Loading...
6a. Preliminary Plat Troendle Addition _ I CITYOF 6 4 CHANHASSEN 1 v i v I k Y , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM II TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 1 DATE: January 9, 1991 II SUBJ: Update Report #90 -15 Subdivision - Troendle Addition Preliminary Plat BACKGROUND 1 The applicants are requesting approval to subdivide an 8.7 acre parcel into 15 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF and I 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 II 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. 1 The Planning Commission reviewed this item on October 17, 1990, and recommended it's approval. The City Council reviewed it on I 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 I 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 I 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 II taking action on the plat. MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER AND ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER II Since the City Council last reviewed this item, staff has had an opportunity to organize a meeting between ourselves, Daryl Fortier, I who represents the developer of the Troendle Addition, Frank Beddor, and Art Owens, who owns the parcel located immediately west 1 II r_ 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 proceeding 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. 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 1 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, undefined 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 Mi 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 recommending that Lots 1 -4, Block 1, 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. 1 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 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 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 feasibility study, and, potentially, front ending the actual assessments (improvements). This is not prudent 1 11 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 1 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 1 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, II 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 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 11 Troendle Addition January 9, 1991 Page 6 ' 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 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 1 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 -way 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 I/ 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 its 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 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 r 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 has 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 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. Traffic 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 1 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 ' 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 Troendle Addition January 9, 1991 1 Page 9 scheduled to be extended from I -494 to Hwy. 101 in the next few 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 1 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 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 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 11 cutting, except for the house pad and utilities, will not be permitted. 3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the a II city and provide the city with the necessary financial securities to guarantee proper installation of the improvements. , 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. Troendle Addition January 9, 1991 1 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. 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." ATTACHMENTS 1 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. 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 . ••,, • z •• ( 1 -.-., • !.e ...t • i A k,,,, - i `,..._____ \. \, \ . .• ,,,...... - I — — r • •'...r_ j.,....2 ,-. C :; CrC; s A:AT.,:::,71 ....f..1......1..... ) / ..' ••.- / r ...,0.F... --..,.. ....czJa_...,, 4.-1 — — s T , ‘. ,,' ft 7 - .... / ... „.• s / . NI .7- ' ..i 1 , ':.. , • .: - • --- ./ ) ...• ,,,„ ........ w A •I . 1 1 / v i \ • --- -- /-____2.- ---- .4.-- / , i•:i 7. ,. 6- - 1 I I ri, - - ' ° -'/ \• S /... • \ , r / • / 1 \ ,__ ---•\ ,/ L // 1, K \ .. ■ , — _ 1 0 . \ i 1 ' i -- -"LI i / i , 1 ._ ___\ It \ t_ I \ ( i }' ,, • i; , 7 0 ,-‘ • I — — -4 ;' „..,,„- --- ...... . -- T • go • r1 /I 1 ( • / ■ ..•,. I - I- - 0 '- - '''‘ 110 Ll // / ,. i j, (e.1. A ...•-=.=_ .- 1/) c --, .:, , ,..c*)..... ....7 - ,/ I / / I - - / - 41ti. ‘ 1 ...- , V • I ( 1 1 . ( • ....... ....../ .....„,/ 0, ow V. - / . ,... 1...._1.__..--- ,.1. .. -- 1 • ( N r"---ciir .. „ \ ,-. _ / - " LI -----------•.,1 • - * s N I I- " rj - I • 4 " • - - -, , . 1 \ _ Z -- I `11 - • i \ I 0 1— I% 1 t 1 _, t•I ' 1 -- /Th____!___ I ' 1 w I . C — ro — 1 i / , 1 d -.I 0 1 ) , 1 - / !g.; 1 _, 1 - - .., ) .. ... . -, - , c z ),-, • ,-.. 1 i z ,_,..,:_____ ___,,, : ..„ .). _, , la -, 1 1 -... 1 o n - 0,7 -- -r-. -J ( 2 a \ I 21 .i z ••• • 1 \ i , t 4 t-x 11 1 ,. , . a . .•.., ........„+ ., - , --.1 1 / ' - 1 . ' , • ■4 ' \ .' / - ..''. -..,„ ,. / , - , f I \ ,t; 5 ,,..,:::•,,, ....,,,, —..- • -..-•. 1 _ --, _ , 1 • 1 1_ 1 Li ----.' ' - "st. , . I L _ C21 -- Oti _d 1 1 , I-43- . ‘..-..1 `,...__., ' * 1 , : 66 Z t- itL.....' 1 - • Jr - 7 1 r-k-zz-:' ( ,... , U i ..,. - .f,!? -- --- I 4 0 U O. Er • :* 6* ..... ••••'" i • ) _ _ • .\ L ,- -"' • Z •, :t.. • - ----' e• 1- -*Mr 1 __,) , \ ,, . . \ ---.., •••:,...... ' ill ? ) - -I \12..-. , - , • - ...: . „ . --- cc '' --- 1 - - ',.. " 11 ...- / . " . ,--- 0 Il : ..4,j ' .11 ::,^' - l" • ...._ . ___ .., ....,. --• • ' E ' I 4 1— ui / ir • i .... r"••\_,..iff L ''', r , 1 • \ . ........1 I V -___ ........j v::: i I l • $9 It> • ,-- — % '‘.....„,....... .- lei • ' ':■ i , .- g Z ' - 1 % . : Z. • • ; . • E , --,:-..„ ,- , - • , --_------ 1 ...-,-- • _ : `• - :.- ..a ---- '7./ i .,( -,.. 1 \..,`,, i TA .,:" ,/./ \ , ri .„ o• • . , 0 „ N / l 1 / / / / .•-ri 9 ' "'•-•-• - 0'. -- _ _ L \ ." / ' V■ ' ' / _ . ,. ;.• I" 7.%.,, ....■;_!.• ." ,,, -- ,.. 1 1 - •-• •-: ' ' . T. - : ; 17, ,..i . i F „ ' - ,:. ' s• 0 - , :,' . - 77 - ‘ss 6" r : ...... 1, ,,,, ...r 1 iki) ... , r.... . i I / 1 1 ' / c..._ .1 •- - . - rt . _ Z / 14f b , 1 / td, . . • 1 . t . .• 7. ' II; ., / / if 1' -'' I .4....4 ,-- i ,?, /1 , if / - ./. / ....----___ __-- -- / ; .. / 1 . 1 ''l , / / '4 ': / 31 ,-,..„ :. r rl i 1 ' i i I \-:.-- 1 >•. t -"' 1 / iti3 \ 4 -- -) if ll ' 1.4 1\ \ ir‘--- . 1vi, , /ill / 0 , ....;.., . 1 2 .. .......x .4,7 ..„......._„,.... , ,, I . ; z ., , 1 (,.. , . 1 k ,..._ Ft if,,,,... 1 r 4 :1 j _VII,,,_,,i - . / . • a : 3 c. ' 0 IA ' 1 \, \ It it c I o • . . UN CZ >,... 0 ta P- , ` I --.. -.. ., ■ - 16 •-•• - •‘..- /‘ • N 1 r - - - . :l p• • . e., LJ k \N..\..._*14_., ' • • • `,‘,.. .._ yl ' 4;1 a rrrAF=. -- - aen.L 111.4.14_,- >1, 1 ---- ...„_L-. Y ___--`t v.! r- (=ix . . . ... •.. — .„...--_,,......:,... 1 1 . VOt‘n • e °.- Z -----..---r- r - •-• "N '..-- -- . , - ,--...... ............ • ,.,2..1. / Z"-'....■• J ■ ? 1 , __--- . , ■ t • ,,_---......,..-. :::: ,. ,_ ■■•■ 4 .., ........ i 1 . . . - .K. -moo ....• .....0 - . — ....,. ,.......p 1 1 ... 1 , . 1 e t.! . i .. . , t..' :d .. / / C:T.I.LC;:e.,1•17„ 1 , ovum •r7 .1 OIN • . EROSION CONTROL PLAN FOR • '- 7 .....0w-.••• TROENDLE ADDITION ger LOT � SURVEYS COIdPANY,INC. CITY OF CNANNASSEN ° '' -••.... 1 .LAND SURVEYORS • , , . I , � "*""1116,11 I 1: I _\ ' • 1 , I w + , + • T FEN[>F ."..« ' 1 I. E i v .w� - ` j I I t' i � i s J ot- 1 - i ___..� , .. .. Y 1 � \. ' / .7 � �• I ` ' M.r...mn. M1� l I ....,,,,.'''x'- .' , �� • w iN•ec., �rw, I I l '' • • a . - 1 t �1 y. ! : sJ , v - • '�,.' ( e. ., M- - 1 - � �,.. �• of l +_ ,„ \ � 1 1k Z . x. 2 •5%9 o I fH I i , o.. »7 �l 1 C 1 i. " ; I l l•L .. 1 I1 1':w �_ 1 I- "6 i I 1 4: � • � r � L -._ is.1147.a � -- L__ -='t'.. :u_: ._ • - : "J L__ ek ! . _ - J / ,. ,I' ..., „ 1, --- '` V _.l f 1, TRapoL -; _0.; -! •- 1 \ ' 1, ., a � i / ( f - t / , r r� L N / 1 ' ) � N j / , - y,r i 7 . , I �.~.•.' ' rw� • 1 • ‘ :Y i `p , �.} % i. . � 1 • % t' ►- I 1 •l r • � 1,1 ,, r 1 I - 1 r' \ i .I i .-' ri 1 1= .` d I, . M+ I I , 4,4 I � `' . ^ I' 1. ( \``�/ - LA . � I I IMO I q . t j i �: ' L , • 1 . 1 ? 1 ' _U I 1 ; , .. . /- I y � . J I I �.a_J I 1 � Y_1 1 , �9 to \ �\�` . I I (1 I. q w . 0 I ^ • i�M 3 -PIN. .I• 1 ,,t 741 ./ / / i -. 1) .. '� • . I' ` � -.� ( ` ` 7 I x• sr. V' t l' ... �.r4 J'�. •: = - - A lf; V4_�_ . ...► -, ( - !11!11 4 _ 11 • 1 t pox*. �. 1 •, . �� I 11. i U F :`'".' �- . \ vtwr+ "- 1 i ' .tlu ..... c ' •� 1 T_ ; ,. - .o..o. •*•• ! '- E, p( (I;;, i r, «.. 4witi tit, t.q q 1 is j I � r a,�n�r „` ;.:Ir - - .l •�i: .w.0 I,I s ' y' �' 1 Y Yw ..y 0 "o V , 1 1 I o. � 1 .. 1 1 M I _ I . , 1 1 t l ( I I 1 .' I I 1 I i ' i 1 F I • , I I •1 1 y WON RAN N. t ' :1 I I ��_,— - ' ......•. wwi. . »t wI tNQn+[tts. pVC. t ' 116116 WO J ��y� 1..11 IO/ 1.1 , •V N - 11•111D•03111. 1.1 Wi/ ��/� a: ' 1 j I MW roe 1•r1Ma.1..r - -. W4yLj, /YVIr_ 2" j — M von • r T M' .r 1•00611• COMM (1111) 671-1601/ o I I 11•a. STOW Ili lr.11 a.ww. Rw7e I�l►an(�;ax rte• • ...................... 6' •mo * ���`' I-e-J [ E.•�t,✓ i:41i „yA'," ONO • • •• NI ..• Oman. NOM war w �. ..... re, AAA MY11 NI no_ . . r..t.wry -•• • __ IYeIGL •TRELtT.lcc vl.rl r ‘ ISSUED �, L_r-,. -.I _,..7.- J _-'y.,:1•^•7 . 71 Mlcnrw. M \ '� 1N.1.17maN11 TYPICAL ..rnl. wlxl .MNI. 1 RLLIMINA.1r - • • - - -- 11M1 11011 11111 NS — NM NM INS MI — NMI NM — MB EN MI — NIB 11 '. II"; ,, o.. i I 1 i - s a !, Chilli!!! W Y T a • - _ � ,'r • • • " iii *- _ • :,--,,I.1 ', r`\ . fi 1 � I 1 - ./ ' ,/ il, / i' `\ i t is PS J - -__ -- - — l fl IIlims - i - - - y , \ ' f. \ 7-1) I .7.,.....,4 .. 1 1 i' I 'f" _ . „\\\ / tr. --- ti 1 7.. 1 . r - /- 1 ..._ I - ../ , : • • , i: - ---.__- // ; - � 4 -! _ 'f , ee 1.1.1 i, 1/' - 7 -, I � � g ST T1 • Y ce I • 1 0 "-.._ �S 1 •• -.rl 1r � . w ..i • l• ♦ / . • .. ,• s it 'a ... 3 , � ` ` - t } + + " r '�SJa ti 11 . • - Iiii ..• " L r z ii - — -..... 4 or• . I • % .Z . V .Z"41%% \. '14: E/ . Ai . %WS -I- ... ‘. \ i , .... a t X NY- E - :r ' :.: . • 1. % i s ' 1P.t. V oil' s • i - • / it ' 1,•I t r J • % to i � ., �, L. - -- X 4 . i _ r 1 * g 4 / ccit), I'd,b 'El 1 s.i. - • 4t. %; . r . • w s _ ,.... r 5 4.Ap • :,� ms's - t .� ` t. / : ) . -. -- ► = tOOv 1. k i �' \s„... � ���� < : X1 — ....._..._ _ t ` � I / �-•e • ~ � sl l • / '-a ill ...—. , f(,/ , ) / / z < 1 / / Ar - --c‘. ..,- ii ? , 1- ' 7 4-7-- - 1 - -7-4- 1- - _,./EllEr ir-- i I )•' i I / i i t L / . r i .4 I i2 0 1:( bil• • 1 � a t > .I .•.L?_ 1 \. N:1114 CI i• 1.1 -VI WI " E \I 7 2‘1111 i*k l : . -a, it e4I ; = .14 "' '• ............ • ; 1 -WA % ‘` s e 1 PW 4 r — ‘ 1 " .- %, il te * , 1 • '0' \ . --, ' . tr0 .0 .... . __ _, e t . , / i g ( •• . . ■ ,V st k"* ‘. -...-v -. 1 ...._)/ ........ .\" - I ''. .:. \ • 1 . 0 i _ _ -. - -I .,7! ; i i .- : ......• _ :,...i . .. -"" 4 ,. , • -'). — C11 - 1 1 —j. --I k • - ' 4 1 1 . A - .- .4 1 J i I:1 i l 1""1....".. . • l, ' I 9 ,� Y wa }•9 as • •"� .1 • i._�i ` �-- :-tom... 1 V, 1 ' • \ ■ 9 —�i . if - , •- 1 CI'TY A CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 January 10, 1991 1 Mr. Frank Beddor, Jr. 7951 Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Beddor: I an 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'ehave 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 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 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 11 ' Mr. Frank Beddor, Jr. January 10, 1991 Page 2 Your letter indicates that we have been inconsistent in the past as 1 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 1 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 11 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. %/fig rely, --Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning PK:v 1 cc: City Council Troendle Addition Staff Report 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GFrank cBeddor, Jr. - January 4, 1991 1 Councilman Thomas Workman ' CITY HALL City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Re: Troendle Addition Plat Dear Councilman Workman: 1 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- 1 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 I/ suggested was the standard for a collector within 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. 1 C 8 Gi Y or kdr'ir.:vri ,t, 7951 POWERS BOULEVARD • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • TELEPHONE 612/474 -0231 • FAX 612/474 -0379 1 11 Councilman Thomas Workman Page Two II , January 4, 1991 11 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 1 is limited to 30 -40 mph and is used for inter - neighborhood travel. The 1980 Compre- hensive Guide Plan did not list Pleasant View Road 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. 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 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 other 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. Since'ely, ' 11 , . rank Beddor, Jr. FB:djl cc: Mayor Don Chmiel 1 City Council Members Don Ashworth, City Manager Paul Krause, Planning Director/-- City Engineer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (r-- V 2 at t II January 10, 1991 JAN ' 1 .rah 1 Mayor Don Chmiel { 1 f Y `� � I CITY HALL City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 55317 II RE: Troendle Addition Plat II Dear Mayor Chmiel: On Monday, January 14, our request to replat the Troendle property II 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 I 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 I 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. 1 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 II 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. 11 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 II 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 II dedication from Art Owens. Marilyn and I are purchasing the last remaining undeveloped parcel II 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 give up a seven foot strip of property. II II 910 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 0 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 0 TELEPHONE: 612/474 -6010 1 i Mayor Don Chmiel Page Two January 10, 1991 This is also ironic because Marilyn and I have led the drive to keep 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 Monday, 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 1 • Don Ashworth, City Manager Paul Krause, Planning Director City Engineer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ° Dra -FA Co r� C;1 v) 40-10r7/ _ - x ` 40 ' . : tom • re; � ---- A I *r = � �� - ms, Y f a A r4 • % , I �— C 1+1-� fi t., )=. �.� L� • _ • r ± % .,,' = ;.? ;:"...: . ,•_ tiff _ - inn • ....__ 1 Azi �'yo:`�� tt _ , 1 1 , , -:.:4._ --4k, - II _ _ -- . . a■-■ • 7 Illt 1 .. it: ..- = -- — 'lam ?^-.� - sr -1 /� r _� �-/ ,..1.1.7 aft OW a _ a- _ I _ ... "t n . arrr -- t 1 ; a lai*? .. I �'. ! t = , 1 1 _ t 1 Existing Functional - --I --- •' at' Classification F = ' ° - w� I 1 R � 1. - -. ._ J .r fe )..l' 111I ` , --in,. ... - 1 1 �� 4 48111.1 It lt. --,� ►�i ERIN Principal Arterial -, IIP _ ' 1 ... Minor Arterial - Class I - —I , ` I •_mal Minor Arterial - Class it - ��. ?� i • Collector - Class 1 h a �` ,- -_ - . 1110.■11/illik - ...., '. L4 , •,e, — .. I Pr- !ir - - ' : - 1!\1111111111.11r7' ..., !---- - — / " .. ow 101.111111°': _ — i 1 1 0 , 1 1 . 1 I� ! 1 . I 1 , + I ' ( I ' -1-1.--- Pi / 1 WIC 11/1? 11/1? arms ma. .MI 1 . Ir0 ClOrese q I (9/90) FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA MAJOR CRITERIA: Trip Origins and Destinations (Trip Focus) Speed and Length of Trip Access Control Spacing Principal Arterial Trip Focus: Interstate, Intrastate Speed: 45 -65 mph Trip Length: >10 mi. Access: Fully controlled, no direct land access in urban areas; limited land access in rural areas Spacing: 5 -10 mi. Minor Arterial - Class I Trip Focus: Intrastate, p I t astate, Intercounty Speed: 40 -55 mph Trip Length: >6 mi. Access: To arterials and collectors; land access to major trip generators Spacing: 2 -4 mi. Minor Arterial - Class II Trip Focus: Intracounty, Intercity /township Speed: 35 -45 mph, urban; 40 -55 mph, rural Trip Length: >4 mi. Access: To arterials and collectors; land access to commercial, industrial, farms, high density residential Spacing: 1 -2 mi. 11 Collector - Class I Trip Focus: Intercity /township, Interneighborhood Speed: 35 -45 mph, urban; 40 -55 mph, rural Trip Length: >2 mi. Access: To arterials and collectors, local streets; land 5 1 1 'Pre4 Coq C' n II (9/90) II access to commercial, industrial, medium - high density residential, farms, (emphasis on mobility vs. access) Spacing: 1/2-2 mi. Collector - Class II 1 Trip Focus: Interneighborhood, Intraneighborhood Speed: 30 -40 mph, urban; 40 -55 mph, rural II Trip Length: <2 mi. Access: To minor arterials and collectors, local streets; land access to commercial, industrial, farms, residential r (emphasis on access vs. mobility) Spacing: ; -2 mi. II EXISTING CHANHASSEN STREET SYSTEM STREET FROM TO CLASSIFICATION II T.H. 7 West Limit North Limit Prin Art 1 T.H. 5 West Limit East Limit Min Art - Cl 1 T.H. 41 North Limit South Llmit Min Art - Cl I • T.H. 101 North Limit South Limit Min Art - Cl II II T.H. 212 West Limit 169/212 Min Art - Cl II T.H. 169 T.H. 212 East Limit Min Art - Cl II T.H. 169 T.H. 212 South Limit Min Art - Cl II Minnewashta Parkway T.H. 5 T.H. 7 Collect - Cl I Galpin Boulevard T.H. 7 T.H. 5 Collect - Cl I Powers Blvd. (17) North Limit Lyman Blvd. Collect - Cl I II Kerber Boulevard Co. Rd. 17 West 78th St Collect - Cl I Market Boulevard West 78th St T.H. 5 Collect - Cl I Lake Lucy Road Galpin Blvd Co. Rd. 17 Collect - Cl I Pleasant View Rd Co. Rd. 17 T.H. 101 Collect - Cl I Lake Drive East Dakota Ave T.H. 101 Collect - Cl I II Audubon Road T.H. 5 Chaska Limit Collect - Cl I Pioneer Trail West Limit East Limit " - Collect - Cl I Bluff Creek Drive Pioneer Tr. T.H. 212 Collect - Cl I Lake Riley Blvd Lyman Blvd East Limit Collect - Cl I Key: Prin Art - Principal Arterial II Min Art - Cl I - Minor Arterial - Class I Min Art - Cl II - Minor Arterial - Class II 6 11 II II ' 4t Co rAg /Nn (9/90) continuity are significant concerns that could have major consequences for the city. The jurisdictional problem is further compounded by the need for T.H. 101 improvements. The highway has significant alignment and geometric problems particularly south of T.H. 5. Chanhassen needs to take the lead role in promoting the improvement of T.N. 101. 3. Pleasant View Road - Pleasant View Road serves as the only east /west connection between CSAH 17 and T.H. 101 in northern Chanhassen. The existing roadway alignment is inadequate in several areas. Sharp curves, garages located at the right -of -way line, hidden driveways and frequent vistas of Lotus Lake which serves as a distraction, all combine to create potentially dangerous conditions. Previous efforts to improve Pleasant View Road have been unsuccessful. As a result, the inadequacies of this route will continue to intensify in the future as traffic volumes continue to increase. 4. CSAH 17 - County Road 17 currently extends south of T.H. 5 to Lyman Boulevard. In the future, it will be possible to extend the route to new T.H. 212 and south to Pioneer Trail. South of Pioneer Trail, further extension is not feasible due to existing development and extreme variations in topography. Therefore, Chanhassen's only reasonable opportunity for a comprehensive north /south minor arterial route lies in the improvement of the T.N. 101 corridor. 5. Minnewashta Parkway - This street serves as the only north /south route between Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 7, west of Lake Minnewashta. It is also located such that it likely serves some through trips from outside the City along Hwy. 5, traveling to the north to Hwy. 7, as well as locally generated traffic along its route. This area has undergone a fairly significant amount of development but there is considerably more development potential that is likely to be realized over the next decade. At the same time, the-road suffers from safety and capacity restraints due to poor alignment, under - width pavement and poor intersections and /or driveway connections. A portion of the right - of-way forms the City border with Victoria which will require a coordinated approach to improvements. 12 • 1 f a 5 } e r n Ca VILA CO 417 1 I 1 TABLE 5 URBAN ROADWAY ROW WIDTHS 1 I Functional Undivided Roadway Divided Roadway C 1 lassification Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended I Minor Arterial 1 (Class I ( ) I * 4 -lanes 130' 150' 150' 180' * 6-lanes 150' 180' . 180' 200' 1 (Class II) * 2 -lanes 100' 110' — — * 4 -lanes 100' 120' 120' 150' I Collector - (Class I) I 1 * 2 -lanes 80' 100' — — * 4 -lanes 100' 110' 120' 140' * (Class II) 1 * 2 -lanes 80' 100' — — * 4 -lanes 111 110' 120' 140' 1 TABLE 6 RURAL ROADWAY ROW WIDTHS I Functional Undivided Roadway Divided Roadway I I Classification Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended Minor Arterial I 1 (Class I) * 2 -lanes 120' 150' — — * 4 -lanes 140' 170' 190' 200' (Class II) * 2 -lanes 120' 150' . — — 1 * 4 -lanes 140' 170' 190' 200' Collector 1 I (Class I) * 2 -lanes 110' 120' — — * 4 -lanes --- --- 190' 200' (Class II) — — ! * 2 -lanes 100' 110' * 4 -lanes — -- 180' 190' I 17 1 1 1 eft, ^ Carves, CouMI/ stud l II the year 2010 on each roadway segment. Therefore, the vehicle volume shown in Figure 3 is the estimated traffic that would be on the roadway segment in 2010 if the roadway segment could accommodate it at an acceptable level of service. The vehicle volumes are the daily (24 hour) vehicles forecast for the roadway segment on an average weekday throughout the year 2010. T he "capacity restraint" forecast assigns- traffic from one zone to another based upon the capacity of the roadway segments between the zones. Traffic is diverted from the desired (least time) paths to alternate routes as the capacity is reached. The assignment is an iterative process employed until equilibrium is attained. Therefore, the vehicle volume shown in Figure 4 is the estimated traffic that would be on the roadway segment in 2010 based upon the existing or committed capacity of the roadway segment. ( "Committed" means the capacity improvement is included in an adopted Capital Improvement Program. The committed impr ements are I shown in Figure 6.) Detailed forecast volumes for each city are provided in Appenc C. The current (1988) traffic volumes on the base system are shown in Figure 5, where available. ill V. EVALUATION OF BASE ROADWAY SYSTEM K \ 4 Capacity Deficiencies Analysis of the 2010 traffic demand on the base system (Figure 3) finds that several roads will 4 have capacity deficiencies. Those roads with a level of service (L.O.S.) greater than the maximum acceptable L.O.S. D are shown in Figure 6. A description of L.O.S. for arterial and collector roadways is given in Table 4. Highway 5 traffic will experience L.O.S. F (long delays) from Victoria Drive (CSAH 11) to I- 494 -- including the current and committed widening to four lanes east of T.H. 41. The proposed common section of T.H. 5 and T.H. 101 in Chanhassen is forecast to have a demand of over 66,000 vehicles per day -- which is almost 4 50% greater than L.O.S. F for a four -lane highway. This could be a high accident section of roadway -- because of the merging and weaving of north -south traffic with east -west traffic in a short distance. The other roadways with capacity deficiencies are T.H. 41, T.H. 101, Lyman 4 Blvd. /CSAH 18 from T.H. 41 to T.H. 101, CSAH 17 north of T.H. 5 and T.H. 212 from T.H. 169 west to Norwood /Young America. ill The proposed T.H. 212 four -lane freeway is forecast for L.O.S. E or F east of T.H. 101. When the level of service on New T.H. 212 reaches L.O.S. E, the on -ramps will be metered - - which could place additional traffic on the base and local roadway systems. Although the 2010 demand forecast for CSAH 17 south of T.H. 5 is within the acceptable level di of service range, the 2010 capacity restraint forecast exceeds that range, and CSAH 17 between T.H. 5 and CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail) also becomes deficient in capacity. 4 Comparing the 1988 traffic in Figure 5 with the 2010 traffic in Figures 3 and 4 shows that traffic will increase substantially throughout the study area. The lack of sufficient capacity on (especially) the Class I minor arterials (T.H. 5, T.H. 41, Old T.H. 212) places additional traffic ,C on collector roadways (Figure 4 vs Figure 3). For those collectors with residential land use, this additional traffic is probably unacceptable (exceeds the "environmental capacity" of the area) — even though the traffic is well below the physical capacity of the road. Examples are Lake Lucy di Road (increase of 5700 vehicles per day (vpd)) and Pleasant View Road (increase of 1400 vpd) in Chanhassen, and Victoria Drive south of Engler Blvd. (increase of 2700 vpd) in Chaska. 4 10 1 Schelen osy ^- �, Mayeron & i Associates, Inc. 2021 East Hennepin Avenue January 3, 1991 Minneapolis, MN 55413 612- 331 -8660 FAX 331 -3806 Engineers Surveyors Mr. Paul Krause Planners City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Estimated Cost of Feasibility Report 1 for Street and Utilities between _ Troendale Property and Pleasant View /Peaceful Lane j OSM Proposal No. 0068 -91 Dear Mr. Krause: 1 Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal to you for providing Engineering Services to the City of Chanhassen. 1 The proposed services are for the investigation and preparation of a feasibility report for the proposed street and utilities between the Troendle Property and the Pleasant View /Peaceful Lane intersection. Our proposed services, as described below, are based on information as sent to us by the City including half sections, proposed concept and utility plans for the Troendle Subdivision, Planning Commission Minutes, City Council Minutes, and Staff Reports. Furthermore, it is our understanding that the City Council and staff have agreed that the Concept Plan referred to as Alternative No. 3 is the best overall concept plan for the area between Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View, and Nez Pierce and County Road 17. Our scope and task description are defined in detail on the attached sheet of Task 1 Definitions and Estimated Costs. The estimated cost is approximately $3,700 and includes the design concept, cost estimate, feasibility study, meetings with staff and /or private parties, public meeting presentations, and an assessment roll for the project. Since the referenced 1 work is a feasibility report for a project through a very sensitive area, there is a large amount of hours dedicated to meetings with staff, council and citizens of the neighborhood. The above cost is based on some assumptions regarding the alignment of the proposed road. P g g S� P P Any large deviation or alternatives to the proposed concept, as described in Alternative No. 3 would result in added cost of the project. In addition, any added meetings to what is represented in the attached detailed task description would again add to the cost of the feasibility report. The report does include time (4 hours) for an assessment roll which will be done based on existing city assessment policies. 