8a. Troendle Addition Amendments to Condition of Approval _ _...
td
C I TY 0 F SOL,
cHANHAssEN
\ ,
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN; MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
I ,.. . .. ". .
A c t al by NI
Endou ' 1 / i P
1 mo.:;•,...____ _ _ _ •
- . m T0 E 7 RANWM Don Ashworth, City Manager noectei--, ----
, .
DB.e.--t---
II FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner 1
THROUGH: Paul Krauss, Planning D _ _
irector . NI, . ,
I DATE: AUgust 7, 1991 V i'•:-
SUBJ: Amendments to Conditions of Approval and Final Plat
' 1 - Approval, Troendle Addition, South of Pleasant View Road
and West of Vineland Forest Subdivision, Frank Beddor •
knrl, .
•
BACKGROUND tr
- -,-,, ' • ,
The applicants are requesting final approval to subdivide an 8,7
I acre parcel into twelve single family lots and one outlot. The
property is zoned RSF and is located between Pleasant View Road and
Lake Lucy Road adjacent to Vineland Forest subdivision e Access is
proposed to be provided by an extension of Nez Perce Drive running
I northwest from Vineland Forest. Concept plans previously approved
.
by the city, illustrate the' ultimate extension of this road to
Pleasant View Road as a thru street connection, with the connection
being made in the vicinity of Peaceful Lane.
A5P'' V
The Planning Conunission reviewed this item on October 17, 1990 and
,--,
III recommended its approval. The City Coun9-4.1 reviewed and tabled
action on this item on NoveullDer ,5_,,19904, The 'item was tabled
because ,residents on 'Lake' Lucy Road weie• that excessive
levels of traffic would be generatedoiNess 1 , the „Nez Perce
I connection to Pleasant View Road was made concurrently with the
development of this . plat. Requiring the connection at this time
between Nez Perce and Pleasant View Road .. via Peaceful Lane is
I complicated by the fact that the property lo to the west of
- Troendle Addition (Owens propertY)ais in bankruptcy and the state
has a lien against it. In addition, development of that parcel is -
111, not being proposed now.
.
On January 14, 1991, the City Council reviewed a staff proposal
that the subdivision be developed into phases to eliminate the
traffic generation problem. Phase L would include Lots 1-4, Block
\II - 1 and Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 of the preliminary plat. The
remaining area was tor be platted as an outlot. Lots 2-10, Block 2
II .
Pt
vele PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I . :
1
Mr. Don Ashworth
August 7, 1991
Page 2
would not be platted until such time when Nez Perce is constructed
through to Pleasant View Road. The City Council approved the
' preliminary plat subject to this condition.
Recently staff met with the applicant to discuss the conditions of
' approval. The applicant indicated a belief that it was inequitable
for the city to condition the full development of his property
solely upon the decisions of another individual, i.e. the adjoining
property owner, Mr. Owens. Staff believes that there is some
validity to the applicant's position. He clearly has little or no
control over the adjoining property. The status of the adjoining
property is further complicated by the fact that it is presently in
' bankruptcy. We have contacted the Attorney General's office and
they indicate that this matter should be resolved within a year,
but Mr. Owens or anyone else will not be in a position to develop
' the property until that time. In a related matter, the applicant
indicated that under the original condition they would only be able
to construct a portion of the streets and utilities on the Troendle
Addition at this time. They would be forced into bringing back a
' contractor at some later date to construct the cul -de -sac and other
utilities. This is clearly not a very economical method of
constructing the plat and they would like to be able to build all
the improvements at one time.
Based on these discussions, an alternative set of conditions has
been developed for your review. Rather than limit construction to
a total of six lots, four of which would access onto Nez Perce, the
current proposal calls for the platting of all eleven lots on
Troendle Circle plus a lot created around the existing Troendle
home. All twelve lots would access off of Nez Perce and be
constructed immediately. The balance of the parcel, which would
ultimately include up to two lots accessing directly from Pleasant
' View plus one additional lot on Nez Perce, would remain as an
outlot until such time as the property owner wishes to proceed with
subdivision. In exchange for being allowed to develop the property
at this time, and recognizing that the desire of the city and of
the area residents is to complete Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road
as expeditiously as possible, the applicant would escrow $10,000
dollars which would be used in lieu of direct assessments of the
' lots in Troendle Addition for their fair share of the costs
associated with constructing the connection to Nez Perce. The city
would have these funds sitting in the bank and would employ them to
1 facilitate construction of the road as soon as possible.
Until the road is connected through to Pleasant View Road, a
' temporary cul -de -sac would be provided. Consistent with city
policy, the temporary cul -de -sac would be paved and would be
provided with a barricade. A sign containing a notice that this
street is intended to be extended in the future will be required to
be affixed to the barricade. In addition, a notice shall be placed
1
Mr. Don Ashworth
August 7, 1991
Page 3
in the chain of title of each lot indicating that Nez Perce will
ultimately be extended as a thru street to Pleasant View.
We believe that this alternative set of conditions is reasonable 1
and will ensure that the connection to Pleasant View is constructed
as soon as possible. Staff is recommending that this alternative
set of conditions be approved with the final plat.
A second issue that was discussed during the preliminary plat
approval was the setback distance of an existing shed /garage from
proposed Nez Perce. The original alignment of the extension of Nez
Perce would have created a front yard setback variance. Revisions
have been made on the attached plan to eliminate this variance.
This was accomplished by realigning the future extension of Nez
Perce to maintain the required 30 -foot front yard setback. The
revision to the Nez Perce right -of -way to eliminate the setback
variance on Lot 1, Block 1 is acceptable to staff. However, this
requires the realignment of right -of -way on Nez Perce located east
of the site in the Vineland Forest Addition. Staff has been
informed that these lots are under the control of the applicant at
this time and that the revised right -of -way easements can be
provided. Staff is recommending that provision of these easements
be conditioned as a part of the final plat request.
Overall this proposal is acceptable and staff is recommending
approval with appropriate conditions.
Staff Recommendation 1
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves pproves Final Plat 90 -15 for Troendle
Addition without variances, subject to the following
conditions: '
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and
provide the city with the necessary financial securities
to guarantee proper installation of the improvements.
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District Department requirements.
3. A tree removal plan consistent with city ordinances and
policies shall be submitted for Lot 1, Block 1 prior to
issuance of a building permit. Clear cutting, except
the house pad and utilities, is prohibited.
4. Final street plans shall be developed for approval by the
City Engineering Department.
1
Mr. Don Ashworth
August 7, 1991
•
Page 4
1 5. The applicant shall install erosion control sift fence
around the ponding area until such time as turf is
established.
6. Provide the following easements and rights -of -way:
' a. The drainage easement along the westerly property
line of Lot 9 -11, Block 2, and the ponding area on
Outlot A (previously Lots 3 -4, Block 1) as shown on
' the Grading and Erosion Control Plan, shall also be
shown as a drainage and utility easement on the
final plat accordingly.
1 7. Park and trail fees shall be required in lieu of parkland
dedication.
' 8. Lot 1, Block 1 shall be serviced by Nez Perce Drive and
the gravel driveway to Pleasant View Road shall be
removed.
9. The temporary cul -de -sac should be provided with an
easement to accommodate the temporary pavement and be
provided with a barricade equipped with a sign indicating
' the road will be extended. A similar notice shall be
placed into the chain of title of all lots platted in the
Troendle Addition.
1 10. Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 are required to have access from
proposed Troendle °Circle.
1 11. Pay a fee of $10,000 to the city that will be utilized in
lieu of assessments for the fair share of costs related
to the extension of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road.
' 12. Provide revised right -of -way easements along Nez Perce in
the Vineland Forest plat to eliminate the "jog" in the
1 right -of -way between this plat and the Troendle Addition.
Attachments
1. Memo from Paul Krauss dated January 9, 1991.
2. Staff report dated November 5, 1990.
3. City Council minutes dated January 14, 1991.
' 4. Memo from Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician dated August
8, 1991.
5. Final Plat. •
1
1
CI TYOF
cHANHAssEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 .
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM i
TO: Don Ashworth, 'City Manager
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director ,
DATE: January 9, 1991
SUBJ: Update Report #90 -15 Subdivision Troendle Addition i
Preliminary Plat -----
BACKGROUND i
The applicants are requesting approval to subdivide an 8.7 acre
parcel into 15 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF and
is located between Pleasant View Road and Lake Lucy Road, adjacent
to the recently approved Vineland Forest subdivision. Access is
proposed to be provided by an extension of Nez Perce Drive running
northwest from Vineland Forest. Concept plans previously approved
by the City illustrate the ultimate extension of this road to
Pleasant View Road as a through- street connection with the
connection being made in the vicinity of Peaceful Lane.
The Planning Commission reviewed this item on October 17, 1990, and
recommended it's approval. The City Council reviewed it on 1
November 5, 1990, and ultimately voted to continue action on the
item. During review of the plat, the subdivision itself did not
generate significant issues rather concern focused on the access
question. Several neighborhood residents, primarily located along
Lake Lucy Road, had raised a concern that their street would see,
in their opinion, excessive levels of traffic generated unless the
Nez Perce connection to Pleasant View was made concurrently with
the development of this plat. Another resident questioned how the
design of the street connection would impact his property. The
City Council asked that this matter be further reviewed prior to
taking action on the plat.
MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER AND ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER - S
Since the City Council last reviewed this item, staff has had an
opportunity to organize a meeting between ourselves, Daryl Fortier,
who represents the developer of the Troendle Addition, Frank
Beddor, and Art Owens, who owns the parcel located immediately west
i
1
Troendle Addition
January 9, 1991
Page 2
' of the proposed Troendle Addition. Mr. Owens's property
constitutes the final link over which the connection to Pleasant
View must go if it is to be completed. The following constitutes
a summary of the meeting.
• Staff outlined the City Council's stated goal to obtain an
early completion of the Nez Perce /Pleasant View connection in
an attempt to gain both the understanding and support of both
individuals.
' • Both individuals indicated understanding of this concept and
voiced no direct opposition to it.
' • Mr. Owens indicated that, although he is not presently in a
position to develop his property, this may be a long term goal
on his part. At the present time the property is tied up in
' a bankruptcy p.;oceeding such that he is unable to consider or
directly participate in further development of his property.
• Both individuals indicated that they were, at that point,
unwilling to participate in funding the feasibility study for
the street connection. However, they did indicate that they
were willing to consider participation in any project that may
be assessed to the property over a long period of time.
• Staff indicated that as a result of this meeting, we would
proceed to get cost estimates on undertaking the feasibility
' study and return to the City Council at the first meeting in
January.
' LEGAL ISSUES
There are two legal issues which were investigated relative to this
'
issue. The first concern is the matter of Mr. Owens's bankruptcy
proceeding and if the city would be in a position to condemn
property needed for the right -of -way extension, if so desired.
' This question was of particular interest due to Mr. Owens's current
financial status relative to his property. You may recall that at
the meeting, Julius Smith, Attorney for Mr. Beddor, indicated that,
in his opinion, Mr. Owens could not directly participate in the
development of his property but would probably be comfortable with
the city taking action that would result in his ability to develop
his property in the future. As noted above, Mr. Owens confirmed
this opinion in our meeting with him. The City Attorney has
reviewed the matter and has indicated a belief that the city may be
able to condemn a portion of Mr. Owens's property for the street.
I However, he believes that such a condemnation would have to get the
approval of the bankruptcy court and that this is not assured. He
also indicated that the City may have a difficult time sustaining
assessments against Mr. Owens's property for the street improvement
11
i
Troendle Addition
January 9, 1991
Page 3
until such time as the bankruptcy proceedings are completed. Thus,
if the road were actually to be built, the City would be in a
position of probably needing to carry the cost of construction for
and as yet, .indefined period of time. Of course the portion of
those assessments that would be brought against the Troendle
Addition could be reimbursed in a normal time frame.
The second legal issue is relative to the street extension and the.
Troendle plat itself. Staff asked the City Attorney to comment on
our ability to link approval of this plat to completion of Nez
Perce out to Pleasant View Road. The City Attorney indicated that
this could be done but only to the extent that the City could
verify that completion of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road was_
inherently required to meet the access needs of this plat.
The area residents that have been present at recent meetings have
raised concerns regarding the ability of the existing Nez Perce
functioning as a dead -end street to carry traffic from 13 of the 15
lots being platted in the Troendle Addition. This street already
carries traffic that would be generated from 19 of the.21 home
sites being developed in the adjacent Vineland Forest Addition.
Staff believes that there is a valid point being raised in this
discussion. While we initially envisioned Nez Perce being
constructed on an incremental basis at the time it was first
conceptually proposed in 1989, we were unsure as to how this would
proceed. Nez Perce is currently a 740 foot long street dead - ending
in a temporary cul -de -sac at the east property line of Troendle
Addition. As proposed, it would extended through the Troendle
Addition ending in another temporary cul -de -sac at the new end of
Nez Perce which would result in an 1100 foot long temporarily dead
ended (as measured from Lake Lucy Road) street. The proposed
Troendle Circle would result in a 1400 foot long cul-de-sac. Staff
is uncomfortable with cul -de -sacs of this length serving up to 32
home sites without any clear indication as to when the street will
ultimately be connected with Pleasant View Road. The City's
Subdivision Ordinance states the maximum street length of a street
terminating in a cul -de -sac shall be determined as a function of
the expected development density along the street. Although
interpretation of this standard is not entirely clear to staff, it
is clear that this can be raised as a valid issue.
At the last City Council meeting, it was indicated that Mr.
Beddor's goal in proceeding with the plat at this point in time is
more one of being able to close on the property with Mr. Troendle
then it is to immediately develop home sites. It was indicated
that the development of home sites would likely be put off until
some point in the future. '
Based upon the considerations outlined above, staff would like to
propose the following as a possible solution. We would be
1
1
Troendle Addition
January 9, 1991
Page 4
1 recommending that Lots 1 -4, Block and Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 be
allowed to be platted in the first phase of a two phase platting
' scheme for the Troendle Addition with the balance of the lots being
platted into an outlot. As a part of the first phase construction
program, Nez Perce Drive would be constructed up to the west
property line of the site. The remaining lots in the Troendle
Addition would be considered a second phase of the development.
Approval of platting for the second phase of the development would
be made contingent upon the owners petitioning the City to
' construct the extension of Nez Perce from the Troendle property to
Pleasant View Road. Another condition would be added such that the
developer of the Troendle Addition waive the right to contest area
' assessments on benefiting lots in the addition relative to the
ultimate construction of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road.
The proposal outlined above accomplishes several goals. It will
' limit the initial construction in the Troendle Addition to 6 home
sites, 2 of which will use Pleasant View Road for access, the
remaining 4 would utilize the newly extended Nez Perce. The
' addition of 4 additional homes on Nez Perce Drive does not appear
to raise the specter of extensive impact for the Lake Lucy Road
neighborhood. Secondly, it will minimize the length of the cul-de-
sacs that will be constructed until such time as the neighborhood
has a second entrance. This will hopefully minimize emergency
vehicle response times and city maintenance costs. The third
result is that Mr. Beddor can proceed with his plat and close on
' the property in an expeditious manner. Lastly, it will provide for
the ultimate construction of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road and
the equitable distribution of costs without running into problems
' that may result with the City financing the project ahead of
development or dealing with the bankruptcy proceedings on the
Owens's property. If the Owens parcel is developed in advance of
1 the second phase of the Troendle Addition, Nez Perce Drive would be
completed through the Owens's property as a requirement of any
related development approval.
' FEASIBILITY STUDY
In an attached memorandum from the Assistant City Engineer, we are
' bringing forth a proposal from OSM and Associates to undertake the
feasibility study for the extension of Nez Perce. The estimated
cost of the study is approximately $3,700 and is outlined in detail
in a memo prepared by Bud Osmundson, Professional Engineer with
' OSM. Since we do not have anybody volunteering to pick up..the
initial costs of the street connection and since it is the City
Attorney's opinion that we could be on shaky ground attempting to
II link those costs to the Troendle Addition plat, the City Council is
in the position of needing to consider front - ending the costs
associated with the fea study, and, potentially, front
ending the actual assessments (improvements). This is not prudent
I/
Troendle Addition
January 9, 1991
Page 5
and re- supports staff's position to phase the Troendle plat. If
the Council supports this recommendation, the necessity for a
feasibility study is now a moot point.
OTHER ISSUES
Two other issues were raised at the Council meeting that warrant
some discussion. These concern the location of an existing
garage /barn relative to the new road extension and consideration of
potential road improvements to the curve near the intersection of
Nez Perce and Lake Lucy Road. On the first issue, staff had
recommended against approval of variances associated with the
location of an existing garage relative to the new street right -of-
way. Lot 2, Block 1, which would contain an existing residence and
garage and barn would have a 21.7 foot setback between the garage
and the extension of Nez Perce, whereas, a 30 foot setback is
required. Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended
against approval of such a variance since there does not appear to
be a persuasive hardship. In the past in similar cases, as
development occurs, the property owner is normally asked to remove
the offending structure. It is generally assumed that the
financial benefits accruing from the plat far off -set the costs
associated with making the lot comply with city ordinances. The
applicants have indicated a willingness to ultimately remove the
structure but wish to leave it in place for the duration of time
the property is owned or controlled by Mr. Troendle, who is being
given a life estate by Mr. Beddor.
The City Council took no direct action on this request but appeared
to be leaning in the direction of finding some mechanism to allow
it. Julius Smith, Mr. Beddor's Attorney, suggested that they would
find it acceptable if a deed restriction was written into the title
of Lot 2 indicating that the barn must be removed whenever title on
the property is transferred. Staff does not really have a problem
with this proposal since we do not view it to be a highly
significant matter, however, we are concerned that administratively
conditions such as these are difficult to manage. We also note
that it puts the City in an unusual position since a variance
cannot be granted on a temporary basis so that the City Council is
essentially being asked to approve what would become a non-
conformity for a limited and undefined duration. As noted above,
apart from the unwieldiness of the proposal, staff does not view
this as a major issue, but we continue to recommend that this
building be removed or relocated in a manner consistent with other 11 subdivisions that have been approved over the years in the city.
Should the City Council wish to allow the garage /barn to remain on
a temporary basis, the sentence in Condition #11 should be deleted
and the following sentence substituted, "11. A deed restriction
acceptable to the City shall be drafted concerning the garage /barn
on Lot 2. The restriction shall clearly state that the barn is a
1
11 Troendle Addition
January 9, 1991
Page 6
1 non - conforming structure that must be removed concurrent with Mr.
Troendle relocation off the life estate to another individual."
' The second concern that was raised by area residents at the meeting
dealt with the intersection of Nez Perce and Lake Lucy Road. This
concerns a corner on the road with relatively poor sight distances
' that resulted from difficult engineering constraints when Lake Lucy
Road and Nez Perce were connected several years ago. Staff had an
opportunity to discuss this matter with former City Engineer Gary
1 Warren and it was his opinion that the road as it is currently
constructed represented the best alternative design available
without significantly impacting adjacent properties. While it is
possible to realign the street to .improve this curve, to do so
' would likely require the taking of properties on adjoining lots and
potential impact to area homeowners. Should the City Council wish
to reassess this design or the residents from Lake Lucy Road
' prepare a written petition for the Council to do so, the City
Council should direct staff to obtain cost estimates on a
feasibility study associated with this project. However, the City
Council should be aware that resolution of this matter should not
' be tied in with the Troendle Addition plat since there is no direct
linkage to the plat that is obvious to staff. It should also be
recognized that any such road improvement project would likely
' result in an area assessment over a large number existing
homeowners. Staff is not recommending any additional action in
this regard but will respond to the directions received from the
' City Council.
RESPONSE TO LETTER RECEIVED JANUARY 4, 1991 FROM FRANK BEDDOR, JR.
Staff recently obtained a copy of a letter prepared for Frank
Beddor regarding two issues concerning this plat. A copy of this
letter is attached. This section of this report is being used to
' respond to issues raised in this letter. The letter covers two
issues. It touches briefly on the request for a 7 foot setback
variance for the existing garage on Lot 2 but most of the letter
' focuses on the proposal by staff and approved by the Planning
Commission that an additional 7 feet of right -of -way be taken along
Pleasant View Road.
' The letter implies that staff is being inconsistent on
recommendations concerning the width of Pleasant View Road. It
attempts to make the case that traffic will not increase on
' Pleasant View Road and thus, improvements will not be required and
the need for additional right- of -i - eliminated. The writer
utilizes information contained in, -the Eastern Carver County
Transportation Study and the draft City Comprehensive Plan to make
' these points. Unfortunately, these matters were never discussed
with staff ahead of time and we believe as a result, there is a
1
1
Troendle Addition
January 9, 1991
Page 7
fairly sizable amount of misunderstanding or misinformation that is
conveyed as a result.
The letter first makes the case that the city is inconsistent in
it's policies as to road width on Pleasant View. If inconsistency
can be equated with a learning process whereby the city learns by
it's mistakes, then we are probably guilty. The 80 foot right -of-
way that we are attempting to achieve on Pleasant View Road is '
fully consistent with the recommendations contained in the Eastern
Carver County Study. Table 5 on Page 17 of the study (a copy of
which is attached to this report) clearly states that a 2 lane
Class II collector should have a minimum right -of -way width of 80
feet. We note that the Eastern Carver County Study is a relatively
new document that was not available when the items mentioned in the 11 letter were reviewed and therefore, staff did not have the benefit
of this recommendation to act upon. The letter also appears to
indicate that the Eastern Carver County Study is somehow a document
that is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Nothing
could be further from the truth and in fact, the Eastern Carver
County Study is incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and as the
Council is aware, city staff actively participated in the drafting
of that study.
The letter discusses the issue of the collector designation of
Pleasant View Road. The Eastern Carver County Study classifies
Pleasant View Road as a Class II collector which is the lowest
intensity road designation in this study. As a Class II collector,
Pleasant View is grouped in the same category as Lake Lucy Road. '
I believe that this is consistent with the actual use of these
streets. The Comprehensive Plan utilizes a different designation
system than does the Eastern Carver County Study. The reason for
this is that we are able to look at our community on a much more
detailed basis than was possible during that study and we realize
that we have a class of collectors, called Class II collectors,
that are simply too small to be investigated during the Eastern
Carver County Study. These would include streets such as Nez Perce
through the Troendle Addition, which clearly has minor collector
status. The Class I collectors identified in the city's
Comprehensive Plan are the equivalent of the Class II collectors
identified in the Eastern Carver County Plan.
Population growth and employment growth projections that have been '
prepared for the city during the Comprehensive Plan are questioned.
As the Council is aware, these population projections are a
conservative estimate of city growth and represent a significantly
slower rate of growth than the city as experienced over the last
few years. The letter indicates that it would be "unreasonable" to
have one job for every 1.8 people in the city. I am not sure why
the writer believes that this is unreasonable since this is almost
precisely the ratio of jobs to employment that we have today.
1
1
Troendle Addition
January 9, 1991
Page 8
1 There is a population of 12,000 with. approximately 6,000 jobs. In
the same paragraph we are asked to believe that the "all or
nothing" figures represent true traffic demand for Pleasant View
' Road. Traffi forecasting is a fairly complex science and without
wishing to enter into a protracted discussion regarding the
forecast, the capacity restraint forecast is the one that we are
' actively using with the Eastern Carver County Study. The capacity
restraint forecast is a real world number that is based on the
actual limitations of how much traffic a street can handle. For
example, the all or nothing forecast might assume that rather than
' use Pleasant View Road, traffic will utilize Highway 5, but that
the traffic on Highway 5 is well beyond the theoretical capacity of
that road to handle it. The capacity restraint model assumes that
' there are real world limitations on how much traffic a street can
handle and when this number is approached, cars and drivers will
reasonably seek alternatives. The letter goes on to indicate that
' it is their belief that the 500 vehicles forecasted by the all or
nothing forecast represents a true traffic demand figure. This
seems extremely implausible .given the fact that the current traffic
volume on Pleasant View Road is approaching 1,000 vehicles per day.
