1d. Plat approval, Kurvers Point 2nd Addition . ,_
0 iot,
, CITY OF
i . 0
,f0
cHANBAssEN
1 .
V. _ i
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 -
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
Mk', by Cny fe rninistraior
IMEMORANDUM 100
TO: Don Ashworth, City DN.y
Y Mana g er Dr. ._ 7- t-51.
11 FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner Det Su!,mr.+,a t:, Commission
DATE: June 27, 1991 1 sir T., t) � i
r
II
1-8- 91
SUBJ: Final Plat for Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
-I On May 6, 1991, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for
Kurvers Point 2nd Addition with the following conditions:
1. 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
I existing access to Kurvers Point. To determine the necessary
improvements, the applicant shall provide the City with a
detailed traffic analysis for staff approval.
II2. The applicant shall request the City Council to remove the
condition requiring the second access as part of the second
II phase and necessary improvements to TH 101 from the
development contract recorded against the property.
3 . The applicant shall provide plans for lake access for staff
Iapproval for Lots 4 and 5, Block 1.
4. All private driveway access points onto TH 101 shall be
1 abandoned and the disturbed areas shall be restored within TH
101 right-of-way.
5. Additional manholes, catch basins and pipe bends shall be
II incorporated, where appropriate, to install the sanitary
sewer, storm sewer and watermain within the roadway area and
not under the curb and gutter.
1 6. All utilities and roadways shall be constructed in accordance
with the current edition of the city's standard specifications
IIand detail plates.
7. The erosion control barrier line west of proposed Kurvers
Point Road shall be the city's Type III erosion control fence.
II
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
Final Plat-Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
11 June 27, 1991
Page 2
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.
8 . 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
IKurvers Point Road.
9. All disturbed areas shall be immediately seeded and mulched to
help reduce erosion.
' 10. Wood fiber blanket or erosion control blanket shall be used on
all slopes greater than 3:1.
11. 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.
12 . The watermain connection at the south end of Kurvers Point
Road to the existing 12 inch watermain adjacent to TH 101
11 shall be made by a "wet tap" to avoid interruption of water
service.
13 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract and
provide the city with the financial security to guarantee
proper installation of these improvements.
' 14 . 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.
' 15. A revised final grading and erosion control plan shall be
included and approved as part of the construction plans and
specifications for this project.
16. 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.
17. The existing structures require a demolition permit for
removal and any wells and septic systems must be properly
abandoned.
18. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at time of building
permit application.
i
i
I/
Final Plat-Kurvers Point 2nd Addition I
June 27, 1991
Page 3
On June 10, 1991, Councilman Workman brought up condition #1 of the
preliminary plat approval and requested that it be changed as -
follows: I
1. The applicant shall receive a new access permit for the
existing access to TH 101 from MnDOT. The applicant shall
work with his own engineer, MnDOT, City of Eden Prairie and
City of Chanhassen to decide what, if any, improvements are
going to be required for the intersection and what costs
should be attributed to the applicant. '
The City Council voted in favor and the motion carried to amend
Condition #1 as proposed by Councilman Workman.
The applicant has submitted the final plat for Kurvers Points 2nd
Addition. The final plat is consistent with the approved
preliminary plat. Staff has met on the site with representatives
from MnDOT and Scott Harri, the applicant's engineer, to determine
what, . if any, improvements need to be made to the intersection of
Kurvers Point Road and Hwy. 101. It was determined that minor
improvements to the right-turn lane and the acceleration lane
needed to be made and these improvements will be conditioned upon
the MnDOT access permit.
The City is also working with MnDOT to initiate a traffic study for
the intersection of Kurvers Point Road, Valley View Road and Hwy.
101. The study should take place in the year 1993.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the final plat
for Kurvers Point 2nd Addition (#87-14 SUB) with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall receive a new access permit for the
existing access to TH 101 from MnDOT. The applicant shall
work with his own engineer, MnDOT, City of Eden Prairie and
City of Chanhassen to decide what, if any, improvements are
going to be required for the intersection and what costs
should be attributed to the applicant.
2. 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.
3 . The applicant shall provide plans for lake access for staff
approval for Lots 4 and 5, Block 1.
1
Final Plat-Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
June 27, 1991
Page 4
4 . All private driveway access points onto TH 101 shall be
abandoned and the disturbed areas shall be restored within TH
101 right-of-way.
5. 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.
' • 6. All utilities and roadways shall be constructed in accordance
with the current edition of the city's standard specifications
and detail plates. Detailed street and utility construction
plans and specifications shall be submitted for City Council
approval. The developer shall be responsible for any plat
amendments that may result from plan and specification review.
7. 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
1 immediately after site grading to prevent soil from washing
into the new streets and storm sewer system.
8 . 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.
9. All disturbed areas shall be immediately seeded and mulched to
help reduce erosion.
' 10. Wood fiber blanket or erosion control blanket shall be used on
all slopes greater than 3:1.
' 11. 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.
' 12 . 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.
13 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract and
provide the city with the financial security to guarantee
proper installation of these improvements.
14 . 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.
I/
Final Plat-Kurvers Point 2nd Addition
June 27, 1991
Page 5
15. A revised final grading and erosion control plan shall be
included and approved as part of the construction plans and
specifications for this project.
16. 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.
17. The existing structures require a demolition permit for
removal and any wells and septic systems must be properly
abandoned.
18. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at time of building
permit application.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council minutes dated May 6, 1991.
2 . City Council minutes dated June 10, 1991.
3. Final plat dated June 26, 1991. 1
r
1
v ,
I
r
I
'i1 ' Ccur,:il Muting - Ma 6, 1991
II
Greg Shark : As Stephanie pointed out , one of the big difficulties was when the
II original plan was put together, is that it was very elaborate and involved in
some rather expensive staffing patterns and we just came back and looked at it
when the cities came under the dollar crunch and said, we shouldn't just give it
up. WE YE got a coed plan and we have good things happening. We have good
1 commL' it,; involvement of people such as Stephanie Young and her committee who
are mnc i.;, of all communities. I mean they make my job easy. I've only been
around a short time in this and they've been ushering this through for 2 or 3
IIyears now.
Councilwoman, Dimler: That 's great . I know we supported you last year and I
IIdidn't realize that you don't need money for materials or anything.
Greg Sham : We're planning to make it go with the volunteer group and to use
• the 50 cent levy to give some support for those incidental costs and see if we
II can't get it rolling. I think a point that Stephanie made before and discussion
about this is that one of the benefits of a collaborative agreement like this is
that it 's encouraging to other funders to seek communities and organizations
1 working together like this and it probably, if at some point we determine that
some dollars are needed, we can probably put together a grant that I would guess
most people that are signers of this letter of understanding would support and
that night give us the dollars.
IIMa cr Chmiel : Basically supporting the value system that we've already
estaLlished with them.
IStephanie Young: Chaska has signed. If there is a wording change, they've got
their letter which is almost exactly the same a what you have in front of you
II and also Carver as of tonight has signed. We go to Victoria on the 16th. So
what we've requested is that you consider this and. . .
Councilman Wori_man: I would move approval of such.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: Second. •
II Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the Letter of
Understanding for the District 112 Commission on Youth. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
1 Greg Shank: I 'd like to, again I'm going to congratulate a second time tonight,
Stephanie on the work of her and her committee because they've really done an
outstanding job.
Mayor Chmiel : Job well done. Thank you Stephanie.
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.14 ACRES INTO 14 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED
tL
NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 ON TH 101, KURVERS POINT SECOND ADDITION, VANDOREN HAZARD
STALLINGS.
II Jo Ann Olsen: This was reviewed by the Planning Commission on the 17th. The -
applicant is proposing the second addition for K; rvers Point. When this was
first approved by the City Council, the second addition was to contain a
IIsecondary access onto TH 101. Not surprising, this is where most of the
II10
1
City Council Meeting . iy 6, 1991 1
discussion has been between staff and the applicant and also at the public
hearing in front of the Planning Commission. The rest of the plat is pretty It
straight forward. Staff has no objection to it but we did have an objection to
r- icing-ic.ing the secondary access to TH 101 with a cul-de-sac. We feel pretty
stronl>' that you do need to have that secondary access to TH 101 to allow for
=
emrgencies and for safety for the neighborhood. The applicant and the
neighbors obviously feel pretty strongly the other way. That they prefer to
live on a cul-de-sac. At the Planning Commission, that 's where most of the
discussion surrounded. We had several different alternatives to the cul-de-sac
and to the thru street and that included a right-in/right-out only. Included
shifting it further to the south and essentially what came down at the Planning
Commission was recommending denial of the proposed plan for the cul-de-sac by a
3 to 2 vote. After that it was felt by the Planning Commission, the ones that
did deny it that if there was'•an emergency access provided in addition to the
cul-de-sac, that they probably would have approved it . So staff, when we spoke
with the applicant , did request that they do pursue the emergency access and
they have not come forward with that . I think that they are still just pursuing
the cul-de-sac. I'm not sure if they have a plan for the emergency access.