1 i Mr. Paul Krause January 3, 1991 Page 2 1 The costs and tasks outlined above and on the attached sheet would be invoiced to the City on an hourly basis at the direction of city staff. There are many variables involved in this estimate and it should not be interpreted as a minimum or a maximum cost. We have tried to detail our proposed tasks in such a way to provide for flexibility needed in a project such as this. Additional cost estimates can be provided to the City for any additional work such as a traffic study, computer modeling, wetland alteration permits, easement and /or right -of- way legal descriptions, or investigations of alternative assessment calculations. We will make every effort to keep you informed of our costs as the project progresses. Thank you for this opportunity to submit this proposal and estimate of cost. If we may answer any questions, or clarify any part of this proposal, please do not hesitate to call me at 378 -6377. We look forward to your favorable response and notice to proceed with this project. Respectfully, ORR- SCHELEN - MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, P.E. g # :t Bud Osmundson, P.E. / John P. Badalich, P.E. Project Manager /Associate Vice President ch:13coc.pk c: Gary Warren /City Staff Charles Folch /City Staff File 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STREET AND UTILITIES 1 BETWEEN TROENDALE PROPERTY AND PLEASANT VIEW/PEACEFUL LANE FEASIBILITY REPORT TASK DEFINITION AND ESTIMATED COST 1 DESCRIPTION 'COSIL. _ * Task 101 Design Concept 4 $ 290.00 Task 103 Drawings 6 $ 300. e t 1 Task' 104 Cost Estimate 2 $ 40.00 Task 105 Write Feasibility Report 12 $ 840.00 Task 106 Research /Data Collection 1 $ 70.00 1 Task 107 Meetings with staff and /or private 4 $ 280.00 1 parties (2 Mtgs) - Task 109 Quality Assurance 1 $ 420.00 1 Task 110 Project Management 6 $ 420.00 Task 112 Public Meeting Presentations to 12 $ 840.00 I City Council, Planning Commission, (4 Mtgs) Informational Meetings, etc. 1 Task 114 Assessment Roll 4 $ 280.00 SUBTOTAL $ 3,530.00 + Printing, Supplies, CADD Time $ 170.00 1 TOTAL $ 3,700.00 *- NOTE: The Task Numbers are for OSM's internal use and should be ignored. 1 1 1 1 � CITYOF c.., CIIANIIASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 December 7, 1990 Dear Resident: This letter is to notify you that the Troendle Subdivision Request will not be on the December 10, 1990, City Council agenda. The item has been rescheduled for the City Council meeting on Monday, January 14, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 11 Sincerely, Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning PK:v 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jim & M. Stasson Conrad M. Eggan William P. Cunningham 6400 Peaceful Lane 6500 Peaceful Lane 865 Pleasant View Rd. II Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Henry & S. Graef Todd & S. Novaczyk - S. Vogel Edwards D. Vo / g 855 Pleasant View Road 6371 Pleasant View Cove 915 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN- 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Countryside Management Arthur & R. Owens Roger & A. Zahn 1 1935 Wayzata Blvd. W. 6535 Peaceful Lane 1010 Pleasant View Road Long Lake, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Frank, Jr. & M. Beddor Dennis & G. Mathisen Boeck - Kevitt Partnershll 649 Fifth Ave. S. 850 Pleasant View Road 7441 Jolly Lane Naples, FL 33940 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Crystal, MN 55428 II Brian & S. Cooper Robert, III & T. Drake Terry & L. Barck 1000 Lake Lucy Road 980 Lake Lucy Road 960 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II • II Bennet & S. Morgan Donald & M. Johnson J. Hansen /J. Clark 940 Lake Lucy Road 1040 Western Drive 1081 Lake Lucy Road II Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Rodd & J. Johnson Daniel & T. Schrempp Patrick Monahan & II 1061 Lake Lucy Road 7441 Jolly Lane B. French - Monahan Chanhassen, MN 55317 Crystal, MN 55428 7256 Pontiac Circle 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bradley & K. Johnson Todd & G. Lantto James & S. Duchene 1 1001 Lake Lucy Road 7441 Jolly Lane 961 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Crystal, MN 55428 Excelsior, MN 55331 1 Nicolette R. Randall Gerald & A. Boucher Leonard & M. Dusoski 1 6680 Nez Perce Drive 1020 Western Drive 1000 Western Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Gerald & S. Lund Gregory & B. Peppersack Helmer & J. Heckel 990 Western Drive 940 Western Drive 960 Western Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Box 593 II Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 II I Steven & G. Ray Chin Van & N. Nguyen Willard & N. Shoberg 920 Western Drive 900 Western Drive 980 Western Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Betty M. Johnson Todd J. Owens Ramona W. Beckman 1 6694 Nez Perce Drive 6661 Nez Perce Drive 6670 Hopi Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 E. & V. Keefer James P. Cosgrove Richard Wing 6681 Nez Perce Drive 6679 Hopi Road 3481 Shore Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City Council Meeting November 19, 1990 to get all the specific data. I'd like to .see what it is and what it consists of and probably even come out there and take a look at it as well. Paul Krauss: Should we then proceed with the variance application and notify the Council with that? Otherwise I think it's going to take a long time for things to bounce back and forth between you and the Board of Adjustments. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilwoman Dimler: Really with the new procedure it won't even come before 1 the Board of Adjustments would it unless one of us called it forward? Councilman Johnson: Or a neighbor protested or something. Mayor y Chmiel: Yes, unless there's a protest on it. Paul Krauss: But you know, I think what we would do here is the applicant would come before the Board of Adjustments with a variance request and then could request that it goes on. Not, if they approve it they would then come to you to request waiver of the fees and we'd give you the packet and you could make your determination. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I'd like to see it done that way. Because I don't want to establish another procedure that someone else could come in and say that so I'd like to be consistent with what we've done in the past. And even though these have gone in without our knowledge or have been set back as they are, I think we best be consistent with this and continue on as we're going. Thank you very much for coming in. Diana Maas: Thank you for your time. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address Council at this time? If not let's go onto our next item on the agenda, the Unfinished Business. This is to consider traffic control for west 78th Street through downtown. Presentation by our consultant. It looks like they all left. Don Ashworth: Gary, do you want to see this tabled until later in the agenda? Gary Warren: That was my understanding we were going to do that because this may take some time for discussion. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I think someone mentioned that. Gentlemen, if you don't mind we'll just proceed with this and we'll put you back on the later part of the agenda. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE 8.7 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS f� LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND VINELAND FOREST PLAT AND EAST OF PEACEFUL LANE, TROENDLE ADDITION. Mayor Chmiel: Paul, where'd he go? There is he. He's running down the stairs quickly. Paul Krauss: Sorry. I didn't expect you to jump ahead. 10 1 City Council Meeting - ,vember 19, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: We like to keep you on your toes. Y P Y Y Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. Councilwoman Dimler: Really, that fast? Paul Krauss: The applicants are requesting approval to subdivide an 8.7 acre site into 15 single family lots. The lots would be served by an extension of ' Nez Perce Drive. That street currently terminates into Vineland Forest subdivision. The City Council may recall that the Vineland Forest plat looked at a variety of alternatives for extension of streets so that the neighborhood could be developed with an overall access plan. Ultimately it was decided that Alternative #3 of the 5 or 6 alternatives that were reviewed was the favorite alternative and Vineland Forest was designed to meet this plan. What it envisioned is the extension of Nez Perce which terminates in a cul -de -sac right here now. Ultimately through the Troendle property and then ultimately would pass through the Owen's parcel connecting Peaceful Lane with the...Pleasantview. The goal of the process was to provide a thru street connection for a fairly large area. At that time I don't think anybody anticipated the Troendle ' property coming in for development so quickly but here it is and the plat that you see before you was designed consistent with that recommendation. What it would do is the current cul -de -sac is over here. It would be extended. I'm sorry. The current cul -de -sac is over here. It would be extended to the west into another temporary cul -de -sac. The Owen's parcel is over there and the connection to Pleasant View would occur at such time as the Owen's property is 11 developed. The plat meets or exceeds most single family district standards. Utilities are available. Drainage appears to be acceptable although some further work in terms of providing computations is necessary. Basically the storm water would be ponded. Most of it would be...on this lot. This plan has been changed somewhat from this transparency. Staff was concerned that Lot 4 was difficult to build upon because of the size of that pond but basically the home... The plan was revised so that this pond is now moved a little bit further to the south and that there's a larger yard area for that lot. The item was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 17th. Area residents raised some concerns regarding access issues concerning this plat. The City's also • received a from these residents since the meeting which is included in the Council packet. Their issues, well they have several issues but they basically boil down to traffic safety. They've raised concerns with the use of Lake Lucy Road to serve this division and as you can see from the overall area plan, that Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce are the only access right now...and that will be the case until Peaceful Lane opens up. They made a request that some sort of...feasible, that a connection be made to Pleasant View so that this subdivision has two means of access at this point in time. Staff supports that as an idea but we can't find a realistic way to accomplish it. When the overall concept plan was approved, the opportunity to put a road through to the north was really eliminated because of local topographic conditions. Some of the alternatives as you may recall at that time included punching up of the road straight through to Pleasant View which had some traffic concerns. Property line that's undeveloped... There's a large wetland over here and we really believe that we're going to be forced to rely on the long cul -de -sac until the Owen's property does develop. You may also recall that the Owen's property did receive subdivision approval several years ago. At that time it was to be platted. That plat has since lapsed. We have some reason to feel, having 11 1 1 City Council Meeting - , vember 19, 1990 talked to the owner and several other eo le that it P P may be platted again sometime in the future but there's no certainity of exactly when that's going to occur. There's two other issues that have been raised in this review. Staff is requesting that additional right -of -way be granted along Pleasant View. Something on the order of 7 feet. Pleasant View has an underwidth right -of -way and the road design is far from meeting current standards and has some safety problems. I think everybody accepts the fact that widening Pleasant View, if it's ever done, is going to be a very controversial project but I think it's only our professional responsibility to tell you that traffic levels on that street are relatively high now and are projected to grow whether or not we want them to. I think that would be particular true with the opening of the Crosstown highway at TH 101. We think it's probably going to happen at some point in time but at least some safety related improvements are going to have to be made so we're recommending that we take the additional 7 foot of right -of -way so that we have the opportunity to make those changes in the future. The last issue concerns a barn. The Troendle barn which is located on Lot 2. Frankly when we had laid out the road concept plan we had assumed that when the Troendle property was developed that the barn would be removed. It's an old structure. It's recently been improved I think in the last few months but we thought when the area's platted it would be removed. The current plans are to give the Troendle, or Mr. Troendle I believe a life estate so that he would keep the home and the barn. The problem comes about is that the road extended to the west as it needs to be, creates a variance situation for setback from the barn. When these things occur normal recommendation in the past has been, if it's a barn and it were a garage and not the house, has been to either move it or bring it down and build a new one. We are recommending that that be done here. We don't see the hardship particularly that would be required to maintain the variance for setback that results. The Planning Commission had a suggestion that some sort of a temporary variance be looked at or change one of our conditions to propose that. We've given that to you in the staff report. We're not recommending that that be done. We have a difficult time grasping the concept of a temporary variance. A variance is forever. We're also not quite sure how we'd administered that so we are recommending that a policy that we think is consistent with our past actions and that the barn be either relocated or removed. With that we are recommending approval of the plat without variances subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul. Is there anyone else wishing to address this? Please state your name and address please? Terry Barke: My name is Terry Barke and I live at 960 Lake Lucy Road. I'm one of the, a member of the neighborhood group that sent you copies of this setter. Did everyone receive the letter? Had a chance to read through it? If so, I'm not going to bore you with going over the letter. Didn't everyone receive this? Mayor Chmiel: No, I've not seen it. It's not in my packet. Paul Krauss: It should have been as back -up. I'm sorry if it wasn't but it was intended to be as back -up in your packet. Councilman Workman: It gets lost in City Hall if you send it there. Mayor Chmiel: I'd you to at least go through your letter. 12 I/ 1 City Council Meeting • ovember 19, 1990 II II Councilwoman Dimler: You mean in the administrative packet? Paul Krauss: No. No, in the back -up. Terry Barke: We talked to the people in the city here and they assured us that it would be included in your review packets for this week. II Councilman Johnson: It's supposed to be Attachment *5. Paul Krauss: Yeah, I looked it up. Here it is. It's called Attachment B5. I It's dated November 11th. It's about 6 pages from the back of your, the Minute packet. Councilwoman Dialler: I don't have it. II Councilman Johnson: It starts, the purpose of this letter is to express. II Terry Barke: That's correct. That's the one. Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, okay. 1 Terry Barke: Apparently not everyone's received it, or hasn't read it anyway. It sounds like received it but maybe not read it. Maybe I should, should I just read through it then? II Mayor Chmiel: Please. _ II Terry Barke: Okay. It's addressed to the City Council members. The purpose of this letter is to express the viewpoint of the residents of Lake Lucy Road residing east of Powers Blvd. to the plans for development of the Troendle II 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 I 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 astericks of the plan that are appealing to us. Shared traffic burden between Lake Lucy Road II and Pleasant View 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 the traffic safety on Lake Lucy II 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 the neighborhood. There are or soon will be 13 children 10 years old or younger on this street. It is safe to I 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 the existing problem. II 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 II Troendle Additions on a temporary basis until the proposed Nez Perce Road 13 II II City Council Meeting - veaber 19, 1990 eventually connects with Peaceful Lane. We feel that construction on the Troendle Addition must not proceed until Nez Perce is connected to Peaceful Lane. The residents of Lake Lucy Road are bearing the complete volume of construction traffic for Vineland Forest and feel 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 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 of 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. 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 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 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 interest of all those concerned. We will continue to strive for a solution to this issue until it can be resolve in an acceptable manner. And then it's signed by myself and my neighborhood. Basically what I'd like to just say is that again we think this plan will, the Alternative #3 is really a nice looking neighborhood and we're glad to have that close to us. With what we've been reading in Minutes from previous Planning Commission meetings, it sounds like there's concern about having a cul -de -sac that long for safety reasons. It sounds like trying to connect up to stubs at a future date is always tenuous. We're really concerned that somehow we're going to end up, the people along Lake Lucy Road are going to end up having the entire burden of that Troendle Addition traffic and Vineland Forest for an indefinite period of time. We think that when everything is done and completed it's fine. We feel like we've already had a lot of construction traffic and we're going to get more with Vineland Forest and somehow we think it's only fair that the people on Pleasant View share some of that. And I realize that Pleasant View is not a very good road for traffic and as a result of that, the road access to Pleasant View has changed so that it could actually exit very close to Powers Blvd. and that's great. I think that takes care of a lot of the problems on Pleasant View and we're just concerned about our situation and the safety of our children in the neighborhood. Thank you. Mayor Chmiei: Thank you. Is there anyone else? 1 Daryl Fortier: Good evening. I'm Daryl Fortier, the applicant. I'm also representing Frank Beddor Jr. and Mr. Troendle. I believe you've received some of the information that we've already prepared and I'll try to aake this as brief as I can. We've reviewed the staff report and for the most part we concur with it. There are a few points however we'd like to touch on to ask for your assistance. The first point is 8(b) and that is for the request for an easement to the west to allow for the discharge of water from this site. I'a uncertain with that as to what the proper disposition is. It appears to us that presently the rate of discharge is going to be equal to what is existing. We are not • discharging any additional water onto the Art Owens property. For us to secure an easement over the Art Owens' property, we would have to know, Mr. Owens would also have to know what are we attempting to achieve with this easement? Also, 14 i 1 1 City Council Meeting - ,ember 19, 1990 what would be the definition of the easement. I'm not quite sure how to resolve that issue. Perhaps staff can be of some assistance. Mayor Chmiel: Paul or Gary? II Paul Krauss: Possibly Gary can take that? Gary Warren: Well and I could ask Elliott to comment after my comments. The ' purpose of the easement would be to assure that the City or the development has the right to discharge from that subdivision. I guess we've not been provided with the storm sewer calculations, at least as far as I'm aware at this time so as far as the magnitude of the easement, those calculations are necessary for us to confirm that. The drainage that is currently existing drains through this area. Is that correct? Daryl Fortier: That is correct. Gary Warren: So that's a question that I'd have for Elliott as far as if you're ' not altering the drainage course per se, or intensifying it, can the adjoining property owner alter that? Doesn't he also have to accommodate that in any other development plans that he would have? ' Elliott Knetsch: Yes. We can require this kind of a dedication as part of the subdivision process to deal with water that's on the land that's being subdivided and that's what I understand this request to be. Councilman Johnson: You want dedication of the land next door too? Not dedication but an easement of the next door's land is what he's talking about. ' The next door neighbors. Elliott Knetsch: Well the water's on his property and it's going to be coming off the property and they have to take steps to regulate the discharge from their property. Mayor Chmiel: What if you have existing flows? Topography's going to remain the same. No difference. Isn't that what you said before Gary? Gary Warren: What I was addressing is the fact that if the drainage is currently draining in this same area, then the property owner, Mr. Owens in this case still needs to accommodate it. The City should require and is requiring that the rate be controlled to the pre - development runoff rate which is the purpose for the ponding but the actual drainage course, if it exists today, Mr. Owens can alter it but he can't block it. He still has to accommodate it and so the necessity for the easement, I mean they're nice to have but I think we can take a hard look at it and possibly do without it. Daryl Fortier: As an individual applicant, how do we go about getting an easement from an adjacent property owner? What control or rights do we have for that? • Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to address that? r 1S 1 City Council Meeting - vember 19, 1990 Gary Warren: Well we have had several instances. One obviously is to pursue the property owner and negotiate and purchase an easement. That's one way. The other is if the property owner is not willing, the City could choose to intervene on behalf of the developer for the public benefit and condemn that particular area to acquire the easement again at the developer's cost. Daryl Fortier: With the City's cooperation, we have no objection to proceeding II with that assuming the City's going to support the efforts in securing whatever easement the City believes is necessary. We are still uncertain as to where it will go but we're sure with staff's help we can find out. The next point I have is. Gary Warren: I think we have, if I could interrupt. Once we receive the storm ' sewer calculations I think we can better define what the size of that drainage is and what's necessary. Daryl Fortier: Calculations have been submitted. We will resubmit and work 1 with staff on that point. Apparently they're lost in the shuffle somewhere. The next item I have is on the same point 8(c). Paul has touched on the widening of Pleasant View and the additional 7 feet. We have directed our surveyor to include the additional 7 feet in this plat. Mr. Beddor wants to make certain that he's on record of saying he is in no way supporting the widening of Pleasant View Road. He will be one of the many people who will be opposed to it. However, we are showing the 7 feet on the reviewed preliminary plat. The next point I'd like to address is the variance for the garage. The Troendle garage. It's been pointed out in the staff report that to support a variance we must demonstrate a hardship that's existing and that the hardship must not be of our own making. We'd like to show a brief blow -up of that area which I think will demonstrate the hardship. What.you see here is a blow -up of the intersection from Nez Perce as it enters from Vineland Forest. It will come onto the Troendle property. The alignment of the road is such, as shown here in yellow. It comes at an 83 1/2 degrees to the property line and that causes the setback to be 21.7 feet. If we were to continue the road in a straight course. We would prefer not to of course as a developer. Mr. Troendle is receiving a. lifetime estate. Part of the reason Mr. Beddor is developing this property is to accommodate Mr. Troendle. We would like to see the road sit out at least 30 feet so that no variance is required. We cannot do that because of the alignment of this road. This road already exists. Mr. Troendle and Mr. Beddor had no part in causing this road to be specifically here. We certainly did have a part in saying that we liked the overall concept and we believe it's a rationale guideline for planning. We're fully supporting that. However, as to whether it's coming at 87 degrees or 83, we did not participate in that. For us to allow Mr. Troendle to keep the garage we would have to put the road in this area where it's shown in red. To do that and to match the right - - way that is on Vineland Forest would cause us to put a small curve in the road here such that it would have a reverse curve. We've talked to traffic engineers as well as City staff and the engineering department as well as our firm really would not support that. We find it would be ignored by most drivers. In order for them to stay in the right -of -way in their proper lane, if we were to put in such a reverse curve, it would drop their speed to 23 mph. We think most people would simple cross over the center line and it would not be good planning to have a small kink in the road. So as you can see, we really cannot comply on our own property with what we believe to be reasonable engineering practices and 16 • 1 City Council Meeting ovember 19, 1990 a setback requirement. We are being forced into non-compliance merely because 9 P Y aus e the alignment with this road which we did not determine. It was determined... Not by Mr. Beddor or Mr. Troendle. We would like to therefore seek a variance. In lieu of a variance we would accept a lifetime estate for Mr. Troendle that if a variance is not granted, that the garage need not be removed until he either applied for a building permit or until the property was sold to somebody other than Mr. Troendle. The way you would have of monitoring this is very simple. If anyone comes in for a building permit, it is either Mr. Troendle or i is not granted. Even if it is Mr. Troendle, you would then simply check to see if the garage is there or not. If the garage is there, then there's no building permit. Mr. Troendle is presently 80 years old. He was born on this location. His folks were the people who bought this property. He has literally lived here every day of his life for 80 years. He is certainly one of the senior citizens and elders of Chanhassen. We'd like to see the City cooperate and to give Mr. Troendle this much respect so that he can keep is present barn which he does use. I guess that's all I have to say about this variance. Councilman Johnson: Could I ask you a question? Daryl Fortier: Certainly. Councilman Johnson: Have you talked to the owners of Vineland Forest about 1 making the modifications to their street back in those two lots there through that cul -de -sac? Daryl Fortier: Yes. We have gone to the extent of even offering to purchase one of the lots if he would agree. We've recently been advised that the additional 4 feet we need here and the 4 feet we need here to correct this alignment, he would not be in favor of replatting his property to provide us- with that additional right -of -way. If the City would like, they certainly have some powers to secure that land for us to allow us to have a straight road but we have made that attempt and we've been refused. Councilman Johnson: But you only need the land on the right side? Daryl Fortier: Actually we need land, that's correct. The extra right -of -way here is no problem. We would have to secure a strip that's 68 1/2 feet long and 4 feet wide here. So it must go out 125 square feet. Councilman Johnson: If you purchased that lot, combined it with your property, it would be a replat. Mayor Chmiel: If replatted...existing? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, but you weren't replatting all Vineland Estates. You'd be combining that lot as part of your property in your plat. Daryl Fortier: That's correct. Mr. Beddor's interest was not in this but he wanted to specifically avoid that. That's why he made an offer for one lot. He 1 made an offer for this front lot which would be potentially off Pleasant View. Councilman Johnson: But that doesn't have anything to do with moving the road. 17 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 19, 1990 Daryl Fortier: This one doesn't unfortunately. Part of it was an enticement to the owner of Vineland Forest. To get him to agree to this plat. He indicated that he really was not interested in selling the lots to Mr. Beddor and he was not interested in replatting his property so we at this time have to report we looked at it but we haven't been successful. The final point I have really addresses Lot 4 and I think Paul's probably done a fine job of presenting some of the changes that we've made on it. I hope this is no longer an issue. Lot 4, Block 1 is in this location and as you can see, we've reconfigured the pond. Our engineer has reported to us that the ponding calculations are the very same or greater than before their capacity to hold the pond. The building area is right up in this area. The building pad and it's designed for a rear walkout. A full basement walkout. It walks out at the elevation of 1,001. This corner is set 3 feet lower. This is 1 foot lower and that leaves you with a relatively flat yard that ends up it's over 15,000 square feet with only a 3% slope to it. That's a very sizeable and very flat yard. You could easily play football on it Some of the real strong arm. It's the size of a residential lot and that excludes the building area and it also excludes the ponding area. 15,000 square feet is flat. We think that definitely demonstrates that it's a very buildable lot. That concludes the presentation I guess with one comment about the citizens presentation from Mr. Barke. I would certainly agree that traffic safety should always be a study and we have certainly no objection to trying to work out some details where Nez Perce can be constructed at this time through to Pleasant View. We know several citizens have concerns there. We have prepared some graphics to indicate what we would do to that corner of the intersection. We've also worked with staff with it. How to go about achieving that I guess is where the quandry really comes in. For the citizens' concerns, they may be appropriate to let them know that Mr. Beddor does not intend to proceed with this plat extremely rapidly. He does need to close for Mr. Troendle's lifetime estate of course so that is urgent. However, actual development, he will probably be in here a year from now requesting a one year extension. We had originally requested that you consider granting us a 1 year extension already and we would be willing to not have any development occur for 2 years. We were told we would have to come back for a request for an extension which we do intend or we do plan on doing. So the earliest we would see any development would probably be a year and a half. That as we would file our plat within a year and we would then proceed with construction the following spring so we don't see this as being eminently developed but I think the issue remains the same. If the City is, perhaps the City could consider with their staff whether or not some eminent domain could be exercised or they could talk to Mr. Owens and see what kind of cooperation can be done. It sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? , Julius Smith: I would just like to clarify one issue. I'm Julius Smith and I represent Frank Beddor occasionally and the last point that Oaryi made on crossing Art Owens' property with a road to Peaceful Lane. The only way that Art Owens currently, you can't talk to Art Owens about this because he can't voluntarily give that easement or sell that property because he's sitting on a homestead and he's currently in bankruptcy and the only way that you can, the only way that he could give that property up and not lose his status in the bankruptcy court is either under condemnation or threat of condemnation and that doesn't change his status. So as long as he's there and for several years 18 1 City Council Meeting • .vember 19, 1990 II . thereafter you can't, I mean you can talk to Art. Certainly he thinks the road will be there someday but there's no way that he can voluntarily sell that to anybody at this moment or he's really in big trouble on his whole piece of property. He loses his exemption is what I'm saying. I Mayor Chmiel: But you're saying friendly condemnation? Julius Smith: Well yeah. Under the threat of at least. II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Terry Barke: I'd just like to state that it sounds like we're very close on II something that makes everybody pretty happy. I think these people seem like pretty reasonable people to me. it sounds like they're in no real hurry right now to build there and I. wondering if there isn't something that we can do to I not rush the process through right now but make sure that when it does happen, it happens in a manner that everybody feels good about and it sounds like we're pretty close to that. 1 Councilman Workman: Anybody else? Jim Stasson: My name is Jim Stasson. I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane which is on I the corner of Pleasant View Road and Peaceful Lane which is when that road does go through, I'm going to end up with all the traffic. When the Vineland Forest was initially platted, I was never notified of any of this going on and by the time we heard anything about it, Alternate 13 was already chosen by everybody II and there wasn't much we could do. We got notified on the Troendle property and my main concern is, Peaceful Lane has a very large radius corner. Used to be CR 17. Used to come down that way and turn around there. People take that corner II ` quite rapidly. My driveway is right probably at the end of the corner. Where my driveway is, the road's about 28 feet wide. The corner's about 150 feet wide. My main concern is when this road comes through, as that corner gets I straighten out to become a regular corner. We get a substantial amount of traffic for only 3 houses on that road now. A lot of people come down Pleasant View and they seem to think Pleasant View goes around that corner and they go down to the dead end and then they turn around and go back out and continue on II down Pleasant View Road. I guess you've got, he had mentioned that there was something to straighten that corner out. I guess I'd like to see what he's got. I Daryl Fortier: Step around front here: With Pleasant View Road being down here on the lower portion, Peaceful Lane comes up this way. What we are showing is now a road this is 28 feet wide or 30 feet to city standard which would be connected at a right angle. This portion of the corner the way it's presently asphalted, would be converted to grass or landscaping. Similarly this corner which is extra wide would also be converted to grass or landscaping. That would give you a setback of certain distances of 110 feet to your driveway. That is I less of course from pavement to pavement depending on the width of the road but it would be I suspect at least 80 feet which would be fairly typical for a turn onto a residential lot. Does that sound reasonable? • 1 . Jim Stasson: As long as when this road goes through this gets done. And it'd be nice if this was done before a lot of development occurred so we didn't get II the construction traffic coming. 19 II City Council Meeting - November 19, 1990 Paul Krauss: I'm not quite sure how to put this but Daryl's not in a position to design city streets on somebody else's property. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'm wondering who's going to pay for this. Il Paul Krauss: What he's illustrated though is generally consistent with some guidelines we established that there is a deviation though in that this shows the new Nez Perce coming straight into Peaceful Lane. That is not the way this would happen. You have through movement that comes around through here. We'd want to bring this around on angle and probably come to the Owens' property the best we can and completely rebuild that intersection. Now we had every anticipation of doing that design when the Owens' property is developed or I supposed if the Council wants to condemn right -of -way so we can actually build the street. We haven't gone to the extent of laying it out because it's premature at this time but that's generally consistent with what we've discussed. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Paul, maybe this is a good time to ask a question I was going to ask later. Peaceful Lane, it seems like an awful narrow road to se. Is it substandard? Paul Krauss: I'm sure it is. It's basically, it almost appears as though it's an oversized driveway. ' Councilwoman Dimler: A driveway. Do we plan on widening it at this point then? Bringing it up to city standards? Paul Krauss: The anticipation always was that when the connection was made, that would be completely rebuilt. Councilwoman Dimler: So you'll bring it up to City standards then? Paul Krauss: And every attempt will be made to shift I think the pavement width if possible to the east so that it clears that home, the existing home over there better than it does right now. Gary Warren: I think the concepts that we have from when Art Owens originally ' brought this in here 3 or 4 years ago I think serves as a good guide for that and that certainly was addressing that area as well. Councilwoman Dimler: Now the question is who's going to pay. Mayor Chmiel: Where it all goes. Those are a lot of the questions that are still unanswered unless I get a commitment. I think, any other discussion? Councilman Johnson: Specifically or in general? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Well, I think we're looking at.a couple three things here really. Looking at the eminent domain with friendly condemnation. This I'm not sure as to how that's all going to work or shake out. It's something that we're going to have to look at. I don't know if we have all the answers right now to even move on this at this present time. You're talking roughly that you don't plan on doing anything this year. I don't see the real need to really rush at this 20 1 City Council Meeting - .,,vember 19, 1990 until we get some conclusions pulled together so we know exactly where we're going and what the basic needs are. Even though you were together, you were ' talking about a year extension anyway. What you would be looking for would be that 8.3 feet variance as well for the garage. That's something that we have to look at as well. Any other? ' Councilman Johnson: Well, if we're opening it up for. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, opening it up for comments? 1 Councilman Johnson: First comment, which hasn't been explored. I get looking at this picture that they gave us and it shows an area in Lot 4 and Lot 1. Do ' you have this picture yourself? Okay. On Lot 1 and Lot 4 you can see a natural low area there. While an aertial photograph is not a good thing for judging wetlands from, it appears that most of that area concerned say be a wetland. I haven't gone out and walked it and looked at it particularly but it shows that Class B type wetland vegetation. If such, why isn't there a wetland alteration permit involved in this? And is that neighboring wetland that we know is a wetland and have been arguing with Mr. Owens for a couple years on, is that within 200 feet and requires a wetland alteration permit also? Paul Krauss: Councilman Johnson, as to the first question. This has been a real tough one for us. The thing has been altered extensively. If you read the background, Mr. Owens' claims that it never used to be a wetland. That the City at one time apparently, according to him, broke a tile line that used to drain the area causing the wetland vegetation to exist. You know historically you can take that back further. We contacted the soil conservation service. They said that the area on Mr. Owens' property has dehydric soils and if it had a tile line, it's because it was a wetland in the first place and somebody drained it. I So I mean we've come to the conclusion that that pond on Mr. Owens' property is identifiable as a wetland protected by the City. The part of that that extends onto the Troendle property though has been heavily altered and some of that by the illegal filling or unpermitted filling that occurred on Mr. Owens' property backing water up in there and changing things. Jo Ann was out there with Fish and Wildlife Service and they concluded that the portion of it that's on the Troendle property was not the wetland. That the wetland was further to the west. I know it was scaled at onetime. I would assume it was over the 200 feet. I think we can, I don't know if we can pick it off what we have right now. ' Councilman Johnson: Okay, so Fish and Wildlife has looked at the soils there and they're not wetland soils and that's not wetland vegetation in that low ' area? Paul Krauss: It's not a true wetland on Lot 4, yeah. Councilman Johnson: Okay. As long as the experts have looked at it that's fine. You know taking the access issue one step further, Nez Perce is a road that has, and a lot of the roads in Carver Beach, has long been overlooked and we really need to take a close look at Nez Perce as it approaches not only this property but the Lake Lucy street that is in there because a lot of the people want to go south go down to Kerber. Run Kerber through town and head out on TM S and Nez Perce being one of the city's most understandard streets, we need to 21 i City Council Meeting - i..,vember 19, 1990 look at that. That is kind of an aside. It doesn't really, shouldn't have a lot of effect but in any improvements I would think to Nez Perce, we also have to look at the but for issue. If it wasn't but for the developments at the end of Nez Perce, Nez Perce would still be an all right street for those few people that lived on it but for the increased traffic coming from this area, we may want to do an aerial assessment and say it's your houses that are causing more of the problem on Nez Perce so therefore you get to share the cost of, or your lots in this case. It's just farm property. The cost of improvements to Nez Perce. Who benefits from the widening of Nez Perce but that's almost another issue outside of this one but needs to be, that's a street that's been overlooked too long now. As we build more we've got to get the connecting infrastructure going. The same thing with Peaceful Lane when Owens' property develops but I really think we've got to wait for Owens' property to develop to do Peaceful Lane unless we can find some kind of monies to straighten up that intersection somehow. It would be good to get that, at least the western corner of that squared off on Peaceful Lane. I don't know how such it would cost but just to start solving some of the Peaceful Lane problems now rather than waiting for Art Owens to get out of his bankruptcy and everything else which may take years. It might be next week. Who knows? We thought this was going to be years off before anything happened and Troendle's in here already. Many times people will say we're not going to, you know they'll tell you what they're going to do. You know the guy who lived behind me, he said they're going to carry se out of my house feet first. Don't worry about this ever being subdivided. He now lives over near St. Hubert's and I've got 4 houses behind me. That was only 3 years after he said he was never going to move out. 5o when somebody tells me that it's going to be years before this is actually built, economics change next week and they look good. I don't think all options have been totally explored on the variance. I do not like granting variances. I do see the logic of the argument that the placement of the road did not take into consideration the continuation of the road which was a mistake. You know we really stuck out blinders on and hit that property line and we stopped looking. We approved a road that really creates the variance situation. But I do believe that Mr. Beddor and everybody was completely involved. Everybody, the Troendle people and Beddor were involved in Vineland Forest. They were in here talking a lot and I think that the purchase of that next lot over could solve the problem. I know Mr. Beddor doesn't want that lot over but it does solve his problems as far as being able to then change that road slightly. ' Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion from Council? Jules Smith: There are a couple things. One, I might mention on that barn ' thing and we're trying just to accommodate Mr. Troendle. We wouid'be certainly, we would put something on a record. Contract with the City on record that that 11 property cannot get a building permit or it can't do anything unless that barn is removed after Mr. Troendle is. Let me rephrase that. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, we know what you mean. 1 Jules Smith: The only other thing I would mention is that like all real estate today, we have a contract with Mr. Troendle to buy his property and give him a ' life estate, he doesn't want to leave his property, for as long as he is on that property. His life estate is a determinable life estate. If he has to leave with no prospect of coming back, and we have to go to court to show that. 22 1 City Council Meeting - vember 19, 1990 That's the only way. You'd have to get a court order on that. Then his life estate terminates. So we have made a deal with Mr. Troendle that we will buy his property and we will give him that life estate. Obviously in this day and age you don't buy property unless you know you can do something with it which is j why we have the condition in our contract that this is subject to municipal approval in order to plat the property. So from that point of view, from Mr. Troendle's point of view I would, I don't want you to rush into any action but I would not. I would prefer from his point of view not to put it off for a year. I would like to see it keep rolling you know but we would certainly be willing to do some legal document which we could do very easily to guarantee that ' nothing could happen on that property as long as Mr. Troendle was there, otherwise we'd have to tear the barn down. It would never be used by us. ' Mayor Chmiel: What I'm thinking right now Jules is I'm considering, and I don't know the balance of the Council's position but I'm looking to possibly table this to December 10th. Seeing what staff can pull together in reference to both 11 roads and also the friendly condemnation portion because we don't have those answers either. Jules Smith: I don't have a real problem with that but I got the impression we ' were talking about next year. Mayor Chmiel: Oh no. No, no. I was just bringing up the fact that talking ' construction, it wasn't going to start for possibly 18 months or whatever. Jules Smith: I was just concerned we'll keep working on it. ' Mayor Chmiel: Right. I'm not proposing to drop it right now and say come back when you're ready. No. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: I will second the Mayor's motion to table this until December 10th. Councilman Workman: Can I comment quick because I think Jay had a valid point. When Vineland first came in, and this picture's kind of the other way. When we talked about that and we didn't expect that. That hasn't been going real fast. We didn't expect this to come but my biggest concerns were Nez Perce and so these people are suggesting that, Mr. Barke is saying that they're coming out there. I believe that but I always believed that Nez Perce would be the way to go if people were coming downtown and that is a very, very dangerous situation. So as a part of this can we get that looked at also? This isn't a huge amount ' of houses to be coming out onto anything I guess unless Vineland really went and developed quickly too but I think Nez Perce is also going to get it. Not to ' belittle. I don't know, the people that live right in that little tight area there, you're going to either hit a tree or something. I don't know. I get nervous everytime I go through there which isn't that often. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That's another comment to note Paul as well. Councilman Johnson: As long as we're doing comments during a tabling action but as far as the practicality of a notice that or a contract that says that we will not do anything here. How that gets filed with the city. This would be the only one. This would be a singular document that has to be somehow filed in our 23 1 City Council Meeting - _.caber 19, 1990 1 building department against this piece of land that could be found 5 -10 years from now that tells us this has to happen. How exactly-the building inspector finds that or anything, I just don't think we have a system within the City designed to do that. Mayor Chmiel: I think you probably have to do that through the County. The County Recorder as part of that parcel. Jules Smith: Either that or there's a development contract right now. Councilman Johnson: But does the building inspector see every? Mayor Chmiel: He doesn't but you'd also have to have clarification within the City as well. Jules Smith: But the point is, anybody who would buy that lot would be on notice that they can't do anything. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Councilman Johnson: It doesn't mean they won't. We see that all the time. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to table Subdivision 890 -15 for the Troendle Addition until the December 10, 1990 City Council seeting for further review by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR WEST 78TH STREET THROUGH DOWNTOWN. PRESENTATION By_ r CONSULTANT. Councilman Workman: We haven't received the full report yet on this? ' • Gary Warren: No. Part_of the process that we are, Council is aware I think that we've been going through, we've made you aware at least at the previous meeting, that Stragar has been hired through the HRA to basically take a look at the downtown street segment from Great Plains to and including Powers Blvd. to give us some thoughts as we entertain new developments such as Market Square and we also obviously hard pressed to take a look at the West 78th Street alignment as it related to the now defunct proposal for Target. So it's kind of grown as an off shoot of that initial thrust plus the Manus property proposals that we looked at with Brad Johnson. we're in the process of completing a report with 1 Stragar for us which we hope to bring back here, actually via the HRA since they actually contracted for this. We wanted to bring some of their preliminary thoughts to the forefront here for Council review and any further input you can `• give us before we do finalize the report. SO with us tonight is Dennis Eyler from Stragar who I guess will start off the presentation. Dennis Eyler: Thanks Gary. It's a pleasure to be here Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. It's really our first effort in Chanhassen that_I'm aware of. I've been with the firm of Stragar- Roscoe - Fausch for about 7 years. 'Before that I was with the Minnesota Department of Transportation in the Golden Valley office and my experience in Chanhassen is putting up a couple of traffic signals in at TH 5 at CR 17, TH 101 and at CR 16 so I am somewhat familiar with... 24 1 I 1 1 1T Y 0 F PC DATE: 10/17/90 3 1111 , ` � � CHAI11AEI' CC DATE: 11/5/90 0 7,- CASE #: 90 -15 SUB 1 By:— A1- Jaff /v 1 STAFF REPORT 1 . 1 PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 8.7 Acres into 15 Single Family Lots, Troendle Addition 1 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 i ...I Q APPLICANT: Fortier and Associates Frank Beddor, Jr. (owner) I 408 Turnpike Road 7951 Powers Boulevard Q Golden Valley, MN 55422 Chanhassen, NN 55317 1 1 A. 1 PRESENT ZONING: • RSF, Residential Single Family I ACREAGE: 8.7 acres (gross) 7.5 acres (net) DENSITY: 2 units per acre 1 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; single family 4 S - RSF; single family I E - RSF; single family W - RSF; single family WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. Iw F"' PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The northeastern portion of the site is I 16 heavily vegetated with mature trees. The site generally slopes to the northwest to form a low area. 1 1 1 . saw .OSE7, 1 . E suabi,i(slot.) o F i O o 0 o O o O 0 e 0 0 0 O _ O O T O m r~ co cD I 1,) 1 CH - � T A I ■ PI �! COAT er /, r_ _ ! KE _ .1- • - e I D ■ . AP L IN E � � - - -' TR CI9CLE �•, Ilk IF - ' .1 ' r ±,_,- ,_ „_. i + - - t_ 4 iip7,11 ._,,,/ **, : *I . , c n .--...‹:i , . . 46 _, , u r ; ■ J� Ji • ,, ■• - Npi 1 .0. 101:, i 1 it , ipain c'ffa Ai le .. ---- : \ ' pL * 1 ialit 1 P) . 111111111111VEB-n% o il ,/ a IRIMIIIMIIIIII IVILSoli I MI t � . , A 1 �/� r �ra ANMII= \ Ei, / ■ d '.b. ' - IP - in 13 SW' - . 4 :1 44 V : Mt. Sc. "_ . 'w4V ) VI - / • ,aullIll re,..- - ,*,,#0, mam,i_fvw ---- , groom fan ..: 6.444 rallav■ .;:;. Igip \`‘ IN :_.. Q1., `� -• , - '3►11' a � p L O T U S al li 'D lax A.E # ant Ea% I Il It � ■ 4ftu wo g :__ 1 "�� Vol gt IS if j Vivi It fa irii•li ,: LA us o , ,,,,,,, s it 4 ■�il� ■■ � 1� � I t�n:1 • i c7( ,�, �� F . Il��i1t 4►� �, /� f l • '' • X00 4 A1 wow W . 1„"��� .SHADDkMEI,� ' R 4 - . I T . - A . ' •\ F[■il►. " 1 V , ��i' `� R ANN R S y �. a .,� �� \ � o z r Mho ■col ) ri i 0 _ _,4 _ ilk • .av E 31.,... Irtrir.ljpAi,--, . - .opo tt7; awl sok iii„r_ MI : 1 Az nre,./.0 0 sr - i Troendle Addition October 17, 1990 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY 11 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 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 11 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. 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. 1 In summary, staff believes that the proposed Troendle Addition represents a high quality plat that is consistent with the 1 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 11 1989. 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. 11 Troendle Addition October 17, 1990 Page 3 • Access Access into this area of the City was explored in detail with the 1 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 View 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 1 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 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, 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 i 1 j Troendle Addition I/ October 17, 1990 Page 4 ' the chain of title to give information on the access provisions to future owners. Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 are corner lots fronting on the intersection of Nez Perce and Troendle Way. Since I 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 1 serving the existing home on Lot 2, Block 1 should be removed. This lot will gain direct access from Nez 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 1 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. 1 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 U Engineering Department for further review. The small portion of the site that will continue to drain to the southeast is accommodated by drainage provisions in the adjacent Vineland Forest plat. 1 1 Troendle Addition October 17, 1990 Page 5 An erosion control plan has been submitted and is generally acceptable with some modifications as proposed by the Assistant City Engineer. Project approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required. Park Dedication Staff has concluded that cash should be obtained in lieu of land on this plat. An appropriate condition is provided. Easements The following easements and rights -of -way should be provided: 1. Right -of -way for all street improvements. 1 2. An additional 7 feet of right -of -way along Pleasant View Road. 3. Standard drainage and utility easements. 1 4. Drainage easements over the retention pond and provision of adequate access to the retention pond. 1 5. Utility easements over all storm sewer and utility lines running outside of right -of -way.' 1 6. Cross access easements for the common driveway on Lots 1 and 4, Block 1. 