Loading...
8. Preliminary Plate to subdivide Tower Heights O 1 CITYOF 1 HANAEN CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 14 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission 1 FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I QL Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer 1 DATE: August 13, 1993 I SUBJ: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 7.1 Acres into 13 Single Family Lots, Tower Heights Addition, JMS Development. I On July 21, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat proposal for Tower Heights Addition to subdivide 6.1 acres into 13 single family lots. The Planning Commission tabled action on the proposal as there were issues related to grading and tree removal raised by I the Planning Commission that needed to be resolved before a vote could be taken. The applicant was directed to meet with staff to resolve those issues of concern. 1 Issue: . The grading plan that was originally submitted appeared to remove the majority of the 1 trees on site. Those plans also failed to show which trees were proposed to be removed and which were proposed to be kept. A reforestation plan was also missing. 1 Solution: I On August 13, 1993, staff met with the applicant. The issue of mass grading the site was raised and to eliminate this problem, the use of retaining walls along Tower Heights Drive was discussed. The applicant agreed to submit new plans on August 17, 1993, showing I the location of the retaining walls. The impact this will have on the trees on Lots 1, 12, and 13 will be considerable. Also, the applicant agreed to custom grade Lots 12 and 13. Possible house pads will be submitted at the next Planning Commission meeting. 1 Issue: I The second issue that was raised at the meeting was a tree inventory and reforestation plan. 1 1 .1 Planning Commission ' August 13, 1993 Page 2 1 Solution: I The applicant has submitted a plan that shows the location of the trees on the site. Trees that are proposed to be saved have been circled. The inventory does not include total inch caliper that will be lost due to the grading. The applicant will submit a list that will I include tree species, inch caliper, trees saved, and trees lost. This list will also include the total inch caliper replaced. Staff will have a chance to review this list before the August 18, 1993, Planning Commission meeting, and comments will be provided. The I city can require caliper replacement of trees. Custom grading on Lot 12 is required to allow the site to be prepared for the individual I house rather than mass grading the site at the beginning of the project. The same condition will apply to Lot 13 should the applicant resolve the grading and frontage issues. 1 Issue: I Lot 13 has a street frontage of 75 feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 90 foot frontage. 1 Solution: The applicant has agreed to submit modified plans reflecting a 90 foot lot frontage on Lot 1 13. This will be accomplished by moving the side lot line between Lots 12 and 13 to the south. 1 Issue: A petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been requested for the I extension of Nez Perce. I Solution: Pursuant to the City Attorney's Office, the City Council will determine if it is warranted l to prepare an EAW for the extension of Nez Perce which will coincide with this project of Tower Heights. Approval of this project by the City Council is contingent upon satisfactory resolution of the Nez Perce issue. Since the City Council has not yet acted I upon the EAW petition, it is unclear at the time of writing this memo, how or if this action will affect the plat request. Therefore, the Planning Commission action should be contingent upon the resolution of Nez Perce issues which may include the need for an 1 EAW. Roadway and drainage issues pertaining to the plat are contingent upon the City 1 1 1 Planning Commission e. August 13, 1993 Page 3 Council's action. The City Council will be acting on the request at their August 23rd meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE 1 This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their August 18, 1993, meeting. There I was a tremendous amount of neighborhood and commission discussion on this item, virtually all of which pertained to the Nez Perce connection issue and almost none to the plat itself. Frank Beddor repeated the speech that was given to the City Council at an earlier meeting when he I requested that you reconsider your motion to condemn his property. Staff continued to maintain that this information was of relatively little concern to the Planning Commission for the subject at hand. We had already delayed action on this proposal to allow the City Council to reconsider I their action to condemn the Beddor property. The Council voted to uphold the condemnation, therefore, it was our view that the Planning Commission had been told by the City Council how this neighborhood would be developed and that the Tower Heights subdivision should be I processed accordingly. As with prior discussions on this topic, the debate grew somewhat heated at times with there being a number of accusations made and a clearly divided set of neighborhood groups and positions. The Planning Commission ultimately voted to recommend approval of the preliminary plat. It was made clear that approval of the preliminary plat was contingent upon resolution of the EAW Il issue at the City Council meeting, which was to occur the week after the Planning Commission heard the item. This was described in condition #10 proposed by staff. When the commission got around to focussing on the plat proposal itself, they added two conditions to those that had been proposed. Condition #19 reads that Lot 4 shall meet the city's 15,000 square foot minimum for lot size. Based upon preliminary submittals, it was apparent that this lot failed to meet this I standard by a small margin but this could be easily corrected. Condition #20 was added to read that the applicant will work with city staff to locate a retaining wall within the city right -of -way and would be subject to an encroachment agreement with the property owner. This condition I pertains to a desire to see the installation of a retaining wall in a location that will facilitate tree preservation. Normally city staff requires that this retaining wall be located outside of the right - of -way but in this instance, maximization of tree preservation requires that it be located inside the right -of -way. The commission voted to recommend approval of the plat with the amended conditions, 1 forwarding it to the City Council on a 4 to 1 vote. Chairman Batzli was the only vote in opposition to recommending approval of the plat. He stated his reasons as, "a belief that there are safety concerns that remain to be addressed." It was unclear as to whether or not these safety Perce or the larger issue of Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant 1 concerns pertained directly to Nez a ce o g y View Road as well. 1 1 1 . Planning Commission August 13, 1993 Page 4 ' Since the last City Council meeting, as agreed, staff has met with Bill Engelhardt of Engelhardt and Associates. Mr. Engelhardt is the engineer that prepared the feasibility study for the Nez Perce extension. Staff provided him with copies of the 2 alternative roadway configurations that ' had been developed Mr. Dave Donna. In addition, Dan Rogers, a resident who lives in the Vineland Forest subdivision, has provided us with a third alternative. One of Mr. Donna's alternatives and Mr. Rogers' alternative are similar in that they are basically variations on a theme to cul -de -sac everything in the area, with the exception of Lake Lucy and Pleasant View Road. Mr. Engelhardt was asked to review these alternatives, as well as the original Nez Perce extension option, evaluate, and return to the City Council with his findings. The earliest Mr. Engelhardt will be able to return to you is the October 11, 1993, City Council meeting. We expect to have to renotify all of those who have participated in past meetings at that time. In light of Mr. Engelhardt's investigations commissioned by the City Council, staff asked the City Attorney for guidance as to how to handle the Tower Heights subdivision. You will note that this is a preliminary plat and not a final plat request. We believe the city has an obligation to responsibly review and process development proposals in time frames established by state law. We further note that this application has been repeatedly delayed to allow the Nez Perce issue to be reviewed and revisited. We therefore think it is appropriate to continue on with preliminary plat approval. However, at the same time, we do not wish to leave ourselves in a position of being unable to make adjustments if the City Council determines that one of the alternative alignments or configurations is reasonable. Additionally, since this item was considered by the Planning Commission, the City Council has reviewed the EAW petition that had been presented to you by Mr. Beddor and his neighbors. You rejected the EAW preparation. Based upon these actions, we are recommending that Condition #11 be changed to read as follows: 11. Preliminary plat approval is contingent upon the extension of Nez Perce Drive, consistent with the preliminary plat street layout and the favorable resolution of litigation concerning the street extension. We are recommending that this language be substituted for the existing language of Condition #11. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Tower Heights subdivision subject to appropriate conditions. i RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Subdivision #93 -12 for Tower Heights Addition as shown on the plans dated June 8, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1 1 11 Planning Commission August 13, 1993 1 Page 5 1. All lots are required to have access from Tower Heights Drive. 1 2. The developer shall dedicate to the city the utilities within the right -of -way for permanent 1 ownership. 3. Parks: Full park fees shall be accepted in lieu of land dedication. These fees are to be I paid at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force. Current park fees are $600 per lot. Trails: 1 a. A 20 -ft. easement for trail purposes shall be dedicated over the vacated section of I Peaceful Lane. b. The applicant shall construct an 8 -ft. wide bituminous trail in this easement per I city specifications. c. The applicant shall be granted full trail fee credit in consideration for this I construction. Documented expenses above and beyond the $2,400 in trail fee credits to be paid by the city. 4. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- I mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 ' or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 5. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a reforestation plan on the site. This I plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased I vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the I conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. Lot 12 shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The same condition is applicable to Lot 13 should the I applicant resolve the frontage and grading issues. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. I A retaining wall shall be incorporated along the front property line of Lots 1, 12, and 13, in an effort to preserve trees immediately adjacent to the right -of -way. 1 1 1 .1 � Planning Commission August 13, 1993 Page 6 6. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, and comply with their conditions of approval. 8. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 9. Street right -of -way shall be increased to 60 feet in width. 10. The preli • • and final • t approval should be contingent upon the City upgrading Peaceful Lane d exten• 'ng Nez Perce Drive out to Pleasant View Road from Troendle Addition. The fin. . at may not be recorded nor site construction proceed until the city has authorized . , lic improvement project for the extension of Nez Perce Drive. Should the s' y Coun determine that preparation of an EAW for the Nez Perce Extension warranted, p 'nary plat approval for Tower Heights is contingent upon its compl tion and resolution of issues raised therein. ' 11. Preliminary plat approval is contingent upon the extension of Nez Perce Drive, consistent with the preliminary plat street layout and the favorable resolution of litigation concerning the street extension. 12. The applicant shall be responsible for disconnecting and reconnecting the sanitary sewer and water service to the existing home on Lot 1 (Art Owens). An additional fire hydrant shall be incorporated into the construction plans just north of Lot 13 along Tower Heights Drive. 13. The grading plan shall be amended to provide drainage swales along the common lot lines to convey drainage away from the house sites along Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with City ordinance for the City Engineer to review and approve. 1 1 Planning Commission August 13, 1993 Page 7 14. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a draintile system in accordance to City standards with the construction plans. 15. The garage on Lot 12 shall be removed prior to approval of the final plat or and escrow if $5,000 shall be included in with the financial securities to insure the removal of the garage. 1 16. The city shall sell a portion of the Water Tower land to the developer for a price to be determined by the City Council. 1 17. The address for the existing home on Lot 1 (6535 Peaceful Lane) shall be changed to an address on Tower Heights Drive. 1 18. The segment of Tower Heights Drive between the extension of Nez Perce Drive and the subdivision will be assessed back to the developer as well as their fair share for the upgrade of Peaceful Lane. 19. Lot 4 shall meet the city's minimum standard lot size of 15,000 square feet. 1 20. The applicant will work with city staff to locate a retaining wall within the city right-of- way and will be subject to an encroachment agreement with the property owner." ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Staff report dated July 21, 1993. 2. Reforestation plan. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated August 18, 1993. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C I T Y O F PC DATE: 7/21/93 \1 C 11AN11AssEx CC DATE: 8/9/93 1 v - CASE #: 93 -12 SUB By: Al- Jaff/Hempel III 1 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 6.1 Acres into 13 Single Family Lots, Tower Heights Addition I I. LOCATION: South of Pleasant View Road, East of Peaceful Lane, West of Troendle Circle, Z and North of Lake Lucy Road. A portion of Lot 5, all of Lots 6 and 7, Vineland r Q Addition, and a portion of city owned Water Tower property. V • J APPLICANT: JMS Development I 0.. 4806 Park Glen Road a_ Minneapolis, MN 55416 II < 1 1 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 7.1 acres (gross) 6.5 acres (net) I DENSITY: 2 units per acre I ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; single family S - RSF; single family 1 5... E - RSF; single family W - RSF; single family 1 CI WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. 1 1L.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The northern and northwestern portion of the site is heavily 1.» vegetated with mature trees. The site generally slopes to the south. Some steep slopes are located along the west. An existing single I family residence and a swimming pool occupy the northeastern of the site. 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 1 Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 2 1 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 7.1 acres into 13 single family lots. The property is 1 zoned RSF. The average lot size is 21,780 square feet with a resulting gross density of 2 units per acre. The site is located north of Carver Beach Estates and west of Troendle Addition. Access to the subdivision will be provided by an extension of Nez Perce Drive. The extension of Nez Perce Drive is consistent with a conceptual access plan developed by the City during review of the adjacent Troendle and Vineland Forest plats. The extension will connect Nez Perce Road to Pleasant View Road via the currently dead end Peaceful Lane. A cul-de -sac, Tower Heights Drive, extends south from Nez Perce to service all of the proposed lots. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of Lot 13, which has a lot frontage of 75 feet. The zoning ordinance requires a 90 foot lot frontage. Also, the proposed grading of this parcel appears to remove all the existing mature trees on the site. Unless the grading and frontage issues are resolved, staff recommends this lot be deemed unbuildable. Proposed Lot 12 has an existing garage on it. The zoning ordinance does not allow accessory structures to be constructed without a primary structure. This situation 1 will create a nonconforming situation. Staff is recommending the garage be removed prior to or concurrent with approval of the final plat. Proposed Lot 1, Block 1 has an existing residence, a swimming pool, and a shed. Presently, access to this site is gained from Peaceful Lane and a private driveway that encroaches onto the parcel to the north. There is an existing driveway access easement for it. When Tower Heights Drive is constructed, the existing residence will gain its access of off the cul -de -sac. All the existing structures on the site meet the zoning ordinance setback requirements. The site has a dense concentration of mature trees on the north and northwest comer of the site. The plans indicate that the majority of those trees will be removed. The applicant must use design measures to preserve the trees. We are recommending the applicant provide an inventory of all trees proposed to be removed. Those trees will then have to be replaced on a per inch caliper basis. A preservation easement over the area where tree concentrations exist will be required. This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently preserving the trees. The access issue relative to the extension of Nez Perce to Pleasant View is a primary concern , and the focus of considerable city input and support for the past four years. Recently the City Council acted to initiate condemnation of the right -of -way required to complete the connection. Mr. Beddor, the developer of Troendle Addition and owner of the lot in question, currently objects to the connection in spite of the history of the street and written and verbal commitments to support the connection in conjunction with his Troendle Addition. He requested that the City Council reconsider their action to initiate condemnation. The City Council declined and 1 1 Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 3 1 condemnation is currently proceeding. Based upon these actions, staff believes that issues concerning the Nez Perce connection have been resolved. 1 In summary, staff believes that the proposed Tower Heights Addition represents a good quality plat that is generally consistent with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and with city plans concerning this area. While revisions are required, we believe they can be accommodated prior to City Council review. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. 1 BACKGROUND On September 11, 1989, the City Council approved an access concept plan for Vineland Forest. The background of the city's involvement in the access issues concerning the plat are very involved and explored in earlier reports. A number of hearings were held with extensive public notice and input at every stage. The concept plan would loop Nez Perce Drive to the west parallel to Pleasant View Road and hook up with Peaceful Lane (Attachment #1). As designed, the access concept created a road that provided access to the Troendle site when it was going to ' develop. The Vineland Forest plat was approved on December 18, 1989. The plat was constructed with Nez Perce terminating in a temporary cul -de -sac at the Troendle property line. On August 12, 1991, the City Council approved the Troendle plat. Again, the plat was constructed with Nez Perce terminating in a temporary cul -de -sac at the end of the Owens' property. At that same meeting, the Carver Beach Estates neighborhood appeared before the City 1 Council and voiced their concern regarding construction and residential traffic which would be generated due to the development of the Troendle subdivision. The end result was that the developer of Troendle subdivision posted a Letter of Credit in the amount of $10,000 towards 1 assessments for the ultimate extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road. The Council requested that the residents seek to have a meeting with the applicant to discuss issues of concern. The neighborhood meeting took place on October 2, 1991, and staff attended the meeting. Representing the applicant, Frank Beddor, were Attorney Julius Smith and Daryl Fortier with Fortier and Associates. Council members present were Mayor Chmiel and Councilwoman 1 Dimler. Mr. Fortier opened the meeting by presenting a summary of the Troendle plat. He then stated that Mr. Beddor had made an offer to the State of Minnesota to purchase the northerly half of the Owens' property located to the west of the Troendle plat. A draft plan was presented that showed the Owens' property divided in half by the extension of Nez Perce. The northern half ' was divided into two lots with frontage on Peaceful Lane to be purchased and developed by Mr. Beddor. The southerly half was divided into four lots and proposed to be served by a private driveway extending from Peaceful Lane and to be developed by another developer. Mr. Fortier did not indicate the name of that developer. 