Staff is still supporting the secondary access onto the, TH 101. That's still
our recommendation. If the City Council does decide to go with the cul-de-sac,
we are recommending that at the very least the emergency access also be
provided. In addition, in working with MnDot , if the proposed plan is approved.,
that means that all of the 40 lots will be using the one existing access. Due
to that they will have to go back through and receive another permit from MnDot .
That first permit for the access was approved just for the first phase. As part
of that , the City is recommending that improvements be made to that access. At
this time it 's not very well designed to handle that much traffic. In fact that
was a point brought up by the residents at this time that the intersection is
not all that safe. So we are going to be requiring that improvements be made to r
TH 101 in the form of turn lanes and by-pass lanes. With that I know that
there's lots of residents who wish to speak but we are recommending denial of
the proposed plan. We do have a list of conditions should the cul-de-sac plan be
approved and that does include providing emergency access and improvements to TH
101 intersections.
Mayor Choiel: Thank you Jo Ann. Is there anyone wishing to address this item '
at this time?
Scott Harri : Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Scott ,
Harri and I represent the Kurvers Land Company and the proposal before you this
evening. What I'd like to do is to tell you that both Mel Kurver and Frank
Kurver are here along with sons Paul and Craig to answer any questions that you
may have in conjunction with this proposal. But when the Kurver family decided
to develop their land in 1987 they had made a conscience decision to create a
unique neighborhood of high quality homes. The -original site plan was designed
to meet these goals while respecting the land forms and vegetation patterns on
the site, including existing wetlands and Lotus Lake. The second addition to
Kurvers Point is now being presented. Phase 2 retains the 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 residential area. The original site plan had called for 15 lots in
phase 2 with an average lot size just over 23,000 square feet. In response to II
the market , the second phase is now proposed. Features larger lots with an
11 i
1
. Cit. Ccur,o; ; Meeting - Ma 1991
em,7LE, :- on the creation of lots with the ability to build and construct
walkouts. r;,s presented, the second phase now contains 14 lots of which 10 can
accomr:c'ete a walkout construction. In addition to reacting to the market
core, h_ , the new plan also reflects the concerns of the- existing residents who
ha e rcr:tructed homes in phase 1 . The Kurvers Point Homeowners Association has
pro. _ded input into the planning process for Phase 2. Their primary concerns
revolve around the safety and traffic issues. Correspondingly the local road
s/sterr har been char,oed to establish two new cul-de-sacs being presented with
this plan. Consist-nt with Phase 1, the second addition of Kurvers Point is
being presented without the need for any variance or modification from the
minimum zoning standards. The project continues to vastly exceed all minimum
zoning criteria in pursuit of a high amenity, high quality residential
' neighborhood. The staff has prepared a detailed report concerning this project
and I'd like to dwell a few minutes on some of those conditions of which Jo Ann
briefly spore to a couple of them just a few minutes ago. The first item
concerns the development of an emergency access. We acknowledge that that was
some of the comments prepared. The Kurvers have spent some time reviewing this
item but if it 's your pleasure to approve the subdivision with an emergency
access which we would hope would not be one of the conditions approved this
evening, we would like some further definition as to what you would consider an
emergency access as far as constructability and the feasibility of this thing.
We have some thoughts on that but hopefully that won't be a condition to
approval of the subdivision. The second item pertains to Kurvers Point Road
intersection with TH 101. In talking with a number of people from MnDot , there
• is"a little bit of confusion. In your packet there's a letter stating one thing
and talking to the permit people at MnDot they state quite the opposite
reoerdinc, 4hether any future improvements would be needed at this time if all
the lots were to come out at one access. But what we need to keep in mind is
currently at the intersection of Kurvers Points Road with TH 101 there is a
right turn lane. There is a by-pass lane and there is a large radius
acceleration lane. All three geometric features that Jo Ann had mentioned
earlier that MnDct would be looking to create at this intersection so that
infrastructure is in place right now. We would further request the Council to
remove the requirement for the second access as part of the development contract
that was agreed upon with the first phase as more of a housekeeping item.
Another item 4, we'd like to clarify in the conditions. The new lake access for
Lots 4 and 5. This would really, we'd like to broadened this out to all lots
that would be lake lots. Those lots would have to receive sewer service from
the lade area sewer. Not the sewer in the street and to get down there, a path
' would have to be excavated to install the sewer pipe. We would like to at the
time of building permit to come in and work out the alignment to minimize
disturbance to trees, steep grades and other factors that I think item 4 in the
' conditions was intended to address right here but to allow the builder and the
property owner some flexibility in selecting that . Lastly, with regards to
this, again just a clarification. Item number 19, trail fees or the discussion
of them. It was approved and the procedure with the first addition that the
builder at time of building permit would pay for the trail fees. Not the
developer so we'd like some of these things incorporated if it's your pleasure
to approve. But what I'd like to do is talk a little bit more about the
specifics of the development experience gained from the past 4 years to help you .
best understand the proposal before you tonight and the factors needed by Kurver
Land Company to keep this a high quality neighborhood. Firstly, the builders
coming in here needed to have lots that would be at least 10 foot wider at the
12
Cit, ci tin; - May 6, 1991
Cc r_ 1 �..
I/
seitack line. We have accomplished this and the result is if you've seen, is
gc _ frorr 15 1:ts down to 14 lots to accommodate that particular provision. 11
r:ccnc!i it became extremely apparent and a keen interest by not only the
b,.:_'d_ro and perspective homeowners but some that elected not to build in this
ec,tc': .'ieion, that screening along TH 101 was a very important key element to the - II
sLccc ;s of this neighborhood. For both noise and visual impacts. In
conjunction with this project we are proposing a berm to run the full length
alcr; the east side of the subdivision between TH 101 and the plat to provide,
ai least mitigat some of the visual and the noise impacts. It would be a break
in th _ b- rn such as would be created by the construction of a new street and a
new access out here would severely diminish the effectiveness of the berm
ccreening ability for both noise and visual impacts. Also the Kurvers Point
Homeowners Association prefers an atmosphere of a cul-de-sac neighborhood, and
vi-ha2> a lot of people do but what that does is it brings along the idea and
the soundness of security and traffic safety that these kinds of neighborhoods
provide. They end up being a very tight knit type of neighborhood. Hence this
is what propelled the Kurver Lane Company to develop the proposal you have
before you as far as two cul-de-sac streets. The majority of the builders are
again looking for walkout lots and cul-de-sac lots. I mentioned this earlier. 1
10 cf the 14 lots can accommodate walkout construction. 2 of the 14 lots can
accommodate side look out type of lots so almost all of the 14 lots can
accommodate what builder are looking for. There have been serious concerns
expressed over negative traffic impacts by the property owner just adjacent to
ar,' south of the second addition. When the first addition was being reviewed .
'and acProved by the Council, this proposal before you without the access in that
location would definitely mitigate their concerns in this thing. The Kurvers
Point Second Addition again is consistent with other developments approved by
the City. For instance when we talk about, perhaps the main issue here as far
as cul-de-sac length and number of lots. In doing a real quick overview from
tt - city map, Choctaw Circle is 1,650 feet long with 45 lots in a subdivision. I/
Fc•Y Path is over 2,000 feet long and has 49 lots on it . Big Horn Drive is 1,400
fact and it has 33 lots. What we're proposing here is a 41 lot subdivision with
ap;'-o/.1mately 1,650 foot cul-de-sac. This concludes my remarks and I'll repeat
that it 's our request that you recommend approval of the second phase of Kurvers
Point this evening. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel : Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address this
particular issue?
Doug McLean: I would. I'm Doug McLean and I live at 7280 Kurvers Point Road.
I got involved in the neighborhood about a year ago when I wanted to move in and
I spoke with Mel and Frank Kurvers and have recently bought a house in there and
it was because of the neighborhood that I bought. I bought a neighborhood that
was quiet and private. I bought a neighborhood that had a cul-de-sac on it and
I thought it was going to be another cul-de-sac. The traffic in there, if it
goes to be a thru street , that's what you're proposing is a thru street, will
double the traffic. That traffic that 's being doubled has no business being in
there. Don't want to be in there and in fact is in there by mistake. They
would generally come off of Valley View Road. Stop at the intersection not
knowing which way to go. We currently have a sign that says dead end and it
tells people go right or left if you're going north or south. Without, if you
put a thru street there, you'll put a whole bunch of people in there that really
are making a mistake going into a private neighborhood. I also will mention II
13 1
1
Ci "ec` _ - tie 1991
11
thr' the people doing in there from the neighborhood generally drive 20 mph.
Th° p cr;_ wi:, are just passing through generally go 40 mph because they think
the, 're going someplace. They're not going anyplace. They're going to right
is a cul-de-sac. You're proposing a thru street . If we do a thru
st-u t ; 64•1:' we ' re really doing is proposing another left or right hand turn at
the c __'. cf a street for all these people who made a mistake. It doesn't make
a 1 -' cf er -C_e . They're coming up and they'll go up to TH 101 and have to
decide whether to go right or left again. Is that right?
