Loading...
6. Discussion of Potential Official Mapping of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road il CITYOF -- 1 VI F t 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX •47 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action 01 att Adtritolgrel Eindorse 1 MEMORANDUM ►loditied__,_ -'r Rejected TO: , Don Ashworth, City Manager Date 5 - t1 - l 3 I Date Submitted to Comm1 FRAM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Date Submitted to Council I DATE: May 18, 1993 - -. 5'2 -1 3 SUBJ: Discussion of Potential Official Mapping and Other Options Supporting the 1 Extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road 1 BACKGROUND/SUMMARY £ , The idea of linking Nez Perce to Pleasant Vie .f' oar ki was first discussed in 1989, along with the 1 processing of the Vineland Forest plat. Staf ; as al s strongly supported the concept since it provides for reasonable access in and aro ,,t1 a gro ` , g residential neighborhood and has the potential of greatly reducing emergency v ; cle respon`I* i times. It was also clear that as the area I developed, there would be sufficient ne amilies resi ' g in the neighborhood to warrant the connection. Lastly, a connection offe_;,the ability to neighborhoods in the city, allowing I pedestrians and bicyclists free acces ''ithout needing to tour around on Powers Boulevard. As originally proposed, the V' - d Forest plat would have= Erovided a connection straight north from the present Nez Perc. - rsec with Lake Lucy 'fad to Pleasant View Road. This I raised objections fro . eral property owners on Plea - t View Road who feared the introduction of me , _ ar .: ..-AerigthitanixivflOritliand refinement, staff presented a I series of alterna City he t, , a on t wa s by th C that Nez Perce would ultimatel 4 ' tended to Pleasant View Road, w ith an inters n , urring in the vicinity of Peaceful A ' s 4 agreement and understanding lx fined in detail in accompanying attachments. The always ass i e d would be incrementally • construced as neighboring properties were develo ed. e h land Forest was approved with this alignment and the road was appropriately ated at the western property line for future I extension. A temporary barricade was erecte d a notice regarding the ultimate extension of the street was placed in the chain-of-title of each lot. 1 Following the approval of the Vineland Forest plat in December of 1989, the city reviewed plans for the Troendle Addition. The Troendle parcel had been acquired by Mr. Frank Beddor, who sought to develop the property in what he believed to be a sensitive manner. The plan was I 1 % ** PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Nez Perce Extension May 18, 1993 Page 2 consistent with the proposal to ultimately extend Nez Perce, the roadway was appropriately platted, and has since been constructed. As with the Vineland Forest plat, a temporary barricade has been erected and buyers placed on notice regarding the future extension. To support the ultimate extension of Nez Perce, Mr. Beddor was required to pay $10,000 as the Troendle Addition's share towards future assessments and costs related to the ultimate extension of Nez Perce. These funds were paid as outlined in the attached Development Agreement which is signed by Mr. Beddor. Staff also worked with Daryl Fortier, Mr. Beddor's representative, to refine an acceptable alignment for the street over the adjacent parcel owed by Art Owens. There appeared to be a strong possibility that the parcel would be acquired by Mr. Beddor. His representative asked that the alignment be modified to save trees on the Owens' parcel and this was done. • At the time the Troendle Addition was reviewed, a number of residents living along Lake Lucy Road became involved in the process. They raised concerns regarding growing levels of traffic on their street. They noted that until the Nez Perce connection was made, the only means of ingress and egress into Vineland Forest and the Troendle Addition would be through their neighborhood. The City Council took note of their concerns and sought a means to assure the ultimate construction of Nez Perce. At that time, the last remaining piece of the puzzle was owned by Art Owens. Since his property was in bankruptcy at that period of time, it was unclear as to whether or not the city could actively condemn the property or when exactly it would be developing. Mr. Beddor's attorney indicated that they were continuing negotiations to acquire the property, and ultimately to develop all or part of it. Since the court action on the bankruptcy and potential acquisition by Mr. Beddor seemed at that time to be in the reasonably near future, the City Council took no action, allowing that staff should bring it back within the next 18 months if no action has occurred so that the matter could again be reviewed. ' In April of last year, events appeared to be moving forward toward the ultimate subdivision of the Owens' parcel. Staff brought the item back before the City Council and requested that a 1 feasibility study to determine which was the appropriate road alignment be undertaken so that we would know how to proceed with development. We also recommended that the route be officially mapped in order to protect it. The Council authorized the feasibility study and it was reviewed by you in August of last year. At that time, Jules Smith, an attorney representing Mr. Beddor, stated that they were working out plans to purchase the northern portion of the Owens' parcel as soon as bankruptcy proceedings were resolved. He requested, on behalf of Mr. Beddor, ' that the hearing on the feasibility study and official mapping be tabled until the property was purchased by Mr. Beddor, at which time the applicant would meet with staff to work out an ' appropriate location. The Council voted to continue the item, directing staff and the representatives of Mr. Beddor to work together on the ultimate alignment and development of the Owens' parcel. In May of 1992, the City Council approved an earthwork permit for Mr. Beddor. The proposal called for the excavation of a pond and landscaping on the northern portion of the Owens' parcel 1 1 1 Nez Perce Extension May 18, 1993 Page 3 which had been acquired by Mr. Beddor. The permit was approved with care being taken to protect the ultimate Nez Perce alignment and potential home sites. It was approved with the condition that "the applicant shall incorporate any modifications to the site grading and/or storm sewer improvements as a result of the approved feasibility study for the extension of Nez Perce Drive through the Owens' property to Pleasant View Road." On April 26 of this year, staff met with a developer who is interested in acquiring the southern half of the Owens' property, as well as Jules Smith and Daryl Fortier, representing Mr. Beddor, who proposed purchasing the northern portion of the property. The applicant was briefed on the history of the property and informed about the street extension. The alignment outlined in the feasibility study indicates that the entire extension of Nez Perce across the Owens' parcel would be located on the northern portion of the site which is owned by Mr. Beddor. Daryl Fortier, who said he was speaking for Mr. Beddor, said that they have determined that the most appropriate place for a home on the northern parcel is in the same spot that the road is being proposed to be located. Therefore, they are now opposed to any extension of the road and indicated that they planned on proceeding with home plans that would forever prevent the city from constructing the connection of Nez Perce. Staff expressed some shock at this 180° turnaround in position and indicated that we would bring the item back before the City Council for consideration as soon as possible. COMMENT 1 Staff is greatly disappointed with the position that appears to have been adopted by Mr. Fortier on behalf of Mr. Beddor. We have worked diligently and cooperatively with them for the past four years on the ultimate construction of this vital street connection. The city has bent over backwards in working with them to achieve the connection with as little disruption as possible. 1 Throughout the process, they have indicated that they will be working with the city and, in fact have platted appropriate right -of -way across the Troendle Addition and even deposited $10,000 towards the ultimate construction of the street. We note that last year staff had recommended the City Council go ahead and officially map the road to protect the right -of -way from something just like this occurring, but the Council declined to do so based upon representations made by Mr. Beddor's representatives who indicated that they would shortly be in a position to work with us on the road pending their acquisition of the Owens' parcel. We now feel that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. After all these years of effort and commitments that were made to area residents, we find that it seems a great deal of effort was made to mislead the city. We believe that there is no other option than to immediately officially map the road so that any construction within the right -of -way can be prevented. We would also recommend that the City Council consider condemnation of the right -of -way and look to assess the cost for road construction back upon benefitting properties. We believe that city staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council have made a good faith effort to work cooperatively on this matter and that our actions are beyond reproach. We also believe we have a number of residents on Lake Lucy Road who are expecting the connection to be made in a timely manner based upon 1 1 Nez Perce Extension May 18, 1993 Page 4 good faith statements of the City Council at past meetings. We are not certain as to why there appears to be a change in direction by Mr. Beddor's representatives, but we believe that it is in the best interest of all to have this matter resolved as quickly as possible. