The URL can be used to link to this page

9. Preliminary Plat to subdivide on Dogwood , ,, . ,... 1 . CITYOF , , CHANHASSEN _ . . , , 1 . . . : . , • %.„.. , : . :" ... .„, . ., ,,. , ., I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 . ' �_ (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action by City Administrator IMEMORANDUM 'IEndorsed TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Modife,' Re)e�-tc D � ' I FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner Dtte Sutmred to Commission II DATE: February 7. 1990 - ~. Sub,:. ; to Cour>o SUBJ: City Council Update Brandt Subdivision �' � �'oCoub AlPROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 20 acres into two 10 acre II parcels. As with previous review of this property, the proposed plat meets all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance and all issues have been addressed, except the provision of road access II and location of a trail easement. The current application is providing an additional 40 foot wide ROW adjacent to an existing 20 foot ROW to provide the rural standard of 60 feet. The issue at hand is whether the 60 foot ROW should be improved beyond what II currently exists and what additional roadway easements should be provided to accommodate any future development that may occur. II On January 17, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Subdivision #89-11 as shown on plans dated November 13, 1989. All voted in favor except Conrad and Batzli who opposed the motion for the reason that they felt they would prefer to see II further study on the route taken by the power line with potential connection to Crimson Bay Road at a future time. I Staff had recommended that the right-of-way servicing the two newly created lots be improved to city standards at this time. The Planning Commission did not feel that improvement of the road I was required at this time. The Planning Commission did agreed that the easement for future connection to the east should be provided. The applicant has worked with the Engineering Department since the Planning Commission meeting to relocate the I/ turnaround servicing the two lots so that it could be located to service some of the existing lots along Lake Minnewashta. Staff has reviewed this option and has approved the relocation of the 1 turnaround. The turnaround must be improved to city standards to provide year round access for emergency vehicles. II 1 II ' M ' Mr. Don Ashworth February 7, 1990 Page 2 CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves of Subdivision #89-11 as shown on the plans dated November 13, 1989, with the following conditions: 1. Require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line of Lots 1 and 2 to be combined with the existing 20 feet of right-of- !' way for the full 60 foot rural street right-of-way but improvement of that right-of-way would not be required until the rest of Dogwood or Lake Drive is improved or until ' development in the area would require improvement. 2 . The developer shall receive and comply with any necessary permits from the Watershed District. 3 . The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the east boundary of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm and along the south boundary of Lot 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm from the southeast corner of Crimson Bay Road, Crimson Bay subdivision. 4 . The two approved septic sites on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm shall be staked and preserved. 5 . Any access, including a dock or boardwalk, to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland per- mit as would any dredging or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. 6 . There will be a cul-de-sac at the end of a system of private driveways that serve the owners of Lots 1 and 2 and plans and specs for that cul-de-sac shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. If the parties decide not to use the system of private drivways but rather use Lake Drive somehow, they will still be responsible for providing a cul-de-sac at the end that meets the approval of the City Engineer. " ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated January 17, 1990. 2 . Staff report submitted to the Planning Commission. I I 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 18 1 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 II 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. I 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. . . 1 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 i 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. t Conrad: Jo Ann, could you summarize for me your recommendation? What, in 11 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 II 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? I 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 II or a representative? Mr. Laughinghouse. I've seen you here before on this I II , Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 19 ' issue. ' Kurt Laughinghouse: Yes sir . Mr. Chairman and commissioners. I sure have. And the issues haven't changed an awful lot. I 'm representing Mr. and Mrs. Brandt who are here. They are the purchasers of what is proposed Lot 2. The south lot. Subsequent to their application the northerly lot was ' purchased by Mr. Ken Daniels and he is here this evening. I know that some of the other neighbors of this property are here and they probably have something to say. To set the stage a little bit for those commissioners who weren't here a year ago. The owner of this entire 100 acre property, Tim Foster who does live here in Chanhassen and has for some 10 years, applied to divide the 100 acres into 4 lots. It was one 80 acre lot and this 20 was divided then, or proposed to be divided into the 10 that you see on the south and two 5 acre lots. Ultimately the Planning Commission recommended and it did not go to Council , a lot of road development and in effect Foster withdrew the application. He then subsequently sold the 80 acre parcel to another party and a home is being built on that property. Now with this 20 acres we propose to simply divide it into two 10 acre lots. I think the fact that it' s being platted is almost a quirk in the law in the sense that these 10 acre lots are hardly, it's hardly an urbanization of this property. It' s really only a matter of getting to the zoning but because it is a plat, then the City has a review and that is why ' we're discussing all these roads and streets. I guess the short series is that it's an awful lot like, if you've read all this transcript from a year ago, the story is the same. This land is not being subdivided. It' s not being developed. Foster bought 100 acres of property. Ultimately he now proposes that 3 homes be built on a 100 acres of property. It is not as though it's urbanized and we don't know whether urban services, sewer and water will be delivered in 5 years or 50 years to this area. Probably a 1 lot less than 50. Probably a lot more than 5 years. It's when the urban services are delivered, sewer and water , is when we should deal with paving streets and things of that nature. I feel. Sewer and water are going to come in from the east along TH 41. Along Tanadoona. And that 80 acre II property will develop before these 10 acre properties are reached. I think that's the reason that I propose that you not require the 30 foot easement on the north side of what is Lot 1 here. When the 80 acre property is developed, and we all agree that someday somebody, if not the current owner. Their heirs or somebody that they sell the land to, will develop that property. When that happens, all of the terrain, that whole 80 acres I will be considered. Having that 30 acre easement there might even be a distraction as to what the best development of that 80 acres is or what the best development of the whole 100 acres is. If this subdivision is approved, each of these owners can only put 1 house on the 10 acres. This II is rural zoning, and that's all they hope to do. Someday in the future either they, and they'll deny it, with they and their heirs will subdivide the land. We know that. But that is when all of us should get together again and decide the best way to lay out streets and lots in this neighborhood. We understand fully and we agree with increasing that right-of-way on the west side of the property to the full 60 feet and that means that these owners will dedicate 40 feet. We do not agree that that II should be paved. In fact we feel very strongly that the road will not be developed in the future in that area. The lake lots are long lots. Sewer and water service will probably go on the other side, on the lake side of 1 ' 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 20 1 all those homes, if that ever happens because that' s the only way that you 1 can put gravity sewer in there. Be on the lake side of all those lake homes. And so I think it would be murderous to take the 60 foot right-of- way where we propose to grant it just for a matter of for the record let' s us say and then pave that. Now there is, as was described by Ms. Olsen, a 40 or 50 foot wide power line easement that is utterly devastated as we all know and that only happened about a year and a half or two ago. There' s no II reason in the world to believe that that is where a street will go in the future. Just because there are no trees there now, by the time sewer and water arrives, at this point in the world, that might be 20 years from now. There could be 20 year old trees on that property. The owner of the 80 acre parcel intends to bury the power line through his property. I think that the owners that are purchasing this property may well do it. I know that the neighbors to the east would like to see that power line buried and I inquired a couple days ago with Minnesota Valley and it's about $3.00 II a running foot to bury that power line so that may be what will happen there. Then that land may grow up and we may have an oak woods there instead of this power line easement. So I think, and that just underscores II the point that this is not a development. It is a plat and technically therefore it' s subject to all requirements, a street and all this and so forth but it really is just two 10 acre lots on a 20 acre lot and ultimately is 3 lots on a 100 acre parcel . It is a very modest request of II the city so. We agree with all the staff recommendations except for two points. One is that the Lake Drive should be paved. We think it should not be paved. Secondly, that the 30 foot easement across the north line of I the property, we feel that that should not be required mostly because we simply do not know where roads are going to be needed in the future. So I probably said more than I need to. If there' s any questions, I'd be glad to answer them but some others may want to speak to this. Thank you. Conrad: Thank you. Other comments? I John Getsch: I'm John Getsch. I'm at 7510 Dogwood Road. Just own the property there. The proposed subdivision as it's laid out there, as brought our earlier , is at the end of a mile long cul-de-sac. It really just, as Mx. Laughinghouse said, they're just dividing that lot if half which is not a major problem but planning for the future is the big problem here. Whenever this has been brought up before and the subdividing, it seems like whoever wants to subdivide it, does not want to have an easement II on their property. The problem's never going to get taken care of until some easements are put in there. As we just saw in the earlier problem, when there's no provision put in there, they don't get an easement now out II of there, there's going to be a fight and they're going to come back and say, well it's got to come when the 80 acres is developed. It's got to come all out of the 80 acres because the easement was granted earlier . I II think there needs to be plans now, somehow of getting a road out and it has to be started now. 20 feet along the properties that are along the lake, there really isn't any other easement other than that coming all the way in II there. The other issue is the easement for the power lines. How is that going to be handled and put back in there. The problem with the trees and moving the road over where it' s proposed there is acceptable. That's what we have talked with Kurt when he was trying to develop this before and said II it's got to be put on. It doesn't make any sense to go in there and rip 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 21 out 150 year old trees when the power company already dick it for you. And nothing's going to grow there as long as the power company sprays it every year to keep it from anything coming back. The other issue that was brought up, I think it was last fall . I can't remember, was a trail coming through from the south. Some type of trail and there was talk about something easement. I know it' s not in here that there is nothing showing for any plan of that. It just deadends coming off of Crimson Bay there. You' ll see there was an easement granted up to the edge of the property through Crimson Bay and nothing has been done to follow that and that was brought up in the last meeting when this was looked at and they were talking about running all the way around the 80 acres. Running I think it was around to the east. Running along the south edge of the property and 11 then up along the east, cutting through to the Campfire camp property and then through up to the park. Olsen: The trail easement, I forgot to point that out. They' re proposing a trail easement along in here. John Getsch: Okay. So that is part of the. . . Olsen: Yeah. I forgot to mention it. John Getsch: Those are the only real concerns I have right now. For future planning, to get the easement because there is no other way of improving that road right now unless the people along the lake want to have their garages and homes ripped out. It' s the only way. There's no place to move towards the lake. Thank you. Ed Getsch: My name is Ed Getsch. I 'm at the very end of a 5,000 foot I cul-de-sac which doesn' t bother me at all. What bothers me is the potential of widening what the power company did to the property about 2 years ago. The way it was proposed earlier that they develop the road in II purple but not take any trees down and that's a little difficult to do. They either have to put the road where it's cleared or they're going to have to clear 100 foot wide swath through the woods west of the present power line. I don' t think there' s even an easement there at this point. I II think it's only there because it was run 50 years ago so I don't think there's any defined easement there. I ran into a problem about 6 months ago I wanted to run underground electric up to the power pole and the I Electric Coop said well that's fine. You can run it up to the property but you're going to have to get an easement from the neighboring property to go over to the power line which is another 80 feet. Well , I think if they're going to develop this. He doesn't want to call it a development but it's II turning into a development, is that they either get their act together and do it all or don't do anything. Clean the road out. Put it in or do nothing because we don't have access to the power lines. Maybe we' ll have access someday. Maybe we won't. If it's cleared up in easements now, where the road is actually going to go. Where it's going to be cleared and where the power lines are going to go so we know where we can get our II access if we want another access to those other lots. Right now all of the last 7 lots are under one ownership so it's not really a problem right now but it could be in 10 years where if we want access to the road that's now in blue up there, we're going to have to cross somebody elses property to I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 22 1 get to it. So I think they need to define where the road' s going to go and II say what. They' re saying we want to have it where the clearing is now. Jo Ann says let' s put it where the purple is. Well , the two aren' t the same. They're about 80 feet apart. So that' s all the complaints I have. Kurt Laughinghouse: It was something that wasn' t described. Because of the topo on here, there's an awful lot of things that are hard to read. But if I may, this is the same. . . These are the 7 lots that Mr. Getsch has II described that are under one ownership. The power line, and let me start again. There's a 20 foot easement that runs from here, in fact it runs all the way back down to TH 41 but then runs along the back edge of these lots and there's a little small partial cul-de-sac in here. That is currently owned by the City. The 20 feet. This proposal is to dedicate 40 feet or use easement, whichever it is, 40 more feet so there is a 60 foot ownership by the City here. Now, this land is in 150 year old oak trees and it's not our intention at all to have that paved. The power line runs approximately because Ed said, 80 feet from this point parallel to the road. And it runs II down here along the Arboretum fence. It is that that was cleared at least 40 or 50 feet wide. What we didn't describe but it is hard to see in this topo so you didn' t realize it but there is an easement in favor of Lot 2 over Lot 1. It will be for ingress and egress purposes and we already have II a description of it and will run from this point across a long power line and will terminate as Jo Ann Olsen described a 40 foot cul-de-sac. To city standards. I think permanent. . . I Hempel: All weather. Kurt Laughinghouse: All weather . Be an all weather driveway. These t purchasers, and they're both here to speak for themselves, want to live in this rural situation. We all know that someday it will be developed . In the meantime, they do propose to use the power line with an all weather driveway as do all these 17 homeowners along here. They have a 20 foot actual city owned road. So just to clarify. We agree completely with the Getsch's. This land under this right-of-way should not be developed into a II road. Should not be paved. It is old oak trees. Then as a practical matter, a driveway will be an easement and we agreed to that. Put in a development agree in yesterday. Will go over the power line in this fashion to lead to access to this property. I hope that eases the concern. Ken Daniels: I got Lot 1. I just bought it. I don't know, I do know the owner of the 80 acres. Only because he plays golf at my golf club and he II called me today and found out that I had bought that. Now the Lot 2, I don't know that person. I just met him tonight. My intent was not to put a number of houses or ever subdivide Lot 1. My only purpose in agreeing to ii allowing that easement across was to allow Lot 2 to have ingress and egress II off his property. I don't like carving up easements over Lot 1 on the north or on the west side of that property. I understand the guy in Lot 2 needs to get in and out of his property and that's why I agreed to that. I II don't think that I should be stuck paying for all these things however and I just don't see number one, the easement on the north side of the road. It doesn' t make sense. To use easement you'd have to get the guy with the 11 80 acres to give you another 30 acres back and he's going to have to come in and plat that property if he wants to develop it. As fax as a power I Planning Commission Meeting ' January 17, 1990 - Page 23 line going across that property, I would like to see it buried too. If there's reasonable cost for doing that, I 'd be happy to pay for it. I don' t mind giving this other party an easement but I don' t want to build 11 him a highway through that property either. Okay? Thank you. Ed Getsch: My main concern is preserving what's there rather than destroying any more. Also, how do we get to the power lines when they're buried? Now if they bury them along the easement for the road, weave in and out of the trees, the easement that's on that drawing. But if the power lines are buried over where it' s now cleared or anywhere in that t clearing, we have to cross at least your land to get to it and that needs to be addressed somewhere along the line. Otherwise I believe in property rights for the owner. So that's all I 'm concerned about. Peter Brandt: I'm Peter Brandt and I 'm the purchaser of Lot 2. I just want to voice sort of my objection to putting a paved road in. If you've been out there before you' ll realize that there are no paved roads. The I road that goes out there right now is a dirt road. Putting in a 60 foot paved road at this point is going to look, first of all it' s going to be II ridiculous becaue neither of us can subdivide and have no intention of doing so. Secondly, all we' re asking for is a driveway and putting a 60 foot driveway in doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Especially when you go back to some of Kurt's comments in terms of if the whole area II is going to be developed, you really have to look at the whole 100 acres. You can't just look at the two 10 acre parcels that are being subdivided today. ' Enimings: Why? I mean I think that' s exactly what we're doing is looking at the two. I don't understand that at all. Maybe you could tell me why. Peter Brandt: Well first of all , the two 10 acre parcels are landlocked at this point. There's property owners on all sides of us. There's 80 acres on the north side and the west side and then on the south side, the Minnesote Arboretum has an apple orchard on the south side and then the Crimson Bay development is also on the south side. Emmings: We've all looked at this, this is the third time in the last couple years so we're pretty familiar with it. But this is, the thing that's in front of us is the division of 20 acres into two 10 acre lots. It's not the division of 100 acres into three lots. 1 Peter Brandt: Sure. And for that reason, I don't personally see a need for a 60 foot paved road pretty much in the middle of nowhere. It's going I to connect up to a dirt road. The other thing, in terms of the easement through the trees, we object very strongly to taking any trees out. One of the reasons we're interested in the land is because it's wooded. Although I a very small portion of our property would actually be affected by it, as far as we're concerned, any trees taken out are too many. Especially given the fact of the power company has already gone through and taken trees out for us. - IIHempel : Mr . Chairman, if I could just clarify the city standard road width for a rural. It is a 24 foot bituminous mat with 6 foot gravel shoulders. I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 24 Not 60 foot pavement. Conrad: Thanks. Other comments. Batzli moved, Elison seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Joan. What are your questions? Comments? You don' t have the background the rest of us do so you're. . . Ahrens : Yeah, why don't we start with Steve. I pass the buck. I Conrad: That's fair. Any questions at all? Ahrens: I don' t understand some of this. First of all , there's a 20 foot II roadway that the City owns on the west side of Lake Drive. Right? There's going to be, the road that is proposed to be put in is on the east side of Lake Drive. Right? So there'd be Lake Drive but it'd just be, so there'd II be no access for . . .Lake Minnewashta. Conrad: Yeah, that's a good question. What would be the process , would there ever be a way to connect? Olsen: To connect? Conrad: Those lots that are currently serviced by the current road. By Dogwood. Let's say in 20 years, what would be a process to hook them into the new right-of-way? Olsen: The right-of-way right now is being proposed where they wouldn' t have it. They would be adjacent to it. If the right-of-way went up to where the clearing is right now. Batzli : They'd be on a long cul-de-sac there. The people currently on Dogwood. Conrad: So there's really no benefit to those people for this particular road. The right-of-way that we're talking about right now. Even in the future, there is no long term benefit for them. They're still going to have a separate access to their own property. Batzli : Ladd is talking about if we go the power line route, you're going II to get a Y shape and the people currently on Dogwood. Errmings: I didn't know you were talking about the power line. I Conrad: Oh, I'm sorry. I knew that. Ahrens: That's what I was asking about. The power lines. Wouldn' t there II be a piece of land on Lot 1 that would go between the power line route and the access? i I 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' January 17, 1990 - Page 25 ' Conrad : Yeah. Still under the ownership of those owning Lot 1 and 2. Ahrens: So there would be no access. 