1 1 Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 4 A second subdivision scenario prepared by Fortier was produced, which showed a road 1 connection between Nez Perce and Lake Lucy Road via the southerly half of the Owens' property. Staff was asked if this was an option. Staff replied that this proposed connection would have to cross a steep hill to make that connection. The city has adopted a policy that would limit street grades to 7% or less. Furthermore, at the time Vineland plat was approved, the City Council adopted an access concept plan. The option proposed by Fortier was reviewed and dropped. The approved concept plan would loop Nez Perce Drive to the west, parallel to Pleasant View Road, and hook up with Peaceful Lane. Currently, Nez Perce terminates in a temporary cul -de -sac at the easterly property line of the Troendle plat. When the Troendle Plat appeared for subdivision before the Council, the access concept plan was implemented. When the Owens' property develops, city staff will request that the City Council consider and complete the adoption of the access concept. A resident of the neighborhood pleaded that the city not change this plan. On April 13, 1992, the City Council authorized staff to prepare a feasibility study for the extension of Nez Perce Drive through the Owens' property to Pleasant View Road. The cost was not to exceed $10,000. On August 10, 1992, the City Council reviewed the feasibility study and official mapping for the g tY t3' Y extension of Nez Perce Road. The Owens' property was in bankruptcy court at the time the hearing took place. Jules Smith, who was representing Frank Beddor, stated that they intended 1 to purchase the northern portion of the Owens' property and they are ready to proceed as soon as the bankruptcy court settles. He also stated that he had some concerns about the location of the street in terms of its broad sweep or its straight cut into Peaceful Lane. He requested that the hearing be tabled until the property has been purchased by Frank Beddor, at which time, the applicant would meet with staff to work on an appropriate location for the extension. On April 21, 1993, staff met with Jeff Schoenwetter, the developer of the proposed Tower Heights Addition, who was interested in subdividing the southern half of the Owens' property. Through the meeting, the applicant was briefed on the history of the parcel and informed about the street extension. Staff also explained that the desired alignment falls entirely within the northern portion of the site which is owned by Frank Beddor. Staff setup a meeting on April 26, 1993, with representatives of Frank Beddor and Jeff Schoenwetter. Frank Beddor's representatives stated that after a closer look at the property, they have come to the decision that the only location where a house could be located on the property is where the city intends to locate the Nez Perce extension. The party interested in the southerly portion of the subject property explained that they would work with Beddor's representatives to allow for a smooth process. However, it appeared that the intention was not to allow the extension to go through. Staff informed all parties that this item will be brought before City Council for discussion. 1 1 1 Tower Heights 11 July 21, 1993 Page 5 I On May 24, 1993, the matter was brought before the City Council for review. After some discussion, the City Council voted to condemn the northern portion of the Owens' property, currently owned by Frank Beddor, and complete the final piece of Nez Perce as was approved 1 in the 1989 concept. On July 12, 1993, Frank Beddor appeared before the City Council and spoke during a visitor's 1 presentation, requesting that the Council reconsider their decision. He presented an option that would connect Nez Perce with Lake Lucy Road via Tower Heights Drive. The City Council maintained their position on the condemnation and the implementation of the Nez Perce Road 1 alignment concept plan. PRELIMINARY PLAT I The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 7.1 acre site into 13 single family lots. The density I of the proposed subdivision is 0.54 units per acre gross, and 0.5 units per acre net after removing the roads. There are no wetlands found on the site. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 21,780 square feet. The applicant is also I requesting to trade land with the city. This trade would take place between the city owned water tower parcel and Lots 8 and 9 of the Tower Heights Addition. The city can relinquish the land in question but has no need for the piece of land proposed for the trade, however, the applicant I will benefit greatly from the trade by creating a buildable lot. Staff is recommending the applicant purchase the land rather than trade it for equal square footage. The value of the land shall be determined by an appraiser. 1 All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of Lot 13. This lot has a frontage of 75 feet. The zoning ordinance requires a 90 foot I frontage. The proposed grading of this lot appears to remove all existing mature trees on the site. Unless the grading and frontage issues are resolved, staff recommends Lot 13 be deemed unbuildable and merged with adjoining parcels. I Proposed Lot 12 has an existing garage on it. The zoning ordinance does not allow accessory structures to be constructed without a primary structure. This situation will create a 1 nonconforming situation. Staff is recommending the garage be removed prior to or concurrent with approval of the final plat. 1 Access Access into this area of the City was explored in detail as outlined earlier in the background I section of the report. During review of the Vineland Forest and Troendle subdivisions, it became clear that the City wished to maintain continuity of north/south flow between Pleasant View Road I and Nez Perce Drive and points further south to maintain reasonable access for emergency vehicles and residents. At the same time, residents along Pleasant View Road were concerned 1 1 Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 6 that if traffic were introduced too far to the east that Pleasant View Road would have an undue 1 burden from increased traffic. Consequently, an access concept was developed whereby Nez Perce Road would be ultimately extended through the Vineland Forest plat and over to adjacent parcels where it would intersect with Pleasant View Road at the current site of Peaceful Lane. The ultimate completion of this roadway connection was to be contingent upon the development of adjoining parcels. Vineland Forest plat was consequently built with Nez Perce Drive terminating in a temporary cul -de -sac at the east property line which it shares in common with the Troendle property line. The Troendle plat was also built with Nez Perce Drive terminating in a temporary cul -de -sac at the east property line which it shares in common with the Owens' property line. The current proposal is fully consistent with the approved access concept. Nez Perce Drive would be extended through the Owens' property, currently owned by Frank Beddor, and connect with Pleasant View Road via Peaceful Lane to implement the last piece of the concept adopted by the City Council in 1989. The temporary cul -de -sacs were barricaded with a sign indicating 1 that the road will be extended in the future. In addition, this condition was placed in the development contract which is recorded against the chain of title. This was done to put all future residents on notice of the City's intent to extend the street A new cul -de -sac called Tower 1 Heights Drive will extend approximately 600 feet south from Nez Perce Drive to service all of the lots in the subdivision. Preliminary Street Design The preliminary street designs are generally consistent with city standards. Tower Heights Drive 1 needs to be increased from the proposed 50 feet to the current 60 foot requirement by ordinance. All the lots will have direct frontage on Tower Heights Drive and will gain access from this street. An existing driveway serving the existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 should be removed. This lot will gain direct access from Tower Heights Drive and there is no longer the need for the driveway connection as a result of the driveway being relocated to Tower Heights Drive. The address of Lot 1 (Owens' property) will need to be changed accordingly. Street grades are proposed between 6% and 2% which are within the city's standards. Final street plans should be developed for approval by the City Engineering Department. Peaceful Lane currently serves three existing homes. The realignment of the road will require relocation of the driveways. One of those driveways is within the proposed subdivision which serves the existing home, and the other two just outside. As a result of this development, the southerly two driveways will need to be relocated so they are perpendicular to the new street alignment of Peaceful Lane. With relocation of the driveways it is recommended that the applicant be required to have the new driveways paved with a hard surface. 1 Peaceful Lane currently dead ends off of Pleasant View Road. Peaceful Lane consists of a 24- foot wide bituminous surface without curb and gutter or storm drainage improvements. The city has begun condemnation proceedings on Lot 5 (Beddor property) to extend Nez Perce Drive from 1 1 1 Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 7 the Troendle Addition to Pleasant View Road. It is anticipated that condemnation proceedings will take up to 3 months and construction scheduled for next spring. Peaceful Lane will also be upgraded to city urban standards with the extension of Nez Perce Drive which includes concrete 1 curb and gutter, and storm drainage improvements. In conjunction with this project, additional street right -of -way will be provided to access this proposed subdivision from the extension of Nez Perce Drive. The easterly 33 feet of Peaceful Lane right -of -way was vacated in 1987. The 1 applicant is proposing to dedicate a trail easement along the vacated tight -of -way, out to Powers Boulevard. The City will also want to have a drainage and utility easement dedicated for existing sewer and water lines lying along the previously vacated Peaceful Lane. The city petition received a etition from the applicant to have the city construct the street and utility improvements necessary to serve up to the proposed subdivision. The city has previously performed a feasibility study for officially mapping the alignment of Nez Perce Drive. The study laid out two alternatives for the upgrading of Nez Perce Drive (Attachments #3 and #4). Both alternatives provide access from Nez Perce Drive into the subdivision (Tower Heights Drive). Staff supports Alternative "A" which the applicant has shown for access to the development. The segment of Tower Heights Drive between the extension of Nez Perce Drive and the subdivision will be assessed back to this development, as well as their fair share for the upgrade of Peaceful Lane. The estimated assessment against this development will be determined with an updated feasibility study forthcoming. The applicant has expressed the desire to begin construction on the development as soon as possible. However, due to the anticipated delay (3 months) expected with condemnation of Lot 1 5 which the applicant needs for full street access, construction will not be possible this year: Utilities Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the development from Peaceful Lane. The applicant is proposing to extend municipal utilities into the site. The existing home on Lot 1 (Art Owens' residence) is currently connected to city sewer and water. As a result of utility construction in this development, it will be necessary to relocate the connection point for the sewer and water for this residence. The applicant should include the relocation of the sewer and ' water service as a part of the utility construction. Fire hydrant spacing should be in accordance with the City's Fire Marshal. Typically, fire hydrants should be spaced 300 feet apart. It appears an additional fire hydrant will be necessary just north of Lot 13 along Tower Heights Drive. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street and utility improvements will be required for review by staff and City Council approval. Both street and utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the city's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City 1 1 1 Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 8 and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements 1 and conditions of approval. Grading/Drainage 1 The majority of the site is proposed to be graded which will result in tree loss in the northwest quarter of the development. The overall site grading is consistent with the neighborhood drainage from the site. The proposed grading on Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13 are such that runoff will be directed fairly close to the adjacent house pad. It is recommended that drainage swales be constructed along the common property line to divert lot drainage away from the neighboring property. The plans propose a series of catch basins to collect storm runoff generated from the street as 1 well as the front yard portions of the lot. Proposed storm sewers will carry the runoff to a discharge point which lies west of Peaceful Lane into a small ditch section which runs into a retention pond/wetland near Powers Boulevard. Staff is concerned with the quantity and quality of water proposing to be discharged into the ravine area. According to the City's subdivision ordinance, the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision is to be retained at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event through the use of surface water detention/retention facilities. This may result in creating a temporary on -site water quality and quantity retention pond by the developer until the storm drainage improvements involved with 1 the extension of Nez Perce Drive are constructed. In lieu of constructing permanent on -site storm drainage facilities, the developer would be assessed their fair share of the drainage improvements constructed in conjunction with the Peaceful Lane/Nez Perce Drive upgrade. The storm drainage 1 plan will have to be looked at in greater detail by the developer's engineer in order to meet city standards. In this case, water would be discharged into the pond located near Pleasant View which would need to be modified for the purpose. It is anticipated that this will be possible after the condemnation is completed. The City has not received soil boring information on the site as of writing this report. As with other typical developments in the city, moisture content in the soils is relatively high and the city has implemented the use of drain tile behind the curbs for both improving road sub -base drainage as well as providing a discharge point for sump pumps from the new homes in the development. The applicant should be aware that the city will require that street construction plans include a drain tile system. 1 Park Dedication The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the preliminary plat of Tower Heights (JMS 1 Development) on June 22, 1993. A copy of the staff report presented to the Commission is attached. Mr. Jeff Schoenwetter of JMS Development was present responding to questions of the Commission. The construction of a trail in the right -of -way of Peaceful Lane was discussed. 1 1 1 Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 9 1 Both the applicant and Commission were in favor of this trail segment. The construction of this trail will allow for an off - street connection from the neighborhoods in this area to the future trail corridor on the east side of Powers Boulevard. The easement necessary for this trail would be the same easement called out for utilities. The present description shall be amended accordingly. At the conclusion of their discussion that evening, the Commission made the following recommendation. Parks: It is recommended that the City accept Council full park fees in lieu of land dedication. P 1 These fees to be paid at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force. Current park fees are $600 per lot. Trails: It is recommended that the City Council require the following conditions of approval in regard to trails: 1. A 20 -ft. easement for trail purposes shall be reserved during the abandonment of Peaceful Lane. 1 2. The applicant shall construct an 8 -ft. wide bituminous trail in this easement per city specifications. 3. The applicant shall be granted full trail fee credit in consideration for this construction. Documented expenses above and beyond the $2,400 in trail fee credits to be paid by the city. 1 Easements 1 The following easements and rights -of -way should be provided: 1. Right -of -way for all street improvements. ' 2. Standard drainage and utility easements. 1 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT 1 Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback ' Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 27,000 119' 223.5' 45'/120'/30 1 1 Tower Heights July 21, 1993 1 Page 10 Lot 2 19,000 110' 227' 1 Lot 3 17,300 100' 160' 1 Lot 4 15,100 73' on curve 145' 90' front setback I Lot 5 26,000 70' on curve 213' 90' front setback 1 Lot 6 25,000 106' cul -de -sac 235' 110' front setback 1 Lot 7 18,700 71' cul -de -sac 161' 94' front setback 1 Lot 8 17,700 65' cul -de -sac 150' 105' front setback 1 Lot 9 26,100 80' cul -de -sac 260' 96' front setback 1 Lot 10 16,500 177'corner lot 140' • 70' Lot 11 20,000 102' 199' 1 Lot 12 28,600 104' 375' Lot 13 26,600 75' 300' * 1 * Lot 13 has a frontage of 75 feet. The zoning ordinance requires a 90 foot frontage. The 1 proposed grading plan appears to remove all existing mature trees on the site. Unless the grading and frontage issues are resolved, staff is recommending the lot be deemed I unbuildable and merge with adjoining parcels. Tree Preservation 1 The grading plan shows the vegetated areas and the amount of tree removal. The site contains significant concentrations of mature trees along the north and northwest areas of the site that 1 should be preserved as best possible. The forested areas contain large, mature hardwoods. The 1 1 F CITYOF _ ___ R i CHANHASSEN -1 lk I u_ ,. - � 6 90 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 Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician II DATE: September 8, 1989 SUBJ: Alternative Access Concepts for the Vineland Forest II Subdivision #89 -8 BACKGROUND 11 On August 28, 1989, the City Council reviewed the preliminary ' plat request for the Vineland Forest subdivision (see location map). The plat as proposed illustrates the creation of 21 single II family lots accessed by a cul -de -sac from Pleasant View Road that is approximately 1250 feet long. The proposed plats and existing homes are shown on an attachment. II Access into the plat is the primary issue. Area residents raised concerns over traffic on Pleasant View Road at the Planning Commission meeting with the result that the Commission was unable II to reach a consensus on the plat. Staff recommended approval of the plat conditioned on the addition of a southern outlet from the plat, using Nez Perce right -of -way to intersect with Lake I Lucy Road. The inclusion of the southern outlet would result in the creation of a north /south connection between Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road and also provide a second access as requested by Public Safety. 1 At the City Council meeting further discussion on access issues was heard. A series of revised access concepts were introduced II by an architect representing homeowners located on Pleasant View Road. The City Council ultimately voted to continue the item to give staff an opportunity to review access alternatives. 1 Development of Alternative Access Plans Prior to preparing alternative access plans staff considered a 11 number of issues. These are described below as follows: 1. 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 II .......... / , 1 E iti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ■r I w in It le) 0 0 - I I 1 JIL AC LANE N I 1 1 1 I I 1 ',CHRISTA \MS ' ' I HENNE N ; , • • • um am A L VW OW GM El il \f t M MEI LAKE:iir -111 gillive 41111% nst — ........ • 0 ..ITET i t. 7, gin ler- tp-Anmi■ T - I. - LIN lir MA ' ' ' ' • 7 4?; 4 7474 1 . AIII; t. CIRCLE E r STUDY AREA ,4, - . lir viwr., / 111.1. la i r ri g" W k 4 6\ J: i-foNs MI i■ \+,< i, Mg - k•Hc----1 574 4r4: -- m,:i. , : va i_p tr Ave„:0 - \. , r, AP r `,‘ '':':iii.l..=itt*:: i - ' haft •kor - \ % & - I " Li• A CIIMMIMINIIII" di :::: ' 1 '''''HITM . it4 4.111‘ " -,„- A L_L- • j r: ';;; 0 PROJECT L 0 C A T I 0 N 1.1 I ' ..... • 2.• it ; , v ■ W I i • ' P:P 111. - - - - 12r11111 1 — p• . . v li er. 41111N11 . ‘ 1 Z 1 Lipz wimp! ravv 1 _- _ ,--- . , ii my IT ,..,„--- 'al 0 Fiji ■ . _. , - A r 401IIIIIII r*-te e,10 ,,,,milikvau Is -- ' ( viingui fait, ..- - i gitir i - wa-g4.11.7,wos‘=*111% 'x - •••■ miiiii...1- T.-- - ala ' , j i ac III ■1 11111117 — :: -a zvotriiiPt. 42 ars I l Iiiiklf ,,,R. , L 0 LAKE LI/ C Y /tile Orli — la -;. VAP Elerle ' . ,401. 1011t■ 1 /Si it ' iN 0 - - Ihtlts ':-.-t3t AS ‘ - .. 11:: •• . w _ (PAr,,..tBE Iti — tpt.M2 1 7- 1 E. V VtIl 1 i , "" ors ERE IN — =r, .r rwr: ;: aullmill1110 - *Er aRY A l 11 11 illr II, OA) zil LA 1 zip lip ,!.V'7 c 14° , / = 1 4401111111ZUA') ,.....,,,z. . - Ikitle Iling& WiEFIIIN6 1 t• viiiiimu . mu. ,!&*.ic own i g ,,,,....... LOCATION MAP i;w tio LAKE ANN ) ,.. s A ii ■ aim Id LI..).- lb kalo 6 Illit wa gra. tw, bow- cp, - INNIR si It . • ., j oli_ .... ritat .Arg 7.."----- ri ; ,:-.7z- v • r..v "too • INA 11 Arp 2 / i ON 4 iir rim nos go 01000; -,;.. 9 Lig4 he f*-40 I oils tAta PIA 4-ir uoo; -N 1 1 V T PO40 de vo 1 � 444:rt N r 0,.., . , 1 \ --- 7:4 ,:, N, rii li, ‘ ...., v 4 1 ip \ \ \ 1 1 1 ‘ \ 1 poop 1� x • EACE JL � � �o 1 ` ` —1 ' i V I N EL ND F�L<T ' ._.._ r PLAT 1 TI .� W Trs / 1 1 i �____ ,�W / , � C I \ /\''' , . '‘.. d q ---a k ... t I - 1 \ . Z---..\ . ..,„ . I.IA'E lacy /Zo.•o PROPOSED PLATS /EXISTING HOMES 1 1 .. . Mr. Don Ashworth 1 September 8, 1989 Page 2 1 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- 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 1 Advantages - Street functions as a collector with east /west access. Grades and sight distance make access. feasible along much of the frontage. 1 1 • . v,x,sA r 44,..r . 4 OCr Ir4 , . ..• i 1 I 1.i "'"..........,:•:" I .. ..,. WM • in• IS ......• • , t. .-,„ • .. ... . — I 6 1 # - 'i, R ' 414. 2,0 bp ; I - — a '• IN --- ftft: Si• I . , , , t, ,‘•,,, e•• mpg 6 13 t , .. ',.. r matt IWAII g • W. • Vill g . l ‘g _ , i•S`, . 1 A 0.,, ......-- ,,, 51144 Pt I - , 4 I? %. • Z ''', 12 ,S , .. / .Y:•,. , • ••• . -• - • - .. • I t i “•'. i ! i 014 /',.._ ••,, 4 111 ! 11.• ,. %.\.., /Ai, , .c. , I t. N,///' ' a " • 1 / ......- ...i. . Pq...... %II.... 71 ' e `".-••• I 4\ ', ' A II ./ NATOLE A - 14 '• % '! g .- ' • , *-- - ad icy*. 3 - \ \ •,.*: .C5 - , .- •-- - -c\ 2 • ';'•%. t . 's.L. 6 1• 1 4. ".....,•: 2 i 2 A t" v. ,, - _.-• 4. 4... 4. . . ..."1:I ... 1 • •• . les r. „, DE •g . : • 7.311.....cr— i . . , erg: re “u• 3 -L... 3 z , , _ ,. • - • it \,.."-• 1 • S e... / g ,,,, , 40, t ..- ' 1741" '- • - r , „, . \ . .•••• 4 Iv ,,,, k 1•• 4 ACR , A . 19 45 t15 i 4 7 in. . 1. l et_____,5 4, 1... •••• wets t.‘ I. II-; O ilI'' p I §! 4 fi ' t r.r 1I . '• '''Y :..i.......-• ,..:. fr •-• i:: : • -;•...s,-T : .451,,. a5 . 441E.AN g '''' 5 T ROAD swe, • . .% \ 1Sr ' CHR —"AS C.OVa 1 • L • . . . L . D. • ? ILt • . " . -- N9 "‘: IT ' I S i ; W ‘ i , 1111 I .* f• \ ' 4I ' ei t 41.' . 0. r• . \ , , -e .. • . 1 .: . p... ! , !so • 1 ii f 67 IR , .,_ J ..11 \ . /: i S E '. 1 15 , 114 . 4, t " - : '3 ,I-. 111...' 47, 1 pr;T:42 E I 0 , a ___ _. . 3! IC NALD LFE METCALF 0 ‘ 25: Ir. -- — – - - ---1- - – / • - / ' 4/ Cr MO 5153 • a co 1 .. •... , ..,..:......ts..p..4._ 0, c ' - a i \ l'. • i , :NM1r.... ' --•T . or - --. -. _ ••••• ,......., er in ; - .,, __.,..„,..„... „: ..:„.......„2:::.......,_ ..• s..4,........tz043a,..... ev- • . --- ... 