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the official mapping of the Nez Perce Drive connection. The two alternatives contained in the July 8, 1992, feasibility study should be reviewed with Alternative A being the preferred alignment of city staff. We further recommend that the City Council consider condemnation to acquire the roadway and undertake its construction to assure that this connection, that has been planned for so many years, is 1 constructed in a timely manner. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 ' Councilman Workman: Right, and so I'm saying here's another one and we'll have more and more and more and by that time it will be too late if we want to do anything. That's my only concern. I'd make a motion to approve the request. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. ' Mayor Chmiel: Staff recommendations with items 1, 2 and 3 of the recommendations. 1 Councilwoman Dialer: Right. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the ' application for an on -sale beer and wine license for Guy's Restaurant at 7874 Market Boulevard contingent upon the following conditions: 1. Submittal of a $5,000.00 surety bond that expires on April 30, 1993. 2. Submittal of a Certificate of Insurance meeting minimum state requirements which expires on April 30, 1992. 3. Submittal of the license fee in the amount of $270.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR NEZ PERCE ROAD EXTENSION; APPROVE OFFICIAL ALIGNMENT, PROJECT 92 -6. Public Present: { Name Address 8i11 Engelhardt Engelhardt and Associates, Inc. Arthur Owens 6535 Peaceful Lane Jules Smith Representing Frank Beddor Jim Stassen 6400 Peaceful Lane , Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The project consultant engineer, Mr. Bill Engelhardt is here tonight to provide a brief presentation on this feasibility study. I would like to again emphasize that the intent of this public hearing is to afford an opportunity for local residents to acquire information on this and to provide input in determining the most appropriate alignment for the extension of Nez Perce Drive. It is not intended at this time to construct the needed roadway improvements. However, it is of importance to approve an alignment and officially map the corridor of this final road segment for such time in the future that the abutting property owner currently, which is Mr. Art Owens, should develop or if the City should deem it necessary in the future to condemn the needed roadway right -of -way. With that I would turn it over to Bill Engelhardt. Mayor Chmiel: I think I mentioned this last time. At no time do I feel the City should condemn the balance of that roadway on Mr. Owens' property for the city to pay that portion when eventually that property may be expanded. So in my estimation, I want that struck from this. That condemnation will not take 11 1 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 place by the City because I don't think it's our cost that should be incurred there. I just wanted to make that quick comment on that. Bill. Bill Engelhardt: Your honor, members of the City Council. As Charles said, the public hearing for looking at a couple of different options for Nez Perce through the Art Owens property. The alingments that we've put together have two distinct differences between them. This is what we call Alternate A. And Alternate A, the curvalinear alingment connecting Pleasant View Road to the north with Nez Perce at the Troendle Addition. And then taking Peaceful Lane, which right now comes through and goes out to Pleasant View and bringing that in to the new alignment of Nez Perce. There's several advantages and disadvantages for both alternatives. In this particular case, -one of.the advantages is that the curvalinear road gives you a smooth, through from Pleasant View and Lake Lucy Road. The disadvantage is that it becomes easier for traffic to make that north /south connection so that would be a distinct advantage. As far as the property owners go adjacent to it, the areas that seem to be shaded on the map, those areas are existing right -of -ways and should be turned back to the abutting property owners and it would be basically the vacated right -of -way. The new right -of -way would be shown through here. Again, two alternatives. The second alternative is more of a T section alignment where we're taking Peaceful Lane as a thru street and then bringing Nez Perce into Peaceful Lane. This particular alternative has some disadvantages in that the dotted line you see here is basically the construction limits...but the major problem with this one is up in here where we have some steep slopes. We have some wooded areas. We'd be doing more tree damage. We'd have more grading work that would have to be done on this particular piece of property for this section of roadway through here. We've also, as part of the feasibility study, looked at if the roadway was ever improved, and these are kind of secondary issues because the alignment that we have come up with cost, or estimated cost at how you put the utilities in the roadway. In the case of Alternate A it would be a matter of extending the � existing sanitary sewer up to the point that we call...and then extending the watermain to a deadend at this point and that would service these properties here. The sewer and water is basically a secondary issue. We're really not looking at how that would be best served by the sewer and water but it does give you an idea that if the road is improved, this is how it could be done. So I'm not going to get into a lot of detail with sewer and water. We've also developed estimated costs, and again the development costs for the sewer and water. And the storm sewer for both plans, and again it's kind of a minor portion of the proposal. In this particular case it would be a series of catch basins connecting into an existing storm sewer. And that, the ease of the storm sewer is made possible by the existing storm sewer in place which is simply a matter of connecting into it. That would also be the case for Alternate B. And again a very simple matter of connecting the T intersection of the catch basins and discharging into the existing storm sewer. Again, a very minor portion of the report. Just to briefly go through some of the advantages and disadvantages. Alternate A provides a good access to the north and south and has access to Powers Blvd. via Lake Lucy Road. This would provide access for emergency vehicles and /or public safety vehicles, which have right now limited access to this area. This is a deadend road. It minimizes or reduces the construction limits. We still have a major construction areas to work with but it's less on Alternate A than it is with Alternate B. The curvalinear alignment provides for what we feel is a safer roadway with Peaceful Lane becoming the secondary roadway coming in and having to stop...Nez Perce. Whereas in 12 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else at this particular time? Jim Stassen: My name is Jim Stassen. I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane. On the corner. And I've been to quite a few of these meetings now and we have a few questions. I don't know, we haven't really even, we've looked at both of the proposals and one is nice in.one way and one is nice in the other way and we're wondering if maybe there's a combination between the two that can be worked out. And I guess if they're going to work out with staff what they want to do, I'd kind of like to be involved in that too if it's possible so that our interests are protected. This is the only place, if we work it out here, we get a say. If they go behind closed doors and work it all out and then come out and say, this is it. We're stuck again back here going, well we don't like this and then 1 it's all, it gets to be another fighting match which we'll lose. Mayor Chmiel: If we table it this evening, you'll have an opportunity whenever it comes back to Council again to hear what the proposals are basically being done. At that time you'd have that opportunity to either object or agree with what's being proposed. Jim Stassen: Okay, so it will still be a proposal? It will come back here and everything will be worked out. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Nothing's done behind closed doors in this City Hall. Jim Stassen: Alright. I have a question about abandoning the right -of -way on that. If that gets abandoned, does that automatically become part of our property or does that become just a no man's land and just sits out there? Bill Engelhardt: The portion of right -of -way that we wouldn't be utilizing would be vacated to the neighboring property. As you saw on the drawing, the Peaceful Lane right -of -way does not... Jim Stassen: If we don't want it, do we have to take it? Bill Engelhardt: You don't have to take it. It'd be nice if you did. Jim Stassen: Well we're just concerned. We've got, somewhere along the line Pleasant View Road is going to get redone and right now we've got maybe 20 or 40 feet access on Pleasant View Road and if we run it all the way out to the corner, then we're just going to get assessed a lot sore, assuming we're still there. Bill Engelhardt: I guess that's something we can talk to you about. Whether 1 you want it or not. Once it's your property, then it's easier to ask you to maintain it...so it's usually better to give it back to the neighbor. Jim Stassen: Well we could work something. We could maintain it. . Bill Engelhardt: I just wanted to say too that your comment on meeting, the f best way to handle that is to...this gentleman to sit down, put it on the table f and see which is best from both of them. r 15 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 Jim Stassen: That's fine with me. Oh, if indeed it does end up to be a rather 11 large sweeping corner, Pleasant View Road has a speed limit of 25 mph. Would that road also be tagged 25 mph or would that be open to whatever? Mayor Chmiel: That determination would have to be done through staff and MnDot. MnDot's the determining factor as to what speeds are found there. Charles. Charles Folch: Typically this design will yield a current standard, residential urban section which will be designed for 30 mph speed posting as the majority of all our streets are within the city. Mayor Chmiel: I know there's a complete study going on by MnDot to see whether or not 30 mph speed limit should be retained within residential areas. They're looking at 25 but no determination has been made as yet. Jim Stassen: I guess that's it. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Councilwoman Di•ler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mayor Chmiel: Request by the absentee applicant has been to request that this be tabled for a month. Paul? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I've got one concern and I'm not sure I know the answer to this. We went through a bankruptcy situation on Teton Lane and it resulted in the resubdivision of some property by the bankruptcy ruling that the City j Council was prevented from taking any action on. It was done kind of unilaterally by the bankruptcy finding. Now in that case it didn't really cause us any big difficulty. I refused to sign off on it but the County Recorder recorded it anyway because they were under Court Order to do so. The concern that I would have is we're also under a bankruptcy type of situation here. The question is, if there's an officially mapped road present, is that something that the Bankruptcy Court has to take into account? If property is transferred under the bankruptcy. We're looking forward to getting the right- of-way when subdivision occurs. Subdivision may occur under the bankruptcy resolution without our ability to intervene. And the question is, does the official mapping help us out at all in that? Elliott Knetsch: Well, it may or it may not. I mean it boils down to whether or not the Bankruptcy Court consults the City and gets our input when they make their determination. If they don't, if we're not a party to the proceeding, I don't believe we'd be bound by it. It may very well mean that we'd have to start our own Court action to get a different Court to say, we're not bound by this Bankruptcy Court proceeding because we weren't a party to it. But I don't think they can make a decision and bind us to it, especially without telling us about it. Mayor Chmiel: One other question. Do we close the public hearing as well? We 11 did make that motion. Do we leave that? ' 16 City Council Meeting - August 10, 1992 Elliott Knetsch: I'd say you'd want to continue the public hearing until the next time this comes back. Mayor Chmiel: So we should remove basically the. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: And say it's tabled? Mayor Chmiel: Right. We should remove that. i Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I'll remove that. Councilman Workman: It was ay second. Councilwoman Dialer removed her aotion and Councilman Workman seconded it, to table the public hearing. Paul Krauss: Just as a follow up then. Would it be appropriate to direct the City Attorney to make sure the Bankruptcy Court is aware of the City's interest in the roadway? I mean I don't know what the etiquette of something like that is. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, what would that do for us? 1 Paul Krauss: So they're aware of the fact that the City is looking through subdivision to get right -of -way for a road. That we do have official plans for that. That that should be taken into acount when lines are drawn on maps so that it doesn't look like the Middle East where they just kind of drew lines irregardless of who lived where. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Yeah, I guess I wouldn't have any. Elliott Knetsch: I think that's a good idea. It would give them notice of our I/ position in this area and ask them if they're planning on doing any subdivision of the property, to contact staff. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's move that. Can I have a motion to table this? Councilwoman Dimler: So moved. 1 Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table action on the feasibility study for Nez Perce Road and to direct the City Attorney's office to notify the Bankruptcy Court to contact City staff if they plan on doing any subdivision of this property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Until the...properties, as Mr. Smith has said, within a two weeks, a month, 6 weeks, whatever. Also to include Jim Stassen into those discussions. Thank you. NON- CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR SUNNY SLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. 17 1 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 Councilman Workman: It seems to me we put an awful lot of money into that. That's going to have to be moved and maybe we can figure out what, well I guess it's money down the pit but did it make sense for us to upgrade that at that time or did it fail and we reconstructed it? Charles Folch: Well to be honest, I don't have the history of it. Councilman Workman: Maybe find that out for me personally anyway. I guess I was told at the time, and maybe it was Gary Warren who said. ' Councilwoman Dimler: It was part of a well improvement. Councilman Workman: The road wasn't coming through until the year 2010. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, can I have a, any other discussion? Can I have a motion for the preparation for the feasibility study? 11 Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. I Resolution 192 -80: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded that the official mapping of the extension of Lake Lucy Road between Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117) and Trunk Highway 41 and the preparation of a feasibility study for the road improvement project of approximately the westerly quarter mile of this segment be authorized, Project No. 92 -12, and that the consulting engineering firm of William R. Engelhardt and Associates be assigned as the engineer on the project. .A11 voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR NEZ PERCE ROAD EXTENSION. CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING. PROJECT 92 -6. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor,. members of the Council. Attached you have the feasibility report for this proposed road alignment. Two options are presented. The first proposed is to construct Nez Perce as a thru street out to Pleasant View Road with the realignment of Peaceful Lane connecting into this new segment as a T intersection. This option would provide more of a continuous north /south movement on Nez Perce between Pleasant View Road and Lake Lucy Road. The second option proposed is to connect Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane at a T intersection and then upgrade the existing Peaceful Lane between that location point north to Pleasant View Road. Both proposals will construct the roadway up ' to the City's current urban standard roadway section. The feasibility study presents some, at this point known advantages and disadvantages of each alternative which hopefully will aid you in deciding along with staff which is the appropriate alignment to choose. At this point, all we're asking tonight is for the Council to formally receive the report and call for a public hearing to be held at your regular meeting on August 10, 1992 at which time our project consultant engineer will give a formal presentation of this feasibility report. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I looked at this and there's some discussion that we had this last time with Mr. Owens where we should proceed with condemnation of that ' roadway. And I can't see us spending money on condemnation for that until Mr. Owens really starts developing his property. I can't see us throwing money down 49 City Council Meeting - July 13, 1992 1 and away because eventually he will plat that particular property and in no way do I feel we should spend those additional dollars unless someone else is going to pick up those costs. Charles Folch: Yeah, at this point it's not staff's recommendation to proceed with a formal improvement project,. We again want to proactively protect the appropriate alignment of that roadway by officially mapping it. I'm not up to speed on the current situation of the Owens property which was in I believe in bankruptcy but if the appropriate time would come about where we may be forced into condemnation, we certainly would want clear justification before we'd recommend that to you. 1 Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor too when we reviewed the last plat, who's name escapes me. Troendle Addition. You might recall that we had the folks on Lake Lucy Road that were concerned that as traffic levels build, at some point they wanted to be able to trip something and we agreed that we would raise the issue again I think in 12 months or 18 months. I'm not, you know clearly the construction hasn't begun there in earnest and I'm not aware of any problems at this time but again this puts us in the driver's seat to respond. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Is there any other discussion? Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. 1 Resolution #92 -81: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to receive the feasibility study for the extension of Nez Perce Road, Project 92 -6 and to call a public hearing for Monday, August 10, 1992. All voted in favor 11 and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVE SIGNAL JUSTIFICATION REPORT FOR WEST 78TH STREET INTERSECTIONS AT GREAT 1 PLAINS BOULEVARD AND MARKET BOULEVARD, AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. PROJECT NO. 92 -3A. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Our project consultant 1 engineer, Mr. Dennis Eyler of Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch is present tonight to give you a presentation on the updated signal justification report. (Dennis Eyler was not speaking directly into a microphone and therefore portions of his presentation were not picked up on tape.) Dennis Eyler: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Last time I was here the signal justification report...tabled and there were specific questions that were asked by the Council that night. Those questions concerned the timing and the need for traffic control at the intersection of Great Plains Blvd. and 78th Street. And also the need for traffic signals at Market Blvd. and 78th Street. Some of the questions and concerns were on the operation of the intersections today and...impact of commercial development along 78th Street, particularly Market Square. And there was also discussion concerning the detour of TH 101 due to the reconstructin of Dakota Avenue. At that time there was still hope to get the work done in the fall so there was kind of a sense of urgency... Another question was, what happens after that project is done and 50 1 City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992 11 AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE 11 THROUGH OWENS PROPERTY TO PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, PROJECT N0. 92 -6. Charles Folch: As Paul has explained briefly in his staff report, a few years ago the Council, City Council basically approved a concept layout for the extension of Nez Perce from Lake Lucy up through to Pleasant View Road. This alignment basically was upheld with the plattings of Vineland Forest and the last year's Troendle Addition platting. The final segment though through the Owens property could not be made in recent time due to the property being in bankruptcy. At the time that the Troendle plat was up for consideration, a number of neighborhood residents on Lake Lucy Road expressed concern over the I traffic impact that would be burdened onto Lake Lucy by not having this secondary connectin to the subdivision via Pleasant View Road. At that time the Council basically requested that this item be brought back before you at an appropriate time within an 18 month period when we knew more about what was happening with the Owens property. It now appears that the Owens property may becoming out of bankruptcy and that a portion of the property could potentially be sold off. Since condemnation of this right -of -way is likely, the City needs to more thoroughly define the alignment and the associated construction costs of this final road segment extension via feasibility study. $10,000.00 as you're aware of has been previously contributed by the development of the Troendle Addition towards the design and construction of this final road leg and it would be feasible to apply that, those dollars towards doing a study. Now it should be understood that this project may or may not occur at any time in the near future. Again development would generate and drive the need for doing this improvement but it is, as Paul has mentioned, important for the city to better define what the appropriate alignment should be through that area so we can protect that corridor and officially map it. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I guess I don't disagree with that. There's one thing here in the second paragraph and third line from the bottom is, we may have to go in and condemn the final piece of right -of -way. If we go in to condemn that final piece of right -of -way, the City is going to have to pay for that. Right? Charles Folch: That's correct. Mayor Chmiel: I don't think that the City should have to pay for any of that. I think if it's going to be an advantage for those developers, those properties 1 should somehow be provided to the city without a cost going through the condemnation process. Charles Folch: It's a complicated issue but it boils down to is a matter of timing. You're correct. I mean if the City proceeds with condemnation, we're going to have to buy the property. Whether that cost could actually be added into a future road improvement project cost or not, I'm not sure. I guess I would have to ask Roger what the implications might be on that. Whether we could actually take previous cost from right -of -way acquisition and incorporate it into an actual road construction project maybe a year or two later down the road. Or benefit assessment type purposes. Roger Knutson: ...cost of right -of- way...draft feasibility report. You can even prepare plans and specs... • ' 28 City Council Meeting - April 13, 1992 1 Mayor Chmiel: So there would be nothing wrong for us to proceed with this but my concerns are the...of the condemnation. Just to make sure that somehow we're not going to be paying that to that developer or property owner. Roger Knutson: Ordering a feasibility report does not commit you to do the project. It doesn't determine how you're going to pay for it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. Councilman Wing: I think we talked about this for a long time. Time to start moving. Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Tom. Mike. Can I have a motion? • Councilman Wing: So moved, preparation of feasibility study for Nez Perce Drive through the Owens property. Councilman Workman: Second. 1 Resolution *92 -51: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded authorization to prepare a feasibility study for the extension of Nez Perce Drive through the Owens property to Pleasant View Road at a cost not to exceed $10,000.00 and that Engelhardt and Associates be assigned as the project engineer. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Somehow Charles I'd like us to stay on top of that portion of it 1 making sure that we don't get the specs somehow. Charles Folch: You bet. 1 REQUESTS FOR USE OF FUNDS FROM SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. A. APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF CONTAINMENT AND SORBENT PRODUCTS FOR THE CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT. B. APPROVAL OF A TEMPORARY SUMMER INTERN TO CLASSIFY WETLANDS. Don Ashworth: In the absence of Paul, Paul did take both of these items back to the Water Surface group and they did recommend approval. I think that they're fairly self descriptive. However, if Council members have questions, I'll try to answer them. Councilman Mason: Being a part of this group that's working on this, they seem to be more than appropriate requests. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Tom. 1 Councilman Workman: I agree. Mayor Chmiel: Richard. 11 Councilman Wing: I was quoted in the paper of saying that this Water Managerment program is the way I think spending our tax dollars. I've been 29 11 1 /, 9 Z -z C ITV OF 1 i CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 June 4, 1992 Mr. Daryl Fortier Fortier and Associates 408 Turnpike Road Golden Valley, MN 55416 ' Re: Interim Use Permit/Earthwork, Lot 5, Vineland Addition Dear Mr. Fortier: This letter is to confirm that on May 18, 1992, the City Council approved Interim Use Permit #92 -3 for earthwork of 18,000 cubic feet of material on subject to the following conditions: ' 1. The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit in the amount of $7,000 to cover any road damage, maintenance of erosion control measures and site restoration. 2. The applicant shall submit $238.50 grading permit fee as required by the Uniform Building Code. The applicant shall also be responsible for reimbursing the city for all inspection and attorney fees associated with processing and enforcing the permit. The inspection fee shall be computed at a rate of $30 per hour. 3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. ' 4. The applicant shall provide storm runoff calculations for the ordinary high water level, 100 -year flood elevation and pipe hydraulics prepared and signed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 5. The applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as -built survey prepared b t Y Y Y P P by a professional engineer upon completion of excavation to verify the grading plan has been performed in compliance with the proposed plan. • es ZO PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 Mr. Daryl Fortier June 4, 1992 Page 3 plans for staff review and approval. 18. During the construction period, the applicant shall locate and maintain a barricade on the west side of Peaceful Lane at its intersection with Pleasant View Road. The purpose of the barricade shall be to keep construction vehicles from interfering with the Stassen's use of their driveway at 6400 Peaceful Lane. 1 This interim use permit will be recorded at Carver County. The permit is not valid until it has been recorded with the county. If the property has an Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, this will need to be included with the recording. An escrow of $50 is required for the recording fee. Any unused portion of this escrow will be returned to you. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 1 tjar Sharmin Al -Jaff 1 Planner I SA:v 1 pc: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician Steve Kirchman, Building Official 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mr. Daryl Fortier June 4, 1992 Page 2 6. A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as soon as the excavation is completed. Topsoiling and disk mulch seeding shall be implemented immediately following the completion of excavated areas. 7. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed MnPCA and EPA regulations. If the city determines that there is a problem warranting such tests shall ' be paid for by the applicant. 8. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday ' and prohibited on national holidays. If the City Engineer determines that traffic conflicts result due to rush hour traffic flows, the hours of operation will be appropriately restricted. 9. The city will work with the County Sheriff to coordinate speed and weight checks. If trucks are violating traffic laws, staff will require that the operation be shut down and 1 will ask the City Council to revoke the permit. 10. The applicant the City Engineering staff will get together to determine how to control ' the emergency overflow situation in the southwesterly portion of the site draining over Peaceful Lane. 1 11. The applicant shall incorporate any modifications to the site grading and/or storm sewer improvements as a result of the approved feasibility study for the extension of Nez Perce Drive through the Owens' property to Pleasant View Road. ' 12. The applicant shall be responsible for adjustment of all sanitary sewer and water service stubs along Pleasant View Road and Peaceful Lane. ' 13. The applicant shall convey to the city a drainage easement over the proposed pond. PP Y The easement limits shall be confined to the 100 year flood elevation. I licant shall be responsible for any and all road damage sustained from the dama 14. The applicant p Y g ' truck hauling and construction activities. 15. The applicant shall construct and maintain a gravel construction access to the site. ' Access to the site shall be restricted to this access point only. 16. The applicant shall convey to the City, a drainage easement over the proposed pond. 1 The easement limits shall be confined to the 100 -year flood elevation. 17. The landscaping shall be discussed with staff. The applicant shall submit landscaping 1 1 5 1 A 11 February 25, 1992 FORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC. I Mr. David Hempel A RCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive [ n )Ja�..E•� Chanhassen, Minn. 5531 Qr 4� -R� II ffEgEri RE: OWENS PROPERTY FEB 27 1992 I COMM: 91 -04 ENNINEENING DEPT. II Dear Dave: As we discussed via telephone, Mr. Beddor is in the process of purchasing the northerly portion of the Owens property; ie, Lot 5, II Vineland. He will then be seeking a grading permit for improving the site conditions, including preparing building pads and landscaping. It is anticipated the work will be done in phases as shown on the I/ attached plans. Phase 1 consists of removing organic soils from future building areas II and using this soil to create a berm along Pleasant View Road. Clean fill will be brought in to fill and compact the pad site. We estimate about 2500 cu. yds. of fill. The existing pond will be reconfigured and joined with the Troendle pond. Landscaping will 1 consist of trees, shrubs and seeding although we will leave topsoil and seed off the pad sites to facilite additional clean fill without trapping organics. All landscaping will be planted this summer, even II phase two material which will be transplanted in the future as appropriate. The work will be completed this summer. Phase 2 consists of adding clean fill to raise the elevation of the 1 building sites. Fill will be segregated with only non - organics being used to raise the pads while organics will be used for general fill. Timing of this work will be dependent on fill received from others. II Each fall, Mr. Beddor will have a contractor grade the site and re- establish silt fences. This will continue until the final grading plan is achieved and all landscaping is completed. (Due to the 11 amount of construction activity in Chanhassen and the need for a disposal site for soils, we believe completion will be within one year.) II We do have a concern regarding outlet for the pond. This will have to be extended. We are uncertain where it is or what it is and in what condition is it in. Perhaps you can assist in providing some of II this information. Hopefully we can review this at the same time we rev'-w Lot 7 in Park One. 4 Trul, Daryl I Fortier 1 II 408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) 593 -1255 1 %000 �'� 1 1 loco \ 1 ...... \ ` .s....% loot / ' _______ ( 1 � J �, _ _ 4 1 '‘..„„, , ‘ . , \ cA \ A \ \ / 1 ' 1 44 �Y � ,: af ; '' . y } j ` ' ��� ' h g y � .'¢� ::9i'..i.: :fir'. • 1 ✓1k ::;�E : 'li.`..' 1..: , aye \ 1 1 .s: �,.sr.� . � I ‘ 0 1 � I 0 y N _.r : ...c - yil , J I '� t ..• '' ( � 1 g RPote 1 ►��III ' \ \ , t, ( . i. . ^■J • ■ 1 0 II / 1 \ �� 1.. ' 1� 1 1 , \ u � \ 1 � , 1 1 J \ \ k I % 1 \ J s j ` / / 1r: I i I lait /i ,t I f t 1 �‘ / I ) 1 l r j j I I 1� � / j / / / i / ( , - - 9� 990 ---------Y �� / -•, 1 �/ `\ �� -- -9 � ;9 - - - -� / / / ".-, ‘ ‘ / / ./ , \ L. -� 0 50� I oo 1 1 FOR TIER & ASSOC INC. O WENS PROPERTY a rchitecture planning interiors _ 60�j E 6 9 ,A ;�SSOM NN. 5541 GRADING PHASE 1 D DAME 9 r x,11 w000 r \ I00 \ , . I 1 ' . �� ` ..�` loot °� ■ \\ \ ; ` 1004' / °> - ( 1 r 1 i \ \ V\ 10■N °'.4# \ \ \ 1A\ ' ., > f-- 1\ \ 1 \ \ �\ �\,\ 1 , ■t \ \ \ \. 1 1 11 1 A, \ N \ \ \\ \ \\ I t o �s �II� � / \ \\\\ c \ 1 fl t1r , % \ \ \ \ \ \` 1 ,• fT\ • 11 i 1 . 1. r • � 1 \ 01\ 1 1 1 1 1 .1 �✓ 1 \ „„ i 1 i l ; i/Ht / / \` 1 \ \ ‘ 11 ` I : \ \ II i I 1 1 ` • , ►�I ..\ 0 ill vamp 1 2p' • I ! \ --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -T- 7 -=--- 1 i -- 1/ 1 I , 'I / I I (i 1 l 10 , / i // i I _ / I I � - 492 _ -- _ _ � / / / / 1 ` \ \ ` —99e -- — __ — / ' I / 1 1 (� ■ — — -- I 000 -- / / ) / _ - -1001 - - ___ � 1 o ' gv loo • 1 t IER & ASSOCIATES, INC. OWENS PROPERTY tecture planning interiors URNPIKE ROAD COMM 1 N VALLEY MILAN. 55416 DATE 593 1255 BY 1 _ C J 1 1000 �' `'r ( 1 . 0 0 0 , 5 : le \ co:: \ \,. L • \ ` \ l 997 ` `` ` 1 oZ 2 t 0**4 4 > 4 ----, loo* ( I 1 q ` i 1 \ ' \ \ ) \ I 2 N•M. 1 1 i I II 2 11 1 \ i• � 1 . , • 10.,„ i , g, ii - r' I I I r . 1 I /j''')' � 1 - l / \ " i I � l, f i I'II �, i �► 1 ' 1 J\ ' itl'�(r it � I , \ \ 1 I ‘ 1 ‘ ilk I% ` tk \ \ / I I iairAtik AL. il i t \ • if 1 , vamp, -_. ■■•■•••■••• • ••••••■•■•....,,, 1 D I P I 4.\ i 1 '1.. \'' / 1 , t, f t ; 1 ' t 1 ` T /) I j I t 1 1 ` �' /� /// j I / / c I 1 ` / ` \ ` 999 9� _ _ _ _ ; / / f: 1 ■ / \ `` Z-7— — — "a - - - -- -- -- , / / M' / — -' -1 002— — — �. 1 1 v \ \ 1 �\ � \o0 o � 0 301 ..... f & ASSOCIATES, INC. OWENS PROPERTY 1 re plonning interiors KE LANDSCAPING PHASE 2 COME LLEY, MI MINN. 564i! D�TE , 1255 1 1 loon (`^ 1 Imo \ 1 \ --- --- ; 11 ............ . %....., loot ' ......., ......, .... N.,... ( - ;P i` \ \ \ \ \/` N. , � > _ .leg eK , , k . ■ , k 1.,\ 6 S4 - \ 1 x , A \ \ 1 1 \ '. 6 , I ,-; \ \ \ \ W k\ I V 1 \ ' ��• `.F ± .t'`.iyv':.:4',",:7A�i:1�� a'N'ih:': :. �)+:. s ` \' 1 \ , .,zr. ,�. ; ;��, ^sYwi,iy 1 ?; . .. q ,. y r >; '' n,.,. \ \ 1 1' a : • � ;Cg ' gFi fps ik`. err.: �. . - i i ce .. , ; \ .� 1 I: ( \ I I — 8 i c.- . ' ... '*: , . 1 l' 1 g►i I6F.'f.R 11114 \ 1 \ . / 0 11 j / i 0h1.�Y.. � I N \ 1 ' I ' 1 1 u 1 t ty..,..,. 11 { i I 1 1 1 �� �� 1 • li) 1 t\ I � � ` 14N.\/ r I 1 r /�'• .�r 111111P � �/ 1 .7.,... — Jj ## 4Pqp l 0 / 1/ 1 --- r � pli I 1 1`0 i9o". 3 . � // 1 1 S • r I \ — — --} — — — — j / � / 4) J v r \ \ \ \ �po i\0 /\Doty \ \ \ I / / / / \ L . -- - 1 0 50' io o V � 1 FORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC. OWENS PROPERTY architecture planning interiors GOLDEN " LANDSCAPING PHASE 1 DATE VALLEY, M NN. 55410 M I 15121 503 1255 0Y • CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) TROENDLE ADDITION SPECIAL PROVISIONS AGREEMENT dated August 12 , 1991, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City "), and FRANK BEDDOR, JR. and MARILYN A. BEDDOR, husband and wife (the "Developer "). • 1 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for TROENDLE ADDITION (referred to in this Contract as the "plat "). The land is legally described on the attached Exhibit "A ". 2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Contract and furnish the security required by it. 3. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in 1 accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the plans may be prepared, subject to City approval, after entering the Contract, but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms shall control. The plans are: 1 Plan A- -Final Plat prepared by Lot Surveys, Co., Inc., approved by the City Council on August 12, 1991. 11 Plan B -- Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan dated September 17, 1990, revised June 24, 1991, prepared by Ulteig Engineers, Inc. 1 Plan C- -Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated June 24, 1991, prepared by Ulteig Engineers, Inc. 4. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following: 1 1 / 1 SR -1 1 1 A. Sanitary Sewer System II B. Water System C. Storm Water Drainage System D. Streets 1 E. Concrete Curb and Gutter F. Street Signs G. Street Lights II H. Site Grading I. Underground Utilities (e.g. gas, electric, telephone, CATV) J. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments I R. Surveying and Staking L. Removal of Temporary Cul -de -sac on Nez Perce in Vineland Forest Addition II 5. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements by November 30, 1992. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is .granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 1 6. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract, payment of special assessments, payment of the II costs of all public improvements and construction of all public improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank, cash escrow, or equivalent ( "Security ") for $ 164,538.00 . The amount of the security was calculated II as 110% of the following; Sanitary sewer. $ 17,133.00 I Watermain $ 20,173.00 On -site storm sewer $ 19,778.00 Streets $ 55,597.00 I Street lights and signs $ 500.00 Erosion Control $ 1,155.00 Engineering, surveying, and inspection $ 12,689.00 II Landscaping $ 2,555.00 Site Grading (streets and pond) $ 10,000.00 II Extension of Nez Perce (assessments) $ 10,000.00 TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS $ 149,580.00 1 This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restric- tion on the use of the security. The security shall be subject II to the approval of the City. The security shall be for a term ending December 31, 1992. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for any violation of the terms of the Contract. I If the required public improvements are not completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. With City approval, the II SP -2 6-4„._ /2(// II 1 security may be reduced from time to time as financial obliga- 1 tions are paid, but in no case shall the security be reduced to a point less than 10% of the original amount until all improvements are complete and accepted by the City. 7. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand - delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: Frank Beddor, Jr. and Marilyn A. Beddor , 7951 Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Telephone: (612) 474 -0231 1 copy to: Julius C. Smith Edina Office Center, Suite 108 7600 France Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55435 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand- 1 delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: 1 Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Telephone: (612) 937 -1900 8. Other Special Conditions. A. A tree removal plan consistent with City ordinances and policies shall be submitted for Lot 1, Block 1 prior to issuance of a building permit. Clear- cutting, except for the house pad and utilities, is prohibited. B. The Developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. C. Final street and utility plans shall be developed for approval by the City Engineering Department. D. The Developer shall install erosion control t silt fence around the ponding area until such time that turf is established. Turf or sod shall be placed behind all curbing. E. Lot 1, Block 1 and future development of Outlot A shall share a driveway access off Pleasant View Road and a cross - access easement shall be provided. This common section of 11 driveway shall be constructed to a seven (7) ton design paved to a width of twenty (20) feet and have a maximum grade of ten percent (10 %). SP -3 1 11 F. The Developer shall provide the following easements: 1. The drainage easement along the westerly ' property line of Lots 9 through 11, Block 2, and the ponding area on Outlot A (previously Lots 3 and 4, Block 1) as shown on the Grading and Erosion Control Plan, shall also be shown as a drainage and utility easement on the final plat accordingly. 2. Provide revised right -of -way easements along Nez Perce in the Vineland Forest ' Addition plat (Lot 1, Block 1) to eliminate the "jog" in the right -of -way between this plat and the Troendle Addition. In return, the City agrees to vacate a portion of the northerly right -of -way on Lot 3, Block 3, Vineland Forest Addition. G. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication. The fees for a lot shall be paid at the time a building permit is issued for the lot. 11 H. A temporary 42 -foot radius cul -de -sac shall be constructed at the westerly terminus of Nez Perce. A temporary easement shall be provided to the City by the Developer for construction of the cul -de -sac. A barricade equipped with a sign indicating the road will be extended in the future shall be erected by the Developer. II I. Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 shall only have access from Troendle. Driveway access from said lots onto Nez Perce Drive is prohibited. J. The existing building on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be removed by the owner or brought into conformance with ordinance setback requirements before a building permit will be issued for the lot. I K. The gravel driveway providing access to the existing house located on Lot 1, Block 1 to Pleasant View Road shall be removed and access from said Lot shall be to Nez Perce Drive on or before a building permit is issued for any building to be located on any part of the premises now being platted as Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 of said TROENDLE ADDITION. L. The plat may be filed and developed in two phases. Phase I is to include Lot 1, Block 1, Lots 1 through 11 inclusive, Block 2 and the remaining property platted as Outlot A. The Developer agrees, in writing, that the land in Phase I shall be assessed $10,000 for the extension of Nez Perce Drive through the property to the west of said plat to a direct or indirect connection to Pleasant View Road (said assessment to l be divided among the total lots in Phase I). The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Contract is signed by SP -4 lI 1 the City. The Developer waives any and all procedural and Y P Y P substantive objections to the special assessment, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. §429.081. M. Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 are required to have access from Troendle Circle. 9. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Contract, approved by the City Council on February 22, 1988, are attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SP -5 1 S 1 1 r CITY OF CHANHASSEN li • BY : " ! /�' + - r Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (SEAL) 4 C2 ,a....ia_____ BY: II Don Ashworth, City Manager II DEVELOPER / BY: � II F a - Beddor, Jr. BY: A' // / ,/4 I. i_'.! Vii_ .% :AAr II ar . yn Beddor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. II COUNTY OF CARVER ) f�_, The fo'egoi g instrument was acknowledged before me this I // day of 4 ".„4": IV , 199/ , by Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor, and by Don Ashwo "h, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and II p - - - - ' y granted by its City Council. -c - VICTORIA E. CHURCHILL Z my commission COUNTY fls 9445 ‘.(1 �_ �/ II tary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) II ss. COUNTY OF CAR..\ Etv ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2c day of 4uAu5 -} wi 19�, by Frank Beddor, Jr. and Marilyn A. Beddor,` and / MARY S .SHERBANENKO / 44tha • I r� 1 i� UOTARY FUBLIC - MINNESOTA DAKOTA COUNTY Notary/•ubl My Comrri.;sion Expires May 1,1Dp5 DRAFTED BY: IP Campbell, Knutson, Scott . & Fuchs, P.A. 3460 Washington Drive, Suite 202 Eagan, MN 55122 ' (612)456 -9539 SP -6 j t Si 1 II �� 4 CI TY ° OF -- - ....... .A. CHANHASSEN Ilk ., i ,,,,,„ i„, -„, .- ., ,. ____. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 "` (612) 937 -1900 II MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager II FROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning - II Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician DATE: September 1989 SUBJ: Alternative Access Concepts for the Vineland Forest II Subdivision 4189 -8 BACKGROUND 1 On August 28, 1989, the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat request for the Vineland Forest subdivision (see location II map). The plat as proposed illustrates the creation of 21 single family lots accessed by a cul -de -sac from Pleasant View Road that is approximately 1250 feet long. The proposed plats and existing II homes are shown on an attachment. Access into the plat is the primary issue. Area residents raised concerns over traffic on Pleasant View Road at the Planning II Commission meeting with the result that the Commission was unable - to reach a consensus on the plat. Staff recommended approval of the plat conditioned on the addition of a southern outlet from I the plat, using Nez Perce right -of -way to intersect with Lake Lucy Road. The inclusion of the southern outlet would result in the creation of a north /south connection between Lake Lucy Road II and Pleasant View Road and also provide a second access as requested by Public Safety. At the City Council meeting further discussion on access issues II was heard. A series of revised access concepts were introduced by an architect representing homeowners located on Pleasant View Road. The City Council ultimately voted to continue the item to II give staff an opportunity to review access alternatives. Development of Alternative Access Plans II Prior to preparing alternative access plans staff considered a number of issues. These are described below as follows: I. Access plans for Vineland Forest should be designed to serve 11 not only the site but also adjoining vacant and under- developed parcels in a comprehensive manner. For the pur- , poses of this analysis, we have defined the study area•as the II - h y IMIIIIIINIV i 0 1 E I ' p O O p O o o -. 