Loading...
8. Subdivision 2150 Crestview Lane i , got. , .0.i CITY O ,,., , CHANHASSEN i , • . . . • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM Action by City Adm!J tretor TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager End FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner c` m k^A4---- DATE: February 7. 1990 Date Cu:T.ed to Co m;ss;ea SUBJ: City Council Update - Shively Addition CCt= :_,U 1.w to Council PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicants are requesting approval to subdivide a 3 . 91 acre parcel into one lot and one outlot. The 1. 49 acre lot would be occupied by an existing home. The 2. 42 acre outlot would be reserved in an undeveloped status. The site is located at the western terminus of the Crestview Lane cul-de-sac. Crestview Lane provides access to CR 117. The street is not developed to current standards. The subdivision request itself is a relatively simple action that is supported by staff, however, it raises a number of issues that warrant consideration. Access is the most important and potentially the most controversial issue. In reviewing plat proposal, it is normal practice to attempt to gain an understanding of future subdivision potential. Having done so, modification to the plat are considered that are intended to pro- vide reasonable access so that a comprehensive, safe and high quality street system can be developed in the future. Upon review of the plat, staff concluded that there is con- siderable development potential on Outlot A and limited potential on Lot 1. We also believe that access to parcels located to the south should be considered. This area is currently outside the MUSA line and no development requests have been received but the potential remains . The property to the south is included in the expansion of MUSA line as proposed by the draft Comp Plan amend- ment. Based upon our analysis, we are recommending that a ROW easement be taken over Lot 1 and Outlot A that is designed to serve two purposes (refer to Exhibit A) . The first goal is to allow for a reasonable extension of Crestview to serve future subdivision of the site. The second is an extension that could provide an option for serving property to the south. As proposed neither road would be built until development is proposed. r Don Ashworth February 7, 1990 Page 2 Staff acknowledges that the road extensions, particularly the one to the south, is likely to be controversial and that the proposed alignment may ultimately prove not to be optional. Unfortunately, the only opportunity the city has to obtain ROW for future streets is during the subdivision process and we can only make our recommendations based upon currently available information. Failure to obtain ROW in a timely manner could preclude having a reasonable development pattern in the future. The second and somewhat related issue concerns variances for lot width that result on both lots as currently proposed. Staff can find no hardship to support the variances. However, dedication of the road ROW as proposed by staff will eliminate the variances. The third issue is the Park and Recreation Commission' s request to obtain a 10 foot wide easement for a trail. The trail is located along the north property line and will be used to provide access to Minnetonka Jr. High. This recommendation has been included as a condition of approval. There are no other significant issues at this time. Lot 1 has city utilities and Outlot A will not equire them until it is subdivided. Based upon the foregoing, staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the plat be approved without variances and sub- ject to appropriate conditions. On January 17, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Subdivision #89-16 as shown on the plat dated December 29, 1989. The Planning Commission and public attending the meeting discussed the location of the trail easement. The Commission felt that the location of the trail easement was not an issue for them to address and that the City Council and or Park and Recreation Commission should further review the location of a trail easement over the subject property. The Planning Commission also discussed in depth whether or not to preserve an access to the south to allow for access, as had been proposed by staff, should it be subdivided. The majority of the Planning Commission determined that access to the south should not be required at this time and since it could be obtained upon further subdivision of the property. The Planning Commission felt that the right-of-way for the extension of Crestview and a cul-de-sac was all that was required to be dedicated at this time. All voted in favor except Ellson and Ahrens who were opposed because they felt that access to the south should also be pre- served at this time. Staff recommended that access to the south be dedicated as part of the subject subdivision in order to preserve access in the case that the property to the south would be subdivided. We Mr. Don Ashworth February 7, 1990 Page 3 still believe that the City should take the opportunity as it arises to preserve right-of-ways for future subdivisions. The proposed conditions for approval of the subdivision reflect the conditions of the Planning Commission. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Subdivision #89-16 as shown on the preliminary plat dated December 29, 1989, with the following con- ditions: 1. The final plat shall be amended to provide right-of-way for the extension of Crestview Lane as shown on Exhibit B. 2. A 10 foot wide pedestrian trail shall be provided along the northerly border of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A. opilL Outlot A shall not be replatted or developed until the S surrounding area is included in the Metropolitan Urban ()a "414' Service Areahas conditioned by the recent inclusion of this property into the MUSA line. 4. Future subdivision of the property and extension of the watermain to the property will result in the requirement of an additional fire hydrant as recommended by the Fire Inspector. 5. A cross easement shall be granted over Outlot A to Lot 1, Block 1. 6. A trail easement shall be reviewed further by the City Council and/or Park and Recreation Commission. " ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated January 17, 1990. 2. Staff report submitted to the Planning Commission. Manager's Comments: Significant discussion occurred on this item regarding a proposed trail on the north side of the plat (directly south of Ostrum property) . The process of sending plats to the Park Commission is relatively new. Having staff reports accompany the park review is even newer. Finally, during the past year, the process was again changed to insure that Park and Recreation comments were considered by the Planning Commission and thereby heard in a public hearing format. Requiring the dedication of roads/trails/easements can only occur through the platting process. Again, the Planning Commission is f Mr. Don Ashworth February 7, 1990 Page 4 responsible for holding this hearing. To the best of my knowledge, we have not previously had a group come forward stating their desire to have presented their position to the Park and Recreation Commission in addition to the Planning Commission and City Council. I have met with Lori, Jo Ann and Paul on this item. We believe we can establish a process by which notices are sent to the neighborhood before both the Park Commission meeting and subsequent Planning Commission meeting - all without creating too long of a delay for the applicant. Paul will be writing this into the application guidelines unless instructed to the contrary. Similarly, I will notify Public Safety to also con- sider a similar process, i .e. Public Safety has traditionally made recommendations to the Planning Commission/City Council regarding plats having thru roadways vs. cul-de-sacs, street naming, street signage. Some of the points raised at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting included: - Obtain Easement/Do Not Construct: A general feeling among Commissioners was that future generations would be better served if a trail existed between the Crestview area and the school. However, the Commission did not want to see such constructed within the foreseeable future. Legally they could not bind future commissions/councils and so such was not made a condition; and - Cost: The north/south connector between the Shively prop- erty and the extension of West 65th Street would be required. Obtaining this in the location as originally approved appeared to be less costly than attempting to obtain a new route; and - Informalness of Existing Trail : As noted by residents, the children from the West 65th Street area are currently taking the shortest path (between Lots 5 and 6 of the Ostrum subdivision) to gain access to Murray Hill and then use the trail across the water tower property. Unfortunately, this trail does not legally exist and could be closed at any time by either of the adjoining neighbors. Both have pre- viously stated that they would not formally give easements so as to insure that they would have the option of closing if desired. Ce� 36±: . . . ... :,..„ . CITY c CHANHASSEN •, , , , !. . „ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager TT FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner by DATE: February 7 , 1990 SUBJ: Final Plat for Shively Addition On January 17, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat for Shively Addition with the following conditions: 1 . The final plat shall be amended to provide right-of-way for the extension of Crestview Lane as shown on Exhibit B. 2 . A 10 foot wide pedestrian trail shall be provided along the northerly border of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A. 3 . Outlot A shall not be replatted or developed until the surrounding area is included in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area as conditioned by the recent inclusion of this property into the MUSA line. 4 . Future subdivision of the property and extension of the watermain to the property will result in the requirement of an additional fire hydrant as recommended by the Fire Inspector. 5. A cross easement shall be granted over Outlot A to Lot 1, Block 1. 6 . A trail easement shall be reviewed further by the City Council and/or Park and Recreation Commission. The applicant has submitted a final plat for City Council review at the same time as the preliminary plat. The final plat has provided for some of the conditions made as part of preliminary plat approval. The extension of Crestview Lane is shown as an easement and needs to be shown as dedicated right-of-way and should be labeled as Crestview Lane. The final plat should also reflect the required utility and drainage easements along the newly dedicated public right-of-way. Mr. Don Ashworth February 7, 1990 Page 2 The final plat shows the 10 foot pedestrian trail along the northerly portion of the property. The trail easements cannot be part of the final plat and must be recorded as a separate docu- ment as with the cross easement over Outlot A to Lot 1, Block 1. The applicant should provide separate documentation for the trail easement and cross easement which shall be recorded along with the final plat. The final plat as proposed is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the final plat for Subdivision #89-16 for Shively Addition with the following conditions : 1. The extension of Crestview Lane shall be dedicated as public right-of-way and labeled as Crestview Lane. 2 . A separate trail easement shall be provided for a 10 foot pedestrian trail easement along the northerly portion of Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1. In addition, a cross easement shall be provided for access over Outlot A to Lot 1, Block 1. 