The URL can be used to link to this page

3g Update Memo Nez Perce EAW uPbATE 1 C ITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Director of Planning 1 DATE: August 20, 1993 SUBJ: Update Memorandum- Nez Perce EAW In the enclosed Council packet, there is a report that recommends preparation of an EAW for the Nez Perce extension. It should be noted that the City Attorney believes that it may be reasonable to prepare one in light of Mr. Beddor's efforts to litigate the issue. At their last Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners acted to recommend approval of the Tower Heights subdivision. Although this is only peripherally related to Nez Perce, Mr. Beddor gave the same long presentation he gave at the recent Council meeting and had many of his neighbors speak out against the project. In essence, he was seeking to have the Planning Commission overturn the Council's recent action to uphold their decision to go through with the connection. The Commissioners recognized that Nez Perce and Pleasant View Road was not the real issue, only the plat was being considered, thus they recommended approval. They also recognized that we had already delayed action on the plat to give Mr. Beddor an opportunity to present his case to the Council. When I asked the Commissioners to comment on the potential preparation of an EAW, they indicated their support of having this done. In any event, this memo is to focus more on the cost of EAW preparation. We have been attempting to respond to Mr. Beddor's EAW petition in short order to comply with State Law. We had little time to get a cost estimate from Barton Aschman nor time to seek other bids. When they faxed their cost estimate to me, I apparently only received the first page, hence the original memo had a cost estimate of $10,350. Today I got the hard copy in the mail and found I only received the first page of a four page proposal. The actual total cost is $43,256. I have not had an opportunity to discuss this matter further with the City Manager or Attorney but this cost is obviously significant. Is the cost estimate realistic? Unfortunately, it probably is. Barton Aschman staff understand that the matter is subject to litigation and are attempting to cover all the bases. The traffic analysis alone totals $25,171. At the Commission meeting, Mr. Beddor indicated that he was hiring a consultant to prepare his own version of the traffic 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Don Ashworth 1 August 20, 1993 Page 2 1 report. We have not had a chance to discuss the estimate further with Barton Aschman. It is possible that the tree and wetland impact could be completed by City Staff. We have the information and staff to do it. But this would only save a few thousand dollars and may raise 1 issues about the impartiality of the EAW. We could also save a few thousand dollars by using City staff to take traffic and turning movement counts. 1 I wanted to bring this to your attention but I don't really know what to recommend. I continue to believe this entire situation is ridiculous. I don't want to prejudice the situation but it is highly implausible that any kind of significant impact will be found and this matter will probably be I litigated no matter what the outcome is. It is also highly probable that Mr. Beddor's analysis and Barton Aschman's will totally refute each other. Mr. Beddor's petition cites a number of I "concerns." However, the outcome of the analysis will probably indicate that there is no wetland impact as alleged due to careful road design and the fact that the nearby pond is not believed to be a wetland. The only loss of trees will be those that have been recently planted by Mr. I Beddor. The tree loss he mentions is on the neighboring Tower Heights site, is not directly related to Nez Perce and has been highly overstated in any event. The Planning Commission found the Tower Heights tree preservation and reforestation plan to be acceptable. Traffic is I likely to be the only noteworthy issue where analysis may prove to be useful. Even here, it is doubtful that traffic patterns will be altered in any meaningful way, although I am interested to see the results. 1 In summary, the Council should take this corrected cost estimate into account. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BARTON - ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. 111 Third Avenue South Suite 350 • Minneapolis. Minnesota 55401 USA . (612) 332 -0421 • Fax (612) 332 -6180 1 August 18, 1993 Mr. Paul Krauss City of Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed Scope of Work for Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Required Special Studies for Nez Perce Drive Extension Dear Paul: As you requested, we have prepared a preliminary scope of work and cost estimate for preparation of an EAW which will encompass a fairly detailed traffic impact analysis. We ' feel this information would be sufficient as supporting documentation for any potential legal challenges to the proposed project. Another important aspect of this work is a thorough review of background information and files in order for us to fully understand the real issues 1 of the proposed Nez Perce Drive connection, subsequent development and the concerns of the existing neighborhoods. We think the documentation of the realistic impacts of the proposed action will be an interesting challenge (!) and look forward to working with you on resolving these issues. .1 Sincerely, Deborah A. Porter Senior Associate DAP:kro 1 1 1 1 mg PARSONS 1 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS Task 1: Review Existing Engineering Documents The consultant will review the engineering designs done to date on the Nez Perce Drive extension. Verification of the designs and an analysis of the associated impacts will also be ' done including verification of construction limits, slopes, and storm water management/ drainage plans. ' Level of Effort: Senior Associate 20 hours @ $85/hr = $1,700 Associate 20 hours @ $60/hr = 1.200 $2,900 1 Task 2: Roadway Alternatives 1 Up to two alternative roadway alignments of Nez Perce Drive/Peaceful Lane will be developed. These designs will allow for comparison of impacts with the Nez Perce Drive extension proposed by the City of Chanhassen. Construction cost estimates for the 1 alternatives will also be provided. Level of Effort: Senior Associate 30 hours @ $85/hr = $2,550 1 Associate 20 hours © $60/hr = 1,200 Technician 10 hours @ $45/hr = 450 $4,200 ' k 3: Meetings and Data Inventory 3. S 1'y It is anticipated that three meetings will be required as the engineering reviews and designs are prepared and reviewed. An inventory of available mapping and development plans will ' also be conducted. Some field work may be necessary to supplement the existing mapping. Level of Effort: Senior Associate 20 hours @ $85/hr = $1,700 Associate 15 hours @ $60/hr = 900 Technician 10 hours @ $45/hr = 450 Clerical 10 hours © $20/hr = 200 1 $3,250 Total Engineering Task = $10,350 1 1 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES These tasks involve the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed connection of Nez Perce Drive and Peaceful Lane/Pleasant View Road. This 1 work will respond to the standard questionnaire format and also encompass a more detailed analysis of the following potential impact issues associated with the proposed action: Task 1: Preparation of EAW p The consultant will collect and review existing data, project files, and other information 1 needed to prepare full documentation of project impacts provided in questionnaire format with accompanying graphics, drawings, maps, etc. Other special studies (traffic, engineering) will 1 be incorporated in this document. This task includes three meetings with city staff. Level of Effort: Senior Associate 40 hours @ $85/hr = $3,400 Associate 40 hours @ $60/hr = 2,400 • Technician 10 hours @ $45/hr = 450 Clerical 5 hours @ $20/hr = 100 $6,350 Task 2: Impact Analysis of Wetlands and Vegetation This task will include an inventory of mature vegetation and any wetland areas that may be impacted by the proposed action. Potential mitigation measures will be provided if deemed necessary. Level of Effort: Senior Associate 5 hours @ $85/hr = $425 Associate 16 hours @ $60/hr = _ 960 $1,385 Total Environmental Analysis Task = $7,735 1 1 TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSES This work scope for a traffic study on Nez Perce Drive Extension is more detailed than is Y typical. This is necessary due to the controversial nature of the proposal, with at least two opposing neighborhood groups involved. Therefore, the study must minimize the amount of 1 "Engineering judgement" which is normally a part of a typical traffic study. Instead, actual traffic counts and surveys are proposed to very specifically describe the traffic patterns in this area. The goal is to establish credibility, or at least create a data base which cannot be challenged on the grounds that an "outsider" (i.e., consultant or other non - resident) does not understand the nature of the traffic. Once the basic travel characteristics are so established (generation, distribution, assignment) the conclusions of the model should be unassailable by the residents, or, more importantly, by the Court if necessary. 1 1 I Task 1: Data Collection This will include: I • Tube counts around a cordon of the study area, 48 -hour counts at up to eight locations I Y � P g • A.M. and P.M. peak period turning movement counts at up to three key intersections • A.M. and P.M. peak period license plate matching at cordon stations, to identify through trips I This data will be reduced and synthesized by the consultant so that it is suitable for model development. I Level of Effort: Tube Counts: Associate 12 hours @ $60/hr = $720 I *Turning Movement Counts: Temp 24 hours @ $12/hr = 288 I *License Plate Matching: Temp 64 hours (8 Loc x 8 Hrs) @ $12/hr = 768 I Data Processing: I Technician 24 hours @ $30/hr = 720 Associate 32 hours @ $60/hr = 1.920 i $4,416 *These costs could be reduced/eliminated if city personnel are used rather than temporary 1 workers. Task 2: Code Subarea Network 1 In this task, the alternative networks, including the no- build, will be developed; this is a total of three networks. All roads, except simple and relatively short cul -de -sacs, should be coded. I the zone system should be correspondingly detailed, to take advantage of the network detail. This task includes one or two on -site visits to familiarize the coder with the area. Actual traffic speeds and estimated roadway capacities will be used in the network. Turn penalties at 1 intersections may also be incorporated. Separate penalties for right, left and through turns. Level of Effort: Associate 30 hours @ $60/hr = $1,800 I Senior Associate 15 hours @ $85/hr = 1.275 $3,075 1 1 1 1 Task 3: Develop Trip Generation, and Distribution Data 1 From the results of the traffic counts and survey, and using ITE trip rates as a starting point, trip generation will be estimated for A.M. and P.M. peak hours for local and through trips. This will involve some adjustment to ITE rates, based on the observed local trip generation obtained from the surveys and counts. Level of Effort: Associate 40 hours @ $60/hr = $2,400 Senior Associate 30 hours ® $85/hr = 2.550 $4,950 1 Task 4: Assignment/Validation The trips estimated in Task 3 will be assigned to the no -build (i.e, existing) P 8n ( � g) network. Resulting A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic volumes will be compared with counts, to validate the model. This is an important step to establish the procedure's credibility. 