Jo Ann DIeer,: The same as they would to get out of the original access.
Doug McLear : Right . They'd be making the decision twice to cross TH 101 that
' the, t hcunFt they were going someplace. They're not going anyplace. It 's a
private neighborhood. The next thing I'd like to propose is that making that
emergency access is just that . An emergency. There will be emergencies there
' at the second access. It 's at the crest of a hill. People will be deciding to
go left or right and SOME car's going to be coming over the crest of that hill
and there won't be enough time. It 's not a very good place to have a second
' Entrance to any neighborhood. Right now the improved access is fine. The
street traffic is probably half of what it 's going to be if you make it a thru
etrr:} . if you want twice as many people making a decision to cross TH 101,
I m t`l.="s the right decision. If you don't , leaving it a cul-de-sac is the
' right c, ciEicr;. I'd also propose that, I had two little kids coming through
here. Ti—ire 4 and 7. They have their own agenda. We'd rather have the •
traff;c acing 20 mph than 40 mph and I'd also rather have the right to run out
are see which car just burned through the neighborhood like happened last week
when ee sea the drag street type thing happen. That I'd like to have them have
to come back through the neighborhood to catch his license number. If you make
' thi: : thru street , we can't even do that . Another thing I'd like to mention is
a divisor cf power between the federal, state, county and local governments
which you eluded to tonight in your proposition 2(h). That •indeed we have the
right aef the sense that what is right to be made at the local level on the
' seal-1_st division should be made at the lowest level possible. That's the
people it involves. There are 42 people, or neighbors. Probably 140 total
people that would prefer it the other way when this neighborhood goes complete.
' Right now it seems to me that somebody else is trying to make that decision. I
thini in the youth planning thing too they mentioned that the intelligence of
the people should prevail. I see no reason that this is any other discussion
' than wh:t it is about among the local people. It's not a city thing. It 's not
a big issue. It doesn't involve anybody out of the neighborhood and the
neighborhood wishes it this way. Unless I'm wrong, the neighbors would prefer
it this way. As a single street . One cul-de-sac. It's not unsimilar to
' anything else that 's been done around here. Thank you.
Councilman Mason: With all due respect, certainly I understand Mr. McLean's
concern for having a cul-de-sac and if I was in him position, I'd want one too.
I think however to say that the only people that are concerned about it are the
people that live in your cul-de-sac is incorrect. I think the Planning
Commission, the Director of Planning, everyone up here is concerned about what
we thin is best for the city. And there are time when we unfortunately. have to
weigh if you will one neighborhood against another or it may not be the best for
this neighborhood but it 's best for the overall city. I guess I don't want to
step on your toes but I think you're coming out making some fairly strong
1 14
1
C" Meng - v 6, 1991
I/
I quite honestly am open to whatever goes on here tonight . In
fa: ' gL t = h,c,r,-:t ? y I'm still not sure how I feel about this but I think you're I
:i en when you claim that you 40 people in the neighborhood are the only
r_-_1 ' ` -.t are concerned about the issue.
{71-, 7 r':' ear: It 'd be a mistake to think that I was saying that we're the only ,
ors concerned about it . I know you're concerned about it. I was saying that I
third tha4 concern should lie with the people who it involves. I haven't heard
an ar;uT<r ' from the City Planning Commission or anybody else that says what
we'd lire is so wrong. I'm saying this as an individual person but I don't
thin thy.+ any of the other neighbors prefer the thru street . I haven't heard
of a,r; argument for the thru street that has anything but "our safety in mind"
a- •' I thin■ it should be left to us to decide what we think is best , right for
ou- Ea-1[4,y. I think that the fact that doubling the traffic in our area for the •'
t `rt street and all those people in there really didn't want to be there. It 's
l.ir,d of a mistake that they're there. It's not like they're, you know they're
welcon:n to come in. It 's not a problem that way but to double °the mistake twice
arm make them cross TH 101 twice and try to improve two entrances instead of one
whan ou*- neighborhood isn't any larger than anybody else's neighborhood I just ,
what arc we planning for?
Co.:r::ilma-n ring: Paul, why didn't you address the traffic issue? Is this a
subjr--ti,. s statement , it 's going to double the traffic? I don't know where this
doL` lh 1raffic is coming from.
Pa., '. •V &, :: • The neighborhood has made a lot of ascertions that people I
7ic40rr5n_ enter this neighborhood, shooting across TH 101. I don't doubt that
c -ze. I don't know if people are trying to find a way to the lake or
tic 'rc ;uct making a mistake but I can't believe anybody would do it more than
or-- . It doesn't go anywhere. And even if it 's a connecting street back out to
TH 101 , it becomes a longer route than TH 101. You're going to have to wait for
traffic- on TH 101 again. Again, it makes no sense for anybody to come in there
unless >cu live in the neighborhood. What is going to double the traffic is
d: ` ling tha number of homes. There's no doubt that that 's going to generate
400 tripe a day total in and out of this development. Now that's nobody else
coming ire. That 's just the houses that are in there. As to the other concerns,
again it just doesn't make sense. Traffic engineering, it just doesn't make
enc.=_ that people are transiting this neighborhood. We can't believe it's going
to Le a significant number of cars. ,
Councilman Wing: Is that statement of doubling traffic just your opinion?
Doug McLean: It 's my opinion based on the fact that we see what happens. That '
Valley View Road has wandered for 12-14 miles. People have gone through 5 or 6
stop signs and they pass through the next one. We're a direct T through and
they just keep coming in there. They are looking to see what 's happening at the
lake and that and that 's not a significant thing but my question to you is, the
second entrance is not all that safe of an entrance and it's 40 people coming
and going from the same street is not a problem. We aren't the problem. We
think that the problem is increasing the amount of traffic in and out of a
neighborhood and doubling the speeds and not being able to decide for ourselves
what we want . You spoke of making an intelligent decision with your State
11
15 ,
11
, Ci' • M. . ' ir_ -- May 6, 1991
1/ le_iel5 c- : . We 'd like to make our intelligent decision for the people living
it ( o7rity.
I think what 's being discussed and I sat in at the Planning
Prior to having them put a dead end sign up, they were
straight ahead because they anticipated that there was
pre', outlet or it went through. With that sign that had gone up, it
had c'=' r- r ane,Int of floe of traffic from coming in. But there are some
psop' - th, ' Jr' don't pay attention to a sign until they once maybe get past it
or ;-' f the rrt cuiar area unfortunately. But there probably was some total
anc' -' c' vehl,:les coming in that area because of Eden Prairie's road that is
t` ie , I sometimes take that myself when there's congestion on TH 5.
' It 's a rrpd to take and you do take the back side. It has probably caused
a rr[ `_:er tut since the sign's gone in it 's alleviated a lot of that given
pro_" as well .
Ccu; M:Cca- : L':uld the sign have to be removed if it was a thru street?
Ma,cr- Ch, iEl . t h: knows. Yes sir.
Ken 4'eeten: err : My name is Ken Westenberg. I live at 7150 Willow View Cove.
I'd iil.' to try to clarify at least my concerns and I think the concerns of my
to the Impact of this second entrance. When you commute to work
you see theso things happening during the commuting times. I have
Fer Liar1eseed repeatedly people coming up Valley View. Stopping at the
stop sign. If there's one or two cars in front of them and they're all trying
tc rr.a i : lc" t ur ns, the guy in the end, I've seen this happen several
tie : , 1:1l1 pull to the right . Shoot across the road. Do a fast few turns on
our etrcett . Thal, core back and make a right hand turn and be able to circumvent
' the two cars that were in front of him. I've seen this happen time after time.
F:r,d 0;{ 'e the reason we say, you put the street through, these people are going
to shunt across. Go down, around the street and then make that right hand turn
' and Fare b: all these cars that were sitting in front of them. And they're
going to do it at a high rate of speed. I witnessed one instance where a guy
shot across the road, slid his car around with my 5 year old son standing 10
fcet away from him at the stop sign waiting to get picked up by the school bus.
' The : the Lind of frustration these people have when they come through there.
You talk about safety considerations. Things about a second access in times of
fires and stuff. I'll take my chances with those things. What I'm
I scared to death with are these frustrated drivers driving in this manner with
small fide standing right there, 30 feet from TH 101 at the bus stop. And this
is happening at the same time these kids are standing there. The commuting
times coincide with the bus stops and that's my big concern. Now obviously we
all feel very strongly about this because we could be home watching the hockey
game tut this is a very important matter to us and we'd like to have our
considerations considered.
Mayor Chmiel: You should be sitting on our side. We have TV's here.
Public: What 's the score?
Councilwoman Dimler: North Stars are ahead by 1"
i
16
I
City Council Meeting - M 6, 1991 1
Councilman Mason: At 7:25 it was 1 to nothing, Minnesota. I
Bill Chirell : Hi. My name is Bill Chirell. I just moved in here about 6 weeks
agc. I haven't even met all my neighbors. I'll probably get the opportunity
tonight because I do a lot of traveling but I do appreciate their concern. My
wife and I are both empty nesters. Our 4 children are back east in college or
married with children but I've got to tell you, it is a peaceful community. An
awful lot of kids. I had to make an adjustment moving into that street .