3 . Typical drainage and utility easements shall be provided along Crestview Lane. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Planning Commission minutes dated January 17, 1990. 2 . Final plat dated February 1, 1990. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 17, 1990 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Jim Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planning Intern and Dave Hempel , Senior Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 3.9 ACRES INTO ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT OF 1.49 AND AN OUTLOT OF 2.42 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 2150 CRESTVIEW LANE, THOMAS AND JEAN SHIVLEY. Public Present: Name Address Thomas and Jean Shively Applicant Mr./Mrs. Michael Schultz - Applicant Don Kelly 2081 West 65th Street Dick Vandenberg 6474 Murray Hill Road Dick Herrboldt 6464 Murray Hill Road Mr./Mrs. Sam Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd. Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Conrad: Just one general question before we open it up to the public. Why do you think it's critical to have that access going to the south? We see the land, the property down there below it. Is it your general feeling that there's no good way for internal circulation within that parcel itself to have two accesses? Is that really the bottom line? Krauss: Pretty much Mr. Chairman. What it boils down to is we've got a great unknown down here. There's some very large ownership. Our Comprehensive Plan, it's been in there for a while, shows some sort of an extension of Lake Lucy Road from that general area but that leaves a considerable area in the middle to serve. What we found is that we've got a series of cul-de-sacs that keep coming off of the highways in town. Ultimately we may prefer to see several of them connected. At this point we're not making that recommendation. We're just simple trying to provide an option for serving that property since there is no road in that vicinity right now. Conrad: So within this Paul, you're just doing. . .going to have two accesses? Krauss: Mr. Chairman, we may well have another access in there. Right now there's a long private driveway that winds it's way back in here. It Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 2 serves I believe two homes. The driveway itself may not be an ideal location for a public street because there's quite a bit of property back in there. At some point we may have something that loops through. If they ultimately decide that it should terminate on the site. . .road to the south. Conrad: .. .is it staff's opinion that this is too long a cul-de-sac. . . Krauss: We are concerned with that and we're concerned with the quality of the street, the way it sits right now, yes. Conrad: With that we'll open it up for public comments. If the applicant is here and would like to make a comment, we'd sure like the applicant to start off and give us their perspective. Jean Shively: Members of the Commission, my name is Jean Shively. Shively's Addition and I guess I would ask the commission at this point to keep in mind some of the factors that Mr. Krauss has raised. I would ask you to consider the fact that the property to the south is currently outside of the MUSA line. The property to the south is under private ownership with no immediate plans for development and I also ask you to consider the recommendation made from my perspective. The particular piece of property we're talking about here is 4 acres. The subdivision that's being requested is at the request of the purchaser's of the property` for financing purposes only. So far in the discussion of this subdivision, they've been asked to dedicate property for a trail . They've been asked to dedicate property for a cul-de-sac to serve the potential development of the outlot and now in addition they're being asked to dedicate property for some speculative, potential development of property to the south. So what began as a 4 acre parcel is gradually dwindling down to a parcel of a much smaller size. I would ask the Commission to keep in mind that at this point all of the property is being purchased by one purchaser. It is not being purchased for speculation or for development. I guess my concern is, most particularly with the second part of the recommendation which is the extension of the proposed right-of-way dedication to the south. I recognize that because of the subdivision and regardless of the intent of the purchasers, there have to be provisions made by the City to serve the outlet in the event there is development there and it's my understanding, though I don't intend to speak for the purchasers, that they don't object to the first part of the road dedication. I would also ask you to keep in mind that as long as that property is in the ownership of a single family, that is under their control. However, the concern that I have is with the extension of the right-of-way to the south which is to serve property that I don't own and they won't own. The potential is that the City on it's own and sometime in the future if there is development to the south could unilaterally have the absolute right under those easement agreements to put a road through their backyard. I don't know if any of you have visited the property and what doesn't show on your map there is that out of the 4 acres, appoximately 2 of it is wooded and it is the 2 acres around the outside of the property so that the extension that they're talking about to the south is through one of the most attractive portions of the property. I don't like to basically oppose a request without at least considering some alternatives. It seems to me even Mr. Krauss has recognized the possibility of the extension of Lake Lucy Road or I would suggest another Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 3 alternative and that is, in the event that the outlot is to be developed in the future, whoever would be making those plans would once again have to come back to the Planning Commission and it would seem to me much more appropriate at that time, if the extension to the south is needed either for the development of the outlot or for development of the property to the south, that you could deal with a developer and make those arrangements. I believe that they have acknowledged that they don't know if the document that you have in front of you is the best location for that extension to the south. It's impossible to tell and to the best of my knowledge, there are absolutely no development plans by the current owner of the property. My serious concern is that I know government can not take private land from a private citizen without compensation. My concern is that in the event down the road, if this entire dedication goes through, the City once again could unilaterally put a road through the landowner's backyard destroying and diminishing the value of that piece of property substantially and the landowners would have no control and no recourse and as a lawyer, that situation makes me extremely uncomfortable. I think we can serve both the purposes of the City and the purposes of the landowner by allowing the dedication of the right-of-way to serve the outlot and leaving the extension to the south when everyone involved has a much better idea of what they are intending to service. I would also suggest in reference to the cul-de-sacs along CR 117, I believe the reason for a great number of those is the fact that all of those properties back up to the intermediate school so unless they want roads going through their football fields, there is a very logical reason for it. Are there any questions? Don Kelly: Hi. I 'm Don Kelly and I live at 2081 West 65th Street. You've got the advantage over me because you've got 2 name tags. Are you Mr. Conrad? Okay. Brian Batzli is not here? Conrad: Sometimes not. Ellson: That's Brian. Don Kelly: Okay, so Jim Wildermuth is not here? Elison: Right. Don Kelly: Alright. I think you were here before when I, you were on the City Council weren't you when we talked about the path before? Conrad: I've been here. Don Kelly: You've been here when we talked about the path before. I came when Curt Ostrom was developing the property just north of the property we're discussing tonight and requested that a path be included from West 65th Street through that development to the intermediate school. At the time the school wasn't open but it seemed possible that we would be interested in having a path. Fortunately the City agreed and included in the development agreement was a requirement that the developer include a path. The developer failed to include those easements on the deeds that were filed. City staff failed to monitor his performance in that regard. As a result, no path was provided from West 65th Street through to the Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 4 intermediate school . The proposal you're looking at includes an easement along the north side of that property which goes from the intermediate school to the east edge of the property and there's a suggestion in there that this pretty much solves the whole problem because now all we need to do is chat with the Kelly's or the Boudrie's and get an easement through to West 65th Street. Okay. The top horizontal part of that red line is on West 65th Street. The bottom horizontal part of the red line is the easement that's being discussed in the Shivley Addition. The vertical part of that red line is an easement that is roughly in the area of the property line between my property and Lot 5 of the Pleasant Hill subdivision. The people that own Lot 5 are not going to voluntarily provide that easement. It frustrates me to think that after spending a lot of time trying to plan ahead and to make sure that we have appropriate trail easements, that the City should come back and say well boy, did we ever blow it but boy it's a good thing you own that property and we can get the easement from you. As a matter of fact, they didn't even contact me in this regard. This was something that I learned when I called to find out what was going on. The corner of my house is 24 feet from that property line. I have a good sized lot but my house happens to be in that corner. If we put a pedestrian easement in there, we're looking at having that easement within 14 feet of the corner of my house. That is the only area in my lot where we have any privacy. That is not the type of an arrangement that I had hoped we'd have to provide a trail easement for the people on my street to the school . It would be satisfactory for my family because we could trot from the corner of our lot down the easement and get to the school. But I 'm not interested only in providing something for my family. I'm interested in providing something for our neighbors and the people with younger children that may be moving into those houses as other people move away. If we're going to irritate somebody by condemning land for a trail easement, it would seem more logical to put the easement on the boundary line between Lots 5 and Lots 6. From West 65th to Murray Hill Road and then go through the water tower property. So what we're