1 Level of Effort: Associate 24 hours @ $60/hr = $1,440 Senior Associate 16 hours @ $85/hr = 1.360 $2,800 Task 5: Traffic Impact Analysis 1 Once the "no- build" condition has been validated, the assignment will be carried out on both routing alternatives. Existing levels of development will be used initially, to compare "apples to apples." That is, if the road were constructed today, what would be the shifts in traffic? As an option, the proposed development trips could be added, and these assigned. I think it best that we change only one element at a time. First add the road, keeping the demand constant, then, if necessary, add future demand. Level of Effort: Associate 50 hours @ $60/hr = $3,000 1 Senior Associate 30 hours @ $85/hr = 2.550. $5,550 1 Future Year Demand Analysis: add $2,500 Task 6: Write - up A traffic report will be prepared summarizing data collection, methodology, and results. This will include graphics (from EMME /2) showing turning movements and travel patterns. Level of Effort: Associate 20 hours @ $60/hr = $1,200 1 Senior Associate 30 hours @ $85/hr = 2,550 Clerical 30 hours @ $30/hr = 900 1 $4,650 1 1 1 1 Total Traffic Analysis Task: I Task 1: Data Collection $4,146 Task 2: Code Networks 3,075 Task 3: Trip Gen/Dist 4,950 I Task 4: Assignment/Validation Analysis 2,800 Task 5: 5,550 ($8,050) Task 6: Write -up 4.650 1 Total: $25,171 ($27,671) 1 Total Project Cost = $43,256 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C ITYOF AO : toov CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action w MEMORANDUM indorsed 111 iAodified. TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Re eu., Det e_ 4.;_ 1 Dote Submitted to Commies FROM: Paul Krauss. Planning Director Dote Submitted to Coi DATE: August 18, 1993 3 SUBJ: Petition to Prepare An Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Nez Perce Extension The City has received a petition from Frank Beddor and others in the area to undertake an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The extension of Nez Perce in no way comes close to meeting minimum criteria for a mandatory EAW. However, State law does allow individuals to bring you a petition to prepare one. As the City Council, you are established as the Responsible Governmental Unit or RGU. It is up to you whether or not you believe the action warrants the preparation of an EAW, and if one is prepared (at City expense), it is up to you to determine its adequacy. I have discussed the matter at length with the City Attorney and City Manager. While we do not g Y Y tY g believe the petition raises any noteworthy issues that have not already been discussed at length, nor do we believe that the EAW will add significantly to the debate, we do believe it would be useful to undertake the EAW. It is clear that this matter is going to be litigated in one form or another. The Mayor and City Council have already been served with a suit (see attached ' documents) on the matter. We believe the City would be in a better position to respond to the matters with a completed EAW. 1 The issues raised in both the EAW petition and suit are similar. They mention loss of trees, increased traffic and damage to a wetland noting that a feasible "alternative" exists. The issues are not new. I believe these concerns are misrepresented and look forward to having an opportunity to clear the air in the future. It is however, unfortunate that significant additional time and money will need to be spent to resolve the issue. ' We have asked Barton Aschman to prepare a cost and time estimate to prepare the EAW. The firm has extensive experience in this area and has already completed the Federal EA for the north Hwy 5 access boulevard for the City. They are also independent of the engineering firm that prepared the Nez Perce feasibility study for us and can thus offer a second opinion on that study. We did not elect to go out for bids on the EAW. The estimated cost of $10,350 is significant 1 1 Don Ashworth I August 18, 1993 Page 2 1 but consistent with the required level of work and since we are operating under significant time constraints in responding to the EAW petition. Barton Aschman has indicated that it will take I approximately 4 to 6 weeks to complete the EAW. upon the foregoing, we are recommending that the City upo th g g, 8 t3' Council adopt the following I resolution directing the completion of the EAW. Should the Council elect not to prepare an EAW, we would recommend tabling the item to allow for the preparation of Findings of Fact and notification of petitioners and residents on Lake Lucy Road. 1 Manager's Comments: 1 I met this morning with a very distraught Planning Director. He did not get home until after 3:00 a.m. as a part of an overly lengthy Planning Commission meeting. The meeting took the time I that it did because Mr. Beddor once again rallied the Pleasant View neighborhood under fictitious pretenses. Mr. Beddor has now shifted his tactics to carrying out personal assassinations of our engineering and planning departments. I firmly believe that the EAW should and must be carried I out. By having the EAW completed, Mr. Beddor's court allegations will become moot. Secondarily, by having the EAW completed by third parties -- Barton Aschman to conduct the EAW and Hoisington to prepare the summary report of that data - -we will have thwarted Mr. 1 Beddor's attempts for personal assassinations of city staff members. It is unbelievable to me how a person who doesn't even live in Minnesota can use his massive wealth to solely consternate the lives of so many. Approval of completing the EAW is recommended. I DWA (8- 19 -93) 1WPr (• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION Date Resolution Motion By Seconded By 1 RECITALS , A. The City has received from the Environmental Quality ' Board a "Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet - Nez Perce Drive Extension ". B. The Environmental Quality Board has designated the City 1 as the RGU on the petition C. The petition is in the "discretionary" category in that , it is neither in a mandatory category or in an exempt category. D. The Environmental Quality Board staff, in a publication dated June 1989 entitled "Guide to the Rules" recommends that an environmental assessment worksheet be prepared if there is even a perception of some possibility of significant adverse environmental impact. E. Without examining the motives of the individuals who signed the petition for an environmental assessment worksheet, the petitioners apparently have the perception that the property would have some possibility of significant adverse environmental impact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City , of Chanhassen: 1. The City Council acting as the RGU hereby directs the preparation of an environmental assessment worksheet on the Nez Perce Drive extension. 2. Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. is directed to prepare the environmental assessment worksheet for the City. ADOPTED this day of , 1993, by the City ' Council of the City of Chanhassen. ATTEST: , Don Ashworth, Clerk /Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 7840 1 08/17/93 E1ARTON-ASC:1-4 MAN ASSOCIATES, INC. r,1 , ,�. (d; -c i icy •; .. '• Y �J'ti . .. ; f} • iV�9 •.... �/ lr i ', ,.1f.• , • r''+' �� , 0.1 )1 • i(,' August 18, 1993 1 Mr. Paul Krauss 1 City of Chanhassen City Hall 1 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Proposed Scope of Work for Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Th gt:ired Special Studies for Nez Perce Drive Extension 1 Dear Paul: As you requested, we have prepared a preliminary scope of work and cost estimate for preparat:on of an EAW which will encompass a fairly detailed traffic impact analysis. We feel this informat :on would be sufficient as supporting documentation for any potential legal c' l en ges to the proposed project. Another important aspect of this work is a thorough 1 review of background information and files in order for us to fully understand the real issues of the proposed Nei. Perce Drive connection, subsequent development and the concerns of the existing neighborhoods. We think the documentation of the realistic impacts of the proposed action will be an interesting challenge (!) and look forward to working with you on resolving these issues. Sincerely, 1 Deborah A. Porter Senior Associate 1 DAP :kro 1 1 1 1 1 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS Task 1: & view Existing Engineering Documents The consultant will review the engineering designs done to date on the Nez Perce Drive g � extension. Verification of the designs and an analysis of the associated impacts will also be d.ore including verification of construction limits, slopes, and storm water management/ 1 drainage plans. Level of Effort: Senior Associate 20 hours @, $85/hr = $1,700 1 Associate 20 hours @ $60/hr = 1,200 52,900 1 Task 2: Roadway Alternatives UP to two alternative roadway alignments of Nez Perce Drive/Peaceful Lane will be 1 Y ali � c.eveloped. These designs will allow for comparison of impacts with the Nez Perce Drive extension proposed by the City of Chanhassen. Construction cost estimates for the alternatives will also be provided. Level of Effort: Senior Associate 30 hours ® $85/hr = 52,550 1 Associate 20 hours @ $60/hr = 1,200 Technician 10 hours tip $45/hr = 450, $4,200 1 Task 3: INIBLtings and Data Inventory :G is anticipated that three meetings will be required as the engineering reviews and designs re prepared and reviewed. An inventory of available mapping and development plans will also be condt:.cted. Some field work may be necessary to supplement the existing mapping. • Level of Effort: Senior Asscciate 20 hours @ $85/hr = $1,700 Associate 15 hours {u; $60/hr = 900 Technician 10 hours @ $45/hr = 450 Clerical 10 hours @ $20/hr = 200 1 53,250 Total Engineering Task = 510,350 1 1 1 1 1 300 Fifth Street Towers 2800 Minnesota Ilor!d Trade Center Magruder Building 2370 One Tabor Center DOHERTY 3 1 - 50 South Fifth Street 30 East Seventh Street 1625 M Street. \.11 120 Seventeenth Street RUMBLE Minneapolis,' Minnesota ;5402-4235 Saint Paul Minnesota 55101 -4999 Washington D.0 20036 -3203 Denver Colorado 8020_ -5823 & BUTLER Telephone (612) 340 -5555 Telephone (612) 291-9333 Telephone (202) 293 -0555 Telephone 303 ;72 FAX (612) 340 -5584 FAX (612) 291 -9313 FAX (202) 659 -0466 FAX (3031 572 -6203 PRO] 1- ,H0 \.