111 pat • r ''...4 g IF 1; .0 . ._ 1 ..1,.\r,..,.. , I. .., ....„ . a \ , i•-. V' . .... • . f IV .4 m ... st '' n \ / -•-•'. 2 + '' .4, I v " • , , - •., ' ,, .;.; "/ ,_,: • - ;7( 47 5 s ;,..,. . 1 2 •r ....... . '''?' c:10 . "1' S -, ', I ; •• •S. • !SS '''' mg , s 6 i''111 2 ZS — ---__ _ ____________;' T s 1 1 2 ' limn .. ,. 11...6460.....menteemiv - HIPP i 0 0 . 1 .. .......... , .. 5 44,. . . e ''' :' 2 : 1 . Te 1 ' ' 1.2 Fr... :4 L.:.- 14- .. .'• N ' . %:,' -.". ..... ...t. „I' .S. -s•• ta g,' i .. • • . - IIIU • 0 z , _ :.: - , .1 •••-• , ! •:. • ,:a--2•TE DI Ala _IN:1111111111111 c fr 11111k \ - :•>. • i,,, ok - • -. -- IT' -- I- °: . . • ••• i : , , e • ..,..... , • I n' . • • • • Li. . . ,... :- ' ' * ' • / la :44 , . ' sosiiiiiroflAi r 1 .._ - P• - r - • — - wts-mil. ' % • . ti1/4 , l• , ,•• . To. i • • ... . ... I . I ' " ..9* • ' ..i ' r ... , .. a . _ • . 4. .., is C 1 %.*";, •■ I • :,.. c.. I A . 1 7 i " . / fr , • . itka: Ell . '' . • •r , : , • ,.,,,, I . i • le . . :.• • • must \ RIAWAYNA ROAD ...I, • .66 ' 7 . ..:.,,. - I : : „ f 1 I . li , I I • , , . .... , . I I ''' • ' ' . ' •-• we I .. 1.• i --- — 1 1 POTENTIAL ACCESS POINTS 1 Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1989 Page 3 i Disadvantages - Street is built to substandard design and carries high traffic volumes. Neighborhood 1 impact and traffic safety considerations. 2. Fox Path 1 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. 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. 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 1 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. 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 1 1 r to 0 . ,,,,....._/ ■ } \ / ,5 C I t - r 4I 1 �----- • . W ■Ir■l...e■r / ..�■a■r ■ � ... 1 / N J , / ■inN \2 AIL 6 11110 ) / / .M■ {t _ ii • _ ■ ■\ / -■- = - — _ N R i i NiiNi ....... .... .. ■ •. ■�■. - i 22.-- ■■■■N■■NN / u - IIN_/..a'•i. I / t � 1 . NN ■NNi 1 t_i Pt / / ■■■ ■N ■ ■L � A t• / OM NO i / 1 / I ■N■N■� ■N■ - - \ ►y g.ra■= i rt. —�.r / / ` ■■■ ■=A■■iNLri S • .. f■ , \ I Z me SCALE - - - / r . • ! 1 t� H — FEES MECUM TALWA mom Nq.M.■4■i / / ITi!.■9■WJ■ • w ■ ■ ■iiN■ ■!mil =ACS- 4e%atiiJ6 ■ ■ ■rl ■ _ MOONS ■ ■ ■ ■N ■. : NiiWN ■ ■. W ■ ■■■ i..W ONO / ■■■NN■i■W .i.■i.■■' WiN■ ■ni ■ice ■NN ■N■■■■■ I / ■tA■ ■M ■N■ ■ r } ■N N ■. ■N WES N■■ ■ ■n■ Njj� ■1M ■i N ■W!■■Ni■■. / i■■Mr - ■i■ ■■!■!c. a.■■ N■■Ni■■. ■N ■■■■■■■ ■ N. N ■..N ■■ ■•W W■ ■■ i �� NMi■r .■■ / ■ ■■NN.MN■ •■■ ■iNii ■ii ■ ■i ■ ■O_ ••••••• NN NNNN / I •• !i■ Vi ■ ■!■wi ■.■ — ' NN■Ni ■fNNi iiNN ■ ■■ iiN■i ■N•Ni Y ■ ■ ■N ■iii ■. ■■ ■ifN ■ ■ ■iN w!!! !1��9 ■ ■ ■ .■ iM ■ ■■ NN ■i N■ N.■i■■■ N■■ Ni■ ■■iG■■■ . ■ ■N■....■NNM■M ■../.• ammo■. Nii ■ ■ ■N ■ ■ ■N ■ice ■ ■ ■. ■N ■i iN.■5••W NUM NEMO ......Mw..■■ y ■ ■N■ LP.i ■►�= i■.AM■Oi / MOMS �,y■■iui / ■iN ■ ■i ■.iN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■■:ice %■1 ■ ■� ■•�.� ■■NN ■N ■iW ■ ■RN■ ■ ■i ■NN N ■N■ NfiiiwN■rri iii -�i — — I \ .■Nii■f■GAi. �Ni„',N ■■■ ■ ■iNN ■iM•• NNN■■ _ r O I NN■NA■■iNii N■N■N ■. - ur .■i ∎aw 1 Z O \ N. iiNiN ■N ■NNN ■ ■ !+M ■N i - P.187° 5 O s y 11, " In s LAKE .::: l. �►, -,- 1-1-"' - 1- LEGEND . 1k : t� /•. ��,�� 1 �' ?" w ':, ' in Limits • ' 1 .'�D s Gra g / 1 }:: ': '' '' 10% Grading Limits I s . ,:::..,..,. : .....„*. uza 7% Grading Limits / iLll�l111�J 0 ii4E2"114-13-ERGE 5^~ M I. ° DRIVE 04., , 037.4•8 9;2 rJl a 1026 42 Q,I NAst08 _.� 164V. T. 28 47 ..----■--------- --.. -------. ..--------------. . L...-.... -...1.--...—.-'• P -- .P GRADING LIMITS 1o4...ee 1 / Z .. i';c.: i-4.e. : lci4,, :,'G � ica 1 .1. o 4c ets4o 3rceer 1 1 I .. / / 0 / //' 1 1 8 - ilv D ,// / 1 .4 0 , • b / o 70 ^ , M f 0 ' 0 \ki I in N ! S - i. i I / I tr 3 b 1 '•"1 I / i n rn I y ' 1 2' rn i / 4 \ m - T i . .. . I . � .th 1 .� r 1 Nu 0 Z 73 1 • 0 1 r 1 o PI it 1 I x 1 s I ia CD 0 (D 1 ut I 11 Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1989 Page 4 5. Peaceful (Redman) Lane ' 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 1 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 1 short distance to Powers Boulevard. • 6. Outlot A, Carver Beach Estates Advantages - Undeveloped right -of -way to Lake Lucy Road. Provides good access to the south. ' Disadvantages - Grades make access difficult. Proximity to Powers Boulevard may make connection redun- dant. 1 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. 11 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- 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 1 N r f 1 __ /740/41:41A/ r ✓E 1 \ r - - - - 6 " - . . -* - 11 . 1 a ' 1 a p 1/4. (,../-. ..,/ 1 I v ` r lif 1 1 . 4 1 1 Pooh 'FACE �„� J 1. VIN EL i N D 1 1 A A / P ■ ' , 0 R E T MI PLAT tEcr. — C j 1 t _____, • ... '� al 1 .tfr 16,4 .ee.¢.c I. A. 'g ALTERNATIVE 1 F 1 1 N i _ Ar. i 174; P 1 ........... cp 4 1,, /GE/lriRN T • r 1 ,. ? 'i '� •mot 1 1111 1 It v p 1 - j 11? 4 r ,, • 1 P oal • t , il ' '.FACE 1 -- Y+ , F_4- ' °" INEL i ND P % A __ _ • .; T 1 y� PL�A 1./ T�Lt �' , / l 1 le ! ... / / • r. NIN... M 141 i • "- a N -------- •C.Ik'E L ucy 2oiad F .7....\-4' . 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 1 r y - N _ t . - 1 L .................._................,____....„,„„) I Pk EstroeN 7 0 Ew 1 1 1 S t 1 •r ; s ei 1 1 ' 4 t f r \ ` I A ` ' ' ----- -�- N.DL MI © 1 � �t fr al . • i i i it i o . 1 in 1 in 1 .r..- T•wtrz. ..-11F s%,:... . 0 ab ,CrI/iCE Luc 2o,4,p 1 1 v. ALTERNATIVE 3 � 1 N 1 INni P P44•426*,v7- 0 gig I 1 1 r 1 k It e - 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ . a* L I I . • . El C E 511 P IT . mow VINELL A / ' I P IA . 411111 j / PLAT 1 4 = 1 0 r 111 ...---- . .........., . 1 i . ••• , _______ • ........, 1111 Illi IIII k .60E IL'/ 4!*4 z, 1 ALTERNATIVE 4 1 1 .. Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1989 Page 5 cannot be built without the removal of a home on the adjoining parcel. This revision has been repeated in the 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. 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 11 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 1 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. 1 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 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 development 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. 1 The Council should be aware that city staff does not have the capability to prepare an indepth analysis of traffic patterns. ' 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 1 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 APPROVE CONCEPT PLAN FOR VINELAND FOREST ADDITION. Paul Krause: At the last City Council meeting there was discussion on the Vineland Forest plat and at that time, access was a primary issue that surfaced and staff was asked to prepare access concepts to look at how best to serve this plat and adjoining properties. In view of the hour I guess I can cut to the chase but there was a lot of background investigation that went into this in terms of creating a study area and reviewing existing plats that had been approved in this area. There was one in particular to the west side of the study area that has been approved. It has been final approved. It has not been filed and it's due to expire in October. We looked at the variety of ways of serving this area. All the road stubs. The undeveloped rights -of -way. Bordering roads. Whatever and tried to define which of those were feasible. We then tried to develop which sort of issues we were encountering in this area in terms of what sort of goals we would have for the access system. We wanted an access that provided ideally same thru movement on the north /south orientation through the area. Public Safety's requested that and we feel that there's going to be a considerable number of hones eventually in this area and that it was warranted to provide a north and a south outlet. We're aware of the access and traffic concerns on Pleasant View. Same information the City developed in terms of traffic on this street as it exists today verifies that it is carrying a considerable amount of traffic so providing another means of outletting that neighborhood becomes a concern. We basically wound up with 4 alternative concept plans. Alternative 1 is basically the original plat as recommended or proposed by the developer. What we did is we tried to take a reasonable extension of that...how that could serve the remaining undeveloped ground in the area. One thing we want everybody to note though is that the orignal Vineland plat showed two stub rights -of -way oriented to the west. The southern one we think works fine from the grading standpoint but as we got into this, the northern one causes a problem because the only way to build it is to take out the house on the adjoining property which is something we were concerned about. We thought it was presumptuous of us to get into that at this point and assume that that's going to be the case. It's our belief that that's not really an effective means of providing service...recommending the position of coming up with something that would lead people to believe that would provide service in the future so we're recommending through all four options that this connection here be eliminated for that reason. Again, this is the original plat. If you basically take that off, you've got the original plat. We show serving the adjoining properties with a street connection that would cone through the Peaceful Hills plat. That is a stub right -of -way that had been provided coming back out from Peaceful Lane back up to Pleasant View. The proposal has some merit in terms of serving internally generated trips. The major problem as we see it though is all the traffic winds up on Pleasant View. It doesn't provide us any means of ingress and egress to the south. We feel the long term is rather short sighted. Again, all these trips... We have not done an indepth traffic study. We don't have that capability in house to figure out where these cars are going to go once they're out here but the more traffic you have on Pleasant View...it's reasonable to assure that the percentage of that is going to travel east... Councilman Johnson: Before you move on Paul. Councilman Workman: I was going to say. Could it be assumed that we're down to Alternate 2 or 3? 1 61 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 r Councilman Johnson: I thought they recommended 4? • • Paul Krause: We recommended 4 with a series... ' Councilman Workman: I thought 4 with the pass thru was not a real exciting option. Councilman Johnson: Paul, before you go on. The little stub coming off of Lake Lucy on the west side by the water towex there. That wasn't considered in any ' options. What's the problem there? Driving by it and looking in there, it doesn't seen to be too bad of topography in the first couple hundred feet looking north at that point. Is there something that runs into a problem later? I know the current Peaceful Hill plat but if that expires next month, which is again an if, which is a huge 2 letter word. But if it does expire, then would that be a viable second entrance? ' Paul Krause: Theoretically yes. I should say that we're showing you 4 concepts. Dave and I generated a lot more than that and the waste basket is full of them. There's a lot of different ways of serving this but there is same difficult grade there. It's probably something that could be accommodated. One of the primary concerns we had with that is when you look at the bigger picture. Councilman Boyt: Excuse me Paul but if you don't have the microphone, nobody's hearing you out there. Paul Krause: One of the concerns we had is that if you're looking at the bigger picture of how to provide access to the larger neighborhood, we're concerned that there's no means of a north /south connection between Powers and the lake. ' If you orient that connection at that point there, you're basically serving the area just within throwing distance of Powers Blvd. and that it would be more advantageous to centrally locate this in terms of promoting that north /south movement. Again, we think it's a connection that is potentially viable from a grading standpoint. We just didn't feel it warranted a lot more consideration at this point after seeing how the whole area functioned. ' Councilman Johnson: So you're saying that you're trying to get a north /south connection up to a road that we don't really want people going on that much? ' Paul Krause: That's true but what that also does is it helps to bleed off sane of this traffic to the south. Right now the way the original plat was proposed and presumably the way individual property owners would choose to develop their property in the future, all of that traffic's going to be introduced onto Pleasant view. The north /south routing allows for another option. Yes, it does have potential of introducing more traffic one way or the other but we think it's generally a benefit to provide two legitimate ways in and out of an area II that's going to have that many homes. There's also questions of emergency vehicle access. That's our public safety folks that also stress that we try to get that southern access. Again, routing all the traffic back up to the north doesn't resolve that question for them. II Councilman Johnson: The southern access, to get two accesses, that one would also work. Gets you the second access without making it a drive thru. Keep 1 62 1 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 going. Paul Krause: Okay. The second alternative we looked at was a variation of the thane that was presented by an architect working for the homeowners association where they illustrated two cul-de -sacs. One coming in from Pleasant View. The other coming in from Nez Perce. We took that design and tried to modify it again. Enlarging it to serve adjoining properties. What we did is we took the southern cul-de -sac and extended it back through back again to Peaceful Hiles. This goes a lot further to providing that north /south routing. We see two problems with it though and the first is that this routing is very convoluted. You've basically got a switch back road design in here, which the more complicated you make this, the less likely it is that people are going to use it. The second issue, and this will came into play a little later, is that the canpletion of this loop is contingent up on the decisions of two other property owners to develop. Now, we can and will continue. In the past we have. We would continue to advocate stub rights -of -way being dedicated so we can extern] roads in the future and we'll often push for those things but they're always difficult issues to resolve. Neighborhoods always object and no matter what you do, it's a difficult problem. So while we think this is a step in the right direction, we don't think it's the ideal one. In alternative 3 we basically tried to start with a clean sheet of paper. We took the Nez Perce connection and assumed that the Peaceful Hills plat was voided out or was replatted and what we tried to do is come up with a straighter shot through the neighborhood. Now, one of the advantages to exiting on the north side to Peaceful Lane is that you're quite close to Powers Blvd.. Feather than further to the east and we r think the closer you orient people to Powers Blvd. the more likely they will be to exit the neighborhood that way rather than shoot back down to the east. So this is an option that we felt had sane merit. The final one is basically the one that was presented at the first meeting illustrating the staff proposed access to the south. The original plat is still over here. We just popped that road through. At the last meeting there were some questions as to whether or • not Nez Perce was a legitimate connection in terms of grade. Whether or not we could make that grade. Dave did quite a bit of work on that and refined the grading plans to the point where we're comfortable that a good safe street can . be built through there and provide that connection. We think this plan has some merits and it has sane problems. The meritorious aspect of it for us is that it provides that north /south connection in a very centrally located point between Powers and the lake so we think the utility is there. The second aspect of it is that it can be built immediately. All the land is under the control of one property owner. The down side of this is that it introduces the traffic onto Pleasant View fairly far to the east and does have that factor, potentially encouraging more traffic to use that street to exit the neighborhood. At the last meeting we recommended that this alternative be selected. We're continuing to recommend that it be selected for the two reasons. That it can be built today and that it's appropriately located but we do acknowledge that problem. Our recommendation further though is that if this alternative is not acceptable to the Council, that you look at alternative 3 since it meets most of those criteria that we had established for the design and is generally successful in that. With that if there are questions. 4 ?� Councilman Johnson: I'd like to say that you haven't addressed Nez Perce yet. You drive Nez Perce and you're saying this is almost a one lane road in the first place. If anybody's walking in there, like they were the other evening when I drove it, it is a one lane road. You've got room for one car and 1 63 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 11 somebody walking. If another car comes by, it gets difficult. You take Option 4, making that straight of a route through there, I personally would rather encourage people to go on out to Powers out of these neighborhoods. I think that the neighborhood needs a back door. Every neighborhood needs a back door for public safety purposes. Sometimes you may not be able to get in from Pleasant View so I can't see everything coming off of Pleasant View but I'd hate to encourage increased traffic on Nez Perce. That is even worse than Pleasant ' View as far as I'm concerned. Especially since your trees overhang it. It's not like, Pleasant View there's same areas where the trees. Pleasant View just seems wider even though pavement wise Pleasant View is probably the same width of pavement but because of the vegetation and everything on Nez Perce, Nez Perce ' just seems narrower. I really have a problem with 4. Not as bad of a problem with 2 or 3. If we could do 4 to where caning south. That's 3 up there but even 3. Coming south it was a right turn only so it doesn't became a short cut to cane from Pleasant View and into Carver Beach area so down here at the intersection of Nez Perce and Lake Lucy. If you're coming south it's a right turn only and going north on Nez Perce, you could leave it to where you have one lane. You've got enough room in there to make an intersection that functions that way. 7b where you have a one lane to the right both ways. Dave Hempel: Not intersect Jay. We just proposed like a T intersection I guess. That represents road right -of -way. Councilman Johnson: Right. That's what I mean. You've got enough road right -of -way there to bring, instead of a T intersection, to have a single lane that's oriented to where you have to turn right. I want to say right turn only so we're not getting people craning off of Pleasant View. Cutting through this ' neighborhood and then running through Nez Perce to go to the grade school or come to City Hall which is not what we want to encourage people to do is to go through residential areas as short cuts. We want them to use the arterials and the collectors and all that stuff rather than the residential streets especially one like Nez Perce and Pleasant View. If we're going to do that, I would want to see that people coming out of that and going south are forced to go over to Powers instead of cutting through. It certainly isn't the straightest way. II Councilwoman Dimler: Jay, do you have an alternate, which one are you proposing? Mayor Chmiel: He said 2 or 3. Councilman Johnson: Yes, 2 or 3 but if 4 is decided on, I want some modifications on 4 so southbound's right turn only. In fact on 3 I would even... Councilman Boyt: It's awfully hard to enforce that right turn only stop. Councilman Johnson: It is. But with street design, you make it difficult to make the left turn. Councilman Boyt: Well you know that doesn't work. 11 Councilman Johnson: Pleasant View? Councilman Boyt: That's right. 11 64 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 11 Councilman Johnson: Near Mountain. But see the signs never went up there. 1 That was the problem. When you build the road and day one on the road you have a sign saying right turn only. At Near Mountain, 3 years later we put up the right turn only sign. Or left turn only sign. That didn't work after you had 3 years of people making right hand turns to come in and do it. If on day one you 11 put up the sign, you're not going to get as much problem. But without that, I won't be in favor of any connection to Nez Perce. Mayor thniel: Any other discussion? Councilman Boyt: I have a question for Jay I guess. What you're saying is that the right turn only is for people carving out of Vineland? Councilman Johnson: Right. Cuing south. So they have to go down Lake Lucy Road down to Powers. Councilman Boyt: ...Option 3. It has a lot of drawbacks. I agree with Paul and we have not shown that we're very successful in making these future road hook -ups. We keep trying to put in systems that guarantee that evetybody knows the road's going thru but I'm confident that the people who are living there will fight that diligently when the day comes to put it through. I think if we go with 3, the developer of Vineland has got to give us sane sort of assurance that the other property owners agree that that's a reasonable connection. Gary had talked about one way to assure that is to cane up with a, what did you call it Gary? Some kind of a comprehensive road plan or something? Gary Warren: Well similar to what we did on the Stratford Ridge. We did a Li concept layout here. We didn't take that any further but what I suggested or my comment would be that the concept could be recorded against the properties, remaining properties out there but at least you've got it on record. Maybe it could be done as part of a comprehensive plan for this particular area. • 1 Councilman Johnson: Are the property owners of this center property, were they involved in any of this discussion or have they been talked to at all? Frank Beddor: Frank Beddor at 910 Pleasant View Road. Do you want me to answer that question first? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Frank Beddor: Joel Trundle owns the property right down the middle. He's lived there, he's 80 years old. His parent's lived there and he's lived there all his life and at this current time he's not interested in selling. As of today anyway, or developing so that's the status as much as I know on who owns the property. The property next to it is Art Owens and he's here tonight. The property next to it. Councilman Johnson: Did staff talk to Mr. Trundle? ' Dave Hempel: Jay, Joe did came in quite sane time ago and spoke with me about it and he did express that he had no desire to sell or subdivide at this time. ° Councilman Johnson: Right. But we're still talking the future here. 65 I/ City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Did he have any objections to the proposal? 