeylocust Hackberry Patmore Ash Swamp White Oak ' These trees have been placed on the tree replacement plan in groups. The groups relate to each other in how the trees look and how they associate in nature. It is important that the trees be planted in groupings to establish continuity and a visual unity along your neighborhood road. ' Neighborhood Survey This packet includes a survey that will help the City determine your needs and the ' direction that construction and restoration will take. You will be asked which street tree removal and replacement plan you prefer (See Tree ' Loss- Items 1 & 2). In addition, you will be asked to select a street tree variety from the above list. 11 Responses will be considered in light of the proposed tree groupings. So, please give your fullest consideration to the street tree proposed for the segment of street where you live. The grouping will be changed only if a majority of residents select the same tree species. 1 6 WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT Existing: ' The existing watermain serving the Chanhassen Estates area was constructed at the time of development using 6" and 8" Cast Iron Pipe. At the time of construction, Cast Iron Pipe was ' the preferred material for watermain. At the time of construction the nature of the soils and their affect on this material was ' unknown. What has been determined over the past 25 -30 years is that the soils found in the southwest areas of the metropolitan area, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Shorewood, and Chanhassen, are primarily heavy, wet clays that have a slight corrosive nature to them. This ' corrosive factor has weakened the watermain in the Chanhassen Estates area. This, along with the brittle nature of Cast Iron Pipe and the natural tendency of clay soils to move, has caused the existing watermain to fail numerous times. r The City water department has been keeping records on watermain breaks since the early 1970's. What the records show is that the Chanhassen Estates area has experienced ' approximately 17 watermain breaks over the past 20 +/- years with over 75% of this occurring in the last 10 -12 years. These breaks have been distributed fairly equally over all streets in the subdivision. This is a very large number of breaks in comparison to the rest of Chanhassen's watermain system. Proposed: The proposed construction includes the construction of a new watermain throughout the entire Chanhassen Estates area. The new watermain will be constructed using Ductile Iron Pipe wrapped in a polyethylene encasement. The Ductile Iron Pipe is designed to be less brittle ' than Cast Iron Pipe. It will absorb more of the natural soil movements associated with clay soils. The purpose of the polyethylene encasement is to provide an effective and economical way to protect the pipe from the corrosive nature of the soil. As part of the watermain ' replacement, services and hydrants will be replaced. Options: ' Some residents have questioned the need to replace the watermain. Others have questioned the placement of the watermain in a location that will have less impact on existing trees. ' The replacement of the watermain is needed. It is true that we would not be proposing to replace the watermain if we were not doing a street reconstruction project, but this is the ' opportune time to replace the watermain. Although we cannot guarantee that the new watermain will not break, we can be assured that over time we will not have near the number of breaks currently experienced with the existing watermain. The replacement of watermain in a location that has less impact on trees may be possible. The determining factor will be the selected street width. A 31' wide street will not likely ' warrant further consideration to redesign the watermain. A 28' wide street may warrant some further consideration to redesign the watermain. A 26' wide street will certainly require further consideration to redesign the watermain. It should be noted that redesigning of the watermain would delay the start of the project and possible 1994 substantial completion. 7 a CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES Legally we are not able to define the specific techniques a contractor will use to construct a ' given project. We can set parameters which he must observe. Examples of these parameters include construction limits and elements to protect within the construction limits. These parameters must be set within reason to accomplish the construction in an acceptable manner to both the engineer and the contractor. Items that cannot be compromised include safety of residents and workers, materials used, and quality of the finished product (ie. street and utilities). ' Keeping the above in mind the limits set forth to the contractor cannot include the protection P g � P of all trees on the project. With the excavation required to install the watermain and construct a sound street, some trees will be lost. Other trees will have their root systems severely damaged and should be removed. ' To provide a stable base on which to put the street and curb and gutter, the excavation must be oversized to provide the necessary lateral, side -to -side stability to prevent the curb and gutter from tipping and to prevent the street from slipping. The typical section designed for the Chanhassen Estates area requires a 3' subcut. The over - sizing required for this deep of a subcut is, at a minimum, 3' at the surface and it would be desired that this be closer to 6'. ' The intent would be to narrow the over - sizing to 3' behind the curb near trees designated as requiring a second look during construction. Watermain construction will require similar considerations. At a minimum, a contractor requires 12' -14' just to maneuver the backhoe being used. A minimum trench width at the top of the trench is in that same 12' -14' range with the desired width being closer to 18' -20'. ' These parameters are primarily for the safety of the workers in the trench. The contractor may choose to use a trench box for portions of the project. Trench boxes are 6' wide and require additional over - sizing so that the box can be pulled along the trench. The trench would likely be 10' -12' at the surface in this situation. As discussed above, we cannot specify that the contractor use a box during construction. Again, the intent would be to narrow the over - sizing near trees designated as requiring a second look during construction. r f I, Please note the attached sections which show minimum impacts due to trenching and subcut activities. The existing trees are shown at 4.5' behind the proposed curb and gutter. This is the average distance from the proposed curb and gutter of the trees scheduled for removal under the 31' alternative. Impacts resulting from narrower street widths would be less by half the difference in total width. Watermain impacts may change if it is determined feasible to place the watermain in a different location. CONSTRUCTION STAGING The intent is to stage the project in such a manner that not all streets will be having construction activities on them at the same time. The purpose is to minimize the distance from homes to stable roads during bad weather conditions. This distance will be limited to 600' -800' or a total of 1200' -1800' of roadway open. The contractor will be required to provide access to all properties during construction. This may not always be possible during certain construction activities but should be restored prior to the contractor leaving the site each day. Residents should be aware that during periods of rain the soils in the area make it very difficult or impossible to provide access. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE The proposed schedule is shown below. This schedule is based on a bid opening date in April of 1994. If the bid opening is delayed due to the redesign of significant elements of the plan, the schedule will require adjustment accordingly. Plans and Specifications Accepted & Ad for Bid Authorized Bid Opening Council Awards Contract for Construction Begin Construction Substantial Completion of Construction Pond Excavation and Wetland Construction Complete Construction April 11, 1994 or before May, 1994 May 9, 1994 May, 1994 October 31, 1994 January, 1995 July, 1995 Substantial completion will be defined as Curb & Gutter and the first of two lifts of bituminous surfacing. Impacts of Delayed Start Date: If the start of construction is delayed, it may become very difficult to complete the first lift bituminous paving prior to freeze. This would require that residents drive on gravel roads through the winter and spring of 1995. This situation could be undesirable for many reasons including inefficient snow plowing, poor drainage, mud, driveways not completed, and additional construction costs. i 7' MIN 31' ALTERNATIVE 3' -10" 8' 3' - 10 " W■ 7' MIN 2' -4 0 SUMMER 8' 0 ------- - - - \- - WINTER ■M 7' MIN 2' -4 ", 7' MIN SNOW BANK -- 1 ---- - - - - -- Drawn By: Date: Comm. No. Orr Drawing Title Figure no. Schelen Mayerat & es, Inc. CWK 03/10/94 5108.00 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN ESTATES QMSI& Associates, Engineers ■ Architects ■ Planners ■ Surveyors 300 Perk Place Center O 5775 Nayzals Boulevard Ylnnee➢olle, MN 55416 -1226 • 612 -595 -5775 7' MIN PARKED CAR 28' ALTERNATIVE 2 8' 2 We! bia 0 Fr iKiu5 7' MIN SUMMER 8' 10" 7' MIN PARKED CAR 7' MIN PARKED CAR PARKED CAR SNOW BANK \IIIIIIII' IIIIIIII�illlllllllll IIIIIIIIIIII�IIIII'llli IIIIIIII WINTER Drawn By: Dote: Comm. No. Orr Drawing Title Figure no, Schelen Mayeron & CWK 03/10/94 5108.00 0 Associates, Inc. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN ESTATES Engineers ■ Architects ■ Planners ■ Surveyors 900 Perk Place Center ■ 5715 Wayzata Boulevard Ylnneayolie, UK 55415-1228 • 512- 595 -5995 26' ALTERNATIVE 7' MIN 4' -10" 8' 4' -10" PARKED CAR 7' MIN PARKED CAR ------- - - - -- SUMMER 3 , - 0 ■m 8 3 - 4 " WINTER 0 SNOW BANK -- /7 ---- - - - - -- Drawn By: Date: Comm. No. Orr Drawing Title Figure no. Schelen Mayeron & CWK 03/10/94 5108.00 C A B & Associates, Inc. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN ESTATES Engineers ■ Architects ■ Planners ■ Surveyors 900 Park Place Center ■ 5795 Wayzata Boulevard Ylnaeapolle, UN 65416-1228 ■ 612 -595 -5705 y y y y y w i i i i 1 / 2'r I t 3•r. • • 13 t -------- M.H.D. B618 a• 18• CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER Wear course to be W above edge I , of gutter. .�/� 1 m r d e l , 11/2• r 17 1/2' 10 1/2• 8• 3'r.� O 6. r ` I T• 3/4' PER FT . 3•r. / •, _._ 13 1/2• SLOPE 3/4' 12• ; S' 20' k sF� 2-01 2-93 CITY OF MANHASON DATE Ir OQ SURMOUNTABLE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER NOTE: FOR USE ONLY WITH PRI\MTE DRIVEWAYS, PARKING LOTS OR MEDIANS. ALLOWABLE CURB SECTIONS PLATE NO 5203 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "I E XISTING TRE-c 4'-4..5'FROM PROPOSED MACK OF: CURB NE�. V301A.-EVARD STREET �7 1 P i" LANT A V A f I 'I li"T ;3j 'ro BACK A�% tl% Ny NEW CUR & GUTTER - ROpBD - r FROPOS D, OAD .... . ... . ........ lic FR MINIMUM TRENCH STANDARD TRENCH SUB CUT TRENCH BOX EXISTING SANITARY -----, , _ ,_. SEWER 0 L PROPOSED WATERMAIN EXISTING WATERMAIN PROPOSED WATERMAIN TRENCHING EEw BOULEVARD STREET - TREE PLAKM W -VBVWW Cum BO' O.0. EXISTWO TREE W- 4MFRO14 PROPOSED BACK OF CURB NEW = TREK: PLANT BOULEV of BACK TO BACK � lXMrM ROAD PROPOSED ROAD PROM ILaw. I" BOULEVARD STREET - TM PLMITUD V-W BEIM D CURB d0' O.0. 4 , 'm «T PROPOSED ROAD 1ST ADDITION Exan q a V-- cWFROM PROPOSED BACK OF CUR>< NEW TRM- ;W S ARITY NEW ST BACK TO BACK & QUrMRR EXISTEIO ROAD PROPOSED ROAD HOUSE 30' FROM R.O.W. arr a CHANHA3SBN f PROPOSED ROAD 2ND ADDITION HOUSE w FROM LO.W. HOUlIE 31V FROM RA.W. CAlt Ae6d.w M.N. A �... w...�.�o rrww.IINI►M1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Red Maple 5 •, 0 - -6 •3 125 5 a 3 Acer rubrum FORM: ovoid to globular, young trees often conical to elliptic 0 Size: large canopy -22.S to 30 m (7S to 100 ft) Spread: wide-15 to 22.5 m (50 to 75 ft), commonly 3/4 the height Mass: moderate BRANCHING: strong ascending, less regular than Sugar and Black Maples, medium texture Tigg slender, smooth becoming flaky, green -red becoming bright red in winter w Q�� Bud: flower buds clustered, blunt rounded, bright red, 5 mm (1/5 in) long Bark: smooth breaking into scaly plates exfoliating at ends; silvery gray with occasional orangish patches FOLIAGE: opposite, simple, usually palmately 3 lobed, v- shaped sinuses, medium fine to medium texture Surface: upper dull, lower light silvery gray Color: spring - red green; summer - light green; autumn - varies, usually crimson red Season: deciduous; emergence - mid to late April, drop - late September FLOWER: small local clusters, 5 to 10 mm (1/5 to 2/5 in) long, short spider -like filaments Color: both male and female bright red Season: late March or early April, several weeks before the leaves Sex: monoecious or dioeaous FRUIT: paired samaras, keys 19 to 32 mm (3/4 to 1 1/4 in) long, in heavy terminal clusters Color: usually bright red maturing to red brown, rarely yellowish Season: late April to mid June, appearing with new leaves Wildlife Value: very high; songbirds, waterbirds, small mammals, hoofed browsers HABITAT: formation - forest: region - northern, central; gradients - lowland wet, wet- mesic, and upland dry; north - cool low wet areas, high humidity, also steep rocky land; central - mesic ravines; south - floodplain 4mP Shade Tolerance: tolerant; index range 6.0 -7.9 Flood Tolerance: tolerant SOIL; Texture: coarse sands and sandy loams to fine silty clays and clays, common on poorly aerated soils Drainage: very poor to well Moisture: demands wet to average Reaction: prefers acid, pH 4.5 -6.5 HARDINESS: zone 3a Q Rate: medium to fast - 5.5 to 7.5 m(18 to 25 ft) in 10 year period 1�0 Longevity: medium- seldom living longer than 150 years SUSCEPTIBILITY; Physiological: frequent - manganese chlorosis in calcareous soils Disease: frequent- rot causing fungi, canker injuries, Verticillium wilt Insect: frequent - leaf hoppers, many borers and scale Wind -Ice: frequent - weak wooded URBAN TOLERANCE; Pollution: resistant - O,, HCI, CI; intermediate - SO Lighting: sensitive Drought -Heat: intermediate Mine Spoils: intermediate Salt: sensitive Soil Compaction: resistant Root Pattern: very shallow, widespreading fibrous; easily transplanted in early spring B&B or BR if small SPECIES; Associate: north - Gray Birch, Paper Birch, Black Spruce, Balsam Fir, Quaking Aspen, Black Ash; central - Black and Sugar Maple, Yellow Buckeye, American Beech; south - River Birch, Baldcypress, American Sweetgum Similar: Silver Maple exhibits more massive irregular form, yellow green autumn coloration Cultivars: 'Columnare' - narrow upright form, 'Armstrong' - fastigiate, 'October Glory' - retains leaves late tip, A 1 1 '1 it Common Hackberry may: 173 y ..,, Celtis occidentalis FORM: globular ® Size: large canopy - 22.5 to 30 m (75 to 100 ft) Spread: very wide-22.5 to 30 m (75 to 100 ft), as wide as tall Mass: moderate BRANCHING: long clear trunk, abruptly upright Iimbs becoming arching, high umbrella crown, medium texture TwT: zig zag, green brown d Bu inconspicuous, egg shaped, light brown Bark: blocky, young trees with short narrow knobby cork -like ridges; light gray FOLIAGE: alternate, simple, ovate, oblong ovate to ovate - lanceolate, long tapered tip, uneven base, medium fine text A Surface: dull and rough, young leaves densely woolly T/ Color: spring -light green; summer - light blue green; autumn -pale lemon yellow Season: deciduous; emergence - late April, drop - early November FLOWER: small clusters, individual 3 mm (118 in) across Color: yellowish green with brown tint Season: late April through early May, with the leaves Sex: monoecious FRUIT: singular thin fleshy berry, 8 mm (1/3 in) diameter, on slender 19 mm (3/4 in) stem Color: purple brown Season: September- October, persisting on tree most of winter through February Wildlife Value: very high; man, songbirds, small mammals HABITAT: formation - forest, savanna; region - central; gradient - lowland wet -mesic and upland mesic dry; drainage basins, mature floodplains, also wooded