' Whereas, the all or nothing projection calls for only 500 trips per
day. Staff notes that there continues to be development in the
area and that the demand for through trips will also grow. Please
' keep in mind that the Crosstown Highway is scheduled to be extended
from I -494 to Hwy. 101 in the next few years.
' The letter then states that the preparers of the county study do
not believe that such an increase along Pleasant View will be
acceptable. This is true. I wrote that section of the Eastern
Carver County Plan to put county planners on notice that the city
' has real limitations in what we expect to be able to do on Pleasant
View Road.
' Lastly, the writer questions the city's ability to take the 7 ft.
of property for a roadway that "most probably never will be built".
As the Council is aware, the city is fully within it's legitimate
rights to obtain right -of -way for future road expansions at the
1 time property is subdivided. Staff takes this authority very
seriously and would never want to be in a position of abusing it.
Staff has been consistent stating in the Eastern Carver County
' Transportation Study, the Comprehensive Plan and in the Troendle
Addition staff report that we do not envision a major upgrading of
Pleasant View Road at any time in the foreseeable future. While we
' are attempting to find alternativeroutings for Pleasant View Road
traffic, realistically those alternatives are limited and traffic
is virtually certain to increase in the future. If this increase
does not come by trips through the neighborhood, and we believe
' that there will be a component of this in the future, it will occur
by additional home sites being created along Pleasant View Road.
The City Council should recall that the Crosstown Highway is
1
It
Troendle Addition
January 9, 1991
Page 9
scheduled to be extended from I -494 to Hwy. 101 in the next few
111
years. This will result in greatly increased pressure to travel
through the northeast corner of the city.
It should again be stressed that staff does not foresee a major
upgrading of Pleasant View Road due to the real limitations and
potential impacts that exist in this area. We do believe that it
will be necessary at some point in time to consider safety related.
• improvements. Safety related improvements could include widening
the pavement so that cars are able to pass one another safely,
modifications to curves to improve sight distances and the ability
of traffic to negotiate the area. Any such improvements that are
considered in the future would only be done with extensive
neighborhood involvement and with great sensitivity to maintaining
the character of the area. However, no such improvements are being
considered by the city at this point in time and there is no
schedule for their consideration.
Based upon this discussion, staff is continuing to recommend that
the 7 ft. of right -of -way be dedicated along Pleasant View Road.
As future subdivisions occur along Pleasant View, this is the
standard that will be employed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1
Staff recommends the Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves Preliminary Plat #90 -15 for Troendle '
Addition without variances subject to the following conditions:
1. Final plat shall be limited to Lots 1 -4, Block 1 and Lots 1
and 11, Block 2, of the preliminary plat. The remaining area
is to be platted as an outlot. Notice shall be placed in the
chain -of -title that as a condition of platting the outlot, the
owner must petition the City to construct Nez Perce through to
Pleasant View Road. Approval of the first phase will require
the construction of Nez Perce up to the proposed temporary
1 cul -de -sac located on the site's west property line.
2. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for Lots 1, 2 and 3,
Block 1 prior to issuance of a building permit. Clear
cutting, except for the house pad and utilities, will not be
permitted.
3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the 1
city and provide the city with the necessary financial
securities to guarantee proper installation of the
improvements.
1
1
1
1
Troendle Addition
January 9, 1991 •
Page 10
' 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit.
' 5. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right -
of -way for permanent ownership.
' 6. The cul -de -sac on Troendle Way shall have a radius of 60 feet
and the street name shall be modified to either Troendle •
Circle or Troendle Court to eliminate any confusion in
• applying it as a through street. Final street plans shall be
' developed for approval by the City Engineering Department.
7. The applicant shall install erosion control silt fence around
' the ponding area until such time that turf is established.
Turf or sod shall be placed behind all curbing.
' 8. Shared driveway access off of Pleasant View Road for Lots 1
and 4, Block 1 is required and a cross access easement shall
be provided. This common section of the driveway shall be
constructed to a 7 ton design paved to a width of 20 feet and
have a maximum grade of 10 %.
9. Provide the following easements and rights -of -way:
- the drainage and utility easements along the westerly
property line of Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 2 and the
ponding area on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 that are shown on
' the grading and erosion control plan shall also be shown
on the preliminary plat accordingly.
' - additional 7 feet of right -of -way along Pleasant View
Road.
•
' - standard drainage and utility easements.
10. The applicant shall submit storm sewer calculations verifying
size and capacity of the storm sewer system and ponding basin.
Eight inch sanitary sewer at a minimum rate of 0.4% shall be
constructed on this subdivision and service locations for all
of the lots on this plat shall be shown for final submittal
review. The final plans and specifications shall be submitted
to the City Engineer for review and approval.
11. Park and trail fees shall be required in lieu of parkland
dedication.
12. The garage /barn on Lot 2, Block 1 will be removed or relocated
' to an appropriate location so no variances are required. Lot
2, Block 1, shall be serviced by Nez Perce Drive and the
gravel driveway to Pleasant View Road shall be removed.
1
I/
Troendle Addition
January 9, 1991
Page 11
13. The temporary cul -de -sac should be provided with an easement '
to accommodate the temporary pavement and be provided with a
barricade equipped with a sign indicating the road will be
extended in the future.
14. Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 are required to have access from
Troendle Way. 1
15. The developer waives the right to contest area assessments
that may be placed upon all lots platted in the Troendle
Addition relative to the completion of Nez -Perce through
adjoining parcels to link with Pleasant View Road. This
condition shall be placed in the chain -of -title of all lots in
the plat." 1
ATTACHMENTS
1. Reductions of preliminary plat, grading plan and contours.
2. Letter from Frank Beddor, Jr. dated January 4, 1991.
3. Excerpts from Comprehensive Plan.
4. Excerpts from Eastern Carver County Transportation Study.
5. Letter from Bud Osmundson, OSM, dated January 3, 1991. 1
6. Notice to residents. -
7. City Council agenda dated November 19, 1990.
8. Staff report dated October 17, 1990.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• .
•
NM 7 MN I= IIM 11111 IIIIII NE MI MI MN NM .
Mal Ell. Mal MIN 11111111 MI Illir 1111111
• . ..
• . .
. 1 .
1 1
v N.1./.04■_,
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ,
TROENDLE ADDITION •
'DT ,survg..yp COMPANYAlt& CITY OF CHANHASSEN I q
LAND SURVEYORS 1
,
, 4•,., 4Y, 1 f.:f
/ i f .e.:- ' 1
1 /
.
I
11.,11.....mm... !...Z...r''''... 1.1i 0 :
1 I
1
1... V : NELAND I • 4-1 I: C E 5 T
\ \ • ‘
-\\",.,......--..,. *lb
\ .
/ / till 1 / .N \\.......4„
I e......■ ••• , ••••„. ..„. I
I / `... I , ir ,.• ',... N. ...I ,
'•
-,- - - _ -- ... _ • . • . . . .
N. •
\
' I
ii r .-. N r /
‘ ,
• -••••• - 1 7 -• • ......)
... \
- I /
1 1 I 1 -="7--- - ri .t‘7,7--,:.; 1 2- lr'` ----- 1 r ' NP1
\
1 , __Nw! _,..t li .
....,
1.1 . •
0\ \ • I ----,, - Ni ' s , / 4..!
,. I i t I • I: -1- - --- -17 -":?: -.7 " °5 -7. - lr 1 ,.._\ .) 1 -- fl., (I • L I I _../..... e i I \ ••• \ ........ ••••., ,
7 \ ',./ I \._ 4.. ..... ...... \ I i • --
sr ■
1 - I \ \ ,
g I . k - -.-,-,z-.. ,_ \ • idi 7 M ,... 1.I 1 1 / ii 1 . \ 0 , , , \ \ \ s • . f i
1. / ,--- NZ''..( Nc 9 .1 „--,?-,.._- 42:,,, 2 1 - LVdg I tl 1 r-, VI 1 4, ;II 1 3 i ?..1 1 4( ../ ,......... N 6., \ \ 91 i /
"" WA - I ••• .... , I / i ' . k - — .
F. ....% .--.--, ---:-, . , I '3 - -- , 1 I I: \1,, t '-- / I I '• \\ I lk "
.. 1,
- ... 006 ti v---....., \ , ,,....t )
r atepOre _.) •• '''''' • " " 1_ - .:- - .7' -- •) - i fT -
.. - N • , IP ".......--.". pi- ,-----
I pi L • ...... .,, ......k.,-.:-... 4 . ‘ .1.....7-12 . ; ....:-..■ fi: , : ,L",..,- _I
. / r - _,-;, --- •-, _ • \\_.3.1_, T: L._..- % \
t . .
,., •
•
.i.ey / / ,..... , ,-\\--.•-•:' ---- -,i, 4. i ‘ ‘‘
if II ,,,, ,....„, \....... :::-:::• f Ni p l ' .. ..l L E ---- . \ \ \ ‘
\ 1
_.y ‘ i 8 i /10 •-t ,
I)
: Xi /---'
1 . .1 .1/ •• , -: , _L--. i , / I
•
A i q
--4,_ _ - -- -- ...
7 — r 1 - \ N T 7- ‘11 I r 1-7-- \ --''.7. ' •
.-/".• , j I rii •! '-) CI
- 1 41 I 3 i i / .« - i - i r _
--1 r ....., , 1 1
VI 1 A
,..---......
/III , 1 ' 4 ". ‘
, 4
, 1
S, I I
\•,,xt t
g 3 -,-
R u: i 1. I i\,7 ji-- I 1 1 r? s •
\ \V
10 - 1 1 9 1 2 •.-
c. c.. , i - ■ ...t.. ./ 11
_--
, -• i 1 1 . V , „ -/ 1 \ e
3. :.4 1 I .- 7 •-... 1 1
, , .....
.. , 1 , \ r. , , tsk I i A • 0 • -1 .1 I 1 ) % itt ,-) r t , \ .
, ..,..s.m. :ward Ns -,,_; , 4 IA I i I ..-- I 1 \ 111.4....4 its:134. ,
I I / ..._.>"..„. ''.--- - ...-44.___ t_z_ _ 1 j...., ' _ a ,-I .
\g .... ...4 - Tr -74 '
I') ... 6 I fil - . )f : it) BE s'ACATEr.: ..... - / . V / t 1 v - lik i ..
I I -4.:.: i I , I
....- -7 ) 4 . :-... \ % , 1 1 I . % - •••s:1,141___,, ‘. 1 I " ,-.! C to i. : I ::1 FT a -- -
-..,... I I ' . Il , :■ ‘-, /' r I — 411%1411 % % Cl ‘ 1 1 i I 4*6 •,,
I I I C ,.. l ■ I .0 4, ..)
•
'''''•• I 1 I .1 1/ t/i ‘ 1 .
No ‘ . , • V. 1 \ \ \ \ % \ i i I I I I 1 ‘
..... .....1 . F .: il ..‘i• / I ‘ i ‘. , 1 \ 1 \ \ i 1 \ I / I N III * . (
I .' I
I •
I I
I .
t •■ 1 I I- I I
•
:? 1 1 ./..._,..______,.. ........ &OM.
14 u . I
it' ; 1 I &Me . 1 . ■ _S.., i. . 4 . . " .
■.; 20 o so ego 1.1•
1.
• : !..
■
• .. •
'•' . : .''• , '
311E-___WW
-LI •
• I' I " I ''
7 L'ItT .7 .1 " ■111
1
, _ , .. . .,.....
•.ler ,/ 41,..• ...:. .• .1 r 1 tli. I .... a 1.0,
?I 1\ 11114railIO I W .. ... -„...
' 2 ■ 11 0 AI 'V . \\Poil
• '
Att • .04 r 11. 4 I. ■• .0...., $ •I
1 os up ,,, 1 )
4e , ., ..
Illsp t
r 1 .4 li
.11; .10 ••,,,21
,..„.......•.....•
•
-,-.;•!.4.111-..,,.:7—'"
• • .4 •
~ow* 4 Tar moll . r.'••••0. ... 1:, r .. • 1 ". . • . '
.1.1. 41 4...11 111p.... ...v., .1 r I Ire 1 ... I • Or
.... b • i ' i .
, 2•1 14 ,...,S 6/ PA.04-
. .
...
1 1 ,
. •
• ---__...r„,,.........., .
mown GAADIFOI 1
•
EROSION CONTROL PLAN RM.
TROENDLE ADDITION Earcert 1 ,
LOT SURVEYS COMpaNt INC. CITY OF CHANHASSEN -like..
.L AM) SURVEYORS
".".7 •• .....r -
1
I . .
. . .. . ..
•
!I
1 a 1 • 'cism-24 Pt. 4" 111% ,
1 ,
1
I N .
1 ai i •
• ..a • I . / ' to I ‘ I • : ' :,IIII-T FlEttokrkiL 1 =
. .. % 1 • • :. ; •:- , • 1 • • , , ,. 1
3/4. '3/4.
.., , • 1 1
-. %. .
I j 1 3 •
.. —. 11 .7..., ;
- ....
i 1 •, • I. 1 Fr --1- --. , ' **"" I
10 — — 12 " — r — — ' •- — ' .": _. i
1 1 ‘ I "
.: 47: 3 .
. • 4.4.0. ow... I ... ..... 1 ..... ...e" ...
..q . :I. , ., .
I 1 — , .
, 1
----1 1 r - - 1 1 I r— . I ' 111 • ' \ \ / :
cr .
"" tv:z..... • . i I : • •
1, v. 1 :\ - — 2 —* a. 1 . 1 i il 1 1 I I „ I , 1 3 .,, Mr •..., 1 , •. ,
ki .. . I ......... .0.4, 4 I.. ft , •• 1 L I IL' l' I I" " ' v ,,,,. ,, . , •
..,. lamow.e•d• . ...... . a I I 7......e • -""tl. r
I - . Iss •flt . _ 1 • • : i -
-- --1-:_:77. , ...._.... ._, l
— • I...- INAWr . 1 ,_. 4. . . :::: ,, , ..„ .
,.. ....
--- ......p, 4 t(t:,, . 41 . 1 ---.-A.‘ 1,.1 --- • - .:.- .- f 1... rui !•(.. 1 1
.) r I j 10 , , , ., • , 3, .1 . _ ___._...
ti
_
I Pa , / 1 • ai /
• ! I \ . IN
a r' ; 41. t ' p. / • rairjeWiag■ I
WIN Ma•allailli t „ 1 , I .
t • I 4 III / 1 / .“
, , :„, ...... „.• .:• , I-111/91 1 p . .... .1 " l
;? • ..,_".... i ,If N, , , ..,/ i
1 '' I
" • 1 1 6 4! I, •;;‘..i. I I.
:. P.; , awl 1 ,j , .'. . , 1 i
,, ,. j .‘: op.! ...".-
. / /, ...
I . • , I I ' i ' I I‘
._Ja_J ti 1 i 1 ., 1 . , I :00 , c. ‘
t , • ; , k---....1.....a. ....-1-- ,.. ,.., , • ---:-1 , . I /......J f
, • , .
i I • I Ler i el i • % 7 .......\ . \ \\
il
J 1 1. , _ , . ..„,_ . • A .... 1, ..,41 ......., _./ , ; „" /. -
I/ f.• \ .. 2 ).,. a f
.0 ' 14 • .• 4 ... ,.:- •-x-•' 11," ■ ' ''',4 •■■• -.A.: . / . __2 ... 1 ) 1 - . I 1 . .... IA ., I 4. -:' . ,
I \ s.
... j p 1 1 ,,•.. ., ., : m et VAC•11T.: 44_ :47 6.... 7 4,3....... ... zr - 7 .
...... .....,.....„, — , .:,.. , .... , _ ....1 4 _ .. il . .1 ..
t , _ . I ... . .
.
,.
-.•• _ •
I 1 ' , • ( •"" —: r— . —....... r /
• 1
.. .
t
: , .•%'• i. v .-- %itit‘i i 1 It . Oh 1 t ; -_ •-•
. 1 1 . ,.. •,.:„...... ;.-,,‘ 1 4..1. ' •• - ..,s
t ..
, * I L ■ I •
. I ., : , 1 ■ 1 , ., %. HI 1 , 1
I 1
IMAMS PLAN eV •
I I 1 1 I • V • ai. ai 1
. A I Z. IIL IG matmairs , wc.
... . LSr
......—........,___ • 6/011• .... Om* • 9
• I I
It III' VP LOCK_
,,.....".".".""87.4..",..."."4.7.11,,,:mmo:t. SKID -- -.
•S — .... immt•raul. au MI*
I 11,,,,,....,i,..1.,.....:
[ or • •Ir ...„
.j. . 1 or ..., •ti-all,
....... inIPrilkiinWilitVICP••• ...;
EiltUtifMistiF2/241:6 mown mom son
I I .
12.
. misarw.• \ , .. ....... . ...Oyu lomninl
P 11. • NM /111.1.1.540 L ..-I
.„,-.... i+__
Pet-Pou awl.
' our_ , •-• .... iiiiiiiiii;;—■ .'""*"""*" TYPEAL IMIEETJECTEri gas Mel We MIMI ■.........
''''''....• . mt. ,... / i ...' •••( r .. ISSUED
• . • . _ __________N7- .
......,.
....
..r.1.
Nowelesimen.
111•ItAl. WIMP Me* MTN&
PRELIMINAli I •
. .
. •
— IIIIIII MN NM 11111 MI OM MN NM INIII IMO MI INN MIll INN — IMII Mil 41.111
= NM MI I= RN IMI NE = NS MN 1 IMII I = MI = Er Mall
1 ,
•
\N. 1
•
/ ' ' \
•
\\ \ \ \ N . ' \. ,
�.... \ -� • 1 \\ ,,,...2./.:4--
f- t
\ - „ ,= ,
j 'fi,* . � �� .� •S
I I \ , / k `'� � ; ' L ten„, ---.1 1 w''
0 , ‘ , ' s. ,• . v .':
•
. 1 k • ■ „ . , , ,, i
,/ • I/ \ \ ' / 1 , fir I . 11 /
• 1 1 1 '/ / � `
i• \ \) ` • •
\'` I
f , r
\ ‘ t 1 1 I . / . 1 o e_ ; 3.; .
..�..... .. ti - / I Leene_
- \ —__, ' - - _I' ._ _ _ _ —_ . 7 _ .. 7;: 4 'S '\ 11 I _ �:.,;5. / Lt! I �M •
\ ._ ;= ,, „ ,. PRELIMINI
\ II ;• ^� . N 1 KIM IIC/al
s ' N . :,... II reasects. ma
• , �: I' ,, ,v ': ` y I 11tLa�IM1T NamRM WI
' I / I / :' 1 7 t _ ' r -- �>_-1Y ', .. ••
1
. 5 : ',\ 'M,.•./ • at' a �
• • I- tartan
kALE N I CT 1.111 •11 -1lt _ yy
a
o
•
1 1 ` _
FORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC.. I "' �; ""
AMC : — , ..:
••S .....,. .naga 1„aMa•11a 1 aars - a —
••a 11MM.. aMa I IIMa •M \a•. Num111013 33313
I 14,1,1 NI.,...
•
gg
ti 2 / N .....:,F,, ~ I li • X , -.:444. •• \ if , t ." k' A/0/ \`..,(E/4 ri 14 . 104 ----
)' V i 1 I I I ? 4 $ ; aft, ... ......,
• ' 1 , ,) i " i i t, I 1 . . 1. N ..1*,:p• ' 111 4061 .
• r " */, 7 44 i " let: .1 ' f. . .11 i : • A r.... . 5 . 11
i r { i� , - r-
*• s.
• 4' i c id!. 1 , 1 '. 1
1 1 N *. V '
` ` J' __,�._ _009
____ itoc .
c b / 1 1 � �- — ._ pi 1 i'? i
i ,.. . ,
_....
\ ._ yy / ,....._ . ..,.(44 -
11 1 '>- 4 A /
/ ;- .` hi
• . ; ..../ ' / ' --7- i 1 - 71-' - ' '. - f -- a_P lit - ,-.. •
Ilffillre ;.3 ,..._:' •
1 4 . -- # ."- / If f 8 _..... A ii i t li, — ,
i ' }// .1= ' i . / = a -a 1 ' ' ' I
, , , 0 # / iv N \( 1
{
I I ' ( i ',--; .1 14 v i ' -_, •
I 1:\ti ',. 4 . .
1 I I 1 / 1;4 ' 1- \'' '. ill .... - . 1 CI j t
/ • 1 . I ' V I i ) / I • i-E 7 11 \ "111111 N - - -.-- ; -- I . 1 I \
- A .,
, 1 1 ( i - 7. , 1... : i c
li/ /,:i ; I
1 f f \ � � i-T ` ;� i S r i j , • 1 t e .
• .,_. . , I :. ri ''' : '*4- I ....... 2 . i \ • •..- fr 7:-.„„ - A ! a - ' , ,
� 4• `` '4 ' •4 / SW
�.• �_ 1 • i / i
. T. riar — .aL .. a Mt
• S _ •
f ir.... -
J '4 a - "mot-- 1 y ' 1 ' � 1 ■ �� • C = - •
CITYOF
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
January 10, 1991
Mr. Frank Beddor, Jr.
7951 Powers Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1 Dear Mr. Beddor:
' I am writing in response of your letter dated January 4, 1991,
concerning the Troendle Addition plat. As you are aware, my staff
and I are in the process of completing our review on the Troendle
Addition plat for which you are the developer. To date, all of my
' contacts to you have been through Daryl Fortier, who has been
representing your interests on this project. I appreciate the time
that you took to respond to your concerns on the Planning
Department's recommendations concerning Pleasant View Road. Since
we have not had an opportunity to discuss these personally, I
wanted to take this opportunity to respond to the issues that were
' raised in your letter. I am certainly available to discuss these
with you in person at your convenience.
First, let me state that we have long been aware of the difficulty
1 that would be encountered in improving Pleasant View Road and have
never envisioned it's widening on a significant scale. However, in
representing the best interests of the City, we note that Pleasant
' View Road is a collector street that already carries a significant
volume of traffic and that this will only increase over time. The
construction of the Crosstown Highway between I -494 and Hwy. 101
' that will occur in a few years can only add to this pressure. As
such, I would be professionally irresponsible if I did not make
allowances for the City to, at some point in the future, make
safety related improvements to Pleasant View Road. These
' improvements could include items such as providing sufficient
pavement width for cars to maneuver and to provide for pedestrian
safety and opening up curves or grades to improve sight distances
I and maneuvering ability. It is with this goal in mind that we have
been recommending the additional 7 foot of right -of -way along
Pleasant View Road.
1
Mr. Frank Beddor, Jr.
. January 10, 1991
Page 2
Your letter indicates that we have been inconsistent in the past as '
to what we have recommended with this street. I should point out
that the City, as with any good organization, learns by it's
mistakes over time. We have been going through a process of
updating our codes and plans and attempt to use the most current
data possible to review development proposals. The Eastern Carver
County Study, which as you are aware has recently been completed,
has some specific recommendations for.Pleasant View Road. The plan
notes the difficulty of improvements to it and the sensitivity of
the surrounding neighborhood. It also recommends that an 80 foot
right -of -way be preserved for roads such as this. What it appears
that you are not aware of from the letter is that the City was an
active participant in the Eastern Carver County Study and the
inclusion of special information on Pleasant View Road was
requested by me.