11 Dave Hempel: Not to my recollection, no. Frank Beddor: Now that I'm up here can I? Mayor Chmiel: Frank, go ahead. Frank Beddor: First of all I'd like to thank you Mr. Mayor and the council 11 people for giving us the time to look at this challenge. We really appreciate the time and I'd also like to thank staff because they worked very hard in giving some alternatives. Maybe that's the first time I've seen this happen in ' all the years I've been here where staff came up with same alternatives so we didn't have to start from scratch so I really appreciate that. And Don, maybe you would thank the Chanhassen patrolman who was parking on Pleasant View Road to try to enforce the speed limit. Last Friday night I drove over and he was parked there and he was parked there so it was kind of a reverse situation. I pulled over. Got out of my car. When over and introduced myself and I thanked him. His name was Don, for being there. Usually that's the other way around. Usually they're stopping me but I wanted to thank you. And I also want to thank Chuck, the developer, for being very patient and working with us on this. The issue really, as we're talking about Pleasant View Road, is safety is the main issue and let me just show you a couple of pointers on that. This is our driveway on Pleasant View Road and we, because of the safety and the traffic, we are moving our driveway about 60 feet to the west so that we can see when we came out both ways and also the people can see us when we pull up. Now we're having to tear up this driveway, tear out all the electrical and then we're going to have to bulldoze a new driveway. This is Joe Trundle's, driveway thru this area and hedge because it is a safety problem. People come up that road. It's wide and so they come up fast and they don't realize it narrows down a little later so safety is a real issue. This is the developer's property directly across the road from, we call it the farmhouse. This is a borderline ' and this is where the proposed road was set to go was right here. This house sets 30 feet from the road and this driveway comes right out so all those headlights are going to hit the front door and the living room coming out on the original proposal. When I read the staff report, they said there are 10 trips per day per household so with 21 houses, that'd be 210 trips a day. Now I don't know how many of those are at night but somebody who lives there is going to have a nervous breakdown with all those headlights coming out right smack into 11 their front room. And it's so close to the road and the way the ground is set, I think it'd be hard to diffuse that. It could be done but I think that would be very hard. Marilyn and I drove this area from 2 or 3 times on Nez Perce ' Drive and we clocked it from the southerly access that we could like to see down to Kerber and that's 5 /10th's of a mile and that road, as you say Jay, is the same as pleasant. It might look a little narrower but there's one bad turn and that's where W Road cones in. Then we went back and clocked it fram the proposed entranceway on Pleasant View and we went to TH 101. Now we only went as far to Pleasant View in that direction to where the road opened up nice and wide. And the first 5 /10ths of a mile there are 6 tight turns. Either they're tight S turns or blind turns. In that mile stretch there are 11 turns so it's a lot more serious for traffic going down Pleasant View I think, and this is my opinion, than the same amount of traffic caning down Nez Perce road to Kerber. Now I never go that way so I had to drive it 2 or 3 times to check it to see so 66 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 II obviously we are not in favor of any more traffic on Pleasant View. Then on 4 this report I read the initials ADT, average daily traffic and I believe staff II is reporting that there were 360 to 1,300 cars a day going by this area of Vineland development. I understand that a local road is supposed to carry about 1,000 cars and a collector carries more. Well this is a local road so we're II already at some point in time, 300 cars over on Pleasant View Read so we are very much against anymore traffic on Pleasant View. On the plats, which you've already gone through, we really recommend Alternate 3 and when I picked up this II material last Friday, I realized that this was a rough sketch. It needed to be fine tuned and the first thing we noticed was that in the property that the developer's bought, he wanted 18 lots and then 3 off Pleasant View. Well the II way it shows now it's only 15 lots so we had Daryl Fortier take this same plat 3 and refine this a little bit so it does cane out with 18 lots. At the last meeting we were here both Chuck agreed I believe and also the Pleasant View that we do not want a thru street. You still agree to that don't you Chuck? You II don't want a thru street? We had such a long wait tonight that we had a lot of time to talk and we know this needs a little bit more work but I don't really think we should have to hold the developer up if he agrees to number 3 and II getting the other owners position. I would think that in the future if anybody wanted to develop this property they would have to conform if this road is dedicated to whatever the City plans would be. There is one disadvantage to this route and that is that it's going to be an imposition on the position that II live here and here. That's going to put a lot of traffic at same future date there. While we were waiting I was talking to Daryl and maybe we could leave this way but maybe it's possible to take the end of this cul-de -sac and this is II '1 very steep right here but you can cane at an angle like this and go over and : cane back down so maybe you could have another access here. You'd have this access which would relieve part of the traffic this way. You'd have this access II and also the one we're proposing. I asked Chuck tonight before we started. I said would you oppose this plan or if the Council accepted this plan, would you accept it? + It's my understanding that Chuck said he was not opposed to this plan which is, I'll call it 3A so we would hope that the Council tonight would II vote on this plan and accept this plan with a temporary cul-de -sac here so the developer could go about his business and develop the rest the property. Do you have any questions? Thank you. 1 Councilman Boyt: I have a question for you. What's the difference between the City's 3 and your 3A? 1 Frank Beddor: Very little. It's just that we redid the lots so we came out with 18 lots instead of 15. See when the City did it, they were doing it and they were under pressure and they were concerned about the roads but obviously II the + developer doesn't want to lose 3 lots and he had developed his for 18 so Daryl Fortier developed this so it would cane out to 18 lots in that area. Not counting the 3 that go up here. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: I assume all those lots are standard? You don't know? Frank Beddor: We just got this late Friday night and Daryl worked on this this II r I afternoon but Daryl, are these all standard size lots? 15,000 square feet? 1 Daryl Fortier: They're all in compliance with the City ordinance for depth and 4 width as well as the square footage. 67- 1 1 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 1 Councilman Johnson: Does one of those exit out on Pleasant View then? That top green one then? ff Frank Beddor: Yes. There would be a driveway here to go into this one and this ' would probably be 2 lots with a driveway caning in serving 2 lots that is not sketched in. One of the things that we did object to in Plan 2 and some of the other plans, they had a lot of lots along Pleasant View Road, a half a dozen that would all be separate driveways coming out onto them and we did not want a lot of separate driveways coming out. I don't think the City wants that either. That doesn't help so again I want to thank the stafff or working on this and getting this worked out. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address this? II Chuck Van Eeckhout: My name is Chuck Van Eeckhout. I'm the developer of this proposal. My proposal, which is still before you is as it has been since May or whenever I first brought it to the Planning Commission. I still believe that represents the best use of this property after considerable study and 1 evaluation. The proposal that was put forward by the Homeowners Association is acceptable to me if that is what the Council would like to do. It has the negative of being a little bit more disruptive on the south end with regard to II the wooded area and it does leave us in kind of a limbo on that strip going north to Pleasant View which is okay. I'll deal with that either as an outlot or will approach maybe 2 lots from the south and 1 from the north or 2 from the north and 1 from the south or something like that which is workable. I have no further comments. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? 1 Councilman Johnson: What about my, do you understand what I was saying about the access off of Nez Perce and making that to where if you caning down out of 1 that, even on Option 3, if you're coming down out of your subdivision, that it's a right turn only versus going onto Nez Perce? So we're using a full standard city street, Lake Lucy Road instead of Nez Perce. Does that give you much problem? II Chuck Van Eeckhout: Not at all. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any further discussion? Councilman Hoyt: Yes. I've got one comment. I think that what I would really be committing to here would be some sort of, call it the S plan if you want but something that would come off of Lake Lucy Road and end up on what we're calling Peaceful Lane and how the lots are configured in there is a whole different I topic. Whether_ the staff or whether the proposal we just saw is better, I have no idea but I think it gives us a lot of what we want. Unfortunately it's not all at one time and that's a serious drawback so I'd like to see Roger directed to come up with the strongest assureties that the City could have that we could II put into place to assure us that this road will eventually continue on to the west. Councilman Johnson: When in October, or Mr. Owens is here isn't he? Is he going to let that expire? 68 1 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 . Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to address that? Arthur Owens: There's no way I can develop it now so it will expire. Councilman Johnson: Then have you looked at Alternate 3 and Alternate 2 that affect your property? I'd like to hear from you on those. Arthur Owens: 3A would be the most effective...I think for all the properties. 1 Councilman Johnson: That's good. 2 out of 3 landowners in agreement. That's better than usual. Councilman Boyt: Well it's the same concept. How you divide the lots up. Mayor Chniel: Any further discussion? If not, thanks Chuck. Can I have a motion? Councilman Boyt: I'm not exactly sure how we would word it. Does anybody got ideas that would convey that we, I think if the rest of you agree, that the S .curvature with one entrance being off Lake Lucy Road and the other Peaceful Lane, and I think that the developer should come back to us with a specific lot layout. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Definitely. Councilman Johnson: I think the motion would be that the City Council prefers the Alternate 3 type of option would be the motion. Councilman Workman: With, I guess the discussion Jay. I'm not excited about a , right only turn and I don't know if we're fully taking into account that park and everything else down there but I have... • Councilman Johnson: That's true. Those people will be served by that park and to get to it you'd have to do Nez Perce. Very good point. I missed that completely. 1 Councilman Boyt: I'm not a right only fan there either. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Well when it was a straight through. With Alternate ' 3 being as crooked as it is, it no longer looks like a short cut. I live next door to a short cut. Most everybody here has probably taken Santa Vera at one time. You haven't? Councilman Boyt: It's not short there. Councilwoman Dimler: It's not a short cut to me. Councilman Workman: I guess it's going to be our next Carver Beach Road. Nez Perce coming down here is going to be the next one because I think it grades down doesn't it a little bit? It does one of these. It's thin and it's going to be the next place where people are going to be screaming for patrols and the park and sidewalk and everything else. It's definitely going to be a chute 1 going down there. 69 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 1 Councilman Johnson: A lot of people walk that. It is a good, I've seen quite a few people walking that area. Mayor C amiel: Yes they do. Councilman Johnson: It's a good candidate for sidewalk to the park even though. Councilman Boyt: It's not the consistent best option. I guess it's the best II one but it's not that it's necessarily... Mayor Chmiel: It's the most viable option. Okay. We have a motion of item 3A. Councilman Boyt: 3. Councilman Johnson: It 12, Alternate 3. I'll move that the City Council II voices it's preference to using Alternate 3 as the access alternate for Vineland subdivision. Vineland Forest plat. I Councilman Boyt: I'll second that if you'll accept that we also direct the City Attorney to investigate the best way to see this pursued to the west. We should have that. Councilman Johnson: Yes. No problem. I Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the concept plan for Vineland Forest Addition using Alternate 3 as the access alternative and directing the City Attorney to investigate the best access route to the west. All voted in favor_ and the motion carried. Chuck Van Eeckhout: One question. What is the correct procedure at this point? 1 We have a preliminary plat...We take it you will approve a preliminary plat... next time? II Jo Ann Olsen: Normally we would go back to the Planning Commission but the Planning Cola essentially gave...configuration to the Council so I think we could just bring it back to the Council. - II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, bring it back to the Council. II APPEAL DECISION FOR A LOT AREA AND LOT DEPTH VARIANCE, 185 PLEASANT VIEW ROD, CARL MCNUTT. I Carl McNutt: Carl McNUtt. Curly McNutt everyone knows me by. Mr. Mayor. Councilpersons. I want you to put out of your mind if you can sane of these mathematical figures that have made my lot almost worthless. I have the longest piece of property from between TH 101 and the curve on Pleasant View Road. It's 315 feet long but do you have a transparency for that Jo Ann? Okay. The legal description says my property is 120 feet x 315. However, the road owns 2 rods of that on my side now which makes it only 87 feet deep. Consequently leaving ' me 1,300 square feet short on one piece of property if I divide it. A little less than that. In other words, when I bought this property in 1952, I didn't ' 70 . M1 �,. . .. Ra,, �. ��,, n �L�r. ,� r ;, ; r �,� .�'•�y :: �i 'r,'•,a v ; �F; <e` '� y , ; : � `: , c ..i::•�'i,.���: ' m.; r4 yy a V'Z40 A i; ed. * .T ` 11 � m 11 1 r�; , .., .4, T$ *' ' -',` .iri; Y .... � ,..�. : ` x. ,. ..........,..�.�.u:.:.+........ • \\ \�� 8 g I 1 , \ — ` , �\ -� 1 / /C EXIST RES n — T. " • � • • ■ ',.. \ 1 \ -- / ° \ - -- .," i 1 \ — .\���� , N r 00 0 � _ � _�� � ' > > ____,:_f4_____ NE _\< '�� 0, N., \ \ \ 1 \ \ / 1 f r - — — -- , N \ \\ \ \ \ \ t ----�- •. \ \ \ • ■ - "xV J.-__ ._\ • \ \ \ / loo• _ __ --- • \ • • \ I 1 \\ `\ \� \ �` -4 _ CONNECT TO EXISTING \ \ • • \\ 11\ 1 _ WATERMAIN • \ _ 1 \ 1 1 \ \ 1 4 Hi 2\ _ . i000q` SANITARY MANHOLE EXISTING \\ \ \\ ` � I " - 1 \ _ r o — \ r � 1 EXIST. RES. \ \ \ \ \ \ _ O 1 1 \ ........CONNECT _ \ \ m ' \ I I 1 1 I \ // / ` 9 98 ` \ ` _ I \ 'N 1 1 I I I \ 1 I . \�` 1 \` � I I ' 1 \ I I I �� I ( I ,�-- \� \ I 1 \ � __ �� 1 �~ ; 1 I I I I III I / 9 —` -- \` \ \ 1 1 1 J I I 1 1 I \ / \ \ 1 < 1 / 1 1 1 1 I ` t � 11 . 1 / 1 • EXIST. i- -_ / / I 11 I I 1 f 1 / 9 9A -- \ \ \ 1 1 1 1 • / I I 1 POOL O / 0 I I I / / 992—, \\ \ \ \ 1 1 1 1 G • . / / / / / Ory / , ( 1 I 1 I / / .1 / ( g90 \ \ \ ` \ \ \ t I I I 1 / , " \_- - / ' O I I MH I I r ( ■ \ \ \ 1 1 I / 1 _ D os e � ■ \ - - i I I I I I I \ \\ \ \ \\ I III I Z J \ I I \ , CITY OF CHANHASSEN 11 � \ \ 111 ■ Noll "I —` 1 1 \ \ I \ 1 1 1 I I \ � ) / . �\ \ \ � \ 1 i MINNESOTA olloi 1 1 I I i l l ` /� / ��/—‘ \\ \ ) 1 1 1 1 \\ SANITARY NEZ SEWER 81 R W TERMAIN IVE C) - - - - 1 � I \ \ \ ` 1 l I 1 11 I I \ / r' { ) 1 I r I l 1 I\ \ ALTERNATE A _ _ • I I 1 , t - 996-- .. 1 / i / / I ' - WILLIAM R. ENGLEHARDT ASSOC. 1 ' i / / 1 I I / -- — — - - ' �� 7 / / 1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS /1 / \ 1 i 1 1 r� / / , / / ,i CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 DATE JUNE, 1992 SCALE: I"c50' 111 . DRAWING NO. 3 - z mai C4 EN NB gli NE ow ime ow illi =I aml am als I= NE NE No ism in Es ''a 'ty. 00 4i 1 401:''',ati" - " , - , . 4 Pe , :; ? Ca+ u ' a . _ v v A 1 , \ � , J I ) �/ /; EXIST RES n 1 ...... ......\ ..,,,,.,.... it,ft eim -I ( i (-- - '\ 1 ' \ N. -- 4 1 - _-_c__ '`-____.- -41 Ik \ -- ‘ -- < - ■ 1 \ c \/- y co° ��\\ „ \ - 0 1 \�� /o � I \_ > \LANE > . `Pe • \ \ \ • 1 \ -lo _ / • \ - --a- _ 1 : 2 0........".., \ \ CONNECT TO EXIST - - • - = / \ j _ \ \ \ 1 \ WATERMAIN. ! — — _ = � \ �\ CONNECT ... 70_ A EXISTING \ / l - �\ / SANITARY NHOLE. \ ^ \ I ��-- ••\ \ ` l 1 �\ \\ ` ` - -` 1004— __. ` \ \\ \ \ 1 1 ` fff"""”' 1 1 \ \ \ \ 1 \ EXIST. RES. 1 1 \ 1 1 \ 1 I ' / / �— ` / 00 9�,. ` \` \\\ m 99 : ---------:---- --- ----'■ 1 \ \ \ T" \ 1 1 , 1 I I I 1 � I / �\ �� 1 \\� D % I I I 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 Z \ I �Z 1 1 1( I I I 99 ‘\ \ 1 �' _ �� 1 1 1 \ I I 1 1 !// _ `\ � I I I // \< EXIST. i- '— _ _ / / ( I I I I I 1 / 99A� \ ` 1 I I I • / 1 . POOL l ' g o / o I 1 1 9 . t - - ._ N. \ I { 1 / 1\ - / ( I MH 11 IEYq l 1 / ( f ( ` \ \ \ N 1 I 1 I i" \ - / . - mo o os 1 I /lf \ 1 \ \\ \ 1 II fl I 1 I ( 1 I (\ 1 1 1 I ` \ I ,� I L IIIII I I I 1 1 1 1 1 \ ) 1 \� \ \ \ I 1 1 __ _� \ I y 1 1 I I \ 1 \ � \ \\ \\ y 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN IMP —� ,, \ \ \ 111 I I MINNESOTA 1 1 1 '1 11 I 1 I // \ 1 I I I 1 1 N EZ PERCE DRIVE _ -- ( 1 1_ ) I I j ' ` / / 1 � ` ° ° /.1 / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ 1 1 1 / 1 t \ SANITARY SEWER 8 WATERMAIN I , I i � 1 J `� 1/ 996 I I 1! f I; \ \" ALTERNATE B E _ _ _. _— -- / • 1 \ k - - - - � / / ! / I WILLIAM R. ENGLEHARDT ASSOC. /I/ , \ I I 1 i - - - ' ��� / / / 1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS 111 1 I i r / / / / / CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 D Z r / ATE: JUNE, 1992 SCALE. 1" =50� , DRAWING NO. 4 MMI A CITYOF CHANHASSEN f 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official (-1l ‹ ' DATE: 07/08/93 SUBJ: 93 -12 SUB & 93 -4 VAC (Tower Heights) ' Background: I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some items that should be added as conditions of approval. ' Analysis: Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) for ' proposed dwelling types, garage floor elevations and lowest floor elevations should be indicated on plans to enable staff to perform accurate plan review of the project. The approved drainage plan will be used by staff during permit issuance, and standard designations lessen the chance for errors. The lowest floor elevation or dwelling designation appears to be incorrect on lot 9. This should be clarified. Existing Peaceful lane is proposed to be attached to existing Nez Perce Drive. Different name designations for the same street cause confusion and delays for emergency personnel. Since a large portion of Peaceful Lane is proposed to be vacated and only one house exists on the street, the remaining portion should be renamed to Nez Perce Drive. Please note that the spelling for Nez Perce Drive is incorrect on the preliminary plan. 1 Recommendations: 1. Submit grading, drainage and erosion control plan with standard City designations for dwelling types. I have included the 01/29/93 memo referencing this subject. This should be done before final plat approval. 2. Clarify dwelling conditions on lot 9. Is 1 tot PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff II 07/08/93 Page 2 1 3. Change the name of the remaining portion of Peaceful Lane to Nez Perce Drive. This should be done before final plat approval. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C ITYOF i „, -• A Y 1 ,, ,,..,„..,..„..,„...„__.„....„,_. '.,,L ' :, MINNESOTA 55317 I 690 COULTER DRIVE • F.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORAN i UM 1 TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff 1 FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official I 1 DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation 1 We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps 1 it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. _: FLO or RIO Designates Front Lookout or Rear lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level I approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping dawn to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. 7 R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Eatry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade III with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Fatty Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' , below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the I : dwelling. _ . - _ WO ,_ Designates Walk Oat This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade _ -at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in�the rear of the dwelling. 1 4 ,.. ti SE11V0 WO ' LO or RLO ' -:r — — — - S3 _ a Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the 1 engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. e. t«i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys at Law Th,,m3. 