Watching out for kids and going extremely slow because I had the tendency of
driving a little fast again because I'm not from that kind of a neighborhood.
In fact I didn't think I was moving into that kind of a neighborhood until we
got there. But I do appreciate, having 4 kids I do appreciate their concerns
because I was there at one time. in my life and I wouldn't want the traffic that
this thing is going to cause and the kind of neighborhood that has been created
by the Kurvers and the builders there. Also, economically I think you're making
a mistake. For a town to take prime property like that and not take advantage
of the tremendous tax base that you have in the future for that thing. I don't
think this is a choice at all. I think it's a very simple decision in terms of
safety. I think you've got more risk of children being injured by automobiles
than you do from the need from fire trucks to get in or firemen not knowing
which road to take. And economically I don't think you have a decision at all .
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Appreciate it . Anyone else?
Mel Kurvers: I'm Mel Kurvers. I'm not going to get into what they just said. I
think enough of that 's been said. All I want to say is when we started this
project we put a lot of work into it. A lot of time. We wanted to have
something we were proud of. We think we've done that . We've asked for no
variances in this project and I think the project has turned out real good.
We'd like to develop the second phase as we did the first. Comments from the
people that are living there, you've heard those. They like it. They'd like to
see it that way. We again are asking for no variances in this project. We're
willing to work with the staff on the conditions but some of such are di-fferent
from other projects that we.feel are not fair. We think that we should be
treated like other developers that have been. I guess with that, I don't have
anything else unless you have some questions of me. Those are my comments.
Thank you. '
Mayor Chmiel: Appreciate it. Thank you Mel. I go along basically with what
you're saying. It 's a very credible addition that you did put in with the first
phase and with the second one now coming in. Even with that change and it's
sort of unique to the area as well. Even though people realize that there is a
lake there, the proposal as to what you're showing with the cul-de-sac and
lowering it from previously what was shown on the drawings with the first phase,
you're looking at 15 lots. Even cut it back a lot which I like. You've been
mentioning some of the other areas within the city. It is a length that's
comparable to what's existing. In fact some of it's shorter. I'm not sure
either whether the real solution to the proposal of having another access out 'to
TH 101 is the right thing to do either. I know that a lot of consideration has
been put into this. A lot of thought as to possibly making it better and yet
having the traffic flow just come into that development, people are going to
drive in. They're going to drive in anyway but there might be some frustration
17 ,
I
Cit Cu _1 Me ' 'ng - M 6, 1991
I
once thc . do find out that there's no way out and they're zapping around and
com_r , back out as quickly as they can. To get back onto TH 101 to go where
they 're intendirlc to go in the first place. But I guess as I see this, one of
the thine that probably has been some discussion by the Planning Commission
' with thy? to 2 vote and I 'm sure they all basically agreed with the proposal
exc + for that emergency access. I think that some of the things that we
unfortur;ately as Council have to look at to see how, in the event of a tornado,
storm, lightning, whatever, how we have to provide that access with emergency
' vehicles in the ek t that it were to happen. If a tree were to go across that
roa", th-=rF 's no way that they could possibly circumvent going around it other
than of course driving onto lawns. But I think that if we were to look at this
to SE? if there has been some consideration for that access, I think this is
something that we have to look at the rest of those residents within. I know
ycu car, say that you probably could forego some of those things but in the event
thot an emergency was there, to be able to have that to come into the location
of wherever- it is, I think it 's something that probably should be looked at . I'm
not sasing it 's absolutely necessary but I think that at least when I'm sitting
back ar,d listening to some of the people indicate their concerns, both from as I
' said, Planning Commission and Council, that was one of the things and I think
you've done an exceptional job. In fact if we had all developers just like you,
to. wDulsrl't have any problems and we appreciate the effort that you've put into
' the city. Only because y . 've lived here all your lives and that 's sort of neat
ir, it < < lf . I'd like to throw this back to Council to see if there's any
additic�, .l fselinDs and if there's anyone else that would like at this time yet
to male a formal presentation, we'd be more than happy to listen to it . Seeing
non=, Tc-'
Councilman 4'srkran: Mr . Mayor, I appreciate your compromise position. In a few
'
minutes I myself will have a bit of business before the City Council and so I'm
going to get a taste of what it feels like to be under the thumb of differing
opinions perhaps and it 's not always friendly I can tell you. But it's good for
me . Its healthy for me to put myself in that position because I can understand
hoi, the people at Kurvers Point feel. Maybe a little helpless and why are we
discuz,sinc this at such great length and why isn't it simple? I think it 's
simple. I 'm currently, or temporarily on the housing market looking for a
' bigger home and probably not as big as Kurvers Point out there but I'm looking f
for a horse . And when I look for a home I look for one on a cul-de-sac. That
is what I'd like. I'd like a walkout on a cul-de-sac and I'd like it to be nice
' and big. Kurvers Point is a great neighborhood like all the great neighborhoods
we have in the city. It 's got character onto itself. But we can't make every
neighborhood 100% safe. We once knew a councilmember that served with us that
1 thought if you put a sidewalk all over people's yards, then that made it 100%
safe. We didn't buy that and so we didn't go along with it. Since I've been on
the Council we have worked to limit, certainly specifically TH 101. We've
worked to limit the number of entrances and accesses onto TH 101. The number,
if you look and I was at the Planning Commission meeting and somebody said 25
years ago. If you looked at the history of this neighborhood over 25 years with
a closed end cul-de-sac, the number of maybe accidents, tragedies, medicals,
fires, they would be so few compared to the hundreds of near accidents,
accidents a day that another access would probably create. If you're on top of
the hill that 's probably, I think somebody said-that 's not the place to put one.
I think that probably is the place to put it but I think we need to put, and I'd
like to somehow work into some sort of a motion tonight that maybe a stop sign
1 18
1
C_', C', MEcting - 3y 6, 1991
01 ot he - mechanism for allowing the people on Valley View to get in and out of
because I've blindly gone across after sleeping through all the stop r
Eden Prairie and everything else. I have gone across there. I
he don that and it 's kind of funny because I thought gee, how many people
cc ld hr thrt stupid you know. '
Councilwoman [limier: That 's what I was going to ask.
Coun:ilnan Workman: Because you wouldn't often make that mistake twice so I'm
not sure how these people keep. Didn't I say, maybe the legislature's right .
Thc> can tax and spend us because we're all a bunch of. . . So I think we are
mainy this a very nice amenity by keeping it closed and I had a nice discussion ,
with Frank and again it 's my bias, my business bias. They're the developers an
we've seen developers come through here that have not always been completely
honest with us. I think Frank and Mel are and in conjunction with what the
neighborhood wants, I think we're getting the best product for this neighborhood
by closing it . Now that doesn't mean that there's not a risk that a tornado or
a fire or some kid swallows a marble or I could go on and on but I think by
Feepirrg it closed it retains the integrity of the neighborhood and that 's kind
of what I wanted to accomplished without adding the extra entrance and perhaps
forgetting the slip land and putting a stop sign and there's problems with that
too. And also, I appreciate your compromise position. I've seen these '
emecgrr:cy accesses. They do nothing for the quality of the two lots that they
split . .. Maybe it can be disguised somehow but I've never seen that they look
real good there so that 's where I'm sitting. I'm all for keeping it ;closed.
Mayor Chmiel : Thank you. Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess on safety concerns I understand where staff is
coming from but after having gone out there and looked at it, I'm also concerned
far safety but I do believe that in this case, the daily safety of the children
is paramount over the incidents that might happen accidentally. Although I am
concerned about that . I also think that another access onto TH 101 the way it
is today is dangerous and the sighting there is not good. I know that they're
talking about improving TH 101 but I don't think we' .l see that in the near
future so I think we're dealing with this development right now so I'm satisfied
not to have another access onto TH 101 the way it is now. It's dangerous. I'm
told that our emergency vehicles are 4 wheel drives and that they can go over
rough land or logs if they have to and I wanted to know if the neighbors mind if
they go over your lawn in case the tree is in the way?
Mayor Chmiel: As long as the city doesn't have to pay for it. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah right . I'd like to have that in writing please.
Okay. And I guess the Planning Commission, I was there for that meeting as well
and they voted it down and they didn't mention anything about having them come
in with a plan for an emergency access so I understand why they didn't. Because
it was not one of the mandates that they had so I guess that basically concludes
my comments. I
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
II
19 I
I
Cit , Cc _ Mer' n_ - M 6, 1991
rDc7_21n: - W`!et is the City's liability at the end of this 1,700 foot
cu -da- s : if because of the length of the cul-de-sac we can't get in to provide
11 Ma _ C ` __ I 'll drfEr that to our illustrious attorney.
E, _ � , .gets_ , thi what you're looking at is, it 's a difficult item to
rut it 3 r !tshell but basically what I think you would see is an incremental
incresee in potent ' 1 liability. Just slightly. I mean you have to imagine if
a rEre:: es injured and you have a creative attorney representing that person,
th_-E 'S to limit to the ideas he'll come forth with trying to establish •
' lia; iliU . And a cul-de-sac like that would be a potential weapon that a
treat :•.• attorney could use. I think it would still boil down to the basics. Is
. it rEasonabh for under a given set of planning circumstances to approve this?