slopes or on high rocky limestone bluffs bordering streams, windbreak Shade Tolerance: intermediate; index range 4.0 -5.9 Flood Tolerance: intermediate - sites with permanent high water table harmful SOIL; Texture: moderately coarse sandy loams, silty clays to moderately fine sandy loams Drainage: well to moderately poor Moisture: from w et to dry Reaction: neutral to alkaline, pH 6.6 -8.0, common on limestone soils and rock outcrops HARDINESS: zone 3a Rate: medium to fast - 56 to 76 cm (22 to 30 in) annually, 6 to 9 m (20 to 30 ft) in 20 year period Longevity: medium to long- mature at 100 years, commonly surviving 200 years SUSCEPTIBILITY; Physiological: infrequent Disease: frequent - witches' broom, powdery mildew, leaf spots Insect: frequent - hackberry nipple gall, morning cloak butterfly, scales Wind -Ice: infrequent URBAN TOLERANCE; Pollution: Lighting: Drought -Heat: resistant Mine spoils: resistant Salt: resistant Soil Compaction: intermediate Root Pattern: deep coarse widespreading laterals; easily transplanted B &B or BR in spring or fall with care SPECIES; Associate: Sugarberry, American Elm, White Ash, Green Ash, Silver Maple, Red Mulberry, Black Walnut, Common Hone •locust, Eastern Wahoo, American Planetree, hawthorn species Similar: American Elm, Japanese Zelkova (Asiatic) exhibits finer texture, Sugarberry is more southern Cultivars: 'Prairie Prince' - resistant to witches' broom, uniform shape _, � _.:.�- :•- +,.1 =.-.�, i ?.�±,�%4 { -: IrM1: r:. ;.L "- '�'.)'•i :�.• ter/ L, {, t .. :, ,_,..,�.::; :.. '•i7 "flf, "I Is 4 293 S Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor FORM: ovoid O Size: large canopy - 22.5 to 30 m (75 to 100 ft) Spread: wide -15 to 22.5 m (50 to 75 ft), 2/3 that of height Mass: moderate BRANCHING: short trunk, lower limbs descending, upper crown ascending, medium texture Twigg moderately stout, pale raised lenticels, red brown ' Z — Bud: clustered blunt globular end buds, light chestnut brown Bark: young trees shedding in ragged papery flakes, adult deeply furrowed; dark gray -brown FOLIAGE: alternate, simple, obovate- oblong obovate, shallow lobed to wavy margin, medium coarse texture Surface: dull, leathery appearance, pale grayish green beneath and tomentose Color: spring - purplish green; summer - dark green; autumn - golden yellow brown Season: deciduous; emergence - early May, drop early November FLOWER: male in pendulous catkins, 5 to 7.5 cm (2 to 3 in) long Color: yellow green : Season_: early through mid May, with or soon after leaf emergence Sex:_ monoecious FRUIT: acorn, 19 to 38 min (3/4 to 1 1/2 in) long, cap enclosing 1/3 to 1/2 length, long stem, usually in pairs Color: tan brown Season: September through early October Wildlife Value: very high; man, water birds, upland ground birds, songbirds, small nnannmals, hoofed browsers HABITAT: formation - forest; region - central; gradient - lowland wet and wet- mesic; second bottoms, alluvial fl� border of small streams, lake margin Shade Tolerance: intermediate; index range 4.0 -5.9 Flood Tolerance: tolerant :Ar. SOIL; Texture; medium to fine; stiff hard pan clay, silty clay, fine sandy clays, fine sandy loams _ Drainage: moderately poor to very poor Moisture: demands wet to moist Reaction: neutral, pH 6.0 -6.5 HARDINESS: zone 4a Rate: medium to fast - one of faster growing oaks, 46 to 60 cm (1 1/2 to 2 ft) per year, slowing with maturity C7 j Longevity: medium- generally mature in 125 to 175 years SUSCEPTIBILITY; Physiological: frequent - severe iron chlorosis, requires acid soils Phomopsis canker, Coniothvrium dieback Disease: infrequent -oak wilt, Anthracnose, canker, Insect: infrequent Wind -Ice: infrequent URBAN TOLERANCE, Pollution: Li htin � Drought -Heat: resistant Mine Spoils: resistant 77 7 Salt: resistant Soil Compaction: resistant Root Pattern: shallow fibrous; transplant readily B &B in early spring or We autLinitn SPECIES; Associate: Black Ash, Red Maple, Silver Maple, Tuliptree, American Sweetgum, River Birch, Pecan, Boxelder, American Planetree, Green Ash, Shingle Oak, Bur Oak, Pin Oak Similar: Pin Oak exhibits comparable cultural requirements, shape and branching form E CUltivars: none available commercially :Ar. I - .. Common Honeylocust I I 10 . .3 Gleditsia triacanthos l = ?ill FORM: irregular-globular O Size: small canopy -1S to 22.5 m (SO to 75 ft) Spread: wide-15 to 22.5 m (50 to 75 ft), as wide as tall Mass: open BRANCHING: horizontal, picturesque, irregular, coarse texture Twig: zit; zag, swollen at the nodes, red brown; armed with 3 branched thorns, trunks with massive clusters Bud: small, mostly hidden ' Bark: shallow furrowed, wide long flat irregular plate -like ridges curling along vertical margin; brown black FOLIAGE: alternate, pinnalely or bipinnately compound, 26 -32 leaflets, elliptic -oval, entire, very fine texture Surface: dull Color: spring -light green; summer - bright yellow green; autumn -pale yellow Season: deciduous; emergence - late May, drop - late September FLOWER: small slender pyramidal spike -like clusters up to 10 cm (4 in) in length «q� Color: yellow green Season: early through mid June Sex: dioecious FRUIT: legume, 30 cm (12 in) long, twisting flat bean -like pod, pendant Color: purplish brown Season: late July persisting until mid winter, through January Wildlife Value: very low HABITAT: formation - forest, savanna; region - central; gradient - lowland wet -mesic and upland mesic -dry; alluvia" lands, rocky hillsides, open or wooded pastures, fence rows, abandoned fields (especially in midwest), windbi s Shade Tolerance: intolerant; index range 2.0 -3.9 Flood Tolerance: intermediate SOIL; Texture: prefers fine clay, heavy loams, fine sandy and silty clay; tolerant of moderately coarse sandy loam Drainage: moderately poor to well Moisture: wet to porous droughty granular soils Reaction: slightly acid to neutral, pH 6.1 -7.5 HARDINESS: zone 4b Rate: fast - 61 to 76 cm (2 to 21/2 ft a year) over a 20 year period Longevity: medium - mature around 100 to 125 years, rarely survives 200 years SUSCEPTIBILITY; Physiological: infrequent Disease: infrequent - occasional canker, witches broom, leaf spot Insect: frequent - honeyloaist borer, Mimosa webworm is most serious in the midwest Wind -Ice: infrequent ' URBAN TOLERANCE; Pollution: sensitive- J— Lighting: Drought - Heat: resistant Mine Spoils: resistant T Salt: resistant Soil Compaction: resistant Root Pattern: variable taproot, deep laterals to shallow fibrous spreading; easily transplanted B &B in spring, autJeritj. SPECIES; Associate: American Sweetgum, American Elm, Green Ash, Red Maple, Silver Maple, Boxelder Pecan White Common Hackberry �y Coffeetree, Black Walnut, Pin and Swamp Oaks, Similar. Kentucky Coffeetree is Tess regular, coarser; Black Locust is narrower, less tolerant of flooding �1 Cultivars: 'Moraine'- seedless, 'Shademaster' - ascending habit, 'Skyline' - pyramidal, 'Sunburst' -yellow foliage l = ?ill 'Patmo'.re.'Ash 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ')n7 Fraxinus pennsylvanica lanceolata Tatmo FORM: irregular -ovoid 1 O Size: small canopy -15 to 22.5 m (50 to 75 ft) Spread: intermediate -10 to 15 m (35 to 50 ft), 2/3 of height Mass: moderate BRANCHING: recurving, very coarse texture 0V Twin large leaf scars with conspicuous lenticels, mostly shiny, rigid, smooth yellowish brown N Bud: naked, triangular, chocolate brown end buds Bark: shallow furrowed, close narrow ridges cross - checking into diamond -like pattern; silvery to ashy gray FOLIAGE: opposite, pinnalely compound, 7 -9 short - stalked leaflets, lanceolate- oblong lanceolate, medium texture Surface: glossy upper, pale smooth lower Color: spring - light green; summer - clark green; autumn - golden yellow to orangish Season: deciduous; emergence - _early May, drop early October FLOWER: compact many flowered clusters Color: deep purple Season: late April through early May, before the leaves Sex: dioecious FRUIT: winged singular samara, 2.5 cm (1 in) long, borne in dense drooping clusters r Color: tan brown Season: early August persisting through winter months to late February Wildlife Value: low; songbirds, small