1 C.tmrhell (612) 452.5000 Ro:er Knut Fax (612) 452.555 Thom' \1 Scout ' (Jr a■ G Fuch, James R. Wakton September 7, 1993 Elliott B. liner >ch RECEIVED Michael A Rnol�acl VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Renae I) Steiner ' SEP 0 F 1993 CITY OF c.:N. rHASSEl\ Mr. Paul Krauss City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P. 0. Box #147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 11 Re: Tower Heights Preliminary Plat 1 Dear Paul: Minn. Stat. §462.358, Subd. 3b provides that a city must ' approve a final plat if it has "complied with all conditions and requirements of applicable regulations and all conditions and requirements upon which the preliminary approval is expressly conditioned...." Because the design of Tower Heights is dependent in part on the Nez Perce Drive alignment, we have to be careful not to box ourselves in. I suggest the following condition be added to approval of the preliminary plat: ' Approval is contingent upon the extension of Nez Perce Drive consistent with the preliminary plat street layout and the favorable resolution of litigation concerning the street extension. V- ruly yours, • PBEL., KNUTSON, SCOTT . '• HS, P.A. Irak 'Ter N. Knutson RNK:cjh 1 Suite 317 • Ea Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 60 18. The applicant shall provide a detail on permitted uses of ' the outlot emphasizing reduction of the size of the outlot and limiting the types of use to neighborhood commercial. 19. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit 1 regarding public transit needs in the area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' Conrad: We'11 move on a little bit. Is anybody here tonight interested in the John Pryzmus item on the agenda, because I don't think we're going to get to that. And our preference is to table it and talk another night. So if there's nobody here that sat through 3 hours of fun conversation. I guess Planning Commissioners, I think I'd like a motion to table action on item number 5, item number 6, item number 10 Paul? 10, you need reaction to 9 and 11 right? Krauss: Right. Conrad: Okay. 5, 6 and 10. I had it right. ' Batzli moved, Mancino seconded to table items 5, John Pryzmus Interim Use Permit; item 6, Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding lot sizes; and item number 10, update on the Highway 101 alignment study, due to the meeting curfew. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and turned chairing the meeting over to Brian Batzli. JMS DEVELOPMENT FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 6.1 ACRES INTO 13 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, WEST OF TROENDLE CIRCLE, EAST OF PEACEFUL LANE AND NORTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, TOWER HEIGHTS. Public Present: , Name Address , Shanon Graef 855 Pleasant View Frank & Marilyn Beddor 910 Pleasant View Road Timothy Foster 6370 Pleasant View Cove David Beddor 1050 Pleasant View Road Mike Meuwissen 6500 Troendle Circle Larry Moloney 150 Fifth St. Tower, S #3500, Mpls ' Pat Cunningham 865 Pleasant View Road 1 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 61 11 II Name Address J. & Karen Meyer 6225 Ridge Road David & Valerie Rossbach 670 Pleasant View Road I Teri Frederick 660 Pleasant View Road Douglas Olsen 901 Vineland Court Kelly Bailey 6580 Pleasant View Way II Mary Sherba... Burnsville Rob & Teresa Drake 980 Lake Lucy Road Holly Broden 640 Pleasant View Road Sandy Post 489 Pleasant View Road II Samuel Erwin 6400 Pleasant Park Drive Kathy Berdahl 6411 Pleasant Park Drive Conrad & Michelle Eggan 6500 Peaceful Lane Gretchen Robideau 540 Pleasant View Road Laury Martini 491 Indian Hill Road Gordy & Patsy Whiteman 825 Pleasant View II Tom Meier 6410 Fox Path Tom Seifert 600 Pleasant View Road II Batzli: Is this a public hearing? Okay, so it was held open from the last time? I Scott: Well I know we closed the public hearing the last time we talked about it and sent comments to staff and the applicant and this is their reaction. Correct? So do we need a public hearing? • II Harberts: Yep. II Scott: We do? Krauss: I suppose officially you may have already held the II public hearing. I wasn't here. I don't know if you formally closed it or what. Harberts: I believe it was closed. II Batzli: We closed it actually 2 meetings ago before we tabled it but I'm sure we had a public hearing last time but I wasn't here II either. So okay, well I'll run it as a public hearing then. Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. II Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Jeff Schameter: I'll be very brief. My name is Jeff Schameter. I'm with JMS Development. Last time I was here there were several issues regarding the plat. Those issues were worked out 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 62 1 and have been reiterated and worked out again with city staff. The issue of the trees we solved with a custom grading plan, retaining walls and 89 foot frontage on Lot 13. Our engineer Roger Anderson is here tonight. He'll address that briefly. Essentially I understand it to be a scale issue of the current plan and the final plat will show 90 feet in the surrounding area. Actually like 89. something but the lot next to it shows 91. something so there will be two 90 foot lots there. Dennis Troy, our attorney is here and he will address a couple of the more interesting issues surroundng this plat. We feel the development's an excellent addition to Chanhassen. It conforms in every way and we have conserved vegetation on the site beyond our last plan. We think we really have excellent tree preservation. One of the benefits of moving the lot line between Lot 12 and Lot 13 was that the major clump of trees, the cluster if you would, that existed well onto Lot 13. Excuse me, well into Lot 12 that would have been impacted by traditional home construction on Lot 12 is now bisected by the lot between Lots 12 and 13. Therefore the very fact that there's a setback requirement will in fact conserve those trees. We also are planning, as previously mentioned, to custom grade those lots. 11 We have moved the setback, and I'm not sure this will be addressed in the developer's agreement, in excess of the minimum setback on Lot 13 to insure that the trees that will be located in the future front yard of Lot 13, will also be easily 1 conserved...I'd just like to again confirm that this plat conforms in every way and we feel that out of all the alternative plans we've explored for this site, that this plat is by far the most efficient and best use. And ironically resembles study plats, study plans and concept plans that have been kicked around on this site for many years. At this point I'll let Denny and Roger expound on a couple of the particular issues that I've asked them to address and I will be available for questions. Thank you. Roger Anderson: Chairman and Planning Commission members. My 11 name is Roger Anderson and I'm the engineer on the project. Regarding the lot frontage issue that was...and is proposed to be corrected and is easily correctable. I'm a little embarrassed That slipped by me to tell you the truth but the adjustment that I put was easily accomplished and...was roughly dimensioned until the final plat is done. Jeff has addressed the tree issues. We did feel that after the last meeting some work needed to be done there and we did some work at considerable length with staff to provide the adjustments to the grading plan that they needed and we did work well with them and they were very helpful for us and we needed to come up with a grading plan we felt was acceptable. I did have one issue on the grading plan. I think on the retaining walls, Dave and I had discussed that briefly that due 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting g August 18, 1993 - Page 63 to the proximity of some of the trees on Mr. Owens, the nearest house, it may help if we could put the retaining wall on the right -of -way and apparently some agreement has to be worked out to allow that to happen. That's one issue. The other things I think have been addressed. If there are any questions regarding engineering, I'd be glad to answer those. I think that staff has fairly well looked at those issues and... Dennis Troy: Good evening Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members. My name is Dennis Troy. I'm the attorney JMS Development. I just want to keep my comments very brief as well tonight. The staff report we think is a very favorable staff report. They're in favor of it. We think staff has handled very well the legal issue that is kind of looming over this project in terms of the condemnation and EAW. This body is not asked to make decisions on EAW's. This body is not asked to make decisions in terms of condemnation. The staff report indicates that those are conditions of the final plat approval and of construction. We think that makes sense. We're in favor of that to move the planning process along subject to those conditions and we think that staff has done a real good job in handling that issue so it doesn't muddy up what your task is, which is planning. Secondly, what is not at issue tonight are different alternative site designs but some other developer or some other owner might plan for this property. What is at issue here is the plat that this owner has presented. If there are comments or criticisms of that design, doesn't meet code, I think that's fair game but I would hope that tonight we wouldn't see 15 different alternative designs and waste a lot of our time. Third, what's not at issue tonight is what might happen someday to Pleasant View Road. This project does not require, does not anticipate, ' does not contemplate any improvements on Pleasant View and I know there's some citizens that are concerned about what might happen in the future and it might be nice to assure them that if a public improvement was ordered in that respect, there'd be a separate public hearing at a different time, probably...with respect to it. It's not the issue here tonight. And lastly, even though I don't think the EAW condemnation issue is an issue tonight, I do want to make an editorial comment on it. It appears to me that to some degree an owner has attempted, a neighboring owner has attempted to make an issue out of it by planting trees and in effect creating the destruction of some natural resources which otherwise wouldn't be necessary. And I think we're confident and my guess is that the City Attorney is confident that if and when that issue goes to court, the Judge is going to see very clearly that the City isn't the cause of that destruction. This project isn't a cause of this destruction. The planter of those trees is what caused the destruction, if there were to be some destruction. So we would ask that you 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 64 1 approve that, the preliminary plat recommended to the City , Council tonight. I'm also available for any questions. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. I'm going to open it up for public comment. I ask that you keep it brief and limit yourself to several minutes. We have a full house here. I don't know how many people wish to speak. I'd like to have people try to limit their comments to the issues that remained open from the last meeting, if at all possible. I think the record's very clear on a lot of the other items. So having said that, is there anyone that would like to address the Commission? Frank Beddor: Commissioners, staff, my name is Frank Beddor. I live at 910 Pleasant View Road. I'm sorry that the time is so late because we knew this was a continuation of a public hearing a lot of us weren't able to be at the last one and we had, earlier we had about 40 residents that did want to say something about this proposal. I'll try to keep mine brief but I would like to go through the notes that I made this evening...Tonight I am one, and only one of 214 owners. Taxpayers or voters who live on Nez Perce Drive and Pleasant View Road who were opposed to two things. We're opposed to connecting the Nez Perce Drive and Pleasant View Road. We're also against the proposed plat that JMS has before you and we're against that for two reasons. First it's the ingress and outgress of the 13 lots because this is going to necessitate making Art Owens driveway and making it a • wide city road and this in turn we feel is going to destroy somewhere between 20 or 30 mature trees. And I'm talking about trees that are 40, 50 and 60 years old. This is the proposed area that they're proposing. This is the drive and it comes up and the 214 people I'm speaking of are the homeowners who have signed this petition against the connection of this road. This is a photograph showing Art Owens driveway and the yellow lines are roughly where the driveway would go and the white lines are the outside area. Now we could not have the plat itself when we did this but as you can see, there are beautiful trees that are involved here. The...blocked out a lot of them but there are 33 trees in that immediate area and we are against that taking all those trees down. Now, I just received the staff report late today, or I should say the developer's on the replacement plan and on that replacement plan they are showing that on the overall development they're going to lose 33 trees. But right on their own admission, they aren't saying that ingress and outgress, they are going to lose 15 trees and those trees are 20 inches in diameter. This is a diameter. 24 inches. 28 inches. 26 inches and 36 inches. These are huge trees that are 50, 60 and 80 years old and the reason we object to this is that there is an alternate solution of how to develop this property without going 1 1 II Planning Commission Meeting II August 18, 1993 - Page 65 II through and taking all these trees down. We also object to the grade. It's our understanding that that grade is 10.5% and that's steeper than normally recommended by city staff. We also II object to the traffic that these 13 lots will generate because that will put traffic on Pleasant View, Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View and that will suddenly add to the safety issues on 11 Pleasant View. Again, the 214 homeowners who signed this petition feel that this ingress and outgress is unnecessary because there is an alternate plan that you can access to Lake Lucy and that has a lot that was dedicated by the city for that II purpose. On the connection between Nez Perce Drive and Pleasant View. This is a safety issue and I would like to quote a staff report prepared by Dave Hempel to Jo Ann Olsen in July of 1989, II and I quote. Pleasant View Road serves as the only east /west connection between County Road 17 and Trunk Highway 101. The existing roadway design is unsafe in several areas for local I resident traffic. Steep hills, sharp curves, hidden driveways,. and overgrown vegetation all combine to create hazardous conditions. As the area continues to develop, traffic volumes will increase and hazardous conditions along Pleasant View Road II will only intensify. Well we agree with that and that was 4 years ago and we don't think any additional traffic on that road, either coming from the proposed ingress to outgress to this II development or connecting Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View is going to help this situation at all. Also, back in 1989 we were at the only public hearing they did have, neither staff nor the city had developed an indepth traffic study. Now we did make our II own traffic study just a short time ago. We went to Carver County Sheriff's Department and from June of 1991 until July of 1993 there were, in this 2 year period, 10 car accidents on Nez II Perce Drive and Pleasant View Road. Three of them involved personal injuries. There was only one car accident on Lake Lucy with no personal injury. Now the Lake Lucy residents we do sympathize with these people. There are 20 homes on that one block stretch and we do feel something should be done to reduce traffic, reduce the speed at stop lights. However, Lake Lucy is only one block long. It's a new street and when you enter Lake II Lucy, you can see down the whole block and you can see any, any homeowner or children there can see the cars coming. That's not true on Pleasant View. That's 20 blocks long, Pleasant View Road I and as Dave Hempel so aptly points out in his report, Pleasant View is very dangerous and certainly it hasn't improved over the last 4 years and adding more traffic to it is not going to improve it. On the meeting, the Council meeting I had in II September of 1989, that was when Vineland first submitted their plat, they showed a plat that came in and cul -de -sac for 15 blocks and came out Pleasant View for 3 lots. Evidentally the I city staff took exception to that and they wanted to have this connect through to Pleasant View Road so at that meeting they II II 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 66 1 offered 4 proposals. One of those proposals, they were listed 1 1 thru 4, one of those was to make this a straight road right through to Pleasant View. The other proposal, they had 3 other ones and the other one was to come through cul -de -sac it at when and if Troendle's was developed and then come through Peaceful Lane. We, as the 214 homeowner were only shown these 4 options and we certainly didn't want option number 4 because it immediately put a connection and added traffic to Pleasant View. We did agree but we did not accept plan 3 but we agreed to it which was the lesser or two evils at that time. Plan 3 meant that sometime at a later date when someone purchased and developed Troendle's property and when somebody purchased and developed Art Owens property, there was a possibility that Pleasant View Drive would be extended to Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View, unless a better solution was discovered. In September of '89, the same time we had this meeting, Art Owens had a plat that was already submitted to the city. It was okayed by the city and it showed 5 houses sitting right here. There was no connection to Nez Perce at that time on that accepted plat. At this Council meeting on September 11th, we were not shown any plats that showed that you could access onto Lake Lucy connection. In fact we were informed that Lake Lucy, that outlot that was dedicated was too steep. In a staff letter to Don Ashworth of September 8, 1989 it was noted that Art Owens plat might expire in October and that a reasonable connection could be made to Pleasant View, but in that report it said the disadvantages of it was, and I'm going to quote, this would still result in introducing traffic on Pleasant View, and. that's what we don't want is to introduce traffic on Pleasant View or Nez Perce Drive. This letter goes on to say that one of the advantages is that there's an undeveloped right -of -way to Lake Lucy Road...grade was too steep. Now at that same meeting in September of '89, Councilman Johnson asked Paul Krauss the following question. He said Paul, that little stub coming off Lake Lucy on the left side of the water tower, that wasn't consider in any option. Paul Krauss. Technically yes but there is some difficulty in the grade. Well see now the staff is in a bind we feel. We now know, by accident I went out and asked somebody about a short time ago, to really measure that grade and could we heard that 10% was too steep. And we found out that that grade is only 5.3% steep. So we were never informed of this and so no one ever looked at that option. That option going to south to my knowledge was never presented in a Planning Commission meeting. Was never presented at a Council meeting and now that staff or someone at the city has allowed two houses to be built along this platted future road with the minimum offset. Now this is not the liability or the problem of the 214 homeowners that are on Pleasant View and Nez Perce. This is the city's challenge and it's obvious that if this new road was installed, that these homeowners would be compensated if there's r 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting II August 18, 1993 - Page 67 I some loss in value to their property. Back in '89, see that was the only public hearing we had. The Vineland Forest residents had to sign a restriction that they would not in anyway attempt to I restrict the extension of Nez Perce Drive. I hope I'm not reading too fast... When we purchased the Troendle property, this was a year after this, the city did not require us to put this covenant II in our development agreement. In fact we knew nothing about this covenant. We didn't that out until about 3 months ago. At the last Council meeting, and I just got the report, Don Ashworth stated at that Council meeting, when Mr. Beddor received his I approval, that would be on Troendle's, specifically...on the covenants placed on each of these lots that shows the connection would be to Pleasant View. This is incorrect. These covenants I are not in the developer's agreement that we have a year later in our developer's agreement. Now in the Vineland Forest; the covenant does read. Each owner purchasing a lot in Vineland Forest agrees not to object to the possible future roadway II extension. Some of the language does not appear in the development agreement at that Troendle. In fact in contrast, this upset me so at the last Council meeting because I was kind of put I in the spot of going back on my word, I retained the law firm. They went through all of the Minutes for the last 5 years. All of the correspondence. All the city's reports and I quote what they II say in our development agreement. Outlot A may not be platted... until the city receives a petition from the developer, which would be myself, to extend Nez Perce back through the property to the west of the preliminary plat as a direct or indirect II connection to Pleasant View. Now in the case of the Troendle Addition, if the developer chose not to plat Outlot A, the road would not be extended. Now this is far from the agreement, from I an agreement to extend the road. It confirms Mr. Beddor's position that he exceeded, based on the circumstances that existed at the time, to reserve the right to extend the road. However, the solution is really simple. You know going back, I what we want to do is, we want to extend Nez Perce Drive. We just want to extend...to the north. We want to go back down to the south. Come back through the property and this has a big ' advantage because you don't have to condemn this property. You don't have to deal with a public road and anyone that's going to go int Art Owens property or into Troendles is going to come down II Lake Lucy Road, immediately make a left and that property does not go down the length of the road. The advantage of this would be there'd be no connector road between Nez Perce and Pleasant View and this would reduce the safety issues on both these roads. I There'd be no need to use taxpayers money to condemn private property or build a road. This does not increase traffic on Lake Lucy. The new owners in the Art Owens and Troendle Addition II would turn off of Lake Lucy Road and would not drive the full length of Lake Lucy. And we would save 20 to 30 beautiful, mature II II 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 68 trees. Now the...seems to have been about 4 years ago. Now 4 years ago. Now 4 years ago at the public hearing, the Beddors did not own the Troendle property and we did not own Art Owens property. And at that time...Art Owens had his property platted and it did not show an extension going through to Peaceful Lane. At that same meeting 4 years ago we saw four options, none of them showed an ingress and outgress on Lake Lucy as an option and that was over land that had been dedicated for that purpose. After 4 years we now find the grade is not too steep and we are hoping that the Commission will keep an open mind on this proposal which we call a solution. At the last Council meeting on July 12th, 4 out of 5 Councilmen voted against this solution. And their general attitude was that this was resolved 4 years ago. They had very closed minds and they refused to explore any new viable options. In our mind a lot of things changed in 4 years. We now have the option of going off Lake Lucy because the bank is not too steep. We feel the environmental study will show that taking out 20 or 30 trees will have a disastrous impact on the environment. But the most important issue, who does this connector road serve. This is the same plat. All of those lots that are yellow lined are people who signed this petition. And a lot of people that you might see in white there...but we hope to have substantially more. It's my understanding that a connector road or this type of road, whatever you want to call it, is to 1 serve the local neighborhood. That would be the residents of Nez Perce Drive. That would be Vineland. That would be Troendle. • That'd be Lake Lucy and Art Owens and also the residents on Pleasant View. Gentlemen, tonight we have, and I'll have a packet here for you of over 214 homeowners, taxpayers and voters, who live on these roads and these are the people that this road is supposed to serve and the overwhelming majority of these owners do not want this connection. We still believe in a democratic system and we feel it's your responsibility as the government officials, to serve the taxpayers and the overwhelming majority we feel the taxpayers have spoken. I hope you'll abide by their wishes. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to 1 address the Commission? Excuse me. I'd like to hear from everyone else who would like to address the Commission before I let you rebutt, thank you. David Donna: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. My name is David Donna. I live at 881 Vineland Court. I heard some discussions about residents on Nez Perce and Pleasant View. I don't...street but I still have some concerns. I also apologize. I was not at the last meeting. I don't know what was discussed so I'm not sure what the guidelines are. I'm not familiar with this process but I listen with interest to the issues that were 1 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 69 raised by JMS and the attorney for JMS. It struck me that those issues were the issues that JMS wanted considered. What I didn't hear discussed by JSM, which was talked about by Mr. Beddor, was the...sitting through the last several hours today, I heard talk and concerns raised by the Commission about safety in different developments. I think it's important that...I talked with Councilman Senn, Councilman Wing and I've talked with Mr. Hempel before Mr. Krauss left for out of town. We were trading phone calls back and forth for about a week to try and talk about some of these things. What I understand is that with this connector road going through, that there will in fact be...traffic north and south. There will be increased traffic on Pleasant View and there will be increased traffic on Lake Lucy. I'm not an engineer. I'm not a planner but the increased traffic does not go hand in hand with a safer development, which means a more hazardous situation. I think that the real issue here is whether something can be done so that this project can be developed by JMS or whoever but the safety can still be maintained all over. And I've talked with Mr. Hempel about some things and since then I've talked with Mr. Wing and he has asked me to make a Visitor Presentation. I'm not prepared to do that. We've talked about some alternatives which would disperse the traffic either by having a third ingress and egress, if that's what you call it. Or by having some multiple cul -de -sacs. I still think that there are some things to talk about. Some issues to consider and I noted that Ms. Harberts was concerned in the previous proceeding about we don't want to take a vote here tonight and have some developer rely on it and then rely on it to their detriment. I think that these other alternatives should be considered before any vote's taken and any developer or anyone else goes ahead and 11 makes big plans and spends a lot of money...Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to I address the Commission? Other than the applicant. They'll be given a chance. Terry Barke: I'll try to be very brief also. My name is Terry Barke. I live at 9...Lake Lucy Road. I'd like to make three basic points here. In kind of response to what Mr. Beddor was saying. He started his presentation by talking about two points. One that 214 residents were opposed to this connection between Nez Perce and Pleasant View Road. It seems to me that that's already a done issue. As part of the conditions of Mr. Beddor being able to develop the Troendle Addition, you can see on the second bullet there it's pretty clear that that connection being made was one of the conditions and they agreed to that when they developed the addition. But I see that as outside of the scope 11 of this meeting tonight. Second issue regarding concerns for the trees. I'm concerned about the trees. People on my street are 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 70 concerned about trees. I think we're all concerned about trees. I noticed that shortly after the City Council decided on the connection of Nez Perce and Pleasant View, on Mr. Beddor's property there seems to be a bunch of pine trees that have been planted right behind the barricade and the sign on the barricade saying this street will be extended in the future. To me that doesn't seem consistent with an argument about protecting trees and I'm just saying that it sounds to me like the developer has done the best job he can to take care of the trees and I hope these trees that have been just recently planted back there don't become an issue later on. That seems kind...As a third point that I'd like to make is that, I feel like I can speak for the people on Lake Lucy Road. We are in agreement that we like the JMS proposal. We think that equitably shares traffic in that area between Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View and we think it's a nice plan. Thank you. Batzli: Terry, could you show us on the map where you live on 1 Lake Lucy? You live on Lake Lucy Road right? Terry Barke: Yeah, I live on Lake Lucy Road. 1 Batzli: Can you show us on this map or another map. Maybe Sharmin has a little bit bigger one so people can see it. Where do you live on Lake Lucy Road. Terry Barke: I live right here. 1 Batzli: About halfway down? Terry Barke: About halfway. On the north. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? 1 Renelle Ulrich: Hi. My name's Renelle Ulrich and I live 6581 Nez Perce Drive. I am against the connection and I still see viable alternatives and I would like the opportunity to work with the Councilmembers. Work with the planners and everything to come up with a solution that everyone can be happy with. I see that if the connection goes through, I see Nez Perce becoming very busy and it is very similar to Pleasant view in that it is a windy, curving road. A lot of overgrowth in the vegetation and that has to be taken into account. There are a lot of turns, there are a lot of hills and having a connection there is going to make it not a very safe street. There are other ways around it and I think that as a resident of Vineland Forest, I've only been there a year but I'm there. There are other people who have not been there a long time but we are there and there have been 1 1 .1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 71 many changes in the last 4 years and we really deserve the right to be heard. It's very frustrating when other alternatives are presented when we're still in the planning stages and people are ' shaking their head and looking around and kind of relaying a real sense of cynicism toward us and that's very frustrating to deal with and I'm hearing some Council people saying, well you know the system does work. Well I'd like to see the system work. I'd like to see everyone happy with the solution. And that means going back and looking at some of the alternatives and hopefully ' you will allow us to do a presentation. Thank you. Dan Rogers: My name is Dan Rogers. I live at 6500 Nez Perce Drive. My concern with the proposal tonight is that it will lock us into putting Nez Perce through to Pleasant View. My concerns with that are, that it will increase access to the entire area. I mean Pleasant View, Lake Lucy and Nez Perce. What I've noticed at these council meetings is that the City Council is relying on 4 year old information, before Target was a...and we're going to increase, by increasing access to the area, we're going to increase traffic to the whole area, including Lake Lucy. Even though it was never stated, I get the feeling that there's a belief that by putting Nez Perce through to Pleasant View, it's going to take a lot of traffic off of Lake Lucy and onto Nez Perce. I don't think that's really going to happen. I think it's going to increase traffic for all of us and I think what we all want, since we're all neighbors, our kids all play together, and basically the whole area is our neighborhood. We want an equitable distribution of the traffic and for that reason I would like to look at some other options other than the one we see, looked at this evening... Batzli: Thank you very much. Anyone else like to address the Commission? I think somebody's passing the child. We'll let her. come up first. Sharon Rogers: Sorry,I thought we'd be through earlier too so. My name is Sharon Rogers. I live at 6500 Nez Perce Drive and I guess I basically just want to repeat what these people said. I do not think the road should go through. If this development is done as it is proposed, it will go through and it will cause a lot of problems...and also I just want to say that, Mr. Beddor refers to the Vineland Forest residents signing the covenants. That says we are not going to disapprove of any connections for any extension. That's what it says. It doesn't say a connection. When we moved in we were aware that there was going to be a development behind us. That's how far I thought it was going to be extended. It ended up not, and it's the same thing. I did not accept that it was going to be extended to Pleasant View and so I am fighting for that and I am willing to fight with 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 72 1 Mr. Beddor until and hopefully it will be, you will listen to the citizens in Vineland Forest because we weren't there 4 years ago and we really feel that we have been ignored and we really would like to be listened to and there are a lot of safety issues involved. Thank you. Mary Stasson: My name is Mary Stasson. I live at 5400 Peaceful Lane and perhaps Sharmin could point to where our home is. We're directly affected by the traffic that will come swerving across and headlights coming into our south windows and all that other kind of great stuff. And I submitted a letter today that I asked Sharmin to give to all of you... Mancino: Are you the corner lot? 1 Mary Stasson: One of the corner lots. Mancino: And you're very close. 1 Mary Stasson: We're very close to Peaceful Lane. About 35 feet from that road so we're very concerned about the...of this road and preserving the property that we have now. On that particular corner where we're at, we've...last 3 years and we've also had... Also we were never notified 4 years ago when all this was happening and so by the time we came up here to say anything, it was like it was already a done deal. Nobody was willing to listen to us so...thank you. Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. Yes sir. Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson. I live at 1...Lake Lucy , Road. The residents of Lake Lucy Road...traffic on our road is going to decrease if this connection... Also there seems to be in Mr. Beddor's presentation an assumption that all cars traveling 11 from Nez Perce and Peaceful Lane will turn right and go east on Pleasant View to TH 101. I think the vast majority will turn left and go...CR 17. Batzli: Thank B you. y Todd Novacheck: Hi, I'm Todd Novacheck. I live at 6371 Pleasant View Cove. I'd like to just speak to the safety issues again. We have, from our residence, we have to turn out onto Pleasant View Road whether we're going east or west. And it is very dangerous. Cars right now coming over the hill and it's a very dangerous situation. In the wintertime a neighbor and I were just talking, even though we live there and we know it, sometimes we've come down that road and you start applying your breaks and we just keep sliding and almost right down to Powers Blvd to CR 1 11 .1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 August 18, 1993 - Page 73 17. And so now by taking more cars from the south and bringing them onto Pleasant View Road, you're going to increase...problems and as the gal just said, there's been several pretty severe accidents right at that intersection in the last couple years, that we've seen. I think you really have to take a look at it. My daughter is 10 years old and got off a school bus just this year with the stop sign out onthe school bus. Came around the front and a car was coming over, going west on Pleasant View Road and the bus driver said she just barely got missed. The car literally had to swerve around because the speed coming down Pleasant View Road, it's a blind intersection right there at Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road. So you're going to dump more cars in there. I think you're going to really increase a 11 problem. I think the solution brings people out of that area or into that area and will take them right back out to CR'17 and if they choose then to come around and use Pleasant View Road, that's fine but the point is it takes them, the solution takes ' them out. They would go west on Lake Lucy and hit CR 17. Then they could go north or south. So from a safety standpoint, somebody really needs to go out there and document what has happened in the past and potentially what could happen. So appreciate your time. Thank you. Tim Foster: Good morning. Batzli: It's going to get there. Tim Foster: Tim Foster at 6370 Pleasant View Cove and I have to agree with Todd's statement, and I'm Todd's neighbor. We use the same cul- de- sac...it is a safety factor. I somewhat view this ' connection that everyone to the south from Highway 5 can now have somehow access to Pleasant View. I think that the solution and based on the information that we have reviewed as a group, in the ' form of a petition, I feel that if I had your job and I was doing the stewards of the community, that I would view it as an impact that this is a situation where you cannot make the right decision on the wrong type of program. I think it's wrong and I think it creates a safety issue... Batzli: Okay, thank you. Did we already hear from you? 11 Dan Rogers: I'd like to address the safety issue. Batzli: I'd like to hear from everybody before I get anyone a second chance. Is there anyone else that'd like to address the Commission? Sandy Post: My name is Sandy Post. I live on 489 Pleasant View and I live at the stop sign on the corner there and the safety 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 74 issue about a concern, we'd like you to look at the alternative. 1 We are always in danger of pulling out of our driveway because they make the stop sign, make the corner and our driveway's right there. I'm afraid to let my children get the mail because it's bad. I just don't want to see anymore traffic come on. Batzli: Thank you. Valerie Rossbach: My name is Valerie Rossbach. I live at 670 Pleasant View Road. I've been living there for 10 years. This issue on Pleasant View that's come up repeatedly. I attended meetings when they were putting in the Near Mountain development. At that time the Pleasant View Road safety issue was raised. They were making efforts to prevent more traffic on that road. Since then increase...development and I think it cannot support I/ another, that road cannot support another road into that. Dave Beddor: Hi, I'm Dave Beddor. I live at 1050 Pleasant View. ' In some ways it sounds like we in the room are opposed, I really think everybody stands together. They stand together for a principle and the principle that everybody's fighting for from their own perspective, is safety. Lake Lucy doesn't want their kids being run over. People on Pleasant View are concerned. We hear that time and again. But we're all very emotionally connected to our little piece and are very vested in, you know I'm vested in Pleasant View Road and Nez Perce and Lake Lucy. What I'm hoping is that you can look at it from a more macro perspective and keep all those pieces in mind so it doesn't come out where there's one road that's winning and one road that's losing. Take a look from the perspective of on Pleasant View, how many people are funneled in from Fox Chase and Near Mountain and so forth. I can respect also...bias to the Pleasant View standpoint. I can respect that people on Lake Lucy are concerned that they have an extra 15 houses coming in. Maybe the fairest way of looking at it is saying, how many people, how many cars drive by my driveway you know every morning... Distributing it. What's fair? How should we look at distributing new cars there coming in. Everyone's going to say the same thing. Nobody wants more and so maybe there should be time taken on that study to take a look at how many cars are taking up. Where should it be funneled to? I sort of sat here sort of watching and it feels like, well you know I connect a road to that...old issue and I'm sure we can find technical reasons for both ways and I guess I'm just kind of hoping that you'll look at it from a little more macro perspective than what we all are because we're all vested in our own pieces and our own kids so thank you. Batzli: Thank you. 1 1 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting 1 August 18, 1993 - Page 75 1 Conrad Eggan: Good evening. My name is Conrad Eggan. I live at 6500 Peaceful Lane which happens to be directly across from where this connecter road would exit. Would connect with Peaceful Lane. Now I don't, right now I probably will see the largest increase percentage wise of anybody here in terms of traffic. I have the Art Owens residence beyond me. No one else so I will see a huge increase compared to what I have now. I don't have a problem with 12 or 13 residences being built up on that hill coming past me. What I have a problem with is the connection itself and bringing all the people up Nez Perce and those who might want to come through on Pleasant View and access Nez Perce. I just don't think it's necessary. Simply not necessary. And if approving this plat forces that connection, then I also must approve, must 1 oppose the approval of this plat. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission for the first time? Doug Olson: Hello. My name is Doug Olson. I live at 901 Vineland Court. I'm also opposed to this connection of Pleasant ' View to, or Nez Perce to Pleasant View. My biggest concern is that this road will be used a cut through from Pleasant View to other areas via Nez Perce...There's really two major issues here that I have a problem with and the first I mentioned is that it generates heavier volumes of traffic through a residential area that really shouldn't have to share that volume of cut through traffic because if you look at who is this serving, is it serving the residents of the area that live there or is it serving commuters just traveling through our residential area? It also creates a larger volume of traffic for Pleasant View and as you know, I think widening or expanding Pleasant View would be difficult at best and I don't think it would serve a public interest to create traffic on such a convoluted street. I had a lot of issues here but most of them have been discussed. A lot of safety issues. I think that there are more viable alternatives and that's what we should be looking at. Whether it's to bring Nez Perce back to Lake Lucy or to look at cul- de- sacing Nez Perce and Troendle. Maybe having Troendle come off Pleasant View. I think there are some alternatives that haven't been looked at. I think that the decisions maybe were made in the past based on misinformation. Whether it was grading limits or wrong calculations on slopes of roadway contours, I think that we've got to go back and stop what we're doing here and look at some of the decisions that were made in the past based on misinformation ' and I think there are much better alternatives...there shouldn't be a cost associated with the connection here. Who's going to bear that cost. I think a lot of homeowners in the area would l agree that living on a road that's going to be used as a cut through, could actually decrease property values and perhaps the 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 76 1 market values of the homes would drop and of course not only a drop in that would also likely reduce the tax base for the city of Chanhassen. Not to mention condemnation of property that this connection would create. In conclusion I hope that the Planning Commission would look at all pertinent issues of this decision making process and reach the conclusion that more viable alternatives exist that are more environmentally and fiscally responsible and residentially sensitive to a better solution. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. 