\L .,(se,u tiO\ Attorneys at Law \\ riter s direct dal number 612) 340 -5592 Reply to Minneapolis office August 13, 1993 1 ' DELIVERED BY MESSENGER Mayor Don Chmiel and City Council Members City of Chanhassen ' City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Beddor et al. v. City of Chanhassen et al. Mayor Chmiel and City Council Members: Enclosed and served upon you by messenger service, please find the Summons and Complaint in the above - entitled matter. ' Sincerely, awre1eA.Mo LAM /ksg/31949 Enclosures cc: David Sellergren Frank Beddor, Jr. 1 1 1 1 1 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Frank Beddor, Jr., Todd Novaczyk Court File No. and Sherry Novaczyk, and Robert L. Post and Sandra J. Post, Plaintiffs, SUMMONS vs. City of Chanhassen, its Mayor Don Chmiel and City Council Members, Defendants. 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE -NAMED DEFENDANTS. YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon plaintiff's attorney an Answer to the Complaint which is herewith served upon 1 you within twenty (20) days from the date of service, exclusive of the date of such service. 1 If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. DATED: August / , 1993 DOHERTY, RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION By; cam... Law c A. Moloney Atty. Reg. No. 16587 Gregg J. Tucek Atty. Reg. No. 28381 3500 Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 -4235 Telephone: (612) 340 -5555 1 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 1 Frank Beddor, Jr., Todd Novaczyk Court File No. ' and Sherry Novaczyk, and Robert L. Post and Sandra J. Post, Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT vs. ' City of Chanhassen, its Mayor Don Chmiel and City Council Members, 1 Defendants. Plaintiffs, Frank Beddor, Jr., Todd Novaczyk and Sherry ' Novaczyk, and Robert L. Post and Sandra J. Post, for their complaint against defendants, City of Chanhassen, its Mayor ' Don Chmiel and City Council Members, allege and state as follows: ' INTRODUCTION ' 1. This action is brought under the citizen suit provision of the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act ("MERA"), ), Minn. Stat. ' § 116B.01, et sea. Defendant City of Chanhassen ( "Chanhassen ") has' determined to proceed with a project ( "proposed project ") which ' would involve the extension and alteration of two roads and which would adversely affect natural resources protected under MERA. ' Plaintiffs are landowners who live in the affected area, and 1 include one landowner whose property defendant Chanhassen has determined to condemn in order to proceed with the proposed t project. Defendant City of Chanhassen has determined to proceed 11 with its proposed project in spite of being presented with feasible alternatives which would eliminate or mitigate the proposed project's adverse effects on the environment. Plaintiffs are therefore instituting this suit seeking the declaratory, equitable and other relief provided under MSA § 116B.07. ' II. , PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Frank Beddor, Jr. is the owner of a parcel of property sometimes known as Beddor Lot 5 located in Chanhassen, Minnesota. ' • 3. Plaintiffs Todd Novaczyk and Sherry Novaczyk are owners of the property located at 6371 Pleasant View Cove, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317. , 4. Plaintiffs Robert L. Post and Sandra J. Post are owners of the property located at 489 Pleasant View Road, Chanhassen, ' Minnesota 55317. 5. Defendant City of Chanhassen is a municipal corporation 1 organized and authorized by Article XII Section 4 of the Minnesota Constitution and does business at 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317. , III. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS , 6. Defendant Chanhassen has proposed a project which involves the extension of Nez Perce Drive through Plaintiff Beddor's property, Beddor Lot 5, to Pleasant View Road and which ' would also involve the widening and realignment of a second road, 2 i Peaceful Lane. The proposed project has been set forth in a Feasibility Study done for the City of Chanhassen dated July 8, 1992. The Feasibility Study provides two alternatives which differ only slightly, primarily in the design of the intersection between Nez Perce Drive and Peaceful Lane. 7. The proposed project is related to another project which has been proposed to defendant Chanhassen, by JMS Development, the "Tower Heights Addition." Under the Preliminary Plat proposal for the Tower Heights Addition, the realigned Peaceful Lane and extended Nez Perce Drive would serve as an access to and from the Tower Heights Addition. 8. On May 24, 1992, the City Council of the City of Chanhassen voted to institute condemnation proceedings with respect to property owned by Plaintiff Beddor known as Beddor Lot 5. At the same City Council meeting, the City Council voted to proceed with the proposed project. 9. On July 12, 1993, Defendant Beddor and others appeared before the Chanhassen City Council and asked that they reconsider ' their decision to proceed with the proposed project and to institute condemnation proceedings. The City Council voted not to reconsider their decisions. ' 10. On July 21, 1993, the City planning staff for defendant Chanhassen recommended that the proposed Preliminary Plat for the ' Tower Heights Addition be approved by the City. On July 21, 1993, the City Planning Commission held a hearing on the request for the plat approval, and then continued the hearing until August 18, ' 3 1 1993. Under MSA 462.358, if the proposed preliminary plat is approved, the developer of the Tower Heights Addition may claim vested rights to implement the plan reflected in the proposed plat, , including the parts of the plan which will cause the damage and destruction of natural resources which are the subject of this suit challenging the proposed project. 11. On July 26, 1993, defendant Chanhassen initiated condemnation proceedings against defendant Beddor and his wife, , Marilyn Beddor, through which the City intends to take by eminent domain Beddor Lot 5 in connection with the proposed extension of ' Nez Perce Drive and realignment and expansion of Peaceful Lane. A hearing on the petition for condemnation is scheduled to be heard on August 25, 1993, in the District Court for Carver County, , Minnesota. 12. If the proposed project were to be implemented, many ' mature trees would be destroyed, causing a significant loss of habitat and wildlife in the area. ' 13. The proposed project would also dump additional traffic onto Nez Perce Drive and Pleasant View Road. The increase in traffic will cause a substantial increase in the amount of noise ' and air pollution to persons living adjacent to these roads. The effects of noise and air pollution caused by the increase in , traffic constitutes harm to natural resources located in the area of the proposed project. 14. Increased traffic on Pleasant View Road, which has been ' the site of numerous traffic accidents, will also increase risks of 4 1 traffic accidents which will endanger both human life and wildlife. 11 15. In addition, the proposed project would damage or destroy a pond and wetland area by draining water polluted with road salt, oil and other pollutants to the pond and wetland area, and by 1 altering the pond and wetland area to provide for drainage. The pond and wetland area, and the wildlife associated with that area, ' are natural resources protected under MERA. ' 16. The City has failed to conduct any studies regarding how the proposed project will impact the environment in the vicinity of Nez Perce Drive and Pleasant View Road. A petition to require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Work Sheet under ' Minnesota Rules 4410.1100 was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Water Quality Board on July 21, 1993. ' 17. Feasible alternatives to the proposed project are ' available which would eliminate or mitigate the environmental effects of the proposed project. A feasible alternative entitled ' "The Solution" was presented to the City Council by Defendant Frank Beddor on July 12, 1993, which would connect Nez Perce Drive to ' Lake Lucy Road via an outlet reserved for such a connection. ' This feasible alternative would have substantially less environmental impact than the proposed project. 18. This feasible alternative is additionally safer because it does not result in dumping additional traffic onto Pleasant View Road, and yet provides dual access to the residential developments ' in the area. 5 1 1 19. The City has failed to evaluate any such feasible alternatives. Iv. 1 COUNT ONE 20. Plaintiffs restate Paragraphs 1 through 19 above. 21. Chanhassen's proposed project is conduct that will immediately adversely affect or is likely to materially adversely 1 affect the air, land, and water or other natural resources in violation of Minn. Stat. § 116B.04 by unnecessarily destroying trees, causing an increase in noise and air pollution from traffic, ' causing unnecessary safety hazards for area residents and wildlife, by damaging or destroying the pond and wetland area encompassed ' within the proposed project, and by failing to consider feasible and prudent alternatives. 22. Chanhassen's proposed project will result in the , pollution, impairment, or destruction of air, land, water, or other natural resource, in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 116B.03 and 116B.04 as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 21 above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: 1. Declaratory and temporary or permanent equitable relief , by the court pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116B.07. 2. For such other relief as the court may deem just and , equitable. 