11 Conrad: Not unless they sold it. ' Olsen: Or if it was all acquired as an easement now but that would mean that Lot 1 would be giving up about 100 feet. It's never been done. Ahrens: I'm going to go with that for a second. I do have a problem with ' this provision, one of the conditions provided by staff. That Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 waive any rights to contest future assessments . . .Dogwood. I don't understand why they can do that. I don't know if that's possible. Olsen: It' s been done before like in development contracts and such where. IEllson: That's if you don't recommend the street. Olsen: Right. They're saying that at this point that they do not want to have a street but at some point that the street does need to be improved to II provide the safety, the standards. Then at that point we want it to be made clear that. . . ' Ellson: You could have got it now but we chose not to so we can get it later. Olsen: They always can still contest it but we kind of let them know that at some point it will happen. Batzli : It' s certainly making it of record as to those lots so that people ' purchasing it will have noticed that the street was deferred to a later time. Ahrens : They have notice of the objection. Batzli : Yes. Whether they object or not, you can always object. IIConrad: You don' t have anything else or do you want to think? Ahrens: I 'm going to think about this. . 1 Batzli : Just an easy question first. Have they ever decided where the septic sites would be? I have a tough time deciphering these. It already Icurrently shows them? Olsen: On these plans, it should. IIBatzli : Oh. Okay. Those little dotted guys are septic sites? Olsen: Yes. The soil borings were performed years ago. ' 87 or so but they were all approved. Batzli : Things like that don' t change over time? I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 26 Olsen: No. , Batzli : You wouldn't have a requirement to go out there and do it again? Olsen: No, you wouldn't. Batzli : Okay. Why aren' t we, I remember hearing in past conversations why II we're not going to connect to Crimson Bay Road but explain to me why we' re not going to do that. Olsen: In looking at the options we were thinking that the access onto like TH 5, . . .Dave input too but that that was going to be difficulty. It' s already a bad intersection. When we went through this process before, in front of the Planning Commission, at that time it wasn't felt that this should be the connection to the south. We agreed to have, that' s still an II option and we have looked at the cross sections and it can be accomplished. Still meet the City standards. I Batzli : It seems to me that we just got done talking about long cul-de-sacs and here we have an even longer one. I don't know. It' s obviously a very narrow dirt road at this point. Olsen: It was sort of a compromise between the staff and the applicant. They did not agree to having it go to the south. . .options for future connections and that's why we were going back to the east because in the all the feasibility studies, a lot of them showed roads going back through that section. It' s still a possibility. It wouldn' t be able to accomplish. . .unless the property from the Arboretum would come down. Essentially that splits Lot 2 into 2 lots also. If you do improve the street. Hempel : Mr . Chairman, I think the major factor why we' re not considering the southern connection is because of TH 5. The intersection there, if you add traffic to it, it's going to get worst. We' re looking at future upgrading of TH 5, the State is I should say, and at that time they're really requesting limited access. They might have only right turn, right out in that intersection also. Emmings: Does the upgrading go west, that the State is looking at, go west of TH 41? Hempel: Some day it will . Emmings: But it's not now? , Hempel : But not in the immediate future, no. Conrad: So it's not topography? It's traffic you're telling me which is kind of new information. Hempel: Topography is difficult also but it could be managed. I I II Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 27 Emmings: They told us that topography was the thing, the reason we shouldn't do it the last time it was here is my recollection. Conrad: Yeah. That's where I was at. Steep grade and some other stuff. Obviously engineering wise we can do anything but I guess I 'm not swayed by traffic on TH 5 there. It seems, and I 've always thought this, it seems like a nice solution for an access to that site but I was swayed by topography. It couldn't be done reasonably well and I guess I need confirmation that that's still the case. Olsen: Part of the reason is we do have new topo for out there and it showed that it's not as steep as what the original topo showed. Even on 11 the plan, if you actually go out there, it doesn' t look as steep and that' s why, we did pursue the south access again and did show that it could be done. Hempel : The grades are more gentle up here the power lines are though. Actually where the right-of-way is proposed, the slope is much steeper . Conrad: On the Crimson Bay development we have an access or we have an easement going to the property line don' t we? Olsen: It's 25 feet past. Conrad: Is the grade more than 7% going up? Hempel: I believe it was in the 7% to 10% range, yes. Conrad: What's the vegetation like? I haven' t visited that. Hempel: It's heavily wooded going up the hill. Conrad : Okay. Brian? 11 Batzli : Is this area within the MUSA line expansion as well? IKrauss: No. Batzli : Why isn't it? Just out of curiousity. Why did we jog it up right there? Did we cut it at TH 41? Was that our line? ' Krauss: It actually cuts off before you get to TH 41. That area on the north side of TH 41 was designated as a study area. Then it picks up north IIon TH 41 a ways. Batzli: That corner on TH 41 and TH 5 was the study area? Okay. IIKrauss: It was felt that that was more area for residential development than we could justify based upon our expectations of growth at this time. ' Batzli: I guess I look at this being a little bit different than the last one in that I think in order for Lot 2 to develop, which at some day it probably has to, I think we do need to have some sort of improved street 1 • Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 28 and I think now's the time to get it. An interesting question raised though is if in fact they do bury the power line and then you're looking at II a long delay over a period of time, I don' t know that it makes sense to put it where the power line is now, although that seems like the best option right now. But in a matter of years, if they do go through with it and buy II the line and they quite cutting the trees, if you're looking down the road, that's a heck of a question as to where you're going to put it. Conrad: Well, you go back to the current road. And you'll take 40 feet of 11 the trees that are there. Elison: And they'll be older than the other ones that are 20 years old. Batzli: Well, they might all be dying by that time. If you put a road in next to the power line, would it fit in the right-of-way? You'd be taking 11 out more trees yet wouldn't you? Hempel : Some additional trees would have to be removed. I think the slopes extended out approximately 80 feet wide through there. Batzli : If we took right-of-way now, you wouldn't necessarily have to include. It could be a private drive at this point couldn' t it across Lot II 1? Okay, I don' t have anything else right now. Elison: This one, I mean I only saw this one time. I don' t have all the history of the other people but it' s always been confusing to me so I 'll be the first to say that. But the different street choices really threw me for a loop and I guess I had almost the same questions as his at the end . I mean you're looking at Miss I want to save every tree I possibly can. I hate the thought of going in and taking them just for the sake of right now two more lots. I like the idea of getting the easement so that we could build it and bring it up to the standard as the density increases or something but I really didn't want to do that right now and I wondered if II what we're proposing here in the motion is to bring it up to a standard like right now. It shall be built to City standards. In other words, as soon as they get it, we' re going to have this long dirt road and then just this great looking little piece down there for one person and I 'd rather not do something like that but I'd like the capability later on to say okay, now we want it. We've got that easement, we'd like to do it about now. If we have that with maybe just changing that number 1, that's the way I'd like to see it going. Conrad: Can you react? , Elison: They're shaking their heads. Olsen: The way it's written right now is that it would have to improved at II this time. Ellson: But we could like. . . I Emmings: We could propose that as an alternative. 1(a) . . .like they said but not require improvement. I II Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 29 Ellson: Okay. You're right. And that's what I 'm looking to do. g 9 I Emmings: Just a couple of things. On page 6 of the staff report, under lot frontage, it says Lot 2 has 100 feet in that the ordinance requires 200. And then it says that no variances are required and can you rationalize that for me. Olsen: That's one. . . I Emmings: So it would need a variance. Is that a variance that they have to go to the Board of Adjustments for or is that something that we give them by passing this? IOlsen: We've done it before. . . Emmings: Well, what's required? Olsen: Technically we take it back in front of the Board of Adjustments. I Emmings: So this needs a variance for lot frontage, at least for Lot 2. As far as the road thing goes , to me I believe what should be done is that we should get the 40 feet off the west side of 1 and continue to Lot 2 as II it' s drawn on the big map that we have and not have them develop it until , for the present. I don't see any reason of bringing that end of things up to a standard that the rest of that long , long road doesn' t meet right now. I Temporarily they' ll have their own system of private driveway which seems very reasonable to me and seems to fit the character of what they're doing and everything else so I 'm fine with that. I do think, it wasn't in our report this business of them putting a cul-de-sac on the end of the private Idriveway that would be up to city standards but that is commonplace? Olsen: Yes. It' s going to be. . . IEmmings: It's not there as a condition. It might have been mentioned. Olsen: We're showing it on the plan. . . IEmmings: No, they're talking about doing it at the end of the private drive. Is that right? IHempel: On the common lot line between 1 and 2. I Emmings: But that's on their own private system of road that they're doing. Hempel : That's correct. IIEmmings: Alright. I think that should be in there as a condition that they will provide plans and specs for a cul-de-sac at the end of the I private drive that will satisfy the City Engineer because that gives us finally a place for things to turn around down there even if it isn't in the best place but I think that' s an important thing to have now. I don't 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 30 like the provision where they waive rights to contest future assessments . I I think that's awful. I think if they dedicated the, if we're forcing them to give us that easement across there to build a road in the future, when II it comes time to build that road, they' re going to get assessed and they should have the right to come in and complain all they want before they get assessed. It's good to let off steam. I think that the road needs to be where it is. I think we've got to add the 40 to the 20 so we don' t cut off II the properties along the lake and I think what ultimately ought to happen out there is that that damn power line ought to buried and it ought to be buried in the road right-of-way. That solves everybody's problem. I don' t II think the power company would have any problem with that. If there was an easement out there, they'd be happy to use it. Would that be right do you think? IIHempel : I would say so, yes. &timings: So I think that's a good solution. It will fit everybody' s problems. I have a question about, I wonder Mr. Brandt, is he still here? II You understand that you can' t put in a dock or a boardwalk or move any vegetation or do any dredging or anything to that shoreline without coming II back here for a wetland alteration permit? Peter Brandt: Yes. Emmings: Has that been explained to you? II Peter Brandt: Yes. I Emmings: Okay. And I wondered, as far as Mr . Daniels is concerned. Do you have any, has anybody said you'd have any lake access from your lot? II Ken Daniels: No. I'm looking for somebody. I was just talking . . . Emmings: Well, forget it because I 'm watching you. I 'd advise you, if you're planning on that, to read our regulations. There can' t be boats on II docks. If you' re not an owner of the property, you can't put a boat on the dock and things like that. There are a lot of rules regarding that and I II don't know. You're buying a real nice big lot real close to a real nice lake that I live on and I just want to make sure your eyes are open when you're going in. Ken Daniels: I'm buying the wooded lot. II Emmings: That's good. This is just a question out of pure ignorance. On II Lot 2, the septic sites are a long ways from the house. Is that common? I've never seen septic sites so far away from a house before. Olsen: That's not where they have to be. What usually happens is that II they'll bring in new soil borings once they have the location of the house. Eumings: If for any reason those happen to the be the only sites, is that II any problem? I don't know. Is it uphill or anything so they'd have to have a pump station? 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 31 Conrad: You can um it always j pump it. Batzli: That's a long ways up the hill though. Emmings: It's just a matter of cost though. It's their problem I know but. Hempel: I guess I'm not that familiar with septic systems. Emmings: My only comments then would be, I would change condition 1 such that it was essentially like the alternative 1(a) so that we require dedication of the 40 feet at this time but don't require any upgrading II until the whole road, something is done with the entire road or something else happens out there with development such that it makes more sense. I think that condition 6 should be expanded because it says any access to I Lake Minnewashta would require a wetland alteration permit and I know what that means but I think that that condition ought to be expanded to say there'd be no dock or boardwalk or dredging or removal of vegetation or any activity in the area of the shoreline without a wetland alteration permit so it's very, very clear what we' re talking about there. I think that there should be a condition on the cul-de-sac at the end of the private drive that one will be done that will be designed that meets the approval II of the City Engineer and I think that we should strike this business about them not contesting future assessments. That's all I have. Conrad: You said you only had a couple of comments. Jo Ann and Paul , tell me about, I 'm vacillating. I really like the power line as a potential access to that site simply because it' s been stripped and it looks like the right place to do it but then I go back and say when we do that then we've 1 got some acreage that we've separated from this lot and that doesn' t seem right. So then I go back and say well let's add 40 to what we've got. To what's currently there. When we do that and we do upgrade this part of the I road someday and I should have gone back. I thought I was real clear what I was going to vote on tonight and I should have driven back there and taken a look but what do we need to cut down? If we expand it to 60 feet, ' what's going down in terms of woods? Krauss: We haven't done a study of that. Dave hasn' t looked at that in detail yet but you can see that where that cul-de-sac occurs, it's quite I steep. The steeper the grade, the wider the cut is to kind of pinch a cul-de-sac into the hill there. It would be a significant cut. ' Olsen: It would all be cleared. The full 60 feet. Conrad: I have another major problem and I'm still not convinced that that I access to the south. I guess I haven't seen enough information on that or been brought back up to speed on a potential connection to Crimson Bay development. Boy, it seems 6 months ago, a year ago, whenever we saw this last time, it sure seemed like that would be a nice way to access this area 11 and we're losing some potential here and that bothers me a little bit but I don't have enough information to react to that. Are you two, and I guess I've got to just put, ask you the question, you're both convinced that we Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 32 - don't need it and it's not smart to do? I just have to say that. I Krauss: A real definitive answer , I don' t think it' s as definitive as that. We think that it's possible to put through a connection to the south and it would not be a bad thing if we were in a position to do that. What we think made it possible was that power line cut. You see the problem with that cul-de-sac , where the cul-de-sac would be located off the existing street is what you' re doing is you' re rolling off down a hill into II a fairly steep area. What the power line easement does is it stays up nice and high where it's relatively flat and it allows a much more gentle grade back down to the existing street in Crimson Bay. One of the things we looked at though in doing this was when this was looked at before, the direction we received was that we should not proceed with that connection to the south. That it was looked at and was dismissed. So then we looked for some alternatives to that. Conrad: Was that us that did that? Do you recall . Olsen: No, there were other comments somewhere along the line with TH 5 1 being added and with the other. The last time it was up, I think there were more comments made that not to have the street improved at this time. 1 Take the easement but not to have it improved. Conrad: It could be done you're telling me but right now you' re not convinced of it. You're convinced we've solved some access problems some other ways. Maybe on the north of this will help a little bit but you're convinced that we really don't need the access to the south. There are more detrimental things that could occur? 