looking at is a request for a trail easement that goes from the school to nowhere. The other thing that I notice sitting here this evening is when they talk about the right-of-way easement the City does have an ordinance restricting cul-de-sac streets to 500 feet. So Crestview is already a non-conforming street. Extending it further into a subdivision would lengthen it. The suggestion that the road to the south is to serve the property to the south is kind of silly because obviously the only manner in which that road would be extended would be to loop it. So if they're concerned about serving the property to the south, it makes more sense to consider a cul-de-sac street coming north from the south from a street that goes through that subdivision. Thank you. Conrad: Good comments. Just for clarification. Where would you like to see a trail put in? Could you go up there? Obviously you're not wild about where it's slotted for now. Don Kelly: My wife suggested that the trail would go in here over her dead body. Our neighbors here would have the same reaction to having it. This easement taken by condemnation. If the City is going to do that approach, then the trail through here would be more convenient. The trail that's marked on there looks kind of convenient because it goes down the end of the street and then up the property line. In actuality, that street is, Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 5 that again is an old map. That street ends in a cul-de-sac now. Maybe 5 years ago we dedicated property to the cul-de-sac and the street was vacated to the west of the property so that the street does not in fact go through to the west property line. There is a utility easement that goes along to the intersection of my lot and Lot 5 and then there's a utility easement that goes between Lot 4 and Lot 5. But what would actually happen, unless we actually went through and took out trees and put in woodchips and so forth to make the trail follow that, what would actually happen we would have people walking up our driveway and across the lawn and back to the back lot. It wouldn't be very practical that way. A trail going through the other way to the street would tend to have people go down the street and down the trail the way we would intend to. Conrad: Okay thanks. Other comments. Dick Vandenberg: I'm Dick Vandenberg, 6474 Murray Hill Road. My lot is Lot 4 that abuts the Shively property on the Murray Hill cul-de-sac so I would be affected by this proposed trail as well. For some reason I thought the trail issue was dead back there but it's not. I have the same problem Mr. Kelly has in that the trail would come within 20 feet of the back of my house and I have a lot of glass back there and it would really infringe upon our privacy. I think that type of thing is fairly intrusive, not to mention being a security risk as long as it's open to the general public. So I would object to that. I would make one comment. The trail as it exists now informally goes between 5 and 6. I believe the Kelly' s children cut through there and other kids do. We have children cutting through the back of our yard too. I don't object to that. What I do object to though is something in writing and in the law that says that the public has access to that. I don't mind neighborhood children going to school through our yard but I do object to a legal right for the public to go back there. It's highly intrusive and I strongly object to it. Dick Herrboldt: Councilmembers, my name is Dick Herrboldt and I live at 6464 Murray Hill Road. Right next door to the last speaker. Emmings: Which lot? Dick Herrboldt: Number 3. And I feel as opposed to the trail as Dick does,, for a variety of reasons. The first one being that I think we have an environmental issue here which nobody has really talked about. That is that there's a lot of trees in that area which would obviously have to come down if you're going to put a 6 foot wide trail through that area. At the present time we have several dead trees in our backyard that we're leaving there for the purpose of supporting an abundance of birds, including woodpeckers and various other species of birds and if any of you would like to come over and look at my trees with their 10 foot long trails of woodpecker bites in them, I'd be glad to show it to you. The security issue is a major issue for me also. I came from South Minneapolis where my home was burglarized 4 times. The reason why it was burglarized was because of it was accessed to the back of the house and I think by opening up a private trail to this same area, we're going to cause the same sort of problems. There's also a danger to people walking through that area. It's very wooded. There's a lot of old trees and like I just stated, there's Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 6 dead trees in my back yard. I can imagine people wandering off the path in a windstorm and having branches fall down on their heads. There's a lot of dead timber back there at the present time and I expect to keep it that way. The other reason is there's also a water problem back there. All of the water in that cul-de-sac drains into my backyard. The Minnetonka Watershed people built a dyke back there with a large culvert so the water, everytime it rains, collects in my yard and this water often extends over into the area where you're proposing to put the path. So I think that's a major problem that we need to look at. So I'm very opposed to the idea of putting the path through for those reasons. Would like you to consider them. Thank you. Michael Schultz: Members of the commission. I'm afraid I'm the guilty party who started this ball rolling. I'm the purchasers of the Shively lot and I guess as long as we're on the trail, I wanted to say a few things about that. I was at the Park Board meeting where that trail was discussed and the message I was getting is that the trail was something the neighbors wanted and it's been educational tonight to learn that every neighbor who felt the need to come out, has opposed the trail. We would oppose it for, many of the same reasons. Some of them selfish. Some of them not. The privacy issue is a concern of ours. Security is a concern of ours. The major concern is, the impression I got at the Park Board meeting was that this trail was used and that we were just simply putting an easement in so kids would not have to break the law to use the trail. Since that meeting I've seen what was supposedly the trail and there is no trail there so to speak. There's no path that is beaten through the woods. It's not existing and if anything, apparently the kids are using the Shively's back yard rather than the trees and we don't have any opposition to kids using the woods or even the back yard to get to school but we would oppose a formal taking pursuant to the split that we're proposing for this trail and especially in light of some of the opposition. We would join that. I wanted to echo some of the things that Jean Shively said about the proposed roads. I think in terms of the cul-de-sac, the proposal 1(a) , we don't have opposition to that. I think that makes sense. It's true. We don't have any intention of developing that land but for purposes of the subdivision I think there needs to be some access if that was ever to be done and we don't oppose that. The road to the south though is a real problem for us as purchasers. For one, that kind of an easement detracts from the value of the property significantly even if it's never used. It would be one thing if the City had a plan that this road was going to access a development or even a conceiveable development that was somehow in the works. That's not the case. The owners of the property have no intention of dividing, the current owners of the property to the south have no intention of dividing. Even if a development did go in there, there's a great question as to whether the road would be more appropriate at some other point. Some other part of our property or some other adjoining property. There is no sense to putting the road in where the Planning Commission has recommended. It doesn't go to any calculated development. It's very speculative and if it didn't hurt the value of the property, we wouldn't care but it detracts from the property significantly. It can't be sold. It can't be transferred without a potential buyer knowing of that easement and having a legitimate concern for it. We would ask that if the commission is going to approve the division, that they approve the Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 7 cul-de-sac 1(a) and that you do reject the road to the south. And if it becomes appropriate at some time in the future, then at that time it should be considered. If we have to come back in and subdivide, then the commission will have it's opportunity to require a road to the south at that point. Thank you. Conrad: Other comments? Sam Mancino: Sam Mancino. Property owner to the south. We have no intention to develop that at the moment. We bought the property to buffer ourselves and to lead a private lifestyle back there so we have no pressing desire to develop it. In fact, anything that really puts a gun to our head to try to develop it is something that we'd like to discourage. I think that, as I understand it, the requirement of subdividing right now does not grant permission to build on that outlot. Is that correct right now? That to build on it would require another platting and another review? At that time, I think it is appropriate that if you feel you still need the road easement, then to address it at that time rather than at this time. I guess that's about the end of it. Conrad: Thank you. Other comments? Anything else? Dick Vandenberg: Dick Vandenberg again from the Lot 4 on Murray Hill. A month or so ago I believe one of my neighbors granted an easement or donated land to the City so that Murray Hill Road and some of the back, maybe perhaps 65th Street. Perhaps that was the intention. Anyhow, he granted an easement for access to the water tower as well as the school property for children to walk in. I believe a walkway is going to go through there so this proposed walkway here may be a redundancy. Emmings: Would you say that again? Where is this walkway that you're talking about now? Dick Vandenberg: I'll point it out to you. Right here. It was city property and I believe Gil Kreidberg bought it and then donated 10 feet of it or whatever it was. You all know about that better than I do. Emmings: . . .through there from the street all the way back to the water tower itself. Dick Vandenberg: But it was my understanding that the intention of that easement along with access to the water tower was to have the neighborhood children to have access to the schoolyard which would eliminate this proposed pathway here. Don Kelly: That provides access from Murray Hill to the school. Is doesn't provide access from West 65th. Dick Vandenberg: Neither does the proposed pathway. Conrad: Okay. Anything else? Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 8 Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings: Did all of these people. Park and Recreation took the action to recommend the trail that we're discussing. ..is that right? Krauss: Yes. Emmings: And were all these people given notice of their consideration of that? Do they get a chance to hear public .input or does that happen at this stage. Is that designed to happen at this stage? Olsen: It's supposed to happen at the Park and Rec. Emmings: And so are there provisions that Park and Rec have that they're suppose to give people notice before they take an action like this? Olsen: I believe so. Resident: We were never notified. Don Kelly: There was a published notice and mailed notice of this hearing tonight and so we all just planned to come tonight. We didn't know there was another meeting. Emmings: I guess the problem here is that, we run into this time and time again where Park and Rec is making a recommendation and they, like we, who recommend to the City Council and we're not supposed to override what they do. We don't have any jurisdiction over what they do but it seems to me that this has been very poorly considered by Park and Rec because they didn't have input from the neighborhood and I don't know what we can do about it except to put that on the record. I think it ought to go back to Park and Rec. My understanding when I looked at this design was that they already had the easement that's vertical on there and all they needed was something to connect it over to the school and that's, it seems real half baked to me anyway. Conrad: And I'm not sure what Park and Rec's role in public. They try to get public involved but they're not necessaril. ublic hearings like we do. This is really the forum for public hearings. Emmings: But when we're mapping something across somebody's property, it seems to me we ought to give them notice. I think that's basically outrageous. Conrad: It's one of those cases where nobody wants a trail across their property. Emmings: Right. But you know, if there's a workable system there. For example, and I don't know if this is the way it should be resolved, but if this already exists. If it gets from this road into the school property and if there's already a custom in the neighborhood whereby the kids down here can cross here and cross here, I don' t know why we have to do that. Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 9 Maybe you do. Maybe there are good reasons to do it. Conrad: And we don't know enough. Emmings: Right. But they ought to have their input when it's being planned. When it's being put on a map I feel. But anyway. Let's see, with the road to the south off the cul-de-sac, the extension of Crestview and the road that goes to the south, would all of the areas be buildable that you're leaving? Krauss: What we tried to do is locate it so this is a buildable lot. If you extend it, the center line of Crestview out across that property, you wind up with an unbuildable piece of ground. It would. . .so what we did is we used this very large cul-de-sac and figured that we curve it a little bit to the north. Get them up that. . .and have a lot. But that presented a problem with part of the right-of-way is on Lot 1. This part right here and the rest of it's on the outlot and since the only time that property is together is right now before the subdivision. This is the time that that has to be obtained. Emmings: Since this is an outlot that's being created, an L shaped piece, it's been suggested here and it is correct isn't it that before that was subdivided, before it would be buildable, they'd have to come back in here again and that road to the south could be required at that time. Krauss: Yes sir. That's correct, and we discussed that with them. The concern that we had with that was a matter of timing. If the outlot is platted first, prior to development being proposed on the property to the south, that works fine. If it's the other way around, then we have a lot that we'd have no connection to or we lose an option for when that lot to the south develops. Batzli: Except the lot to the south isn't in the MUSA line currently. Krauss: That's correct. Emmings: One speaker mentioned a 500 foot maximum length on cul-de-sacs. I'm not familiar with that. Is that accurate? Krauss: No. The Code is somewhat open ended. It expresses desire to limit the length of cul-de-sac but is not specific. Conrad: It used to be. It used to be 500 feet and the City was real uncomfortable with cul-de-sacs. I think over the last couple years philosophy has changed a little bit. I think emergency services is still not real comfortable with long cul-de-sacs and I think they generally are a hazard. If we feel we are protecting the citizens and providing services that allow emergency vehicles to access their house and fire, storms, what have you. There's a valid case for having a second access on a long street. Emmings: Do we know how long this one is? How long it would be. If that were all the way in, how far would that cdl-de-sac be? Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 10 Don Kelly: It's 800 feet from the beginning so we'd add the length you see there. Batzli: Adding at least another what? 200 feet? Krauss: Dave is scaling it off right now. Dave Hempel : It's approximately 900 feet to the end of the cul-de-sac right now and it would be another 250 feet with the new cul-de-sac so a total of roughly 1,200 feet. Emmings: Ordinarily and in the past I've always been for, I've always supported connecting these things or making the connection over when we have the opportunity to do it. I don't see doing it in this case. I guess I'm persuaded that, the thing that bothers me about doing it I guess is that if the owner of that piece wants to keep it all together in private ownership, I wouldn't like to see a road going through there. I know that at some point there's, I wouldn't like to see this road. Having this platted down, obviously makes sense. . . Having this, I think that could be a matter that gets arranged in the future between the property to the south if and when it develops or when they come back in to plat that outlot. So I don't have real strong feelings about it but I tend to not want to put, I'd support the plan not to put the road to the south. Conrad: Arguments will be just as strong when they come back in to plat the outlot. Emmings: But then, I guess it seems to me, maybe we'll know something then that we don't know now. Maybe we' ll know better whether we need it or not. If they were here platting the outlot, then I'd want it there now. If they were asking now to plat that whole piece into lots, I 'd say let's put the road there. But if everybody's intention in that area, however brief, is to keep that all in one piece, I don't see any reason to put a road through the middle of their backyard or even to give the City the opportunity to do it. Essentially it will allow access for parking to the south. Conrad: More than likely when the new development goes into the south and there will be one, they won't want to hook up. They'll probably feel real comfortable keeping it within their property. Emmings: And there may be an adequate way to do that. Conrad: Therefore, what you're suggesting here, and so if that develops first, what you're saying is you've kind of closed down the option of giving a secondary access to this parcel. Emmings: It doesn't bother me on this one as it has in the past. Like I say, in the past I've always supported the connections. This is a change for me. On this one it seems reasonable. I think that's all I've got. I don't have anything else. • Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 11 Ellson: I love this area over here. It's everything I think people move into Chanhassen to see. All the wooded lots and the spacious area. I don't like thinking about future development either and I know that nobody at this point has a plan to develop either the south or the other one but I don't think I'd be doing my job if I didn' t think more than just at this point. I think it's up to us to look at planning the future and that might be 25 years from now but I'm leaning towards leaving that access down there. I agree with Steve about the trails. I don't know that it's, I can say that I go on record. I think that was a bad way to handle it. I don't think I can go and change and take out the trail recommendation because that's not, in my opinion, I don't know. Maybe I've got our charter wrong but it's not a Planning Commission issue as to where a trail goes although I share everybody's opinion that if it' s a neighborhood trail and the neighborhood doesn't want it there, then who's it helping. But I think addressing the outlot with both streets allows us to plan for all the possibilities. Maybe all the property owners right here have no plans to develop and then these will be the property owners and we won't have to worry about it. It's the next ones and the ones after that that I 'm more worried about so I 'd support the south access. At least getting it at this point and hoping, because I said, I love this area, that it never does develop. But I think we have to be prepared for what might come. Batzli: I guess on the trail, I would personally feel comfortable changing the Park and Rec. Ellson: I don't know, can we do that? Batzli: I don't know if we can but I'd feel comfortable doing it. Conrad: We can make some suggestions. Batzli: But now knowing what the entire trail system looks like in that part of the woods, in this case. I don't know that I can say yes or no. If there's an alternative way to get through the water tower lot that's reasonable and the kids know about it, I don't know why we're trying to ram this one through. But I would like to see it go back to Park and Rec and allow these people a chance to express their views to them. Or if that's not possible, at least give them plenty of advance notice as to when this is going to go in front of the City Council and so the City Council will have a chance to hear them. Paul, if you wanted to make Outlot A buildable without subdividing further, at that time would you be able to get the southern portion through there? Krauss: Yeah. You would still have to go through a subdivision request basically to change it's status from outlot to buildable. lot and at that time we could presumably ask for additional right-of-way. Batzli: Maybe Dave can answer this but is Crestview currently up to a standard, minimum standard road, up through where we're, up through this portion that you're adding? Hempel: No it is not. It's actually narrower than our typically 31 foot wide street. I believe it's around 20 foot wide. Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 12 Batzli: So it's a narrow street but we're taking the full 50 feet there? Hempel: That's correct. Batzli: And why on this jog, it seems to jog to the south and then back and then you want to jog it back north again? Hempel: A slight alignment change in there, yes to line up. Batzli: That entire alignment shift is to get enough depth to that first lot to make it buildable? Krauss: Yeah. Out in the field, it actually is not as severe as it seems. The cul-de-sac there is oversized and it appears as though it's an S curve but it would actually be a fairly mild curve that could take place inside that cul-de-sac bubble. Batzli: But it's on a narrower road? It's still on the 20 foot road width there? Hempel : Leading into the cul-de-sac, yes. Krauss: The cul-de-sac is newer. It would be built to a different size. Batzli : I guess I talked about the trail . As far as extending Crestview, I guess I would be in favor of extending it to the west but not to the south for pretty much the same reason Steve had. I just don't see it being developed and I think as and when it is, I think that will be plenty of opportunity to extend it southerly at that point. Ellson: It's when the south is extended that you're in the quandry is what it comes down to. Batzli: Well , I don't see the MUSA line changing in this area. Is this part of our request? This portion? Krauss: Yes. Conrad: A whole bunch of pressure. Batzli: What's the status of that right now? Have we submitted that? Krauss: Oh no. No. Batzli: Do you think it's going to go through? Conrad: It will go through. Krauss: We're going to give you a schedule at our next meeting next week that anticipates hopefully submitting it to the Metro Council by July. Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 13 Conrad: I think just for those of you who are here. For 2 years we've been trying to figure out how the City grows and where it grows and right now the City's run out of land for a lot of things. Residential being one. A lot of pressure. A lot of people wanting to sell. A lot of developers wanting to come in. There's a real great case that can be made, whether you like development or not but there's a real great case that there's not enough land in Chanhassen for new residential. This is one area that by chance will be possibly sewered. We're close to the MUSA line which is where you can sewer and there's a real good chance that that area will be extended so there will be additional sewer possibilities which means additional residential. Anything else? Batzli: No. Ahrens: I agree with Annette about her reasons for approving the southerly extension of Crestview, or the right-of-way to the south. I think that there will be future development on there, I guess especially if the MUSA line is moved. I think that, and I don't have a problem with extending Crestview into the cul-de-sac area either. I'm in favor of that. The trail easement, I have some questions about that. First of all, I realize the neighbors say they don't have a problem with the kids walking through their back yards or wherever they want to walk right now but there may in the future be a homeowner that says I don' t want kids walking through my yard. I'm going to put up a fence and they're not going to be able to even get to school . My question is, how do the kids who live on Crestview Lane get up to the school? Dick Vandenberg : Through my back yard. There's a fence that runs between my yard and Boudrie's. The access to our cul-de-sac is through out of my yard. That's the way they come. . . They take bikes through there. There's a boy on our cul-de-sac that's the same age as a couple of boys on Crestview and that's how they get between there and I don't object to that. But if the trail goes through there, I'm going to put a fence up and they won't have access because the back of my property is 20 feet from that trail. Ahrens: Paul, do you know if there's any plans for connecting a trail for the kids who live further south up to the trail that. .. Krauss: Not to the best of my knowledge, no. Ahrens: So how do those kids get to school? I can't figure that out. Conrad: Take the bus probably. Ellson: I wouldn't doubt it. Dick Herrboldt: This trail does not go, that's it. Nothing leads to it and when you're on the trail. Dick Vandenberg: Here's the way they typically come from Crestview. Right up through Shively's driveway here and then across this fence right into here. Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 14 Ahrens: To me the trail would make more sense if it connected to the south for all the kids that lived on Crestview also. Krauss: I really don't believe we're equipped to talk about the trail . There's a lot of history to it and it took place outside of the Planning Commission context and it was through the Park Board. There was originally supposed to be a trail platted with I believe the Murray Hill subdivision and it was a requirement of approval and for some reason it was never obtained. Consequently the land was so old and the owners who purchased it weren't aware of it and had a different feeling about it. I don't want to say it's a Park Board issue, that the Planning Commission doesn't have the right to comment on it, but it's one that's difficult for us to present to you. There is a lot of history attached to it. Ahrens: That's what I 'm trying to understand. I'm trying to understand the reason why there's such a short trail there. It doesn't seem to connect anywhere or help any of the other homeowners who live so far away and I think we don't have the power to change the Park and Rec's decision. I agree but I 'm still trying to understand if there's any other reason for that.. .especially when there's a trail this close. Krauss: Again, I don't know the history on it. I've been at several City Council meetings concerning the sale of the land up by the water tower where this was discussed. The City's aware that if this trail system went through, would have to obtain the land from Mr. Kelly. Right now the only aspect of the trail that's being considered is that portion of it that's on the Shively property. It won't go anywhere unless the City manages to obtain the rest of it. Conrad: Okay, thanks. One question Paul. In your mind the 900 or 1,000 foot cul-de-sac that we potentially could create, I didn't see a comment in here from the Fire Marshall or somebody. In many cases in new developments we've gotten from comments saying dangerous situation. If tree falls, whatever and I didn't see that in here and I'm trying to, my biggest concern is for the neighborhood period. Are we creating even a greater, are we creating a xish by having a 900 foot cul-de-sac? Especially for the people at the end. I haven't been sold one way or another on it. I think staff has looked at it from a future standpoint for connecting to the south and that's obviously what your job is. That's why you're the City Planner but right now it does appear to me, the south could develop independently. But a case could be made that a 900 or a 1,000 foot cul-de-sac is unacceptable. Especially when we had a standard of 500 feet in the past and even that we were totally comfortable with. But I can't react. I don't know if we've got an unacceptable situation. My decision on cul-de-sacs or on the road to the south or not at this point in time is do we have an unacceptably long cul-de-sac and we do have to find a solution based on city standards and good planning. Krauss: Well the logic on cul-de-sac decisions doesn't change from issue to issue. Public Safety staff would generally prefer to have another means of ingress and egress so they can insure that they can get in there in times of emergency. Planning departments, planning staff typically Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 15 recommends to connect streets if it's at all possible. Ultimately you could have a scenario where you had county roads and cul-de-sacs if every developer did what they wanted to do. On the other hand, we don't diminish the value of cul-de-sacs. They're very attractive places to live and they certainly have their place and occasionally a particularly long cul-de-sac makes sense if there are no alternatives. In this instance we believe there may be an alternative. We're not really sure at this point but we didn't want to foreclose on that. Batzli: Ladd , let me ask you a philosophical question. Currently the cul-de-sac is 950 feet long. By extending it to the south, you aren't remedying the problem. Conrad: Not today we're not, no. Batzli: You're not going to remedy the problem until , really there's not an additional problem until the L shaped lot subdivides further. You're not adding further capacity to that road until that time. Conrad: Right. If you have that there however and a new developer comes into the property of the south, we' ll have a real easy time in making sure that access issues are solved simply because we have that access to the north. Batzli : What's the distinguishing, I mean you can always have that person stub a road northerly at that time and wait until the L shaped property subdivides as well. In the meantime you can, it might almost be a third access issue. You may require the person to the south to provide their own adequate access. But you're not comfortable with that? I can sense. Conrad: No. My preference is to not do it because I like cul-de-sacs in the neighborhood concept. I get real uncomfortable with safety issues however and just general problems with a 1,000 foot cul-de-sac. I don' t know that that's smart. I think 500 foot cul-de-sacs where you only have 8-9 houses, I think that's different but here we have more. I'm kind of uncomfortable from a safety standpoint and don't know that we're going to solve it in the long term. The easiest time to solve it Brian, at least not exclude something, is right now. Generally I'm going to sum up my comments. I don't like the trail where it is, and we don't have enough information in front of us. It seems like the property to the south, we haven't thought about the property that's going to be developed to the south and how they access the school grounds. To me that's more important than the 8 houses that we're talking about right now. It seems like there's a better solution of having a casual trail, and maybe there's no such thing but between some lots that people are already using. Bottom line, I'm not privy or I haven't seen all the information on the trail discussion. It seems like a very old issue. It seems like something happened that really got us into this situation that I don't understand the way that we check on some of these things but just in general, it doesn't seem to be the right way to do it so my recommendation to the City Council is really to review critically where they're putting the trail. If we need a trail, and if that's the only place to put it, then I go along with it but right now I don't think that's the wise way. And I still do see some Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 16 trail access to the south. Whatever we're calling the Slocum Tree Farm property. Where's the trail serving, they have to get to the school too and I don't see that taken care of right now. I think in general , because I haven't been sold on the danger need right now, all I want is, I'll vote for an extended cul-de-sac. No access to the south but I think that's simply because I don't know the danger issues of a 1,800 foot cul-de-sac. Any other comments? Is there a motion? Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision 189-16 as shown on the plat dated December 29, 1989 subject to the following conditions. Condition 1(a) . That's the one that provides the right-of-way for an extension of Crestview Lane and no extension to the south and with the rest of the conditions in the staff report, 2 thru 5. Also with the comment that I 'm opposed to the pedestrian trail without some further review by Park and Rec and/or the City Council. That's my motion and just to explain. I don' t feel like I can delete the second one and I don't want to vote against this thing. I think that the Council will have our verbatim Minutes of the comments of the people who have spoken tonight and also ours and I'd like to pass it with a positive vote. Batzli: Second. Conrad: So your comments on item (b) . Ellson: You skipped (b) . 