1 6 1 I/ 11 DATED: August f3 , 1993 DOHERTY, RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ■ / ' By: .. l Law- A. Moloney A ty. Reg. No. 165 6 Gregg J. Tucek Atty. Reg. No. 28381 3500 Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -4235 Telephone: (612) 340 -5555 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 1 1 1 1 1 1 LAM /ksg/32175 7 1 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT REQUIRED BY MINN. STAT. § 549.21, SUED. 1 The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs, disbursements, 1 and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing party or parties pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 549.21, 1 subd. 2, if the party or attorney against whom costs, disbursements, reasonable attorney and witness fees are charged acted in bad faith; asserted a claim or defense that is frivolous 1 and that is costly to the other party; asserted an unfounded position solely to delay the ordinary course of the proceedings or to harass; or committed a fraud upon the court. L e A. Moloney 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i I •.;'?.: July 27, 1993 -at Sharmin Al Jeff Planning Department I City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I RE: Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Nez Perce Drive Extension 1 Dear Ms. Jeff: The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition II requesting that an EAW be prepared on the project described in the petition, and has determined that City of Chanhassen is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW. II The requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of EAWs, can be found in the Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200 to 4410.7800. Please contact me if you do not have II access to these rules. The procedures to be followed in making the EAW decision are set forth in part 4410.1100. Key points in the procedures include: II 1. No final government approvals may be given to the project named in the petition, nor may construction on the project I be started until the need for an EAW has been determined. Project construction includes any activities which directly affect the environment, including preparation of land. If the decision is to prepare an EAW, approval must be II withheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see part 4410.3100). 1 2. A first step in making the decision regarding the need for an EAW would be to compare the project to the mandatory I EAW, EIS and Exemption categories listed in parts 4410.4300, 4410.4400, and 4410.4600, respectively. If the project should fall under any of these categories, environmental review is automatically required or I prohibited. If this should be the case, proceed accordingly. a I 3. If preparation of an EAW is neither mandatory nor exempted, City of Chanhassen has the option to prepare an EAW. The standard to be used to decide if an EAW should be done is II given in part 4410.1100, subp. 6. Note that this requires that a record of decision including specific findings of fact be maintained. RzcalvED w II , ; con i a. a. 6, CTY 7_ C!--!,",n.-16 ss o 1"s ENYIRONMENIAE IUAEI!Y IIIUD 151 CHM MEET, IL P111,11 55155 117 211 -1103 111112 211 -3110 1111E PROYIMEO BY ® PEANMIN6 1 July 27, 1993 Page Two 4. You are allowed 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not count) for your decision if it will be made by a council, board, or other body which meets only periodically, or 15 working days if it will be made by a single individual. You may request an extra 15 days from EQB if the decision will be made by an individual. 5. You must notify, in writing, the proposer, the petitioners' representative and the EQB of your decision within five working days. I would appreciate your sending a copy of your record of decision on the petition along with notification of your decision for our records. This is not required, however. 6. If for any reason you are unable to act on the petition at this time (e.g., no application has yet been filed or the application has been withdrawn), the petition will remain in effect for a period of one year, and must be acted upon prior to any final decisions concerning the project identified in the petition. Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in the EOB Monitor on August 16, 1993. If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to call. The phone number is (612) 296 -8253 or you may call on our toll -free line by dialing 1- 800 - 657 -3794. Sincerely, • ink 4-10-7212 Gregg Downing Environmental Review Coordinator cc: David Sellergren, Lawrence Moloney 1 1 111 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. 1 Attorneys at Law Thomas J Campbell (612) 452 -5000 1 Roger N Knutson Fax (612) 4)2 -5550 Thomas M. Scott Gary G Fuchs James R Walston ' Elliott B. Knctsch July 29, 1993 Michael A. Broback Renae D Steiner 1 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen 1 Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Petition for E.A.W - Nez Perce Drive 1 Dear Jo Ann: Pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1100, the City has to make a determination on the need for an E.A.W. within fifteen (15) days 1 after receipt of the petition from the E.Q.B. The City can take after fifteen (15) days to make the determination since the City Council meets on a "periodic basis ". The City Council decision tom" 1 require or not require an E.A.W. should be accompanied by a solid staff report and formal "findings of fact ". Very truly yours, 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & F CHS P.A. ge Roger N. _Knutson 1 RNK:srn cc: Don Ashworth 1 1 1, .. ' n #. • n ,� C - - r' : • r.ianc `sr; 1 Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 1 IF PETITION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 1 NEZ PERCE DRIVE EXTENSION INTRODUCTION The City of Chanhassen has proposed to create a roadway 1 connecting Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road in conjunction with a widening and realignment of Peaceful Lane onto Nez Perce , Drive. Owners of property affected by this project request the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet by filing the following petition with the Environmental Quality Board pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410.1100 Subpart 1. A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. The City of Chanhassen proposes to create a roadway connecting Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road in conjunction with a widening and realignment of Peaceful Lane onto Nez Perce Drive. 1 The Peaceful Lane improvement is contemplated to serve a proposed new subdivision known as Tower Heights. The project includes upgrading both Nez Perce Drive and Peaceful Lane to an urban section to meet city specifications for a seven -ton street design with surmountable concrete curb and ' gutter. Development of Nez Perce Drive to city standards includes 1 sanitary sewer and water main construction and an extension of utilities for future and existing property owners abutting the ' street. Condemnation proceedings have been authorized to commence on Beddor Lot 5 in the near future. 1 11 . 1 For schematic alignment and estimated costs of the roadways construction, sanitary sewer construction, water main construction and storm sewer construction, see attached Feasibility Study ' Alternative A. (Exhibit A). B. THE PROPOSER OF THE PROJECT. The City of Chanhassen, its mayor and city council members are the proposers of the project. A notification to the project proposers was given pursuant to 4410.1100, subd. 4 to the City of ' Chanhassen at 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317. C. PETITIONERS' REPRESENTATIVES. Petitioners are represented by: Doherty, Rumble & Butler, P.A. David C. Sellergren Lawrence A. Moloney ' 3500 Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 -4235 ' Telephone: (612) 340 -5555 D. DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. ' Petitioners believe that the project will potentially adversely affect the environment in the following ways: • Cause the unnecessary destruction of at least 22 mature ' trees ranging in age from 50 -100 years old • Adversely affect a wetland /pond located adjacent to the Nez Perce Drive extension • Cause increased traffic to Pleasant View Road and 1 Nez Perce Drive which will create safety - related concerns of owners abutting Pleasant View Road and Nez Perce Drive 1 ' -2- 1 Result in increased air pollution and noise levels to landowners adjacent to Pleasant View Road and Nez Perce Drive E. MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. 1 The proposed extension of Nez Perce Drive will have significant environmental safety and other impacts which need to be analyzed and, if possible, avoided or mitigated. The proposed extension includes the unnecessary destruction of or damage to natural resources, including trees, on Beddor Lot 5 and Owens 1 Lot 6. As reflected in the attached letter dated June 22, 1993 (Exhibit B), the proposed project will require the destruction of nine trees on Beddor Lot 5 and 13 trees on Beddor Lot 6. These 22 trees are mature oak, maple and basswood, and are up to 100 years 1 old. The loss of these mature trees and others would not be required by pursuing one of several feasible alternatives. An alternative access could be provided via Lake Lucy Road 1 instead of extending Nez Perce Drive. The attached plan entitled "The Solution" (Exhibit C), illustrates the feasibility of this 1 alternative. The proposed extension creates an additional significant environmental impact to a wetland /pond area on Beddor Lot 5. The extended road, as planned, would be directly adjacent to the pond (see attached map, Exhibit D), subjecting it to road salt and oil contamination due to runoff. Safety and environmental impacts on neighborhoods adjacent to Pleasant View Road and Nez Perce Drive would likewise result. 1 Making Nez Perce Drive a through connection to Pleasant View Road -3- 1 • 11 will inevitably increase traffic on Pleasant View Road, which is currently a poor quality, winding road that traverses purely ' residential neighborhoods. The same is true of Nez Perce Drive. The increased traffic will change the character of the ' neighborhoods, increase air and noise pollution for abutting homeowners, and create significant safety problems. Previously, Pleasant View Road has been the site of several accidents, 1 including a head -on collision last winter. More particularly, the proposed extension of Nez Perce Drive would dump the additional traffic onto Pleasant View Road in a dangerous area, as Pleasant View Road curves and obstructs the view to the proposed intersection between Nez Perce Drive and Pleasant View Road. None of the safety concerns have been addressed by the city council even though voiced by residents. (See Exhibit E, comments by Ms. Novachek) . An additional hazard exists as a result of the road grade needed to create the road. Referencing a survey of Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson, Inc., the proposed road extension would involve a 10.5% road grade (Exhibit F). This grade is significantly steeper ' than the 7% standard required by the City in its "standard detail" (Exhibit G). The steep grade will increase the potential for 1 vehicle accidents and may result in property damage or injuries. For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned petitioners request that the Environmental Quality Board and responsible governmental 1 unit require an environmental assessment worksheet be accomplished pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 1160.04, subd. 2(a)(c) or 2d; Minnesota 1 Rules 4410.4500. -4- 1 1 Name Address- 44 j., 4 ,, 14, ) CAHAof 6 5-0 rte�5� Ut`e cat � � b L t.„(L. C __) t A .A-k_ ,‘ t f CC " �, �__.� �� VisSnW4 o - s Cs w j a c----- 6 7 / 91n L. U Ss3�i l 0,, , . ` a55&,, , Lk Raast-ELY o ,9, 5 At - S - _ ‘ - . __ b6oa a • �3 _ d &r b Per-9- c� e�/� i 4- -, c -, - (L.. ;Q, \1,9_^^-I ,s51 Ne z t om .r C --e,1> sse. -. Sr, sr, iii _ /L/ . i _. c 6 `-�/ tie E / F^ C k .0 1. C4 f.