5. Preliminary Plat to subdivide Kurver Point, 2nd addition CITY -0 F PC DATE: 4/17/91 S-
I y HAHAE CC DATE: 5/13/91
I `-1.y CASE #: 87-14 SUB
By: Olsen/v
I
STAFF REPORT
I
,
IPROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat for Kurvers Point 2nd Addition to
Subdivide 9. 14 Acres into 14 Single Family Lots
Z
Q LOCATION: West of Hwy. 101 approximately 1 mile north of Hwy. 5
Io
mmj APPLICANT: VanDoren Hazard Stallings Melvin Kurvers
I a.: Suite 104 7440 Chanhassen Road
3030 Harbor Lane No. Chanhassen, MN 55317
Q Minneapolis, MN 55447-2175
Actx;r1 by Cr.i Administrator
.' ' Er-+. ___! . V `'
F,
/
KEi - —_. ! \
L ' & SS ,
rnr
IPRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family-------67(°-1- ---
IACREAGE: 9. 14 acres
DENSITY: 1.53 units/acre (gross) 1.77 u/a (net)
IADJACENT ZONING AND
4 LAND USE: N - RSF, single family
S - RSF, single family
Ifm E - Eden Prairie Single Family
0 W - Lotus Lake
IWATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
w
PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site contains lakeshore property and land
I (n that was used for agricultural purposes.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
I
II
h 0 N C 0
1
It I CASCADE CASTLE•—
RIDGE
COURT -CARE
a• . . PIN COUNTY CIRCLE Y'
tilt► • %����/ /I it%, SHASTA CIRCLE 6200
•.� `,,,•�� II iMASTA CIRCLE ld.74.1 I 1 I •
■ i 4 v% d�� it.. 9 •, :� 6300 ,e TRAPLNE ■ . .� ` � ��[� R
CIRCLE- . r.IPt: `� a' ''�`-/ CAST-R71m
fr
� �l11l=;11111! 6400 ' •
. . , ,_f
k;
44
i .sue �2�� 49 l : .
a. iffl IV'� ROCTAIIed`��f - -- 'AI' I COURT :.,�� , �� 6600 V,
, A� =%�, -
VIII' R .• .---
-- _ 6700
I lat'';:-44P a -:
f,, �/ ti SIP .
•
I RD I �•..: 6800 • , " .,::
10 VIII 10 MI ;
-( f.0-,014irea 1 •
LOTUS rra' `-si- _.,,._„. \i i 6900 .
t `I,�a �t le-, WA
,`�\ r Aft ;+a :: 7000 ,
' i < -� VIj►�
ir% S
7100 •
_ HADOWMERE
1 , )I'M
< .V&I'i Zt Tt
item 7200
•■ ,\ LAKE \!! ;^ 74, .
•
..,..(1,—, , $0, ,:.*- ‘ 730c , , ,
lltitY �� -
'
� 7400 . ,
R �.� • ....... - Q •-Arrifilt...:„. --f '
*,Am....1254sta I i■ I igari 6ETtt7• � '�1 �:
Smoot mt.:
rz. van ma G.♦: i NM' _� `, - 7600
�._. .rb A. 3 , , ,
r- am R:,� - j
t' ,ii >i�m:0 -1. X4..111 �r .
I1 �. n H S T IIIE ET • 7700
Kurvers Point 2nd Addition. '
April 17, 1991
Page 2 '
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat to subdivide the
remaining 9. 14 acres of the Kurvers Point Subdivision into 14
single family lots. This area was preliminary platted in 1987
along with the original Kurvers Point subdivision which called for
a total of 42 lots on 36 acres with the first phase containing 27
and the remaining 15 lots in the second phase. The first phase of
the subdivision has been developed and many of the lots have
already been developed. These homes are served by a temporary cul-
de-sac on Kurvers Point Road which connects with Hwy. 101. The
approved plans called for the extension of this cul-de-sac with a
loop connection back to Hwy. 101 in the second phase of
development.
Normally, only a final plat would be required to complete the
project since a preliminary plat was approved for the entire
project including phase 2. However, the developer is proposing a
substantial deviation in the plat that would replace the loop road
connection with a cul-de-sac. There is also a decrease in the
number of additional home sites from 15 lots down to 14.
Access was one of the primary considerations during review of the
original proposal and is one of the primary issues today. Staff
has met with the applicant on several occasions indicating that it
will be our recommendation that the loop road connection be
developed as originally approved or that a suitable alternative, if
possible, that provides this connection be adopted. Our position
is based upon commonly accepted planning practices wherein,
excessively long cul-de-sacs reduce accessibility for residents,
increases time for emergency vehicle access and presents
significant problems in case the road becomes blocked either
through parked cars, downed trees, watermain breaks, or other
incidents. We fully understand the validity of this issue and are
presented with a not uncommon occurrence where residents who have
moved in to the first phase now object to the completion of the
road loop. The applicant also makes a point that homes on a cul-
de-sac are more desirable than homes on a loop street, a factor
which staff could not dispute. Lastly, the applicant maintains
that a loop road connection would introduce a large volume of non-
neighborhood traffic into this area. Staff finds it inconceivable
that this is the case in any significant measure since Hwy. 101 is
the more direct routing and apart from someone who is lost, there
is really no reason for external traffic to enter this area.
Staff finds that we cannot support the applicant's proposal to
serve the subdivision with an overly long cul-de-sac. Most
communities prohibit cul-de-sacs in excess of 500 feet. The
Chanhassen Code raises concerns with over length cul-de-sacs but
unfortunately does not provide a specific length at which this
Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
April 17, 1991
Page 3
' becomes unacceptable. We have tried to develop a number of
alternatives for consideration. These alternatives are described
in detail in this report but it essentially comes down to a
relocation of the second entrance onto Kurvers Point Road further
to the south. This alternative should avoid the sight distance
constraints present in the original approved proposal and could,
' with MnDOT's approval, eliminate the need to lower grades on
mainline Hwy. 101 to make a safe intersection. The second
alternative concerns the use of a right-in/right-out only for the
' southern most loop connection that also avoids the sight distance
problems. Staff continues to have a preference for the originally
approved concept.
' In other respects, this proposal is fairly straight forward.
Issues pertaining to grading, drainage and utilities are fairly
minor and can be accommodated by appropriate conditions.
' Secondary Access Alternatives
I Since the City Council approval in 1987, the Sosin's, who live
directly to the south, have moved their driveway to the south side
of their property, which provides separation between their driveway
' and the subject property. The relocation of the Sosin's driveway
allows the alternative for moving the full access to the south to
again be considered. The full access would have to be at least 30
feet from the south property line. Another alternative is to leave
' the access where it was approved but reduce it from a full access
to a right-in/right-out only access. MnDOT has given preliminary
approval to allowing a right-in/right-out at the present location
' and to not require cutting down the hill on TH 101. Staff did not
consider a right-out only and an emergency access due to these not
resolving safety issues and in fact maybe creating traffic
problems. One final option was to provide a stub to the Sosin
' property for future access whenever that property is subdivided,
and provide a temporary access to TH 101 which would be removed
when the road to the Sosin's was developed. Staff eliminated this
' option from consideration when we reviewed the subdivision
potential for properties to the south and found that a road
extension would not be possible due to the decreased depth of the
' lots created by the location of Lake Lucy. The current location of
the Sosin's driveway would better support a joint access between
the Sosin and Oelschlager properties rather than a frontage street
from Kurvers property (Attachment #4) .
A summary of the street access options are as follows:
•
EXHIBIT A (see attached)
o Provides a full intersection and secondary access which staff
strongly recommends.
I
Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
April 17, 1991
Page 4 '
o Is consistent with original approval.
o Requires improvements to TH 101.
o Provides separation from the property to the south.
o Opposed by residents of Kurvers Point and applicant.
EXHIBIT B (see attached) ,
o Replaces full intersection with a right-in/right-out at
original location.
o Does not require improvements to TH 101.
o Provides separation from the property to the south.
o Is not as effective as a full intersection for traffic and
safety and can result in safety problems with drivers abusing
the intersection.
EXHIBIT C (see attached) '
o Relocates full intersection to the south.
o Provides full intersection.
o Does not require removal of the hill on TH 101.
o Requires a right turn lane and a by pass lane.
o Locates street and intersection near another property.
o May still be opposed by residents. '
EXHIBIT D (see attached)
o Replaces full intersection with two cul-de-sacs. '
o Inconsistent with original approval.
o Does not provide secondary access.
o 41 lots on a 1,700 foot long cul-de-sac.
o Opposed by staff.
o Acceptable to residents and applicant.
The alternatives shown on Exhibits B and C must be approved by
MnDOT we would like to get the Sosin's comments due to their
earlier involvement. Staff is arranging a meeting between MnDOT,
staff, applicant and the Sosin's for their comments. Until this
meeting occurs and we receive some type of confirmation from MnDOT,
formal action should not be made using alternatives shown on
Exhibits B and C. If Exhibits B or C are pursued, a revised
preliminary plat would also be required. If the Planning
Commission is in favor of Exhibit B or C, a motion should be made
to continue the review until revised plans are submitted. Formal
action can be made on the proposed preliminary plat with the cul-
de-sac should the Planning Commission so desire.
Kurvers Point Second Phase Cul-de-sac Plan
To make a formal recommendation at this time, the balance of the
report contains a review of the proposed plat with recommendations. '
i
' Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
April 17, 1991
Page 5
' As stated previously, staff is not in favor of the proposed plans
with the cul-de-sac and will be recommending denial.
PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat to subdivide the
' remaining 9. 14 acres of Kurvers Point subdivision into 14 single
family lots. Typically, the applicant would have just submitted a
final plat for the second phase for City Council approval. Due to
significant changes to the second phase, the applicant is required
to go through the preliminary plat review in front of the Planning
Commission and preliminary and final plat approval by the City
' Council. The most significant change to the second phase, from
what was approved with the original preliminary plat, is the
replacement of the second street connection to State Highway 101
with a cul-de-sac.
Lot Configuration
' The preliminary plat consists of one block with 14 single family
lots. The lot sizes range from 20, 350 square feet to 33 ,225 square
feet with an average lot area of 24,670 feet. The proposed second
' phase contains 1 less lot than was approved with the first
preliminary plat and the proposed lots contain more lot area,
depth, etc. The 14 lots are located along two cul-de-sacs and
along Lotus Lake. The lots meet the requirements of the zoning
' ordinance.
Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 and a portion of the street right-of-way
' contain existing structures adjacent to Lotus Lake, and a loop
driveway with two access points to TH 101. The existing structures
and driveway will be removed as part of the second phase. The
Building Department requires demolition permits for removal of the
' existing structures. Any wells and septic systems must be properly
abandoned. Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, which contain the structures
also have existing accesses to Lotus Lake. The applicant is
providing staff with a detail plan on the existing lake accesses
for Lots 4 and 5, Block 1. The lots contain steep and vegetated
slopes. Therefore, the existing accesses shall be maintained for
the new homes on Lots 4 and 5, Block 1. New access to Lotus Lake
on Lots 1-5, Block 1 will not be permitted.
A condition of approval for the original preliminary plat required
' a tree removal plan for certain lots at the time of building permit
application and an overall tree maintenance prepared by the DNR
Forester. The tree maintenance plan was prepared (Attachment #5)
' and tree removal plans should still be required for Lots 1-5, 9, 10
and 14, Block 1.
11
II
Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
April 17, 1991
Page 6 • I
•
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT .
Lot Lot Lot Home
I
Area Width Depth Setback
Ordinance 15, 000 90' 125 ' 30' front/rear
II
10' sides
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 28,975 160' 270' N/A I
Lot 2 20,900 115' 200'
Lot 3 20, 350 105 ' 150 '
II
Lot 4 22,675 115' 200 '
Lot 5 33,225 90' 260' '
Lot 6 26, 500 90' 180' II
Lot 7 25, 300 90' 155 '
Lot 8 26,225 95' 200'
I
Lot 9 20,750 230 ' 190 '
Lot 10 22, 050 180 ' 145 ' II
Lot 11 24,800 100 ' 200' I
Lot 12 23 ,750 90' 160 '
Lot 13 24,400 115 ' 160'
II
Lot 14 21,900 220' 150 '
Streets II
According to the approved development contract for Kurvers Point
I
Addition (Phase I) , Item 21 states that "The developer agrees that
approval and authorization for the preliminary plat and initiation
of Phase I of this plat is with the understanding that the
II
developer will connect to TH 101 in Phase II, as proposed in the
approved preliminary plat, by lowering TH 101 to improve the sight
distance in the intersection location. This lowering of TH 101 II will be undertaken at the developer's sole expense in compliance
with the Minnesota Department of Transportation requirements. " The
applicant has deviated from his condition by proposing a dead-end
cul-de-sac at the end of Kurvers Point Road. This makes Kurvers I
11
1
' Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
April 17, 1991
Page 7
' Point Road approximately 1700 feet long without a secondary access
point. The applicant indicates that this new proposal is in
' response to homeowners in Phase I who are concerned from a traffic
safety standpoint that a through street will promote or increase
the traffic volumes. Staff feels, however, that traffic volumes
will only increase proportionately with the number of lots being
created in the new plat and not any greater than any other
residential subdivision in the city. Staff still supports the
previously approved condition that the street (Kurvers Point Road)
11 be connected to TH 101 $ as proposed in the initial Phase I
preliminary plat including the developer lowering TH 101 to improve
the sight distance at the intersection. At the request of the
' developer, staff has also reviewed some alternative street layouts.
If the cul-de-sac proposal is approved, the applicant will have to
re-apply for an access permit from MnDOT. The original access
permit was granted for the first phase which took into
consideration the traffic volumes and turning movements generated
as it currently exists today. The proposed cul-de-sac option will
generate additional turning movement at the intersection which may
' require additional traffic control devices such as left turn lanes
on TH 101. If such traffic control devices are required, the
applicant should be required to incorporate these improvements into
' the development's construction plans.
MnDOT currently has no plans other than safety related improvements
to upgrade TH 101 in the future which suggests the highway may be
' turned back to the county or city to contend with. According to
the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, TH 101 has the
functional classification of a collector and is recommended to be
constructed to 4 lanes which requires a minimum of 100 feet of
right-of-way. As dedicated with Phase I, Phase II also proposes an
additional 17 feet of right-of-way along TH 101. This would bring
' the total to 50 feet from the centerline, which would comply with
the parcel 's dedication requirements.
The proposed plat, as submitted, provides a 50 foot right-of-way
consistent with the first phase of Kurvers Point. This, however,
is 10 feet less than the new subdivision ordinance requires. Staff
feels comfortable in this situation to grant a variance from the
' ordinance due to the anticipated low traffic volumes and to provide
continuity along Kurvers Point Road through the two phases of the
subdivision. The streets are proposed to be constructed in
accordance with city urban standards with concrete curb and gutter.
Street grades range from 1% to 7% which is acceptable according to
city standards. Depending on which street alignment alternative is
elected, MnDOT will need to be contracted for an access permit to
' grant the second access to TH 101. It should be noted that MnDOT
has approved of this access location due to proposed safety
improvements (lowering of the hill) in connection with this
proposed intersection with an access onto TH 101. iSight distance
1
Kurvers Point 2nd Addition 1
April 17, 1991
Page 8
and auxiliary turn lanes will need to be addressed in accordance
with MnDOT specifications.
Grading '
The site consists of mostly rolling meadowland, approximately 70%
meadow and 30% woods. The majority of this site is proposed to be
graded which will necessitate some tree removal. An earth berm is
proposed along the easterly edge of the plat adjacent to TH 101.
The height of the berm varies from 8 feet to 20 feet high with 2 : 1
slopes towards the house pads and 3: 1 slopes towards TH 101. The
2 : 1 slopes are considered very steep and are not recommended from
a maintenance standpoint (difficult to mow) . The developer has
proposed the slope to provide additional backyard space. The
profile for the proposed berm closely follows the existing profile
along TH 101. No grading is proposed within TH 101 right-of-way.
The developer's engineer shall verify that the proposed site
grading will not reduce the amount of ground cover over the city's
12 inch watermain adjacent TH 101.
On Lots 13 and 14, Block 1, the grading plan proposed draining the
backyards very close to the proposed house pads. It is recommended
that a drainage swale be constructed along the far northerly
portion of these lots and the final plat reflect a drainage
easement over the area to ensure the drainage swale will be
protected.
An erosion control protective barrier is proposed along the
westerly perimeter of Kurvers Point Road. The plans do not
• indicate the type of erosion control fence to be installed. Staff
recommends the city's Type III erosion control fence due to the
close proximity of Lotus Lake. Staff also recommends that another
erosion control barrier (silt fence - Type I) be installed
immediately after the initial site grading along the easterly side
of Kurvers Point Road, south of Basswood Circle, to prevent soil
washing into streets and storm sewer system. In addition, it is
recommended that a 75 foot long gravel construction driveway access
be constructed at the end of existing Kurvers Point Road to help
reduce mud and debris from being tacked out onto Kurvers Point
Road. ,
Drainage
The plans proposed conveying the surface water drainage through a
series of storm sewers and catch basins which connect to an
existing storm sewer provided with the first phase of development.
This existing storm sewer outlets into a series of retention ponds.
These retention ponds have been previously designed and constructed
in conjunction with the first phase to adequately handle the storm
run-off to the pre-developed rate for 100 year, 24 hour storm. The
11
Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
April 17, 1991
Page 9
placement of manholes and catch basins should be positioned so that
the system is located underneath the roadbed. An additional storm
' sewer lead should be extended from the existing storm sewer in
Kurvers Point Road (Phase I) to Lot 14, Block 1, to intercept the
backyard drainage prior to reaching the street.
' Sanitary Sewer
Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site from the
al
first phase (Kurvers Point Road) . An 8 inch P.V.C. sanitary sewer
is proposed to be extended from the first phase through the site.
The applicant's engineer should incorporate additional manholes to
maintain the position of the sewer system in the center of the
streets. As in the first phase, some of the parcels (Lots 1-5,
Block 1) will have sanitary sewer access available to them in the
front and back portions of their lots. The property currently has
' an existing farm house, barn, and cabin, which are not connected to
the existing sanitary sewer system. These structures are
anticipated to be demolished or moved off the site prior to
installation of utilities.
Watermain
' Municipal water service is available to the site from Kurvers Point
Road (Phase I) and from the city's existing 12 inch watermain
located adjacent to TH 101. The plans propose extending a 6 inch
' D.I.P. watermain from Kurvers Point Road (Phase I) through the site
and connecting to the city's 12 inch D.I.P. watermain in TH 101.
it is recommended that the connection to TH 101 be a "wet tap" to
' avoid interruption of water service. As with the sanitary sewer
alignment, the developer's engineer should design the watermain to
be installed within the roadway surface and not under the curb and
' gutter so as to help from an accessibility standpoint and to reduce
the expense of watermain repairs in the future.
Park Land Dedication
' The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed Kurvers Point Addition
in its entirety (first and second additions) on June 25, 1987. At
' that time, the Park and Recreation Commission recommended to accept
park dedication fees in lieu of parkland, to request a 20 foot
trail easement along the west side of TH 101 and the construction
of an 8 foot bituminous off-street sidewalk within the street
' right-of-way of Kurvers Point Road in lieu of trail dedication
fees. The City Council reviewed the subdivision and adopted the
Park and Recreation Commission's action except for the request for
20 feet of additional right-of-way along TH 101. This exception
was made as it was deduced that the initial 17 feet of right-of-way
being dedicated along TH 101 for future road and ditch improvements
would accommodate a trail as well. The resulting development
1
I ,
Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
April 17, 1991
Page 10
' contract was amended as it related to trails and trail fees. The .
validity of constructing an 8 foot bituminous trail in the Kurvers
Point Road right-of-way was contested resulting in an addendum (see
memo from Todd Hoffman) .
As it now stands, prior to the issuance of building permits for
residential construction, the developer shall pay to the city, the
park and trail fees then in force.
' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On April 17, 1991, the Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 to deny the
proposed Kurvers Point 2nd Addition. As was expected, the majority
of the discussion centered on the new plan replacing the second
access to Hwy. 101 with a cul-de-sac. Once the recommendation to
deny the proposed plat was made by the Planning Commission, staff
' requested the Planning Commission to clarify what, if any,
modifications they would find acceptable to serve as guidance to
the City Council. The 3 Commissioners felt that the provision of
' an emergency access would make them more comfortable with the plan
as long as the emergency access was acceptable to the City Staff in
terms of snow plowing, etc.
' Although staff still strongly supports the provision of a second
access to Hwy. 101, we would prefer the provision of at least an
emergency access if a secondary access is not provided. The
' applicant has not yet provided staff with a plan showing an
emergency access nor is staff sure the applicant is going to pursue
providing the emergency access. We note that in earlier
discussions between staff and the applicant we recall their
suggesting the emergency access as an alternative. Thus, we must
assume that they at some point believed this to be reasonable.
Therefore, the City Council will be reviewing the applicant' s
' proposed plan with the two cul-de-sacs. Staff has stated to the
developer's consultant that if an emergency access plan is proposed
by the applicant, staff would first want to review it prior to
submitting it to the City Council for approval. This could be done
as part of the final plat approval, if the City Council determines
this to be the best option.
Staff is still recommending denial of the proposed preliminary plat
because it changes the originally approved plat by replacing the
secondary access to Hwy. 101 with a cul-de-sac. Should the City
' Council recommend approval of the proposed preliminary plat, we
would recommend that it be conditioned upon provision of an
emergency access approved by city staff. In addition, we believe
' that the existing curb cut should be improved to promote safety
since it would be the sole access for 40 homes. To this extent we
believe that the applicant should be required to install turn lanes
and an acceleration/deceleration lane with the design to be
I
1
Kurvers Point 2nd Addition 1
April 17, 1991
Page 11
submitted to MnDOT for approval. We note that the applicant would
be realizing a substantial cost savings since he is currently
required to lower a hill on Hwy. 101 and this would no longer be
necessary. We further note that MnDOT has not taken a leadership
position on improving Hwy. 101 since they have long sought to turn
it over to county or municipal control. We believe that this puts
the city in the position of needing to take the initiative to
improve safety at this intersection.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council deny Preliminary Plat #87-14 for Kurvers Point 1
2nd Addition as shown on the plans dated March 18, 1991, for the
following reason:
1. The proposed plat deviates from the approved preliminary plat
and final plat for the first phase by replacing the secondary
street access to TH 101 with a cul-de-sac. 1
Should the City Council approve the proposed plans, it should be
with the following conditions: _ 1
1. The applicant shall provide for an emergency access approved
by city staff.
2 . The applicant shall receive a new access permit for the
existing access to Hwy. 101 from MnDOT and shall provide and
pay for any and all improvements required by the City for the
existing access to Kurvers Point. To determine the necessary
improvements, the applicant shall provide the City with a
detailed traffic analysis for staff approval.
3 . The applicant shall request the City Council to remove the
condition requiring the second access as part of the second
phase and necessary improvements to TH 101 from the
development contract recorded against the property.
4. Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 shall not be permitted to clear new
accesses to Lotus Lake. The existing accesses must be
maintained as access to Lotus Lake.
5. All private driveway access points onto TH 101 shall be
abandoned and the disturbed areas shall be restored within TH
101 right-of-way.
6. Additional manholes, catch basins and pipe bends shall be
incorporated, where appropriate, to install the sanitary
1
I
I
Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
April 17, 1991
Page 12
sewer, storm sewer and watermain within the roadway area and
not under the curb and gutter.
7 . All utilities and roadways shall be constructed in accordance
with the current edition of the city's standard specifications
and detail plates.
8 . The erosion control barrier line west of proposed Kurvers
Point Road shall be the city's Type III erosion control fence.
An additional silt fence barrier shall be installed on the
east side of Kurvers Point Road lying south of Basswood Circle
immediately after site grading to prevent soil from washing
' into the new streets and storm sewer system.
9. A 75 foot long gravel construction driveway access shall be
constructed at the end of the pavement on Kurvers Point Road
' to help reduce mud and debris from being racked out onto
Kurvers Point Road.
' 10. All disturbed areas shall be immediately seeded and mulched to
help reduce erosion.
' 11. Wood fiber blanket or erosion control blanket shall be used on
all slopes greater than 3: 1.
12 . The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the
Watershed District, DNR and other appropriate regulatory
agencies and comply with their conditions of approval.
' 13 . The watermain connection at the south end of Kurvers Point
Road to the existing 12 inch watermain adjacent to TH 101
shall be made by a "wet tap" to avoid interruption of water
' service.
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and
provide the city with the financial security to guarantee
' proper installation of these improvements.
15. The applicant shall extend a storm sewer lead from the
' existing storm sewer in Kurvers Point Road (Phase I) to
intercept the backyard drainage from Lots 13 and 14, Block 1.
16. A revised final grading and erosion control plan shall be
' included and approved as part of the construction plans and
specifications for this project.
' 17. The developer's engineer shall verify that the proposed site
grading will not reduce the amount of ground cover over the
city's 12 inch watermain adjacent to TH 101.
I
I
Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
April 17, 1991
Page 13 I
18 . The existing structures require a demolition permit for
removal and any wells and septic systems must be properly
abandoned.
19. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at time of building
permit application. I
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council minutes dated July 20, 1991.
2 . Development contract.
3 . Copy of approved preliminary plat.
4. 1987 access options.
5. Exhibit A.
6. Exhibit B.
7 . Exhibit C.
8. Exhibit D.
9 . Memo from Dave Hempel dated April 11, 1991.
10. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated March 25, 1991.
11. Memo from Mark Littfin dated April 3, 1991.
12 . Memo from Todd Hoffman dated April 2, 1991.
13 . Letter from MnDOT dated April 16, 1991.
14 . Letter from Henry Sosin, M.D. dated April 16, 1991.
15. Planning Commission minutes dated April 17, 1991.
1
1
I
I
:t()1?
City Council Meetin g - Jul 20 1987
July
II1. Adherence to all conditions as required by Article 5, Section 9(11) .
II 2. The beachlot shall be maintained by a homeowners association or by an
organization consisting of the subdivision residents.
3. Direct Staff to investigate a slow - no wake area.
' All voted in favor and motion carried.
I Margie Karjalahti: I'm just wondering if perhaps we might look at the
beachlot will be going close to the wetlands there, that we might not be there
also with boats going in and our of the dock...
IMayor Hamilton: We can certainly request that the DNR do that.
Barbara Dacy: That could be included under the wetland alteration permit
IIrequest.
Councilman Geving: Doesn't it belong here rather than wetland alteration?
IMayor Hamilton: Yes, I think it belongs in the conditional use permit.
f'�l B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 36.3 ACRES INTO 42 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
�� —
�~ Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission recommended approval and added five _
I additional conditions. Number 15 was that compliance with the action taken by
the Park and Recreation Commission, that the Planning Commission while it
endorses a trail along TH 101, the applicant's request for no trail or trail
I smaller than 8 feet is a reasonable request for a street trail. Number 16
they require individual grading and erosion control and tree removal plans for
those riparian lots. Number 17, that Staff be permitted to meet with the -
applicant and MnDot to resolve the issue of some of the access onto TH 101
Iprior to City Council consideration. If there is a major revision- on the plat
it shall come back to the Planning Commission for review. Number 18 that a
timber management plan be conducted by a DNR forester. The Council is not
.I aware of this but staff has been working with DNR on the Shadowmere
subdivision to conduct such a plan and we think this would be another element
for the plan. Finally, that the City Engineer would review prior to City
II Council consideration the possibility of linking the northerly intersection of
TH 101 to Cheyenne Trail. Finally, the Planning Commission added the Army
Corps of Engineers included with the condition that the applicant receive all
of it's permits. I would like to follow up on some of those conditions. The
I first issue regarding the Park and Recreation Commission action, the Park and
Recreation director advised that as far as the trail within the Kurvers Point
Road right-of-way that could be constructed within the right-of-way and that a
I 6 foot sidewalk would meet the intent of the recommendation. Further the
Commission did require the addition of a 20 foot trail easement along TH 101'
so they could begin implementing a trail along that road. Prior to this time
I the overall trail plan was not put together and other subdivisions along TH
101 do not have provision for a trail easement. The issue concern from the
applicant's standpoint is whether or not 20 feet is too restrictive beyond the
6
II50
I 4f
1031
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
17 feet
that they are proposing to dedicate on the plat as you see tonight.