mammals HABITAT: formation - forest, savanna; region - northern, central; gradient - lowland wet -mesic and upland mesic -drys alon� streams and lakes, floodplain, midwest windbreak and farmstead plantings Shade Tolerance: intolerant; index range 2.0 -3.9 Flood Tolerance: tolerant ' SOIL; Texture: coarse to medium Drainage: moderately poor to well Moisture: wet to porous droughty. Reaction: slightly acid to neutral, pH 6.1 - 7.5 HARDINESS: zone 2 Rate: fast - 76 cm (21/2 ft) a year is average, commonly 91 cm (36 in) and more in some years 1111111110 Longevity: medium -100 to 150 years ' SUSCEPTIBILITY; Physiological: infrequent Disease: infrequent - heartwood rot, leafspots, many cankers Insect: frequent - ash borer, oystershell scale, brown headed ash sawfly, lilac leaf minor, lilac borer Wind -Ice: frequent - brittle twigs commonly broken URBAN TOLERANCE; Pollution: sensitive-SO ',, O,; intermediate - HFI; resistant - 2,4 -11D �— Lighting: resistant Drought - Heat: resistant - most tolerant ash 'a Salt: intermediale Soil Compaction: resistant Mine Spoils: resistant Root Pattern: shallow fibrous pattern; transplants readily BR or B&B in spring or autumn with care SPECIES; Associate: Bur Oak, Silver Maple, American Elm, Common Hackberry, Eastern Poplar, Pin Oak, American t Sweetgum, Pecan, American Planelree, Black Willow, Eastern Wahoo, Eastern Redbud, hawthorn species Similar: Black Ash, While Ash is less tolerant of floodinc, not as drought tolerant, Boxelder CUltivars: 'Honeyshade' - glossy green leaves, selected 6m; Marshall's Seedless; 'Summit' - pyramidal form t 1 ♦ t �•. T i 1 al l t � •��i CHANHASSEN ISTIES r< �._ r III .._.,, ..t _ - =:: ,:=. .: Fu - -. _-e...- ,a,-.. :�.: . <• 1..ouz�s. - t. •' -: N ..: .+.Sw .... -.,� a �`. ati � v .x.. ..� >•..,•+,.�*'.4: y+�+ . +Y�i� ra:.!:.ni' ?a.zrrw� s _ 'c::wsa,rc wr'._`aY�'s!T? -'+ .iy � . �,,;:c :.vk •'x- G � ._._..,� .&..._..� f..>4..1..�=� sIZ `�' f ^'-• - 'f' - - ,v. 7 �. .�.:s« _ _ 7 j _` 15 _.� -.a>. �� - • .. _ �+ , I > ! '1 13 13 ii ie g ? 6 ERIE GIRCL E Cl r' 1 le A VEI lUE CU%O T $ - ., ....:.:. p.... s ..; j sA ... 'ft u . .. ....il . " ... r• � r 1 - •o • •viz Q t� e s ' - t ` \ In DA v n I 6 3 s y� c v t•3 v g h , ......,:.:. , _ - ' , ":•' DAK 7A :• _ A A VEN t g } Iom ti • FILL ... .: .; :;�: BACK _ . SOEL r:' MULCH .. - U .. ''� ---'-- .. - - - :.o.....0 z !� ar L -. 's r „ - .. _ ...... . 7 •:I > . : - '• s �a _g BALLED & BURLAPPED STOCK ; _ _ _ s: �'• c a �Y 1. SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE. ii c 2. PROCEED WITH CORRECTIVE PRUNING AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. _ 3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL, `� \/�`' OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BACKFILL :'' 3 ° 0-A SOIL AT THE SAME DEPTH (IF PROPER) = I w �y,,,, r ,`•:; - AS IT WAS GROWN IN THE NURSERY. ,9 x f s (, ?: N 1 O 4. PLANT SHALL BE PLACED IN PLANTING ' "r••.., ` Nl/ t, _ °' i = ' ' W M to HOLE WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, � F W IF USED, INTACT. CNCE IN PLACE, v...... i • a ' °f i . Z THE PLANT SHALL BE BACKFILLED TO t' :'`y.. _ WITHIN 12" OF THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL ,, "4^ N O r•.. _ AND WATERED. THE BURLAP SHALL BE "= } ,.... FOLDED OR CUT BACK. h .,. NOTE: „ ...,�,..... a ' 5. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH THE CENTER TREE TRUNK ' " BACKFILL SOIL SPECIFIED. 6' 8' FROM BACK OF CURB• O W U r � •- � � d �� Z 7A W W 6. APPLY WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS W ` J < c 0 AND FILL VOIDS THEN CONSTRUCT BACKFILL- ,w ^ :$ S Ix 3" DEPTH WATERING BASIN. SOIL > Z d. Z 7. WA 100 50 0 700 200 TER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS. W " "" < Z ',. M1LCH Z =�•, In 8. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE SCALE 1N FEET V IS EXCESSIVE. t ..... " 9. BIODEGRADABLE TWINE MAY BE LEFT ON AS SUPPORT EETWEEN THE ROOT BALL AND ROOT COLLAR UNTIL THE END ,_ CLEAR AND GRUB OF THE PLANT ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD 6' 8' AT WHICH TIME IT MUST BE CUT AND — TOTALLY REMOVED FROM THE ROOT COLLAR. USE OF NONSIODEGRADABLE TYPICAL TREE PLANTING LOCATION TWINE SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. Preli nl ' na r �-�— GENERAL NOTES ►� >'► TREE LOSS df -; P 1p BRANCH BARK RIDGE f. THE PLANTING DETAILS REPRESENT ADEQUATELY DRAINED SOIL CONDITIONS THE CONTRACTOR �� ¢ l SHOULD EXERCISE DISCRETION IN SETTING PLANTS I ".3"HIGHER IN POORLY DRAINED SOILS. 1 " 0 Q n- • TREES LIKELY LOST AT ANY WIDTH 2. ON 2:7 SLOPES OR GREATER, DO NOT CONSTRUCT THE UPHILL HALF OF THE WATERING BASIN. U 1 U u a J. ON WET, POORLY DRAINED SOILS, DO NOT CONSTRUCT WATERING BASIN. �, >.p C► • LIVING BRANCH 4. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ADEQUATE DRAINAGE IN HEAVY POORLY c. u 70 01 g DEAD BRANCH �j/ ADDITIONAL TREES LIKELY LOST AT DiHS' DRAINED OR IMPERVIOUS SOILS 0 En �11 a aFR C C WIDER THAN 26' 5. PLANTS SHOULD BE SET AT THE PROPER DEPTH WHEREBY THE BEGINNING TAPER OF THE ROOT .°•x FLARE IS AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE FINISHED SOIL GRADE. THIS SHOULD BE THE SAME A I / A DEPTH AS THE PLANTS WERE GROWN AT IN THE NURSERY BUT NOTE THAT THE ROOTS " o . 1 / 0 ADDITIONAL TREES LIKELY LOST AT OTHS OF BALLED BURLAPPED PLANTS ARE FREOUENTLY FOUND TO BE UNACCEPTABLY DEEP IN THE BALL guy 0 0 WIDER THAN 28' WHEN THEY ARE COVERED BY MORE THAN 4' OF SOIL IN THE TOP. BRANCH COLLAR ��11 X 6. ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED WILL BE MARKED IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER II BRANCH COLLAR 7. REMAINING TREES WILL BE PROTECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR FIRST CUT PART WAY THROUGH 8. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRING ANY DAMAGE OR RESTORING THE 5 THE BRANCH AT A THEN CUT IT FORM OF ALL REMAINING TREES OR SHRUBS ADJACENT TO REMOVALS THE PRUNING METHOD IS AN u d OFF AT B. HAKE THE F CUT NOTES AS DETAILED. E LEAVE BRANCH COLLAR 8. NEW TREES SHALL BE PLANTED 50'0.C. WHERE POSSIBLE. w AT C D DO NOT FLUSH CUT l0. MULCH NEW TREES WITH 6' OF WOOD CHIP MULCH. oa ( 00 NOT CUT ALONG LIE C -X) DO NOT LEAVE STUBS PRUNING DETAIL (SHIGO METHOD) 6 34 51080OL4.DGN i i p0l 13 !2 .............. A BACKFILL' SOIL MULCH BL BI BALLED & BURLAPPED STOCK 1. SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE. 2. PROCEED WITH CORRECTIVE PRUNING AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. 3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL, OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL AT THE SAME DEPTH (IF PROPER) AS IT WAS GROWN IN THE NURSERY. 4. PLANT SHALL BE PLACED IN PLANTING HOLE WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, IF USED, INTACT. ONCE IN PLACE, THE PLANT SHALL BE BACKFILLED TO WITHIN 12" OF THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL AND WATERED. THE BURLAP SHALL BE FOLDED OR CUT BACK. NOTE: 5. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH THE CENTER TREE TRLW 6'•S' g Rp1 &A~ OF CL CHANHASSEJ ESjATES 6 CC 2 2 13 12 11 10 9 A VEJ VE R /p ANN a - - - - - - - - - - - sgt toT BACKFILL SOIL SPECIFIED. DEAD BRANCH B B LIVING BRANCH 4� 13 C KEY C A A D 6. APPLY WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS THEN CONSTRUCT BACKFILL- x BRANCH COLLAR FIRST CUT PART WAY THROUGH II THE BRANCH AT A THEN CUT IT NOTES. OFF AT 8. MAKE THE FINAL CUT z m 3" DEPTH WATERING BASIN. SOIL C D6 NOT C�T ALONG LINE C-X) DO NOT LEAVE STUBS PRUNING DETAIL ISHIGO METHOD) 100 200 • 7. WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS. MLCH B & s X FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA LANCEOLATA 'PATmORE' ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED WILL BE MARKED IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER E 7. Lj 8. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE HONEYLOCUST 44 2 8 & a FORM OF ALL REMAINING TREES OR SHRUBS ADJACENT TO REMOVALS. THE PRUNING METHOD IS AS DETAILED. ' GLEDITSIA T;IACANTHOS Mob-_ I NEW TREES SHALL BE PLANTED 60'0.C. WHERE POSSIBLE.. SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE 1Q. BLACK HILLS SPRUCE. 