1 Doug Olson: One other quick question. Who prepares an EAW? Batzli: Paul, who prepares it? ' Krauss: Well this is, it's not a mandatory connection. The City Council received a petition signed by, I don't know, a number of individuals in the area. 25 have to sign it. They will receive that on Monday evening. It's our recommendation that they go ahead and do it. The City Council is the RGU. Is the Responsible Governmental Unit. It's up to the City Council to figure out who should do it. Right now we recommended that it be a different engineering firm than did the feasibility study so there's a checks and balance kind of arrangement. We asked Barton - Aschman to do an EA...EA on Highway 5. They gave us an estimate on that. That's what we're going to be bringing to the Council. Batzli: Does approval of this have to be contingent on successful EAW for Nez Perce? Krauss: We added that condition. I mean at this point it's unclear as to whether or not the City Council's going to order an EAW. It's completely elective on their part. We've recommended that they do one. It's really their call. Harberts: Who pays? Krauss: Taxpayers are going to pay. It's a city cost. There's also a suit that's been brought in this case. The City Council was served on Friday. So the Council is dealing with a lot but right now, we delayed this item once before. In June I believe because at that point the City Council was asked to reconsider their decision. We took this back to the City Council to tell us what you're going to do. They said they wanted to go ahead with the roadway at that point. I don't know what else to do at this point. We asked that this be approved contingent upon the 1 Findings of the EAW. 1 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 77 ' Mancino: And the lawsuit? Krauss: The lawsuit's unclear. ' Batzli: I'm sorry, who filed the lawsuit? Krauss: I don't recall which names were on it. It was I think three families. Batzli: Okay, proposing to block this subdivision? Krauss: Well I guess, Elliott did you have a chance to read through that? Elliott Knetsch: No I haven't. ' Krauss: There were a number of issues that were cited, similar' issues to those which were cited with the EAW. Batzli: Okay. ' Doug Olson: So am I correct in assuming that they're timing, that the timing of completing this EAW with whether this 1 connection should be made. Is that up to City Council to decide? Batzli: They would not be able to proceed until the EAW was completed, if they determined to proceed with that. Doug Olson: And that's up to the City Council to decide if they want to do an EAW. Batzli: Yes, and that will be decided at the next Council meeting. Harberts: Which is Monday? Batzli: Monday. Doug Olson: Do we know about what kind of a timeframe the EAW would take? How long? 1 Krauss: I'm not sure. I'm guessing, I asked for an estimate... on very short notice and I got a fax today that gave me the cost but not the time. I'm assuming it's going to be probably a 6 week, give and take. Batzli: Multiply that by 2. Maybe 4 yeah. 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 78 1 Doug Olson: I assume what the EAW is going to do is address most of the issues that we raised here and your thinking is that an engineering firm may be involved. Krauss: Oh clearly, yeah. I mean there's enough questions that have been raised. I take strong exception to the tossing about of misinformation. I mean this has been a 4 year continuous process with multiple public hearings and new information being contributed ad infinitum. But at this point we're taking the position that there's nothing more city staff can or should add to this process. We've already had a feasibility study done by one engineering firm. Let's bring in somebody fresh. Have them take a run at it and let it come back with the information and let the City Council decide. 1 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Tom Meier: Good evening. I'm Tom Meier and I live at 6410 Fox ' Path in Fox Chase and I'd like to address two issues. The first one being safety. We live at the bottom of a big hill on Pleasant View and most of the cars coming down there don't use their brakes and they can easily obtain speeds of 45 -50 mph. It's extremely dangerous on Pleasant View to the point where you can't even walk it. We've been near hit by many cars trying to walk that and we're pretty well forced to use Ridge Road, which is a private road. The residents right now are gracious enough to let us use it but they certainly have every right not to. We also have a large deer population in the area and I think any additional traffic is going to create some serious problems and also I think Nez Perce has got a problem and if you create a connecter, you're going to have a third problem. The other issue is I had a chance to go through Art Owens property earlier this year and I was shocked to find out that they were going to try and take out as many of those old grove trees that are sitting there in this day and age of environment, it's for me to believe that anybody would consider that. Thank you. Dave Rossbach: My name's Dave Rossbach and I live at 670 r Pleasant View Road. And there's a lot of people here that think this is a done deal and there's a lot of people that, over 200 people that don't think it should be a done deal. I just hope you people can kick back and look at this and take a strong look at the other alternative. And if there's a better possible way of doing this, I think you should really consider it. It's kind of like main street in Chanhassen. You know maybe there were some mistakes made there with some particular corners. They could have been done the right way. You could have kicked back and checked it out one more time. Thanks. 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 August 18, 1993 - Page 79 Jim Stasson: My name is Jim Stasson. I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane. One thing that nobody's brought up about is who's going to pay for all this. We've been informed that the developer will ' pay for connections and all this stuff. We hate to have our property devalued and also be assessed for all this stuff. Thank you. 1 Kelby Bailey: My name is Kelby Bailey. I live at 6580 Pleasant View Lane. I've been a homeowner there for about 2 years. I've seen the traffic on Pleasant View Road increase in that amount of time. I want to first thank the city of Chanhassen for paving the west portion of it. That was badly needed. Since then I wake up at night to traffic squealing in the corners... What I ' would encourage you to do is to re- evaluate some other. possibility that could save some tax dollars and use that tax money to slow the traffic down on Pleasant View Road. ' Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Hold on one second. I think I've got a first taker over here. Okay. Did you guys want to say something else? Dennis Troy: Dennis Troy again with a couple brief questions and a couple comments. Do you have a copy of the petition here? ' Batzli: I've not seen it. Dennis Troy: It's not been presented to the City? Frank Beddor: It was all given to the Council. Resident: It's being presented to the City Council. Frank Beddor: I believe I mailed one to Jeff but if not, I'll ' send you one. Dennis Troy: So really we don't know what it says here tonight. 1 If we could get a copy of it to see what it says. Whether it's just against traffic or against this particular development. Batzli: No, we don't know at this point. Dennis Troy: So I guess I question whether it really poses this particular development. It may say we're in favor of safety on ' Pleasant View. Because the people that are here, the other 200 people that are claiming that petition, I guess I would like to know what they signed up for. We don't know it tonight. My next point, I'll go back is, so what? So what? So what? This is 1 what's at issue tonight. This. Staff recommends it subject to conditions. Those conditions are not with in the purview of this 11 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 80 body. What's the legal basis to deny particular y g Y it? It conforms with your ordinances. We'd like it approved. Roger Anderson: Chairman and Planning Commission. Roger Anderson. I feel I have to take issue with some of the misleading information that was presented on the street grades and the things we've done to make this plat fit into that piece of property. Mr. Beddor threw out some numbers here that were obviously incorrect. I think the correct numbers should be brought forth. Maybe Dave can help me. What's the allowable stree grade in the city Dave? Hempel: 7% street grade. 1 Roger Anderson: And do you know what street grade we're proposing in our subdivision? Hempel: I believe it's 6 %. Roger Anderson: 6 %? That's less than the allowable and it's a comfortable grade. Hempel: That's correct. It meets the ordinance. 1 Roger Anderson: And Mr. Beddor had thrown out a number of over 10% which was totally inaccurate. Never has been shown on our • plans. Never has been presented by anything we've submitted to the city. Another grade he threw out was the grade coming up to Lake Lucy. That outlotted and made available apparently by some platting in the past. The city has rejected that location for a road because they recognize the grades are too steep. I've got a plan here with the elevation of the street where that outlot comes out and I'd be glad to give it to you. Confirmed from the city from Dan in your engineering office in June. He gave me the elevation of the manhole down there. I compute up to our street and I come up with over 9% on a straight base. We'd need a large landing area down there coming off the hill. Easily pushing us up to 10% or 11 %. We can have the exact numbers if we want to but that's well over what the City could possibly approve according to their requirements. And it will not work, in spite of Mr. Beddor's presentation. I'd like to see his numbers to see how that grade was computed. We haven't seen those. I put this in the record tonight but we'll confirm it for the next meeting. The other issue was the trees and again we have taken great pains to minimize damage to the trees. Work with staff and work with us and I think done a reasonably good job. Are some trees going to come down? Absolutely. Did we do our best to minimize the activity? You bet we did. Is the proposal Mr. Beddor has to come up the corner of the property any better? Go out and look 1 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting 11 August 18, 1993 - Page 81 at the trees behind Mr. Owens swimming pool, and behind his house and then you come back and tell us. If there's any difference, it's minimal and the tree impact is still going to be there. It's ' not a black and white issue. There's still trees that are going to have to come down. Thank you. ' Jeff Schameter: It's not us and them. We're just trying to plat a piece of land. There's no personal vendetta. No objective here other than to plat 12 new homes. Safety is an issue. It will be an issue for 12 new residents to this neighborhood. Over the ' next 3 years only 12 new homes are going to be added to the city of Chanhassen. That's 12 more taxpayers. 12 nice new homes. It's a development that was reasonably anticipated 4 or 5 years ago. The plan that we're proposing was contemplated by someone other than myself long before I ever heard about this piece of property. None of this is new news. We're only taking, I want to clarify a couple issues. We're only removing 5 significant ' trees in the area of the entrance to the development. Not 30 or 40, 5. The 5 brown dots shown between Lots 1 and 13 on this plan. We've submitted a nice reforestation plan. We think we've ' been very sensitive. It's in my best interest to create a neighborhood that's going to have a good tone. A nice feel. We don't plan to go in there and mass grade the site and take down ' every tree. Not that those trees couldn't be harvested tomorrow for firewood. Grades less than 7 %. That's been reviewed. We're sensitive to safety issues. We've reviewed all the other options. I've had more options for this site put in front of me than any other development I've been associated with, and I've been associated in the last 8 years, various levels, with over 50 different subdivisions in 11 different communities. I think I ' understand what makes a good plat. All I want to do is move forward. We're doing the best we can. We realize there's a lot of political issues with this plat. Thank you. 1 Batzli: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Beddor. Frank Beddor: Well this is a planning commission meeting and I ' hope you do some more planning. I think by all the questions that have been brought up, you see there are some unanswered questions. I'd be happy to get a copy of both petitions to you. ' One that's been signed for the Nez Perce and the other one was signed for the JMS development and I'll see that all of you get a copy of that. The trees they talk about that I planted, my wife and I on the lot, on property we own, those trees were moved in and can be planted and they're pines. They are dogwood and they're also dogwood hedges and they're also willows and some other trees. They can be taken back out again. So I said I ' didn't get a chance to read all the report. I got it late from the Planning Commission tonight but I just read that there was 15 1 Planning Commission Meeting • • August 18, 1993 - Page 82 significant trees on what's called the right -of -way area. So that is a very substantial amount. As we mentioned before...was not done. The thing that's very discouraging is that there seems to be such a closed mind. This is a Planning Commission meeting and I hope the planners keep an open mind because staff seems, well we've done everything we can. We can't do anymore. We don't want to look at anything else and I think that's wrong. Now we have undertaken ourselves at our own expense and we have two firms that are working with and we're going to award a contract to one, to do a traffic study because I think that's important to look at this overall, to do a traffic study so that you know what is proposed in this area. And in closing, you were talking about this suit. I am one of the people, my wife and I who instigated this suit the city just got. Our attorney's here and I'd like him just to update you, the Planning Commission now on what's involved in that suit, if I may. Batzli: Okay. Do you have a 2 minute synopsis? ' Attorney for Mr. Beddor: Yeah, I'm not planning on going into detail. There was a question about the suit and I did want to provide some information. We filed out suit on Friday, the 13th on behalf of several residents. Mr. Beddor being one of them and other residents of the Pleasant View Road area and Nez Perce Road area. It's based on the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. The meat of the coconut of that suit basically is that you can't destroy protected natural resources if there's a reasonable alternative. You certainly heard tonight that we believe that there is a reasonable alternative that doesn't involve damage to the environment to the extent that the proposal before you does. You should also know that with respect to the environmental assessment worksheet issue, we were the ones that filed that. That was I think on June 26th. There will be a decision made on that. If the petition for an EAW is denied, then our lawsuit would encompass that as an additional point. The third front legally is the condemnation hearing. It's our view, and I think it's agreed to by our, the attorneys on the other side. You , can't have a resolution of the condemnation hearing until these environmental issues are resolved. There was a condemnation hearing scheduled for August 25th. It was continued. Delayed almost immediately after we filed...because under the Minnesota Supreme Court law, condemnation issues are inextribly related with these environmental issues. The power of a city to condemn is limited by the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. I suppose the bottom line is, I'm certainly not going to argue the merits but I can tell you that on all of this is going to involve expense, delay and it's also going to generate new information. I think that's one point that really isn't legal but I'd like to make. In listening to the people here tonight. This is really 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 83 sort of early in my history in this controversy, but person after person has talked to you about the safety issues. Not just the ' environmental issues and there is going to be new information generated. We are the ones that are talking to these traffic consultants. We're going to hire a traffic consultant. There's going to be traffic studies. There's maybe going to be an EAW. ' So why in the world would the Planning Commission and the City Council, when all this new and I think very important new information is going to become available, want to make a decision that will approve a plat. Perhaps give this developer a vested right of some sort that you're then going to have to argue about it if there's ever a reversal. Of the decision to go forward with this project. Obviously the neighboring residents are ' opposed to this in large measure and so I'm asking you both as an attorney and as an interested party to reconsider this and not to simply go forward because somebody else made a decision in the • past to, that this was a good idea. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Okay. I'd like to close the public hearing if 11 I could. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing 1 was closed. Batzli: The interesting thing here is we've heard a lot of comment that we're the Planning Commission and that we should be planning. I feel like I've been doing that for the last several years on this issue. But on the other hand, there's a lot of people that feel kind of like that old Dudley Riggs show. I hear what you're saying but I really don't care, is the reaction they're getting. I don't think that any of us feel that way. It also reminds me, for those of you who read weird science fiction,' ' or watch Channel 2, of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the prime character is having his house bulldozed down and simultaneously the vogones are coming to destroy the earth and ' they're told that, well the plans have been located at the nearest star which is 5 light years away. Where've you been? The person lying in front of the bulldozer is told that it's in the City Hall, in the basement behind the third filing cabinet but the light bulb's out. So you know, I don't think in this case it was quite that obscure to find the information but yet I don't want to appear calloused because obviously a lot of people are fairly surprised by this whole process and I assure you that the Planning Commission is taking seriously and we've taken it seriously in the past and I hope you don't all leave with a negative impression. We're all residents of Chanhassen. We face these issues every day. In my neighborhood, they put through a cul -de -sac that I was assured by the developer was a cul - de sac. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 84 In fact it spills onto Pleasant View and it amazed us and it was ' the process and it probably worked but I was bitter for years. In fact that's what led me to join this commission. I also heard a comment that the main concern is safety and I agree. And a cynic would say that there's also an element, and forgive me for saying this because I know the former Mayor of Minnetonka got in big trouble for saying this but. 1 Harberts: You're not an elected official are you? Batzli: Yeah. Its a nimby problem. Not in my back yard. And to some extent that's true because obviously you want your yard to be safe and you want your children to be safe and you want the traffic on your street to be lessen because obviously the thought is, it's safer. Less to worry about. Property values perhaps are increased. And we take those issues seriously. When we first started this process 4 or 5 years ago, the point was safety and the point was that it was safer to connect streets and there really wasn't a north /south connection between Pleasant View and Lake Lucy Drive and the world would be safer if there was that connection. And that's what started this whole process was safety amazingly enough and perhaps ironically. And we looked at these alternatives and we thought this was the best one. Perhaps it's not in hindsight. I know that the City Council recently was asked whether they wanted to look at it again and they said no. As a Planning Commission person, oftentimes we try to take our lead from the City Council as to whether we'll be wasting our • time and effort. If they say they're not going to look at it again, it's difficult for us to direct staff to look at it again. That's not to say that we can't request it but certainly we 11 recommend to the City Council and they make the final decisions. So as you all know, you're all familiar with this process. You need to carry your issue up to the City Council because they will be making the final decision regardless of how the Planning Commission decides tonight. I do have two questions for city staff before I ask for comments from the other commissioners. One is, do either you Paul or you Dave feel that the traffic study that's going to conducted by Mr. Beddor and his fellow contributers to the study, whoever they are, and maybe it's just Mr. Beddor, will that shed any information that would be useful for us to decide on whether we are creating a safety hazard here? Krauss: That's a leading question. We've looked at this thing inside and out. This is not a decision that was made on the spur of the moment. This was a decision that was made after 6 months of hearings 4 years ago. It was a decision that was reaffirmed on at least 4 different occasions in public hearings. We still think it makes good sense from a traffic standpoint. A specific traffic study was never done. I just hear tonight Mr. Beddor's 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 August 18, 1993 - Page 85 1 going to commission a study. Part of doing an EAW is another study so we're not doing the study. I wouldn't at all surprised if they said the complete opposite of each other. That's what consultants do. Batzli: But does it makes sense for us to table in anticipation ' of receiving some additional information from either one of those studies? Krauss: Well, I've got a couple things for that and maybe Elliott would like to add something to that. We received a request to act on a petition to subdivide property. In microcosm that's what you're being asked to deal with. You're dealing with ' it on the currently available information. Not made on 4 year old decisions. Made on decisions that were made 6 weeks ago. Made on decisions that were made specifically so that we could come back to you and say, what did the City Council want you to do. We delayed this thing several times already. I think we're under some obligation to move it along. In terms of implications that in so doing the die is cast, that's not true at all. I mean there's a condition that blatantly says, that is not the case. If the City Council does reverse itself and decide to come up with another solution, the platting that's been done to date ' isn't going anywhere. It's got to come back through the revised plan. What the outcome of all this will be, I have no idea. I wouldn't even hazard to guess. Is there going to be more • ' information available? Yeah. Will it tend to lead the discussions one way or the other? I honestly don't know. I mean I'm afraid that we have a situation here where you have a no win situation. I wish there was a solution that made everybody ' content. You almost think that the best thing to do here is to step aside and let a mediator come up with some answer. I don't know. Maybe...There's a lot of issues being raised on Pleasant ' View Road. We're not looking at Pleasant View Road in macro scale. I think Pleasant View Road is in itself and has been a long standing issue. There are legitimate concerns. We always know it's there. And I can tell you that nobody on city staff relishes or even thinks about the idea of broaching anything like a trail on Pleasant View Road or anything else. It's not something staff is inclined to do unless we receive some kind of an indication from the residents that that's what they want. The addition of 12 lots or 14 lots or all 45 lots to Pleasant View Road, it's going to be a minor little increment to what's going ' on there. What's going on there has to do with the fact that Pleasant View Road is the only road between Highway 7 and Highway 5. The fact that the Crosstown Highway is extended. The fact that Chanhassen's developing. I mean those issues aren't going ' to go away. Even if this never gets connected, I'm convinced that Pleasant View Road issue is going to be back before the City 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 86 1 Council in a year or two because the safety issue is not going to go away. Is that a long way of answering your question? I don't know. There's going to be... 11 Mancino: I appreciate it because I think it's very unsafe. I drive it all the time from Lake Lucy and Galpin. Scott: Within the speed limit. Mancino: Within the speed limit, it's hard. Farmakes: I won't drive it. I'd just as soon take CR 17 down to 78th and go down TH 101... Batzli: Dave, what do you think? I heard Paul's answer. You're not going to say anything different from Paul huh? Hempel: I basically concur with Paul...Pleasant View Road is, 1 does have safety problems. There's no doubt. I was on record with a staff report to Jo Ann. There are things that can be done on that road to improve that safety aspects of it. But again tonight we're not really dealing with that. We're dealing with the plat before us. The traffic studies as part of the EAW or a part of Mr. Beddor will give you some more information. Whether it tells you, I don't think it's going to tell you the city needs a stop light at that intersection obviously. I don't believe • it's going to tell you need a 3 way stop at that intersection also at Pleasant View and Peaceful. But it will give you some trip generations proposed through the neighborhood. Batzli: Well assuming Paul, that we act on this one way or 1 another, positively or negatively, it's going to go to the Council and they're going to have to, it's probably not going to get on next Monday's obviously. Right? ' Krauss: No. Batzli: So they're going to be deciding the EAW on Monday and ' then they will proceed with this, or they really can't proceed with this assuming they go ahead with the EAW, until the EAW is completed. ' Krauss: Well I would appreciate the advice of counsel but yeah. What I would understand it to be is if the City Council does proceed with the EAW, everything's put on hold until that's completed and a finding's returned. And then there's a public hearing held at the City Council to determine whether or not it was satisfactory. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' August 18, 1993 - Page 87 ' Harberts: So it comes back through this process again if they do do an EAW? The findings come back here? 1 Hempel: Before the Council. Harberts: Or does it just stay at the Council? Hempel: The Council. ' Harberts: It just stays at the Council level. Krauss: The Council may ask you to review it. Harberts: But they can just handle it at their level. Krauss: I would think so. Batzli: Okay. Diane, why don't you lead off. Harberts: Let's talk about trees. Did staff have a chance to ' review this? According to your staff report, you were going to review it and are you comfortable with what's presented in here then? ' Al -Jaff: Yes we are. Harberts: Okay. You know I heard a lot of comments with regard to public safety and in my profession that certainly is one of main priorities. The way I understand it, that the issue that's before us, is having to deal with the four issues. I feel that ' the developer has met the four issues, at least to my satisfaction. With solutions that are outlined by staff. And as I understand then with the EAW, that that's an issue for the Council. That will address hopefully the safety issues. You know that connection with Nez Perce, I see that really at the level of the Council. What I see before me to deal with is the ' four issues and I'm comfortable with that the developers have met those issues. That's all I've got to say. Scott: I was focusing in on the issues that we left the developer with at our last meeting. They've been met satisfactorily so I see no reason but to go forward with this plat. ' Mancino: I concur. My only question is, on recommendation number 9. If we increase the street width right -of -way to 60 feet in width, will Lot 4 be of a smaller size than 15,000? Right now Sharmin it's at 15,100. If we take 73 and added 10 feet, will we be below the minimum lot requirement? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 88 , Krauss: That can be fixed by kicking out the rear lot line. You ' can pick it back up again. Mancino: Okay. You pick up the rear. 1 Krauss: Just move it over. If you take the rear lot line and move it around to the south a little bit, you can... 1 Mancino: Okay. Krauss: Yeah, Lot 5 next to it is 26,000 square feet. ' Mancino: I think that that's the only lot that might have a problem with this 60 foot right -of -way so I'd like that added to our recommendation. It would be increased that Lot 4 meets our minimums. That's all. Farmakes: I don't disagree with the comments that Diane made. I , think the issue that was supposed to be discussed here tonight. The issues that are on...I'm not saying that we shouldn't talk about this when people make the effort to come here. It seems to me that there's been little talk here talking about the actual plat development that's being proposed here. What we're talking about here is a concern there is the street connection. By a fluke of geography much of the work that was done on the plot and so on is really not relevant to the argument that's going on here. I think really, having lived here for a fair amount of 111 time, Pleasant View is a dangerous street and it's a separate issue from this. To make the case that connecting that street will mean a majority or a significant amount of traffic rather than turn to the left, is going to be the result of traffic studies and I haven't seen anything significant that says the majority of the people who will be coming up that connection will be turning to the right. I've heard opinions. But as I said before, I wouldn't be one of those people. I would not be connecting 101. The road, Pleasant View is an old road. It's back from the 20's. There are cabins on that north side of Lotus that are from the 20's at least. It wasn't meant for the amount of traffic that it's getting, but in this case, being so close to CR 17, the argument that's being made here, it seems to me, has a lot of holes in it. But I believe that anytime that citizens come in here and are concerned about their safety, I don't want them to think that I'm not listening to what they're saying. I think that any city staff, anybody on the Commission should listen to that. It's a question of how many times and how many studies do we do. The first time that we looked at this issue overall, it was, it's almost 5 years now isn't it? Certainly the city staff and the commissions have given this problem a long consideration. And there are times when there won't be an 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 89 ' agreement. But again it's how many times do we do this, and unless the City Council directs us otherwise, I'm willing to pass this up to them now. If they want to send this back and have us look at this again, fine. But it seems to me based on the information we've been provided, that I don't see any justification for continuing this here at this point. 1 Batzli: Okay. I guess the comment that I wouldn't agree with that you made. I think you spoke well on your position but in ' saying where Nez Perce is going to go, that dictated how this development was going to be laid out. And so I think the issue is related because it may affect the safety of Pleasant View and if we have to realign Nez Perce, then this development may have 1 to be realigned and I guess that's how the issue's related. Farmakes: I don't disagree with that. I was using that in the connection between discussing the plot itself and a connection.- I believe the majority of people here are, and understandably so are here talking about the connection, not the development to the ' 12 houses. Batzli: I would agree. I would agree. My feeling and not having been here at the last meeting, because I was on vacation. I 1 sound kind of that last thing that was on the agenda. But the meeting that we had before that, I did raise the issue of, or at least acknowledge the issue of safety turning left from Peaceful Lane onto Pleasant View and I don't know if that was addressed last meeting or not. It's going to be around the corner, up the hill kind of a deal. And I think that interestingly enough as I said, our original intent was to gain a north /south connection 1 for the purpose of safety. I don't recall, to be quite candid, when it became a sweeping connection that people might be tempted to take to get onto County Road 17. I seem to remember at least ' some plans that made it accessible from north to south but, and that's kind of what I was thinking of as I was looking at the alternative here proposed by Mr. Beddor when that was, was there ' an alternative that kind of connected from cul -de -sacs but made it very inconvenient to take as a thru street? And I don't remember to be quite honest but it seems to me that that's kind of the nut of the issue, at least as between the city staff and perhaps, and maybe even the Council, I don't know. And a lot of residents is that we are changing the traffic flow and perhaps it's being, we've gone beyond our initial consideration on the Planning Commission was to connect it to increase safety and for purposes of emergency vehicles, etc. And that's what troubles me about not really having a new traffic study is that I think having looked at it and listened to everyone, I think we may affect the traffic. It sounds to me like everybody wants to move on and let the Council decide. So I don't think there's any 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting • August 18, 1993 - Page 90 support other than me to slow this baby down. I know Paul would , probably come up here and slug me if I suggested it so. Having said that, I would entertain a motion. Scott: I move that the Planning Commission recommend that City ' Council adopt the following motion. The City Council approve Subdivision #93 -12 for Tower Heights Addition as shown on the plans dated June 8, 1993 subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report, 1 thru 18. And if there are other conditions that would be added by other members of the Planning Commission, I would entertain those at this time. 1 Mancino: I would like to add the condition that Lot 4 shall meet the city's 15,000 square foot minimum. ' • Scott: Okay, that'd be condition 19. Any others? Harberts: Does number 10 address the resolution of the Nez Perce issue concerning EAW, staff? Krauss: I think so. It might be useful to read it so those... ' Harberts: To read what? Krauss: Read the condition so that they understood what is being ' placed on this plat. Scott: All of just number 10. ' Harberts: Yeah, it was number 10. Scott: Number 10 is the preliminary and final plat approval 1 should be contingent upon the City upgrading Peaceful Lane and extending Nez Perce Drive out to Pleasant View Road from the Troendle Addition. The final plat may not be recorded nor site construction proceed until the city has authorized a public improvement project for the extension of Nez Perce Drive. Should the City Council determine that the preparation of an EAW, which is an Environment Assessment Worksheet, for the Nez Perce extension is warranted, preliminary plat approval for Tower Heights is contingent upon it's completion and resolution of issues raised therein. So what does that mean? Batzli: Why don't you finish making your motion and then let's 1 discuss that. Scott: Okay. Would include the 18 conditions as listed in the staff report and then add condition 19 that Lot 4 conform with the city's minimum size of 15,000 square feet. 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 91 ' Batzli: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Batzli: Discussion. Now ask your question. What does that mean? 1 Scott: What does that mean? Nothing happens until the EAW is. Batzli: If. Scott: If they decide they want to have it. That was a rhetorical question. 1 Batzli: Okay. I thought you actually wanted us to di it. Harberts: I have a comment or question. Earlier in the discussion there was discussion about a retaining wall in the right -of -way. ' Scott: The vacated? Harberts: Yeah, in terms of where it went. 1 Mancino: On the east side of Tower Heights Drive. Wasn't it Dave? 1 Hempel: That's correct. Yeah staff is comfortable with an effort to preserve trees from existing...we would entertain placing of a retaining wall within the city right -of -way with the understanding the property owner or applicant enter into an encroachment agreement for maintenance of that retaining wall in the city right -of -way. Harberts: Is that necessary as a condition? ' Batzli: Don't they have to come in for a permit to build it? Hempel: For construction, yes. ' Batzli: But you need the easement for maintenance right now in the conditions? ' Hempel: We can get that when the party comes in for construction of a retaining wall within the right -of -way. Harberts: Does it need to be a condition? Hempel: I think it would be helpful to clarify placement of it. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 92 Harberts: So is that a yes as a condition Dave? , Hempel: Yes it is. That's correct. Harberts: I'd like to offer a friendly amendment. Item number 11 19 then. Scott: 20. 1 Harberts: 20, sorry. Long day. With terminology that the applicant will work with staff to locate a retaining wall within the city right -of -way and would be subject to city receiving an encroachment easement. Hempel: Agreement. Harberts: Agreement from the applicant. Hempel: Property owner. Harberts: Property owner, thank you. ' Batzli: Do you accept that? Scott: I accept that. ' Mancino: Second. Batzli: Okay. Any other discussion? Paul. 1 Krauss: If I could raise an issue or concern about. The City Council's going to be asked about whether or not the EAW... recommendation to go ahead and do that. If there's a sense. I mean clearly it's the City council's call but if there's a sense the Planning Commission has as to which way they should go on it, maybe it'd be useful for me to include that in your motion so we could convey that to them. I mean do you think it would be useful in the decision making process to tell us to forward your recommendation. Batzli: Okay. Diane, do you think it would be useful to the Council to proceed with the EAW? Harberts: Well I guess with the discussion with the traffic studies proposed by the residents of that area, it sounds like if the city wants to have a traffic study, I guess I would be in support of an EAW. I'm not real happy that it's at the expense of the entire city but I guess that's one of the impacts. I guess I would also like to add, what I'm hearing from the safety issue, 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 August 18, 1993 - Page 93 1 that I think it is a Pleasant View Road issue rather than just 12 more houses being built. That's my personal opinion. Resident: Excuse me, it's a Nez Perce issue and we've been ignored and I'm sorry. I know I'm not supposed to blurt that out but I can't stay quiet. It's Nez Perce. We are...but it's both. 1 Harberts: I appreciate your opinion. I appreciate it and like I said, that's where my views are. 1 Batzli: Okay. Joe, would you support an EAW? Scott: Yeah, I think that's not the answer to the question. I 1 would say no. I would not recommend doing it. I think that if we're going to commission a study to figure out what the heck to do with Pleasant View, that's another issue. But I mean I look ' at it, 12 houses. 24 cars. It's not in my back yard obviously but if we're talking about 190 units, like we are with Mission, that's definitely a major impact so I would say, personally I would say no. 1 Batzli: Okay. Nancy. 1 Mancino: I support the new traffic study and I would like to, excuse me. I would support it because of the traffic study. 1 Scott: Are those one in the same? A traffic study I would say yes but is the EAW a traffic study? Mancino: It's part of the EAW. It encompasses that. So current 1 new information. Batzli: What do you think? 1 Farmakes: I would support it. Also outside of this, support that the city take a look at Pleasant View as the issue itself. And I'm not talking about the connection with Nez Perce and 1 Pleasant View that we're looking at here. I'm talking about Pleasant View as it goes to the east, in particular once it wraps around Lotus Lake, which has nothing to do with what we're ' talking about here but I think that it is a major traffic hazard. I do think that the people who organized for this particular issue should not let that drop. I think that there's more to... 1 Frank Beddor: And believe me, we're not. However there's nothing we can do except keep traffic down unless you want to widen the 11 road. 1 1 r Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 94 ' Farmakes: No, I'm talking again that I would support the issue 1 that you're looking at from all points of view. I don't believe that, unless the study shows otherwise, that this development and that connection is going to generate that traffic that you believe to be...I'm willing to be proved wrong on that. Batzli: Well we may have several studies that tell us whether it does or doesn't, and I would support the EAW as well. Is there any other discussion? Scott moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #93 -12 for Tower Heights Addition as shown on the plans dated June 8, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1 1. All lots are required to have access from Tower Heights Drive. 1 2. The developer shall dedicate eto the city the utilities within the right -of -way for permanent ownership. 3. Parks: Full park fees shall be accepted in lieu of land dedication. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force. Current park fees are $600.00 per lot. Trails: a. A 20 ft easement for trail purposes shall be dedicated over the vacated section of Peaceful Lane. b. The applicant shall construct an 8 ft wide bituminous trail in this easement per city specifications. c. The applicant shall be granted full trail fee credit in ' consideration for this construction. Documented expenses above and beyond the $2,400.00 in trail fee credits to be paid by the city. 4. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 5. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a reforestation plan on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size. The 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 August 18, 1993 - Page 95 S vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation ' easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. Lot 12 shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a ' building permit. The same condition is applicable to Lot 13 should the applicant resolve the frontage and grading issues. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. A retaining wall shall be incorporated along the front property line of Lots 1, 12 and ' 13, in an effort to preserve trees immediately adjacent to the right -of -way. 6. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in 1 accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the ' appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, and comply with their conditions of approval. 8. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 1 9. Street right -of -way shall be increased to 60 feet in width. 10. The preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon the City upgrading Peaceful Lane and extending Nez Perce ' Drive out to Pleasant View Road from Troendle Addition. The final plat may not be recorded nor site construction proceed until the city has authorized a public improvement project for ' the extension of Nez Perce Drive. Should the City Council determine that preparation of an EAW for the Nez Perce extension is warranted, preliminary plat approval for Tower Heights is contingent upon it's completion and resolution of issues raised therein. 11. The applicant shall be responsible for relocating the two existing driveways (6500 and 6535 Peaceful Lane) to be perpendicular with the new street and paved with a bituminous or 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 96 concrete surface between the existing driveway and the street. 1 12. The applicant shall be responsible for disconnecting and reconnecting the sanitary sewer and water service to the existing home on Lot 1 (Art Owens). An additional fire hydrant shall be incorporated into the construction plans just north of Lot 13 along Tower Heights Drive. 13. The grading plan shall be amended to provide drainage swales along the common lot lines to convey drainage away from the house sites along Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13. The applicant shall supply detailed storms sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with City ordinance for the City Engineer to review and approve. 1 14. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a draintile system in accordance to City standards with the construction plans. 1 15. The garage on Lot 12 shall be removed prior to approval of the final plat and /or escrow if $5,000. shall be included in with the financial securities to insure the removal of the garage. 16. The city shall sell a portion of the Water Tower land to the developer for a price to be determined by the City Council. 17. The address for the existing home on Lot 1 (6535 Peaceful . 1 Lane) shall be changed to an address on Tower Heights Drive. 18. The segment of Tower Height Drive between the extension of Nez Perce Drive and the subdivision will be assessed back to the developer as well as their fair share for the upgrade of Peaceful Lane. 19. Lot 4 shall meet the City's 15,000 square foot minimum 1 requirement for lot size. 20. The applicant will work with city staff to locate a retaining wall within the city right -of -way and would be subject to an encroachment agreement with the property owner. All voted in favor, except Batzli who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Batzli: My reasons for opposing is to make the record perfectly 1 clear that there's a lot of people here that have safety concerns. The city staff, regardless of whether they really want to look at it one more time or not, needs to take a good look at that. Thank you very much. 1 1