This issue could be resolved with contacting MnDot and determining what their
typical improved four lane road section is, urban section and determining
whether or not the right-of-way that the applicants are providing with the
additional 17 feet could accomodate the off-street trail. In any case, the
intent of the Park and Rec Commission action was to make sure that an off-
street trail could be provided but that part of the City is looked at for -
implementation. The second issue to follow-up on is regarding the possible
connection of the proposed roads into Cheyenne Trail, the street to the
north. This is Kurvers Point Road here and Cheyenne Trail is located right
here. It is physically possible to make this connection. However, the
applicant has here tonight a plan that is showing that that connection will
create a series of double frontage lots along TH 101. It really affects the
entire lot layout pattern of the subdivision. This combined intersection then •
would also provide us ingress/egress for approximately half of the 74 Colonial
Grove subdivision lots located to the north of that. This condition was added
by the Commission toward the end of the discussion on this matter. This was
to be considered by the Council that these people in the Colonial Grove
subdivision would have to be notified about this change in the street plan.
However, right now the applicant does want to address this issue in their
comments. Third is the issue about the southerly access of Kurvers Point
Road. If I can indulge the Council to be patient, there are a number of
alternatives but I would like to briefly go through those and unfortunately I
have to add a 7th as a result of a meeting that took place out at the Sosin
property with a member of the MnDot staff. This was late on Friday afternoon
after the reports had been distributed. When we were first preparing the
report prior to the Planning Commission meeting, we were notified by MnDot
that this proposed access does not have sufficient amount of sight distance
from the crest of the hill so a number of options were identified. One was to
move this access to the top of the hill. That would result in approximately
10 1/2% grades going into the subdivision and when TH 101 is improved, more
than likely that hill will be flatened and you will get a resulting disparity
between the street elevation and building pad elevations in this area. Second
option was regrading TH 101 to remove the crest of the hill. That option is
very expensive and also involves the cooperation of separate ownerships on the
other side of the road in Eden Prairie. The third option was looked at by
creating a right-in/right-out situation at that southerly access point.
However, this was the item that was presented to the Planning Commission.
Since that time what's been addressed of late is that the right-out in the
acceleration lane would conflict with the existing location of the Sosin
driveway. MnDot was still concerned about that because of the right-out and
sight distance from the crest of the hill. Fourth option was to create it as
right-in only. While this may be acceptable in MnDot's eyes, the City needs
to seriously evaluate whether or not a restricted access should be allowed
with no median in the existing roadway. Unfortunately right-in onlys are
abused by the general public. They could cause some traffic accidents. The
fifth alternative would be no access at all and cul-de-sacing Kurvers Point
Road. That would result in a 2,000 foot long cul-de-sac serving 42 lots.
Then we get to option number 6 which would go something like this. What was
originally shown as a street intersection would be dedicated as right-of-way.
However, this jog that you see here would be provided as a roadway easement as
a "temporary situation" until TH 101 gets approved because again more than
51
104
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
likely the crest of the hill will be flatened and the sight distance issue
[-
resolved. However, as we all know, when and if TH 101 is going to be approved
'
•
could be a matter of 5, 10, 15 years down the road. This option was recently
proposed last week. It does pose some concerns regarding it's location •
directly adjacent to the existing location of the Sosin driveway. MnDot has
' not responded in writing to their position as to this entire situation.
Although the existing driveway only serving one house located this close to a
street intersection, there may be minimal impacts as far as traffic conflicts
with a car coming out here and traffic here. There is still a lot of concern
' regarding the proximity of these two so directly close to one another and
especially in view of it's relation to the crest of the hill. This location
does resolve the sight distance concerns. However, if you go out there on-
' site you will note that it is a bad situation. Two sub-options, this option
that was posed in the staff report was either the Sosin's combine their access
into the street which Mrs. Sosin is here tonight and will speak that they are
not in favor of that option or number 2 that their driveway be shifted
' approximately 150 feet to the south or towards their southerly lot line. Out
at the site on the Sosin property with a representative of MnDot, the final
option was created and that was to leave this intersection at this point and
' create a right-in/right-out with relocating Mrs. Sosin's driveway down to the
south. Therefore, we resolve the sight distance issue. We resolve this issue
but we also create another situation where the Sosin property has a safer
I access. However again, the City needs to consider whether or not they should
be allowing a restricted access at this point. Staff's recommendation is as
long as there is an option out there to provide for a full intersection, our
' recommendation would be to recommend that to the Council. However, in this
case under I guess you would want to call it option 6, we would recommend that
this be the recommended alignment and subject to looking at relocating the
Sosin driveway 150 feet to the south. MnDot will respond in writing within
the next two week period. They wanted to go back and evaluate all these
options and so on but in the meantime the City needs to consider whether or
not a right-in or right-in only is even an option with the subdivision. I
ithink that was it.
Mark Koegler: First of all I think the information Barb has provided along
with the Minutes that you've got in your packet which are very extensive do a
' good job summarizing the project as a whole and I'm not going to drag you
through that again given the hour. We would like to emphasize the trouble
points, the first one being that the Kurvers and the Conklins are developing
' this property and chose to do so under their own control for the very specific
purpose of having more control over what the final plat is going to look like.
They chose to do the development rather than sell it someone who would handle
it in that manner. The plan that we bring before you tonight and I guess I'm
' starting to speak to the plat first of all. I'll address some of the other
comments in a moment but the plan that we bring before you tonight does not
contain any variances. It contains lot sizes twice the City's normal
' requirement. We think it's a very high quality development. A unique
development for this community that is going to reflect the vegetation that is
on the site, the slopes that are on the site,.the wetlands and of course Lotus
Lake. A couple of comments then I think are appropriate on some of the
transportation issues that we've raised here in the last few minutes and then
[E:
a few remarks regarding the recommendations of the Planning Commission and
' 52
1®1
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987 I
Staff and we would appreciate some Council consideration on. I'll take them
II
in the same sequence that Barb covered them starting with Cheyenne Trail. As
she indicated in her remarks, we looked at a series of probably 7 or 8
different development schemes for the property before the final. What we had
originally looked at was an access off of Cheyenne Trail that would come in
II
with another connecting access to the south along TH 101. What that did and
this really can be adapted being discussed because the street connection could
be made down in here maybe in lieu of this one. The problem we had is that
II
basically forced a reconfiguration of the entire remainder of the parcel and
the biggest problem we had was that from a development perspective was the
large row of double frontage lots that we ended up with. Our philosophy was, II' as on the plan before you, was to crunch the cul-de-sacs down to TH 101 so we
could radiate lots off of that thereby diminishing the amount of double
frontage lots. We think that's a more sellable product as well as being more
attractive to the City. This particular plan does have a benefit I guess of
II
allowing 47 total lots. You recall that we are proposing 42 so actually it's
a more intensive development scheme but simply was judged as being not
desirable from a lot standpoint as well as from the ponding that we have an
opportunity to accomplish on the other plan versus this here in terms of the II
impact on the wetland area and the beachlot itself. So for those reasons that
particular alternative was dismissed and we would certainly requets that the
street arrangement that was laid out in the plat be the one that is the
I
subject of the discussions this evening. With regard to the issue of the
southerly access onto TH 101, that's been an issue that obviously has been
kicked around by a lot of parties and we think all of those parties have a - II very legitimate concerns and issues that have been raised. Be it the property
owner, be it MnDot, be it the City or be it the people who are actually
developing the property. We have considered probably more than the seven II alternatives that were listed. MnDot originally came back and gave us four
and that snowballed to seven. At the basis of the problem is the hill. As of
a meeting that occurred late this afternoon, literally only a couple of hours
before the meeting, the Kurvers decided the best way to deal with the
I
situation is to attack the problem. As a result of that and in conformance
with MnDot's original recommendations, we're proposing as a part of Phase II
of this project that we'll cut down the hill on TH 101 as a part of this I
development and they will absorb the costs for doing that. We think that not
only will resolve making a much better and safer intersection point and
obviously you've got the public along TH 101 as well so we think working with
MnDot that is the alternative we would like to pursue. We think that will go
II
the furthest towards resolving all of the safety issues which are there and we
have some concerns even about the right-in/right-out. We would like to see a
full intersection and that would allow that. A couple of comments we have
I
then on some of the recommendation aspects of the plan. In reviewing the City
Engineer's report, in essense had no major problems with that. He suggested
moving of the watermains. We stand willing to do that. Although the cul-de- II
are short and we might argue that it's not needed on some of them it will
improve the quality of the system that does go with the land. There was
concern on the fire access to the two lots that are presently serve the
Kurvers. We would like to look at in conjunction with the area, adding an
II
additional hydrant or relocating a hydrant in this location to provide fire
service to those two lots. We have a hydrant that sits here right now on
Willow View Cove and if need be would extend that back to some point within I
53
I
1106
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
Mr. Conklin's property to look at providing the adequate service that that
I
[-
would require so with your permission we would like to work with the Engineer
between now and the final to insure that those items are covered. In essence,
we're concurring with his recommendations. The Park and Recreation
Commission's recommendations I guess are another item we would like to touch
' upon. Barb referenced and I think the Minutes referenced, first of all I
guess I should state that all parties of the development are firm believers
that this City should continue with the trail plan and the trail along TH 101
' should be a part of the City's long range plan. The point where I guess we
differentiate a little bit is on the land area required to do that. What we
have shown so far as the dedication of an additional 17 feet of right-of-way
' along there, the Park Commission came back and asked for an additional 20 feet
of easement. We realize that's easement but that's still 37 feet of property
which is a fairly healthy chunk that is not useable for certain aspects...
Presumably when the rest of the right-of-way is acquired on the other side of
' TH 101, that will result in 100 foot wide right-of-way which in our estimation
is adequate to cover any improvement to the road they do and the trail. The
problem we have in saying back to MnDot, will this meet your standards is that
' if you go talk to MnDot today they will say we're not going to improve TH 101
so we're asking an agency who says they're not going to be a party to
improving it to comment on it which is kind of awkward position. As we all
realize, TH 101 has been an awkward position for a long time. Unfortunately
' will continue to be so. So for that reason we would request that the easement
not be included in your recommendation. We would like to use that land,
particularly on some of these northern lots as part of the design. These lots
' are fairly well shielded naturally. We've got some lots on the northern
entrance that we would like to do as much berming as reasonably figured. The
second item along the line of the Park Commission's discussion was on the
' trails. It's been recommended through Kurvers Point Road and not it's been
recommended to be essentially a 6 foot walkway type of sidewalk. This
subdivision obviously contains public streets. Therefore, there are public
access to it. However, the nature of the development and the nature of any
development that has a beachlot involved is basically private. That beachlot
serves only the 42 homes that are within this. Our concern with emphasizing a
public walkway through there is from a practical standpoint in the future of
' the neighborhood association having to police itself and to limit the
activities only to the residents that are within this development. We are not
trying to overburden that beachlot. We are not trying to overburden that lake
and as a result of that we would like obviously to keep the development public
' but not overemphasize if you will public access to this. The other issue we
see is simply the low intensity development. The street pattern we think very
adequately will serve the walkway as it does in Lotus Lake Estates next door
' and several other developments throughout this area. It's a point to point
item. They're not surrounded by major transportation. We are not, hopefully
not at least, taking another development and dumping their traffic into this
' and as a result, it's a project that's really focused on the 42 lots and
therefore we would request that that no be a part of your consideration. The
only other point on Park and Recreation is as staff report indicated there was
a need for 1 1/2 acres of parkland which was met by the proposed beachlot.
' We're not going to stand here tonight and tell you that that beachlot meets
all the recreational needs for those 42 residents. That simply is not
[E:
realistic. It does however take some share of the burden off of the city's
1
54
1
il
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
park facilities. The beach here for instance will service swimmers as does II
Lake Ann so there is some balance there of traffic that is not going to Lake II Ann but is staying here. For that we would simply ask that you consider
whether or not there is some credits appropriate from the overall .park charge. '
I don't know what that is. Perhaps you have past precedent. Maybe it's 25%
or whatever it may be but we think some credit may go along in there. Final
II
item, I guess I need to save probably for the next item on the agenda. We
have some comments on the dockage issue as well but I think those are really
receptive to the next portion. Just to finally summarize, we're after a very II
unique development here and we have a plan that reflects that. We think we
have a plan that puts sound site planning. It's a plan which the Conklins and
the Kurvers, being creators of the neighborhood if you will, are content with.
II
We think it meets or exceeds city standards. We're excited about it and would
like to get in the ground this fall and with that would certainly request your
approval.
Georgette Sosin: This is the first that I've heard of this plan. I do II
compliment the developers that they are taking on the responsibility of a
really major problem for everybody who lives on TH 101. We are the only
II
neighbors that are actually adjacent to this development. Our concern if the
road is cut down certainly is minimalized. I'm still not sure about when that .
is going to happen and which one of these options that you're choosing so
II- perhaps you could respond to that.
Mayor Hamilton: Mark, perhaps you could just jot these things down. If you
have other concerns we'll go through than and then he can address all of them.
II
Georgette Sosin: I need to know that for the concern .that we have as being
their southerly neighbor. The other concern that we have, of course the major II one was the traffic problem. We also, by the way complimented as you read in
your notes, we think it's a good development and we're very pleased with the
way that it has been planned. However, being the southerly neighbor and
seeing the way that this is platted through our trees, we are a little
II
uncomfortable with knowing exactly what these people and these people might
want to do with what is their own visual barrier and privacy to this
development. We had requested from Kurvers to buy a strip of land as small as II 5 feet that we could at least have perhaps up to here so we could plant
evergreens or plant some kind of a visual barrier. We have not had any answer
from them on that question. We would like to have some kind of barrier that II will insure that these will be protected. That these will never be cut down
and when they're on the property line like that, as you know, there can be a
dispute. So those are two concerns really. With the driveway which it
sounds like if you can explain a little further has some different flow and I
the visual barrier.
Mark Koegler: If I understood, there are really two parts to the driveway
II
question. There was timing and then there was alignment. Let me address the
timing issue first. Our intention is to come in and developer this property
in two phases and we think we have a very good demarkation point to do that.
II
That is specifically the first phase will include everything essentially on
this side of this line and would pick up what's now called Lotus View Lane so
in essence we're going to have a line that would go this way and would
II
55
II
II
City Council Meetin g - July 20, 1987
IIdelineate Phase I of the north and Phase II of the south. Any improvement of
the street beyond this initial loop which would serve as an initial cul-de-
' sac, I think a very natural turnaround, would be part of Phase II so that all
of the improvements to TH 101 required for this would be worked out and would
be part of Phase II and obviously Phase II can not proceed until you saw that
I happen. The alignment we're taking about is the alignment that is shown on
the original plat. The shaded area that's down to the south, ignore that if
you will. That was one of the alternatives that was addressed. We don't
think that's the best way to handle it so we would propose to keep the
I alignment the way it is shown on the preliminary plat that is before you this
evening. It provides about 180 feet separation along that lot line along TH
101. With regards to screening, I am aware that the Sosin's approached the
.-
I Kurvers about purchasing some property. That approach was made after the
preliminary plat was put together. From what Kurvers tell me they are
certainly amenable to looking at splitting off on the final plat a portion of
that providing them obviously with the cost considerations and so forth can be
Iwork out and presumably they can be between both parties to consider that
request. The Planning Commission did discuss it and I think agreed with us
that it's not necessarily the responsibility of the developer to screen the
I driveway. We think realistically the owners of Lots 8 and 9 are going to want
to screen the driveway more than perhaps the Sosin's are going to want to
screen the backyard but we still understand their concerns and willing to look
II - at that and the parties can negotiate. The plat can accomodate the sale.
Councilman Johnson: I really think this subdivision is a real relief to me.
II To come in here and we've got a developer fixing highway problems is amazing. --
I would like to hear from the Park and Rec Coordinator or our Chairman of the
Commission on this 20 foot wide along TH 101. I personally believe that there
is some way that we probably can state it to MnDOT to save their face or
I whatever for them to give us an answer. Maybe not make it specific to this
but within such and such type of road arrangements, how much do we need to put
in a trail and specifically give them the dimensions of this. Not necessarily
I saying this is TH 101 so they're answering a general question, not committing
anything to TH 101. I would like, if they come back and say it's adequate but
20 feet seems awfully big beyond the 100 foot wide potential right-of-way in
the future. What's the Park and Rec think?
IILori Sietsema: At the time it was presented to the Park and Recreation
Commission it wasn't pointed out to them that there was 17 feet of right-of-
II way there. I feel if we can be reasonably assured that an off-street trail
can be built in there no matter what happens to that road, that they will be
comfortable with leaving it as 17 feet. They were very concerned that TH 101
is a major priority to get a trail along there because of the traffic there
I and if it can be accomodated within 17 feet, I have no problem. If there is a
problem with that, then we need the additional easement.
I Mike Lynch: We're also concerned about berming because a lot of berming is
being done inside of those right-of-ways and as seen on east side of TH 101 °a
little further north in an Eden Prairie development, there is a berm and
I there's 12 feet straight down into a ditch and then there's TH 101 and there's
absolutely no place to put a trail there unless you attempt to ride on top of
[::
the berm so we knew there was going to be a berm and we knew there were
I56
II
1()9 '
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
Ir- problems coming up with TH 101. We're not stuck on a number figure of 20
feet, 17 feet, whatever it happens to be. We just want to make sure that we
can get into that.
Councilman Johnson: So you're weren't actually saying, you had no knowledge of
the 17 so you were going 20 feet from the road right-of-way?
Mike Lynch: Right. It's almost the same thing as the 17 so still within that
right-of-way we would like to see that a berm is constructed so we can still '
get a trail in.
Councilman Johnson: The berm is not going within the 17 feet? ,
Mark Koegler: No, the grading plan requests all of the berming be totally on
private property.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, so I think we can probably modify number 15 here.
Rather than saying here to reflect the TH 101 trail will be coordinated with
requirements of MnDot or something like this. Maybe it will be 18 feet or
something. I don't want to argue over 1 or 2 feet. The other thing is I'm
for the interior sidewalk, 6 foot sidewalk. I think one thing that may be
done is put it along the east side of Kurvers. We've got Kerber and Kurver
now that's going to be here. I know why you're putting that there but I think
that, I don't know if the public safety has said anything about that but we've
got a Kerber which I don't think there would be any residents that actually
would be fronting on Kerber Blvd. so if they made a phone call in and said
Kurver that for emergency purposes the fire trucks won't be heading west when
they should be heading east. Having names that terribly close together, it
may not be a problem but that's another thing to look into. I know when you
develop your homestead you like to put your name on it but I'm for the
interior sidewalk because I see my street and how many- children are out and .
playing in our street. We've got one or two cars parked out there and it is
very hazardous. I would rather see the sidewalks where the people pushing the
baby buggys down the street and everything else. I don't think it would be
that detractive. I would keep it on the east side of Kurver Point Road so it
is away from the beachlot. Out of sight, out of mind on the beachlot. The
kids that are going to find it from Eden Prairie as well as anything that's
going to be the same problem with most beachlots is probably the kids coming
in and whether there's a sidewalk or not a sidewalk isn't going to slow down
the kids very much. There's another point on the beachlot credit. The
addition of the recreational beachlot to me does not do anything for me for
park credits at all. The costs of the lots on Lotus View Lane and Lotus
Circle and the other landlocked lots are going to reflect the availability to
those people's recreational beachlots within the prices they're going to pay
and I don't think the developer is giving up anything. I don't think there
should be any credit at all given for giving an amenity that he's going to
make a profit on. I do want to continue to compliment him on a heck of a good
design. A lot of thought has gone into this. That's about it. I don't know
what we can do with the trees. I think that's an issue between the co-owners
and the Sosin's.
57
�1®
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
Councilman Boyt: I guess I would start by saying that I'm real impressed that
you're willing to cut the hill down just like Jay said. I thought that was an
absolutely ridiculous possibility and driving TH 101 everyday I'm delighted
that someday it's going to be flat. I guess I would like to ask Georgette, is
it my understanding now that that proposal leaves the road situation and your
driveway alright?
Georgette Sosin: I think it's an improvement for the entire city. For
' anybody who drives that and certainly for us. If that is done at the time
that he says, then I think we would be satisfied. In fact I'm thrilled.
Councilman Boyt: Now I think with the trees, what I think would be a very
' easy thing for you to do Mark is just put that in as a Covenant as those
particular lots or someway enter it so that they don't cut those trees. I
don't think that's costs anybody anything. I agree with you. I think it's in
' everybody's interest to keep them there but maybe one line like that would
save a little money and get the job done. The trails, I wish that Tim Erhart
was here since he is certainly closely attached to the trail system. I think
' it's very important that the developrs understand that Park and Rec handle the
trail matters and not the Planning Commission. I think that the developer
came in to the Planning Commission with some trail matters. that would have
been better dealt with at Park and Rec and by the Park and Rec people. I
_
I think there is the 8 foot wide trail, it remains I guess to see what gets
built but I'm interested in consistency. I think we ask for an 8 foot wide
trail through Saddlebrook, several of them and I think if that's the standard
[__
' we're going to use in this city that's the standard we're going to use. We're
not going to go 6 foot in one place, 8 in another and so I would like to see
us stay 8 feet. On TH 101 trail situation, we're going to have a trail on TH
' 101 and I think if we change that to read sufficient room for a trail and the
kind of trail I have in mind is, I forget what class you call it, maybe Mark
knows, but it's the one where you have separate pedestrian and bike and
whatever room we need to build that. I think you all can work that out but
that's what I want to see there. The park versus the beachlot, Jay has
already addressed that. I agree with him completely. I've got some questions
about the grading plan and are those better kept for another part of this or
' should we?
Mayor Hamilton: Right now.
Councilman Boyt: I think it's important in this situation and with the slope
on this land that we use what I think of as Type II silt containment
situations which are haybales plus the plastic sheeting. Wherever there is a
' possibility that anything can run into the lake, I suggest we don't fool
around with just the netting. We go with both. The other thing I would like
to see us and I haven't looked at the grading plan to know if this is going to
present even a remote chance but if it does present a remote chance I want to
see us use that floating sediment trap in the lake. Basically I want
everything on this property to stay on this property. I've got a concern -
about the potential spawning area possibility and the fact that that hasn't
' been resolved. I think Clark's probably going to talk to the number of docks
so I won't address that. Those cover my concerns.
58
11
111
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
Ir- Councilman Horn: I guess I wasn't going to comment on the number of docks.
It meets the ordinance and obviously is not part of this. I do have a concern
though just to expand on something that Jay said and that was the street
names, I would like those to be reviewed by the Public Safety Director. We've
got two Lotus' here and a couple other Lotus' nearby and I think we want to
keep those from being confused. Other than that, I think it's a good layout.
Councilman Geving: I would like to say this in respect to the Kurvers, Mel
and Frank, I think you have made some major concessions as developers in this
plan and I thank you for that. I think the city will thank you for many years
to come because I think this is an excellent plan. Again, I repeat we have
seen approximately 20 developments in the last 3 or 4 weeks and I can tell you
that I have not seen a net density of 1.5 units per acre anywhere in months.
Maybe in years so you have done a very, very good job of putting this
together. I like the plan. I like the road the way it flows. The cul-de-
sacs. I think this will be a very high amenity area for anyone who buys one
of these lots and I really mean that. I knew your mother very well and I
would like to say that I think somewhere in this plan you should call one of
those circles Mary Circle or Mary's View or something like that. I really
liked her and she was a nice lady. In regard to some of the questions that
Mrs. Sosin had and I'm very delighted that that two issues that you raised
Georgette hopefully will be resolved. The Kurvers made a major concession
tonight in suggesting that they would bear the burden of cost of resolving the
road issue which of course is the key issue of this whole development and of
course secondly if they can resolve the second one for your visual concerns
that would go a long way to making a very happy neighbors for the people who
buy these two lots 8 and 9. I don't believe that I'm very much in favor, in
fact I'm not in favor of giving any park credit at all for the development of
the beachlot. I see no advantage to the City for you to put in a beachlot for
your residents in this development and would not go along with any kind of a
beachlot credit. As far as the trail is concerned, the easement along the _
highway has always been a dream of ours going way back, to build trails
throughout our community and I can tell you that we're going to have a trail
along the entire length of TH 101 when we put all the pieces together. I
don't believe that we need to have 37 feet. That's ridiculous but I do
believe that we need enough trail area so we can make a connection along TH
101 and whether that's 17 feet or 20 feet I don't care. As far as the on-road
trails within the plat itself, we've gone to some different ideas and have
worked out where we've gone to a 6 foot on-road type of a trail. I would like
that where we just stripe one side of the road and people can walk throughout
the plat and find it very comfortable to get from here to there. I think 6
feet for any kind of a trail within the plat is more than sufficient so I
believe that we should provide for that. The Park and Rec Commission's
recommendation should be carried out. We should have a trail somewhere
throughout your development. It isn't •just for your own residents, the people
who like to hike, walk and I'm sure that it will again be another amenity for
your plat. As far as the connection to Cheyenne to the east, I think that's a
dumb idea. I really don't see any value in connecting this east of the
northern most route up to Cheyenne. I don't see any reason to do that. When
we build a development like this, I kind of like to see it as a self-contained
unit where you have an access and egress and people who live there have an
identity. To mix these with the Colonial Addition I don't think would be
59
ICity Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
Igood planning strategy. I believe that there was a comment from the Park
people in terms of the 1.5 acres of parkland. Again, I go back to that no
!-
credit. You have met that of course, I don't see any problem there. We did
I have historically a lot of drainage problems from parts of this land flowing,
I think some of it flows mostly to the north and gets into the Colonial
Addition one way or another. Either flows back onto your property or your
1 proeprty flows onto the north and into the Bloomberg Addition so I guess I am
most concerned about item 9. That a culvert shall be provided under the
Kurvers Point Road connection to TH 101. Do you see any problem there Mark?
IIMark Koegler: That's no problem with us.
Councilman Geving: Because historically I know when we worked with the
I Bloomberg additions it's always been a problem for those drainageways. That
concludes mine, you've done a good job fellas.
I Mayor Hamilton: I have a few comments. Again, like everybody else I think
it's a heck of a nice plan. I'm really excited about it and I can't believe
you're going to cut the road down but I think that's fantastic if you're
really going to do that. There's no better way to solve a problem and I hope
I you know what you're doing. The trails, it would be nice to have a trail on
TH 101 but if the Kurvers are going to dedicate some property or give an
easement for a trail along TH 101, then I think we ought to go right on down
I the street and get it from the Sosin's and get it from the Oelschlagers and
get it from South Lotus Lake and everybody else that's on the street which we
haven't done and probably never will do. I'm as much in favor of trails as
II anybody else but a trail that starts in the middle of a street and stops
before it gets to the end of the street doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Anyone having a trail through the subdivision, to say that they need to put in
a 6 foot or 8 foot or 10 foot or whatever it might be, sidewalk through their
I subdivision that starts at one end of the subdivision and stops at the other
end, is only for the residents who are going to be there primarily because I
can't believe that we're going to encourage people from, I mean I wouldn't go
I over there and drive into their subdivision and stop and park in the street
and then walk back and forth on the street, get back in my car and go back
home. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me anyway. Maybe some people would
do that, I don't know. I think by doing that we're doing something that Jay
Itouched on. We would be encouraging people to come into the subdivision and
perhaps use the outlot that they have intended for the residents who live
there, that we're going to create some parking problems and we're going to
II have the residents back here saying we want no parking signs and we want the
same type of problems that we have in Greenwood Shores and we have in Carver
Beach so I think rather than creating a problem we're going to have in the
I future, Dale touched on it, we can stripe a part of the street and if people
wish to walk their children down the street or walk over to the outlet they
can use that portion of the road to walk on that's been striped for that
II purpose. I also feel that the connection to Cheyenne Trail is not a
reasonable consideration and certainly detracts from the subdivision rather
than adding to it. Credit on the park charges, I guess I could go either way
on that. It does seem as though I think Mark has a good argument when he says
6
II the people who live here are in fact going to, when they use the outlot that's
being created, certainly in the summertime, they are going to take some
II60
II
113
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
Ir- pressure off of Lake Ann or off of Lake Susan or any of our other parks so I
think we should consider some type of a park credit. Certainly not 100% but
20% or 30%, whatever that might turn out to be. I think those are the extent
of my comments. Barbara you had something you were going to say a.minute ago.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, I just wanted to follow-up on a couple of suggestions '
about the existing trees along the Sosin lot line. We could as a part of the
timber management plan have the DNR forester look at that area as well as the
Council looking at making it a requirement to maintain that existing II
vegetation as a buffer subject to the DNR inspecting to make sure all the
trees are healthy and some of the good species are maintained. That could be
a function of the forester.