6 6 ft '4v KA ND. 6 PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA SCALE IN FEET IS EXCESSIVE. I I 9. BIODEGRADABLE TWINE MAY BE LEFT ON AS SUPPORT BETWEEN THE ROOT CLEAR AND GRUB BALL AND ROOT COLLAR UNTIL THE END ly OF THE PLANT ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD 6' • a' 1 _ AT WHICH TIME IT MUST BE CUT AND TOTALLY REMOVED FROM THE ROOT _ COLLAR. USE OF NONBIODEGRADABLE TYPICAL TREE PLANTING LOCATION TWINE SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. o P re r M 1 nary 120 TREES POSSIBLE LOST 240 TREES REPLACED GENERAL NOTES • . I BRANCH BARK RIDGE k DEAD BRANCH B B LIVING BRANCH 4� 13 C KEY C A A D D BRANCH COLLAR x BRANCH COLLAR FIRST CUT PART WAY THROUGH II THE BRANCH AT A THEN CUT IT NOTES. OFF AT 8. MAKE THE FINAL CUT LEAVE BRANCH COLLAR AT C DO NOT FLUSH C D6 NOT C�T ALONG LINE C-X) DO NOT LEAVE STUBS PRUNING DETAIL ISHIGO METHOD) I Ll TREE REPLACEME4ffff SCHE LE v KEY PLANT NAME ANTITY SIZE CONDITION RED MAPLE. ACER RUBRUM 56 2 B & a 2. HACKBERRY. CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS 52 2 8 & 8 I-a : SWAMP WHITE OAK. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ADEOUATE DRAINAGE IN HEAVY POORLY o&nX-,c 8 & B DRAINED OR IMPERVIOUS SOILS. PLANTS SHOULD BE SET AT THE PROPER DEPTH WHEREBY THE BEGINNING TAPER OF THE ROOT OUERCUS BICOLOR FLARE IS AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE FINISHED SOIL GRADE. THIS SHOULD BE THE SAME PATMORE ASH 28 2t B & s X FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA LANCEOLATA 'PATmORE' ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED WILL BE MARKED IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER E 7. REMAINING TREES WILL BE PROTECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR • lc HONEYLOCUST 44 2 8 & a FORM OF ALL REMAINING TREES OR SHRUBS ADJACENT TO REMOVALS. THE PRUNING METHOD IS AS DETAILED. ' GLEDITSIA T;IACANTHOS Mob-_ I NEW TREES SHALL BE PLANTED 60'0.C. WHERE POSSIBLE.. 1Q. BLACK HILLS SPRUCE. 6 6 ft a & a KA ND. 6 PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA I I I Ll a,; s I THE PLANTING DETAILS REPRESENT ADEOUA TEL Y DRAINED SOIL CONDITIONS THE CONTRACTOR a SHOULD EXERCISE DISCRETION IN SETTING PLANTS 1"-3•HIGHER IN POORLY DRAINED SOILS. 0 2. ON 2.1 SLOPES OR GREATER, DO NOT CONSTRUCT THE UPHILL HALF OF THE WATERING BASIN. J. ON WET, POORLY DRAINED SOILS, DO NOT CONSTRUCT WATERING BASIN. I-a : 4. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ADEOUATE DRAINAGE IN HEAVY POORLY o&nX-,c 5. DRAINED OR IMPERVIOUS SOILS. PLANTS SHOULD BE SET AT THE PROPER DEPTH WHEREBY THE BEGINNING TAPER OF THE ROOT • FLARE IS AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE FINISHED SOIL GRADE. THIS SHOULD BE THE SAME DEPTH AS THE PLANTS WERE GROWN AT IN THE NURSERY BUT NOTE THAT THE ROOTS DEEP IN THE BALL OF BALLED BURLAPPED PLANTS ARE FREOUENTL. Y FOUND To BE UNACCEPTABLY WHEN THEY ARE COVERED BY MORE THAN 4' OF SOIL IN THE TOP. X 6. ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED WILL BE MARKED IN THE FIELD BY THE ENGINEER E 7. REMAINING TREES WILL BE PROTECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR • lc a THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRING ANY DAMAGE OR RESTORING THE FORM OF ALL REMAINING TREES OR SHRUBS ADJACENT TO REMOVALS. THE PRUNING METHOD IS AS DETAILED. 9. I NEW TREES SHALL BE PLANTED 60'0.C. WHERE POSSIBLE.. 1Q. MULCH NEW. TREES: wirit 6-.! OF �yoop CHIP WULI PC KA ND. 6 I Ll I L 3601 Ironwood Rd. Excelsior, Mn.55331 March 25, 1994 Dear Councilman, We are writing in regards to the Durr development known as Minnewashta Landing which will come before you for approval next week. Let us first say that we are not against a development is this area. Rather, we are opposed to how this development has progressed to date and also its detrimental effect on one of our.neighbors if approved as is. As Lake Minnewashta homeowners our first problem came when vegetation along the shore of the Durr property was altered. Vegetation was removed or destroyed without permission from the Minnesota DNR. Secondly, last fall trees were removed with total disregard for Chanhassen city ordinances. Chanhassen issued a stop work order when this was discovered. One councilman has gone on record as saying that although Mr. Durr had not followed proper procedures, he only removed small saplings and underbrush. This is definitely not the case. Having thoroughly walked the area, we discovered that 173 trees approximately six inches or greater in diameter were cut i down on this property. Approximately 75 of those trees were within a few hundred feet of the Lake Minnewashta shoreline. ' Thirdly, the homes along the north shore are all built following a natural ridge or plateau. The Durr development does not follow that natural progression. It seeks to place ' eight homes as close as 75 feet from the lake while existing homes are set back 200 to 300 feet. ' The problem here is that it will directly effect the property value as well as the esthetic value for the home of Dave and Donna Hoelke. The home to be built on lot 8 will be much closer to the lakeshore than the Hoelke residence blocking their view and lowering their property value. Remarks by Mr. Durr's staff have already been made that placement of their homes is crucial to the value of their development. That's an interesting comment, don't you think? ' What can the City Council do to alleviate our concerns? The Minnesota DNR is handling the first problem concerning destruction of lakeshore vegetation. A law suit by the DNR may be forthcoming. ' As far as the cutting.of trees in this development is concerned, we can only hope that the city will see to it that adequate vegetation screening of the homesites close to ' the lake will be done. Also, write an ordinance with some teeth in it and make sure the city has enough fortitude to enforce it. Obviously Mr. Durr cut down trees without city approval because he thought the city might have been too ' restrictive. In regards to the homesite proposed on lot 8, make sure that you first and foremost protect the value of the homes that are already next to this development. The Hoelke's have worked long and hard to afford their dream of owning lake property. There is no excuse for a developer being allowed to position his homes to keep his profits up while the existing resident right next door has his property value irreparably lowered. We understand that Chanhassen has no ordinance concerning this issue. We are told that most cities in the ' area have ordinances protecting existing homeowners from others building so as to obstruct their view. We are certain that if any of you lived in the Hoelke home this would be a matter of great concern to you. We urge you to consider an ordinance concerning this issue. Let us protect the property values of the taxpayers already living in Chanhassen before we protect the profits of a developer. The Durr development should be a win /win situation for us all. Please do everything in your power to see to it ' that it is. Ve truly yours, ' Richard L. Zweig Ann M. Zweig 1 March 23, 1994 Dear City Council Members: We are writing you to express a personal concern regarding the Ken Durr development on Lake Minnewashta. Our property runs adjacent to the Durr development on the east side. The proposed development ' would allow a home to be built which would significantly invade our lake views of Minnewashta. ' BACKGROUND We moved into our home two years ago. At that time our lot value was appraised at 75% of the purchase price. We paid largely for a 1.3 acre lot with 120 feet of lakeshore and beautiful "panoramic views ". Beyond economics, we bought the house for the wonderful setting on the lake. We plan to live here the rest of our days. ' Our home sits about 200 feet from the shoreline, which is the CLOSEST of homes on the north side of the lake. Our neighbors to the east are set progressively further back from our home. (See attachment A). When these home were built, great care was taken by each new builder to ensure that the view of the existing homeowners was not significantly impaired. These houses