I t i7,i th - thing: you 've heard about traffic considerations on TH 101, the
resident : concerns for the neighborhood safety, those are competing interests
and it w . 2d ha reasonable probably either way you go. I mean you have
sub,-tanti&l rE•F^o:— on both sides but I would say, to boil it all down, it 's a
Ipossib.' inc-emcktal increase in your potential liability.
Mayor Chr, icl Thank you. Yes sir.
Reeidcr:• : I third what you said was that if you double the traffic and you've
got a neighborhood and when those people hit our children. . .potential liability
toc% Is that what was said?
Elliott Vr,r' ech: I don't think there's been a traffic study done that will show
that it will double the traffic.
Reside :t : Well there 's a lot more traffic. . .and I think that's a daily concern
that we h.=..= . I think if somebody got hurt . . .liability on the other end too?
' Co�r�cilrr n Mss or : My question was liability in terms of being able to provide
services to bit; residents. That was my only concern.
Muyor Chciel : You can't control the drivers driving.
Councilman Mason: If we can't get in there because we allowed this to happen,
' what could happen tc us. That was my point . You know I don't live in a
cul-de-s,:c and it would be fine. I mean I agree with everything the neighbors
are saying and I agree with everything that Mr. Kurvers has said. We all,
I think to say that it 's that much more dangerous. I mean I live on a very
' steep hill and I have cars driving down my hill too fast and it is a concern and
it 's sometimes dangerous. Again I'm a little concerned about how the city is
going to deal with a specific situation like that. I think I understand fairly
' well where the Planning Department is coming from there and this quite honestly
is a tough one. I agree with the neighbors now. 40 years from now maybe
different neighbors are going to feel differently. This is a real tough one and
I think part of my problem is I'm having a little trouble with some of the
arguments I'm hearing from the people in the neighborhood. Safety of children.
I have two of my own kids. Safety is definitely an issue but safety is an issue
for all of us. It 's not just an issue for whether you live on a cul-de-sac or
11 not . That 's not quite what I wanted to say so I'm going to stop.
' 20
City Cs... :il Meeting - y 6, 1991
I/
May-- Chr: _c_ Okay, Richard?
Cc rcilnan Wi'mc': Well I think it 's been said. I guess I've been a little bit
set back by tfe arguments as being terribly inept and. without any justification .
I thini >c.:- comments of doubling traffic really serves no purpose at all. I II dc:r,'+ bLJ that at all and I don't think that 'd be the case. What does trouble
me is I think, aE staff has pointed out , you're going to add 14 lots and that
number of 10 vehicle operations per household is a very hard fixed number that
the engineers claim they can without any question justify. I mean it's an
absolute . If that 's the case, what number of cars are going to double your
traffic versus if we're going to create 400 additional ones by creating this
cul-de-sac. So the traffic issue to me is a pretty moot argument . I don't
agree with your numbers. I can just say quite honestly, I think we're going to
increase them by at least 400 at the people that live up by TH 101. I do agree
that it 's your neighborhood and I do support that basic right of government .
That is your neighborhood and maybe you have a right to do what you want . I
happen to like cul-de-sacs. I'd prefer to live on one. I prefer the single
exit to TH 101 versus two. The traffic I think is somewhat of a moot argument .
I guess the only point that was made for Council is one of the owner developers
knows more about fire fighting than I'm ever going to know and I think that he
would agree that if a fire ever broke out , it would certainly be nice to run
engine companies and hose lines from two directions or two separate hydrants
rather than trying to get equipment into the end of one of these cul-de-sacs.
And turn equipment around and if they miss an address what happens and so on but
I really see that , I kind of agree with Tom. It's statistically really not
lik;�l;• and considering the speed and efficiency of our department , I guess I
reall> don't see that as major issue. So I'm 50-50 here Mr. Mayor. I'm
disappointed in the arguments but I do agree with. the right to decide what they
wart for their neighborhood and I'd prefer to be on a cul-de-sac. '
Mayor Chn.i l : Would you like to come up to the podium? Just state your name
and address please. ,
Craig Kurvers: Yeah, my name is Craig Kurvers and I live actually in Trotters
Circle instead of Brook Pass but I'm very familiar with the development. I grew
up in the area there. Resident of Kurvers Point for 20 some years but what I
wanted to clarify was the comment on 400 traffic flows through the area. In
fact that 's I believe that 's based on a figure of about 10 per household. What
we're talking about adding is 14 additional households so you're dealing with II 140 maximum, not 400. _
Councilman Wing: That 's correct and I would stand corrected on that. ,
Craig Kurvers: Alright, thank you.
Councilman Wing: . . .that's probably a high number. I don't want to get stuck ,
with that . That was just quoted by the engineers.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? ,
Resident : I had a question. I don't want to get up. . . What I wondered in all
honesty was the time difference. If there was a time difference in an
emergency, how much .time? I understand the argument about if a tree should fall
21 1
1
CI' - Ma 1991
1/
.. .rr i:d a second access, would it make that much difference in time
as orF "^ ' �� u. �', our concerns are about the children? And even though the
arc-rent: =.v appear inept , as you can see they are emotion charged because we
2r ' of the kids coming through. I don't think -any one of us wants tc
L: c7- -'7: ' atibnal . We're here to try to work this thing out . We have strong
fe:__r_: ` ,j` it ,
M: -c,_ Ch,' iel : We understand that. I think it 's just something that is a
11
h,r. t :_tica_ situation if it were to happen. Being that we're charged in really
runnir:c this city , we have to look at all the risks. We have to try to
eli:rirs.t _ `cr ;you as residents within the community and it may never happen.
And whether or nut that access is needed is another question. Charles?
Charles Folch: One thing that if the Council sos desires for staff to take a
lock at . : recently talked to a couple other communities and what we could do,
if the issue comes down to whether we have an emergency access or. not and how we
would disguise this is, in a couple of the communities they pave a road surface
as fir.= Jccesc which they construct as a normal road section. Then they
provide 4 to 6 inches of topsoil and they sod over the top. It's a completely
disguised emergency access which they use typically in commercial districts.
However d.rring like this time of year when you have soft ground and things like
' tha' , they 're still able to cross over because they have that structural surface
undernea.t ` . Sc I think if the issue comes down to whether we have an emergency
accc:,s c: nct , I think if you so direct us to do so, we could work out something
-' that could he nicely disguised.
Msycr Good. Thank you. Any other discussion? If not , I would
entertain a motion. Tom?
' Councilman Workman: I'll make a motion. Let 's table it and talk about it next
weck. Teat's n motion.
' Councilman P;r,?: Can we send it back to Planning?
' Councilman Workman: Yeah, let 's send it back to Planning.
Mac r Chriei ku, this is a decision making Council.
Councilman Workman: M;' decision is to make no decision. City Council approve
preliminary plat t?^'-14 for Kurvers Point, 2nd Addition as shown on the plans
dated March 18, 1991 for the following reasons. Eliminate 1. The second number
1. It appears as though approve everything else. No, number 4.
Councilwoman Dimler : We don't need number 2 then do we?
Paul Krauss: Could I discuss number 2 for a moment?
Councilman Workman: Number 2?
Paul Krauss: Yeah. I think we're all aware of the fact that MnDot is anything
but upfront in terms of assuming their responsib_:ities for TH 101. Anybody
could call anybody at MnDot and get an answer that no, we don't want any
improvements to TH 101 because frankly MnDot doesn't care about TH 101 and they
' 22
11
Ci ' cc.. _ : M,_=+ _r.; - ' 6, 1991
1/
,rrr t `_ ' `:cy're going to shovel the burden off on us. Well that being the
case , c.= 'rc tr> ir; to take some responsibility for that and being cognizant of
soy- cf the icsuec that the residents raised, we said if we're going to be stuck
w' ' c_:- into this neighborhood, let 's make it a decent access. And
y,—; r c: r,. : ted come folks over at MnDot who agree with that and basically what
having left turn lanes on TH 101 and by-pass lanes on TH 10)
so that cars m=vino those turns don't have to dart across traffic. They can sit
th nd wait and cars aren't flying around on shoulders to do that. So add
toe ih<<t the applicant is experiencing a significant cost savings here. I mean
the :,-- originally a requirement , we've all heard comments that the second
cL2rt cLt had tad sight lines and frankly it does but the applicant under the
first a;:prcval is required to lower the grade of the hill on TH 101. I don't
know what that 's going to cost but the cost was substantial. Without this curb
cu' , he doesn't need to do that so there's a substantial cost savings there.
r;=/or Chmiel : We realize that . '
Pau] Kra:_es: We felt it was reasonable then to think that we could take that
savings and get a benefit of an improved curb cut at the existing location.