Mayor Hamilton: I was going to comment on it and I forgot. I guess I would
like to know, before I would recommend anything on the lot line between the
two properties I would like to know where the line is first of.all. Whose
property the trees that are there currently are on. There are a lot of scrub
trees in there that could easily be weeded out. Keep the good ones and you
could plant inbetween evergreens if that's what you wanted to have in there
and if those trees are on the Sosin property than they ought to plant trees to
go inbetween the growth. If it's going to be on the new subdivision property
then°people who buy that or perhaps ever the developers would put a few trees
along there to screen. I guess I agreed with the comment that screening of
someone's driveway is not something that I think is a high priority and
certainly the people who are going to live there are perhaps going to be more
concerned about screening their own backyard from somebody's driveway where
they can see cars going by or traffic.
Georgette Sosin: I would like to say that we're not into doing landscaping
that looks like somethink from a French castle let's say and that scrub trees
I happen to like. I feel strongly about them as a visual barrier and I would
really resent somebody coming over and messing around with what I think is a
really nice barrier as it is and saying this is not a special tree and
therefore it should be removed. The whole point of our wanting to buy that
land is to keep it somewhat wild because our land is kept that way. We don't
have a lawn. We don't have a landscaping that's not natural and I want that
natural border and I like those scrub trees so I would not think that your
suggestion, as well meant as it was and I know it was, would be satisfactory
to us. I don't know if you follow.
Mayor Hamilton: I follow you. I guess that's fine. If that's your choice
and you could plant trees further back on your own.
Councilman Geving: This is a private matter that the Sosin's and the Kurvers
can work out themselves. Leave it at that because they've already made a
valid offer and let them work it out. '
Mayor Hamilton: I also think it's important to remember what Mark says as .far
as the phasing of this. Whatever acts and 'comes about in the southern part of
the subdivision is going to be in the second phase. They're going to do the
northern phase first, northern half of the subdivision which will give them
time to reduce the hill on TH 101 and make the access useable. That's not
61
1114
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
going to happen for a while. I think we need to move along and get them
started on the northern half of this and I know that's what Mark said that's
their phasing plan. That makes a lot of sense.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to correct that I was for an off-street
' trail. I personally believe adding 6 foot to the width of a city street would
be a lot more expensive to put 12 inches of supporting rock and it splits my
mind the actual term for that but all your support and two layers of asphalt
and everything I believe a 6 foot addition to the street would be more
expensive than an off-street 6 foot wide, 6 foot wide is a fairly wide
sidewalk. My main reason for a sidewalk off the street is for the people, the
-- 42 houses that live there and the people that are there for them not to have
to walk in the street when they are walking down to the beachlot or when they
go with their baby stroller down the street. I have baby strollers all over
my street all the time and we also have some teenage girls at the end of the
' street so the teenage boys are zooming up the street with babies and strollers
on the side of the street so I would rather see than on the sidewalk.
' Mayor Hamilton: Could you address that Mark?
Mark Koegler: First of all I don't think it probably benefits any of us to
continue arguing whether a sidewalk fits in here or not. You have your
I . opinion Councilman Johnson and we have ours. The point I guess I would like
to bring out is if you do decide to go with a 5 foot or 6 foot sidewalk and
most sidewalks are 5 feet historically, we would suggest that you give us the
freedom to either include it in the street or include detached. We have
located several species of trees on that property that are relatively close to
the right-of-way that we want to retain. We may in some cases want to go
' around the tree with the sidewalk, if you make us put in a sidewalk. The
other thing we would ask for is if you do that we would like, there's a staff
recommendation that says the trail credit should be waived in lieu of our
putting this in and that's fine. We again though get back to we would like an
' equitable arrangement of the cost. Our estimate of the detached 6 foot wide
trail and that's 6 not 5, is about $8,800.00. Park credit we would receive is
slightly less than $400.00 so again we would get back to if you require us to
' do that would that be reflected as an equitable credit among all parties.
Councilman Johnson: There was some other point that we looked at credits.
This is not the point to look at what negotiating credits.
' Mayor Hamilton: When do we do that Don?
Don Ashworth: Part of the development contract. You have in the one with
Rick Murray before you tonight, that was a very good bid on that. $4.50 a
running foot with that 5 foot. If that's the case...
Councilman Geving: Let's just leave that issue.
Councilman Johnson: I think we can look at that a little further. The one
' other thing is Mark brought up the item 5, the extension of the hydrants and
he brought up some changes to it. I was wondering if Gary had any problems
with his relocation of fire hydrants and if Gary has a recommendation for how
62
I
1151
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
Ir- we reword 5.
Gary Warren: We met on a preliminary basis to review my interest and their I
concerns and options and as a part of the final plans and specifications I'm
sure we can come up with some meeting of- the minds on this issue.
Councilman Johnson: So on number 5 could we say location of the fire hydrants I
to be negotiated between the City Engineer and the developer rather than the
specifics? Is that what we're talking about in number 5 is the specifics of
moving it to these locations? I
Gary Warren: It basically impacts the realignment in general of hydrants and
in particular the service to the Conklin property on the northwest corner I
think is the biggest challenge on that.
Councilman Johnson: That's what we were trying to get at with number 5 here?
Gary Warren: Right.
Councilman Johnson: So if we said the location for fire hydrants should be
negotiated, you think that would be the better way than being as specific as
we are right here? Is this what's going to happen? Is this what you want
Lots 6, 9 and 10, Block 1 and all this good stuff? I
Gary Warren: We need to address and I think that Mark is agreeable to coming
up with some modified approach for getting a hydrant in there. He pointed out
two possible locations here and that's what I'm getting at so I think subject
to my review and approval, I think that would suffice.
Mayor Hamilton: There isn't any disagreement on that issue? ,
Gary Warren: No, we have to work out the details.
Councilman Horn: You want to eliminate 17 then?
1
Councilman Boyt: Yes, that's right. I think we have that resolved.
Councilman Johnson: Do you want to indicate how we resolved that?
Councilman Geving: It's not necessary. I
Councilman Horn: It's shown on the plat.
Gary Warren: The phasing is the key part.
Barbara Dacy: It's hooked into the phase 2 construction. There should be a
condition.
Mayor Hamilton: That's true. It should say as part of Phase 2, TH 101 hill
will be reduced to provide sight distances required by MnDot.
63 1
I
l
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
[-
Councilman Horn: I would like to see
you modify number 1 to include Jay's
comment about reviewing all of the street names by the Public Safety. Not
just the ones they've indicated.
Mark Koegler: Just one question of clarification, I understand the possible
' confusion on street names. We certainly would defer the Public Safety's
opinion on that. I think he had reviewed it and that's where these first two
changes came from. If you find Kurvers Point Road acceptable, I would ask
that the Council accept that. This property has historically been known as
' Kurvers Point for about 8 years and the family wanted to retain that name as
the name of the street. Thought it had a nice ring to it as far as the
development so again, we don't want to jeopardize public safety but if it's
' agreeable to the Public Safety Director, would the Council allow that one to
remain.
' Councilman Horn: I think the question is confusing with Kerber Blvd..
Mayor Hamilton: It's Kerber Blvd. and Kurvers Point Road. I don't think
there is.
' Councilman Geving: I don't think there is any confusion on my pert. I think
it should be Kurvers Point Road as depicted on the plan and as proposed by the
II , developer. They've been there for 80 years, I think this is their development
and they have the right to have their name on the development.
' Councilman Horn: So you don't want to hear what public safety has to say?
t_
Councilman Geving: No. I think the only reason the public safety
recommended a change on item 1 is to eliminate confusion on Lotus Circle and
' Lotus View. To me there is no confusion on Kerber Blvd. and Kurvers Point
Road.
' Mayor Hamilton: I think we can simplify it by saying that we're all in favor
of Kurvers Point Road remains and have the Public Safety Director review the
other- ones.
' Councilman Johnson: I see our Public Safety Director over here indicating to
me that he doesn't have a problem with it.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Subdivision
Request #87-14 subject to the plans stamped "Received June 4, 1987" with the
following conditions:
' 1. Rename Lotus Circle and Lotus View Lane.
2. Additional manholes and pipe bends shall be utilized where
appropriate to install the sanitary sewer and watermain within the
roadway area and not under the curb and gutter.
3. Erosion control measures shall be provided, especially for the
connection to the existing sanitary sewer from manhole #2 to existing
manhole #16 and the beachlot area.
64
I
1171
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
ir- 4. The watermain on Lotus View Lane shall be connected to the existing
trunk watermain at TH 101. The watermain proposed for Willow View
Cove shall be loop connected to the watermain proposed for Kurvers
Point Road. A minimum 8 inch diameter watermain shall be utilized on
the deadend line proposed for Lotus Circle.
5. A watermain extension shall be provided and a hydrant installed to be
able to provide fire protection to the existing three homeson Lots 6,
9, and 10, Block 1. The hydrant shown on Outlot A should be moved to
the west near manhole #15 to better service the area and eliminate
gaps in fire protection coverage.
6. The watermain connection at the south end of Kurvers Point Road to
the existing 12 inch main shall be made by the installation of a new
gate valve connection and centered at the intersection of this
roadway. Likewise, the watermain connection proposed for the north
end of Kurvers Point at TH 101 shall be centered in this intersection
with a gate valve.
7. All utilities and roadways shall be constructed consistent with the
City's urban standards.
•
8. State Dept. of Transportation permits shall be obtained for the I
proposed connection to TH 101 and State requirements for sight
distance and turnlanes shall be complied with.
9. Culverts shall be provided under the Kurvers Point Road connections
to TH 101 to maintain the drainage in these areas.
10. Internal erosion control measures, in addition to that proposed,
shall be utilized to mitigate off-site transport of sediment. A
final Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be included and approved
as part of the plans and specifications for this project. Also,
endorse the use of Type II erosion controls and floating sediment
traps wherever appropriate.
11. Wood fiber blanket shall be utilized on all slopes greater than 3:1. '
12. Storm drainage calculating and documentation shall be submitted as a
part of the plans and specifications and impacts to the wetland
evaluated.
13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the Watershed
District, DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply
with their conditions of approval.
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the
City with the financial sureties required by this contract for proper
installation of these improvements.
15. Compliance with the action taken by the Park and Recreation
. Commission.
11
65
1014;
II
City Council Meeting - July 20, 1987
16. Individual grading and erosion control and tree removal plans shall
be submitted at time of building permit application for Lot 5, Block
' 1, Lots 1-7, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Lots 8, 9, 10, 16, 17
and 18, Block 4.
17. As part of the phase 2 construction the hill on. TH 101. will be
reconstructed to resolve the sight distance problem.
18. There will be a timber management plan by the DNR forester on this
' property paying special attention to the area on riparian lots within
75 feet of the high water mark.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
/�/ C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS
LL II 1.P
A WETLAND.
Barbara Dacy: There were a couple of sight visits with Dr. Rockwell to
' determine the edge of the existing wetlands and that was used to prepare their
submittal. Also, since the Planning Commission action, the drainage
calculation has been reviewed by the engineering office and has been confirmed
that the storm design and storm water run-off calculations meets the 100 years
storm event in compliance with the wetland ordinance. At this point Staff is
stating that the proposed drainage plan is meeting all the wetland alteration
permit guidelines. Technically the run-off is not within the wetland.
' However, the rate of run-off will be less than or the same as existing rate of
run-off through the development. The secondary issue is in regards to the
docks. Four lots do contain some wetland area. Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 and
' Lots 1 and 2, Block 3. The recommendation was that the wetland alteration
permits be processed prior to final plat approval so that action taken by the
City can be recorded along with the deeds at the County. I know the Council
had discussed this issue in a prior application. However, the recommendation
' from the Planning Commission and the staff was to conduct that process prior
to final plat approval. That was it on the wetland application.
II Mark Koegler: Just a couple of comments. We certainly have no dispute with
what is required. It's clear in the ordinance. The only thing that's not
clear in the ordinance is when it has to be done and by whom. There are two
valid approaches to doing that. One Barb summarized. The other one we would
ask you to consider, really offer as a suggestion, is to allow the individual
homeowners when they purchase the property to come back and do that. The
reason we request that is we believe there is a possibility that each of
' those, you'll end up reviewing applications twice. We will come up with a
plan if that's your direction and do that before the final plat showing access
to those lots, docks and so forth. That's not to say six months later when a
' homeowner comes in and he would want a different configuration. We would
rather leave it to him to make that determination. If you will not permit
that for whatever reason, we will take care of it now.
Councilman Johnson: Barb, I see two of these that are affected by the wetland
but what are the other two again?
66 •
I
2
City Council Meeting - September 14, 1987
KURVERS POINT ADDITION: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Kurvers Point
Subdivision Final Plat approval. All voted in favor and motion carried.
APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, CHANHASSEN VISTA 4TH ADDITION.
Mayor Hamilton: I think Bill you had the same comments there. It's a little
different development contract but you wanted to address this one.
Councilman Boyt: On this one, there are two items that we haven't discussed
tonight. One of them Don was going to check on for me on park trails. A park
trail around Chan Pond.
Don Ashworth: Yes, I did talk with Mr. Koegler and he is in the process of '
revising that plat in accordance with the statement that were made by Mr.
Segal here approximately 2 weeks ago.
Councilman Boyt: Which means that when we approve this, we are approving it
given that condition. That the developer has agreed to give us property where
we need it for the trail.
Don Ashworth: That seems reasonable.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I would like that included in this contract. Just to
be absolutely clear. And the other thing is, Gary I have a question for you
on. There was, I would guess, about a 12 to 14 inch diameter tree cut last
week. Did you give approval for that tree to be cut? '
Gary Warren: There were not requests given to me for tree cutting, no.
Councilman Boyt: Well, would you follow up on it? '
Mayor Hamilton: Was it within a pad or just sitting out in the open?
Councilman Boyt: Really I couldn't tell you where it came from until I saw it
uprooted and it was sitting right off the end of Frontier Trail.
Councilman Horn: Hardwood? '
Councilman Boyt: Oak.
Gary Warren: Co you know approximately where it came out?
Councilman Boyt: I don't know where it came out of. I know they pulled it up
by the house that, I could point it out to you. It's probably 50 yards from
where Frontier currently ends to the west and that's in direct violation of
their existing development contract.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, I was going to pull this one myself in that I have a
real problem approving this development contract when the developer hasn't
34
11
1 ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN
' DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
' KURVERS POINT SUBDIVISION, PHASE I
AGREEMENT dated , 1987, by and between the
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ( "City" ) ,
' and Franklin J. Kurvers and Melvin M. Kurvers (the "Developer" ) .
1 . Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the
1 City to approve a plat for Kurvers Point, Phase I (referred to in
this Contract as the "plat" ) . The land is legally described on
the attached plat, Exhibit "A" . The preliminary plat was
approved by the City Council on July "20 , 1987. The final plat
was approved by the City Council on September 14 , 1987 .
2 . Conditions of Plat Approval. The City has approved the
' plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Contract and
furnish the security required by it.
' 3 . Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a
multiphased preliminary plat, the City may refuse to approve
final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached
this Contract and the breach has not been remedied. Development
' of subsequent phases may not proceed until Development Contracts
for such phases are approved by the City. Charges and special
assessments referred to in this contract are not being imposed on
1 outlots , if any, in the plat that are designated in an approved -
preliminary plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks.
Such charges and assessments will be calculated and imposed when
the outlots are final platted into lots and blocks.
' 4 . Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two ( 2) years from
the date of this Contract, no amendments to the City' s
Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the
current urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or
affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or
' dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or
federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer.
Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the
contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City
' may require compliance with any amendments to the City' s
Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication
requirements enacted after the date of this Contract.
5 . Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accor-
dance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached
to this Contract. If the plans vary from the written terms of
this Contract, the written terms shall control. The plans aret
Plan A--Final Plat dated , 1987, prepared
' by Schoborg Land Surverying, Inc.
1
1
Plan B--Plans for public improvements dated August 31,
1987, and Specifications dated September 3 , 1987 ,
prepared by VanDoren-Hazard-Stallings, Inc.
6 . Improvements. Consistent with the development plans
described in paragraph 5 of . this Contract, the Developer shall
install and pay for the following: _
A. Sanitary Sewer System '
B. Water System
C. Storm Sewer System
D . Streets
E. Concerete Curb and Gutter
F. Street Signs (City installs)
G. Street Lights
H. Site Grading and Ponding
I . Underground Utilities
J. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments
K. Surveying, Staking and Inspection '
The improvements shall be installed in accordance with City urban
standards, ordinances, and plans and specifications which have
been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer
furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. The
Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, the Minnesota Department
of Health, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Riley
Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, and other regulatory
agencies in whose jurisdiction this plat lies before proceeding
with construction. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to
provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an accep-
table level of quality control to the extent that the Developer' s
engineer will be able to certify that the construction work meets
the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance.
In addition, the City may, at the City' s discretion and at the
Developer' s expense, have one or more City inspectors and a soil
engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis. The
Developer or his engineer shall schedule a preconstruction
meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers
with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review
the program for the construction work. All material used in the
public improvements and all of the work performed in connection
therewith shall be of uniformly good and workmanlike quality. If
any material or labor supplied is rejected by the City as defec-
tive or unsuitable, then such rejected material shall be removed
and replaced with approved material, and rejected labor shall be
done anew to the satisfaction and approval of the City at the
cost and expense of the Developer. Within thirty (30) days after
the completion of the improvements and before the security is
released, the Developer shall supply the City with a complete set
of reproducible "As Built" plans.
7 . Time of Performance. All public improvements shall be
completed within two (2) years of the plat filing. The Developer
may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an
-2- 1
' extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the
security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and
' the extended completion date. Upon completion of the public
improvements, a representative of the contractor,- and a represen-
tative of the Developer' s engineer will make a final inspection
of the work with the City Engineer. Before the City accepts the
improvements , the City Engineer shall be satisfied that all work
is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans
and specifications; and the Developer and his engineer shall sub-
mit a written statement attesting to same. Final approval of the
public improvements shall take the form of a Resolution duly
passed by the City Council.
' 8 . License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its
agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter
the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate
by the City in conjunction with plat development.
9 . Erosion Control. Before any site grading or utility
construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the
erosion control plan, Plan B Sheet 3 and 4 , shall be implemented
by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. Silt
fences, hay bales, erosion control check dams, sedimentation
' ponds , floating siltation traps, and all other erosion control
measures shown on Plan B and required by the City and the
Watershed District, shall be installed before grading. The City
' may impose additional reasonable erosion control requirements
during the course of the construction if they would be benefi-
cial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling
' operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of
the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the ero-
sion control plan, seed shall be certified to provide a temporary
ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be
1 fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed
retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in
controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the
' erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions
received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems
appropriate to control erosion. The City will endeavor to notify
' the Developer 72 hours in advance of any proposed action, but
failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer' s and
City' s rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does
not reimburse the City for any cost the City incurred for such
work within ten (10) days, the City may draw down the financial
security as provided by the Developer, to pay any costs. No
development will be allowed and no building permits will be
' issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion
control requirements.
' 10 . Clean Up. The Developer shall daily clean streets,
on and off site, of all dirt and debris that has resulted from -
construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns.
11. Ownership of Improvements. Upon acceptance of the work
and construction required by this Contract, the improvements
lying within public easements shall become City property without
' further notice or action.
-3-
12 . Cost of Improvements. The cost of the Phase I improve-
ments
as specified in paragraphs 5 and 6 of this contract, is
estimated as follows:
Sanitary Sewer $ '
Watermain $
On-Site Storm Sewer $
Streets, Including Curb & Gutter $ ,
Erosion Control/Seeding/Grading $
Engineering, Surveying, and $
Construction Inspection
Total Estimated Construction Cost $
The Developer shall provide the City with copies of the
Contractor' s contracts, including the accepted bid proposal form,
before the initiation of construction.
13 . Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this '
Agreement, payment of the costs of all public improvements, and
construction of all public improvements, the Developer shall fur-
nish the City with a letter of credit, cash or alternative loan
agreement ( "security" ) for $ . The amount of the
security was calculated based on 110% of the estimate for
construction of the improvements as provided in paragraph 12 of
this contract.
The cost breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restric-
tion
on the use of the security. The City may require the amount
of security to be adjusted in accordance with the adopted
construction bid proposal. The security shall be subject to the
approval of the City Manager. The security shall be for a term
ending December 31 , 1988. In the alternative, the security may
be for a one year term provided it is automatically renewable for
successive one year periods from the present to any future
expiration dates with a final expiration date of December 31, 1988,
unless sixty ( 60) days prior to an expiration date the bank noti-
fies the City that it elects not to renew for an additional
period. The City may draw down the security for any violation of
the terms of this Contract or upon receiving notice that the
security will be allowed to lapse before December 31, 1988 . The
City will endeavor to notify the Developer four (4) days in
advance of its intent to draw down the security unless less than
thirty ( 30) days remain to expiration, in which case no notice
need be given. If the required public improvements are not
completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of
the security, the City may also draw it down without notice.
With City approval, the security may be reduced from time to time
as the Developer completes and pays for improvements so long as
the Developer is not in default of this Agreement.
14. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from
labor or materialmen that work required by this Contrct has been
performed, the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers
. -4- 1
1
or materialmen are seeking payment out of the financial guaran-
tees posted with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at
least sixty ( 60) days before the security required by paragraph
13 of this Contrct will expire, the Developer hereby authorizes
the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22 ,
' Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to
draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the
claim( s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and
' upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and
dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to
the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except
that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys
' fees pursuant to paragraph 25 of this Contract.
15. Timber Management Plan. The Developer shall arrange for
the preparation of a Timber Management Plan by the Department of
Natural Resources Forester for this property, paying special
attention to the area on riparian lots within 75 feet of the high
water mark.
16 . Trails and Trail Fees. The Developer shall grade and
install a trail along the Kurvers Point Road right-of-way to its
connection with TH 101. The Developer shall submit 0. plan for
approval by the City Council prior to construction of the trail .
Compensation for installation of the trail ° shall be determined by
' the City Council at the time of Trail Plan approval.
18 . Parkland Fees. Prior to the issuance of building per-
' mits for residential construction within the plat, the Developer,
its successors or assigns, shall pay to the City the parkland fee
then in force pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance and relevant
City Council resolutions thereafter.
' 19. Landscaping. The Developer shall plant one (1) tree on
every lot in the plat that does not already have a tree in the
' front yard setback. The trees shall be selected from among the
following species; varying the species within the subdivision:
Maples ( including Norway, "Schwedler" , and Sugar)
Linden, American (Basswood)
Linden, Littleaf (and varieties "Greenspire" and "Redmond" )
Green Ash (and varieties "Marshalls" and "Summit" )
' Honeylocust (and varieties "Imparial" , "Skyline" , and
"Sunburst" )
Hackberry
' Oak
The minimum tree size shall be two inches caliper, either bare
root in season or balled and burlapped. The trees may not be
' planted in the boulevard. The Developer shall sod the drainage
swales . All trees , grass, and sod, shall be warranted to be
alive, of good quality and disease free at installation. All
trees shall be warranted for 12 months after planting.
' -5-
I
1
20 . Lot Plans . Prior to the issuance of building permits
for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lots 1 and 2, Block 2;
Lots 1, 2 , 8 , 9, and 10 , Block 4; an acceptable Grading,
Erosion Control and Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted for the
lot for review and approval by the City Engineer. Each plan
shall assure that drainage is maintained away from buildings and
that tree removal is selectively done consistent with the. City' s
Shoreland Ordinance.
21. Trunk Highway 101, Phase II Connection. The Developer
agrees that approval and authorization for the preliminary plat
and initiation of Phase I of this plat is with the understanding
that the Developer will connect to TH 101 in Phase II as proposed
in the approved preliminary plat by lowering TH 101 to improve the
sight distance in the intersection location. This lowering of TH 101
will be undertaken at the Developer' s sole expense and in
compliance with Minnesota Department of Transportation
requirements.
22. Existing Assessments/Connection Charges. Assessments
exist against the plat from the East Lotus Lake Improvement
Project 75-10 . These existing assessments will be respread
against the plat in accordance with City standards . Trunk con-
nection charges have also been levied as a part of this earlier
improvement project and therefore sanitary sewer and watermain
trunk charges have been satisfied. 11
23. Utility and Drainage Easements.
A. Easements exist along the western portion
of the plat. These drainage and utility easements shall be
retained and recorded with the plat. '
B. Outlot A and B of the plat shall be dedicated to the
City for drainage purposes prior to the City executing the final
plat. ,
24. Street Lighting. The expense of furnishing electrical
energy for street lighting purposes shall be assumed by the
Developer for the first 24 months after completion of installa-
tion of the street lighting system, or until fifty percent ' (50%)
of the building lots have been improved by the construction of
residences thereof , whichever is first to occur.
25 . Street Signs. All street name and traffic signs required
by the City as a part of the public improvements shall be fur-
nished and installed by the City at the sole expense of the
Developer.
26 . Warranty. The Developer warrants all work required to be '
performed by it against poor material and faulty workmanship for
a period of one (1) year after its completion and acceptance by 11 the City. The Developer shall post maintenance bonds or other
security acceptable to the City to secure the warranties. The
warranty period for all public improvements shall commence on the
date of acceptance by the City Council. '
-6-
I
27 . Responsibility for Costs.
A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or
the City in conjucntion with the development of the plat,
including but not limited to a charge equal to 3% of the cost of
' the installation of public improvements to cover the City' s cost
of administration and inspection of the improvements. Before the
City signs the final plat, the Developer shall deposit with the
City a fee based upon construction estimates. After construction
' is completed, the final charge shall be determined based upon
actual construction costs.
' B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers
and employees harmless from claims made by the Developer and
third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting
from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indem-
nify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, dama-
ges, or expenses which the City pay or incur in consequence of
such claims , including attorney' s fees .
C . The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs
incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engi-
neering and attorney' s fees .
D. The Developer shall pay, or cause to be paid when
II . due, and in any event before any penalty is attached, all special
assessments referred to in this Contract.
E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted
' to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Contract
within thirty ( 30 ) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid
on time, the City may halt all plat development work and
' construction, including but not limited to the issuance of
building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have
sold, until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within
' thirty ( 30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per
year.
F. In addition to the charges referred to herein, other
' charges may be imposed such as, but not limited to, sewer availa-
bility charges ( "SAC" ) , and building permit fees as allowed by
law.
28 . Developer' s Default. In the event of default by the
Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder,
the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer
' shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the
City, provided that except in an emergency the Developer is first
given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days
' in advance. This Contract is a license for the City to act, and
permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work,
the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost
' in whole or in part.
-7-
1
29 . Miscellaneous.
A. The Developer represents to the City, to the best of ,
his knowledge, that the plat complies with all city, county,
metropolitan, state, and federal laws and regulations , including
but not limited to environmental regulations. If the City deter-
mines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option,
refuse to allow construction or development work in the plat
until the Developer does comply. Upon the City' s demand, the ,
Developer shall cease work until there is compliance.
B . Except as otherwise provided herein, third parties
111
shall have no recourse against the City under this Contract.
C. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer
shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots
sold to third parties.
D. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence,
clause, paragraph or phrase of this Contract is for any reason
held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion of this Contract.
1
E. If building permits are issued prior to the comple-
tion and acceptance of public improvements, the Developer assumes
all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of
public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by
the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors,
materialmen, employees , agents, or third parties. No one may
occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either
a temporary or permanent basis until the streets needed for
access have a stable base approved by the City Engineer.
F. The Developer shall be responsible for all street
maintenance until streets within the subdivision are accepted by
the City. Warning signs shall be placed by the Developer when
hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling
on same and directing attention to detours. If streets become
impassable, the City may order that such streets shall be barri-
caded and closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth roadway
surface and provide proper surface drainage. The Developer may
request, in writing, that the City plow snow on the streets prior
to final acceptance of the streets. The City shall have complete
discretion to approve or reject the request. The city shall not
be responsible for re-shaping or damage to the street base or
utilities because of snow plowing operations. The provision of
City snow plowing service does not constitute final acceptance of
the streets by the City.
G. Placement of on-site construction trailers and tem- '
porary job site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer as
a part of the pre-construction meeting for installation of public
improvements. Trailers shall be removed from the subject prop-
erty within thirty ( 30) days following the acceptance of the
public improvements unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. ,
-8-
H. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of
postal service in accordance with the local Postmaster' s request.
I . The action or inaction of the City shall not consti-
tute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract.
To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed
by the parties, and approved by written resolution of the -City
Council. The City' s failure to promptly take legal action to
enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release.
J . The Developer represents to the City to the best of
' its knowledge that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance"
and that an environmental impact statement is not required. If
the City or another governmental entity or agency determines that
' such a review is needed, however, the Developer shall prepare it
in compliance with legal requirements so issued from the agency.
The Developer shall reimburse the city for all expenses,
including staff time and attorney' s fees , that the City incurs in
' assisting in the preparation of the review.
K. This Contract shall run with the land and may be
recorded against the title to the property. After the Developer
has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at the
Developer' s request the City will execute and deliver to the
-' Developer a release.
L. Developer shall take out and maintain until six ( 6 )
months after the City has accepted the public improvements ,
' public liability and property damage insurance covering personal
injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may
arise out of Developer' s work or the work of its subcontractors
or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them.
Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than
$500 ,000 for one person and $1,000 ,000 for each occurrence; limits
for property damage shall be not less than $200 ,000 for each
' occurrence; or a combination single limit policy of $1,000 ,000 or
more. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the
policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate
evidencing coverage prior to the City signing the plat. The cer-
tificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days
advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The
' certificate may not contain any disclaimer for failure to give
the required notice.
M. Each right, power, or remedy herein conferred upon
' the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right,
power , or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising,
available to the City, at law or in equity, or under any other
agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set
forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time
as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City
and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time
thereafter any other right, power, or remedy.
' -9
N. The Developer may not assign this Contract without
the written permission of the City Council. The Developer' s
obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even
if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any
part of it.
30 . Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in
writing, and shall be deemed to have been received if either hand
delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to
the Developer by registered mail at the following address.
Developer: Melvin M. Kurvers
7240 Chanhassen Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Notice to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand
delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by
registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following
address.
City: Chanhassen City Hall
Attn: City Manager
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
i
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By:
( SEAL) Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor
By:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
DEVELOPER 1
(SEAL) By:
Melvin M. Kurvers
i
By:
Franklin J. Rurvers
-10- ,
I
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
On this day of , 19 , before me,
a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared
Thomas L. Hamilton and Don Ashworth,- to me personally known, who
being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively
' the Mayor and City Manager of the Municipal corporation named in
the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said
instrument is the corporate seal of said municipal corporation,
' and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said
municipal corporation by authority of its City Council and said
Thomas L. Hamilton and Don Ashworth acknowledged said instrument
to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation.
1
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
' COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this •
day of , 1987, by
and , developers of this property.
Notary Public
Drafted by:
' City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
( 612) 937-1900
I
I
11 -11-
I
I
CONSENT
Rosemary Smith (Kurvers) and Robert R. Conklin, fee owners of all
or part of the subject property, the development of which is
governed by the foregoing Development Conract, affirm and consent
to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions
as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property
owned by them.
Dated this day of , 1987.
By: 1Rosemary Smith (Kurvers)
By: 1
Robert R. Conklin
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1
day of , 1987, by Rosemary Smith (Kurvers) and Robert
R. Conklin.
Notary Public
1
I
-12- 11
KURVERS POINT LEGAL
KNOW ALL MEN BY 'MESE PRESENTS: That Melvin M. Kurver and Jacqueline D. Kurver, husband and wife, foe owners, and Bank Plus Mortgage
Corporation, a Texas corporation, mortgagee, and Franklin J. Kurver and Myrna Kurver, husband and wife, fee owners, and Fireman Fund
Mortgage Corporation, a Michigan corporation, mortgagee of the following described property situated in the County of Carver, State of
Minnesota, to wit:
Government Lot 2 of Section 12, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota.
AND that Robert R. Conklin and Nadine M. Conklin, husband and wife, toe owners of the following described property situated in the County
of Carver, State of MLtnie ota to Hit:
That part of Goverment Lot I, Section 12, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying South of the following, described
line: Ce riencing on the Hurt line of said Government lot I, at a point 351.12 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Lot I; thence
deflecting to the left R9 degrees a dlstanr.e of ;27R.8 feet. more or less, to the shore of lob::
•
1 w' w.. 111. . 11Elkn_l_______,INIIMIIIMIIIMIIIIIIMMINNIIMMINIM111•11111. 111. 11M
_- / / ' J . °1 I - --
-ffi■ LCIT.IIIDVC[bl♦+_t •�1 ■m _- ___ W _ mme- -QB-- ---- : -mm
�; N it MN. ii7\11If>t iii/ - - WNDT, iafil�®- -- --,I7Mii + -
Cl Fl
A ( Its 11• OBZ•e / /' • i 1 , �. 7�- ,� / IP be 1 I II u b oo4roc I ,/ 1//. I i�' ---// • e b ► E 1 u , '7'11 ,
. 1\ ) f u z'l�M •1 bBF'ze 1 1 _ ` - (I b +i r ,-t' �."i E - I it■I
of �� _ 9• \- e �{-
5• / I I, 11 b'•oBCet\`�•, -� I D of•, % �� \• «'-.: tom, .i- 1 I '
= I
' ,■ lilri - - - t 1 91 -( 1' 1 1199 ooe'6l ��_, �i I� , -t -�-- 1(j °°OOell-7---.--.27:,>,Y / %‘11IV '!ii,"tt• 07 lik , 117-2' . .elf fit C 1,r .r;Bc+ �� ,' 1 WAIL) ( �i .. D° eoalr ' . _ o- i....%:,
E L ,:,/if •.ooBfia Nf\ ��)i///� , 1-•`%�v. '40 I r+'• —#' i /,..14g 1 , ' _-_t 6! 1 ■
e J "` vi��►�q °.+rll • •.rte s+r +��.- —"�"'' ..►_ a('
u a°o. ." e I �i.G '�I . ,-, i
I� Y •.----------- \ •�... I7y 1 `��N '1 9, ,��� I / I�\ 1 I�\ ` f`:�1; �.o° °ro 1 .+.
f. 4 ..'*; ' -•... :_..; III'‘',„\\ :,..1. .._*4.-ii■mot...ot.e.,.. 44.4„.„ .,„,„ ...., , , , ,, ,r.
■
f
fl. i I N b•oio'BLI 1 0° 1 IY/
I , , f e ' '� ` f„..„—Ii\ ooB e I u Biro►....( q 0 0 ; j ) I .,..-,.,. •
° I • ;.±.: �
•• ) )) I • , i ..io`Q • 10V.uw�•10 ON i . (.k \• .1 / ior / \ i / � � /11
/ • j4/ 1 0
n r o / � y�qn lln0 "
1 io i/X \ I o ? .' a _� 1 i
ifil / \�� \\i + 0�, /ice-
• «+worwr .«r .e..
ii � -010114)
'';'' \ 11.0.l*VII
-B p
1 i .. /, , `w 11 11�-V1lg1n0
•..._ 1 E I ..r.sn,or I 1 Plq•e+M Y egpryOx0)11°°BLB'EL.9178 lob•b•••y
II I (•I0)f0)o Oe BEBros ails 10l•OU•°y
M N �`\ 1 (°IWno W°A°w.-"o-14•14 1NN•••••10x0)ua°/.N 1 B•l;A ieueo 1•N
1 /�I1V as°/glun Bl'1 Aimee()no+p
i „d„ i_I I H X °.°.E viva 31�\\ px.ub4 e41•Ix•CI i►My 1.101 I\ ///
f.
`\ / CV 0011iPC U cS Up qUio(b S( 4Ji e •
►o s5J11e.S piezeH u3loaue,
�-. 1li1� U1 •.suuelo s.••...6u• s11, 43,e f 1
• ' i 1 I I
NYld
1��7 JVI ..�.r 1 w ..i ri...
•=1/116.0.IIIIIIMIIIN
j
' •
_ }
•, , ‘\,N.,, s............1-'..*•..„,.:.\ 111.1.1.' iti:\.,\171(6 _.,,,_._. --." .4471 Ili
( • \
\___________.\ . ' % \: . • . ,' ; ) ,---;,-.' irb,„,__a isiott \ -ki 1
N ''. ,I. , h; f".A., 910111111 , A.,10.1-01rs \ "
' /1,&.......4aStao ,:II,.....-(ta"---- ...viirr_ ;..............t......=.4 _-
_am.. ----vzo--40-5-tx-41.01Fr-s-Fia. , I 44; 1
I N.\.‘, M (-1-7' , - Vv.-
\,\,.... a ,- .,..; ,-- , -/for,Vip ,
\\,.. liko ..,,A.,464... • 04 iettplii
.. _Tilim4y,51111 it,,..,/ -00001,1 I '',
1 . ,. ,,, ,.,... „„, ............,,
,\ Nkih.'"ga ‘'(1 iNiti",,t1; 11141 r■mi.v•- L
1 0,06--...,allwAtinfir 4*SS- ' of ii k\14i i
1 o I i h : ,k ■-f■11'I 6,,dit, % III, r.
11 /l A 4010N .-.1..........- 1,,
I rili '---- -- '-- - 1 1 iv'i '
, , i ,, , ,ft: A Illkiiii ,
5 i 1• / - '-'''' . - V,Rik. I I,-L,
-- ' . 4 i ,67'• .40,14eiy _,‘, x Ai k ---- NI II.'
I.
17*st
n ;;. rib('
'1 )Q.----,7.-1 \ir ,,,...\ Nrikilbii .o. 446._ N,
‘, 4;,„„,„,_*..-rci.- A,\ ilt 4p N li ,...
r__
, -, .., v. \ : , %.4,,,,....,..,„ , , 1,1,_ A 4.-1. j_.:\ _
I A,-;,- / -,\„ 1 /L--, , \ '•7.gi:=3■8-0 1 iiIii H\
\ \lit ,,/ / ir. i' /-.......
- 1?,• • 7v-'' 4114.1M 1 ' 1 , 1\ ,, ,)1400p)jj1 1 , 1:
- - - - V I 1„ ,Lii' 4 Otrii* :._-
-- I \ \l'i lie 104 fr-lii , 'r-•
I Li
...,4, Ail
\ % \\‘'. itt\)°.1/11:5ii, ph . 1 _, I; . ‘1 ---
C554 .11?4,4171%4 JA .t. , . l'"! i, '
I le
**Nit ,
\,' it/e40. on „,„„L ,•,z��_�,,Tiaa`�e{ �/
I _ _.. _ . _\. ki . I II , ill
• 1\1114ft \\ I 1 \ ',‘ 1,I 443 . \a,V12-.ima - •
„ip-vp pr---:- - -- - '7
. .I
—"c ----7 --- 111--- -\--- —7-7---_,
1 , )
\ ) cr
0 1
1, 1 a /
\ / 0 i I. , ci,
v i ). -- :,
,
/, •,//1 ,... ., ,
;
.
1
, \
:11 !
/// ,
t, i, 2 0 I
4 / - _ ,„
, igali=nisso•-• ' ,,, //:
1 •\ A 7 i ±
/ Ili
\ 1 PIVIIiniiiat 0 1 1 I / •/ 1° I,
oo 41e&L. i /
I v. i / ! ' 5..
• ' \ , , , ,
I
, . y
■ \
, IH—, INc \\N. \ 72-//t' 1-' -'t ''' -(
( i , \ •, , - 1 i
, \
,
1 ,
1,!,, , ,
I
I \ '' \ \\,1.0" \ \ \ \
\ I i
1111i,I. 41: *
. ,
. , ,
. \
. 1 \ ts., I, .1
..-
\ 1 \ j......--. •
■
1 I
IFF
cr .
. ‘ -
\ ° • / , ', \ ./
\ _ 1._ \ \ A \ ...‘ i • 1
\
\
t.: / / 1
, -
41161L \
\ // /
r\
irk tA I.4 t elm.
// 'cno
, ,
I
/ \ \
tekkiall 8 \ 0\ . 1
7 \
ROAN\ \ \ ,crj• -.,
' •4NI • i
11- . I
tfr R 1/4. ,N....,
'i pr / Ai ___,__ i__,_,7\._\_., 0,,e • .
\ mill
.1 \
. 1 icir 0*. liolmmik.11111■111•11■1111112111111■11■11111111124 FLAI-J-P'.6-4- I
Illi:.."11LIINCIARAMMiala4*!\ ate- R4Gper 10
. .
tasto
". 1111 k ---,...._ ... ilelie--"=ZEISIiiilifagligilt t----- t civq 1
11111111111111114111161-4 -1–i—ML - ----1 :-1.*
Wil
14111■WAF f. V) / / k IT I I \I i \\,‘ •
11---s.-- f \
•t% /•.x, ! cl. I I
... ii I i
CO G. I
/ // 0 D Fi ' '7..1.. * ill 6- Af-t-g55
- -- --- 1 ----7 '17- '''`''...-41_,Itr
TH.E.
-...........-■ 1.... . --- .......... fradimaimishiP ihei -ill& .5c1-rri-1
1'1 31 kti__TrAki AT W t,5 I
I
-,,
\ 0
0/
0/
1 / •I 1 I \
I it
I
' 4
/ ,/' . ..... /././
„.. ,
,
110
\ ' / ,..,.. I
.4■ ,
1 i
I . • ki i
list -'3101:113 --t----r,
1 I w0ii,,,t \
4
' \ IF gra -'vbie 1 , /C).7
. In 1 t
\
/ /6. /
I ( ,\ 1
`. /
• ^-... Cli , /
•
.
`,..
: t t • s \\..,,,\, , i •--.._. I + i +
1 t
, "....
I 1
.
,
. , , ' I
\ ‘ I '7 co ■ ...,
--- ,--,,, 7-.... -,,,,,
', is \ ---,1, _...- / 4' \I
-N..
.. 1 '-
. -.... . a ; I 1 ribil9
; ' n• \ i' 1 ••
--.... s.... ,
C5 I ... , ...j ,..)
4'
-- ' , I,\ ,' 111 • 4 ...1 <
. 4:1) ■• \•••
I ' •
III t Z
1 •
\ \ I\
+.6. \ ...N.
'S., ,........s.
....,
...... ''.7. \
......./ \
0
A\
,...., r 1 s, 1 ■ 1 i ! LI sivoll-
0 \ 1 •‘:"1"---‘ '" I
i.). , / / \c)/A. ' I • IL
1 ■
' 04 .• \ 1■7 // . // I
:
I ) .\ 1
■ IL /
/ /
:. i Alier 4 I A, [\\ ' ' 0
,
0 si.„
/ , tr) I
1
I '/it 44ki • 3/ ' CO
05' I •ct. ,[i
Iv 1
\\2<i"4..."-cr .1 r
iii !,
•* k • r
,. cc
I
\ - \
\ 1
,....
:,"/, ,/tiii 4414411: °:: ‘ II 1 I I IA I I I I I I I I 1.'. -11 .-- l'INIa Ii‘ a%I I I I .
, . / ....,
• e
■
----......
\ 1 1 till I
I cv /
,, ve4//c'/ 0 ..rcl. ••••••4
/ r's"-4.--
o / ,
/ X '
`,:ii- r_ ____
I 4-, I
Niek 401 1 ". (4 / / '.\ & I 1
0 O. /
0 I
I 1 C) '. \ t■ A). i )_
CI 1 0
151
11 \ _ _I _ •' _ I It
I -\. --.--- • - - -- _ 1111 II
Nimar■ hh._. ....' . . .._............... .%11111111•101110.6•01,I■ II c.: Q.-)
_. . _........ .....
.
g.
1
1 EXHIBIT "A"
I ----
—�''' i ;�
_ ......f•iion ..%•••.. . •
1 22
/ I 31,7 0 oq f �/ ! �� I :-)goor---
120,7 . s o 1 1 I\�, � 7,750 sq tt 1 -.0
rn _...r.... ---8 O s^ / \ / :)21:1,1111,
'-•:;:o..,,,,i,;,..01:...0)."51;:,•.,'-ti'; \I
19,000 s• t I /I' ll-
` �� .., „� ` Y .
I • _ / / 00
Q7 I ��
,I I I I ' AilliMilir
! I 7-
I \ \
(I 9, ,q ft \\
,
18,300 sq ft I l 4A%_ :- q _5901
OP l ::S ,,t a
.� I fir '� / ,
IR , a .� ':e�►„ 11 I i :..�f. I, :►t A :0 ' 15:1 •PER
arlaiii -e4fin FA 4?...4111111111110:111MITITIMIIIIIIIMI1~11101111111r-
-�,t
_ f. •11111Li isan uitweig rut ME 959 7•
•45.e 1111111111 ____ i�_.� HILL INIIIIINNIIIIIIIIIII
DEL E. e- �' =:
r14 r
-1--.
-xv- __________, ,_. - TT"— r _ ,-,) 1 1
-5.- c c----------------------- KURVERS POINT 2ND ADDITION _ 7.------
— — — — • — — — IGH�IN GI-I�UT�LY— _ _ II= — — —
11111111 • II•11 NM I= • OM MN IIMM • • MN MI NW NM I= I= IMO 111111
LI// I
1
/ I 1 / / '' 1 A
/0 z
° / i i),
_ *
1 ,.., -.......... ov
,-fr,--- "if t-to f■ / N .. Ni _ , /
k" .:_, I N ■L
I tV 1
m i „---- /---
\ -i---1 )
. I ,1 •
.... '
i I I 1
oo . /Ali
gr
44 <
____,.........,______„ ---_.............._.,
__\---
I ----- 1507-- , I' gC ir ,, ----, , -- ----77-'..ir.r"'r"."------- \
/' --
g
'' .- \ . \ ■'--''-
0 i 14,410,.,.,,e. •>. .
\''''" ---V---- ---)C / -
2 I I I ..; • ' ' 47 : : „,••'''' \ \A, '
) I 1 . ' , • 0 ,. ,‘• '''. Ill la .4 . ery,en ,,
..,
t 0 ,,. ' , ' • /-\-------)c -\
■
■
t t
IlitLo• <,•' 61) .0' R.O.W. MI 44•• 0)(04:3
.. /
24+
14•11.111ra'aramrAmr■■■• 4=WA 1111111101111W/NNO/70,
N111061111M1111 6 4 Mal 111111111r1111/11111/ ------- ...414."..
Av. Erelimantirre: e r A-ANNIIIII ft,Illiir e .,
emo ONO
"11 ■...11111.111.”RIP1.6■.11111.1111,1).
,_. ..
"■--,3
t71.1 .° ..,' -: eqvi—- diedii=1111111116
0111111/1/111111111111111/1111111111/111//111111111111// 959 7-1111111111111111111/MEN .H. 101 C-: X
945.6 wolormaveworrre T
"101111111MTI • : .- • al - -- .
--... ---..
KURVERS POINT 2ND ADDTION IL-LI....---
I.,. . .\\ ,
III
r , ,
; _ 1 -,
.., <
1
i i 1 •, 0. I (
183' •'', ...... 228. .._ /
-,\,-- —— —— -- ———— --I r -- - - -,-, - -
I
,r, ...... .,
.. ii• ./
I it 1 /
„:90 ,
\; r, ssa
, ,...___A ,
/,,<_______.) /
/ / ;
• N . .. ...._ .z4).. / 110 I
\ , , 1/2
///....
14 I ; '4-z' -. / ' / 1.
A v
,,
- 1 /,,, ii
Pill
I / ! ..,
Z' i i
i.''' so.:
0 •
1.A..) • / /
0 I
I t
4 ---- i
IN 4 i_ -__,-___ ..._-, ---- -_ 7 - '
\__._
-... ; ::.-•, -----.,1;z.::: ---- 4 '''.--'-' . '''' ID .
-1_, ' ■ I - . 1.- .._.!: — -:-•-•-•....,/"/
7, —: ii.
,..-
•/ ;.----_,
/\ ,S1611, 1--..7- —iiTy —7 ,
'
I
,
1 -------/- k
' I•
•
1 6-- ID . •i: I
. - 0 -- • 90. . 0\9. ..- .. I
.. •■ASS 00e ‘-4 0.•
qii–i'Cit.• i - . / ..
11 93' --- d 0 L , , ....
... I
-- ).--1---- ' — --\., - -''' .
- 3 '
-.' •-* 1 '
• ----\ A .
1 7 I \ ...... .
. .., ............,,7-7:._ ..... .‘;:.:-1 . :21 1 i 2
I C,
I .9
-0.... -- -
1.‘
...., 7
, , -.......
1 ,
--... ...-- .
1
M 1 1 ,
I 1 3:k I
i ci) 1 1
-----.7\--/1 // ' . .,
CD
1 1
10 ‘11, 1 •
11.,:
.-- i
.r1
I
I ,
_-41 '1 A
I'..
ir 1 1 .10' Typical I I
0
\
11 .
I 1 L
•.0
— --,53 / — -75e• —.—
II
1 / :
■ Z \ . /
.
7 .....1 \ BLOCK 1 / -5 Typical 10'Typical Z I
o ! •
I •,;
r -1 • La
/•
- , \ \ ■ /
.,
.--
1
I .f rs' : CL
I
8
7 \. 5q \ 9 / /\ t 1 ;
/ ‘0 \ _ • .
.•
li •' (.0
-, \
.
■ \ .,-. ■ ” .
/ ', '' 1 ,.1 CC
20•Utitkasement .1 , i
'. ...., ,\„\:. • ..... 0.- .....,,,,,,,---- ,\.. \ ,... .
UJ I
1 1 >
1 ,....," 4.1, 't •-\ \ • 10''' , `‘.1 Iv
CC
....--.. \
•A`i; r >io ' se; —•••• . s 940 i. \ m
\ ' I
, ..,..._ . \ , s ,.... , ..
. .. .
. . .
I
/7-/-•"•-•.. „.,. – – _ ' • -* .
-/\,.. ■-----t; ___..4..___-t. -- -,..
,i, • -:--so,' -: • 1. ,.., ---1 , .
..... , \
. ..
, ill
•• / *r.----7.--1. I 1 i c \ 1
ss \ ... ...
II .-• - \ - i, I
\1.1
\ I
- e---
\ ... .
I i
.6. \ 'Jig
' 1 ,
. 2-
i.\\\
. ' ' 5 t r.' " 1
\ ‘ . ...
I\
. .
\
.' . 5 \-930 Ft/ , 6 ....,
I –.
I.:II ... \ ..\.0 1 .
c: 1 1 , ‘.
. \ Ts) ki - 1 I
' r.-..; D i \ pip
I I 1
, .............„,L.__.. --.11....—■.-- .-...-. ,--
• I I
•••••••- •• t•.....—. . •,— — a
- Ill I
------- 251 N
4* ./..,....
.•...,.., e fr.:*_...._.„,...,,,.;.._.. ..--"----°V..V -^'---7-------.C.-‘
\
/
EXHIBIT "Dv, e
45
1
•
•
\•!
t,"-i//'''' ..,-.40.'' ,';.'0 1`4 4 V; l''4 0,1 4 1.4:4 4'i::1." '!•■1'4.4;.1.".4VV;■114‘..t L.I '.$v ...1"4.4:1*■:3;',.1. *11.fi•t`.!,.1:4,,44,,,,,,.,t, .,:$4,.. ,,,ki 50054°554'''';'''4 '' ''",°';''5'.1'' 5,"''',.",t °' ' .'„ ,r.`' -
7'2.'....t. ..trii7:4f*Y'. ' "I''',q•4.'''''' .,IV+ .^.14, ', =ft'. r'',',',',, ,"• ,■■ ,j.!;,:: .., ',"i, ! ,,,' 1,' .■' , r.0 , '1 .,.1,., . „,
....::` ..,,,'t.-5rA, ,.,. ,, ,.,:1,4e:4 *.,,7,..i',.. ..., ., J,„'.,.0-'..,,), ;.',:.';.. r,,,,,...:..,',1 ...,.%',-,'.;,i. ,7,4.,.','. , ;',..i.:: ;''': •,t`•=:''' ''• ;'', ..'''"'`,':, ''v''; '' 6,
4:..,;•?:',-/,,r14.70, , , ",6f, „ .4',/,'...';', :'','',":,, ,,11 ;'..4 `,„„',?•;';',f').',„;,',>;4.4,,,`"':',i.,:*.,4,;'2',' 1: .,;,',, ',:"„''' ,'•;:'t'T' .'„'''•, ,),',•,',„:' '' . ' ,' ;,,'‘, '', • ,.,'.41^,:•' ,. ,'"„, 1;0,,-,
, ':.-,,!.., ',',,'''...;X,,;,''',i',....'„•.*,Z.,,,,...;,t;:5,:,"„;It-,',..',1,,..,.. .,:,„.,r, ,,, ,,, .,(,,, „.,:i,,-,,,,,i.,,,,,-;°•' ,' ,:, ,,•'; ,'. ',.',.'''-,,:.,..',,,,, r'., :.'""••,.,,,'',,,•.,,, ,„, ;'‘,„*,et.,,,, ,‘F,',4,, k"-•;,' ',.,„''; -,,'''''.:' ,,'" , • 1,..,. .. .,. ' ,r..• ..' ,,.,le
-,:''., ., '.:,,,..,‘'•='; .;,..".'■,, ,fi,',,f.,..,,,,,..„(,, ; .',•,'..1 ,'„'„,'',„:ez..;:in :•,,'c.'i ,,' ',.•;;,::2',',:,:,',', '', ;1;'';'' :."'',' ,'''''.,\'''';','• ':. 1,:' ' !'',(.1, ','••,,,,,t,i";;::, •,"`,7•104;',1„441,4';',,.„..Yek,..,,,,".L. ,' -,,, , • I': : ' " )01.0.":' "'r: •": ,
"I'z'''':-'":ekT:':,`-r ';',..` l'!'t,''':',." • ,''.,4,'''.f.',",',:' '',;,-• '.`"•;::',:(1,:,■', ':',r'.•2' :';', ‘;',J; '::' ' 'r: :,, ■.•;'';,;,...,;i ..•,":411/''' e•,,•'',4 :ii;', '''4 ‘, ' •4.• ' ,7'" '44'o' ; 1)':
s'T.),-?•40,,',.,:: i.•:,,,,,':,.' !. :;:,,E'v ,..,, -`,-'s;.;...'',,,A 5',vz'., •.,i...,„ ,,:iy;,...'„ ,,, . ,,;' ..'w'A "''',' '' ' d14. '' '''..• ' ..,. Iff .,,,,I, ,. :.,,,,'"4'7''',$''/P. 40a...... ' . ')* ' 'r''''''' r" .;4''•:'' '',14,.' - IP, `'
I
'''''..`■;•s•..'•'-',';'":;,.,...;...,'„, ',,.. 4,1,,.e,,,,$6''. ',V,j:,,,, ..',..'',''fr';‘.11. . ....,%‘.,!, el...,'.■1, ",•..t'•■•' •:4?)::,, ,,,,',.t' '4, ,, ,,., ;: '*,.,..,'■ "..^,4 40,0:i'lf't04,,,..^,777.1,... . ' 4,11,..,:'•. ,.,;'''-',1„,•, ,',.,'„ i,;',i "..)10.