1 Olsen: No. Krauss: We would still prefer the access to the south if it were feasible II to do that. The problems with that are that if you're going to do the access to the south, you have to look at relocating the street onto where the power line easement is. , Conrad: Which is what you recommended. Basically in the staff report you recommended that. Krauss: Which is what we would prefer but there's really a P roblem with it in that we'd be stranding property or the dedication be wider than we're normally entitled to. 1 Conrad: What's a normal dedication? Krauss: 60 feet. i Conrad: Isn't that what you asked for the power line? , Olsen: . . .power line but to keep it all within right-of-way and not to split another piece, you'd be taking almost 100 feet of right-of-way. Batzli: Otherwise you'd be leaving that Y cul-de-sac. I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 33 Olsen: You'd be splitting from other land . Conrad: I now what you mean. Who cares? Do we care? Olsen : Who cares? Conrad: We might. I might not. This is a real problem area. I think you've got to make some hard decisions on solving the problem here. What's the negative of running the road through to the south? We've got to cut a 11 lot of trees down? We've got some elevation problems possibly? Krauss : Running the road through to the south on the power line easement, if that were to be done, would result in considerably less tree loss than putting the cul-de-sac in where it' s illustrated with the right-of-way. Emmings: You're going to have to condemn property out of the Arboretum. Krauss: Yes. 11 Olsen: And there's traffic. And then if that road is improved, you' re splitting Lot 2 into two lots. ' Emmings: Can we condemn State property? I never even thought about that. Can you take State property? Krauss: No. Emmings: I wouldn't think so. I don' t know really. Conrad: So the Arboretum has the land between the Crimson Bay. Emmings: To the east of Crimson Bay. IIConrad: I don't want to go through there. Olsen: You have to. To connect to Crimson Bay, you would need to Iimprove. . . Hempel: You'd have to improve a portion of it from the end of the cul-de-sac to the subdivision. Olsen: Right now you have an easement. IConrad: That's what I'm trying to connect to. Emmings: But you need another 25 feet on this side. Then you'd wind up condemning it out on that side. Conrad: Can' t do that. IIEmmings: You know Ladd , on that connection south, I remember my own feelings that it was real important to do it and I remember stall telling Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 34 us that it could not be done. That' s what I remember . And I feel like II that decision back then, staff has turned around on this and it may or may not be the same staff. I don't know. I don' t even care to think about it but they've done a 180 on us here. I feel like. But now I think the die is cast and I do think TH 5. . . Conrad : Just to support, they probably heard us react the last time and said well there's not support. There are other alternatives to provide the II access so in their defense, I think they're negotiating with developers or buyers. I don't know that they've done a 180. Emmings: Well to me they have and I 'll tell you, TH 5 is an incredibly I dangerous road in the area where Crimson Bay dumps out. I think we can turn something around inside that 80 back out to TH 41 that will wind up being better probably. It's a big enough tract so I think that will okay at that time. Kurt Laughinghouse: Mr . Chairman, may I speak to that for a moment? I Conrad: Well you're at the podium. We' ll listen to you. Kurt Laughinghouse: In the staff report. Part of the staff report is the 11 report from the engineer 's last year. No. Yeah, last year 's, I 'm going to come to the name of the engineering company. Emmings: Feasibility study. Kurt Laughinghouse: Anyway, it's your consulting engineering . They have 5 II alternative road systems here. Conrad: Yeah, we've read it. , Kurt Laughinghouse: Yeah, I know you've read it, but none of them include going south down through Crimson Bay. Believe me, despite what people are saying on the side here, a person cannot , I've drawn where the power line II destruction is. You' ll notice that it is off where the dedication would be. That blue line indicates roughly, or very close, where there are no trees. That's where there are no trees. Everything else east and west of that is wooded . Okay? When one gets to the end of that blue line, and that ' leads directly into the Crimson Bay easement that you have. That's 25 feet wide and you can see it there on that plat. A person cannot walk off the end of that blue line and walk down to Crimson Bay without, almost without II turning around and grabbing onto weeds or grabbing onto branches or grabbing onto the fence. it is very, very steep. Now, that doesn't mean a road can't be built there. It does mean though if we're going to build, if II one were to build a road there, there would h%ve to be a cut much wider than 60 feet. In order to make this, to get down this slope, or up, you would have to cut the soil back on both sides and fill here and cut here 70 II or 80 feet and I think Dave will back me up. Maybe he can. . .it is not level. It's very, very steep. Set aside the fact that you're not going to get the University land anyway. It would not be easy at all . Always doable but it's not easy. There's several things that have been said. It II would devastate Lot 2 and I think it would just destroy the purpose that I 1 . • Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 35 we're here for. I think the applicants would withdraw the plat. It just simply is not a feasible thing to do and it bears out what I tried to suggest earlier is that this leads into an 80 acre parcel to the east that ' ultimately there's 100 feet or so of frontage. Several hundred feet of frontage on TH 41. One or 2 or 3 road accesses can be drawn into this property and there will be plenty of safe development and publicly safe development of this property in the future. When it's really on the table. What's on the table now is two rural lots. Conrad: I'll just, you know what you're doing. We also have been here a ' while too. As you divide things smaller and smaller you lose perspective of the big picture. We're trying to keep our eye on the big picture along with staff and you know that's our job. You can't do it when you divide 80 acres. We know what just happened to make this happen. We know that we've solved some of the economic restrictions we put on Tim when he was trying to get in here. This I think is a good way to reduce some of those ' restrictions but just your point, it doesn't make sense. It potentially does make a lot of sense. I 'm not saying this is a right thing to do. It's just an issue that I forgot about and it's a major problem back there Mr. Laughinghouse and we' re trying to deal with that. It' s real tough when you start dividing down into 10 acre parcels. It's a lot easier when you're dealing with a 100 acre parcel because then you've got roadway structures and you can move it but now we're trying to plan for the future and that's 11 why we' re taking a look at a few different things and I don' t have all the information that maybe I should have looked at beforehand because I 've kind of precluded this because of the last time we looked at it. I don' t know ' the safety on TH 5 issue. I do know that Lundgren Bros. is making the same cuts that you'd have to make there, Lundgren Bros. is doing it in Chanhassen very nicely with the same type of stuff. It can be done. It can be done pretty easily. It can be done very attractively. I'm not recommending that we do it here but it's just one of those options that given a lot of lousy solutions that we're looking at, I'm just bringing in one other possibility here which will help me make up my mind. And you' re I going to run into the same diverse opinions as you get to City Council so I don't want to bog this down at our level because we' re just a recommending body. Batzli : Can I ask a question of Dave? Conrad: Yeah. IIBatzli : How close can you make the access points on a trunk highway? I Hempel: They are restricted by MnDot. I don't have. It's limited to sight distances on the terrain and so forth. MnDot is the one that has the right-of-way documentation where they have certain. . . I Batzli : And there's also I suppose intersection limitations. In looking at how the road to the north here comes out onto TH 41, we don't know from looking at that if there would be a problem of putting in additional ' accesses to the south of that? 11 I Planning Commission Meeting Janis ry 17, 1990 - Page 36 II Hempel: There was talk of the possibility of another access point out onto II TH 41 but that would take MnDot approval also. I guess we feel that is a possibility. Conrad: Yeah, I think I saw that once upon a time. One more. 1 Batzli: One more south of Tanadoona . Conrad: Yeah. I don' t mind the balance of the, I know Steve you're 11 concerned with some of the other issues in the staff report. I guess things are foggy enough in my mind that I don't mind some of those. Some II of the staff comments in there. Any other comments? Joan, anything that you want to jump back in after you've heard us mish mash the thing up? Ahrens: I just wanted to say one thing. That the southern access to II Crimson Bay Road , I think the biggest issue there is getting the land . Even if we could get the land, I 'm not sure it's good public policy to take State land. I Conrad: Can' t do it. All you can do is not preclude that option right now and require an easement up to it. It doesn't say it's going to, it's just 11 like our previous one. It doesn' t say we're going to do it but you could require an easement and therefore the purchaser right now knows that in the future we may want to run a road through. It may prevent his decision to buy that property. In my mind, that's the last thing I want to do is divide his parcel up as he comes out here and wants to live on 20 acres. I II would love to live on 20 acres and I 'd never want to exclude anybody from wanting to buy that and use it that way. On the other hand, our job is to II say well, downstream what's going to happen and that access might be the right one. Ahrens: I'm not sure, I think maybe my point was missed on that about 1 acquiring the land from the State. . . I 'm not sure that that' s the best public policy. Conrad: To buy State land? II Ahrens: Well , that's Arboretum land right? And the Arboretum land would II have to be acquired in order to have access to Crimson Road. Conrad: Right. Batzli: But it would benefit all the people in there. II Ellson: When it turns into a development but it's the same principle. I Batzli: But you wouldn't be purchasing the land until you needed it. You wouldn't even ask the Arboretum unless you needed that access when it II developed. Ellson: But are we saying that we want to take State land to help people develop this? The bottom line is, is that a good way? I II • II Planning Commission Meeting IJanuary 17, 1990 - Page 37 ' Ahrens: I don' t think you can anyway but even if we could, I don' t think it's. . . ' Conrad : It could be less costly in the long run. Anything else? Is there a motion? ' Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #89-11 as shown on plans dated November 13, 1989 with the following conditions. Number 1 would be basically what's down as option ' 1(a) . That it would require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line of Lots 1 and 2 to be combined with the existing 20 feet of right-of-way for the full 60 foot rural street right-of-way but improvement of that right-of-way would not be required until the rest of Dogwood or Lake Drive ' is improved or until development in that area would require improvement. Conditions 2, 3, 4 and 5 would stay as written by staff. Condition 6 would be expanded. Essentially stay the same but just be expanded a little bit ' to say that any access including a dock or boardwalk to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland permit as would any dredging, or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. Then I'd add the condition 7 that would say that, there will be a cul-de-sac at the end of a system of private driveways that serve the owners of Lots 1 and 2 and plans and specs for that cul-de-sac shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval . If the parties decide not to use the system of private driveways ' but rather use Lake Drive somehow, then they' ll still be responsible for providing a cul-de-sac at the end that meets the approval of the City Engineer. The end. Conrad : Good . Is there a second? Ellson: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? ' Olsen: Since the 'street won' t be improved, then we should also have a condition that there shall be easements across Lot 1 for access to Lot 2. I know that they said that they're providing that but. Emmings: Well , but Jo Ann if they don't give an easement, they always have the right to use Lake Drive so let them worry about it. That' s what I think. Hempel : Mr. Chairman, condition 2 should maybe be deleted if you're not proposing to improve the street to city standards because it will not be a IIpublic street. Public improvement. Batzli : What would they have to do for the cul-de-sac? IIHempel : We could make it conditioned upon building permit approval . Emmings: So that's probably not really a public improvement? IHempel : That's correct. • II• Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 38 1 Emmings: Yeah, that makes sense to me. There aren' t any other , improvements? Okay. Then number 2 could be striken. It doesn't mean anything. Conrad: And that's going to be a condition of what? If it's not here, the improvement of the cul-de-sac. Emmings: It's still a condition because that's my condition number 7. I That there will be a cul-de-sac that meets his approval but we don't need a development contract for a public improvement because we're not grading or paving a street or building the shoulders or whatever. Conrad: Okay, do you agree with eliminating number 2 then? Emmings: Yeah I do. Ellson: I'll change my second also. Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #89-11 as shown on plans dated November 13, 1989 with the following conditions: 1. Require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line of Lots 1 and 2 to be combined with the existing 20 feet of right-of-way for the full II 60 foot rural street right-of-way but improvement of that right-of-way would not be required until the rest of Dogwood or Lake Drive is improved or until development in that area would require improvement. 2. The developer shall receive and comply with any necessary permits from the Watershed District. 3. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the east boundary of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm and along the south boundary of Lot 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm from the 'southeast corner of II Crimson Bay Road, Crimson Bay subdivision. 4. The two approved septic sites on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm shall be staked and preserved. 5. Any access, including a dock or boardwalk, to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland permit as would any dredging, or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. 6. There will be a cul-de-sac at the end of a system of private driveways , that serve the owners of Lots 1 and 2 and plans and specs for that cul-de-sac shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. If the parties decide not to use the system of private driveways but rather use Lake Drive somehow, they will still be responsible for providing a cul-de-sac at the end that meets the approval of the City Engineer. All voted in favor except Conrad and Batzli who opposed and the motion , carried with a vote of 3 to 2. I Planning Commission Meeting ' January 17, 1990 - Page 39 ' Conrad : Brian, the reason for your negative vote? Batzli: I would prefer to see further study on the route taken by the ' power line with potential connection to Crimson Bay Road at a future time. Other than that, I think it's fine. Maybe access along Lake Drive is the way to go but I don't think that was studied because I think staff had the ' impression that we weren't interested in that and I think that we might be if there was further thought given it. Conrad: I second that opinion. PUBLIC HEARING: ' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS. Conrad : Jo Ann, just as a point. This is a public hearing. Were notices sent out? ' Olsen: We sent out to all the people who have been interested in it. Conrad: To associations with beachlots by chance? Olsen: No. Emmings: Was there published notice? IIOlsen: It was published in the paper and then we sent it to those who have been involved. Ellson: Who have come to these before. Batzli: Does this apply retroactively to any of them? Would they be 1 grandfathered in? Conrad : They will exceed this standard. IIOlsen: There's a condition in here that says we can go back. Conrad: So they weren't invited. Do we care? ' Ellson: So what, do you want to table it? ' • Conrad: No. Ellson: Just be sure they're notified for the Council. II Conrad: No, that's not fair either. I don't think they'd have any issues with this. They typically have what they want. They've met the standards. They have a beach, their own lot and we're not taking any of their rights I away. Emmings: Right. That's true. 11 v 1TY O F C. DATE: Jan. 3 ;'19.9Q I \ , CIWIIIASSI:11 C.C. DATE: _Jan. 22, 1990 ! CASE NOt 89-11 SUB I � Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT li PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat Request to Create Two Single II Family Lots Z 1 Q VLOCATION: West of TH 41, south of Tanadoona Drive and east of 1 . .1 Dogwood Road APPLICANT: Kurt Laughinghouse B. & D. Brandt I Q 281 Norman Ridge Drive 5200 Beacon Hill Road Bloomington, MN 55437 Minnetonka, MN 55345 *` II PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential. ACREAGE: 20 Acres I DENSITY: One unit per 10 acres ADJACENT ZONING I AND LAND USE: N- RR; single family S- RR; Minnesota Arboretum & Crimson Bay ' QE- RR; vacant agricultural, W- RSF; single family II WLL WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services not available - II PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Densely wooded in the west and south portiql of the site with some steep topography to south. • 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential I I r L /V /1 C li ' - 7 \\. ,. i( • • )0 i W / N N E W A S -H TA \- i ; .r D R PUD-R - - - r ' N. , _ I , illllll ,, p, 1 N R � m are,G� \ r �Aj� �, 2:/...y---------- RR . _ MAPLE SHORE! 117 DRIVE , -I I M3 ,...ilv.i... ,-441.r. .; ,_,. /., ..., ..4 . ....liiii pa , : ii Foj2scci: , vistaA! .� _ Illirl -%...... - %•-•.‘'*-----.---**-.-.. --......"----.......-.'-*.s.---...%:--'-i--1.-- . i- POND 10N9� : 411k- AY VD i A2 I- - • I I . % I • l2 N0 STREET �� • , 4 \ .' r ;, I ;�, CITY OF CHANHASSEN Brandt Subdivision January 3, 1989 Page 2 REFERRAL AGENCIES Roger Machmeier Attachment #1 1 City Engineer Attachment #2 Public Safety Attachment #3 BACKGROUND In 1987, this site was the subject of a preliminary plat approval that was almost identical to the plan currently being offered. The major issue that surfaced during the previous review was the provsion of road access to the proposed lots. On July 6 , 1987, the City Council approved the preliminary subdivision with the following conditions: I 1. The applicant shall be required to install a cul-de-sac into Lot 3 , at the end of Dogwood; however, the applicant may be allowed to put in a driveway as approved by City Staff. 2 . No development shall occur on either 5 acre lots until completion of a feasibility study and the plans for that road are determined. 3 . A feasibility study shall be initiated to evaluate the alterantives to improving Dogwood Road and Tanadoona Drive, as well as evaluating the connection to the Worm property to the south. 4 . The developer be required to enter into a development agreement guaranteeing the installation of the improvements and provide financial sureties as required. I 5. Dedication of a 20 foot trail easement along the south and east property lines. Consistent with the City Council action, a feasibility study for Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue was prepared by VanDoren- Hazard-Stallings, Inc. in June of 1988. The report identified four different road access alternates with improvement costs ranging from $255,000 to $302,400. Preliminary assessment rolls were identified depicting the allocation of costs to benefiting properties. On May 12, 1988, City Staff and personnel from VanDoren-Hazard- Stallings met with interested residents from surrounding neigh- borhood area. At the meeting, the alternative alignments were reviewedand public comments were noted. At the conclusion of the I I II Brandt Subdivision January 3, 1990 Page 3 ' meeting, city staff requested that the residents arrange a sub- sequent meeting to discuss their petition to the City requesting road maintenance and their further thoughts on the road issue. On September 15, 1988, the City received a letter from David D. Getsch, a representative of the Dogwood Homeowners stating, "after review of the proposals and options presented by various parties over the past six months, a proposal was made to withdraw ' our request for road maintenance. That proposal was voted on and passed unanimously. Please accept this letter as the official withdrawl of our request for road maintenance. " On June 21, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed a preliminary plat to subdivide 100 acres into three single family lots and one ' outlot. The proposed lots included one 10 acre lot, two five acre lots and the outlot with 80 acres. The primary issue of discussion during the Planning Commission review was the location of the trail easement and the extent of improvements to the existing road. The Planning Commission recommended tabling the item until staff could further review the issue and reach a conclusion on whether a full 60 foot right-of-way should be pro- vided, if certain improvements should be made to the site and to allow the Park and Rec Commission to reconsider the trail easement location (Attachment #4) . Since the Planning Commission last reviewed the subdivision application, the 100 acres was split into an 80 acre and a 20 acre parcel. Since the parcels were 20 acres or more and met all of the requirements as required by state statute, the split of the 100 acre site was approved and recorded at Carver County without it having to receive Planning Commission and City Council ' approval. The 80 acre parcel is being developed into one home site and the 20 acre parcel is being proposed to be subdivided into two 10 acre lots. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to subdivide 20 acres into two 10 acre ' parcels. As with previous review of this property, the proposed plat meets all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance and all issues have been addressed, except the provision of road access ' and location of a trail easement. The current application is providing an additional 40 foot wide ROW adjacent to an existing 20 foot ROW to provide the rural standard of 60 feet. The issue at hand is whether the 60 foot ROW should be improved beyond what currently exists and what additional roadway easements should be provided to accommodate any future development that may occur. ' Access The applicant is proposing to service Lots 1 and 2 by a driveway extending from Dogwood along the power line easement (Attachment #5) . Since the current proposal deals only with the 20 acre parcel I • • II Brandt Subdivision January 3, 1990 Page 4 located at the end of Dogwood, the city only has control over requiring improvements to that portion of road adjacent to the 2 lots. The remaining length of Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood is not part theof the subdivision and cannot be required to be improved. The Planning Commission and City Council have several access 1 options to consider as part of the proposed subdivision. la. Require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line of I Lots 1 and 2 to be combined with the existing 20 feet of ROW for the full 60' rural street ROW, but not require improve- ment of the ROW to typical rural city standard, or; This option only adds to the problem of having residences on a long unimproved deadend. Safe accesspoes not exist and should be provided whenever possible. b. Require dedication of the 40 feet and require the ROW adja- cent to Lots 1 and 2 to be improved to rural city standard. This option would provide two residences with street frontage meeting city standards. Although these lots are at the end of a substandard street, the city should take advantage of the opportunity to improve the situation rather than exacer- bate it. ' 2. Provide ROW easement for future street improvements over the power easement, where vegetation has already been removed and grading of the property has occurred (Attachment #6) . This would result in the applicant dedicating a 100 foot easement rather than 40 feet. This would result in less cost for improving the street and would not further remove vegetation which is a protective screen for new and existing residences. I 3. Provide additional roadway easement for future subdivision and secondary access to the site. The property has potential for subdivision and secondary access must be provided. In the past, when the Planning Commission and City Council have 1 reviewed the proposed subdivision it had been stated that the applicant should only be required to provide right-of-way and to not improve the street to full city standards at this time. The existing roadway conditions are very poor and this subdivision provides the city with the opportunity to require improved access to the two newly created lots. Therefore, staff is again recom- mending that the right-of-way adjacent to Lots 1 and 2 be upgraded to city standards rather than servicing the lots with private drives, as proposed by the applicant. One way to reduce I I II . Brandt Subdivision 1 January 3 , 1990 Page 5 I the cost of improvements is to locate the street where the pro- perty has already been altered by the power line easement ( see Engineering memo) . Should the Planning Commission and City II Council not agree with improving the street, staff is recom- mending that at the very least, an improved turnaround and the 40 foot road easement be provided for future road improvements. Staff would also then recommend that Lots 1 and 2 shall waive I their right to contest future assessments as part of the improve- ments to Dogwood. I Staff has reviewed several alternatives for future road access providing secondary access to the property. The alternatives reviewed included continuing right-of-way to the south of the property where the road connects to Crimson Bay and then exit II onto Hwy. 5 . Staff also reviewed several options for looping the street back to the east where it would then join existing Tanadoona Drive or connect with Hwy. 41. In the long term this I could offer an alternative means of access into the area. Staff believes that if the MUSA line is altered in this area it could support the development of a substantial number of homes. After I review of topography and existing vegetation, staff is recom- mending that the applicant provide a 30 foot wide easement along the northerly line of Lot 1 which would provide location for a future street looping back to Tanadoona Drive or connecting with I Hwy. 41. Staff is recommending the provision of only a 30 foot easement rather than the full 60 foot easement. The remaining 30 foot easement would have to be acquired from property to the I north when the property is further subdivided and/or when a public street is required. I Easements The Park and Rec Commission reviewed this application on December 12, 1989, and requested that the applicant provide a 20 foot I trail easement along the east boundary of Lots 1 and 2 and along the south boundary from Crimson Bay Road to the southeast corner of Lot 2 (Attachment #6) . Park and trail fees shall be required 1 in lieu of park dedication and trail construction. The applicant is providing 40 feet of additional street right-of- way along the westerly edge of Lots 1 and 2 and is providing a 30 Ifoot roadway easement along the northerly lot line of Lot 1. The applicant is providing the typical utility easements of 5 and II10 feet on Lots 1 and 2. Utilities 1 The property is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and therefore, the lots have to provide two approved septic sites. The applicant has provided soil borings which have been Ireviewed by Roger Machmier and Jim Anderson and have been II Brandt Subdivision January 3, 1990 Page 6 approved. The septic sites are shown on the second sheet of the plans and staff is requesting that these be staked and protected from any alteration during construction. Grading and Drainage I See Engineering Department memo. Wetland Lot 2, Block 1 contains a Class A wetland adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. The wetland is part of the same wetland which was part of the Crimson Bay subdivision. It is a Class A wetland which should be protected from alteration. Lot 2, Block 1 will have to receive a wetland alteration permit prior to any improve- ments along the lakeshore including installing a dock and stair- way. In the past, the City has not allowed a dock to go through a wetland and has instead required boardwalks be located above the wetland vegetation. The proposed home sites and private drives servicing Lot 1 and Lot 2 will not impact the wetland adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot Lot Lot , Area Frontage Depth Wetland Ordinance ' Requirements 2.5 ac. 200 feet 200 feet 1 unit/10 ac Lot 1 10.2 acres 550 feet 1000 ft. N/A (approx.) Lot 2 10.1 acres 100 feet 1100 ft. There is a Class A ' (350' total (approx.) wetland adjacent width) to Lake Minnewashta Variances Required: None RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #89-11 as shown on plans dated November 13, 1989, with the following conditions : 1. The 60 foot ROW (Lake Drive) proposed with this subdivision shall be built to city standards for a rural street. Plans I Brandt Subdivision January 3 , 1990 Page 7 and specifications for the street construction shall be sub- mitted to City Engineer for review and approval. 2 . The developer shall enter into a development contract and provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee the proper installation of the public improvements . 3 . The developer shall receive and comply with any necessary ' permits from the Watershed District. 4 . The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the east boundary of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm and along the south boundary of Lot 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm from the southeast corner of Crimson Bay Road, Crimson Bay subdivision. 5 . The two approved septic sites on Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1, Zimmerman Farm shall be staked and preserved. 6 . Any access to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 shall require a wetland alteration permit. " ' * NOTE: Should the Planning Commission and City Council not recommend the street to be built to city standards, then the following condition should be added: 1 . Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 waive any rights to contest future assessments as part of the improvements to Dogwood. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Roger Machmeier dated June 14, 1987. 2 . Memo from Sr. Engineering Technician dated January 10, 1990 . 3 . Memo from Public Safety dated June 5, 1987. 4 . Planning Commission minutes dated June 21, 1989 . 5. Plans showing proposed drive. 6 . Park and Recreation report dated May 13, 1989 . 7 . Plans showing proposed 40 ' right-of-way and power line easement. 8 . Feasibility study dated June 21, 1988. ' 9 . Preliminary plat dated November 13, 1989. I 1 I ( ( i , . R RESOURCE ENGINEE}ING E Roger E. Machmeier, P.E. James L. Anderson, C.P.S.S. 29665 Neal Avenue 3541 Ensign Avenue, North Lindstrom, MN 55045 New Hope, MN 55427 I (612) 257-2019 (612) 593-5338 June 14, 1987 II JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner I City of Chanhassen P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 II Re: Planning Case 87-11 Subdivision Zimmerman Dear JoAnn: Enclosed is our evaluation report for the above proposed subdivision. There should be no problem to locate a number of sites which are suitable for the installation of sewage II treatment mounds and possibly trenches on each of the proposed lots. The soil boring data was collected in the open field to the east and this is presumably the reason II that the proposed sites are located a considerable distance from where the house is likely to be. We assume that our evaluation report is self-explanatory. I If you have any questions, however, do not hesitate to contact us. I Sincerely, AT ) . PlatchrnflOA) 1 Roger . Machmeier, P. E. II RESOURCE ENGINEERING REM/jjm II Enclosure II 1 II 141 I SPECIALISTS IN ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT 44113069trogi REVIEW OF PLANNING CASE NO. 87-11 SUBDIVISION (ZIMMERMAN) SUITABILITY OF SOILS FOR ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS for the ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN by Roger E. Machmeier, P.E. James L. Anderson, C.P.S.S. June, 1987 This proposed subdivision in the City of Chanhassen has been reviewed with respect to soil suitability, topography, drainage, slope limitations, and area available on each lot for the ' installation of two onsite sewage treatment systems. The information used for this review included the map of the proposed subdivision submitted by the developer, soil boring data submitted by the developer, and the Carver County Soil Survey. The soils and site information upon which the evaluation of ' the lots in the proposed subdivision is based is that which has been collected and presented to the City of Chanhassen by the developer. It is assumed that the data has been 'collected from the soil in its natural condition as it existed on the site at the ' time that the soil boring was made and at the time the field evaluation of the subdivision was made. It is also assumed that the topographic map which presents contour and slope information ' is accurate and indicates the actual contours which will exist when the plat receives final approval. When the site and soils data on each lot are evaluated and it is determined that the submitted data will allow the location of two sites for onsite ' sewage treatment systems, those sites absolutely must remain in the condition that they were when the soils data were collected and the field evaluation of the subdivision was made. Any 11 manipulation or movement of the soil from its natural condition as evaluated for the preliminary plat will require additional detailed soils information and a re-evaluation of the subdivision ' prior to final approval. Each lot of the proposed subdivision has been evaluated independently as to the availability of two sites for the installation of onsite soil absorption systems. It was assumed that the homes which will be built will be Type I, 4-bedroom which according to Minnesota Rules 7080, have an estimated average 1 sewage flow of 600 gallons per day. Since mottled soils at depths of 24 to 36 inches predominate in the area, each lot was evaluated to determine if two sites were available for the installation of ' sewage treatment mounds. The rock layer in a mound which would treat 600 gallons of sewage per day would be 10 feet wide and 50 feet long. The area ' required for the mound would have dimensions of 60 feet by 80 feet. The long dimension of the mound must be located parallel to the existing ground contour lines. The mound must be located on ' natural soils and on slopes not exceeding 12%. Absolutely no grading to modify the natural slope can be done prior to mound -2- construction. A mound can be located on a soil having as little as 1 foot of unsaturated soil. This soil would require, however, a 2-foot depth of clean sand as opposed to the normal 1-foot depth of sand. While trenches can be located in a wooded area between the trees, an open area is required for a mound. Thus, the trees would all need to be removed from an area at least 80 by 100 feet for construction purposes. I Also, even though the evaluation of the prelimiinary plat of the subdivision has assumed the use of sewage treatment mounds, a more detailed site investigation which is necessary for the design of the sewage treatment on each lot at the time of development may locate some soils which are suitable for the installation of drainfield trenches. Lot 1: This lot is reported to be 5.0 acres is size. The west portion of the lot is wooded and the east portion of the lot is open land presently growing corn. The soil borings for the two proposed sites for onsite sewage treatment systems were made in the open area. Mottled soil conditions indicating seasonally saturated conditions were reported in the boring logs at depths of 20 to 33 inches. The land slope in the area where the borings were made is approximately 4 percent. The proposed areas are suitable for the installation of sewage treatment mounds. The contour lines indicate that the land slope in the wooded area on the west portion of the lot is less than 12 percent. If the soil is suitable and the lot owner wishes to remove some trees, other sites for the location of the sewage treatment mounds are likely available on this lot. Lot 2: The same comments as made for lot 1 apply to this ' lot. Mottled soil is reported in the boring logs at depths of 30 to 38 inches. There should be no problem locating at least two sites on this lot which are suitable for the installation of sewage treatment mounds. Lot 3: This lot is 10 acres in size. The western portion of the lot is wooded and has some slopes steeper than 12 percent. The soil borings were made in the open field to the east of the woods. The boring logs showed depths to mottling of 24 to 42 inches. There should be no problem locating at least two sites on this lot which are suitable for the installation of sewage treatment mounds. Summary The three lots which we evaluated on this proposed subdivision each have at least two sites which are suitable for the installation of sewage treatment mounds. A detailed site investigation on each lot will be necessary to collect soils and site data for the design of the sewage treatment system. Sites may be found to be suitable for the sewage treatment systems which are closer to the location of the house on the lot. I CITY OF CHANHASSEN • 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: Dave Hempel , Sr. Engineering Technician 03,g DATE: January 10 , 1990 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Zimmerman Farm File No. 90-2 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat for Zimmerman Farm dated October 18 , 1989 , revised January 10 , 1990 , submitted by James R. Hill, Inc. , I offer the following comments and recommendations . BACKGROUND ' If you will recall , back in August, 1987 , the City Council con- sidered a three-lot subdivision in this same area. The three lots were to be created at the end of the existing Dogwood right- of-way as is proposed with this two-lot subdivision. Two issues were discussed during that preliminary plat review, one being whether or not to extend Dogwood out to Trunk Highway 5 through Crimson Bay Road. Because of the hazardous intersection at Trunk Highway 5, this alternative was dropped. The second issue that was discussed was to make an internal con- nection through the proposed plat back to Tanadoona Drive. Because of the high cost to improve this segment of roadway, this was concluded to be not economically feasible until sewer and ' water became available to the area so more lots could be sub- divided and share the cost burden. A motion was adopted, however , that a "back door" access through the remaining outlot to either Tanadoona Drive or Trunk Highway 41 be sketched out. ' It appears this proposed preliminary plat will give the City one piece of the puzzle in completing a "back door" access route ' eventually out to Tanadoona Drive. STREETS ' The existing street, Dogwood Avenue (or as the plat reflects, "Lake Drive" ) , consists of a narrow 10 to 14-foot wide gravel roadway. The City does not maintain this segment of roadway because it is not built in accordance with City standards. The Jo Ann Olsen January 10 , 1990 Page 2 plat proposes dedicating 40 feet of right-of-way adjacent to the existing 20-foot right-of-way for Dogwood Avenue together with 60-foot wide right-of-way for extension of the 60-foot cul-de-sac at the end of Dogwood Avenue. The developer does not propose upgrading the extension of Dogwood. Consideration should be given to improving this segment of I Dogwood Avenue. Typically, when a parcel of land is subdivided, the City requires the developer to provide the necessary right- of-way and pay for all improvements involved in platting the par- cel, i .e. streets and utilities. In this case, the segment of road abuts some existing lots in the Sunrise Hill on Lake Minnewashta plat. The developer is reluctant to build this segment of Dogwood Avenue up to City standards without having the existing lots assessed for the improvement. There is some question at this time as to how much benefit these existing lots on Dogwood Avenue would receive from improving this segment of Dogwood Avenue since the existing lots do have their own access already; therefore, they do not receive direct benefit from the new road and, in turn , may not be assessed. Based on costs from the previous feasibility report, the esti- mated cost to improve Dogwood Avenue from Tanadoona Drive to the end would be approximately $50 per lineal foot of the street. Using this cost factor , the estimated cost of building the 660-foot Dogwood extension to City standards is $33 ,000 or $16,500 per lot. An alternative to reduce costs of building the road and lessen impact to the surrounding trees would be to follow the existing power line in which trees have already been cleared and the ground somewhat levelled. This is the same route that the deve- loper proposes to extend the private driveways. ' In addition to the 40 feet of right-of-way for Dogwood Avenue, the developer is providing right-of-way along the northerly 30 feet of Lot 1, Block 1. This will provide a portion of a future secondary or "back door" access route out to Tanadoona Drive (see Exhibit "A" ) . Based on data and drawings supplied by James R. Hill, Inc. , this route appears to be feasible from an engineering standpoint (see Exhibits "B" and "C") . GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL ' The plan proposes construction of two driveways. Both are out- side the proposed right-of-way for Dogwood Avenue. The driveways will basically follow the power line, which has been cleared and levelled out some time ago. The plan does not indicate proposed grading contours. A plan indicating proposed grades should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. ' I • Jo Ann Olsen January 10 , 1990 Page 3 1 The plan indicates erosion control along the back side of the 1 house pad on Lot 2 , Block 1. The type of erosion control spe- cified is basically silt fence. Due to the nature of the area, Type II erosion control , as a minimum, should be used. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1 . Erosion control shall be Type II. 1 2 . The segment of Dogwood Avenue (Lake Drive) proposed with this plat shall be built to City standards for a rural road design (Exhibit "D" ) . The street alignment shall follow the existing power line alignment through Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Plans and specifications for street construction shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 3 . The developer shall enter into a development contract and provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee the proper installation of the public improvements. 4 . The developer shall receive and comply with any necessary permits from the Watershed District. Attachments: Exhibits "A" , "B" , "C" and "D" . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 • M Mill Mill Mill 11111111 . all Q M� s . W t..•r W CAMP TANADOONA k MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS at CO 2 ie ao , 4. NEP156 .. s --s,,, .1.‘ ,2° CZ 3 07 •-• ,/ = O * Community 6.nH.ry ist;p:'-' .,i, A. Mound System (b M° /, � 2J M e G left y. !o®, ® ft44N ,>.:..::.....:.:.:..:..::;W::.:,: .... ....... ; ,e•c►,P • 4' 44 0++ 16,y I POTENTIAL SAVARYN ,d,@i �,�,.,: fir'' FUTURE `~ SECONDARY N t:: AI Ler , " ACCESS �` z 0Q a (NO SCAL Ca id 0 p'--� t„. Lor z r Z‘M . TANADOONA DR.-DOGWOOD AVE. '- _ o• , _ : : 3o SST Ao ys. . . . . e. ` i'90 . .3•a'N1 .5.T. . • PRcPJ S p . . . . . . . . . •GR,+ taf /6 'Ala G , Q.V G 4` 1,.01,<' M*045' ik:ei Q,+ . :K.6 . . . .D /...G. 4. H . t N 7 . . . . . . . "i C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .�. . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . DRAW PROJE Hari; hi PRE LI MI NARY STREET GRkDE TIMOTHY o, FOSTER Vert FARM 7200 METRO 6Lvo. Eot NAB MO, S5 -BS N1MN, She i ; . . a . .. ,. -(::,. .04,700 :4111? l 7,S pir. L? \ 0f t 8.:04, -e vi : 1 iftd 0. 4 onoI`2: :0 \ . • .1,Y - •1.tgpw. .7 IV t X1.1 . . . . .\• .�. ;s 0'121„::"44911" w 0 1 ii I o�••4:°0 d v14 E is! %111=111=111 i 0/P. 2. Tn. VA > > 51.) •-k t kt$' M Z 3 ..,, N I., �n y VI Cn rE) • . V) , \ _ F2 M X .8 c) . . . . . . . :' . I El Z = z \, .i ` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,�,�o. . . .�`. Z c ci . ..... • N. �: ■ \ • kt it,0 3 , /0 . -- .:- 0. ..6 : .#):1"-1 • x, (I.) 1 /I I Al (i) lei • / Q . I -fi94-7.9 .6045x:14:4 :__.,� , _ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N . . . . . . fit K. • i EXHIBIT C 11 • 1 / .109. I . r W N I 6390. tx W O al W N 2 li� i O co r •W 8 N g a,tu Z m ac c 0 I' C U c Z J V 44 m O • CC 52. 2 0 W W 10 ~ Z 0 F- X < c to O z Q i gg w 0 < V • i 01 VI IU AS Q • N� ' N fQ R Q W ¢ Z .... _ M J v W �" I M V V O = W Al r`•• a : = m � 2 _ ;I. - M N O t0 ~ - M II. G _J I W la W IJ N {': w m m W` :J; T I- z L v, J 1-� Q Q = I `' h.. s d) ';� U t- �� W Q z io _.�.