1 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance' 15,000 100' 125' 30'front /rear 1 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 35,420 140' 259' N/A 1 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 Troendle Addition I October 17, 1990 Page 6 I Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback BLOCK 2 II Lot 1 15,750 Double Frontage 140' 120' & 140' Lot 2 15,000 107' 140' 1 Lot 3 15,000 107' 140' I Lot 4 15,000 110'• 130' 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 1 Lot 7 15,625 55' cul -de -sac 148' 90' front setback I Lot 8 15,250 125' 129' Lot 9 15,000 107' 140' II Lot 10 15,000 107' 140' I Lot 11 16,940 Double Frontage 150' 95' Troendle Way 160' Nez Perce Dr. I/ Variance Required - Lot 2, Block 1 contains an existing residence and a garage /barn. The proposed front property line will be located 21.7 feet from the garage /barn. City ordinance requires 30 I feet front yard setbacks. To support a variance, the applicant must show that there is a hardship that is not self- created. In • this case, the applicant is creating the hardship and a non - II conforming use which is prohibited by city ordinances. For this reason, staff does not support granting the variance but rather have the garage removed or relocated. 1 SUMMARY Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is reasonable and II consistent with city plans and ordinances. Our issues with it are relatively minor and can be accommodated through' appropriate conditions. There is, however, an issue relative to the existing I home and garage on Lot 2, Block 1. It is our understanding that this home and garage will continue to be utilized for a period of time. This lot currently gets access via a private driveway 11 1 11 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 feet 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. 1 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 a 27 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 pence have a rounded curve to the north and that the intersection between Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View would be rebuilt at such time in the future as the connection is finally made. It was indicated further that although no final plans have been developed and that 1 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 subdivision, staff described why it is not possible to install 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 11 r Troendle Addition October 17, 1990 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 means 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 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 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 r r 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 Planning staff recommends the City Council adopt the following 1 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. 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. 3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 1 r Troendle Addition 11 October 17, 1990 Page 10 ' 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 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, 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. ' - 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 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 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. 1 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 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.- 1 MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart, Jim Wildermuth and Annette Ellson II STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner 1; Charles Folch, Asst. City Engineer and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE 8.7 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF LCOATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND VINELAND 1 FOREST -PLAT AND EAST OF PEACEFUL LANE, TROENDLE ADDITION. Public Present: 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 II 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. 1 Conrad: We'll open it up for public comments and we'll give the applicant who is Fortier and Associates and Frank Beddor Jr., if Daryl you have 11 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. . represent Mr. Beddor. We are ' 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 I 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 I the additional right -of -way off of Pleasant View Road. We understand that staff is of the opinion that eventually Pleasant 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 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 I policy or program in place that would suggest that the widening of the road ATTACH. ##4 1 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 striker 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 decide that they will, widened Pleasant View Road let's say 3 years from now or 5 years from now, this piece of property should be treated no differently than any other I 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 III 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 I 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' - 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 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 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 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 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 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 1 II Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 3 II 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 I 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 idea of park dedication fees in lieu of parkland. I've also 1 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 I 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 I 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 il answer? Conrad: Okay. We'll probably have some later on. We'll open it up for other comments. Are there any? II 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 I 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 II 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 fiouses connecting to Peaceful Lane, an infinite amount of houses. That Peaceful Lane also has a I 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 I 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 I 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 II 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 back to us on you know, whether they could square that corner off and we've I never heard anything from him, or from anybody. So thank you. Conrad: Good comments. Thank you. Other comments. II 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 I 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 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 4 is corrected to what I see, is that they're going to put it through but I 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 II 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 I through Lake Lucy Road. I don't believe Lake Lucy Road east of CR 17 was 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 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 presumptious. 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 itil would be available for acquisition. I'm sure people on Pleasant View have some concerns. So do we. The burden should be shared fairly. ' 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. 11 There's no guarantee that that property will be subdivided but it's, land in Chanhassen is extremely valuable. Resident: Someday. 20 years from now when my kids have maybe been run 11 over by one of the fast cars on there. We get a police car through there once every 3 months. Conrad: Other comments. ' 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 5 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 presumptions 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 is on public record of favoring it. ' Resident: When? I Daryl Fortier: We talked to Mr. Art Owens within. Resident: When would this happen? 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 hest 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? II 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 looked at for that including cul -de -sacs from Pleasant View. Cul - de - sacs from Nez Perce. Throughout it all staff advocated 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 II 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 approving that without a recommendation on the street as I recall because II it was such a complex issue. It went up before the City Council and the Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 6 • Planning Department with the Engineering Department looked at a variety of alternatives to provide access into that area. There is no particular 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 I 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 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 II apparently did intend to develop at some point in time. Another alternative here was a loop back basically from Pleasant View to Peaceful II 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 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 II one that the City Council went with was Alternative 3 and this is what the 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 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, II 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 II 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 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 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 II 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 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 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 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 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 II anticipating that in the next 10 to 15 years, traffic on that street will 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 lanes, you certainly will be seeking I to widened it so that there's sufficient pavement width for people to pass 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 overview of the process. , 1 I Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 7 I Conrad: Other comments? 1 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 the access by everybody. Pleasant View Road which I'm a part of, Peaceful Lane which I'm also a part of and Nez Perce and Lake Lucy Road. Here I see this I is the perfect way to go because the burden is shared by everybody in this proposal. I 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. I 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 I 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. I Mary Stasson: They're still going to go down Pleasant View Road... I Brad Johnson: ...that stretch can be what, a quarter mile if not a half mile at the most? I Conrad: But the other end of Pleasant View as it dumps out on TH 101 had the same. The residents had the same concern. Same exact concern and I heard both those. I Resident: The traffic I don't believe would be going that direction. They're going to go out to CR 17. I Krauss: No, that's not true really. You've got to realize that 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. I 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 I 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 I quite upset when we found out it wasn't and we realized it was a little late then. We don't really... I Jim Stasson: Also at that time the way this is shown on Art's property, that was already done. We knew about that and okay we're going to have 15 more houses on there. We can live with that but now when you connect it all up and you get rid of the other access to Pleasant View Road, we've got II 50 -100 houses coming by now. Or after that. Mary Stasson: Our driveway, it comes out right here. II II 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 I said before. They'll come around it at 30 -40 mph. Mary Stasson -: This is 130 feet across here. 1 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 qff the ' driveway. Mary Stasson: We have a 30 foot driveway that empties out on that road. I Conrad: As Mr. Krauss said, if development goes through that road has to 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. ' 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 1trying to get ahol.d of Jim Chaffee to have him come out there and look at the situation for us. Even the way it sits right now. Jim Stasson: You mentioned that this, Nez Perce is 22 feet on the corner? II 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 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 ' 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 r 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. 1 think the City ought to II look at that. I think it should be closed off. I think they should take 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 I and I'm not sure how many lots are back there. Krauss: 15. In this plat? II 1 I Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 9 . 1 Jim Duchene: No. In the previous one? I 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 I else off Nez Perce now off of Lake Lucy Road. I have not seen any traffic 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 I 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 Planning Commission. 1 Conrad: Okay, thanks. Jim Stasson: Lake Lucy tends to become a dragstrip. You've got a 30 mph I speed limit. You're got lower speed limits on roads that are wider around here. They come off Nez Perce and they, especially the younger people, and they are really flying. I Brad Johnson: Because it goes downhill. They have a good time on there. 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 I trucks were coming through before the road restrictions were off fully loaded. Our street's going to be torn up. You put development... _ I Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in II favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Joan. Questions? Comments? II Ahrens: Isn't the option of having Nez Perce Road run down to Pleasant View Road a dead issue anyway because of the plan? I 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 save buying 2 lots I suppose. II Ahrens: So the only access to Pleasant View Road is in this fashion that's shown on this photograph that we have in our plans? Is that what you're say ng? 1 Krauss: Yes. I Ahrens: Unless they purchase these Lots 1 and 2 and run the... 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 II 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 II memory serves they're not that bad. But if you move at all to the west of Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 17, 1990 - Page 10 Troendle's house, you start falling off into that low wet area which makes II 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 1 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 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. 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 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 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. 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' property. There was a hope that it would have been rectified. I believe II 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, it's a retention pond so there was always an issue there and it was one II 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. Ahrens: How was he going to resolve that? ' 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. Ahrens: Well that's what I thought. I've driven by it and before he 1 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 I Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 11 wetland. 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 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. 1 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. 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. II Batzli: Well those right there and then across the street again. Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 12 • Krauss: Yes. We did take extra right -of -way off of 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. 1 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'll 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... Conrad: But that road alteration would eliminate the variance. Ahrens: The what? 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. 1 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 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 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 II and that's only been completed and delivered to the City in the last 3 weeks. Ahrens: When was that approved? ' Krauss: The Carver County Transportation Study? Ahrens: No, no. Vineland. Krauss: It was approved in something like November of last year. 1 Batzli: On the plat it shows a portion of Pleasant View Road to be vacated 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? II 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 1 footer there so it's traditional that you take 7 foot on either side. We 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? 1 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 only reason we're somewhat comfortable with that is that so much effort's been put into the concept of how this is ultimately going to be connected ' that we view this as a temporary situation. 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. 1 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 1 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 wart to introduce too many curves into this street though because 1 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 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 1 feet. Batzli: Okay. My other questions had to do with whether Lot 4 is a wetland or not. I guess we've already discussed that a little bit and 1 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 I 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 II 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. Atli 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 caught 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 make an accommodation here that would be reasonable and I what I'd propose 11 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. 1 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? 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 l 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 separate issue. 1 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 II tonight. It's a non -issue and what I was going to say was I think you have some valid concerns but I think they ought to be addressed to the City Council. Jim Stasson: You mean the existing roads or are you talking about the proposed roads? 11 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? 1 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 platted. 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 thern. 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 ' 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. 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 Batzli: Well we have a lot to say about a lot of issues but on this 1 particular issue, I don't think we're going to change what the City Council has told us they want to see. Conrad: I'm interested. I think we have our input so I guess I'll reflect" 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 II 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 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 doesn't mean we explored other alternatives. I guess I'm interested from a Planni-ng Commission standpoint. Not that the City Council decree that this'll 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 Council that they reopen the issue. Emmings: I can tell you for me I think that this is the plan they adopted 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. 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 areal and the strip straight across to Pleasant View I thought was a negative 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 may not have been around. I don't know. Brian, you were around. Joan, I don't think you were. 1 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 II 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 that time. Ahrens: I agree. I think that we should be directing as much traffic as we can as quickly as possible onto CR 17. Conrad: Just a comment. Paul, this neighborhood obviously was not 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? Conrad: Don't be so negative. We're trying. , Brad Johnson: I'm sorry. It's our street. Conrad: I know it is. I empathize. I know what you're feeling. What was I the reason they weren't involved? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 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. Conrad: I thought we did too. Brad Johnson: I called after I found out what was going on but that was 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. Conrad: Okay, it might have been. Mr. Emmings gave you some input and 1 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 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 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 II 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. 1 Conrad: So, okay. I missed that. Ahrens: How could you adjust the lot line of 3 and 4...buildable. It looks like the only corner that's buildable. Krauss: No, not between 3 and 4. Between 1 and 4. We require 90 foot of I 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. I Conrad: Yeah, it's not there so I don't know 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 II truth but I think now's the time to do it and that's not even a debate in 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 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 and Paul, can you get back to me next, 2 weeks from now. Is that a public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan? What's 2 weeks from now, anything? ' Krauss: It should be a regular meeting. Conrad: Okay. I'd like to know why this group was not involved. Every 2 II 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 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!' 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 abaut they don't want 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 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 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. Resident: ...would that be south where it used to run down CR 17? Krauss: Yes.. Resident: That was looked at? Krauss: There's actually a stub right -of -way that comes up from Lake Lucy II inbetween two homes. Resident: They did look at that? Krauss: Yeah. As I recall the grade was too significant coming through there. 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 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. 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. Rodd Johnson: When you talk about being unsafe...Nez Perce and Lake Lucy II corner that we're talking about that was 22 feet and I believe... Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 19 11 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? 11 Folch: It is 28 feet face of curb to face of curb on a minor residential 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 ' 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. ' 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 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 notwithstanding 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. Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 20 Conrad: Any other discussion? Batzli: Yeah. I think that that's the first motion I've ever heard you I 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: ' 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 an 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. 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 1 1 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: ' 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 41 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 1 immediately west of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 will be required for the discharge of the detention pond. c. Additional 7 feet of right -of -way along Pleasant View Road. No 11 vacation of Pleasant View Road shall occur notwithstanding the plans submitted by applicant. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 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 11 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. I 14. Lot 4, Block 1 appears to be an unbuiidable lot. The applicant must 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 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. 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 11 Planning Commission Meeting I October 17, 1990 - Page 22 it's far more than what's acceptable to you because you're dealing with, it11 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 II 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. Conrad: I appreciate you coming in. I Brad Johnson: Is there a record that goes to City Council? II Conrad: They get this. We have a City Council member-here tonight so. Emmings: They get verbatim Minutes also. II Batzli: Tune in every Saturday and watch the video broadcast of this thing. II 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 II called the public hearing to order. Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in II favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Steve ? - II Emmings: I don't have any comments. Conrad: Brian? II Batzli: I don't have any questions. I think it's a wonderful resolution. II Perfectly consistent with the development of the city of Chanhassen. Conrad: You go along with anything the government wants right? Batzli: Right. II Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion? II 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 II November 11, 1990 Chanhassen City Council 690 Coulter Drive ' PO Box 147 Chanhassen , MN 55317 City Council Member: 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 P lan 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 11 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 Lane. We feel that construction on the Troendle Addition must not proceed until Nez Perce is connected to Peaceful Lane. 1 }f QQ(I AtT 1 II The residents of Lake Lucy Road are bearing the complete II volume of construction traffic for Vineland Forest and feel that this burden should be shared by creating access for I 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 of completing planned road connections at future dates. We II agree. This provides another good reason to complete the Nez Perce connection to Peaceful Lane prior to construction 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. In summary, the residents of our neighborhood feel that the 1 proposed development plan is basically a very good one. Our major concern is traffic safety, and our philosophy is that traffic volume must be shared. We are not stating that some I increase in traffic volume is unacceptable, that is the price of community development. We are stating.that this increase in traffic volume, caused by these additions, must be shared between Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road in II an equitable manner prior to construction on the Troendle Addition. This is ultimately in the best interests of all of those concerned. We will continue to strive for a II solution to this issue until it can be resolved in an acceptable manner. II Sincerely, The Lake Lucy Road Neighborhood 1 ..._./r..../ el4!4.4.01.4 AV dirf i r 444_, IP II ),;444 i / f / Ca-kv„} i li , j, ) 1V , / r il or , r74,2 - 1 I 1 lior , II I l r ./ i / i riI4 - r -v4,1,- w z lcioe -St II arOAC . ,ate- I Q ... \J�/� 1 FORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 12, 1990 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN 1 Ms. Scharmin Al- Jaffe � ' Planning Dept. NOV 1 4 1990 City of Chanhassen CITY Ut � 690 Coulter Drive hn,vtinSSEN ' 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. 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 us 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. 1 ATTACH. #6 408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) 593 -1255 1 Page 2 I Ms. Al -Jaffe November 12, 1990 Comm: 89 -20 II 1 Regardless of the disposition of the ponded water on the Art Owens property, we believe that the Troendle Plat should proceed as II requested. Should you have any difficulty with this request, please contact me. You - truly, 1 if J 4 411"7 II _ 4; Daryl P. Fortier DPF /sf 1 encl: Sketch of Nez Pierce - Pleasant View Road II cc: Frank Beddor, Jr. Jules Smith Art Owens 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 II 0 0 r-i' ::Yu "l• 'f � ///�j ter• 5 ^_ / F . `' / / • . ✓ / -- 4 4 / / / _ — / , i 1 -:jet / • / /'� • ` ^� 1 rye / / 7 1 0 /ma / // CI. ' / C 3 I ,kr,1 L .s y \ � site;, �: '. � --4,_ „,,,,,, , s ,�t V t r W / 7 -..