0 0 o 1 1 I LILAC LA I E ` I /( ( ( I I I l •• ' C H E N N E PI N INk\flIM51111W LAKE r — smitt! , li E • ...... . --to. - M IIIIWATirol>■:: , _ le i - Mt' mr mg AN Illgi z T• - .�� - ON i ‘ �... ` � Ir VA �„r ; , CIRCLE STUDY ;, @ -� ' a r�© ► � � VI'S M k AREA '� �- � � 4 � �. a „,,,,,.44,4.,_,,,, . c ill I ? 4,06e0. - , ,_„„„ -... , N ,N o ! E)- f ih -"' : Zarmire -:. - .:-71 gt 4 Lu y ., . ...it. in. . .... :. ...-:41,7, 4 • gm , \ - 4 !.. r ___... g . : , _ ..._ , _Nyr imndivp,-clir- ....., , -r- PROJECT LOCATI Akel "11!1 ' = -. k ,- p . ,/ i t a .,_ r -;=, ,_.. 2 le e -v . .. s -;,--. e , , , �� - N� Fs NNIAi1= A ....... ; / - \ g011in fiTa glip11446).449417 . net rs, 11 4 a li I N _ s -' 11 1.5)? t s SAP' Attleirus ::,s■.. :__ voifillm OM. „,4; - 4.1 w *Z ,\ IA KE LUC Y B ! l o th _ y ! � 40 Rama • �,,LL ' , . _______Jvf&FANE ilri --- Ft := Vitata P A. , ' \,\ j 1h a I t itil 3a , ,...... L; .... ,0 4.0 c .„,,,,, • --, -? 04:: a Iltn‘',:: - 1 ,‘,,--.. ...., , v • fia. 1 irm 4 volowl Rs \ ; miiiiime?,::: to ve-‘ *411 tit* P a ; 4 # dill Atta , . / ''t- v aiiirMINIM mut \ . viEliorm , LOCATION MAP I�► � ��* � LIKE A N N ° i r , 1Ci L,� w` "' t' ))k� 1 . . , m 4isow , sr ■.■. .....,,,......F.,,,,. • .. • • . .. .. . .. • fii A irk ki ts.; • 166 III IF Arrt 1 MIII,H 11111 I i ll 44 F i t illill 111 1111111111 011-114P in ;IN 0. • c -N 1 r 4,, y � ......../ do vo, , „940.4:44A, T KEw III 1 1 a • -----,....,,,,,,,p �' V � t' ., ,...../......./ 4. 11 1r . ,t v ' r - I . . 1 It' \ , - - r I 4P ` • t 1 \ ■ t ` F E A C E L _ _ t t% F o• ..` . V I I klA*F-----, . 1 - -F0 R.E' A V ,� � ' �{ f PLAT \ 1 - ----v t 1 1 .%■ ) /..% .. \ ma I 0 i ‘ \ \ , .1 . II rI II 1 .C.I/iCE L u�y �a� , o. e s PROPOSED PLAT /E 1 S XISTING HOME 1 11 Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1989 11 Page 2 land located between Peaceful Lane on the west, Pleasant View Road on the north, the Fox Path neighborhood on the east, and Lake Lucy Road on the south. We acknowledge that these par- cels may not be developed in the same time frame. However, we believe the overall access plan is essential if adequate levels of service are to be provided while minimizing neigh- borhood and environmental disruptions. Existing platting and neighborhood's development pattern should be taken into account to maximize feasibility of the concept and minimize neighborhood disruption. 2. Given the size of the study area, staff estimates that approximately 55 homes could eventually be built. Each single family / home will generage approximately 10 trips per ' day. This estimate is based upon the access and development concept plans that are presented in this report. The plans attempt to provide lots consistent with city development ' standards. In our opinion, to adequately serve this large an area a through street connection is warranted. The connec- tion is important to being able to provide adequate levels of service for local residents and reasonable emergency vehicle ' response times. From the standpoint, of the larger, surrounding neighborhood a north /south connection is con- sidered to be of benefit for traffic flow and emergency vehicle access since it would be the only connection between Powers Boulevard and Lotus Lake. ' 3. Traffic levels on Pleasant View Road are a consideration. The street carries a fairly high traffic volume and is on the city's state -aid system. Recent counts taken by the city show traffic levels of somewhere between 960 and 1300 ADT ' (average daily traffic) at the Vineland Forest site. An ADT of 1000 is commonly thought to be the dividing line between local and collector streets. Portions of the street exist as a substandard design exacerbating traffic problems. 4. The access concept should result in a high quality residen- t tial environment. Significant stands of trees and wetlands should be protected. Cul -de -sacs should be created where feasible. • ' Potential Access Points into the Study Area There are a series of roads and undeveloped rights -of -way that ' could provide access into the study area (see attachment). Each was reviewed to assess its feasibility for extension into the area. These are described below: 1. Pleasant View Drive Advantages - Street functions as a collector with east /west access. Grades and sight distance make access. feasible along much of the frontage. 1 ( 1 1 • . S Vi:VoN , , ...mass .,•■••6 DC4.1.0 C CA 47. OM 1 •!.. .. I i 1 1 7 ., s. - ........• \1 ... . \ gsli • ... - – – i , , , • 11,, 1, ---. ..,.. . 4■44••■•• ,f. tilt •". _ J! * .4 % \ ••: \ ' i i . - ? 1 :.• 8 4 I 8 [ ii• 5 . , \ .. 7 i I AN 130 e •I' •ee' . 1 ...„ -r,..= -.. a -, : 1 . . - .., adia• wag i P .7 4 ... ■ '.- .. 40.• bell i . i_ / (8. I .IS ' le . --"-• . / •,..,, , •• ae • A ..-,,, c .. 14 • _:.,___ ._ .,1_, 1 __••• . ,......., -- 2 ...• .1, 1, 2 ' i , ;$,, , ... 0 , . 4 A Pt 4 . 1 \ ;, 4. 0 i p44 • ' • . I -•-.. -A- . .!..1. ..- lia, A. 1 t• -'. 0 I 4\ J NATO ,, f IF LE A 1. . 1.. • 11^ A • • -; 1-: I: . % . 1114 IS. • 44 . .." " • .• _ •S. ' ••'%" - S i I r \ — . - . N.‘ ° 2 ' • - ... aeowt • • • ..... ' s. 4"# 4." 3 I 'on •• *4.. ...P R. /4•3 . .. ... SW fa -- -...- -- .10* mot % .5. ... - - .. • ...•• *SO : • •• .114 2 w t : • .. IF .111.11, .. • • : J TM* VW.. : • \ . -- ...elf*, • / 1 4 •• . • le .." 3 • .. . 40 • ■ 40 1 3' " 11 • 4'. • i - , .... • -, ......, 1 ,,- ; • z4.:-.1",....___;.1. ' .... ;,,,•• I - \ / 4 A CRO g .., • , Ir 4•4i .. v 4 We . /f/ e 1. : gi I i Il l II; • - . I . ., ,i? ; X: I A •i It 1.'1 . e ' .. • , t • .•.. r ; ,,.. , OE -. r t ROAD . . '' • E2 ', \V\ I CH RISTMAS I •- ? I t• . ...-r•I : ll i , 't :•••• . \ . cl:NE a. OW 1 1 .. i ....„ I .. .. - 41.cr ! 1 / 4 • *.'... 1 fi i ' !.,... 4 ,. t . • ,,, i . . \ -, . . . + ... . • . • , f .7 .- - 4 2 — N Z ‘ 4 7 - 6 . 4.4 4 . 4 . t "i: :.• I .7 t ' • i • 44 4, v 4., : 1 .__. _. 4, 44 ..•sao Lrt to wms I Ns: s lt...* — Ir -- - --- . – — _ ,- c- f a . z I '. ii . . . - C. 1.0 Sq., to SO*1 . ,IF'■ / —.... '. .. - -- . • ' -2 I ' 2 • I , - / • AU et C .. E E. F ..,.. 4. .." .. .._ . co - \ l'Ally .,. , - --. .. ,,, ,....w, • , . ›,:z. ..,.. — p7.rux...? . • 47:- in gum, , .... .:,..m.,.„,:,.._.....:5::„..-,,........:.•,..4...,..,,,.......-- - • '.;:).:;k1 Z •.• 0 14 .. a 1 -•• . . i t.'" - 1 sp or 2 ,• , 0- ....,,,,... , ..- Ai. • • 3 . . \ 0, A... • „,--# cf F , zi - 2 4 -- • i • i' 4, 1 42- , ... , .4 o " .-.<-3 . ; " L i C') 1 • , . a. 0 • ., , . ." .2. „ • . / 3 e .s , I. :.i - t t .. 2.- • / 47 N , / " I ke' sEt „,....,•.... . - 1111111 :2 , , ; Ili Ill i , ...•_, , . . ..„,..„ , . ii .......... 7 .. n 'I — . - 7 _ _ ______, . . ---, , , tiont , . , .w . i 1 i ar, . - • s... ,,,,..... ...„......„. , .::. ii Lasct Lilluer •-,,,,_ • -,...„ : .'” ' ••,, , ., ,..... 4u r• ; . I • - ;,-. :••••• . .....- j... . . ••,.. 4, 4 • %. . ROAD 2 0 t- e - 1-- - ... u 7 : 4 : i • . :.: , i ......3■Z • .• ' , . /..,...... s , ■ ••■ .., i . . a . . I: I ; . ca ning iiik.. • . , ...., ....„,, • or .; ' ! : ' • . . c - . 2 w. .. ---• -...,..: a , • , • • . ex.\ SU' ; i P . . ■ n _. I • 7 „.. , ...... , ...:1 .. .. ii ER" a ., , 4 , r • 2 • ' • i . 1 .2 \ • • ' s t . . . . . . . . . . * ' • I . • • k ... . • 1 / .:•• • - - Sii 11 Ail "•• r 7. .I. . : . . I : s i c,:. At '.. ot ' •!••, : 14_ • . ..P... '::..• In: ------...-■ / • . a ... ERN I • . , .. . 3.21 , 1' - • , " - ..... I - • • • • • • ,,.. .; c. :r 1 .: ' - • " • .0 Ng - -• - • • ., ... . ' I: ' • : • 1° . ... .. • .7 . 1 • • • . • - " • . - ; . 'I: ..ie:` ...0 .._ .....; 1 •••••• ,.. , r , .. __,4 -:.• • / ." ' " - • , I • • • • ., . • • • I ' • ,., : A Irlf//// ' Nf A 11 • ' rr . . . ,:c •• p 1 , P.. .• .4 ROAD .- . . - \\.:(::: I i i 7:::: :4". ' .i . • 3 :: 1 , ! • .: , ,;•, t•-• .Fi'll. . ... • • •• ---- .. a POTENT I AL ACCESS POINTS I 1 Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1989 11 Page 3 • Disadvantages - Street is built to substandard design and carries high traffic volumes. Neighborhood impact and traffic safety considerations. ?. Fox Path Advantages - Ability to use an undeveloped, dedicated right- ' of -way, north /south alignment that could serve to create street connection, while eliminating an existing over - length cul -de -sac. 1 Disadvantages - Connection is extremely difficult to make, due to severe grades and environmental impacts. ' Also, potential neighborhood opposition in Fox Chase if through street considered. It is not considered to be feasible. II 3. Park Drive (Nez Perce) Advantages - Provides good access to the south via undeveloped ' dedicated right -of -way (40 foot) and has access to Powers Boulevard via Lake Lucy Road. Disadvantages - Grade on Park Drive is a concern. However, upon further investigation it was concluded that a maximum 10% grade with a 40 foot long ' landing area at 2% grade at the street inter- section could be provided and that grading limits are acceptable. Staff believes this is a reasonable alternative from a design stand- point. Sketches showing street profile options and grading limits are attached. 1 4. Kiowa Drive (Hopi Road) Advantages - Undeveloped dedicated right -of -way following ' similar alignment to but east of Park Drive. Disadvantages - Very difficult grades are present. Street ' construction would result in extensive tree loss. Staff questions if construction is feasible. Access to Powers Boulevard is not direct. The street is presently constructed as a dead end serving several homes. Although right -of -way is dedicated to make a connection to Powers Boulevard it is unlikely that such a connection is feasible due to wetland and ponding areas. • 1 \ t \ / \/6 il \ • . . , / ti ' ) L_____ \ - �.. -. \ 1 5 ■ .. ■... .a...y..A..r ;..., 1 ...... 