2. Conrad: Okay, 2. Basically says you're opposed to the trail as located. Enmings: Without further review by Park and Rec and/or the City Council. I suppose what's going to happen is it's going to go to the City Council and they're going to have to decide whether they want to decide this issue themselves or send it back to Park and Rec I guess is what I'm saying. But with the rest of the subdivision is fine and I don't think it ought to be held up on this issue. Batzli : I assume your motion crossed off the parens that say, (and Outlot B) in numbers 3 and 5? Because Outlot B would have been that additional. &mings: Of course Brian. Everybody knew that except you. Batzli: I just wanted to make sure for the record what I was seconding. Conrad: Any other discussion? Emmings: I think Brian made a good sound argument why there is no need to put that road in to the south. We're not foreclosing anything by leaving it out at this time. Even if the property to the south develops first. If that access to the north out of that property, there could be an easement at that time to the north just waiting for the time when that outlot develops and if that outlot never develops, there isn't any real reason. If the owner wants to keep that parcel, whatever size it is. I don't know what size right now but whatever. 4 acres? If they want to keep a 4 acre parcel just under single ownership, I don't think there's any reason for a • Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 17 road to go through there. They're the one at risk at the end of a long cul-de-sac and if they want to take that risk, that's their business. I wouldn' t say that about 5 lots. I wouldn' t say it's their business if it's 5 lots but if it's one. Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #89-16 as shown on the plat dated December 29, 1989 subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall be amended to provide right-of-way for the _ extension of Crestview Lane as shown on Exhibit B. 2. A 10 foot wide pedestrian trail shall be provided along the northerly border of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A. 3. Outlot A shall not be replotted or developed until the surrounding area is included in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area as conditioned by the recent inclusion of this property into the MUSA line. 4. Future subdivision of the property and extension of the watermain to the property will result in the requirement of an additional fire hydrant as recommended by the Fire Inspector. 5. A cross easement shall be granted over Outlot A to Lot 1, Block 1. 6. The trail easement shall be reviewed further by the City Council and/or the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor except Ellson and Ahrens who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Conrad: This will go to the City Council February 12th. The folks that are here, that are interested in this issue should stay in touch with the issue. You saw our vote really divided and I think that's really going to be representative of how the City Council sees it. You really do have to stay in touch with it. I think there are several issues that are not clear. I think the safety on a long cul-de-sac is really a real issue. I think the overall plan of trails going into that whole area is an issue to us where we don't have that right now so I encourage you to stay involved for the next couple of weeks as it goes to the City Council. Thank you. Jean Shively: The first thing we heard about tonight was the MUSA line which is real important which we didn't know about. Conrad: As I say, we've been working on it for 2 years. It's not that, it just hasn't been made available to the public yet in terms of do we know what we're doing. Jean Shively: In a couple months? Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 18 Ellson: We're hoping like you said, to propose it in July so that would probably make it spring or something. Conrad: One thing I failed to do as we made that motion and Joan, what I always do is I make sure that the negative, those that don't vote for it, highlight their key reasons for not voting. So Annette, can you summarize briefly? Ellson: I agreed with staff recommendation for the access to the south because of future development. That I think we should have it ready in case. • Ahrens: I agree. I think that we should get access when we can. It's very hard to go back and try and get access when you need it. . . PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.9 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 10.1 AND 10.2 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RR AND LOCATED OFF OF DOGWOOD, EAST OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA, JUST NORTH OF CRIMSON BAY, PETER AND DEANNA BRANDT. Public Present: Name Address Kurt Laughinghouse Represenative for the Applicant Peter and Deanna Brandt Applicant John Getsch 7510 Dogwood Road Ed Getsch Dogwood Road Ken Daniels Owner of Proposed Lot 1 Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad: Jo Ann, could you summarize for me your recommendation? What, in terms of the clearing. Olsen: What we pointed out was that if the road was to be a full rural standard street must be provided in here, that actually if you drive out here you just kind of go -> real easily and that's where it's already cleared. We're just pointing out that rather than clearing additional land and leveling the topography, it would be less expensive to install the street there. You wouldn't have as wide of an area. Conrad: Yeah. And that is your recommendation? Olsen: Well our actual recommendation is that they provide the 60 foot. We don't require conditioning 100 foot right-of-way to be dedicated.. . We're just pointing it out that that's probably the best location for a road. Conrad: Okay, we'll open it up for public comments. Is the applicant here or a representative? Mr. Laughinghouse. I've seen you here before on this .; ITY OF h C. DATE: Jan. 17-, -199e IIANIIA3E N C.C. DATE: Feb. 12, 1990 CASE NO 89-16 SUB �1 r• Prepared by: Al-Jaff/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to subdivide 4 Acres into a 1 .5 Acre Parcel and a 2.5 Acre Outlot I- Z Q VLOCATION: 2150 Crestview Lane J APPLICANT: Tom and Jean Shively Q 2150 Crestview Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RSF; Residential Single Family • ACREAGE: 4 Acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF, single family residence S- RR, single family residence E- RSF, single family residence W- OI, Minnetonka Jr. High WATER AND SEWER: Water is not available to the site, while Qsewer is availalbe to the eaterly half of the site only. Q PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The northeasterly quarter of the site contains an existing house. The site slopes down from W the northeasterly corner to the southwesterly corner. The site contains scattered mature trees. Access to the site is available through U) Crestview Lane which in turn connects with a private driveway which leads to the existing house on the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 43N . • M S. N 1A8-.-_ N 1� S 4 o ti T' o f S M ' • �„_ a ..i„rr 2 Si ., IllrEf rialfrmr_Illetainifir la 1 , ■�j , :ate- •7R � o: I _ wow, tea—._ WWI Macias .rte _ .,-- Lt1�u /d {'., ..iii i , .s ,� �.,•7 iEi �_!ai: v�r,r. . — ft ;r■ri,.t-.i _t gr ni O` -,■■■■ pi i .• ,, ♦TEAL MI` : a �/ ..i • ViiKCLE�CIRCL WTI 0, -- ,464 ►., LAKE • 1 `-END Cam....... _is\ 4 limr,orirm7,. alww.474. - R. K m 1• tct wit.eat: u.ias MO-111:0 (--: .-_ VIMP•111111, rt 111P- M.A j---js ) IIP OP —1 I. ) cr \ CAKE 1r rip I ` 11 NANRISON ` ;' LAK LUCY ®E it.-71 NM . *It III - t � ■� - _El F - i �a■n1 J■ m 1t LAKE ANN 1 ,, ! RD RR -- } Shively Subdivision January 17, 1990 Page 2 BACKGROUND There are no actions of record concerning this site. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicants are requesting approval to subdivide a 3 .91 acre parcel into one lot and one outlot. The 1.49 acre lot would be occupied by an existing home. The 2. 42 acre outlot would be reserved in an undeveloped status. The site is located at the western terminus of the Crestview Lane cul-de-sac. Crestview Lane provides access to CR 117. The street is not developed to current standards. The subdivision request itself is a relatively simple action that is supported by staff, however, it raises a number of issues that warrant consideration. Access is the most important and potentially the most controversial issue. In reviewing plat proposal , it is normal practice to attempt to gain an understanding of future subdivision potential. Having done so, modification to the plat are considered that are intended to pro- vide reasonable access so that a comprehensive, safe and high quality street system can be developed in the future. Upon review of the plat, staff concluded that there is con- siderable development potential on Outlot A and limited potential on Lot 1. We also believe that access to parcels located to the south should be considered. This area is currently outside the MUSA line and no development requests have been received but the potential remains. The property to the south is included in the expansion of MUSA line as proposed by the draft Comp Plan amend- ment. Based upon our analysis, we are recommending that a ROW easement be taken over Lot 1 and Outlot A that is designed to serve two purposes (refer to Exhibit A) . The first goal is to allow for a reasonable extension of Crestview to serve future subdivision of the site. The second is an extension that could provide an option for serving property to the south. As proposed neither road would be built until development is proposed. Staff acknowledges that the road extensions, particularly the one to the south, is likely to be controversial and that the proposed alignment may ultimately prove not to be optional. Unfortunately, the only opportunity the city has to obtain ROW for future streets is during the subdivision process and we can only make our recommendations based upon currently available information. Failure to obtain ROW in a timely manner could preclude having a reasonable development pattern in the future. The second and somewhat related issue concerns variances for lot width that result on both lots as currently proposed. Staff can ' 1 Shively Subdivision January 17, 1990 Page 3 find no hardship to support the variances . However, dedication of the road ROW as proposed by staff will eliminate the variances. The third issue is the Park and Recreation Commission' s request to obtain a 10 foot wide easement for a trail. The trail is located along the north property line and will be used to provide access to Minnetonka Jr. High. This recommendation has been included as a condition of approval. There are no other significant issues at this time. Lot 1 has city utilities and Outlot A will not equire them until it is subdivided. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the plat be approved without variances and subject to appropriate conditions. Streets The subject property is located at the end of Crestview Lane and has 100 feet of public street frontage. The applicants are proposing to subdivide the property into one lot and one outlot. The proposed subdivision would result in Lot 1 and Outlot A not having the required 90 feet of public street frontage. As part of any subdivision, staff reviews acquisition of street right-of-way to serve the subject site and/or adjacent proper- ties. Since Lot 1 and Outlot A have the potential for future subdivision and are lacking public street frontage, staff is recommending that right-of-way be extended from Crestview Lane (Exhibit B) . In addition to servicing future subdivision of the subject property, the extension of Crestview Lane ROW will also provide Lot 1 and Outlot A with the required street frontage. Staff also reviewed the existing land use surrounding the pro- perty to determine whether to preserve ROW for access to adjacent properties. The subject site is abutted to the north by Pleasant Hill subdivision which is completely developed. The property directly to the west of the subject site is the Minnetonka Jr. High School. The property to the south of the subject site is a large parcel occupied by a single family home. This lot is located outside of the current MUSA line which follows the site's southern property line. The parcel is accessed by a long private driveway that reaches CR 117 by crossing over another parcel. The city will be reviewing the Comp Plan amendment this year that would be proposing to include this property within the MUSA line. Since there is potential for subdivision of this property in the future, staff felt that an access to the property should be pre- served as part of the Shively subdivision (Exhibit B) . If Outlot A is never subdivided, as stated by the applicant, and the prop- erty to the south is subdivided the city will have lost an oppor- tunity to preserve access if it is not recommended at this time. Therefore, staff has a responsibility to recommend that such access be provided at this time. Shively Subdivision January 17, 1990 Page 4 Staff has met with the applicant and has discussed our proposed recommendations. The applicant does not agree with providing the ROW to the property to the south. After much discussion, the applicant has agreed to provide extension of Crestview Lane ROW (Exhibit B) , but will not agree to provide the 50 foot easement to the south. Staff stated that we would word the recommen- dations in such a way that the Planning Commission and Council could require both extension of Crestview Lane and the 50 foot ROW to the south or only the extension of Crestview Lane. If only the extension of Crestview Lane is provided, the lack of adequate street frontage will still be resolved and no variances would be required. The proposed subdivision will locate the driveway servicing the existing residence on Lot 1 over a portion of Outlot A. Therefore, staff is recommending that a cross easement for the driveway servicing Lot 1 be provided across Outlot A. Utilities The site is serviced by sewer but is not yet serviced with water. The subject site and surrounding properties on Crestview and West 65th Street were recently included within the MUSA line as part of an amendment to the Comp Plan due to failing septic systems. The area was included in the MUSA line with a condition that it applied only to existing properties and that additional proper- ties could not be hooked-up to the sanitary sewer until the surrounding area were also included in the MUSA line (Attachment #5) . The proposed subdivision will be utilizing the sewer and the outlot will not be able to be developed until it is replatted. The Fire Inspector has reviewed the subdivision and has recom- mended that when the property is further developed and has water service that an additional fire hydrant shall be required (Attachment #6) . Park Dedication The Park Commission reviewed the plat on January 9 , 1990. The Commission recommended that a 10 foot easement for the purpose of pedestrian cross access be provided along the northerly lot line of the subject site (Attachment #7) . Shively Subdivision January 17, 1990 Page 5 COMPLIANCE TABLE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Area Width Depth Setbacks 15, 000 90 125 30 ' front 20 ' rear 10 ' side Lot 1 65, 000 250 * 260 47. 8 ' front 55/100 ' side ** 120 ' rear Outlot A 78,258 N/A * N/A N/A Outlot B 15 , 000 N/A N/A N/A * Lot 1, Block 1 has an 80 foot frontage which requires a lot frontage variance. With the 15 foot wide street ROW dedication proposed by staff, the lot will have adequate frontage. ** The home on Lot 1, Block 1 would maintain a 35 foot setback after the dedication of the 15 foot wide street ROW. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #89-16 as shown on the plat dated December 11, 1989, subject to the following conditions: la. The final plat shall be amended to provide right-of-way for the extension of Crestview Lane as shown on Exhibit B. b. The final plat shall be amended to provided extension of Crestview Lane and a 50 foot right-of-way for future access to the property to the south as shown in Exhibit A. The final plat shall also be amended to designate Outlot A as Outlot A and Outlot B (without Outlot B being the separate outlot created by the extension of the 50 foot right-of-way to the south) . 2 . A 10 foot wide pedestrian trail shall be provided along the northerly border of Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A. Shively Subdivision January 17, 1990 Page 6 3 . Outlot A (and Outlot B) shall not be replatted or developed until the surrounding area is included in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area as conditioned by the recent inclusion of this property into the MUSA line. 4 . Future subdivision of the property and extension of the watermain to the property will result in the requirement of an additional fire hydrant as recommended by the Fire Inspector. 5 . A cross easement shall be granted over Outlot A (or Outlot B) to Lot 1, Block 1. " ATTACHMENTS 1. Exhibit A showing easement over Lot 1 and Outlot A. 2 . Exhibit B showing easement over Lot 1 and Outlot A. 3 . Overall area. 4. Engineering memo dated Jnauary 10, 1990. 5 . MUSA amendment. 6 . Fire Inspector memo dated January 4, 1990. 7 . Park and Recreation memo dated January 9 , 1990. 8 . Preliminary plat dated December 11, 1989. . , N L I . LOT\ t ..4 d ' ��JJ NI V Q� J / \ I t * \° t9,\O6 I �Q C \ ` O� `~,\v`: o b I ' o\ ' \. ti t A ''is ....‘` 'h s �� ` 3� \� \ N ` ■ N. ■ N. n.•� L \ - Per-Arelor _,AroprAir . .... .,,,ijor/ Ar Ip.A . , Gef, Tll!EJd/. Nhikk_ NI:k 50'1 3 5'I ' - -- 1 � IT — —pUTL0� � � tie -- � L7/7 o I I i \ E�� �\ \ \ \ Q - 37 -- OS \ A,F /\ K-7-. \ \\ \. \ \ \\ \ 5r V S \ , ( \ N -sw �� of s642. ,f� wr� — 4;6 90 I I , Se,c. 3, T//6, /2 2 j 5' \ \ ' �v I i - ` \ i �7 //fie p� -5-6-.5z/ e y 4,pc o/ Sec//O,1 3, T//6, ,e 23 i sew. 3 ¢ T//4 2 �3 Ai'?6- /77am/inen7` 1 I r EXHIBIT A -22-f39 72,.o6&, o y I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of File No. the bounJanes of the above described land and of the location of all buildings. A 77 if any,thereon,and all risible encroachments,if any,from or on said land. so•!-- PRELIMINARY PLAT / As surveyed by me this ////7 day of OP�emif",-ig 5)1 Book—Page ._ ' G Scale SH I VE L Y ADD/ T/ D/' Minn,Reg.No. _ /oG�o /ir^� i N L dostoPf-c ......___ _ ` c,- 1.:. 1\0\ I 1 ,.. v „ \ 6.0,,<, ) 11 CCi / v ' / ` ` ,\,. Q \ 1 \\V� qs 1\ \` �\ \ac,`` ne ,` o I t o C O ` • \ 6` \ S. / I Q- , \ Ntv-3-,--..,... . Q \ \ • `�` N I . AliklP N. provrf' , zad...,./ A; • - eKES'rvti. .� /� • .239'34\o¢'91" ` \ 1 r 7-- \ D - - — — 0 UT L 0� p �� A —• \ S6 \ l I \ \ O _ �• \� \ \ \ gip \ ` \ \ \ \ y \/p `. \ A,-c-4:/95 6//LS,v�T \ 1 SQ\ + `\ \ t 2_�Z s/r!'a" \. \ \\ 1 \ James Z. O \ ` \ % I t, \ \ ■ 1 \ N—SW cot- of SG4 of,6'W-' \ I \�v%h //-e o s5c _' ' selc. 3, Tao, i2 23 \ \ sec 3, T/iG Z3 ¢ �,' tti¢ rner o/ Seci/on 3 T//6, 223 I / County /770174/rnen74 I , EXHIBIT B / /2-zz-e9 7^.Vc eRPhy r I hereby certify that this,s: ,-_t a^d correct re,reten Canon of a survey of File No. the bounJanes of the above described land and of the location of all buddmgs, 6¢77 PRELIMINARY PLAT tIEL if any,thereon,and all visible encroachments.if any,from or on sad■ land- 3.INC. ///4, p<jTPmjt� fy B}' Book-Page As surveyed by me thrs _ daY d� 23 -/ V Scale SHIVELY ADDI TIO yo4,` i"=¢o Minn.Reg.No. . 1 -4 At 1:1 N., C------- 2 _• n o mav s 4 � a N o. GI I i 2 Z • I \ g v w� I! A 1!F bi.' I _� I 0 CR 41111 V at _._ ,� � AI • W I /dli N MURF F \O i.1 .‘°.°-°.°-. -' , Y MILL ROAD S u. h I N N to ''I a D -tS 'Al I rg. 74 obi CA ir m a = p °< i �yG� I I. - .w.`i ; OoW iW !I.:. N_1341_4 rtor i v II 1 11,k Vek a .. a ass. + NO —N _ `� 9Z '�,A :' N 1 S HUMMING a e° Viiil v ti t •► - • .3RGAG NO. --!(�= — - •- ----Cil�s]'� 4NfC. eCO ��••y ' VIIII o� TIM I r f _ .. \`. iN 411 N / 4)%0 .:'.i 1 m ^ a ; C ` N• N m g m u r ` g , .dam' I A j ire s e• .•di- Q t� < 1 1 $i- C i^ 1 i - • ' N , v 'E Irk.0. , .ri, .,Il 14\Iii 0 HIA t -, 4 Ig i I ri I CITY OF e, _ , -• CHANHASSEN , .. • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Dave Hempel , Sr. Engineering Technician L.01 DATE: January 10 , 1990 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review of Shively Addition File No. 90-1 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat for Shively Addition dated December 11 , 1989 , prepared by DeMars Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc. , I offer the following comments and recommendations: STREETS Crestview Lane is an existing cul-de-sac consisting of a 20-foot wide bituminous mat with bituminous berm curbs. The existing roadway has been deeded to the City. At this time, no further extension of Crestview Lane is proposed; however , when Outlot A is platted, Crestview Lane could be extended westerly and possibly southerly. It would be advantageous from a traffic flow standpoint to have a street connection to the parcel lying south of this plat for future looping of the street system. Therefore, at this time it is desirable to have dedicated on the plat the south 15 feet of Lot 1 , Block 1 for future right-of-way purposes with the thought when Outlot A develops the remaining 35 feet of right-of-way would then be dedicated. This will provide for the extension of Crestview Lane and allow for lots in Outlot A to meet minimum size and depth requirements. UTILITIES The property is currently served with City sanitary sewer; however, gravity service will only serve the easterly half of the plat. City water is not currently available. The nearest City watermain is in Crestview Lane approximately 500 feet to the east of the plat. The watermain was not extended to the site with sanitary sewer because the residents had new wells and therefore felt no benefit of it being extended at that time. GRADING AND DRAINAGE This subdivision does not propose any grading. } Sharmin Al-Jaff January 10 , 1990 Page 2 MISCELLANEOUS The existing gravel driveway to the current residence will be encroaching upon Outlot A. A cross easement should be obtained for driveway purposes across Outlot A. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1 . The applicant shall dedicate the south 15 feet of Lot 1, Block 1 for right-of-way purposes. c: Gary Warren , City Engineer Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel. 612 291-6359/TDD 291-0904 DATE: January 26, 1987 TO: Metropolitan and Community Development Committee FROM: Long-Range Planning Dept. (Jim Schoettler) SUBJECT: Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Emergency Addition to MUSA, Metropolitan Council District 14, Council File 11594-9 AUTHORITY TO REVIEW The Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 requires that amendments to local comprehensive plans be prepared and submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and adoption in the same manner as the original plans (Minnesota Statutes 473.864, Subd.2, 1978). Guidelines adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 473.864 for reviewing proposed amendments provide for a 90-day review period for amendments potentially affecting one or more of the metropolitan systems, and a 60-day review period for amendments that do not have a potential impact on metropolitan systems. Chanhassen submitted its proposed amendment on December 24, 1986. On January 9, 1987, the Chair determined that the amendment had no potential impact upon any of the metropolitan system plans and was consistent with other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. The amendment was placed on the January 22, 1987, Consent List, but was withdrawn by request of Council member Josephine Nunn. DESCRIPTION OF PLAN AMENDMENT This plan amendment proposes to add a 6.7 acre area to the MUSA for emergency extension of sewer service to 16 lots (see attached map). The area is contiguous to the existing MUSA boundary. Existing on-site systems have failed because of a high water table, creating a potential health hazard. ANALYSIS • - The Lake Ann-Agreement entered into between the Council and the cities of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen provided that these cities establish a MUSA line consistent with an agreed-to supply of vacant land for each city. No sewered development is to take place outside that line. Although this amendment provides sewer service outside the agreed-to line, it does not contradict the intent of the agreement because the area to be included is already substantially developed. Fifteen of the sixteen lots already have houses. In fact, this area should have been included when the MUSA was drawn, since it is an existing developed area contiguous with the existing MUSA. Moreover, there is a potential health hazard that needs to be corrected. Six of the on-site sewage disposal systems have failed due to a high water table. The soil conditions and high water table, together the age of the systems (four to eight years), indicate that additional failures are possible. Mound systems would be the most appropriate on-site solution. However, the city determined that the $5-10,000 cost per unit was roughly comparable to sanitary sewer. Furthermore, sanitary sewers would be a permanent solution to the problem. Adequate sewer capacity is available through the existing city system. No additional hookups beyond the sixteen lots will be allowed. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 1. The area is small in size (6.7 acres) and contains 15 existing homes with one vacant lot. Because the area is already developed, no additional developable land will be added to the MUSA as a result of this plan amendment. 2. The area presents a potential health hazard. At least six on-site septic systems have failed. Additional failures are likely. 3. The cost of sanitary sewer is roughly equivalent to new on-site systems, but sanitary sewer has the advantage of providing a permanent solution. No additional hookups beyond the sixteen lots will be permitted. RECOMMENDATION That the Metropolitan Council approve this amendment as an exception to but not in conflict with the intent of the Lake Ann agreement. The amendment is consistent with metropolitan system plans, the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework and other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. MS4386 - i .. , A k CITY OF ii r CHANHASSEN . . , 1. ,, . •:' A 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' \ (612)937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM. TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: January 4, 1990 SUBJ: 89-16 Sub (Shively) Recommendation from Fire Prevention The distance from the home at the end of Crestview Drive to the closest fire hydrant is in excess of 500 feet. Consideration should be given for an additional fire hydrant in anticipation for future buildings on outlet A. At this point it is not a request to add an additional hydrant but just to be make you aware. 410 TY O F f Ac DATE: 1-9-90 C.C. DATE: 2-12-90 UANHAEN ' CASE NO: 89-16 SUB Prepared by: Sietsema:k T S FF REPORT ?R' 'meow...44STAFF '11-1-14,'rOrem-X1- 4 PROPOSAL: To subdivide 3.9 acres into one lot of 1.49 acres and an outlot of 2.42 acres I- Z Q LOCATION: 2150 Crestview Lane APPLICANT: Thomas and Jean Shively Q2150 Crestview Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential ACREAGE: 3.9 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF S- RR E- PUD-R • 171 W- OI, Office and Institutional EXISTING PARKS: Although no City parks exist, the W Minnetonka Intermediate School serves this area. The Comprehensive Trail i •. Plan calls for a trail connection from West 65th Street to Minnetonka Intermediate School. Shively Subdivision January 9, 1990 Page 2 BACKGROUND This proposal involves the subdivision of 3 . 9 acres into an outlot and a lot. The Comprehensive Plan shows this as an area served by the Minnetonka Intermediate School. Although no City park exists in this area, this small development does not repre- sent a suitable park acquisition possibility. The Comprehensive Trail Plan calls for a trail connection between West 65th Street and the Minnetonka Intermediate School. Please refer to the attached memorandum dated December 14, 1989 for the background on this isue. As stated in the attached memo, this development presents the opportunity for the City to obtain the trail connection needed. A 20' x 417 ' trail section is roughly .19 acres with a value of approximately $2,000. RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of this office to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction, and to require the dedication of a 20 ft. wide trail segment along the north property line. Staff would also recommend that the City compensate the landowner for this dedication at the fair market value. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION ACTION (1-9-90) The Park and Recreation Commission discussed this issue at length with the people that are proposing to purchase the Shively prop- erty, Michael and Kathy Schultz . The Schultz's are not in favor of the pedestrian trail along this north property line. They stated that they were not opposed to children walking through there, but did not want a formal trailway. Although the Commission was sympathetic to their concerns, they felt that a connection to the Minnetonka Intermediate School should be pre- served for future generations. The Commission indicated that they would not likely want to pave the trail any time soon,, however, if traffic levels mandated it, such could occur at some point in the future. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended approval with the condition that a 10 ft. easement for the purpose of i pedestrian cross access. They asked that the City Attorney review such. The motion carried unanimously. I a CITY OF CHANHASSEN .4.4( 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900* FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: December 14, 1989 SUBJ: Trailway from West 65th Street to Minnetonka Intermediate School The saga continues as the City continues to pursue the acquisi- tion of a pedestrian walkway from West 65th Street to the Minnetonka Intermediate School. As you will recall, it was the City' s desire to provide a pedestrian access to the school for residents along Murray Hill Road and West 65th Street. At the time the Ostrum Development was approved, an easement was required along the east and south boundary. Unfortunately, the developer neglected to record the easement and the lots were sold. Since that time a trail through the water tower property has been provided. Although this provides access for the residents along Murray Hill Road, the people along West 65th Street remain stranded. Staff has researched a number of alternatives. The Wolf pro- perty, just south of the Ostrum Development, includes a narrow strip of land to the Minnetonka Intermediate School. The Wolf' s have agreed to sell the property to :the City. However, upon sur- veying the property, we have found that _ t .varies from 4.15 - 8.15 feet in width, to narrow for a trailway." ' Upon further .investiga- tion Staff has found that the adjacent Shively property is prosposed to be subdivided, providing the City the opportunity to acquire the additional land needed.- dir MEMO to Don Ashworth Page 2 The missing link in the chain would then be to acquire an ease- ment along the west side of the Kelly property from West 65th Street or along the east side of Lot 5 of Pleasant Hills. At this point we have entered into a purchase agreement with the Wolf's and it is anticipated that the dedication of land for trail purposes will be required of the Shively subdivision. In the meantime, Staff will work with the Kelly' s and/or the owners of Lot 5 to obtain the missing link. Unless otherwise directed by you, Council or the Park and Recreation Commission, I will proceed as outlined above. I F ( b�% .'' 42a75 - - Y 7vMM .I L $ Q d- (1/?-‘AL' as _ . $1P�' �a 31 a a 4 29 tD3 0 s �p z _b . , IS 22 . .._ 2 - �,1►` �.`. n X30 ' • ` aV0��\ `b — / •\ \ :5 r A \ -—--- y 0300 �' � 1 ' 0LOT �$ ''� 't�� �,3° 31 21 443V NO 2 I I • ':\ • 0 0 0 0 " 80 rv6 3! . I 80 1 nor ` �� �` a 20q% ;ao90 ; aoso aQ3C 1 SUTER MASSE . 9T `- HILL A N ELOAY 'M'I:L r( ' t, p 406 - --- -_-_ _- ( 123 I F 20 h.---- 31 - - °\`b 4,\ I\\\�pe \ A. • \P 1 \\ �` ,� ?jo •z, k). a°� • • Q' a � a 1 � V. ��t co - ,,/ o° 20 Nev. 3 19 , w �, ' Jt6{ i•t.1• O . qo ..L 4GIT —e. .J.1 '4 . K. f WALT MP . 'co• -'e�� _ CTf p0. 007 1) _ • j 44e i3 44s- (0I b`ASA 4 a C f dor 6 • �ING S 2 1 '• . ( L 5t it-mo... gIo 20$a_ MD 020 I a,0'° a nac �;� .; Yl y�� j� 65TH ST. ';', h,,A SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 276 3 P� ,��A \es �3 BPS b `"�`' a o `•.'' eK 75, P 1.I a \ aob pn1 ION 2 1 5 ;: Q� 06- 9,0S1 A 2 N es•st E ty. •� •�1♦• , b*♦'•�`• `! tea,1.2 ISO 1 2530 �,F: -/j voot.,c-isk t��d oI� c:` 1;, E J MAT ISO .,i /`'� ?�P° ".<` O . 1 i o be •2,P 1533 • 7, i {S�J �.. a,s� o� (� 1 0 oao•. , r. Br .!r, P. 74 ° DSO S . . - THOMAS A SHIVE..Y 4 ° '� Nes•2,,W sef 02 ss i ' DOC '/7300 ■ -� 2„ � i° r)$0 ''� .y.g --T 130 `r W. e •• rO .el 4er�, ._ a +,�' s ea•u'e se�•I5'w _ s. 30 I q STREE T NEST pzi,./�K�' _" D W. NIKOI 3.P1 4 WIN ?IO RKSR . NI ].....v ; - 1--- 7:::.)....___I__ 1 .1 1 1 . 11111 _I r • r Wit, I.I P 1 C !1' NO. 1,0 • ..)1 t„ - Lr a' – WALD' • - . - 1 u -- N , , . L.2_ ......44o Z3 NI.0 P " • IA le ! Z "i it ts t. .. 21 6 •H 4 3 I 1 '%2 SECOND . E e.. 1 ,1 2 4 M'tnneLon Kick . 1,410L-1-14 . •. .., I I 2 At,' ■-v;\ ' . Sc\1001 ‘,,,\ . ............._____ _,..._______: 65TH ST 0 i5 i . ""--"7"1"—'74'14" "I :U . 1 A 276 3 \s‘ c?,5t4 i .4 3 n 1100 , ' • L...... . L.1..4.° 'MA &Geri) , . .,.! .. , • .. 80k--)4.../..vethkoreduria.viL4az.414•<---) _........ ..................r. ....... 7.7__.,.................., ......r.................7.7.0..............., s s. . 41 , •: • • 1 • Lob 1 - .-t! 4.• . .... •,,,• ...• ., •• ,..:.1 . .. -, ; . ,., • :•., .. .i .. .„_,.......... ,BlocK 1 p: . • r • • • ., • + ••• • i • • .. ; i ••• — 4 s. ,4.:Nil L T _. . 'I. • •i h.., :I.. i: '•. 1 • :6 .b.„4. . ...! r . 44. AL-- • Ttlinaii:, .*. ::.1.14 Y r .........■.........4.,....... ' •, ... 1 1 • • vr;717 —.--•. ----rr.: ,1/4---- . :: 4 ' LOr 7.•.(,0. 4 i. „r-...--... ...or'f!..or...1.i .. "7 "----- — 011,. I 10.11%1 G f. ,tol*/. :•;N. e.r . e-ir' ., 4 ‘ , ROL' ..i / . CRESTNI.Elell 4.ANIE_,-" A °Quo b. --------t--------1 11!4.1:,...: ,.•!•• .4,..,.it, ••••----------------"I V•• -50- 8 Walk 3 biz..k.F. - ! • s.: :• • • I. . •4 0 00. , A 4 , •or e • .,:. I, b( L.S. --•– — .– L.'...............,.) • • i If P4 I . ...------------------:--TT"----"w---- 11... • I -- -a -...---•------- . 0 . ..... ... ......... ......--.. 4 • 2 Ot 4it4 . s\S3C1 cl . CC OV 0 • . >- . AttaCil men+ 2. 1-- z . -.. . ... . .