� 17 411 it L p„conlcat _ , A _ .,.... _ __:..._AP QGCTO )PI _ Po & Q4, eha /x. -:e — mss o ^ # 1 (0 ”t) Net Oerc e 4)r. C1 1.2..E 1;4s Q e. $ 31 I IIIVETWO . - . 6 73�i -- i/ ��.c„e �ie ar Ss - 51 r 5117 /iNIFLOP4W , q6 U Ia G ei�,f ' 7 V [ el -E. e° -• ['K/j7�11��1'\ _ wmpvi /es& f 01/,,,,, 491 c� S - tic. -' Cdr = J • • ■ _ . _ • • N% l j V ■• . . ti.. q n , 4- 6 7 •/;• / f t. 7 C1 f 6.1 iel . / 1 Ss3/ 7 ., _ . , cam t ,e S .)3' AI / / ' / 6cco 7e c ,,d e- C , 553'' MAK 4�.. /0/0 Pk- ..-1" view ,f 0A 0- 4-,,., 5'S 3/ 7 , 7/ 1 / A t-c Adtz . , 6( 0 er_ocz ici 04.4, 4,-,r1 , C4'4' ; .ri:,-, mil -5- 1 1 1 ' . me Address .4a C_„_ss•.., *,J s 1 1 b 1 i l ', 401 -. a 1 40 cosno KiF:z._ Perce ci›. Ci.cwkita-CiAs d aA/z. 6 co/ y &ct_ d . 1 ��...4.14r_-iiJ G So/ lete.-6r o ar - Lt 53 7 I trAMOM ‘ 141), ..4, , _ (,01 1 Kle,?.- pr eiAgr)fraivr) 51 C:870-1\iel-P--e-r-Cf--1P—ChggELSS 1 �.. -- �5gv 10 e z Q.cc� X C- ,ar,�,rnss s's3r7 itt ? t i m e / e a &- CI anha S'3/ 7 i -- te (,/,``0 q0 V ora (midi i • is i CL6 ' A 040 Vi k tom) (4- ChAtO - $V3/ 7 1 0 ^ 640 V ■ T l ■ - , t 4 A , L/1) C4 1 r ' i, A. - - 3 r 7 %ee '// - oat' rl„�/ e / SS - 3/ 7 4 ,:(!.,,_ / ' _ A 7, f rsr 7 1 cA IA SL2) w - . ‘ ks:3117 1 1 f � � ' u - � L _ , . _ , , , . . . 4 z . . . . . „ U 3I V A t �{L7ii • 6'f-. �� ?/ Vts.0 C kf -� 53 - 3/ f �l i �. ' .,k �./ I V 1>> ')eial7I .dir _ 5-5-317 1 Aftwo + .4, . Al f5 1 elk. I i..!. iL , ./...4.A l 1..0l..cu • .cGyu V/licArd—Vi i 411M • : 1 2- ' SS 3r7 :- i > ` 4 , %..._.. ' - (le Aa_0(2-ealijAiL._.// r5 / 7 1 ile277,,,/ , , , _,..../INC4111 el G VO Pec J ? '1.4 67c) 1-4erez,47 dee:) AZ S / ? CC; f ? 1 i Alliffirrak / , , / ILL, l o 0 // li,4?-) '1 S / ? 1 .) 7 - .L.....:._. . .—s..,-, , _ % i7 1 GJT 30258 - 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 FEASIBILITY STUDY for NEZ PERCE DRIVE EXTENDED CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 1 CITY Of C4 WASSEN EMIR jut_ 081992 EH6IDEED DEPT, 1 1 1 1 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. William R. Engelhardt 1 Date: July 8, 1992 _ Registration No. 12026 1 EXHIBIT A 1 1 VVILLIAV R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. C -. MII N=5CTA F 1 1 July 8, 1992 1 City of Chanhassen 1 c/o Mr. Charles Folch 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 1 RE: Nez Perce Drive Extended Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: 1 Pursuant to your request we have prepared a feasibility study for the purpose of officially mapping an alignment of Nez Perce Drive extended to Pleasant View Road. Two alternative alignments were 1 studied which include options for street and utility improvements. Included in this report are maps indicating the areas of 1 improvements and costs for each alternate. We will be pleased to discuss this report at your convenience. 1 Very truly yours, WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. William R. Engelhardt 1 WRE /las 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 REPORT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. This project is feasible from an engineering point of view. 2. This project is a detailed analysis of project costs for 1 street construction, sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm • sewer construction. 1 3. The total project costs are as follows: ' Alternate A: Nez Perce (Through Street) Street Construction - Nez Perce Drive $ 84,534 • ' Sanitary Sewer Construction $ 17,043 Watermain Construction $ 12,337 Storm Sewer Construction $ 8,697 ' Total Alternate A $122,611 Alternate B: Nez Perce ( "T" Intersection) with Peaceful Lane Street Construction - Nez Perce Drive $ 46,085 Street Construction - Peaceful Lane $ 54,394 1 Sanitary Sewer Construction $ 10,465 Watermain Construction $ 10,465 1 Storm Sewer Construction $ 6,487 Total Alternate B $127,896 4. Traffic and emergency safety issues have been addressed to meet city standards for urban roadway construction. 5. The total estimated project cost includes a 30 percent 1 factor for engineering, construction staking, inspection, administration, and contingencies. 6. The estimated costs for improvements are detailed in ' Appendix A. 1 f GENERAL: 1 The impetus for this study is the desire of the City of Chanhassen to officially map an alignment of Nez Perce Drive extended to Pleasant View Road that would (1) improve traffic patterns and alignment of both Nez perce Drive and Peaceful Lane; (2) improve the ingress and egress for emergency and /or public safety vehicles which have limited access to this area at this time. 1 As part of this report we are presenting proposed alternative alignments along with estimated costs for each alternative. A detailed cost estimate is presented in Appendix A of this report as a means of comparing each alignment of Nez Perce Drive. BACKGROUND: ' Pleasant View Road, a city collector roadway, and Peaceful ' Lane, a low residential street (serving three residents), are the two existing roadways within this study area. Nez 1 Perce Drive is constructed presently as a dead end street within the existing Troendle Addition stubbed for future extension to the north as a possible residential through street. 1 This area, known as the Arthur R. Owens property, has been discussed in the past by the City Council during the , platting and construction process of both Vineland and Troendle Additions as a possible roadway extension of Nez , Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road. This feasibility study will address these concerns and offer alternatives for Nez Perce Drive to be constructed to city standards for a urban residential roadway with city utilities. 2 1 11 STREETS: Two alternative roadway alignments have been developed for the 1 upgrading of Nez Perce Drive. These alternatives are best indicated on Drawings No. 1 and No. 2. 1 ALTERNATE A - NEZ PERCE (THROUGH STREET) Under this alternative Nez Perce Drive has direct access to 1 Pleasant View Road with a realignment of Peaceful Lane onto Nez Perce Drive. As part of this improvement the intersection at Pleasant View Road is corrected providing for improved traffic control and safety. 1 The improvements proposed include upgrading of both Nez Perce Drive and Peaceful Lane to urban section meeting city 1 specifications for a 7 -ton street design with surmountable concrete curb and gutter. Additional right -of -way and 1 construction easements will be needed and are shown on Drawing No. 1. (Portions of the existing right-of -way may be vacated and deeded back to the abutting property owners.) 1 Improving Nez Perce Drive as a through street provides access to the neighborhood between Power Boulevard and Pleasant View Road. It does have a potential of introducing 1 more traffic as a north /south connection, however, it provides the best ingress and egress to this area for 1 emergency and /or public safety vehicles which has limited access at this time. ALTERNATE•B - NEZ PERCE DRIVE CONNECTING AT PEACEFUL LANE ( "T" INTERSECTION 1 Under this alternative Nez Perce Drive is connected to Peaceful Lane as a "T" intersection. As in Alternate 1, the ro osed improvement p p p ovement includes upgrading both Nez perce Drive and Peaceful Lane to urban 3 1 1 1 sections meeting city standards for a 7 -ton street design. Additional Right -of -way and construction easements will also be needed under this alternate and are shown on Drawing No. ' 2. Under this alternative more upgrading and /or street improvement will be required on Peaceful Lane to maintain required traffic control and safety. There would also be more disruption of the existing land required to construct Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane as a "T" intersection. The topography of the area where the slopes run from south to 1 north are in direct conflict with the proposed construction of Nez Perce Drive which runs parallel to the slopes causing a Iarger disruption of land with its construction limits than under Alternate No. 1. Followin g advantages/disadvantages a list of advanta es /disadvantages for each alternate. ' ALTERNATE A: ADVANTAGES: 1 * Provides good access to the south and has access to Power Boulevard via Lake Lucy Road for emergency and /or public 1 safety vehicles which have limited access to this area at this time. * Minimize and /or reduce construction limit impacts along the west side of Peaceful Lane. * Provides better driveway safety by having less driveway , accesses directly onto the improved roadway. * Improved the safety and access at the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Nez Perce Drive. ' * Returns possible vacated right -of -way to the abutting homeowners. 4 1 DISADVANTAGES: * Potential of introducing more traffic as north /south connection to the neighborhood. ' ALTERNATE B: ' ADVANTAGES: * Provides access to the neighborhood for emergency and /or public safety vehicles. * Potential for less traffic as a north /south connection to 1 the neighborhood. 1 DISADVANTAGES: * Greater loss of trees due to construction limits on both Nez Perce Drive and Peaceful Lane. * Greater Impact to the west side of Peaceful Lane due to the ' required upgrading necessary on Peaceful Lane. ' * All driveways exit onto a potential active roadway. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN CONSTRUCTION: Full development of Nez Perce Drive to city standards 1 includes sanitary sewer and watermain construction. The sanitary sewer and watermain are best indicated by 1 Drawings No. 3 and 4. The utilities extended as part of this improvement are for future and /or existing property owners abutting the street that receive a direct benefit for the improvement. 1 1 1 1 II 1 6 1 NM = M MI = NM MN MN NM MI MN MN No I= mo Ns I♦ NM NO - N, -. \ P ' _ \�ti- 1 1 \ $ F I J to -- =. "—'-'"--- �\ \� ` 1.11 1 l I \ } I es 407 t _ `y ^ �' \ ^\ --N \ / ` l t •~• I r J I / Ex 1ST RES - _ \ / . 0 10.4 \ J , \ 1 I _`, � \ \ _I \ i o' i \� \ —, °, \\ `\ ' °° '1 �' - -> LANE _�\� \ ■ I \ / • • — loon — _ _ x • \:a tilt: t„ c 1 r J 1 \ 1 \ \ \ 1 \ \ f CONSTRUCTION LIMITS \ \ 1 1 ' I I \ 1 1 \ \ ■ ' • - R io R/W TO BE VACATED \ \ ' ` 1 Exist RES. I \ \ \ � 1 \ •\ '1 :' ` i'�-- �` `ooz . . ,� \ • m f — 1 I j:,::3 �` \ \ 1 1 t • 1 /: -_ \ — - 1 \ I r \ CI I I t 1 � �� 1 \\ Z 1 1 \ 1 l 1..,i `�\ • \ 1 \`� 11 J-1.. ` I 1 ( • I' � I I �I 9 \ \ 1 1 .. \I I 1 : + I I • / \ \ 1 \ 1 !- { y • 4 7 — \ \\I CI • • / ' 1 1 EXIST. _ — — — / / �• / I 1 • 1 i tool / � / \ oti ° • J o i I I II / 9 9 9y z ° � - \ \ \ \I I { I / �� 1 \ / / / I 1 • / / i ,99 \ 1 / \� � / !! I I 1 1 > J I i I \ \ \ `\ \ \ I 11 \ 1 ! ` °Os I I {I I I I \ I , \ 1 I I 1 • \1 1 (' \\----------) ) 1 \ \ \ • I i I 1 \ \ • � \ \ \` \\ \ 1 I CITY OF CHANHASSEN ----------. I Z \ 1 1 \ • . • 1 • � I I I / ; �\ \ \ l I ' _ MINNESOTA P. 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 /` � / \ I 1 1 1 1 NEZ PERCE DRIVE • 1 I I 11 1 °,, �,/ \\ 1 I I 1 1 \ \\ STREET CONSTRUCTION — — — -- _ ✓ •. ' 1 I ' 1 1 / ALTERNATE A _-- -__ - -_ /^ •, i I 1 \ ' J ' i -- 996 ) 1 II f / 1 I \\ — — — — — -- l , 1 1 - — - - / \ / / I WILLIAM R. ENGLEHARDT ASSOC. ./ A / / ■ { \ I / - _ - \ �� ! / 1 / CONSULTING ENGINEERS // I 1 + / / / / CHASK MINNESOTA 55318 / I I / / DATE JUNE, 1992 SCALE. 