were built at a ' generous angle from their adjoining neighbor (approx 70 degrees) in order to minimize impaired views. Additionally, all homes on this side of the lake are built at the crest of the natural ridge. ' When we purchased the home, we knew that development on the adjacent land was inevitable. However, in our naivety, it never occurred to us that someone would not build into the natural slope ' providing elevation from the lake. By changing the elevations, particularly on Lot 8, Block 2, Attachment A reveals how a home built would be conspicuously inconsistent in relation to the other ' houses in our neighborhood and the north side of the lake. THE DURR DEVELOPMENT ' We met Mr. Durr shortly after we moved into our home and have been on friendly terms, communicating with him on various "neighborly" issues ever since. We are thrilled with the quality of his buildings and greet his development with open arms. We are also eager with the prospect of being neighbors. ' We first expressed our concern about where a home might be built on Lot J8, Block 2 in the middle of January 1994 when he showed us a preliminary plan. Since then, we have had many discussions to mutually resolve this issue. We continue to pursue an amenable agreement directly. Ken has proposed some minor changes to improve the situation, but 1 has been unwilling to entertain any significant changes to his plan or add lot restrictions for this lot to accommodate us. As it stands today, it is likely that the front corner of a home built on i1 I Lot #8, Block 2 would be between an 18 and 26 degree angle from our home - -- far below the 70 degrees consistent to our neighborhood. Put another way, this would mean that about 70 degrees of the ' panorama from our home would be blocked by his home or screening. If you cover an eye with your hand, you will quickly understand (and approximate) the effect of losing so much of our view. ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE 1 Some of the suggestions we have made to resolve this issue include. moving the lot lines for lot 18 further west and /or north to improve building sit angles from our home. We have offered easement to the north end of our property to accommodate this. While feasible, Messrs. Durr and Sathre indicated that moving certain lot lines would create undesirable lot angles which would devalue the lots in their development because homes would have to be built on them at such an angle so neighboring houses would have slight views of each other. This is the same concern we have for our own views. The message we heard is that concern of the views from un -built houses in the Durr development are more important than the concerns of the views from our existing home. Beyond simply being unfair, this is a dangerous message to send to your taxpayers. CURRENT SETBACK ORDINANCES IN CHANHASSEN After consulting with a property attorney and the Chanhassen Planning Department, we understand that there are currently no laws or ordinances which would make it unlawful for a home to be built on Lot 18 Block 2 impairing our view as long as the 75 foot setback is met. As such, our only alternative involves asking the Chanhassen City Council to consider adopting an ordinance to restrict building new homes which would block the lake views for existing lakeshore homeowners. OTHER COMMUNITY ORDINANCES We were able to determine building setback ordinances for twelve neighboring lake communities in the area. (See Attachment B.) Of these twelve neighboring communities, seven have addressed our issue. Their building ordinances allow no new structures to be placed closer to a lake than the average setback of the houses on the adjoining lots. In the case where there is only a house on one adjoining lot, as in our situation, the "spirit" of the ordinance governs. In other words, the community would not allow a structure to be built so as to significantly impact the lake views of an existing home. This gives a smooth, consistent effect from the lake and protects homeowner value and esthetics. In discussing the history of these ordinances with many of the planners, we found that communities adopted their setback ordinances because many older homes and cabins were being bought and torn down in order to build bigger homes. Also, previously unavailable vacant land was made for sale, similar to our case. L This building practice obviously upset adjoining property owners. Thus, ordinances of considerable consistency were passed in these communities. Note that the communities without the ordinances tend ' to be older with most lake property homes already built close to the lake thus deeming an ordinance unnecessary. Since much of the construction on Chanhassen's many lakes is still ' relatively young, this has probably not been much of a problem to date. As homes age and desirable lake property diminishes, however, there will certainly be re- modelling, re- building and sub- ' dividing projects (such as our case) which would be invasive to the valued lake views of existing homeowners if no ordinance is pro- actively established. ' Clearly, other communities have seen it appropriate to protect existing lakeshore owners. Rest assured that these ordinances were passed under similar conditions of haste with proposed development. PROPOSAL F� 7 While we do not want to impair Mr. Durr's development schedule, and we stand firmly behind his plans, we need your help in gaining relief on Lot #8 Block 2. Please develop an ordinance to protect lakeshore homeowners from invasive construction. We ask that you do not grant variances for building sites on lots, particularly Lot #8 Block 2, until this invasive construction proposal has been rectified. In an effort to expedite Mr. Durr's proposal while meeting our needs, we would propose a compromise. If Mr. Durr agrees to limit structural building so that we maintain at least 45 degrees view from the center of our home, we would gladly concur with his bypassing the delays inherent in the development of an ordinance and also concur with the variances he has requested. Thank you for reading and considering action on our issue. Our concern grows daily as we come closer to the March 28 City Council meeting without direct resolution. Your help in our case as well as that of homeowners in future development proposals is greatly appreciated. We will be contacting you this weekend to see if there is any further information we can provide in helping to work through this situation effectively. David C. Hoelke Donna B. Hoelke 3621 Ironwood Rd. Excelsior, MN 55331 470 -6871 4 POU5 Curren- ordinance, / PLAAdt LAKE M I NNS TI DURk LrL kc- _ N fa d � -�_ LOCAL R U1VnIN [- nm K1 Aw1nt- - CITY NAME , ••••-••.•••�.� u►n��nVFit F'KUPERTY NUMB ER RESTRICTIOaV.S Excelsior 474 -5233 New structure cannot block view of ammenities Tonka Bay Ter 50 ft. setback from lake 474 -7994 75 ft. setback or avg. setback of adjoining houses Dave Minnetrista 446 -1660 75 ft. setback or avg. setback of adjoining houses Orono 473 -7357 75 ft. setback or avg. setback of adjoining houses L le Spring Park 471 -9051 Unable to obtain Minnetonka 939 -8200 75 ft. setback / City of Mtka only has a few homes Kathy on Lake Mtka and most are already close to lake, thus no need for ordinance Wayzata 473 -0234 75 ft. setback or avg. setback of adjoining houses Tom Waconia 442 -2184 In process of adopting new rules to restrict building John to avg. setback of adjoining houses. Due to be Shorewood 474 -3236 effective annr . 