`i (n Cr 0 < W I o (\1 i ^� LL L W i la U J y < a Cl_ _ (.I a ~. - 0 1 s Z • III oQ w J 1 I . i o 4 z f- U. I I EXHIBIT D CITY OF TYPICAL RURAL STREET . • • CHANHASSEN -1 SCALE 1'- DATE PLATE NO. 5-89 5202 I CITY OF CHANHASSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner ' FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director /y✓ DATE: June 5, 1987 ► , SUBJ: Otto - Timberwood (86-27 SUB) Lake Susan Hills West (87-3 PUD) Zimmerman/Pemtom Company (87-11 SUB) I These plans were reviewed by the Fire Chief, Art Kerber; Fire Inspector, Steve Madden; and myself. The following recommen- dations are made: - Lake Susan Hills West: Minimum 100 ft. setback from William's Pipeline - Zimmerman/Pemtom: Dogwood cul-de-sac should have a \ 45 ft. radius l , Public Safety has no input at this time for the Otto subdivision noted above. If you have any questions, please let me know. I 1 7/407& '7 'sI II Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 11 IIPUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 100 ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON TANADOONA DRIVE, WEST OF HWY 41 AND NORTH OF HWY 5, KURT LAUGHINGHOUSE. Public Present: Name Address David Getsch 7510 Dogwood IJohn Getsch 7500 Dogwood Mr. and Mrs. W.C. Getsch 7530 Dogwood Craig and Barbara Freeman 7431 Dogwood Martin Jones 7321 Dogwood Thomas Kordonowy 6100 Apple Road Linda Oberman 7450 Hazeltine Blvd. Conrad: Just a point of clarification addressed to Jo Ann. We have reacted to this application before and so has the City Council but the Iapplicant has not carried it out I assume so therefore the applicant is back. There's no timeframe for when the applicant can come back with a new preliminary plat? Just for our information. IIOlsen: He never went through the whole process. It got as far as the Council and then they had that street. IConrad: So the applicant decided it didn' t like what the alternatives were based on the Council ' s. . . IOlsen: At that point it was determined by the public that they didn' t want to have Dogwood improved. Warren: I think the applicant withdrew and the neighborhood also did not want to pursue the street ownership transfer. IIMark Koegler presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. IIKurt Laughinghouse: I'm Kurt Laughinghouse and I am representing the owners of, there are now 3 different owners of the property. Mark IIKoegler's introduction is exactly right. The development of this plat and what is turned in as a plat and submitted to the City has grown over the last month in fact. Initially our intention was just to come in with the 20 acres that comprised the three lots that you see there and then we Idecided to hold the entire 100 acres. Just yesterday I learned that, and I think I can better explain this, just yesterday I learned that we need to move what shows up there as Walter Zimmerman, we intend to move that 5 11 I acres in fact to the east 100 feet. So we want to add that to the plat. Plat that property. Clear up all these descriptions. We actually have a third application. We don't have that third applicant in writing who owns 14 - 1 • Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 12 , that property so therefore I just wanted to introduce these two changes to II you this evening. Maybe make some points. The public had already been notified and I know that some of the neighbors are here who may have comment and then I would ask that you continue this until July 5th. So if , I may use this overhead. The plat that you received in the mail and were studying, the differences here are almost indetectable to you but there are two. One is that this large parcel to the center of the property which is 80 acres was marked outlot. It is now marked Lot 4. Then secondly, we have added this Lot 5 and that is yet another applicant. This property was not included in the application which I turned in a month or so ago. So those are the two changes. They're substantial enough of course that the staff should react on them and I wouldn't ask you to react without having some time for staff input. One of the major changes, one of the major effects is that any plan to put a road through the middle of this would not II work and that was one of the recommendations I believe of the staff. Wanted a road through the middle of this large property so that's going to be something we' re going to have to work on. ' Conrad: Why would it not work, just out of curiousity? Kurt Laughinghouse : The owner of this property is Mr. Tom Kordonowy who is II here this evening and he intends to put a house in this vicinity and also a barn and live on the entire 80 acres so it is, in effect is not going to be developed. It's going to be one homestead as will be the case with the other three lots. Of course this lot is in effect already in place. So as Mark Koegler suggested, the biggest issue is the road. I guess I should talk about that. Currently, there are three issues that I 'd like to introduce and answer questions on and then you can do what you choose. The City currently owns a 20 foot right-of-way that runs along, that is Tanadoona Drive and then is Dogwood Lane all the way down to this point and then there' s a quarter of a cul-de-sac on this 17th lot here that is owned , by the City. Now this is a plat from 30 or 40 years ago. Perhaps longer . Nevertheless , that is the physical and legal situation. This proposal suggests, we propose to dedicate an additional 40 feet of right-of-way and ' cul-de-sac here in this area so the City would have the appropriate 60 feet of right-of-way in this area. Now, that's the dedication. We also have a special situation here. You notice, it's not clear to you perhaps but there is a dotted line that runs this way. Now when this property, the Zimmerman buildings were separated from the whole parcel several years ago and is now a separate parcel. The City did not take a dedicated right-of- way here. The City took an option to purchase this 40 feet and that' s why ' that's outlined like that. So we left that remark there to remind us we've got to deal with that always. Then secondly, we put an outlot here, we' ll call it Outlot A and that's the 40 feet in front of the property here at this point. That's to remind us we've got to deal with road right-of-way dedication or something at that point. We would like not to dedicate any more right-of-way. That's certainly going to be the point of contention. In effect we are adding 3 more dwelling units to the end of this Tanadoona Dogwood road and that, as is suggested, as stated in the engineer 's report, is essentially a mile long cul-de-sac and people living at the end of cul-de-sacs have all the problems of potential weaker fire protection, weaker police protection. They understand that. The people who have purchased this lot, contingent of course, this lot and this lot understand Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 13 ' that situation and that' s agreeable to them. They are not expecting a paved road. Nevertheless, that is one of the biggest issues. Now, the second issue , not the same as dedication, is paving. About a year ago, let I me stop myself and say this. This line depicts a power line that comes up from TH 5 and is the source of power for all of these properties and that actually goes out here to the farm buildings. Last summer Minnesota Valley I Electric Coop came in and cleared a 50 foot or greater swath along the entire power line. Going right through the mature maples and oaks and everything. They were reacting to the fact that there had been storm damage to trees that had cut the power so they reacted strongly. You all I may visit that and see if I 'm overstating that. I 'm understating it quite a bit. Nevertheless, shortly after they finished that work there was another storm and another power failure because they didn' t get all the ' trees. Maybe that proves they should have taken more. Nevertheless , here is our dilemma. We have here a 50 foot swath right through the trees with a power line into the house. If we pave in here, in the right-of-way, we will have to cut another 40 or 50 or greater swath of trees out. We simply Iask your authority not to do that. If we have to pave anything, we can perhaps put temporary easements along the power line in favor of the City and pave those if that' s appropriate. If we need a cul-de-sac or an area I big enough to turn fire trucks around and oil delivery trucks and Dayton' s furniture trucks, which I would guess have gotten down there anyway and gotten out but we do need that kind of a space we can also do that here in the vicinity of the power lines or not. We can also pave it. We ask not to pave it. So roads in one issue number one. Paving is issue number two. And the third issue is trail easement. We thoroughly agree with the City' s plan to have a trail network around the city and around lakes. The City ' owns, when Crimson Bay was platted down here, a 20 foot easement was brought up to this property line. To our south property line. The staff report calls for a 20 foot easement around the entire property to get back I here to Tanadoona. We request that we cut that easement back to a 20 foot easement around the back of these properties to get back to Dogwood here. Now I don't know what the plans for the entire city are in terms of trails I but it seems to me ultimately you want to get from here to here and go around the lake. I don't know that so that's certainly disputable but if that's the goal , this is a shorter route. Further , Mr. Kordonowy and his family are going to put a barn up here and run horses. His question to us, Ito the City I guess, if we have to have a 20 foot easement around the entire property, that amounts by the way to almost exactly 4 acres of property. Where does he put his fence for his horses? Does he put it on Ithis old fence because they city is not going to develop this easement for many, many years or does he put it 20 feet inside that line? That's the dilemma that's created by putting a trail easement here that in effect is not going to be used for a long time. Not going to be developed for a long Itime. We think that the purposes of the City can be served by putting that easement around the back of these lots. 10 years from now, 30 years from now, as was indicated in the other that was up here, this is all open Ifarmland now. It's got corn growing on it. 30-40 years, whenever sewer and water arrives at this site, something else may happen to these properties. Roads are going to be different. Park trails are going to be different. I think it's premature and that's part of my argument, to plat all those things right now. So that's my presentation briefly and I 'd certainly be happy to answer questions but we might also might want to see I . • 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 14 what the people have to say. Koegler: Mr. Chairman, just two other items. Kind of really reminders from what happened a couple years ago. Mr. Laughinghouse referenced Crimson Bay to the south and there was a review at the time of making a street connection to the south to Crimson Bay and it was just determined that literally topography precluded it. It was given really a good thoughtful look and was determined totally to be infeasible. The other thing is the difference between the plat now and then is the plat that would have been approved back in 1987 did show dedicated public right-of-way 40 feet all the way around the west and north sides of that property. So had that preceeded and had the road issue have been resolved, that would be right-of-way today. Now they're proposing not to include II that as right-of-way so there are just some subtle differences between the two plans from 2 years ago and the one current. Conrad: We have a choice. We could table the item for future considerations and to take a look at what Mr. Laughinghouse has presented or we could listen to input from anybody who has come here tonight. I guess my preference is to listen, maybe instructive for any staff review or II our direction to staff so if that's acceptable to everybody, I think I 'd like to conduct the public hearing and we can continue the public hearing also until the next time. Would there be any comments related to the presentation tonight? Mr. Laughinghouse or anything that the staff has talked to us about. Any public comments? John Getsch: I'm John Getsch, 7500 Dogwood. . . .the road easements and the II discussions along those development plans, still presents a problem on what is going to be the long term plan for the road and the easement for any improvement of the road . The way it stands right now, what's presented, there is no long term plan for any improvements of the road and that's a concern. Right now it' s a 20 foot wide, almost single lane all the way in and that presents a problem. . . Conrad: Let me interrupt and see what kind of reaction I can get from Mark or Jo Ann on that. What are the City's responsibilities at this point in time given that the property is, the applicants do not really want to develop fully. They want to put a few houses there. What's the City's responsibility in this case in requiring an upgrade to a bad road? We've treated it in the past as it's the only time we can require that when there's something happening. So what are our options I guess. Future options. Mark, do you want to tackle that? Koegler: Yes, I'll address that and perhaps Gary will want to join in the chorus on this one. Just very briefly, the feasibility study that was done a year or so ago looked at a series of alternatives. This was Option A, which I believe if I remember right was the lowest cost option. It was the ' one that was recommended at the time. I think primarily due to the cost factor. What it resulted in is a street that does not meet current city standards in terms of width. The reason for that primarily being the mound treatment system that sits right there. The positioning of that relative to the lot across the street just really make it impossible to get anything wider than I think it's about a 18 foot road section through that 1 Planning Commission Meeting IIJune 21, 1989 - Page 15 Iparticular area so there is a constriction here that had to be dealt with and that was the way that was done by building a road that did not meet current standards. The second alternative that was looked at was a I variation that brought the road in past the Zimmerman parcel and then turned and went across and then it came back up serving kind of a hammer head cul-de-sac arrangement off of either side. Again, you had the ' constriction here regardless . That was another alternative that was looked at. Option C was similar. . . Once again you still have the constriction of coming back however. Finally, Alternate D that was looked at brought the ' road on the interior alignment and this was partially due to what I guess you'd term as kind of a ghost plat that was done by the developer at that time for informational purposes only and it was indicated as such. Then it actually showed a potential for a lot arrangement that radiated off of this IIreflecting that 75 acres ultimately being developed into I think it was initially 10 acre parcels. It was again, I think it goes without saying , we still had the 18 foot roadway right there. You ask a question that is really difficult to answer because the proceedings of the Planning Commission and Council ultimately on this item will probably be the answer to the question that you pose in terms of where do you go with providing street on this . It's my understanding that the City's practice over the last 2 years since this originally surfaced was to require a minimum road improvements for all rural subdivisions . You in your own mind can say where is the threshold? We're adding 1 house, 2 houses , 3 houses , 4 houses Ito an existing bad situation. Where do you draw the line? I don' t know that any of us have a definitive answer for that but the general staff consensus though is that, as you indicated Mr. Chairman is that now is the Itime when the subdivision is being approved that perhaps the most leverage is evident in terms of being able to accomplish some improvement of that area. Whether it's a full improvement or whether it's securing the right-of-way or whatever that's defined as. IIConrad: All the alternatives were real expensive. ' Koegler : They really were not tremendously difference in cost. They were to some of the individual parties. They ranged, as I indicated, from about $250,000. 00 to $300,000.00 and that was about a year ago so those numbers IIare still reasonably accurate but the actual assessment to some of the various parties did vary quite a bit under that scheme depending on where the road alignment went. The assessments that didn't vary tremendously probably were to some of the existing homes that are on Lake Minnewashta Iand I think as a ballpark those ran from I 'll say $1,500.00 to $4,000.00 depending on lot frontage. Warren : I might add Mr. Chairman, Mark has summarized it I think pretty well. It's a difficult issue no matter how we look at it here. Some properties are in advance of being ready to be developed because of the City not being able to provide adequate utilities. Adequate roadways and Isome of this nature. I think that at sometime has to be addressed. That maybe they' re a little bit ahead of their era so to speak. This is in the next area for the move of the MUSA line and we all I think are very Ifamiliar with whether that's the 1990's and it's hard to believe that 1990 is almost here or whether it' s a 2000 line or someplace in the middle so I really think an eye has to be kept to that because we're not that far I i Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 16 away from this area being further eligible to subdivide and it' s the ability to further subdivide lots that would make the distribution of the cost for a roadway of this nature more palatable. More lots able to be subdivided. I look at it almost as there' s somewhat of a self-imposed hardship here in that this total property I believe would sustain 10 building units and in the application we've seen prior to this one, it was ' the developer ' s choice only to plat 3 units basically. If they were to come in and take all 10 units for example, then there's 10 units to help defray the cost of the roadway. So there is sort of a self imposed issue there that is, take it for what it's worth. When we have looked at these II in the past as far as rural subdivisions, it has been I think a very strong line with the City's part to upgrade roads to full rural standards and we do have a rural standard versus an urban standard to recognize that we don't need curb and gutter necessarily and that expense in some of these roadways. In addition in this issue, we have existing access that I think even the existing residents would chime in, as was mentioned earlier here, that is a less than desireable access . In general I think everybody would like to improve if we could get some reasonableness to the dollars here. The section that was proposed for the existing roadway, to sneak by the 201 community system out there, I think did recognize that we were trying to be I sympathetic to local conditions in a certain regard and were willing to accept an 18 to 20 foot road section instead of the city standard rural section. I guess I throw those comments out for some of the things that really have gone through our minds here on what's right for the property and the property owners to have to put up with. Conrad: I'm going to throw it back to you sort of later in terms of, I don't think it' s our job to force a developer to develop and require them to put in maybe $300,000.00 or $200,000.00 worth of road improvements forces them to develop so it's a difficult situation. It is a public I hearing. I wanted to respond, you asked a question and I was trying to get some comments back from the staff on that. Go ahead with other questions . John Getsch: That is the issue on the road. The other thing is what Kurt has brought up and that was where the power lines come through. That really created, up until there was solid woods for probably a third of the property that went along parallel to the lake. That now has been 50 foot, 60 foot wide swath is cut right through there and cleaned out so there's kind of a natural area that is no longer wooded. That's something that needs to be addressed. Kurt brought it up and I think it's noticed by II everybody that has gone in that road during the last year. It has changed significantly and that needs to be recognized as some way to preserve the forest or whatever you want to call it and that needs to be recognized. Conrad: It is embarrassing what the power company did there. I just can't believe that they could go in and take down what they did. John Getsch: They sprayed again in the last couple weeks to kill anything , that was growing back. Conrad: Yes, that's just amazing. 1 Koegler : Kind of a follow-up to that. The feasibility study that was II ' Planning Commission Meeting IIJune 21, 1989 - Page 17 Ipublished in June of last year was prior to the time the guy showed up with chainsaws so that's a new piece of information that was never considered as I a part of these alignments and that 's certainly something that should be looked at as a part of this. The feasibility study when it laid the alignments in there, took great care to try to minimize tree removal . That was one of the major issues of making alignment through there so it's kind II of embarrassing to sit here a year later and find out there' s a corridor through there now. That needs to be taken into account. ' Barbara Freeman: Barbara Freeman, 7431 Dogwood. Could you give us some idea of your long range plans on the trail proposition that Chanhassen has through that area? IConrad: Jo Ann? Olsen: That was part of the Park and Rec Commission's recommendations and Mark might be able to address that a little bit better . Koegler: The City's Comprehensive Plan is shown as a series of trails I basically going around and connecting major points within a community and the Minnewashta Regional Park would be one of those. It' s not specific to say exactly how you would get from Point A to Point B other than to indicate that it's a desire to make the connection. For example the trail lperhaps in some areas may run along TH 41 and then may go back into the park or it may run through the property and go back into the park. That's not been determined yet but again, back to 2 years ago when this was Iapproved , the easement that Kurt Laughinghouse described was a part of the approval at that time around the perimeter of this site to accommodate that movement. The City has gone out with 2 referendums over the last few years Iand I 'm sure you're aware it has not been approved and certainly that has had a major impact on the feasibility to build those trails so realistically, as I think Kurt eluded to again, those trails are quite a ways off in the future but the right-of-way generally is trying to be Isecured now for those to bank that if you will for future development. So the alternative that again was just raised is another one of those factors that will be looked at over the next couple of weeks prior to the time this ' comes back to see if that has any validity compared to the original improvement that occurred on the south and east sides. Conrad : Other comments? ILinda Oberman: Linda Oberman, 7450 Hazeltine. We own the land adjacent to the outland area, the 80 acres. Can , you show you on that map, I didn't get Iyour name, Mr. Kordonowy? Is that right? What land did you purchase and what are you planning to do with that, farming? What areas? ITom Kordonowy: My name is Tom Kordonowy and I 'm acquiring this property for single family home. The 80 acres I'm acquiring is everything other than this 5 acre section here, the old Zimmerman homestead and these three lots are being divided for Mr. Foster and I guess someone else so I ' ll be IIowning the balance of the property. Tanadoona to Dogwood, back up and back. The house I'm proposing to put in will be located here right where this number is in front of the tree line. The reason for the addendum or 11 Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 18 change to the plat, the 100 foot segment we've asked, the Bergen' s home is 1 5 acre piece is the only logical place for my road to service my single homestead is, this starts to get quite low. The topography is rising II through this little wet area substantially to the highest point in the area which is here so I plan to come in with about a 9 9 in topography which is the same as what's here. That encroaches on what is now the Bergen homestead so we're simply swapping a 100 foot parcel for this piece for this piece like that. That's the purpose of it. It benefits Mr. Bergen because the farm where he's actually farming is very, very close to his living room right now. It's to his advantage to actually move that way over. This lower area is a little west of us so these options, and I haven't seen these options, our household here will be pre-empting I 'm sure any roadway going through here. We have no interest in that. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have and I appreciate your direction at this point so several weeks from now when we come forward we may resolve this. I'm moving my family into a condominium which I'm not very anxious to do for the period of time it takes to build this house so the quicker 1 I'm able to put a shovel in the ground and make this my home, the happier we' ll be so any input at all from the Commission would be most gratifying . Conrad: Thanks for your comments. , Linda Oberman: . . .farming that? Tom Kordonowy: it is now a farm and it is really appalling this tree swath that goes through there. Wildermuth: If the road were to follow that utility easement, that swath I that was cut through there, how would that impact you and your plans to build your home? , Tom Kordonowy: It would go through what is going to be my house. Kurt Laughinghouse: There's a two part answer. One is, along here that would be desirable more or less but then the power line goes straight through here and this is approximately where the, the power line doesn't show up on the other may but this is approximately where the Kordonowy's home will be. Then the wooded area runs out around here also. You had another question and I didn' t quite get it. Is your home one of these two homes right here? Linda Oberman: Right. I was just wondering if he was going to farm that land or. . . Tom Kordonowy: I personally will. . . Linda Oberman: Would you be open to selling 5 to 10 acres of that? , Conrad: Other comments? Dave Getsch: My name is Dave Getsch, 7510 Dogwood. Certainly the I neighbor's preference and I speak for the neighborhood. At the last meeting I was voted to be a representative to speak to the Council and II Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 19 IPlanning Commission on this. Our preferences obviously are to keep property as close as possible to what it presently is in it's present I state. Certainly we're very much in favor of someday wanting to use 80 acres for basically the same purposes as it's presently been used for and also as much preservation of what stays there and what is a gorgeous, gorgeous area. We want to work at all possible to maintain what's there. II Certainly to try to improve the road somewhat but not lose some of the uniqueness of what's there. We certainly want to turn it into a thorough- fare. That's just our preferences. Conrad: Other comments? Okay, we' ll close the public hearing for tonight. I Erhart: I 'll move to close the public hearing. Emmings: Well continue it to the next meeting so they can react. IIErhart: Okay, I 'll move to continue the public hearing. Conrad : That' s a better motion. II Emmings: Second. IIErhart moved , Emmings seconded to continue the public hearing until the next meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. IConrad : I think what I 'd like to do right now, let us go around the commission briefly but kind of give some direction to staff so that when it comes back to us, we may have a clearer idea than I currently have of what IIwe want to do here. Again, I don't know that we want to belabor it tonight. I think we want to more than belaboring issues is give staff some direction to explore alternatives for us before it comes back here. Tim, comments on what we've seen tonight and directions . 1 Erhart: I guess the way to look at this is if the road didn't exist. One of the ways to look at this is if the road didn' t exist at all and the developer was attempting to subdivide 3 lots off on the extreme end of the property from where his access is and in that case what are our requirements? Private driveway or does it require a 60 foot easement to get in 3 new lots? IIOlsen: You could have a private drive but we would most likely be requiring the 60 foot right-of-way. IIErhart: Right, so normally we would require the easement in that case so I guess again, without having full discussion, my immediate reaction is to go Iback, I think which is what we previously, didn' t you state Mark that's what we ended up the last time was just requiring easements to get in there. I tend to think that was probably where we were going to end up with this again, but not to improve it at this time. IIEmmings: Building on what Tim said, can you have a private drive with this many houses on it? I thought there was an upper limit on the number of II Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 20 houses that can be served by a private drive. Olsen: Three lots you can have. The other ones, no you can not have. Resident: What was the answer? Emmings: The answer is no. What is the maximum? Is it 5 or 4? 1 Olsen: It's 3 and then in the rural standards it states that you can have 2 so there's some discrepancy there. ' Emmings: Looking at the Code, on the subdivision code under Section 18-39 it says that in order to approve a preliminary plat and a final plat, the City Council has to find that the proposed subdivision is not premature. One of the things that makes it premature is if there's a lack of adequate roads. If I remember , I was here a couple years ago when we looked at this thing at that time and everybody agreed that the roads in there were inadequate. At least that' s my recollection of what happened back then. I II think there should be a 60 foot easement going all the way in. I can see that maybe some allowance is going to have to be made for that spot where the mound system is. I think things like that can be taken into account for something like this but the easement we should have. How much construction of the roadway should be done, I think is we can talk about but I 'd probably, if this is the best opportunity we're going to have for t cleaning up what's a bad situation. It's a very long cul-de-sac. We don' t like that. As a matter of policy, we don't like the long cul-de-sacs. Whether people agree to submit to the extra lack of fire services or the potential for not being able to get any emergency services or not, that' s not something that's just in the hands of the landowners but it's a concern of the City too and I don' t think we can. . . Martin Jones: The fire trucks can get in there now. Emmings: I know. 1 Mrs. Getsch: An 18 wheeler was in there last week. Resident: It's still there. t Emmings: I'm telling you what I think. W.C. Getsch: I know but we can tell you what actually happens. . . Emmings: Reality doesn't interest me. This is theoretical . 1 Martin Jones: I've driven the fire truck down the road many times so I know it goes down and it comes back out. I Emmings: What is the reason that we have roads like we do and the reason that we don' t like long cul-de-sacs? Olsen: It's public safety. , I Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 21 ' Warren: Secondary access . 1 Emmings: That's all I have. Elison: I think that we should probably do some sort of minimum standard roadway improvements at this point. I also think that the reservation of IIthe trail easement should be left as was recommended. That' s it. Batzli : I guess taking what I consider to maybe the easier issue first. I Ithink the trail easement, I think Park and Rec if they didn' t consider why they were going around the back end. If they just thought we did it this way last time, let' s do it again, I guess I 'd like to see them reconsider Iwhether they really need it around the entire parcel or if it would make more sense to jog it back to Dogwood there and not knowing their reasoning for what they proposed, I don't have a good basis on which to judge that at all . I don' t believe I was here to consider this last time around but as I far as the roadway improvements but I kind agree with Ladd, or his earlier comment anyway. Maybe he's not really in agreement. Maybe he' s playing devil 's advocate but the question as to whether we should force the I developer to develop the road at this time. I don' t know that it' s the inadequacy of the road is going to be further exacerbated by the addition of 3 lots when it appears that the reason that it's inadequate is due to I the existing lots currently in there. But on the other hand, I do think due to public safety concerns , there should be some sort of upgrade or at least planning for the future and it looks like the only way we can do that at this time is to get some sort of easement and perhaps minimally IIblacktopping it or something else. It seems to there was some sort of discussion about whether you go in and build a 60 foot road or just kind of blacktop it now and upgrade it later. I don't know. IWildermuth: I guess my thinking is, with the addition of 3, 4 lots or parcels there. One being the 80 acre parcel. We're not looking at that much greater load on the existing roadway and the upgrade at this point ' probably ought to be up to the people who live on the road. But I think the easements should really get some consideration this time around . IIHeadla: As far as the trail goes, I would assume that the Park and Rec wanted to go from Point A to Point B. If I understand the proposal , the trail will go from A to A-. It never even gets to B+ so I sure would want Ithe Park and Rec to look at that. Look at it closely. As far as the road improvement, if they all agree, they don't want to improve it, they've got the problem and a lot of people back there have been happy for many years so I guess I 'm inclined to say let it be. IConrad : My comments. I agree with getting the full easements at this point in time. I think we really don't know what's going to happen but we Ihave to get the easements so if that's the 60 foot easement that we need, that we have to get that. I don't want to force a developer to develop a property I think right now yet I want them to be able to use it and I don' t mind the way they're dividing it right now. I think we do Mark, as you Isuggested, we've got to look at that power line as they've cleared it out because it's a big new piece of information and I think that plays a role, at least in how do we get access to those particular 3 sites. The trail , I I II Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 22 think that should go back to the Park and Rec for their comments . I guess my only other concern right now is, if there future potential to continue to split off? When the MUSA line goes out there. Back up. I'm comfortable allowing the subdivision as we see this yet I 'm still uncomfortable at what point we can say no, you can' t add one more house to this. Based on the zoning right now, can they add additional, how many additional could they add? Olsen: You've got 100 acres and you can have 10 units. Conrad: 1 per 10 so they could literally 7 more? Warren: They could add 5 more. He's platting Zimmerman as a lot. ' Olsen: Right, and that's something that we have to determine if we would have to determine if we would consider that one of the building eligibilities. Since they're including another one. Conrad: So they could put 5 more there. Okay. It gets kind of difficult to know what to say. Those are my comments but I think that we need the easements. It' s a difficult situation but I think if we get those easements, at least we have our options open but I personally don't think we need to, the neighbors are saying don't develop. Well , I'm not sure what the neighbors have said. They're basically saying to me we don' t want any assessments . I'm not sure what they think of development or improvement of the roads but my impression is they' re happy living the way they have lived there and I don' t think 3 more units or 4 is going to I disturb the balance out there so I don't feel that we need to force any kind of road development in at the current time other than making sure that we have our options open for the future and that probably means to me covering our options and getting as much property for easement as possible. II Anyway, those are my comments. Tom Kordonowy: If the Commission were to acquire an easement around the entire property, if they saw that to be appropriate, wouldn't it be, insofar as I 'm taking this 80 acre portion for a single family house, wouldn't it be appropriate. . .on the west side of Dogwood to take the entire II right-of-way or easement out of this parcel. However, this parcel is not being developed , it wouldn't be a fair arrangement to take half of what would be the required right-of-way from here should this develop and take the other half on the other side. If at a later date, I as an owner here were going to develop this, then I would think it would be appropriate for the City to say you've got to dedicate additional right-of-way. . . I'd be concerned that the City now has the easement or right-of-way and they say we're putting in a blacktop road and you're the benefitting party, you're paying this portion of it. That would be a burden. W.C. Getsch: I don't think Camp Tanadoona is going to hold still for that. I Tom Kordonowy: They wouldn't be taking the easement from them at this time. They'd only be taking half an easement. I Planning Commission Meeting IIJune 21, 1989 - Page 23 IW.C. Getsch: I 'm talking about any assessment or anything else. They' re in bad enough shape as it is. IConrad: Right. No, we understand that. There was a lot of logic in what he just said. Is there anything that would contradict that logic Jo Ann? IOlsen : I'll let Gary answer that. Warren: Thank you Jo Ann. The comment about Camp Tanadoona I think is a Ireality as far as if at some time in the future, if that's the way you're going to look at this, if you're going to want to build that road and want to build it to city standards, the City would have to go through considerable expense to probably condemn, if you will, the portion of the Iright-of-way that we would be deficient. Now whether that's from the Campfire property and actually my recollection, the topography out there is, you talk about trees and you talk about some tough topography. The Ifurther to the north from that roadway, you get into some real difficult topography. IConrad : So the situation would be, if we only required half the dedication of the easement on the property that's now being looked at and platted , basically what, if we only required half of it, then what we're saying to the cuireant residents is we probably can' t. If nothing else happens on Ithat property, we' re probably not going to upgrade that road for a long time. That's basically what we' re saying. If we only require the half of the easement for rural road or whatever that we'd like to have, the options Iof improving that road for the current residents are neglible until the big parcel develops . IWarren: They' re certainly restricted as to what you can do and quite honestly what I prefer about Alternate D, putting cost aside for the moment, is the fact that to pursue the alignment along the current roadway as we' re all aware, when you get down to the northwest corner there, the bottleneck, the sharp right angle turn, that is a very undesireable alignment and in the alternates that we showed and the feasibility study we showed cutting across that meadow land area which actually is a beautiful Imeadow land area. You still have to deal with the bottleneck at the community mound system whereas if the road is brought in through the property, we can deal with reasonable geometrics to put in the proper access and then you only have a compromised road section for the piece that Igoes to the north, the hammer as Mark calls it, and the other three quarters of the roadway is a full city standard roadway. That's what I guess is attractive from an engineering standpoint about if you're going to Itake easements, if you're going to follow the existing alignment, then you're locking yourself into the future probably about trying to upgrade with that existing alignment. Whereas if you take another easement, maybe ' if you're going to restrict it to not using it for a while, I don't know what kind of restrictions we could put on but at least get the easements where you ultimately might want to build the full city section. II Conrad : I liked the D alignment. In my mind that was the right way to fly IN yet that may not work with the owner's plans. He's got a house that's probably he' s situating and that probably doesn' t work but conceptually • Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 24 1 you're right. I Kurt Laughinghouse: I think what you just said argues against taking any II interest for roads as follows. If there's one person owning this 80 acres and it is platted as lot, the only way it can be further subdivided is to come back to the Planning Commission and Council and then the whole game is open again for roads. So if this plat is approved as we propose it, and there is dedication here so there's a full 60 feet available on the front of these lots, but there is no dedication around the rest of the property in effect unless we deal with this in here. In that situation, the City controls. If anybody wants one more lot, then the City says okay then now II we need the road here or we need a road here. We need something else. And, and if water and sewer come this far , to this edge of the lake, Camp Tanadoona will not be able to resist the amount of money that will be offered for that property. . .and that will probably be developed too and a Campfire camp will be built 30 miles further west in another more secluded wooded place. Then this sewer system is no longer needed. If and when I there's any redevelopment, either because of the water and sewer or because this low owner of Lot 4 in this case decides they don' t want to have the horse farm anymore, the City controls. If the City needs easements, they take easements where they need them so really what we' re doing , although we're going through a platting process which is an urban process, we' re really dealing with 5 and 10 acre lots. This is a rural situation forced into an urban process. I think we ought to. . . ' Conrad : Mr. Laughinghouse, you're right yet it takes the power away from the City and the power away from the neighborhood right now that are currently living there under your direction. Now's the time in subdivisions that the city can make improvements and what you're suggesting is don' t do anything right now and basically the power will be left with the individual who owns the large parcel there, when they want to develop and the City is locked out of improving road access to the current neighbors. Yet I have heard the current neighbors say some things that say maybe they don' t mind that. I Dave Getsch: We might want the road coming down the hill before the hammerhead, we might want that widened a little bit. We certainly want to have easements so we can do something like that. Conrad: But you're comfortable the way things are today aren't you? Dave Getsch: Yes but we don' t necessarily, there are times when it's less than desireable trying to get in. For instance when the frost goes out in the spring and you park your car on top of the hill and walk in. That' s less than desireable. After a good gully washer is less than desireable but what I'm saying is that it has a certain charm to it. . .we certainly want the easements. Warren: The City can always vacate easements. I'd rather get the bird in the hand and give it away in the future if we don't use it. Conrad: I think you've heard a lot of comments. Is there a motion to table this item until, what do we table it for Jo Ann? For staff review of I Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 25 IIthe new information? Olsen: That would be best. Batzli moved , Emmings seconded to table acition on the preliminary plat to I subdivide 100 acres into three single family lots and one outlot for Kurt Laughinghouse until staff has reviewed the new information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE MUSA BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE 140 ACRES IIINTO THE METROPOLITAN SERVICE AREA LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF LAKE ANN, 1680 ARBORETUM BOULEVARD, MICHAEL GORRA. IPublic Present: Name Address Mike Gorra Applicant Leander Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd. Bernie Schneider P.O. Box 103, Chanhassen Mark Koegler presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Bernie Schneider : Mr. Chairman, I'm Bernie Schneider . I represent the Chanhassen Legion. I 'm not quite clear what this. . . I didn't quite follow you on that. Koegler : The City is in the process of updating it' s Comprehensive Plan at the present time which a review of the MUSA line is a part of that effort. That effort has been underway for some time and we feel that within 60 to I90 days the planning aspect of that will come to a close and a lot of the documentation that will be needed to support this application with Metropolitan Council might be available at that time. For example we' ll need to provide them with some information on how the property ultimately Iis going to develop. What the sewage flows will be so they can consider what impact that has on the regional treatment systems. So what I guess we're saying is it's a very complex issue and the documentation that will Imake that issue perhaps a little more clearly discernable is going to be available in 2 to 3 months. It's not available as we sit here tonight. ' Conrad: Bernie, it's my guess that with the information that the staff compiles, you've got a much better case than going in there right now without it. Other comments from the public? Anything else? ' Koegler : I want to emphasize I guess on the record that the kind of comments that I just made assume that the plan to a certain degree will support this application and we don't actually know that tonight. I guess I s • 1 i . 1 1� _ sunRErI I. qn • ;2 i %` r�/�� ✓ �; . / , 1 V.,10.— _� �,` et. / 'f/ 1 i A.. 1 a R„ :Ii:„.iit- 3rilliN -1171a1S ':i I i .1i; f. ail': V /I I ine 'LI . Nit I • op ij.: 1 I fir° : 3 c El I¢r r . . V /I i o il 1 a 1 II I i 1 • e . . . , r r • e/ Filli !`i€` 7 =11 !f !_3rzEl z if €•EE 1`EiE lE=x� E i�il =ii mill EE!? _ E€E t € EEEE s E see ' s LIE E=�s1te 6°111....-_.° ;z d€i„F €z ! I!!iiJ !i!!I� itili a / a ° Hi i ilE m tuf I € €•i Fpp a �rF` ° € •°! !JII AI :o lFF 1€=6i:s pi-0i� 1{.{b • z F!p! iI ° �s � �E:�. �-!•s• z iF•dz�=rz��Ez��js F i��- Jifi i sl. a €. 1:4 ;E I ad i" ii.,i z: i- z e 1 v' � III � €.z•z�` � ��ilL��'�ppEz� va . _1 � 1 � �` i i� + 1 3i E E ° 3 ;1 lia+'1 a 1 1 t v z;i:t F E� fE iz • k s =:F]do A114 €E! @€.° °ig E� �1E� i 1 F 1Iii 11411=1E-- €is !i€ Ii° � = a- � t:� ��"� €� � � gg ag E E�:'< s€? s czar c1 �_ � ��lv s t1;iii. �i $ Ra = Pi 04.14 i E F C C z 1 1 1 '�'iE$ a aag i9� 3 i�� a° 3Eo �s{_ �i�i till � I�B �� i�Ji�°t-��°F• �•-_� �=�z�si� Erz �r a 1 & iEea iiE 8`_ Ei c c °Eigc 2 z s cE: €• • F v• 3 a a R z � ii • � € �- za �isi( � €�ip€i� � � i mi lih.„ =eEEa di 1r gg=1 5 1 ii■ 4;111 € c !:1111;01*s 'i! 1 °:Ells p311 lad 4 € r1' 1.1 t i°� t P 1. i Etil l : F €= .lip . D� 16 . Ej_i ac 4111 t-a -i Ee ia1 nE 1 i s i .= s. : Fair S�q.E €..i• °E i €=1 a � s • a y1• d �- .�i .tF s €i'�°�_�e a =( � 1 1-P EaIE1 l � -.1g 'A gE 1i :is eE °ie i la E, gi iil e�' x( i'e'�i�._ ° si �� rill 1 E - ;11 'i §E E ha 1E s kJ �L� vO I r 1 '' o7 ZIMMERMAN FARM . James R.Hilly inc. 1 '°n FI Nair-n .lOI. y _ • -.;.in s 9;^i .PRELIMINARY GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL KAn "=' �- PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS H ' TIMOTNY D IOBTER - 5 _ tf!!Y1i110 llt0.I IY11.YM. .1_.'+.+u NM 10.4 AVE 1. • ROOIMOPOY.•Y W71 • RfM•401. k / ANNIMINIMBIlla I ITY O F IC DATE: May 13, 19-89 .' R' CUAHASE x C.C. DATE: N * CASE NO: Prepared by: Sietsema:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 20. 3 acres into 2 single family lots Z VQ LOCATION: Tanadoona Drive, west of Highway 41 and mile north of Highway J APPLICANT: Timothy Foster 7200 Metro Blvd. Q Edina, MN 55435 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential ACREAGE: 20. 