,,,,,,,,,,,,v;,,p,,,,,i,.*,,,f,„4„,,, •,,,,,,,, ,„ , ."-,,,,i',..,•-'!",I.,4;, '', ' • ' ' '•• .•,.„," , , , ..'•:•..'••, ,,',r., . , •,'. ',..,;• ,'• ,!,.. , , ,:trA,:', ' 01.. ,,'!„),6',..ri.*,,,,1,-,,,,,'-,l'i,,,,,,,nr', • . ,,'1.,•.%.4,,• :".•:',ii."'
'.:,f,,."', •r...,,,,,-,.,,'-:,"'•,,;., ,':,i ',3': ".;. -%; :‘,1`'.)'.',I';.. '' •••('',1 •: '' '' ',""!..,':, '', '1,:',,:',"' i ,q4., .' ' ',f:'-''' ','L'4:'l'''''. . ‘:' '. ^S.i''' '''"■ :'' e, ,.:4.41:7',.$ :i;',t;P. l',4 4 . -.'1' i''';It'','',t, if , 144 '‘''',
f,,';', ----: .! '2,',.., ' , ,• 'f... `,. ,L., .,, ; ' ' ',: ''',.-.-‘,..,'.',i,' .';' ...,i,',.,„• ‘', t'' 4 4 "',,..,': •••‘!',', I /.ft''i,":, 01,' ..,■,'$,,,,i1, . “, .L'' .,
,-• ';`, ,;,-;,,..• '.,1,4,':', ,!I,i• ,'; '.'0.,,.,-;,•,,,,, , j'.,' •: ... ,. , ;',/,';:': '',,'''•,:',*, , ' •.',',: ' ''• ' ' ', , ' :' „ ' .c. K'','';',.., • 111.4,,,'10111kot ye,'""•,4'-',,,5 "4.4 ,,,4 Ilit 5,;II, 4'''41' ..'"r" 4".
1
;.,. . ,'5 t '. ,, 'k '„:;; ,, r' .' '(';‘..'. ?t, ' " • ,' '574.5,s .i . '',- '5;+- ..yrrAg-,4 ,/, ‘ -',7 t,. ,„.:0e7.
:.., , ,,,.....,, ... .. . ..::,. ,,...,.. : ,., ., ,.....,;.„.. (1 ,'.':.; , ,,., ,. ' ....,,,,',J... r:.,..,. ,,',. - 1,. ., .;,,,.., 'Tr', ',4'..,.•":.., %...,.'', ,r., . !("04' '' .I"''.. , r fv.,Mtl, ."N"„;f.A ''''',t. ..-
• "i ,,,,,,,,,$,,.7..t,t.,,,e .," ' ' ,,`^'„I',.',„, „,;,.• , '^' , , y , i i',",,,,•;,'S.,:.,,;.,.."-,,, : ' ', .i,I,...„;' , ' ,.,',,, ....,-,',', .,t,4....,""..,s'-',, , ..,, ;,,,,y; .;Y('',),,'',"'Pr '.,'..'„..,,, ,.., ,., ,::: ■',";j','..,,' ■1,!.,,:*.,:■,.0 , 4.',;.,,,,,,`,1i,•s4,';„,",„.'v.,'A 2.:,
. ,.; l' . f, ' - :4,'-,; ,■ ].'', '''• . :''', '',.''''' : t','',..', ', ;',.:,. '' , ''''' '•.,'*''''''' ' "'l'-')4'1' ,..41',•,''.:,,-4 •/` 1." ;'' :.' ,, '.",,,, ' ' '''„'''.., ... ,'''(* 2.' '"1,',, '' .4 r. .'. '
,, .. , t, ' l'.;. .' r, (.. •
; ,. ,.,f,..' ,,,' : ,.,. . •..., .,,,, . ; 4,*,'"„ ;., ' ' , *4,',x(i?,,,, q.i,,,.., 0 i , /4 •', '
VVi . ,,., .,, . , • ' ' ,.' ' ,,,,ir'/..' ,;Ytt-,p''. .,•
'5 .4-5 ' ".. -5, „C,'' ' .; , . ' ' ,; '' .' 1 . ; 5 ' \..e.. „i#' ' ' ".4-,.' I . j*:.404::"44 '4. ' /.,' ''' ' “4 .4. •-• '`e'4 ''.
4/
, ,,' ' ,:' ,' :' : 1 ' ' ' , .. ' , *,, . .., ,. e.,,ViNk.e4, ..,,,, 4.,,,
''' ,,:.'',.' '''' % ' ” ' , , , ,• ''1` ' ir"'. ','• '' '' i„?' ,,,',,N,,',,'All? , ,', '4'.. :t f.„ ..„: " . k.1,.' t•-,I .is ''S.,, 4''')t,f,gt . ",,..?..',•
‘''' •''"." ' ., : '4',.`•,,- •';" , .,..!" '. ''' 1 ' '' . ~'''' ,,3 C , ,...5:4..,. :',,... , .;.,• ' ,.. ' -,., ,,',,i , ',/ ...-: '.., ,..-; 0 . ....4. If'' ‘1/;:''''0.• ■ . Jr' ''' •■•'. A.- .'• `. 4...,.;•-: '<ft 4..
it, . , , . .? ,,, , • ' ' ' ',; '.''s ''t`t'''',. ; ' - '' 41, . .; ''' ' '' ', .• I' " ;*P ,;;,,,V4 ...,....ig .
kl „,.„ '.',, i . c;',,,',. , . 1'.54 1:,,,,,s '- ' t' • •,' ",. ',:.,-- .” i, . , ,‘ ,;, .,.• ,"i•' ,• . g,' ' s , p ..z..„, .
.., „ • -,, ,. ',.•', •• ......" 4.,'" 'n/ ; A, , ,t, 4901,!: ■ t,"t ..' `,, :.I,1 ii,\',:','7, ," • ...No" ' . . , ..i, , 4,?v',..,0,1"..:,./..P ■,., 4 r ,,,. n , .•`?■ t,qer
,. '.'," ':"..1.2,14:■e ‘r,... ',. .-4: • , , Of' . ' • ''P' 4,....:. ' ..., ' ',. ,,, . 4,■'4 ;i dftyk,
ci ,,, :......, ' ..,.. To, •,...„,.'.„.,-,,,41,,A,j,t4 .,i ,, ,,,•`)., ,,,'Y. 4 .1 Pit -- ' ' ' ; ': ' ''''t” t ' , ' 5;,' ' " , +`.
\
c"Vet"..t.e.0 05'.'.'•,'"";41` u''-1-,,,,' '"'0 74.'A'tt.di ...) '1 4,*"''.4 •, '',"••.'.i' ' ,,•,0 , Ir.'4..,:,„.; ' -, ' ' ,' ,'' ,. i',,,,,;;,, p. , ,,,,,,,,, ,, , ... . , 4,f„,,K ,,...,,,,..-..,,, , ,,.., • , 4,,, ,,. .,• ,,
i
- 4 .,, i '4, , . -.;•> . 4 A, IX‘‘r,
21' ;'i', !f,j„*,,j■,:,''..., 't,, „„,"?...,'.r,0,c.;41,' ',Y 4,`''.-',1'r •• 1 • ". ' ' ,I, . ' •4' , .,. '' ; .,,,,' •.,,, . '' ' '' ..4," ,qt,.-;'s?.. .... ,.',,,,,,,( -.....eo 4,Att.,.,, .. v., , r., . Ait, ,,, , r 'y
rl ' ' '''''''',-",''L,e4,,,di l'iil lli:Ve'I.:. Pi; ' '''.0',.. ., .,- ' ' '. ' . ' 1 ' • ''IV ,I' . ' . '' ,', ' .'•''',' ,"''• ", ' . ,; t f io s‘. 'd.' ' '"40kip,\ ••■. '2t•1,,,,:.'t.,,";1 ' ', t'I'
. ,, .1:04 •Aft IT:N,..,.. ' .'.;,._ ,
.00or %- -, .t. ',''• ',.,,,4 i .,- .„, .r- z',..' ; ..., ',,., ,, c' . :,-, e I, ,,i1,1,',0,k,4'4 .„(, ;••.' ' 4: , I ' ‘J-i k. ‘ ,! ' /7`.1...4% • ,Aitv.,„7"',. i''•",4
,‘ ,i 2? . :', ..,.,44 : ... .4 4,•`', •?::4',It 7 v :?, ..,,. ,:, ,it,,,,,,44, •.v..44„. .r,,,, ', ,,,,f.T.J.r
..,.0,,,,r,. . ,I.,,, ,.• , • .. . ,..' - $q.'4 ,1,';,; 1 0,- ;,..4,;:•fr ',. ' . '. 1•;,:s2 :. •- .4* 'biko'-',30 ••t'iiiroT,' '. I,,,..??,,
ti ,
,-.1•44.«';',' t li:S4,1491( 1 ...) , -;,;,,,fi Pe. ',,,,,, ,--,,,,,,,..."-,',,,„;',...:. ,',':,', „,', ,„,..,„-,,,,,,,,... , , , , , ,,‘',/;,',,', ,4., li, 4 ' ''I:1: 4tP4',1.'S' ' -.1- ., - - ''' ' t'iii,„sbet .' P.„,".' . . ' .•
----( ti,.,o, ;'s,' k,., :7 ,,;,... , .1...,, . •4 '.",/''' ■1''' *1 00 ,....'41:4,, ,, ,, . , ' , , , ii, r,,,.,Mt , r „! ., , , ,,, j,1 . el, 4,. •, . ,..,,,,L,,KI, , s 0;:,•,.,
is : -,4,.,". k,• '1`v,-ot,'' ; .,, IC 151 " ,A ,,,,,ki 5. ;5,.,;;4';4:. ,1 u,..., - ; '55,;"- ''" , :. ' ; c4"' • il''rk,4;.,'4,' IA.,'t.., ..-4.,..1.,. , ,,,,,I, v ,..,'.---, el,- , 4 "' 'It
--- ....,• :")t. "..i 41414 Vo4; %\ '' lAit.', 'y ! . V' • ''.‘'.','.: I,''Y ••• -.;,-".., , ' • .. '," .;41C',i,, i,','.4 id ' ' 'I,#-.1: A, ' 4, ',. - .• i'.m. ,'.' .-Al' , ,' ,,,t"'.. ',. ,,4
V ' ' .130, ,i 1 i it.',' it...1.'t ; -t,.." 101 , ,1.:1'5'4 "3' 5 " 4''5,,'' '5( " '",'.:'," ' 5- ' tr5''... ' 1 ° ,;,,,t, '1,k Ili Ilif,, ' '''•`." ,',..,' .4--',. • .,. ' l''S.: •.,: .,"... .4 Atl, ,' ' ' r I
0 , .., '';IN*it,'*.11-,f4,.. 15,),.. I ..,,,!: ,4c 'Yf,;5';'5;5-'0..,' ,",'''',4' *5 '*, • .., ,'',' ; ',,,'; ...5. . • . , .:4,' . *1,q. ** VZ,;` ' .4.4` .., ;0'47 .4 •■•■:,..,A' . ,q‘ ' .4 ',.. I, %t..0c.
1;54,-,t ',4,7,14.......; ,:;,,,,,,,,,;„,•-,,, j, .,:,...;,: ,,,. ..... ,....,„.., ,,..,.,..%_,..,,,7,,,‘..341. ..nt4.,,. ,,.e
..'''... ' "' ''' '" ' ■■ " 'If - tt.. -7 t e A.L."'Atc ' 4,, Iv ' ' 4 b:
1,'Y'.,'.',I,'":' .1 ; "...''..,,,: '. ,':',:'ot1;,'" 4,1+. ..„ , -,,..., - . .:, -,
y .,..„.„ ,,,. , . -• ,?w, ; ,'4,..ii4t1.4.i. .4 '',/ ,'S t;;;,', ,„ '7, 'sp.'„4';;',;., '',';;;;;,,.‘''5',5,',',„;,,,'' ,4..'..:.t,'.' „,,;;.. ..fr,(0 .,(-?,,,,,...0.-7,4,'.-...,,,.,,',.,
.....4i
--A ' ., ',:l. ".,i1:;:lt,',,Or Sicnr'4.N.' 'i• , '`.,",1 A 'I.'', .' 1:1'or..1: '.' '1"' ':i' ".1''...'''''',:i".""'''''' ,';''''..it'''''AN004.1b. ,a4P7 ,0.4 i•VII,c■imim.■os."4.,•r.,,,4,...;..,,....,,,,,:,■•• „.....,,,!.;.,!, ,„,,,,,,,,l,„1,,,, -..".1 e.,`. el . , \e•1■••
_ , • , ,,',,•, , ..,_, ' ''', Y ', '4"4 r.4,440,44 „AI ';,,";•: '••• ,,..f`',"4'i AP41111100*4+4040,"410110 • ' ' ..,1 s, ',"" •'.* '' IL." .• . '
.. .... ....,.... .. . .. ,
IN mirortt.. .,,, r 7 . "rix'!"..'"'"'" ......4.......,.......,4. . „,,I I...m.1.6.04A •to,..w.„,.,„),. „,,,.,.,..,,,g•w....1:114,,.0,64..s...41,.....,.....,,',. „,..-TA ,..An, . 'r............•.,......:*.r■ .1
• . .
9 , . ,,,r,., ,.,4,,,,,,,,,; ,-, 4.444,..ri:: „4--,,,,1,-: . ..e......r...i.iii........... 7""*""4" I."'"'r"l?' "4"64"—"*'.* T.H. 101 ----'------e.• ' - ''—... '
,•••
..., • • • Z•010.• CD , ... , ,,, ,01,,, ',' t ' ''' '' 'L .'‘ 1'' ''°"'44' *7.1'16'14'''s*'''/.1 .1,4 ' ''''.«,4"*"..'."47•4444'*deg' 01,(4,....0044 wor- ,Alliiir ,...in
t.. . 1 ',ft:A, ,11,44, ;SiitiVIM,,,,'4 Stir .1....4tir'' j',..'LV'''Xi . ,''''..?;.1,',. '',M,1:lir' 1;i,' °,,,674k4it''''''fi'1'...Ir, '4,1.,,''',, ,•,..z.,,,,,la,',„.','i,,1' ',itt,;,,,",.,„."ir,`.4 ''';.'t,i'l,iii:,,)40,4 40**,,,,..., 1. ,•'' .11°I,. 't , it,,,,,.tk.1,0,;`,,;' 'J .;
,a ' .r4,,,.1.,.... 0.7.,,,, ,10;01'01,47- . . 4-,r m ' '•,',. I c,,,, giii4 . .*1/4.s.:,..9A,.,..,', , .,.,,, ..:,:i.,1;.;'.„ ., ,, -4, . r ' ■..".4,,, , $' .• 7-1...t.."'t;;,,i t l''. ,/41-.),,,, - \'' 741., ,, ,
;-, . ; . Arf-,,,•-•.4...4 ,p,, , , f.„ - - 4,, - ,sw r.,, . 44,.' 4. ■•'' •'', er. .4 ', 'y, r." lo,' ,A,''' ti,,i( ...• ,,,. ' 914 Pk' ,pi, . . 1 0 ,,
KURVERS POINT 2ND ADDITION
II"--z_.p......._
1.1 .11 .1. .. .. .. ... 11. .. ... .. .. ... .. im I= - - N.
1
CITY OF
,..._
0040,
04
1
CHANHASSEN
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1
MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr . Engineering Technician 1
DATE: April 10, 1991
I
SUBJ: Kurvers Point 2nd Addition - Project No. 91-11
STREETS 1
According to the approved Development Contract for Kurvers Point II
Addition (Phase I ) Item 21 states that "The developer agrees that
approval and authorization for the preliminary plat and
initiation of Phase I of this plat is with the understanding that 1
the developer will connect to Trunk Highway 101 in Phase II as
proposed in the approved preliminary plat by lowering Trunk
Highway 101 to improve the site distance in the intersection
location . This lowering of Trunk Highway 101 will be undertaken 1
at the developers sole expense in compliance with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation requirements . " The applicant has
deviated from this condition by proposing a dead end cul-de-sac
II
at the end of Kurvers Point Road. This makes Kurvers Point Road
approximately 1700 feet long without a secondary access point.
The applicant indicates that this new proposal is in response to 1
the homeowners in Phase I who are concerned from a traffic
safety standpoint that a through street will promote or increase
the traffic volumes . Staff feels however, that traffic volumes
will only increase proportionately with the number of lots being 1
created in the new plat and not any greater than any other
residential subdivision in the city. Staff still supports the
previously approved condition that the street (Kurvers Point Road) 1
be connected to Trunk Highway 101 as proposed in the initial
Phase I, preliminary plat including the developer lowering Trunk
Highway 101 to improve the site distance at the intersection. At 1
the request of the developer, staff has also reviewed some
alternative street layouts which Jo Ann Olsen 's report will describe.
The proposed plat as submitted provides a 50 foot right-of-way
II
consistent with the first phase of Kurvers Point. This however,
is 10 feet less than the new subdivision ordinance requires .
Staff feels comfortable in this situation to grant a variance 1
from the ordinance due to the anticipated low traffic volumes and
II
I
' Jo Ann Olsen
April 10 , 1991
Page 2
' to provide continuity along Kurvers Point Road through the two
phases of the subdivision . The streets are proposed to be
constructed in accordance with City urban standards with concrete
curb and gutter . Street grades range from 1% to 7% which is
acceptable according to City standards . Depending on which
street alignment alternative is elected, the Minnesota Department
' of Transportation (MnDOT ) will need to be contacted for an
access permit to grant the second access on to Trunk Highway 101 .
It should be noted that MnDOT has approved of this access
location due to proposed safety improvements ( lowering of the
' hill ) in connection with this proposed intersection with an
access onto Trunk Highway 101. Site distance and auxiliary turn
lanes will need to be addressed in accordance with MnDOT
' Specifications .
GRADING
' The site consists of mostly rolling meadowland approximately 70%
meadow and 30% woods . The majority of this site is proposed to
be graded which will necessitate some tree removal . An earth
' berm is proposed along the easterly edge of the plat adjacent
Trunk Highway 101 . The height of the berm varies from 8 feet to
20 feet high with 2:1 slopes towards the house pads and 3:1
11 slopes towards Trunk Highway 101 . The 2:1 slopes are considered
very steep and are not recommended from a maintenance standpoint
(difficult to mow) . The developer has proposed the slope to
provide additional backyard space. The profile for the proposed
' berm closely follows the existing profile along Trunk Highway
101 . No grading is proposed within Trunk Highway 101
right-of-way. The developer 's engineer shall verify that the
' proposed site grading will not reduce the amount of ground cover
over the City' s 12 inch watermain adjacent Trunk Highway 101.
On Lots 13 and 14, Block 1, the grading plan proposes draining
the backyards very close to the proposed house pads . It is
recommended that a drainage swale be constructed along the far
northerly portion of these lots and the final plat reflect a
' drainage easement over the area to insure the drainage swale will
be protected.
' DRAINAGE
The plans proposed conveying the surface water drainage through a
series of storm sewers and catch basins which connect to an
existing storm sewer provided with the first phase of development.
This existing storm sewer outlets into a series of retention
ponds . These retention ponds have been previously designed and
' constructed in conjunction with the first phase to adequately
handle the storm run-off generated from the second phase. With
these previously constructed retention ponds the developer has
' met the City's criteria to restrict the rate of post develoment
run-off to the pre-developed rate for 100 year, 24 hour storm.
Jo Ann Olsen
April 10, 1991 1
Page 3
The placement of manholes and catch basins should be positioned
so that the system is located underneath the roadbed. An
additional storm sewer lead should be extended from the existing
storm sewer in Kurvers Point Road (Phase I ) to Lot 14, Block 1,
to intercept the backyard drainage prior to reaching the street.
SANITARY SEWER
Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site from '
the first phase (Kurvers Point Road) . An 8 inch P.V.C. sanitary
sewer is proposed to be extended from the first phase through the
site. The applicant 's engineer should incorporate additional
manholes to maintain the position of the sewer system in the
center of the streets . As in the first phase, some of the
parcels (Lots 1-5, Block 1 ) will have sanitary sewer access
available to them in the front and back portions of their lots .
The property currently has an existing farm house, barn and
cabin which are not connected to the existing sanitary sewer
system. These structures are anticipated to be demolished or
moved off the site prior to installation of utilities .
WATERMAIN • ,
Municipal water service is available to the site from Kurvers
Point Road (Phase I) and from the City' s existing 12 inch
watermain located adjacent to Trunk Highway 101. The plans
propose extending a 6 inch D.I .P. watermain from Kurvers Point
Road (Phase I ) through the site and connecting to the City's 12
inch D.I.P watermain at Trunk Highway 101 . It is recommended
that the connection to Trunk Highway 101 be a "wet tap" to avoid
interruption of water service. As with the sanitary sewer
alignment, the developers engineer should design the watermain to
be installed within the roadway surface and not under the curb
and gutter so as to help from an accessibility standpoint and
to reduce the expense of watermain repairs in the future. '
EROSION CONTROL
An erosion control protective barrier is proposed along the
westerly perimeter of Kurvers Point Road. The plans do not
indicate the type of erosion control fence to be installed.
Staff recommends the City's Type III erosion control fence due to
the close proximity of Lotus Lake . Staff also recommends that
another erosion control barrier (silt fence - Type I) be
installed immediately after the initial site grading along the
easterly side of Kurvers Point Road south of Basswood Circle to
prevent soil washing into streets and storm sewer system. In
addition, it is recommended that a 75 foot long gravel
construction driveway access be constructed at the end of
existing Kurvers Point Road to help reduce mud and debris from
being tracked out onto Kurvers Point Road. ,
' Jo Ann Olsen
April 10, 1991
Page 4
' RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1 . Additional manholes, catch basins and pipe bends shall be
incorporated where appropriate to install the sanitary sewer,
storm sewer and watermain within the roadway area and not
under the curb and gutter.
2 . All utilities and roadways shall be constructed in accordance
with the current edition of the City's Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates.
' 3 . The erosion control barrier line west of proposed Kurvers
Point Road shall be the City' s Type III erosion control
fence. An additional silt fence barrier shall be installed
on the east side of Kurvers Point Road lying south of Basswood
Circle immediately after site grading to prevent soil from
washing into the new streets and storm sewer system.
1 4 . A 75 foot long gravel construction driveway access shall be
constructed at the end of the pavement on Kurvers Point Road
' to help reduce mud and debris from being tracked out onto
Kurvers Point Road.
5 . All disturbed area shall be immediately seeded and mulched
to help reduce erosion .
6 . Wood fiber blanket or erosion control blanket shall be used
on all slopes greater than 3:1 .
7 . The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the
Watershed District, DNR and other appropriate regulatory
agencies and comply with their conditions of approval .
8 . The watermain connection at the south end of Kurvers Point
Road to the existing 12 inch watermain adjacent Trunk Highway
101 shall be made by a "wet tap" to avoid interruption of
water service.
9 . The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract and
provide the City with the financial security to guarantee
' proper installation of these improvements .
10 . The applicant shall extend a storm sewer lead from the
existing storm sewer in Kurvers Point Road (Phase I ) to
' intercept the backyard drainage from Lots 13 and 14, Block
' 11 . A revised final Grading and Erosion Control plan shall be
included and approved as part of the construction plans
and specifications for this project.
12 . The developer 's engineer shall verify that the proposed site
grading will not reduce the amount of ground cover over the
City' s 12 inch watermain adjacent Trunk Highway 101.
' lap
CITY OF
1
4.
0 __,
1
cHANE.AssEN
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official i lb' 1
ki
DATE: March 25 , 1991 1
SUBJ : Planning Case SUB #87-14 (Kurvers Point 2nd Addition)
1 . Erosion control should be relocated to rear yard setback 1
lines to prevent erosion damage after house excavation has
commenced.
I
2 . Demolition permits required for existing structures . Copy
of State permit for well abandonments , if applicable, must 1
be provided . Septic systems , if present , must be abandoned
by licensed contractor.
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
CIO
i
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
' 0 ,4„. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM : Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
' DATE: April 3 , 1991
SUBJ : Subdivision of 9 . 14 Acres , Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
Comments and recommendations :
1 . A second access off TH 101 should be provided for
emergency vehicle access . It is my understanding this
was determined some time ago.
1
1
1
i -
1
1
i
1 X11
1
CITY OF
il CHANHASSEN 1
II
11110 {, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
II
MEMORANDUM
I
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator I
DATE: April 2, 1991
II
SUBJ: Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
Thank you for allowing me to comment on the above mentioned sub-
division. The Kurvers Point Addition in its entirety ( 1st
Addition and proposed 2nd Addition) was reviewed by the Park and II Recreation Commission on June 25, 1987 . Discussion that evening
resulted in the following action:
Schroers moved, Watson seconded that the Park and Recreation 1
Commission recommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu
of parkland, to request a 20 foot trail easement along the
west side of TH 101, and the construction of an 8 foot
II
bituminous off-street sidewalk within the street right-of-way
of Kurvers Point Road in lieu of trail dedication fees. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
II
The City Council reviewed this item at their July 20, 1987 City
Council meeting. The Council approved the subdivision with one
of the conditions of approval being compliance with action taken
II
by the Park and Recreation Commission except for the request for
20 feet of additional right-of-way along TH 101. This exception
was made as it was deduced that the initial 17 feet of right-of- I
way being dedicated along TH 101 for future road and ditch
improvements would accommodate a trail as well.
The resulting Development Contract was then amended in December
II
of 1988 as it related to trails and trail fees (Section 16 of the
contract) . The validity of constructing an 8 ft. bituminous trail
in the Kurvers Point Road right-of-way was contested, resulting
II
in the attached -addendum being executed December 30, 1988.
Therefore it now stands that prior to the issuance of building
permits for residential construction within Kurvers Point
Subdivision, 1st and 2nd Additions, the developer, it' s suc-
cessors or assigns, shall pay to the City the park and trail fees
then in force. Furthermore, the developer must comply with the
II
stipulations outlined in Addendum "A" Kurvers Point Development
in regard to Section 16, Trails and Trail Fees.
4Flz
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
KURVERS POINT
ADDENDUM "A" •
AGREEMENT dated p kp r all , 1988 , by and between the
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ( "City" ) ,
and Franklin J. Kurvers and Melvin M. Kurvers (the "Developer") .
' WITNESSETH, that the City, in the exercise of its powers pur-
suant to MSA Section 462.358 and other applicable state laws , and
the Developer, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein
contained, recite and agree as follows:
Section 1 . Recitals.
The approved Development Contract dated October 20 , 1987 for
the plat of Kurvers Point, recorded August 12, 1988 as Document
' No. 98321 with the Carver County Recorder shall be amended to
read as follows:
- 11' Section 16. Trails and Trail Fees. In the future the
City may construct a trail in the plat along the Kurvers Point
Road right-of-way to its connection with Trunk Highway 101. The
Developer shall inform, in writing, each lot buyer of this
' planned trail construction. Before a building permit is issued
for a lot, a trail fee shall be paid in accordance with the fee
schedule that exists at that time. The trail fee, however , may
' be prepaid at any time in accordance with the fee schedule that
exists at the time of payment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said City and Developer have caused this
' Addendum to be executed as of the date noted above.
CITY OF .ANHASSEN
By:
41 (SEAL) ' o. as L. Hami ton, Mayor
By:
Don Ashworth, ity Manager
1 _
-1-
DEVELOPER
(SEAL) By: / r.,v
Melvin M. Kurvers
By: 17/Let..�z19L
Franklin J urvers
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
On this 3(> ' day of \ , 1988 , before me,
a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared
Thomas L. Hamilton and Don Ashworth, to me personally known, who
being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively
the Mayor and City Manager of the Municipal corporation named in
the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said
instrument is the corporate seal of said municipal corporation,
• and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said
municipal corporation by authority of its City Council and said
Thomas L. Hamilton and Don Ashworth acknowledged said instrument
to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation%
otaryabli1
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) yy K"—r: J E"!:^_""''!DT
x"'1 nvir FU?'L^. -ll _ -DTA
) ss CG:F';iii C ` (
COUNTY OF C.AQVt.-_� ) � �ex� es 1C-1691
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this '
of 2-p r 4 Qr , 1988, by Franklin, J. Kurvers and
Melvin M. Kurvers, developers of this property.