There is some understandable confusion about the designation of
Pleasant View relative to the Easter Carver County Study and the
new draft Comprehensive Plan being prepared by the City. This
confusion stems from the fact that the City Comprehensive Plan is
much more detailed relative to local streets then is the Eastern
Carver County Study. This has given us flexibility to talk about
a Class II collector street in the City Plan that does not appear
anywhere in the Eastern Carver County Study. Locally, the
comparison would be that Pleasant View equates to Lake Lucy Road
and Galpin Boulevard as Class I collectors, while Nez Perce, when
completed, would be a Class II collector. There also appears to be
some question as to the population and employment projections
contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Let me assure you that these
are reasonable projections that actually represents significant
decreases from the rates of growth that we have experienced over
the last 5 years. You may also find it interesting that, at the
present time, we have approximately 12,000 people living in the
community and based upon a recent survey completed by my staff, we
have almost-6,000 jobs. From this we have concluded that a 2 to
1 ratio in the future may be reasonable although we have not
specifically provided projections for employment, the plan only
contains projections for population and households.
The letter goes on to raise questions regarding traffic forecasts.
Traffic forecasting is a rather complex science but I can summarize
the pertinent information fairly quickly. The "all -or- nothing"
forecast is a modeling technique that is used to outline where
vehicle trips would occur if they were unconstrained by such real
world factors as roadway capacity. The capacity restraint model,
on the other hand, takes into account the fact that roadways do
have a limiting capacity and that when traffic backs up
significantly, people will find alternate routes. Therefore, as
the capacity restraint model that is being heavily relied upon for
the Eastern Carver County Study, in my opinion, it is unreasonable
1
1
Mr. Frank Beddor, Jr.
January 10, 1991
Page 3 •
to expect that if the current traffic volumes on Pleasant View Road
is approaching 1000 trips a day, that 10 years from now, with added
development in the area 4nd added pressure for through trips, that
the amount of vehicles would be decreased to 500 trips per day.
The capacity restraint forecast of 1900 trips per day appears to be
much more reasonable although as noted above, we have put the
County on notice that there is some very significant constraints
that are encountered when introducing more trips on Pleasant View
Road is considered. Thus, the realistic forecast for Pleasant View
Road is probably somewhat less.
1 I hope that this responds to the questions raised in your letter.
Again, I would enjoy the opportunity of having the chance to speak
directly with you about these matters or any related questions that
you may have in the future.
Sincerely,
-haul Krauss, AICP
Director of Planning
PK:v
cc: City Council
Troendle Addition Staff Report
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
GFrank GBeddor, Jr.
It
January 4, 1991 1
Councilman Thomas Workman
CITY HALL
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Troendle Addition Plat
Dear Councilman Workman: -
On January 14th, the request for approval of the above plat is on your agenda
and has been recommended by your planning staff. This plat has been before
you on several occasions generally recommended with conditions or exceptions
involving essentially two issues. One has to do with the temporary setback
variance or a temporary approval of the use of the existing garage by Mr. Troendle
until such time as his life estate terminates; and the second involving the
recomendation or requirement that I dedicate an additional 7 feet along Pleasant
View Road, presumably because the present 66 foot wide roadway is expected
to be widened in the future to 80 feet.
A few thoughts regarding Pleasant View Road: the typical right -of -way in Chanhassen
for a collector, such as Lake Lucy Road, is 66 feet. This is the right-of-
.
way width that your planning staff has requested for Pleasant View Road at
the Vineland Forest plat and also the proposed Art Owens plat. Also, contrary
to Staff's opinion, the right -of -way requested for the Beddor Addition (Zahn
property) was 33 feet. That right -of -way also matches the property line for
the plat of Christmas Acres. From this point of view alone, there seems to
be little justification for the planning staff asking for dedication of an
additional 7 feet to get a total for an 80 foot right -of -way for Pleasant View
Road.
The city seems very inconsistent in their policy as to what is required for
a road right -of -way. On September 11, 1989, there was a request by Carl McNutt
to subdivide his property located at 185 Pleasant View Road. At that time,
it was pointed out that there was a 66 foot right -of -way at his end of the.
property and JoAnn Olson stated, "we've got full right -of -way at that point ".
This apparently is also close to Councilman Johnson's residence and he commented
at length that the right -of -way appeared to be 66 feet all the way out to TH 101.
The City Engineer, Gary Warren, then clarified that at that location the right -
of -way was actually 73 feet wide. The Council then asked that if they gave him
back some of that right -of -way would his lot then conform; they were actually
thinking of reducing the right -of -way back to 66 feet in width which they earlier
suggested was the standard for a collector withn the City of Chanhassen. While -
the subdivision was ultimately denied, it was very clear from the minutes of
that meeting that the Council and Staff felt very comfortable with a 66 foot
- right -of- way for Pleasant View Road. :�•;
Jr:N C b 1�, - 1
rf Y
7951 POWERS BOULEVARD • CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA 55317 • TELEPHONE 612/474 -0231 • FAX 612/474 -0379 1
Councilman Thomas Workman
Page Two
January 4, 1991
In the Comprehensive Guide Plan, the City has Pleasant View Road as a "Class 1
' Collector ". This indicates a speed limit of 35 -45 mph and that it is used for
inter -city travel. This is the same classification as County Road 17, Lake
Lucy Road, Kerber and Galpin Boulevards. This is the first time that the City
has classified Pleasant View Road as a collector and I believe, if they were
to make such a classification stick it should be a "Class 2 Collector ". A Class 2
is limited to 30 -40 mph and is used for inter - neighborhood travel. The 1980 Compre-
hensive Guide Plan did not list Pleasant View had as a collector at all. The
' 2010 Guide Plan Recommended Base Roadway System classifies Pleasant View Road
as a "Class 2 Collector ". It was noted that Pleasant View Road currently has
capacity /alignment problems and that the right -of -way width should be 60 -100
' feet wide. Pleasant View Road currently serves Zones 540 -1 and 540 -6. It is
projected that in the year 2010 these two districts will have a total population
of 1,396 which represents 537 households.
The eastern Carver County traffic Study also provides forecasts of traffic
volume for Pleasant View Road and throughout Chanhassen for the year 2010.
Interestingly enough, it is based on a population growth of 222% and an employment
' growth of 815 %. I personally find that basis for projections to be unreasonable,
as they would not have one job for every 1.8 people in the city. This means
that Chanhassen would be importing workers from other Communities. Nevertheless
the predictions of traffic for Pleasant View Road is most interesting as follows:
Current Volume 880 Vehicles per weekd•.
"All or Nothing" 500 Vehicles per weekday
"Capacity Restraint" 1,900 Vehicles per weekday
' Believe it or not, the "All or Nothing" figures represent "true traffic demand"
assuming none of the arteries and roadways are congested, how would people
travel. The volume under the "Capacity Restraint" reflects the fact that the
' "other" routes are clogged and congested and that Pleasant View Road becomes
a relief valve or an alternate route . . . not the primary intended route.
The report further states that the preparers of the county study do not believe
that such an increase along Pleasant View Road will be acceptable, as this
is primarily a residential district. To alleviate such anticipated congestion,
they recommend that County Road 17 and TH 101 be increased in capacity to provide
4 lanes of traffic. This would reduce the traffic flow along Pleasant View
Road considerably, say, to be current levels or less. Accordingly there would
be no reason or demand to widen or improve Pleasant View Road.
Additionally, of course, is the matter of taking of a parcel of land of approxi-
mately 335 feet by 7 feet for roadway that most probably will never be built.
II It is a poor use of the property. If the roadway is ever bult, the city would
need to purchase property all along Pleasant View Road. Since there will be
1
1
Councilman Thomas Workman
Page Two 1
January 4, 1991
1
few future possibilities to require dedication along an already built -up
Pleasant View Road, it seems particularly inequitable that I should be treated
differently than cther owners in that I am to give up the land when almost
100% of the other owners will be compensated. Primarily, however, dedication .
of that 7 foot strip for an 80 foot roadway. - which has had fierce opposition
in the past and which will most likely never be built - strikes me as an
. unreasonable requirement. I would urge you to approve the plat of Troendle
Addition without the requirement of the dedication �f the 7 foot strip.
Sincerely, ,
..�;
/Frank Beddor Jr.
FB:djl
•
cc: Mayor Don Chmiel
City Council Members
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Paul Krause, Planning Director/—
City Engineer
1
1
1
1
r
1
1
1
J January 10, 1991 �I 1 , �o
L 1 1991
Mayor Don Chmiel r l r c�f �h �r`Y`� cSE/v
CITY HALL
City of Chanhassen
' Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Troendle Addition Plat
Dear Mayor Chmiel:
On Monday, January 14, our request to replat the Troendle property
will come before the City Council. Unfortunately I will be out of
town but I will be represented by Jules Smith and Daryl Fortier.
' By way of background Marilyn and I had negotiated over a year ago
with Joe Troendle to purchase his property. Joe is 81 years old and
has lived on this property all his life so he has to be one of the
oldest living, long -term residents of Chanhassen. Joe has been a
neighbor of our's for over 33 years and we made what we feel is a
very generous offer to Joe - -all in cash, plus giving him a life
estate.
' We are very hopeful this plat will be approved on Monday night because
our purchase agreement with Joe is contingent upon getting this plat
approved. We would feel very badly if for some reason Joe should .
unexpectedly die before this contract can be completed because he
would not have an opportunity to enjoy the proceeds from this sale.
' From our personal standpoint the timing is not important but I am
sure it is to Joe Troendle.
I would hope that you and the Council members would be in sympathy
with this position. We certainly hope Joe has many more years of
a healthy and full life and that he will have a chance to enjoy life
to its fullest.
I have another subject to address - -the Planning Staff has recommended
we donate a seven foot easement on Pleasant View Road and we feel
' there is a "FAIRNESS ISSUE" involved here. The City Council just
recently approved the Vineland project which is directly next door
to Joe Troendle's property and did not request an easement from the
developer. The City also approved the plat on Art Owens' property
' on the other side of Joe Troendle's land and did not request this
dedication from Art Owens.
Marilyn and I are purchasing the last remaining undeveloped parcel
along Pleasant View Road and do not understand why at this time and
place we should be singled out as the only owners being asked to
II give up a seven foot strip of property.
910 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 0 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ❑ TELEPHONE: 612/474 -6010
t
1
Mayor Don Chmiel
Page Two 1
January 10, 1991
This is also ironic because Marilyn and I have led the drive to keep 1
Pleasant View Road safe and sane, to keep the traffic level down
on Pleasant View Road and we are adamantly opposed to widening Pleasant
View Road, as outlined in my letter to Councilman Thomas Workman
on January 4.
If you approach the "fairness issue" from another standpoint, if
years from now Pleasant View is widened, Marilyn and I would be the
only owners who would not be compensated for their land.
Again, I apologize for not being able to attend on 1
January 14; however I hope you can approve this plat so we can pay
Joe Troendle. I would also be in hopes that you would not insist
on taking the seven foot strip of land just as a "fairness issue ". 1
Thanks a million for your consideration.
Sincerely, 1
Marilyn and Frank Beddor, Jr. 1
MFB:djl
cc: City Council Members
Don Ashworth, City Manager -
Paul Krause, Planning Director
City Engineer
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• • 4t Co ?lc vt
1 1 It it I i >I I :.. - t- _' .. '�.t �_i t¶'tt !‘ t1t
° + ==
4 _ �I:. _ Mil ` • � - -. •� -�'r • 11` = _ _ - _
p OF At q r-- IP 1 I r c _ ....v �
m a I r 1 ! i N . _ �
Mai
_ - , ' - fi rt - a
r nrr --
.Irr ,
...._:• ,..„. l' .... 1 ... •,t
A . ! .
e r ' r 4....... ..................$4,_
__ . • :
. _
• __ ifi sr.,
, t a i r . . .. . , Il i - : ...„. -.... 1 1
WI ... _.„ .... ;
... on A. i .. . ii i -.... •• , a A lin. ....01.1=6.1r ..7 1.41 ji as 1111P - . 7
ii
... — � e
.... . IMAM
- Oft
-
! t i t t _ ___•—_
1 arr of R= w , t —
. Mr —...
�� i — ..n
Existing Functional ----i
•,rr. .
Classification E -= --
IP ; ....,
E[IE Principal Arterial
• •. Minor Arterial — Class 1 - i
—j
' .solu Minor Arterial — Class II� • _ ' I. _�- • ...
• Collector — Class 1 - - _ -
$ i' -' � � .._. --
I ___.
.._
. 14, -■--: - LI mim . . . •
ow- o l i e-
■
_
I . _ _ -
i ..• ' i 1 r• s
M - . / 1 1 1 '.: . i I 1 1 I 1
I ........ o
WC wt ... •...
:IT Y C) F
Pc DATE: 10/17/90
CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 11/5/90 23 It
�-+ CASE #: 90 -15 SUB It
By: -- Al- Jaff /v
STAFF REPORT
li
PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 8.7 Acres into 15 Single Family Lots,
Troendle Addition
1-
Z LOCATION: Lots 4 and 8, Vineland Forest - West of Vineland Forest,
Q south of Pleasant View Road, north of Carver Beach
V Estates and east of Lots 5, 6 and 7, Vineland Forest
l
APPLICANT: Fortier and Associates Frank Beddor, Jr. (owner)
^ 408 Turnpike Road 7951 Powers Boulevard
Q Golden Valley, MN 55422 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
1
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 8.7 acres (gross) 7.5 acres (net) II
DENSITY: 2 units per acre
II ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF; single family
Q S - RSF; single family II '-- E - RSF; single family
Q , W - RSF; single family
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. II
W
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The northeastern portion of the site is ,
MINIM
heavily vefetated with mature trees. - The
site generally slopes to the northwest to
form a low area.
II
...... -- .. -.. ... - -- ._ - 1
1
%,..0
-1 - ..-1111111110 MIMI Mill I
MI MI 11411 • NM
1 lk ,
I
11......3
N -c a . ,
-,-.1-- Co- `•___ 4. i 00
I .,'
- tk
' Atiktf 1 ,
•, ,, _
Th.......4. C
' lia■
' . - 4- 4 ' •-`‘ - .' 1 -
) 112 Fr /MN
—1300
III 11111% . P W4 . '.
RI WNW
:‘ • 1J v,.\ .._ )..\)--- t.k, ....,____i .
,t., Si MP , rip..4 ( , ,.„ , _ , \ , ,,,,. _.---r • ,.. i , —
ank. " (2. , '---T. I • . ,
" #. willimPAig
7 . DJ Ile 2IMIE.: d • - al ' 16
1 .1:1- ' 4' s 1 —1200 p1
1 11111111111111set Ica ,.., .
lio.../
4 ..„.
1 , .
livu ammunrinni,.
• a . (I) Vk CT .41.W .9j. iliPt A a 4 owo..wommu- 11111r • um — iloo
t . ,.; .,.. , .4 t ap 2 70.'. • „ . „m ': . NI t
41 ,00,\ Ill
:: -guritt .itt.,1w ,.. 1 1 ' s ^TM 7 . • '
.. kfillinN, illro-, ...Si' mud& ,I, 11 :V. a
) C-. ', 4 .,..44:1;:::;" IOC . r $ ■:47 1 /ill la l k iti ' ;' 2
..... ,
0 A , 4 g ; * O . p w /I\ -.,,, iliii p i n _ Ihn ' r..... • •
W...... , q s' rzli• wite ere, .4.4 a LI 1.., n MIM 1000
I t,..) )t
' \ -,p . :4 0 rii N
- \t 1 - 0.5 .. 1% ei s s /041,1,E4V,r .„. 3 — 900
pi.-4 ,
.v.
/ Vri w -s- . : ,, ,,,, ...,.,, . ,. 10 4 op 4k ,_‘ . . 11161 !IP s
- 4 b•-:\ - Oil 3 .4 I- p Emu .*',. \•
Ai ---, . .
_ io.
SA v i r o t4, g NI 4 ti rail ° 4W, 1 ,,,' i z :s , ,,, . , ;.,
.- 800 ,
a .114 .., 4 ... C3 " ( - )''i- A. K r : I millo
04 i: Lima. T 00 •, ---. //' . 4! ,4 ---
L
g
4 ":. 4, ,,-,, :li FA; 1 tiolArts,,, 41,p•i#,,d', ;or:04 Atfil 444' 4 1' r:'' P ' i. C g
2 Alp
- , ' . k- #1 --
% in.. la . erAttr; ' • ist50 10.. !,... f,,
, ‘11`■ , ell410 (7i VI
411 "- agi,..-- . 0 fAve* • -um 4.74
Illipa, 0 ,,...
. V 1 St I ',‘ . ,.... , , , 7, . -- , • .1 44A ' — —700 - 6 - a)
4111b, we ) ..• „, r- -1,,.___
.c... 0 ,
„ ....... _
IIIIP • Ii. ' -- 11111 " Ilk
i
-* . • ..w
"0- c.. • _600
:/71111 111110110;71 : e ...iir,
, •
■
re % 111 pi op • 4. N.' go
XI
•••■ ••■■ ,il — . 4 ow. =A go
do ...... , 'iv wo '1' - i _________,-. -„ ■ ■ ,,
,/=-- .,;,\.„ . ■ 4w, : .__ . - I - - . r —500
- - - .
717. tar :kw ::; 'NI op tip Lii.-. Am v-
i
N. //Ai= atir4v JV
,.. -Ai zilL ,.-.1•1 :de Ili wig /./
•,.■ do, ya w: — z 00 71
-4 -,. - li;ik. ••(-,- 416■ itinra o
' , ../43,■ ,/,-..,-,--
$1000 ' I.
, .1
:5 4 . o
f`• CIS \- ilk„„„,;,,, SIONA? isa „
v 0 lb. ,
,
1
Troendle Addition
October 17, 1990
ir
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY '
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 8.7 acres into 15 single
family lots. The property is zoned RSF. The average lot size is
21,855 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.7 units per
acre. The site is located north of Carver Beach Estates and west
of Vineland Forest. Access to the subdivision will be provided by
an extension of Nez Perce Drive. The extension of Nez Perce Drive 11 is consistent with a conceptual access plan developed by the City
• during review of the adjacent Vineland Forest plat. It will
terminate in a temporary cul -de -sac at the west property line.
Ultimately, when the adjoining parcel is developed, the street will
be extended to Pleasant View Road via Peaceful Lane. A cul -de -sac,
Troendle Way, extends south from Nez Perce to service many of the
proposed lots. '
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance_. Proposed Lot 2, Block 1 has an existing
residence and an existing garage /barn. Presently, access to this
site is gained from Pleasant View Road via a gravel driveway. The
barn will be located 21.7 feet from the proposed extension of Nez
Perce Drive. City ordinance does not permit any accessory
structures to be located in the front yard setback. Therefore,
staff is recommending that this structure be removed or relocated
as it will create a non - conforming use. 1
Grading and drainage issues are relatively straightforward. Storm
water retention will be provided by an expanded storage pond on Lot
4, Block 1. This will overflow into a wetland on an adjoining
parcel that has been partially filled by the property owner.
Municipal utilities are available with no unusual issues in this
regard. '
In summary, staff believes that the proposed Troendle Addition
represents a high quality plat that is consistent with the
standards of the Zoning Ordinance and with city plans concerning
this area. We are recommending that it be approved.
BACKGROUND '
On September 11, 1989, the City Council approved an access concept
plan for Vineland Forest. 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
creates a road that bisects and provides access to the Troendle
parcel. The Vineland Forest plat was approved on December 18,
1989. The plat has been constructed with Nez Perce terminating in
a temporary cul -de -sac at the Troendle property line.
1
1
Troendle Addition
October 17, 1990
Page 3
1 Access
Access into this area of the City was explored in detail with the
review and approval of the adjacent Vineland Forest subdivision..
During review of that subdivision, it became clear that the City
wished to maintain continuity of north /south flow between Pleasant
11 reasonable Road and Lake Lucy Road and points further south to maintain
reasonable access for emergency vehicles and residents. At the
same time, residents along Pleasant View Road were concerned that
• if traffic were introduced too far to the east that Pleasant View
' Road would have an undue 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 current proposal is fully consistent with the approved access
concept. Nez Perce Drive would be extended through the Troendle
Addition where it would terminate in a similar temporary cul -de -sac
at the eastern property. The temporary cul -de -sac should be
provided with an easement to accommodate the temporary pavement and
be provided with a barricade equipped with a sign indicating that
' the road will be extended in the future. This is being done to put,
all future residents on notice of the City's intent to extend the
street. A new cul -de -sac called Troendle Way will extend
approximately 400 feet south from Nez Perce Drive to service most
of the lots in the subdivision. Nez Perce Drive as proposed will
far exceed city guidelines for cul -de -sac length. However, since
' we believe that this is a temporary situation that will ultimately
be rectified by it's extension to the west, staff does not believe
that this presents a problem.
1 Preliminary Street Design
The preliminary street designs are generally consistent with City
' standards. The Troendle Way needs to be increased from the
proposed 50 feet to the current 60 foot requirement by ordinance.
Two of the lots, Lots 1 and 4, Block 1, will have direct frontage
I on Pleasant View Road and will gain access from this street.
Pleasant View Road is a highly traveled street and traffic levels
are expected to increase in the future. Since the number of curb
cuts is directly related to potential for traffic safety issues,
1 staff is recommending that Lots 1 and 4 share a common curb cut on
the property line. A corresponding cross access easement in favor
of both parcels should be provided and notice should be placed in
1
1
1
Troendle Addition
October 17, 1990
•
Page 4
the chain of title to give information on the access provisions to - II
future property owners. Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 are corner lots
fronting on the intersection of Nez Perce and Troendle Way. Since
Nez Perce will be the through street carrying a higher volume of
traffic, staff is recommending that these lots be required to take
access off Troendle Way. An appropriate notice should be placed in
the chain of title of these lots. An existing gravel driveway
serving the existing home on Lot 2, Block 1 should be removed.
This lot will gain direct access from Nez Perce and there is no
longer the need for the driveway connection. It is highly likely
that Pleasant View Road will need to be upgraded in the future. A
desired right -of -way of 80 feet should be maintained: Therefore,
an additional 7 feet of right -of -way should be provided along the
Pleasant View exposure. Final street plans should be developed for
approval by the City Engineering Department.
Utilities
Municipal sewer is available to the site from the Vineland Forest
Addition. They will serve all but two of the lots which front
along Pleasant View Road and will take access from lines in that
street. Watermain is similarly available which is stubbed into Nez
Perce Drive. The watermain will be extended through this plat
ultimately creating a loop when the property to the west is
developed. Final utility plans should be developed for approval by
the City Engineering Department.
• Grading /Drainage '
Natural site drainage is in two directions, much of the site drains
to the northwest into a partially filled former wetland located on
an adjoining parcel. The balance of the site drains to the
southeast into what is being developed into Vineland Forest plat.