-,;:t... R) ' c ,..- ._-___ .---_, _____ ______--___ _____ - — _ -- _ i / .%_,...,...„. « r t; -,1 1 F.-1;P:-.. � ( / / � -` 1 `/ ` 1 L I It NAt.4.--1;-or .) ) • , • S�'erc ' E' H / N N , 5 ♦ �� % . i . _ 7Z - I _ _ 1 ' - ` \ t ` g� - '� L 25£ - _ /� \ f . _ I / ''. - V ' d . : l'•;■ i v N.-- 4. • . N '‘ 1 ...), V • . "ICI q i s i / t%) i 5- t . / %PA 1( :' 1 ,,.. **--zi - I A' - t ,,,,T) i I c 4! , , in . • . ,_, .. ..._ ; , ‘,.._... t _ 2 . fr, 1 i 4 4'• / 1 r -' ■ -----------------ft ___ I L II S • I ,. , � -� f ■ 1 — 1 ,opt _,. I / 1 1 11 : , / i_ �:._ Ew a ' - l t ' I 9 1 `, I I % � 1 I, / ,� 8 I � j j Sri► • .. Ce �/ • I - t i / / / / W O {LJ ii _. fr.:. ......\, / • , cr...... ......:::: ....''," 1 ' / L t - 'r".27... . 4416'lliiiiillairi. fri ? ....) , ■ / - --r-f---‹-` _-/RE 4 4■. ra,g; I / (- i' .',/ /, i ir 11 ' .i.i- 0 , INI I `� i _ ' �N • • �� `~� W{Wy ° , , / ' ' c* N a)' - a v H gy 1 1 ,- ' r (..) , 8 ,/ \ l L4 _ • / ' - 1 � ' f "" Aa ' J . ,� W • N 1 { • rl \ � ' x r.., , 1 I ,; W hillbs. \ et ' 4 , ‘. _,.• "• P t , ,.._..s....___r_........ A„N l ; \ ( . . I -- - 4 - . li- -- kaillillikNr■ -3 ' ■ ,...-g * i { ;V> – _ r te_ ti eI 0 1 I 4_k. ...- ; - h e 2 ii 11/4 '..?•:-:: • \ ? • .... / . a. 0 -.... ...., "---.... li, ....,......... . .. , 1 , -,..-i " , .. . .. _e ..... ■•• • •■■•• IIII • I --;)_010 ,.ii.__J ii ±,-.. N g, 'N e9 I .:1"1- ca... ...""". .1.••• ‘ , 1 -3. �:.. -- -- - - i� -81 =1.. Sz , - n. • \-- i ...........••••4 r O¢' 0 ----- 1 CITYOF ell'ANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612)937-1900* FAX(612)937-5739 1 November 15, 1990 1 Mr. Art Owens 6535 Peaceful Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Owens: This letter is in response to our discussions on whether or not the ponding area located at the northwest corner of your property is actually a wetland which is protected by the City. In our discussions you had stated that in the early 1960's you created a kidney shaped pond on your property simply for aesthetic purposes and that the intent was to maintain it as a clean, clear open pond without any vegetation around the edges. You further stated that 1 the pond was intended to be used as an attraction to lots when you subdivided your property in the future. You further stated that alteration to the pond that resulted in it's being somewhat filled with the the result that it now contains wetland vegetation around the edge was a result of the city breaking an existing drain tile during the installation of a sewer and water project. After being contacted by yourself, the Public Works Department installed a new underground pipe which you claim was installed incorrectly and further resulted in the area taking on wetland qualities and then again after being contacted by yourself, the Public Works Department actually came out and dredged out the ponding area to try to restore it to it's original condition. You stated that both Bill Monk and Gary Warren from the Engineering Department have been contacted by you to have the matter resolved since you feel that the pond is in it's current condition as a result of the City. In 1989, the City was reviewing the request by Mark Senn to deposit contaminated soils on your property. At that time, action was tabled until staff could determine the amount of fill that was being proposed and exactly what the contaminates were and whether or not it was a wetland area that was being proposed to be filled. Upon inspection of the site with the Fish and Wildlife Service and a representative from the Corps of Engineers, staff did determine ' that the area was a wetland, including the ponding area and the lower land directly to the east of the ponding area on a portion of 1 ATTACH. 8 1 /I Mr. Art Owens November 15, 1990 Page 2 the Troendle property. Upon inspection of the site, it was apparent that the deposit of soils, placed without approval from the City, was infringing upon the wetland ponding area and the adjacent wetland boundary. At this point, staff contacted you to require you to go through a wetland alteration permit process to require you to remove the illegal fill or to allow a portion of the fill to remain with improvements to the remaining wetland area. During that process, it was brought up that you believed that it was not a wetland, never was a wetland and should not be considered a wetland and that if it has any wetland qualities, it is as a result of the city. The following comments represent the City's position on this subject: 1. In 1960, when you created the kidney shaped pond, there was no ordinance to regulate your action, nor was there any wetland inventory to determine whether or not that area was a wetland. But all of the soil maps from the '60' and -'70's show that area as containing hydric soils which is an indicator of a wetland area. This indicates that the area was a wetland prior to being drained by the tile line. The City also has aerial photos from both 1980 and 1989 that show your kidney 11 shaped pond in 1989 after the city had once again dredged it out and also shows the piles of illegal fill on the property. The 1980 aerial shows a larger area that definitely contains wetland vegetation and characteristics which is where you had stated that the site took on it's different characteristics because of the city's installation of the storm water and sewer. Even with the different ponding characteristics from the 1980 and 1989 aerial, it is still clear that the general larger area surrounding the ponding area contains wetland qualities, including the property on the Troendle property. ' 2. In 1984, the City adopted the wetland ordinance. The ordinance provides the city with regulation of all wetland areas no matter what type or size within the city boundaries. The fact that a wetland area may not have existed in 1960 or earlier does not mean that it could not be a wetland at this date and protected by the city. Again, reviewing our materials showing how the property has evolved over the years, it is clear that there was always a large wetland area with hydric soils and some wetland vegetation. Even though it may have looked just like a low area to you and may have been mowed and maintained as a yard, does not mean that it does not meet the definitions of a wetland as defined by the ordinance today. 1 3. In summary, upon site visitations of the property in the recent months with the Fish and Wildlife and the Corps of Engineers, the current characteristics of the property including the Troendle property is clearly of wetland quality 1 Mr. Art Owens November 15, 1990 Page 3 and will be protected as a wetland by the city. Therefore, 11 the illegal filling that has occurred on the site is in violation of both our grading ordinance and our wetland ordinance and will require you to continue with the wetland alteration permit application. As previously stated, it was felt by the Fish and Wildlife and Corps of Engineers that some of the filling could be leveled out and maintained on the site if the remaining area of wetland is preserved and protected as 1 a wetland area by the City. As I stated to you on the phone, the City Council will make the final determination whether or not the wetland on your property be protected as a wetland by the City ordinance. The only way for a final determination to be made is for the wetland alteration permit application to be processed. It is still staff's belief that the area always has had a wetland quality to it and that even now in it's altered stated is still considered a wetland and should still be protected by the City's ordinance. We understand that you are out of town for the winter months and will continue the wetland alteration permit process when you return in the spring. 1 Please feel free to respond to the comments made in my letter should you have any further comments or questions. Sincerely, 1 Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner JO:v 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 . .. • • aa.- „igis,„ . . .0.- ,.. ' ' . • ,..-. • ' .t.1 - - "' ' ..t• - • - A ' .- -..... ' . " ' '3.) VP ..-- ..• 010 .... a . . ' a e; : ' -• . .'" . .. . 114I F •, - witit ....., ... i l l 7 . T " " " . • le -.._ qv _ .. - - - ' 7 • 1 --'.- ''• ' l ' ' ze ‘:' : *:- _o /". -'-'• --, - 41,-.. Af - - - _.,e 7 St . .,.., .:. ',,..t. 1 4 :_1: 1% .,1,,,. ... :. #: ,.. ' - 44:- #101 -11 -..- „or - es.7 : ... : 1 . ' - ' 4 .' - • - •• * * . - - ; ; -... . ..• t - - , ' -,..--- A 7 - . ' , - iir ' -i - ' " :- . . . ' - %A i - , A L . 4 - ' s ' .1■ - ,ar.. ..1 . -. ' • .,.. .' '. y; ,v -.' . ". - - - • ...- -&''.744 !. - ---‘ " ' '- - 4 -- t- -- '-- -- 4 1 . f-i ' . 4 ! - .4. -- •t' yi. A P i . .... 1 0,.,- •I tri " - IV - •IL 1 I '' -- ' - - - .. , , ..,•'..-:* -: ptikaf` '-..- Aot•- - '7. e ... • . - --r.-_ _ -,_ -_ -7/ -- 4.,. -... - - • . .----- -,,,,,, -.;,.._ <,..--,, , ,-_.1. __,.. 4 'V* . -- . - • : .- - 7 4 , 7 4 ‘, :t :,;•,• - ffs- . - --,*" f. it- - ' 2;1 : -' i -- i :_ . ..„, 4 r. 7 - - , .- t• , i . _... , ..,,,, ,7146..,... ,.. ,,..-,..-40.r-_._-,.:,,,.....-...._-- iw ..„1.-..-,: - #0.--- .- ..,,L4....e.'---,-.-.,,- -, . . • . -. , ,, --.. _,-- ., ed ... - • 4 7 IFT. - • - I il it s IV - '. :- .:. -- ''' -1 . - Ii -- - -. •:- ‘ 1 1 ..- ' ' -.-- - '' 4 _411% - ' . ' ' f g....*. :-..,.: - t- %,.f.• - - 4$ .... • . .. • , . :, 4 , . - ','. 4% • "._ _ - V, , - ' - -4' to, . - 44it i - •■•,-- ..-- +4. .14,ft, r iirk!itAre. 4141111F,.... ....---. N 11•111' ' --• ',- ' .r.- 4 . - ' 4 ...- - _ - _ , I ; : . '''- - ' *--ilt. , . -. Irt•_. 4*. 'tc sk . .... - -..: _ _x.--, . - ' 7 --,,sip.- • :„.,..-..,,,,---‘.... _A ' - .:"-, -...- t_7...t„. - ' . i.'- , -• - _- - _ ... ......„,. .. ... ..-. : z__,...., . , all. iblr, • • - '.. s- - • - * --..... . , - g. = .4. , .:: -.• ..- . Pall - ••• „ . . ,,. -. ',.. , . A * .: ti.. _ . .... , • 11 - 4 - `-. Nj ,* -:.„--:::.•,- ..- ..... _. _ t -, -..- -.- ..4 ,..._ .- - • A `;', ..`x -, "I iii 1 .."-- - • . rc _ . -I S ' ' F .‘. ' • . -. i r---, • . - --.' . -4, - , . . TA,- , 011 0 ;,,..15----...-:-.t.---;_ t :._ . it‘f Cir4r}-1 . . , . . . _ . ----- v...-;...,..4e....-- ,..... I -.. - „- .. , • ' 1. 1, • -•; -- r .. . , -r-7r.---.),k- .,. -i - - 'el ..:-.- -_, ,,. receter) ' .... -' - - -' , . - _,. -- l-,. • i- - - P0 - T - 7 :- . 1 -• , 4 1 S i t i „ _ -- V - - -.-::::•.:,.-1* : *-- - ' , - - -i•,,, lie, - ,,,.- -...---, ,... ' • - - •• • „ • 1 _ r. . .;,." ' . . -.. - . •,...- it ,! 1 ., i • - ' - -- ,- ' *. 1• --1 4 - 4■4 1 4 ----- - -*1-. v .4#'' - •-.---.'------. - . • •••%1 0 . - - - ... ', `• - ': ---- -Titr-M4 .* 4-4, . - j - ' - ',4.: ,- -• • 4 - - fot - '-..**-' --11fr ' • - - • • -7 - • - 4 . - ' ' 4- A .4i BA " ••=,---.- - 4-' 4 ==9..-,i- ,--- _! • .. • _ 4., • • • ... .-t - ,...: - ,,.....'1. - - ...... - . ,. - -:. : . 4 _. •- A __: _ •• .4 . - . .z.. --„- 4: . - -. ' ' - a , -- 4. 4-:- , - . 4 , - : . .--51, 4 .: , . . .... .- . . . . . ._ .. ... , i . ' .; .... ; : ;" 7.7'''t- , - -s C • - " • - . 11 ' - - - - - ..'1 - .4, ",, - _ - k. -. - ,_:, , • f - p 1 ,' - . . . i ,.•-• - _,... . .. - '-',,' 4-4 ,::: : ,..- -.*- .. ._'. T-.. ' • - •' -.. Ay k . t '. • • -,.., .-•,- - --- -.7 -, , " ') -.. - ....-:- .. k r. . - - ' . - ' ' ' . . " • --' • . lil ,,--- . „ : - - - - b - t. e--- - -._, -- -- _- - - .-- et '-' - - - - '' - -A- - - - - - -t it -- V - 4 ••• ',O. - - - - ' L - - - -- - .4, • .:•••• 3 - 74-' • • - ---• - ,-•,,' • ''. , '-'• ' 4' :-• - ' - - • • ••• 'W." . : i --, - 7 _ -..71 V. .4 4 - -L.% .; - .. Vs. - • • . . _... ,,, .., - ; ..; A -.1 - ... -- 4!' 1- - iiiiip. - - - --- - - i .. t,-*-- - -„,.-- .-,: . .--,- ..,... -.. -... •...- -. :- .. _ .-,, ii .,.. ...-...--. ,. .„,„ -,„ - ____ .c..-. - -,-,-....-*-... - • .,..,A. •... -- ,.- .,..c - % t - -, - ... .- ..r.- ,,- t-t, ,--._,- .--,... -_-. :ft 74..-- - -.:*-- .--, - .-.-,;, . . X: , ,.. • "to S - 4'" - ... ` ' • -'.' ' : . - 14- ''•:ii --' 2',i,' .:. 4. 1 0'. 1 ;"- '''''` • -'', . -` f 4"-', ' -,4, - `,..„,,.* • - -; -. *.• • 4 ., ". - 1.,,.' ' tit ' •'.: : - . ' , ' • . -"`" ,,v , - ...ic,„_--_, -;_f,":„-,,""..i...111 t . --.... _ ',_-_•_ • i - ii.. • , '- - -.• • .` -1' . -.11-y. I-11K - • i5 -.:7-7. , - . e,_ ..- _. ----....- :411- i; - ' : .' " ' 4 ' ' •"` ' '' •.' •4•' 1,-.1,...W- . .- . ...7 ., ...: *.kit. -.. -,.,.., - ' - 4.,...! ,- - .: - zi:- - .-. -,0...-____,,--..--.- &''-'-,7" --,,,•- ''". - -: " ? 4V.-. A ,-, --,-,-:' .....:- .--...• .-- •-•Z:-:..-1512k,' -_1/4 _ ,- --:- -.---_,...•_ .t•- .. .J, -..-- - • ; .', : 1 - .. - - - -- -t, . -!-:, .• -_ -. ili . -4 , _ '. 8 ..--'.- - 1 6 .' - .-r • . .: i '--- •••- - ';-; ...::t 3 •._ tb dz-' .:Tref*. -, --/ - 7 _'''1' .' tsk - .a . - ' r ' - I - .0b --"••?, -_-• -.•-,-,..- - --‘-arek.14:-.:1 - *.' , - ' - I: •:: il. _- - 4 - - . s.,-.--7 ,A _ _, i..4t1.-.-..,,„ - •*, , ,;, , ., .. . ,... , . . ,. • !.. • ' , . ' - ' . ..,- -•.. ---4 .s- A *-..--- s, L. --, c-s_ta - v7,7------- .,,,, • ,...._,.. _ ., .. , ....:_, .., . ..„._ _ .2,, : _:. ._,.....-„,_, ......„,,,..„ , ,,,.• _ ......._„:„...,• ., • ,. ...., it'. L.- , ;.. • _ , _..-_,;,„ 1. 7 : . • , , .. , . • . _ , t # - - •; :- .- ......-.-#%, • 4 .1 iw _ . ' .. Zt. :.. IN*- -. .. - . 4 .;: . ,-,_ l'-‘, ; 4 , , " . . -.V - 1. , - r,...1• • t_ „..:_ -... •:. -, , -.., ; . .1_ , - .• • . ... , ,c-lif.3.,.... ,,-;,,. 44 11 li;.,....- ...-- -- _- . - - - a 4 .7 * . •-:-- - - .:, . -- -- -F 1- ?: - ,# , - ii: ---','-- - • ;- - - - -7.1 - -: - . ., .,, . ,, _ ,.,...,„.,, ....,..... ...,.. _ "... _ .4- w „_•.- , .,,-.-_. - s „,,,-, ,-_ "T . , ,:,,::,., . ' - . : . k „ • t, ze.. . - i - - '' ..; ' XI , --`:T' I ! a., . -,_41, -- ' - X 4.I. - -. 1 "A ' ' -::::,-... 1 , _N • i :: • ' . ,:. • :' *-,,,x,--Ait.:!.-_: -'....„, -_ w:L. ,. :-.-- . .. ,._ - ii.t,-,,,.., - , - ...-21-:,-f. - - - .,:: : : A - - ' .:1? -..,,e--- , -':-..., - , - • 1-;,-;,.- ''-''-'`.•:.- i__;,..-.... : in -4 . , .--,,;-. ..., .... e. at . _ .. . . .. i.. -%, . ., 1 4 41 1 1 0. .. . •:-. . _ 1 - • . _ 201_4 , l . _. . , .. ...0!_ ...._.,._ __,,_ . ... -,,,, .. , . - - ---. ' " ; . .;t ...'; „,,,,..-' -4-41: . ---, - t • Al „,„.„.... . , - _- . • ., •tr,- _;_ - •_p _ • •, . -- • •••::_.-,.....-...••• _ --- - ...: ,'•`•-"`-"-':•,_ , •-: :Si, . - _ ' - 4 . • -. • . . '' l• , „ .„ - -1•• . 0- - 7.1- _ • --!.:N1-".*t. : '. - ' --" , - - •4110••• _,;.41-....1K. ,-- -,- ,...c., ,,,,-,--,----A•1,-.%---,- -- - -- ‘..--..s:. ,._.,.. . , . _....... _ _.-.....„. .,..,.,.,„ - .r.. ..t.' - ."" ..,._.e.:..,-.. ;N-- -•'-•_4 34F,..4 ,-. _;•_• :.. • .-..• c --- . . 4. - .A.. ' 77I'' S t . ' II/ --'' m " - 1 -.- ' --,:-;•';. -- ‘1. F .1 .1 . -----4 ...--<::-,,,,4.z. itt4 j. • 7.- 4 6; _ ...:_. .• - t . - ... -. 4 , .. ..._: . ..& ,•-'- " • r , ..". I . • ' ' - ..*....,,,v7.....:•..,,-,:-- ..,. . L _, , "t Zr .4 . , 3', 44 - ", .._ - •,„ ...,.. ,,,... I 4 6 . .t . " .. - . _' .: -fi' c 4 , , ,'W ..._., , s , : , _. „ ..,„;.,.: 7 ,"-;-, ,.- V'''' •-.*:- , *. ""•,,f Ak_P f- '.. '7 " ,.-, ' .'.. I • ,, t• . 1i,,. - -=4 „ i -4: - -,, -. _ . • v •..: , ......,,*..*•-•,-- ...,-..,---.1„:,,i,_ , -,,t;*,.. f-. ....hli -.." e- . " .- _., _ , S - -t- -- .- -•,,, - -V- 7 , , --,:„...,.'-'7, - #44: - _ • -,- 4C-' 4.2-t,* a' ;- . a: N t. „,-!,- --, ,- , . - _ -••:.,------ -,, .-:-, - - • -, .,---.4 5re ---,_:.-,.--, ,_ - , * , _,: , _ , ,-f-s- ,,,,,,,,., -,! - ... _-- .,: , _,*-..N.‘,•-•,,,,_•41..•-1,-!:,•, -,-;-,,,,--,,P .•:*:.-.- -- -,-*-, , ._ - -.7-_, - , - - , ,-- _ -4 f ,z•fitit...`. - ' - :•" ' ,•"!••• v 't - 1 *-- • i .. L ,-.••s::„:,7;,- ,i_ - -- %,--- - ... - 7 , , - ;;_c . ,,•i;a: : = - T. - 1•=•0•- -1 .,----;.• -&,,_, !,:r.!_-::-. '="",_ "_-_ -*:- i tt.",t, _ V_ ,..7. • , , J,-,•, - ,„ --. i . -- , , _ ,, „.- ,.- ., -,, 4. ' ••1"4.L -1 '-:-':;,...:='. -,. .. - -4-.-.-.:41=7,.- 5 ii , :.= - t- , - . 4 --.. - 4,,. -fp- , . ,-;.. _ - ‘,-;_t*.•. - • ftit ,,, - "ii.:' - 4. -7 fit - • *T.4 - 4 , 0 - 4-14 *-.:•.' •-V•13' _•it----e• J'' , r; 3 . ,,,•-• . , 1 A,:t_.. ''' - .• • ',..,6t7 .' '14 - ' . %.. -., * 4 - `• ' . --- -- -. : - - - .2F il ait.&;e40 -A;;- -- ...", --r -; -...'..-.....c ', - -, '-'-: .: --.>--•-.._ 4- -; --, -_'.' --.•.- :.-. ' -, .-.-, . --.-- • • - -..- - . ..,,- ..- .., r- .i - I -- ., • - r! -4 - ' ..-=•• I - - •• • l , ••,-....---..*:: _ - •_.--, , . -.,.. t .,. ,,-; , -";:,;gt A - 4 - a, ,- - . ..*.,:,-;:`,,t --f-f J;-:-‘".::,„_.:.' .,-- - v.,-.-i:-. L. . t .y. ',.• . --- ,,-,- ,-k -- A i,- . -- • .. 4;-=,_ -''. .; ' vvr.-4=- 1 ' 4 ,. - :x.- , 1-4" - - - -..- i .17:- •*--t; ,1.. - - --;,.. , ''''$-'•• Ev" --v- - ..-i- *.',7- . -, 6' --1 -, --- -, - 1:---. -: e.: : ...-- •••- • ..,--- Alp - ,T..,,...1 -...,:,,-..,..•.:;...,-- if:. ..-: - 'K.- • -4- q... t,-;;. '''- . 'T '-- - •-'.-- ' *-- - - "'• • -11-1 -1 A •••-," --: •L ./..• • , f2L - f e ' .- - • - jt -.::--"' f --•••-- • i. - - 4 - - , , Arc . -. ,_ ,-,, • . . --, - , -..:9--_--„ -Ar . .r...: , ei- f - --'," - • ., _ ,--• - --;•-• - ,,-J•k•: , , , ,,,, _ _,_.. _ a - .• !. : -:._,,,,-.'":' - - t _„., 4 'il 7. - 7.._ -_,ti„.... •- ....- '.---- - • ,--..e.--1 _ ,. - . _.-, -- -- , --. ,..- - • - -4).,-.-- .-,--• ,- 'i . *f.,., - • , .- , -. -- -4 ' - --"1"..'r, - - - --- - ---. lot . .-=-. iv- - .- ,,,,„,... , •_ • ,,-7,--4.7 4 ., • '. : . `k. -., 1_,..--*.". - 2.--.,;.J.'; f7=-tz: rf- -- -:=- - --4 ,- -,_:- . .--_.?:-.°-::. - - - _--7.--,---.-:1-. ,, _--i..,%. - ,._. - 7- - i! , -, - ,i i - -:. h ._,-._,- ..-- .. -..- „ .. ,=. _ ,,-„-.7_ • .--t.,-,.,,• ,:,..,. .:, i-,..., „.,:_.--:-,-,--.• .,----_,..,_ -•-•_,-- --, .4; ,-..-,1--- ....4 - •--_.•..e-v .-.4 -...---- • 4 f - 4 ! W . ' - . : - I , - . '' %:,.? - fi tf-' , - "It • ;-...- . - " 4 1 . - ''' .." - " 7. - :: - ... - feN. -- ;:** :- T 1,- - ..='• --- •,A,, ,_--■.;-"';',,. h.? ,..---•,/,.. , ,'".: . --- '-'. -t . I I , .1,-.. . 110 . ..1... '‘' 1 .1... .- - ' ' . - ' - :' ' - •• i ' -‘ - i - ;: .."-•- '..tet ' .T. A . -- A . : - ..' - ' :11 ..'• ,' A , ," - 6-12.V_,... , - .... -' ,,, • - - F" *.',•% • . 4 . f.' I - .'''' ' -**"' , 114, . ' *-- :lc • I' ..1 t• ' * . 4 - .' t7 T " ," , - - 4/411 7 '" - .4•Alk‘P4E,W' •4::1;- V'''''11,4 -- - - '•-• '‘ •.- '''..!..„..., -,-,-_-:- • __ : I '- - l'''-'. ,• .-0 e''' ' 's. :.- - ''r . .ii- E - - ..,4 : - 7- i • 2`."-, ....jaz- 1_ ir 4--- -,.. ., fp; '4-• • --- ',-. .4 ta : . • . - 7., t , , - : 4 ,-,_. • A . t t ."-'•_: -- .. ,. ,.-, .- _- . _ 0 - . - .,/.:!_.....,..r:, ... ":- - F - 7'X, , , .._ ... - -..... . - . ;`! r - • * 1--. "2: ..;:" 't r... .:- :2" , ..,: b ..-Ii.1„, - . .. .. - 4 ,- . '''..: - -'-' 1 , 41 -,F 44t :". ": ;- '''` It- t' s :' "--- " lis1-4 " .- ir.:71- 9 - . ... * -=; : " - .,. - 1. - -- '''' -- - - -.1.. -- A .--•• -._. .. - - - - - - 1 4-1.---t:-•%' , ...- - . - . .. . . . -, =:"--.-....---z...:,- - - _ :friar-- . - , a.tile' ' - '...• •....... 'to t ' - - " • .. . • - . ,•'. v - 6.47 --....-'' ..... ''.7-' ---. " ' Ve- -- i , ; -; *-4.;, -- "1=';: - V-- - *A -. 1 . •:-.._,-_,"= . 4 417 . .. -- ';` ' - 41: -., .;. kj - -7;:. 7i. : -,.: .. ___. - ....t 4 ,...r '....* .. - • -A•r ... z.-....4 0. --- 1 ,, , • - ''': - . 1 . A.. --; .- 0. _ / ,-- - , 4,,,,, 2.-••-,--41-„_.•••=p---z-z,-...- •360-41.,------_, ,• -e - „.....,_,._„.,?.....,„_..,, ,;„,,, --..--...--...,.-- ' .--....----....... 6 -..-.2:f 46 . • ., - ' :-.- ' .:". , .. ._......,_ .........,.. ,..... _. ' ft . `t. - ,..„._-;:-S - t1Z - z : 7 1 . , 'N. -- .. - n .- ",.. - '411.-. 1 0,.•.X6.• . ... --.%'' • 1 7 .,;k:... 4 t4c4, ,. ',.;•:4: _.'' - :.---' - \ ..., .;-. , ' - 4. ' 1 ' 7 - -''''' 4 L'Ilite`i - ' - - -••■ - I - - i-iar 7 ..-527 „..-...„ ".. r.......,...z.,-e. -p -4. -, -=‘,.. - '-:- .-1 -- .,.,...,,,,,,„...- -;, - . ••--- - -,-.---z --,--,--- my .,.., -.-- - - -- - --.x.. v...,..-. e„.--- . ::..• . -1,,'...:11r;',. - s'•-•= 1 . "..n. I,,k ._...... __b.. ;frs:- . _i-le r.- .W.V ."-%-"-•"' ' ‘÷;-.A.::?ri.-.4.1:,,;.,.---Z,--.3.,&*-sr..-4.;--.7--"".-.1ilt:''.. 4 _i, -._, -,.. , . • - _ -- - ---...i.--7.,....---- :-..-„... -..-.- '..e..- -- L- .-------.,_,.,•- -... -- s. i. , ..,k-t., • '1: 4 ".A ...'tt - .I4i 'cf..' , -..., ; .. ..-- - .- ....-,' . . ... '.. ..-.' --:,,-. ,, N.--" • ---- - . - ,.. ,• " .: _.-•,,..- .A-e. -- •;.--;..;- - .-: - ..1--,q --- '- . ---- - - - ..-- -----,-... . ---• ----.. _4*•..,:.: -1. - , -* 1. two. ,. -Ik . t - --- "-......- 1 *- - - '11 - . ' 5. .. V .v..4 '.. , .. :1•W :. ; .."--''''7:1 -t 1r-... .: 1 At'P' Xiirrit :‘- ' -'". - - 1ij'-'1" W46.. '' . - .:- Mr - '.2: - ". . .. t.e.- CA L- ' . = t t - . • , A. , 57 '7..-• - ., `74.-4 • t , - .1. .r. , . 1 6, - 4 - - . " --,.. ...r - --..; - ...-..._........., . ..%-k, :-... -,-, • • ... - - = - ' ,!•#--, - ;;%AW,. 1-... • ..t ,i.- - ' ... ' .. 1 . - : -,7 - .. 'S ...... -.. - l'•%:. --- ;" . ' ' . -':- - " 7 - - : ;-,......._ . -. - '..,:• -,--: - , -,, I ST.'" - '. - - .4..V.;• . .•;_' , ? . .., 40f..f.-- .--,-' . ':., i, ... _---. _ ;.,..;,1-0 ::.,.--.' ir .:::. ..-..:- !•-. _ It- .- 1 .. „ 41 ! 1 ...- '.7- i •411 ' 1 •••• - • . • • . . • ;4, 1. 4 , - "Pt. .',, • , . vi i - ••:2 It. S :7'..•. . . • - .; . 4; , .• _ ..... - - 4 . . - . 4 .. t • -•• .;'...,,' 4e „ ,,, • .,# .4. --17 .- . 3 I L : ..- - 7 : ". •4 r . '• •, cr r x i s A• •••• leietb;••• ' . 4 ,• . . 4". . . . . s. s „,. , , ,„, .., s 4 ,„ ,,.. ' roe . . . lit-- - 1 :„ . „ • ••••.•• :, --iii .... - • - -- . _. - .......„,:.._ ' - 1.- .. ".... . .NrrObiiir- _ , , -:,. ... .. ..• ge _ 4 .• •• ^ ' '• ' • V - '. • • •• •,.. 3 • ' • ",-• 3-4rLi .... - - ,.... , .... - ,. ts 1: l -.,- z- 2 • • I • -ii -,-..... . -- , ii,-__ ..: --. -4- „,, ..,„ _ - _ .... -... „,.. . .-_-....7...... - 7 -.• ...,- . W.. ,„-` t-• -1- ..,-4-• - w - 41 ....' - . • .•-•,.. - r 14.- -:•EZ • ' •" ■-•'. lb - ,•1' : , .z.. s-,- N.s . W y„.. •••Ir .. -...• ..„. ,-. ;......_11 . ,... •-•....... '44 I t V., iik. t % ' ; tf,, Jr '- .. -, ..- '`-- e' lir -- 4 , 40 'N. - - , -f - a -- - - ...e;4 - z-ei 9., 1 - ' ...,-- ' -- it a - . - fi• ..: ( -.".. •••6 -';41 .. , :e . . ..., , t 1 - 4415 . l' U ■ re 41 ....- . 4 .. - ..:. . . -4. ' . ''' ... - ...-. -- - 1 ., '' ' • ' be . ' '' • . ... 0 1 '.' .. , ..r.S .t ''''' t.: ...II ■• Y...-' Ilhik . 1b.7 - , t.:.:-. - .. - • . „ -.. 4 - .3:. it yt ) :: : :-, - lig.. „kit," 4. - - . 64 '4- - - - - ...Ct * •• i r .Z 1 - C.* _ \ ; , 1.1 14"; 414.-.. .-' ' ••••-' 48.... - v 7/11 . , ••-"‘ - A 4- • / .. - ' ''' - .I.. „ - r . \ .., ,, • ' - ' -: -... - .... • ...,... , ,. r ift'. , ' • - - 11 ,- .1.t .c. . _ . ikAi;.. - -A - ' - 44,. #11,- .• ,-- 43.,ifi • '.- _ lie ._ 1_,:•!. , , __AL -.... s ' . 11111 ... ' ...1. e I t : 1.-e ",„t . .,,,, l • 'ItS4t . ,- - Its -., - i.rillk‘ . - -- *: . c . , ''' - -. 4. i' ,.. - .ii. : 4 YI % ''•- .'--', AO ' - .„,..' k - - 0. * -1,.. ''.. '..' - i•-b - 31.11%,..,., - 1.. • ...7 • ,., ''' , •17-i• ' ■ .4 - i• - -- -lir '' • . ••••. _......- . . • 7 • vg ' . • 1, • ,,..,, S 1 - . • * - , .• s .. .. ' ; IC. • .., ......--,„ 54 ... • 4. '... , „ 4 ": 1 - • 1 .... . • , - ..e.4 . ..:.„-• 4." - ....,,.....,- .4 ji.. • '''!„, • 4120919gri " ....• • it -- t 4 .* 4.• , • ' - ......,, .,4.....,,,„ ., A. .., • .. .. , ,• , 1 ••■• • .0.- C•1 , -• - ; - • - . • - •:. ::: I ,' 146- - 1. Tr'. . ..,i.. • r .. ' , ,,r. 1 , e,' • 0;. 0 , ' 1•4‘..‘• . ; 11, .44 ' 4 -44, • ■111.. 46. "' +AL . • , . • - * ■ ...? 4, ,, N I . . ....f, ' ■ ' - ' .' • '',' .:: - ■ ,. ...W . , li lli - 11/.. ' •• ' a kt ar at a . *•.. .4. 4 4 1111r .,,,,_` •• - - - - ' l -'-' '' J or ,,r•-: ., • • :.- .„) 1 / 4 . .0 1 .1 4 ,,,. - : .16; , 11 1 11 , 016 : 4 X - ,_ .7 6*-- '.. . • _ .._ . -. ..-„ '- .. , ., - • ! .z.• ' i _ e' ,,I, i . - - .: - ' Vit,e,tZ ' 4; i , ., . , ,- - - -,.... :-. ,._-= t . • it " Il 74 id • - ,„ -,...... l 4. -• -.I 0 1-1-, - , „.0-.‘„ -, . • -• . . -v - -4 A.? I k, • ' • • - - • A. „.. 0 AT ..„.. T .3 ftk........... allO - .-' ' L • - X. T. ''', ' ?. . . . ... - y „„ -;., - 1. A , 4 :-,.. - 7 , • t ,.' : _•; _ •-• Jit, - ... .. •,", ■ , '''M •,.." ,.. .? " - ' - - • -e N Isi s -• - . •,, i , ..714,,.. . 't 4,.. .., • _ , . It. . ...A t. / 4 \ i ' ,'. a""" ..., .441.4;sirria■Atil " r 4 t._, g i i I t'' _ ' if . ?_ --.... 4 '''i ' ‘'' ' 16 " , - 4 .4,••• ' . ' --"-"::-.- - 4. .. . .. 4R4 - _.*0..4-... A ;TT' • . Jr ' • Ai• SF, ' ' 74= -1 -- , 74,-- • -ti ,, •,,k-.7,! .• .... t - . , tE,.. -.._ _ .., . , . ..1. -4-,., -7' .. •,.., . --. 4 -. 1.' ‘• ' ' 'i. •r: . fr,...-_. • s- *- 1'' ,.` •-, , ....,:i:i.7 118 T - 1/4A - _ ; ..,„ 4 ,, .. •-• _ . - ' ...1. - - - - - ' -- - . - Ar o Z' .21 'At•-'' . 4.,_“ • -.:-.' . .. t i . i f . . 2 V.Z.,. •••-••. , • : •' '• ..• - •••, '-•,- '''''-: , - Z . ; T ' -, _ .--41 .t-_, ; 7 . ...... . %. %- Ai - . - 4.- r_ tv , :: . - ' . 4 e..• ., „; . . , . ritstft -4L 'r. l'A .: s+ ., ' 4 , ,"A :.. - . . -4 4 .. - . " -, . - • s ••• . ter s 4 , - „. - •' : ... ..4 , _ ' ..-".• - I. 1%, ..., -,‘,.... - s a ' , , , - -I . ..., - ,,,,I 4,,,, -- ,.,,s . ,;,, ":1 - "... '''..1.-■,„ .„,, ..: . • li . i , _ .., - - -.*7 - '* ,- =. - -• , '' • -, -!.. , . ._ ,.. ,.• . 1 47411 - '5: .,_...:/q7 .-* : •*--,- ,. ' .... •, .... 4 i t ' • - "4-• &AI* .m-ral-k . --..' - -...), - -'ski•# -,-.. - - , - _ ..,,„„,...... - , . . st It.A.IP, t *de& ik • '..*‘ '' t . *'"*. .9P . ...' -. . . ' .. '. '-g. '' ." ..7• ‘ •11‹ ...N. .• .■. .1. I t. '; . t' ' • . -'';'' : 1° ,..... -' - ''' , b' 4 '" . ... 4 e:XII I A ' ' i t' ' '' . '."' ..-' 4 V - ..t." . ' ' `;''` I . irt .•-• • 7 ' i :7' - - I t'e`' ;* ' - - - ...4, - _ ' '''‘. -"::: • " ..' ." r , - . : , - ..., - .. . - 4- , - _ - nI-1‘ w :4 ' - - -', , k r se 13. - !. • ,:. --. ' ,- / -, *- . .7 '16, et' . 1 . . ', ..1.41 ' - . - - . - 0 1 „alkt... V: ' : - l'.. '.7, - 7 ' ' ' .21 . ,.. 4.• - 4, ' ..:, 2: .....k. .- : '. - X .' •.....- 414,4.4-- ., .. . . • - 1 •4 --- ,..7 "' - A wIL ; • .' - 1r -. • 4 4 A 4 ''' ..:, , ' ...$ .:- ,....* -.. A 'e ' ., " ., .• .. - '.. ''`'. ' ' ' ' .111-- #'. ''' r .- ' r - ' Ilz`... .-- • •.• 4",',$. 141.- . ;4•._ ,.•. i ,;,- • , ‘f:-.7::„ ,0 ; • -,•••••' ,::: -:.,, lof___,'- - :4- 1:.ij ■■ .. i' . a. - * 'r t• . ,, , - • . .. ----? • - - - .4 ..' ' -, - r -•. - a- ' t - . , -:- ,'. - - It 's -.*•.. '''' . 4 4 .. f ---.•"-`' r `,- - 4. . ' 4 ii' 4, - iv: ,. ,... l,.... r ..„...„:- , , s- - - - _ i 41 e L-7 '';41‘...-4 , S i ../t - ' - -- ' • ' - ' . ' - ••-..• ".- ... t . - o■ •:••• .....: • - .. ;•. ........ , .....- _ 7 .- -w '27a- ,..--, 4, - , .. ,, .-,i''' -- *, - ' -.. " ..•--- ... r - 47 4 ';:. • if . ••• 4 1 -, -,,,,,,- , - .- . -,. e - . .2.- 91,.... - ....,..,. . ,t .., ...' lir. .' j14.47'r 0 tier lt."' .. - '.. 1 ` . 4;" : ' ' ' 7 '. ,;. • 'T . f I 141:.* Ir_. 4".:„ . ' 4 4- . .'..„ , - -.:„. -:-.... - -N, 2.ff.i . -... 4 -q- Verger:: - 1C - ;■./V. - ''' , t -. -, • - **..is• ..Lf . ,C4:XZZ,, / .:Mt ,-- 4-..e., ___... ....,„_.. 4 .0- 1 -.T• ''' - *4. ' - " - .A 4..,„ -4 •4 .. _ -. - . . - ... . , i. ' ...rAF .. _..- :.: -.g * "-4 -- -.. . - % -, mo e'' "s• '- ill6-i---., ^ - ..-- tv • i.`r,.., _ - . ■P.....4 , t . . • ..• , - , -_. .-- :- ---......„•.' .,-. ...,- , '"‘•-... .- 0.-. ,.....'"! - - 6,i, "N. -%,,,Z.4 r''.. ,".;,.."*„. • , ',. -- • * - - 4. A" •-• . • . , + V ". ■7 . 4.t ' '.. ...--., t Nt --- N :71*.,.. .''''... etC4c .!,* '4 4. . ...- dipc4,-.,i„, . 't . - - ,i-_- .. .: •:-!--, ' - .-- • . -6- tk - . ._ . , _ , ..._,...,, ...,. -__ - 4.-- I --' .... . . . v ,.. 4, , N - ....- -,, , 4 . .. , .....i., jr.., - .s.: v -4 - s• '''..4 , '4 ..4 • - 2 Iii, • - '7.= s . - N. • -a' • iiTr if ',..k - - f•X'4•11. 0 .,v\, . • ` - - - ''ilt; -. '., 4N-4,4 A yr • " " . f - , ,,,,. • -• -...- it...c.-t- - - . "..1"seici.- , . • . - . - ! ' br ' • • . • ' zt.'",. _ rr ,z-- • . . _ . ... ..... ■•-■ . - : - 4 , %.., • "1 , tit 4 fr 1 .... .1, - ■ • ' -* -'. . . • •.'• '"V" . . ' 3‘' ' '4.- 0;..... , . ...st ..," ..---- ,,,, ' - "oar ', • - .- , . s.' . • , ...‘ ' " At ,,.,-. 'a • i x' -1 I. ' - - 4,,,, - , s , 1 twa, ' ", =IX - • -i, - - l• :-. e.• •• 4 1/4 , ...., . --.• .Z.' 1 . -:- ••• 46. ' -,- '-` "": . • 47 7"; " : A ‘ ,... st , . v ; . ,- . ' 4 0 , -t• ir' ' -.N. :"... , - . II ., .144, _. . 1 1-- , -' V.....e ".. 1 :- - • 4 - 4. .4 -0,e" .4- • - .. .. • ..,.. ... AI . ... '' 4 . %.-- 1".. ,.. , . - . -11- - - - - • - - • , r 4 „, - `-` ----" - 4 * 04 4-0t. ........ ' -- 1 . " .. • - - . ....'. -, • • • . , • ; . ,„,.. :' ' s t..- , "*".• -?..• .". - - r• A.' _ _,- -14. " 11 `;‘ - .1:!:` '-; ,-... ; . t 44 0: -fke- 4 Pe .7 - - - Fta .v.._.\ /_, ..1__, No • ....t. , 7..,..441.4-. ,. - .... , , , ' / . ic Pfits-X01,,c ___,.., ',.i . :r „I:0 - ,r \ . /3,, Gr ! I T'P,r d :: r- . —1 .. " 1 ..: ' - - -J it. - .