3 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RR, Camp Tanadoona • S- RR, Single Family Residential E- RR Single Family Residential W- RR, Single Family Residential EXISTING PARKS: There are no neighborhood parks in this Q area. Camp Tanadoona is located to the north and Minnewashta Regional Park and the !..7; • Landscape Arboretum are also injthis area. COMP. TRAIL PLAN: The Comprehensive Trail Plan calls for a W trail along the entire west . stde of the Imo development from Crimson Bay. Rd. to Tanadoona Dr. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan does not call for parkland in this park deficient area in the near future, however, when an urban development is proposed, a neighborhood I park will be needed. 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 12, 1989 - Page 2 Sietsema: Yes. Lash: Okay, because this came back to us and we changed this. Remember it went to Planning and then Mark Koegler came back to us at our next meeting and he said our recommendation really didn' t make sense with the Comp Plan and they came back and we discussed the whole thing again and it had something to do with Dogwood? I distinctly remember that. I remember the night Mark was here. Boyt: You think it changed? Lash: I don' t remember but I know it wasn' t this east thing and it went. It has kind of a connection with Dogwood? -Sietsema: What the connection was is that the next piece, I wish I had an overall plan. Lash: I 'm pretty sure it was the same thing. Have we done two different ones? Sietsema: What we had done was going all the way along this whole entire, including the outlot and then shooting up this way. Lash: And that was our first recommendation right? Sietsema: Right. Lash: Okay. I know that this came back to us a second time. Schroers: I remember something about that Jan. One of the things that Mark brought up was we were talking at the same time about the population projection for the next 25 years or whatever the projected population could reach 35, 000 in the City and he felt that, if I remember correctly, it was the opinion at that time that this additional parkland really wouldn't be necessary that far out in the City until the community reached that target population or close to it. That was something that we would consider way in the future. Lash: You're talking about a park. We're talking about the trails. That's what we're talking about right? Sietsema: Trail , right. Staff' s recommendation was to coo along Dogwood and go through, straight through that lot connecting to Crimson Bay. That was staff's first recommendation. I don' t know if Mark was in the audience then or not but it was changed then. What the Park and Recreation Commission had recommended then was to go along the south and east boundary of the entire site being again the outlot included so what I 'm suggesting here now, instead of bringing it way up here, which we could do at some time in the future, change that if that comes in, I'm saying go along the east here. If this turns out to develop into houses, we can get through along the streets or whatever. Whatever this street connection is going to. If they put in a street here, whatever that street connection is, we can tie into that. 4 I . Park, and Rec Commission Meeting December 12, 1989 - Page 3 I Boyt: It would be the most. . .to the park. Sietsema: Yeah, if it becomes a park, right. And if it becomes homes, II then we can go along the streets to make the connection that we want to make. I ' ll have to look. I don' t recall that. Lash: Because I know I voted against it when it came back the second time. II I absolutely remember that. And on this one we all voted in favor and the motion carried . I know it came back to us. It went to Planning like the next week and there were a bunch of problems with it and Mark came and I explained to us their reasoning and then we changed it. I know it something to do with Dogwood. ' Sietsema: Alright I ' ll look but I don' t know. . . Mady: Do we need to act on it tonight? I Sietsema: Yeah. Unless you want to wait until you get that other information but it is going to the Planning Commission at their next meeting. IILash: If you' re basing that we need to change it, based on our first recommendation. I Sietsema: I 'm just giving you that for background information. You can disregard that whole, because that is no longer a valid plan and just go based on this plan. IISue Boyt' s comments couldn' t be heard on the tape. Sietsema: If you want to wait and I can go back and look that up. Lash: . . .the recommendation was to o on Dogwood here, then. . . g g e, en. . . ' Boyt: I don't think it was. I think it was a problem going along Dogwood. I think that' s what we wanted to do initially because that's the one that makes the most sense when you first glance at it but it seems like there IIwas something wrong with that. . . .couldn' t get it over on this side. . . Schroers: Well there is definitely topography over there. IISietsema: Yeah, it's very, especially when you get down' to Dogwood, it gets even more erratic. Severe. You have a couple options. If you want to review it, what happened before, I can go back and dig out, see where we I discussed that. I don't think it was on the agenda though because I looked back on all the agendas. That it just came up and I ' ll shave to look and see what that was. Otherwise, the old plan is no longer valid because that did not get approval so you can base your recommendations strictly on what we have in front of us today. Mady: Thinking it through, the old plan really has some old basis on it. ' A major portion of it or 80% of it doesn't come in front of us. It's just I Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 12, 1989 - Page 4 this 20 acres. Ultimately we' re going to have an opportunity and it may be 20 years from now, to make that connection some other way but going along that section line there, probably at this point makes the most sense. Just going along the edges there. We don't have any other way of doing it. Schroers: That 80 acres that. . .cornfield? Sietsema: What it is is, two different people own these properties and I I believe that the guy with the smaller piece, what you're looking at today, wanted to divide, get more lots out of it and he needed more acreage to do that because it' s a 1 unit per 10 acres so if you threw the 30 acres in it was 100 and he could get 3 lots out of his and make the other piece an outlot but it didn' t work out that way so he' s coming back with just 2 lots. Schroers: I would think we could make a recommendation on this. Mady: Go ahead. , Schroers: Okay, I'll move to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction and to require a trail easement straight 11 north from Crimson Bay Road to Tanadoona Drive and also recommend to consider at the time of further development, neighborhood park needs. Mady: Is there a second? , Boyt: I thought that was the place where there was a problem putting a trail in and going along Crimson Bay Road. Isn't that where this problem with the trail . . . Sietsema: Along Crimson Bay? Boyt: Yeah. If that' s the motion. Sietsema: Your motion was to connect Crimson Bay to Dogwood or to Lake 11 Street? Schroers: North. . . ' Sietsema: Yeah. Schroers: No, I was following staff's recommendation to require trail easements straight north from Crimson Bay Road to Tanadoona Drive. Sietsema: Okay, that's the old recommendation. Go back -to the second page of your report. Lash: While you're getting your thoughts together Larry, can I make one comment? I Schroers: Sure. 1 IIPark and Rec Commission Meeting December 12, 1989 - Page 5 If Lash: I don' t want to appear to be real nit picky but I have a question. You guys will discover that I have a very good memory for details and I specifically remember making a correction on these minutes and it was not done. I 'm wondering, when we make corrections if that then is go back and ' correct it or. . . Sietsema: Usually I do. Lash: Because this ends up becoming the permanent record correct? Sietsema: Right. Where's the correction? Lash: It was on page 15. I'm just saying that this is really nit picky but I remember that this happened because I was the one who was questioning ' about this budget that we had started for Lake Minnewashta and I was asking these questions about it and Nann had gotten Dawne and I, I suppose because we were new at that time, our voices mixed up so she has down that Dawne was making the comments. Asking the questions and I was asking the ' questions and correcting that and it wasn't done. Sietsema: The reason these aren' t corrected is because when the Minutes come in, I go through them all and label them for the files. I got these Minutes out of the files, not out of the Minutes so when I go back to a file that' s regarding trails or regarding one issue, insteading of paging through a huge book of Minutes and trying to find it, I can find all the ' pages I need by finding that date and pulling it out and copying it and those Minutes go in right away into the. . . 1 Lash: Before corrections? Sietsema: Before corrections usually. Sometimes. Not always but usually when I get them, I put them in there because they're needed. They need to go in there. Lash: But the corrections are needed. 1 Sietsema: Yeah, for the official record they are made. 1 Mady: Ready to go? Schroers: No, as a matter of fact. I managed somehow or another to 1 get. . .and I 'm still somewhat confused so I'm not ready to make a recommendation. Sietsema: If you want to go with the option of going from Crimson Bay I Road, which is here, along the south boundary up, that would be the second scenario. If the street goes through between the two lots or along the north side, then the previous recommendation regarding the trail should • stand going along the south boundary from Crimson Bay Road to the southeast corner of Lot 2 and along the east boundary of Lots 1 and 2. Boyt: Yeah, that was our last recommendation. I II Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 12, 1989 - Page 6 Sietsema: Except that instead of going up here, it went way out. That was one recommendation. Schroers: What' s kind of confusing me now is like if the street goes here. I That kind of leads me to believe that we don't know exactly what we're doing , at least that' s what I felt. Sietsema: That what? , Boyt: We're trying to project into the future what' s going to happen. Sietsema: What Planning has told me is that they want a street down in this area somehow to get these people out of here. That would connect, so that not everybody is feeding onto what's labeled here as Lake Drive. Okay? So if they put it in and connect Lake Drive over to Crimson Bay Road , or if they put it inbetween the two lots and at a future time that the other piece develops, they continue it out or if they put it up along the north side, those are the 3 options. There's only 2 in your packet because I the north side just came up today. So if they go through, put it through Crimson Bay Road, Crimson Bay Road to Lake Drive, then it would make sense for the trail to go along there but it' s not likely that that's going to happen. What you would do is just make that recommendation. If that happens, then you want the trail here. If it goes between the two lots or along the north side, then you'd want the trail along here because what we - want to do is connect Crimson Bay Road over to Lake Minnewashta Park. Lash: Is there some way that we can just wait until we have confirmation on this so we know what' s happening? I Mady: Basically what we want to do is run it along whatever road they decide to put in. I don' t know anything else. . . ' Sietsema: Basically. We can look at it after Planning but typically we make our recommendation before Planning looks at it because we' re on the same schedule as the City Council and that would hold -the developer up almost a month if we have to look at it after them. Mady: The likelihood is that they' re only going to put more road in? Sietsema: Yeah. Boyt: And really what the two options are, since we want to connect from II Crimson Bay in the southwest corner, the two options are to go straight north and that probably isn' t an option. • Sietsema: Right. If they don't put the road in, then that isn't probably II what we want to do. Boyt: So our only other real option is to go the southern boundary and the I eastern boundary and it doesn't matter then where else they put the road because our goal is to get from the southwest corner to the north. Mady: So moved. 1 • Park. and Rec Commission Meeting December 12, 1989 - Page 7 Boyt: Second. ' Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction and that trail easements run along the south and east ' boundary. All voted in favor except Lash who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. ' SELECTION OF PARK NAMES FOR SITES LOCATED AT: A. CURRY FARMS B. CHANHASSEN HILLS C. LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST (4 SITES) D. SOUTH PARK SITE (BANDIMERE FARM) Lash: S�nould we do something real novel like Curry Farms Park? Chanhassen Hills Park? Bandimere Park and then. . . ' Sietsema: It would make a lot of sense to go with the subdivision name in most cases. I would think that Curry Farms and Chanhassen Hills are • - Hoffman: Are very pleasant names. Mady: My thoughts on this were basically what Jan's are. Use the subdii i.sion name whenever possible and if you have a situation where ' the w' s more than one park, you can bet almost every situation I can remember in the 3 or 4 years I 've been here, there' s always been one major park and then there' s been bits and pieces here and there. Use the ' development name for those and the little bitty piece parks maybe if there's nothing else that really strikes us, we can just use the street name that they're on. ' Boyt: How about Chanhassen. . .and there were a lot of indians in this area and a lot of the roads have the Frontier indian, derivation, if we go back to some of that. Some of roots. . . Lash: Do you have a suggestion? IBoyt: No. I think there' s a list of street names. Lash: Okay, but. . .Kiowa is one. Do you think there'd be a problem with that. • IBoyt: . . .that's confusing because there's 3 of them in 'town but we need, but that will give us some Indian words. We don't want one like Kiowa Park land people will never find that. They'll know there's like 3 or 4 Kiowas around. Lash: Or are they sgt up, I mean I 'm not even sure where these all are but is it set up in a way that there's a directional thing where one is north it x r = t 1, M r/ ,I I s . 1 ' � • .NIL\km --" I swan'T I J 1 F.; ... ,p,,,,,,,- 1 ..... -4,4„_... , ,..: „,„:„KE ....„ -•• • •, , . , ,..„..„ _....., . .4,"-.0-1.-,.- - , .,„,.,±,,, .—N I %✓/ /�/'.S V 1 :i�r�'--�',....►1 . —ice/ --,k..t-.-,--..i-:.r.-6-L I I CN1MS^N �°AV 0 0/l- L{f- �, �` 0•-•1 FAIDAt 1 ,..,44„,„. .,4, w,_ i . 4 455 �, F I*: /.1/e•li . "..'his.4.1114\ .i IF It tit I `. . ,„; ,....,.. . jot . , A ,g . o w a C RA I, , (tr. I, . • , 1 1 i r 1411 Ser . . i R i iii 0 . • thi i 3 i o t 1 ii iii e e : . . . . ."r !� F� i l:ilRp! :�_ I`1 !NIP 4 se a sv s a 1 1 e , '._is s:iq�• iiilIL..1I.: 1.311 I It E @1 i ( 1fI! !-IdI IIIIII! gill Ed IIMIll eye_ IIE Nil I 1 :. Cf.• ii. 2• _ j1I2.,I• .t t if d I dgI A51fA idai Aesl oI A �� : � is ° ff. i 1 1 f FE s BB i !s / F I t ii f3 'a id i ° i I1 °9 i I 1 i .�sft� �`� t . a �f °>,; i_ • I1 31I0o ! D l 1 .i;�. . i s.fa (� I° d3 is : 1 i� 1 i1 !t � f i A Isli � EEly s ° E �,s 1_ : y1 al a1 . t. 11.•C f!I!! i! tii!!1 s WI 6 1 1 3 1la d a l !1 1 ° t1� f i f sse sf t 1s BEE ° It s s�' !� pllB� 1 f 1 1 1 t1. l; If��I a: ca I ° 11 d11 s I s 116 :�- sss- I d 5 v 11 A O d 1 1 � � A 'if� 'e��Tife� I_ =�t I ifrt fr a iI eg s y ti.s •-.j si. s ii I ll egxt I =t. s. :1 1;.11 1111 4:II!II!I ! 411 4 it 1 E1 i6 � ° !• I }ed�I 6 e"-i v 1 E 1 g••dd i E _ !I i ° I d i1 f i AI P si e i _I I:1 if,I =II 3 P;iii Ens i l F : _1= f 1:t 1; , I s A 1 d i/ r It• I 1• d i i4 !i n I :•If • IE 1Ill iil� Ili$ 1: iili ig i 11 � 1 t1• • .4i•1.1f:. �ti: t�:(ill:.: :1 i s• @_ li ;(' �3 I ill/ 1E III a ZIMMERMAN FARM — - James R.Hill, inc. -F. R <a e CN11NN11°11N.MN 1.14= Q;E i ! 1 "1r lit"_ PRELIMINARY GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL'LAM PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS 1 :0" TIMOTHY D POSTER 2rlr t� AVE S. � q mom • �1� ~ , / fi••Y(1110 WO.(71k..YN. \—_./ I I I VanDorEn Hazard 11, Stallings architects • engineers• planners topeka • wichita • minneapolis• kansas city CITY OF CHANHASSEN UMW JUN 2 1 1988 ENGINEERING DEPT. I I I Ir 11[ FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR II TANADOONA DRIVE - DOGWOOD AVENUE QTY OF C ANHASSEN, MINNESOTA JUNE, 1988 I 1_ I hereby certify that these plans and specifications were prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. E. .4%;2 egistration No. Date 6P VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS, INC. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 (612) 553-1950 t t ro , fi, . -,_ , s•-‘,;._ -. ,. -_- t _ , 1- :,.. i Van DorEn Hazards , ry ::Stallings 3030 Harbor Lane North June 17 , 1988 tBldg.II,Suite 104 Minneapolis,MN 55447-2175 612/553-1950 ir Mayor and City Council c/o Mr . Gary Warren , City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen , Minnesota 55317 Dear Mr . Warren : IThe enclosed information constitutes the feasibility study for the improvement of Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue . This material has been assembled in response to a resident petition and has been prepared under the guidelines established by the City Council . 1 This report examines four alternatives , all of which are feasible from an engineering perspective . In all of the alternatives , the use of " standard " roadway sections is not feasible due to existing conditions . The proposed sections are adequate to ensure public safety and all are appropriate for acceptance by the City of Chanhassen for ongoing maintenance purposes . Alternate "A" is recommended for implementation should the City decide to initiate an improvement project . Background information and specific reasons for this selection are detailed in the report . ILWe appreciate this opportunity to provide continued planning and engineering services to the City of Chanhassen . At your 1 convenience , we are available to further discuss the details of this study with staff , the City Council and interested residents and property owners . 1 Very truly yours , VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS , I by . IDarrell D . Ha mond , P . E . President IDDH : sd i I 1 EXISTING WNDITIONS 1 I Although separately named, Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue are essentially I one street. Tanadoona Drive begins at Highway 41 and runs westerly approximately 3,250 feet. The traveled portion of Dogwood Avenue begins at I this point and goes south another 1,250 feet ending at lot 12 of the Sunset i 1 Hill Subdivision without a turn around or cul-de-sac. I I The easterly 1000' of Tanadoona Drive from Highway 41 to the entrance of Camp 9 Y A ITanadoona has a 20' gravel surface and is currently maintained by the City. 1 Beyond the camp entrance, the roadway narrows to 14'+ in width and is Iessentially a one-way street. This portion of the roadway also has gravel Isurfacing and is privately maintained. The narrow width, steep grades (in excess of 9%), and lack of a turn-around make this section of the road Idifficult for emergency vehicles to access. Major changes in this portion of 1 the road are required to meet current City standards. I tThe land adjacent to Tanadoona and Dogwood on the south and east, the I Zimmerman farm, was recently sold and is being developed as a rural I_ subdivision. The plat that has been submitted calls for three new lots to be . I created with the remainder of the parcel as an outlot. Under current zoning 1._ standards, a total of 10 lots are possible in this development. 1_ I i I L I L 3 1 L I MI IIIII NM MI MN NM MN IIIII I NM NM NM = MI I r TOW rCAMP TANADOONA e � MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS G ,_ se t14 v Q 2 O - t( rs�6 •� Mound 92•1.m s b I 0 w W3I1 2i 0..Z.r H 01 , / r P©6 .0. �'./ Timber O= ,oOo 0 u ti s j JOHN P. / . j ,e,r : SAVARYN ,30 0 ZIMMERMAN FARMS I w1e 16 , 00201 A a N ,n 16® ® A (NO SCALE) O 2 ire I 0 r ("'' EXHIBIT NO. 2 I EXISTING CONDITIONS r F , TANADOONA DR.-DOGWOOD AVE. FEASIBILITY STUDY 4 The three new lots a,:e in the southeast corner of the parcel and access to them will be from Dogwood Avenue. Two of the lots are beyond the current I limits of Dogwood Avenue, therefore, the street will have to be extended. Since the existing right-of-way for Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue is only ' 20' wide, the developer agreed to donate the additional land needed to establish a 60 foot wide right-of-say area. 1 1 Near the intersection of Dogwood Avenue and Tanadoona Drive is a low marshy area that is identified as Class B wetland. This area was reviewed by Dr. Leach of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Specific comments on wetland impacts are addressed in the discussion of each alternate. 1 1 i_ i I L 1 I 1 5 i . • 'ALTERNATES d Four alternates were selected for detailed stu study a nd cost estimates. lirAlternate "A" looks at upgrading the present alignment to current standards. Alternate "B" establishes a new alignment for a portion of Tanadoona Drive and then establishes a "T" situation with cul-de-sacs to both the north and south along Dogwood Avenue. Alternate "C" also follows the existing alignment, the sanitary sewer mounds tem. Alternate "D" provides except in the area of t sa tart' system. PY' maximum access for future development of the Zimmerman farms plat. The base data for developing the alternates and cost estimates was taken from Ir existing plats, 1/2 section maps, USGS maps and aerial photos. Before any final design is undertaken, a complete topographic and planimetric survey will I/ be needed. Detailed soils information is unavailable. The Carver County soils map indicates the predominate soils are Hayden and Glencoe Loams. These Iftypes of soils normally do not pose any major problems for street construction. A discussion of each alternate follows. I I I I I IL 6 I IrALTERNATE A - EXHIBIT' 10. 3 ' The alignment for this alternate follows the existing Tanadoona Drive and II Dogwood Avenue. Dogwood Avenue, which currently ends at lot 12, would be 1rextended to the south end of the Sunset Hill plat. A cul-de-sac would be II built at the end of Dogwood Avenue and a modest realignment is proposed at the II intersection of Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue. I I The proposed roadway for this alternate would be a rural type ditch section Iusing a 24' bituminous surface with 6' gravel shoulders on Tanadoona Drive and II a 20' bituminous surface with 2' gravel shoulders on Dogwood Avenue (see I Ir Exhibit No. 7.) On Dogwood Avenue adjacent to the sanitary mound system, the ditch would be eliminated and special design measures will be employed to minimize impact to the system. I II Due to the proximity of the garage on the west side of the road and the lift -II station on the east side, construction of an upgraded Dogwood Avenue may not be possible without some modification to the mound and lift station. (See II Exhibit No. 8. ) By shifting the roadway to the west and using the curb I_ section, the lift station and valve manhole would be raised 2'. Another II option would be to not shift the roadway but relocate the lift station and 1_ manhole approximately 25' to the east. The estimated cost for the relocation I_ is approximately $10,000. I 1- I 1_ II II 71 [ I I i MI ! N M MN MI — — MN MB = MI MI A MO NM MN A r^ i r r ,„„.. 