The proposal calls for most of the site drainage to be directed
into a newly expanded retention pond located almost entirely on Lot
4, Block 1. The size of this pond will significantly impact
development on this lot since it essentially eliminates the
potential for an actively developed rear yard area. In staff's
opinion, the future residence would be better served by pushing the
pond somewhat to the south onto the adjacent Lot 3 so that the
burden can be shared in the buildable area on Lot 4 can be
increased. Drainage calculations need to be provided for this pond
to ensure that it is appropriately sized to eliminate impacts on
adjoining parcels. Final plans should be submitted to the City
Engineering Department for further review. The small portion.of
the site that will continue to ' to the southeast is
accommodated by drainage provisions in the adjacent Vineland Forest
plat. 1
Troendle Addition
II October 17, 1990
Page 5
I An erosion control plan has been submitted and is generally
acceptable with some modifications as proposed by the
City Engineer. Project approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
I District is required.
Park Dedication
I Staff has concluded that cash should be obtained in lieu of land on
this plat. An appropriate condition is provided.
II Easements
The following easements and rights -of -way should be provided:
II 1. Right -of -way for all street improvements.
2. An additional 7 feet of right -of -way along Pleasant View Road.
' 3. Standard drainage and utility easements.
II 4. Drainage easements over the retention pond and provision of
adequate access to the retention pond.
5. Utility easements over all storm sewer and utility lines
1 running outside of right -of -way.
6. Cross access easements for the common driveway on Lots 1 and
1 4, Block 1.
I COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot *Home
Area Width Depth Setback
1 Ordinance 15,000 100' 125' 30'front /rear
10' sides
I BLOCK 1
Lot 1 35,420 140' 259' N/A
II Lot 2 32,200 140' 232.5' 134' front/
73' rear
50'- E63' -W
Lot 3 37,200 215' 187.5'
Lot 4 49,050 195' 259.5'
•
1
II
II
It
Troendle Addition
October 17, 1990
II
Page 6
Lot Lot Lot Home
I
Area Width Depth Setback
BLOCK 2
Lot 1 15,750 Double Frontage 140'
II
120' & 140'
Lot 2 15,000 107' 140'
Lot 3 15,000 107' 140' II
Lot 4 15,000 110'• 130' 1
Lot 5 19,400 55' cul -de -sac 126.5'
90' front setback 1
Lot 6 16,340 55' cul -de -sac 155.5'
90' front setback
Lot 7 15,625 55' cul -de -sac 148' II
90' front setback
Lot 8 15,250 125' 129' 1
Lot 9 15,000 107' 140'
II Lot 10 15,000 107' 140'
Lot 11 16,940 Double Frontage 150' 1
95' Troendle Way
160' Nez Perce Dr.
Variance Required - Lot 2, Block 1 contains an existing residence II
and a garage /barn. The proposed front property line will be
located 21.7 feet from the garage /barn. City ordinance requires 30
feet front yard setbacks. To support a variance, the applicant
II
must show that there is a hardship that is not self- created. In
this case, the applicant is creating the hardship and a non-
conforming use which is prohibited by city ordinances. For this
II
reason, staff does not support granting the variance but rather
have the garage removed or relocated.
SUMMARY 1
Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is reasonable and
consistent with city plans and'ordinances. Our issues with it are
II
relatively minor and can be acccanodated through' appropriate
conditions. There is, however, an issue relative to the existing
home and garage on Lot 2, Block 1. It is our understanding that
II
- this home and garage will continue to be utilized for a period of
time. This lot currently gets access via a private driveway
1
1
i
Troendle Addition
October 17, 1990
Page 7
' running north to Pleasant View Road, whereas, Lot 2, in the future
will have frontage and take direct access from Nez Perce Drive.
Additionally, we note that the garage structure would be located
' only 21.7 fe from Nez Perce Drive and thus would become a non-
conforming structure as to setback, whereas a 30 foot setback is
required. Staff believes that this building should either be
removed or relocated to an appropriate site so that no variances
are required.
' PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On October 17, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the request.
The major issue that was brought up at that meeting by the public
was the additional traffic that will occur on Lake Lucy Road and
Nez Perce Drive and also the future extension of Nez Perce which
would eventually hook up with Peaceful Lane. At the present time,
' Peaceful Lane is a27 foot wide road. The mouth of Peaceful Lane
as it connects with Pleasant View Road is 130 feet. The residents
were 'concerned that introducing additional traffic onto Peaceful
Lane could create some safety issues. The property located west to
' the Troendle plat is currently under the ownership of Art Owens and
is not currently proposed for development. Staff gave an overview
of the development of access concepts for this area. It was
explained that the access concept presented by the applicant's
architect was inconsistent with the city's approved concept in that
it indicated Nez Perce running into Peaceful Lane at a "T"
intersection which was oriented towards and existing home. It was
explained that it was the intent of the city that Nez perce have a
rounded curve to the north and that the intersection between
Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View would be rebuilt at such time in
I the future as the connection is finally made. It was indicated
further that although no final plans have been developed and that
staff would work to ensure that the home located west of Peaceful
Lane is provided with a sufficient setback from the new street.
(;ams wo;; mpt be developed until the Owens parcel is platted. The
residents then indicated a desire to see an access to Pleasant View
' be provided with the development of the Troendle plat, since in
their opinion this would off -load traffic from Lake Lucy Road.
While this would in fact offer an alternative means of access into
the subdivisipn, staff described why it is not possible to install
1 this at this time. It was indicated that site topography makes it
inappropriate to make this connection and that while we acknowledge
that we can not give a definitive date as to when the connection
will be made, it is clearly the city's intent as evidenced by the
approved concept plans to ultimately make the connection between
Nez Perce and Peaceful Lane /Pleasant View. The residents then
raised questions regarding the use of Lake Lucy Road as a through
' street. Staff agrees that Lake Lucy Road is being used as a
through street but that this is in fact the intended design of this
street. Lake Lucy Road was connected as a through street to Nez
1
1
1
Troendle Addition
October 17, 1990 1
Page 8
Perce prior to the construction of the homes in which most the
persons present at the meeting reside. The city will attempt to do
whatever it can to minimize traffic safety hazards but this is a
through street that serves a large neighborhood that otherwise has
only one meats of access. Lastly, the residents raised concerns
with the intersection of Nez Perce and Lake Lucy Road. There is a
difficult curve with inadequate sight distance in this area. Staff
acknowledges that there is a problem with this curve but the city
has attempted to remedy this problem in the past and it would be
difficult to make a significant change without a large expenditure
of funds to acquire property. This curve is well outside of the
specific Troendle Plat and is only peripherally related to this
request since an increase in traffic will be experienced. Should
the residents wish to see this matter pursued, we believe the City
Council could direct staff to further investigate this matter but
you should be aware that there is likely to be a significant cost
attached to any proposed improvements.
A second issue that was discussed at the Planning Commission 1
meeting was the vacation of right -of -way on Pleasant View Road.
The applicant had indicated that they do not wish to give up any
additional right -of -way on Pleasant View Road as they do not wish
Pleasant View to be widened. It has always been city policy to
require right -of -way at the time of subdivision. Staff believes
that the right -of -way should be acquired at the present time and
should be a condition of approval. We do not anticipate proposing
the widening of Pleasant View at any time in the future and
recognize that any such widening is likely to be extremely
controversial. However, we are aware that traffic levels on this
street are already high and are building and will continue to do
so, particularly with the opening of County Road 62 to Hwy. 100 in
the next few years. We believe that the issue of safety related
improvements, if not capacity related improvements, on Pleasant
View will ultimately need to be addressed in some way. Therefore,
we are recommending that our original proposal for the taking of
additional right -of -way along Pleasant View to preserve future
options to be approved.
A third issue was proposed Lot 4, Block 1. Lot 4, Block 1 appeared 1
to be an unbuildable lot. It contains the detention pond for the
Troendle Addition. The Planning Commission requested that the
applicant ensure it's buildability to the satisfaction of city
staff. The applicant reshaped the detention pond by extending the
perimeters further to the south and leaving the area to the
southeast as a back yard. While the pond has been revised- to
buffer a larger back yard, there is still some question as to the
adequacy of engineering calculations that have been provided by the
applicant. In an attached memo, the Asst. City Engineer is
indicating that we still require engineering calculations
consistent with the current plan to ensure that city standards are
•
1
1
1
Troendle Addition
October 17, 1990
Page 9
' complied with. We believe that city standards are in fact being
met, however, if upon review of this information, this appears not
to be the case, we would again recommend that Lot 4 be eliminated.
A fourth issue that was discussed at the meeting was the relocation
of the garage /barn and it's setback distance from Nez Perce. The
applicant requested a temporary variance to the setback
requirements. There is no such thing as a temporary variance and
the city has never granted one before. There also is no hardship
to granting a variance in this case. The Planning Commission
' recommended the following condition:
11. The garage /barn on Lot 2, Block 1 will be removed or
relocated or the road shall be adjusted so that no
' variances are required. If it is necessary to remove or
relocate the garage or barn, that shall be done prior to
the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, Block 1 or
' when Mr. Troendle is no longer a full time resident of
that property, whichever should occur first. Lot 2,
Block 1 shall be serviced by Nez Perce Drive and the
gravel driveway to Pleasant View Road shall be removed.
' Staff maintains it's position of recommending that the garage /barn
on Lot 2, Block 1 be removed or relocated to an appropriate
' location so that no variances are required. We do not believe it
is possible to effectively administer the Planning Commission's
condition.
RECOMMENDATION
1 Planning staff recommends the City Council adopt the following
motion:
"The City Council approves Subdivision #90 -15 for Troendle Addition
as shown on the plans dated September 17, 1990, subject to the
following conditions:
1 1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for Lots 1, 2 and 3,
Block 1 prior to issuance of a building permit. Clear
cutting, except for the house pad and utilities, will not be
1 permitted.
2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the
' city and provide the city with the necessary financial
securities to guarantee proper installation of the
improvements.
3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit.
1
•
1
Troendle Addition
October 17, 1990
Page 10
4. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right- II of -way for permanent ownership.
5. The cul -de -sac on Troendle Way shall have a radius of 60 feet
and the street name shall be modified to either Troendle
Circle or Troendle Court to eliminate any confusion in
applying it as a through street. Final street plans shall be
developed for approval by the City Engineering Department.
6. The applicant shall install erosion control silt fence around
the ponding area until such time that turf is established.
Turf or sod shall be placed behind all curbing. ,
7. Shared driveway access off of Pleasant View Road for Lots 1
and 4, Block 1 is required and a cross access easement shall
be provided. This common section of the driveway shall be
constructed to a 7 ton design paved to a width of 20 feet and
have a maximum grade of 10 %.
8. Provide the following easements and rights -of -way:
- the drainage and utility easements along the westerly
property line of Lots 9, 10 and 11, Biock 2 and the
ponding area on Lots 3 and 4, Biock 1 that are shown on
the grading and erosion control plan shall also be shown
on the preliminary plat accordingly.
- the acquisition of a drainage easement through the
property immediately west of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 will
be required for the discharge of the detention pond.
- additional 7 feet of right -of -way along Pleasant View
Road.
9. The applicant shall submit storm sewer calculations verifying
size and capacity of the storm sewer system and ponding basin.
Eight inch sanitary sewer at a minimum rate of 0.4% shall be
constructed on this subdivision and service locations for all
of the lots on this plat shall be shown for final submittal
review. The final plans and specifications shall be submitted
to the City Engineer for review and approval.
•
10. Park and trail fees shall be required in lieu of parkland '
dedication.
11. The garage /barn on Lot 2, Block 2 will be removed or relocated '
to an appropriate location so no variances are required. Lot
2 Block 1, shall be serviced by Nez Perce Drive and the
gravel driveway to Pleasant View Road shall be removed. '
1
1
Troendle Addition
October 17, 1990
Page 11
12. The temporary cul -de -sac should be provided with an easement
to accommodate the temporary pavement and be provided with a
barricade equipped with a sign indicating the road will be
extended in the future.
13. Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 are required to have access from
Troendle Way.
14. Lot 4, Block 1 appears to be an unbuildable lot. The
' applicant must either adjust the lot lines or combine the lot
with the other 3 lots in Block 1 or in some other way ensure
it's buildability to the satisfaction of city staff."
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council minutes dated September 11, 1989.
' 2. Memo and Update from Asst. City Engineer , dated October 12,
1990 and November 15, 1990.
3. Vineland Forest City Council staff report.
' 4. Planning Commission minutes dated October 17, 1990.
5, Letter from Lake Lucy Road neighborhood dated November 11,
1990.
6. Letter from Daryl Fortier dated November 12, 1990.
7. Revised configuration for Lot 4, Block 1.
8. Letter to Art Owens dated November 15, 1990 and aerial photos.
9. Aerial photo of Troendle property.
10. Preliminary plat.
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 17, 1990 It
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and Joan Ahrens
MEMBERS ABSENT: ■im Erhart, Jim Wildermuth and Annette Ellson 1
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner 1;
Charles Folch, Asst. City Engineer and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager II
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE 8.7 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF "AND LCOATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND VINELAND 11
FOREST PLAT AND EAST OF PEACEFUL LANE, TROENDLE ADDITION.
Public Present:, 1
Name Address
Daryl Fortier Fortier and Associates, Applicant '
Jules Smith Attorney for Applicant
Jim & Mary Stasson 6400 Peaceful Lane
Brad Johnson 1001 Lake Lucy Road
Jim Duchene 961 Lake Lucy Road
Craig Weinstock 1101 Lake Lucy Road
Rodd Johnson 1061 Lake Lucy Road
Linda Barrk 960 Lake Lucy Road
Sharon Morgan 940 Lake Lucy Road
Rob Drake 980 Lake Lucy Road
Richard Wing 3481 Shore Drive
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order. '
Conrad: We'll open it up for public comments and we'll give the applicant
who is Fortier and Associates and Frank Beddoor Jr., if Daryl you have
anything to say. A presentation or any comments on the staff report. We'll"
start it with you.
- Daryl Fortier: My name is Daryl Fortier. I represent Mr. Beddor. We are I
purchasing this property from Mr. Joseph Troendle. I have a larger drawing
here and I believe each member of the commission has received an 8 x 10
copy of this so perhaps it'd be easier if I just show it to the audience
off to the side here so they can see it a bit easier. For the most part we
are in agreement with the staff report. We do have two items that we'd
like to bring to the Planning Commission's attention. The first addresses II
the additional right -of -way off of Pleasant View Road. We understand that
staff is of the opinion that eventually f`easant View Road will be widened.
We also understand that the Pleasant View Homeowner Association as well as
other people along the Pleasant View Road have fought this issue before and II
it is a highly charged politically. Previously, I believe it was 1981
there was a proposal to widened the road and that proposal was rejected by
the City Council after lengthy debates. We don't believe that there is any II
policy or program in place that would suggest that the widening of the road
ATTACH. #4
Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 2
is indeed going to happen. Therefore, Mr. Beddor is not of, he is also one
of the people, one of the many who are opposed to the widening of the road.
' Therefore he would not like to take any actions which would favor widening
the road and that would include the giving of additional right -of -way for
that purpose. He is therefore requesting that that be striken from the
staff report or not be accepted. Be rejected. Whichever word we would
choose. He is not in favor of giving up the extra 7 feet and he would like
to see his property treated the same way any other piece of property along '
Pleasant View Road would be treated. Should the City that they will
widened Pleasant View Road let's say 3 years from now or 5 years from pow,
this piece of property should be treated no differently than any other
piece of property including Mr. Beddor's residence across the street. You
' would use whatever political consensus and finances are necessary to
achieve to take the land by condemnation or to purchase it and widened the
road. It will be part of the same battle as the remaining 2 miles
' of Pleasant View Road would be. So with that background Mr. Beddor is not
in agreement to granting the 7 foot easement. The other issue we have to
discuss is the Troendle garage which staff correctly points out is 21 1/2
feet from the right -of -way and this would put it in violation of the 30
foot setback requirement. We have been unable to reach Mr. VanEeckhout who
is the adjacent property owner but we believe, we have reason to believe
that we may be successful in altering the alignment of the road such that
' the 30 foot setback can be required. If I can direct your attention to the
overhead projection, under Block 1, Lot 2, which is the Troendle property
where the garage sits, if you will look at where the road comes in from the
I east which is the Vineland Estates, you'll notice that the road does not
come in at a right angle. It comes in at about a 97 degree angle. We
would like to see that changed to 93 1/2 degrees. If we change it to 93
1/2 degrees, it only affects 7 feet of property, less than 7 feet of
' property on Vineland Estates. Mr. Beddor is willing to buy one of those
lots to help achieve this. We believe Mr. VanEeckhout will cooperate.
This will allow us to make a subtle adjustment to the road such that the
I road will not angle but the road will be closer to a true east /west. This
will put Mr. Troendle's garage 30 feet back from the right -of -way in which
case the issue will disappear. However, we haven't reached such an
I agreement yet and so as a result we are asking that consideration be given
to a variance, a temporary variance. The reason we are doing this request
and we are going through these extraordinary measures in trying to
accommodate Mr. Troendle is that his folks originally purchased this land.
' He was born on this land and he is now 80 years old and has always lived on
this land. We, Mr. Beddor is granting him a lifetime estate and has agreed
that there will be no development in the four lots off Pleasant View Road
1 as long as Mr. Troendle resides in his residence. He would like to make it
as comfortable for Mr. Troendle as possible to see the ultimate development
of his property without impacting his lifestyle or causing him any
distress. Mr. Troendle does use that barn. I'm not sure for the exact
I purposes. He does park a car in there. he does do a number of hobbies in
there. He is constantly in the yard so we are requesting that a temporary
variance for a non - conforming use of that garage in terms of setbacks be
I granted only so long as Mr. Troendle personally resides in the residence.
If he should become ill and require long term care which would not enable
him to return, we would agree to immediately dismantle that garage or
I remove it. Similarly, if for some reason he were to decide to sell his
piece of property we would similarly agree that it would be immediately
removed. We are asking this only as a consideration for Mr. Troendle's
Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 3
comfort and care and it really does not affect the development. We will
try our best to get the road moved but failing to do that, we would ask
that the variance be granted. The other items we have are really no longer '
issues. I've not had a chance to review the issue of a shared access off
Pleasant View for Lots 1 and 4 and I've had a brief chance to review with
Mr. Beddor the idka of park dedication fees in lieu of parkland. I've also'
talked to staff and they've indicated that they have some concern with Lot
4 of Block 1 which is immediately off Pleasant View. There was concern as
to whether or not this area was filled or whether it was a wetland. We
would like the opportunity to talk to Park and Recreation and consider
giving that lot to Park and Recreation for a vest pocket sort of park. And
depending upon how the wetlands adjacent to it on the Art Owen's property
is defined, it may turn out to be a very fine addition as a park. We are
not in favor or opposed to that. We are simply saying that option should
be left. open. Park and Recreation may not have a chance to realize that we
would be willing to donate that land. Any questions I'll be pleased to '
answer?
Conrad: Okay. We'll probably have some later on. We'll open it up for
other comments. Are there any?
Jim Stasson: My name is Jim Stasson. I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane. My
house is this house right here with the brown roof on the corner. Back
when the Vineland Forest thing was developed, we were never notified
through mail by the City that anything was going on there and as
I understand when it was first developed it really didn't affect us because'
the access to that was going to go right out to Pleasant View Road. Right
now if you could see, they plan on running this right over here to Peaceful
Lane and we're going to have, instead of 3 houses connecting to
Peaceful Lane, an infinite amount of houses. That Peaceful Lane also has all
very wide radius corner which people do not slow down to go around at all.
With 3 houses there it's not too bad, although Art Owens has a big family
and Sunday afternoons it can be quite a traffic jam in there. Mr. Beddor II
seems to be going to gain out of this and we're going to pay the bill by
having all the traffic go by our house. We don't really think that's fair.
He's so far off of Pleasant View Road, you can see his tennis court between
the road and his house. He moved his driveway and took a good half a dozen '
trees off of Mr. Troendle's lot. We're talking big trees and planted them
all on so he doesn't see any of the traffic. I guess I'd do the same thing
• if I was in the position to be able to do that. Peaceful Lane is a 27 foot
road. The mouth of Peaceful Lane is 130 feet. If nothing else, we've
talked to Jim Chaffee when he was the safety guy. We talked to him 2 years
ago the last year. I realize he's no longer here. He said he would report II
back to us on you know, whether they could square that corner off and we've
never heard anything from him, or from anybody. So thank you.
Conrad: Good comments. Thank you. Other comments. 1
Rodd Johnson: I'm Rodd Johnson from 1061 Lake Lucy Road. The issue I see
at hand for myself and the homeowners along the street that we're on is
number one, it's open already back to Nez Perce and we get a lot of traffic
that way. Sure I'd like to see that closed off at the end but I know that
won't happen necessarily from what I can see. And I'm not necessarily
opposed to developing the land in here in that I also built a house and the II
land was developed but what I have a problem with is that if the, and this
Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 4
is corrected to what I see, they're is that they re going to put it through but I
don't like the way that it's going to go through number one. I think it
should go straight across. Due to the fact that if it doesn't go straight
across to Pleasant View, people are going to be more apt to come down the
road that I'm on now anyway because it's straight. I mean they're already
' going down it at 40 or 45 which has been witnessed by everybody that's on
the road. And the second we have emergency vehicle access. I look at that
and think the route in and out of there would be better facilitated to go
' straight through. I have to kind of chuckle the way that it's been all of
a sudden altered around the guy that's developing his property. It's not,
it seems a little like he doesn't want to'bear his part of the burden yet
' he's going to make the money on all this and that is kind of outrageous.
Conrad: Thanks. Maybe I should just interject and maybe you weren't
involved in previous hearings but we have been and maybe you weren't
' notified simply because you may not have been within the notification
distance and we have some standards of who gets notified. I'm not sure but
that's a quick guess. In the past when we've looked at this parcel, other
' homeowners in the area have been real concerned where the road's go and it
wasn't Mr. Beddor as much as it was other homeowners along Pleasant View.
They weren't, although it does look like it benefits Mr. Beddor and it
probably does, I think the other homeowners were pretty consistent in terms
' of what they wanted. Especially the neighbor that that road would have
gone right next to, within a few feet of his door and I recall that very
clearly feeling rather concerned for a roadway given what he's lived in for
' a while. You probably have the same concerns understandably.
Mary Stasson: But that neighbor was also a renter.
Conrad: I wasn't aware of that. Yes sir.
Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson. I live at 1001 Lake Lucy Road. We're
' just concerned about additional lots here. It looks like there'll be what,
13 additional lots that would have their only access to the trunk highway
through Lake Lucy Road. I don't believe Lake Lucy Road east of CR 17 was
I intended as a major thoroughfare from it's construction, design and width.
As Rodd already said, we've got an awful lot of traffic there as it is. I
think it's unfair that we bear the full burden of the traffic out of both
I the current development and this proposed one. I know that they're showing
this road supposedly going through to Peaceful Lane. That's kind of
presumptions. They don't own the land. They don't know that they can
acquire the land. They don't know that they can develop there even when it
I would be available for acquisition. I'm sure people on Pleasant View have
some concerns. So do we. The burden should be shared fairly.
I Conrad: It's a funny thing how everybody does sell their land and we wish
they didn't, some of us who've been around a while but you're right.
There's no guarantee that that property will be subdivided but it's, land
in Chanhassen is extremely valuable.
I 'Resident: Someday. 20 years•from now when my kids have maybe been run
over by one of the fast cars on there. We get a police car through there
I once every 3 months.
Conrad: Other comments.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 5
1
Daryl Fortier: If I can just address some of the concerns of Mr. Brad
Johnson has raised. The extension of the road through Mr. Owens' property
is not as presumptious as it may seem. We have already studies grades..
We've already studied roadways. We've already studied utilities and we
have submitted much of that material to staff. We've also more importantly
talked to Mr. Art Owens, the owner of the land who would favor this and he I
is on public record of favoring it.