Ccuncilr,e - L7 -kmar: And I guess as a part of my motion I'm going to put it at
t `n er`. That 's where I wanted it . We have a traffic study that 's not backed
frog MTO-„ pertaining to speed.
Ch:rles Folch: No, we're not going to see that yet, no.
Councilman Workman: Okay, yes we have a study but no it 's not back?
Cha.ricc rFelch: That 's correct . '
Cou-,- iln„=n workman: And so that 's where I had said maybe we don't need a slip
lane if yc.:'va got a stop sign and that's primitive I know. Don't breathe heavy
on ms y:_t because I'm already seeing, because I've already talked to Charles and
Dove today and then the traffic would back up to Cheyenne and then we've got a
new problem and the Wetzel's and everybody else will be in here. But that's
what I warted to kind of leave open for staff to kind of decide because we don't
want a slip lane there if it's going to be a stop sign. And I'm thinking of the
traffic trying to get on to TH 101 from Valley View. That's why I mentioned
that . So if we want to modify. So delete 1. Modify number 2 to say, have
staff work with MnDot to see if we cannot in relationship to the traffic speed
study, add in a stop sign and/or slip lane and/or other and work with that and
then maybe we can review that separately. So does that work out?
Councilman Wing: That's how I read it the way it is.
Councilman Workman: Number 4 there was a question. Rewrite that with Scott .
Okay, and then number 19, they had some questions on that. Was the builder
going to pay for those or the developer? Wasn't it the builder?
Jo Ann Olsen: It says at time of building permit. ,
Mayor Chmiel: That would be the builder. II
23 1
i
C1+ - Ma 5, 1991
1/
Frr C=_en: If they wanted. . .
1 Co: __ins k„-'kman: That 's my motion Mr. Mayor.
Any other discussion? Frank, you wanted to mention something.
Can I get a second first? •
' Co._-_:?woc_n rimier . Second.
FrE-J 1'L'-vErs: My name is Frank Kurvers and it seems like nobody really knows
un's th- C' -' e person here. We've talked to State people that are in charge
an; t`r . ci e us different answers than they seem to give to staff. So I guess
I ca- 't uno=r_t.and. We talked to the person who's supposed to be in charge
' toda': and all these slip lanes and stop signs and everything we're talking
about , the State said that that access is good the way it is. Everything is
there it place that they would require. Now I can't understand, they talked to
a person that gives them a different answer and we talked to the same people. I
' gut: I 'd like to have a clarification. Who are we talking to and who's
reepor,uihie for what they're saying because it should be clarified. We're
reE22 - an it ue there that what are we trying to create? I mean according to
Adar , which is the guy that, gives out the permit , I spoke with him and he said
whe 'e out there right now is all that 's required of a 40-42 subdivision. Now
we're talking about something extra which right now we're dealing with the State
.' of Minnesota. We're not dealing with, we're somewhat dealing with Chanhassen
becauc _: th,-,"s part of the plat process but we're still dealing with the State
of t-inn:seta. The person that I talked to, he's supposed .to be in charge.
Mayer Chniu1 : I think sometimes in some of those particular situations Frank as
wr'.e denE within the city, our communication plan has improved immensely.
Possibly whet could happen is that get on a conference line with staff at the
' sa- : time to come up with the answer that you're looking for and that would
therefore eliminate that problem. Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kurvers, while you're up there can I ask
' you a question? I wanted to have your comments on our engineer's, Chuck's
comment on what I thought was a good one. The paved road surface underneath
with the sod over . A nicely disguised access for emergency vehicles.
Frank Kurvers : Well, it sounds real good. Anything that has sod on top of it
sounds great but I'd have to differ. If you drive a firetruck on top of sod,
you're going to replace all that sod so who's going to replace the sod? I mean
it 's a reel fancy speaking design but it's not too useful.
Mayor Chmiel : The developer?
Frank Kurvers: No.
Councilman Mason: The point is, it's an emergency access and it would maybe be
used once in 50 years. I mean hopefully it would never be used. I guess I'd
like to see if that could be pursued a little fur=ther.
' Councilman Wing: Frank, that emergency access.
' 24
I
Ci ?c,uncll M - sing - y 6, 1991 1
Fa:•1 r'_ r�er�.: N, rare is Paul Kurvers. If I could just add something to that .
Ir t;= C5:. : of scrr,^thing like that , who's going to actually maintain it during
m.ntha fcr e}ample? Is it going to have to be plowed? Who plows
' W'- for the cost of maintaining that?
--:;:Jcma- Dimler: Can't the emergency vehicles go over curbs?
oun i1� =n just going to, Frank. I said that seriously. You
_�•� ,�1�. _ � Ling: I was
Frc`-tly kr•ow mor about fire fighting than anybody in the city right now having
b:-- or _ f the charter members. And the emergency access has been an issue.
,.� c' ;'cu feel about that and are your residents in your community going to get
adeg_ate s=rvice without that?
Fran4 Kurvers: Well , as far as -being a firemen for 20 years I'd have to tell
you this . First of all, the property is narrow. The whole entire property is
narrc : if you understand how far apart hydrants are, you could hit that
property from State Highway 101 with the same distance as any hydrant in the
So as far as that standpoint of fighting that fire at a particular
house, it doesn't make any difference. And as far as speed to get to that fire,
I wcJld say it 's less than a minute's difference. So I mean that doesn't make
anx di fs .nc: either.
H , sr ChmiEl : Appreciate it .
•
Cour_ilworr.ar, Dimler: Thank you. Okay, that answers my question.
Yurve-: : Yeah, I 've just got something I'd like to add. You were talking
at-put tF: socor:d access, or the one access point on TH 101 being possibly
uc:radre and maybe us incurring the cost of upgrading this. It's kind of a hard
pill for ma to swallow. We're adding, talking about adding 14 lots to this
intersection and are we going to justify the 14 lots that we add, is that going
to for example you were talking about 5 dozen vehicles roughly that come up
Valley View Road. Now is it going to be our responsibility as developers to
maintain or upgrade that intersection for the 14 lots that we're adding, without
gi‘,irc any conditions or giving any credit to the cars that are already coming
up Valley View Road. It 's our responsibility as developers. Those 14 lots,
based or those 14 lots that we're adding, are we going to have to pay the total
cost of upgrading that intersection? Is that a fair proposition in your minds?
Paul rrausc : If I could address that. The answer is yes. I'm having a tough
tim= just opposing two positions. Either we're concerned about safety or we
aren't . If this development were to come in today with a single curb cut , we
would have it designed with turn lanes and slip lanes. I've got to believe that
that waon't done originally because we thought it would have a second access.
There's no question in my mind that we have a right to assure that we have 41
homes that have a safe access and that it's a reasonable thing to do.
Paul Kurvers: Well as part of the approval of the first phase of the
development , we did in fact upgrade the intersection and at that time we did
allow for a turning lane into the intersection and an acceleration lane out of
the subdivision itself also. And on the opposite side of the highway, there
already is what you consider a by-pass lane which you use as an exit to get onto
Valley View Road.
25 ,
I
Ci t __ - M4, . 1992
F +. '_ true but they're very short and there are no turn lanes
project .
r , - _ "hc/'re up to MnDot 's standards.
rrar ` I I 'd lif.c to add one more comment here. I think Mr . Wing knows
'` E c ' .r . If you were to look at State Highway 41 and State Highway 7,
the pry l which they're proposing tonight that we should pick up the cost
' for, thcrr is not onL at State Highway 5 and TH 7 at the present time and you
ha'.e .; i.=.rc_ shopping center there. You also have school traffic and it isn't
ever c:-- _ `1F to what we're talking about and it does not have what they're
1 proposing.
• Mayer Ch° ;11 : Olay, thank you. Any other discussion Council? We've got a
motion on the floor with a second. Conditions as indicated. Tom has. Everyone
understand t ha conditions?
Councilman tae-n: In breathing. So this emergency access, as Charles stated
1 is a dead iesue then?
Mayo- , h. _ 1 It arpee rs as such.
Couhcilrro., L:r�.i. 5: As the motion stands.
Counci]L=en tir1er: Veil I think that Mr. Kurvers answered the question.
ac'-cu-' , - er = Lein; that he's been on the fire department for a long time, I
taJ r * i it .
' Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Preliminary
Plat #C'-14 for Kurvers Point 2nd Addition as shown on the plans dated March 18,
1991 with the following conditions:
1. Deleted.
' 2. The ap;_]icant sh:I] receive a new access permit for the existing access to
TH 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
' w.it ,`i 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.
1 4. Staff will redraft this condition to clarify access to Lotus Lake for Lots
4 and 5, Block 1.
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 sewer, storm sewer and watermain
' 26
1
- ;y 6, 19Q1 I
roadway area and not under the curb and gutter. I
7 _l utilities and roadways shall be constructed in accordance with the
c_ c edition of the city's standard specifications and detail plates.