1 " =50' • DRAWING NO. 1 -..‘.__ ' \' --- --\ : . �� -- - - -V_ / IN � ) 1 / 1 / EXIST RES. A \ IN '._____......._' E- lc_ E ------ "p t i t. "- ,..,_."----- "z_ -._f ' 41 . 1 - . \________/'-- -' ,.„ ______. j) 1 , • • ....,,--- --, ---.. --------- A. . \ 0 /000 \ \ �� , \ \ \ .4 1 \ 1 _ ` 1002 .•• , Z . ------ -- --`� . X �_ • \\ \ \ `' �� °2p ' \ \ \ •1 \ \ , I 1?-4--CONSTRUCTION L IMITS �• , = �� \ \ \• \ \ • \ - ^\ _ _ _____--)-- \\ \ \\ %.* c 1 i \ 1 1 1 \ `1 \ \, \ �r� �� ~� \ \ \� I "0 \ EXIST. RES. 1 \ ` \ 1 �\ 1 ��• / _ �f � - ------ \ \ rn r \ 1 O i 1 \ \ 1 1 I I / � _ g g ``_ \ ■ \\ N f I 1 1 1 1 I 1 • 11 x `\�— I \` Z is / I I t 1 I i 1 ill i (/1� — �� I � I --1 I 1 i 1 1 1 I �� \ 1 1 kf 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 99 6 - -_ ' `� \ \ \ \\ 1 1 • 1 it I:. 1 1 Z / \ 11 \ < I EXIST -. _ - � � / �• / 1 "" I 1 1 1 i g9n \ \ \ I 1 i • 1 I rn � / � "- � 0 , 4 0 / , . / 0 , 1 I I �' , X 0 2- --- ~ �\ \ 1 1 1 I I 1 1\ • POOL / / .,/ /' s ( III 990 \ \ \ ■ 1 I 1 I II / 1 , _ \ 'OO - . z I il ',t I ( • I \ .N \\\ \ \ t I 1 II • \ \ 1 D I 1 \ \ i \ 1 1 .....-\\ . I I — . — _ �1 1 \ \ \ \ y 1 \ 1 1 1: \ \ \� . \ 1 11 i CITY OF CHANHASSEN • E �:,, r I I I / \ \ 1 1 1 I I I ; MINNESOTA / /(,,,-;,1) / \ 11 11 I NEZ PERCE DRIVE • r• ,'I 1 1 .• 1 � � � \ 1 / I 1 / 1 1 , 1 \ STREET CONSTRUCTION � •• • \ 6 • 1 fi , ' 1 ) 1/ 1 1 \ \' ALTERNATE 8 — _ _ _ _ _— _ — _ — / , I I 1 y\:_ , 996 - 1 ) / / I \ \ .. - WILLIAM R. ENGLEHARDT ASSOC. i ■ I i 1 / - - - ' _� �/ 1 / � CONSULTING ENGINEERS /1' B / 1 I \ I / / , / / , CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 ® OATE. JUNE, 1992 SCALE 1 " =50' DRAWING NO. 2 • MI 11111 .1.1 .1. =I 11111111 EMI MI INN MIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIMMINIII•11111=11111.1 imp Ea — r w N MI MI MN 11111 11111 r ■■ ■■■ MB — — NM NM NS \ ��\�\\ 9 s 1 t t \ /� 1 \ `� \ t t I I \ � /� EXIST RES n . / \ _ -1 { \ \ ` \ / D .- ■ \ 1 ..+�'. \ ` - --. , \ �° EA R EF - - 7.— _ _ - - \ —\�� \ \/ \ \\ �\ , c , f � ' ' LAN ` fig _ _ '� � � N. \_� \ \\ \� \ \ O \ \' \ \\ —� - -- B I �� _ -�LI�- 1_� 1 \ \ 2 \\ \ \ 1 11 \ \ \ \ \ - - - - -_ �`�` \\ t \ "s , c , \ . \ 1 l \ \ \\ ` \ / / loo • . - TO E I ` \\ \ > / I \ \ I 1 \ \ 1 1 , 1 CONNECT X \ \ r J l WATERMAIN \\ \ `- 11\ " I I I \ \ \ 1 �N 2\ �� ----------1:-'004.._ SANITARY MANHO E TING \ \\ \, ` III -0 EXIST. RES. ■ \ \ 1 \ \ / -_____,0,0.z.....---- \ \ m 00 I 1 I — / ` � � � �� — 1 ' 1 I 1 `\1`` \ D I 1 i I / 1 1 Y 1 1 1 1 \ \�\ \ I i `�\ —1 I I III 9 6 \ ` \ I \� \ II , I I i 1 / \ \ \ I I 1 / / \ < EXIST. -- — — — / 1 I 1 / � \ \ I i • 1 I m `1 vool � o / ( I I I 1 / 992_\ \ \ 1 1 1 / 1* I I / / / / I I 1 I 1 9 � \\ I 1 / i / / I 1 ( I I I 7 (( \ \ \ \ 1 1 1 1 i - \ /O o / I I MH / 1 1 1 I VP r ( � \ \ \ \ \ I 1 1 �t " oo \\ ` li I I I 1 \\ \\ \ \\ \ 1 I II I / I O .-- I \ 1 1 5 \\ \ 1 1 I 1 / D ig \--,... ) I I‘ 1 \ 1 \\ I I \ I 1 \\ \� \I \ \ \�� \ ` • \\ 1 I 1 1 I I ^� 1 \ l 1 1 1 ` \ / \.\ \ \ \ \ 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\ ) / - \\ \\ I I I � 1 MINNESOTA 1 1 1 , i / \ I 1 1 l NEZ PERCE DRIVE 1 _ — � l .. 1 1 1 { I / / 1 `,', 1) / iii/ \ \� \ l ) j / I 1 t \ \ SANITARY SEWER a WATERMAIN i I - -- __ —_- j- • 1 1 1 I \ I 1 -996)) 1 I 1/ 1 1 \ - ALTERNATE A — — — -- , I \ \ /.. ' - - - - / I WILLIAM R. ENGLEHARDT ASSOC. , , i I 11 i , " ' - ----. / ) CONSULTING ENGINEERS /� / \ i I \ 1 ' / / / / / �i CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 DATE JUNE, 1992 SCALE. 1" = 50' DRAWING NO. 3 N Z N _ 1 O W W Lu a 117,,, > Q W ICI ILI =I— Ct3 Z0 a =Z° a�w a W 0w i rw � ooz Z 1 w Z ZZ oo0 � Za J W J � I 1 --' o O2 W > - CC __ -7-1- — ).- z� Z 1 °$ J �� T ; VIEW OAD s 0 R � a �a = y PI-e4. N =— - ° a j°°'\ I / A / / / — / / / \ 1 \ \ i I / // X /tip / / i/ � / --- .1 ) ' /\ __, / ...- , „.......>, \ / y / / __ . I i o // 1 I O 7 1 .- I .-- / (L// / / o / �° \ / \ J 1 ? 1 // \ \ AritvisT � N t Z i 1 I 0 i �� 1 \ \ /i , /1 • o 1 u Z I`l \ --- � iii/ , 7 y adas,2 ::_______ . _.--------==.....:__ ______ _ -7- - - - _ _ _ I - - ___- __-... 7.- - - - _ - - - - I /tea / _ / _ ~o • ' / l // iv / / / I / ■ -- -- --- .-- __ -- - - _ -- _ _ ..... --- // / / /// / / ; \ ,,� 1 ...) // / / ;1 / /; 1 1 1 I / 1 / 1 / / / r / / 1 1 F= r \ / 1 1 i 1 y . / / / W 1 1 1 1 STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION: 1 The storm sewer system proposed are best shown on 1 Drawings No. 5 and 6. 1 Presently this area is served by surface drainage with connection to ponds, culverts, and /or draintiles under existing roadways causing some erosion or minor 1 flooding of low areas. As part of the street construction we recommend installing a storm sewer 1 system to adequately provide for drainage of the area. The proposed storm sewer facilities accomplish two objectives: (1) Storm water runoff is controlled and collected within a piping system. (2) Improved drainage to ponding areas. 1 The storm sewer facilities have been designed on a 10- 1 year frequency storm, which is typical for this type of improvement. 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 -.......... "'"' N -. • ---` .., N , '9 $ S % \ . \ ∎ ' , -' I / / / EXIST RES ^ 1 4 / 1 1" t ' -,-_____ \-:-...- \ N, \ od ° \ VP -- _-...._, A-1_,C ----, -. - ---__-_,- ___-___.- „.„-- ,-________A 1 - - „ - -. -------....-- - • ._ \ \ \ ,00 I Alb ---- t. > _____j___,AAL ,- ' ___\<13 --- -.. `- .., \ \ CB 00 —0, • / -"--- _— N. ' � � \ \ \ 1 \ \ � CBI ''L / • ' �— � -- N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ _ _,_ \ _\ \ 1 __ , loos \ ■ \ 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ - -- \ \\, \ \ \` \\ 1 \ 1 \ \ \ / r _T L \ \\ \ \ 1 1 1 l \ \ \ 1 1 1 \ CONNECT TO \ \ \ \ \ � _1 \\I EXISTING CB MH \ \ \ (1 \ 1 1 \ � �,00q, ` \ \_/ \ 1 '0 i E %1ST, RES. 1 \ 1 \ \ 1 I \ \ I , / �`__� ,0002-- O _�, `_ \\ \ \ m \ 1 \ \ / — / @� 1 D I I 1 I I 1\ I/ �� \�� ■ 1 \ P \ Z. I 1 I I j I I I I \��\ I \ I —1 .JZ. -' / I 1 1 I 4 I 1 I I / 99 6- �_ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ 1 , � \ 1 / 1 I I I I I I I / \ \ 1 1. 1 1 r \ I — I EXIST. - - - - / / / 1 I 1 / 1 I 1 I ` / 99A " — \ \ 1 1 I • r m I I ' POOL / � 0 ti 0 / ! I o I I 1 / 9 q2 \ \ \ \ I 1 i I \ / 1 11 I ( / / 90 \\ \ 1 1 I 1 r \ / // / / I I 1 � \\ \ 1 111 / \ go o ` ''� 1 ( I 1 I I I I \ \\ \ \ \ 1 I I 1 I / l O �"- Z I 11 \ \ I 1 1 1 / 1 \\ it I 1 \\ I\ \ `� \\ \1\ \\ ` ;�� \\ i I I � I o f 1 \ \ 1 1 \ I \ \\ 1 1 -- 1 \ I I 1 1 \ / 1 s,'.. \ ` \ \ 1 11 i � CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 1 ■ 1 ■ j 1 I I\ � \ \ \ \, 1 11 1 1 MINNESOTA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I //1;, / �/\ ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 NE STORM SEWER C DRIVE __ _ I 1 I _ _ _ \ '-- WV/ 1 1 ) 1 1 I / 1 1 \ " _ ALTERNATE A — — — -- — I I I 1 I /-• — — 996 / / / / 1 \ - WILLIAM R. ENGLEHARDT AS j / /� /' ` 1 1 1 1 — — — ,/ / / � ■ CONSULTING ENGINEERS l 1 1 I \ 1 / / / / CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 DATE. JUNE, 1992 SCALE. 1' =50 • no A %A/IAI/] AV1 C Mill I - — 11111 r r w ■Ill NM In — ■r MN OM MO — MI In In MI NM i— N— EN — NE NM En NM MN i — • — OM -,,, \I , _ � � / / / EXIST RES. '^ ' \ r _ . • �� I mo - —' \ 1 ' I \ • wq q . A AIL • 9 \ � o �\ \ \ \ I CBI /0. 1 �� cA \ \ \ /o o� \ \ \ \\ I \ I -CONNECT TO 002 _ —__ — •_ % \�� _ � \ ` >> \\ \ \ \ i \ \ EXISTING C.8. M.H. ( _ ;1� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ — 1 \ _ � �\ \ \ \\ \ it J i- \ \ \ - ` \\ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ( 1 004 — _ , ,1/4. \ \ >t.. \ 1 1 \ 1 \ \ — • ` ` 1 \ \\ \ \ \ \ i 1 r i 1 \ 1 1 \ \ ``` \ \\ \ � [1_, 1 \ ` \ \ 1 11 1 —. EXIST. RES. 1 \ \ ` \ \ \ 1 // /� - -______=-110002 �`�.� \ \ \ r oo r .--/ — 1 \ \ 1 1 1 1 \ \ I -- — \ m 1 • \P I \ . i 1 1 , 1 i -- 1 , Z I I 1 i i i I 1 11111 ``�� --�� I '\ —� N. J -L - -- 1 1 I I I I I 9 9 6 " \ \\ 1 1 \ I 1 / I 11 \ /) 1 1 I J I I I / �� \ 1 1 1 /\ - I EXIST. - -- / / / / 1 / 1 I 1 I' / g9A ,\ \ 1 I I I 1 I I I POOL '.. I 1 2-----,. 1 III , / ` o / O / I I / / / 1 s / // // / 1 1 I I 1 1 I \ �\ \ \ l I I 1 1.i \__ -\/ e l 1 I I I I I 1 (\ \ \\ \ \ l 1 11 1 i _ 1 0oE ` I \_�/ 1 1 I 1 11 I I \ \ �N \\ \� \ I II I // p Z 1 \ 1 \ \ I I I D 1 \ I\ 1 1 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ . , . \\ 0 I I \ 1 \ 1 \\ 1 1 1 ____ _`� 11 \ 1 \ y 111 X 1 1 1 \ j \� \ \ I CITY OF CHANHASSEN \ ■ \ 1 11 1 1 1\ ` ) / \ 1 1 1 \ 1 1 il l MINNESOTA 1 �i / _ \ 1 I I 1 1 NEZ PERCE DRIVE / I 1 1 1 1 1 / �(( , �� i � i \ \ 1 1 1 / 1 0 1\ _ STORM ' SEWER > — — — — �! �_ i / , I I I \ ' / i 1 1 1) 1 / 1 I \ \ \ " ALTERNATE 8 — _ _ -- — — -- — / I I 1 \ \ 1 / / 9 / i / / 1 WILLIAM R. ENGLEHARDT ASSOC. , , / , I I 1 / — -- / 1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS /� / \ I ) I I \ / / 1 I • / / i i / / CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 _ D ATE JUNE, *992 SCALE. I' =50 ` • 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX A DETAILED COST ESTIMATE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ALTERNATE A II NEZ PERCE DRIVE 1 STREET CONSTRUCTION: Common Excavation 1,672 C.Y. @ $ 3.00 /C.Y. = $ 5,016 I 1 -1/2" Bituminous Wearing Course 2,721 S.Y. @ $ 3.00 /S.Y. = $ 8,163 II 2" Bituminous Base Course 329 Tons @ $ 30.00 /Ton = $ 9,870 Bituminous II Tack Coat 136 Gals @ $ 1.00 /Gal = $ 136 12" CL. 5 1 Aggregate Base 2,103 Tons @ $ 8.00 /Ton = $16,824 Concrete II Surmountable Curb 1,730 L.F. @ $ 6.00 /L.F. = $10,380 5' Concrete Driveway Aprons 200 S.F. @ $ 9.00 /S.F. = $ 1,200 I Gravel Driveways 711 S.Y. @ $ 7.00 /S.Y. = $ 4,977 1 Sod with 4" Topsoil 1,755 S.Y. @ $ 2.00 /S.Y. = $ 3,510 I Seed with Mulch 0.50 Acres @ $2,000.00 /Acre = $ 1,000 Erosion Control, Type III 790 L.F. @ $ 5.00 /L.F. = $ 3,950 II Total Construction Cost = $65,026 I Add: 30% for Engineering, Legal, Administration, and Miscellaneous = $19,508 II Total Project Cost = $84,534 1 1 A -1 I 1 II II ALTERNATE A II NEZ PERCE DRIVE II SANITARY SEWER: 1 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer II 0' -10' Depth 340 L.F. @ $ 20.00 /L.F. = $ 6,800 Manholes II (0'-10' Deep) 3 Each @ $1,500.00 /Each = $ 4,500 Manhole Chimney Seals (Furnish Only) 3 Each @ $ 400.00 /Each = $ 1,200 Connect to Existing Manhole 1 Each @ $ 250.00 /Each = $ 250 II Trench Rock 36 Tons @ $ 10.00 /Ton = $ 360 II Total Construction Cost = $13,110 Add: 30% for Engineering, II Legal, Administration, and Miscellaneous = $ 3,933 Total Project Cost = $17,043 I II II II II II A -2 1 II 11 1 ALTERNATE A NEZ PERCE DRIVE 1 WATERVIAIN: 8" DIP, CL. 52 Watermain 320 L.F. @ $ 16.00 /L.F. = $ 5,120 6" Valves 1 Each @ $ 500.00 /Each = $ 500 8" Valves 1 Each @ $ 650.00 /Each = $ 650 Hydrant 1 Each @ $1,500.00 /Each = $ 1,500 1 Fittings 735 Lbs. @ $ 2.00 /Lb. = $ 250 1 Total Construction Cost = $ 9,490 Add: 30% for Engineering, Legal, Administration, 11 and Miscellaneous = $ 2,847 1 Total Project Cost = $12,337 1 1 1 1 1 1 A -3 1 1 1 ALTERNATE A 1 NEZ PERCE DRIVE 1 STORM SEWER: 1 Catch Basin, 4' Diameter 4 Each @ $ 800.00 /Each = $3,200 1 12" RCP, CL. 5 (0' -6' Depth) 180 L.F. @ $ 18.00 /L.F. = $3,240 Connect to Existing Catch Basin Manhole 1 Each @ $ 250.00 /Each = $ 250 Total Construction Cost = $ 9,490 Add: 30% for Engineering, Legal, Administration, and Miscellaneous = $ 2,847 1 Total Project Cost = $12,337 1 1 1 1 1 1 A -4 1 1 11 II I ALTERNATE B NEZ PERCE DRIVE II STREET CONSTRUCTION: Clear and 1 Grub Trees 0.17 Acres @ $1,200.00 /Acre = $ 204 Common Excavation 1,550 C.Y. @ $ 3.00 /C.Y. = $ 4,650 1 Common Borrow 809 C.Y. @ $ 4.00 /C.Y. = $ 3,236 1 -1/2" Bituminous II Wearing Course 1,378 S.Y. @ $ 3.00 /S.Y. = $ 4,134 2" Bituminous Base Course 167 Tons @ $ 30.00 /Ton = $ 5,010 I Bituminous Tack Coat 68 Gals @ $ 1.00 /Gal = $ 168 I 12" CL. 5 Aggregate Base 1,065 Tons @ $ 8.00 /Ton = $'8,520 ' Concrete Surmountable Curb 832 L.F. @ $ 6.00 /L.F. = $ 4,992 II Sod with 4" Topsoil 978 S.Y. @ $ 2.00 /S.Y. = $ 1,956 II Seed with Mulch 0.34 Acres @ $2,000.00 /Acre = $ 680 Erosion Control, II Type III 400 L.F. @ $ 5.00 /L.F. = $ 2,000 Total Construction Cost = $35,450 1 Add: 30% for Engineering, Legal, Administration, and Miscellaneous = $10,635 II Total Project Cost = $46,085 II II II A -5 II II ALTERNATE B II PEACEFUL LANE STREET CONSTRUCTION: II Common Borrow 1,000 C.Y. @ $ 4.00 /C.Y. = $ 4,000 Common Excavation 705 C.Y. @ $ 3.00 /C.?. = $ 2,115 1 -1/2" Bituminous 11 Wearing Course 1,584 S.Y. @ $ 3.00/S.Y. = $ 4,752 2" Bituminous 1 Base Course 193 Tons @ $ 30.00 /Ton = $ 5,790 Bituminous Tack Coat 79 Gals @ $ 1.00 /Gal = $ 79 II 12" CL. 5 Aggregate Base 1,224 Tons @ $ 8.00 /Ton = $ 9,792 II Concrete Surmountable Curb 920 L.F. @ $ 6.00 /L.F. = $ 5,520 II 5' Concrete Driveway Aprons 200 S.F. @ $ 6.00 /S.F. = $ 1,200 Gravel Driveways 711 S.Y. @ $ 7.00/S.Y. = $ 4,977 Sod with 4" II Topsoil 1,022 S.Y. @ $ 2.00/S.Y. = $ 2,044 Erosion Control, II Type III 330 L.F. @ $ 5.00 /L.F. = $ 1,650 Total Construction Cost = $41,919 II Add: 30% for Engineering, Legal, Administration, and Miscellaneous = $12,575 II Total Project Cost = $54,394 II II A -6 1 11 11 I ALTERNATE B NEZ PERCE DRIVE II II SANITARY SEWER: 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer II 0' -10' Depth 280 L.F. @ $ 20.00 /L.F. = $ 5,600 Manholes (0' -10' Deep) 1 Each @ $1,500.00 /Each = $ 1,500 I Manhole Chimney Seals (Furnish II Only) 1 Each @ $ 400.00 /Each = $ 400 Connect to II Existing Manhole 1 Each @ $ 250.00 /Each = $ 250 Trench Rock 30 Tons @ $ 10.00 /Ton = $ 300 II Total Construction Cost = $ 8,050 Add: 30% for Engineering, I Legal, Administration, and Miscellaneous = $ 2,415 1 Total Project Cost = $10,465 II II II II II A -7 1 1 1 ALTERNATE B NEZ PERCE DRIVE 1 WATERMAI N _ 1 8" DIP, CL. 52 Watermain 270 L.F. @ $ 16.00 /L.F. = $ 4,320 1 6" Valves 1 Each C $ 500.00 /Each = $ 500 8" Valves 1 Each 0 $ 650.00 /Each = $ 650 1 Hydrant 1 Each $1,500.00 /Each = $ 1,500 Fittings 415 Lbs. @ $ 2.00 /Lb. = $ 830 1 Connect to 11 Existing Watermain 1 Each @ $ 250.00 /Each = $ 250 Total Construction Cost = $ 8,050 Add: 30% for Engineering, Legal, Administration, and Miscellaneous = $ 2,415 Total Project Cost = $10,465 1 1 1 1 1 A -8 1 1 1 • 1 ALTERNATE B NEZ PERCE DRIVE 1 1 STORM SEWER: Catch Basin, 1 4' Diameter 3 Each @ $ 800.00 /Each = $2,400 12" RCP, CL. 5 1 (0' -6' Depth) 130 L.F. @ $ 18.00 /L.F. = $ 2,340 Connect to Existing Catch Basin Manhole 1 Each @ $ 250.00 /Each = $ 250 Total Construction Cost = $ 4,990 ' Add: 30% for Engineering, Legal, Administration, and Miscellaneous = $ 1,497 Total Project Cost = $ 6,487 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A -9 1 :' 0642i93 09:36 V612 546 0321 FORT LEK Axt•n - - F ORTIER & ASSOCIATES. INC. A RCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DEF ' June 22, 1993 II Mr. Frank Beddor, Jr. 1 7951 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, Minn. 55317 ., , II _ 1 .. i . := v = :_ . - - -- ::::2-"i: 3 . Lear Frank: As requested, I have verified at the site the existing conditions ;:�r the extension of Peaceful Lane to serve the S raacel. mis II ' occupy a portion of your property, tree 5, o reach Owens' ena II Specific a..�_.._ __ tter been paid to tree sizes, attention has grading. A partial site plan is attacher? .. fo: VC'2r use $iC re'ile: :. From the previous survey by _ II :: a � ...:.�,: L ansen Thorp Pell inen Olsen Inc., , J - fr. that this road extension will rise 20 also presents 6 -S•fi. (a 10.5 grade). The 50 ft. rig 11 all trees within the right -of -way will be lost. they do assure that sideslope. While these conditions are buildable, given e t gentle grade, say 7 %, it is highly likely probable desire for amore g II that additional trees will be lost. lose _ i• the B eddor Lot 5 will lose _ - I_ is my f=Tdings that II and Owens Lot 6 will lose 13 significant � contrast, pry "; 1:: : :,g FC - L trees. ^ C � tree_ - cess of Lake Lucy road wc__ r_5:._.. 1:. = � - I ssignificant tees lost. Given this significant loss of mature trees, you should recue3 t t y a - low their guidelines requiring inch per :ac e s eat t Should the City fol_ questions, please do not hesitate tc call. ,�; , a you have any q •_ . �_ II . .�',-----% II o- T 1BI __= . _ 2 . , 1111 i 1 \... . 4 1 ... , \ c v ;: - ... i.F..,--v. \ vea, 1 zz.-..: cs . ' r'' ; 1 V \ 7-0 \ it It 1P4401- i 1 1 . 1 II CO \ 1 1: . \ \ / 0 i 1 ,- a , \ z , ••• t • •11/ I., ..t a., .••• . • .../ Y. . . ...a •••• -.I Z ■l■ 1 1 I . • 0 ...., ■ :.... :1---,...:. -. ... . -- , .-- . I ■ \ 0 \ gt .1 1 i • , 0 04.14\ 1. • : .... \ 0 I \ L. \ 1 44-...4:1 Q ad 't • CWEEKS -: At k\ \ , si '1 \ 1 \ 5 BP-1 • \V" ehq V- \ 4 ....1_ oi-r.... • , 1 \ ‘ ,i 1, 1 . . _ .. - — -- • _ , i• 1 - - 1 . a , • ;a ....„:. 54. uclics ‘'. : P.— • 1 O Li i 0 l 1 i • 1 1,11 4.0 1 ,.......... SURVEY OF PM TING TREES I ...„ I -:- FORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC. LOTS 5 & 6 . architecture planning interiors — ----- _ I 408 TURNPIKE ROAD GOLDEN VALLEY, MINN. 55416 VINELAND • co., ci 1 - 04 16121 503 1255 DATE .vrto-rti-V% • . • '' 0 ' '• . • • • • • . • ., ‘ ' .. •• ••• . ■• P . . . .. . ■ • • ' • •• • 4 ', ' . . .. . .: 4 . : • ...' . . . ' •-•••••............. • • t , - 1, ... 0 "..... ".""."".. , ..,,,..... • l' ......,%::* ... .::... ... :. . - .. . . ' .... ; ..." .."..**' • ' . ".': ; ' " • .. ••• •:": ' ,V:: • :::::.7 . ■•••••*•••••••!, • •_,.,. • • oit ; ., '• •• .10 ,..:,....., , .. • . . , lo ,.. 4 • . . .- . .... .....s. PI .....i...b....,../ ,..; , A...... L..... . 0. Pi..4.k. , .. t .. p 7. 4 ..1 :1 : ( / :.c,; .... . ' • 1 %, ', ' •• 4 ". 14 ., ‘ .. • .... ......" . . .,. . ' , • , f ; :. ; • ••• . a ... ‘: ■ • . ' '• • f ,...,..,.......0•••• / • ..!. ...• t , :" . . ,C. ' ..; ..6,..'• ,.i '0 d,.. :PIM 4. . • .1 1 .• ,, ••, 4.0‘..1:y":14•.;P . 01'.•. . i...;l . :•'? .(;..ii :,... J.,,,WA . • , qt .... / , • , ..„-,,, .„, , ... , • . . , .. , ,., . . e• ••••• - l ,A. t, : ,.." i l •' 7 l'ZIP. 6 II •.." w I ‘ —0..... 4 ,........--- . ••••••••••...........,..........."....** VZt* ..• •-• .. ,.....,• .......-. . „..... .......o..... '"' ..... . • •• ........ ii ,... .....---- f■—.,...-.• 677w..,. li _..... (0,1 • ) .... — • .... f ... --------- I IIIP 1 V..$ . t T • v. \ . .... \ k, 0 . 9 . ....... 0 . i lio,,,, ‘• .. , . , to 1 vao.• 3 t .., t• • ''' '''. .............0... ......ao,•". •••■14' 1 ....... .......- yi.. ....... ..1 • $ i ...., . Vk • 7 it: IN NI 1 . , • •• .... ,,, %. .... t il *---............. /1 , • '''.. ....„ —........—.--...-- -.4 PP. . • -"'""................... ; s •-.. 1 ''•-• P CIP sti 8 r u. , ...., lic . • , ? o x 30 & el 2it ili IA -- 7:2 c e 0 iN) k151 .t, .6. - • '.? 11 . * ' lo • 0 1■2 ,%-' ow I:7 67." -14' r si..P C' I .tow r .. • ,it E s. c•A 1 Z 40 az ■ ta "WM ..4 Z .11 0 I I I • 0 211E qt 4 • ( tx, 6‘ „.. 1---- .. , • ,.., . .4, e. ... •,.. ..,,, , ..., t::) (Nt , \I' .. r . k ..... ._. ... . :Pp ., .. . . . . •• . . . • • . ' ''' ''" • -". • t. * .'' ' . ' , , . . ' ..l e.- ' ' - :k • • . ; .1.•• • 1`P) ..4 .,. ''''''‹ - P* - t! h.. '1, 741 . ; -,,-, •. .y.i.:r. •:,:. ....,„, ... 1 . • , ‘ l •• ... , .. ';'. ")... .. '... , .• t ' • l' ! rt '. 1 • - 1 • — k •• e l 1 8 • t ..) 1, P , , ;.•.1, 1, .1 . 1 , ,. •, ..., • lt1"' • •. . .P.. P . 4, ' .: . : . . ' • ..'''''" - .- —• ." .., :.• ' . . .. . .... • . . ........' • . • • , 0 1 . '.- NC:7 1 - i r 1 MN 1111111 - INS "1 - 111111 .- 11111111 ". . MB 1E1r - NMI NM .--. 1.11 • 101111 - 11111111 - - ME MIN 111111-- ••••■•■■■••■ ... - ..,.. 2 I 1 ,..;.•,), , i , - • • • r' al imi., i di ,......ui, ...-is . .g--,4 . s . mbi -*.- • 1 . .n , ? *,,, '410 " 1 A my WO 41 4t ig in 1 ••• • ' 00' njarlir „ / t o Elsa 'fite.‘Ns igs pqr*, 1113,..,.. eigilo41- rekiA.1- 1 .- , 4 i t tr o w ioAvIral,e4 unal::-,1... , i ptv i i i r iti, tow i4_,,, 04 , .1.4...,4::sf 42 :,.. is. Atrairwil"" wt.- -- . '-; ..44■\ to. *111 F411r tiNtrieltAiDlialitl. 4 :61P gat* 04 tviT m beak .>„- 4V, . . sar . VV_Atmal awl Nticoonai SIX / ir-S 4 \ –_• Imira2im Ea Not _ , .. AIWA' '". I 'A tier4V ; IP I NI . 11 111;1 11 i • 1 , • .. . -: . . - 1110), 4 4Am HSI I ktalti A ---1 —11 ' .1 '74' ',. ar 1 NIL % m , ',‘ ..- ,. . likru 2 - , E '°>..,.. 1 "° i - 0 Z aL k 111L - - ligitrO 2 --■ziga l‘ ' 3 : , , is) . I". , w olf v , . ,. fil M -. : . _bra Ali r ID 9111 t447;>..., ■,_4101*--,(100:? ,. . •,. ' ....1 1!f I il!-----b- likt,-'411redleA AVW, /16.- .• .4. •k itari: P ''' . 4 041111 lek r .1 ui ..4:, .., I •.4 \.. IA , 491p /1/4 li 41.11100, I 1 - --- "valliliggirAte• `'. . - x-fi.: , , . - , : i t !! . .1; - .------ o to____...f•-•_,,,,, , ,I.., 1 1;r .- I,- tb ,' .,* , /_ At . .,........„.. ,,,..• v 1 m_f.-- .---. \ , ! .• v ir if ., ..-.--- .-..:.,- ,...... • , ,..,. , t * _,--- --------; , . 1.1 ." • . • '''' ' 4 w -, •,----- ‘I, .v Vr 4. ,,, '‘‘. ‘.,,,* , . I ' d \ i "".“ 4' :. 4 \ - ' . . ''''-' ' ' ° ',..., t t ' \‘ \ $ s -i i •• - 1. if. '' ol 00` ; \ Oc \ I • 4. ,,....- , . ., _,... i! \-->"- - ' ifICA\ . /NO % • V% 0 to o - ■ • . .... , 1 . . .:: ... ,„. : CC ! • ,..1W - ") 4. . A W /811/0",7: Oa '..* Alla IR \ " --' \ at', i. w J • , • • ;NZ pr V,11 0 /07 1 0 - '= .. 14‘I t ' ''.:-.' : 1 - - % ' gill!' -- INI•,;. . . 1 ... f ; i - , ; , ,. i d .. ....\-- . au t 8 .'14 c , ,„. ell , r_____ j --, . i w . L7- ' • . , 7:- 1 . -:- - till,* ifigail 17-. all ,, / , I * _ • , • LI,11 • '. -- i 1 I r^t • LI i 'it . -,, / - - • irt lir tz. . . "'I ---- ILA Ilt 411141;'../1' /,`", 1 -.• A4 i j _.... LA . 1, 01. . 1 - _ ;.....,. , , . , - 11111121M v1 ,,, 1._. 71, ell . t' ' i•-• ,Z 1- " ii ki , i‘ .Ir ll .- , . ' 0* 3 . WPM! • l ig 4 -a . - . N. II ,, ..!..:7 , . • .1 ,, Plan ) . 4 ° A - 1 " t • 1 %.,...(r ° • 4 1 \ -... -i. ..„. I. t,_ ---=.------ t .... PE, All i..,..._ ---_....: jmik - c ILO* v 4ir ------;:---:: MED 01111111P,1154 Es Eff.10-E-_L • . O. 1 0 r-41 ..MI - ' '' :. 11. BECIPOIM " ELM- L-1511--- 11 " itt V4 r 414 111 i I I 1 I 41 , ' 4t141;; till ' •- 4 1" . Tx. ' ‘,:, ',2.,i,!