Resident: When?
Daryl Fortier: We talked to Mr. Art Owens within.
} Resident: When would this happen?
1
Daryl Fortier: We don't know. Mr. Owens is right now tied up. It is
similar to the issue of when does Pleasant View get widened. We don't
know.
Resident: We live there now.
Daryl Fortier: Yes. And people are driving down Pleasant View right now
and people are driving down Nez Perce. Nez Perce at points only measures
22 feet wide and people are flying through there. We believe,, now I don't
want to expand this whole argument on one parcel of development to a whole
city wide issue but we know there are apparent limitations in every city
and some of the limitations are particular bottlenecks and I'm sure the
city will do it's best to correct them. That's beyond the scope of this
proposal. The proposal will really reduce density as proposed to other
proposals. Not to you and not to other people but the overall development,
it is following in a fairly good comprehensive plan that has been directed.)
My whole point of being up here is not to defend all of those issues but
simply to point out to you that Mr. Art Owens is aware of this. Mr. Art
Owens has been cooperative and he would favor this proposal.
Resident: I noticed you said bottleneck, making sure that there isn't one.
Wouldn't it be more of a bottleneck going that route than it would be to go '
straight through to Pleasant View?
Krauss: Mr. Chairman, could I address this because there's some misleading
information in Daryl's plan and I'd like to give some background on it. '
Conrad: Why don't you address the Peaceful Lane issue too if you can.
Krauss: Yeah, I will. We first became involved with this with the
Vineland Forest plat which is the chunk of land that's immediately east of
the subject site. There were a number of alternative access concepts II looked at for that including cul -de -sacs from Pleasant View. Cul -de -sacs
from Nez Perce. Throughout it all staff 'dvocated a thru street. We-
thought from a public safety standpoint, emergency vehicle access and the
need to provide proper service, since there really is no north /south route I
between Powers and the lake, that a thru connection should be made through
there. And we looked at a number of alternatives to do that. Ultimately
and correct me if I'm wrong Ladd, but the Planning Commission wound up I
approving that without a recommendation on the street as I recall because
it was such a complex issue. It went up before the City Council and the
11 Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 6
II Planning Department with the Engineering Department looked at a variety of
alternatives to provide access into that area.' There is no particular
I order. In this one you can see the dashed line was one of the originally
proposed plats of Vineland Forest...cul -de -sac from Pleasant View. Staff
had a problem with this one as did some of the property owners. But this
alternative had the thru street coming through down to Peaceful Lane. It
I was hooked into basically I think what was Art Owens' plat. Art Owens had
approval to subdivide his property and that plat has since lapsed. But he
apparently did intend to develop at some point in time. Another
II alternative here was a loop back basically from Pleasant View to Peaceful
Lane. We didn't think it accomplished what the City needed to obtain
through here which was a thru movement. Alternative 4. Here was the thru
1 movement directed...by Vineland Forest but there was also a link through
here so we didn't have an inordinate number of dead end streets. They
weren't cul -de -sacs to provide the residential atmosphere. Ultimately the
one that the City Council went with was Alternative 3 and this is what the
I Vineland Forest was built to. There's a temporary cul -de -sac which I'm
sure you're all aware of that sits sort of right over here right now and
there's a sign on the end of it that says this street is intended to be
I extended in the future. What we did is lay out a route that made grades
and made some sense from a design standpoint that really is...cul -de -sacs,
we were most concerned with the thru movement, that obtained a reasonable
•
connection to Pleasant View Road. One difference with the plan that Daryl
showed tonight is the thru movement comes through here. Now it was never
intended to go straight into Peaceful Lane and it was always assumed that
when and if this is done, that this whole intersection needs to be rebuilt -
I and that question of the 127 foot wide road would be resolved at that point
in time. There is no replat on Art Owens' property right as I understand
and this is kind of hearsay, that the property is tied up with a tax issue
I or something like that or an estate issue. But basically the City Council
adopted a concept that was supposed to guide these decisions as properties
are developed in the future. Is that the only way to serve it? No.
Clearly there were other alternatives but this was talked about for a good
1 3 months or so and this was the compromise that came out of it. As to
traffic on Pleasant View which was one of the comments that Mr. Fortier
raised, nobody denies the fact that improvements to Pleasant View would be
I a long and arduous process and nobody envisions a 4 lane street going
through there necessarily at some point in the future. I believe at one
point in time the extension for the crosstown highway was supposed to come
I through there. Around through there but there's no denying that Pleasant
View Road is a highly inadequate and often unsafe road. It's underwidth.
The turn radaii are too tight. We've got over 1,000 cars a day using it
today. We've just gotten the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study
I and in a weighted model that basically says that people will realize how
bad a street this is and try to avoid it, even in the weighted model it's
anticipating that in the next 10 to 15 years, traffic on that street will
I grow up to about 2,500 trips a day. Now at that point in time, while
you're not seeking to widened it to 4 le >,es, you certainly will be seeking
to widened it so that there's sufficient '- avement width for people to pass
I one another in opposite directions and that you can safely take curves.
_Nobody's looking forward to dealing with those issues. We realize it's
going to be tough but it's something that somebody sitting in this chair at
some point in the future's going to have to deal with. That gives an
1 overview of the process.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 7
Conrad: Other comments?
Mary Stasson: I have a comment. Alternative #4. This one. I live on the
corner of Pleasant View Road and Peaceful Lane and this proposal shares
access by everybody. Pleasant View Road which I'm a part of, Peaceful Lane
which I'm also a Hart of and Nez Perce and Lake Lucy Road. Here I see this
is the perfect way to go because the burden is shared by everybody in this
proposal.
Conrad: I think the concern at that time, and there were a lot of
concerns. A lot of different opinions. What a lot of residents along
Pleasant View were concerned with was to get the access as close to CR 17
as possible. 1
Mary Stasson: But see the thing is, if they want to go down Pleasant View
Road, they're still going to go up Peaceful Lane and then they're going to
turn and go down Pleasant View Road. You're talking just a minimal amount
of space.
Conrad: That was their opinion. To get the access as close to CR 17.
Mary Stasson: They're still going to go down Pleasant View Road...
Brad Johnson: ...that stretch can be what, a quarter mile if not a half
mile at the most?
Conrad: But the other end of Pleasant View as it dumps out on TH 101 had II
the same. The residents had the same concern. Same exact concern and I
heard both those.
Resident: The traffic I don't believe would be going that direction. '
They're going to go out to CR 17.
Krauss: No, that's not true really. You've got to realize that 1
Crosstown Highway is going to be extended to TH 101 in the next two years
and that's going to introduce a lot of movement to the east through there.
How they're going to get there we frankly don't know. Pleasant View Road's
the only road that goes there.
Brad Johnson: I acknowledge that you did the Vineland Forest. Those of us II
on Lake Lucy, we are naive. We saw the way they were doing things and we
thought that street was going through there. It was at one time. We
didn't know anything about these processes so we weren't here. We were
quite upset when we found out it wasn't and we realized it was a little
late then. We don't really...
Jim Stasson: Also at that time the way this is shown on Art's property, 1
that was already done. We knew about that and okay we're going to have 15
more houses on there. We can live with th but now when you connect it
all up and you get rid of the other access to Pleasant View Road, we've got
50 -100 houses coming by now. Or after that.
Mary 5tasson: Our driveway, it comes out right here.
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 8
II Jim Stasson: You're looking at the wrong side. We're right here. Our
driveway comes out right there and the people that come around this corner,
like 1 said before. They'll come around it at 30 -40 mph.
I Mary Stasson: This is 130 feet across here.
I Jim Stasson: Right now there's 3 houses accessing that. With 50 or 60
houses accessing that, my dog won't be safe more than 2 steps off the
driveway.
II Mary Stasson: We have a 30 foot driveway that empties out on that road.
Conrad: As Mr. Krauss said, if development goes through that road has to
I change. Period. In terms of access to Pleasant View. It just has to and
the City's committed to doing that. It can't stay the way it is.
I Mary Stasson: We're not going to be able to get out of our driveway.
That's what's going to happen to us and that's why we've already been
trying to get ahold of Jim Chaffee to have him come out there and look at
the situation for us. _Even the way it sits right now.
I Jim Stasson: You mentioned that this, Nez Perce is 22 feet on the corner?
t Krauss: No, I never.
Jim Stasson: Where it ties into Lake Lucy? Right down here.
I Krauss: Oh!
Jim Stasson: Is that 22 feet?
II Krauss: Yes. Nez Perce is an undersized street. Lake Lucy Road was built
to a better standard. Nez Perce road and that whole neighborhood to the
I southeast'of there, I think we're all painfully aware of the fact that it
was built with inadequate roads. It was buit without storm sewer and the
utility systems are old and beginning to fail and something's going to have
I to give in there but that is the only thru street in that neighborhood.
Brad Johnson: Have you done a study on how many cars are going on it now?
I Jim Stasson: That street wasn't there until what, 3 years ago.
Jim Duchene: 2 1/2 years ago when they put Lake Lucy thru. There's
I another street down, Carver Beach Road which is down. I'm Jim Duchene on
961 Lake Lucy Road and what I guess I'm opposed to is the traffic that
we're getting back from the other side of Nez Perce. We're getting a great
deal of traffic feeding out onto our road our front. It is a bad corner.
., If you haven't been down there, 22 feet. They come around on probably a 90
degree corner. It's a problem. I don't know. I think the City ought to
look at that. I think it should be closed off. I think they should take
I that road out and still leave a fire lane through there. It wasn't there
before. We're feeding now these other homes. We have a new development
and I'm not sure how many lots are back there.
I Krauss: 15. In this plat?
•
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 9
•
Jim Duchene: No. In the previous one?
Krauss: Oh, in Vineland was about 21 but 2 of those accessed out
to Pleasant View.
Jim Duchene: 21. We're talking another 15 plus we're feeding everyone
else off Nez Pere now off of Lake Lucy Road. I have not seen any traffic II
studies. I don't know if you have as far as cars on Lake Lucy Road but
being out there I do know and the homeowners that are here, we're all here
tonight. Every home that's on that street is represented here. We have
one missing? And it's a problem and that's why we're here in front of the II
Planning Commission.
Conrad: Okay, thanks. '
Jim Stasson: Lake Lucy tends to become a dragstrip. You've got a 30 mph
speed limit. You're got lower speed limits on roads that are wider around II
here. They come off Nez Perce and they, especially the younger people, and
they are really flying.
Brad Johnson: Because it goes downhill. They have a good time on there. II
Then they go up...S curve before it gets to CR 17 and they're all over the
place there. Then last spring when Vineland Forest was in, all the heavy
trucks were coming through before the road restrictions were off fully
loaded. Our street's going to be torn up. You put development...
Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: Joan. Questions? Comments?
Ahrens: Isn't the option of having Nez Perce Road run down to Pleasant
View Road a dead issue anyway because of the plan?
Krauss: It's certainly a dead issue through the Vineland Forest plat.
That plat is over and done. We have no capacity to get that right -of -way II
save buying 2 lots I suppose.
Ahrens: So the only access to Pleasant View Road is in this fashion that's 1
shown on this photograph that we have in our plans? Is that what you're
saying?
• Krauss: Yes.
Ahrens: Unless they purchase these Lots 1 and 2 and run the... 1
Krauss: At this point in time running the street north through Vineland
Forest is not possible from the standpoint of the City being able to get
the right -of -way through the platting process. That's all platted
property. I suppose theoretically you could run that connection over on
the Troendle property but I haven't looked at the grades over there. If
memory serves they're not that bad. But if you move at all to the west of
' Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 10
Troendle 's house, you start falling off into that low wet area which makes
it impossible to make the road connection.
Ahrens: What about this low wet area on Lot 4 of Block 1? What do you
think about his proposal to turn that over to the City for parkland?
' Krauss: The Park Board's already reviewed this proposal and does not want
the property. I don't know that they were asked specifically about that
lot but traditionally taking individual lots that happen to be conveniently
located for a developer is not, that does not fit the bill for the Park
Board. That's pocket parks. Are interesting design features in urban
areas but what they become in communities like ours is a very difficult
II maintenance problem and they don't serve enough people to make them
worthwhile. Consequently there's a policy that the City's funds and
efforts should be devoted to more significant facilities.
1 Ahrens: I have a lot of questions about that wetland in there as I
mentioned to you earlier. There seems to be a question about whether or
not it's even a wetland, from what you said. And I've noticed over the
last few years trucks bringing fill in there and it was a low area. I mean
it looked like a wetland to me before they started filling it in. Can you
shine some light on that? What is going on with that wetland?
Krauss: A little bit. For more extensive report I'll really have to get
Jo Ann Olsen to give it to you because she's been involved with that
I property for some time. But Mr. Owens' has been filling that property.
The City's been going out there and having it stopped for at least the last
year and a half to 2 years. That area was never pristine wetland. As
I understand it, it took on wetland characteristics when drainage out of
I the area was altered and there's been some indication that the City may
have altered it somehow during a construction project, whatever. But since
the water's impounded now, it's causing wetland vegetation to spring up.
I The wetland proper or the more significant part of the wetland does not
truly fall on the Troendle property but to the extent that it does, it's
being preserved or improved if you will into a retention pond that will
have some water in it. We still have an issue with the fill on Owens'
I property. There was a hope that it would have been rectified. I believe
Mr. Owens wanted to have some lots there with his plat and staff always
said that that's where your drainage goes and even if it wasn't a wetland,
I it's a retention pond so there was always an issue there and it was one
that was supposed to have been resolved as I understood it when he came in
for his final plat but in the event he never did.
I Ahrens: How was he going to resolve that?
I Krauss: At this point I'm honestly not sure. I'd need to get updated by
my staff.
Conrad: Joan, it was not an officially mapped wetland but it sure was one.
I - Ahrens: Well that's what I thought. I've driven by it and before he
started filling it it sure looked like a wetland.
Conrad: It always was what was mapped Paul? Things over an acre and a
half I think. This might have been under so it wasn't mapped. It was a
Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 11
wetland. •
1
Ahrens: The City's asking for a 7 feet of right -of -way along .Pleasant View'
Road and the developer has said that they're not going to go along with
that at all. I imagine that, I mean I don't know how, if Pleasant View
Road is going to in the future be improved, I don't know how we can approve'
a plat without an allowance for the additional right -of -way along Pleasant
View Road. Do you see how that can happen?
Krauss: Well it's obviously our recommendation that we do take the 7 foot II
right -of -way. As I said earlier, we believe that there is a significant
traffic volume on that street now. We expect that to grow regardless of
everybody's efforts to keep it low.
Ahrens: Didn't we require that further up on Pleasant View?
Krauss: There was right -of -way that was taken off a subdivision across the'
street that was for Mr. Beddor's son. I don't recall exactly how much it
was. Christmas Acres.
Ahrens: And also further east.
Batzli: Did we take it for Vineland? '
Krauss: I don't believe, no. We did not take it for Vineland.
Ahrens: Not for Vineland but for the one that's on the other end. The
three lots that was, what was that? It starts where Pleasant View curves
and goes down the hill. There's some lots being developed right in there
where it's going to be divided into 3 lots. 11
Krauss: I think that's the Christmas Acres. That's across the street.
Ahrens: No, no. It's way down at the other end. Anyway.
Gerhardt: The east end.
Jay Johnson: She's on the other side of the lake. All the way on the
other side.
Ahrens: Right. Where we just divided those 3 lots.
Gerhardt: Fox Chase? That one?
Krauss: That's next door to this. •
Jay Johnson: North Lotus Lake Park.
Batzli: Right. Yeah. The one across from the North Lotus Lake Park which
is what Jay just said. Right across the street there where they subdivided"
'those. The guy that had the water in his basement continuously.
Krauss: Oh, oh, oh. By the street that. '
Batzli: Well those right there and then across the .street again.
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 12
Krauss: Yes. We did take extra right-of-way off of g y o that, yes. The one
where we had the city lift station down by the lake?
Batzli: Yeah. Those and directly west.
' Krauss: Baldur Avenue?
Batzli: Yes.
Krauss: Sathre Addition. ,
•
Ahrens: I mean that's a nothing isn't it? That's what I thought. You
' know it seems to me that Mr. Troendle's also making a lot of money off this
development. I kind of feel like with all the new proposals that the
developer has brought in tonight, I feel like it's real difficult to
' discuss this. There's a road change that's being proposed and a slight
road alteration and he wants a variance. And the 7 foot right -of- way...
I Conrad: But that road alteration would eliminate the variance.
Ahrens: The what?
I Conrad: The road alteration would eliminate the variance.
Ahrens: I have more comments but I agree that the sight lines on Peaceful
Lane are terrible and I realize that the City does intend to fix that road
but boy, it's bad now.
Batzli: Why didn't we take 7 feet or additional at Vineland there right
next door to the east?
Krauss: Commissioner, we're really not certain. I think it falls into the
I category of being an oversight. I mean things were so focused on which end
you're coming in on and it was running in a different direction from there.
I don't offer that as an excuse but just I think it was overlooked. I'd
I also have to say too that the data that we're using now for the traffic
forcast and it comes out of the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study
and that's only been completed and delivered to the City in the last 3
weeks.
I Ahrens: When was that approved?
I Krauss: The Carver County Transportation Study?
Ahrens: No, no. Vineland.
I Krauss: It was approved in something like November of last year.
Batzli: On the plat it shows a portion of Pleasant View Road to be vacated
I on one of the maps here of the plans. Is that assuming I would suppose
- that they don't have to give up the additional 7 feet? What is that for?
That's Lot 4, Block 1.
Krauss: Oh, I see what you're saying. I don't know. That's probably a
presumption by the applicant that they were going to maintain existing
Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 13
right -of -way Daryl? We're looking to maintain 80 feet throughout. Now
that's 40 foot on either side of the center line and I believe we have a 66
footer there so it's traditional that you take 7 foot on either side. We II
would seek to, assuming the condition is upheld, we would seek to rectify.
that.
Batzli: How long is this Troendle Way cul -de -sac?
Krauss: It's approximately 400 feet. Well from Nez Perce it's
approximately 400 feet.
Batzli: What's our normal guideline on that just out of curiousity?
Krauss: We've traditionally used 500 feet. There's been a lot of them
approved between 500 and 1,000. Until the connection's put through to
Peaceful Lane or to Pleasant View, this is quite a lengthy cul -de -sac
because you've got to add in all the distance back to Lake Lucy Road. The II
only reason we're somewhat comfortable with that is that so much effort's
been put into the conceit of how this is ultimately going to be connected
that we view this as a temporary situation. 11
Batzli: Is there any problem from staff's point of view in any of the
realignments of the roads regarding lot sizes after it's either widened
and /or adjusted?
Krauss: The proposal that Mr. Fortier brought to you tonight?
Batzli: That as well as the proposal, I think the cul -de -sac road isn't
wide enough as I understand it.
Krauss: Oh, no. Those lots are all oversized. There's plenty of give
with that. The lot in Vineland Forest where they would propose to swap
land if they swung that road a little further south, that's an 18,000
square foot lot so there's probably room for that too. We'd want to see
how this layout occurs that Mr. Fortier's proposing. It looks reasonable.
We don't want to introduce too many curves into this street though because
it's already somewhat curvalinear and this is supposed to be a connecting
street. The more curves you introduce, the less utility it will have.
Batzli: I would be much more in favor if it's possible to realign the II street a little bit than provide a variance even if it's just for lifetime
estate on that particular structure. If I had my druthers.
Folch: Just a correction on that Troendle Way. The actual right -of -way ,
width on the street portion at 50 feet is currently adequate. It's just
the cul -de -sac, the radius of the cul -de -sac that's being increased to 60
feet. 1
Batzli: Okay. My other questions had tc:do with whether Lot 4 is a
wetland or not. I guess we've already discussed that a little bit and II - having been through staff's study of the various ways to have traffic flow
through these potential developments, I guess I didn't expect the problem
tonight. It sounds like until the road goes through to Pleasant View and
until they improve that particular corner, there may be some problems and I
don't know what we do about that in the meantime.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 14
Conrad: Problems where?
' Batzli: Regarding traffic both loading up south and as far as eventually
coming out onto Pleasant View from, this small route here.
' Conrad: Is that a concern with Nez Perce traffic?
Batzli: Yeah.
Conrad: Okay. Steve?
Emmings: I support the recommendation that's been made by staff. Just a
' comment on the issues that we've got that have been brought up tonight. At
least the ones on that proposal. There's no doubt in my mind that we
should require the additional right -of -way. We have the right to do that
' as a condition of the plat and it should be done. As far as treating Mr.
Beddor the same as everybody else. Everybody else isn't subdividing or
we'd be requiring it of them too I'm sure. And with regard to the, the only
other one that kind of. my attention is the garage that's located on
Lot 2 on Block 1. I guess I'd make a proposal or there shouldn't be any
variance granted. That's clear to me but I think maybe, it's my
understanding Mr. Troendle is what, 80 years old? I think that we could
' rnake an accommodation here that would be reasonable and I what I'd propose
is that we simply say that either that the garage be removed or relocated
or the road will be adjusted to create the necessary setback. And that the
' timing of that, that will be done prior to the issuance of a building
permit for Lot 2, Block 1 or when Mr. Troendle is no longer a full time
resident of that property, whichever occurs first. I think I could live
with that, to not change his property until he's no longer living there.
' Otherwise I don't have anything else.
Batzli: But I mean the road, if it's adjusted will happen before anything
' develops so it's an either or really. Either the road is adjusted or then
you don't issue a building permit for Lot 2. Is that what you said?
I Emmings: Right. That's essentially right. I guess I just said that
either you move the building or you move the road. If you have to move the
building, you do it before there's a building permit or when he's no longer
living there full time. I don't know how we'd ever know but that's a
1 separate issue.
Conrad: That's staff's problem. Anything else?
' Emmings: No. I guess as far as the location of the road, that's done.
' Resident: There's always alternatives.
•
Emmings: As far as the road goes, that's done as far as what we're doing
tonight. It's a non -issue and what I was going to say was I think you have
I some valid concerns but I think they ought to be addressed to the City
Council.
I Jim Stasson: You mean the existing roads or are you talking about the
proposed roads?
r
Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 15
Emmings: I'm talking about Nez Perce the way it's lined up to go. If
you're interested in... ,
Jim Stasson: You mean outside of the development? Where are you talking
about?
Emmings: The road, as Nez Perce is designed to go through to Peaceful
Lane, that has been determined by the City Council and if you've got issues
on that, address it to the City Council.
Brad Johnson: Are you saying that that part over Art Owens' property is a
done deal? '
Emmings: This path, as I understand it, this path for Nez Perce.
Batzli: It's not platted. '
Krauss: There's a conceptual alingment. It only becomes effective when
their property is platt-ad. '
Jim Stasson: So it's not done.
Emmings: Okay, it's not done. Then don't address your concerns to the
City Council. I mean I'm telling you that if you have concerns, this isn't
the forum for them. This is not an issue in this plat. This fits with the
conceptual plan of the road. '
Brad Johnson: We don't think the plat should be approved unless that issue
is taken care of.
Rodd Johnson: This plat is still open. He can still access the Pleasant
View Road right through.
Mary Stasson: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Batzli: What I think, we get our guidance from the City Council and they II
have looked at this and reviewed it and basically given the guidance to us
that conceptually this is what they want to see and for us to tell the City
Council now that no, we don't like that. Do something else. We probably.
won't take that step because they told us what they think they want to see. II
Mary Stasson: But when do we get a chance to speak?