C. T. = erosion control barrier line west of proposed Kurvers Point Road shall
to tic city's Type III erosion control fence. An additional silt fence
t---rier shall be installed on the east side of Kurvers Point Road lying ,
couth of Basswood Circle immediately after site grading to prevent soil
trc- w,..'ping into the new streets and storm sewer system.
P 75, foot long gravel construction driveway access shall be constructed at .1
the end' of the pavement on Kurvers Point Road to help reduce mud and debris.
from being tracked out onto Kurvers Point Road.
1' ''_ dicta h:d areas shall be immediately seeded and mulched to help reduce
11 . Load fiber blanket or erosion control blanket shall be used on all slopes
thyrt 3:1.
1Z. ?hr a .licant shall apply for and obtain permits from the Watershed 1
Gic' rict , Cr'R and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with
thy: _. conditions of approval.
1, T` watermain connection at the south end of Kurvers Point Road to the
lstin; 12 inch watermain adjacent to TH 101 .shall be made by a "wet tap"
t_. _c irt=_rruption of water service. I
1�. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the city
wits the fina-lcial security to guarantee proper installation of these
im --c . sments.
15. The applicant shall extend a storm sewer lead from the existing storm sewer
in Vurvers 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 .
1'. 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.
1C. The existing structures require a demolition permit for removal and any I
wells and septic systems must be properly abandoned.
19. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at time of building permit I
application.
All voted in favor except Councilman Mason who opposed and the motion carried '
with a vote of 4 to 1.
27 '
•
1
1 C1' C ._ _ tie; - May 6, 1991
hic • c h°;c1 : TherI you. Would you like to clarify?
Cc._ - _ :,' - - I would like to clarify that . Again•, I basically agree with
'
L' :- =_-"_ : ca;
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1991
I/
Councilwoman Dimler: Senior something.
Paul Krauss: An eligible senior program.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay great . See that was our question.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor, any other discussion?
Resolution #91-56: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the ,
reallocation of Years XVI and XVII Block Grant Funds to transfer $3,000.00
from Year XVII funds to Year XVI for the Sojourn Senior Day Care Center,
$3,000.00 to Year XVII and $23,112.00 of Year XVI funds to undertake senior
programming. The City Council also directs staff to send out Requests
for Proposals to complete senior housing and senior center feasibility studies
for the City. These RFPs are not to contain any city estimates of cost or
availability of funds. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
KURVER'S POINT ADDITION.
Mayor Chmiel: Next item is 3.75, Kurver's Addition. Tom with your discussion
as you brought up, would you like to further that?
Councilman Workman: I don't know if I should attempt to explain it or maybe Jo I
Ann and Paul should. I'll give it a quick shot . We had some Minutes and I
guess we can all take blame. It does get a little confusing in the Minutes.
The Minutes kind of seem to come out a little bit different than the Kurver's
remembered and we had a lot of discussion on the cul-de-sac or not the
cul-de-sac and then when it got down to some fine tuning with the road, and who
should be paying for the road improvements, etc. that 's where it seemed to have
some problems. In a letter to Mr. Harri of Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings from
I believe Jo Ann. Jo Ann. The new item number 1 said, the applicant shall
receive a new access permit for the existing access to TH 101 from MnDot and
shall provide and pay for any and all improvements. Any and all being
emphasized by me. Required by the City for the existing access to Kurver's
point. There's another sentence there. What we talked about, well the Kurver's
are having a problem getting any kind of bonding due to the fact that it says
any and all because in effect the State or the City could say whatever it takes
and whatever we want, you're going to put that intersection on TH 101 and
there's some problems with that . We talked about possibly just saying the
applicant shall receive a new access permit for the existing access to TH 101
from MnDot period. And/or pulling it out. You know maybe just pull that out
and work with it later but then we aren't sure how that's all tied in. Paul can
maybe do some explaining. Because it's kind of, they know they need to get some
things done. We all know that MnDot staff and the Kurver's got to meet and talk
about what's required in relationship to State Statutes. What would be required
because that's kind of fuzzy. And everybody's getting back different ideas from
MnDot what's suppose to happen and by leaving it open that way, they cannot
proceed because they're going to be basically saying we'll pay for whatever and
we don't know whatever is yet . So I don't know how we would modify it or if we
can modify this tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we can.
8
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1991
I
Councilman Workman: By saying there's all sorts of questions about intent in
the Minutes and everything else. My intent was to kind of, was not to leave it
open and not to, I guess to turn it around and say okay. Staff and MnDot , find
out what we need to do and really it's between the applicant and MnDot and
that 's.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul.
' Paul Krauss: Well, if I could clarify it a little bit . We understand how the
language, the any and all language can be a problem for a lender. That's pretty
open ended and we don't have a problem changing that around. You're going to
1 get a chance to review this and whatever is worked out under the final plat so
you will have ultimate authority to approve what you like. This came up earlier
this evening and I've been thinking about it a little bit since then. I don't
have a problem with the intent I guess of what 's being proposed. I mean
' certainly we can change that language about the any and all. There is one
question or one concern I have with leaving it solely in the province of MnDot .
If I can touch on that very briefly and then you can do what you're going to do.
' One of the things that we talked about at the meeting is the problem that we've
had over the years with MnDot basically not really caring about what happens
to TH 101. Or really not setting a standard that's consistent with what we'd
like to see there to accommodate future needs. You talk to different people at
' MnDot at different times, you'll get different answers. I mean we've talked to
some people who back up what we're saying and Scott Harri has talked to some
people who've backed up what he's saying. It 's very tough to pin MnDot down on
' requiring anything of an improvement to TH 101. I mean their premise since the
1930's is they were going to -dump it on somebody so they haven't spent a whole
lot of effort improving it . We want to go ahead and have our meeting with
I MnDot . We'll certainly schedule that as soon as possible and hopefully that
will be productive and that will be the end of it . Honestly, if MnDot though
comes back and says everything's just hunky dorey. There's really no issue at
all , I'd want that demonstrated to our satisfaction because right now I honestly
' don't believe it . If we think that there are some requirements there or some
improvements that can really improve safety there, we'd like to come back to you
with the final plat and say well we disagreed with MnDot on that but here's what
11 they said and you can decide for yourselves what you think is really
appropriate. I don't want to color your thinking about MnDot at all. It 's just
that we've had a tough time with them on this highway and based upon that I'm a
' little cautious.
Councilman Workman: I'd like to quickly interject and I don't see the Kurvers
here and maybe that 's good. This intersection compared to all the other
1 intersections of TH 101. We're going to, MnDot 's going to spend some money to
do Choctaw and Sandy Hook. Right turn lanes. Wish they could do Cheyenne.
Okay, they're paying for that with our help. Now here comes Kurvers Point and
' they're kind of being told now you have to redo this whole intersection here.
Okay, now if you go back up Pleasant View Road, Choctaw, Sandy Hook, Cheyenne
and then Kurvers, now the Kurvers, and granted MnDot doesn't want to have TH
101. We know that. But now the Kurvers are being told you've got to redo this
whole intersection when Herb wasn't told to do Chan Estates or whatever. Or how
much I don't know. Further complicating that 1; Valley View Road, which makes -
the intersection much more heavy than all the rest of those intersections I just
mentioned. That isn't the Kurvers problem but it makes that intersection
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1991
•
I/
unique. Now should those 50 homes in there be responsible for all the traffic
there and north and south? That was kind of their question and I'm sure they
would take 15 minutes to explain that. So that's why they're concerned about
why they have to now, perhaps based on past conditions that said that second
access, you're going to have to take that hill down, which I'm sure they had
some confusion about why they had to take the hill down too there as far as
cost. So the intersection is kind of.Jifferent . How much are they, even though
they've in the past when the First Addition went in, they did dedicate land
there for the intersection and now they're being asked again to upgrade and
everything else and they want to know if they have this many homes, does that
mean they've got to upgrade the whole intersection or not . And that's where the
confusion comes.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I don't see that cost that's born by them for that
•particular intersection. I think that x number more cars, vehicles coming in
and out of there is not going to make that much of a difference as far as the
entrance onto TH 101 and Paul's right . MnDot has not real concern what 's
happening with TH 101. They'd like to get rid of it . Push it off on the
counties or the cities as they've done in Hennepin County through Plymouth and
Wayzata and areas as such. Maybe if we had discussions with MnDot , whoever we
have a discussion with, I might make a suggestion that upon finalization of
that, for you to send a letter back to them confirming your discussion with them
and the interpretation therefrom and hopefully that they would, if a response is
not provided within a 5 day period, that that's the way it stands. I think
maybe we can eliminate some of those given concerns. Or at least hopefully we
can. Okay Don. I
Don Ashworth: I was going to mention. Councilman Workman's absolutely correct .
Some of the older subdivisions in that area did not have to pay. Colonial
Grove, etc. . The newer ones, say within the last 5 to 10 years, I believe all
have paid. Peter Pflaum paid off of Pleasant View. Fox Hollow paid and I know
that the Colonial, South Lotus Lake, those were both widened and those were
charged to all the lots within that subdivision.