AAAr„M..AAA A,Anc:^ r,t,'N- 4'A,.;:.ts_b c.c t
ac
KIM T t,'EUW'_aEN
<'<
NOTARY r L C- tr i,vtESOTA Notary P lic
:." F �'My CARVER COUNTY
4.4 '��. fey Cem.miss on Expires May 29, 1992 a'
1
Drafted by: ,
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
( 612 ) 937-1900 ,
-2-
1
I
Kurvers P oint - Second Addition
1
When the Kurvers family decided to develop their land in 1987, they made a conscious
' decision to create a unique neighborhood area of high quality homes,natural and landscaped
open spaces and resident amenities. The original site plan was designed to meet these goals
while respecting the landforms and vegetation patterns on the site including exiting wetland
' areas and Lotus Lake.
The Second Addition of Kurvers Point is now being presented. Phase two retains the
' original goals but also reflects four years of market and development experience. The
second phase now represents the addition to an existing neighborhood rather than the
creation of a new residential area. Hence, the knowledge and experience gained from phase
one is being applied to phase two resulting in an enhancement of the overall project.
' The original site plan called for 15 lots in phase two with an average lot size, of 23,090
square feet. In response to the market, the second phase as now proposed features larger
lots with an emphasis on the creation of lots with the potential to construct walk-outs on the
' lower levels. As presented, the Second Addition now contains 14 lots with an average lot
size of 24,680 square feet.
' In addition to reacting to market concerns, the new plan also reflects the concerns of the
existing residents who have constructed homes in phase one. The Kurvers Point
Homeowners Association has provided input into the planning process for phase two. Their
primary concerns revolve around safety and traffic issues. Correspondingly, the local road
system has been changed to establish two new cul-de-sacs.
Consistent with phase one, the Second Addition of Kurvers Point is being presented without
the need for any variances or modifications from minimum zoning standards. The project
continues to vastly exceed all minimum zoning criteria in pursuit of the creation of a high
' amenity, high quality residential neighborhood that will further enhance Chanhassen's
reputation as a great place to live.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN I
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900 '
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT• VanDoren-Hazard-Stallings OWNER• Melvin Kurvers I
ADDRESS• 3030 Harbor Lane No. 4104• ADDRESS• 7440 Kurvers Point Road
• Mpls. , MN 55447 Chanhassen, MN 55317 i
TELEPHONE (Day time) 553-1950 TELEPHONE: 934 -8967 '
REQUEST 1
♦ Conditional Use Permit - $150 ♦ Subdivision: I
♦ Interim Use Permit - $150 Preliminary Plat:
♦ Land Use Plan Amendment - $100 - Sketch Plan - $200 1
♦ Planned Unit Development: - Create less than 3 lots - $100
- Sketch Plan - $200 Create more than 3 lots -
$100 + $15 acre + $5 per lot
- Preliminary Development Plan lot created
$300 + $15 acre
- Final Plat - $100
- Final Development Plan - $200
- Metes and Bounds - $100
- Amendment to Final Development
Plan - $300 + $15 acre - Consolidate Lots - $100
TOTAL PUD TOTAL SUBDIVISION $307.10
♦ Site Plan Review - $150 ♦ Wetland Alteration Permit:
♦ Administrative Site Plan - Individual Single Family
Review - $150 Lots - $25 '
♦ Vacation of Utility or - All Others - $150
Street Easement - $100 '
♦ Variance - $75 ♦ Rezoning - $250
♦ Zoning Appeal - $75 ♦ Zoning Ordinance Amendment - II
No Charge
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the
property must be included with the application.
Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
* NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall II
be charged for each application.
1
PROJECT NAME Kurvers Point 2nd. Addition
ILOCATION West Side of T.H. 101 3000 Ft. North of T.H. 5
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Outlot C and Outlot D Kurvers Point
1
II PRESENT ZONING RSF
REQUESTED ZONING RSF
1 PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Residential Low Density
IREQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Residential Low Density
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Second and final phase of Subdivision
1
IIThis application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly
printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you
should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific
ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
I This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by
the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements
with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name
II and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter
pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or
purchase agreement) , or I am the authorized person to make this application
and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and
I the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees
may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an
estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents
and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such
II
permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the
property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the
Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City
Hall Records.
Am. 3(15/q/
Signature of Applicant Date
I/ Signature o ee Owner Date
I
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
320 Washington Avenue South
HENNEPIN Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
PHONE: (612)930-2500
FAX (612) 930.2513
TDD: (612) 930-2696
April 10, 1991
Paul Krauss, AICP
Director of Planning
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Paul :
RE: Proposed Plat - Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
TH 101, west side approximately 600 feet south of Kurvers Point Road
Review and Recommendations
Thank you for sending the Kurvers Point 2nd Addition plat to us for review. We
reviewed this plat and have the following comments:
- In response to your inquiry on the status of the jurisdiction exchange of this
portion of TH 101. Hennepin County has not had any discussion with MN/DOT
concerning an exchange since the previous jurisdiction transfer in 1988, At
this time, we are not engaged in any discussion with MN/DOT for the jurisdiction
transfer of TH 101 south of TH 12.
- The proposed plat shows dedicating 50 feet of right of way from and along the TH
101 centerline. Based on traffic volumes and the' importance of TH 101 in the
regions overall transportation planning, this should be a minimum. Your intent
of establishing a right of way corridor of 100 feet to 120 feet is good.
- The developer should remove the two existing driveways to TH 101, on the south
portion of the plat, and restore the disturbed area within TH 101 right of way.
Again thank you for the opportunity to review this plat. I hope our comments I
prove helpful in your review.
Sincerely,
1111 44U5 u
Dennis L. Hansen, P.L.
Transportation Planning Engineer
DLH/DBM:gk
HENNEPiN COUNTY
on equal opportunity employer
1
I - -
_ _ ich•- I o cr ,fre lif 1 , I, .
' r i•
1 l� gN
I A --,stif 1 9 )_i_
1
1 pc;L:. \\,.\44'�; µ Vii:;
1
. A ill; , ( \\)‘'Sli : -
O
e p l■II:"' t t\I 1 1,1'4?W o
I ;17ek\vik WA u)
co
P;1/116/.. ,,L)F,-,.::: :. „, 74/i . i I
1 .
1104) :
1 ,• %,,„„,
/g „...,49r.... .2;,i .juL .46.417iminimmemaa..lumm_AP IL (
/:.9:AV
....ZG,-- -""1"1 ...46,sersITIMIII16. ;
. '11111BIWKWILWIISZLNE ti il ,
I 11111
:Pr.; 0 . . , ,. --...—_f_
.0.6 ,/ / 1 g I
\- - / S ' ° I
. o °
'.. ..�.........�..............i .k...._.----
'I'(
1 i
iil..a—. .r-ir.•rd
+.-.� .,---.---a uw VloS311MwN3SSV14100
. M»»w NOLLQQY INOd S23A l )1 iior
.m%
,,;__ ___,0 :Mt-CGS(Z.91...ca.,
w
• tea•• r3•�waIIP Kwla/
.—w— " m s•peso"(•vuoaanA 1 a 1
y
at
I
r, r
...--....; 0,„ 4... L t
�� _ ��� �3
-_ Q f J It
,
/1 • t i i I I
\ 1 a p i of
I. ��\y \-M 1 l � J/ r N I co
l/ y• : -------.."-, 1 1 .i.-
i_n_�_ _ ,, 4 ,ft : i % \1 Yoe ,,..-.... - r-___ �� .
I
f ..F M y i Z J \ p ,1
I
/ J -
= o� v '� R _\ \\ \io- ---‘,..z F \e2 ,› --IX
o°,\ \� ? r Z. bi,1.—
cn g
¢
II
Q.
1 .- .......,..../3„,,1�
.... wo
—J - <.
._ �a-..,G
Z 3 F. ,'I
\ .wa - .�_ ' 7� s F \ vim_, 'r,.. ' �.�"_N-A 4.64;4_1.--„.;11.,-1:
\\_ `. , _- •l\ •; i.a. Q. 6. - :jj. a om G `- 4 - k • $
n—- 2 .'\. - r - t t'j���f J� {�t! o
s
•N e
.Fl v
6!4ib x
w e C= r r Y i
• •
U. t iise°L-1 Y O Y Oi e
III
•.
31,1_4 loco loco >ole 11-itise .60 NS
g t N oa�:� -Nat Sgar tio
1.•F10 Z4 LLw{7L iwVL ¢u
I .
....... 014.CCI
I /X "k,47.7)1 o..."57e- S311A0liel S31.1.111.10 11 tazituS Iiiiiii21116'M ......r.......-..........
.....,!..ii 41',..Y.
..,
I
.
.0.1.1.3 . 1 ---23r0"V".0 ...LA.4.0
a am...Mao.••• V.LOS3NT0611'1,13SS111,04140
or—i''—'• •■•■•44••....003•ft...row
...I.....>•••4........ Nowaav PuZ 1.11110c/stentinN 4----7 -avrimartrim-v."•116•10000A J
i a r a a o
2 g
c•
•
I .
a.-
V .
• Jr
, t
\-• .1-1-
\ ..!-
\
i
I .1.„
II
:\ / .
_
a a 1
r
I i.
1.,
1 ,
N, /
't -. .
I .
• i 1
.
I ..0/ ...e4, ..d'i"Elr..alow,V
1
. ... ,
s as SO
ge
OA
..••••• -- > i
So. V"..., • 0 C. \•
I "
:r stl• , __ .____ - s
I s'T's
's71 0
il•
,--._............. .......... 03 3
1 .. t
" ii
1; \3•:: -
I :,
...
a
cc I 4 •
W
7,./..L.....
..................................
• ..'
I ............'........iii i‘ 3101410 .., *.: 1
Cr I •
I
— I. \ii • i
1 .
000MSSYS ....,
cP 1.1 --
ck .....
k • —
1-7.:f:: 1110401111,1100 MI h00/00/011 00+0 ' 0.1 °II
It P.: I II
'a :::/'''''--
qv i 1 2
...44. ... 4 \ t , i
•
I I \ ss
\ \
• s .
\ . • ,, . 0
10 S ? 5: 2
a _a_ CIS_ 0 s7s 0
cr.
' 1
' a
1 • I • s. `,
I .
I
\
•IA \ ;
lama 1
ss,‘
. ,
,
'
I
I .
! ___..T.Tac=—._ _i__ura••••1 _ _ 611
§
• !, ... ..-,11
i ilk i
I - -) igad
-- . ilif
tilt t
_. I 1 i 1 I i -
3 : co :.
. .
, --
. .
4. ay te 140 '---- -(124—•- ' \ • - - —
c., –,t Illi \ : T.
' 't u"e E.
I >-
1–
• • . . ■ 4
1..
1 Z
1 •
l 1._ ._ .
\
/sel'43112 00.0140.1a otC.Ig%■.:I N. . --....C._ 0
.III; I
111 up -
;
I! . ,—i
■
-- — ----
Ia...a.
// ./ \ r t ` 1 k YER�'r IN \ J
•
•
It .6 � , i a�. J / �4°` 1 e
�IZurvers P1'oini) ILK:n.rQ)/1,,: , 41449..4. \\ \
2nd Additionf✓� ,...., `1\I'\ ter 1n faa.ox ,d r�� ���� G t Ei► a
F \ \ ELK , 1
, , . \\\ ,..w...w-....., *
I ,`,.` ■ ;;k v'� i'� 1 L. sao ��s!! j i ‘n- N
i;5. !
i
/ . \ z �I� c 1\ / (�f 1 i l e it ;
s
OHW 896 30 ' �� _ `
\t:\,,,,, 3 ,`������ lc • 101
LEGEND $114 /i/7\\ ' . .
• Proposed Catch basin 1/j 1 �� /�, \,♦ 4J ? u. i I 4 ea I!
Indicates Rate Of Slope i 'I
a.• Proposed Storm Sewer 8 Size d;I' i /'Protection,♦♦`,�� I t� i {s
r'0`— Indicates Direction Of Flow J. /� Barrier ` i - 7 � }
—020— Proposed Contour I '� \ ' 4 ', , n t I Q rt
(Existing Contours Screened) \I \ ' e/1//- 'N; �, p. '1 ` ! } 1
Erosion Control rI ' I 1\( n ,/I
I ( • i3 . S. I 1 iiit 1 , t Ir '%.1,,,, -
1 ,1 �f e 1 II. _�-- I �'
)
1 '.1. ,i .�_ ., / rte, !••
Note:Instal erosion control prior to construction. ,
Seed with mulch or erosion fabric all slopes • , 1 ,' ^
3:1 or steeper Place 2 rolls of and behind �*
all curbs.Erosion control to be maintained F 1
until turf Is established. i 11 ti(0)
1' 1 ...... 3
( f`\ .. 4
.111 111. 11111 111111 11111 11111 11111 NE 111111 111111 OM 111111 11111 11111 11111 M11 11111 1.11 11111
t 1{ , w w iv1 AYYtAM4113W _ ""` .'.`.w. .•o.` �f/
-.- i-13f ,.:,.«•••• 1[1063N�1 1i36S�1H V44 *^- -�` .4.4441.1- a•+a+w4v N 'r
•,•„p.3 ...a ; s+.o<.-.. ..ti•.••,••.°•_ IKJUJO01/Pug ANIOkd Sd3AHI Nib •+R+ [11[s •Powell•wsausA I
_ a
[ [ It
t
i .......cri, 4. 4 .., ..----0 '-',"
-_ 4 5.
_ — o ..•wP azris ...n....• �E E-
aiC[. • .w.i__�— ., ' �— ._ _JIB-- • [ il[;�y
.-17,
1 il t .--..or. .-.
_...../ 'f•
k f I .
• \ s.\\ P ,1 i I k---- Imo. • I ! it
/. -JI / sS [1 fyl t -,-a--_ 1 r 1
-1V _ ', -__�I • 1111 a �' r
j I �c / 1 i - k 1 1 / /` \ O I oti
\\\ :-. 01 '44 L.....--'-.::- ..-.;rat.-.'s
\ ...
;C •
2 IA
_
iii '12
r a
!IU citui
. R t€
G_
= 1 1
3 , 1
w 8:-. I I 1
i
J
•IJN .
64:4M
I g
6 A
teEsoTq Minnesota Department of Transportation
ID Metropolitan District
Pl'c'2-:4
14'
Transportation Building
�� St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
�OF T4P��
Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128
Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422
I
Ap ril 16, 1991 Reply to
Telephone No. 593-8753
I
Ms. JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
I
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
I
In Reply Refer To: TH101
C.S. 1010 I
Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
SE side Lotus Lake/TH 101 1
Chanhassen
Dear Ms. Olsen:
I
We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find the plat acceptable for further
I
development with consideration of the following comments:
- It is recommended the developer dedicate an additonal 17' along TH 101 to create
I
a 50' R/W for future roadway expansion.
- A second access is recommended due to the increased trips the second addition will I
generate. This new access will require a bypass lane and right turn lane to maintain
the current level of service in this area. Coordination of this local action with the I
county, city and Mn/DOT is encouraged.
- This action should not affect highway drainage. However, there should be provisions I
made to drain the water that crosses the property on the south between the
entrances.
If you have any questions in regard to our review of the plat please call me at 593-8753. 1
Sincerely,
cc: Steve Keefe, Metropolitan Council
Roger Gustafson, Carver Co. Eng.
C-L--)4-t---L---C1
Tim Henkel
Transportation Planner RECEIVED
Il
cC APR 2 2 1991
MINNESOTA
1990 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1
An Equal Opportunity Employer i3
II
IApril 16 , 1991
IPlanning Commission
Chanhassen
IRE: Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
I Dear Sirs:
My wife and I are unable to be at the planning commission meeting
on 4/17/91, but would like to have our concerns aired and placed
Ion the record, for your consideration.
Acceptance of the original planning of the development was
I dependent upon the developers own suggestion of putting a
second access to Hwy 101 as originally drawn and leveling out
the hill on Hwy 101. All staff members and council, and at
the time, were surprised and pleased at this solution and the
IIacceptance of the whole development was based on this provision.
Georgette and I have no personal problem with the proposed change
I as advocated by the Kurvers at the present time . From our own
personal point of view, it would reduce traffic on 101 near our
driveway and it would also reduce the noise adjacent to our
I propery. If an emergency road could be dedicated and kept clear
from one of the proposed cul-de-sacs ' s to trunk Hwy 101, from our
view point, this would be an ideal solution. However, if the city
requires a second access point to trunk Hwy 101 we would strongly
I object to proposal C (marked in your appendix) . We did move our
own driveway from the north end of our property to the sourth side
of our property in order to increase the distance between our own
I personal exit and the crown of the hill and the site of the pro-
posed road. We did this for our own safety. We certainly did
not move our driveway, at our own personal expense, in order to
allow an exit road from the development to be moved in a southerly
I direction just so the hill would not need to be cut down. The
distance between our driveway and the second exit to trunk Hwy
101 as primarily drawn is close enough as it is. We feel strong-
' ly about this point and if you were to exit my driveway in the
winter time, when the roads are slick, you would understand that
an additional entrance to Hwy 101, between our drive and the crown
I of the hill, is not a. desirable circumstance. If a second exit
to Hwy 101 is to be required, we feel that alteration of -the
site lines by leveling the hill on Hwy 101 would be required.
IWe thank you for your attention to this matter .
Sincerely, ,
I
IHenry Sosin, M.D.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING. COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 17, 1991
Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:40 p .m . . ,
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Ladd Conrad , Steve Emmings , Jeff Farmakes ,
and Joan Ahrens '
MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson and Brian Batzli
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director and Dave Hempel , Senior ,
Engineering Technician
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.14 ACRES INTO 14 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF , RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF HWY 5 ON I
TH 101 , KURVERS POINT 2ND ADDITION, VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS.
Public Present: '
Name Address
Mark & Susan Senn 7160 Willow View Cove
Barbara Jacoby 7251 Kurver 's Point Road
Beth Harrington 51 Twin Maple Lane
Mike Dingman 40 Twin Maple Lane
Alex & Diane Wagenaar 7130 Willow View Cove
Brooks Myhran 60 Twin Maple Lane
Denny & Mickey Kopfmann 7290 Kurver 's Point
Jeanne MacLean 7280 Kurver 's Point
Steve Mestitz 7200 Willow View Cove
Jackie Kurvers 7240 Kurver 's Point Road
Myrna Kurvers Chanhassen
Peter M . Kurvers Chanhassen
Paul Kurvers Chanhassen
Franklin J . Kurvers Chanhassen
Mel Kurvers Chanhassen
Scott Harri Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order .
Mark Senn: Hello . fly name is Mark Senn . I live at 7160 Willow View Cove . II
We 'll try to keep this short. I 'm President of the Kurvers Point
Homeowner 's Association . We 've had a homeowners association meeting
dealing with this topic . The association basically is or represents 20
families that currently live in or building in Kurvers Point as well as
about over 40 of our children . We 're really concerned about the thru
street issue as it 's being proposed by staff and everyone who lives in
Kurvers Point , at least at this point , is in unanimous agreement that we 'd
like to see the cul-de-sac stay . We feel there 's a number of circumstances
which have been ignored by staff that are unique to our situation out
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 2
there . First of all , if you go up and down TH 101 , most every street that
' I 've .aware of that 's in the city that goes in towards the lake is a
cul-de-sac already . Beyond that , we feel that we have some extenuating
circumstances because our street is viewed as an extension of Valley View
' which is a major east/west connector running all the way through Eden
Prairie . On , let 's call it a slow day , we probably end up with over a
dozen vehicles seeking a route to the lake or something else but basically
viewing our street as an extension of Valley View . On a nice day it gets a
' lot worst than that . Since the dead end sign has been put up , a lot of
that 's been cut in about half but it hasn 't come anywhere close to stopping
it . We still get a lot of traffic down the street. As it is again, people
' evidentally viewing this as an extension or thinking it 's a way to find
their way down to a park or the lake or whatever . We really think that
that situation would get substantially worse if it 's a thru street and
' we 've seen the effect of putting the dead end sign up now which is at least
been somewhat positive but still hasn 't achieved the results we 'd like to
see . We 'd really like to see the neighborhood stay as it is now. The
families I think all enjoy it that way . Our kids enjoy a safe play
environment , or at least a reasonably one which we feel would be extremely
jeopardized by making Kurvers Point Road a thru street . We understand
staff 's point of view as it relates to emergency vehicles but we feel the
' other issues far outweigh the few seconds or whatever that it's going to
take additional time for emergency vehicles to get there and I think most
the homeowners are willing to live with that risk rather than see the road
go through. And if you 'd like to hear from all 20 families or whatever , we
' can but I think that 's generally the comments that we 're all in agreement
with and if you have any questions , we 'd be happy to answer them .
' Emmings: Was anyone ever made aware , or when did you first become aware
that the plan for the entire subdivision included a connection back out to
TH 101?
' Mark Senn: Well I can only say personally I did at the first homeowners
association meeting I attended this year .
IEmmings: So it was just this year that you learned that?
Mark Senn: Again , I can only speak for myself on that .
' Emmings: Okay .
' Mark Senn: Thank you .
Alex Wagenaar : I 'm Alex Wagenaar . I live at 7130 Willow View Cove .
Also I think it 's relevant in my professional background . I 'm a professor
of epidemiology at the University of Minnesota and prior to that , for 10
years I was at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
as a scientist . My professional area of research and effort deals with
I traffic safety. I study daily the consequences of children being hit by
motor vehicles . And it 's a very disturbing area in which to work . The
frequency and the regularity with which this happens in our country and my
I main concern is not only for my own two boys that live in this area . With
the increase traffic that will come through if this is made a thru street
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 3 '
and the point that was made that it 's directly across from Valley View Road
and gets tremendous increase in. traffic . People seeking access to the lake
or just misunderstanding that it's not a continuation of Valley View Road .
Incidentally , I 'm the first house in Kurvers Point subdivision . The
closest one to TH 101 for the people coming in and I see them coming in
halfway and turning around , particuarly late in the afternoon and on the
weekends when there 's recreational traffic out trying to get to the lake .
And that 's the same time that the kids of the neighborhood are out riding
their bicycles and so forth . So I 'm concerned about this . You know in
terms of designing new roads , a major effort that 's now being implemented ,
in Europe it 's frequently called the passification of traffic and that is
designing the roads in a way to minimize the hazards . To minimize the
interaction between pedestrians and bicyclists and automobiles . And those
interactions are very hazardous and I think if we put this road through ,
without a cul-de-sac , it will increase the amount of traffic coming through 1
there and that will substantially increase the hazard . Not only to our
children right now but this will be this way for decades to come and it
will influence hundreds , perhaps thousands of children over those years
that live in that subdivision. Thank you .
Emmings: Could you tell me , it 's not completely obvious to me why the road
being connected back up to TH 101 will increase the problem that you 've I
seen with people who are already coming in there . Why will it be more if
it 's hooked up at the other end?
Alex Wagenaar : Because if it 's a thru road , then it 's not a dead end . It I
gives somebody additional incentive to go straight across . They come to
Valley View . They stop . They look and they go straight across into
Kurvers Point subdivision .
Emmings: And where do they go?
Alex Wagenaar : They go in a couple of ways . They go down Kurvers Point to I
the end and turn around and come back .
Emmings: That 's 2 trips . '
Alex Wagenaar : A substantial proportion will come in to Willow View Cove. '
Go to the end of that cul-de-sac and come back . A substantial proportion
of them come into my driveway and turn around and go back. A variety of
things .
Emmings: In that last case, the fact that the road is connected thru isn't
going to matter . And if the road is connected thru and people drive down
there and come back out onto TH 101 , they won't be turning around in a
cul-de-sac and coming by your house a second time .
Alex Wagenaar : No . But it 's likely to increase the number of people that
will come into the division in the first place . '
Emmings: And why do you think that?
Alex Wagenaar : Because it will be a thru street . '
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 4
Emmings: A thru street right back to where they came. from basically ,
right?
Alex Wagenaar : Well they don't know that , I mean to us it seems like it .
It comes back to TH 101 but it doesn 't come back to where they came from
because they come to Valley View , they cross over , they go down about the
equivalent of whatever a city block before it curves . It continues to go
' along . They see the lake there and they continue for the rest of the way
and then back at TH 101 , not where they started but whatever it is , a half
a mile .
' Emmings: I wonder if they 'd be dumb enough to do that twice if they didn 't
get anywhere but maybe they are .
Alex Wagenaar : Well , we haven 't surveyed these people . I don't know if we
could stop them without some police assistance . I 've done a lot of
roadside surveys and stopping people and interviewing them about safety
' belt use and looking at child safety device use of people . We 've not done
that in this case and that 's a possible thing that we could do to find out
what they 're thinking . What they 're looking for . Why they came into the
division in the first place . What their ultimate destination was and how
-, they 're being , whatever the configuration of the road is not discouraging
that adequately enough. But I think that if it 's a thru street , it 's not a
dead end street , that it may very well encourage additional traffic to come
' across Valley View into the subdivision.
Emmings: Thank you . Can we , ask the City , can we lie and put up a dead
end sign there if it isn 't a dead end? If it was a thru street , could we
put up a dead end sign?
Ahrens: Why don 't you just put a no lake access sign?
' Hempel : That 's a possibility, yes .
' Ahrens: That seems to make more sense . Just a quick comment . I think
that there 's probably a lot of traffic going through now because there 's a
lot of lots for sale back in there and probably there 's just a lot of local
curiousity . People want to look inside the new subdivision that 's being
built .
Alex Wagenaar : Do you think they come out and look at houses. . .
' Emmings: Let 's keep trucking through . We 're in a public hearing here .
. This is your chance to be heard so whoever else would like to address this
piece .
Denny Kopfmann: Hi . I 'm Denny Kopfmann. I live at 7290 Kurvers Point
Road. My approach is a little different . ' All of my neighbors have small
' children . I have children that are 16 and 13 . My son is driving . And I 'm
located probably mid-section on Kurvers Point so we do have the big loop in
front of our house where everybody comes in and turns around . My concern
is TH 101 . I want to stay away from it . My kids are scared of it and I
don 't want two accesses. I only want one. I guess staff , a question
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 5
I have for you is , the sight lines on this other approach . They 're bad
enough where we are now . My kid , we 've taught him to brake at the top of
the hill so they see his lights . Know he 's turning and on a Saturday night
when your son isn 't home and you hear those cars on TH 101 , you wonder is
that left turn going to be successful , and I 'm concerned about that other
turn . How are his friends coming over or the kids in the neighborhood , his
friends visiting , cruising by to see if my daughter 's home , cruising by to
see if my son 's home , I think the one access makes a lot more sense.
Emmings: Could I ask you a question? Are you aware that the original plan
for connecting the road back up to TH 101 included cutting that hill down?
Denny Kopfmann: Yes . That concerns me about TH 101 because we don 't know
the future of TH 101 so if we commit now to a thru street , do we have a
bigger battle in the future? Do we have a different thing to address? I
moved from Eden Prairie . We lived there 15 years . We never once came over 11
and went down Kurvers Point until we were looking for a lot but I do see
Eden Prairie coming over . I see them walking down our access . I see them
biking down our access so I would just as soon keep it , let 's deal with the I
one access we have on TH 101 because that 's dangerous enough . Traffic is
only increasing . Thank you .
Emmings: Thank you . Is there anybody else? '
Alex Wagenaar : Just to answer your earlier question. We weren't aware
that it was going to go thru to TH 101 until the recent homeowners
association meeting either . On the plat that I saw when we were shopping
for houses , it ended where it does now . The rest of it just said future
development .