Batzli: You'll get a chance to go to the City Council when this goes up to
the City Council and that's really, I think you have to get your group back
together and address your concerns to them because they're the ones. that
told us this is what they want to see.
Brad Johnson: So what is the purpose for tonight then?
- Rodd Johnson: Why are we all here for an hour and a half?
Jim Stasson: If you guys don't have anything to say about it. '
1 Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 16
I Batzli: Well we have a lot to say about a lot of issues but on this
particular issue, I don't think we're going to change what the City Council
I has told us they want to see.
Conrad: I'm interested. I think we have our input so I guess I'll reflect
I a different opinion. I feel comfortable with the alignment that was
proposed and only because we struggled with it for so long. I think it's
unfortunate, and there weren't any good solutions. I think most people
that live in the area don't want that area developed at all, as I would
I guess you wouldn't but on the other hand it is. Flat out it is and I think
we struggled with that. I think the alternatives that I heard mentioned
tonight were not acceptable to me before and they still aren't. That
I doesn't mean we explored other alternatives. I guess I'm interested from a
Planning Commission standpoint. Not that the City Council decree that this
is the road alignment. They did to a degree do that. I'm curious if
anybody feels that you'd like to reopen that issue and suggest to the City
I Council that they reopen the issue.
Emmings: I can tell you for me I think that this is the plan they adopted
I is a good one because it doesn't put another entrance out onto a road that,
out onto Pleasant View. So I preferred this one.
I Conrad: And that was my opinion when we looked at that. I think two roads
and especially the straight that would have connected the Carver Beach area
and the strip straight across to Pleasant View I thought was a negative
I alternative. This is a better alternative as I see it. This is just me
speaking. Brian. Joan. Do you have a feeling to want to open up or to
recommend that the City Council looks at road alignment or are you
comfortable or do you not know enough at this point in time to even, you
I may not have been around. I don't know. Brian, you were around. Joan, I
don't think you were.
I Batzli: Of the options that we have remaining since Vineland went in and
the road is where it's at, I think that this is the best alternative that
I've seen. I mean sure there's probably other alternatives and I thought
we addressed a fair number of them and this was a reasonable alternative at
I that time.
Ahrens: I agree. I think that we should be directing as much traffic as we
I can as quickly as possible onto CR 17.
•
Conrad: Just a comment. Paul, this neighborhood obviously was not
I involved when the other neighborhoods along Pleasant View were and they're
thinking they got the short straw in this one.
Brad Johnson: How about know?
1 Conrad: Don't be so negative. We're trying.
I Brad Johnson: I'm sorry. It's our street.
Conrad: I know it is. I empathize. I know what you're feeling. What was
the reason they weren't involved?
Planning Commission Meeting
II
October 17, 1990 Page 17
Krauss: I honestly don't recall who was notified. I know that we had some
comments from people on Peaceful Lane because... I certainly got phone
calls from someone. 1
Conrad: I thought we did too.
Brad Johnson: I called after I found out what was going on but that was 1
after it was already going to City Council. Before we even had a shot at
coming in here and saying. This was done in November.
Krauss: The final plat was approved in November. II
Conrad: Okay, it might have been. Mr. Emmings gave you some input and
probably nothing that you're really thrilled with. I guess I'm telling you'
from my position I'm pretty comfortable given all the negatives and
positives and some of the things, requirements we were trying to do and
really it's hard to reflect back months ago. But I'm not uncomfortable
with this road alignment. I think you really should be at the City Council
meeting to express your concern. They did say that this is what they'd
like. I don't say that we'll just dump it off on them. I'm telling you
I
that I feel comfortable with this road alignment as I looked at the
alternatives many months ago but I think you've got to stay, as I prefaced
before, if you all go in with the numbers you had tonight, they may pay I
some attention to you to reopen the issue. Okay? Some other questions.
Block 1, Lot 4. That's a buildable lot?
Krauss: Frankly Mr. Chairman I don't believe it is. It's very tight which"
is why we've recommended a shift of lot lines to increase the building pad.
And some of that pond is being excavated out and it's also possible to
shift that excavation somewhat further to the south.
II
Conrad: So, okay. I missed that.
Ahrens: How could you adjust the lot line of 3 and 4...buildable. I
II
looks like the only corner that's buildable.
Krauss: No, not between 3 and 4. Between 1 and 4. We require 90 foot of II
width and that lot 1 is 140. Basically you skew the property line so that
it runs to the northeast.
Conrad: Help me Paul. Where's the recommendation that we do what you just"
said? I'm scanning real fast and maybe I just can't pick it up.
Ahrens: You talk about it in the report.
I
Krauss: I'm sorry, it should be in there. I know we talked about it in
the text. . . II
Conrad: Yeah, it's not there so I don't k now that I can approve that
unless there's a motion to claim it an unbuildable lot right now until it's"
.proved that a building pad could meet setback. I too, I don't have any
problem with the 7 foot requirement in the staff report. That's the way
it's got to be. It's an absolute. We'll take it. Now's the time to do
it. Not that I'm really wild about expanding Pleasant View to tell you the I
truth but I think now's the time to do it and that's not even a debate in
•
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 18
my mind. I agree with Steve in terms of his motion. I think that road
should be realigned to try to meet the setbacks. I don't know, I could
I never say what you said but I hope you can reconstruct what you said Steve.
And from the neighborhood standpoint, we'll look into finding Paul, can
you get back to me next, 2 weeks from now. Is that a public hearing for
I the Comprehensive Plan? What's 2 weeks from now, anything?
Krauss: It should be a regular meeting.
I Conrad: Okay. I'd like to know why this group was not involved. Every 2
weeks we come here and we talk to our neighbors like yourselves and there's
always somebody saying he wasn't informed. As Paul says, the first thing
I he learned in planning school is the neighborhoods come in and say why
wasn't I informed of this so it's pretty standard but it appears to me that
they're are a lot of you here that were not informed so I'd kind of like to
look and find that out. It may not help you, you know right now and you're
I sort of at the end of a process which is unfortunate. I think if the
Plesant View owners that were here in the other time periods, they're
probably double your numbers that were here talking about they don't want
I this at all. Maybe very similar to what you're saying and then okay, if
we've got to have it, how do we minimize the traffic coming from Carver
Beach? How do we minimize the traffic going down Pleasant View? How are
I we safe? How are we this? How are we that? Here's what we came up with.
I know you don't like it but that's what we tried to, we tried to satisfy
some of those needs and now you have another one. I think the only other
thing I can say is that the road access out to Peaceful Lane will be
I improved to be acceptable when that link is made. It would be acceptable
to according to standards. There couldn't be any other way. That may not
feel comfortable either but it would have to be.
1 Resident: ...would- that be south where it used to run down CR 17?
Krauss: Yes.
I
Resident: That was looked at?
I Krauss: There's actually a stub right -of -way that comes up from Lake Lucy
inbetween two homes.
I Resident: They did look at that?
Krauss: Yeah. As I recall the grade was too significant coming through
there.
I Brad Johnson: That's our big problem...Art Owens property. The access
to Pleasant View. And to approve this thing now when that is, people can
I say what they want but nobody here knows when that's going to happen_
Conrad: That's true. Yeah. We have situations like that all the time.
I Is that good or bad? It's probably bad but there's no perfect way to solve
- that problem. You can't hold up somebody's right to develop unless you can
prove that it's unsafe.
I Rodd Johnson: When you talk about being unsafe...Nez Perce and Lake Lucy
corner that we're talking about that was 22 feet and I believe...
Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 19
Krauss: No. A normal right -of -way which is the land we own is 50 feet.
Charles, normal pavement width is what curb to'curb now?
Folch: It is 28 feet face of curb to face of curb on a minor. residential II
street.
Rodd Johnson: Is Lake Lucy a minor residential street? '
Jim Stasson: Lake Lucy it would be okay but it's that Nez Perce corner...
(There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.)
Conrad: I think the comments from Mr. Fortier, I understand them but I
don't agree with them. I do agree with Steve, your comments and I don't
want Lot 4, Block 1 to be a buildable lot at this time until it's proven to
be buildable. So how do we handle that one Paul?
Krauss: Well I'd add a condition. It was an omission on our part because
under the grading /drainage section we do discuss the fact that that lot is
marginally buildable and there's no rear yard for the homes should they I
build one there. Put in a condition to the effect that the lot lines and
grading shall either be reconfigured to enlarge the buildable area on that
lot or it should be combined with Lot 1 to make a single larger lot.
111
Conrad: Okay. Any other comments? Is there a motion?
Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Subdivision #90 -15 of the Troendle Addition as shown on the plans dated
"Received September 17, 1990" subject to the conditions in the staff
report. 1 thru 13 as presented in the staff report and then an alteration '
to 11 as follows. That one will read that the garage barn on Lot 2, Block
1 will be removed or relocated or the road shall be adjusted so that no
variances are required. If it is necessary to remove or relocate the
garage or barn, that shall be done prior to the issuance of a building
permit for Lot 2, Block 1 or when Mr. Troendle is no longer a full time
resident of that property, whichever should occur first. The balance of
that 11th condition will stay the way it is. Then add a condition 14 that II
would state the following. That Lot 4, Block 1 appears to be an
unbuildable lot. That the applicant must either adjust the lot lines or
otherwise combine the lot with the other 3 lots in Block 1 or in some other'
way insure it's buildability to the satisfaction of the City staff.
Conrad: Okay, thanks Steve. Is there a second? I'll second it. Any
discussion. '
Batzli: Yeah. I'd like to make two minor amendments to the plan and the
third point of the 8th condition I'd like to add the following sentence.
This is after the additional 7 feet of right -of -way. No vacation of.
Pleasant View Road shall occur notwithstading the plans submitted by
applicant. And then the 10th condition I'd cross off, -will be accepted and'
insert the words, shall be required from the applicant.
Conrad: Would you modify your motion?
Emmings: Sure.
11 Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 20
1 Conrad: Any other discussion?
Batzli: Yeah. I think that that's the first motion I've ever heard you
second and I was really impressed.
Emmings: I'll second that.
Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #90 -15 for Troendle Addition as shown on the plans
dated September 17, 1990, subject to the following conditions:
t: 1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1
prior to issuance of a building permit. Clear cutting, except for the
house pad and utilities will not be permitted.
2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and
' provide the city with the necessary financial securities to guarantee
proper installation of the improvements.
t 3. The applicant shal=l, obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District. permit.
4. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right -of -way for
permanent ownership.
5. The cul -de -sac on Troendle Way shall have a radius of 60 feet and the
' street name shall be modified to either Troendle Circle or Troendle
Court to eliminate any confusion in applying it as a through street.
Final street plans shall be developed for approval by the City
U Engineering Department.
6. The applicant shall install erosion control silt fence around the
ponding area until such time that turf is established. Turf or sod
shall be placed behind all curbing.
7. Shared driveway access off of Pleasant View Road for Lots 1 and 4,
'
Block 1 is required and a cross access easement shall be provided.
This common section of the driveway shall be constructed to a 7 ton
design paved to a width of 20 feet and have a maximum grade of 10 %.
8. Provide the following easements and rights -of -way:
a. The drainage and utility easements along the westerly property line
' of Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 2 and the ponding area on Lots 3 and 4,
Block 1 that are shown on the grading and erosion control plan
shall also be shown on the preliminary plat accordingly.
b. The acquisition of a drainage easement through the property
immediately west of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 will be required for the
I discharge of the detention pond.
c. Additional 7 feet of right -of -way along Pleasant View Road. No
vacation of Pleasant View Road shall occur notwithstanding the
plans submitted by applicant.
Planning Commission Meeting 1
October 17, 1990 - Page 21
9. The applicant shall submit storm sewer calculations verifying size and
capacity of the storm sewer system,and ponding basin. Eight inch
sanitary sewer at a minimum rate of 0.4% shall be constructed on this
subdivision and service locations for all of the lots on this plat
shall be shown for final submittal review. The final plans and
specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and
approval.
10. Park and trail fees will be required from the applicant in lieu of
parkland dedication.
11. The garage barn on Lot 2, Block 1 will be removed or relocated or the
road shall be adjusted so that no variances are required. If it is
necessary to remove or relocate the garage or barn, that shall be done
prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, Block 1 or when
Mr. Troendle is no longer a full time resident of that property,
whichever should occur first. Lot 2, Block 1 shall be serviced by
Nez Perce Drive and the gravel driveway to Pleasant View Road shall be
removed.
12. The temporary cul-de-sac should be provided with an easement to
accommodate the temporary pavement and be provided with a barricade
equipped with a sign indicating the road will be extended in the
future.
13. Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 are required to have access from Troendle Way.
14. Lot 4, Block 1 appears to be an unbuildable lot. The applicant must II
either adjust the lot lines or otherwise combine the lot with the other
three lots in Block 1 or in some other way insure it's buildability to
the satisfaction of the City staff.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Conrad: This goes to the City Council on the 5th. Are you telling them
that? Okay. I think you've got to go into them with some specifics. It's
pretty characteristic. What you said tonight is pretty standard for what II
we hear from neighbors on a lot of things. If you want a particular road
alingment, if you don't like that one you know, you should have a
recommendation that says City Council we would like you to do this. We
would like you to study the traffic patterns from Nez Perce. It's
dangerous now and we can prove it. You've got to go in with some solid
stuff because we hear this all the time. They really were the ones that
did set this alignment in terms of the general direction and I think
they're the ones that can take another look into it. So thank you and
don't stop your interest.
Mary Stasson: Will they again look at the safety? '
Conrad: I'm not sure. It was a major issue of all other homeowners who
came in at previous times and. safety is an issue with the Planning staff. I
We just don't like to do things that don't make sense. This is not a high
intensive use of that land. It's a pretty low intensive use. You know if
we were talking about 12,000 square foot things and high rises and what
have you, we're not talking a whole lot of intensity here. Even though
Planning Commission Meeting
October 17, 1990 - Page 22
I it's far more than what's acceptable to you because you're dealing with, it
is. It's not out of character with what Chanhassen is becoming.. And so
it's, the safety issue was a concern before as we made that link between
the Carver Beach area and Pleasant View because it was simply a straight
shot across and that was the concer. It was going to be a dumping ground
for, you know it's just going to be the quick route to the Crosstown. Paul
is telling us tonight, it's still going to be a quick route to the
' Crosstown no matter what so you know, we dealt with that information
before. Well, I just wanted to talk to you a little bit.
Brad Johnson: Lake Lucy now is a dumping ground and a quick shot for
everyone down on Nez Perce so, talking about safety, that corner is bad. I
think that's what our homeowners are concerned about.
1 Conrad: I appreciate you coming in. .
Brad Johnson: Is there a record that goes to City Council?
' Conrad: They get. this. We have a City Council member here tonight so.
' Emmings: They get verbatim Minutes also.
Batzli: Tune in every Saturday and watch the video broadcast of this
thing.
PUBLIC HEARING:
MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2 -1. THE
PURPOSE OF THE MODIFICATION IS TO AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT TO
AUDUBON ROAD.
Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order.
' Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
' Conrad: Steve?
Emmings: I don't have any comments.
' Conrad: Brian?
Batzli: I don't have any questions. I think it's a wonderful resolution.
Perfectly consistent with the development of the city of Chanhassen.
Conrad: You go along with anything the government wants right?
' Batzli: Right.
Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion?
Resolution #90 -2: Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning
Commission adopt the attached resolution finding the Modified Plan for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 2 -1 consistent with the City's
r
11
November_ 11, 1990 I
Chanhassen City Council - II
690 Coulter Drive
PO Box 147
Chanhassen , MN 55317
City Council Member: ' II
The purpose of this letter is to express the viewpoint of
the residents of Lake Lucy Road residing east of Powers
Boulevard, to the plans for development of the Troendle
Addition. We have organized together to offer an opinion on
the development plans and make our concerns known to the
council. In this manner we hope that a development plan can
be defined which satisfies the needs of all concerned
parties.
We support the proposed development plan for the Troendle ,
Addition and feel that a thorough evaluation of the options
was performed and the resulting plan represents good work by
a number of people. There are several aspects of the plan
that are appealing to us: shared traffic burden between Lake
Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road as a means of exiting the
neighborhood to Powers Blvd., and the proposal for a park in
the new development, among other aspects.
The major concern of the neighborhood is with regard to
traffic safety on Lake Lucy Road (east of Powers Blvd.).
We feel that a serious problem exists at the present time
with the speed and driving patterns of people driving this
road in light of the large number of young children living
in this neighborhood. There are, or soon will be, thirteen
children, ten years old and younger on this street. It is
safe to assume that this number will grow in the future as
the demographics of the neighborhood reflect young families.
The neighborhood is willing to work with the appropriate
safety groups to find solutions to this existing problem.
Development of the Troendle Addition will add traffic volume
to Lake Lucy Road, and increase the risk of injury to
children in our neighborhood. We accept this fact as part
of development in the community. However, our neighborhood
does not wish to provide the only access from Powers Blvd.
to the Vineland Forest and Troendle Addition on a
"temporary" basis until the proposed Nez Perce road
eventually connects with Peaceful Lank... We feel that
construction on the Troendle Addition must not proceed until
Nez Perce is connected to Peaceful Lane. 1
A TTM4
II
1 The residents of Lake Lucy Road are bearing the complete
volume of construction traffic for Vineland Forest and feel
II that this burden should be shared by creating access for
construction traffic from Pleasant View Road for development
of the Troendle Addition. The planning committee and the
council have previously raised concerns over the difficulty
1 of completing planned road connections at future dates. We
agree. This provides another good reason to complete the
Nez Perce connection to Peaceful Lane prior to construction
1 on the Troendle Addition. Future residents of the Troendle
Addition and Vineland Forest would then be provided with a
second access for safety reasons without delay.
I In summary, the residents of our neighborhood feel that the
proposed development plan is basically a very good one. Our
major concern is traffic safety, and our philosophy is that
1 traffic volume must be shared. We are not stating that some
increase in traffic volume is unacceptable, that is the
price of community development. We are stating that this
1 increase in traffic volume, caused by these additions, must
be shared between Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road in
an equitable manner prior to construction on the Troendle .
. Addition. This is ultimately in the best interests of all
I of those concerned. We will continue to strive for a
solution to this issue until it can be resolved in an
acceptable manner.
II Sincerely,
1 The Lake Lucy Road Neighborhood
1 - �G� , 44e.rt..e
Ue* Chi.
1 ` , 4• ,
) i IF
1 '1/ dhig ' J C
ir
II /i . . 1 / ,7 4 2 -
O
r LOW ;
mi l v ei -
i / 7 56
li I c„,...,..u.„.„:„.0..,1-, /
4 ,„„J„, ,...,,_set,
1 etrvu-lont."'
. 4,7t; ---ai
11 A)
FORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
November 12, 1990 A RCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIG
Ms. Scharmin Al -Jaffe
Planning Dept. NOV 1 4 1990
City of Chanhassen CITY Ur
690 Coulter Drive
P. 0. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: TROENDLE PLAT
Comm: 89 -20
Dear Ms. A1- Jaffe: '
As requested, we are herein submitting an alternate alignment for Nez
Pierce as it connects to Peacful Lane and then on to Pleasant View
Road. The revised road alignment does not affect the proposed
Troendle Plat and is merely one alternative of numerous alignments
possible for the connection to Pleasant View Road. 1
As we have previously stated, we can make no representations on
behalf of adjacent property owners, Mr. Troendle, nor Mr. Beddor, as
to the desirability of the attached sketch.
As previously stated, any design considerations for the road
interchange must address the apparant wetland off Peaceful Lane and
Pleasant View Road. It was my understanding that you were to forward
to me copies of the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting to
confirm their interest in the road alignment and also copies of any
information that your engineering staff may have establishing the
dimensions and elevations of this pond. We have not received that
information as of this date.
I have spoken to Mr. Owens regarding the pond on his property. He
has advised me that this pond was created due to the collapse of a
drain tile and that this area is not intended to hold water. Thus, ,
the resulting growth of vegetation which suggests-that it is a
wetland is artificial and is'not in conformance with the intended use
of this land. It is my further understanding that the area now
ponding water was intended to be fully developed as residential and
that the City of Chanhassen was aware of the collasped drain tile and
agreed that this was not a wetland, but rather a buildable parcel of
land. It is very important for all parties to clarify this issue and
I believe it would be appropriate for u, to have a meeting with City
Engineering. Mr. Art Owens has indicated that he would attend such a
meeting. Please advise as to when your schedule and that of your
- engineering department will allow for this meeting.
ATTACH. #Eil
408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) 593 -1255 1
Page 2
Ms. Al -Jaffe
November 12, 1990
Comm: 89 -20
1
' Regardless of the disposition of the ponded water on the Art Owens
property, we believe that the Troendle Plat should proceed as
requested. Should you have any difficulty with this request, please
contact me.
You truly,
21.1R if
EAMPV
Daryl P. Fortier
' DPF /sf
encl: Sketch of Nez - Pierce- Pleasant View Road
cc: Frank Beddor, Jr.
•
Jules Smith
Art Owens
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
II -
II
1
0
0
o 1 .
0
i
V .:. 'a , 3k >Q v. d, . ifs 4;, j •
5; : :
•
r _
,/,„ , ...,
.......,,o.,. 7 7 ._--- —
„.....•....,_.p, ii(«,-
///it-- , - -
,....__,..„...,.i.,..
1
. ` - /L
A/ / , �/ V / //
1
// / / /
1' / / _ _ -
I
J / / //
1 1
/41:1": /
1
f r ! j
of @`�L -- l
A may_: I 4 : r::, .
_ x ��
[ tip' - f �+ _ - .. ^ r' �
• / JA .v s_.�n c.'�fyS�;N r ' ` • jig s
1
r / / ./
V 4-4 ( / / ./.., '''..... ../- ......... ..*. -.-...-- 10
/ / 7/ _ �� — \` —�
4 :‘,7-t• .. / . / ( r ( \ . / .
) ' A / 1
, )
1
■
r 1 ....J.,k,.., N 9 - 1. 1 ---- ...-
tS k- 1 1 / : * 14 -, g %■ N ... ..._
IZ
I.' 2 4i ... -� `r T \ \� \ il 1 ' .'• '....\.°7-7:" 41N■70.64.:
Y V • . " I I i t / k ,
I . / J 1 , '• I - Ms y O 110 lie �'' -
N �II ►qP. ��o •
zI I i ' 1. 4\ j _ ■ I t o - --_, ........- ."--- __.....4
- .., c.,! , 1 .,,, • 1 ii ..1 : P o r ... - r - 4. ---- ; ----- z-z- - ---\_. ;,r- w I
1 \ .. — ' A rb r i , V � • •-.. — %00 4---- -
I r , , / C';� /I , V / 1\ / tea, r .. \ `\ O / .. - ` ` . koc
V.( r - / � 1 ) / / / ..i .' ,. 'Rr: ' "i qq 4
. ....., ---71-- -- —...,–.... • j , e _. e / /A
I Li — _ - __..�/ __ _ a imi I ft ? I : 7
vs , .. ? , fa I
W aa: it
i I / (
i/ , W W I 'L W W ` 1 I V
0 - 0 i i d 1.2 co
r ( i i r- '.) .1 1 , 0, . 1 \ . i 1. . #
4- \ o 8 f 1 ‘ ( , 1 > ia •-:. - ,
a 1 r 1 .Lp. i +. w • - .....
V 1 1
\ Ilikt..;. , , . .. r t o
, , 7=1 .. .,,, ,..„.. \ ( a l •41.4,---.. \ : . ,. its e ( -2 ' 1
[ ( ( . . P.. • \ e j ,.. .t si si 0111 : . .,,f., , .., , ,,,,,.