1 CAMP TANADOONA '.e MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS G y� I 1 „,.f � — ? 0-2-27'CMPa o 1 Ate'CMPJ ' r 2= 0 ." , Community Sanitary Oi .z.,,,,,.._ . e i i� Mound Swim 0 EL . r P�i.O, ® 21'CMP Z�MM£rtMAiv ,s'cup is '%- mP ��A iMnON j r o 0 1, .4 j 7 JOHN P. r 0'21i SAVARYN le 17 ie'CMP® ZIMMERMAN FARMS f- u w �e ommA A M m1 (NO SCALE) N is 1 17° N 2 r ,.``__.`"` EXHIBIT NO. 3 r' ALTERNATE A I r - TANADOONA DR.–DOGWOOD AVE. FEASIBILITY STUDY e I The terrain is generally rolling with some slopes up to 8% - 10%. Proposed II Ir grades up to 8% will be used to lessen impact on existing structures, some of ir which are within 10' of the right-of-way. As previously mentioned, there is a II wetland area near the intersection of Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue. A field review of this area was made by Dr. James Leach of the U.S. Fish & II Wildlife Service and in a written response to the City he determined that no II 1r adverse impact to the wetland would occur from this alignment. Ir II The existing drainage structures along Tanadoona and Dogwood are generally in poor condition and undersized. All existing drainage structures will be II replaced. An additional 0.8 acres of right-of-way would be acquired to 1 II provide for the realignment at the intersection of Tanadoona and Dogwood and across the Savaryn property. I IThe total cost of Alternate A is $255,000 which would be assessed on a front foot basis. This cost for Alternate A is $25.35/front foot. II I_ C II 1_ II 1_ II (._ II I- I 9 II t_ II ALTERNATE B - EXHIBIT NO. 4 ir The alignment for this alternate follows Tanadoona Drive to the west side of the Walter Zimmerman parcel, then south along the Est edge of the Zimmerman parcel approximately 400' , then turns west to meet existing Dogwood Avenue. Dogwood Avenue would be extended south to the end of the Sunset Hill plat and a connection would be made from the new alignment back to Dogwood Avenue to serve the homes on lots 1 - 5 of Sunset Hill. There would be cul-de-sacs on both ends of Dogwood Avenue. With this alternate, existing Tanadoona Drive 11- west of the Zimmerman parcel could be vacated. The proposed road way section for this alignment is the same as Alternate "A" with the exception of the tie-in to Dogwood Avenue. The tie-in and Dogwood 1 Avenue cthich would serve lots 1 - 5 would be an 18' bituminous surface with 2' gravel shoulders. An 18' roadway will adequately serve the five homes and have less impact on the mound system. !_ The terrain, tree cover and slopes are similar to Alternate A. This alignment L would require some additional tree removal but would not require the large drainage structures at the outlet of the wetland or changes to the lift L station. This alternate would require the acquisition of approximately 3.3 acres of right-of-way. The alignment would provide limited additional access for { future development of the Zimmerman Farms Addition. The cost of Alternate B is $281,500 and is to be assessed on a front foot basis. This cost for Alternate B is $25.80/front foot. L 10 L I II i r. r I 1MO••1 r i CAMP TANADOONA fit' MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS Gco 2 1,.....� w i, i 1 44/ ••- : O ; -2.CMP )5 _Z r =0 j I I CMP 4'-) ' ./ r ,r (� /, common 1y Sanitary c3 7Q v / Mound av•um O wqC �\ �((^^^ ' 4i Or s'm / =�MMFRMgN ls•cwP ;$1! 1 P.®. 1. 21'CMP I��,/ Timber O / �9 /o® n l• i JOHN P. _. a SAVARYN ZIMMERMAN FARMS '3® `Lts•c.n N W1.1• / Oullot iii Min ® 5 (NO SCALE) h le® e`�.• 4 I 110 A _ _ -~ - 1 ; EXHIBIT NO. 5 ' ALTERNATE C F. ___ -,. .- -- —• — — TA "A T O "IA DR:^•G -� D A" . F- A-PIBN 'TY STS� _ Y II- ALTERNATE D - EXHIBIT N0. 6 This alternate improves internal access for the future development of the Zimmerman Farms Addition along with the existing homes in Sunset Hill. The alignment is similar to Alternate B except Tanadoona Drive would turn south on the east side of the Zimmerman Parcel and swing farther south before meeting Dogwood Avenue. Existing Tanadoona Drive could be vacated west of the entrance to Camp Tanadoona. The proposed typical sections would be the same as the other alternates, !I except Dogwood Avenue would be 20' wide up to lot 4 and 18' wide past the mound system to lot 1. !I The existing terrain and slopes, proposed grades and drainage will be similar to those discussed in Alternate B. Tree removal will also be similar to Alternates B and C. Additional right-of-way required for this alternate totals approximately 5.4 acres. The cost for Alternate D is $302,400 to be assessed on the front foot basis. The front foot cost for Alternate D is $25.50. I! /I 1!I 14 ) . ,4 w J f--- Q 2 U 0 Z O CG m O W Z ~ Q , Z m W all W Q O \ea 41 (3 \ r a Ce 0:z z> to o 0 -,4 S 0 0 w tu fl:i / ■s ,ri O <, f L.-)p I :21fk/ ' ( :' :, :., •E a° a il 'e m E 7 a t � E Il a a d V Q®gyp ®_ /•/S ° 4(4,, i. a / r1ys o � de ,: p ® ® or. 4,k,i / 111 1361,MS r r I I -- I - l__ LM MI r l— i, l _ lIIII UM C l— L - I 4' 8' 6' y J24' w 3••r 1 `s<OAF 2.00% 3 'ly !' J .r^e. . ., ,�.; ;0 �...��•;AO"z"`,�y ::::wril• rr.}v•t,.. 4''=4' Slop II I 1 Z" 2341 PLANT MIXED BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE 10" CLASS 5 GRAVEL (100% CRUSHED) III6" CLASS 5 GRAVEL SHOULDERS (100% CRUSHED) II TYPICAL SECTION FOR TANADOONA DRIVE Il g 6' 2' %•. 18' br 20' • 3.'S a `� 2.00 SG 3 111 T ,„ r^� • :' ' +::,•.b. s L .��is v-v.: ./C• �r.ti ,t::, • "”.*�' , S-0AF � t•. r•..ds. 1« �t.i.. :i I 1 2" 2341 PLANT MIXED BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE 10" CLASS 5 GRAVEL (100% CRUSHED) P6" CLASS 5 GRAVEL SHOULDERS (100% CRUSHED) TYPICAL SECTION FOR DOGWOOD ROAD P EXHIBIT NO. 7 P I 1 16 J < w _1 N. a Z U I— O z I 1 o CO ---T— I o 1 g \ I Z U.S J 1_' I.L. I aw \ w \ I..: CO CO t CL) I d \ co , W CO \ la W Q iii-- I z a; o °z — - —7 z I �c� _w z . \ a I I- a \ W 0 . • z W U p Z 1 c '= =IL._ CO < I 0 \, - < 1 w I 1 U M G < tU t' W �� -cr ce T I W '-C W I < O N W I I---- 0 0 r —I I --- w H I a \ li z a I I Z W I Q ci,U Q I ttt a esi - g J —F-- I . --.—— I -- ‘ I• 3 load I o Q_ _ ° �- mo mir... an NM 3 '0013a aoad v r 1 10 W 7 CC G , WWII 1W- ! I 1 I I NE MN r' 1 _ L— L_ L__ Lal ® C L_ _ _ CAST TABULATIONS 11 Table 1 shows a comparative cost breakdown for all of the alternatives. All improvements are to be financed by the City of Chanhassen. The cost of these improvements will be assessed to the benefitting properties on a front foot basis. Tables 2-5 provide a comparison of the assessments for each of the Italternates. ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES its Alternate A Advantages 1. Lowest construction and front foot cost. 1 2. Would require the least additional right-of-my. 3. Has the least tree removal. Disadvantages 1. May require modification of the lift station. 2. Does not provide access for development of the Zimmerman Farm Addition. I Alternate B Advantages 1. Would not require large drainage structures at outlet of wetland area. 2. Would not require modification to mound system. 3. Provides limited access for Zimmerman Farms. I 18 I Disadvantages Ii. Requires substantial additional right-of-way. I 2. Requires the most eq t t tree removal. I IAlternate C II ir Advantages I 1. Would not require modification eq cat to mound system. II I Disadvantages I 1 1. Would not provide access for future development. 2. Would require substantial additional right-of-way. II 1 1 II Alternate D II Advantages 1. Provides maximum access for future development . 1 1_ 2. Provides more opportunities to develop a second access. 1. 3. Would not require modification to mound system. II I_ Disadvantages 1 1. Highest cost. II 1_ 2. Would require substantial additional right-of-way. II 1_ I II 1 I_ II t_ 19 III L II r II TABLE 1 . IIPROJECT COST - ALTERNATE A PROJECT COST - ALTERNATE B ITEM COST ITEM COST CLEARING & GRUBBING $12 ,000 .00 CLEARING & GRUBBING $15 ,600 . 00 GRADING $41 ,000 . 00 GRADING $47 ,300 .00 PAVING $122 ,500 .00 PAVING $135 ,900 . 00 DRAINAGE $13 ,000 .00 DRAINAGE $11 ,000 .00 IIRAISE LIFT STATION $5 ,000 .00 RAISE LIFT STATION - II CONSTRUCTION COST $193 ,500 . 00 CONSTRUCTION COST $209 ,800 . 00 RIGHT-OF-WAY $2 ,600 . 00 RIGHT-OF-WAY $6 ,700 .00 ADMINISTRATION , LEGAL $58 ,900 . 00 ADMINISTRATION ,LEGAL $65 ,000 .00 AND ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING TOTAL $255 ,000 .00 TOTAL $281 ,500 .00 NOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , NOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION PPROJECT COST - ALTERNATE C PROJECT COST - ALTERNATE D ITEM COST ITEM COST 1! CLEARING & GRUBBING $14 ,600 . 00 CLEARING & GRUBBING $13 ,700 . 00 GRADING $45 ,700 . 00 GRADING $50 ,500 . 00 1! PAVING $137 ,000 .00 PAVING $148 ,000 . 00 DRAINAGE $13 ,700 .00 DRAINAGE $9 ,700 .00 RAISE LIFT STATION - RAISE LIFT STATION - I! CONSTRUCTION COST $211 ,000 . 00 CONSTRUCTION COST $221 ,900 .00 RIGHT-OF-WAY $5 ,700 .00 RIGHT-OF-WAY $10 ,700 .00 1! ADMINISTRATION , LEGAL $65 ,200 . 00 ADMINISTRATION ,LEGAL $69 ,800 .00 AND ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING 1! TOTAL $281 ,900 . 00 TOTAL $302 ,400 . 00 1! NOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , NOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION !! !! 20 r""" r-~ r..... T r I I ""mt TANADOONA - DOGWOOD FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE 2 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL ALTERNATE A PARCEL FRONT NUMBER DESCRIPTION - OWNER FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT 1 MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 3460 $87 ,711 2 JOHN P . SAVRYN 810 $20 ,534 4 WALTER ZIMMERMAN 486 $12 ,320 3 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-OUTLOT A TIMOTHY 0 . FOSTER 2873 $72 ,831 5 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 1 RODGER OAS 108 $2 ,738 6 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 2 RONALD GESLIN 163 $4 ,132 7 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 3 L. MARTIN JONES 149 $3 ,777 8 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 4 JANET QUIST 126 $3 ,194 9 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 5 RICHARD LUNDELL 102 $2 ,586 10 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 6 JOYCE FOLEY 137 $3 ,473 11 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 7 BARBARA FREEMAN 67 $1 ,698 12 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 8 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,586 13 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 9 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,586 14 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 10 BARBARA FREEMAN 64 $1 ,622 15 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 11 GETSCH CORP . 64 $1 ,622 16 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 12 GETSCH CORP . 100 $2 ,535 17 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 13 GETSCH CORP . 97 $2 ,459 18 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 14 GETSCH CORP . 95 $2 ,408 19 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 15 GETSCH CORP . 95 $2 ,408 20 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 16 GETSCH CORP . 100 $2 ,535 21 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 17 GETSCH CORP . 115 $2 ,915 22 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 1 TIMOTHY D . FOSTER 270 $6 ,845 23 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 2 TIMOTHY D . FOSTER 275 $6 ,971 24 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 3 TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 100 $2 ,535 N ..► r r MI NM - MN N MN OM I NM MN MN I IN■i MI M NM ' NE rim Po n' mom MO MO r- IMO 01011111 MEMO MOM MM 1411111111 ■OMR 4E111 mom ' TANADOONA - DOGWOOD FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE 3 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL ALTERNATE B PARCEL FRONT NUMBER DESCRIPTION - OWNER FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT 1 MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 2245 $57 ,921 2 JOHN P . SAVRYN 810 $20 ,898 4 WALTER ZIMMERMAN 820 $21 ,156 3 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-OUTLOT A TIMOTHY D . FOSTER 4595 $118 ,551 5 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 1 RODGER OAS 108 $2 ,786 6 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 2 RONALD GESLIN 163 $4 ,205 7 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 3 L. MARTIN JONES 149 $3 ,844 8 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 4 JANET QUIST 126 $3 ,251 9 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 5 RICHARD LUNDELL 102 $2 ,632 10 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 6 JOYCE FOLEY 137 $3 ,535 11 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 7 BARBARA FREEMAN 67 $1 ,729 12 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 8 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,632 13 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 9 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,632 14 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 10 BARBARA FREEMAN 64 $1 ,651 15 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 11 GETSCH CORP . 64 $1 ,651 16 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 12 GETSCH CORP . 100 $2 ,580 17 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 13 GETSCH CORP . 97 $2 ,503 18 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 14 GETSCH CORP . 95 $2 ,451 19 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 15 GETSCH CORP . 95 $2 ,451 20 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 16 GETSCH CORP . 100 $2 ,580 21 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 17 GETSCH CORP . 115 $2 ,967 22 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 1 TIMOTHY D . FOSTER 270 $6 ,966 23 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 2 TIMOTHY D . FOSTER 275 $7 ,095 24 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 3 TIMOTHY D . FOSTER 100 $2 ,580 ro N r...... r—ee f'".. re— r""" r...., "all rielia" w - . ., r w q "111.14 Mw.w "ill .wl"w TANADOONA - DOGWOOD FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE 4 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL ALTERNATE C PARCEL FRONT NUMBER DESCRIPTION - OWNER FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT 1 MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 3110 $79 ,772 2 JOHN P . SAVRYN 810 $20 , 777 4 WALTER ZIMMERMAN 486 $12 ,466 3 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-OUTLOT A TIMOTHY D . FOSTER 4153 $106 ,524 5 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 1 RODGER OAS 108 $2 ,770 6 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 2 RONALD GESLIN 163 $4 ,181 7 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 3 L. MARTIN JONES 149 $3 ,822 8 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 4 JANET QUIST 126 $3 ,232 9 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 5 RICHARD LUNDELL 102 $2 ,616 10 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 6 JOYCE FOLEY 137 $3 ,514 11 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 7 BARBARA FREEMAN 67 $1 ,719 12 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 8 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,616 13 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 9 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,616 14 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 10 BARBARA FREEMAN 64 $1 ,642 15 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 11 GETSCH CORP . 64 $1 ,642 16 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 12 GETSCH CORP. 100 $2 ,565 17 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 13 GETSCH CORP . 97 $2 ,488 18 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 14 GETSCH CORP . 95 $2 ,437 19 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 15 GETSCH CORP . 95 $2 ,437 20 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 16 GETSCH CORP . 100 $2 ,565 21 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 17 GETSCH CORP . 115 $2 ,950 22 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 1 TIMOTHY D . FOSTER 270 $6 ,926 23 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 2 TIMOTHY D . FOSTER 275 $7 ,054 24 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 3 TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 100 $2 ,565 N _ W MI E r MN OM • I i MI I MN • MN • - MO ! um Ammi . rail rain r11111 00111 MEM MIMI MIMI MIMI p.0111 m0111 m41111 win millin main 0411111 sal map map alp TANADOONA - DOGWOOD FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE 5 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL ALTERNATE D PARCEL FRONT NUMBER DESCRIPTION - OWNER FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT 1 MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 1580 $40 ,290 2 JOHN P . SAVRYN 810 $20 ,655 4 WALTER ZIMMERMAN 452 $11 ,526 3 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-OUTLOT A TIMOTHY 0 . FOSTER 6577 $167 ,714 5 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 1 RODGER OAS 108 $2 ,754 6 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 2 RONALD GESLIN 163 $4 ,157 7 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 3 L. MARTIN JONES 149 $3 ,800 8 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 4 JANET QUIST 126 $3 ,213 9 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 5 RICHARD LUNDELL 102 $2 ,601 10 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 6 JOYCE FOLEY 137 $3 ,494 11 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 7 BARBARA FREEMAN 67 $1 ,709 12 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 8 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,601 13 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 9 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,601 14 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 10 BARBARA FREEMAN 64 $1 ,632 15 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 11 GETSCH CORP . 64 $1 ,632 16 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 12 GETSCH CORP . 100 $2 ,550 17 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 13 GETSCH CORP . 97 $2 ,474 18 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 14 GETSCH CORP . 95 $2 ,423 19 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 15 GETSCH CORP . 95 $2 ,423 20 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 16 GETSCH CORP . 100 $2 ,550 21 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 17 GETSCH CORP . 115 $2 ,933 22 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 1 TIMOTHY D . FOSTER 270 $6 ,885 23 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 2 TIMOTHY D . FOSTER 275 $7 ,013 24 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 3 TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 100 $2 ,550 N REOJMME RATION F This report has examined four alternatives for improving Tanadoona Drive - Dogwood Avenue. All of the alternatives examined are feasible from an engineering perspective. Selection of one favored alternative involves , consideration of engineering issues as well as cost considerations, property � p P Y and natural environment impacts, comments solicited at a meeting of area property owners and other factors. Considering all issues, it is recommended that the City of Chanhassen pursue the implementation of Alternate "A" to provide an acceptable level of public streets serving the existing ' neighborhood and the surrounding properties. Alternate "A" has been recommended due primarily to cost considerations and the fact that it is the least disruptive p option since it substantially follows the existing street alignments. The primary concern in implementing Alternate i "A" is the mound treatment system and the accompanying existing lift station. As shown on Exhibit 8, clearances in this area are extremely tight between the , existing system and existing property lines. Although detailed survey information of this area is unavailable at the present time, it appears that this solution is c+orkable. Detailed survey information in this area will be needed as a part of the preparation of design plans to determine what actual impacts may be and what, if any, mitigation efforts will be necessary. 1 I L 25 I i 1 ' ' s r 1" , _ � # N I i • I I ,N r _ - — �%`� I su�NgEr NIL rf . ' KE � •• . r... 4-04,:-_ ,...---_, _, ..,,-.=,- -1 i___,/ t._e_virN _BAV j OAS �.. .'- � -, ,,, _ • �ir w„,_ .,,,r, t , , ,r---- - /1 f 455 "II � r 1 g �aM P • I)4 a. , Q NM! 46: r . III RS I A<_ _ /�� i f � !il �� . ' • . • r o i • ii 0 I , , '. 24 i r l PC t s r - f • ! P t F i F l`• t i F Ytll t ill Slp 9pj•�g E i:ig a!i PT; IV: ��! a E !! E 1111! ° , �} �s`i��'t}�s�� . ° � i � ,4F� ;t ii "i`a Il 111 °- 1111 !'i i Ij r ° gt aa I{' 1Pah14 F! t 1 g!1!I ct �a I� . } ii ° il ' E 1 � �� !: ii ' 110 :i a°i vl 9 a i tig 1�I I i .'° ml l t.i 's II p - A 6i�- aig g� t gc g t t p � � g � Ii t in!! lag i;E g N E 111a; �.i i1;1 Ia IlaiINg a1 ! i f+ {� gti r t .g-i g?ePgga-i i P° 1 9a ! !:1_1;,;11� Ag gi� S a i i � „i �tliii !-t !r a. ; a aio a., p i@ is°°g iili8'- g a ; ; gaE i.a tl ! t,. t -}�" •� ° F I: u-a a - as is a• P 3 a s t• t ! a as t N1 -p4•tta °1111 tEe i 'R1 I!g ix 1 a pi,i p III 1 . .I=c- �i i rtilc .,iliss.; 11.4 to 9 � � t .. 3 i ie. .� ix i la � iG id�t g�aatj�a x�`t _� F�'� �: i• � � �`-i FG E i i pgi• iiii i i t = 3 3. `_1 Keia 1a a p _� � Y i = •� is Q " } `al �_ a iig gg,1 ii. :h5 :iii 1 i ,Is G• PIT t li a 311 , is tf !?1411'111-4' titfhidif ill 1;P a 'l ; t. ; ' 3- ig i a i p° pima Ia i 1 s o 1 •a; ° YE r Al ZIMMERMAN FARM -^■James R. inn. 3”' o a F. i PRELIMINART ORADINO AND EROSION CONTROL/LAN , ""•~r"^ PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS s •$ N TIMOTHY D POSTER "'—r'~=- ry.•.... as n.•METRO RrpN.rN. . > . f = r = 9 I '" x f 9 N % a 9 ' ! SuNSET( I I . v.,_ � I 1 HI L L / I. rY' '� I i'r ' 0 i N I / /I ' 12 - 1 I ` 1rKE 1 11lINNI:NIASHT4 / r 1 1 • 1- 8 I I jr-- nt.te l /•1 - ---, i `s- I' // L-- - / [Fr M5':N _WTI FJII�I. --- r / 1 / I s i / s / / I =__ �� t _ / I 8 -or n / 1 e v-u / 0 / N - Q�Ma // /T I i i k , ff / /r . ' I __ . : --4 I I I I 1k I f�f�i i"z!!xpi slsll; Else!##�x lir t o esi� r! ^ �k :i'E--.''riJ t Ix s fid'i Ef z s• @f" t it !s{tt x klg �9tf ik��:�aEi�:f�k`�_i��Fi{x-��x�f Ji ii itli ; 1 II t ' 8113 1lx.xsx:{{1.: 111;= ik'ixE1 1 .. E / i a f 4:1 '! !i1;I; 111 ! 9!h 'iØI !f e E alii f1 1 it; T11 ' u 00 I 7k1rjr!i tit: . abi I ss „ I ii?J.;1 1 t _T '`� - ZIMMERMAN FARM -_! dames R.Hill inc. .N$p CHAPIN4ftRY +�.d . t , PRELIMINARY PLAT ., "«� �"f^ [eN PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS I TIMOTHY O.POSTER rnt r[Tto tart.terr►M •^ s•a JAMES AVE t aooreNCrtoriuN sees • e:ae••tvtt