6/94. No rules for existing homes — can get variances Patty to build new homes Prior Lake 447 -4230 75 ft. setback or avg. setback of adjoining houses Horst Plymouth 550 -5050 Waiting for Information Garet ven 474 -4755 100 Ft. back from water Mound Mound 472 -1155 75 foot setback Pe Eden Prairie 937 -2262 75 foot setback Steve - A2) This is irrelevant to our concern. We are not discussing the 1 view from the west bedroom addition; our concern lies with views from the center of the deck and living areas of the original house. These areas are about 50 feet from the lot line, not particularly close. Q3) Just be happy that Mr. Durr is proposing oversized lots and not proposing to put in 100 houses! A3) This is saying we should be quiet and be happy its not worse! We are excited about Mr. Durr's development, but feel that a solution which will everyone's objectives can be readily reached. We have an economic and aesthetic interest in the result of this decision. The Council has a responsibility to protect existing homeowners for all development, not just the ' undesirable ones. Please note that we have 4 lots adjoining the our west ' property line under this proposal. The other three lots average 17,700 sq ft, far below the listed development average of 25,000 sq ft. We have foregone expressing our concerns with this situation (although it is not a desirable arrangement), choosing instead to focus only on the one important issue to us. Q4) The foliage between your lot and Lot #8 blocks your view of the lake anyway. A4) All the foliage between our properties are deciduous, therefore our view is indeed PARTIALLY blocked from May to October. The other seven months of the year we have full view t ATTACHMENT C In all due respect, we have already heard and adressed several opposing points of view against implementing building restrictions on Lot #8, Block 2. In order to save us all some time and effort, we would like to address some of the most frequent arguments we ' have encountered since we have started discussing this proposal: Q1) There is no ordinance which dictates house setbacks on lakes ' other than the 75 ft DNR law. Al) Just because an ordinance DOES not exist does not mean that an ordinance SHOULD not exist! The City Council has the authority and responsibility to protect the reasonable rights of existing homeowners. If necessary, the Concil may delay Mr. Durr's request for development while the community has an ' opportunity to vote on an ordinance. Q2) A variance was obtained to put an addition on your house which puts it within 7 feet of the lot line. This is what is creating your problem. A2) This is irrelevant to our concern. We are not discussing the 1 view from the west bedroom addition; our concern lies with views from the center of the deck and living areas of the original house. These areas are about 50 feet from the lot line, not particularly close. Q3) Just be happy that Mr. Durr is proposing oversized lots and not proposing to put in 100 houses! A3) This is saying we should be quiet and be happy its not worse! We are excited about Mr. Durr's development, but feel that a solution which will everyone's objectives can be readily reached. We have an economic and aesthetic interest in the result of this decision. The Council has a responsibility to protect existing homeowners for all development, not just the ' undesirable ones. Please note that we have 4 lots adjoining the our west ' property line under this proposal. The other three lots average 17,700 sq ft, far below the listed development average of 25,000 sq ft. We have foregone expressing our concerns with this situation (although it is not a desirable arrangement), choosing instead to focus only on the one important issue to us. Q4) The foliage between your lot and Lot #8 blocks your view of the lake anyway. A4) All the foliage between our properties are deciduous, therefore our view is indeed PARTIALLY blocked from May to October. The other seven months of the year we have full view t I through the property to the lake. The foliage adds to, and does not diminish, the quality of our views. Further, the existing foliage will not block our view of the ' what we expect will be a very large home. If our view is blocked by the foliage, the house on lot #8 would be equally blocked looking back our direction - -- and I doubt that would 1 be tolerated by the homeowner on Lot 18. In summary, foliage and lakefront is much more pleasing than foliage and house. ' Q5) The Real Estate value you may lose because of you blocked view will be more than offset by the appreciation of your property due to the development. A6) We bought our home for the property and the views, not for investment. Appreciation from the development is likely to simply cost us more in taxes - - -- while invasive construction ' diminishes our day -to -day enjoyment of the lake. 0 d 1 I1 7 L :1 March 24, 1994 Honorable Mayor Don Chmiel & Councilmembers City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 -0147 RE: TH -5 Corridor Study Datasery Chanhassen Property Dell Road and TH -5 Dear Mayor Chmiel and Councilmembers: Anw000noo datasery A 9ELL SOUTH Company 12125 Technology Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 -7399 6121829 -6000 RECEIVED MAR 2 5 1994 CITY OF QMAINHASSEN I represent Datasery Corporation located at 12125 Technology Drive, in the city of Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Datasery Corporation currently owns approximately 60 acres of land located in the southwest corner of Dell Road and TH -5, in the City of Chanhassen (hereafter referred to as the Chanhassen property). Approximately 1200 linear feet of our property abuts TH -5 and all of this property has been included as part of the TH -5 Corridor Study. Datasery Corporation is requesting as part of this correspondence that the City of Chanhassen postpone any land use or overlay district decisions regarding the above - referenced property. Datasery Corporation has been following the City's TH -5 Corridor Study with great interest. At the City's Planning Commission meeting held on January 19, 1994, I stated that Datasery would soon start a process to evaluate the land use potential for its Chanhassen property. As part of this process, Datasery intended to also evaluate its future need for corporate office, warehouse and industrial space. In order to complete this land use study, Datasery Corporation officially requested at the January 19, 1994 Planning Commission meeting that no final determination be made regarding land uses or overlay district conditions or criteria for the Datasery Chanhassen property. Since January, 1994, Datasery Corporation has taken steps to evaluate the land use potential of its Chanhassen property and has continued to evaluate its long -term corporate office and warehouse needs. Datasery has assembled a professional team to assist with these tasks: • Ryan Construction is assisting with the site design, and building and construction alternative analysis; • Welsh Companies is assisting with the market and the building design analysis; and • RLK Associates, Ltd is assisting with the land use and site design analysis. MAIL7188.LTR Milan * • lama L o s s * Da Milan *Atlanta Los •Dallas Y, TH -5 Corridor Study ' Page 2 March 24, 1994 Datasery Corporation has made great strides in deciding on a land use plan for its Chanhassen property. Our representatives have met with City staff on several occasions to discuss issues }r related to land use, transportation, wetland protection and stormwater management We believe that Datasery Corporation will complete its land use planning activities in the near future and at that time will be able to intelligently and effectively 'participate in the public discussions ' surrounding the TH -5 Corridor Study. As a result, Datasery Corporation requests that the City of Chanhassen postpone any decision ' regarding land use types or overlay district conditions or criteria for the Datasery Chanhassen property until our land use planning activities are complete. By making this request, Datasery Corporation does not intend to unnecessarily burden or stall the TH -5 Corridor Study process. We are only requesting the opportunity to plan for our long -term corporate needs and interests, F. and plan the future land uses for our Chanhassen property. I will be at the March 28, 1994 City ouncil meeting if you have any questions regarding this tY g Y q matter. Datasery Corporation looks forward to working with the City of Chanhassen on this and future land use related matters. Sincerely, DATASERV, INC. i nn Paulet Facilities Manager /ajb cc: Don Honeck Caroline Watson MAIL7188.LTR SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT March 23, 1994 30 Mitchell Road, Suite 104 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 934 -7928 Fax (612) 949 -8542 Members of the City Council City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Members of the City Council: We would like to take this opportunity to formally respond to the Highway 5 Corridor Study from a transit planning perspective. Our response is directed to the Memorandum dated January 13, 1994, sent to the Planning Commission— . During the presentation and discussion of the Corridor Study at the Planning Commission, it was noted that the provision of transit was inadvertently overlooked by the Highway 5 Task Study group when developing their recommendations. The Southwest Metro Transit Commission would like to recommend the following additions to the Study towards the related policy direction: DIVISION 1, HC -1 DISTRICT, Sec 20 -1451. Intent. Add 0) Provide for safe and adequate transit facilities related to service area requirements and sould planning techniques to promote efficient facility locations. Sec. 20 -1453. Building and Parking Orientation. Add 5. Transit Oriented Guidelines: ' - Promote shared entry points to reduce curb cuts - Locate buildings to reduce pedestrian walking distances to streets carrying transit 1 service. - Locate parking facilities to reduce pedestrian walking movements through lots to transit service. - Provide well - lighted, pedestrian walks along one side of all streets - Promote clustered building development of facilitate centralized transit facilities. Thank you for your consideration of these important topics. Since ely, Diane R. Harberts Administrator, Southwest Metro Transit Commission F _CEt J _D E Ai? 2 s 1 `24 CITY OF Crl1v : i vt:: A Joint Powers Agreement by and between the Cities of Chanhassen, Chaska & Eden Prairie SENT BY:Moss & Barnett ; 3 -29 -94 ; 2 :06PM ; Minneapolis, MN-0 612 937 57394 2 1 THE Cl'IY OF CaQJj ASSF.N, OTA ' MSO.LUrrom NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORISING CITY OF CHANHASSEN TO SUBMIT NRCES FORMS TO THE FEDERAL COMMNICATIONS COM3[ BIOH =KING CERTIFICATION TO REGUTAM TIC BAILS CHARGED ' BY CABLE OPERATORS WITHIN C1TY FOR BASIC CABLE SERVICE. ' WHEREAS, on April X, 1993 the COMMiB siO Federal Communications adapted s Recort an4 Or as- and Further Notice of U0100med Rule-making, in MM Docket No. 92 -266 implementation ' Of sections of the Cable Television onsumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Rate Regul tion, FCC No. 93 -177, released May 3 1993, effective Sep regulations") which describes a ember 1, 1993, ( "FCC comprehensive franchising authorities may regulate process whereby the rates charged by existing cable television operators for the basic service tier; ' and WHEREAS, the FCC procedure allows franchising authorities to seek certification from the FCC and thereafter regulate the rates charged by cable operators for the basic service tier; and WHEREAS, the City, as franchising authority, has reviewed ' the FCC certification process and applicable FCC forms and determined that it has the legal authority and financial capability to exercise rate regulation under the FCC's ' regulations; and WHEREAS, the City, with assistance advisors, has determined that it is in from qualified the best interests ' the City, its residents, and cable television of subscribers to exercise the regulatory authority afforded franchising ' authorities under the FCC's regulations; and WHEREAS, the City has determined tha t its beet interests ' are served by moving forward in an expeditious certification from the FCC to regulate 1he manner seeking basic cable service tier to avoid potential rate increases higher which may result in overall rates charged to cable within the City; television subscribers NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; City Council of the I. City of Chanhassen is ho hereby to authorized submit all applicable forms t th FCC to certification for regulation of the �asic service tier. SENT BY :Moss & Barnett 3 -26-94 ; 2 :06PM ; Minneapolis, MN-► 612 937 57394 3 2. No further action or ap roval by the City shall be required for execution of any and all appropriate forma to be submitted to the FCC for regulation of the basic service tier. Passed and adopted this _ day CITY OF i By: Its: ATTEST: By: Its; 8902140 , 1994. 'HASSEN, MINNESOTA —2— ataserv A BELLSOUTH Company Drive March 24, 1994 Eden Prairie, Mi 55344 -7399 612/829 -6000 ' Honorable Mayor Don Chmiel & Councilmembers RECEIVED ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive MAR 2 5 1994 P.O. Box 147 CITY OF GhANHASSEN t Chanhassen, MN 55317 -0147 RE: TH -5 Corridor Study Datasery Chanhassen Property Dell Road and TH -5 ' Dear Mayor Chmiel and Councilmembers: I represent Datasery Corporation located at 12125 Technology Drive, in the city of Eden Prairie, ' Minnesota. Datasery Corporation currently owns approximately 60 acres of land located in the southwest corner of Dell Road and TH -5, in the City of Chanhassen (hereafter referred to as the Chanhassen property). Approximately 1200 linear feet of our property abuts TH -5 and all of this property has been included as part of the TH -5 Corridor Study. Datasery Corporation is ' requesting as part of this correspondence that the City of Chanhassen postpone any land use or overlay district decisions regarding the above - referenced property. ' Datasery Corporation has been following the City's TH -5 Corridor Study with great interest. At the City's Planning Commission meeting held on January 19, 1994, I stated that Datasery would soon start a process to evaluate the land use potential for its Chanhassen property. As part of ' this process, Datasery intended to also evaluate its future need for corporate office, warehouse and industrial space. In order to complete this land use study, Datasery Corporation officially requested at the January 19, 1994 Planning Commission meeting that no final determination be ' made regarding land uses or overlay district conditions or criteria for the Datasery Chanhassen property. ' Since January, 1994, Datasery Corporation has taken steps to evaluate the land use potential of its Chanhassen property and has continued to evaluate its long -term corporate office and warehouse needs. Datasery has assembled a professional team to assist with these tasks: ' Ryan Construction is assisting with the site design, and building and construction alternative analysis; • Welsh Companies is assisting with the market and the building design analysis; and RLK Associates, Ltd. is assisting with the land use and site design analysis. MAII.7188.LTR London • Dusseldorf • Amsterdam Milan • Atlanta • Las Angeles • Dallas k 5' TH -5 Corridor Study Page 2 March 24, 1994 Datasery Corporation has made great strides in deciding on a land use plan for its Chanhassen property. Our representatives have met with City staff on several occasions to discuss issues related to land use, transportation, wetland protection and stormwater management. We believe that Datasery Corporation will complete its land use planning activities in the near future and at that time will be able to intelligently and effectively participate in the public discussions surrounding the TH -5 Corridor Study. As a result, Datasery Corporation requests that the City of Chanhassen postpone any decision regarding land use types or overlay district conditions or criteria for the Datasery Chanhassen property until our land use planning activities are complete. By making this request, Datasery Corporation does not intend to unnecessarily burden or stall the TH -5 Corridor Study process. We are only requesting the opportunity to plan for our long -term corporate needs and interests, and plan the future land uses for our Chanhassen property. I will be at the March 28, 1994 City Council meeting if you have any questions regarding this matter. Datasery Corporation looks forward to working with the City of Chanhassen on this and future land use related matters. Sincerely, DATASERV, INC. nn Paulet Facilities Manager /ajb cc: Don Honeck Caroline Watson MAIL7188.LTR