1 [ / / / // -.._..■ '= - ... 1 o ., $ air ... , / d - - __ -_ 1 1 G / / • ice. / / /t '' 1 I M....M • / / -- G am. r / . r. G= / , 4. _ / / / ' ' 7.y0S S • T. .■ 5a.1.. ■. \CIS ■ ■■ \\ I 2 / 1 ol / _ SCALE ..... / / \ :. 1 I ar ±wc JI= aaYr :cc: / • • n mommosim MMMMMM . - `"r' .v■ • / • / - .M �..M....r... Y , / .M..■ .f....M■ II 1 .... - I ■ MEOW MOPIONSUME ■.M M. M■ c- • ■....M. ■M.■. .r. .■.■■..iM.■ ..MM.....■■ > M.. fY. , / 1 ■.■ OM -- N....II.M■ ■MM. ■..M■....■■ ■S .UM Ma..■M ■..7t■. 1 M. - MOM --� .M.. RR _ ......a.. r. =L I 5-0 \ liraININ 1 O O • ■ _ . : _ � _ tcl LAKE .. :: -�..d - -_ '''''''''''.'".• ••■•••■••■••• . 1.I _. LEGEND .... . . i n \ - i : .:. � " , t er' s Gradi Limits � < <' 4 . :• :� Developer's P / 10% Grading Limits , �� ` : jT 7% Grading Limits :::< i / 111- •.�t1�1111 Ip 1 4 :. 402, - -_ ieL'►wL_T r RI EZ PERCE o R��=; CDR VE 0+00 , e37.�,9 6 N . µ.ms►. luv.e le18. 49 ----- -----_ —.-- L ___ _ GRA DIN G LIMITS 1 , u +o.99 / 1 R Z 2 . k . zek-:zud zo r 1 O ilikett.CE6 STceeT 1 • 1 1 ' r 0 4 1/ / / r oi / / I / / • s 0 \ k / • IS 13 i I 1 / k . 1 mi 4 i . I / i N i a Z I y .. s ............. N t t lh M ami T 1 r CD 1 o I 1 , I M a O 1 r 111 I 1 r 1 o 1 t 1 " r S t CZ 0 R. rt _Z 1 Mr. Don Ashworth 1 September 8, 1989 Page 4 5. Peaceful (Redman) Lane 1 Advantages - The street is intended to serve the Pleasant Hills plat. The plat was given final approval but has not been filed. Plat approval will expire in October. Access through this area is reasonable and without serious difficulty. Provides reasonably good connection to the north with east /west connection via Pleasant View Road.at a good location. Disadvantages - Approved plat (which probably will expire , October) may limit design options. Would still result in the introduction of traffic onto Pleasant View but this is off -set by - short distance to Powers Boulevard. 6. Outlot A, Carver Beach Estates 1 Advantages - Undeveloped right -of -way to Lake Lucy Road. Provides good access to the south. 1 Disadvantages - Grades make access difficult. Proximity to Powers Boulevard may make connection redun- dant. Alternatives /Comment There are a large variety of alternatives for serving the study area. Staff has attempted to limit the number of alternatives to those which have been discussed previously and a new alternative, that in our opinion, represents the most reasonable remaining option. The alternatives that have been studied are described below along with comments derived from review criteria established earlier: 1. This alternative is essentially the access option proposed by the developer illustrating serving Vineland Forest by a long cul -de -sac from Pleasant View. The concept has been expanded to illustrate how the balance of the study area could be served in a comprehensive manner. Comment The option illustrates the ultimate construction of a street loop between the originally proposed Vineland Forest/ Pleasant View intersction to the Peaceful Lane dead end to the west. The alternative will ultimately provide a street loop that should offer adequate service internally within the study area. Construction of the street loop would be con- 11 tingent upon the decisions of other property owners to develop their land. As illustrated, the northern stub street in Vineland Forest has been eliminated since, as proposed, it 11 (1, ri i Ln. p IF Ce-rie wo r:_____ .. 1 7 I _ _ A 42,-mv r 0,, (:-_,- P ' a I 7 ....." • 1 a . i. 1 v j alt P�, E ACE '1 i . . P tA d a VJNE L / ND. ORS T PLAT � / -. 1 0 . 1 : \ 444k •■•■•■•■ • . 1 • IN ■Wil . •eorkz zt,4. i 1111 i A .0 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 1 rii ri N i _ t i iic..7, p j cE:e-t-tez 1,49 1 7 0 ‘j4,0 t I I '1' 4 "`■ I ; 1 . P • .7 to : I . 4 . .k. ,...... , , , - .EACE . 3 vp _ ..- I Ill r INEL ' ND ■ \ al 11 P 1 A .., .,-_■- : - , . .... - T 1 1 .......... _ .... ...1 , 1 i f F L , t 1 I .r.T / \ 0 ! .• % . i % 1 - . • 61 1 N\__._____________L_,z i LI e• le0 AZ> .. ti 4 .45 : 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 g• i 1 ... I fil el, -N 1 _____ ____ 1 111"/ L.....,..______,„....._................,.. PLE+444NT Ow 1 I s A. C I ' II 1 I 4 R -- I P -, 1 e r 11 , 11 . I 1 - - - I 1 . . al ‘ \ t i ll __ ` ` l all /4' OEM, •=0 MO •■■ •MI■ • r t ■ r 671.. T iWER • • 1 . 0 • ill Mk • - �.�... ‘1 .■..,..______.._____ . Z el k Lucy 2o0*.AD 1 t` 1 1 ALTERNATIVE 3 �� 1 - n e, N i N . .... 1 T p „JCRs Se vp. i keste. T y EkcJ 1 1 t 1 A . 1 , 1• , � p 1 UNE I 1 -� 1 V t' • i, . 4 EACE • .1 -- - � ' VI EL p 1: P �A � , A . / N /1 ORS T PLAT 1N T4 tt � - - - . t Z - - -- ‘L...) ' r i . 1 -�' • •••••■•• • i °"''A ' : ■•■■•■ •••• • N.L...... III 1111 111 I 4 t 4, 6y 20,4,0 :\ws A l LTERNATIVE 4 1 1 Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1989 Page S cannot be built without the removal of a home on the adjoining parcel. This revision has been repeated in the 1 three remaining alternatives as well. Connecting to Pleasant View from Peaceful Lane rather then ' the original Vineland location to the east, could have a beneficial traffic impact. We believe this would result from Pleasant Lane's proximity to Powers Boulevard that should help orient traffic to the west rather then east along ' Pleasant View. The streets appear to be feasible from a grading standpoint and environmental impact is not excessive. There are two significant problems with the alternative. The loop street concept results in the fact that all of the traf- fic in the study area will be required to use Pleasant View. 1 The second concern is that it does not provide any access of the south thus eliminating the potential for a north /south street connection. 2. The second alternative is the dual cul -de -sac option illustrated by an architect working for the Pleasant View ' area homeowners. To allow for a reasonable comparison the alternative was expanded to create a comprehensive access plan for the study area. ' Comment - This option tends to split the access burden with most of the traffic exiting south to Lake Lucy Road. Ultimately a connection would be made to the west to Peaceful ' Lane. A small portion of the traffic would exit directly onto Pleasant View at the original Vineland Forest intersec- tion. This alternative can be reasonably constructed based on gra- des and environmental impacts are consistent with normal residential development. There is a north /south street con- nection but the alignment is quite convoluted which presents a problem for through movements. Distance traveled will be higher as will emergency vehicle response times. Again, construction is contingent upon the development decisions of adjoining property owners. ' 3. Staff attempted to start with a clean sheet of paper to create Alternative 3. The concept is based on a street loop running from Lake Lucy /Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane. ' Comment - The alignment is more direct then the one described in Alternative 2. Street construction is reasonable, all study area parcels are served and high quality residential ' environments will result. The south i of the Vineland plat remains largely unchanged. The Peaceful Lane connection is contingent upon the vacating or expiration of the Peaceful 1 Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1989 Page 6 Hills plat (due to expire in October). As with Alternatives 1 and 2 the construction of the street loop is•contingent upon decisions of adjoining property owners. 1 4. The final alternative is the original staff recommendation expanded to illustrate serving the entire study area. The street connection between Lake Lucy Road /Nez Perce and Pleasant View is probably the best alignment for meeting access needs throughout the neighborhoods surrounding the study area since it is centrally located between Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy. As such it may also have a greater potential for introducing traffic increases onto Pleasant View. A significant advantage is that the connection could be constructed immediately without requiring the par- ticipation of, adjoining property owners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ' Staff continues to support the original access concept illustrated as Alternative 4. Our reasons for this position area based on the advantages of the alignment for the north /south con- nection and the fact that it could be built immediately without requiring participation by adjacent property owners. The impor- tance of the last factor should not be minimized. Constructing street extensions after a neighborhood has been developed is often a controversial process. ' If this option is not acceptable to the Council we would recom- mend that Alternative 3 be selected since it meets the established criteria while providing reasonable north /south con- nection. • Alternatives 2 and 3 would require a substandtial redesign of the Vineland plat. If Alternatives 2 or 3 are selected we would recommend that the required be returned to the Planning Commission for review of a revised plat based upon your direc- tions regarding access. The Council should be aware that city staff does not have the capability to prepare an indepth analysis of traffic patterns. 1 We believe the data presented in this report is reasonable based upon our knowledge of the subject. If a greater understanding of this question is desired a consultant would need to be retained to prepare a computer model of the area. While this would pro- vide valuable information, it would involve additional time and cost. The Council should also be aware that regardless of which option is selected, easements must be provided to construct sewer and water lines north to Pleasant View. , 1 1