Councilman Workman: Don my point was that the Kurvers already did dedicate and
pay for and probably now they're upgrading and they're trying to figure out with
how much of an upgrade, how much more responsibility do they have to have for
this specific intersection. It doesn't fit. It doesn't even weigh because
they've already dedicated what they claimed was $56,000.00 in property for the,
intersection. And keep in mind Eden Prairie's on the other side with Valley
View Road but I don't know the history of all the.
Don Ashworth: I had talked with Mel as well and I thought we had agreement
about a week ago to go through the process of having his engineer meet with our
engineer and the State and try to determine what are we talking about . Are we
talking about $50.00, $5,000.00 or $50,000.00. At that point in time we can
come back and say okay, it 's not reasonable that you would have to pay costs on
the Eden Prairie side but if they're saying, if the existing turn is not really
adequate, then maybe Mel should. You know until we really know what we've
totally got, I'm hesitant to say jump on one band wagon or another.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask you a quick question in reference to what you're
making with each of those new developments that went in. That was an upfront
10
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1991
11
cost number one right?
Don Ashworth: Very similar to what we're talking about here.
!"`,ryor ror the expansion of the particular project as well?
' Don Ashworth: They were required to pay the additional cost. If I remember
correctly, the only improvements that were done on any one of those were on the
' Chanhassen side_ I know of no improvement that was done on the Eden Prairie
side. But in each of those instances they did put in a deacceleration lane and
an acceleration lane. So again, if you go to South Lotus Lake boat access area,
' that 's a fairly long acceleration/deacceleration on both of those accesses.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright . Any other discussion? Tom?
' Councilman Workman: No. Are we going to, can we make the change or can't we
Roger? Should we?
Roger Knutson: You can. The decision whether you should is obviously up to
you.
' Mayor Chmiel : Maybe what we should do Tom is to.
Councilman Workman: My only question is this. If we change this or water this .
down or move this and they're allowed to go ahead with the project, then do we
' lose all rights? _I know staff is worried about that . Then we lose all 'rights
to have them approve even an iota of the intersection which God forbid if we
lose. . .to keep people under our thumb.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we have a solution to it .
Roger Knutson: Perhaps if you modified it to the extent that it 's saying when
' costs are known, that information is to be brought back to the Council to make a
decision. Then you have all the facts and you can decide if it 's appropriate.
' Councilman Workman: Okay. But we'll know all the costs but then we don't know
what percentage is Kurvers or the State or other. That 's the open end.
Don Ashworth: But you could make that decision. If you make a decision that no
one else paid on the Eden Prairie side, that would be back to you.
Mayor Chmiel: I think if we had their engineer, our engineer and MnDot , that
' determination can be made.
Councilman Workman: Okay, but if we make the sentence, the applicant shall
' receive a new access permit for the existing access to TH 101 from MnDot , then
the applicant and MnDot are making a decision which they should and they can
fight over the cost . Does the State have 'leverage?
' Mayer Chmiel : Well I would think, sure the State has leverage in their
determination as to whether or not a safety issue is there. Don't you think?
' 11
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1991
I/
Don Ashworth: Again it gets back to a point Paul brought out. They put all the
driveways right onto TH 101 across whatever, what are they duplexes in there?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: Those never should have gone in. I mean it should have been one '
common access. I guess I'd like to again see the suggested improvements and the
cost associated with those come back to you and if you feel that it 's
unreasonable that Mel and Frank should bear x amount of it or y amount of it ,
you could make that determination but until we know what those costs are and
what the scope of the improvements that are being suggested are, I think it's
hard to make. 1
•
Councilman Workman:. I guess I'm just not sure' that it's our job to decide on
that State Highway, but maybe it is.
Mayor Chmiel: I think from a standpoint that there is involvement back to the
City and the City has to pick up those costs, I wouldn't be of course for that .
Councilman Workman: It's not our problem. It 's not our road.
Don Ashworth: It probably will be. '
Mayor Chmiel: At some time. Only by legislation.
Councilman Workman: You know what I'm saying? All I'm saying is on May 6th we '
approved this for them. There's been some confusion and I'll take partial
credit for that because I don't think I clarified everything at the end on what
we wanted to do. It's been, now it 's the 10th of June. They are unable to do '
anything until we get this thing going and I'm trying to make it a little easier
for them to get accomplished what they're trying to do ultimately.
Paul Krauss: If I can make a suggestion? You know Mel seemed to, there are two
issues here with him. One was the any and all improvements language which is
causing them money with their lender. That you can either eliminate. Just
strike it or put in they shall pay their fair share of improvements that are
required.
Councilman Workman: As determined by MnDot?
Paul Krauss: Well,. see I'm a little concerned with that .
Councilman Mason: I don't know why we're always throwing MnDot in. this. If we 1
can work it out with 3, let 's just go with that and be done with it .
Paul Krauss: I think we can take care of their short term need to work with
their financer and then work out the details and come back to you and the
Council can decide what's needed over there. It may well also be real
appropriate for us to bring in Jean Deitz from Eden Prairie. I mean this is
more than half their problem and see if we can work out something with them as
well.
1
12 '
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1991
Councilman Wing: Did Mr. Ashworth say that there was a meeting planned or going
to be between the engineers of all the parties and might this be resolved at
that point?
' Don c Fworth: I hope it to be and their engineer told me at the end of last
week that they were prepared to meet with the City. He didn't give me a date
thouch. I don't know. Do you know?
' Charles Folch: N- , I hadn't heard a date either but he was going to coordinate
the meeting and then get back to us.
Councilman Wing: I agree with Mr. Workman's concerns and I thought we left them
kind of hanging in a nebulous area but might this meeting resolve Tom's concerns
and the problem we're talking about?
Don Ashworth: I would hope so. I mean I sincerely believe that last Wednesday
or Thursday when Mel had called and we started coordinating with the State and
what not , that we were almost done with the issue at that point so I was kind of
surprised this evening.
Councilman Wing: Would you consider tabling this pending the staff report
directly on this issue?
Councilman Workman: Well, according to Paul we can strike it . If we can strike
' it with the condition that the details be worked out by the engineers because
you know what happens when you try to get a meeting with MnDot and everybody
else. It will be the end of June. I don't think it's fair.
' Mayor Chmiel : Sure. I think that would be the resolving portion of having all
three sitting down and working it cut . And then once that determination is
made, bring it back to Council.
Councilman Workman: So I guess the motion would be to change number 1 of the
new conditions. The applicant shall receive a new access permit for the
existing access to TH 101 from MnDot . The applicant shall work with his own
engineer, MnDot , City of Eden Prairie and City of Chanhassen to decide.
Paul Krauss: What , if any improvements are going to required for the
intersection.
Councilman Workman: And what costs should be attributed to the applicant .
Paul Krauss: Right . Recommended cost sharing.
Mayor Chmiel: That sounds reasonable. Any other discussion? Is there a
' second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
I
11 13
City Council Meeting - June 10, 1991
I/
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to clarify the motion
made on May 6, 1991 for Kurvers Point Addition to change condition 1 to read:
1. The applicant shall receive a new access permit for the existing access to
TH 101 from MnDot. The applicant shall work with his own engineer, MnDot,
City of Eden Prairie and City of Chanhassen to decide what, if any
improvements are going to required for the intersection and what costs
should be attributed to the applicant.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY TO UPGRADE MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY AND CALL FOR PUBLIC
HEARING, PROJECT 90-15.
Public Present: '
Name Address
Bill Engelhardt Engelhardt and Associates, Project Engineer
Dave Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway
Court MacFarlane 3800 Leslee Curve
Greg Datillo 7201 Juniper Avenue
JoAnn Hallgren 6860 Minnewashta Parkway
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As I'm sure you are aware, ,
this proposed improvement project is a rather sizeable one with many details and
elements associated. A great deal of data and information related to existing
site conditions, State Aid standards, traffic studies, soil report and resident
input has been collected, discerned and incorporated into this feasibility
study. The project engineer, Bill Engelhardt in cooperation with City staff has
formulated a project that addresses the relevant concerns of both the City and
affected property owners yet is economically feasible. The total project cost
is 'estimated to be approximately 2.1 million dollars funded by a combination of
State Aid Funds, General Obligation Bonds, Trunk Watermain Funds and special
assessments. The proposed unit assessment rate is approximately $1,250.00. I
would therefore recommend that the feasibility report for improvements to
Minnewashta Parkway Project 90-15 be accepted. In my report I had originally
recommended calling for a public hearing for the June 24th meeting. However,
with previous discussions earlier tonight it appears that the meeting has been
postponed until July 8th. However I should point out that I will be out of town
for that July 8th meeting.
Councilman Wing: Why didn't you speak up?
Charles Folch: I didn't hear it until it was all done. At any rate, Bill '
whenever the meeting is decided to be scheduled will give a formal presentation
of the feasibility report at that public hearing. Whatever date you shall
choose to decide on. However, he is present tonight to answer any specific
questions on the report that you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions from Council? Let me just back up a real
quick. I see the Kurvers have just walked in. We've come up with a conclusion
14 '
1