Emmings: So it was your assumption .
Alex Wagenaar : That was a cul-de-sac . ,
Emmings: Okay , and that was going to stay that way?
Alex Wagenaar : Yeah .
Scott Harri : Mr . Chairman. I 'm Scott Harri and I represent the developer I
here . I was wondering if you wanted me to put in our two cents now or at
your convenience?
Emmings: One question would be , do you know why the developer didn't tell I
these folks that that road was going to go thru and get connected back up
to TH 101?
•
Scott Harri : I can't answer that . In fact , throughout the whole process
their sales literature that we provided them was showing the entire
subdivision .
Emmings: Including a road going back out to TH 101?
Scott Harri : Yes . The entire project that was approved . '
•
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 17 , 1991 - Page 6
Emmings: So that is information that these people would have seen when
they bought their lots , as far as you know?
Scott Harri : I can only conjecture . I 've never seen a sales presentation
but that was the sales literature that we provided them with the small maps
and things .
' Mel Kurvers : Can I answer that?
Emmings: Sure .
' Mel Kurvers: I 'm Mel Kurvers . I 'm one of the developers . All the people ,
Alex was probably not informed but the builders were informed and I can 't
dictate to the builders what they tell the people. He bought it through a
realtor and again , I can 't dictate to the realtors what they tell them .
But everybody was informed as to what the plan was and we said the only
change came about when we looked at it with the traffic coming off of
' Valley View Road , and this is a serious problem . These people are coming
in there . I can look out my window . I can see them at any hour of the
day . Night . They 're coming in there . They 're making turns . They don 't
read the sign . People come in there and they say is this an extension of
Valley View and I said no . The sign says dead end . It 's Kurvers Point
Road . You can say what you want . It 's only one time but how many times do
we have people that are only one time? And if we take that sign down , I
' can tell you when they come through there and they find out that they are
in the wrong road and they make this turn around, they 're going a lot
faster than they are coming in . So if you have any other questions on it .
We did inform the people . We didn 't hide anything . We told them what it
was . We told them and the plan is there . The brochure . I 've got a
brochure in my briefcase if you 'd like to see what .
' Emmings: And that shows the whole subdivision with it going back out?
Mel Kurvers: It shows it but this is 4 years later . Traffic has
' increased . We 've learned and that 's why we 're up here with this plan .
We 're not hiding anything . I 've lived here all my life and you can ask
someone else .
' Emmings: Well , I know. They all said they didn't know and I was wondering
why they didn 't know .
' Mel Kurvers: Well they didn 't know because they probably were not informed
by the realtors or whatever . I mean the plan is there and it does say that
it 's a second phase . And like any plan, the second phase may change . You
' do learn , I hope we do anyway from what we did in previous times and
previous years and that 's why we 're up here with this plan now . That we
did learn , and I think we 've got a good plan and that's why we 're here . If
you've got any other questions , I 'd be happy to answer them .
' Emmings: Thank you . Is there anyone else here who wants to speak?
' Steve Mestitz: My name is Steve Mestitz and I 'm a general surgeon and
I live 'at 7200 Willow View Cove . Part of my training was at a major trauma
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 7 '
center at Hennepin County Medical Center followed by some time at
Children 's Hospital . The proposal to open this up to TH 101 ,although I 'm
not a trafficologist . I don 't understand all of the in 's and out 's , seems
like it would really increase the number of cars that would go through our
development and it really scares me because part of my daily job is to take ,
care of people who get injured . And having done that at a major trauma
center , you see a lot of little kids that get hit by a lot of cars . It 's
a , from a strictly personal standpoint , and I don't necessarily want to II make this too melodramatic but you only need to see one or two of those to
make you very , very motivated to try to cut down the amount of traffic that
interfaces with children that are playing in that area . And I know there 's '
40 children in that area now . There 's going to be a lot more in the years
to come and so from that personal perspective , there's going to be a lot
more in the years to come . So from that personal perspective , it 's very
frightening to have a non-dead end and more traffic going through that
area .
Emmings: Thank you . Anyone else? Is there a motion to close the public
hearing?
Erhart: I move we close the public hearing .
Ahrens: Second .
Emmings: It 's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing . I 'll II
call the question .
Mel Kurvers: Wait a minute . We have some information . . .
Emmings: Oh . Go ahead .
Scott Harri : I just didn't want to get out of step with your protocol .
I 've introduced myself . I 'm Scott Harri with Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings
and we prepared the submittal before you tonight . And also the original
Kurvers Point 1st Addition . With me tonight , you 've met Mel Kurvers and
there 's Frank Kurvers and his son, Paul . We 're here this evening
requesting your recommendation for approval of the Kurvers Point 2nd
Addition as we proposed it . When the Kurvers Family decided to develop
their property in 1987 , they made a very conscience decision at that time
to create a unique residential neighborhood of high quality homes . The
original site plan that was designed to meet these goals , while respecting
landforms , both vegetation patterns , existing wetlands and Lotus Lake , the II
2nd Addition of Kurvers Point is now being presented . And Phase II retains
these original goals but also reflects 4 years of market and development
experience . The second phase now represents the addition to an existing
neighborhood rather than the creation of a new neighborhood . Hence the
knowledge and experience gained from Phase 1 is being applied to Phase 2
resulting in an enhancement of the overall project . The original site plan '
had called for 15 lots in phase 2 with an average lot size of just over
23 ,000 square feet . In response to the market , the second phase is now
proposed . It features larger lots with an emphasize on the creation of
lots for the potential to build walkouts and as presented , the second phase
now contains 14 lots . As Paul mentioned , one less than the original phase
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 8
2 with an average lot size of 24 ,670 square feet . Of the 14 lots , we 've
designed via the layout , the physical layout and also the grading , that 10
of these 14 lots will accommodate a walkout at the lower level . Two of the
lots will accommodate a side lookout and 2 of them will require perhaps
' conventional basement type construction . In addition to the market
concerns , the new plan also reflects the concerns of the existing residents
who have constructed homes in Phase 1 . The Kurvers Point Homeowners
' Association who you 've been introduced to this evening , has provided input
into this planning process for Phase 2 . Their primary concerns , as they 've
stated here this evening , revolve around safety and traffic issues . Of
course correspondingly the local road system has been changed to establish
two new cul-de-sacs to I guess address those issues . Consistent with Phase
1 , the 2nd Addition of Kurvers Point is being presented without any need
for any variances or modifications from the minimum zoning standards . The
' project continues to vastly exceed all minimum zoning criteria in pursuit
of creation of a high amenity , high quality residential neighborhood . The
staff has prepared a very detailed and extensive report concerning all
aspects of this development . And I don 't want to sit here and review and
' go over every one of them . Assuming and presuming that we can convince you
to recommend approval , the Kurvers are prepared to meet all the 17 items
that are listed as conditions. We have some clarifications that we 'd like
1 • to perhaps discuss with staff but they 're of a minor nature on only one of
these things. What I 'd like to do is spend a few minutes to address some
of the specifics that I mentioned earlier regarding market and development
' experience gained from the past 4 years to perhaps help you better
understand that this proposal before you tonight and the factors needed to
keep this a high quality neighborhood . Firstly the lots needed to be at
least 10 feet wider at the setback line than originally proposed . With the
' 1st Addition . . .feedback from builders and developers who wanted to buy lots
here needed just simply more space . Hence the reduction that you 're seeing
in this plan from 15 lots to 14 lots as we 've expanded things out .
I Secondly , it has become extremely apparent from feedback from the
homeowners association , also from builders and perspective customers , that
it 's extremely important to screen the neighborhood from TH 101 for both
traffic noise and for a visual impacts . To that extent , the first phase
I
contains a berm running full length of the east side of the subdivision .
As part of this proposal , we are proposing a berm similar to that on this
phase along the east side and at such heights that we can control the
I visual impacts to those homes that would be built adjoining TH 101 and to
at least attenuate some of the noise and the traffic that would be going by
and to hopefully deflect some of that noise up into the sky . Thirdly , or I
wanted to dwell on that for a little bit longer . By creating another
intersection with TH 101 , a berm or it would require an opening in this
berm of maybe 60 to 70 feet in width making sure that we make sight
distance and setback requirements and that virtually would render the
I screening and the effects of both the noise and the visual impacts , well it
would reduce it significantly for most of the homes that would be built in
that area . The third thing I 'd like to mention , and the Kurvers Point
I Homeowners Association I think spoke generally and very specifically to
their concerns over the traffic safety issue . And there is studies that
have been done that have shown that cul-de-sac neighborhoods are generally
safer both in traffic and for children who tend to run out into the street
and play and this sort of thing. Fourthly , a majority of the buiders
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 9
contacting the Kurvers for lots are looking for walkout lots and cul-de-sac
lots in which to build and it 's .really their customers who are demanding
this type of lot . And as I stated earlier , 10 of the 14 lots proposed
would provide for a walkout situation . The majority of them either are
lake lots or would be on a cul-de-sac . And then lastly , which Paul entered II
the testimony here was a letter from the Sosin 's . At the time the 1st
Addition was approved , there were some serious concerns over the traffic
impact of a second access on the south side there . And this plan addresses
that also by not preparing it . The Kurvers Point 2nd Addition as presented
here this evening is consistent with other developments that have been
approved by the City , especially I guess the major issue we 're talking
about is cul-de-sac length . .I guess this concludes my remarks . We have a
list of cul-de-sacs that I can show you . Or I shouldn't say show you but
in just looking at 2 or 3 that just north of here on Choctaw Circle is a
cul-de-sac of 1 ,650 feet long with 45 lots on it . And in Fox Chase ,
another almost 50 lots on almost a 2 ,000 foot long cul-de-sac street .
Projects recently , well not necessarily recently approved but have been
approved by the City and I have perhaps 6-7 more that I 've just researched 111 just recently . Again , making an appeal that your action and your
consideration of this issue should be weighed against perhaps what has been
done in other locations . Other cities . To my knowledge , in talking with
some of the Public Safety people here in town , that the problems of a tree II
falling across the road or a watermain breaking or something blocking
access , that would prevent the emergency vehicle from reaching a home in
this case really hasn 't been an issue in any location in the city . Whether
it be a cul-de-sac or even on a thru street where the emergency vehicle
comes in this location , finds they can't make it and has to travel back
around a different direction to get to a location so . I guess if you have
any questions of us , we 'd be glad to spend some time and answer them for
you . Thank you .
Emmings: Thank you . Now is there anybody else?
Frank Kurvers: Just real short . My name is Frank Kurvers and I 'm one of
the developers . I think a development should do three things . Number one ,
it should be good to the city . Number two , it should be good to the people
who buy the lots . And number three , it should be good for the developer .
Emmings: Sounds fair . '
•
Erhart moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. '
Emmings: I don't think anybody's too upset about going from 15 to 14 lots.
I don 't suppose we need to spend a lot of time on that issue . Tim?
Erhart: I assume that the 20 members or that the opinion of this is
unanimous?
Mark Senn: Yes . '
Erhart: I guess in light of that fact and the fact that this is pretty
much consistent with other cul-de-sacs between Choctaw Circle and others in II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 17 , 1991 - Page 10
the city , I guess I don 't see , I don 't have a problem with the revised
plan . I think it would quite frankly , as much as from a planning 's point
of view , I understand staff 's view on this . It 's not a new development
anymore . We have to live with the 20 people on there and they 're unanimous
' on their opinion that they would want it changed . I don't think probably
the 14 new people are going to have any different opinion . In driving down
there the density is , quite frankly I was surprised at how low it is .
There just isn 't that many houses on there . When you compare that to the
one up Choctaw Circle , I counted 43 but I think someone had mentioned it
was 45 houses there and this one will have , I believe a total of 34 .
' Resident : 41 .
Erhart: 41 on this one? Well even with that , I would be in favor of
changing the plan to the cul-de-sac and not pursuing any of the other thru
street proposals . I have no other questions on any of the other issues .
It looks like a very good development . It 's an extension of what started
' out as a very nice development .
Emmings: Okay . Ladd?
' , Conrad: As we grade , if we were to follow through the original design ,
grading of TH 101 would change . How much would we have to take off? Paul ,
do you know in terms of what grade difference?
Krauss: Mr . Conrad , we 're not sure actually . This was a proposal that was
originally made by the applicant 's engineer and we 're wondering if he
1 happens to have that information .
Scott Harri : I do . To create the proper sight distance at the
intersection approved would have required TH 101 to come down approximately
' 3 feet . Three feet for 150-200 feet kind of variable . Three at the
most . . .
' Conrad: It wouldn 't change the berming a great deal then . It might change
it a little bit the necessity to screen a neighborhood . By taking , as I 've
driven through there so many times , a big concern that I would have would
be opening up the neighborhood to the community to TH 101 . I think it 's
' really important that it 's screened and that there be a berm there . The 3
feet I guess doesn 't bother me a great deal . I think it 's not that
significant and I think the neighborhood would still be able to be bermed
' and screened significantly . I think it was clear what their original
design was and I guess I 'm not overly concerned. I hear the neighborhood
talking about safety concerns but I think there are ways to deal with that .
' Obviously every additional car in the neighborhood is probably, that
shouldn 't be there , is probably one too many but just a couple things .
Paul , you ruled out an access that would only be in an emergency access
simply because of maintenance . I 'm having trouble with this one myself
because on the one hand I really like the neighborhood having one access . I
really like that from a small community standpoint . It 's the way I 'd want
to have it . The way I 'd want to live . It builds a community in there
11 and I struggled to figure out a solution to make that happen . On the other
hand , we 've always been committed to when we have opportunity on the
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 11 1
Planning Commission and City Council to make things as safe as possible . On
the one hand we 're talking , the neighbors are talking safety from traffic
and accidents . The other side of it is , in an emergency , an emergency
vehicle getting to a burning house . Getting to a tornado victim . Tornadoes
have gone through this area . It 's one of those things that we 've always
supported if we had our , if we could . And it's tough to put a value on
that . I think the neighbors don 't think anything 's going to happen and one
access is not a big deal . I think our public safety department might say
something different and may have some experiences where one access is
blocked and a second one is open and the fire trucks , the emergency
vehicles , the ambulance gets to a house when there is an emergency. That 's
my problem . I have two solutions . One , if somebody convinced me that II
we 're pretty safe in this 1 ,600 foot cul-de-sac . That 's what I want to
believe . On the other hand , I keep looking for a solution where we have a
limited access in case of an emergency . We have an opportunity to do that .
There is the one where there is a way to make that happen if we feel that
that 's significant . So I guess the bottom line for me is I 'm struggling
with it because I want to make that a small neighborhood and I don 't like
the second access yet I feel real responsible for providing emergency
service vehicles a secondary access to that location . It is possible to
have that happen now . I believe in some of the other longer cul-de-sacs
that we 've allowed in the city , it wasn 't easy to make happen . In fact , it I
was almost impossible to make happen and therefore we gave the developer
their right to develop the property . In this case it 's easy to make happen
and I 'm struggling with that . Paul , you were going to say something?
Krauss: Well a couple things . First of all , nobody should be , well I
think everybody needs to come to grips with the fact that traffic on TH 101 in
is building . It 's beyond our control . It 's an issue that confronts a
State agency and two counties and a number of municipalities and we 're
trying to get the ball going for people to look at what needs to be done on
TH 101 . It 's a real tough issue . But I think we have to really come to an II
understanding that traffic is going to be building there and I 'd hate to
have to be the one to say it and it 's not a city road, but like it or not ,
it 's going to have to be a 4 lane road at some point . I think you 're all I
aware of the fact , in fact some of you said you 're from Eden Prairie , that
Town Line Road is supposed to be a 4 lane road up to the Minnetonka/
Chanhassen line . That is going to introduce a lot more traffic out here .
In fact , one of the reasons they 're building that road is they 're blaming I
it on development in Chanhassen. Curiously enough. But a fundamental
point here is that we would never propose that a loop street go through if
we thought this was a shortcut to someplace. We don't do that to
residential neighborhoods . If this cut 30 seconds off the trip to downtown II
or if this was a shortcut to a lake access , a legitimate public landing ,
whatever , we would never propose that a loop street be done . That just II goes against all good professional judgment and wisdom. The fact is that
we have a loop street here that is a much longer curvalinear route than TH
101 is . I can understand how people blunder into this neighborhood once . I
can understand people looking at the lake or looking at the very nice homes II
that are in there . I mean my wife and I do that on weekends ourselves .
But there 's absolutely no reason for anybody to transit this neighborhood
more than once . It just simple doesn't make any , it doesn't fit the
conventional wisdom as it applies to traffic management . Nobody would
11 .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 12
choose , unless they 're looking for a Sunday drive or something I suppose .
Nobody chooses to go the longer , more curvalinear route when there 's a
direct route to the same place . We understand there 's a question about
people trying to shoot across TH 101 and I 'm sure that happens
occasionally . It 's a very tough intersection. I don't know what more we
can say about that . Just to clarify that , we would never , under any
circumstances , recommend a thru street through a residential neighborhood
if in fact it would introduce non-area trips in any kind of a significant
way . One thing also has to be recognized here is that this development
alone is going to generate 400 trips a day .
Emmings: The second?
Krauss: No , the entirety of this plat is going to generate 400 trips a
' day . That 's nobody from Eden Prairie . Nobody from anyplace else . That's
this development . With one curb cut , every one of those 400 trips is going
to pass by those homes at that entrance . With two curb cuts , you share the
load and I think that 's a fairly reasonable proposition in terms of safety .
' In addition , most of the homes in there are going to be on cul-de-sacs
whether this is a looped road or not . You know most of the homes are
designed to front onto cul-de-sacs . I was in there today , I think there 's .
' 5 or 6 , 5 now that may not . There 's some more lots that will be developed
that won 't but again , they 're going to have a cul-de-sac irregardless .
There was a point raised that there are other cul-de-sacs of equal length
' or longer . Well , that 's certainly true . Sometimes it was because , in
20/20 hindsight it wasn't a great decision . Sometimes it was because of
environmental issues or topography . There simply was no alternative . But
there are several examples immediately north of this subdivision where
' there is a thru street connection and I think it 's the Colonial Grove and
Fox Hollow are both served in a similar situation by looped streets . So
again I mean , we do understand where the residents are coming from and I
' think the Planning Commission and most members of the Council are familiar
with the fact that this is not an uncommon issue . And I don 't mean to
diminish it because it 's not uncommon but this kind of thing happens a lot .
Where people are brought into a neighborhood either because they 're not
' informed or they don 't want to believe it 's going to be extended or
whatever , that they oppose the second phase addition . Now I think you 're
aware that since it crops up so much , wherever this happens from now on ,
what we 've been doing is we 've been requiring notices to be placed in the
chain of title that say that this is going to be extended and we've been
putting up barricades at the end of the street with a sign on it that says
this street is to be extended so there 's no way anybody could say that they
were not aware or the realtor didn't tell them or anything else . This pre-
dated this policy and I think this is an unfortunate consequence of it .
Again , I just wanted to clarify though that we would never , under any
' circumstances , run a thru trip through a residential neighborhood.
Conrad: And I hear what you 're saying Paul . I think you're making your
recommendations by real sound planning background. My bottom line is , I
think it 's a better community without that second access . I don 't care if
there are 2 or 3 cul-de-sacs inbetween . The better community if we didn 't
' have it there . The second access . But I am struggling . I hear what the
neighbors are saying . I 'm not persuaded as much as I , by their concerns ,
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 13
as what I am for making it a better neighborhood . That in my mind is not
having that second access . However , however , I feel accountable for
providing a secondary emergency access . That 's why if I were designing
this , that second loop towards the south or the street , I would have made
that a cul-de-sac right very close to TH 101 with an emergency road that
would connect to TH 101 . If I were the designer . I 'm not the designer and II
that 's not what 's been presented tonight but that 's what I would have done .
Emmings: Now , you 've defined the issue for us . Can you tell us how you
come down on this issue? The issues you 've defined?
Conrad: I 'm waiting to be persuaded by the rest of the Planning
Commission .
Erhart: Steve , I have a question . Is there anybody here like of the first "
4 houses on Kurvers Point Road? Have a house right on Kurvers Point Road?
Alex Wagenaar : I 'm the first on Willow View Cove.
Barbara Jacoby: I 'm the first house on Kurvers Point Road . -•
Erhart: And the idea that you 're going to actually have more-traffic in
front of your house from the local people , the people who live in Kurvers
Point Road , if it doesn't go through doesn 't bother you?
Barbara Jacoby: I don 't understand . '
Erhart: Because if it goes through , the people , more than likely the
people living in the south half of the development are going to go out the II
south exit .
Barbara Jacoby: I 'm Barbara Jacoby at 7251 Kurvers Point Road . We have
been there since November so as far as the traffic goes , I 'm not that sure . II
But I can see that if it does open , people coming from Valley View who live
as it goes to the south , Kurvers Point goes to the south , all those people
that live there are just going to cut across TH 101 from Valley View to
Kurvers Point and go in front of my house to get to the ones , the other
houses . Do you follow me?
Conrad: But what he is saying is , in the new proposal . No , if it 's all a II
cul-de-sac and only one entrance by your house , all 42 homeowners are going
to go by your house every day 3 times , or whatever the average is .
Barbara Jacoby: Okay , and we could get that same thing .
Conrad: And whereas if you had a second cul-de-sac , a second entry , you 're
going to split half of those 40 homeowners . 20 will go one way , 20 will go
the other way .
Barbara Jacoby: I think you 're more likely to get them crossing from
Valley View and coming right on by if they live on what would be , unless
they 're coming up TH 5 . You know , anyway .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 14
Alex Wagenaar : Can I speak in regards to this? The premise here is if you
I move the dead end sign , which is now located there , you 're going to have
more traffic coming through . The situation right now is when these
individuals see this dead end sign that 's in place there . . .actually do turn
around by the Willow View Cove intersection . . . If that sign's removed ,
Iyou 're going to have a large increase in thru traffic coming through there .
Emmings: Well , I tell you we 're getting a little loose here . We closed
I the public hearing and I think what we 're going to do is go through and
finish with the comments from up here and then maybe give you another shot
with quick things . So we 'll just continue up here for now . Jeff?
IFarmakes: My comments on this are pretty much the same . I guess I 'm a
little at a loss for words between the difference of opinion of public
safety . Public safety here or concern for your public safety and accessing
I
your homes in case there is an emergency . If somebody has a heart attack
or whatever , there 's a disaster and you 're concerned about your children .
Several professionals who came up here and talked about concern for your
I public safety of your children . It sort of seems to be a trade off between
privacy . Your concern about the traffic that comes through there , which
I 'm not quite convinced that these people are interested in putting their
I boats in . It seems like they 're interested in finding lake access which is
I guess a little farther to the south . The days are long gone in the lake
communities around here where you can put your boat in inbetween a couple
of trees . Somebody 's property or land inbetween . And other than if _
I they 're out looking at nice homes , which this community certainly looks
like it 'd be worth driving through just to look at the homes . I 'm still
not quite I guess convinced that unless there has been problems on other
I cul-de-sac communities that are up on TH 101 , that this is going to be a
major issue for public safety . I can understand the concern but I
guess I 'd be more inclined to look at the neighborhood and what their
I belief is of the use of their property . I 'm not sure that putting that
second opening on there is really going to change anything . I don 't think
it 's going to add to the traffic really , of your property . But I don 't
think on the other hand it 's going to help people driving through that are
I lost or are coming on there from Valley View Road. They 're still going to
be there and I agree with staff that I don 't think people are going to
drive through there simple because there 's another opening on the other
I side . It seems these people are lost or out there viewing your homes .
They turn around and drive right back through the neighborhood again. If
there was an opening there , they would drive out of your neighborhood but I
I can 't see where there 's any time saved or any justification to say that
putting that through there would increase that traffic. And I 'm not sure
what could be done to decrease it no matter what option is gone with here .
It seems that it 's either confusion or sight seeing. I 'm still , I guess in
I this situation I 'd defer to the homeowners. I don 't see where there 's any ,
there are other cul-de-sac communities here that , unless we 've expeYienced
similar problems , I guess I would be inclined to approve it .
IEmmings: Alright . Joan?
Ahrens: I guess I 'm a little surprised at some of the comments made by the
I
commissioners because since I 've been on the Planning Commission , every
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 15
long cul-de-sac that 's come up for discussion has been turned down . The
most recent one was when , just west of Galpin Lake Blvd. . I don 't even
remember the name of the street but there was going to be a cul-de-sac
developed over there .
Krauss: It wasn 't Tanadoona?
Emmings: No . I think she 's thinking of where we eventually connected back I
up to Pleasant View?
Conrad: Troendle . I
Emmings: Yeah . The Troendle Addition .
Ahrens: No . This was over by Minnetonka Intermediate School . Back up
into there .
Krauss: I think it 's the one from Tanadoona . '
Ahrens: Yeah . And most of the long , all of them . All of the ones we
talked about since I 've been on the Planning Commission we 've been very
careful in evaluating that the safety issues and we 've discouraged
developers from pursuing long cul-de-sacs . We 've basically sent them back
to redraw their plans so I 'm kind of surprised at the willingness to accept
a 1 ,700 or however long it is , cul-de-sac in this situation . I guess I
kind of like the idea of the no lake access signs . If that 's the problem .
I 'm not sure that 's the problem. I don't think anybody 's really sure . I
mean it 's a public road . People have the right to drive down a public I
road . I guess I 'm really not persuaded that having a thru street is going
to create a big safety problem . I think that when there are emergency
calls , we 're not talking about one fire engine or one ambulance . We 're
talking about 3 and 4 large vehicles going down a road . And if there 's not 1
enough room , it can be a big problem. I guess I 'm persuaded by the staff
recommendation and I 'm going to go along with it .
Emmings: Okay . As I remember this proposal when it came in front of us
originally , one of the , I remember several issues from it but getting that
hill cut down on TH 101 was one of the big issues that we all saw . When
you talk about public safety issues , getting rid of that hill on TH 101 ,
especially at the developer 's cost rather than our own, was something that
really appealed to us . And I reread the Minutes from the City Council II meeting and they all were very surprised that the developer was willing to
do that but very happy about it. And the same sentiment was expressed in
the letter that we got from the Sosin's . It sure would be nice to see that I
hill cut down for everybody's safety , particularly the people that live out
near there . But I have , I really am kind of torn by this . I 'm tending to
come out in favor of the staff recommendation . I guess I don 't feel , I
don't think that the traffic , I hope it 's not . I don't think the traffic , I
the thru traffic is going to be the problem for you that you 're afraid it
is going to be . But that 's not based on anything except my own opinion as
a guess . I think two accesses will actually have an affect of decreasing
traffic for the people who live close to the entrance , if it has any affect
at all . As far as there being other cul-de-sacs that are long . To the
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991. - Page 16
extent that there weren 't reasons that we wound 'up having to do it when we
' didn 't want to . We certainly don 't have to repeat that kind of a mistake .
We 've had information in the past . I know it 's been the general wisdom
here on the , at the Planning Commission level at least , that we want to
discourage long cul-de-sacs for safety reasons and that doesn't come from
us because we 're not people trained in that . That comes from people on
City staff who have told us that . So we have pretty consistently refused
' to do them except where there was no choice . But it 's hard to say , with
the entire neighborhood in here , except of course people who will be living
in subdivision 2 . With the entire neighborhood of one mind that they 'd
like it left the way it is . It 's hard to say we 're going to force this on
' you when you don 't want it . And I kind of agree with Ladd and I think I
agree with the neighbors . I think if I were living in there , I think I 'd
want it left as a cul-de-sac but that 's not what you bought . It 's what you
I think , I think what a lot of you thought you bought but it 's not what you
bought because the plan always existed that connected that road back out to
TH 101 . So when , well I have a question . Paul , when I read the conditions
of the first approval . They 're on page 118 of the City Council meeting on
' July 20 , 1987 . Those conditions that the City Council attached at that
time applied to the entire subdivision , not just phase 1 . Would that be
right? Or would those just be to phase 1? Or first addition or whatever .
IKrauss: I think , I would be guessing at this point Mr . Chairman but it
looks as though 18 should apply uniformily .