‘ /.s' 7-1:::7-°:-- J 7- (16 . Pa .. � , � i • � 4.1.EMF - • ;, : ' . � 'RAW x `, 8 •' • • _ _ _ii' s,;;tr'' � ,�` � . - • eo ,s 5oitsra ?' I.IL F ' Rr x ,41 P oint n t .tF:. �:61, �� • - . •.".. — • d St Albans Bay , � t . .1 • •d '..� ^. � E ; Tc/> MG �, XCQ �' o ► _ � + r ` / j •� 4 w w�� -_ i .- rsesu %e " - I C • t ( pi ' 7 ' I Pr = •••:` • eitt:;.•‘--0.-. 4- .'", ' • ..• 1 ''''-: - -. : • .... PF- • ., fr ---- ....„; .. =_..,--•■ ,-,...,,,,,' . . ,. _ A la • • pill _ • • 'r • .. ^ e d s,a , '6 T. t t7� d PS •PEIaCz _ Ga , ,;: 4 f r4 ' . - - ' -- - �'� �• Q£ • e key �; _ P >s �fra#e 9 Pl) . , rr • � i, Y . 3 r'` - j' l s � `j am - .r " ' i - 5 EfEW •- ? r -,- REM . / . Mf ` : C : 1 % : , ?-Ffl �, f 1 ' —P • `, • — li C , v -` " e •/. , / 1 PFtri ° . i , �oo� ; —: P l �OtC • � �, , - ,eta - t.. .:1.1; P G . - �` - t -' '�' rte / : P E M C s. )* ‘.---.%;....; `' PEMC - . • ~ . — i t -v• • fl i4- ,,_%%,.., . ice 1 �' - ' _ did „ti• ;) r , A _ _ tS . _..../ , --FemAd - "\ --- 1,-(( ) -., 4 1' i s ti - "iv' �l H $ ` % "/rte` � 7 � !` ' i _ o •. - .. � �r - ^ �, P E6� RFOI _ (� .e, . � 1 l Ejn t 4 ,...... 1 • •r i \1 _ d t� J • PEI�IG _^'• LiU6F1 - - - pE a J ,• , a - ' C, i;�_ ?fie ;' U] `_ �. \ p ' - � tT.. ° � � - 4 57 32'30" I •58 E. c H • ;-=� - � 35' 454 • 455 rSHAKOPEEJ 4 56 NOTES TO THE USER • Wet THE USER been U lie d o NOTE on the map hi an as die document was prepared primarily by stereoscopic SYMBOLOGY EX�►MPLE • Additions or corrections es ond ysis of high altitude poto rap hl bas on vegetation, ta ti o n , were Addi tions on tors map ar h tified on the photographs based on vegetation, visible SYSTEM d ,sp ay tdon t the address m n in accordance with Classifies- I UBSYSTEM • Slo an tend. Ct a d. S Ie 4 et W end geography CLASS e of Wetlands and 79/31 eter Habitats of the sans do ftalres were develop tee (FWS /OBS • 79/31 December 1979). E�j2_F VyE aIscs w INVENTOR a. , and hs typically reflect conditions during the specific � WATER REGIME • Some areas designated as R a and season when inherent in were tauten. use addition, there some areas STREAMS) R a margin of error inherent the use of the aerial UPLAND (NON - WETLAND) lion of wetland npgrsphs. Thus. • detailed on the ground and historical the • This map uses the clad Iv i n a revision of the f� elysis of a single site may On earlier Nutt maps t 3tlend boundaries established through photographic g ar (BB). or FIE IFL) Subcla erpretatipn. • In addition, some small wetlands and those versions 1 • _...� w., A•nea forest cover may not be included on a..at...1 W -k t'i . I:AI . I9 Jt L IJVJ .m► - APPROVE CONCEPT PLAN FOR VINELAND FOREST ADDITION. I Paul Krause: At the last City Council c 1 meeting there was discussion on the Vineland Forest plat and at that time, access was a primary issue that surfaced I and staff was asked to prepare access concepts to look at how best to serve this plat and adjoining properties. In view of the hour I guess I can cut to the chase but there was a lot of background investigation that went into this in II terms of creating a surly area and reviewing existing plats that had been approved in this area. There was one in particular to the west side of the study area that has been approved. It has been final approved. It has not been filed and it's due to expire in October. We looked at the variety of ways of II serving this area. All the road stubs. The undeveloped rights -of -way. Bordering roads. Whatever and tried to define which of those were feasible. We then tried to develop which sort of issues we were encountering in this area in 1 terms of what spit of goals we would have for the access system. We wanted an access that provided ideally some thru movement on the north /south orientation through the area. Public Safety's requested that and we feel that there's going to be a considerable number of homes eventually in this area and that it was • II warranted to provide a north and a south outlet. We're aware of the access and traffic concerns on Pleasant View. Sane information the City developed in terms II of traffic on this street as it exists today verifies that it is carrying a considerable amount of traffic so providing another means of outletting that neighborhood becanes a concern. We basically wound up with 4 alternative concept plans. Alternative 1 is basically the original plat as recommended or proposed by the developer. What we did is we tried to take a reasonable extension of that...how that could serve the remaining undeveloped ground in the area. One thing we want everybody to note though is that the orignal Vineland 1 plat showed two stub rights -of -way oriented to the west. The southern one we think works fine from the grading standpoint but as we got into this, the northern one causes a problem because the only way to build it is to take out the house on the adjoining property which is something we were concerned about. II We thought it was presumptuous of us to get into that at this point and assume that that's going to be the case. It's our belief that that's not really an effective means of providing service...recommending the position of coming up II with something that would lead people to believe that would provide service in the future so we're recommending through all four options that this connection here be eliminated for that reason. Again, this is the original plat. If you II basically take that off, you've got the original plat. We show serving the adjoining properties with a street connection that would cane through the Peaceful Hills plat. That is a stub right -of -way that had been provided coming back out from Peaceful Lane back up to Pleasant View. The proposal has some I merit in terms of serving internally generated trips. The major problem as we see it though is all the traffic winds up on Pleasant View. It doesn't provide us any means of ingress and egress to the south. We feel the long term is II rather short sighted. Again, all these trips... We have not done an indepth traffic study. We don't have that capability in house to figure out where these cars are going to go once they're out here but the more traffic you have on II Pleasant View...it's reasonable to assume that the percentage of that is going to travel east... Councilman Johnson: Before you move on Paul. II Councilman Workman: I was going to say. Could it be assumed that we're down to Alternate 2 or 3? 61 • 1 ATTACH. #1 1 City Council Meeting - O �t 'per 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I thought they recommended 4? Paul Krause: We recommended 4 with a series... 1 Councilman Wo1_kman: I thought 4 with the pass thru was not a real exciting option. • Councilman Johnson: Paul, before you go on. The little stub coming off of Lake Lucy on the west side by the water tower there. That wasn't considered in any options. What's the problem there? Driving by it and looking in there, it f ' doesn't seem to be too bad of topography in the first couple hundred feet looking north at that point. Is there something that runs into a problem later? I know the current Peaceful Hill plat but if that expires next month, which is again an if, which is a huge 2 letter word. But if it does expire, then would that be a viable second entrance? Paul Krause: Theoretically yes. I should say that we're showing you 4 1 concepts. - Dave and I generated a lot more than that and the waste basket is full of them. There's a lot of different ways of serving this but there is some difficult grade there. It's probably something that could be accommodated. One of the primary concerns we had with that is when you look at the bigger picture. Councilman Boyt: Excuse me Paul but if you don't have the microphone, nobody's 1 hearing you out there. Paul Krause: one of the concerns we had is that if you're looking at the bigger ' 1 picture of how to provide access to the larger neighborhood, we're concerned that there's no means of a north /south connection between Powers and the lake. If you orient that connection at that point there, you're basically serving the area just within throwing distance of Powers Blvd. and that it would be more advantageous to centrally locate this in terms of promoting that north /south movement. Again, we think it's a connection that is_ potentially viable from a grading standpoint. We just didn't feel it warranted a lot more consideration at this point after :,cling how the whole area functioned. Councilman Johnson: So you're saying that you're trying to get a north /south 1 connection up to a road that we don't really want people going on that much? Paul Krause: That's true but what that also does is it helps to bleed off some of this traffic to the south. Right now the way the original plat was proposed and presumably the way individual property owners would choose to develop their property in the future, all of that traffic's going to be introduced onto Pleasant View. The north /south routing allows for another option. Yes, it does have potential of introducing more traffic one way or the other but we think it's generally a benefit to provide two legitimate ways in and out of an area that's going to have that many hones. There's also questions of emergency vehicle access. That's our public safety folks that also stress that we try to get that southern access. Again, routing all the traffic back up to the north doesn't resolve that question for them. Councilman Johnson: The southern access, to get two accesses, that one would also work. Gets you the second access without making it a drive thru. Keep 11 62 City Council Meeting - P amber 11, 1989 a. going. Paul Krause: Okay. The second alternative we looked at was a variation of the theme that was presented by an architect working for the homeowners association ' where they illustrated two cul-de -sacs. One caning in from. Pleasant View. The other caning in from Nez Perce. Wa took that design and tried to modify it again. Enlarging it to serve adjoining properties. What we did is we took the southern cul-de -sac and extended it back through back again to Peaceful Hills. This goes a lot further to providing that north/south routing. We see two problems with it though and the first is that this routing is very convoluted. You've basically got a switch back road design in here, which the more ' complicated you make this, the less 1ikPly it is that people are going to use it. The second issue, and this will come into play a little later, is that the completion of this loop is contingent up on the decisions of two other property owners to develop. Now, we can and will continue. In the past we have. We would continue to advocate stub rights -of -way being dedicated so we can extend roads in the future and we'll often push for those things but they're always difficult issues to resolve. Neighborhoods always object and no matter what you do, it's a difficult problem. So while we think this is a step in the right direction, we don't think it's the ideal one. In alternative 3 we basically tried to start with a clean sheet of paper. We took the Nez Perce connection and assumed that the Peaceful Hills plat was voided out or was replatte3 and what we tried to do is come up with a straighter shot through the neighborhood. Now, one of the advantages to exiting on the north side to Peaceful Lane is that you're quite close to Powers Blvd.. Rather than further to the east and we 11 think the closer you orient people to Powers Blvd. the more likely they will be to exit the neighborhood that way rather than shoot back down to the east. So this is an option that we felt had sane merit. The final one is basically the one that was presented at the first meeting illustrating the staff proposed access to the south. The original plat is still over here. We just popped that road through. At the last meeting there were some questions as to whether or not Nez Perce was a legitimate connection in terms of grade. Whether or not we could make that grade. Dave did quite a bit of work on that and refined the grading plans to the point where we're comfortable that a good safe street can be built through there and provide that connection. We think this plan has some merits and it has sane problems. The meritorious aspect of it for us is that it provides that north/south connection in a very centrally located point between Powers and the lake so we think the utility is there. The second aspect of it is that it can be built 'immediately. All the land is under the control of one property owner. The down side of this is that it introduces the traffic onto Pleasant View fairly far to the east and does have that factor, potentially encouraging more traffic to use that street to exit the neighborhood. At the last meeting we recommended that this alternative be selected. We're continuing to recommend that it be selected for the two reasons. That it can be built today and that it's appropriately located but we do acknowledge that problem. Our recommendation further though is that if this•alternative is not acceptable to the Council, that you look at alternative 3 since it meets most of those criteria that we had established for the design and is generally successful in that. With that if there are questions. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to say that you haven't addressed Nez Perce yet. You drive Nez Perce and you're saying this is almost a one lane road in the first place. If anybody's walking in there, like they were the other evening when I drove it, it is a one lane road. You've got room for one car and 63 City Council Meeting - E ,er 11, 1989 somebody walking. If anothet cat comes by, it gets difficult. You take Option 4, making that straight of a route through there, I personally would rather encourage people to go on out to Powers out of these neighborhoods. I think that the neighborhood needs a back door. Every neighborhood needs a back door for public safety purposes. Sometimes you may not be able to get in from Pleasant View so I can't see everything coming off of Pleasant View but I'd hate to encourage increased traffic on Nez Perce. That is even worse than Pleasant View as far as I'm concerned. Especially since your trees overhang it. It's not like, Pleasant View there's same areas where the trees. Pleasant View just seems wider even though pavement wise Pleasant View is probably the same width of pavement but because of the vegetation and everything on Nez Perce, Nez Perce just seers narrower. I really have a problem with 4. Not as bad of a problem with 2 or 3. If we could do 4 to where coming south. That's 3 up there but even 3. Coming south it was a right turn only so it doesn't become a short cut to cane from Pleasant View and into Carver Beach area so down here at the intersection of Nez Perce and Lake Lucy. If you're corning south it's a right turn only and going north on Nez Perce, you could leave it to where you have one lane. You've got enough room in there to make an intersection that functions that way. TO where you have a one lane to the right both ways. Dave Hempel: Not intersect Jay. We just proposed like a T intersection I guess. That represents road right -of -way. Councilman Johnson: Right. That's what I mean. You've got enough road right -of -way there to bring, instead of a T intersection, to have a single lane that's oriented to where you have to turn right. I want to say right turn only so we're not getting people coming off of Pleasant View. Cutting through this neighborhood and then running through Nez Perce to go to the grade school or I/ come to City Hall which is not what we want to encourage people to do is to go through residential areas as short cuts. We want them to use the arterials and the collectors and all that stuff rather than the residential streets especially one like Nez Perce and Pleasant View. If we're going to do that, I would want to see that people coming out of that and going south are forced to go over to Powers instead of cutting through. It certainly isn't the straightest way. Councilwoman Dimler: Jay, do you have an alternate, which one are you proposing? Mayor C9aniel: He said 2 or 3. Councilman Johnson: Yes, 2 or 3 but if 4 is decided on, I want some modifications on 4 so southbound's right turn only. In fact on 3 I would 1 even... Councilman Boyt: It's awfully hard to enforce that right turn only stop. 1 Councilman Johnson: It is. But with street design, you make it difficult to make the left turn. I I/ Councilman Boyt: Well you know that doesn't work. Councilman Johnson: Pleasant View? Councilman Boyt: That's right. 64 1 1 City Council Meeting - S�+ielnber 11, 1989 Aft. i Councilman Johnson: Near Mountain. But see the signs never, went up there. That was the problem. When you build the road and day one on the road you have a sign saying Light turn only. At Near Mountain, 3 years later we put up the right turn only sign. Or left turn only sign. That didn't work after you had 3 years of people making right hand turns to cane in and do it. If on day one you- 'll put up the sign, you're not going to get as much problem. But without that, I won't be in favor of any connection to Nez Perce. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Boyt: I have a question for Jay I guess. What you're saying is that ' the right turn only is for people caning out of Vineland? Councilman Johnson: Right. Going south. So they have to go down Lake Lucy Road down to Powers. Councilman Boyt: ...Option 3. It has a lot of drawbacks. I agree with Paul and we have not shown that we're very successful in making these future road hook -ups. We keep trying to put in systems that guarantee that everybody knows the road's going thru but I'm confident that the people who are. living there will fight that diligently when the day comes to put it through. I think if we go with 3, the developer of Vineland has got to give us sane sort of assurance that the other property owners agree that that's a reasonable connection. Gary had talked about one way to assure that is to cane up with a, what did you call it Gary? Some kind of a comprehensive road plan or something? 11 Gary Warren: Well similar to what we did on the Stratford Ridge. We did a concept layout here. We didn't take that any further but what I suggested or my comment would be that the concept could be recorded against the properties, remaining properties out there but at least you've got it on record. Maybe it •could be done as part of a comprehensive plan for this particular area. 1 Councilman Johnson: Are the property owners of this center property, were they involved in any of this discussion or have they been talked to at all? Frank Beddor: Frank Beddor at 910 Pleasant View Road. Do you want me to answer that question first? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Frank Beddor: Joel Trundle owns the property right down the middle. Ice's lived there, he's 80 years old. His parent's lived there and he's lived there all his life and at this current time he's not interested in selling. As of today anyway, or developing so that's the status as much as I know on who owns the property. The property next to it is Art Owens and he's here tonight. The 11 property next to it. Councilman Johnson: Did staff talk to Mr. Thrundle? Dave Hempel: Jay, Joe did came in quite sane time ago and spoke with me about it and he did express that he had no desire to sell or subdivide at this time. Councilman Johnson: Right. But we're still talking the future here. 1 65 • City Council Meeting - "t .er 11, 1989 r Mayo/ Chmiel: Did he ha any objections to the proposal? Dave Hempel: Not to my recollection, no. II Frank Beddor: Now that I'm up here can I? Mayor CYmiel: Frank, go ahead. 1 Frank Beddor: First of all I'd like to thank you Mr. Mayor and the council people for giving us the time to look at this challenge. We really appreciate the time and I'd also like to thank staff because they worked very hard in giving same alternatives. Maybe that's the first time I've seen this happen in all the years I've been here where staff came up with some alternatives so we didn't have to start from scratch so I really appreciate that. And Don, maybe you would thank the Chanhassen patrolman who was parking on Pleasant View Road to try to enforce the sperm limit. Last Friday night I drove over and he was parked there and he was parked there so it was kind of a reverse situation. I pulled over. Got out of my car. When over and introduced myself and I thanked him. His name was Don, for being there. Usually that's the other - way around. Usually they're stopping me but I wanted to thank you. And I also want to thank Chuck, the developer, for being very patient and working with us on this. The issue really, as we're talking about Pleasant View Road, is safety is the main issue and let me just .show you a couple of pointers on that. This is our driveway on Pleasant View -Road and we, because of the safety and the traffic, we are moving our driveway about 60 feet to the west so that we can see when we come out both ways and + also the people can see us when we pull up. Now we're having to tear up this driveway, tear out all the electrical and then we're I/ going to have to bulldoze a new driveway. This is Joe Trundle's, driveway thru this area and hedge because it is a safety problem. People come up that road. It's wide and so they cane up fast and they don't realize it narrows down a little later so safety is a real issue. This is the developer's property directly across the road fran, we call it the farmhouse. This is a borderline and this is where the proposed road was set to go was right here. This house sets 30 feet fran the road and this driveway canes right out so all those headlights are going to hit the front door and the living roan coming out on the original proposal. -When I read the staff report, they said there are 10 trips per day per household so with 21 houses, that'd be 210 trips a day. Now I don't 1 know how many of those are at night but somebody who lives there is going to have a nervous breakdown with all those headlights coming out right smack into their front roan. And it's so close to the road and the way the ground is set, I think it'd be hard to diffuse that. It could be done but I think that would be very hard. Marilyn and I drove this area from 2 or 3 times on Nez Perce Drive and we clocked it from the southerly access that we could like to see down to Kerber and that's 5 /10th's of a mile and that road, as you say Jay, is the same as Pleasant. It might look a little narrower but there's one bad turn and that's where Western Road canes in. Then we went back and clocked it from the proposed entranceway on Pleasant View and we went to TH 101. Now we only went as far to Pleasant View in that direction to where the road opened up nice and wide. And the first 5 /10ths of a mile there are 6 tight turns. Either they're tight S turns or blind turns. In that mile stretch there are 11 turns so it's a 11 lot more serious for traffic going down Pleasant View I think, and this is my opinion, than the same amount of traffic coming down Nez Perce road to Kerber. Now I never go that way so I had to drive it 2 or 3 times to check it to see so 66 1 City Council meeting - • g i.mber 11, 1989 obviously we are not in favor of any more traffic on Pleasant View. Then on this report I read the initials ADT, average daily traffic and I believe staff is reporting that there were 360 to 1,300 cars a day going by this area of Vineland development. I understand that a local road is supposed to carry about 1,000 cars and a collector carries more. Well this is a local road so we're already at some point in time, 300 cars over on Pleasant View Road so we are very much against any more traffic on Pleasant View. On the plats, which you've already gone through, we really recommend Alternate 3 and when I picked up this material last Friday, I realized that this was a rough sketch. It needed to be fine tuned and the first thing we noticed was that in the property that the developer's bought, he wanted 18 lots and then 3 off Pleasant View. Well the way it shows now it's only 15 lots so we had Daryl Fortier take this same plat 3 and refine this a little bit so it does come out with 18 lots. At the last meeting we were here both Chuck agreed I believe and also the Pleasant View that we do not want a thru street. You still agree to that don't you Chuck? You 11 don't want a thru street? We had such a long wait tonight that we had a lot of time to talk and we know this needs a little bit more work but I don't really think we should have to hold the developer up if he agrees to number 3 and getting the other owners position. I would think that in the future if anybody wanted to develop this property they would have to conform if this road is dedicated to whatever the City plans would be. There is one disadvantage to this route and that is that it's going to be an imposition on the position that 11 live here and here. That's going to put a lot of traffic at same future date there. While we were waiting I was talking to Daryl and maybe we could leave this way but maybe it's possible to take the end of this cul- de-sac and this is very steep right here but you can came at an angle like this and go over and cane back down so maybe you could have another access here. You'd have this access which would relieve part of the traffic this way. You'd have this access. and also the one we're proposing. I asked Chuck tonight before we started. I said would you oppose this plan or if the Council accepted this plan, would you accept it? It's my understanding that Chuck said he was not opposed to this plan which is, I'll call it 3A so we would hope that the Council tonight would vote on this plan and accept this plan with a temporary cul- de-sac here so the developer could go about his business and develop the rest the property. Do you have any questions? Thank you. Councilman Boyt: I have a question for you. What's the difference between the City's 3 and your 3A? Frank Beddor: Very little. It's just that we redid the lots so we came out with 18 lots instead of 15. See when the City did it, they were doing it and they were under pressure and they were concerned about the roads but obviously ' the "developer doesn't want to lose 3 lots and he had developed his for 18 so Daryl Fortier developed this so it would came out to 18 lots in that area. Not counting the 3 that go up here. Councilwoman Dimler: I assume all those lots are standard? You don't know? Frank Beddor: We just got this late Friday night and Daryl worked on this this afternoon but Daryl, are these all standard size lots? 15,000 square feet? Daryl Fortier: They're all in compliance with the City ordinance for depth and width as well as the square footage. 67 City Council Meeting - Pte+ nber 11, 1989 ►. Councilman Johnson: Does one of those exit out on Pleasant View then? That top green one then? 1 Frank Beddot: Yes. There would be a driveway here to go into this one and this would probably be 2 lots with a driveway coming in serving 2 lots that is not sketched in. One of the things that we did object to in Plan 2 and some of the other plans, they had a lot of lots along Pleasant View Road, a half a dozen that would all be separate driveways coming out onto them and we did not want a lot of separate driveways caning out. I don't think the City wants that either. That doesn't help so again I want to thank the stafff or working on this and getting this worked out. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address this? Chuck Van Eeckhout: My none is Chuck Van Eeckhout. I'm the developer of this proposal. My proposal, which is still before you is as it has been since May or whenever I first brought it to the Planning Commission. I still believe that represents the best use of this property after considerable study and evaluation. The proposal that was put forward by the Homeowners Association is acceptable to me if that is what the Council would like to do. It has the negative of being a little bit more disruptive on the south end with regard to the wooded area and it does leave us in kind of a limbo on that strip going north to Pleasant View which is okay. I'll deal with that either as an outlot or will approach maybe 2 lots from the south and 1 from the north or 2 from the north and 1 from the south or something like that which is workable. I have no further comments. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Councilman Johnson: What about my, do you understand what I was saying about 11 the access off of Nez Perce and making that to where if you coming down out of that, eve- on Option 3, if you're coming down out of your subdivision, that it's a right turn only versus going onto Nez Perce? So we're using a full standard city street, Lake Lucy Road instead of Nez Perce. Does that give you much problem? Chuck Van Eeckhout: Not at all. Mayor CYmiel: Okay. Any further discussion? 1 Councilman Boyt: Yes. I've got one comment. I think that what I would really be committing to here would be some sort of, call it the S plan if you want but something that would come off of Lake Lucy Road and end up on what we're calling Peaceful Lane and how the lots are configured in there is a whole different topic. Whether the staff or whether the proposal we just saw is better, I have no idea but I think it gives us a lot of what we want. Unfortunately it's not all at one time and that's a serious drawback so I'd like to see Roger directed to come up with the strongest assureties that the City could have that we could put into place to assure us that this road will eventually continue on to the ! west. Councilman Johnson: When in October, or Mr. Owens is here isn't he? Is he going to let that expire? 68 ' 1 City Council Meeting - r imber 11, 1989 Mayon O niel: Do you want to address that? Arthui Owens: There's no way I can develop it now so it will expire. Councilman Johnson: Then have you looked at Alternate 3 and Alternate 2 that affect your - property? I'd like to hear from you on those. Arthur Owens: 3A would be the most effective...I think for all the properties. i Councilman Johnson: That's good. 2 out of 3 landowners in agreement. That's better than usual. ' Councilman Boyt: Well it's the same concept. How you divide the lots up. Mayor_ Chmiel: Any further discussion? If not, thanks Chuck. Can I have a motion? Councilman Boyt: I'm not exactly sure how we would word it. Does anybody got ideas that would convey that we, I think if the rest of you agree, that the S ' curvature with one entrance being off Lake Lucy Road and the other Peaceful Lane, and I think that the developer should come back to us with a specific lot layout. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Definitely. Councilman Johnson: I think the motion would be that the City Council prefers the Alternate 3 type of option would be the motion. ' Councilman Workman: With, I guess the discussion Jay. I'm not excited about a right only turn and I don't know if we're fully taking into account that park and everything else down there but I have... ' Councilman Johnson: That's true. Those people will be served by that park and to get to it you'd have to do Nez Perce. Very good point. I missed that completely. ' Councilman Boyt: I'm not a right only fan there either. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Well when it was a straight through. With Alternate ' 3 being as crooked as it is, it no longer looks like a short cut. I live next door to a short cut. Most everybody here has probably taken Santa Vera at one time. You haven't? ' Councilman Boyt: It's not short there. ' Councilwoman Dimler: It's not a short cut to me. Councilman Workman: I guess it's going to be our next Carver Beach Road. Nez Perce caning down here is going to be the next one because I think it grades down doesn't it a little bit? It does one of these. It's thin and it's going to be the next place where people are going to be screaming for patrols and the park and sidewalk and everything else. It's definitely going to be a chute going down there. 69 11 i 1 City Council Meeting - S tr 11, 1989 1 Councilman Johnson: A lot of people walk that. It is a good, I've seen quite a few people walking that area. Mayo1. Chmiel: Yes they do. Councilman Johnson: It's a good candidate for sidewalk to the park even though. Councilman Boyt: It's not the consistent best option. I guess it's the best one but it's not that it's necessarily... Mayor Chmiel: It's the most viable option. Okay. We have a motion of it 3A. Councilman Boyt: 3. Councilman Johnson: Item 12, Alternate 3. I'll move that the City Council voices it's preference to using Alternate 3 as the access alternate for Vineland subdivision. Vineland Forest plat. Councilman Boyt: I'll second that if you'll accept that we also direct the City Attorney to investigate the best way to see this pursued to the west. We should have that. Councilman Johnson: Yes. No problem. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the concept plan for Vineland Forest Addition using Alternate 3 as the access alternative and - directing the City Attorney to investigate the best access route to the west. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Chuck Van Eeckhout: One question. What is the correct procedure at this point? We have a preliminary plat...We take it you will approve a preliminary plat... next time? Jo Ann Olsen: Normally we would go back to the Planning Commission but the ' Planning Commission essentially gave...configuration to the Council so I think we could just bring it back to the Council. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, bring it back to the Council. APPEAL DECISION FOR A LOT AREA AND LOT DEPTH VARIANCE, 185 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, CARL MCNUTr. Carl McNutt: Carl McNutt. Curly McNutt everyone knows me by. Mr. Mayor. ' Councilpersons. I want you to put out of your mind if you can some of these mathematical figures that have made my lot almost worthless. I have the longest piece of property from between TH 101 and the curve on Pleasant View Road. It's 315 feet long but do you have a transparency for that Jo Ann? Okay. The legal description says my property is 120 feet x 315. However, the road owns 2 rods of that on my side now which makes it only 87 feet deep. ODnsequently leaving ,11 me 1,300 square feet short on one piece of property if I divide it. A little less than that. In other words, when I bought this property in 1952, I didn't 70 ' 1 City Council Meeting - Sep,nber 11, 1989 realize I was buying a sub �, ng standard lot. It's not deep enough. At that time it was real big. I want to approach this from two directions. First, it's 55 feet from my house to the edge of the blacktop. It makes me a nice lawn out front. In fact it's, well there's 55 feet all the way down from well it would be about 25 feet from the legal edge of the road, what they own to the edge of the ' blacktop. Now I've mowed that. Kept it like a park if anyone's gone along way there for 35 years but.then I want to go back, wa back in history to when I bought that house. It was the first one built on the Olest Johnson development and at that time it was a township. In the County Courthouse, that road was ' only 2 rods wide. 1 rod on my side and 1 rod on the Kenny Kerber's side. tie owned a farm where the Near tt untain development is now. Bud Cask can attest to that fact that none of our abstracts said that the township owned 2 rods or a 4 ' rod road. 2 rods on each side. We petitioned after, I think it was 1954, we petitioned the town board to have that road dustproofed somehow. Well they hashed that around for a while and decided that they needed another rod from us ' and a rod on the north side from the farmer_, all along there. So we were hashing this, deciding whether we should give an easement for another rod or not and the farmer, Kenny Kerber who now lives in Arizona or Texas, somewhere, offered to sell us all an extra rod on his side. 2 rods so it wouldn't ' interfere with our property at all. While we were debating this, old John Kerber who was the Chairman of the Town Board at that time, somehow conveniently, this went on for quite a few months didn't it Bud? Maybe 6 months. Conveniently Mr. Kerber found in the deceased town auditor or treasurer or whatever they had, township auditor, found an article that said this had been eased many years ago. Well we don't know how many years ago. It wasn't in the Carver County courthouse and we don't know. Olest Johnson, the man who originally owned that is dead. I can't check with him. I was going to have Al Klingelhutz, the former Mayor, come and talk. This kind of snuck up on me. I wanted to get a letter from Kenny Kerber and attest to that fact but I think ' it's unfair that things have caught up. If I had known this was going to happen, I would have built a house on that piece of property myself 10 years ago and got out of all this hassle. But events have caught up with me now and really if you people would come look at that property, if someone couldn't build a big house there and have a fine piece of grass out in front to mow and 30 feet in back, they'd be over 100 feet from the nearest neighbor which is way farther than all of the developments around there. Directly south of me they put 5 pieces of property on 1 acre of land. Now that's not 15,000 square feet per. That's within the last 5 years. The front of those lots there's 30 feet wide. The backs are 250. My piece of property would be a nice rectangular spot. Easy ' to build on and everything. Would need a little bit of fill probably. Otherwise all it's good for is to look at and for me to mow and I'm getting tired of it. Thank you. Mayor Ct Thank you. Any questions? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Jo Ann or Paul or Sharmin. How wide is the right -of -way there? Total right -of -way from Pleasant View. Carl McNutt: There's 66 feet on my end and right around the corner it goes down to 33. • Jo Ann Olsen: We've got the full right -of -way at that point. ' 71 r City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 a � Councilman Johnson: We got full 66 at this point. Does that go all the way out to TH 101 is 66 feet? ' Jo Ann Olsen: I believe so. Councilman Johnson: That's not much for front yards for some of the people further up TH 101. Carl McNutt: All along that place they've all built the same way. Years ago, they're all the same setback. But we mow it anyway...They'11 never need it unless they run a freeway through there. Councilman Johnson: I mow the right -of -way in front of my house too. Then when , we get to the curb, we drop to 33 feet? Jo Ann Olsen: Which curb is that? 1 Councilman Johnson: When we get to the curb by Trapper's Pass? The new addition there it drops to 33 feet? Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know exactly where it starts but it gets na=rrower... Councilman Johnson: In general. How many feet off of, the argument seems to be 1 instead of going, do we need 66 feet of right -of -way there and has there been a calculation done to see how many feet it has to be narrowed in order for him to get to 15,000 standard? 1 • Carl McNutt: 9 1/2 feet. Jo Ann Olsen: We haven't done that calculation. It's not a whole lot when you ' do the whole length of there. Councilman Johnson: What he should be first requesting is vacation of part of 1 the street easement in order to get the proper width there. Then that would solve the problem. What's the classification of this? Collector? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Councilman Johnson: And all collectors have 66 feet? Or most collectors have 66 feet. Sane collectors have 66 feet. Pick one of the three. Carl McNutt: Can I ask another question? When was this made a collector? I don't think it was ever made a collector. They've added developments all along that for years and especially in the last 5. So it becomes a collector now yeah because everybody uses it but it's just a little old country road. Councilman Johnson: For the property owner, if he believes that this ' right -of -way was taken without any compensation, that's a long time ago. I'm not sure what kind of legal recourse he would have. Mayor Chmiel: I don't know. Maybe Roger can address that. Would there be any other recourse? 72 ' 11 City Council Meeting - Se --"*. ber 11, 1989 411 1.. Councilman Johnson: As far as his prediction that this was just taken and there was no real records of it being taken. He wasn't paid fo'r it or anything, that it's not a legal right -of -way. Roger Knutson: Wriat is it curb to curb? r . Gary Warren: Actually it's 73 feet of right -of -way. I Councilman Johnson: This has 73 feet of right -of -way? Gary Warren: Frain this...section it looks like it's 73 feet there. Changes immediately west of that to...but there is a little jog there in front of his property that looks like it's 73. Herb Cast: My name is Herb Cast. I live 2 doors east of Curly McNutt and ' that's a real pretty map you've got there but when Pleasant View Road was made, it was a dirt road and the township took 33 feet off the front. of our property. All of our plantings and everything went at that time and that map has been made since then. Probably even a date on it and if you could find the map that when my house was built in 1959, it's going to look a lot different than that. Gary Warren: I'm just saying now on the County records it shows a 73 foot right -of -way. Roger Knutson: It can be established in many ways. One is by use. Under a ' State Statute, if the City or County or whoever, maintains a street for 6 years, plows it and takes care of it, the City owns it by adverse possession but they only own the traveled portion plus the shoulders necessary to maintain it. Councilman Johnson: 73 feet's a little wide for that particular road. Councilwoman Dimler: ...sane back does that make his lot conforming? ' Councilman Boyt: No it doesn't. It doesn't have enough. Even then he needs 9 1/2 and he gets 3 1/2 assuming that half of that 73 is on the north side and ' half of it's on the south side. He gets 3 1/2 and he needs 9 1/2. Councilwoman Dimler: Can we have staff look at that? Mayor O nie1: Yes. Councilman Johnson: But on the straight merits of the variance, I think we probably ought to move to deny the variance but... Mayor Clmiel: But before we deny that variance, what I'd like to do is have staff take a close look at this. Cane up with a conclusion as to what is really needed to be in conformance with that total footage. Jo Ann Olsen: You mean as far as vacating a portion of the right -of -way? Mayor Crniel: Right. And determine that and then cane back to us with that answer and I think that way we can come up with a conclusion. 73 City Council Meeting - Stember 11, 1989 / 60* 1 Paul Krause: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to point out that it's probably possible, depending on how much right -of -way the City is willing to bicker with, cane up with a lot that meets the area requirement but there's still going to be a lot depth variance and that won't go away. • t S Councilman Boyt: That won't make it then. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Even if you had that, it would not make any difference to it then? Jo Ann Olsen: You'd still have a variance. Mayor Chmiel: You'd still require a variance to what's existing? i Jo Ann Olsen: Exactly. Councilman Johnson: And you won't meet the hardship because he's got adequate ' use of the property as a single family home. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I had a question Jo Ann, or whoever wants to , answer it. If you do then, say that we would allow this just hypothetically, we have 2 non - conforming uses that are now lots of record right? Jo Ann Olsen: If you approve the... Councilwoman Dimler: If we approve it they become lots of record. Is the buyer of that lot there have to came in for variances? Jo Ann Olsen: No. It's been approved as a lot of record. - Councilwoman Dimler: So they can build without any variances? Jo Ann Olsen: As long as they can meet all the setbacks. 1 Councilman Boyt: They probably could. Well, given the lot depth problem, I would move denial of this variance. Councilman Johnson: He's existing non- conforming to lot depth at this time? His existing home. He's a legal non - conforming as.we discussed earlier. Carl McNutt: All the people along there are too close to the road. Councilman Johnson: So all the lots along Pleasant View are legal non - conforming lots? I don't know whether that makes any difference. The difference is going to be if the legislature passes the new laws on how we decide variances. At this point we're tied by state law. ' Councilman Boyt: Have you got a second? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I'll second that. i Mayor Chmiel: I'm having discussion here and... Councilman Boyt: You can discuss. We just have a motion on the floor. ' 74 1 City Council Meeting - S' nber 11, 1989 �► 11 Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second and you're saying to deny the proposal? Is that correct? Councilman Boyt: Yes. I'm saying that because no matter how we cut this, the lot will not have sufficient depth so we would be creating a lot that was non- conforming and it doesn't meet the criteria. ' Mayor_ Chmiel: Even if he had that 9 1/2 feet. Councilman Boyt: It still wouldn't make it. Mayor Chmiel: It still won't make it but would the City be willing to give up additional footage on that to make that into a conformance and how many more feet would that take? many Councilman Johnson: Into Pleasant View. 5 feet into the asphalt. Jo Ann Olsen: He has to have 125. Gary Warren: I don't know where the roadway lies at this moment in relation to the right -of -way line. Councilman Johnson• v It says 25 feet. 25 feet from his property line is the asphalt in the drawing and to get 125 foot, he's at 87 foot now so it'd be about to the center of the road. Gary Warren: We'd have to vacate to the center of the road? II Jo Ann Olsen: He's got a 33 foot right -of -way and it canes up to 38 feet. Councilwoman Dimler: It's not going to work. Mayor Chmiel: No. I don't think it will unfortunately. Carl McNutt: What kind of houses are we building in Chanhassen... Councilman Johnson: It's not as much that as it is the state law that requires ' us to how we function on variances. Quite simple the need to subdivide your house is the need for economic profit. You have reasonable use of your larr3. • Carl McNutt: Who came up with this 125 foot depth? You people. It doesn't matter whether we cane up here and discuss it. I'm... I don't care particularly. I can see that I'm lost here but it really irks me that we can cane up here and have all kinds of discussions like the direction, the Heritage House, the old church was facing down here. We can put our input in. We can do all this stuff. Who decides it? You 5 people. I don't like it. ' Councilman Johnson: How do we 5 people get here? Councilman Boyt: Jay, let's vote on this and get going. II Carl McNutt: Maybe you're not going to be here the next time. 75 1 City Council Meeting - Scabt^nber 11, 1989 .fa 1 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to deny the appeal to the decision for a lot area and lot depth variance, 185 Pleasant View Road, Carl McNutt. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: ,viz. Mayor, .I would move that we adjourn. 1 Councilman Johnson: Second. Mayor Chmiel: I would make that motion that we carry through with the balance of the meeting at our Wednesday budget work session at 6:30. Councilman Workrnan: Who are these people? , Councilman Johnson: Yeah. We do have another group of citizens here too. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Was there someone here who was... 1 Councilman Johnson: For another issue. 1 Councilman Boyt: That's a good hour's discussion. Resident: We're here with the Near Mountain discussion. 1 Mayor_ Chmiel: The PUD amendment? Resident: We're...Pleasant View homeowners that have this concern with you planning to open up that emergency access on Indian Hill and sealing more cars down Pleasant View Road again. - 11 Mayor Chmiel: Is that the it 14.5? Councilman Johnson: Yes. • 1 Mayor Chmiel: I would like to take this at this time but with limited discussions. Directly to the points and then we can go from there. Torn Sykes: I've looked at this property a number of years, a number of times. Mayor Chmiel: Wound you like to cane up to the microphone please? 1 Councilman Johnson: Bill, do we want to withdraw our motion and second? Councilman Boyt: I'm willing to go until until 25 after and then I'm leaving. I hope we adjourn before then. Tom Seifert: I'll just make this real quick. We were sitting here with, we , came up with the Pleasant View Homeowners group and my name is Tom Seifert, 600 Pleasant View Road. Our concern was, when we were up here we ran into Peter Pflaum and his group and they said they were on the agenda because you were - going to open up or the City staff was requesting that the emergency access that was platted a number of years back for the Near Mountian development would be opened back up for some reason and sending more traffic down Indian Hill Road onto Pleasant View Road. Do I have this wrong? 76 1 City Council Meeting - F r 11, 1989 *. Councilman Boyt: I don't think that was one of the... Councilman Johnson: I think it's as an emergency access. Not as a street. Mayor Chmiel: Strictly as an emergency. Linda Kramer: I'm Linda Kramer and I live on Indian Hill Road and I have a real ' interest in this because 10 years ago when it was discussed as an emergency entrance, it was going to be something with an arm or some kind of device so cars were not using the road and I am very concerned tonight hearing that the City is proposing having traffic from Near Mountain go down Indian Hill Road which, have any of you been on Indian Hill Road? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Linda Kramer.: Okay. The grade is twice as steep as your city standard for a road and at the bottom on the hill is a sharp 90 degree curve with no sight distance whatsoever and it would be a very, very poor road to have any traffic using at all so I would propose sane kind of an or something where emergency vehicles could use it but cars could not get through. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's basically the intent as to the use on that. ' Councilman Workman: I'm not sure where that road is. Can you show me on a map? Mayor_ Chmiel: Jo Ann, do you have a map to show Tom? Councilman Boyt: We have a map right here. Councilman Johnson: It's on the front of your thing. See that one that says Iroquois? Councilman Workman: Yes. • Councilman Johnson: That's Indian Hill Road. Councilwoman Dimler: Does that makes sense? It says Iroquois but it's Indian Hill. Councilman Johnson: Iroquois' a type of indian. ' Gary Warren: They changed... Mayor Chmiel: Do you have it? Basically, Jo Ann would you clarify that? Jo Ann Olsen: Let me clarify that. That was in a condition that still got II carried over and it should have been removed but staff had originally shown the plans and specs which show a second street access through Outlot C but the Planning Commission agreed that it should just be only as a secondary, emergency access and that's what we have to work on the plans and specs to follow that through. 77 1 City Council Meeting - .fiber 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I thought the emergency access was up on Trapper's Pass. Outlot A up there? Jo Ann Olsen: That's just going to be a trail. That's not going to be. Maybe I'm getting them confused. Mike Pflaum: I could perhaps clarify a couple of questions that we had and do it in 30 seconds hopefully and get out of you/. way. My name is Mike Pflaum. I'm with Lindgren Bros. Construction. With me here tonight are Rick Sathre, the consulting engineer for the project and Peter Pflaum, my brother, the President of Lundgren Bros.. Iroquois Lane issue has already been brought up. The only reason that we were concerned, as also has been explained, the recommendation of the Planning Commission was different from the recommendation that was shown in the report for the recommended City Council action and that was just I guess an error. There are two other issues that were of concern to us. One relates to park and the general consensus of the Park Commission, the Planning Commission and the interested neighbors was that it would be desireable for the City to acquire park in the area of the property that is shown as Lot 7 and 8. We were not overjoyed by this but we can understand the benefits of it. The two points I'd like to make are first, there was an error at the Parks Commission level as to what 10% of the property equated to. 1O%% of the property equates to 3.9 acres, not 4.5 acres and it just so happens, coincidentally that Lot 7 and 8 and the trail outlots combined equal 3.9 acres which is a happy coincidence. Our desires, if they would be heard regarding park is that it be strictly a passive nature observation type use. It's on Silver Lake and that does present great , opportunity for that. We would hope that the City would accept deed restrictions prohibiting public access, public boat access or the development of the site into something other than a passive use. We and the people who live in - ' close proximity to the park area, the future proposed park area, are very concerned - that it not turn into an active recreational use. The other issue was one that we have visited before and that is sidewalks. In the subdivision that we were proposing on the top of the mountain, the Parks Commission recommended the construction of a sidewalk, 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on the street that loops the top of the hill. There are no other sidewalks anywhere in Near Mountain. This issue was raised just a year ago with the addition of Trapper's Pass 3rd at a preliminary stage. The City Council at that time felt that sidewalks were not necessary there because of it's inclusion as part of the Near Mountain project. We feel it's unnecessary here also and just as a point of fact, the Parks Commission, when they made their recommendation. I was at the meeting. There was a split vote. The vote in favor of their recommendation was 4 to 3. The 3 people that voted against the recommendation voted against the recommendation because they were not in favor of a concrete trail around the ' hilltop. The Planning Commission chose to remain silent on this question because they did not feel it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to be second guessing the motives of another advisory body. We would like to see the concrete trail go away and we'd like to see the connecting trails from Trapper's Pass below on the one side and down to Pleasant View Lane on the other. Either woodchips, crushed rock or bituminous. What I heard earlier tonight and what I seemed to have read in the report is that bituminous is the staff's recommendation. I guess woodchips would be our recommendation. Beyond that, I'll be more than happy and Rick Sathre would•be more than happy and Peter would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have regarding our proposal. We are naming this project the summit at Near Mountain. We feel it will be a tremendous asset to the community and a real showcase development. Thank you. 78 I/ City Council Meeting - tuber 11, 1989 e � Councilman Johnson: The real issue tonight is whether it should stay the way it used to be and we don't need to get into that tonight. ' Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Boyt: I would move that we adjourn. Councilman Johnson: I second. Councilman Workman: We don't need to approve the amendment or anything? Councilman Boyt: What this? Councilman Workman: Yes. ' Councilman Boyt: Do you want to be here until 1:30? I can assume you we will - - _ be. Mayor Chmiel: No. _ ' Councilman Johnson: There's a lot of discussion to go along whether we approve this amendment or not. Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor with a second for adjournment to be carried over until Wednesday of this week at 6:30 here in the Council chambers _ with the balance of our budget work session. At 6:30 p.m.. Councilman Johnson: When was our budget work scheduled for? Mayor Chmiel: 6:30. Linda Kramer: I have a question. Is there going to be more discussion of the Indian Hill? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Linda Kramer: On Wednesday night? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. As far as Indian Hill is concerned, it's just going to be used as emergency access period. So if you'd like to came back to listen to the balance of what the presenter has, you're more than welcome. We'd love to see you. Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann? So it 14 was not... II Jo Ann Olsen: It should have been taken out. Councilman Johnson: Should have been deleted. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.. ' Submitted by Don Ashworth, City Mananger pre by n�9 pared b_ Nann Ophea.m i 79 . II C IT'i'OF 1 VI. CHANHASSEN o 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II ty , (612) 937 -19004 FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM 11 TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I ' FROM: Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer DATE: October 12, 1990 II SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review of Troendle Addition 90 -28 LUR II This site is comprised of 8.7 acres of rolling terrain located II south of Pleasant View Road west of Vineland Forest Addition and north of Carver Beach Estates. Sanitary Sewer II Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site , from the Vineland Forest Addition to the east. The sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended from the connection point on Nez Perce Drive to approximately 175 feet west at the intersection II with the proposed Troendle Way then extended south through Troendle Way. The proposed sanitary sewer system will provide service to the II majority of the lots in this subdivision with the exception of Lots 1 and 4, Block 1. Lots 1 and 4 will need to cut into Pleasant View Road to make the needed sanitary service II connection. It should also be noted that all'of the sanitary sewer shall be 8 -inch and have a minimum grade of 0.4 %. Applicant shall provide detail plan and profiles of the sanitary II sewer for final review and approval by the city engineer. Watermain II The plans submitted propose to connect to the existing watermain stub on Nez Perce Drive and extend to the west including a II lateral service to the south for Troendle Way. It is anticipated that future extension of the watermain on Nez Perce will connect into the existing watermain on Peaceful Lane. II 1 ATTACH • iSti I/ Sharmin Al -Jaff October 12, 1990 Page 2 Eight -inch size watermain will be required on Nez Perce Drive. Applicant shall submit detail plans for the watermain for final review and approval by the city engineer. The fire marshal shall verify adequate hydrant location and spacing. Streets The plans submitted propose a standard urban city street of 31 feet wide back -of -curb to back -of -curb within a 50 foot right -of -way for both Nez Perce Drive and Troendle Way. The radius of the right -of -way for the cul -de -sac on Troendle Way is proposed to be 50 feet. The current City standard radius of right-of,—.WAY. for an urbari_._.elil- de-sac is 60 feet, thus, the applicant shall make the noted change. Construction of a temporary cul -de -sac will be required at the west end of Nez Perce Drive. This cul -de -sac will require temporary barricading with signage noting it as a future road extension. This temporary cui -de -sac may also require a temporary easement, pending the final design layout, which will be vacated with the future road extension. This plan submitted is not totally consistent with the previously approved concept plan (see attachment) which displayed an additional cul -de -sac north of Nez Perce Drive. The need for this cul -de -sac has been somewhat eliminated by the proposed plan which displays a four -large lot layout. ' Currently, Lot 2, Block 1 has a private driveway access from Pleasant View Road. It is recommended that this driveway be eliminated and access be changed to Nez Perce Drive. Lot 3, Block 1 will also have driveway access off of Nez Perce Drive, however, actual driveway access locations should be clearly shown on the final submittal. By necessity, Lots 1 and 4, Block 1 will ' have access to Pleasant View Road. In an effort to minimize the number of driveways on this well traveled road, it is recommended that a shared driveway be constructed and this shall be located to maximize sight distance and reduce safety problems with a corresponding cross - easement as necessary. ' Grading and Drainage The majority of the site grading will take place south of the Nez Perce Drive. The proposed grading will yield a drainage scheme similar for the most part with that existing, which primarily drains to the northwest. A proposed detention pond and control structure is shown on the plan submitted, however, actual i 1 Sharrnin Al -Jaff , October 12, 1990 Page 3 1 calculations for the predeveloped and developed 100 -year, 24 -hour runoff discharge rates will need to be submitted to verify the pond capacity. The majority of the runoff from this site will be conveyed through storm sewer to this detention pond. Storm sewer calculations for the entire system will also need to be submitted at the time of final review. Erosion Control • The plan submitted shows erosion control silt fence along the rear yard areas of Lots 2 through 6, Block 2 and downstream of the outlet structure for the detention pond. It is recommended that silt fence also be installed around the ponding basin until turf is established. The site should be seeded and mulched immediately following grading operations to minimize erosion potential. Recommended Conditions 1 1. The cul -de -sac on Troendle Way shall have a radius of 1 right -of -way of 60 feet and Troendle Way shall be modified in the name to be either Troendle Circle or Troendle Court to eleviate any confusion in the name, implying it to be a through street. 2. The applicant shall install erosion control silt fence around the ponding area until such time that turf is established. One strip of sod shall be placed behind all curbing. Entire site shall be seeded and mulched immediately following grading operations. 1 3. Staff recommends a shared driveway access off of Pleasant . View Road for Lots 1 and 4, Block 1. This common driveway ' shall be located to minimize safety concerns and constructed to a 7 - ton design, 20 feet wide and have a maximum grade of 10 %. A corresponding cross - easement shall be provided. Driveway access locations for all lots shall be shown on the final submittal. 4. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be provided on the plat as follows: a. The drainage and utility easements along the westerly property lines 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. 1 1 1 I/ Sharmin Al -Jaff October 12, 1990 Page 4 1 b. The acquisition of a drainage easement through the 1 property immediately west of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 will be required for the discharging of the detention pond. 5. 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 grade of 0.4% shall be constructed on this subdivision and service loca- tions for all of the lots on this plat shall be shown for final submittal review. Detail final plans and specifica- tions for street and utility construction shall be submitted to the city engineer for review and approval. 6. Applicant shall obtain and comply with all requirements of the Pollution Control Agency, Health Department and Watershed District. jms 1 Attachment c: Gary Warren, City Engineer Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 -4 :4 I'TACHMENj N _ t 1 --,.../ / i ,--________---- ----... 1 /OGE iGN T K E I 1 • Ilk A i • 1 i 411. i 1 1 \ iI \ \ 4 . aii , i . ______ • ________ CD ali I I Fos 4 - 1 i 1 iiiiO :1''. 1 sera. I T.wtiz. c . a 1 •Mk'E L 2o .a.O ALTERNATIVE 3 el. 1 _ i 1 t CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I FROM: Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer C F \� 11 DATE: November 15, 1990 ' SUBJ: Engineer's Update - Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for the Troendle Addition File No. 90 -28 Land Use Review Since the time that the report for the Planning Commission was prepared, the applicant's engineer has submitted storm water 11 retention calculations for the proposed subdivision. These calculations present a design that, as a minimum, meet the prede -- veloped storm water runoff rate as required by City ordinance. However, the plan layout shown for the detention pond does not appear to be consistent in size and design with the calculations submitted. Therefore, Engineering is requesting that the appli- cant's engineer resubmit a storm water detention pond plan layout that is consistent with the design calculations. This is a key issue that needs to be addressed in determining the developabi- lity of Lot 4, Block 1. ' ktm 1 r r CITYtF - Ilili rt \ 1 , , CHANHASSEN' II 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 11 (612) 937 -1900 MEMORANDUM II TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning II Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician DATE: September 8, 1989 II SUBJ: Alternative Access Concepts for the Vineland Forest II Subdivision #89 -8 BACKGROUND On August 28, 1989, the City Council reviewed the preliminary II plat request for the Vineland Forest subdivision (see location map). The plat as proposed illustrates the creation of 21 single family lots accessed by a cul -de -sac from Pleasant View Road that II is approximately 1250 feet long. The proposed plats and existing homes are shown on an attachment. 11 Access into the plat is the primary issue. Area residents raised ' concerns over traffic on Pleasant View Road at the Planning Commission meeting with the result that the Commission was unable to reach a consensus on the plat. Staff recommended approval of the plat conditioned on the addition of a southern outlet from the plat, using Nez Perce right -of -way to intersect with Lake II Lucy Road. The inclusion of the southern outlet would result in the creation of a north /south connection between Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road and also provide a second access as requested by Public Safety. ' At the City Council meeting further discussion on access issues was heard. A series of revised access concepts were introduced II by an architect representing homeowners located on Pleasant View Road. The City Council ultimately voted to continue the item to give staff an opportunity to review access alternatives. Development of Alternative Access Plans Prior to preparing alternative access plans staff considered a II number of issues. These are described below as follows: 1. Access plans for Vineland Forest should be designed to serve II not only the site but also adjoining vacant and under- developed parcels in a comprehensive manner. For the pur- poses of this analysis, we have defined the study area as the II ATTACH. #I H .,... . 1 . E I I 8 O O O O O ..snksl - - p - d� aD t� T I Jii. i I A C LANE I I CHR_ / S_T M AS ' _ _I HENNEPIN L -d l LAKE C. R , R aQPS� �T - P E . - _- • r Awl 101 ,--- 14 .1"" ' 1 -Pj ilbraVON a - : , ill IF Alli alito CiRCLE M. allar i ' I ' ilt*OIP S TU DY AREA; ,. ` ■,,I A ar . 1 . • T" f-ti'r- 1 -*-<-',, - 1 - __, - .1 - ' ILZ I ON" \--\, -, 10 1r ----- ->4' ti • • rc,9!1-, .-') 16E - '' PROJECT L !al� "IZ ��' 0 is �� IL OCATION ►• - v ,.. - , P��u� 1,rik,�1i1 , 0. ' II. 1 tql0 War a% AVIIIII II . '\‘ 7 , At ' �0 it = `lam � L0✓. • .: 1 1 OW if,, , , I A KE LUCY A saci "? 2 - = R 4 - 'a • .+„1 oft. L O — 22 k � r am -- ow .. : _ = s� �� 1 , y ° 14 • � R - j li EL It — g r — is•-; v gl 74-1,,-. i • 4 FIRM rirs .\\ • Allgramat wargi a 03 - svO) * 6 211 -7 40 11110 *,a a - .. r _ fa. ssss do (te• IIIIPM■ 01110421/211111 r( Ingo s !tlilic viibvili • LOCATION MAR ?/3 , • � S L KE ANN ° i �- 1 ' �� h Alm 1 . t t ifel/ rditill iiilla M VI min ' e lwff '—'4.ile Pill IMMO 111W 41 IL...Wall ,. , . . 1 1 ir ri a.- 3 0 4 . 1 . 11 1 1 - N 1 . ' : 4111f■.,7e P /1.4 4SiRN T 0 E w f n , 1 , , . ; �. I Y f t '� ! l ip I i i 1 POO 1 - EACE Ity- 1 I PbA'f \ .. - --% 1 o VINEL ND - -F0 RSTZ 7 I ! I "�' ... r �.. _ _ ' _ --_,r i P L A T i f \ — \ . I 111 11 11 . 64*E L acy . to•s,o i - /EXISTING PROPOSED PLATS HOMES 1 1 Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1989 Page 2 land located between Peaceful Lane on the west, Pleasant e lea ant View Road on the north, the Fox Path neighborhood on the east, and Lake Lucy Road on the south. We acknowledge that these par- cels may not be developed in the same time frame. However, • we believe the overall access plan is essential if adequate levels of service are to be provided while minimizing neigh- borhood and environmental disruptions. Existing platting and neighborhood's development pattern should be taken into account to maximize feasibility of the concept and minimize neighborhood disruption. 2. Given the size of the study area, staff estimates that ' - approximately 55 homes could eventually be built. Each single family home will generage approximately 10 trips per day. This estimate is based upon the access and development concept plans that are presented in this report. The plans attempt to provide lots consistent with city development standards. In our opinion, to adequately serve this large an area a through street connection is warranted. The connec- 11 tion is important to being able to provide adequate levels of service for local residents and reasonable emergency vehicle response times. From the standpoint, of the larger, surrounding neighborhood a north /south connection is con - sidered to be of benefit for traffic flow and emergency vehicle access since it would be the only connection between Powers Boulevard and Lotus Lake. 3. Traffic levels on Pleasant View Road are a consideration. The street carries a fairly high traffic volume and is on the city's state -aid system. Recent counts taken by the city show traffic levels of somewhere between 960 and 1300 ADT (average daily traffic) at the Vineland Forest site. An ADT 11 of 1000 is commonly thought to be the dividing line between local and collector streets. Portions of the street exist as a substandard design exacerbating traffic problems. - '" 4. The access concept should result in a high quality residen- tial environment. Significant stands of trees and wetlands should be protected. Cul -de -sacs should be created where feasible. Potential Access Points into the Study Area There are a series of roads and undeveloped rights -of -way that could provide access into the study area (see attachment). Each was reviewed to assess its feasibility for extension into the area. These are described below: 1. Pleasant View Drive i Advantages - Street functions as a collector with east /west access. Grades and sight distance make access feasible along much of the frontage. 1 • NW V 1 \! ;••\ : a::.:^'° a•i :o c .. 1 1 ..- •I • •o,, 1 I 1 j'/ a \: •, \ • 1 � . 1.. 1 47.. ... , 0 w .• ; - • •AN O % '.•�� �/ '`•'. �° t . _� , P a� N4TOLE A ,. �_• •' ' J ` , f ''i/s 4,, 1•. a ta . • • ? . : g 7,•":„. .-....- ; ' : ‘ k ‘ - '' -. -C d r '1' i '. 7. ' • • . • 3 r iL ..: ... - •.• • • • 3 / I • \ • a° ! ; •1•c - 4 °• / ' y 1v , - " ,.. ,.. _ • \ ' 4 A CRF S � `.'a 11; ; t , � W =L CH RISTMAS 1 ' f , ' . -t ": � ? s ° , P % % , , \ \ it: - -• I Q Z 41/4 f ! i P 1 :•. P? - � � - d ' ` r - t F r, �' isi . •. cr .•[ rctu;r `ice ~ - --1---= :: ,• 3 _ i j. ctu -_` Q } _' Q - k 0 alw - P4 • k. 8 - t i • 3 �l _ - - - i ce S ' ' _ • a v . F_ ." D C.7 1 D ' I C Q' 7 s Q 3 , .. i a Ilrikt 4- Cy „ i 011110.00k <C • liall!fO*406 , r. ,,,..- - e s a td it v , - `O 0 ... Y . a y �,d� 1 . •, -,,, . :,3 CO I i I LaR , w _ :_ .f. -':-.7 ” . 1...4.4.....immika..,_ 1 :1 1 1r.",....r.::... ICHii. . . ....:. • a' -tit \ � . • l'• :7- mo r • t• 1 Tj '�� .? ` �BEp,C - • ...t: 4 - Artip : • e • : • f y • .11 I* . •- L _ • -- _� I • • . MEN(�eAN�L_ • I • R 1t� d! • •••4 • !••i b 1St .44 w r . • 7.47 Le ' • i. i;., • . , 'T .. .•.+'` a .,` • 1 .1 •• • • • kawit ...... : . e \ct , -:! POTENT t AL ACCESS POINTS 1 1 Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1969 Page 3 Disadvantages - Street is built to substandard design and carries high traffic volumes. Neighborhood impact and traffic safety considerations. 2. Fox Path Advantages - Ability to use an undeveloped, dedicated right - of -way, north /south alignment that could serve to create street connection, while eliminating an existing over - length cul -de -sac. Disadvantages - Connection is extremely difficult to make, due to severe grades and environmental impacts. Also, potential neighborhood opposition in Fox Chase if through street considered. It is not considered to be feasible. 3. Park Drive (Nez Perce) _ Advantages - Provides good access to the south via undeveloped dedicated right -of -way (40 foot) and has access to Powers Boulevard via Lake Lucy Road. Disadvantages - Grade on Park Drive is a concern. However, upon further investigation it was concluded that a maximum 10% grade with a 40 foot long landing area at 2% grade at the street inter- section could be provided and that grading I limits are accepta Staff believes this is a reasonable alternative from a design stand- point. Sketches showing street profile 11 options and grading limits are attached. 4. Kiowa Drive (Hopi Road) Advantages - Undeveloped dedicated right -of -way following similar alignment to but east of Park Drive. Disadvantages - Very difficult grades are present. Street construction would result in extensive tree loss. Staff questions if construction is feasible. Access to Powers Boulevard is not direct. The street is presently constructed as a dead end serving several homes. Although right -of -way is dedicated to make a connection to Powers Boulevard it is unlikely that such a connection is feasible due to wetland and ponding areas. • 1 r 1 i 't 1 X N l \ ' t6, �__ / a" ■M . ` J 5 .steer ..■ ' It - L / �L On.. _ MEOW / C M•••••••••tC� ■ ' ..N..t■...... . . .\M \tf■ ■��O flee.. 1 oil 6 / / / ■t..tt..tN rtiW..t..1t.t�tlftNC. .• / ..N M.NfY '! 1 OP MMMMMMMM CEMOOOMMUIRM ...... / I,' ■•• . ■Nt.t/ �� •.w••••.il ...■ / / gttt.t.6ftNt.tut.NttMair .7." I■.1 .r...t.t... ■.CC...= .LIMMO..iL- _ / NttM w� p■tNt LAM �NtN• • AMU NW t.l. ■t. ■Nttt t LHry.• ■• ■■ C / ..................... L__,!! / / / / M Mtt.rLO. g:::::=1......... 1..0... . .� " _ C� -lt� r= ....=rot '/ r..OMM L / m ma / / / / NNNN'N - - GC _ F. / __ mammas __ ..NON.MN ■ t iiiiit■ - 1■ - .t■•.•tN ■ T Si.ImamereSM.N ■••w \ ■ \■ / ■../�■:::"•...lY.....A ....�. - ■MIN 5CV►LE '..H ...\ 1 1 N G K is / ..:.. ■..�...:.■.. ..NN _ / / — S O FE Ian 1 OI..O iNt ar..M.t 11•011•••• 11•011•••• N1.O.MM.••••O..NI..t\Ot..tNF.L■ MNI. \M1\4 \■ i/// \ / NA. p..■ N■■ ri. it■ RE. ■ ■M.NN.. \N...WNNt ■■N ■ ■M■.NNN r�.fN ■.NY \ \■ tNt....N.yl �t - yYJM.JN.\r1Y1.t.N.. ■..N. .Otte ■. ■NN ■t.. NNN.. M.... MNt...../..■■ N.\. M. \N...1.. ■tM.. \. \N /. ■. ■■... ■N. \.\■MOOMMU. .. N. NYN. N..... NttY■.■..\ . ■Nt.NL.1iGMl ■.u.■■.■..•N•• ■•1N gla / Nrr■■\.. ■N N•••••NMN =I.WN1 ...� N\.\. 1N W ■N UN \RMW \ /N.1■\■ / MMMMMMMMMMMMMM N■N.N\■.■. ••••0 lOO. .l.. ■ ■NN ■N.. ■N NM ■\MY MN.■■ N.. •..1.N.M11...Y..\ULWIN4. \f.Gi ■M M••N. \.1 ■1.. • 0000 \\ N■OOOfNt.H \.NN / ■ u.. NUN... t.. N. . ■.■.■\N... ■Y.... ■... N.NN.N.N ■W \Yf ■ \NNMN.NN ■a./\ I ■ N.. N■■ f.■ 1■....■ N... N.. O.■. N.. N.H ■.MM ■. \M \11...YfLN ■NNMN.M \Is =\■. ■ W..M..NN ■N\ t..N.\! 7.. ■...N. ■.■...M..... W ... / t.N..N.■■. \.OMO. ■f.. u 1•.. ■.NNN..NN..tW■ ■fB . S W•1N \N MIY..■ ~N 0 / 1311••••••• N.\. N■. NN. M..\. N. N...■./. ut.■.\ flN.1NNNN.NNM ■t \NNIMMM■MM ■:M■.■ .■MN.N.NW..M\YN UM MN f..lOMUM ..NOON■t.■ ■ON.t.M Ni..N.NN\ f.NNM / . pMONM .I.• ■••�•• �. ■ ......l NYlMOWM •••••■ N..■ N ... . O ■ ■. ■ ■.N .-IN_-t N. \. \M \ ■ \■ W.Y■.■.N..■ N....NNM.N \..N ■Ym ■ t ma.. . 1 .N•.NN■N...•M:sw• a .•f I .M.M■ \. ■O■.. \NO.Y.. \0.... ■..W.•. pO. M■ N. O.O J . \f.....N. ■tmgi.Ot... \N \ tY.i■ \..ls'�f...\O \N7W .OMO.NOOW ■. ■N......O .. MM .N.I..MW..■.�1. ■ ■.OM1.1fN.N.N. ': MUMPUMMOODUMUU . Nye.. GA ...N.N..tN. ■.. ■. ■. ■.\ \t.t./ NN.M ■Ii •W O X20 ......Nt...... - O O N87o5 r _ r l___1_ .....--...---..-- i --------- LAKE :. r • -, • ' . : i.... ... . .4.°'. • 1. :. -:::.-,i •...4i''. . -:::.-..4 / r . • . . :r: ..... • • . • LEGEND k_ :� i velo er' s Grading Limits D • -.'� e p g # 1 t ii i i: 10% Grading Limits 1 IF - • :•::::::' r / Am 7% Grading Limits /It / 1011 Si soh~ M ~ ° D R VE �� i o3T..8 R� w.N s � ei 0\ 7 it i/►N. M w N ., : to 2. -- GRADING LIMITS I i O 4 6:sri=- .......... ... . : . • 1 ...... ....... i N. // i 1 14 ./ / / . • 1 ... 0 - 1 S g i 1 It Q 1 en - I 1 21 ; `" In 1 S M i . / 4. t ,,,� I a I C Z 1 0 I • 0 i ori t 1 1 r 1 O $ 1 m " 6 t cn o IN ` r M 11 Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1989 Page 4 1 5. Peaceful (Redman) Lane Advantages - The street is intended to serve the Pleasant 1 Hills plat. The plat was given final approval but has not b,en filed. Plat approval will expire in October. Access through this area is reasonable and without serious difficulty. Provides reasonably good connection to the north with east /west connection via Pleasant View Road at a good location. Disadvantages - Approved plat (which probably will expire October) may limit design options. Would still result in the introduction of traffic onto Pleasant View but this is off -set by short distance to Powers Boulevard. 1 6. Outlot A, Carver Beach Estates Advantages - Undeveloped right -of -way to Lake Lucy Road. 1 Provides good access to the south. Disadvantages - Grades make access difficult. Proximity to Powers Boulevard may make connection redun- dant. Alternatives /Comment 1 There are a large variety of alternatives for serving the study area. Staff has attempted to limit the number of alternatives to those which have been discussed previously and a new alternative, that in our opinion, represents the most reasonable remaining . option. The alternatives that have been studied are described below along with comments derived from review criteria established earlier: 1. This alternative is essentially the access option proposed by the developer illustrating serving Vineland Forest by a long cul -de -sac from Pleasant View. The concept has been expanded to illustrate how the balance of the study area could be served in a comprehensive manner. Comment - The option illustrates the ultimate construction of a street loop between the originally proposed Vineland Forest/ Pleasant View interaction to the Peaceful Lane dead end to the west. The alternative will ultimately provide a street loop that should offer adequate service internally within the study area. Construction of the street loop would be con- tingent upon the decisions of other property owners to develop their land. As illustrated, the northern stub street in Vineland Forest has been eliminated since, as proposed, it r 1 I I IN P ■,./ : tez vp ,goz, r... j 1 I I - 1/4. ? ft v 1 I I -EACE 644./ ; N $ — r ; . , A , t. • i I J .1k,,zuzi . I : _.__ .1 PLAT / . it 1n I -,...... i . 1 1111 11111 1111 4 1\ 4 • ••■■•■,...11■. • I IIVA I il G y lea AC) I . A ALTERNATIVE 1 1 1 ._ . . . N . 1 1 1 I ......7, . lz.. . . .. ____ qc.T P .../ L 414' s - 4 vp T i i a , r• 1 R Y p / : 1 . 4 , 1 1 k j . i * 1 Q°° L • -FACE _f kl_ ' ' t Fe. 4- 1 °. INEL a ND A �'• . a P l - \ •• T - Vi n s z 0 ! j/C3-------1 — I • , r jr N IS ge Mk .C.IkE L 2 o.�s� F ALTERNATIVE � 2 t. i I 1 .., -1\1 ..e., L i ilk/ 1 -.... /47.Lf,,,,,,,T KEw 1 7, 1 Y Tin . I \ I i \ I ilfr r ''' . Pa l o Illik 1 t ?ea L. . - I Ile _ i 410 ... ■. .. .. .. I 0 • \ \ 1111 1 IlL . 1 i e l}t. i T•wttz :‘( I : C ' 1 - 1 1 1 ..., t.rkE lacy ,e0,4-.0 ALTERNATIVE 3 1 F f 1 1 4... 41, N .. , 1 . ....., . i : 'IF...T P 1%./ L ec vp "cam _ .¢ivr K L i s • /' 1 1 / 1 s p N v kl i , I p...„ - .FACE p i :�` r \ \ VI NELND OAS T ibi - w��>z PLAT 1 Z•wE2 C i I 1 I . ,. k .........___________ a R 1111 ALTERNATIVE t N ATIVE 4 AI . 1 ... 1 Mr. Don Ashworth, ^.. September 8, 198 I Page 5 cannot be built without the removal of a home on the adjoining parcel. This revision has been repeated in the 11 three remaining alternatives as well. Connecting to Pleasant View from Peaceful Lane rather then I the original Vineland location to the east, could have a beneficial traffic impact. We believe this would result from Pleasant Lane's proximity to Powers Boulevard that should II help orient traffic to the west rather then east along Pleasant View. The streets appear to be feasible from a grading standpoint and environmental impact is not excessive. I There are two significant problems with the alternative. The loop street concept results in the fact that all of the traf- II fic in the study area will be required to use Pleasant View. The second concern is that it does not provide any access of the south thus eliminating the potential for a north /south street connection. I 2. The second alternative is the dual cul-de-sac option illustrated by an architect working for the Pleasant View I area homeowners. To allow for a reasonable comparison the alternative was expanded to create a comprehensive access plan for the study area. I Comment - This option tends to split the access burden with most of the traffic exiting south to Lake Lucy Road. I Ultimately a connection would be made to the west to Peaceful Lane. A small portion of the traffic would exit directly onto Pleasant View at the original Vineland Forest intersec- tion. 1 This alternative can be reasonably constructed based on gra- des and environmental impacts are consistent with normal I residential development. There is a north /south street con- nection but the alignment is quite convoluted which presents a problem for through movements. Distance traveled will be higher as will emergency vehicle response times. Again, I construction is contingent upon the development decisions of adjoining property owners. I 3. Staff attempted to start with a clean sheet of paper to create Alternative 3. The concept is based on a street loop running from Lake Lucy /Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane. I Comment - The alignment is more direct then the one described in Alternative 2. Street construction is reasonable, all study area parcels are served and high quality residential I environments will result. The south } of the Vineland plat remains largely unchanged. The Peaceful Lane connection is contingent upon the vacating or expiration of the Peaceful 1 1 1 Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1989 Page 6 Hills plat (due to expire in October). As with Alternatives 1 1 and 2 the construction of the street loop is .contingent upon development decisions of adjoining property owners. 4. The final alternative is the original staff recommendation 1 expanded to illustrate serving the entire study area. The street connection between Lake Lucy Road /Nez Perce and Pleasant View is probably the best alignment for meeting access needs throughout the neighborhoods surrounding the study area since it is centrally located between Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy. As such it may also have a greater potential for introducing traffic increases onto Pleasant View. A significant advantage is that the connection could be constructed immediately without requiring the par- ticipation of adjoining property owners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff continues to support the original access concept 1 illustrated as Alternative 4. Our reasons for this position area based on the advantages of the alignment for the north /south con- nection and the fact that it could be built immediately without requiring participation by adjacent property owners. The impor- tance of the last factor should not be minimized Constructing street extensions after a neighborhood has been developed is often a controversial process. _ If this option is not acceptable to the Council we would recom- mend that Alternative 3 be selected since it meets the established criteria while providing reasonable north /south con- nection. 1 Alternatives 2 and 3 would require a substandtial redesign of the Vineland plat. If Alternatives 2 or 3 are selected we would recommend that the required be returned to the Planning Commission for review of a revised plat based upon your direc- tions regarding access. The Council should be aware that city staff does not have the 1 capability to prepare an indepth analysis of traffic patterns. We believe the data presented in this report is reasonable based upon our knowledge of the subject. If a greater understanding of this question is desired a consultant would need to be retained to prepare a computer model of the area. While this would pro- vide valuable information, it would involve additional time and cost. The Council should also be aware that regardless of which option is selected, easements must be provided to construct sewer-and water lines north to Pleasant View. 1 1