-n ,
.,1 , :,.I.;-, 6 /
i \i‘: ' ' )? -i,..&I v . , 2_ i. i
Is... -I \ 0. C..... IMF\ ... ...'> ish, . . .., .
O.. ..- , _ . ..
..„,
c
: . - v_____ • . . . _ 0. 8 , 1 1 a 61
1 I _ _ab 1 ff `' y I t / � Ce* � ,
i iimmvpi:st -- % . o , 0. cc . .., . 1 \1 .-.. iti i / �_ g' 5- 1 i , . - ;
s
_ , g v , ? , y i mo °D 44.. , _ > , a _;,�
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
1
Councilwoman Dimler: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? , •
i Councilman Workman: Second. So are you going with the submersible or which
one was more expensive? II
Councilwoman Dimler: Alternate B.
Jim Bullert: The vertical turban is cheaper.
Councilman Workman: The above ground?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Because we have the pump house there.
Resolution #91 -8: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded that
in order to prevent further damage, to approve a resolution for emergency repair
to Well No. 4 with Alternate B from Bergerson- Caswell in the total amount of
$16,571.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 8.7 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED
SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND VINELAND FOREST PLAT AND EAST OF PEACEFUL 1
LANE, TROENDLE ADDITION.
B. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE
FROM PROPOSED TROENDLE ADDITION TO PLEASANT VIEW ROAD.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the applicants are requesting approval to divide a 8.7
acre parcel into 15 lots. You reviewed this at a meeting in November. The
Planning Commission had recommended approval. There was a concern raised by the
neighborhood regarding the potential extension of Nez Perce out to Pleasant View
and when that might occur. We were asked to then research that issue further
and report back to you. We met with the developer and the adjoining property
owner and basically concluded several items. Staff outlined the City Council's
goal of extending Nez Perce to Pleasant View as soon as possible and we
basically got the understanding of support of both individuals. They didn't
oppose the concept. Mr. Owens did indicate however that although he's not
presently in a position to develop his property because of a bankruptcy
proceeding, that in fact it may be some sort of a long term goal on his part.
Both individuals indicated that they were at this point unwilling to undertake
the cost of the feasibility study. That they did not believe that that would be
their responsibility if they had an ability to pay for it. Concurrently we also
said that we'd go out and get an estimate on cost of the feasibility study and
we've done that and under a separate action item tonight, you'll see that
there's a proposal to do a $3,700.00 feasibility study. There's basically two , II
legal issues that we investigated relative to this issue. The first concerned
Mr. Owens' bankruptcy. There was a question as to whether or not we could. If
the City Council wanted to finish this road project at this time, you'd be in
the position of needing to condemn the property. Mr. Owens has no ability to .
sell it to us at this point, and undertake fir::`cing of the road and basically
absorb that portion of the expense that we can't assess back to the Troendle
Addition and sit on that until Mr. Owens develops his property and you can then 1
31
1
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
levy assessments. The City Attorney did confirm that we could probably condemn
land that was needed although we may need approval from the bankruptcy court.
However, it's not clear if we could sustain assessments against that property.
So again that puts you kind of behind the 8 ball. You need to finance or front
end the cost of the feasibility study and the actual road construction in the
' expectation that at some point in the future you'd be reimbursed. The second
legal issue that we want to investigate is whether or not the extension of Nez
Perce can rightfully be tied to the Troendle Addition. In there there's kind of
a mixed answer and the City Attorney can clarify this if need be but basically
you can only limit or connect the two items to the extent that the Troendle
Addition needs the extension to proceed. Beyond that we would have difficulty
doing that. After we had an opportunity to review the issues that were raised a
' little bit further, we also have some concerns that we have some extraordinarily
long temporary cul -de -sacs that would result as currently proposed. As
currently proposed, if Nez Perce was built up to this point and a temporary dead
' end provided, by the time you came in off of Lake Lucy, came up Nez Perce and
got down to the end of Troendle Way, you're going in approximately 1,400 feet.
Nez Perce itself is approximately 1,100 feet. Now we don't have a specific
standard in our ordinance, as many ordinances do, about how long a cul -de -sac
1 should be but that's quite a bit longer than most cities would find comfortable
and the reasons are several. Emergency vehicle response time gets rather
lengthy. Streets like that are expensive for us to maintain and snowplow
because you have to go all the way up and all the way back. You're always
doubling around. They provide less than adequate or optimal access and there is
a concern that when you add in the number of homes in this addition to the
I number of homes in Vineland Forest that would get access off this, you're up to
I think it's 32 homes. What we did is we had some meetings on this late last
week or some conference calls with the City Manager, myself and the City
Attorney to kind of work our way through this and what we came up with is kind
' of a revised recommendation. If you'll recall, the applicant indicated that it
was not their intention to proceed immediately with construction of homes on
this plat. That their primary goal was to take title to the property and get
I the plat recorded so they could do that and that they were planning on
developing at some point in the future. What we've worked out and honestly
I have not had an opportunity to speak directly with the applicant about this.
' We came to this decision last Thursday and I tried to contact him since then and
was unable to. What we've come up with is a recommendation that you sort of
make this into a two phase proposal whereby Phase 1 would be north of this line.
Phase 2 south and Phase 2 would be under our proposal platted as an outlot.
Phase 1 would be allowed to develop initially with Nez Perce constructed up to
the Art Owens property. Two of those homesites access off of Pleasant View so
they're not really a concern coming off of here. There will be 4 new potential
' homesites and that fourth homesite does not occur until Mr. Troendle vacates the
life estate. What we're proposing is that outlot, as a condition of platting
for that outlot int he future, that when the developer wishes to plat it, that
they have to petition the City Council for the extension of Nez Perce out to
Pleasant View. In that manner we'd be tying it together with the completion of
that street so by the time we add in the full component of 32 homes, we'd have
the street completed. Now if in the meantime the Owens property is sold or
developed and the road's built, then obviously we meet our goal and the
subdivision of that second phase can proceed u-':ndered. We think that that
accomplishes a few things. It limits the amour;: of homes that are going to go
II in there intially so I think we've addressed the concerns of the traffic
32
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
1
concerns on Lake Lucy. It gets Mr. Beddor his plat as quickly as possible in
recognition of his timeframe. And finally it provides for the ultimate
construction of Nez Perce and what we think is an equitable manner and avoids
all those issues that we have in dealing with the bankruptcy of Mr. Owens
property that makes me a little concerned and I don't know if I'd advise dealing
with the front end of those costs because I couldn't guarantee you when we'd
recover that. As I said, we did get an estimate on a feasibility study.and
there's another action tonight on that but if you proceed with the
recommendation as r- oposed, you wouldn't need to act on that feasibility study.
We wouldn't undertake that feasibility study until we had a proposal to develop
in mind. There were a couple other issues that were raised at the Council
meeting. The first one concerned the location of an existing barn on Mr.
Troendle's life estate relative to the extension of the new street. It requires
a variance to leave that in place. Staff had recommended against it and the
Planning Commission had as well but there appeared to be some desire on the part
of the City Council to approve it. There was no action taken on it. Now staff
continues to recommend against it. We think that while it's a relatively minor
issue, that new subdivisions do create a lot of financial benefit for
individuals and that typically in the past we've recommended removal of
impending structures. However as I indicated in the report, we don't view this
as a life and death issue. We are not recommending it's approval but we did
provide revised language ip there should you wish to approve it, that you could
adopt that would basically allow it to remain in place as long as Mr. Troendle's
on the property and that that would be filed against the property so that it
would be of record. It's a little clunks. I can't ask you to approve a
temporary variance because there is no such animal but I believe we can work it
out that way. There is an error in the report though. The language that
I added in there, if you do wish to approve this, and it says added to condition
number 11. It's actually condition number 12. There was a second issue of
concern raised by the neighbors and we don't have a good response to this one.
For those of you familiar with the area, there was a concern raised about the
curve between Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce. It is a tight curve and it's not an
optimal design but in talking with the former, I guess, City Engineer about
that, he indicated to me that it was a design compromise. That when the road
was connected, that there was a desire to minimize the impact on adjoining
properties. Now we can look at fixing that curve but fixing that curve is
likely to require the taking of somebody's lawn or you know, it's going to
involve some property acquisition. Also, and our opinion is not linked to the
Troendle Addition. It's quite a ways away from it. To give you a feel for it,
it's about 300 feet down this way so you basically have to go all the way
through Vineland Forest. It's a worthy idea to pursue I guess but I wouldn't
tie it to the Troendle Addition and I'd exercise some caution if you will in
terms of who might absorb the cost of that. The last item is we received '
several letters from Frank Beddor relative to the staff proposal that we take 7
feet of right -of -way along Pleasant View Road. The response is quite lengthy. I
won't go into that in detail but suffice it to say, we still think the idea has
merit and we think that in terms of setting a precedent and based upon what we
know today, that the 7 feet doesn't sound like a lot but we are continuing to
recommend that we do obtain it at the time we can obtain it which is during the
platting process. I'd reiterate that nobody envisions a major upgrading of
Pleasant View Road that would disturb that res_'ential environment that's kind
of unique that we have over there. All we're a-iticipating at this point is at
best some safety related improvements that probably, in our opinion, will have ,
33
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
to be undertaken at some point as traffic continues to build there. With h that
we are recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions
in the staff report. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone wishing to address that?
Daryl Fortier: Good evening Your Honor, Councilmembers, I'm Daryl Fortier. I'm
here to represent Mr. Frank Beddor, Jr. Also with me tonight is Jules Smith.
' Of the 15 items on the staff report we are in agreement with 11 of them. The
first one we would like to discuss that presents a problem to Mr. Beddor is item
number 1 and that is a suggestion that this be a dual part plat. If we are
uncertaih of the objectives. We have not been able to talk to staff but if the
apparent objective is to get some petition or someone to request the city to try
to proceed with Nez Perce, I'm sure Mr. Beddor has no objections to joining the '
residents along Lake Lucy Road and filing such a petition. We don't quite
understand what is behind it but 1 guess on first glance we would join with the
residents in filing such a petition. We see no difficulty in that. The second
thing we'd like to point out is some of the issues that are being raised or
justification for the splitting of the parcel into two plats if you will. We're
uncertain of, it does present a difficulty to Mr. Beddor in his execution of the
life estate to Mr. Troendle and that's one of his primary reasons for doing this
plat. We are not in a particular hurry to develop. That's true. We would even
I be willing to say that we-will not file the plat or the City need not sign the
plat until January of next year. Therefore you could be assured we couldn't
proceed and actually in January of next year we intend to come in here and ask
' for another year's extension. We realize you cannot grant that tonight but if
you could, we would request it tonight. But in order for Mr. Beddor to proceed
with his life estate he must be able to make sure that the value of the plat is
there and that the plat will be approved by the City as it's being submitted.
In other words, a plat with 6 lots on him cannot be accepted to the other party
when they are anticipating 15 lots. The value is not the same so it does
present a severe problem to Mr. Beddor. Regarding the safety issues that are
' being raised, we're not certain that a good case can be made or no compelling
case can be made at least that this presents, this extensive cul -de -sac presents
a significant problem to health, safety or welfare within the city. The issue
' of plowing and turning around. Whether you go the extra 300 feet you're
proposing to cut off seems to be really a minor point. You would be going that
extra 300 feet on any cul -de -sac which comes off a main thoroughfare. As far as
the amount of traffic coming off, over at Fox Chase you have, immediately
' adjacent to this, you have 52 residents off a much longer cul -de -sac. Now we're
not suggesting that you repeat any mistakes that may have been made in the past.
We are simply pointing out that at Fox Chase where there are 52 residences,
' there is no chance for a second outlet. In this particular plat we are
proposing a maximum of 32 which would include the Vineland Estates. And any
time the city sees that as a problem, the physical wherewithal to solve the
problem and the political wherewithal is all within the control of the city.
This is not another Fox Chase situation where you will be stuck with it. Any
time the city choses, they could proceed to condemn the land across the Art
Owens property and execute the concept study that was previously agreed upon and
1 complete Nez Perce all the way through to Pleasant View Road. That's within the
choice and the discretion of the city whenever they see that problem which may
arise. We cannot do that of course as a private party. So I guess that really
II sums up the difficulty we have with 1. Again, if it is simply an issue of who's
34 -
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
1
making a request that we proceed with a road, we would be pleased to join with
the other residents and request Nez Perce. If that is not the issue and you are
seeking some other solution to it, we think we don't understand it and we
simply ask that, you approve the plat because we don't think there's a compelling
reason to deny it based on those reasons. .We think it is always within the
city's realm to solve any problems that have been suggested. We agree with 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. When we come to point 9 regarding right -of -ways, we agree
with the 2 of the 3 points in point 9. We disagree with the right -of -way for
Pleasant View Road. The additional 7 feet being requested. We have prepared a
brief little grapoic here. If you can see this small map, what I've done is
shown the Vineland Estates. We are immediately next door and the areas along
Pleasant View highlighted in red are those areas where 66 foot right -of -way has
within the past 7 or 8 years or how long I've been representing Pleasant View
Homeowners Association, been approved. Those are the only plats approved along
this road and all of them have been approved with a 66 foot right -of -way. In
the future if you decide that you need an 80 foot right -of -way, you will , to
go back against all of these properties and all of the properties in white and
request that you get an additional 7 feet from all of them. We are simply
saying that an issue of fairness, treat Mr. Beddor the same and in the future
take the additional 7 feet from Mr. Beddor if that's what you decide tc do but
take it in the future when you address those issues with the rest of the
property owners. Do not do it now. It is a straight away situation. This is
not a curve. This is no an alignment detail that you are sure you're going to
need. It is the safest part of the road and we don't see any justific•tion for
taking it now. The reason we are objecting is one of fairness as Mr. .eddor has
stated in his letter. We have been involved with the City on a separ.= e issue
where we have installed a portion of a public improvement and we have round in
the future that when the rest of the public improvement goes ahead, t .t there
is no way to recoup the loss that the client puts in initially. For • :ample,
the value of the 7 foot that he gives up now will be lost to him. In .he future
he will still get assessed including the value of land taken from other people
and he will have to share an equal share of that. He will be paying wice for
that land. We think the way to solve that is either to adjust your a sessment
policy or to defer it until the widening of the road or the improvements of the
road are incurred. We think it is unfair to do that at this time. T)e next
point we'd like to point out is number 12. We are in agreement with 10. We are
in agreement with 11. Point 12 suggests that the variance for the garage
setback not be approved. We would just like to make it clear that we believe
there is ample grounds for granting a variance. Of all of the projects we've
been in front of you with over the past 10 or 15 years, this one is the easiest
to justify for a variance. It is a condition not of our making. It is an
alignment of a road that we cannot change. We have tried. We cannot change
this. We are being forced to put the road into this location. It results in a
non - conforming use. We agree but there is nothing we can do about that. We
cannot move the road. The City may have that authority. We do not. We are
suggesting however instead of requesting a variance, that we would certainly be
willing to set Lots 1 and 2 aside on Block 1 and we would put into their deed
that no improvements would be made to either lot until such time as Mr. Troendle
vacates his property or that the garage structure must be•moved to be in
conformance with the 30 foot setback. Either or. We will put that on the title
of the deed of both properties. In that case Mr. Troendle's driveway will stay
where it is, He will not be permitted to connected to Nez Perce Road and we
will not be permitted to sell or build Lots 1 or 2. Those are 2 lots we'll be
35
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
tying up for Mr. Troendle's benefit. The final condition that we
would have
some disagreement with is, we agree with 13. We agree with 14. Point 15 is
perhaps only a minor disagreement also. It is requesting that we agree today
that in the future we will not argue about some future assessments or we will
not contest them. We would agree that if assessments for any public
' improvements in this area were to be'uniformily shared, equally based on square
footage or lot area with all those parties participating who are benefiting, we
would have no objection but the recommendation does not say that. It simply
' says that we will not object. We cannot make such a statement for future
homeowners. We think that their rights to object to assessments should be kept
with them. As a developer we can certainly make the agreement that we would
put onto a deed a restriction that all of these lots are subject to future
assessments equally based on the shared value of the improvements in that area.
Specifically I have a feeling we're talking about Nez Perce as it goes to
Pleasant View Road. We agree with that but we think the person on say Lot 2 off
' the cul -de -sac benefits equally as a person off Vineland Estates or the person
off the Art Owens property and we are simply asking that for the benefit of
future residents, that these assessments be uniform and equal. Therefore that
' one causes us some problems also. I'm sure Mr. Smith can, Jules here can
address it more eloquently than I certainly can. I'll be pleased to answer any
questions.
Councilwoman Dimler: Would you repeat again what did you want for condition 12?
I didn't quite catch that.
' Daryl Fortier: For number 12, rather than seeking a variance, we would agree
that both Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 would have a deed restriction precluding their
development until Mr. Troendle vacates his property or until the garage is
brought into a conforming use. Conformance with the setback.
' Councilwoman Dimler: How do you propose to do that?
' Jules Smith: Because the way you've stated it, the Troendle's life estate...go
ahead and do something with it even though the garage is still within. What
we're really saying is, we will not do anything to those two lots for as long as
' Mr. Troendle has a life estate. There after we won't do anything until that
garage is removed. I mean we will take down the garage after he...or after his
life estate...
Councilwoman Dimler: Is that what you were saying in your substituted wording?
Paul Krauss: I didn't link in the second lot but it basically does the same
' thing.
Jules Smith: All we're saying about Lot 1 is that, just the way it is now, his
I driveway would just stay the same as long as he's using it. As soon as he
.
doesn't use it, then that lot would have to go the other way. And there
wouldn't be, as a matter of fact, an easement over Lot 1 that we would execute
in his life estate is only for his life so it would be turned automatically but
I however we want to put it on record, we would put on record that easement would
terminate on Lot 2 as soon as he dies. It would be on record anyway but we
would put it in the developer's agreement or anything you would want to put it
II on record.
36
1
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Councilman Workman: That would still be a temporary variance of sorts.
Jules Smith: Well it's not going to be a variance. 1
Daryl Fortier: We're requesting that you delay implementation of compliance
until the life estate lapses. II
Councilman Workman: We all butter our toast a little differently.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Does anyone have anything to discuss ,
regarding the additional 7 feet right -of -way?
Roger Knutson: Can I ask a question? You're resisting just final platting Lots
1 thru 4 and making the rest of it an outlot because you want the City's
assurance that the whole layout is acceptable? Is that my understanding?
Daryl Fortier: We need some way of, Mr. Beddor is concerned about Vineland
Estates lots off Pleasant View. The owner of Vineland Estates has indicated a
willingness to swap lots. In order for that to occur, we must have some kind of
platted lot that we can swap. That is one difficulty. The other difficulty is
he, in establishing the value of Troendle Addition, Mr. Beddor's realtors or his
financial advisors and Mr. Troendle's must reach agreement as to how many lots
there can be. Therefore some understanding that the City will indeed approve
something is critical.
Roger Knutson: If the City for example were to, I don't know that they would,
but approve the preliminary plat of the whole thing as you have it set out there
and then in terms of the development agreement that you final plat four lots now
at stage 1 and you've already approved the concept of the preliminary for stage 11 2 if that's what happens and the rest of it, stage 2 will be developed at such
time as Nez Perce is constructed for example.
Daryl Fortier: Unfortunately we only got the, I only got the staff report at 1
about 6:20 this evening and I have not had a chance to contact Mr. Beddor as to
what other difficulties that would entail. I do know of the two difficulties
I've been mentioning. As to whether or not Mr. Van Eeckhout next door has some
difficulties with it, it's a very uneasy situation for me to say yes or no to
simply because I see this being connected to some future event for which this
developer has no control over.
Don Ashworth: Could we pose the question to Mr. Smith? I mean do you see what
we're trying to get at? I think a preliminary plat for the entire parcel, a
phasing plan fully protects your client and yet provides some assurances that
the City is looking for as far as potentially getting that road through at a
future point in time.
Jules Smith: If you're saying that, and as I read this, well before I answer
that one there's just one other little minor problem. If we were to put in Nez
Perce and that little punch down of the road because this says those two lots
have to go on Troendle Way or Troendle Circle whatever it finally ends up. -
being called, and we don't do the rest for a k=ale, that's a very, that's kind
of an expensive way to do it. Obviously when we go in there to develop that
eventually, you know we should do it all at once. The grading of the roads and ,
37
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
the whole thing. So you don't really, we would really think long and hard
before we would develop that separately. I mean put sewer and water and roads
in at two separate times. That would be really expensive. But as I read this,
and correct me if I'm wrong Paul. As I read this, what you're saying to us is
okay, we'll do that and we'll do this as an outlot. We'll approve it but we
will not let you actually. We'll let you subdivide it when you petition to have
that road put in. Is that what I'm reading? Well as I say, I haven't had a
chance to talk to Frank. In that sense, I don't think we'd have, I don't want
to categorically say this because I haven't talked to him about it because I
only saw this thing at 4:00 this afternoon but I don't think we would have a
problem with that just as the filing of the petition. You know, gee I'd like to
see the road come in and here's a petition but if the petition is tied to the
' number 15 that says we have to pay for the whole road, yeah I think we'd have a
real problem with that because I don't think we should pay for the whole road.
The whole thing may be mute, well moot. I may be mute on it, because if Art
Owens plats and the road is built, hey that's it. I mean it's going to be part
of his plat. He just builds it just like we build our section of it. He builds
his section of it. It never comes to assess. I mean it may be a moot point. I
don't have a problem I don't think. I'd want to talk to Frank. I really...do
that but all we have to do is petition and we're going to be assessed just like
everybody else is assessed, I mean we're not opposed to paying our share of the
costs that are involved in that and I'm sure there are some costs over and above
' the typical platting costs because of some other problems on, what is it
Peaceful Way and some of that. You know they'd be more than say you would
require from the developer platting that. Art Owens property so you might have
some additional costs in there. We wouldn't be opposed to that. But if all we
have to do is petition for it, I think we'll petition for it tonight.
Don Ashworth: If I may. One of the reasons that staff went in the direction
' that we did, recognizes that if you provide a preliminary plat approval for the
entire subdivision, you're guaranteeing them x number of lots. You're allowing
them the right to move ahead with the first phase. They literally are
' guaranteed that they can do a second phase if they do it within some period of
time. One year or two years. That kind of buys the time necessary that Mr.
Smith was originally looking at. On the other side, if you do a final plat for
the entire lots, hypothetically Mr. Beddor could sell that plat to whomever
tomorrow and you have really no assurance that we're going to have an
opportunity to look at that road extension at a future point in time. Before he
moves ahead with Phase 2, at least he has to come in and see you and at that
point in time we can look to again forcing the petition, or at least instituting
that process as it may go against the Owens property. I do not agree with Mr.
Fortier's position that you can literally put that remaining road section in at
' any time you want and assess the full cost. I really believe that they should
be looked at concurrently. This recommendation allows you to do that. I think
to go in, put in a road on one singular piece.of property which is what you'd
have left at that point in time, at least if it were me, I might question the
public purpose that was being accomplished but that's neither here nor there. I
personally think that the recommendation has been given. Hopefully can meet the
needs of Mr. Beddor. I'd like to see that occur. I'd like to see us help Mr.
I Troendle sell the property. I'd like to make sure we protect the interests of
the property owners in that area that would war' to see that road go through and.
I think it can be done in a fashion that protec?' Mr. Mr. Troendle, Mr.
Owens and the City.
I 38
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I basically agree. Paul, did you want to say something?