' Emmings: That 's the one that caught my eye . And when I saw that one ,
because there 's a lot of trees between the upper part of this that looks
like it had been farmed and then on that slope that goes down to the lake .
I There 's a lot of trees in there and where I see them putting houses , I
don 't know . Can you tell me whether or not these conditions apply to the
whole thing? The plan stamped "Received June 4 , 1987" but I don 't know if
Ithat would be the whole .
Frank Kurvers: I think I can answer that question because . . .DNR had
checked the property out and they didn 't have any concerns .
' Emmings: I don 't think they did their job. You 're supposed to have a
timber management plan . Is there no plan?
IFrank Kurvers: There isn't any plan as far as the DNR is concerned.
I Krauss: To the best of my knowledge when somebody comes in for a building
permit in there is we require that they give us a tree preservation , tree
cutting plan with the house plan . Then we walk with the site with him and
handle it that way.
IEmmings: Okay .
I Krauss: But your question as to does 16 apply . Block 3 was in the 2nd
Addition . So the answer is yes . It was intended to .
Paul Kurvers: I think those Blocks are incorrect . Block 3 is actually in
I
the 1st Addition . At least in the plans that I have .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 17
Krauss: Well these are the plans dated the date that was cited .
Paul Kurvers: Well there was a mistake made somewhere along the . . .
Emmings: My concern here Paul is that if there were , we 've got a whole set '
of new conditions here in what we 're looking at tonight and I don 't know to
what extent they can . . .or fail to include conditions that were already
imposed or if we care . Timber management plan seemed important to me .
Krauss: I think that would be worthy one to carry forward .
Emmings: Okay . And then the only other question I had is when I was out II
at the property this morning , it looked to me . The lots that go along the
lake here , at least number 1 and 2 , can those be built without filling?
Without fill in there?
Frank Kurvers: Which lots are you talking about?
Emmings: Lots 1 and 2 . 1 and 2 that are closest to the , well here . . Maybe I
if I point . There you go . There seemed to be kind of a steep bank along
there and maybe .
Frank Kurvers: I think as far as looking at the elevations , the
engineers . . .
Emmings: Yeah. It doesn't look like much, the drop off doesn 't seem to be I
much on paper but boy , when I looked at it . It looked pretty steep .
Frank Kurvers: You mean Lots 1 and 2? '
Emmings: Yeah .
Paul Kurvers: There is some drop there . I think based on the elevations II
that are proposed there . . .two lots .
Scott Harri : There will be a requirement on all of the lake lots because II
just to the physical fitting of the road , Kurvers Point Blvd . . .east lots
and the west lots . There will be a down driveway that will have to be made
off of Kurvers Point Road to access most of the lake lots . '
Emmings: Okay . So they 'll be built down on that lower level?
Scott Harri : Exactly . Most likely . And because of the nature of the lot I
and the topography, you 're not going to find anything but a custom designed
home to fit the trees and the grades and things out there . Otherwise it
won't fit . Then you 'll virtually have to clear cut the whole thing .
Emmings: But it 's not so low down there that it has to be filled?
Scott Harri : Well portions may . In getting access to the driveway and
stuff end right in front of a home but how the house will fit in to the
grade , they can simply be notched into the hillside there so the walkout
level at the low level will fit with the existing ground there .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 18
' Emmings: Well , there 's a lot of trees in there . The fellow that lives
right on the end there came out and talked to me and was telling me about
the , that there are owls nesting in the big dead tree that 's in there and
all kinds of nice things going on . I would think that having the DNR out
' there to look at that and making sure we preserve what we can of what 's
there would be an important and valuable thing to do . So anyway . Alright
I said that after we made our comments we 'd give folks another round . So
' this doesn 't go all night , let 's get real focused and try to say stuff
that 's new if you will . If you want to come up and add something .
Alex Wagenaar : I just have a quick question and it was sponsored by the
gentleman 's comment about TH 101 being improved and widened to 4 lane and
the straight thru road and so forth . If I understand that right , when that
happens what they 're going to want to do is minimize the access points to
TH 101 . And in fact we may be in a situation 4 years down the road when
that happens or whenever . I don 't know . I 'm just picking a number out of
the air , that we may have to close one of these access points at that
' stage . So then we have an access point with the berms and all the houses
have been built and they 're in place and we have one too many access points
because it 's a State thru highway . And anytime they go through
improvements , we see that going on on TH 5 now , they want to minimize
' access points and bring all the access ' to a relatively small number of
points . So that 's just a question . And then the other comment in this
trade off in terms of safety . There 's a person being killed in this
' country every 10 minutes in a car crash . Now that 's not to minimize the
dangers of tornadoes . The risk of heart disease and heart attacks and all
of the other health problems that we have as society , but if there 's a
trade off , after studying this area for over 10 years , the risk of kids
' being killed on their bikes rates pretty high in my standard . Thank you .
Emmings: There 's no doubt about that and your comment about decreasing
' access points onto TH 101 is well taken . And your 4 years is probably more
like 400 years . The only reason I say that is because it 's TH 101 and
that 's a road that anybody who 's got even any suggestion that they might be
' responsible for that road quickly passes it off to somebody else . Nobody
wants it . It 's like a hot potato . Nobody wants it . Is there anybody else
that wants to say anything?
' Mel Kurvers: I want to comment one more time . When we talked about these
cars coming in from Valley View . I mean we see them . It 's not something
that we 're picking out of the air . We do see them and they do come in
there . There 's some real fast people that come in there and I think
they 're irritated because they got in there and they don 't know what to do
so they turn around and they just really wheel . And if they come through
' there , you know like you were stating , someone was stating that if there
was another exit , that we would only have half the people going this way
and half would go that way . I don 't think we can predetermine which way
those people are going to go . If a road was put in and say it was a
right-in/right-out , it would have to be the people going to Chanhassen. Not
to Valley View Road . Not to TH 101 . Not to 494 going that way so I don 't
think we can st&te that fact that we 're going to split them. And
I personally , I 've lived there all my life and I 'm probably an old fashion
guy but I 'm going to go where I can see the best way. Both directions . So
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 19
when I make a turn , that I can see a car coming . Also , when we agreed to
lower- that hill , we agreed to lower it to get sight distance . Now sight
distance , you take 3 feet off of that hill and you 've still got a hill
there . We did not agree to make it a flat road which there was a statement
made that oh , it would be really nice to have a flat road. Well we 're not II
in the business to be lowering the roads to make it a flat road . And we
did put a lot of thought in this here . I mean it wasn 't something that 's
done overnight . It 's 4 years and I also would like to address your II question on trees . When we designed the project , we made roads . You can
go out there and look . We routed them around trees .
Emmings: I noticed it . '
Mel Kurvers . And we also tell the people when they 're building that we do
not want to see any more trees taken down . '
Emmings: The guy I talked to in your subdivision , he lives out on the end
there , he said , he told me that you were very fussy about how things were
done and it 's a beautiful subdivision . Everybody thinks so . I think .
•
Mel Kurver•'s: But I don 't think that people are really realizing what we
are seeing about the cars coming across. I guess I didn 't either except it
seems to be that people , when they come across or stop at that stop sign on ,
Valley View Road , they think that they can jump across much faster than to
come out and make that turn to the left . I don 't know if it 's just in
their head or what but they do come across .
Emmings: Even with the dead end sign?
Mel Kurvers: With the dead end sign . And if you open that up , those cars II
where are they going to go? The dead end sign is gone . The fact of the
matter is , I was thinking of asking the City to put a dead end , no outlet . II
I thought maybe they couldn 't read dead end . Maybe no outlet would be
better because I 've seen that in some places. But I really want to push
this real strong that there are these cars coming in there . I mean people
just , when you say that you 've got Valley View Road which is funneling in
there and if you open that up , they 're going to come through .
Emmings: You and I just disagree on that . I don't see that the fact that , II
if they come across with the dead end sign there , they don 't care
apparently whether there 's an opening at the other end or not so I don't
know why having that opening is going to make a difference . That's a
problem I 've got with this . Now I think you need some help out there to
keep the Valley View traffic out of your neighborhood but I don 't think not
having the other access is the thing that 's going to do it for you . I
think you need help of some other kind . I don't know what it is but maybe . I
Well wait a minute , are you done?
Mel Kurvers: No , I just wanted to make one more comment on what you were II
saying and that is , that the people do see this dead end sign and they
still come across so they can turn around at Willow View and make a U turn
and go back out . You 're not going to stop those people . They know exactly '
what they 're doing .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 20
Emmings: Oh , you mean they want to do that?
Mel Kurvers: Well sure because they can come across faster than they can
' make a turn .
Emmings: Okay . So they 're coming back and then taking a right and going
south on TH 101?
' Mel Kurvers: Right .
Emmings: Oh, I think you ought to shoot those folks . Somebody ought to
stand out there with a gun .
Mark Senn: The point you 're missing from earlier is that since the dead
II end sign has been up , the incidence of this has been cut in about half .
Take the dead end sign away and we 're going right back the wrong way again .
I Emmings: I 'm just wondering if .we couldn 't just leave it up there . I
don 't see anything wrong with lying . Have you given your name before?
Ken Westenberg: No I have not .
IEmmings: Do it now .
I Ken Westenberg: My name is Ken Westenberg and I live in Willow View Cove .
I want to address one point that , or a question that was stated to one of
our residents about whether she 'd rather have all the residents coming past
' her home or half of them coming past her home with the presumption the
other half would go the other way . I lived in a project of 65 homes prior
to moving to where I now live . I lived next to , or I was the second house
from the exit . We had everybody coming past my home . We had some problems
Ibut we knew who those people were . We dealt with it and we stopped it and
it no longer became a problem . When you have all these people coming from
Valley View , we have no idea who they are . We have no way of tracing them
' down . We cannot stop the way they drive . That is a big key factor . The
second thing you have to understand is , the people that are shooting across
TH 101 and turning around are frustrated and angry . They have sat behind 2
' or 3 cars trying to make a left turn . When they pull over to the right ,
shoot across , they are driving very eradically and dangerously . We have
kids being picked up 20 feet from that point every morning and you talk
about the safety factors . You talk about tornadoes and heart attacks and
I all that , those are 1 , 2 , 3 occurences in 10 years , if ever . What we 're
talking about is a danger every single morning of many , many lives standing
by those bus stops .
IEmmings: Didn't the school district also change the bus stop for you
people? That 's what this fellow I was talking to out there today said they
got the school district to come out and they saw how dangerous it was on TH
101 and prior to that time the bus wasn 't coming down your street but now
it does?
IResident: It comes down Kurvers Point .
1 .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 21 1
Emmings: Yeah . , And that was done because the school district watched the
cars .
Dennis Kopfmann: It stops at Kurvers Point Road and Willow View which is II right there . I mean it 's what , like 30 feet? My kids go to Eden Prairie
schools and Eden Prairie schools won 't even stop on TH 101 . . .because of the
danger . I mean the intersection , the danger is going across Valley View .
You talk to Eden Prairie about their sight lines on their side , they 're
much more hazardous than we have on the Chanhassen side .
Ken Westenberg: I 'm sure you were jesting perhaps but when you said
leaving the dead end sign up , I mean how long are we going to fool these
people . The first time they try it and find out it's open , they 're going
to make a regular habit of it every single morning . That 's human nature .
Emmings: Anybody else?
Frank Kurvers: I 've got just one comment.. It seems that your comment that 'll
Valley View Road and Kurvers Point Road seem to be the same street and it
carries the same amount of traffic . Well I guess Kurvers Point Road is a
residential street . Valley View Road is a collector street which collects
many , many vehicles. It seems like staff says well they 're the same .
Well , I 'd have to disagree . They 're not the same . They 're different types
of roads . I mean there 's lateral roads . There 's collector roads . There 's
major roads and there is a difference . '
Emmings: I didn 't get that out of what staff said .
Frank Kurvers: But staff stated that it 's no different than any other road II
in the city of Chanhassen. Well , I 'd have to disagree . I think you people
would have to disagree too .
Emmings: Yeah . You don 't disagree with what he 's saying do you?
Krauss: No . I wonder where the implications . . . '
Emmings: No , I didn 't get that . Okay .
Conrad: One other question . Frank , maybe you can answer this . Why didn 't
you turn this into a cul-de-sac?
Frank Kurvers: . . .that plan that you have before you is a cul-de-sac . '
Conrad: With an emergency access?
Frank Kurvers: Why? '
Conrad: Have the cul-de-sac out here . I guess another way for me to put
it , could you put a cul-de-sac in there and make it a viable project with a II
short emergency access?
Frank Kurvers: As far as the lot configurations and the changes to II walkouts and the berming and the fact that we lost one lot to do that , I 'd
I
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 17 , 1991 - Page 22
have to say it would certainly change the appearance to do that . . .than what
you see before you . Does that answer your question?
Conrad: Tell me a little bit more . There 's more difference because why?
Are you losing property or another lot by doing that?
Frank Kurvers: Forget the property . This plan that you see up there ,
' we 're losing a lot so we 're making frontages which got . . .and we 're moving
back from TH 101 which we have to berm to keep it quiet . So all of these
different configurations were put into the scheme to make it , which we
feel , was even a better plan than the original one . It wasn 't just an
' arbitrary decision .
Conrad: No , I can see why that would be desireable but if you did move
' that cul-de-sac closer to TH 101 with an emergency access , is that just not
a viable alternative in your mind?
I Frank Kurvers : You have to look at the total . You know that land are
there , if you look at it , it 's very narrow so in that , if we were on the
other end of the project , we 'd have more room . We have less room to make
_ good lots , sellable lots . We need an area to build on and to change it ,
I you have less frontage . It just won 't fit the homes of the type of homes
that are built . All those shifts make each lot , it makes the berm the
sound barrier , all these things were taken into consideration .
IIPaul Kurvers: We also had to match the elevation of TH 101 . In order to
do that . . .
I Emmings: You 'd have to if you put a road out too . If you connect the
road . Same thing .
II Conrad: It looked to me , and again when you visually look at it , it 's hard
to tell where things are . It looked like it was a pretty flat . The crest
of the hill to the north is minimized as you get to where this , well the
I previous access point was I thought . In other words , I thought this was
pretty flat .
Frank Kurvers: It 's flat but it 's low elevation from the State Highway .
IPaul Kurvers: It actually goes down I would estimate from the edge of TH
101 down to the property , it drops about 16 feet .
IMel Kurvers: From the perspective of building a cul-de-sac , you want to
have dimensions to use that cul-de-sac also. So in effect what you're
' speaking of could be accomplished but it certainly wouldn 't help any lot
configuration. It would definitely disturb whatever you would try to
accomplish . -
I Conrad: Well I 'm trying to accomplish an emergency access. I 'm trying to
give the 41 homes the privacy and whatever with a second access that 's not
open other than to the fire trucks and the ambulances . That 's all I 'm
' trying to figure out how to do . Nothing more . And you 're telling me it
doesn't , my solution doesn 't work for you and I 'm just struggling with
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 23 ,
overriding something that I 've been pretty consistent on for many years and
that has been , in all cases we 've tried to find an emergency access for in
every smaller community within Chanhassen . Sometimes we couldn 't do it .
Most of the times we were able to do it . I guess as much as I 'm having
trouble , as much as I 'd like to make this a community all by itself , I just II
feel that we 've had so much history of providing . You know it 's a case
where we have been told by staff and we have tried for so many years . In
fact we used to have a 500 foot cul-de-sac limit and then we went up to a
1 ,000 . I 'm not sure what 's right and I guess we have to listen to staff in
terms of what they believe is standard in not only the community but in the
industry and the safety of citizens. I hear what the citizens are saying
about the safety and we have to address that issue too but on the other II hand , we have to address the issue of emergency access . I have to believe
that staff when they tell us you need a secondary access to something ,
they 're not making that up . They 're not trying to get people angry . II That 's pretty much the way Chanhassen has tried to develop over all these
years .
Brooks Myhran: Is this still an open forum? ,
Emmings: Yeah . I guess I want to make a comment first . Particularly
where this isn 't coming in new this way. I mean this isn 't the way the
thing was proposed . It was proposed to be hooked back up . That 's our
baseline and really you 're asking us to change something that 's already in
place that we 're pretty much happy with . It seems to me what Ladd is
saying , it 's something I could get behind because it seems to satisfy
everybody 's concerns . It would turn that , there would still be a
cul-de-sac at the end . It would be closer to the highway and I understand
it screws up the lot configuration but it gives the residents what they
want because they 've got the cul-de-sac and it gives the city what it wants II
because there 'd a way for emergency vehicles to get in at that end . So it
seems like a real reasonable solution not being proposed to us I guess so II
we don't have it here to vote on but .
Brooks Myhran: Let me give just two observations .
Emmings: Did you give your name before?
Brooks Myhran: No , sorry . Brooks Myhran at 60 Twin Maple Lane . Two II observations . One , the thrust of the argument here hinges on public safety ,
or at least much of it does . Our perspective is that our children in
particular and the neighborhood in general is better served by one access
point . Your argument is that public safety is better served by two. Well
it seems to me we are the public in question . This affects nobody else in
Chanhassen or anywhere else in the world for that matter and we all have
made the trade off in our own minds that the safety from natural disaster
with two accesses is not sufficient to offset the risk that we all feel to
be real , never mind what you think may or may not be the case , that comes
from increased traffic . And if it 's my neighbor driving by there , I have
confidence that he 'll behave reasonably than somebody else . So I think I
can 't judge your processes but clearly the people that live there are the
public that you 're serving and you could think of what their collective
decision making has led them to argue and all new home buyers on that
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 17 , 1991 - Page 24
cul-de-sac will make that decision for themselves implicit in that home
II purchase . Secondly , you 're trading the decision as either or . Either it
goes through or it doesn 't . To me it 's much more fundamental . Either the
subdivision gets built or the Kurvers may decide not to expand because it
' isn 't economically feasible and from a pure dollars and cents point of
view , if there 's 14 lots going in there with 14 new homes going in , we 're
looking at 4 million dollars of assessed property values and that could
I easily be $100 ,000 .00 of property tax every year which might never
materialize if what you say they have to do is inconsistent with what they
say the market tells them to do . And who wins in that case? So to me it 's
quite simple . You can 't deny them the right to make a profit on their
I property . If you deny them the right to have a cul-de-sac , they may choose
not to develop because it isn't economically viable . And we have all
expressed our opinion that we want it that way in the first place and we 're
Ithe public that you must be most concerned with, as far as I 'm concerned .
Emmings: My only comment there would be , you know we were deciding these
safety issues , which you rightly take very personally , in your absence when
I we originally designed this thing or when we originally approved the design
for this . And that included a street that came out to TH 101 . So we take
those into consideration all the time . The other thing is , you've got to
1 recognize that we 're a recommending body . The main thing here is to get
the information out on the table . We make a recommendation to the City
Council . You folks vote for who 's on the City Council . You don 't vote for
who 's up here so you might want to follow this issue, however it goes ,
you 're going to want to follow it up to the City Council .
Mel Kurvers: Can I make one additional comment in regards to- what Ladd had
I said?
Emmings: Sure . You go right ahead .
IMel Kurvers: I 'll put it this way . We're willing to look at a way to make
an emergency access but we 're not going to commit to say that that should
go where you pointed out . We have to look at it . If that 's the big
problem , we 'll take a look at that and we 'll try to make some kind of a ,
but we have to have them look at it . •
•
II Conrad: I 'd like to see that . And you know , I 'd also like to have staff ,
they 've got to educate us and they have to educate the City' Council in
terms of what we 're talking about when we talk about emergency access . I
' think we follow it pretty consistently here , since I 've been around . It
probably , I 've never seen the secondary access do anything . But the public
safety and the fire department 's not calling me up and said it did
something so I 'm not being made aware but I think we have a standard out
I there . I think we have to know if that standard 's valid or not and I think
Paul has to tell us . He 's obviously telling us it is a valid standard and
it 's nothing that you make up in Chanhassen . These are standards that come
I from the State and they come from other communities but I guess I feel we
still need a little bit more information because we struggle with
cul-de-sacs all the time . We 've struggled with trying to make a
residential neighborhood a real neighborhood . We like that . On the other
hand we do , you know when we make a commitment to Kurvers Point , we're
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 25
saying hey. All things are off for the entire city of Chanhassen. We just
said you don 't need a secondary access to anyplace in Chanhassen . I 'm
exaggerating but that 's what we have to review . If we said this goes
through , we say basically we don 't have a standard anymore . That 's out the
window . What should our standard be? Is it a 2 ,000 foot cul-de-sac? . Is
it no standard at all? That sort of still bothers me a little bit
because I 'm not sure we 've changed it in the past . We follow it because I
think staff has given us good information but again , I think we need to
know the why 's.
Emmings: And also , following up on that . That 's why we don 't set our
standards but taking a poll of what the neighborhood wants . What the
neighborhood wants is important but we do have standards that we do apply
across the board to the City . I 'd like to know Mel if you 're saying that ,
we only have an opportunity to vote on this plan that 's up there on the
board tonight because that 's all that 's been presented to us and I guess do II
you want , would you want us to take action on that plan or do you want us
to table it to give you a chance to consider the other option or what do
you want us to do?
Mel Kurver's: We don 't want it tabled .
Emmings: Okay , so you want us to vote on that plan?
Mel Kurvers : We ' ll work with that plan .
Emmings: Alright . But then that will , if you 're going to change it to
what Ladd has suggested and maybe others here might support , would that
have to come back here Paul? That kind of a change?
Krauss: Not necessarily Mr . Chairman . If you so desired , you could put a
recommendation in that an emergency access be provided and that the plat be II
modified before it gets to Council . That option be presented to the
Council .
Ahrens: Wasn't the City also concerned with maintenance of that road? The II
plows being able to get done the long cul-de-sac? I mean the emergency
access would not solve that problem right?
Conrad: Staff is still not for an emergency access .
Ahrens: No, I realize that but I 'm clarifying for myself , that 's not going
to solve that problem right?
Krauss: Correct . ,
Emmings: Okay .
Mark Senn: Just to comment on the standards. You 're absolutely right . '
The standards are very important . I 've served on a number of committees
that developed standards on issues like this and when you 're developing
standards , you 're struggling with a lot of trade-offs and so forth and
trying to provide guidance to any local decision making bodies throughout
r
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 26
the country and nevertheless , despite the standard they need to be applied .
You have the very difficult job regularly trying to apply these and take
into consideration local conditions and the specific situation of any given
decision . And I really appreciate how nice you 've been allowing us to
' interrupt and be a little bit out of order and so forth . Thank you very
much .
Emmings: Okay . Does someone want to make a motion on this? Does anybody
have?
Ahrens: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of
I Preliminary Plat #87-14 for Kurvers Point 2nd Addition as shown on the
plans dated March 18 , 1991 for the reasons stated in the staff report .
' Emmings: Is there a second? Alright , time out . Can I second something?
Krauss: Certainly .
' Emmings: I 'm going to second it . Is there any discussion on the motion?
Conrad: We 're denying it? I 'm trying to follow the logic of what the
I motion 's going to do . The denial will just simply deny it . He will have
some recommendations to go along with that .
Emmings: Well as I understand it . What a denial here will mean is we 're
denying the changes they want to make to a plan that already exists .
Krauss: That 's true and you can let the denial stand but I would , if you
II would consider , if you did recommend denial , if you clarified what you were
seeking .
Emmings: Let 's go back a second. Am I right to we 're denying changes to a
plan that already exists?
' Krauss: That 's correct .
Emmings: So we 're not saying he can't develop this . We 're saying he 's got
to do it the way he said he was going to .
Krauss: That 's true . The Kurvers could come in tomorrow with the final
plat for the original proposal , yeah .
IIConrad: And that wouldn 't come back to us?
Krauss: No .
Conrad: So this would go up to City Council . Okay . You seconded it .
IEmmings: Is there any discussion?
Ahrens moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
denial of Preliminary Plat #87-14 for Kurvers Point 2nd Addition as shown
on the plans dated March 18, 1991 for the following reason:
r
Planning Commission Meeting
April 17 , 1991 - Page 27 ,
1 . The proposed plat deviates from the approved preliminary plat and final
plat for the first phase by..replacing the secondary street access to
TH 101 with a cul-de-sac .
Ahrens, Emmings and Conrad voted in favor, Erhart and Farmakes voted in
opposition. The motion carried with a vote .of 3 to 2.
Emmings: Do either of the people who voted against it want to state their II
reasons for voting against it or do you think the record 's?
Erhart: I 'm okay with the record .
Emmings: Okay .
Farmakes: I 've already spoken . I 'd just be repeating myself . 1
Conrad: Are you going to give staff direction?
Krauss: I should add that the applicant has the ability to take this as a II
denial up to the City Council and still ask for what they 're asking for
tonight . Again , it might be wise for those on the prevailing side to
clarify what , if any modifications you might find acceptable to serve as
guidance to the Council .
Emmings: I could get behind , as far as adapting . As a compromise between II
the original plan that was approved and the plan that they are asking for ,
I could certainly get behind Ladd 's suggestion . As long as the , you know
if snowplowing is still a problem , I 'd want to make sure that the folks II that handle that stuff in the city , make it clear to the City Council what
those problems are . Or any other problems that that proposal would raise .
I think that 's a real nice compromise that Ladd's come up with and I don 't
know why it can 't be done . I think it could be . i
Conrad: I would go along with what we saw if I felt comfortable there was
an emergency access to the site . I really like how it looks and the sense II
of community it 's building there . It has nothing to do with what the
neighbors said in terms of emergency , in terms of the traffic . I think the
traffic is still an issue regardless of the second access . The traffic is '
a problem that the City should try to help solve . Maybe there 's , the
sign's got to stay up . We 've got to lie on signs. I don't care what we
have to do but we 've got to solve the problem if it's that great , and I was
not aware that it was that great . But I would like staff to make sure . My
point is , and the reason I voted negative on this is simply I want the
emergency access reviewed . Developer and staff , I think that really makes
a lot of sense . It 's consistent with my posture over the years but I 'd
also like staf to present City Council with the rationale for the secondary II
access for emergency vehicles . And I 'm not talking snowplows . I don 't
care about snowplows and if they have to make 3 or 4 trips through . That 's
not a concern that I have . I 'm talking about emergency vehicles . Fire
trucks , ambulances. Safety type of things . I think we 've been real
sensitive to that and our department in the past but I guess I 'd like to
make sure City Council , I think they need to know a little bit more about II
that from staff than maybe we held in common here .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April •17 , 1991 - Page 28
•
Emmings: Anything else Joan?
Ahrens: I could go along with a plan for emergency access . However , I -
don't know , I still don 't know if we should be in a position of trying to
' keep everybody off of a public road so that nobody is able to drive through
there except for the people that live there . I mean I don 't know if it 's
that big of a problem . I mean you said we should give them , give staff
direction or have them take some action to decrease the traffic on that
road .
Emmings: Well it 's the traffic that 's shooting over from the end of Valley
' View that is doing it intentionally and using it as a turn around to go
back out . That 's a problem .
Ahrens: I don 't see how we can ever prevent anything like that . Put a
gate up?
Emmings: You ought to look at it and try to figure out something because
' that 's a terrible problem . But anyway , for those of you who want to follow
this up to the City Council , it will be front of the City Council on May
13th . And you should .
Resident: Do you know what time?
' Emmings: Well , talk to them . The meeting starts at 7:30 but . Okay , May
6th .
11 PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AS PLANNING
DIRECTOR .
tEmmings: I don 't think we need to have a staff report on this . Its
pretty straight forward . Does anybody have any comments on this? Oh wait .
' It 's a public hearing . Is there anybody here that wants to comment on
this?
Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: I like the idea . I think it 's great .
Ahrens: I didn't know that you weren't already the Zoning Administrator .
To tell you the truth .
Krauss: I don 't think that Don Ashworth knew that he was. It was one of
those quirky things and the ordinance has been around forever .
' Erhart moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of an amendment to Section 20-1 , Definitions, to state that the
Zoning Administrator means Planning Director . All voted in favor and the
11 motion carried unanimously.
I