••• , , j..4. Ag.gnit1- PAl•- ,=-----:-. -- .----.-- tri- -40 Ip -L; . _____ ° • '':. t.! . kr k._4_iimaftr rATT- :.•-•---. 3 V* 4"iliolu 1 ' '..- ' '4 ‘''''ses V.i." 1 0 REPN&,_ EA r ,o1M 111 -- 1: : • irif - Zi;VV 1 7A11. , .efan • ' ReitIO : : . „ ' . '. t; --.'",'.- 1 r - - -t„,: op, -,;,,,r r 1 4 -: - 7 -•;., --. ---- - a .-- -- :.---_ -22 .i.iYfxr,13.,,„*.ftrA - m tio , . ---- ,-----; , 1. - 7 t ., . ...„., , , ,,,_'c;) - i 7 ..c.,-' W- _ - esL - „O_PIA V ....... I -,,,, i , ,;i ":0%:.„,,: -, -.• . ,t ,. ---.7:i . -: g - H.-:-=-- -- ; --=_•.:-A 1 7 -,,,•*1 tau L ag ar & ) .....n .. • J k ...,7n. , _ .‘,._::,, vii,... ..,......_.3..w..... viar.77,177wr,c,4,,,,i,•,..„ * ' ' '' It L . ' - 4, 4 4 - r- ..• ,.$ ,._ - 1 _ 1 - _.- ;.---- •,7 - .Arli •7** Clt.1 e 4 gi,.._-.__ -- - . - . 1 1 _ . _ 1 !_,'`:.ti. • , -. 1 ' 46■ It 1 . 0 ; - : 4 . . 4 :4-Iy•:: 4, "'s;wri& 1 '• I% I : w wzizj rail =.* ,,,!,-,- . • t ft etp . .tvwgrirmalear . .., , ,,,,,,,,.. Inolp.- .--::: 4 • tA: - Lze.,' • ' -. 0 > 1,• SO ' . • -":1' ? ,• rvi. rig , . "Ito' Et pe,„„6„0 .k w Eglovi,,c .„,,, ,...01--- / ,. ..ear as _A s - vi(:V9'e,4- 4 0 rs_srl A ti _A- ' - . ‘: .' ..-.-53,-r? . F.-fe : L.Ari P r - afirMq- d- ',! -'4- Tlik VAV;r .„,„,, ..700...,„„,,,,,,c,,:_,,,,, ,;„:„......,,,,,,,_,:,,_„,,,,,, ..-• ,p,k „„,,--- ..))„ 1 -_,..„.... ,,,,,„„ V e ; ••=11 lir\ Vtirihr2: . 11iiV a'"--N.•,a6:-''' ' ' . Ve d' 'V" "me FA irt -,,, 4 , 4 ,,,... t biz% -sr* e 44 I> i st • - '.. . Ala ..: i . V - ... I - . illito, l o s - WIT 7 4 : 1W-_raTI,,, 4 ., p - Ci!, , .,kttforti , AfirM,„ sitv: 4!-MM .m.v .. 4 ,‘'.:.!- -. ..t ..:,-.' • .: 4.:,i,Ati.:,-ii,-.41., - . 4RII A Witilk 1-4 ,---: '• ...'''Z : 17 , v 1 :1 • V Lail' Efflp, ..‘ •. ..-;'-- ,, — -.... 1 .,.,,t7, , s: _. 4111151trk,1!:.1. I _ 1 i A ft 0, iti3a , ..,..'.4.-..ni, •-• I VI ..-:'. '• \ '''' M . ..VAC :- 0 _iiiii % ' ' ''' .' - . •te- v ` I • IP :* ? LIJ ...... .....i :: . gi kma ,4, wol I - \ • . - . ':...::.' CO 0061treillierA . ,e' , irri 0 .,,-.., • , ,...,:.1,4k, itt .,,‘„ ■_ CC . -7 I . .c. •4- i . 1 1-, .• - , • "..- -- \ !' I , ------____ - s■r .11141"0:71,7,m ,, .,' , A.-..w. , , 111147 i We " .1---....:ste, k‘ • I E- -;•••• v= ,' 4 ...--,------. 0- ...'• • • -.t. - i _ ' .."_.,,_-•/__/ _ia•,•.,/ * -,--,....„--- ---.,..--:-•,-;‘.-...- • e? . ir 4 f , I - -; • 0 •„. , i \ _, )6, ' S +.,:‘, - --;- ,c. . • :. - - , _ . .. 1. ,,,, , : ,._;.• - li - i 11,4 4 , .. . iiiiiii, . . . th ._. . . • - • A ,o V, -A\ tc-4 . " - Vt . '" -, i 6,, rr„,4 .7„;•..4.4,t,,.., , .0\ \‘,,,,,.... ,...A .. ••■■■ . 1 .1 'Tr SON* Illi T/7 . A - I . '''''' 4 1 \:: : : 1 . ' %. 01. sam 'ig ' I' r 1.0 :.. ,' ' ' ..1 1 ':, 'al IDIPATIC.;; , .4/M * A, ,i,.. ,. , ES . " , , I til t,ELLIZ . v , ....1 : 1 , `. i i; i , r .= • .70,;.;,-... „„,.., ne ,..,,,- N '.V . -1 1. .": 4- .-•••• - air i f tt =.= `".-• -, .'" I I N`7' 'i • &lir -I b t , ...orittral lose ,%-k-- s.- . -..ilictrit-__4 ...I _ , - 14: 11 11,1 .= . . 47: /0 - } : _ " AU} - . abk1741 [R01/.7//// t ‘ : -: ‘ • -1. 11-1 Il , I /,. ! 0- I • ' 31 ••• •• • I • '.. l' - '• \'''17/:;/,(4 - ,., - i , . • A . • . • - r ' 1.1 W " ', ". --- " 1 - • rq .1 „.1.. •-•:: :- ay. t' - • ' ilIngliribi Alti■it ' k .. 7 i'r.l (i I r . 11 -. . 1 . . ,I, , ",...44". • . r N ON I 0113 • ili , 01° °II° V 0 . .,• J ..N . ‘. -- • .=-..... 14V4, - - • i 1 :ppm, ---__ .-__-_-_-:_---_-_- ... 4. - - -tl letr.i .:: - ' 4 ronnoriwo go lag. = - ' iativffordi ,.4 . „ 14 .... li ‘, 00., . ,. ..,....4.- 4 ■ wa I 4 52;;; . • : • ! ' . ' /L„,.......-.44ra WEI ..4m- -1C--... AO *** I .11:= - M. PAS 47/1031111:;.11510 ' 7 ; , ---:: • g z .. 4; „_,k, - . 4 pveltKripz i -i s ks ., --4- - =--_ -,,,-----:- r wan* voi!,:04,04,k, -1" --- % '- - J ----z- • - F.9 E.IgiI ,-,„. 1 t ..,- -- - . - .--L 0.-&12,..--- ,tilirA rp MILI rApp=0 4 r • ' '''' c4 4.,.,,•:,,,T,,l -.. ,.., r yp.1,-.L.---_-_--=i-_--1::-_-_ .„--_-..- r-..it_..a..1. t,....,, ...04 J. V /VIPS . - - - t 7 i :70K fP.!: ' . .4".. , - : It....W - ' ' VL•W . tt. 4 ' . ' Z. ' ' r- =--: .- '-' E LL 7. 4=2- 1 -: - - - -=-- -r- "-=.- ---1-COgietilgo. il dw ina tela gli kl 4 " • !rik ... ...• % s.:. 4p.i t. - iv r . t ..\ N. -•-.:;..- • .--:••----' - _ - _-:. - IF. - -:r,- - -,; •,,Vri j r 1 - `t::.• .t• t- 1 .4...--- ‘. * • • -..- • - - . - .. . . . . ._. _. • . . - ' .:: ' " Azi. .?.4 J` - Ps * * ./. - ' — - -- i .- '''''. ""'-.- - - • ',air • ..- •-- -.:•;•,. I_ Is 4. I - - III \ - .. -- - .41 ,e '' &Ili A ' ' . f i IS 7 • • '0,fir." ' •'",`, • ' 7 te, :.! 4 ‘7, rfi „IMMiiiie: ""‘ L.::.1 . i 1 1: •,:‘ ,.. 44 t.V14' „lei' ' .-- ;Plyiuctrioo,.. t;m44411,,I.:,.. • ...._ . ... - ''-- • ' ' ____ • _. — .i.v,. • ,•L; %.%; „or" ,,,-- \ ..,imr.. i 3i - , le, ' ' .r.. A. 1 I r m In r ID e � { t ` I ! i! I i C p 7 i g ` f Wy ' O 1' Vf O O Ay i< 3 g o f s >si y , Erti i t s` i g p i N 1� g l J W! g= b ¢ 0 F.-I..; i 8 2 ZO ... I ! aRc) li E T 1 8 8 m V Z I ce -;.=.. 0. 8 tt X 03 a m ; g OW P r S Z (1) m y p. ;� v O a i ui I '" 3 ...„ 0 4 1 " r a N ae ma. =: 1 a Z E2 �1 a O O W i1 go - v z y a m :':,**** "r ri..6 cs i pO • 1 ccrrY OF TYPICAL STREET 1 l iC - P''. .e ci CHANHASSZN RESiDE REVISED 2 -91 2 -93 DATE 5-89 PLA NO. v7 5200 ,I EXHIBIT G 1 i ae H H s. V go cr 1 p* 0 0 } ° i 62 oN 06 E 3 8 8 8 °� I gc a 8 r W co' t+o Q . 6 i 1 g t g • • • z a ` } U :0 Zs- i * E 0 A a I o x. � � Li i. IA: N d0 O Q i W — �- !V ham- pm z �� o� Ny I 1 :: W C < I J m • �m r �/ O 1 cc ;sN, iLI ii a e1 `t a s NI Peg im 0 t III � m th I I ,j, CITY OF 1 • l& ,r. • TYPICAL STREET . CH 1 COMMERCIAL REWSED 2 -91 DATE I 2 -93 PLATE NO. 5201 1 -} it 4 4 .. ATI _ .. -- ^ te ^$• :- Eater• 7- .. - ',77.7.7.- i . ._ J -t7_i +� � _ fh c 'S ° T r � Y; 1. • - y f� "'; e - rv'; •rr `*: _ -. _. "� ii., , _ :. May ,W or Chmiel:-- I know t li at least - 3 of us that sat on this particular proposal when it s:iaa•Moillei : years ago , : cn t3ow- there j ne -the real sijo - f sDl it ~s" 't' � ma 't ahe. an ea'i3aA:: S,PtiG > iassnot- h- ioMbing r or to?do.._ I*,hiek_tthat while• -that property was -going to. be -developed accordingly t he•otbe ';land° rights would automatically come back to the city for that proposed road. Has .tit- B ddor purchased the. property from Mr. Owens yet? I - Paul Krauss: Yes. - is _'a eddy alone = Okay - _ • ._ _ _ � ,. "tiayor'C ++� - =- - - - 11-...: : 'P1 rauss • es.:t s y� ulyderst ai� °# ha a was ;h { . f►9 t�'#� t 4�4�1'ed "t hropg�,* be - '°` Ibankruptcy,p oceeding - - L ,. _ Mayor Chmiel: Wel hat condemnation portion •stillbothers'me.j •:- don't like if: I don't think we should have to throw away dollars..dI think 'that's a I ...developer's _responsibility basically. To put that in. I don't see why the City or anybody else should-have to pick .up those costs for that road. I°think that was... _. • I (There bras a tape change at this point in the discussion.) - • Daryl Fortier: ..:we don't want to consider that alternative is the topography III to4he = south -of --the y -water ._tower.,is,.prohibitive. And that grade change that you - - were showing earlier tonight is a reason that we view taking our cul -de -sac south out onto Lake Lucy Road is being inappropriate in addition to the neighbors and other constituents and voters in your city and taxpayers feeling pi pretty strongly, from our feedback, that they don't want to see that happen. What we're really here discussing tonight is one resident's wishes versus another. developer's desire and some long term promises made by staff to very I many Chanhassen residents. •I don't feel particular•strongly personally about " =- -this extension. --I 'don't see that • it directly' affects our plat. ' Ve -have access - .to - Peaceful -Lane. 'Our plat can -go through without that extension: • 'So I don't • _want to see the misrepresentation made that these two iteas-needto-be tied — toget her --- T - heyr - don'- tAaeed = ao4ie�: , led- legetberr- *ltnfortaarateiy =therseee - µbefore you at the same .time. That's all-I have. •- I Mayor Chmiel: -Thank you. "' i'Shgrry-$JoVetbek: My name is Sherry Novachek. I'd just like to start out and I say it is not just one resident who's very concerned about this. I live on Pleasant cove, rich is right .o.ff Pleasaat -View -'Road and .2 weeks ago 2' damghter..almost-got•4ill.eit gel ting ,school - bus. — -I was -*ere w4- rss go - .w - hen-we discussed the danger :of •extending more cars onto Pleasant View Road. I There have _been several accidents since-that -time..- 1) ne - bead- on--collision this - last winter. ; It is a very narrow, busy, over used road right - now' and •ass TH 101 --- is. and - Crosstown. cones *in; It we - extend Nez 9erce it going to become I more and sore - traffic used :. I think there are hardships to builders' but I think - the lives of children and •peaple. to come over that.' My daughter got off - '�theJ,us and a"sp1easanf -dew : Roati dud "i'n sto Pleasant_ Vle_w_Cove; e's an - - extrede;-:extreme blind spot. 'Several car accidents happen almost every year. •..There'.s.extr�eme blind spots and curves all the way around and I� think., you know ' we talked just a little while ago;about•the developments that are occurring. I • 27 EXHIBIT E ;M June 22, 1993 If FORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN Mr. Frank Beddor, Jr. 7951 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen, Minn. 55317 RE: OWENS PROPERTY ACCESS GRADES COMM: 91 -04 Dear Frank: 1 As requested, I have reviewed the alternate access locations for the Owens property. Specific attention has been given to grading difficulties as this issue has been raised several times. PEACEFUL LANE 10.5% Access via extending Peaceful Lane can be achieved but it will be disruptive to existing trees, with a significant loss (22 trees). To minimize the loss, the slope would have to be about 10.5% for about 180 ft. Generally, this is considered too steep. A much more desirable slope is about 7 %, which would extend about 270 ft. This would present some difficulties in driveway slopes and would destroy additional trees but can be done. LAKE LUCY ROAD 5.3% Access off Lake Lucy Road is readily achieved without difficulty and losses only 2 marginal trees. The slope of the road would be about 5.3% for about 200 ft. The road would also provide an 80 ft. flat stopping area at Lake Lucy Road. The topography in this are is very adaptable and construction would be very simple, almost ideal. NEZ PERCE DRIVE 5.5% ' Access via extending Nez Perce, as shown on The Solution ", is also readily achieved. The slope of the road would be about 5.5% for 1 about 150 ft. There would be some loss of about 4 significant trees, and numerous pines would have to be relocated. As you know, relocating large pines can be very rewarding as you can readily achieve a more finished, mature setting for future homes. Frank, it is very clear that access off Lake Lucy is the least disruptive and most desirable location in terms of construction and si e impact. -ours ► / ANIV i 1 Daryl C. Fort er 408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) 593 -1255 EXHIBIT F1