Paul Krauss: Just to clarify something briefly. Maybe Roger will jump in and
this is on a different issue though. Mr. Fortier commented on the equity of
assessments that might result from a road being built in the future and it's
kind of tough to second guess what you or future council might do in that
regard. However, I think it's fair to state that as we see the benefit
distributed from this road extension, the benefit it seems to us to be
distributed acro.,s the Troendle lots and across Art Owens property. Vineland
Forest has already built a rather extraordinarily lengthy street so that
Troendle Addition can hook in. I mean it went further than it needed to in that
subdivision basically to give access to the next lot in a coordinated manner. ,
You know I fail to, I'm not certain but I don't think we could sustain
assessments to show benefit in Vineland Forest. As far as the equity of
assessments goes I guess, maybe I'm naive but I take equity for granted. I
would envision some sort of an area assessment. Again, we can't bind a future
Council but an area assessment that's based on lot area would probably be the
most equitable way of doing that. Without having a feasibility study, nobody's
willing to front end the cost of the feasibility study. I have a difficult time
asking you to do it because I don't know when we'd be reimbursed. If we took a
feasibility study, if we actually went ahead with the project, we would know
exactly how much each lot's going to pay. Unfortunately we don't seem to have
that option open to us.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir. Please state your name and address. ,
Terry Barke: Good evening. My name is Terry Barke and my address is 960 Lake
Lucy Road. I'm here tonight with a number of my neighbors from Lake Lucy Road.
I addressed the Council in November, you may remember. I'd just like to make
this statement that it may not be obvious to you but my neighborhood, or just to
confirm that my neighborhood, my neighbors and myself, we basically like the
staff's recommendation. If there was any question, we have no problem with that
whatsoever. It seems to us to be actually a very good solution. It sounds like
it does solve a lot of people's problems. What's being discussed tonight in
terms of making sure the plat's get laid out so that these folks can proceed and
get what they want and again if that proceeds that way closely according to the '
plan here that the staff is recommending, that's great with us too. It sounds
like a good way to go. So I just wanted to make sure that if there are any
questions, we like what we're hearing from the staff and it sounds like it's 11
going in a direction that we feel good about. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Any other discussion? ,
Jim Stasson: My name is Jim Stasson. I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane. Nothing
shows on this tonight but the road that has been proposed to go through Art's
property shows a big sweeping curve as it comes into Peaceful Lane. Now we're
trying to get rid of the big sweeping curve on the other side and it doesn't
seem to make sense to put a big sweeping curve coming into Peaceful Lane from
that. I don't understand why that can't be a squared off corner like a normal
corner would be. I just want to get that on record now before it all gets made
permanent as they say. Yeah, this corner her &'that shows a big radius corner
coming in. If we're trying to get rid of the big radius corner on the other end ,
39
11
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
of us to slow the traffic down, you know this is just going to be the same thing
coming the other way.
Paul Krauss: We laid that out for a few reasons. The reason for constructing
Nez Perce is clearly so that it becomes a connection. A thru street. Now it's
' a very minor collector but it's just basically made for that neighborhood but
what you want to do is promote the flow of traffic through here and out. Now
this is not a final design and we've indicated to the gentlemen that, this house
is over here, that we try to take pains to...to shift the road as far away from
his home as possible. Right now there's a wide curve right through here off of
Pleasant View and the way we're showing it is that that piece of road would be
knocked out and it could turn back to lawn and we could vacate that for all we .
care at this point. But we don't have a final design. I mean that's what the
• feasibility study's supposed to do. What will probably happen if Peaceful Lane
needs to extend further south to the Owens property or whatever, it would
1 probably come in at a T intersection as we've envisioned this but again this is
a little hypothetical because it hasn't been designed.
I Jim Stasson: I realize it hasn't been designed but when you start showing
curves like that at this stage, you know I live right on the corner of where the
other curve is and if we're going to try to slow the traffic down that way, it
' mattes sense to to bring them into a regular T type corner down there. I
don't understand why they can't come to a stop and make a turn rather than come
around like a racetrack.
' •
Paul Krauss: I guess the point is that on Peaceful Lane there may be or 2
homes south of that intersection. We don't know at this point. If th re's
considerably more homes than that depending on how the Owens property _evelops,
maybe it makes sense to do that. But we want to promote the thru movement
through there. Now there would have to be a stop sign.
Jim Stasson: I want to unpromote the thru movement.
Paul Krauss: There would be a stop sign over here and if the road came in like
that, there'd be a stop sign over there.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there would. You'd have to.
Councilman Wing: It doesn't solve his problem though. He's talking about just
the general speed and flow of traffic with that type of curve. I heard what you
said.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other discussion?
Jules Smith: If I may. I'd just like to make a quick other point and that is
' on the 7 foot matter. We're on a straight away and Paul now says we're not
talking about widening the road. We're talking about some safety features and
what have you. That's the straightest part of the road except maybe way, way on
' the other end, I'm not sure but it certainly is. It's in the center of
straightest part of the road and it just seems to be, nobody knows what they're
going to do. Nobody knows whether anything's needed there other than the 66
feet you already have which is plenty wide enough to put in an extra lane for
II parking or anything else. A 36 foot or whatever of paving surface and it just
40
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
seems to me to take the 7 when you don't know if you're ever going to need it
doesn't seem very right in addition to what Frank says. But beyond all that, 1
before the whole matter becomes moot, we really would like to proceed on this
: plat rather than have it either tabled again or whatever because we're running
into some time problems. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Councilwoman Dimle,: I do have one question. Since we were talking about '
linking this to Pleasant View and that's going to be done through Peaceful Lane.
As I mentioned before, Peaceful Lane is basically a driveway and at this point I
hope that we're planning to upgrade Peaceful Lane at that time. Is that what
we're planning to do?
• Paul Krauss: Again, I can only tell you the concepts that we've developed. The
concept would require, I mean you look at that street. It needs to be rebuilt
all the way out to Pleasant View.
Councilwoman Dimler: So are we going to change the name at that time? 1
Paul Krauss: Presumably the entirety of the road would be called Nez Perce. Now
if Peaceful Lane continues to drop down south of here, I guess Peaceful Lane
would start here instead of starting there.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Thank you.
Jim Duchene: I have a question. I'm Jim Duchene. I live on 961 Lake Lucy Road
and a couple questions for Paul on the cul -de -sac. You said the length was
quite long. What were you recommending on that? I didn't quite follow you.
Paul Krauss: The cul -de -sac, Troendle Way or Lane or whatever it is runs about
1,400 feet. Now our Code basically says that we should exercise judgment and
care of some such language when we have overlengthed cul -de -sacs. A lot of City
Codes set an arbitrary limit of 500 feet on a cul -de -sac and there's some real
reasons to set some kind of a limit. You know 1,400 feet in my professional
judgment is clearly beyond what you'd prefer. Now that's on a temporary basis.
At such time that Nez Perce is constructed as a thru street, the entirety of the
cul -de -sac length is from here to here and that's a permissible length in the
long run. ,
Jim Duchene: Okay. My other question was, up on Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce,
the other direction, will there be stop signs up in that direction? You pointed
it out on the other end, the north end, but how about the south end? On Lake
Lucy and Nez Perce where it comes into the development.
Paul Krauss: Lake Lucy and Nez Perce is a curve. It's not an intersection. We
do have a stop sign, I mean that's somethjng I suppose we could look at but I'm
not sure where we'd put it. I guess I'd defer to Charles on that but Vineland
Forest does have a stop sign where it enters onto Lake Lucy. 1
Jim Duchene: Is there a stop sign up there? Okay. And could we not address
Nez Perce coming onto Lake Lucy by putting a stop sign coming north?
41 '
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Charles Folch: Paul, that's certainly something we could look at if directed so
by the Council. At this point my gut feeling is that the alignment that Lake
Lucy Road has currently joining with that portion of Nez Perce, it's intended to
be a thru movement and not necessarily stop but that's something we could
11 certainly take a look at.
Jim Duchene: That is a total blind spot if you've been up there. I think a few
' of you had commented you had, Dick I think you were up there. You stopped at
the house. But as you come around the corner, you cannot see down so that is a
blind spot and I noticed when we read the report, the initial report, I think a
lot of you had walked up there and had seen that that road, I believe it was 18
feet is what that road, the width is that I measured up there so, on Nez Perce
prior to Lake Lucy.
Councilman Wing: Don, isn't this a completely and separate issue totally
unrelated to what we're discussing tonight? That particular intersection?
Jim Duchene: Well it is tied on to what I've got here.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily. It eventually is oin to connect.
9 nnect.
' Paul Krauss: Well, I guess in terms of conditions on the Troendle plat, my
recommendation would be that you can consider it a separate issue. In terms of
this being a valid issue that you want to pursue that just happens to be raised
I at the same time, yeah. That's fine.
Jim Duchene: Thank you.
11 Councilman Wing: I'd just like to recommend that the last comments be referred
to the Public Safety Commission and possibly addressed at that point.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's fine.
Jim Stasson: I'd just like to make, Jim Stasson at 6400 Peaceful Lane again.
' Why would Peaceful Lane have to change to Nez Perce? Can't Nez Perce end at the
intersection and we still be Peaceful Lane?
Paul Krauss: Generally when you lay out a street that connects Point A to Point
' B, you want the same name on the entirety of the street so people can.
Jim Stasson: But if you made that a real intersection where it came into
' Peaceful Lane, then it would be just like Peaceful Lane coming into Pleasant
View Road. Otherwise if you use that logic, every street would have the same
name.
' Paul Krauss: Every street that has continuity should have the same name.
I guess, you know you're asking me to comment on your concept that has that
coming into a T intersection. Right now I don't feel comfortable with that T
' intersection but if it did design that way, yes.
Jim Stasson: What's the reason that you don't like a T intersection there?
1
' 42
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Paul Krauss: Because you're introducing a turning movement on the street that's
going to carry more traffic and you're providing a thru movement to a street 1
that only has two houses on it.
Jim Stasson: I didn't catch that. When you come up on Peaceful Lane to
Pleasant View Road, you've got a T interse_ction. II
Paul Krauss: Right.
Jim Stasson: What's the problem with having a T intersection two houses further
back? I guess I don't see why that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think it's really beyond the scope of what we're doing
right now and I don't think that's a discussionary thing but I agree with what
you're saying that you don't want to change from Peaceful Lane to Nez Perce.
Jim Stasson: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I agree because there's a lot of given problems that you ,
have to go through as an individual.
Jim Stasson: Well yeah. I have to change. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Everything you have.
Jim Stasson: I have to change everything I have. 1
Mayor Chmiel: And that does create a problem. I would just as soon see =hat
remain as Peaceful Lane rather than call it Nez Perce.
Paul Krauss: Certainly, if there's a way to work that out.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't want to make that decision right now.
Mayor Chmiel: No. Okay. I think we have discussed this substantially unless
someone else wants to throw something else in. If not, Roger?
Roger Knutson: Just one last point. I think it is germane. Considering what
the discussion has been about petitioning and what that significance is, maybe
I could suggest. If this is the direction you want to go in. I don't want to
put that in your mouth but is the wording of condition 1. I could suggest
rewording the first two sentences, the second sentence after the first sentence
is fine. The second sentence of condition 1 to read. Third sentence. There we
go. Notice shall be placed in the development contract as a condition of
platting the outlot. Then Nez Perce must be constructed thru to Pleasant View
Road as a condition of platting the outlot. I'll do it again. Notice must be
placed in the development contract that as a condition of platting the outlot,
Nez Perce must be constructed through to Pleasant View Road. I think that's
what the intent is. That doesn't answer the question of finances. _
Mayor Chmiel: That might also pertain to the specific one discussion we had
here. If we're talking Pleasant View, the City construct Nez Perce through to
43
1
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Pleasant View Road, '
I think it'd be from Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane to Pleasant
View.
Councilwoman Dimler• Is that alright?
Roger Knutson: I think as Mr. Smith aptly pointed out, filing a petition
doesn't really do much.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. That doesn't look, I think that's reasonable.
Jules Smith: I just have a question. We have to file a plat within a year and
say we get a year's extension. Two years or whatever it is. In two years not a
lot is happening. What you're really saying is, we would have to, well there's
no way we could control the construction of that road. What you're really saying
is, well we'll give you preliminary approval of this plat for 2 years, or
' whatever. For how long as you extend it but if the road isn't there, you lost
the second phase. You can't build it. Well that gets right back to where we
were with Daryl's problem. The land isn't worth that to us. We don't have the
lots, there's no way we can force it. We can't make it. We can't build a road.
We can't make the city build it. We can't do anything. We just lose our plat.
That's essentially what you're telling us. Is that it? All I can do as an
owner of that property is ask the city to build it. If they think the road is
necessary, hey they've got a petition in front of them. Let's build it. I mean
you guys are in control of that, I'm not.
' Mayor Chmiel: I don't see where that's the responsibility of the City.
Jules Smith: Well, the point is, the City doesn't have to do it because
1 obviously if Art Owens plats or if that land is ever platted, whoever plats it
is going to build it and that's probably as it should be. What I'm saying is,
essentially we're getting approval for 4 lots or 6 lots tonight period because
we have no guarantee we can do the rest of them ever and it's beyond our control
' to do anything to get that approval. We can't force a road to be built. We
can't pay for the road to be built. We can't do anything.
Roger Knutson: We can certainly put in there, I don't think the Council would
have a problem with it, that if you want to pay for it.
' Jules Smith: Well, that's outrageous.
Roger Knutson: You just said...
' Jules Smith: What you're really saying is we're not going to approve, we
approve 6 lots this evening. That's what we'll approve.
' Don Ashworth: Jules, let's see if we can't work something that's reasonable. I
think that having a requirement in there that they simply agree that they'll
petition the City to have the feasibility study completed, etc., that does put
the authority back to us. That gives us the ability at that point in time to
' commission the study and potentially assess. I 4hink we should look at it
though in terms that there's a possibility you rsi.v have sold those 6 lots. If
that is the case, those people are not going to want to pay for any costs
II associated with Nez Perce. In fact, they're going to come back in front of this
44
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Council and say, no. We like this cul -de -sac condition. We don't want you to
do that.
Jules Smith: I have no problem with saying that those lots will be subject to
some approval. If there is an areawide assessment for those that are benefitted
by that section, they're going to be covered. I have no problem putting that of
record.
Don Ashworth: Or something to the effect that if you've already sold those, and
that's really beyond your.
Jules Smith: ...they're still stuck with it whether we own it or they own it.
Don Ashworth: Well again, it gets kind of back to like Kerber Blvd.. When we
went to put through Kerber and you had people in the Saddlebrook area, Chan
Vista. Those people surely didn't want to pay for Kerber. They bought that lot
and the last thing they wanted. I've got to believe though Jules that we can
come up with some reasonable language that says that those lots, excluding those
lots no longer under your control, that the developer is willing to pay his fair
share. So he might end up with a situation where you don't have what I'll call
is a uniform assessment roll in terms of you may, those first 6 lots.
Jules Smith: Those that "have already sold? 1
Don Ashworth: That's correct. And I've got to believe that we can come up with
language that is going to protect Mr. Beddor but still protect the city...and I
would recommend that you accept the language of simply having them petition but
I think that we do need to work in the section of the development contract that
talks about their willingness to potentially accept a portion of those
assessments and as that may apply to lots that are still under their control
because again they could potentially have sold those lots between then and now.
Roger Knutson: How about petition and pay for the cost of the feasibility '
report?
Don Ashworth: What? '
Roger Knutson: Petition and pay for the cost of the feasibility report.
Don Ashworth: Well, we can make a determination at that point in time that we
want to include the costs of the feasibility study.
Jules Smith: If you're going to build a road, it's usually in the cost of the
road...
Don Ashworth: That's correct. I don't have a problem there either.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think we know where we're at. I would look for a motion
in regard to proposal for •a staff recommendation and maybe with some minor
revisions which we just discussed.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll attempt a motion tee. I need some help. Okay, I
move item 6(a) to approve the subdivision, the Troendle Subdivision with the 15
45
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
1
conditions with condition number 1 to be worked out. Okay, it's a preliminary
plat #90 -15. With the following conditions. Condition number 1 with language
to be worked out with staff and legal counsel in a way that protects the City.
Is that enough to go on?
Roger Knutson: We have the intent of the Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Yep.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Condition number 2, condition number 3 as is.
Condition number 4 as is. Condition number 5 as is. Condition number 6 as is.
Condition number 7 as is. Condition number 8 with the addition that this, to
make sure that it does get recorded so we don't have another Peterson /Blanski .
• situation. Condition number 9 (a) and (b) and (c) as is. Condition number 10,
condition number 11 with a substitute for condition number 12 and here's where I
need help. With the intent that yes, Mr. Troendle can live there as is and when
that terminates, that the building, the barn garage gets removed and that
something about the driveway at that time, the easement is vacated.
1 Jules Smith: The easements go on...access onto Nez Perce.
Councilwoman Dimler: ^ Okay, do you understand the intent?
Jules Smith: The easement would terminate upon the life estate terminating.
Mayor Chmiel: Also a deed restriction in there of some type.
Councilwoman Dimler: Ah yes. With a deed restriction acceptable to the City.
' Councilman Workman: On what, Lot 1 and 2? -
Councilwoman Dimler: On Lot 2. Do you want to add Lot 1 and 2?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
' Jules Smith: Yeah. It'd be 1 and 2. You want to make sure the...
Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. So a deed restriction acceptable to the City
' shall be drafted concerning the garage /barn and Lot 1 and 2.
Roger Knutson: You said deed restriction. That's really, you really put those
in the development contract.
Jules Smith: You just file what's there. You just want something on record.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Just protection.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, you understand the intent of that one?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: Until the end of the life estate, yeah. Condition 13, 14
and 15 as is.
46
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Councilman Workman: First can you reiterate 9?
Councilwoman Dimler: 9 as is with the (b) part there that was being discussed.
I would like to see us take that because I think it's perfectly acceptable to
, ask for right -of -way and easements with the subdivision and preliminary plat
approval plus in the future if we don't need it, we can always vacate it.
Councilman Workman: Paul, was Daryl's map with the red ink correct? '
Paul Krauss: Well I didn't have a chance to review it but it looked accurate.
Councilman Workman: In light of that and his comment that they'll pay twice. In
other words, we won't pay him for it and then when the assessments come out
• he'll have to pay for those. Is that a situation that's?
Paul Krauss: I guess maybe the City Manager can respond to that.
Councilman Workman: I mean we're going to have to pay for everybody else's on
that road if this map is correct just about.
Councilman Wing: We have to look to the future because we're trying to be
consistent now. I mean they can say we were inconsistent years ago and I would
dispute that but we're trying to be consistent now that anything that occurs
along that road from this day forward is going to be in that same position. It's
going to be an automatic request for the easement. If we are inconsistent this
time, then we might as well be inconsistent from there over to TH 101 from this
point on. The only question I would have is why even go 80 feet. Why not stay
with the 66 feet on this.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that makes sense too as far as I'm concerned.
Councilman Workman: But you know what I mean. I mean the other ones are
developing. They're not going to do anything else but we're going to take this
here. Granted we're going to start to be consistent although it would appear
from this point we're being inconsistent but we're taking it, which is our
right, but we're not going to be able to get the other ones without paying for
them.
Councilwoman Dimler: Or if they come in to subdivide we can take it. ,
Councilman Workman: Yeah, but that's done I think isn't it?
Councilwoman Dimler: No.
Paul Krauss: If I could. You know you pointed out you do have the right to do
it. That's unquestionable. You have the right. I guess you're looking for the
moral ground in doing it and I can't sit here today and tell you that with great
certainty that we need that 7 feet because I'm not sure. While we don't
anticipate any significant rebuilding of Pleasant View, one of the things you
need to look at when you improve a street is sight distances and you know, the
road starts to curve down as you're just going past that property. Now it could
.well be that you need to skim off a knob on the road or something else that
requires grading to do that in.the future. As to the moral higher ground on
47
1
Lity Louncii Meeting - January 14, 1991
11 this, when somebody subdivides property, I think there's a
presumption
they're doing it for some financial gain and clearly when o u that
lots, you're going to be making a profit on that. Does that compensate for the
11 public cost that we would entertain in the future? I don't know. I think it
does. I mean we're talking about a relatively nominal amount of land here. I
guess for the same reason though I'd be relunctant to set a precedent whereby we
' burden the public in the future with a higher cost of doing the improvements
that are needed when we could have gotten it basically for free at some point in
the past.
' Councilman Workman: I guess in relationship to that I just don't see this road
ever having the ability to widen the way we want it to widen and so in that case
we might take it but it seems moot.
Councilwoman Dimler: We can always vacate it.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, if that need's not there.
Councilman Workman: I just, in driving that road, I don't drive it. I think
' Frank is probably the biggest flag waver on that road and nobody should drive on
the road and he's probably correct. I don't drive on that road if my life
depends on it.
Councilwoman Dimler: But see to me Tom it's inconsistent.
Mayor Chmiel: I drive on it all the time Tom.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and it's inconsistent to say that we're
population here and at the same time keep the road the same way it is. Plus add
you're going to have Crosstown.
Councilman Workman: But I'm just saying the development in those corners is so
tight and maybe we're going to be removing houses.
Mayor Chmiel: I doubt that.
' Councilwoman Dimler: But TH 101 might go to 4 lane. CR 17 might go to 4 lane.
I think you're going to see a lot of traffic in there in the future.
' Mayor Chmiel: Well you may see an increase.. I don't think you're going to see
an...
Councilwoman Dimler: Well no, I'm saying it's going to increase. It's not
' going to decrease. And safety concerns on that road as well.
Councilman Workman: But there's going to be places where we can't widen it so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have that motion on the floor and we have a second.
' Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Preliminary
Plat #90 -15 for Troendle Addition without variances subject to the following
conditions:
II
48
i
TY Q i:1 `r' L4, 1991 II
IHASSEN ti to Lots 1 -4, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 1
ie remaining area is to be platted as an outlot.
development contract that as a condition of
ce must be constructed through to Pleasant View
BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
- 1900 • FAX (612) 937 - 5739 submitted for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 prior to
er t. Clear cutting, except for the house pad and
II
rm ted.
- to a development contract with the city and 1
e �essary financial securities to guarantee proper
4/ tints.
-h nic ian � 0 .n )d comply with all conditions of the Watershed II
Addition
a• the utilities within the right -of -way for II
e ty shall have a radius of 60 feet and the street
endle Addition prepared by e her Troendle Circle or Troendle Court to II
following recommendations plying it as a through street. Final street
._ approval by the City Engineering Department.
11 rosion control silt fence around the i or the retention pond and ponding
modified to a drainage and f is established. Turf or sod shall be placed
II
Pence to the existing Nez Pleasant View Road for Lots 1 and 4, Block 2
,L. s easement shall be provided and recoreded with II yes not align. There is a ;e ion of the driveway shall be constructed to a 7
83 feet. It is recommended f 20 feet and have a maximum grade of 10%.
by conveying to the City
Block 1, Vineland Forest
would vacate a portion of m is and rights -of -way: II
Lot 3, Block 3, Vineland !asements along the westerly property line of
, c1 ! and the ponding area on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1
II
gt ling and erosion control plan shall also be
plat accordingly.
is -of -way along Pleasant View Road.
II
ity easements.
s rm sewer calculations verifying size and II
stem and ponding basin. Eight inch sanitary
o % shall be constructed on this subdivision and II )f he lots on his plat shall be shown for Final
- Tans and sp';.ifications shall be submitted to
.- nd approval.
'- squired in lieu of parkland dedication. II
49
1
1